Hybrid Meetings Are Hurting Your Boardroom
The case for ditching the middle ground — and what good governance actually requires.
After eight years in boardrooms, I’ve earned this opinion: hybrid meetings are the worst of both worlds, and we need to stop pretending otherwise.
The premise sounds reasonable. Someone’s traveling, several time zones away, managing a health situation, or running late… and Hybrid feels like the problem solved. But in practice, hybrid meetings are a compromise that consistently costs your organization the one thing board meetings exist to produce: genuine, high-quality conversation.
Bear with me. Here’s what actually happens.
1. Unequal Experiences
The people online don't engage the way the people in the room do.
They're muted.
They're multitasking.
Sometimes the room forgets they exist (because that's how human attention works).
Questions in the chat get missed. Side conversations happen in person that never quite make it through the speaker. Non-verbal cues are invisible to anyone on a screen.
Tell me, can you really stand beside this as good governance?
2. A higher bar for facilitation
Facilitating a truly engaging meeting in person or online requires a high level of skill. Pulling off hybrid adds more work and another layer of complexity entirely (you literally have to plan two sets of logistics). It also requires someone in the room dedicated to managing the tech while someone else runs the meeting. And when things go wrong, part of the group is stuck on the outside while the room has to waste time troubleshooting.
3. Weaker governance.
As a board member, you have the legal duty of care: to be fully present, read in, and genuinely participating in the decisions in front of you. Your headcount contributes to quorum, and quorum exists for a reason: to ensure major decisions have the benefit of real representation and diverse viewpoints. A board member half-present on a laptop in an airport lounge checks the quorum box, sure. But are they actually fulfilling their legal responsibility? That's a harder question, and hybrid makes it far too easy to avoid asking it.
Make the change.
I’ve heard every argument for why it’s necessary. I’ve made some of them myself in the past.
But I’d challenge you to challenge your board: what would it actually take to make it work in person? And if someone can’t be there? As long as it’s not a pattern, that should be okay. That’s genuinely what minutes are for.
And I’m realistic about what the shift requires. Moving to a single format might mean some people can no longer make it work, and that’s a real cost, worth acknowledging. But it’s also worth asking: is the current arrangement actually serving your governance, or just serving convenience? Not every board role will be the right fit for every season of someone’s life, and the best decisions are made in the interest of the organization… not around individual schedules.
On the other side, the fully remote meeting, done right, can work too. Everyone’s on equal footing and the facilitation challenges are consistent and manageable. Do I think the quality is lower than in-person? Yep. But it’s leagues better than hybrid.
Whatever you decide, be flexible, but be clear. You can even do some meetings in person, others fully online! That’s fine. What isn’t fine is defaulting to hybrid because it feels easier. Proactively manage attendance expectations, set the format in advance, and hold the line.
My bottom line? Stop optimizing for convenience and start optimizing for conversation
Get your board aligned on what a one-format meeting makes possible, reset expectations, and pick a lane: Everyone together, or everyone online.
Because your board, and your mission, deserve better than being stuck in the middle.
Great article Caitlin! It’s got me thinking!
Hybrid sounds flexible on paper, but the experience can feel very different depending on where you’re sitting.
I’ve seen the same thing, people in the room naturally shape the conversation, while others have to work harder just to stay part of the meeting.