Return-to-Office Despite 20% Higher Productivity: Why Narcissism Drives Bosses Back to the Office

Since the end of the pandemic, many companies have called their teams back to the office. The stated reason is usually productivity. But the data tells a different story. A joint study by Fraunhofer IAO and the German health insurer Techniker Krankenkasse (TK) shows that home office is around 20 percent more productive than office work. And a Wharton study led by Adam Grant suggests why so many executives insist on presence anyway – and it has little to do with efficiency.

20 percent higher productivity at home

Fraunhofer IAO and TK tracked every TK team performing case-work and customer contact over a two-year period. Productivity of about 11,000 employees was measured through processed customer cases and customer phone calls. The finding: at home, TK employees handle around 20 percent more cases on average than in the office.

"The study shows that a balanced mix of on-site work and home office is the key to success," said Karen Walkenhorst, member of the TK executive board. "Many employees prefer home office for focused work. But knowledge exchange and collaboration still work best in person."

The tipping point sits at around 60% home office

The productivity gain is not linear. Beyond a certain share of home office, total productivity drops again. In the TK study, this tipping point sits at roughly 60 percent home office time. Beyond that, the technical and informal exchange required for knowledge transfer, onboarding and coordination is missing.

Dr. Josephine Hofmann of Fraunhofer IAO: "In-office time enables important informal and technical contact. It should be deliberately used to prevent social erosion between team members working in separate locations."

For HR, the message is not "home office yes or no" but ratio. Companies that plan office days strategically – for example with our Hybrid Work Policy Generator or with data from Workplace Analytics – get the best of both worlds: focused individual work at home and productive collaboration in the office.

Home office as a satisfaction and work-life lever

The study also documents strong effects on employee satisfaction:

• 93 percent of TK employees say home office helps them balance work and family life.
• 81 percent say home office reduces daily stress and strain.

These effects align with other recent research – see for example the ifo study on home office and birth rates or the Constance Home Office Study. Flexibility is no longer a nice-to-have; it is a hard factor in retention, recruiting and health.

So why is presence still mandated? Wharton has an answer

If home office is measurably more productive up to a clear tipping point, why do so many CEOs push for a full return to the office? Adam Grant, professor of psychology at Wharton, together with PhD researchers Marissa Shandell and Courtney Elliott, spent six years investigating which personality trait most reliably predicts return-to-office decisions. Several hundred executives, many from Fortune 500 companies, were surveyed.

The finding is uncomfortable: neither trust in employees nor a preference for social contact correlates with an anti-home-office stance. The only reliable predictor is narcissism. The higher executives rated themselves, the more they pursued power and status – and the more strongly they favored a full return to the office.

As a proxy for narcissism, the researchers used indicators established in earlier studies – including outsized pay, simultaneous board and supervisory board mandates, and public self-promotion. It was exactly these executives who spoke most negatively about remote and hybrid work during the first two years of the pandemic.

Why narcissism and home office clash

Grant and colleagues offer a psychological explanation: home office removes the daily stage from ego-driven leaders. In video calls they are one tile among many; Slack or Teams do not deliver the same immediate control as an open-plan office. Narcissistic leaders experience employees deciding independently where and how to work as a loss of status.

For HR and general management this is an important insight: return-to-office debates often are not pure productivity debates – they are culture and power questions. Ignoring that loses talent without addressing the actual cause.

What HR and leaders should take away

• Argue with data: presence quotas should be derived from productivity and collaboration data, not gut feeling. The Fraunhofer/TK tipping point at about 60% is a useful starting value.
• Use presence deliberately: reserve office days for team rituals, onboarding, creative work and difficult conversations. Focused individual work belongs at home.
• Take the culture question seriously: when RTO decisions are made without data, an honest look at motives is worthwhile. Leadership coaching and transparent goal systems are more effective than attendance mandates.
• Equip the home office properly: the 20% productivity gain only materializes when ergonomics, technology and occupational safety are in place – something onyo helps companies deliver. Run your own business case with the Home Office Cost Calculator.
• Factor in health: home office is more productive, but not automatically healthier – see our article on sedentary hybrid work.

Conclusion: flexibility is not a hunch, it is a management decision

The Fraunhofer/TK study combined with Wharton's research paints a clear picture: home office is measurably more productive and more satisfying up to a clear tipping point. Companies that impose blanket presence mandates despite this evidence should ask an honest question – is this really about productivity, or about control? For companies competing for talent, the answer is already a competitive factor.

Sources

• Fraunhofer IAO & Techniker Krankenkasse: "Study: home office is more productive", press release from 4 February 2026.
• Bölling, N.: "Home-office ban despite 20 percent more productivity: what really drives bosses", t3n, 30 June 2026.
• Grant A., Shandell M., Elliott C.: Wharton School research on narcissism and return-to-office (incl. guest essay in the New York Times).