Proximity Bias in Hybrid Work: Who Gets Seen and Promoted?
Hybrid work gives employees more flexibility over where they work.
But it can also raise a workplace-equity question:
Are employees who spend more time in the office more likely to be noticed, trusted, or considered for opportunities than colleagues who work remotely?
That concern is often described as proximity bias.
In hybrid-work discussions, proximity bias refers to the possibility that employees who are physically closer to managers receive greater visibility or access to opportunities than employees working elsewhere. Researchers and workplace scholars have examined whether differences in physical presence can influence career outcomes such as promotion, pay, and access to development opportunities (Kasperska et al., 2024; Williamson et al., 2024).
The evidence, however, is not one-sided.
One experimental study of managers found disadvantages for employees who worked from home under certain conditions. A separate randomized workplace trial involving more than 1,600 employees found no evidence of a difference in promotion rates between hybrid and fully office-based workers over the following two years (Bloom et al., 2024; Kasperska et al., 2024).
That distinction matters.
Proximity bias is a risk employers can design around—not an unavoidable consequence of hybrid work.
Note: This article provides general information about workplace inclusion and hybrid work. It is not legal advice.
What to Know About Proximity Bias in Hybrid Work
Research on remote and hybrid work suggests that:
Employees working from home can face lower promotion or pay recommendations in some managerial decision-making settings;
Those differences can shrink or disappear when working from home is common within a team;
Managers with more experience working remotely themselves may be less likely to penalize employees who work from home;
Hybrid work does not inevitably reduce promotion opportunities;
One randomized trial involving more than 1,600 employees found no evidence of a difference in promotion rates between hybrid and fully office-based workers over two years; and
For some employees with disabilities, telework may be part of a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
(Bloom et al., 2024; Kasperska et al., 2024; U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], 2003)
What Is Proximity Bias?
The term proximity bias is commonly used to describe concern that employees who are physically closer or more visible to decision-makers may receive greater attention or access to workplace opportunities.
In a hybrid workplace, that can raise questions about whether employees who spend more time in the office have greater access to:
informal conversations;
managers and senior leaders;
spontaneous feedback;
visible assignments;
networking opportunities; or
discussions about advancement.
In a 2024 Practice and Policy article, Williamson and colleagues examined proximity bias in the context of working from home and return-to-office policies, drawing on existing literature and their research on hybrid work (Williamson et al., 2024).
The authors argued that mandatory return-to-office policies are not necessarily required to address proximity bias and may create other costs, including reduced flexibility and employee resentment (Williamson et al., 2024).
That does not mean proximity bias does not exist.
It means physical attendance alone is not necessarily the solution.
Can Working From Home Affect Promotion Decisions?
Some research suggests that it can.
A 2024 peer-reviewed study published in PLOS ONE conducted an online survey experiment with managers in the United Kingdom.
After quality-control exclusions, researchers analyzed responses from 937 managers, who evaluated fictional employee profiles with different working arrangements and other characteristics (Kasperska et al., 2024).
In that experimental setting, the researchers found that:
hybrid employees working from home two days per week were 7.7% less likely to be selected for promotion than fully office-based employees;
hybrid employees were 7.1% less likely to be selected for a salary increase;
fully home-based employees were 10.7% less likely to be selected for promotion than office-based employees; and
fully home-based employees were also less likely to be selected for salary increases and training.
(Kasperska et al., 2024)
Those numbers need context.
The study measured managerial preferences in an experimental scenario, not actual promotion records across companies.
It therefore does not establish that hybrid employees generally receive 7.7% fewer promotions in real workplaces.
What it shows is that working location can influence how managers evaluate hypothetical employees under certain conditions.
Does Proximity Bias Affect Every Hybrid Workplace?
No.
The same study found something particularly important for employers.
The career disadvantage associated with working from home changed depending on how common remote work was within the employee's team.
For promotion decisions, employees working from home were disadvantaged when fewer than 80% of team members worked from home at least occasionally. When working from home was common across more than 80% of the team, the researchers found no difference in promotion chances based on working mode (Kasperska et al., 2024).
Managers' own experience also mattered.
Managers who had more experience working from home themselves showed smaller career penalties toward employees who worked remotely (Kasperska et al., 2024).
That suggests the context surrounding hybrid work can matter as much as the policy itself.
If remote work is treated as unusual, employees using it may be evaluated differently.
If managers and teams routinely work across locations, those differences may become less pronounced.
Another Study Found No Evidence of a Hybrid Promotion Penalty
A separate randomized controlled trial published in Nature produced a different result.
Researchers Nicholas Bloom, Ruobing Han, and James Liang studied 1,612 employees at Trip.com, a large technology company in China.
Employees were randomly assigned based on their birthdays either to:
work in the office five days per week; or
work from home on Wednesday and Friday while spending the other three days in the office.
The experiment initially ran for six months, while researchers continued examining performance and promotion outcomes for up to two years (Bloom et al., 2024).
The researchers found no evidence of a difference in promotion rates between the hybrid and fully office-based groups over the following two years.
They also found no evidence of a difference in performance reviews between the groups (Bloom et al., 2024).
That finding matters because it shows that hybrid work itself does not automatically create a measurable career penalty.
It also prevents an overly broad conclusion such as: Remote employees are always overlooked for promotions.
The evidence does not support that claim.
Instead, management practices and workplace systems appear to matter.
Hybrid Work Can Also Affect Retention
The Trip.com experiment found another result relevant to workplace inclusion.
Employees assigned to the hybrid arrangement were about one-third less likely to leave the company than employees required to work in the office five days per week (Bloom et al., 2024).
The researchers found statistically significant reductions in attrition among:
non-managerial employees;
female employees; and
employees with longer commutes.
(Bloom et al., 2024)
Those findings should not be generalized to every organization or demographic group. The experiment involved employees in particular divisions of one Chinese technology company.
But they demonstrate an important trade-off for employers: Flexibility may create visibility concerns in poorly designed systems while also improving retention for some employees.
Removing hybrid work is therefore not necessarily the same thing as removing inequity.
Why Proximity Bias Is a Diversity and Inclusion Issue
Proximity bias can become an inclusion issue when physical presence influences access to opportunities that are supposed to depend on performance, skills, or readiness.
That matters because employees do not all use workplace flexibility for the same reasons.
Some may simply prefer working from home.
Others may value flexibility because of long commutes, family responsibilities, health needs, or other circumstances.
And for some employees with disabilities, telework may be connected to workplace accommodation.
The EEOC states that allowing an employee with a disability to work from home may be a form of reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act when appropriate under the circumstances. The agency also states that if an employer offers a telework program, employees with disabilities must have an equal opportunity to participate in it (EEOC, 2003).
Not every employee with a disability needs or wants remote work, and not every job can be performed remotely.
The EEOC also notes that an employer may provide another effective accommodation instead of the employee's preferred accommodation where appropriate (EEOC, 2003).
But the accommodation context illustrates why organizations should be careful about equating physical presence with commitment or career potential.
A workplace can technically offer flexibility while still creating pressure to be physically present in order to advance.
That is where flexibility can become an inclusion question.
What Can Employers Do About Proximity Bias?
The research does not identify one universal hybrid-work policy that will work for every organization.
Instead, it suggests employers should pay attention to how career opportunities are distributed across locations.
1. Define Promotion Criteria Before Decisions Are Made
Promotion decisions are easier to apply consistently when managers know what they are assessing.
Employers can define criteria such as:
measurable performance;
skills demonstrated;
scope of responsibility;
leadership behaviors;
project outcomes; and
readiness for expanded responsibilities.
The goal is to reduce dependence on vague impressions such as: “I see this person working hard.”
For a hybrid employee, good work may be less physically visible even when the results are not.
2. Look Beyond the Promotion Decision
Promotions are not the only career outcome that matters.
Employees often become eligible for advancement because they previously received:
stretch assignments;
mentoring;
training;
leadership exposure;
high-visibility projects; or
opportunities to present their work.
Kasperska and colleagues found differences not only in promotion preferences but also in recommendations involving salary increases and training (Kasperska et al., 2024).
That means employers can look earlier in the career-development process.
Are employees working remotely and employees spending more time in the office receiving comparable access to the experiences that help people advance?
3. Consider Managers' Experience With Hybrid Work
One of the more interesting findings from the PLOS ONE study was that managers' own familiarity with working from home affected how they evaluated remote employees.
Managers with greater personal experience working remotely showed smaller penalties toward employees working from home in promotion and salary decisions (Kasperska et al., 2024).
That does not mean every manager needs to work remotely.
But organizations may benefit from ensuring managers understand how to evaluate performance when employees are not always physically present.
4. Make Important Information Accessible Across Locations
Hybrid inclusion becomes difficult if important workplace information consistently travels through conversations that only happen in the office.
Teams can intentionally consider:
where decisions are documented;
how remote employees participate in meetings;
whether important information is communicated outside informal office conversations; and
how project and development opportunities are shared.
The goal does not have to be eliminating informal interaction.
It is to avoid making physical location the only reliable way employees gain access to important information or opportunities.
5. Evaluate Outcomes Rather Than Visibility Alone
The Trip.com experiment provides an important counterpoint to visibility-based assumptions.
Researchers found no evidence of a difference in performance reviews or promotion rates between the hybrid and fully office-based groups during the follow-up period (Bloom et al., 2024).
That suggests physical presence should not automatically be treated as evidence of stronger performance.
Where possible, employers can ground evaluation in work outcomes and clearly defined expectations rather than how frequently managers happen to see an employee at a desk.
Do Return-to-Office Mandates Solve Proximity Bias?
Not necessarily.
One argument for requiring everyone to return to the office is that equal physical presence could reduce differences in visibility.
But Williamson and colleagues argue that mandatory return-to-office policies are not necessarily required to address proximity bias and may create other disadvantages by reducing flexibility and autonomy (Williamson et al., 2024).
The Trip.com experiment also provides evidence that at least one hybrid system operated without a detectable promotion or performance penalty (Bloom et al., 2024).
So the question is not simply: Should everyone be in the office?
A more useful workplace-inclusion question may be: Can employees receive fair access to information, evaluation, development, and advancement regardless of where they perform part of their work?
That turns proximity bias from a scheduling issue into an opportunity issue.
Final Thoughts
Hybrid work does not automatically create proximity bias.
And working in an office does not automatically create a fair workplace.
The research is more nuanced.
One experimental study found that managers sometimes evaluated employees working from home less favorably for promotions, salary increases, and training.
But another randomized workplace trial found no evidence of a difference in promotion rates or performance reviews between hybrid and fully office-based employees.
That tells employers something important:
The issue may be less about where employees work and more about how organizations evaluate, develop, and include people across different locations.
For Diversity.com, that is what makes proximity bias relevant to workplace inclusion.
Fair opportunity does not stop when someone gets hired.
It also includes who receives visibility, development opportunities, feedback, and a realistic path toward advancement.
Hybrid workplaces can provide flexibility without automatically sacrificing fairness—but employers still need to consider whether physical presence is quietly becoming a qualification employees were never told they needed.
Hiring? Explore how Diversity.com can help you connect with qualified professionals from a broader talent pool.
Get Started with Diversity.com
At Diversity.com, we connect employers with qualified candidates through inclusive hiring, and help job seekers find employers committed to it.
For Employers & HR Professionals:
✔ Post a job and reach candidates across healthcare, higher education, government, nonprofits, and private industry
✔ Browse our resources for guides, checklists, and reports on inclusive hiring
✔ Join our community in LinkedIn for hiring and compliance updates
For Job Seekers:
✔ Find Inclusive Jobs at organizations that chose to post here
✔ Create a free account to apply and get matched to new openings
✔ Browse our resources for career guides and tools
Have questions? Reach out to our team. We're here to support you.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is proximity bias in the workplace?
Proximity bias is a term commonly used to describe concern that employees who are physically closer to managers may receive greater visibility or access to workplace opportunities than employees working remotely.
Research has examined whether working location can influence managerial decisions involving promotion, compensation, and training (Kasperska et al., 2024; Williamson et al., 2024).
Are remote employees less likely to be promoted?
Not necessarily.
One experimental study found that managers were less likely to select hybrid or remote workers for promotion under certain conditions. However, a randomized controlled trial at Trip.com found no evidence of a difference in actual promotion rates between hybrid and fully office-based employees over a two-year follow-up period (Bloom et al., 2024; Kasperska et al., 2024).
The evidence therefore does not support a universal claim that remote workers are promoted less often.
Does hybrid work hurt employee performance?
Not necessarily.
In the Trip.com randomized trial, researchers found no evidence of a difference in performance reviews between employees working from home two days per week and employees working in the office five days per week. The hybrid arrangement also reduced employee attrition (Bloom et al., 2024).
Can remote work be a disability accommodation?
Yes, in some circumstances.
The EEOC states that working from home may qualify as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA when an employee's disability makes working on-site difficult and the essential functions of the job can be performed remotely without undue hardship.
An employer is not necessarily required to provide the employee's preferred accommodation if another effective accommodation is available (EEOC, 2003).
How can employers reduce the risk of proximity bias?
There is no single proven solution for every organization.
Employers can consider defining promotion criteria clearly, examining access to development opportunities, designing hybrid communication intentionally, and evaluating employees using consistent performance standards rather than physical visibility alone.
Related Articles
Sources & References
Bloom, N., Han, R., & Liang, J. (2024). Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance. Nature, 630, 920–925. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07500-2
Kasperska, A., Matysiak, A., & Cukrowska-Torzewska, E. (2024). Managerial (dis)preferences towards employees working from home: Post-pandemic experimental evidence. PLOS ONE, 19(5), e0303307. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303307
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2003, February 3). Work at home/telework as a reasonable accommodation. https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/work-hometelework-reasonable-accommodation
Williamson, S., Jogulu, U., Lundy, J., & Taylor, H. (2024). Will return-to-office mandates prevent proximity bias for employees working from home? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 83, 717–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12634
