Returning to office may mean rise in gender discrimination

Return-to-office mandates are spreading across North America, with Canada’s major banks, the Ontario government, Amazon and Facebook calling employees back into the office.

These moves reverse the flexibility that became widespread during the COVID-19 pandemic, when remote work became the new norm as public health measures emphasized staying home and avoiding large gatherings.

Supporters of these policies often cite collaboration, innovation and mentorship as reasons to bring workers together in person.

But our research shows that these mandates don’t affect everyone equally. For many women, returning to the office means stepping back into environments where gender bias is more pronounced.

Everyday discrimination in the workplace

When people think about gender discrimination, many imagine pay gaps or barriers to promotion. But discrimination also plays out in routine interactions — what we refer to as “everyday gender discrimination” in our study.

These are regular slights and offences that can chip away at women’s confidence and sense of belonging over time. They might include being ignored in meetings, being asked to perform administrative tasks outside one’s role, receiving inappropriate comments or having one’s ideas credited to others.

While each single incident might seem trivial, their cumulative effect can make women feel frustrated, dissatisfied with their jobs and more likely to leave their organizations.

As organizations reassess where and how people work in the wake of the pandemic, we decided to examine whether everyday discrimination looks different in remote versus in-person settings.

Clear differences by location

To investigate how location shapes everyday gender discrimination, we surveyed 1,091 professional women in the United States with hybrid jobs, or roles that involved both in-person and remote work. Our design allowed us to compare the same person’s experiences across work locations and pinpoint the impact of location itself.

The results were striking. Women were significantly more likely to experience everyday gender discrimination when working on-site than when working remotely.

In a typical month, 29 per cent of respondents reported experiencing discrimination in the office, compared to just 18 per cent when working from home. These patterns held across types of discrimination, from being underestimated to being excluded from social activities and experiencing sexual harassment.

The contrast was especially sharp for two groups: younger women (under 30) and women who worked mostly with men. Among younger women, the likelihood of experiencing discrimination dropped from 31 per cent on site to just 14 per cent when remote.

Similarly, women who interacted primarily with men saw their likelihood of experiencing discrimination fall from 58 per cent on site to 26 per cent remotely. For these groups, remote work provides a meaningful reduction in exposure to everyday gender discrimination.

The trade-offs of remote work

Still, remote work is no silver bullet for gender inequality. Our findings highlight a key advantage — reduced exposure to everyday discrimination — but there are important trade-offs that need to be considered.

One challenge is that working remotely can limit informal interactions that are crucial for building relationships. It can also reduce access to mentors and feedback and make it harder for women to be considered for high-profile assignments.

Remote work can also make it harder to tell where the office ends and home begins, pulling family duties into the workday and intensifying family obligations even during work hours.

These factors are crucial for career advancement, especially for women. While remote work offers an environment with less everyday gender discrimination, working off-site may also limit women’s professional opportunities.

Understanding these trade-offs is essential as organizations craft return-to-office policies. Rather than treating remote work as inherently good or bad, leaders need nuanced strategies that combine the benefits of both in-person and remote work.

What employers and policymakers can do

As companies and governments push employees to return to the office, they risk overlooking how much location matters for women’s workplace experiences. Here are three steps organizations can take to address this issue:

• Offer flexibility where possible: Giving employees the option to work remotely empowers women to choose the environment where they feel most respected and productive. Some companies have adopted remote-first policies, framing them as tools for talent retention. Such policies allow employees to make decisions about the work location that suits them best.

• Import best practices from remote meetings: While virtual meetings tend to be less engaging, they are also more efficient and focused, with fewer opportunities for offhand comments or interruptions. Applying that same structure to in-person meetings could reduce discrimination while improving productivity.

Companies should consider formal agendas, structured turn-taking and asynchronous feedback to create fairer, more professional discussions. Amazon, for example, applied this principle by centring in-person meetings around “six-page memos” rather than open-ended discussions.

• Acknowledge the trade-offs: Leaders should recognize that, while on-site work can accelerate skill development, it can also magnify gender bias. A frank acknowledgment of this tension is the first step toward creating systems that minimize harm while maximizing opportunity.

One bank we studied in separate research, which hasn’t been published yet, overcame this challenge by pairing junior staff with senior mentors and implementing a project-tracking system to ensure equitable assignment of opportunities.

Location, location, location

Workplace discrimination is not only an ethical problem — it also undermines performance, fuels turnover and exposes firms to legal risks.

Our study shows that where work happens — remotely or on site — plays a central role in shaping women’s exposure to everyday gender discrimination.

As organizations roll back the remote work practices adopted during the pandemic, it’s important to recognize that decisions about location can powerfully shape employees’ experiences and professional opportunities at work.

Thoughtful policies that balance the benefits of in-person interaction with the protections afforded by remote work can help ensure that women face less everyday discrimination and experience greater equality at work.

» Laura Doering is an associate professor of strategic management at the University of Toronto. András Tilcsik is a professor of strategic management at the University of Toronto. This column was originally published at The Conversation Canada: theconversation.com/ca