Hybrid teams face six distinct challenges, according to research by Hincapie and Costa (2024)
The Six Challenges
1. Subgroup Formation: Location preferences create “us vs. them” divisions
2. Communication Breakdown: Missing non-verbal cues increases misunderstandings
3. Social Loafing: Reduced accountability enables disengagement
4. Unequal Development: Geographic barriers limit training access
5. Stress and Isolation: Blurred boundaries increase burnout risk
6. Proximity Bias: Co-located members exclude remote colleagues
To address these challenges, Hincapie and Costa (2024) propose a systematic leadership approach and introduce a leadership architecture, which they have named the EMC Framework, comprising three elements that balance team cohesion (belonging) with individual recognition (uniqueness).
Identity Alignment
The Visual Identity Leadership Scale (VILS) utilises overlapping circles to assess the degree to which leader behaviours align with team identity (Steffens et al., 2024).
EMPOWER
Belonging: Shared team activities, positive interactions, conflict resolution technology
Uniqueness: Highlight talents, accommodate communication preferences
Language Patterns
Analysis of team communication for collective identity markers such as how often people say "we" versus "I," and whether shared values appear naturally in conversations rather than just formal presentations (van Dick et al., 2018).
MOTIVATE
Belonging: Clear norms, progress tracking, team capability, knowledge
Observation of whether actual decision-making processes reflect stated values, particularly during stress or conflict when true priorities become visible (Steffens et al., 2014).
The EMC framework, with its dual focus, captures the benefits of diversity while maintaining operational effectiveness across various work configurations.
Hincapie, M. X., & Costa, P. (2024). Fostering hybrid team performance through inclusive leadership strategies. Organisational Dynamics, 53, 101072.
Cultural Stability
Longitudinal tracking of cultural norms including persistence during transitions, challenges, and growth phases rather than fragmenting under pressure (van Dick et al., 2021).
Measurement Frequency
Studies across multiple countries demonstrate that brief, frequent assessments are more effective than annual comprehensive reviews for maintaining alignment (Matthews et al., 2022). Why? Because identity leadership requires constant calibration between approach and team needs. With this real real-time adjustment organisations are reporting improved leadership development outcomes and more effective succession planning (van Dick et al., 2018, 2021).
Matthews, R. A., et al. (2022). Journal of Business and Psychology, 37, 639-673.
Steffens, N. K., et al. (2014). The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 1001-1024.
Steffens, N. K., et al. (2024). British Journal of Social Psychology, 63, 1658-1680.
van Dick, R., et al. (2018). Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 91(4), 697-728.
van Dick, R., et al. (2021). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(22), 12081.
