How office presence affects evaluations of hybrid work

A project assigned on the way to the kitchen

A manager runs into an employee at the office and starts talking about a new project. A few minutes of conversation are enough to make that employee seem like the natural candidate to coordinate it. A colleague working from home that day learns about the project after a decision has been made. No one had to deliberately rule her out. One person's availability created salience, and salience turned into opportunity. This example shows why the discussion of hybrid work should include not only productivity but also visibility and access to informal conversations. The preference for people who are physically close is known as proximity bias. In practice, it may involve equating presence with engagement or more easily recalling the contributions of people we talk to more often. However, not every benefit of in-person contact is evidence of bias. Some tasks require people to be together in person. The question is whether the benefit comes from actually doing the work or from one person being more often in the decision-maker's immediate field of attention. Visibility may operate independently of a formal performance evaluation. The employee in the office is more likely to learn about a new idea before it's outlined, and it's easier to declare willingness to participate. A remote worker can only receive information after roles have already been assigned. The omission does not have to be deliberate. It's enough for informal conversations to become the main place where opportunities are created. Therefore, the fairness of hybrid work concerns not only the annual assessment but also the day-to-day access to assignments, input, and decisions. The team should determine which stages of collaboration require a physical presence and which have simply been organized around the people closest to the manager.

What research tells us—and what it cannot establish

Kasperska, Matysiak and Cukrowska-Torzewska conducted a survey experiment involving more than a thousand managers in the UK. Preferences for promotion, raises and training were examined on the basis of employee descriptions. Working from home was associated with less favorable ratings for some opportunities, but the manager's experience with remote work and its prevalence in the team also mattered. This study examined decisions made in hypothetical scenarios, rather than directly measuring real-world promotion decisions. Kasperska et al., 2024. A different picture emerges from an experiment by Bloom, Han, and Liang at a tech company. The hybrid model studied improved retention without reducing performance, and the researchers found no negative effect on promotions during the period considered. It doesn't mean that every remote model works the same everywhere. On the other hand, it shows that a penalty for being away from the office should not be viewed as inevitable. The organizational conditions and how the model is implemented are important. Bloom et al., 2024.

Why familiarity can replace evidence

When evaluating many people, a manager needs examples of what they're doing. It's easier to recall yesterday's conversation than a job well done two months ago. If part of the team has more informal contact, the manager's memory may be supplied with an uneven set of examples. In our example, an employee encountered in the kitchen doesn't have to be less competent. The problem is that others haven't been given the opportunity to show interest. The selection may be appropriate, but the process still limits the visibility of available candidates. So it is worth asking two questions: Who's the most accessible and who's the best fit for the job? The first may matter in the event of a sudden failure, but it should not automatically decide on long-term development. If urgent situations regularly bring the same people prestigious roles, chance starts to create a lasting advantage. The manager may counteract this by openly inviting expressions of interest in projects and reviewing competence before another opportunity arises that requires a quick decision. It is also necessary to distinguish the preference of the worker from the requirements of the role. Not every task can be done the same way from anywhere, and different teams may need different settings. However, honest criteria should relate to an actual requirement, not to the belief that presence itself demonstrates greater effort. If the in-person work is necessary for a specific stage of the project, it is worth explaining its purpose and planning it in advance. This avoids a situation where the employee comes to the office only to join a series of individual online calls. Clear reasoning also makes it easier to distinguish organizational necessity from the manager's habits.

Shared criteria instead of performative presence

The assessment of work should be based on agreed results, quality of collaboration and accountability. However, it is not enough to count outputs if a part of the contribution is difficult to measure. The support of colleagues, the prevention of mistakes and keeping processes organized also require attention. Regular summaries in a common format, including achievements, obstacles and contributions to cooperation, are helpful. Such a rhythm gives everyone a comparable opportunity to present their work, rather than rewarding whoever is best at reminding the manager of their contribution. It is also appropriate to specify which decisions must be documented in a shared location. A conversation in the office may be the beginning of an idea, but it shouldn't be the only channel through which absent colleagues learn about it. During hybrid meetings, the presenter may manage speaking order and access to materials. The camera itself does not guarantee participation: if the conversation is between people in the room, the remote participant remains an observer. What we need are rules of interaction, not just devices that allow us to connect.

What employees can do

Employees can agree on how to report progress, clearly state their interest in development and ask about the project allocation criteria. They should not have to prove their commitment to constant availability after hours. If you notice a difference in access, it is worth mentioning specifically: Over the last two projects I learned only after the team had been selected. I'd like to take part in the next selection process. This keeps the conversation focused on a verifiable pattern. Responsibility for fair conditions, however, lies with the organization and not only with people working outside the office. It is also worth examining meetings where some people sit in the same room and some connect remotely. Comments made away from the microphone, conversations after the call and material displayed only on the board may create two levels of participation. The solution is to monitor shared access to information and record decisions in an agreed place. It's not about documenting every conversation at the coffee table, it's about making sure that important decisions are not known only to those who were present. After a few weeks, it's worth asking if the employees really get the context they need. Having a videoconferencing tool alone does not prove that the participation of remote participants is equal and that their contribution has a similar chance of being noticed.

Hybrid work reveals how many decisions can be made based on random contact. You don't have to give up the benefits of face-to-face meetings to provide transparent access to information and opportunities. Contributions should be assessed on the basis of common criteria and to check whether presence has become an unspoken condition for development.

How Empatyzer supports hybrid collaboration

Empatyzer can help you prepare a conversation about work visibility and contact expectations. In Talk to Em about a specific person, the employee may ask a manager how to provide progress updates and can ask about evaluation criteria and access to development opportunities. The goal is to reach clear agreements, not the promise of constant availability. The leader can use Talk to Em about your team to prepare a message about participation rules, decision-making, and how to raise difficulties. Available profiles help to account for differences in communication, but they do not specify who should work remotely. Empatyzer does not measure productivity, working hours or office attendance. It also does not replace the decision on the organization of work. It supports the preparation of a conversation so that both parties can better understand their expectations and see if the way they work together makes it possible to assess the actual contribution rather than the frequency of personal contacts.