Organizations across the United States are increasingly adopting hybrid work models, with over half mandating that employees be present in the office three days a week. The connected learning environment created by the COVID-19 pandemic left many faculty relying on remote work. This new order has brought about unique power shifts within teams. A new study from a team of researchers at the University of Washington’s Foster School of Business suggests more nuanced co-location patterns among teams. It reveals the ways they can sow discord among their employees.
According to the study, an astounding 200,000 possible co-location patterns can emerge from a team of five in any given week. Overly strict in-office mandates can kill morale and team chemistry. That’s particularly the case when agencies aren’t able to work together on good scheduling practices. Michael Johnson, a professor of management and the study’s co-author, warns that these policies can divide creative teams into unhelpful, antagonistic factions.
The Rise of Hybrid Work Policies
The move to hybrid work was initially a response-driven choice that organizations were forced into when the pandemic took hold. It’s no secret that many organizations have moved to remote operations. Most of them have by now landed on some form of hybrid model, one that has employees in the office at least three days a week. Although this hybrid setup has provided opportunities for increased flexibility, it has raised questions about team building.
As more organizations institute these non-binary policies, many are realizing that they just as quickly set the stage for divisiveness. When employees get opposite days in the office, the people who overlap on their in-office days start to develop deeper connections. Johnson acknowledges that these interactions just happen to exist in a very organic manner, creating obvious divides between teams.
“If workers are in the office two days a week, they decide they’re going to be on Tuesdays and Thursdays and remote all the other days.” – Source
Archetypes of Team Division
The paper describes six archetypes that define the pattern teams experience when collaborating in hybrid environments. One of the most powerful archetypes is “divide to conquer.” In this team structure, some staff members are constantly collaborating, while others are left to work in silos. This model unfortunately results in a disconnection and lack of integration and collaboration across the whole team.
The second archetype is the “us vs. them” mentality. In this new normal, a few workers regularly show up to the office, but many others elect to stay 100% remote. This dynamic can create a sense of otherness among remote workers, leading to even greater separation and alienation. Additionally, the “power dyad” archetype occurs when two individuals frequently interact while their other teammates do not engage with one another.
The “all for one and one for all” archetype emerges as a positive model in which all team members co-locate on the same days. This unique structure encourages connection and partnership that leads to open communication and sharing of innovative ideas.
Consequences of Two-Tier Work Environments
The rise of two-tier workplaces presents a double-edged sword for employers. When some team members have to occupy a different physical space from their teammates, it can create distinct divides within teams. A team made up of three older white males and two younger Latina females may start to experience divisions set up by their identity groups. They might face challenges related to inequitable access to resources and guidance.
These divides can hinder teamwork and innovation. GitLab’s research confirms this idea, showing that when workers return to the office they tend to create in-person cliques that unintentionally shut out those working remotely. Such social interactions, like grabbing coffee together or engaging in spontaneous conversations, are vital for building rapport and teamwork but are lost on those working remotely.
The downside of remote work is that we lose informal chance interactions and conversations. Without it, remote team members may feel lonely and detached from the greater purpose of their team’s mission. The real challenge is learning how to bridge these gaps and intentionally build hybrid environments that ensure inclusivity.
Solutions for Enhancing Team Cohesion
To counter these challenges, groups need to implement intentional practices that increase diversity while building a stronger, more collaborative team. Good scheduling coordination within communities is essential. It guarantees that all team members have at least some of the same office days—ensuring more opportunities for interaction and collaboration. Takeaway: By maximizing the opportunity for connection and prioritizing shared in-office days, companies can lower the odds of creating toxic subgroups.
Employers should focus on spending on collaboration technology that provides better communication and engagement between in-person and remote staff. Tools like virtual meetings and collaborative platforms help deepen relationships between team members. They make sure that everyone is welcome, regardless of where in the state they might be.
It’s crucial for leaders to take the initiative when mitigate any new divides that may form between their teams. And frequent one-on-ones with their direct reports provide great perspectives on how the rest of the team is getting along. They’re valuable for identifying where more support is needed.