Consider the hidden taxes that can diminish an organization’s most valuable assets. Though this tax remains invisible in financial reports, it subtly hampers productivity, stifles sales, and curtails innovation.
This is a lingering, outdated mindset among business leaders, often at the expense of those who work outside traditional office environments.
This isn’t just theoretical. In the ongoing debate about the future of work post-pandemic, a notable study published in “Work, Employment and Society” in 2025 sheds light on this issue. It highlights the pervasive problem of “proximity bias,” where leaders favor employees who are physically nearby while overlooking the contributions of those who work more flexibly. In many instances, managers end up sidelining the most capable team members, adversely affecting the entire workplace.
This isn’t about employees being lazy. Rather, it reflects leaders who are stuck in the past, unable to gauge performance unless they are in direct sight of their employees.
The study involved approximately 1,000 UK managers responsible for overseeing teams, uncovering patterns of professional judgement that reveal significant cognitive biases. Rather than making informed decisions based on actual outcomes, these managers rely on instinctual feelings, which means they might hurt their teams through poorly considered career decisions. They are missing out on the extensive benefits of flexible working arrangements, leading to substantial costs for their organizations.
For years, the argument has been made that visibility in the office is crucial. This study supports that notion, but also reveals a troubling twist—it shows that managers often assume hybrid workers are significantly less productive than their office-based peers.
When no performance data was presented during the experiment, hybrid employees were 7.7% less likely to be promoted and 7.1% less likely to receive raises compared to their in-office counterparts. This bias arises from what economists call “statistical discrimination,” where managers make negative assumptions about a group based solely on one characteristic: their location.
A striking revelation occurred when it was pointed out that hybrid workers were performing equally as well as their in-office peers. At that moment, the penalties for being a hybrid worker vanished. This indicates that the disadvantages faced by hybrid employees stem from flawed management beliefs, not from any actual differences in productivity.
When objective data is lacking, managers often resort to lazy shortcuts. This is a classic example of proximity bias—relying on physical presence to gauge contributions indicates a significant failure in management. It creates a culture where employees are penalized for their location rather than rewarded for their work.
Hybrid workers deal with misguided perceptions about their productivity, while full-time remote employees face even greater biases. Interestingly, the study found that even when managers recognized that full-time remote workers delivered results comparable to those in the office, these remote workers were still less likely to receive promotions or raises. This issue isn’t tied to performance; rather, it stems from the belief that remote employees are somehow less committed to their work.
This proximity bias is linked to the outdated notion of the “ideal worker,” which enforces unrealistic expectations of constant presence and dedication within the office setting. Choosing to work from home full-time directly contradicts this unspoken norm.
According to Signal Transduction Theory, being physically present in the workplace can create misleading indicators of commitment and performance. Full-time remote workers are often perceived as lacking dedication because they can’t meet this expectation of visibility.
Once the issue of commitment is taken into account, the career penalties for high-performing remote workers disappear. This paints a clear picture of how leaders mistakenly equate physical presence with dedication, perpetuating a cycle that prioritizes loyalty over actual results.
Misconceptions among managers can be costly, especially when linked to national statistics and corporate evaluations. A six-month pilot study of hybrid work showed that executives shifted from doubt to endorsement after observing a 33% decrease in attrition and increased productivity.
The biases highlighted in the “Job, Employment, and Society” study compound when considering factors like gender and family status, revealing a tangled web of contradictory discrimination. For instance, childless fathers who work from home face questioning regarding their performance and commitment. Their desire for flexibility is misinterpreted as a sign of reduced responsibility, rather than a way to enhance focus.
Conversely, mothers working remotely may not face immediate penalties, but once it’s known that their performance aligns with in-office peers, they are judged as being less productive. This demonstrates a shocking double standard, where managers expect mothers to produce more simply because they work flexibly, while not applying the same scrutiny to other groups.
Interestingly, women without children who work remotely often escape these biases, likely because they’re seen as dedicated. This reversal of discrimination helps managers maintain their own standards, particularly against mothers.
Ultimately, these findings illustrate a group of managers struggling with the evolving landscape of work. The biases faced by hybrid and remote employees aren’t merely unfair; they are detrimental to organizational health. Leaders who cling to outdated beliefs are missing out on talent, stifling productivity, and fostering a culture of distrust.
The key to creating a successful modern workplace doesn’t involve forcing everyone into cubicles. It’s essential for training managers to let go of biases, focus on results, and cultivate environments driven by measurable and tangible outcomes.
Gleb Tisipursky, Ph.D., is CEO of Hybrid Work Consultant Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored a bestseller on hybrid and remote teams.
