Hybrid teams: when to talk and when to write

One message, three interpretations and two unnecessary meetings

A manager posts in the chat: “From tomorrow we’re all working on the new version.” A developer takes this to mean the new version is ready to deploy. A saleswoman thinks of the change to the price list, and someone in customer service asks what to tell customers with open tickets. An hour later the company has more than a dozen messages and three conflicting interpretations. The problem is not that chat is bad. What was missing was specifics: which version is meant, what changes for each role and who has confirmed it is ready. “Let’s have a meeting” is not always the best response. If the manager has a finished, unambiguous decision, they can describe it on a single page. But if the team still has to work out what the new version means for customers, it needs to talk it through together. In hybrid work, the choice of channel should follow from the task, not from the habits of the loudest person.

Two functions of communication: conveying information and agreeing on meaning

In their 2008 media synchronicity theory, Dennis, Fuller and Valacich distinguish between conveying information and arriving at a shared understanding. The first process needs time for content to be read and processed; the second more often benefits from rapid responses to questions and discrepancies. This is a theoretical framework, not an experimentally validated rule telling every company to use particular apps. It does, however, help you recognise the situation you are in. A list of product changes can be a document that everyone comes back to in their own time. A dispute over who should sign off an irreversible decision probably needs a direct conversation. Participants can first send the data in writing, clear up any doubts during the meeting and then write down what they have agreed. When a team treats every piece of information as “something for a meeting”, the cost of communication rises. When it tries to settle every disagreement in a long chat thread, it may entrench misunderstandings.

How to choose a form of communication without multiplying meetings

The choice can be based on two questions: how much uncertainty is there, and how costly would a divergent interpretation be? Few unknowns and consequences that are easy to reverse point to a message: a progress update, a task list or instructions. Many unknowns, differing interests or a risk of conflict point to a conversation, ideally with the facts sent out beforehand. When a decision carries a lot of weight, it is worth combining both channels. For example, to discuss a complaint from a strategic client, the manager sends a timeline of events and questions, calls a short meeting and then confirms the decision in writing. If a matter is urgent, the rules cannot require people to wait for the next conference call; you need agreed escalation tools. Accessibility matters as much as form: someone on the night shift or on another continent should not first hear about decisions through the grapevine. Well-designed communication also leaves a trail for those who were not there.

Why difficult emotions often cope badly with a string of short messages

Someone writes: “You’ve missed it again.” The recipient sees an accusation, the sender thinks it is shorthand for a specific fact, and every further message ramps up the tension. Text does not carry many of the cues about intention that we rely on in conversation, but that does not mean a conversation will always be safer. If the relationship is strained, it is worth writing briefly: “I can see we have different understandings of what was agreed. I’d like to go through it in a 15-minute call. Could you send me the deadline you have in your notes?” In the conversation, we describe the behaviour and its effect without guessing at motives: “The task was due on Wednesday and arrived on Friday. What happened?” When the matter involves harassment, threats or a formal complaint, what may be needed is a formal procedure and documentation, not an ordinary conversation. So the channel should be chosen according to the risk as well, not just with politeness in mind.

How to record a decision so that everyone doesn’t leave with a different version

After a meeting, it is not enough to write “Thanks, everyone – we’re agreed.” A short summary should set out the decision, its scope, the person responsible, the deadline and what remains open. For example: “From 18 November the new price list applies only to new offers; marketing is responsible for updating materials by 16 November; customer service will receive an FAQ from the product team.” It is worth adding a point such as: “If you spot an inconsistency, flag it by Tuesday.” This does not shift all the responsibility onto the participants. It does, however, make it possible to catch differences in interpretation before the work is done. When a decision is particularly important, the team leader can ask selected roles to confirm what it means for their specific task. You also need to point to a single place where the current decisions are kept, so that new people and those who were absent do not have to trawl through old chats. The document is there to support action, not to serve as a transcript.

How to agree communication rules for the whole team

Instead of negotiating every message separately, the team can agree a simple arrangement: status updates and preparatory materials go into a shared document; ambiguities that require a decision are discussed in short meetings; conclusions are written down after the conversation; critical matters have a separate escalation channel. It is worth agreeing response times for different types of message. “We reply to chat immediately” usually clashes with work that requires concentration. You can also check who speaks up less often in meetings and whether they have the chance to add their concerns before or after the conversation. The 2024 experiment by Bloom, Han and Liang looked at the outcomes of hybrid work, not at a comparison of chat and video calls. It should therefore not be used as evidence that a particular communication tool will improve effectiveness. Good practice is to test the rules on real situations and refine them, rather than increasing the number of meetings.

A good communication channel is one that helps get a specific piece of work done. Information is best passed on in a form people can come back to. Uncertainty, conflict and joint decisions often call for a conversation. After that, one last task remains: to record the decision so that it is the same for those who were present and those who were not.

How Em helps you stop an email conflict and close off what was agreed

A project leader sees that an exchange of messages between two departments is becoming increasingly heated. He gives Em a description of the facts, the points of contention and the deadlines, leaving out unnecessary personal data. He asks whether it would be better to reply in writing or to invite both sides to talk. Em helps him spell out two possible interpretations of the sentence “You didn’t stick to what was agreed” and prepare a neutral message: “We have different versions of the deadline. I suggest a short call to confirm the facts and who is responsible.” The leader then practises the meeting scenario: shared facts first, then the decision and the plan. If the team’s collaboration preferences are known, Em’s guidance can take them into account, along with the ways people react to tension. After the meeting, Em helps him put together a four-sentence summary, which the leader checks and sends. As a result, the next messages help carry out the agreed tasks instead of fuelling the dispute. Being clear about this sequence also reduces the number of recurring misunderstandings.