During the COVID-19 pandemic vast swathes of office workers switched to working mostly remotely for a significant period of time.
Whilst this new way of working was enjoyed by many, it also presented a huge benefit to those for whom homeworking delivered a significant improvement in work life balance or accessibility of work. In particular, those benefiting included those with caring responsibilities (mostly women) and people with disabilities, many of whom had been seeking more flexible work prior to the pandemic, with mixed success.
More recently, as remote working is no longer necessary, or even recommended from a pandemic perspective, employers are adopting hybrid working models. These models allow employees to work from home some or most of the time, and occasionally fully remotely. Different employers and different industries are taking different approaches. As businesses face the challenge of working out what model and how many ‘days in the office’ suits them best, employees are grappling with the challenges of proximity bias.
Essentially humans are programmed to prefer the familiar and to avoid the unfamiliar – essentially ‘out of sight out of mind’. Whilst this trait is enormously helpful when deciding what wild plants to eat on a camping trip, it is less helpful when there is a familiarity gap developing between members of a manager’s team. This issue is at the very heart of what we now call proximity bias – favouring those who we see most or know best, whether it be with work projects, pay or promotion opportunities.
Notwithstanding the policies a company puts in place, there will likely be employees who prefer to be in the office for any number of reasons (lack of necessary facilities at home, a desire to access closer supervision, to assist with mental health, or a desire to social with colleagues and so on). Other employees will prefer to work mostly from home and again, the reasons are myriad. However, there is evidence to suggest that greater levels of home working are preferred by those with caring responsibilities and those with disabilities. The risk is that these working arrangements, over time, can lead to those working mostly from home missing out on the opportunities presented to those mostly in the office.
Failing to address proximity bias can result in high quality employees being overlooked for promotion in favour of more mediocre, but present employees. Further, where there are particular groups that tend to work from home (eg those with caring responsibilities (frequently women) or disabilities), this can even lead to a risk of unlawful indirect discrimination against those groups, and risk for the employer. This risk arises as over time these groups are in the office less, get fewer opportunities and then are promoted more slowly or paid less. Favouring (even inadvertently) those in the office can result in exclusion for those with certain protected characteristics where more time working from home is necessary or preferable due to those characteristics. There is a danger that a more permissive approach to hybrid working masks this potential risk.
The key to addressing this proximity bias is to recognise it and to be ‘intentional’ in addressing it. This can take many forms but at the heart of it is ensuring that those working mostly from home do not miss out on opportunities and are included fully. For example:
- Ensuring all meetings are hybrid and remote workers can attend. Equally, ensuring that remote workers are allowed and encouraged to participate and that the conversation is not dominated by those ‘in the room’.
- Ensuring that there are good opportunities for remote workers to make the most of their time in the office by networking and catching up with colleagues. Weekly or monthly ‘core days’ when most people attend are an option. Technology solutions that easily allow employees to see who will be in the office when, and to plan face-to-face meet ups, will also assist.
- Regular catch ups with those working mostly remotely will also help managers keep a close eye on workload, development opportunities and allow for time for mentoring. Whilst managers may want to implement these, employees should also be encouraged to be proactive in reaching out to those they wish to speak to.
- Consider formalising informal arrangements. For example, if a lot of informal supervision of junior staff members takes place in an ad hoc way in the office, consider formalising supervision arrangements. Not only will this better spread the supervision responsibilities between team members, but it will allow those working remotely to build closer relationships with junior team members and avoid two groups of employees forming (i.e. those usually in the office and those usually not in the office).
- Instilling a culture where hybrid working is embraced by all members of the team (albeit to potentially varying degrees) will also help those who are mostly working from home not feel or appear different to the rest of the team. Managers could be encouraged to work remotely some of the time and to encourage other members of the team to also do so. This needs to be balanced against any employee’s particular need to be in the office, and ensuring that there are sufficient colleagues in the office to support any employees in that situation.
- Communication is also key. Ensuring that any messages that are disseminated verbally to those in the office, also reach those working from home in a timely way.
- Data collection and analysis can also help larger employers understand if proximity bias could be affecting their decision making. Whilst employees may not enjoy the idea that office attendance is being monitored, collecting that data and plotting it against performance and pay/promotion could uncover anomalies that the employer may wish to address.
- Challenging decisions made to check whether there is any bias. Drilling down into the reasons for a decision may also uncover issues to be addressed.
Ultimately though, different businesses will have different cultural norms when it comes to office attendance. Anyone working in a way that does not align with those norms may still find progression harder, even if the employer is attempting to address the proximity bias risk. This may lead to employees choosing to work for businesses where they feel that their arrangements more closely align with the norms of the business.
An employer that is not demonstrating how they address proximity bias may therefore find they are missing out on top talent.
For further information, please contact:
Libby Payne, Partner, Withersworldwide
libby.payne@withersworldwide.com
