Abstract: Belonging, the experience of being accepted, valued, and connected as a member of a workplace, has moved from a cultural aspiration to a measurable predictor of retention. The Society for Human Resource Management's Q3 2026 Global Employee Monitor, a survey of 5,107 workers in 26 countries, found that belonging was the only workplace characteristic that significantly predicted engagement, retention, turnover intent, and job search. At the same time, reports of exclusion are rising, loneliness remains common, and hybrid schedules have thinned the everyday contact through which people come to feel they fit. This article defines belonging and its neighboring constructs, reviews evidence on its prevalence, drivers, and consequences, and synthesizes five evidence-based organizational responses: belonging-centered onboarding, deliberate rhythms of connection, inclusive manager behavior, structured peer spaces for shared experience, and measurement that surfaces exclusion early. It closes with three long-term capabilities that turn belonging from a survey item into an operating discipline.
Powered by the WRKdefined Podcast Network.
[00:00:00] If you think a competitive salary, good health benefits, and maybe some flexible hours are the main reasons your best employees stay, well, a massive new global study suggests you might be operating on a completely outdated assumption. Yeah, totally outdated. Right. So welcome to this deep dive. Today we are tackling a topic that fundamentally rewrites the rules of employee retention. For the longest time, there's been this, I don't know, this prevailing expectation of precision in the workplace. Like it's engineering.
[00:00:30] Exactly. It's a very industrial mindset. The idea that if management just, you know, pulls the right levers, they can manufacture loyalty. I always think of it like a vending machine. A vending machine? Yeah, like you put the right coins into the machine, so maybe it's a slight pay bump or a decent 401k match or, you know, allowing work from home on Fridays, and you expect to just get retention out. Right. It's supposed to be binary. But when you look at the actual data regarding why people are staying or leaving their jobs right now, I mean, that vending machine is
[00:00:59] completely broken. We are looking at a human capital landscape that is actively defying all of those old transactional assumptions. It really is. The traditional levers just are not explaining the sheer volume of turnover we are seeing across industries right now. Yeah. And it is deeply frustrating for leadership because we generally like things to be easily categorized on the spreadsheet. But human motivation is proving to be, well, a lot more complex than a standard compensation package.
[00:01:26] Which brings us to our mission for you today. We are exploring a really fascinating 2026 paper from the Human Capital Leadership Review. It is by Dr. Jonathan H. Westover, and the piece is titled Where I Fit. And over the course of this conversation, we are going to completely demystify this kind of elusive concept of belonging in the workplace. That's so needed, too.
[00:01:48] Right. We want to strip away all the corporate buzzwords and uncover the hard science of why feeling like you fit is essentially the ultimate cheat code for retention. And perhaps most importantly, how very ordinary everyday management choices can actually create it. To really understand why this matters so much, we have to look at the sheer scale of the impact. Yeah. Let's talk about the data. So Westover's paper anchors its argument on a massive third quarter 2026 global study.
[00:02:16] It's from the Society for Human Resource Management, or SHRM. And they went out and surveyed over 5,000 workers across 26 different countries. The numbers from that SHRM study are, I mean, they are the kind that should make any executive drop what they are doing. Absolutely. They found that among workers who were satisfied with their sense of belonging, only 18% had seriously considered quitting in the previous year. Just 18%? Right.
[00:02:40] But when you look at the workers who were dissatisfied with their sense of belonging, a staggering 61% had seriously considered quitting. That gap is just enormous. It's wild. It is the kind of statistical divergence that completely reorients how we should be thinking about the workplace. The study essentially revealed that a sense of belonging was the single most significant predictor of engagement, retention, turnover intent, and even active job searching. Wow.
[00:03:09] We often say that pay and benefits might get a candidate to open the door, but belonging is the mechanism that decides whether they actually want to walk back through that door every single morning. Okay, let's unpack this because before we get too deep, I feel like we really need to clarify what we mean. The moment a lot of people hear the word belonging in a corporate setting, I mean, their eyes just glaze over. For sure. It feels like an HR campaign, right? People immediately picture doing trust falls at some mandatory corporate retreat.
[00:03:37] Or those incredibly awkward office happy hours. Yes. The forced icebreaker questions. It just sounds like a squishy, unmeasurable feeling. That is the exact trap a lot of organizations fall into. They treat belonging like a soft, cultural nicety rather than a hard, structural outcome of work design. Right. But the science behind this is not new, and it certainly isn't squishy. It is actually one of the most established ideas in modern psychology.
[00:04:06] The paper points back to this landmark 1995 research by Baumeister and Leary. Oh, yeah. And they prove that the need to form and maintain lasting, positive relationships is a fundamental human motivation. It's not merely a preference for a friendly environment. It's a biological and psychological need. So it goes way beyond just wanting to like your coworkers. Exactly. When that need is frustrated, it produces measurable harm to a person's physical health, their cognitive judgment, and their behavior.
[00:04:36] So we are talking about a psychological baseline here. That means treating it like an optional perk is, well, it's fundamentally misunderstanding how human beings operate. Precisely. And to make this actionable rather than just theoretical, Westover highlights a brilliant framework developed by Deloitte. Deloitte took this massive psychological concept and broke it down into three measurable, mutually reinforcing experiences. The three C's, right? Yes. The three C's. Comfort, connection, and contribution.
[00:05:04] And those three pieces do not carry equal weight, which I found fascinating. Let's look at the breakdown. Yeah, let's do it. So comfort is defined as the baseline feeling of being treated fairly and respected. Connection is the experience of having meaningful, actual relationships with your colleagues. And contribution is the sense that your specific work advances outcomes that matter.
[00:05:27] And when Deloitte surveyed workers to find out which of these three was the biggest driver of a feeling of belonging, well, comfort accounted for 25%. Connection was 31%. Leaving contribution as the dominant factor at 44%. That 44% metric is a huge aha moment for me. It completely flips the script on what most of us assume belonging is. It really does. We tend to think it's entirely social, you know, having a best friend at work or chatting by the water cooler.
[00:05:54] But the fact that contribution is the highest driver means belonging is actually located in the work itself. Yes. It's about knowing that the effort you put in matters and that it is being seen and valued by the organization. I see this misconception all the time. A company might have, you know, a packed calendar of social events and a fancy ping pong table in the break room. Right. The classic startup vibe. Exactly.
[00:06:16] But if an employee's ideas never land or if they bust their tail on a project only for it to be completely ignored by leadership, they are still going to feel like an outsider. Oh, yeah. You cannot socialize your way out of a lack of contribution. If people feel invisible in their daily tasks, they will feel alienated from the team no matter how many happy hours they attend. Here's where it gets really interesting for anyone trying to manage a team.
[00:06:43] We know what belonging is and we know how critical it is. But according to the source data, it is in an absolute state of crisis right now. Oh, it's bad. The 2025 EUI belonging barometer data cited in the paper paints a pretty grim picture. A full 85 percent of respondents reported that they had felt excluded at work. 85 percent. And that is an upward trend, rising from 75 percent just two years prior in 2023.
[00:07:10] When we examine how the physical landscape of work has evolved, I mean, that upward trend makes logical sense. The EUI data showed that 63 percent of fully remote workers go a whole workday without a single real-time conversation with a colleague at least once a week. A whole day. Yes. And it's not just a remote work problem either. Even 35 percent of fully in-office workers experience that same daily isolation. Really? Really. Even in the office? Even in the office.
[00:07:38] The casual, unplanned contact, you know, those spontaneous moments before a meeting starts or walking out to the parking lot together. That is the margin where belonging actually forms. And those margins have been severely thinned out by our current highly scheduled ways of working. That brings up a piece of the research that I really want to dig into. Westover references a 2015 study by O'Reilly and colleagues. Oh, this is a crucial study. Yeah.
[00:08:04] They compared the effects of ostracism, which is basically being ignored or excluded, against actual workplace harassment. Right. And looking at that setup, I would have assumed overt harassment is obviously the bigger driver of turnover and misery. But the findings completely flip that assumption. What's fascinating here is the psychological mechanism behind that finding.
[00:08:25] The O'Reilly study discovered that ostracism is actually more corrosive to an employee's well-being, their attitude toward their work, and their sense of belonging than overt harassment. That is just wild to me. Right. They tracked a large organization and found that being ostracized actually predicted turnover three years down the line, where it is being harassed did not have the same predictive power for turnover. Let's make sure we are very clear on this point, though.
[00:08:51] They are not suggesting that harassment is somehow benign or acceptable. Oh, absolutely not. No. Harassment is deeply harmful, destructive, and legally actionable. Right. But the authors highlight a very nuanced psychological difference. If someone is harassing you, they are in a very toxic and negative way, acknowledging that you exist within their space. Interesting. You are recognized as a member of the group, even if you are being treated terribly.
[00:09:20] Ostracism, on the other hand, completely denies your existence. Wow. Being left off the emails, having people look right through you, never being asked for your input, it makes you a ghost. It denies a person the most basic recognition of their humanity. And the physical toll of being treated like a ghost is severe. Very much so. The paper connects this to the U.S. Surgeon General's 2023 advisory on social connection.
[00:09:45] Lacking social connection raises the risk of premature death to the equivalent of smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day. 15 cigarettes. 15 cigarettes. And if you want to look at it purely from a business perspective, the stress-related absenteeism attributed specifically to loneliness costs U.S. employers an estimated $154 billion every single year.
[00:10:10] It operates as a massive silent killer of both human health and organizational performance. And this leads to a crucial realization for anyone listening who manages people. What's up? Well, when the EY survey asked people why they felt excluded, the top reasons were almost never malicious. It wasn't intentional bullying or some sort of Machiavellian plot to freeze someone out. It was just slipping through the cracks of a busy schedule, right? Largely, yes.
[00:10:38] The primary reasons people cite it were simply not being recognized for their accomplishments and not being included in meetings with peers. Uh-huh. These are accidental byproducts of back-to-back calendars, informal decision-making, and managers who are just so overwhelmed that they default to inviting the three people they already know to a project kickoff. It is a crime of omission, not commission.
[00:11:03] So since we know these accidental omissions are costing billions of dollars and driving up turnover, how do we actually catch people before they fall through the cracks? That's the real question. Right. And how do we do it without spending a fortune? Because Westover dug into the data and came up with a five-step playbook of evidence-based interventions. And what struck me is how unbelievably practical they are. Like, these are not multimillion-dollar software rollouts. No, not at all. They are entirely focused on changing how we manage the margins of the workday.
[00:11:33] Okay, let's go through them. So the first intervention tackles the very beginning of the employee lifecycle, onboarding. Oh, onboarding. Right. Always a fun time. Right. The standard corporate approach to onboarding is essentially a compliance dump. You sit a new hire in a room or in front of a screen, and you bombard them with company history, software tutorials, and HR policies. Yeah. Sign this form. Watch this video. Exactly.
[00:11:59] But the research strongly suggests that the focus needs to shift toward individual identity. The Wipro study illustrates this perfectly. So Wipro is this massive IT business process firm. And researchers ran a controlled experiment in one of their call centers in Bangalore. And call centers are notoriously high-stress, high-turnover environments. Exactly. So they took batches of new hires and split them into different groups. The control group received the standard skills-focused induction.
[00:12:26] But the experimental group received just one extra hour on their first day that was focused entirely on the newcomer's own identity. Rather than trying to force the employee to mold themselves to the company's identity, they asked the employee to reflect on what was distinctive about themselves. So cool. Yeah. They spent an hour discussing their personal strengths and how they could apply those unique traits to the job they were about to start. And the outcome of just that single hour is wild.
[00:12:53] Several months later, the turnover in the standard control group was 47.2% higher than in the group that focused on individual identity. Just from one hour. One hour. On top of that, the identity-focused group actually produced higher customer satisfaction scores. Just by giving people the space to, you know, not leave their personality at the door, they psychologically bonded them to the company. That demonstrates the incredible return on investment when you help people see where they fit as themselves.
[00:13:22] And we see a similar dynamic in a Microsoft pilot program regarding onboarding buddies. Oh yeah, the buddy system. Microsoft looked at their internal data and found a direct correlation between peer connection and productivity. When a new hire was assigned a dedicated onboarding buddy, their time to become productive dropped significantly. And it was tied to the frequency of connection too. Yes.
[00:13:43] Among the new hires who met with their buddy more than eight times in their first 90 days, 97% reported that the buddy helped them become productive quickly. That makes total sense. Having a safe peer to ask all those stupid questions too, like how to use the printer or who to CC on a specific email, it just builds immediate psychological safety. But that leads us directly into the second intervention. Because you can't just rely on an onboarding buddy for three months and then assume the job is done.
[00:14:11] You have to build deliberate rhythms of connection. Right. The modern workplace requires intentionality. We cannot rely on serendipitous hallway run-ins to build culture anymore. We really can't. Westover highlights a 2026 field experiment by Belot and Hakamov. They studied a large white-collar microfinance firm in Kyrgyzstan. Okay. The researchers randomly selected certain branch offices and gave them a very small budget dedicated exclusively to shared social activities.
[00:14:39] Things like picnics, movie nights, or just playing games together. And the results showed that over three months, those specific offices reported a much more collegial climate. And their turnover fell by about four percentage points compared to the baseline offices that didn't get the budget. Yeah, a solid drop. But I want to zero in on a crucial detail in that study. The researchers noted that a few months after the social activity stopped, the positive effects began to fade. Ah, yes. It made me realize that belonging is not a vaccine.
[00:15:09] You know, you cannot just give someone a heavy dose of culture at orientation or at an annual retreat and expect them to be immune to isolation for the rest of their career. That is a phenomenal way to conceptualize it. Belonging operates much more like physical fitness. Exactly. You have to maintain the rhythm. You have to keep doing the reps or the muscle begins to atrophy. You need a recurring cadence of small, local, low-pressure gatherings. Yeah. GitLab, which operates entirely remotely, actually codifies this into their employee handbook.
[00:15:39] They explicitly encourage team members to schedule short, informal video coffee chats. I love that. And the stated goal is specifically to make friends and build relationships, not to discuss work projects. They understand they have to do the reps to maintain that cultural fitness. But maintaining that rhythm requires managers who actually understand how to facilitate it. Which brings us to the third intervention, right? Like equipping managers to include, listen, and notice.
[00:16:06] Because no one really feels like they belong to a massive abstract corporate logo. No, of course not. They belong to their immediate shift, their specific unit, their direct team. The manager is the lens through which the employee experiences the company. The EY data we discussed earlier showed that one of the most vital contributors to feeling a sense of belonging was simply having someone check in on how you were doing. Both personally and professionally. It sounds so simple.
[00:16:32] It sounds incredibly basic, but active listening is a skill that must be trained. The paper mentions a manufacturing company called Barry Waymiller that takes this so seriously, they put their leaders through actual coursework on empathetic listening. Wow. Yeah. They train their management to adopt a mindset of service toward their teams, treating empathy not as some innate personality trait you either have or you don't, but as a literal operational capability.
[00:17:01] And when you combine that kind of managerial empathy with the fourth intervention, you start to see real structural support. The fourth step is creating structured peer spaces for shared experience. This is so important. This feels especially vital in high stress, demanding professions where employees just desperately need to know they aren't the only ones buckling under the pressure. Westover details a study from the Mayo Clinic that really illustrates how powerful this is. Yes.
[00:17:30] The Mayo Clinic study is a perfect example of addressing the root causes of burnout. They conducted a randomized clinical trial with their practicing physicians. They took one group of doctors and gave them one hour of protected paid time every other week to meet in small facilitated groups. Nice. And this wasn't a time to just complain about management. It was a structured space that combined reflection, shared experience, and small group learning about the emotional realities of their work.
[00:17:59] And they measured the impact on depersonalization, right? Which is that terrifying stage of burnout where a healthcare worker starts treating patients as objects or cases rather than human beings. Exactly that. Over the course of a year, the share of participating physicians reporting high depersonalization fell by 15.5%. That's massive. Meanwhile, in the control group that did not receive that protected peer space, depersonalization actually rose slightly.
[00:18:27] A 15.5% drop in depersonalization simply by paying for protected peer reflection time. It normalizes the stress. It really does. And the paper notes a similar program in England called Schwartz Rounds, which is used across hospitals and hospices. They give staff a safe, structured space to discuss the emotional impact of patient care. That program dropped the share of staff suffering from poor psychological well-being from 25% all the way down to 12%.
[00:18:54] The underlying mechanism there is validation. Yeah. When you hear a respected peer articulate the exact same self-doubt or exhaustion that you are feeling, the isolation shatters. You realize you are having a normal reaction to an abnormal amount of stress. And that shared reality builds profound belonging. Okay. Okay. So what does this all mean for a company with deep systemic issues? I have to push back a bit on the premise here. Okay.
[00:19:24] Let's hear it. I often use the phrase, you can't out pizza a toxic culture. That's a good one. Right. If I am severely underpaid compared to my peers or if I am continually passed over for a promotion due to blatant office politics, no amount of virtual coffee chats or empathetic manager check-ins is going to magically make me feel like I belong. If we connect this to the bigger picture of organizational health, you are hitting on the fundamental structural reality of belonging. This is the fifth and final area Westover covers in the playbook.
[00:19:54] Okay. You simply cannot build belonging on a broken foundation. Think back to the Deloitte framework we discussed at the very beginning. Comfort, connection, and contribution. Comfort was the baseline feeling of being treated fairly and respected. Precisely. Comfort is the bedrock. If your compensation processes, your promotion criteria, your performance evaluations, and, you know, how you hand out high visibility assignments are not equitable, all of your other belonging efforts will collapse. Yeah.
[00:20:24] You truly cannot out pizza perceived unfairness. Employees are incredibly perceptive. They need tangible evidence that the organization's statements about valuing them are backed up by its core administrative and financial decisions. Fairness has to be the foundation. And once an organization commits to that fairness, they have to actually measure how they are doing. But the paper issues a massive warning about the dangers of measuring belonging incorrectly.
[00:20:52] It is what we might call the golden rule of belonging metrics. Surveying your people about exclusion and then doing absolutely nothing with the resulting data actually deepens their sense of exclusion. It makes it worse. Much worse. It essentially sends a message to the employees saying, we are fully aware that you feel left out and we do not care enough to change our behavior.
[00:21:14] So, if simply blasting out a company-wide annual survey and filing the results in a drawer is harmful, how do organizations measure it properly? Does that mean we need to throw out the big surveys entirely? Not entirely, but you have to change how you look at the data. You have to measure it at the team level and crucially, you have to look at the margins, not just the overall average. What do you mean by the margins? A company might proudly boast a 74% average belonging score, which sounds great in a board meeting.
[00:21:43] But that average completely hides the 26% of employees who feel entirely peripheral to the organization. Ah, right. And remember the SHRM data from the beginning, that marginalized 26% is where almost all of your turnover and flight risk lives. The paper highlights how Google approached this effectively with a tool called G-Teams. Google let individual teams assess their own psychological safety and internal dynamics, right? They did.
[00:22:11] But the genius of the G-Teams tool was that it forced the specific team to sit down, discuss the localized results together, and publicly commit to a new behavioral norm. Oh, so they actually had to talk about it. Yes. They turned the raw data into an immediate, facilitated conversation. They closed the loop. They also empowered open employee communities and resource groups.
[00:22:33] But they did it with clear purpose and executive backing, ensuring the burden of fixing the culture didn't just fall on volunteer employee leaders. To synthesize this entire journey for you listening, belonging is not a cultural nicety. It is not a poster on the HR wall, and it is definitely not an annual trust fall. Definitely not. It is a daily, rigorous, operational discipline. It is built entirely in the margins of the workday.
[00:22:59] It is defined by how you welcome someone on their first day by asking about their unique strengths rather than just handing them tax forms. It is who you intentionally invite to a project kickoff and how you take five deliberate minutes to specifically recognize a peer's contribution so they know their work matters. It behaves exactly like fitness. It requires constant, intentional maintenance by leadership at every level. So here is your call to action based on all of this data. Look at your own calendar for tomorrow.
[00:23:29] Are you unintentionally excluding someone from a meeting just because it was easier to invite the usual suspects? Can you take five minutes out of your day to specifically recognize a peer's contribution so they don't feel like a ghost? You possess the everyday power to create that margin of belonging for someone else. Looking at all this data, this raises an important question about the future, though. Westover's paper pulled a truly provocative statistic from that EY survey we discussed.
[00:23:54] 26% of respondents stated that they would consult an AI tool or chatbot if they felt lonely at work. Wait, a full quarter of the workforce would rather talk to an artificial intelligence than a human coworker about feeling isolated? Yes. And as generative AI becomes increasingly empathetic, sophisticated, and deeply integrated into our daily workflows, it forces us to wonder where all of this is heading. Wow.
[00:24:21] If workplace isolation continues to rise and human contact continues to be thinned out by remote work and overscheduling, will the future of workplace belonging shift away from our human colleagues entirely? Could our truest sense of connection soon come from an algorithm that, unlike a stressed-out manager, always has infinite time to listen to us? That is a wild and somewhat unsettling thought.
[00:24:46] Because we started this whole deep dive talking about the old assumption that workplace retention was just engineering. You put the coins into the machine, and you get human loyalty out. Right. And now, if we aren't careful with how we manage the margins, we might literally be turning to the machine to feel like we belong. It brings a whole new, slightly dystopian meaning to Deloitte's three Cs of comfort, connection, and contribution. It really does.
[00:25:13] That is certainly something to mull over the next time you log on and realize you haven't spoken to a human being all day. Thanks for joining us on this deep dive. tens Cancer from해요 Very Cs From
Sponsors
