Does Proximity Improve Engagement? 43,000 Employees Reveal

For years, many organizations have worked from a simple assumption:

The strongest teams sit together.

It sounds logical. If people are close to each other, collaboration should be easier. And if collaboration is easier, engagement should be stronger too.

But our cross-company data tells a more nuanced story.

When we looked at responses from nearly 43,000 employees across 20 organizations and 8 industries, one thing became clear: physical proximity is not a reliable shortcut to understanding engagement.

That matters for a simple reason.

In most organizations, listening is not the challenge anymore. Turning what you hear into action is. 

Are Distributed Teams Still the Exception?

No. They are part of everyday working life.

In our data, 49% of employees are not part of a one-location team. Distributed teamwork is no longer a side case. It is a normal part of how many organizations operate, and it also helps explain why hybrid work leadership has become a more important question than office presence alone.

If leadership practices are still built around the idea that real teams sit together, they only reflect part of reality

Before looking at engagement, it helps to look at the setup itself. In our data, distributed team structures are not the exception. They are part of everyday working life.

Figure 1. Team spread is mainstream
Almost half of employees in the dataset are not part of a one-location team.

This matters because leadership practices built for fully co-located teams only reflect part of today’s reality.

Do Employees in One-location Teams have Higher Engagement?

Not automatically.

We compared engagement and key engagement drivers across employees in different team setups:

• employees in one-location teams

• employees who sit with the majority of their team

• employees who sit with a minority of their team

• employees in evenly spread teams

• employees who are alone at their location

If proximity was the deciding factor, employees in one-location teams should score highest across the board.

They do not.

Across several areas, one-location teams are not systematically ahead of more distributed setups. That pattern also remains when we account for differences in industry, demographics, and region.

So yes, proximity can matter in some contexts. But on its own, it does not explain engagement very well.

That is an important distinction. Because once we stop treating geography as the answer, we can focus on what leaders can actually improve.

This is where the story becomes more interesting. If physical proximity was the key driver, employees in one-location teams should come out clearly ahead. They do not.

Figure 2. One-location teams are not automatically ahead
Engagement and engagement drivers do not follow a simple proximity pattern across team setups.

The pattern is more nuanced than many leaders expect. Geography alone is not enough to explain the employee experience.

What About Employees who work Alone at Their Location?

This is where the data becomes especially interesting.

Employees who are alone at their location often score very well. In several areas, they even score highest, including on overall engagement.

That does not mean isolation is the ideal setup.

It means something else.

Being physically alone is not the same as being disconnected. And being surrounded by colleagues is not the same as having a strong employee experience.

The better interpretation is this: engagement is shaped by more than distance. It is influenced by how work is organized, how clear expectations are, and whether people have what they need to do their job well.

This is exactly why a good employee survey should never stop at the listening stage. The value comes from understanding where the friction is and what kind of follow-up each team actually needs.

One of the most surprising patterns in the data appears when we isolate employees who sit alone at their location.

Figure 3. A surprising result: singletons often score strongly
Employees who work alone at their location do not automatically score lower. In several areas, they score very well.

This is not an argument for isolation. It is a reminder that physical distance is a poor shortcut for understanding engagement.

Does Sitting near your Manager Improve Engagement?

Again, not in a consistent way.

We also looked at whether employees score higher when they sit at the same location as their immediate manager.

The short answer is no. Not systematically.

Once we account for organizational and demographic differences, manager proximity does not consistently improve engagement. In some cases, the pattern even moves in the opposite direction.

That reinforces an important point:

Leadership quality matters more than leadership proximity.

A manager does not become effective just because they sit nearby. What matters is whether they create direction, follow up on issues, support collaboration, and help the team move forward.

Good leadership travels. Poor leadership does too.

We also looked at a question many organizations still assume they know the answer to: does sitting near your manager improve the experience of work?

Figure 4. Sitting near your manager is not a reliable engagement lever
Manager proximity does not systematically translate into stronger engagement.

What matters more is whether leaders create clarity, follow up well, and help teams move forward.

What Should Leaders do with this Insight?

This is the real question.

Our results do not point to one perfect setup. They point to a better way of thinking about team spread.

Instead of asking whether people sit together, organizations should ask:

• Which team setups do we actually have?

• Where do we see stronger or weaker engagement?

• Are some groups, locations, or reporting lines doing better than others?

• Do our leaders know how to respond to the needs of different team realities?

The challenge is rarely the survey itself. It is understanding what the data is really saying, where the pressure points are, and how leaders can turn insight into progress.

Want to Turn Employee Feedback Into Better Action?

Understanding how teams are spread is only the first step. Learn how to identify where attention is needed, make sense of employee feedback, and turn insight into focused follow-up.

Download the Guide

Proximity is not the Answer. Intentional Leadership is.

If there is one takeaway from this analysis, it is this:

Physical closeness does not guarantee stronger engagement.

Some one-location teams do well. Some do not. Some distributed teams struggle. Others thrive. Even employees who work alone at their location can score highly when the conditions around them are right.

So the question is not whether everyone sits together.

The question is whether your organization understands the realities your teams work in and acts on them in a focused way.

That is where better employee experience work begins. Not with assumptions about location, but with data, dialogue, and follow-up that helps leaders respond where it matters most.

About the data

This analysis is based on:

• 20 organizations

• 8 industries

• 45,934 respondents in the dataset

• 42,988 survey responses

• white-collar employees only

• managers excluded in the team spread analyses