Proximity bias in the hybrid workplace: What employers need to do now
The Employment Rights Act changes
The right to request flexible working became a day one right in April 2024. Before April 2024, employees needed 26 weeks’ service before they could make a statutory flexible working request.
Changes to flexible working requests are expected in 2027 under the Employment Rights Act. They are intended to strengthen fairness and make it easier for employees to make a flexible working request without having to explain how their request would affect the business, placing that assessment on the employer. These changes would not create an automatic right to work flexibly, and employers can refuse a request if they have a lawful basis for doing so.
The changes will require employers to consult with employees to explore alternatives before rejecting a flexible working request. In practice, that means employers would not only need to rely on one of the eight statutory grounds for refusal, but also be able to show that requests have been handled fairly and consistently.
That raises the stakes for organisations because flexible working requests are set to become a more significant governance, consistency and compliance issue, particularly where proximity bias can affect how fairly requests are considered.
The risk: Proximity bias in the workplace
Proximity bias is the tendency to place greater trust in employees who are seen more often in person, even when performance evidence does not justify different treatment. In hybrid and remote work settings, that creates a challenge for employers because visibility can influence judgement more than objective business criteria.
It can show up in who is seen as committed, who is trusted with visible work and whose flexibility is judged to be more manageable. This is rarely deliberate. It usually happens when visibility becomes a proxy for confidence and managers are left to make nuanced decisions without enough structure.
Once flexible working decisions become more formal, proximity bias stops being a behavioural issue and becomes a governance, consistency and compliance risk that leaders need to address proactively. The issue does not stop at request handling. It can also shape perceptions of contribution, progression and fairness across hybrid teams.
Employers need to assess whether decisions can be defended, and whether hybrid working will remain fair, trusted and sustainable across the organisation. Left unchecked, proximity bias can create an employee experience where office presence becomes an informal advantage in access, visibility and opportunity.
Flexible working requests are likely to rise
Employee appetite for flexible working has not changed. Hybrid working is now embedded across a significant part of the labour market, making flexible working a baseline expectation.
ONS data shows that more than a quarter of working adults now operate in a hybrid model, while fully remote roles remain a smaller but steady share of the workforce. People Management research also suggests that many employees would rather leave than accept a full-time return to the office, reinforcing how firmly flexibility is now embedded in employer-employee expectations.
When the statutory right to request flexible working is available from day one, organisations should expect more formal requests. Not because employee expectations have suddenly shifted, but because arrangements once handled informally will sit within a regulated process.
As volumes increase, two pressures emerge quickly: scale and comparability. When requests are handled without clear, documented systems, differences in outcomes between teams, roles and managers become much harder to justify. That is how proximity bias in hybrid work becomes a material governance challenge, particularly when patterns in remote work decisions are not spotted early enough.
What employers need to do now
Reducing proximity bias in the workplace without undermining the benefits of hybrid working requires a stronger operating model for how flexible working decisions are made, supported and reviewed.
In practice, that means putting stronger governance, transparency and consistency around decision-making so outcomes are fair, explainable and easier to defend.
The priority is to ensure managers understand what is expected of them and handle requests through clear process steps, backed by access to expert advice and HR case management technology. That gives the organisation a scalable way to manage requests compliantly and consistently, with a clear audit trail and stronger confidence in the fairness of outcomes.
Five actions that strengthen control, consistency and defensibility
1. Set clear process steps and decision criteria for managers: Flexible working requests should be assessed against clear, role-relevant criteria rather than instinct or personal familiarity. That helps managers handle requests consistently while giving the organisation greater confidence that outcomes are aligned to business need, not visibility bias.
2. Back frontline decisions with expert escalation paths: Managers should be able to move quickly, but not in isolation. Where requests are more complex, sensitive or higher risk, HR and employment law expertise should be readily available so judgement can be tested, policy applied consistently and avoidable escalation reduced.
3. Use case management technology to standardise, prompt and evidence decisions: If a request is approved, adjusted or refused, the reasoning should be captured in a clear and comparable way. The right technology can guide managers through the right questions, create a clear audit trail and strengthen the organisation’s ability to demonstrate compliant, fair and consistent decision-making.
4. Create governance visibility across the organisation: Workflow alone is not enough. HR leaders need line of sight across managers, functions and locations so they can identify patterns, monitor where inconsistency is emerging and intervene before issues develop into grievances, complaints or legal exposure.
5. Build a scalable operating model before volumes increase: Hybrid working is already embedded in the labour market, and formal requests are likely to rise as legal expectations tighten. A combination of clear process steps, access to expert advice and HR case management technology gives organisations a more scalable way to manage volume without weakening fairness, control or organisational trust.
Organisations that get this right will do more than help managers respond with confidence. They will give HR and legal leaders greater control over consistency, reduce enterprise-wide legal exposure and create a more defensible operating model for hybrid work.
Book a discovery call to find out how empower® can help ensure requests are managed compliantly and consistently, reducing the risk of proximity bias.
FAQs on proximity bias in the workplace
- What is proximity bias in the workplace? In an employer context, proximity bias is the tendency for visibility and in-person contact to influence judgement more than objective evidence. In hybrid and remote work settings, that can distort decisions and create inconsistency.
- Why is proximity bias in hybrid work a risk for employers? It can lead to inconsistent flexible working decisions, undermine trust in organisational fairness and increase legal exposure when similar cases are handled differently.
- How should employers reduce proximity bias in remote and hybrid work? The strongest approach is ensuring managers know what is expected of them and manage all requests consistently and compliantly, which can be achieved through a combination of clear process steps, access to expert advice and case management technology that delivers a clear audit trail.