Workplace Connection & Remote Work
Do We Already Live in Our Own Version of Severance? Workplace Connection in the Age of Remote Work
Author: Gabriella Bodi, Co-Founder & CVO of [eureka]
Key takeaway: Remote work doesn’t automatically weaken relationships. But when informal connection disappears, teams can become highly efficient at exchanging information without building the trust that helps people question, disagree, ask for help and learn together. In distributed teams, connection increasingly has to be built by design. |
|---|
There are many layers of the series Severance we could unpack, from constant surveillance to workforce exploitation. But I’m going to explore one fascinating question of the show today:
What if we could completely separate the worker from the human?
Your work self never follows you home. Your personal problems never enter the office. Who hasn't wished for that at least once, right?
The series quickly exposes the price of this separation: when you remove connection, context and meaning from work, you don't create the perfect employee. You dehumanize work.
We don't have severance chips. But we've become surprisingly good at disconnecting anyway, especially in hybrid and remote work.
Interaction ≠ connection
You can communicate with someone twenty times a day and still have very little relational trust.
Because humans don't collaborate through information exchange alone.
Our nervous systems are constantly scanning for cues from the people and environments around us. One influential framework for understanding this is neuroscientist Stephen Porges' concept of neuroception: the idea that the nervous system evaluates cues of safety and danger without requiring conscious awareness, helping regulate whether we remain open to social engagement or shift toward defensive responses.
In other words, somewhere beneath the Teams messages, project plans and perfectly sensible spreadsheets, we're continually answering our internal threat detector:
Is this person, interaction or environment safe, or do I need to protect myself?
And this matters for business because trust determines whether information moves freely through an organization or gets stuck in silos. Research on virtual teams has found that trust in coworkers is positively related to knowledge sharing, with psychological safety playing an important role in that relationship.
After 12 years of working with organizations, I've come to think about it this way:
Every organization regulates attention.
In psychologically safe cultures, attention flows toward the work.
In threatening cultures, attention flows toward self-protection.
Research on interpersonal trust offers an interesting parallel: trust appears to influence performance partly by shaping where group members direct their energy and how that energy translates into productive group processes.
So, as a nervous-system-informed organizational developer, I'm interested in two questions:
Does this environment repeatedly give people enough signals of trust, predictability and belonging to engage with one another rather than shift to protection mode?
If not, how much organizational performance are we sacrificing because people spend their energy managing perceived threats instead of solving business problems?
Survival mode creates expensive organizations
People adapt intelligently to the conditions they're in.
When relationships are weak, people are less likely to:
dare to ask the “stupid” question,
speak up and challenge an idea,
ask for help early,
give uncomfortable feedback,
admit a mistake,
call someone instead of starting a three-day Slack Mexican standoff.
The organization doesn't just lose connection. It loses information, speed and learning.
This is where psychological safety matters.
Organizational behavior researcher Amy Edmondson defines team psychological safety as a shared belief that a team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. Her foundational research linked psychological safety with team learning behavior, which in turn was associated with team performance.
You see, psychological safety isn't about making people feel “nice”. It's about removing the hidden tax of self-protection. |
|---|
When it's done right, people can take the interpersonal risks required to do good work: disagree, question, experiment, admit mistakes and ask for help.
Remote teams need connection by design
Remote teams already interact constantly. Another Teams meeting is definitely not what they need.
Remote and hybrid work don’t make connection impossible, but they can reduce the informal moments through which trust and familiarity often develop.
What they do need are experiences that allow colleagues to:
see each other outside their functional roles
discover things they didn't know about one another
solve something together outside the usual hierarchy and pressure
laugh
build shared memories
create new routes for future communication
This becomes particularly important during organizational restructuring, management changes, or when new members join a team.
Play can change the rules of interaction
This is where play can become a surprisingly powerful tool.
Used intentionally in team development, play temporarily changes the rules of interaction. |
|---|
The manager isn't only the manager. The new joiner isn't only the new joiner. The person you usually contact when a spreadsheet is on fire suddenly becomes the person helping you solve a completely different problem.
People get to experience different sides of each other, creating relational capital that can carry back into the actual work.
And no, I don't mean something like the ORTBO, the Outdoor Retreat and Team-Building Occurrence in Severance. If you've seen the episode, you know why.
Thankfully, our approach to online team building involves significantly less Kier mythology, no matching blue uniforms and to the best of my knowledge, zero mysterious goats.
Sadly.
But rather than telling you how it works, we'd rather let you experience it.
Join us for a free online team-building demo and experience firsthand what connection by design can look like.


