Purpose Hybrid leadership is increasingly recognized as an important feature of contemporary organizations, yet there is still no clear explanation of how hybrid settings change the evidence that followers use when judging a leader’s competence, fairness and care. This paper investigates how hybrid leadership changes the cues followers use to evaluate competence, fairness and care. In doing so, it provides an evidence-based framework that enables senior teams to sustain both cognition-based and affect-based trust through the intentional design of cue architecture. Design/methodology/approach The study adopts a structured narrative review in line with PRISMA 2020 guidance. Scopus was used as the primary database, identifying 216 records. After deduplication and screening, 70 empirical studies were retained. These were organized across four temporal phases : pre-crisis baseline, crisis, stabilization and maturation : and synthesized into four integrated pathways that leaders can implement to build and sustain trust. Findings The empirical evidence supports the proposition that hybrid leadership does not simply reduce proximity but rather recalibrates the distribution and interpretation of cues. The review highlights asymmetric vulnerabilities: affect-based trust shows resilience through rituals, care signals and symbolic gestures, while cognition-based trust erodes rapidly without visible proof of reliability and procedural fairness. Successful hybrid models deploy four mutually reinforcing mechanisms: predictable cadence that structures time, legibility of judgement through documentation, engineered proximity through designed touchpoints, and monitoring governance that creates visibility without surveillance. Phase progression from crisis to stabilization and then to maturation demonstrates organizational learning extending beyond short-term adaptation. Contextual factors such as task interdependence, tenure composition and equity concerns moderate effectiveness. Research limitations/implications The findings show that leaders must design predictable routines that make judgement visible and maintain human connection, particularly when teams rely on mediated interaction. Leaders should design predictable interaction points that balance focus with connection and govern monitoring through narrow, co-owned metrics. Trust requires quarterly review and rebalancing across both strands. The evidence base remains skewed toward knowledge-intensive sectors, and the automated screening method, although rigorous, carries classification risks. Originality/value This paper contributes by reframing hybrid leadership from location policy to cue architecture, offering a more nuanced account of how distance and justice interact with trust. It specifies the asymmetric mechanisms affecting cognition- and affect-based trust, integrates monitoring governance into the trust literature, and presents a phase-aware playbook that senior teams can apply. In doing so, it shows that sustaining trust in hybrid contexts requires intentional design rather than heroic availability.
Enang et al. (Thu,) studied this question.