This article is written by Dr Judy Lundy, Edith Cowan University, Associate Professor Sue Williamson, University of NSW, Dr Helen Taylor, Charles Sturt University, Dr Uma Jogulu, Edith Cowan University.

  • The problem: Employees and employers are ‘battling’ over when and where work should be done, and some workers are being advantaged through ‘proximity bias’ due to where they’re working.
  • Why it matters: Individual and agency performance is being negatively impacted by a failure to maturely craft optimal working arrangements while taking steps to mitigate proximity bias.
  • The solution: Managers and teams should collaboratively design work patterns which recognise when it’s best to work together in the office and when it’s best to work from home while ensuring no advantage to those who choose to be office based.

Hybrid working, where some part of the week is worked at home or remotely and the rest of the week is worked on the employer’s premises, has become business as usual (BaU) in public sector workplaces.

Despite hybrid becoming BaU, a debate over where work is undertaken has emerged, with return-to-office mandates becoming the latest human resource controversy within workplaces, both in Australia and internationally. Practitioner news headlines such as “mandate mayhem”, “revolt against return-to-office” and “employees resent return-to-office mandates” highlight the angst this issue is causing. We also acknowledge legitimate concerns in workplaces about the impacts of proximity bias, a phenomenon where people in positions of power show favouritism or preferential treatment to those who are physically closer to them, such as those employees who work in the office rather than remotely.

What does the latest research show?

We’ve looked at both practitioner and academic research to assess the current evidence on whether mandates may prevent proximity bias. We conclude that such mandates are not only unnecessary but may have negative consequences. Our research, conducted within the Australian Public Service (APS) and published in our report Hybrid working: from ‘the new normal’ to ‘business as usual’, has shown that mandates and caps limiting working from home can cause employee resentment. These mandates also limit the benefits which can be gained from enhanced flexibility and autonomy.** **

Our goal in this article is to show how we can mitigate the negative effects of proximity bias within public sector workplaces without resorting to unpopular mandates and caps.

Mature and respectful conversations about when and where different types of work are best performed will help agencies and individuals optimise outcomes from hybrid working.

Despite hybrid working being well-established, working from home can still mean missing career opportunities. We know from both academic and practitioner literature that proximity bias can negatively impact both organisations and individuals. This can happen when work is allocated based on employee proximity to decision-makers, often resulting in a failure to fully utilise the skills and knowledge of remote workers. This exacerbates employee engagement and retention problems and leads to poorer performance and well-being outcomes. We’ve shown in previous research that women and people from marginalised communities are more likely to prefer working hybridly than employees in dominant demographic groups. Therefore, proximity bias can also increase inequalities through exclusion from decision-making activities and insufficient access to senior leaders. Hybrid working may help mitigate proximity bias in a way that does not negatively impact employee engagement and retention if certain conditions are met.

💬 Let the author know what you think about hybrid working by leaving a comment below

Our 2023 research with almost 80 Australian Public Service (APS) managers was conducted before mandatory caps on the number of days APS employees could work from home were removed. At that time, we found that policy implementation differed amongst teams and that there was some resentment of requirements to be in the office. Individuals acknowledged their concerns about potential negative impacts of proximity bias and these concerns were influencing their decisions to work in the office to enhance their visibility and connect with senior leaders. This was particularly noticeable where there were reports that senior executives attended the office more than middle managers and employees and tended to delegate opportunities to staff on-site.

Mature and respectful conversations are needed

To maximise the benefits of hybrid working and mitigate proximity bias, the literature promotes overt recognition of and education about this form of bias and the use of a range of explicit strategies to address it. These include the use of anchor days, where employees and teams commit to coming into the office on a specific day. Other strategies include better use of virtual platforms for meetings and ensuring performance measurement systems are based on quantifiable and objective metrics. Additionally, building an inclusive culture is seen as important in alleviating bias while also helping meet individual employee needs through enhancing autonomy.

Given the importance of autonomy in employee motivation and engagement, enabling employees to choose where they work can produce benefits for all. We suggest that maximising the benefits of choice of work location will be achieved if managers and their teams engage in open and respectful conversations about the optimal hybrid working arrangements which best benefit individuals, the team and the organisation. As one APS senior manager said:

I would like to see the APS mature its conversation about hybrid working away from set ratios and percentages to actually helping our staff and managers understand when is the best to come together and work in the office and when is the best to work from home and actually giving them the tools and technologies to support that.

Forcing employees back into the office or setting caps for the number of days employees can work from home is not the way to resolve this latest human resource controversy. Such actions will likely negatively impact the achievement of critical outcomes through lowering employee engagement and heightening resentment from a lack of autonomy.

Mature and respectful conversations about when and where different types of work are best performed will help agencies and individuals optimise outcomes from hybrid working. Conversations where managers and teams determine their own in-office/working-from-home arrangements will maintain flexibility and prevent employee resentment.

Preventing proximity bias can be achieved through increasing awareness about this emerging form of bias, creating an inclusive organisational culture and ensuring performance management systems are based on quantifiable and objective metrics.

Done reading? Make sure to share your own thoughts on hybrid working and proximity bias by leaving a comment below ⬇️

(Image credit: Unsplash)