Many of the arguments around remote and hybrid work seem to focus on trust. Are people going to put the hours in or is productivity going to stall?

But one of the make-or-break elements of a successful hybrid or remote working set-up, in my experience, is the approach taken by leadership.

The simple fact is, that to lead effectively, you must be visible. Teams respond to boundaries and relationships, and neither can exist if contact is minimal.

The real question about remote work

So, rather than asking whether our employees are showing up for work when they’re remote, perhaps we should be asking whether our leaders are showing up for their people.

I recently coached a client who was struggling to embed change. My brief was that there was a lack of progress on multiple change initiatives, with the team being seen as resistant to, and struggling to cope with, change in general.

So, what was wrong?

I joined the team of eight for a few weeks, observing and contributing from a coaching perspective. The team were predominantly office-based sales staff with a manager based in another office, around three hours away. They visit monthly to spend time with the team in person.

In addition, there’s a weekly, online drop-in hour between the leader and the team to discuss any questions, issues or concerns. Attendance is optional, and quite underutilised given the significant change that has occurred in the organisation over the past few years.

Is authority a dirty word?

My experience in this organisation was that the team had low energy and engagement. The leader felt they were somehow missing the mark. Relationships weren’t flourishing and, as a result, enthusiasm for doing anything other than the bare minimum (which often doesn’t include embracing change) was absent.

In a hybrid working situation, relying solely on optional interactions to guide a team can quickly lead to disengagement and a dilution of leadership authority.

The leader may have had the best of intentions by offering flexible ways to connect, but, in fact, they were unknowingly creating a distance that kept their team disengaged and uninspired.

Team members felt isolated from each other and from the leader, resulting in stalled innovation and dwindling motivation.

When leaders treat team interactions as optional, it sends a subtle signal to employees: “It’s up to you to engage with me.” This approach, while seemingly empowering, can place the burden of relationship-building solely on the team, leading to passive participation rather than active, meaningful connection.

If the team is already feeling a degree of separation, “optional authority” can easily weaken team cohesion to a detrimental level.

It probably won’t surprise you to discover that team members often skipped the drop-in sessions, resulting in weeks of minimal direct communication.

The leader’s intention was to give the team space, but without structured check-ins, employees began to feel unsupported and unaccounted for.

This optional, hands-off approach left the team without a solid foundation of trust and connection, ultimately diminishing the leader’s influence.

Why leaders need to use authority and power

There’s a critical distinction between authority and power in leadership. Authority is tied to the role and structure of the organisation, but power is a more personal force—it’s how effectively leaders connect with their teams and use their influence to drive results. It’s also linked to knowledge and skills and potentially the reason they became a leader in the first place.

The key to reinvigorating this team was a simple but powerful shift: moving from optional interactions to consistent, scheduled one-on-one meetings.

By setting up structured check-ins with each team member, we created a regular rhythm that strengthened both accountability and trust. For many leaders, especially those managing hybrid or remote teams, these consistent interactions become essential touchpoints that help keep team dynamics healthy and productive.

In these weekly one-on-ones, team members felt not only “managed” but truly supported. They knew they had dedicated time to discuss challenges, provide feedback, and brainstorm solutions. Over time, these meetings built a sense of stability and engagement, leading to greater participation and a renewed energy within the team.

In any situation, but particularly in a hybrid environment, a leader who only relies on the authority of their role risks creating a distant, transactional relationship with their team.

By investing personally in regular, meaningful interactions, leaders exercise their power to engage, motivate, and build trust thus creating a collaborative and energised culture.