What the data actually shows
Research on busyness as a status symbol is the key starting point. A 2017 study by Silvia Bellezza, Neeru Paharia, and Anat Keinan, on the 'conspicuous consumption of time,' found that in some modern cultures, signaling that you are busy and overworked can raise how high-status others perceive you to be — a reversal of the older idea that leisure signals status. Being seen as in-demand and time-scarce can read as important.
Workplace 'face-time' and visibility biases are a related, well-documented pattern. Research on how managers evaluate employees finds that simply being seen at work — present early, present late, present in the office — can shape performance impressions independent of actual output, because presence is easy to observe and real contribution often is not. Managers, like everyone, lean on the cues that are visible.
Against that, surveys on modern work consistently find large amounts of 'productivity theater' — employees spending real time looking busy to satisfy bosses rather than doing useful work, an effect that grew more visible with remote and hybrid monitoring. This signaling consumes hours without producing output, and over a longer horizon, evaluations tend to track measurable contribution more than the performance of effort.
Why this feels different from how it actually is
Busyness feels like proof of value because it is so visible and effort is so easy to read as virtue. A full calendar, fast replies, and being seen working late are concrete, observable signals, whereas the quiet work that actually moves things forward often leaves no visible trace. The signal that's easy to see gets mistaken for the substance.
It also feels safer than it is because the short-term feedback is real. Looking busy can earn approving impressions in the moment, which reinforces the behavior — even though the same hours produced little. The immediate social reward masks the absence of underlying output.
And the culture rewards the appearance of overwork. When being time-scarce reads as high status, performing busyness starts to feel like the expected move rather than a substitute for results — which makes it easy to drift into theater without noticing that the actual contribution has thinned out.
The signal that's easy to see gets mistaken for the substance.
What the research says to do about it
Make your real contribution visible rather than manufacturing the appearance of effort. Since the underlying problem is that genuine output is often hard to observe, the more useful response is to communicate what you actually accomplished — outcomes, decisions, results — so evaluators can see substance, not just presence. This captures the legitimate part of the visibility effect without the hollowness of theater.
Recognize that presence and visibility do carry some real weight, so being reachable, communicating progress, and showing up where it counts is not pointless — it's the performance of busyness for its own sake that the research warns against. The distinction is between being seen contributing and being seen merely occupied.
Over a longer horizon, the evidence favors building measurable, durable contribution, because that is what evaluations tend to converge on once the novelty of appearing busy wears off. Investing the hours that would go into theater into work that produces visible results is the better long-term bet.
What the research says does not help
Leaning on looking busy as a substitute for results does not hold up over time. The status and impression effects are real but shallow, and 'productivity theater' burns hours without producing anything — which catches up with you as evaluations track actual contribution. It can buy a short-term impression, not a durable reputation.
Performing overwork — staying visibly late, broadcasting how slammed you are — risks signaling poor prioritization as much as dedication, and the research on busyness-as-status is about perception, not about whether the work was good. Looking maximally busy is not the same as being valuable, and can read as the former at the expense of the latter.
Assuming visibility doesn't matter at all is the opposite error. Face-time and presence biases are real, and being entirely invisible can hurt you even when your output is strong. The unhelpful extreme is dismissing perception entirely; the useful move is making real work visible rather than faking effort.
Visibility helps at the margins; faking effort is a weak and risky thing to rely on.
What this looks like in real life
Staying visibly late to look dedicated
An employee lingers at the office and broadcasts how slammed they are. It can earn approving impressions in the moment — the short-term feedback is real — even though the same hours produced little. Over time this catches up as evaluations converge on actual results, and performing overwork can read as poor prioritization as much as dedication.
Making the quiet work visible instead
The work that actually moves things forward often leaves no visible trace. Rather than manufacturing the appearance of effort, communicating what was actually accomplished — outcomes, decisions, results — lets evaluators see substance, not just presence. This captures the legitimate part of the visibility effect without the hollowness of theater.
Real numbers in context
The genuine effect is on perception: research on the 'conspicuous consumption of time' (Bellezza, Paharia and Keinan, 2017) found that signaling busyness and overwork can raise perceived status in some cultures, and separate research on face-time and visibility bias shows that simply being seen present can shape performance impressions independent of output. These effects are real but operate on how you're perceived, not on what you produced.
The cost shows up in 'productivity theater.' Workplace surveys consistently find that a substantial share of employees spend real time performing busyness to satisfy managers rather than doing useful work. The honest summary: visibility has a measurable effect on perception, but performing busyness is a poor long-term strategy, because over time evaluations tend to follow measurable contribution rather than the appearance of effort.