Digital presenteeism: the hidden cost of an “always on” work culture 

Digital presenteeism is fast becoming one of the defining workplace wellbeing challenges of the hybrid era. As remote and flexible working are embedded across UK organisations, many employees feel an unspoken pressure to appear constantly available online. Green status lights, rapid replies and late-night emails have become proxies for commitment. What looks like engagement, however, is often something else entirely – and the cost is being felt across mental health, productivity and inclusion. 

At its simplest, digital presenteeism is the pressure to appear constantly available and responsive online, regardless of whether that time is productive or necessary. It is not driven by laziness or poor time management. According to Ira Lange, instructor at Aalto University Executive Education and Professional Development, it often starts with good intentions. “It emerges from a desire to commit, to have a sense of urgency and speed, and usually competitiveness plays a role,” she says. Over time, however, that “always-on” culture “erodes the very things organisations depend on most – human energy, trust, creativity and fairness”. 

Several forces have converged to normalise this behaviour. Alicia Navarro, founder of FLOWN, a virtual co-working platform rooted in focus science and community accountability, points to structural change rather than individual failure. “Remote and hybrid work, collaboration tools and AI-driven acceleration have blurred boundaries between work and personal time,” she says. The consequences cut both ways. Employees’ mental health can suffer without firmer boundaries, while employers risk optimising for constant activity and responsiveness rather than meaningful, high-impact work. 

In day-to-day working life, digital presenteeism is easy to spot. Wendy Harris, Head of EMEA at Rippling, describes it as “performative work”. “People confuse visibility with value,” she says. “In hybrid work, the absence of a physical presence has created this frantic need to look busy through constant messaging.” The result is “rapid-fire replies to things that aren’t urgent, staying logged in late just to signal dedication, notifications flying around that add zero commercial benefit”. 

This behaviour creates the illusion of productivity while quietly undermining it. Meetings multiply, inboxes dominate andfocus fragments. Navarro describes a workplace environment where “being seen online matters more than outcomes”, even when that visibility actively detracts from deep, valuable work. 

The mental health implications could be significant. Lange highlights the physiological impact of constant connectivity. “Always-on culture can keep the nervous system in a near-constant state of alert,” she says. “If there’s no recovery time and short-term stress shifts to chronic, long-term stress, then it could be harmful.” 

Employees report difficulty falling asleep, waking too early, poor sleep quality and guilt when resting. Psychological safety can also erode. “A sense of safety is relaxation,” Lange says. “When you can never really switch off, you are not relaxed.” What appears to be dedication can become “unrecognised survival behaviour”, with people unaware of how depleted they are until engagement, performance or health collapses. 

From a business perspective, the productivity paradox is increasingly visible. “When you’re in constant reaction mode, deep work can become impossible,” Harris says. “People are perpetually busy, yet might become increasingly unproductive.” 

Decision-making quality suffers, innovation slows and error rates rise. “People end up surviving their inboxes rather than driving strategy,” Harris adds. The retention impact can be severe. “Your best people will leave. High performers migrate toward cultures that value results over the always-on grind. Every time.” 

Digital presenteeism also reinforces inequality. Always-on cultures tend to favour those with fewer constraints: people without caring responsibilities, those in dominant time zones, or those able to sustain long hours. Others are left compensating to prove their commitment. 

Alex Hind, CEO of employee wellbeing platform Heka, says the groups most affected are often “marginalised groups, employees who feel their jobs are insecure and those juggling multiple priorities like working parents, women, ethnic minorities, those with chronic health conditions and neurodivergent individuals”. 

Remote workers often experience what Harris describes as a “visibility debt”, repaid by extending their working hours. Junior employees may prioritise responsiveness over learning. Middle managers are squeezed between enforcing productivity and protecting their teams. Performance can appear merit-based, but in reality, it is frequently availability-based. 

For workplace wellbeing leaders, the question is not whether digital presenteeism is a problem, but how to address it without harming productivity. Individual resilience initiatives are not enough. “Always-on cultures are rarely caused by individuals alone,” Lange says. “They are produced by structures and systems.” 

Leadership behaviour is the clearest signal. Harris is blunt: “If you want your team to switch off, you have to switch off first. Excellence is measured by commitments met and quality delivered, not a green status icon.” Leaders who send late-night emails, respond instantly or praise overwork unintentionally set unrealistic expectations. 

Karen Rider, Head of People at ICS-digital, says clarity is one of the most effective starting points. Digital presenteeism often shows up as “employees staying logged on longer than they need, responding outside typical working hours, or filling their diaries with meetings to demonstrate how busy they are”. Shifting the emphasis from online visibility to outcomes, she says, “allows people to work more flexibly and effectively”. 

System design matters just as much as behaviour. Reducing unnecessary meetings, defining what constitutes urgency and aligning performance metrics with outcomes rather than responsiveness are critical. Navarro argues that organisations need to be intentional about how focus is protected without removing accountability. 

“Organisations need to choose systems and tools that fit their culture,” she says. “Approaches that have worked well include creating meeting-free days or protected focus hours that are actively respected by leaders, using Slack statuses or icons to clearly signal when someone is in deep, uninterrupted work and offering access to body doubling tools. These support focused deep work while also providing a visible signal of presence, particularly helpful in hybrid and remote teams.” 

Clear norms around disconnection are essential. That includes agreed quiet hours, escalation rules for genuine emergencies and team-level agreements on after-hours communication. Rest, Lange argues, “must be institutional, not optional”. If systems reward constant reactiveness, wellbeing initiatives will be ignored. 

Ultimately, addressing digital presenteeism is not about doing less. It is about redefining what good work looks like. High performance, Lange says, is “repeatable excellence, not constant exertion that leads to exhaustion”. Inclusive ways of working depend on predictable schedules, good documentation and respect for different energy patterns and responsibilities. 

In an economy that increasingly equates speed with success and visibility with value, organisations face a defining choice. They can continue to reward constant responsiveness and risk exhausting the very people they rely on, or they can redesign work in a way that recognises focus, recovery and equity as performance enablers rather than constraints. For workplace wellbeing leaders, the challenge is no longer simply reducing burnout, but deciding what kind of work, and what kind of workforce, their systems are quietly shaping for the future. 

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the authors quoted and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Well Crowd. This content is for information and discussion purposes only and should not be taken as medical, health, or professional advice.