Today, 74% of organisations operate in a hybrid model, yet thisevolution is far from a triumph of efficiency or equity. Instead, the year has revealed hybrid work not as a panacea for flexibility, but as a severe stress test that has fragmented team dynamics, exacerbated systemic inequalities, and exposed profound failures in leadership and cultural coherence.
As 2025 draws to a close, the hybrid work experiment that began as a pandemic-driven necessity has crystallised into the dominant mode of organising knowledge work across sectors and geographies. A consequence of hybrid work is the emergence of two distinct staff groups. This means there is a clear difference in the work life of those who stay in the office and those who work remotely. Workers who are present in the office often get perks and opportunities that remote workers miss. They are less visible, which means they are more easily overlooked. This proximity bias hinders the careers of remote staff, restricting their opportunities for growth and promotion.This problem affects all groups differently. Women are 26% more likely to apply for remote work than men. When remote staff are held back, it often affects women more. Younger workers also lose out because they need to be physically near senior people to learn and grow their careers. This inequality fuels staff upset and mistrust, which can damage the business.
Another aspect of evolution is seen in the team’s structure. Knowledge sharing in teams, also known as the advice network, has undergone significant changes. The data shows that this network has actually shrunk since the shift to hybrid work. This is a substantial indication that the group structure is disintegrating. The Shrinking is happening because relationships are dissolving. Strong relationships, such as those where people ask for advice, are ending because staff members disagree on how easy it is to use digital tools like Microsoft Teams, which they rely on. If a person who needs advice thinks the technology is easy to use, but their advisor does not, the advice tie is less likely to last. This lack of agreement on technology usage makes staff less likely to maintain relationships. This effect is most substantial for advice seekers who spend the most time working remotely. This means that the more remote a staff member is, the more likely their relationships are to dissolve if they disagree with a colleague about the ease of technology use. The group’s ability to share knowledge is now primarily determined by how effectively staff utilise their communication tools.
Another key difference is how old habits are persistent in new teams. Despite the significant shifts in locations, many teams remain stuck in old ways of thinking that prevent them fromtruly evolving. Employers are most likely to say that hybrid work has negatively impacted the ability of managers to lead teams effectively, showing that the role of a manager has not adapted well to the new structure. Similarly, teams are being held back by outdated norms, without a focus on skill-based hiring. This prevents groups from gaining the diverse thinking that drives new ideas.
Most importantly, the “interruption culture”, where staff feel they can send alerts all the time and demand fast responses, wasting time and energy. This habit demonstrates a failure to recognise the varying needs of different staff members in terms of work arrangements.
It becomes critically important to redesign work structurally to address the challenges that have surfaced in team dynamics over the past year. The evolution of teams must focus on creating group strategies to avoid the bias of proximity actively. This means finding ways to solicit input from everyone, regardless of their location. Groups must also use tools such as personality tests to understand how staff members prefer to talk and work. Understanding these styles reduces conflicts by 30% and makes team effort more efficient.
Additionally, teams that set clear rules for communication are 50% more efficient. This means defining which tools to use for specific types of communication and how quickly employees are expected to respond to them. This supports work-life balance and reduces information overload.
To succeed, organisations must move from simply allowing hybrid work to designing a new team structure, ensuring every member has the tools and cultural support to thrive, regardless of their distance.
References
- Burt, R. S., 2000. The network structure of social capital. Research in organisational behaviour, Volume 22. CIPD, 2025. Flexible and hybrid working practices in 2025.. [Online] Available at: https://www.cipd.org/uk/knowledge/reports/flexible-hybrid-working/
- O’Riordan, C., 2025. Flexible working: the challenges of a two-tier workforce, s.l.: People Management.
- TeamDynamics. (2025, August 21). The impact of remote work on team dynamics and how to adapt your team.
- Thompson, E. (2024, November 22). The myth of the “modern” workforce. Psychology Today.
- Tröster, C., Parker, A., Knippenberg, D. V. & Sahlmüller, B., 2019. The coevolution of social networks and thoughts of quitting. Academy of Management Journal, 62(1), pp. 22-43.
- Wu, J. Y., Brennan, A., DeChurch, L. & Contractor, N., 2023. Information sharing in a hyrbid workplace: understanding the role of ease-of use perceptions of communication technologies in advice-seeking relationship maintenance. Technology and the Future of Work.
About the Author
