Charles Spinelli on the Moral Consequences of Inequity in Hybrid Work Environments

As hybrid work becomes the norm, companies are enjoying the benefits of flexibility, agility and wider talent pools. But behind the surface of convenience, new forms of inequity are beginning to emerge. Charles Spinelli , an ethics-focused leadership advisor, points out that hybrid structures, while progressive in form, may be inadvertently creating new tiers of workplace disadvantage, especially for employees whose roles require regular on-site presence.

While remote workers may benefit from work-life balance, on-site employees often carry additional responsibilities, running physical meetings, managing logistics, or representing the team in the office, all without equal recognition or flexibility. Conversely, remote workers can also suffer from limited visibility, missing out on spontaneous hallway conversations that lead to key assignments or promotions. The ethical challenge lies in addressing these gaps with fairness and intention.

Proximity Bias in the Age of Flexibility

Proximity bias, the tendency to favor those physically closer, is a long-standing issue made more complex in a hybrid environment. Leaders may subconsciously offer more opportunities to employees they see regularly simply because of familiarity. On-site staff may be more frequently consulted, offered informal feedback or tapped for high-visibility projects.

This subtle but powerful bias risks dividing hybrid teams into two unequal categories: the seen and the unseen. When physical presence becomes a shortcut for perceived commitment or competence, hybrid work becomes less about choice and more about sacrifice.

Leaders must be vigilant in recognizing this pattern. Ethical leadership means ensuring that access to mentorship, promotion and influence is not dictated by office attendance but by contribution and potential.

Operationalizing Fairness

Fixing inequity in hybrid work isn’t about making everyone work from the same location. It’s about designing systems that compensate for imbalance. That includes rethinking how performance is measured, how collaboration is encouraged, and how opportunities are distributed.

For example, leaders can rotate meeting facilitators, offer digital-first communication tools, or set uniform availability expectations across teams. Regular reviews of who is assigned to high-impact work or who is consistently overlooked can help uncover unintended trends of favoritism.

Managers should be trained to identify and mitigate bias in their leadership behaviors. This proactive approach ensures equity is not accidental but deliberate.

Ethics Beyond Policy

Policy alone can’t resolve the cultural imbalance. A flexible work policy that doesn’t account for experiential equity is an ethical gap disguised as progress. Employees will notice when value is assigned based on where they sit rather than what they contribute.

Open dialogue is key. Employees should be encouraged to share feedback on their hybrid work experience, and leadership must act on it meaningfully. Transparency in promotions, task assignments and evaluations helps close the trust gap that hybrid models often open.

Charles Spinelli emphasizes that the ethics of hybrid work go beyond fairness in scheduling; they strike at the heart of what leadership values. In his view, ethical leaders must consciously resist the temptation to equate visibility with value. Only then can hybrid work truly serve everyone, regardless of where they log in or show up.