Psychological Safety in Hybrid Teams

Abstract

Hybrid work has changed the conditions under which team members decide whether to speak up, admit mistakes or challenge a colleague. This mixed-methods investigation asks how psychological safety develops when part of the team is co-located and part is remote. We surveyed 612 members of 88 teams and followed twelve of them for six months through interviews, meeting observation and communication records. Quantitative results show that psychological safety is lower in teams where in-person days are not synchronised, and that this gap is explained by uneven access to informal conversation. Qualitative findings point to small, repeatable practices, such as opening meetings with a round of input from every participant, that help restore trust. Leaders who responded visibly to early dissent strengthened safety more than those who relied on policy statements. We offer a model of safety in hybrid settings and discuss the implications for team design, meeting norms and leadership development in organisations of different sizes.