Hybrid work has reshaped the rhythms of teamwork: fewer spontaneous conversations, reduced visibility, and a greater risk of fragmentation. Leaders often assume that fun — the real, energising kind — is harder to create when people aren’t physically together. Yet research suggests the opposite: in hybrid environments, intentional enjoyment becomes even more important for performance, trust, and learning.
To understand why, we need to distinguish between surface-level “fun” and something deeper. Quick jokes on a call or a light-hearted emoji in a chat are pleasant, but fleeting. They don’t meaningfully change how teams work. What matters more is the kind of fun that arises when people feel psychologically safe, engaged, and able to experiment together — what scholars such as Edmondson (1999; 2018) describe as the conditions that allow curiosity, collaboration, and interpersonal risk-taking to thrive.
Hybrid work can challenge these conditions. Delayed cues, reduced contact, and the subtle pressure to appear “professional” on camera can make people more guarded. Research on remote and hybrid teams shows that this often lowers participation, idea sharing, and trust (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006). When psychological safety dips, so does the sense of enjoyment that comes from solving problems together.
But hybrid environments also offer powerful opportunities. When designed intentionally, they allow teams to create rituals, rhythms, and shared experiences that generate deeper forms of connection — and therefore deeper forms of fun. Here are three practices that help:
When these conditions are present, hybrid teams begin to experience a deeper form of fun — the kind that comes not from jokes but from working well together. It’s the fun of progress, shared effort, creative flow, and collective problem-solving. In a world of distributed work, that kind of fun isn’t optional. It’s what keeps teams connected, resilient, and able to thrive.
References
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
Edmondson, A. (2018). The Fearless Organization.
Gibson, C., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451–495.
Sawyer, K. (2012). Explaining Creativity.