From Caution to Confidence: Reframing Learning and Risk in the Hybrid Workplace

Learning is supposed to be challenging however it should never leave you feeling fearful. For many professionals working in hybrid environments, asking a question, admitting uncertainty, or trialling a new idea feels high-stakes. When trust is thin and communication cues are missing, the very act of learning can be experienced as exposing.

At the 11th hour clinic, we see this play out often in workplace settings: leaders want teams to be innovative and adaptive, but without psychological security, employees protect themselves instead of experimenting, withdrawing rather than learning. The responsibility doesn’t just sit with leaders. Employee behaviours also shape the culture. Every person in a team contributes to either reinforcing or reducing a sense of security.

Why psychological safety matters more in hybrid work

Psychological safety is the shared belief that a team is secure for interpersonal risk-taking (Edmondson, 1999). It allows people to voice ideas, ask questions, and admit mistakes without fear of humiliation or punishment.

Research consistently shows that psychological safety is linked with higher learning behaviours, engagement, creativity, and performance (Frazier et al., 2017; Newman et al., 2017). It is also protective for wellbeing, reducing burnout risk and buffering stress (Carmeli et al., 2010). Hybrid work complicates this.

In dispersed teams, nonverbal cues are muted, informal moments of connection are fewer, and silence is easier to misinterpret. Studies highlight that hybrid teams can experience reduced trust, more conflict misinterpretation, and weaker relational bonds if leaders and employees do not actively foster inclusion (Mortensen & Haas, 2018; Gibbs et al., 2021). In hybrid environments, what might once have been a quick “hallway correction” can now feel like a formal reprimand. Delays in communication, lack of immediate reassurance, and technological glitches can make even small interactions feel weighty. When uncertainty is the norm, employees are less likely to lean into learning and more likely to retreat into self-protection.

The hidden cost of unsupported learning environments

When learning feels risky, people default to protection:

• Silence instead of contribution – employees stay muted, cameras off, and withhold questions (Edmondson & Lei, 2014).
• Risk avoidance – new ideas are suppressed, errors hidden, and collaboration becomes shallow (Liang et al., 2012).
• Heightened stress – fear of mistakes leads to chronic vigilance, which undermines both performance and wellbeing (Newman et al., 2020).
• Reduced belonging – workers in hybrid contexts can feel peripheral, especially if remote contributions are undervalued (Allen et al., 2015).

These patterns aren’t just about leadership gaps. They reflect the choices employees make in protecting themselves. For example, choosing not to turn on cameras, staying quiet when a colleague dominates, or avoiding feedback conversations all contribute to the culture of caution.

Real-world example: In one hybrid marketing team, a junior analyst noticed a potential flaw in the campaign strategy. She hesitated to speak up, fearing criticism. Over time, her silence became a pattern, and the team missed an opportunity to correct the campaign early. Once the team introduced a “question of the week” slot, where every member could anonymously submit concerns, she began contributing. This small behaviour shift improved team problem-solving and overall trust.

Signs your hybrid team lacks psychological security

You might recognise some of these patterns:

• The same two or three voices dominate calls.
• Ideas are recycled, but true innovation is rare.
• Mistakes come to light only when they’ve escalated.
• Team chat channels buzz, but group discussions stay quiet.
• People hesitate to switch cameras on or admit confusion.
• Feedback is delayed, vague, or only given when something goes wrong.

These are not signs of laziness. They are signs of self-protection and they emerge collectively, shaped by both leaders and employees.

Case scenario: In a hybrid IT department, an engineer started giving small, positive feedback to colleagues in team chats, acknowledging their contributions. Other employees began reciprocating, which gradually increased willingness to share ideas and ask questions. This demonstrated how employee-led behaviours can actively cultivate safety.

What leaders and employees can do to create security in hybrid teams

For leaders:

1. Model fallibility. Leaders who admit what they don’t know and frame uncertainty as normal reduce the stigma of not having all the answers (Edmondson, 2019).
2. Invite questions explicitly. In virtual settings, asking “What are we missing?” or “Who has a different view?” opens the door for quieter voices (Newman et al., 2017).
3. Value effort, not just outcomes. Recognition for curiosity, experimentation, and reflection signals that learning is worthwhile even if results are imperfect (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009).
4. Build inclusive rituals. Round-robins, anonymous polls, and shared whiteboards ensure more equitable input (Gibbs et al., 2021).

For employees:

1. Use your voice. Speaking up, even briefly, signals to others that participation is safe.
2. Support colleagues. Reinforce others’ contributions, acknowledge diverse perspectives, and avoid interrupting.
3. Frame mistakes constructively. When sharing errors, position them as learning opportunities.
4. Model curiosity. Ask clarifying questions. This normalises not knowing and encourages openness.
5. Respect boundaries. Avoid multitasking during hybrid meetings and show attentiveness, which fosters mutual trust.

Practical example: A finance team introduced “curiosity corners” in their weekly virtual meetings, where any member could share a process question or observation. Employees who had previously stayed silent now participated actively, and managers noted a measurable increase in problem-solving initiatives.

Reframing learning as supported exploration

At its core, learning involves trial and error. In psychologically secure teams, those “errors” are reframed as data points for growth. This reframing requires effort from everyone. Leaders can embed inclusive structures, and employees can engage with openness and support. Together, they create cultures where learning is exploration, not exposure. When teams see learning as shared exploration, engagement rises and anxiety recedes. Hybrid teams in particular benefit from intentional structures and shared responsibility for building trust.

A reframe for the hybrid era

Learning will always involve discomfort, yet should not feel fraught. In hybrid work, where disconnection and misinterpretation are common, psychological security is not optional, it is essential. Both leaders and employees have a role: leaders set the conditions, and employees reinforce them through everyday behaviours. Organisations that fail to address this risk creating cultures of caution where people play it safe, avoid speaking up, and disengage from growth. Those that succeed, however, unlock resilience, creativity, and long-term performance.

Need support?

At the 11th hour clinic, we partner with organisations and professionals to build psychological security and resilience at work. If your team could benefit from a more supportive culture for learning, reach out.  We’re here to help.

References

Allen, D. G., Renn, R. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (2015). The impact of telecommuting design on social systems, self-regulation, and role boundaries. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 33(1), 1–45.

Carmeli, A., & Gittell, J. H. (2009). High-quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 709–729.

Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2010). Learning behaviours in the workplace: The role of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26(1), 81–98.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43.

Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165.

Gibbs, J. L., Sivunen, A., & Boyraz, M. (2021). Investigating the impacts of team type and design on virtual team processes. Human Resource Management Review, 31(4), 100780.

Liang, J., Farh, C. I. C., & Farh, J. L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71–92.

London, M., & Smither, J. W. (2002). Feedback orientation, feedback culture, and the longitudinal performance management process. Human Resource Management Review, 12(1), 81–100.

Mortensen, M., & Haas, M. R. (2018). Perspective - Rethinking teams: From bounded membership to dynamic participation. Organization Science, 29(2), 341–355.

Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 521–535.

Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., & Sendjaya, S. (2020). How servant leadership influences organizational citizenship behavior: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 161(1), 113–126.

Smith, E. M., Lewis, M. W., & Tushman, M. L. (2016). “Both/and” leadership: A framework for strategic leadership in dynamic environments. Academy of Management Perspectives, 30(3), 362–382.