Back to Reason

Home office: A false solution for productivity?
Home office was once seen as a great solution: less commuting, less office space, and less burnout. It sounds appealing, but it soon became clear that in many cases, home office is simply a way to retreat into personal life: golf, haircuts, saxophone lessons – all things that can end up becoming part of the daily routine at home.

Recent studies show the truth: Employees in Japan are 9.1% more productive when they work in the office. In the US and Canada, although home office may feel more efficient, it is not actually more productive. Studies in Europe show that people are more satisfied with their home office environment – things like lighting, air quality, and furniture – and that satisfaction does boost productivity. But is this the case everywhere? In a cramped kitchen? In a damp VW van by the Baltic Sea? And what happens to the idea of »home as a retreat« if the office is set up right next to your bed? What if there is no clear separation between work and home life? No breaks and just constant availability in a hoodie? If someone believes that companies can be reduced to cloud storage, Teams tiles, and personal brands posted on social media, maybe it is time to go back to the office.

Diversity: More than just a mandatory goal?
Pink flags and rainbow stickers – all of that seems to be disappearing now. »Because of Trump«, they often say. But behind the scenes, I have been hearing for a while: »What are we really trying to do here?« Hasn’t the whole diversity debate fallen apart because the issues faced by different groups just do not fit together into a single conversation? By trying to include everyone, have we actually ended up not addressing the specific needs of each group? And, more importantly, many of these issues had nothing to do with creating more opportunities for top-performing women.

McKinsey’s study found that companies with more women in leadership positions are 60% more likely to be profitable than companies with less diversity. But wait: »A higher likelihood?« What kind of measure is that? Does this hold true even for companies making garden gnomes?

Let me be clear: I take all these questions seriously. So seriously that I believe we are not addressing the issue properly by using watered-down facts. Don’t we already know that diversity in companies, without proper leadership and management, can lead to friction and often does more harm than good? This happens through identity conflicts, discrimination, or a lack of a sense of belonging.

This does not change the fact that diversity, especially in fast-changing and unpredictable environments, leads to better adaptability and team performance. That is true and important. But why don’t we talk about this more openly?

The 4-day week: A miracle solution?
The 4-day workweek can work in some cases, but it is certainly not the universal solution for Germany in 2025. How can it work, given the shortage of skilled workers? Also, the 4-day week tends to work better in knowledge-based or creative jobs than in industries like manufacturing, logistics, or retail, where physical presence and continuous operations are necessary. A one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work for every industry. And getting rid of »unnecessary meetings« – the common argument for productive short workweeks – can also be done in a 5-day workweek.

Forced retirement at 60: What are the costs?
I often hear that highly successful managers must retire at 60, even if they are still doing excellent work. The reason is to prevent setting a precedent and to give younger people a chance to move up. But doesn’t the idea of diversity also apply to different age groups? Studies show that teams with people of different ages can be more resilient and innovative because they combine experience with fresh perspectives. A team made up entirely of younger people may be less risk-aware or too focused on fast growth, which can lead to short-term thinking and bad decisions.

Have we ever calculated the cost of sending so much knowledge, experience, and valuable networking contacts to the golf course – permanently?

Everything is service: Even in Stuttgart?
Everything is becoming digital and temporary. It even seems that the car no longer needs to be owned – it can just be »shared« or subscribed to. The modern high performer doesn’t need a car in the garage anymore – just space for a bike. How often have I heard, read, or been told this?

But what has actually happened in reality? Isn’t the car still the number-one private space, the only place where no one can just enter uninvited with documents to sign?

It is no surprise that Share Now – the joint venture between BMW and Mercedes – was sold to Stellantis in 2022. The reasons for failure were low vehicle usage, high operating costs, and poor profitability, especially in less populated areas. But there is more to it, and we do not talk enough about it: The deeply rooted cultural connection to cars in Germany – »Heilig’s Blechle« – is a big reason why car-sharing and subscription models have not worked as well in Germany as they have in other countries. Stuttgart is not Malmö.

It is not about turning back
German industry has been led by dogmatism for too long and disconnected from real business challenges. Anyone who still believes that the shortage of skilled workers, the pressure for innovation, and international competition can be solved in 2025 with part-time solutions and ideological campaigns doesn’t fully understand the seriousness of the situation.

No, this is not about going backward or trying to make things »great again«. It is about moving forward with reason. It is about being willing to perform. It is about confidence and, yes, even hope – even if that sounds a bit idealistic.

Counter-question: What kind of world are we heading into if we give up on the hope of staying at the forefront of the global car industry? Where will we end up if, out of fear of doing something wrong or, worse, saying something wrong (help, LinkedIn!), we stop moving forward?

Companies need space, clarity, speed, and decision-makers who don’t chase every trend, but instead ask themselves: What are we really trying to achieve here?