If you have ever joined a meeting online while others sat together in a room, you know the dynamic: Side conversations slip past. Audio falters. Body language is lost. You are present but not really included.

It is a familiar feeling: You raise your (virtual) hand, wait half a second too long, and hope your connection holds. Meanwhile, decisions take shape in the room; through glances, gestures, or a passing comment no one thinks to repeat. 

Hybrid may sound fair. But what it offers in flexibility, it often takes away in clarity, connection, and context.

Hybrid is not neutral

Research shows that hybrid formats are not simply a blend of remote and in-person work. They are a third, more complex mode that requires far more structure than most organizations provide.

Rhymer (2022), in a study of organizations without a fixed location, found that effective collaboration stems from a clear and deliberate choice of format. Teams that thrive either build around asynchronous work – with written updates, shared documentation, and minimal meetings – or they design for real-time interaction in shared space or aligned time zones.

These organizations do not mix the two casually. Hybrid formats tend to introduce delays, confusion, and misalignment. What works for one group often does not translate to another. In practice, hybrid becomes a compromise that satisfies neither remote nor in-person participants.

Hoch and Dulebohn (2017) further demonstrate that virtual teams can succeed, but only when supported by strong norms, shared expectations, and clearly defined roles. These elements provide structure, accountability, and a common understanding of how collaboration works.

But in hybrid settings, those foundations are often missing; not by intention, but because the format itself blurs expectations. Who leads the conversation? How do remote participants contribute? What counts as engagement? Without clear rules of interaction, hybrid meetings tend to favor those in the room and sideline those online, regardless of their role or input.

One format is better than two

Trying to please everyone can end up pleasing no one; especially when half the team is staring at a speakerphone in the middle of the table. 

Instead of defaulting to hybrid, consider these simple guidelines:

  • If everyone can meet in person, go for a physical meeting.
  • If even one person must join remotely, move the meeting fully online or split it into two meetings: one physical and one online.
  • If real-time participation is difficult, prioritize asynchronous collaboration: write a short summary, record a video message, or share clear documentation.

This might feel like overcorrecting, but it brings clarity. Everyone participates on equal terms, with equal access. No one is left half-in, half-out.

Rethink your default

Hybrid is often seen as the inclusive choice. But it can unintentionally exclude those who are not in the room. They miss out on informal dialogue, real-time dynamics, and subtle shifts in the conversation – particularly those small pivots that never make it to the transcripts. Over time, this erodes trust, weakens team cohesion, and affects decision quality.

If we care about inclusion, trust, and effective collaboration, we should be more intentional in how we structure meetings. 

So next time you plan a meeting, ask yourself: Are we designing this with intention, or defaulting to what feels easy?