Proximity Bias in Hybrid Work: Examples and Manager Checklist

Proximity bias in hybrid work means giving someone more credit, attention, or opportunity because they are physically closer to a manager, rather than because the work calls for it. A practical way to check a decision is to name the requirement, compare relevant evidence, and ask whether the same reasoning would hold if the colleagues swapped locations.

American University's hybrid supervisor guide describes the risk of treating physically visible colleagues as better workers. That is a useful management warning, not proof that every remote employee is disadvantaged.

Use the checklist and copyable decision record below when assigning a project, sharing information, recognising a contribution, or choosing a development opportunity. They are proposed working tools, not a validated test for bias. For formal employment decisions, use your organisation's existing HR process.

Proximity bias, useful office contact, and missing evidence

These situations need different responses. Treating them as the same problem makes the next decision harder.

• Useful office contact: a colleague joins an equipment demonstration because the equipment is physically in that office. Location is connected to the task.
• Missing evidence: a manager has seen one person's work but has not reviewed another person's contribution. The next step is to gather comparable evidence before choosing.
• Possible proximity bias: a manager selects the colleague at the next desk for a project, using familiarity as the reason, without checking the skills and availability the project needs.

In-person work can have a clear purpose. The check is whether physical presence is necessary or useful for this particular activity, and whether the selection follows that purpose. A requirement to host visitors onsite does not establish who wrote the strongest analysis or who should lead a remote project.

Likewise, a colleague's absence from an optional office day is not enough information to judge their contribution. Check the agreed work, the relevant evidence, and any genuine location requirement separately.

What the research does and does not establish

Avoid turning a risk into a universal prediction. In a randomized hybrid-work trial, researchers studied 1,612 employees at one Chinese technology company in 2021-2022. Employees were assigned either the option of two home-working days and three office days, or five office days. The six-month trial found no evidence of a difference in promotions over the following two years between the groups.

That result does not establish that proximity bias never occurs. It shows why a blanket claim that hybrid workers always face a promotion penalty is too strong. The experiment tested one work arrangement in one company, not every manager's decision and not the checklist in this article.

CIPD's 2026 Ireland practice recommendations call for clear expectations, consistent feedback, and fair outcomes across hybrid roles and locations. For a team leader, the actionable question is therefore specific: what evidence and access did this decision use?

Five everyday examples to examine

The following scenarios are fictional. They illustrate questions to ask, rather than diagnosing anyone's motives.

1. The project goes to whoever is nearby

A leader needs someone to present a project update. They ask the colleague sitting beside them, although another colleague prepared the analysis remotely.

Check the assignment's purpose. Does it need the author of the analysis, an experienced presenter, or someone who can attend a particular venue? Review those requirements before treating convenience as the selection rule. If speed genuinely matters, record that constraint and revisit the next opportunity rather than letting an urgent choice become a permanent default.

2. A corridor conversation becomes the final decision

Two colleagues resolve an open question after an office meeting. Others see the changed plan only when they begin their next task.

Keep the useful conversation, then publish the decision and rationale in the team's agreed workspace. Name who still needs to contribute and whether the decision is provisional. The important check is access to the decision before it affects someone's work.

3. Visible effort receives all the recognition

A manager thanks the person who stayed late in the office. The colleague who resolved the underlying issue earlier from home is omitted.

Before writing the recognition note, check the work record and ask the contributors what each person did. Describe the contribution itself. If the late attendance was important to an onsite task, recognise that specifically without implying that other working patterns demonstrate less commitment.

4. Development follows the manager's office pattern

A leader offers an observation opportunity only when they happen to be in the office. A colleague with a different agreed schedule never hears about it in advance.

Publish the opportunity, explain its learning purpose, and confirm what participation requires. If physical attendance is essential, give notice and discuss workable options through the normal team process. For activities that can happen in either format, use the hybrid mentoring format guide to choose by the learning goal.

5. Onsite colleagues absorb every small task

The people in the office repeatedly receive visitor handoffs, room setup, and equipment checks because they are available to ask in person.

Some tasks genuinely require onsite work. Make their ownership and load visible, then distribute work within the roles and schedules that can cover it. American University's work allocation guidance explicitly recommends checking whether tasks fall to onsite staff simply because they are there. Include those contributions in the work record rather than overlooking them as background help.

A manager checklist before making the decision

Use this checklist for one real assignment or recognition decision. A missing answer is a prompt to check, not an automatic finding of bias.

• Purpose: can I state the outcome this decision should achieve?
• Requirements: which skills, responsibilities, availability, or physical resources does it actually need?
• Location: if I require office attendance, have I connected it to a specific activity rather than general visibility?
• Candidate access: did the relevant people hear about the opportunity with enough information to respond?
• Comparable evidence: have I checked contributions against the same relevant criteria and time period?
• Missing information: am I interpreting an evidence gap as weak performance without asking for the missing work?
• Contribution: have I included preparation, follow-through, and necessary onsite support, as well as the work I personally observed?
• Reasoning: can I explain the choice using the requirements and evidence?
• Location swap: would the explanation still make sense if the colleagues worked from different locations?
• Follow-through: who needs the decision, the rationale, and a chance to correct a factual omission?

Do not turn the checklist into a score for employees. It reviews the manager's decision process. It also does not require identical assignments for people with different roles, skills, responsibilities, or constraints. The aim is to make those differences explicit.

Copyable decision record

Copy the following fields into an existing project note. Keep it short enough to use at the moment of assignment. Limit access to any confidential information and keep sensitive employment records in the appropriate HR system.

• Decision: [project assignment, recognition, development opportunity, or information-sharing change]
• Owner and decision date: [name or role; date]
• Intended outcome: [what needs to be achieved]
• Relevant requirements: [skills, responsibility, capacity, deadline, equipment, or venue]
• Location requirement: [specific reason for onsite work, or no location requirement]
• People or roles considered: [who is in scope and why]
• Evidence checked: [work items, contribution notes, relevant feedback, and period covered]
• Missing evidence or access: [what is unknown; who will check it; when]
• Decision and rationale: [choice connected to requirements and evidence]
• Communication and next check: [where the decision is shared; factual corrections; next opportunity or review]

If the record would mostly contain guesses, pause the decision where practical and fill the gaps. When an urgent operational need prevents that, state the constraint and arrange a later check. Do not present the record itself as proof that the outcome is fair.

Worked example: choosing a project presenter

Imagine a hybrid product team preparing an internal launch review. The lead is in the office with Alex, while Priya works remotely that day. Alex offered to help, and Priya wrote the analysis. The lead's first thought is to ask Alex because they are already discussing the review.

The decision record changes the question from who is closest to what the review needs:

• Intended outcome: explain the recommendation and answer questions about the analysis.
• Requirements: knowledge of the analysis, clear presentation, and availability at the review time.
• Location requirement: none, because the review already supports remote participation.
• Evidence: Priya prepared the recommendation; Alex can help explain implementation. The lead still needs to confirm each person's availability and willingness.
• Decision: ask Priya to lead the analysis section and Alex to cover implementation, subject to those checks. Share the agenda and speaking roles before the review.
• Next check: after the review, ask whether the format let both contributors answer questions and whether any contribution was missed.

This is an illustrative choice, not the only correct assignment. If Alex has a relevant presentation responsibility, or Priya is unavailable, the answer may change. What should stay clear is the link between requirements, evidence, and the eventual choice.

For the meeting itself, use the hybrid meeting checklist to plan participation. A well-reasoned assignment still needs a format that lets the chosen people contribute.

Review the process without ranking office attendance

At an agreed review point, look back at a small set of actual team decisions. Ask what was considered, which evidence was missing, who received the information, and what the team would change next time. Treat patterns as questions to investigate. Differences alone do not establish their cause.

Keep the review practical:

• Which assignments were made through an informal office conversation, and were the relevant people considered?
• Which contributions were recognised, including preparation and onsite support?
• Did colleagues know how to express interest in development opportunities?
• Were decisions shared before absent colleagues had to act on them?
• Did anyone repeatedly absorb office tasks without an agreed owner or acknowledgement?
• Which decision needs a correction, more evidence, or a clearer rule?

Agree one process change, an owner, and a review point. For example, publish the next project opportunity before allocating it, or add contribution notes to the existing project review. Avoid creating a new reporting ritual for every employee just to make their activity more visible.

Make useful office time visible

Put information-sharing, assignment, and recognition norms into the hybrid team agreement. State what office overlap is for and how colleagues receive decisions when they are elsewhere.

Officedays lets colleagues share planned office days and see others' plans in Slack. Use that view to arrange a purposeful conversation or shared activity. Keep decisions and work evidence in the team's agreed workspace.

If recurring location plans would help your team coordinate, explore the Officedays plans. Usual office days are included in Pro. A location plan helps with scheduling; assess contribution against the agreed work and relevant evidence.

Sources and methodology

Sources and links were checked on 9 October 2026. This article combines first-party practice guidance with one original randomized trial. The checklist, decision record, and fictional examples are Officedays operational synthesis, not original empirical research or a tested intervention. No prevalence estimate or universal career-outcome claim is made.

• American University Office of Human Resources, Managing in Hybrid Work 2.0. Publication date is not printed; PDF metadata is dated August 2022, and the framework began in fall 2021. Historical US institutional guidance, particularly pages 4-5, used for the visibility warning and work-allocation recommendations. No study sample is reported for these recommendations.
• Nicholas Bloom, Ruobing Han, and James Liang, hybrid-work randomized trial, Nature, published 12 June 2024. One Chinese technology company; 2021-2022 trial; 1,612 employees, with promotion follow-up over the next two years. The original paper, abstract, and figure captions were checked. Liang disclosed leadership and equity interests in the company. The paper reports no funding from that company.
• CIPD and Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, HR Practices in Ireland 2026, published 19 May 2026. Used for professional practice recommendations on expectations, feedback, and consistency across locations. No survey percentage is reproduced; the recommendations are not estimates of an intervention's effect.