The “Proximity Bias”: Why In-Office Employees Get Promoted Faster?

If you’re a remote employee, you’ve likely felt it: a creeping suspicion that your career is moving slower than that of your colleagues in the office. You see them getting pulled into spontaneous projects, receiving casual feedback in the hallway, and building rapport with senior leaders over coffee. Meanwhile, you’re delivering high-quality work from a distance, wondering if your contributions are truly being seen. This isn’t paranoia; it’s the tangible effect of proximity bias, an invisible force that rewards physical presence over measurable output.

The common advice is often to “be more proactive” or “schedule more check-ins.” But these solutions place the burden squarely on your shoulders and fail to address the root cause. They treat proximity bias as a simple managerial oversight rather than what it truly is: a deep-seated cognitive shortcut hardwired into outdated corporate systems. The ‘out of sight, out of mind’ phenomenon is a default setting for the human brain, and without a deliberate and systemic re-architecture of how teams work, remote employees will always be at a disadvantage.

The real key to navigating this challenge isn’t just about working harder or speaking louder. It’s about understanding the flawed systems that perpetuate this bias and advocating for a new operational framework—one built on a principle of ‘Equity by Design’. This means fundamentally rethinking how hybrid teams communicate, how performance is evaluated, and how support is distributed to ensure that opportunity is location-agnostic.

This article will dissect the systemic nature of proximity bias. We will explore the practical, structural changes needed to dismantle it, moving beyond good intentions to build a truly equitable hybrid environment where every employee has an equal chance to thrive, regardless of their location.

To navigate these complex issues, we will break down the essential pillars of a fair hybrid model. The following sections provide a clear roadmap for identifying hidden biases and implementing structural solutions that create a level playing field for all.

Anchor Days: How to Coordinate Team Schedules So People Actually Meet?

The concept of “anchor days”—specific days when all team members are required to be in the office—is often presented as the primary solution to hybrid disconnection. The idea is to foster the collaboration and spontaneity that remote work can lack. However, their effectiveness hinges entirely on their design. If anchor days are just co-working days where everyone sits on separate video calls, they fail to address proximity bias and can even breed resentment among employees who commute for no clear purpose.

The failure lies in a lack of systemic architecture. True collaboration doesn’t happen by accident; it must be engineered. Research highlights this gap perfectly: while a majority of companies implement regular check-ins, very few provide clear guidance on what activities should be prioritized for in-office time. A recent Gallup analysis found that while 67% of hybrid teams use regularly scheduled meetings, only 29% offer guidelines for on-site activities. This leaves employees coming into the office without a shared agenda, defeating the purpose.

To make anchor days meaningful, they must be treated as high-value, off-site events that just happen to take place at the office. The agenda should be meticulously planned around three core goals: connection (team-building), collaboration (strategic workshops, brainstorming), and celebration (recognizing achievements). This requires moving away from a loose “everyone in on Tuesday” policy to a structured approach with defined objectives, ensuring that the time spent together is qualitatively different and more valuable than a typical day of individual tasks.

Ultimately, a successful anchor day strategy provides a clear ‘why’ for the commute, transforming it from a mandate into a valuable, intentional gathering that actively combats the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ problem.

The “One Remote, All Remote” Rule: How to Fix Hybrid Meetings?

Hybrid meetings are the single biggest breeding ground for proximity bias. When a few people are gathered in a conference room and others are dialing in, two separate experiences are created. In-room participants benefit from side conversations, shared body language, and the ease of interjection, while remote attendees often become passive observers on a screen, struggling to be heard or even remembered. This isn’t a technical glitch; it’s a failure of meeting design.

The “out of sight, out of mind” phenomenon is starkly evident here. Research from Harvard Business Review reveals a troubling reality: 42% of managers admit they sometimes forget about remote workers when assigning tasks. This cognitive blind spot is amplified in a poorly run hybrid meeting, where the focus naturally gravitates toward the people physically present. To counter this, companies must adopt a principle of Equity by Design, starting with the “One Remote, All Remote” rule. This rule dictates that if one person is joining a meeting remotely, everyone joins from their own device, even if they are in the same building.

This approach may seem counterintuitive, but it is the only way to create a single, level playing field. It forces the meeting to be digital-first. Everyone has the same-sized square on the screen, the same access to the chat, and the same method for “raising a hand.” It standardizes the communication protocol, eliminating the advantages held by those in the room. The illustration below visualizes a space designed for this very purpose, where technology and layout are used to equalize participation.

As you can see, this setup prioritizes the digital experience, ensuring every participant has an equal presence. By implementing this intentional friction—making it slightly less convenient for in-office staff—you dismantle the inherent bias of the traditional conference room and build a more inclusive and effective communication culture. It’s a structural fix for a structural problem.

Without this fundamental shift, hybrid meetings will continue to accumulate “visibility debt” for remote employees, silently pushing their careers to the sidelines.

Stipend vs. Equipment: What Should the Company Provide for Hybrid Workers?

Supporting a hybrid workforce goes beyond virtual meetings; it extends to the physical environment where work is done. A critical question companies face is how to equip remote employees. Should they provide standardized equipment or offer a flexible stipend? This decision is not merely logistical—it’s a powerful signal about trust, equity, and the company’s commitment to a successful hybrid model. Ignoring this can create a two-tiered system where office workers have state-of-the-art setups while remote staff struggle with inadequate tools, further widening the equity gap.

Furthermore, the financial burden on employees is a significant, often overlooked, aspect of proximity bias. Being present in the office comes with costs. According to the Owl Labs’ 2024 report, hybrid workers spend an average of $61 per day on costs like commuting, food, and even pet care—a 20% increase since 2023. A well-designed equipment policy can be a way to offset these inequities and demonstrate that the company values all contributions equally, regardless of location.

Choosing the right approach—company-provided gear, a stipend, or a hybrid of both—depends on the organization’s size, security needs, and culture. There is no one-size-fits-all answer, and each model presents distinct advantages and challenges that must be weighed carefully.

The following table, based on an analysis of hybrid work statistics, breaks down the core differences between these approaches to help organizations make an informed, equitable decision.

Equipment Provision vs. Stipend Approaches

Approach	Benefits	Challenges	Best For
Company-Provided Equipment	Standardized setup, IT control, bulk purchasing power	Higher upfront costs, storage logistics, limited flexibility	Large enterprises with strict security requirements
Flexible Stipend	Employee autonomy, cost-effective, adaptable to individual needs	Compliance tracking, varying quality, reimbursement complexity	Startups and companies emphasizing trust culture
Hybrid Model	Core equipment standardized, stipend for accessories	Complex administration, policy clarity needed	Mid-size companies balancing control and flexibility

Ultimately, a thoughtful equipment and support strategy is a tangible form of Equity by Design. It shows employees that the company is invested in their success and well-being, whether they work from a corporate office or a home office.

Working from Bali: How to Create a Policy for Digital Nomad Requests?

The rise of the “work from anywhere” dream presents a new frontier for hybrid work policies. As employees increasingly request to work as digital nomads—temporarily or semi-permanently from foreign locations—companies can no longer rely on informal, “don’t ask, don’t tell” arrangements. Without a formal policy, organizations expose themselves to significant tax, legal, and immigration risks, while employees face uncertainty and a potential increase in proximity bias due to extreme time zone differences and cultural disconnects.

This trend is not a fleeting fad; it’s a growing movement. A formal policy is essential for managing expectations and mitigating risks on both sides. It allows the company to maintain its duty of care while empowering employees with the flexibility they desire. The core of such a policy is not to restrict, but to enable this form of work in a structured, compliant, and equitable way. It’s about creating a framework that balances employee freedom with corporate responsibility.

A robust digital nomad policy must be a cornerstone of a company’s systemic architecture for hybrid work. It must proactively address issues of performance, collaboration, and career impact to ensure that these employees don’t fall off the radar and accumulate a massive “visibility debt.”

By formalizing the process, a company transforms a potential liability into a strategic talent advantage, attracting and retaining top performers who value autonomy and global mobility, all while ensuring fairness and visibility are maintained.

Output vs. Hours: Changing Performance Reviews for a Hybrid World

Performance reviews are where proximity bias does its most insidious damage. In a traditional office setting, managers often rely on “presenteeism”—seeing an employee at their desk—as a proxy for productivity and commitment. This shortcut is unavailable in a remote context, yet the mindset often persists. This leads to a dangerous paradox: remote workers are frequently more productive but are passed over for promotions because their contributions are less visible.

The data on this is alarming. A Harvard Business Review analysis revealed that while remote workers can be more productive, they are still promoted less often than their in-office peers. This discrepancy proves that simply telling managers to “focus on results” is not enough. The entire evaluation system must be re-architected to be truly location-agnostic. This means moving away from subjective inputs (like hours worked or responsiveness) and toward clear, objective, and pre-defined outputs.

This requires a systemic shift toward data-driven evaluation. Instead of relying on a manager’s memory or impressions, performance should be tracked against concrete goals and key performance indicators (KPIs). This approach forces a conversation about what success actually looks like for a given role, independent of where the work is performed. The focus shifts from observing activity to measuring impact.

This abstract visualization represents the shift toward analyzing multiple dimensions of performance through data, rather than simple observation. It’s about seeing the patterns of contribution, not just the presence of a person. This is the only way to systematically root out the bias that favors the seen over the unseen.

By building a location-agnostic review process, a company not only creates a fairer environment but also gets a much more accurate picture of its true top performers.

How to Build Psychological Safety When You Have Never Met Your Team in Person?

Proximity bias doesn’t just impact careers; it takes a significant toll on mental well-being. The lack of informal social interaction, the fear of being forgotten, and the pressure to be “always on” can lead to profound feelings of isolation. This is not a minor issue; research from BetterUp found that an overwhelming 93% of hybrid workers are concerned about isolation and other mental health challenges stemming from remote work. Building psychological safety—the shared belief that one can take interpersonal risks without fear of negative consequences—is therefore not a “soft skill” but a critical business imperative for remote and hybrid teams.

In a fully remote context, psychological safety cannot be built organically through chance encounters. It requires intentional friction—the deliberate creation of processes and rituals designed to foster trust and vulnerability. When you can’t read body language in a meeting or have a quick, reassuring chat by the coffee machine, you must architect opportunities for human connection. This means leaders must actively model vulnerability and create spaces where it’s safe for others to do the same.

Creating this environment involves a series of structured, deliberate actions. It’s about engineering moments of connection and normalizing open communication about both successes and failures. Here are some concrete strategies to build trust in a virtual-first environment:

• Engineer ‘Failure Fridays’: Dedicate a time for team members to share something that went wrong and what they learned. This normalizes mistakes as learning opportunities.
• Implement ‘Praise Prompts’: Use a dedicated chat channel or meeting segment to prompt and normalize giving positive feedback that isn’t tied to a specific task completion.
• Leaders Model Vulnerability: When leaders openly share their own challenges and uncertainties, it gives permission for the rest of the team to be human.
• Establish ‘Digital Body Language’ Norms: Create a team guide on how to use emojis, GIFs, and status updates to convey tone and availability, reducing misunderstandings.

By systematically building psychological safety, you create a resilient team where remote employees feel seen, valued, and connected, directly counteracting the isolating effects of proximity bias.

The “Hidden Expat” Risk: Is Your Remote Employee Triggering Permanent Establishment Tax?

While proximity bias often manifests as a career and culture issue, its most severe consequences can be legal and financial. When an employee works from a different country—even for a short period—without a formal policy, they can become a “hidden expat.” This situation creates a serious risk for the company, potentially triggering “Permanent Establishment” (PE). PE is a tax concept where an employee’s presence in a foreign country is deemed to create a fixed place of business for the company, making the company liable for corporate taxes in that jurisdiction.

Many companies operate under a dangerous “don’t ask, don’t tell” arrangement, hoping to avoid the complexity. This willful ignorance is not a defense. Tax authorities globally are becoming more sophisticated in tracking digital workers, and the financial penalties for non-compliance can be severe. The risk isn’t just theoretical; it’s a ticking time bomb for organizations that prioritize flexibility without building the necessary compliance architecture.

The level of risk depends on several factors, including the employee’s role, the duration of their stay, and the activities they perform. An employee in a sales or business development role who signs contracts abroad poses a much higher risk than a back-end developer working independently. Understanding and assessing these factors is the first step in creating a compliant remote work framework.

The following matrix provides a simplified model for assessing the level of risk associated with an employee working from a different jurisdiction. It is not a substitute for legal advice but serves as a crucial starting point for any company with a distributed workforce.

Location Risk Assessment Matrix

Risk Factor	Low Risk	Medium Risk	High Risk
Duration	Less than 30 days	30-90 days	Over 90 days
Employee Role	Back-end developer, designer	Project manager, analyst	Sales, business development
Country Type	Tax treaty country	Limited treaty provisions	No tax treaty
Business Activities	Individual contributor work	Team collaboration	Client meetings, contract signing

By proactively managing these legal and tax complexities, a company protects itself and demonstrates a higher level of care and responsibility toward its entire workforce, reinforcing a culture of trust and transparency.

Why 40% of Overseas Assignments Fail and How to Spot the Red Flags Early?

The traditional overseas assignment has a notoriously high failure rate, often cited at around 40%. The primary causes are typically family adjustment issues, a lack of cultural integration, and feelings of isolation. While a remote employee working from home isn’t an “expat” in the traditional sense, they are on a unique kind of assignment—one that is just as susceptible to failure from the same core issue: a profound lack of support and connection.

Data shows that fully remote employees are significantly more prone to loneliness than their in-office counterparts. This emotional disconnect is a leading indicator of disengagement and eventual turnover. If an employee feels invisible and unsupported, their productivity and loyalty will inevitably decline. As a remote employee, it’s crucial to recognize the early warning signs of your own disengagement, as these are red flags that your “assignment” is at risk of failing.

These signs are often subtle changes in digital behavior, reflecting a gradual withdrawal from the team and the company culture. Recognizing them in yourself is the first step toward taking corrective action.

• Decreased participation in ‘social’ Slack channels or team chats.
• Consistently keeping your camera off in most meetings.
• Messages becoming shorter and more transactional.
• A decline in proactive communication and sharing new ideas.
• Reduced attendance at optional virtual social events.

To counteract this, remote workers must go beyond simply seeking mentorship. They need active, influential advocates within the organization. As one workplace integration expert notes, there is a crucial difference between a mentor and a sponsor.

Remote workers need sponsors even more than traditional expats. A sponsor actively advocates for you in high-level meetings, while a mentor only gives advice.

– Workplace Integration Expert, Analysis of remote worker career development

Ultimately, combating proximity bias requires a two-pronged approach: the company must build a supportive systemic architecture, and you, the remote employee, must actively build a network of sponsors who will ensure your contributions are visible and valued in the rooms where decisions are made.