The Great Campfire and the Rising River: A Story of Trust in Hybrid Teams

Each evening in a thriving village, everyone gathered around a great campfire in the town square. It was more than just a fire—it was where stories were shared, problems were solved, and friendships grew. The warmth of the fire wasn’t just from the flames; it came from the trust and connection the villagers built by being together.

Then, one day, a great flood came. The river swelled overnight, splitting the village in two. Half the people remained by the great campfire, while the rest found themselves stranded on the far side of the river.

At first, the stranded villagers tried to shout across the water. But the river’s rush drowned out their voices, and the distance made it harder to feel the same warmth they once had. Conversations that had once flowed effortlessly now came in fragments, delayed and distorted. The laughter and easy exchanges that had defined their evenings faded. The villagers on the far side felt adrift—still part of the same village, but no longer able to feel the warmth of the great campfire.

They felt isolated, missing the firelight and the closeness of the village. Worse, from across the river, they could still see the town square—watching the firelight flicker, hearing distant laughter, glimpsing the others dancing in its glow.

The flood may have been unexpected, but its effects are real and lasting.

Similarly, the shift to remote and hybrid work, which was once a temporary adjustment, has now become the norm. While the campfire may no longer burn in the same place for all, the need to reconnect and rebuild trust is more pressing than ever.

Just as the villagers had to find new ways to stay warm, teams today must navigate the challenge of working from different places and maintaining the same closeness they once enjoyed. The question now is: how do we create that sense of connection, trust, and warmth in a world where being together physically isn’t always possible?

In this article, we’ll explore this question through the lenses of psychology, culture and trust, seeking solutions to help us better navigate the hybrid conundrum.

The new normal?

Let’s set a presumption – a line in the sand – before we begin: remote working is here to stay.

When I was a child, we had access to just three TV channels. Whilst two more were added to terrestrial TV over the course of my youth, the programming available was still scheduled at specific times on specific channels. If you wanted to watch the latest episode of Murder, She Wrote, you needed to wait until 20:00 on Sunday – and would have to wait a whole week before you could watch the next episode.

Today, streaming services dominate the TV market. Netflix, Disney+, BBC iPlayer and others now provide access to almost any show at any time. The idea of having to wait for the next episode is alien to many, and binge-watching entire seasons has become normalised. The world of TV has changed.

Returning to the pre-streaming approach to watching TV is unlikely. We prefer the new world – or are ignorant to the old. The current has taken us.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, remote working was relatively uncommon in the UK. Data from the Annual Population Survey indicates that from January to December 2019, approximately 12% of working adults reported working from home at some point during the week prior to being surveyed.

By 2022, the prevalence of homeworking had stabilised, with a quarter of UK employees working from home at least some of the time.

However, these figures miss part of the picture, as they focus on home versus in-office working. At the same time, shared working and coworking hub locations increased from c18,000 in 2018 to over 42,000 in 2024. Footfall at transient working spaces – such as coffee shops at transport hubs – also increased. Birmingham Airport reported a 65% increase, and London’s Liverpool Street and Paddington stations increased by 36% and 31%, respectively.

It seems that where it’s possible to work away from a fixed office location, we’re choosing to do so with an increasing frequency. The world of work has changed.

Returning to the fixed location approach to working is unlikely. We prefer the new world – or are ignorant to the old. The current has taken us.

Just as the river rising has changed the landscape of the village, our new world of working has been modified. Some have built their own campfires, adapting to their new way of living. Others – on both sides of the river – are still searching for ways to stay connected and warm.

How do we bring the warmth of the campfire to everyone, no matter where they are?

The psychological challenges of remote working

For the last few years, the discussion about addressing the challenges of remote/hybrid working has tended to focus on the practical and the transactional.

Should we have cameras on for meetings? How do we protect customer data when it’s being accessed remotely? Should we establish core hours where everyone is available?

Whilst these are important questions, what we’re really asking about is trust. And rightly so.

High-performing teams and businesses rely on trust – and not just in a vague or theoretical sense. Research in organisational psychology and team dynamics consistently shows that trust is a foundational element of team success.

Trust is a foundational tenet in psychological safety. Google’s famous Project Aristotle study found that psychological safety was the strongest predictor of a team’s success. People in high-trust environments adapt to change and crisis better. A study by Paul Zak, a neuroeconomist, found that teams with high trust levels reported 74% less stress and 50% higher productivity compared to those in low-trust environments.

In teams with efficient processes and highly skilled individuals, low-trust environments can still lead to bureaucracy, excessive approval processes and slower execution.

Teams might be built on skills and processes, but they’re powered by trust.

Trust: Can I see you? Literally.

Building and maintaining trust with others remotely is not something that humans are naturally wired for. Our brains evolved on the savannah, when we lived in small groups and gathered around the campfire.

Trust is synonymous and directly related to visibility and physical proximity, and many studies have explored the relationship between physical proximity, eye contact, and trust.

One foundational study by Michael Argyle and Janet Dean, titled “Eye-Contact, Distance and Affiliation” examined how eye contact and physical distance influence interpersonal interactions. They found that increased eye contact and closer physical proximity can enhance feelings of intimacy and trust between individuals.

We can think of the results of this study in terms of the campfire. “If you are close enough to me to be sat at the same campfire, then I should trust you more.” But also, “If I trust you, then you are more likely to be sat at my campfire.”

This is a mutually reinforcing relationship. Someone would not be sat at your campfire unless you trust them and the fact they are sat at your campfire encourages you to trust them.

This research contributed to the development of Social Presence Theory, which explores how different communication mediums impact the sense of presence and trust in interactions. The theory suggests that nonverbal cues, such as eye contact and physical distance, play a crucial role in establishing trust and immediacy in communication.

Additionally, the field of proxemics, introduced by Edward T. Hall, studies how people use physical space in communication. Proxemics research indicates that appropriate physical proximity can enhance comfort and trust in interactions, while inappropriate distances may lead to discomfort and reduced trust.

But it isn’t the distance that seems to be the moderating factor; it’s eyesight.

When we are close enough to recognise faces, expressions and non-verbal cues, trust is potentially higher. But as the distance increases and we are less able to recognise these indicators, trust levels drop precipitously. In one study that has been replicated multiple times, once there is a distance of over 20 metres, trust levels are effectively negligible.

Interestingly, this distance impact can be mitigated in some instances. Where individuals who score highly on Openness to Experience – a personality dimension in the Five Factor Model – are shown a photograph of another individual or even an image of their workstation, trust does not diminish from the previous in-person levels.

We’re uncertain of why this happens, but it may be that the activation of visual imagery in the brain is related to trust formation. The ventromedial prefrontal cortex (which plays a part in generating mental images based on past experiences and expectations), the posterior cingulate cortex (which is involved in memory retrieval and visualisation), and the temporal-parietal junction (which helps us understand the intentions and perspectives of others) are all utilised in our in-person trust formation processes and in our visualisation of other people processes.

By their nature, hybrid and remote working reduce our ability to be in proximity to others, to maintain comfortable eye contact (thank you, Zoom) and to read the non-verbal cues from the whole person that are available to us in in-person interactions.

So how do we build the trust that is essential to high-performing teams when we’re not around the campfire?

Trust in a blinded world

Remote and hybrid environments amplify the need for trust. In a hybrid setting, trust replaces visibility – we can’t see what someone is doing all day, so we must trust their ability to deliver.

The absence of physical proximity and direct eye contact presents challenges for building trust among employees and with customers. Our (well-intentioned) approach to this challenge has been to process our way out of the issues. We might believe that if we create expectations of how we are expected to work – cameras on; core hours; mandatory days in the office – then these processes will mitigate the perceived challenges that hybrid appears to introduce. If we could just find the right combination of processes, then the conundrum would be solved.

Ironically, in trying to make work more visible, these processes often send the unintended message that trust is lacking. Where there is a change to what we can predict, what we can control or what we perceive as being fair, these approaches can cause threat responses in others – and trust never thrives under threat.

Teams that lack trust in remote settings often fall into the trap of excessive monitoring, miscommunication, and disengagement. It feels like the logical approach to take. But it’s an approach that we’ve lifted-and-shifted from our in-person working.

When the village is split by the river, we don’t need binoculars. We need bridges.

Building bridges

The organisations that have been most successful in embracing hybrid working have done so through intentionality. Rather than trying to replicate what we did in the pre-hybrid, in-office context in this new world, they have looked to leverage the benefits of hybrid and the benefits of in-person.

They have built purposeful bridges across their river. Not so that everyone can come back to the great campfire, but so that they can maintain structured ways to nurture trust – regular check-ins strong communication, and team rituals.

These organisations recognise that there are many different bridges across a river.

Stone bridges: Structured meetings and check-ins that keep workflows aligned. The Stone Bridge is the most solid and reliable crossing, built over time with strong foundations. It represents well-established trust frameworks, such as clear communication protocols, shared goals, and a culture of accountability.  

Wooden footbridges: Quick, informal chats that replace the lost moments of spontaneous conversation. A lighter, more adaptable structure than the stone bridge, the wooden footbridge represents semi-formal trust-building methods. It might include structured team rituals, weekly check-ins, or mentorship programs. It’s less rigid than the stone bridge but still provides a stable way to stay connected.

Rope bridges: Bridges that allow for small, everyday actions like recognition, transparency, and shared rituals that made everyone feel valued, no matter which side they worked from. These wobbly but functional bridges symbolise trust in dynamic environments, such as startups, agile teams or those with high levels of change. It requires careful balance, continuous effort, and confidence in each other. This could represent asynchronous collaboration, where trust is maintained through transparency and mutual understanding rather than constant oversight.

There are also further means to reach the other shore, each just as influential as the bridges and each with a specific purpose in navigating trust.

The Canoe (Trust Through Individual Initiative): A canoe crossing represents self-driven trust. It symbolises employees taking personal responsibility for building and maintaining trust, whether by proactively communicating, sharing updates transparently, or building informal connections. It also highlights that trust-building isn’t just a leadership responsibility – everyone has a role to play.

The Ferry (Trust Through Intermediaries): A ferry suggests that trust can be facilitated by a designated person or system. This could represent team leads, HR initiatives, or technology like AI-driven collaboration tools that help bridge communication gaps. While ferries provide a consistent and reliable crossing, they depend on the people or systems running them.

The Stepping Stones (Incremental Trust-Building): These are small, deliberate steps taken to build trust over time. This could be through informal one-on-one meetings, casual Slack conversations, or small collaborative projects that gradually reinforce team cohesion. Unlike a bridge, stepping stones require more active effort from both sides to reach the other.

The Zipline (Fast-Trust Situations): A high-speed, high-stakes method of crossing, a zipline represents moments when trust must be built rapidly – such as in crisis situations or high-pressure projects. It’s exhilarating but requires a strong foundation (a well-secured harness). This could relate to emergency decision-making or teams that must quickly form and dissolve.

The Raft (Collaborative Trust-Building): A raft requires teamwork to navigate, symbolising collective effort in trust-building. This could relate to team-building retreats, social bonding activities, or working groups where everyone must contribute equally to move forward.

The Tunnel Beneath the River (Invisible Trust Systems): Some trust mechanisms operate behind the scenes, much like an underwater tunnel. This could represent automated workflows, well-documented processes, or institutional trust that allows work to continue seamlessly without constant reinforcement. It’s effective but often taken for granted.

Each crossing provides benefits. But not all crossings are necessary, possible or suitable for every villager or for every village.

Choose your crossing(s)

Identifying the appropriate crossing(s) that help purposefully support your culture involves planning, preparation and constant care. The river is relentless; it can erode bridges and change its shape over time. Maintaining the culture that allows for the maintenance of crossings and facilitating safe passage is the role of all the villagers – not just the village leaders.

We must also identify the purpose of crossing. If leaders insist that villagers should return to the great campfire purely for its heat, it’s likely that some villagers will – rightly – point out that they could keep warm where they are. Mandating a return could be met with resistance or presenteeism: “I’ll go and sit by the great campfire just to show face.”

We might naturally feel believe that open collaboration fosters creativity; that having people together is a path to innovation. In the real world, this has been used as an argument for encouraging a return to the office – if only for a few days a week. But the science behind this belief doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The research shows that traditional brainstorming often leads to groupthink and social loafing

As early as 1972, Irving Janis identified that brainstorming session stifle dissent (a powerful catalyst for creativity) and encourage conformity. The most dominant voices in the group tend to shape the discussion and lead to less innovative solutions. This is the essence of groupthink. As social animals, we tend to prefer harmony over conflict. This was useful when we evolved on the savannah. But, in the boardroom, it leads to self-censorship, stereotyping of group outliers and a preference for the known, predictable or status quo.

Hybrid working may offer a benefit over the traditional fixed location approach to creativity. Studies have found that remote environments allow individuals to develop ideas independently before collaborating, which can enhance the overall creative output of teams. Individual brainstorming sessions are not influenced by group dynamics like fear of criticism or dominance by certain members. This autonomy allows for a broader range of ideas and fosters a more creative thought process and reduces the risk of groupthink and social loafing.

As a practical example, we might use a structured check-in (a stone bridge approach) to share the details of a particular challenge. Informal check-ins (stepping stones) and frequent support and recognition (rope bridges) can provide the framework for individuals to ideate by themselves. Submitting ideas through unbiased processes (tunnel beneath the river) can collate ideas from multiple individuals together and employee-initiated check-ins (canoe) can build on ideas by reaching out to stakeholders and subject matter experts.

Physical location or synchronous communication are not required in this approach to creativity and are no longer potential barriers, as they may have been in an in-office environment.

Automattic recognise this. The owner of the blogging platform WordPress operates in over 100 countries, with a fully-remote workforce. Their job interviews are conducted via SMS text message.

Our first reaction to this might be to recoil. The approach feels so different to our belief in how successful job applications are processed as to be alien. But there is method in this apparent madness.

Automattic aim to “democratize publishing, commerce, and messaging so anyone with a story can tell it, anyone with a product can sell it, and everyone can manage their communications from a single source.” They empower writers to communicate in the way that suits them. Why would their employee approach be any different?

The ability to communicate succinctly and clearly in writing is a key requirement for their people. Communicating across a remote workforce in multiple languages requires an asynchronous approach in simplistic, clear language. SMS is a much better match than Zoom or in-person interviews for showcasing this skill. They would glean no useful information from group interview exercises in building spaghetti and marshmallow bridges.

Identifying what success looks like first, then building appropriate processes, opportunities and indicators based on that future success – including where is physically best to execute those processes – is how organisations that have successfully adapted to hybrid and remote working approach this new world.

Final thoughts

Before the river rose, trust between the villagers was easier to build and maintain. They congregated together around the great campfire. Their proximity to each other helped their psychology to encourage them to trust. Their rituals, practices and language developed together. When there was confusion, there were opportunities to check understanding and more communication and cues were available.

After the flood, their world was changed. But their need for clarity, connection and communication remained, and using the tools of the pre-flood world in the same way might exacerbate the challenges and decrease trust.

The villagers adapted. Some even preferred parts of their new reality. The flexibility of their location and working environment; the ability to tailor how and when they interact with the wider village. These were tangible benefits that many would be unwilling to turn away from.

Some village leaders pined for the old world. They encouraged villagers to come back to the great campfire, under the premise of things being how they were before. But it would never be the same. The current has taken us.

So instead of evolving, they mandated. They tried to use the tools of the old world in the new world without adapting. They invested in binoculars to observe the villagers from a distance. They decreed that the villagers make regular pilgrimages to the village. And some villagers revolted.

These approaches had been with the best of intentions. But the leaders had confused trust with visibility – which are more closely related when we’re together, but could be rivals when apart. The monitoring and mandating reduced the trust and damaged the psychological contract between villager and leader.

But there was not only still hope; there were new opportunities.

The villagers separated from the great campfire now had the space to create differently. They could approach problems and challenges in ways that had not been considered previously – and without the influence of the village and its group politics. Better solutions and new ideas could be developed, if the villagers could work together to build bridges.

Many other villages had taken this approach and had flourished after the flood.

They’d focused on what they could control – rebuilding, adapting, and fostering a culture of mutual trust rather than strict oversight.

Hybrid teams work the same way. Leaders who focus on rigid monitoring may find their teams disengaged and ineffective. But those who build trust, enable autonomy, and embrace adaptability create teams that not only survive, but thrive.

The flood may have changed the landscape. But those who learn to navigate the new waters – rather than trying to dam the river – will always find a way forward.