The assumption is: same behaviour, just over video. The team is the same, the tasks are the same, the meeting takes place – only in a grid view. Whoever led well before will simply keep leading well, only digitally.
That assumption is why so many hybrid-work policies change nothing.
What 36 leaders actually described
For a study published by Springer in 2025 we interviewed 36 leaders from 33 large German companies about what has become difficult in their work since their teams started working apart. The result was 37 challenges spread across three levels: the individual, the team, the organisation.(source)
Reading nonverbal signals on screen. Leaders describe how, in a room, they noticed immediately when someone was not following or was holding something back. In a video call that signal is gone, or so faint that it is easily missed.
Structuring availability. In the office, the question of when someone can be approached was answered by presence. When the team is apart it has to be negotiated – otherwise you get either constant availability or people waiting on each other.
Building relationships at a distance. Existing relationships carry surprisingly far. New ones barely form on their own when there is no occasion that is not in a calendar.
Why office-day quotas solve none of them
The most common answer to these difficulties is a number: three days in the office, two remote. That is a rule about location. None of the three difficulties above is a question of location.
Sitting in the office on two fixed days and joining the same video calls you would join at home gains you nothing but commuting time. An attendance quota answers where the work happens. It does not answer how the work is led.
Three things you have to design instead of letting them happen
Contact. It used to arise by itself – in the corridor, at the coffee machine, before a meeting. When the team is apart it does not arise. It has to be set up, and in a way that does not feel like a mandatory appointment.
Availability. It needs a rule that is spoken aloud, not a silent expectation. Formulate none and you get the rule of the most anxious person on the team.
Perception. What used to be visible in passing – overload, uncertainty, dissatisfaction – has to be asked about actively. Not in the annual review, but regularly and casually enough that it is not an escalation.
What this means for leadership development
The 37 challenges work as a diagnostic grid: you can ask a leadership team which of them they recognise and get a picture of where the friction actually sits – instead of debating location.(source)
One note on how to read this: it is a grid derived from interviews, not a demonstrated causal effect. It says what leaders in large German companies experience as difficult. It does not say that a particular programme produces a particular outcome. For an honest conversation about leadership development that is still a better starting point than a number in a works agreement.