Coburg/Germany, February 20, 2025. The USA is already leading the way: Companies want to tighten home office regulations again and bring the workforce back into the ‘office’ to boost the economy. Prof Dr Niko Kohls is a lecturer at the Faculty of Applied Natural Sciences and Health in the Department of Health Sciences and Health Promotion and assesses this from a health and psychological perspective.
Interview by Andreas T. Wolf
During the pandemic it was the saviour, now it’s supposed to be the scapegoat. Does it make sense to bring everyone back to the office now?
Prof Dr Niko Kohls: This observation is correct, but we should never forget that working from home is only possible for certain activities. A colleague once very aptly observed that companies often ‘fray’ organisationally for this reason. However, the currently often demanded rigid obligation to return to the office is controversial. While shared office time strengthens communication, trust and team spirit, working from home supposedly offers more flexibility and autonomy. Although a rigid return to the office could promote communication, it could also deter professionals who are used to working independently. Hybrid models that enable collaboration without creating additional burdens and are perceived as fair seem more sensible to me. Companies should focus more on results rather than presence in order to promote equality and productivity.
What does this do to employees from a psychological perspective? Does this also have an impact on health?
The way of working and the working environment influence the well-being, health and motivation of employees. A forced return to the office can cause stress, frustration and loss of motivation, especially for those who have become accustomed to the autonomy and flexibility of working from home. On the other hand, permanent working from home can increase social isolation and the dissolution of boundaries between work and private life. Women are particularly affected here, as they often experience a double burden when working from home. This can lead to exhaustion, an increased risk of burnout and reduced job satisfaction. A hybrid model could help to utilise the advantages of both worlds and protect mental and physical health.
Some people are calling for more work to be done in Germany. Is that even possible? What effects can this have on health and the psyche – and what message does this send to the population?
There is no general answer as to whether longer working hours are possible and sensible. The WHO emphasises the importance of health-promoting framework conditions, and studies show this: Working more than eight hours a day increases the risk of stress, sleep problems, anxiety and heart disease. Many occupational groups are already working at their limits – just ask a carer in an intensive care unit or a police officer on shift work. A general increase in working hours could reduce productivity rather than promote it. Psychologically, it sends the signal that previous performance is not enough, which can increase frustration and demotivation. On the other hand, we must remain internationally competitive. The discussion will certainly pick up speed after the election.
No pay from the first day of illness? Is that a fair demand? How might employees react to such a decision?
The demand for loss of pay from the first day of illness hits low earners and the chronically ill particularly hard. It could lead to employees working despite being ill (presenteeism), which would jeopardise productivity and health in the long term. Corona has shown us that sick employees can increase infections in the workplace – with higher absenteeism for everyone. Psychologically, the rule sends the signal that illness is an individual failure. The reaction is likely to range from resentment to tactical sick notes.
Bildquelle
Karolina Grabowska Pixabay