The Trust Crisis: Why Teams Struggle To Go Remote Or Stay In Office

Much of today’s tech conversation centers on Return to Office (RTO) mandates, hybrid models that emphasize in-office presence, and what true remote work entails, working flexibly from anywhere. After years of pandemic-driven remote work, many organizations now push hard for office returns.

When remote work first surged during COVID, many celebrated newfound flexibility and productivity. Teams adapted quickly, and leaders felt optimistic about this new way of working. But was this surge simply an illusion? Or was it just “some work” being better than none amid a crisis?

The novelty of remote work masked a vital question many companies ignored: did they truly believe in it, or were they merely getting by? For most, the pandemic forced remote work without a prepared plan. Now, as memories of COVID fade, it is clear the core problem is not where people work but the trust underlying how they work.

Those with established remote work practices before the pandemic demonstrated a striking difference. Their communication involved fewer, more purposeful meetings. Meanwhile, newcomers often defaulted to a flood of video calls, seeking control and reassurance. This meeting volume reflects deeper trust dynamics rather than just habit.

While discussions often highlight the value of in-person “spark” moments or water cooler conversations, these remain secondary to the core issue: trust. At the heart of many RTO mandates lies managers’ hesitance to trust employees’ productivity without direct oversight. This mistrust drives the push back to offices, often at the cost of morale and engagement.

This article is not about advocating for remote or in-office work. It is about exposing the foundational challenge behind both: trust. Remote work makes trust more important, demanding discipline and self-control not everyone possesses or is ready for. Returning to the office without addressing trust risks recreating stressors such as long commutes and noisy open spaces, while losing remote’s potential benefits. Without solving trust first, outcomes worsen regardless of location.

Trust at the core

Trust issues appear differently across work environments but share the same root: lack of confidence in autonomous productivity. Remote work often triggers increased micromanagement, frequent status checks, software monitoring, and demands for constant updates. This pressure to prove productivity in real-time diminishes autonomy and creates stress.

In-office settings use presence-focused tactics: constant observation, status meetings, and impromptu “pop-ins” to verify hours and visibility. This surveillance breeds resentment and erodes psychological safety. Physical presence alone does not fix trust. True trust requires cultural and leadership shifts.

We try to solve trust issues by being objective. We are engineers, we want data. It is comforting to think we can measure productivity with revenue, bug counts, or hours logged. The reality is that trust is not something a spreadsheet can capture. Measuring productive contribution is inherently challenging. Imperfect proxies often encourage behaviors that erode trust, whether remote or in-office. Even with endless metrics, at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself: “What do I actually feel?”

Data can support your feelings, or contradict them. If you do not trust someone, 99% of the time, the metrics will not align either. Yet sometimes all the metrics look great, but something in your gut makes you uneasy. Often it is subtle cues you cannot quantify, such as communication gaps, hesitations, or patterns only visible over time and you can’t ignore those. You have probably seen it: a brilliant engineer with perfect output, yet something is wrong. Maybe they are isolating others, dismissing feedback, or quietly creating tension in the team. The data says “high performer,” but trust says otherwise.

Trust goes beyond data. It is a complex human feeling, much like happiness. Could you ever gather enough data to know if you are happy? Or quantify that you are “80% happy”? The same goes for being sad, you might say you feel “a bit sad,” not “10% sad.” Like emotions, trust resists exact measurement, so we rely on subjective, qualitative signals to sense it, such as:

  • Are they reliable in crises?
  • Do they own their mistakes?
  • Does the team feel supported by one another?
  • If you go on holiday, will things be ready when you come back?

If as a leader you can answer “yes” to all of these questions for a team member, you are probably on the right path. You trust this person. If not, you have work to do. And that is okay. Noticing it is the first step toward building a stronger, more effective team.

Culture and Collaboration at Risk

Trust is not just an individual feeling. It shapes how a team works together. When trust is weak, people become cautious and defensive. They do only what is asked and avoid taking risks. Innovation suffers. Meetings fill calendars not to solve problems but to show presence. Collaboration turns into ticking off checkboxes instead of real conversations. Without trust, teams feel watched and disconnected from what really matters. Low or no trust produces the same result everywhere: risk-averse behavior, guarded communication, and quiet resentment.

If you see your team hesitating to speak up, hiding mistakes, or avoiding proactive work, that is a signal. On the other hand, when ideas flow freely and people help each other without being asked, trust is working. Culture and collaboration are mirrors of trust. They show both what you feel as a leader and what the team feels. Because trust cannot be fully measured, the way your team interacts becomes a clear signal of what is working and what is not.

A Reflective Lens: What Healthy Trust Looks Like

Trusted teams communicate openly without constant overjustification. Meetings are purposeful, aligning priorities and clearing blockers, not a stage for defending every small action. Overjustifying effort often signals misalignment: people feel they must explain themselves because they are not delivering what is expected.

Teams focused on trust limit meetings to what is needed, balancing transparency and autonomy while respecting individual workflows. People feel accountable yet empowered, not watched or controlled. Leaders can sense trust through subtle, qualitative signals:

  • Team members raise issues early, not only in crises.
  • People offer help without being asked.
  • Mistakes are acknowledged and learned from, not hidden.
  • Ideas are debated openly, even if they challenge authority.
  • The team feels supported and collaborative, not transactional.

1‑1s: The Window into Trust

Regular, healthy one-on-ones are a cornerstone of trust. They are not just about reviewing code or tasks. They are where the human side of work shows up. Team members share what is happening in their lives that might affect focus, energy, or delivery. They also surface issues with colleagues before problems escalate.

A leader noticing this openness knows trust is present. People feel safe to speak, to ask for guidance, or to admit mistakes. When problems emerge that someone cannot solve alone, you have the chance to advise or step in. Trust has created the space for honest conversation.

Healthy one-on-ones are not a management tool. They are a mirror of trust in action. If these conversations are shallow, rushed, or avoided, trust has not taken root. Observing the quality of one-on-ones is one of the clearest ways to gauge how strong the trust in your team really is.

Looking Ahead Together

This article is not about offering a quick fix or a silver bullet. The purpose is reflection: notice where trust exists, where it is missing, and how it shapes culture, collaboration, and individual behavior. Trust underlies every decision, workflow, and interaction. It is often invisible until it is absent.

Over the coming posts, we will explore the trust crisis further: how it shows up in hiring, compensation, leadership dynamics, and more. I will share reflections on patterns I have seen, questions leaders should ask, and how to spot the invisible signals that matter most.

For today, the reflection is yours. Look at your team and ask: where is trust present, and where is it missing? A simple experiment to start: this week, eliminate a status meeting, free that time for your engineers, and focus on more meaningful one-on-one conversations. Give these conversations your full attention, listen beyond the tasks, and notice what surfaces. Could you uncover signals that show whether trust is growing or eroding? Small moments like this, repeated consistently, help leaders understand the threads holding their teams together.

If these reflections speak to you, follow the series and join the conversation. Share your observations, questions, and stories about trust in your teams. I will be reading, reflecting, and responding not to solve for you, but to explore together. Before we fix anything, we first need to see it clearly. Seeing clearly, for leaders, begins with noticing trust.