By: Dr. Stephanie Diana Eubank DBA

For the past several years, organizations across industries have been captivated by promises that artificial intelligence would dramatically reduce labor costs and replace large portions of the workforce. Executives announced layoffs, hiring freezes, and workforce restructurings built on the expectation that AI systems could perform work once handled by experienced employees. However, the reality emerging in 2026 is far more complex. A growing number of organizations are quietly reversing those decisions, rehiring employees, and acknowledging that human expertise remains indispensable.

Recent reporting by Bruce Crumley (2026) highlights a significant shift in executive thinking. According to Forrester research cited in the article, 55% of business leaders regret technology driven layoffs, and analysts predict that many AI related workforce reductions will ultimately be reversed. Companies such as Ford and IBM have begun restoring positions after discovering that AI systems often require extensive human oversight, subject matter expertise, and institutional knowledge to deliver acceptable business outcomes.

The challenges encountered by organizations attempting to replace workers with AI reveal a critical misunderstanding about the purpose of technology in business. AI can accelerate processes, automate routine tasks, and enhance productivity. However, technology is most effective when it augments human talent rather than replaces it. Ford’s experience demonstrates this reality. After relying heavily on AI driven processes, the company recognized the value of experienced engineers whose knowledge had been undervalued. Rehiring and expanding technical teams became necessary to improve product quality and performance.

IBM reached a similar conclusion. Leaders recognized that eliminating too many entry level positions created a long term talent pipeline problem. Businesses require new professionals who can learn, develop expertise, and become future leaders. When organizations remove the human development pathway, they jeopardize their own sustainability. AI may perform specific tasks today, but it cannot replace the leadership development, mentorship, judgment, creativity, and organizational culture that people create over time.

Harvard Business Review further argues that many workforce reductions were driven not by proven AI performance but by expectations about future AI capabilities. This distinction is important. Many companies made decisions based on projected efficiencies rather than demonstrated results. As implementation challenges emerged, leaders discovered that predictions about AI replacing workers often exceeded reality. Human beings continued to provide value in decision making, customer service, quality assurance, innovation, relationship building, and organizational learning.

The reversal currently occurring across multiple industries offers an important lesson for business leaders. For decades, successful companies invested heavily in people through training, mentorship, career development, and organizational culture. These traditional business practices were not outdated. They represented recognition that employees are the most valuable asset any company possesses. Financial capital, equipment, and technology all contribute to success, but people transform those resources into meaningful outcomes.

Organizations that embrace a people first philosophy are often more resilient during periods of disruption. Employees provide context, ethical judgment, empathy, adaptability, and creativity. They understand customers, identify emerging opportunities, and solve problems that technology alone cannot address. While AI can support these activities, it cannot fully replicate the human qualities that drive long term organizational success.

The emerging hiring reversals should not be viewed as evidence that AI has failed. Rather, they demonstrate that technology works best when paired with skilled, engaged employees. The future of business is unlikely to be a choice between people and artificial intelligence. Instead, it will belong to organizations that effectively combine human expertise with technological capability.

As businesses rethink their workforce strategies, many are rediscovering an enduring truth: people are not merely a cost center to be minimized. They are the source of innovation, culture, trust, and competitive advantage. The current AI backpedal serves as a reminder that sustainable business success begins and ends with valuing human beings. Companies that return to this tradition will be better positioned to thrive in an increasingly technological world.

References

Crumley, B. (2026, July 28). 55 percent of leaders regret AI layoffs and a major hiring reversal has begun. Inc. https://www.inc.com/bruce-crumley/55-percent-of-leaders-regret-ai-layoffs-and-a-major-hiring-reversal-has-begun/91380901

Harvard Business Review. (2026). Companies are laying off workers because of AI’s potential, not its performance. https://hbr.org/2026/01/companies-are-laying-off-workers-because-of-ais-potential-not-its-performance

CNBC. (2026, July 1). Employers who laid off workers for AI are reversing their decisions. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/01/employers-who-laid-off-workers-for-ai-are-reversing-their-decisions.html

Google Share article provided by user. (2026). Retrieved from https://share.google/vrUrLnFnBA3F8HdtK

 
Book Information 
Remote Work Is Here to Stay: Rethinking Operations Management in the Modern Work Era 
Available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0H5BPJCHJ 

If you enjoy this content like and subscribe.  Additionally, if you are interested in consulting services, please feel free to reach out to me through my social media channels.  Remember remote is here to stay.  

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Wickedbofthewest  

Website: wickedbofthewestremoteconsulting.com  

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WickedBoftheWestBusinessConsulting  

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/wickedbofthewestconsulting/  

Blog: drstephaniebeardbaremoteresearch.org  

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephanie-diana-eubank-dba/  

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@stephanie.eubank6  

New Website: wickedbofthewestconsulting.com  

Email: Drstephaniedeubank@wickedbofthewestconsulting.com or stephaniedeubank@gmail.com  

TikTok: @stephaniedianaeubank  

New Website: wickedbofthewestconsulting.com 

Also, be sure to check out my first textbook on Operations Management. The book is titled “Remote Work Is Here to Stay: Rethinking Operations Management in the Modern Work Era.” You can purchase the textbook on Amazon at the link below.  

By: Dr. Stephanie Diana Eubank DBA

For years, I have argued that Microsoft Teams was designed as a collaboration and communication platform, not as a surveillance tool. Yet organizations continue trying to transform communication software into a form of digital bossware. The latest example is Microsoft Places Workplace Check-In, a feature that can automatically update work location information through Teams when employees connect to approved office networks or peripherals. 

To be fair, Microsoft specifically states that Workplace Check-In is not a tracking tool and is intended to facilitate collaboration rather than compliance or employee oversight. The feature was developed to help coworkers understand where colleagues are working and to simplify location updates. Nevertheless, some organizations may view the feature as an opportunity to monitor attendance and employee presence rather than improve collaboration. 

The problem with using Teams as a bossware is that it was never designed for accurate productivity measurement. Teams’ presence indicators frequently fail to reflect actual work activity. For example, employees using Teams primarily on mobile devices may appear as away or unavailable to coworkers using desktop clients, even when they are actively working. Presence indicators are communication signals, not productivity metrics. 

Another issue is the behavioral response created by excessive monitoring. Employees who believe management is watching their status indicators may spend valuable time returning to the Teams application simply to keep the presence icon green. Instead of focusing on meaningful work, problem-solving, customer service, or innovation, workers can become distracted by maintaining the appearance of activity. Productivity becomes performative rather than outcome-based. 

Organizations should also remember that employee monitoring technologies have resulted in legal disputes. Several employers have faced challenges over surveillance practices, privacy concerns, and disciplinary actions based on questionable monitoring data. When software designed for communication becomes evidence in employment decisions, organizations can expose themselves to significant legal and reputational risk. 

The existence of an entire market of mouse jigglers and similar devices demonstrates another weakness in digital surveillance strategies. These inexpensive products are widely available through online retailers and are specifically marketed to prevent systems from showing idle status. When workers can easily manipulate monitoring signals, organizations gain little meaningful insight while potentially damaging trust and morale. 

As discussed in my book, Remote Work Is Here to Stay: Rethinking Operations Management in the Modern Work Era, organizations achieve better outcomes when they focus on both qualitative and quantitative productivity measures. Quantitative metrics can include deadlines met, projects completed, customer response times, or operational results. Qualitative measures can evaluate innovation, teamwork, customer satisfaction, leadership, communication effectiveness, and overall value creation. 

Leaders must ask an important question: Are we measuring activity or accomplishment? A green Teams status icon does not tell us whether an employee solved a difficult problem, retained a customer, developed a new process, or improved organizational performance. Meaningful productivity measurement requires context, judgment, and an understanding of outcomes. 

Microsoft Teams remains one of the most powerful communication and collaboration platforms available. Its value comes from helping people connect, share information, and work together. Using it as a low-cost substitute for effective management undermines its intended purpose. Rather than turning collaboration software into bossware, organizations should invest in clear expectations, strong leadership, trust, and balanced productivity measurement systems that recognize both quality and quantity of work. 

References 

Microsoft. (2026). Configure workplace check-in. Microsoft Learn. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/places/configure-auto-detect-work-location 

Eubank, S. (2025). Remote Work Is Here to Stay: Rethinking Operations Management in the Modern Work Era. Amazon KDP. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0H5BPJCHJ 

As I prepare for the Academy of Business Research Fall Conference, I look forward to sharing my findings, learning from fellow scholars, and continuing important conversations about the future of leadership, followership, communication, and productivity in remote work environments. I hope to see many of you at the conference, and I invite you to check out my new book on Amazon as we continue exploring the future of work together. 

Conference Information 
Academy of Business Research Fall Conference Online 
July 30–31, 2026 
Registration: https://www.aobronline.com/ 

 
Book Information 
Remote Work Is Here to Stay: Rethinking Operations Management in the Modern Work Era 
Available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0H5BPJCHJ 

If you enjoy this content like and subscribe.  Additionally, if you are interested in consulting services, please feel free to reach out to me through my social media channels.  Remember remote is here to stay.  

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Wickedbofthewest  

Website: wickedbofthewestremoteconsulting.com  

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WickedBoftheWestBusinessConsulting  

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/wickedbofthewestconsulting/  

Blog: drstephaniebeardbaremoteresearch.org  

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephanie-diana-eubank-dba/  

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@stephanie.eubank6  

New Website: wickedbofthewestconsulting.com  

Email: Drstephaniedeubank@wickedbofthewestconsulting.com or stephaniedeubank@gmail.com  

TikTok: @stephaniedianaeubank  

New Website: wickedbofthewestconsulting.com 

Also, be sure to check out my first textbook on Operations Management. The book is titled “Remote Work Is Here to Stay: Rethinking Operations Management in the Modern Work Era.” You can purchase the textbook on Amazon at the link below.  

By: Dr. Stephanie Diana Eubank DBA

I am thrilled to share an exciting professional milestone in my academic journey. My postdoctoral research on the Apollo Effect has successfully completed peer review and has been selected for presentation and publication at the Multidisciplinary Conference on Business, Economics, Strategy, and Technology (BEST Virtual 2026), scheduled for October 2026. 
 
Having research selected through a peer-review process is both validating and humbling. It represents recognition from fellow scholars who believe this work contributes meaningful insight to ongoing conversations surrounding business, organizational behavior, leadership, innovation, and the evolving workplace. The opportunity to present and publish at BEST Virtual 2026 provides an international platform to discuss the implications of the Apollo Effect and engage with researchers and practitioners from multiple disciplines. 
 
This achievement is especially meaningful because it follows another significant accomplishment. On July 30, 2026, I will be presenting my dissertation research at the Academy of Business Research Online Conference 2026. Presenting at ABR allows me to continue sharing findings that challenge traditional assumptions about operations management, workplace structures, and organizational effectiveness. 
 
Adding to this exciting season of professional growth is the publication of my book, Remote Work Is Here to Stay: Rethinking Operations Management in the Modern Work Era. The book explores how remote and hybrid work arrangements continue to reshape organizations, leadership practices, employee experiences, and operational strategies. Together, the dissertation, the Apollo Effect research, and the book represent a consistent commitment to exploring how modern organizations can adapt, innovate, and thrive in changing environments. 
 
The selection of the Apollo Effect research underscores the importance of interdisciplinary scholarship. As organizations face increasingly complex challenges, solutions often emerge at the intersection of business, technology, strategy, leadership, and human behavior. I am honored to contribute to these conversations and look forward to exchanging ideas with fellow researchers and practitioners during the conference. 
 
For those interested in participating in BEST Virtual 2026, additional information is available at https://www.bestconference.net/. 
 
For information about the Academy of Business Research Online Conference 2026, visit https://www.aobronline.com/ or contact info@academyofbusinessresearch.com. 
 
My book, Remote Work Is Here to Stay: Rethinking Operations Management in the Modern Work Era, is available through Amazon at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0H5BPJCHJ. 
 
Thank you to everyone who has supported this journey. These opportunities reinforce the value of curiosity, persistence, and the pursuit of research that creates meaningful impact within organizations and communities. 

If you enjoy this content like and subscribe.  Additionally, if you are interested in consulting services, please feel free to reach out to me through my social media channels.  Remember remote is here to stay.  

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Wickedbofthewest  

Website: wickedbofthewestremoteconsulting.com  

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WickedBoftheWestBusinessConsulting  

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/wickedbofthewestconsulting/  

Blog: drstephaniebeardbaremoteresearch.org  

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephanie-diana-eubank-dba/  

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@stephanie.eubank6  

New Website: wickedbofthewestconsulting.com  

Email: Drstephaniedeubank@wickedbofthewestconsulting.com or stephaniedeubank@gmail.com  

TikTok: @stephaniedianaeubank  

New Website: wickedbofthewestconsulting.com 

Also, be sure to check out my first textbook on Operations Management. The book is titled “Remote Work Is Here to Stay: Rethinking Operations Management in the Modern Work Era.” You can purchase the textbook on Amazon at the link below.  

By: Dr. Stephanie Diana Eubank, DBA 

The first chapter of my book introduces a critical business concept: productivity is not guesswork; it is a measurable, data-driven construct rooted in established management science. Productivity, in its simplest form, is the ratio of outputs to inputs, and it serves as a cornerstone for operational efficiency and workforce planning. Yet, in practice, many organizations fail to apply this concept correctly, leading to unrealistic expectations, employee burnout, and high turnover. 

From a standard business perspective, productivity and quotas are typically calculated using quantitative data, historical performance trends, and industry benchmarks. Operations management literature emphasizes that effective productivity metrics must be grounded in time studies, workload analysis, and empirical evidence (Heizer, Render, & Munson, 2017). Similarly, quotas should reflect achievable performance levels based on realistic capacity, not aspirational or arbitrary targets. 

However, in my consulting practice, I have encountered leaders who abandon these principles entirely. Instead of aligning quotas with data, they impose astronomical expectations that exceed industry norms. The result is predictable: a revolving door of hires, employee disengagement, and long-term damage to organizational culture. 

One particularly telling example stands out. When I asked a leader how quotas and productivity standards were determined for her team, she responded, “People never learn their limits until you set unrealistic goals.” While this statement may sound motivational on the surface, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of organizational behavior and performance management. 

Research in organizational psychology demonstrates that excessively difficult or unrealistic goals can actually decrease performance, particularly when employees perceive them as unattainable (Locke & Latham, 2002). Instead of motivating employees, such goals often lead to stress, disengagement, and eventual turnover. Goal-setting theory clearly indicates that goals should be challenging yet attainable, supported by feedback and resources. 

Unrealistic quota systems also create structural harm. They distort performance evaluation, encourage counterproductive work behaviors, and erode trust between leadership and staff. Over time, organizations that rely on inflated expectations rather than data-driven planning struggle to retain talent and maintain operational consistency. 

Effective leaders understand that productivity systems must be designed with both precision and empathy. This includes using quantitative data to establish baselines, validating assumptions against industry standards, and continuously refining metrics based on actual performance outcomes. More importantly, it requires recognizing that employees are not variables to be pushed beyond limits, but contributors whose sustainability directly impacts organizational success. 

This is why I included this analysis in the first chapter of my book. Misaligned productivity expectations are not just a technical issue; they are a leadership issue. Organizations that prioritize clarity, fairness, and data-driven decision-making are far more likely to achieve long-term success than those driven by unrealistic demands. 

About the Book 

My book explores the intersection of productivity, leadership, and organizational design, focusing on practical strategies for creating sustainable and effective workplaces. It is currently available for purchase on Amazon. Readers can learn more and order their copy here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0H5BPJCHJ 

References (APA 7) 

Eubank, S. D. (2026). Remote Work Is Here to Stay: Rethinking Operations Management in the Modern Work Era. ISBN-13-979-8181361850

Heizer, J., Render, B., & Munson, C. (2017). Operations management (12th ed.). Pearson. 

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. 

If you enjoy this content like and subscribe.  Additionally, if you are interested in consulting services, please feel free to reach out to me through my social media channels.  Remember, remote is here to stay.  

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Wickedbofthewest  

Website: wickedbofthewestremoteconsulting.com  

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WickedBoftheWestBusinessConsulting  

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/wickedbofthewestconsulting/  

Blog: drstephaniebeardbaremoteresearch.org  

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephanie-diana-eubank-dba/  

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@stephanie.eubank6  

New Website: wickedbofthewestconsulting.com  

Email: Drstephaniedeubank@wickedbofthewestconsulting.com or stephaniedeubank@gmail.com  

TikTok: @stephaniedianaeubank  

New Website: wickedbofthewestconsulting.com 

Also, be sure to check out my first textbook on Operations Management. The book is titled “Remote Work Is Here to Stay: Rethinking Operations Management in the Modern Work Era.” You can purchase the textbook on Amazon at the link below. 

Rethinking Operations Management in the Modern Work Era
The workplace has changed—have your operations kept up?

Remote and hybrid work aren’t temporary trends—they’re the foundation of how we work today and tomorrow. Remote Work Is Here to Stay: Rethinking Operations Management in the Modern Work Era is your essential guide to navigating this shift with confidence, clarity, and strategy.

📘 Why This Book Matters
Whether you’re a leader, educator, consultant, or entrepreneur, this book gives you the practical tools and forward-thinking perspective needed to:

✅ Redesign workflows for distributed teams
✅ Build inclusive, accessible remote environments
✅ Strengthen communication and accountability across distances
✅ Develop sustainable systems that scale
✅ Align people, process, and technology in a remote-first world

💡 What You’ll Discover
How to transform traditional operations models into flexible, resilient systems
Best practices for remote leadership, culture, and collaboration
Strategies to support neurodiversity, accessibility, and work-life integration
Real-world insights on tools, systems, and process design
A roadmap to future-proof your organization in an ever-evolving workplace
🌎 Built for the Modern Era
This isn’t theory—it’s actionable, experience-driven guidance for today’s realities. Learn how to lead effectively when your team isn’t in the same room—and why that can actually be your greatest advantage.

🛒 Get Your Copy Now
👉 Start rethinking your operations today:
https://a.co/d/00QgyLga

🔥 The Future of Work Is Already Here
Don’t just adapt—lead the transformation.
Step into the next era of work with the tools, strategies, and mindset to thrive—no matter where your team is.

Remote work isn’t a compromise. Done right, it’s a competitive advantage.

By: Dr. Stephanie Diana Eubank DBA

Let’s talk about something that doesn’t get said out loud enough some of the hardest-working, highest-performing employees in organizations are actually making less overtime, not more. Not because they’re underperforming, but because they’ve become too reliable, too productive, and frankly… too valuable to move. Between unpaid overtime, taking on extra work, and being the “go-to” person, they end up stuck in place while others move up.

In a lot of workplaces, performance is supposed to lead to promotions and better pay. But in reality, what often gets rewarded is visibility, networking, or how easily someone can be replaced—not the people quietly keeping everything running. And the more someone consistently delivers without asking for more, the easier it becomes for organizations to overlook just how much they’re actually carrying.

Top performers often fall into an “overperformance trap,” taking on additional assignments, working overtime, and completing work outside paid hours. While framed as dedication, this creates unintended consequences.

It masks workload realities, leading leadership to assume work can be completed within normal hours. It also devalues time, making it appear tasks require fewer resources than they actually do.

Why High Performers Are Not Promoted?

Organizations often avoid promoting top performers because of replacement risk. High performers become operational cornerstones, and promoting them creates costly gaps.

Additionally, systems focused on output rather than scalability often fail to recognize leadership potential in these employees.

Overperformance without compensation leads to burnout, disengagement, and turnover. Replacing employees can cost between 90% and 200% of their salary, excluding hidden costs like lost expertise.

Leaders must actively encourage employees to work within their paid hours to create accurate and honest workload expectations. When employees routinely extend their workday, take work home, or operate in a constant state of “just one more thing,” it distorts how long tasks actually take. Over time, leadership begins making decisions based on flawed data: assuming workloads are sustainable, timelines are realistic, and staffing levels are sufficient when they are not. This creates a cascading effect where teams are perpetually overextended, yet appear “efficient” on paper.

Performance evaluation must also shift away from volume-based thinking and toward sustainability and impact. Employees who deliver consistently without burning out, who create repeatable systems, and who elevate others should be recognized as high performers—not just those who produce the highest quantity of output. When organizations reward sheer volume, they unintentionally incentivize overwork and discourage healthy, scalable practices.

Equally important is how leaders communicate expectations. Status updates and progress reporting should reflect realistic timelines and constraints, not aspirational or pressure-driven deadlines. When leaders demand constant updates or compress timelines without adjusting scope or resources, employees often compensate by working unpaid hours. Over time, this fosters a culture where burnout becomes normalized and even expected.

The cost of failing to implement these changes is substantial and often invisible until it becomes a crisis. First, inaccurate workload data leads to chronic understaffing. Organizations avoid hiring or redistributing work because everything appears manageable, when in reality employees are quietly absorbing the excess. This creates operational fragility; when even one overperformer leaves, productivity can drop dramatically because there is no true capacity buffer.

Second, burnout directly impacts retention and performance. Employees who consistently work beyond their capacity experience exhaustion, disengagement, and reduced cognitive functioning. This doesn’t just affect the individual it spreads across teams, lowering collaboration quality, increasing errors, and slowing innovation. As burnout intensifies, turnover becomes inevitable, and organizations are forced to replace employees at significant cost—often ranging from 90% to 200% of the employee’s salary when factoring in recruitment, onboarding, and lost productivity.

Third, there are reputational and legal risks. As awareness of labor practices grows especially in remote and digitally transparent environments companies that rely on unpaid labor or implicit overtime expectations are increasingly exposed. Employees are more likely to document workloads, share experiences publicly, and pursue formal complaints. This can result in legal exposure, compliance issues, and long-term brand damage that is far more expensive than proactively addressing workload inequities.

Finally, and perhaps most critically, organizations lose their highest performers. The very employees who consistently exceed expectations are also the most likely to leave when they recognize the imbalance. They often realize they can earn more, work less, and be better supported elsewhere. When they exit, they take with them institutional knowledge, client relationships, and operational stability losses that cannot be quickly or cheaply replaced.

In contrast, leaders who prioritize realistic workloads, compensated labor, and sustainable performance create environments where employees can consistently perform at a high level without sacrificing their well-being. These organizations not only retain talent but also build more accurate systems, stronger teams, and ultimately more resilient business models.

Overperformance without compensation signals systemic issues, not success. Leaders who redesign systems around sustainability and fairness will retain talent and build stronger organizations.

References

Goh, J., Pfeffer, J., & Zenios, S. A. (2015). The relationship between workplace stressors and mortality and health costs in the United States. Management Science, 62(2), 608–628. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2115

Hubbart, J. A. (2024). Understanding and mitigating leadership fear-based behaviors on employee and organizational success. Administrative Sciences, 14(9), 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090225

Jian, Q., Wang, X., Al-Smadi, H. M., Waheed, A., Badulescu, A., & Samad, S. (2022). Proposing a robust model to reduce employees’ turnover intentions in an ethical leadership framework. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(15), 8939. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19158939

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20311

Westover, J. H. (2025). The total cost of difficult leaders: Calculating the hidden expense of toxic management (Preprint). https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202506.2055.v1

World Health Organization. (2022). Mental health at work. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240053052

If you enjoy this content like and subscribe.  Additionally, if you are interested in consulting services, please feel free to reach out to me through my social media channels.  Remember remote is here to stay. 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Wickedbofthewest 

Website: wickedbofthewestremoteconsulting.com 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WickedBoftheWestBusinessConsulting 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/wickedbofthewestconsulting/ 

Blog: drstephaniebeardbaremoteresearch.org 

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephanie-diana-eubank-dba/ 

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@stephanie.eubank6 

New Website: wickedbofthewestconsulting.com 

Email: Drstephaniedeubank@wickedbofthewestconsulting.com or stephaniedeubank@gmail.com 

TikTok: @stephaniedianaeubank 

New Website: wickedbofthewestconsulting.com

By: Dr. Stephanie Diana Eubank DBA 

In many organizations, leadership roles are still structured around a dual expectation: leaders are expected to both produce individual output and lead teams. While this “player-coach” model may appear efficient, research increasingly shows it undermines leadership effectiveness and creates measurable operational challenges. 

The Problem: When Doing Replaces Leading 

A fundamental issue arises when high-performing individual contributors are promoted into leadership roles while still expected to produce. The competencies that drive strong individual performance—technical expertise, task completion, and personal output—are fundamentally different from those required to lead others, such as coaching, vision-setting, and people development (Rizvi, 2024; Carnegie, 2026). 

Research shows that organizations frequently blur this distinction. Managers often spend nearly half of their time (46%) doing individual contributor work rather than leading their teams (Ratanjee, 2026). This shift in focus directly reduces the time available for coaching, aligning teams, and setting strategic direction—core leadership functions. 

Operational Impact on Organizations 

The consequences extend well beyond individual leaders. Poorly supported leadership transitions and overburdened “producing managers” have measurable operational effects: 

1. Decline in team performance: Studies show that promoting top performers into management roles can lead to a 7.5% decrease in team performance, along with reduced output and profitability (Wells, 2025). 

2. Reduced engagement: Leadership quality is one of the strongest drivers of employee engagement, accounting for up to 70% of variation in engagement levels (eLeaP Editorial Team, 2024). When leaders are distracted by production work, engagement suffers. 

3. Ineffective leadership pipelines: Up to 50% of managers are considered ineffective, often due to lack of preparation and support during the transition from individual contributor roles (Gentry et al., 2026). 

4. Organizational inefficiency: Leaders who continue producing work often create dependency within their teams, limiting scalability and slowing decision-making (Dunn, 2026). 

These factors combine to create systemic inefficiencies—misalignment, slower execution, and inconsistent performance across teams. 

The Leadership Identity Trap 

One overlooked dimension of this issue is identity. Many newly promoted leaders continue to define success by their individual contributions rather than team outcomes. This creates a behavioral trap where leaders revert to “doing” rather than delegating, because it reinforces their sense of competence (Ratanjee, 2026). 

Over time, this pattern leads to burnout, disengagement, and stalled team development. Teams become overly reliant on the leader, while the leader becomes overwhelmed and less effective. 

Why More Training Alone Isn’t Enough 

Organizations often attempt to address these challenges through leadership training programs. While training is important, it is insufficient when structural expectations remain unchanged. 

Even as organizations increase investment in leadership development, many leaders are still expected to balance production responsibilities with people leadership (Harvard Business Impact, 2025). This creates a misalignment between what leaders are taught and what they are actually able to practice. 

Training without role redesign results in limited impact because leaders lack the time and cognitive capacity to apply new leadership behaviors. 

A Better Approach: Designing Leaders Who Leadership 

To truly improve leadership effectiveness, organizations must move beyond training and redesign the role itself. This involves: 

1. Removing primary production responsibilities: Leaders should be accountable for team performance rather than individual output, allowing them to focus on coaching, alignment, and strategy. 

2. Separating career tracks: Not all high performers should be promoted into management. Creating parallel tracks for individual contributors and leaders ensures both roles are valued appropriately. 

3. Building leadership capability early: Leadership development should begin before promotion, preparing individuals for the transition rather than reacting afterward. 

4. Measuring leaders differently: Success metrics should shift from personal achievement to team effectiveness, engagement, and long-term performance outcomes. 

When leaders are freed from producing work, they can focus on the activities that drive organizational performance: developing talent, creating alignment, and enabling teams to succeed. 

Conclusion 

The practice of expecting leaders to both produce and lead represents a structural flaw in how organizations design leadership roles. While it may provide short-term efficiency, it undermines long-term performance by limiting leadership effectiveness, reducing engagement, and weakening organizational outcomes. 

Organizations that want to build sustainable success must rethink leadership design. By moving away from the “player-coach” model and intentionally developing leaders who are not required to produce, companies can unlock higher performance, stronger teams, and more resilient operations. 

References

Carnegie, D. (2026). The promotion trap: When top performers become ineffective leaders. 

Dunn, A. (2026). New manager transition: From individual contributor to leader. 

Gentry, W. A., Logan, P., & Tonidandel, S. (2026). Understanding the leadership challenges of first-time managers. Center for Creative Leadership. 

Harvard Business Impact. (2025). 2025 Global leadership development study. 

Ratanjee, V. (2026). 46% of manager time goes to individual contributor work. Forbes. 

Rizvi, H. (2024). Individual contributor vs manager vs leader roles in modern organizations. 

Wells, R. (2025). Why promoting top performers can backfire. Forbes. 

If you enjoy this content like and subscribe.  Additionally, if you are interested in consulting services, please feel free to reach out to me through my social media channels.  Remember remote is here to stay. 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Wickedbofthewest 

Website: wickedbofthewestremoteconsulting.com 

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WickedBoftheWestBusinessConsulting 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/wickedbofthewestconsulting/ 

Blog: drstephaniebeardbaremoteresearch.org 

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/stephanie-diana-eubank-dba/ 

TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@stephanie.eubank6 

New Website: wickedbofthewestconsulting.com 

Email: Drstephaniedeubank@wickedbofthewestconsulting.com or stephaniedeubank@gmail.com 

TikTok: @stephaniedianaeubank 

New Website: wickedbofthewestconsulting.comtconsulting.com