Skip to main content
 
  1. Home
  2. News
  3. To be seen (in the office) is to be … promoted!
 

To be seen (in the office) is to be … promoted!

The Covid-19 pandemic undoubtedly changed employers’ attitudes towards remote and hybrid working, which in most industries has become part and parcel of the terms of employment offered to staff. However, the first study since lockdowns in the UK began found that individuals working from home ("WFH") encounter career penalties, irrespective of the widespread adoption of WFH/hybrid work policies, with the impact being greater on men than women.

Recent research conducted by the University of Warsaw and presented earlier this month to the British Sociological Association showed that, in the UK, people who work from home are less likely to get pay rises and promotions than purely office-based workers.

Researchers surveyed 937 managers employed in various businesses and industries within the UK, who supervised at least five employees and worked in companies that employed at least 10 individuals. They were presented with profiles of hypothetical full-time staff members who worked five days a week at the office a week, five days at home, or three days at the office and two at home. The hypothetical profiles also included other different characteristics (such as age, gender and experience in the sector).

The managers were asked to choose which one they were likely to promote and which one they would give a pay rise to.

The results

According to the data collected, the managers were 11% less likely to give a promotion to staff who worked exclusively from home than to those who were completely office-based. Hybrid workers were on average 7% less likely to be promoted. Managers were also 9% less likely to give a pay rise to staff working remotely than to staff working in the office full-time, and 7% less likely to give one to hybrid workers.

The results appear to be a product of the managers' own assumptions and beliefs that:

  1. remote workers are less productive than office-based workers; and
  2. paid work should be central in workers' lives and that asking for flexible working arrangements (such as WFH) implies that individuals have other life goals and therefore a lower commitment to work (this is known as the "flexibility stigma").

Interestingly, the research found that the impact of remote working was greater on men than women: managers were 15% less likely to promote men who worked entirely from home than those who were completely office-based, and 10% less likely to give a pay increase. The figures for women were 7% and 8% respectively.

The differential is even greater in organisations with very demanding work cultures, where WFH is perceived by managers to be hampering collaboration and knowledge exchange.

This was explained as potentially being the result of the employers' perception that men who WFH break the "ideal worker" norm, which prescribes men (more than women) to be loyal employees whose involvement in work is not affected by family obligations. Those breaking that norm are seen as not committed to work and are therefore penalised.

It seems that for a proportion of managers "to be seen (in the office) is to be … promoted", but employers should be careful not to base their promotion and pay review decisions on whether their staff works primarily from home or the office, as this may affect disproportionately certain groups of people with particular (protected) characteristics, such as people with disabilities for whom WFH could represent a reasonable adjustment.  Such a practice would be discriminatory if the employer has failed to make reasonable adjustments.

Equally, if it places those with a protected characteristic at a disadvantage, any such provision, criterion or practice which could be discriminatory unless it is justifiable.  There may be good reasons why employers would like to reward office attendance (for example, to maintain high quality, personal service for customers) but these reasons would need to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and backed by evidence, with the burden of proof being on the employer.

Chiara Muston (howardkennedy.com)

 
  Back to list

More from this section: