Could hybrid working curb women’s careers?

A hybrid work arrangement is the greatest workplace experiment we never expected to come from the pandemic — but it has brought a whole new gender equality challenge.

The next time you’re back working in your office, have a good look around. Notice anything different?

In between the empty seats, are there more men or women compared to what you would usually see?

With most organisations allowing employees to work from home for at least one or two days a week – or in some cases as much or as little as desired – a hybrid in-office and work-from-home arrangement appears here to stay.

It has been the greatest workplace experiment we never expected and the Australian Bureau of Statistics found working from home was the most common aspect of life Australians wanted to continue after the pandemic.

Local and global research and anecdotal evidence has shown women and parents with young children were more likely to request flexible work arrangements to accommodate unpaid care responsibilities.

The evidence to date also suggests men are more reluctant to request flexible arrangements because of perceived or actual effect on their careers.

While workplace flexibility is a positive thing, there is increasing concern that these fragmented employee preferences could turn many offices into male-dominated places, entrench deeper structural inequalities in the workplace and set workplace equality back decades.

Workers who are physically closer to company leaders have greater advancement opportunities than those who work from home some or all of the time.

This new gender equality challenge has an academic name: proximity bias – although most readers might simply call it “out of sight, out of mind”.

Jack Welch, the former chief of General Electric, whose management approach was widely copied, once famously said “the road to the top is paved with being there”.

As we shifted to working from home, I heard from many leaders grappling with the idea of not being able to see their staff, concerned about lost productivity.

Little wonder that workers who are physically closer to company leaders have greater advancement opportunities than those who work from home some or all of the time.

Left unchecked, this can create a less equitable, less inclusive workplace where those who are less visible because they work remotely are overlooked for advancement.

Overseas studies have shown a correlation between salary ranges based on proximity to the chief executive in the office.

The employees who sat closer to the chief executive generally had higher salaries.

Other research found remote workers may receive lower performance evaluations and smaller raises compared to their in-office colleagues.

Proximity bias has been around for years at organisations that employ remote workers, but the pandemic-induced fast-tracking has causes it to surge as a human resources challenge as organisations strive to achieve a level playing field for all employees.

We now have a rare chance to truly test the full potential of flexibility and many employees who have been working from home for the past two years have proved they can do their jobs remotely and don’t want to go back into the office.

More than 40 per cent of women report being burn out often or almost always.

Despite the concerns of employers, the Productivity Commission found the switch to remote working had not materially affected employees’ productivity.

So what happens if organisations don’t take proximity bias seriously?

More than 40 per cent of women report being burn out often or almost always.

Working from home helps alleviate some of the burden encountered by commuting to the office and can help better integrate school drop-offs and pick-ups into the working day.

The growing number of resignations we’re seeing means employers should take requests for more flexibility seriously because of fierce competition for workers.

But there are steps organisations can take to prevent proximity bias taking root and becoming a detrimental mainstay of our new normal.

A British law firm recently mandated a minimum of two days and a maximum of three days a week in the office for its professional workers, removing the “presenteeism” factor and levelling the playing field for all workers.

The Victorian Public Sector has set a default expectation of three days a week in the office. This is separate to other flexible arrangements employees may request, such as modified start and finish times to align with the school run.

It is still very early days in the evolution of hybrid work, and organisations will no doubt have to experiment and test out several different arrangements before they find the ones that produce the best long-term results for them and their employees.

At a recent planning day with my team, we committed that all meetings would be hybrid and discussed how to make sure they were inclusive. I also schedule one-on-one catch ups with employees with different office days to me, or who I haven’t seen for a while.

One of the most important things that can be done to eradicate proximity bias is to raise the workforce’s awareness of it. Ignoring the threat of proximity bias will allow it to infect the hybrid culture that we need to settle into the next stage of pandemic “normal”.

Dr Niki Vincent is Victoria’s Public Sector Gender Equality Commissioner