17.09.2026

New study finds working from home can damage men's careers more than women's

New research led by King’s Business School has found that workers described as spending most of the week at home are most likely to receive lower promotion or appointment ratings than otherwise comparable office-based colleagues and those who spend up to two days a week at home.

The study found evidence of bias against homeworking in both the UK and Germany, despite its rapid growth since the pandemic. Ratings fell when hypothetical workers were described as homeworking, and the penalty became significantly larger at three or four days a week.

The researchers analysed almost 13,000 assessments of hypothetical candidates made by around 5,300 employed people in the UK and Germany during the second half of 2023. Each participant rated more than one candidate as if making a promotion or appointment decision. Candidates described as working from home received lower ratings in both countries, with the penalty significantly greater at three or four days a week than at one or two.

Mothers were penalised least, while fathers and workers without children generally experienced larger declines in ratings. Working from home one or two days a week did not significantly reduce ratings for mothers in either country, or for childless women in Germany.

However, the researchers caution that this should not be interpreted as a straightforward advantage for mothers. In the UK, mothers already received relatively low office-based ratings, particularly compared with childless women, so homeworking caused less additional damage. Men, on the other hand, start off at a higher position and therefore have more to lose when working from home.

In Germany, systems seem to provide more protection. The penalty attached to homeworking one or two days a week was significantly smaller than in the UK, but at three or four days the difference between the countries was no longer significant.

For HR teams, the findings raise an important distinction between offering flexibility and making it safe to use. They also prompt organisations to examine whether workplace evaluations reward results or physical visibility.

Professor Heejung Chung, Professor of Work and Employment at King’s Business School said: “Flexible working has often been seen as a mothers’ issue, but this study shows that fathers also need protection from career penalties when they use it. Making flexibility safe and normal for fathers can support mothers’ employment while improving outcomes for fathers and children.”

The researchers argue that a formal right to request flexible working may not be sufficient if workplace cultures continue to associate physical presence with commitment and productivity. They note that the experiment measured evaluations of hypothetical candidates rather than actual promotions or employees’ careers over time.

They recommend that organisations review how employees are assessed, train managers to recognise proximity bias and place greater emphasis on results rather than time spent in the office. Flexible working should also be presented as a normal way of working for all employees. Treating it primarily as a policy for mothers or carers could reinforce existing assumptions and make fathers more reluctant to use it.

The research was conducted by Professor Heejung Chung (King’s Business School), Assistant Professor Senhu Wang (National University of Singapore) and Dr Yvonne Lott (Institute of Economic and Social Research at the Hans-Böckler Foundation).

The paper, Flexibility stigma in the UK and Germany post-pandemic: intersectionality of stigma across gender and parental lines, is published in Community, Work & Family.

Posted by: FMJ 0 comment(s)