Why hybrid work is silencing employee voice

Summary:
Hybrid work has redefined how employees speak up and are heard. Professor Rea Prouska identifies five forms of distance – psychological, temporal, technological, structural and social-symbolic – that silence voices in hybrid settings. While digital platforms can connect people, they can also amplify exclusion unless HR intentionally designs systems that rebuild trust and connection.

What hybrid work really means for employee voice

While headlines often suggest a return to the office the reality on the ground tells a different story. According to the Office for National Statistics (2025) more than one in four working adults in Great Britain (28%) were hybrid working between January and March 2025. Far from being a temporary fix, hybrid working has become a permanent fixture in the modern workplace.

But hybrid working isn’t just about where people work – it’s also about when. As employees increasingly split their time between home and the office, many are also shifting away from traditional 9–5 schedules. This move from synchronous to asynchronous working presents a new challenge for organisations: how do you ensure employees still feel heard when they’re not always in the same room – or even working at the same time?

New research by Professor Rea Prouska of Hult International Business School looks at what this means for employee voice. Employee voice encompasses the ways and means through which workers participate in decision-making and have a say about issues that concern them at work. Yet, up to now, employee voice has been examined under assumptions of physical proximity and synchronous working and there is still limited understanding of how different forms of distance created in digital workspaces affect employees’ ability and willingness to speak up. Traditional distinctions between formal and informal voice channels don’t always hold in hybrid work settings, where lines of formality are increasingly blurred. At the same time, while digital tools are often used to encourage communication, they can unintentionally introduce new barriers that make it harder for employees to be heard.

The five distances that silence employees

When we think about remote work we often focus on physical distance but, in reality, distance comes in many forms. Past research has shown that remote workers experience not just physical separation but also psychological, temporal, technological and structural distance. For example, they may feel less connected to colleagues (psychological distance), work across different time zones (temporal distance), experience discrepancies in the features of digital communication tools they use (technological distance), or struggle to see how their work fits within the structure of the company (structural distance). Further, remote work can also disconnect employees from important social and symbolic resources – such as informal interactions and shared office culture – which support speaking up in traditional workplaces.

Employee voice can be hindered by these forms of distance and limited work resources that characterise hybrid work settings:

• Psychological distance reduces trust and psychological safety, discouraging employees from speaking up.
• Temporal distance makes it difficult for employees to participate in real – time discussions.
• Technological distance arises when discrepancies in digital tool use or formal communication channels exclude some employees from informal dialogue.
• Structural distance weakens understanding of workplace norms and limits visibility to managers, making recognition for speaking up harder to achieve.
• A lack of social resources, such as informal networks, prevents employees from rehearsing and refining their messages, increasing the risk of negative outcomes.
• Insufficient symbolic resources, such as shared organisational cues and meanings, can increase the social costs of voice and reduce its impact.

Digital voice: bridge or barrier?

With traditional voice channels that depend on physical proximity no longer suited to hybrid work environments, the question arises: can digital voice channels – such as those provided by online communication and collaboration platforms (eg Microsoft Teams, Zoom, Yammer) and social media applications (eg WhatsApp) effectively bridge the gap?

Social media platforms and online platforms allow employees to share ideas, raise issues, and connect with colleagues across locations. They offer clear benefits for employee voice: 

• Communication is fast, interactive and visible to many people.
• This multidirectional flow can help employees gain support for their views, build collective momentum around workplace concerns and make management more aware of emerging issues.
• The ability to post messages publicly, edit content, and even speak anonymously can also empower employees who might otherwise remain silent.

However, there are also drawbacks:

• The high visibility of posts can reduce confidentiality and make employees cautious about sharing personal or critical concerns.
• Persistent written records may increase the perceived risk of speaking up, while the public nature of posts can make managers defensive or dismissive.

As a result, social media voice often becomes selective – focused on safe, organisationally approved topics – rather than an open space for genuine dissent or problem solving. Therefore, digital voice has the potential to bridge the gaps created by remoteness but requires intentional use of digital voice strategies. How can this be achieved?

• To reduce psychological distance: empower employees by providing structure, showing consideration, communicating a clear vision and maintaining frequent, transparent, and consistent communication.
• To reduce temporal distance: use appropriate asynchronous, synchronous, and semi – synchronous tools that enable collaboration across time zones, support structured interaction and allow for effective information exchange, complemented by specialised training for remote or hybrid workers.
• To reduce structural distance: ensure accessibility, visibility and saliency in digital communication while developing employees’ technological proficiency.
• To strengthen social resources: foster digital voice through scheduled informal interactions and structured engagement opportunities.
• To strengthen symbolic resources: establish new norms for technology use and recognise that leaders and managers are vital symbolic resources – they help sustain meaningful digital voice in hybrid work environments.

Mind the digital platform

Despite their ease of use and accessibility digital platforms do have capacity to reduce employee voice opportunities due to limitations arising from the digital voice channels themselves. Limits to voice expression arise from digital platforms being best suited for idea generation rather than sharing complaints or resolving grievances. Also, relying on less – rich media that maintain a written record blurs the boundaries between formal and informal voice, potentially leading to silencing.

Challenges in communication and response arise due to several factors:

• Loss of contextual and nonverbal cues can lead to misunderstanding or misinterpretation in communication.
• Digital tools lack the richness of face–to–face interaction, which is important for building trust, developing strong relationships and expressing nuanced messages.
• Time delays in remote or hybrid work can slow down evidence gathering and managerial responses, reducing the immediacy of feedback.
• Real-time discussion is harder to facilitate in digital environments, making dynamic and spontaneous exchanges more difficult.
• Speed and efficiency of digital communication often come at the cost of depth and meaningfulness in interactions.

Therefore, while digital platforms offer the potential to bridge the voice gap for remote and hybrid workers, their limitations must not be overlooked. The absence of rich interactions and the potential for reduced confidentiality can prevent employees from raising critical concerns. As a result, instead of fostering genuine dialogue these platforms may inadvertently perpetuate a culture of silence, indicating the existence of voice mechanisms without corresponding managerial response.

Thus companies that rely heavily on these digital channels risk creating systems that appear to support employee voice but, in practice, may stifle it. To avoid this, and to prevent burnt out employees from seeking alternative, potentially public outlets for their voice, companies must ensure that digital voice channels are complemented by mechanisms that encourage substantive discussion, protect privacy, and address grievances effectively.

Recommendations for leaders, managers and HR professionals

Developing social resources, such as trust, over digital platforms requires more time compared to face–to–face interactions and therefore, leaders ought to:

• Allocate time in the hybrid workplace for teams to develop relational confidence.
• Maintain opportunities for employees to interact in person, such as through periodic team gatherings, retreats or hybrid work arrangements that include regular office days.
• Develop a keen understanding of when digital tools are appropriate for voice and when more direct, personal interactions are necessary. By balancing digital and face–to–face voice channels, organisations can ensure that all employees feel heard and connected, regardless of the location and the time in which they conduct their work.

To alleviate technological distance, leaders can:

• Provide training and support for all employees to become proficient in relevant digital communication platforms, whether they work remotely, in a hybrid mode, or exclusively at the office. Such training programmes should extend beyond technical skills and serve as a platform for establishing shared norms on effective technology use.
• Invest in immersive telepresence rooms, with high-quality resolution video and sophisticated virtual presence features.

Leaders and managers need to recognise the limitations of digital communication platforms as a vehicle for employee voice:

• HR professionals should maintain a variety of mechanisms for voice ensuring that both formal and informal channels are available to employees. While digital platforms may be sufficient for sharing ideas, more sensitive or complex issues, such as concerns over organisational policies, workplace conditions, or interpersonal conflicts, require more personal or confidential avenues.
• Traditional voice mechanisms, which fulfil the functional requirements of substantive discussion, privacy protection and effective grievance redress, should be maintained as viable options.

By offering diverse and accessible voice options, organisations can ensure that all employees, regardless of their location, can be heard. 

Professor Rea Prouska, PhD, specialises in human resource management at Hult International Business School, UK. Her research focuses on developing theoretical and practical approaches to enhance work relationships, emphasising aspects such as employee voice, participation, and representation, as well as improving working life and conditions