original concept in urban sociology and human resource management, this concept describes the hidden, overt mechanism used by human resource management to evaluate employee performance, and the study focuses on how a factor’s geographic location and socio-spatial status can change formal and informal job evaluation criteria, sometimes losing their objectivity. In human resource management assessments, and the extent to which this bias plays a role in perpetuating and reproducing urban segregation. - Curriculum: The study adopted a descriptive, analytical and comparative approach, employing multiple tools that combine theoretical sociological analysis with a review of critical literature in the fields of urban sociology and human resource management, as well as documentary analysis of reports of relevant international organizations. - Importance: This study acquires its importance from the fact that it establishes a complex field of knowledge linking urban sociology and the science of human resource management. in the near absence of specialized Arabic studies in urban sociology in Algeria or another Arab country that address hidden spatial bias "implicit evaluative localization" as an independent variable influencing organizational justice. - Research Tools: This study relied on content analysis and a critical approach to organizational discourse, investing the theoretical frameworks of Pierre Bourdieu (spatial capital, and habitus) and Henry Le Lefebvre (space production) to identify the theoretical gap that the new concept fills. - Key question: How does the hidden spatial bias" implicit valuation localization "in urban settings reshape their human resource performance appraisal system and what mechanisms perpetuate organizational inequality based on geo-social affiliation? - Key findings: Studies have shown that the hidden spatial bias of "implicit evaluative localization" is a hidden but effective variable in evaluating employee performance in human resources management policies, manifested in three levels: unconscious bias of resident supervisors and managers based on the employee’s address of residence, and the disparity of training and promotion opportunities according to geographical distribution, as well as the reproduction of the socio-spatial hierarchy within formal organizational structures.