The complex nature of belonging at work

Originally posted on The Horizons Tracker.

Fewer workers today define themselves by where they work. This long-term shift, sped up by the pandemic, may seem subtle, but it matters. In the past, strong identification with one’s company was linked to better performance, lower stress, and greater job satisfaction. The decline of this identification raises questions for employers: How do you spot it? And how can you rebuild it?

A new study¹ from Berkeley Haas offers a fresh approach. Instead of relying on surveys—which are slow and often too rigid to capture changes over time—researchers used a machine-learning model to gauge how connected people feel to their workplace, based on language in their emails.

Constant measurement

The model looked at how closely the words “I” and “we” appeared in meaning. The more overlap between the two, the more likely it was that the writer saw their own identity as linked with their employer’s.

The team applied this method to 14.7 million anonymized emails from three companies, tracking how identification varied across people, time, and context. They also looked at the shape of employees’ communication networks: how tightly connected they were to immediate colleagues (“cohesion”) and how widely those connections reached across the company (“range”).

Both structures mattered. Cohesion built local support and trust. Range gave people a wider view of the company, and access to information and influence. Workers with both types of ties were more likely to feel a sense of belonging not just to a team, but to the organization as a whole.

Broader connection

That broader connection, the researchers suggest, doesn’t happen by accident. Local cohesion tends to form naturally. Range requires effort: joining cross-functional projects, mentoring outside one’s team, or volunteering for initiatives. These “bridging ties” help people see where they fit in the bigger picture.

For companies, the study offers both a tool and a caution. Email analysis could, in theory, help track sentiment in real time. But if used to evaluate individuals—say, for promotion—it risks invading privacy or creating a sense of surveillance. The authors suggest a gentler application: combining language analysis with occasional surveys to get a clearer, more dynamic view of employee engagement, without overburdening workers with questionnaires.

The takeaway is simple: Belonging at work isn’t just about having good teammates. It’s also about feeling part of something larger. Encouraging both tight bonds and wide bridges may be the key to building that sense of purpose—and the performance that follows.

Article source: The Complex Nature Of Belonging At Work.

Header image source: Created by Bruce Boyes with Microsoft Designer Image Creator.

Reference: