Trust Emerges as Key Currency in Hybrid Work and AI Adoption

The landscape of work is changing dramatically as organizations navigate the dual challenges of hybrid work environments and artificial intelligence (AI) integration. At the recent CIO Association of Canada’s Peer Forum in Ottawa, Gerry Akkerman, the Chief Information Officer (CIO) at Legal Aid BC, emphasized that trust is central to ensuring effective collaboration in today’s workplace. His insights highlighted the importance of fostering connection among team members as they adapt to a new normal.

During a discussion with fellow panelists, Akkerman recounted how he sought to rekindle team spirit after the pandemic by gathering colleagues for food and conversation. One team member candidly expressed, “Sometimes you just need to touch and smell and feel everyone.” This statement resonated with attendees, underscoring a vital point: in hybrid workplaces, maintaining connection is essential to prevent disengagement.

Leaders are aware that both hybrid work and AI are now integral to organizational strategies. Yet, the challenge lies in how teams adapt to these changes. Research indicates that trust is the foundational element influencing both transitions. The experience of hybrid work has exposed the consequences of mistrust regarding time management, while the introduction of AI tools reveals similar patterns of concealment around usage.

AI adoption is creating a new phenomenon termed “AI shame,” where team members hesitate to openly discuss their use of innovative tools. A survey conducted by WalkMe and SAP projected that by 2025, executives and younger employees will heavily utilize AI but lack the necessary training and guidance. Alarmingly, nearly half of respondents admitted to hiding their AI interactions at work.

Rebuilding Trust in Hybrid Work Environments

Nastaran Bisheban, vice chair of the national board of directors of the CIO Association of Canada, pointed out that hybrid work is not a novel concept for many technologists. Prior to the pandemic, her teams were accustomed to collaborating across time zones. The current dilemma is not about the feasibility of hybrid work, but rather the reasons for physically attending an office. “There is no way anyone can pay me enough to be five days in the office,” she remarked, affirming that purposeful attendance is key.

Research from Stanford involving 1,600 employees at Trip.com found that a hybrid model reduced turnover by a third without compromising productivity. Yet, warnings from MIT Sloan suggest that without intentional design, hybrid arrangements could weaken innovation and workplace culture. This reflects the reality that simply having an office space does not guarantee engagement.

Akkerman’s approach to tracking team well-being includes a simple yet profound question: whether employees have a friend at work. This inquiry encourages discussions about belonging and connection, pivotal in a hybrid setting. He noted, “Employees started saying, ‘It is great to be with your colleagues,’” emphasizing the difference that in-person interactions make.

Trust also plays a significant role in workplace dynamics. Kin Lee-Yow, CIO at CAA Club Group, compared mandatory office attendance to forcing individuals to attend an uninvited party. While presence can be enforced, genuine engagement is fostered through voluntary participation. Doris Simcich, who manages global teams at AstraZeneca, highlighted the importance of flexibility in maintaining strong relationships, advocating for the value of face-to-face interactions, especially with stakeholders.

Navigating AI Integration and Workplace Culture

As organizations embrace AI, the challenges of building trust become increasingly apparent. Like hybrid work, the introduction of AI tools can lead to employees withdrawing when trust is lacking. Instead of openly discussing disengagement, workers may conceal their use of AI, perpetuating a culture of silence around both engagement and productivity.

To counteract these issues, some companies are implementing initiatives to encourage open dialogue about AI experimentation. Simcich’s team introduced a voluntary AI accreditation program where employees earn badges based on their proficiency. This initiative has engaged approximately one in five employees, fostering a culture of collective learning and reducing the fear associated with new technologies.

Akkerman emphasized the importance of governance in AI policy development, noting that organizations must establish clear guidelines around bias, privacy, and accountability. A Deloitte survey indicated that two-thirds of boards lack sufficient knowledge about AI, with nearly half failing to address it in discussions. This knowledge gap can hinder effective AI implementation.

Further insights from a joint report by CSIRO and Alphinity revealed that only 40% of boards have a director knowledgeable in AI ethics, and few organizations have published comprehensive AI policies. This lack of transparency can erode trust among employees, as one-third of Canadian workers report that their companies discuss innovation without follow-through.

As Lee-Yow succinctly stated, “Nowadays it’s all about GenAI.” He cautioned that while AI can be perceived as intelligent, the true strength lies in the people utilizing it. Without a focus on human connection and trust, organizations risk becoming reliant on tools that do not fundamentally enhance workplace culture.

In conclusion, whether navigating hybrid work or AI integration, leaders must prioritize connection, confidence, and accountability. By doing so, they can cultivate environments where employees thrive, ultimately bridging the trust gap that has emerged in the modern workplace.