Hybrid Working and Psychological Safety: What the Research Tells Us

Over the past year, we have noticed a growing trend in client conversations. Organisations that previously embraced remote or highly flexible working arrangements are revisiting their policies and increasing expectations around office attendance.

The rationale is often similar: collaboration, culture, innovation and connection.

On the surface, this makes sense. Many leaders worry that remote working reduces informal conversations, weakens relationships and makes it harder to build a cohesive culture. Yet the evidence around remote and hybrid working is far more nuanced than the headlines often suggest.

Rather than asking whether remote working is “good” or “bad”, a more useful question may be:

What conditions enable people to collaborate, contribute and perform at their best?

This is where occupational psychology and psychological safety become particularly relevant.

 

The Evidence for Hybrid and Remote Working

The debate around remote working is often driven by opinion rather than evidence.

One of the strongest recent studies comes from Bloom et al. (2024), published in Nature. In a large randomised controlled trial involving over 1,600 employees, researchers found that hybrid working improved job satisfaction and reduced employee turnover by approximately one-third, without negatively affecting performance or promotion outcomes.

These findings align with earlier research. A meta-analysis by Gajendran and Harrison (2007), published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, found that teleworking was associated with:

• Higher perceived autonomy

• Lower work-family conflict

• Greater job satisfaction

• No overall damage to workplace relationships

For many employees, flexibility provides greater control over how work is completed, reducing commuting time and allowing individuals to manage their energy, concentration and personal responsibilities more effectively.

This is particularly relevant for some neurodivergent employees, carers, and those managing health conditions, where flexibility can significantly improve wellbeing and productivity.

 

Why Organisations Are Increasing Office Attendance

At the same time, there are understandable reasons why organisations are reassessing remote-first approaches.

In my work with organisations, leaders frequently describe concerns around:

• Reduced informal learning

• Fewer opportunities for mentoring

• Weaker social connections

• Challenges onboarding new employees

• Difficulties maintaining culture across dispersed teams

• Utilising office spaces and equipment 

Importantly, there is evidence to support some of these concerns.

A study by Yang et al. (2022) analysing collaboration patterns among more than 60,000 Microsoft employees found that fully remote working led to more siloed communication networks. Employees communicated more frequently within established groups but had fewer interactions across teams, potentially reducing knowledge sharing and innovation over time.

This is often what leaders are trying to address when they increase office attendance requirements.

The challenge, however, is that increasing days in the office does not automatically create collaboration.

Simply being physically present together does not guarantee meaningful interaction, knowledge sharing or innovation.

 

Presence Does Not Equal Collaboration

One of the assumptions that often underpins return-to-office policies is that physical proximity automatically improves teamwork.

In reality, collaboration depends on far more than location.

Teams collaborate effectively when they have:

• Clear goals

• Trust

• Open communication

• Shared understanding

• Opportunities to exchange ideas

Without these foundations, employees can sit next to each other every day and still operate in silos. And in many office environments, they may operate a hotdesking environment, or work nationally/internationally, meaning that the opportunities to sit next to their team are not guaranteed. 

This is where many organisations risk focusing on the wrong variable.

The question is not simply where people work. The question is whether people feel able to contribute.

 

The Missing Ingredient: Psychological Safety

The concept of psychological safety was popularised by Harvard professor Amy Edmondson.

Psychological safety refers to a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking.

In psychologically safe teams, people feel able to:

• Ask questions

• Share ideas

• Admit mistakes

• Challenge assumptions

• Raise concerns

• Offer alternative viewpoints

without fear of embarrassment, punishment or negative consequences.

Research consistently shows that psychological safety is associated with learning, innovation, team effectiveness and performance.

This creates an interesting perspective on the remote working debate.

Some employees report feeling more comfortable contributing in virtual environments. Individuals who are quieter, more introverted, or who experience social anxiety may find virtual meetings provide more opportunities to contribute than traditional face-to-face settings.

For some neurodivergent employees, remote working can reduce sensory demands and social pressures that may otherwise inhibit participation.

Conversely, remote environments can also make it harder to build trust and relationships if leaders are not intentional about communication and inclusion.

The reality is that both office-based and remote environments can either support or undermine psychological safety.

Location alone is not the determining factor.

 

What Leaders Should Focus On Instead

Rather than framing the debate as remote versus office-based working, leaders may benefit from focusing on the conditions that support effective performance regardless of location.

These include:

Clear Communication

Employees need clarity around expectations, priorities and decision-making processes.

Meaningful Collaboration

Office attendance should have a purpose. Bringing people together for relationship building, problem-solving and innovation is likely to be more effective than requiring attendance simply to sit at a desk.

Trust and Autonomy

Research consistently shows that autonomy is strongly linked to motivation and engagement. Excessive monitoring can undermine both trust and performance.

Inclusive Working Practices

Different employees thrive under different conditions. Effective hybrid working recognises individual needs while balancing organisational objectives. One-size does not fit all. 

Psychological Safety

Leaders should actively create environments where people feel able to speak up, challenge ideas and contribute regardless of whether conversations happen online or face-to-face.

 

The Future of Work Is Not About Location

The organisations seeing the greatest success with hybrid working are often those that have moved beyond debates about office attendance.

Instead, they focus on designing intentional ways of working.

They ask:

• When do we genuinely benefit from being together?

• What work is best completed independently?

• How do we maintain connection across distributed teams?

• How do we ensure everyone has a voice?

These questions are ultimately less about location and more about culture.

As organisations continue to evolve their hybrid working policies, the most important consideration may not be where people are working, but whether they feel safe, trusted and able to contribute when they do.

Because when employees feel psychologically safe, they are far more likely to speak up, share ideas and collaborate effectively, whether they are sitting in an office or joining from their kitchen table.