Remote Work and Psychological Distance: Organizational Belongingness as a Resource Against Work Stressors and Employee Performance Impairment and Distress

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic scenario has witnessed a rise in remote working arrangements, moving away from traditional office settings, which increasingly calls into question employees’ sense of belongingness as a top human capital issue in order to favor both workers’ productivity and well-being. Organizational belongingness refers to employees’ sense of personal connectedness with the organization, which makes them feel they are an integral part of the organizational system. This study examines the effects of organizational belongingness on workplace stressors (i.e., organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, work–family conflict) and subsequent employee productivity (i.e., cognitive failures, performance) and well-being (i.e., mental health, exhaustion). Using a multilevel multigroup design with anonymous survey data collected from a sample of 1449 in-person and 514 flexible (i.e., remote and hybrid) workers from 205 organizations, the structural invariance analyses performed in this study suggested a similar pattern of results for in-person and flexible workers. Specifically, belongingness negatively predicted employees’ perception of organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, and work–family conflict. Moreover, while belongingness positively predicted performance and mental health, it negatively predicted cognitive failures and exhaustion, both directly and indirectly through work stressors. Finally, organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, and work–family conflict positively predicted cognitive failures and exhaustion, whereas organizational constraints and work–family conflict did not predict performance. Additionally, work–family conflict and interpersonal conflict negatively predicted mental health, whereas organizational constraints negatively predicted mental health. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed in light of the globally widespread use of flexible work options and costs related to workers’ productivity and well-being.

1. Introduction

According to the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work [1], more than four out of ten workers (44%) report that their work stress has increased as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the pandemic has shown, organizations worldwide have implemented remote working; yet, this revolution in work arrangements is not without risks to workers’ health [2,3] and productivity [4]. Owing to the post-pandemic increase in remote and hybrid work and reliance on technology-mediated communication, employees may be engaging in less spontaneous (versus scheduled) social interactions, which may be especially important for well-being [5,6]. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [7], loneliness and isolation are factors associated with stress at work and could be harmful for employee health. Mounting evidence suggests that a significant factor in employee malaise is missing people and being away from the workplace [8]. Indeed, people are hardwired to connect and seek to confirm a subjective sense of belongingness in order to avoid feelings of loneliness and alienation [9].

This research contextualizes the study of belongingness and the related sense of social closeness in organizational settings, and examines the extent to which employees’ feelings of organizational belongingness may affect their perception of workplace stressors (i.e., organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, work–family conflict) and subsequent productivity (i.e., cognitive failures, performance) as well as well-being (i.e., mental health, exhaustion). Moreover, given the potentially striking role of remote work in weakening employees’ social connectedness and, arguably, their sense of belongingness to their workplace, this study examines whether working arrangements (i.e., in-person vs. flexible) may moderate the link between organizational belongingness and employee productivity and well-being, both directly and indirectly through the lens of employee perception of workplace stressors. Overall, the research aims to contribute to the study of the boundary conditions of sustainable social relatedness at work and its consequences for workers.

Belongingness refers to a fundamental human need and could be defined as the feeling of connectedness to a group or community, i.e., the sense that one is part of something and feels attached, close, and thoroughly accepted by people in a community [10]. Consistently, workplace (or organizational; note that workplace belongingness and organizational belongingness are synonyms and are used interchangeably in this paper) belongingness refers to the worker’s feeling of connectedness and unity with the organizational community and their attachment to their colleagues and work system [11]. Belongingness has increasingly become a concern for organizations as a consequence of the pandemic. This is also shown by its entry in 2021 as one of the main concerns for scholars and practitioners in the Top 10 Workplace Trends survey by the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology [12]. Belongingness is argued to be the key to achieving both employee well-being and performance, in that employees with a strong sense of belonging are over six times more likely to be engaged than those who do not feel they belong [13,14,15]. While the interest in belongingness at work has become widespread, the research on its consequences for employee health and productivity is still lacking. This study contributes to fill this gap and aims to investigate the role of employees’ attachment to their organization in shaping their perception of organizational stressors and subsequent sense of well-being and productivity. Specifically, this study examines how employees’ sense of belongingness to the organization and connectedness with their co-workers predict (a) their performance and well-being, (b) their perception of work-related stressors, and (c) the moderating role of working options (i.e., in-person vs. flexible) on the hypothesized nomological network.

Using the literature on belongingness [10] and Conservation of Resources theory [16] as a theoretical framework, we test the proposition that higher workplace belongingness (i.e., the feeling of involvement with the organizational system and being connected with others at work; [17]) may act as a resource that employees protect from feeling lost and is associated with greater in-role behaviors (i.e., performance; [18]), fewer interferences hampering with the performance of work tasks (i.e., cognitive failures; [19]), higher employee mental well-being (i.e., mental health; [20]), and lower levels of feeling emotionally drained by work pressures and perceived threats (i.e., emotional exhaustion; [21]). Specifically, the sense of connectedness with others at work and being part of the organizational system (i.e., workplace belongingness) represents an emotional and relational resource for employees [16]. Furthermore, higher workplace belongingness should be associated with a more positive perception (i.e., lower levels) of workplace stressors [22,23] such as workplace situational hindrances (i.e., organizational constraints) and interpersonal problems with others at work (i.e., interpersonal conflict), as well as work obligations interfering with the employee’s family life (i.e., work-to-family conflict). In turn, workplace stressors (i.e., organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, work-to-family conflict) are predicted to be related to lower performance and higher cognitive failures, as well as lower mental health and higher exhaustion. Finally, we examine whether working arrangements (i.e., in-person vs. flexible) moderate the link between organizational belongingness and employee productivity and well-being, both directly and indirectly through workplace stressors. On the one hand, flexible work arrangements may be associated with an improved employee work–life balance and productivity. On the other hand, hybrid working also comes with the cost of unwanted employee feelings of isolation and being cut off from the social co-workers network as compared to employees who work in-person and are arguably provided more occasions for spontaneous and meaningful relationships that may help build a sense of belongingness [3,5,9]. Figure 1 presents an overview of our overarching conceptual model.

In testing these propositions, our study makes several distinct contributions to the literature. From a theoretical standpoint, this study integrates belongingness frameworks (e.g., [10,17]) with Conservation of Resources theory [16], and is the first to examine the role of workplace belongingness in the development of employee well-being and productivity, as well as the prevention of work-related hinderance stressors. Indeed, Conservation of Resources theory [24] suggests that stress has central social and cultural bases in that it emerges when people perceive a threat to resources that are culturally and symbolically valued means to survive and succeed (e.g., belongingness as a basic human need). Furthermore, we seek to understand the role of working arrangements (i.e., in-person vs. flexible) in moderating the health- and productivity-related outcomes of the conjoint effects of belongingness and workplace stressors within organizations. We thereby contribute to bridging the literature in the still-disparate fields of belongingness at work and occupational health. From a practical standpoint, our findings can help scholars and practitioners better understand the impact of both in-person and flexible employees’ sense of inclusion and emotional bonding with their organizational system (i.e., workplace belongingness) on their well-being and productivity, and provide suggestions on how to increase the accumulation of psychosocial resources such as the sense of connectedness with the organizational system.

Below, we begin our review of the literature by addressing the concept of belongingness and its contextualization to occupational settings. Next, we review the literature on the relationship between organizational belongingness, employee productivity, and well-being. Moreover, we provide a theoretical background on the relationship between organizational belongingness and workplace stressors. Finally, we review different workplace arrangements (i.e., in-person vs. flexible) and examine the extent to which working in-person vs. flexibly may shape the hypothesized nomological network among the study variables.

2. Belongingness and Its Relevance for Organizational Settings

Hagerty and colleagues [17] define the sense of belongingness as “an experience of personal involvement in a system or environment, making people feel they are an integral part of that system or environment” (p. 173). According to Baumeister and Leary [25], the need to belong is a “strong desire to form and maintain enduring interpersonal attachments” (p. 522). Overall, the literature suggests that belongingness involves more than simply being acquainted with other people and refers to a human emotional need to be accepted by members of a group and affiliate with them, being valued and, at the same time, providing the same attention to other members [10,26]. Lee and Robbins [10] argue that belongingness is composed of three aspects: companionship (i.e., the one-on-one contact with the nurturing caregiver that provides a sense of security and bonding, which is later extended in life to other close people), affiliation (i.e., the need for twinship or rather the search for peer relationships that allow the person to function more comfortably alongside those with similar qualities, thus strengthening one’s self-esteem through inclusion and participation in group activities), and connectedness (i.e., the feeling of being comfortable and confident within a larger social context due to having successfully maintained companionship and affiliation in previous life stages). The sense of connectedness, in particular, allows people to maintain feelings of being part of something, seek social networking, and identify with those who may be different from themselves but share some point of commonality. Interestingly, belonging is not just about having friends but is also the desire for acceptance and the feeling of membership to a valued community, which boosts one’s self-esteem [27]. Feeling part of a greater whole provides individuals with a sense of purpose and brings satisfaction and security [28].

Interestingly, a general sense of belonging is not adequate to capture the sense of belongingness in different domains of human life (e.g., family, school, work, etc.) because every social setting has unique and non-overlapping attributes, and context-specific belongingness uniquely captures the essence of that social setting, such as the dynamic domain of organizational settings [29]. Workplace belongingness (or organizational belongingness) refers to the employee’s feeling of unity and connectedness with the organizational community and attachment to their work system and colleagues [11,29]. A recent survey [30] on where people feel the greatest sense of belonging suggests that individuals look to their homes first (62%), followed by their workplaces (34%), and then neighborhood communities (19%) and places of worship (17%). Yet, employees spend most of their time at work, and work plays a significant part in their life, thus affecting their overall impression about the kind of life they are leading [29]. Arguably, most workers desire significant work relationships and want to belong to a workgroup that is important to them, and this likely explains why individuals prefer working in groups instead of working alone or they refrain from activities that might hurt their co-workers [17,31].

According to a research study among U.S. workers by Carr and colleagues [32], 40% of respondents reported feeling physically and emotionally isolated in the workplace and the painful sense of exclusion resulted in lower organizational commitment and engagement. Indeed, the pandemic and the related lockdowns that caused enforced employee absence from the workplace have only exacerbated the feeling of missing people, and loneliness and isolation are factors associated with stress at work that could be harmful for employee health [7,8]. As such, creating workplace communities where people feel like they belong is crucial for organizations in order to build healthier workplaces and successful businesses [29,30,32].

Below, we address in detail the role of organizational belongingness as an explanatory factor of work stressors as well as employee productivity and well-being. The theoretical rationale underpinning our predictions is as follows. According to the Conservation of Resources theory, it is more harmful for individuals to lose resources, and psychological stress is experienced when there is a threat of a loss of resources which generates excessive demand to acquire and protect the circumstances that ensure well-being [16]. Interestingly, stress emerges when people perceive a threat to resources that are culturally and symbolically valued means to survive and succeed (e.g., belongingness), and thus has central social and cultural bases [24]. From this perspective, the sense of connectedness with others at work and being part of the organizational system (i.e., workplace belongingness; [11,29]) represents an employees’ emotional and relational socially grounded resource. Individuals with higher resources will be set up for gains in resources such as productivity and well-being, as well as having a more positive perception of organizational constraints, social context (i.e., interpersonal conflict), and the difficulties of juggling work and family demands (i.e., work–family conflict).

2.1. Organizational Belongingness as a Predictor of Employee Productivity and Well-Being

The need to belong is a human emotional need to affiliate with others and an intrinsic motivation to be part of something more important than ourselves [25]. According to Walton and Cohen [33], the human desire for connection drives behavior, and people strive to seek out companionship and participate in a common purpose of a community. The human desire to be accepted as a vital member of an organizational community drives employees to be engaged and bring their best selves to work more effectively. As a result, employees perform better because the desire for acceptance from the group is a greater motivator than money [8]. Research in organizational settings [32] shows that belongingness is associated with a 56% increase in job performance, thus suggesting that the sense of belonging is a necessary ingredient for performance at work.

Moreover, the literature [33] suggests that a sense of social belonging can affect not only a person’s continued persistence and achievement in the face of obstacles (e.g., in-role performance) but also their intellectual achievement (e.g., low cognitive failures). Workplace cognitive failures are breakdowns in cognitive processing, cognitive-based errors, and unintended execution lapses resulting from problems with memory (i.e., failures related to information retrieval), attention (i.e., failures in perception), and action (i.e., the performance of unintended actions, or action slips), and they occur in simple tasks that a person should normally perform without mistakes [19,34]. As such, cognitive failures are departures from functional cognitive operations, off-task cognitions, and behaviors consisting of cognitively based errors that occur during the performance of a work-related task. Indeed, people’s sense of belonging and reliance on group members exerts a powerful influence over their cognitive abilities and mental states that boost their ability to cope with tasks and challenging situations [35]. For example, feeling accepted by a group may increase the development of skills for understanding the mental states of their social partners (e.g., colleagues), engaging in joint action with them, and learning from their behavior (e.g., [36,37]). More importantly, the sense of inclusion in a community avoids feelings of loneliness and isolation and boosts positive emotional states of security, acceptance, pleasure in social interactions, and prolonged positive engagement [10,25]. According to the neural literature on emotion and cognition [38,39], emotional states influence cognitive functioning, and pleasant and positive emotional states (e.g., happiness that ensues from belongingness) induce the perceived ability to master the course of events, thus enhancing their capacity for discernment and positive thinking [40], as well as promoting an overall efficacious level of cognitive functioning and information processing that prevents the risk of performing off-task behaviors (i.e., cognitive failures; [41]). While there is currently no study on the effects of organizational belongingness on cognitive failures at work, based on the above arguments, we may speculate that employees’ feelings of acceptance by their colleagues boosts the positive emotional and affective states (e.g., satisfaction, [33]) associated with inclusion and the desire for attachment (i.e., belongingness), thus improving ongoing cognitive functions, intellectual achievement, and the cognitive processing of on-task activities encompassing attentional and behavioral functioning, and reducing the likelihood of task errors (i.e., cognitive failures).

Overall, using the COR theory [16] as a theoretical framework and building on the literature on belongingness (e.g., [10]) and cognitive failures (e.g., [19]), we hypothesize that higher workplace belongingness (i.e., the positive and fulfilling feeling of being connected with others at work; [17]) may act as a resource that employees protect from being lost and is therefore associated with greater (i.e., positive relationship) in-role performance behaviors and fewer (i.e., negative relationship) distracting interferences impeding the performance of work tasks (i.e., cognitive failures).

Thus, if the above arguments are supported, we would expect the following:

Hypothesis 1. 

Organizational belongingness (1a) is positively associated with job performance and (1b) is negatively associated with cognitive failures.

Moving on to the link between belongingness and employee well-being, the literature suggests that people’s need to interact with others and be accepted is inextricably tied to their happiness, and we cannot separate the importance of people’s sense of belonging from their physical and mental health [17,33]. While the overall concept of mental health refers to an individual’s psychological well-being [20], its components of psychological distress and discomfort refer to the negative dimensions of anxiety (i.e., the uncomfortable experience of a set of emotional and behavioral states characterized by agitation, tension, and apprehension) and depression (i.e., a pessimistic and discouraged orientation towards existence and a deflection of mood). According to the literature [33,42], depression and anxiety are both common health impairment conditions associated with loneliness and lacking a sense of belonging to a group sharing common interests and aspirations. Peoples’ happiness and well-being are intertwined with the need for acceptance by valuable others and the resulting feeling that they belong to a superordinate social entity and community, as supported by the neuroscience literature suggesting that people hunger for interactions in the same brain region where they crave food [43]. In line with this, the literature [44] suggests that the need for belonging is hardwired into the human brain and represents a strong psychological lever also because people feel hurt when they experience social exclusion in the same region of the brain where they experience physical pain. Initial research in work settings [45] suggests that a frustrated sense of belongingness may lead employees to experience depression and anxiety disorders (i.e., mental health). Moreover, Reyes [46] suggests that a psychological sense of belonging at work is a greater predictor of depression than other factors commonly associated with depression, such as loneliness, conflict and social support. Similarly, the literature [45] suggests that the need to experience an identity fit with a valued relational network and the social ties associated with a sense of connectedness at work are protective factors helping to prevent employees’ feelings of stress and emotional exhaustion (i.e., the extent to which employees feel that their emotional resources are depleted; [47]). For example, working with other people and experiencing a sense of belonging to a group may foster feelings of inclusion and self-acceptance, and yield emotional support in the face of difficulties because coworkers can console one another, thus providing the individual with an important protective factor when dealing with challenging situations and the potential negative physical and mental effects of such hardships [48]. Moreover, cooperating with others during difficult times helps in developing coping strategies that build upon the sense of belonging to a community as a resource and contributes to people’s resilience and recovery [49]. Indeed, there is research on stress within a COR theoretical framework suggesting that the individual’s use of resources (e.g., belongingness) impacts their mood and subsequent poor well-being, such as feelings of emotional exhaustion and depressive symptoms [50].

Overall, through the lens of the COR theory [16] and based on the literature on belongingness (e.g., [10]), mental health (e.g., [20]), and work stress (e.g., [21]), we hypothesize that higher workplace belongingness (i.e., being fulfilled in one’s desire to connect with others and feeling accepted by others at work; [33]) may represents an emotional and relational resource that protects employees from feeling lost and is therefore associated with greater (i.e., positive relationship) mental health and less (i.e., negative relationship) emotional exhaustion.

Based on the above arguments, we may pose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2. 

Organizational belongingness (2a) is positively associated with mental health and (2b) negatively associated with emotional exhaustion.

2.2. Organizational Belongingness as a Predictor of Work Stressors and Subsequent Outcomes

According to the Challenge Hindrance Model of Stress (CHM; [51]), hindrance stressors are situational factors posing demands that exceed an individual’s resources. Hindrance stressors stem from circumstances that interfere with the employee’s ability to get the job done and do not provide employees with opportunities for growth and development, thus resulting in strain and performance impairment [52,53]. The existing literature [23] suggests that situational factors that prevent employees from performing their job well and represent typical hindrance stressors include organizational constraints (e.g., incomplete or poor information), interpersonal conflict (e.g., disagreement with coworkers) and role stressors (e.g., work-to-family conflict). Specifically, organizational constraints are workplace features that prevent employees from translating ability and effort into effective job performance, such as faulty equipment, organizational rules and procedures, and a lack of training. Interpersonal conflict is suggested to be one of the most important occupational stressors and refers to a wide span of relational situations of tension among people at work, ranging from mild disagreement and mistreatment up to physical assaults. Additionally, conflict could be overt (e.g., being rude to a coworker) or covert (e.g., spreading rumors about a coworker). Finally, work-to-family conflict (WFC) is defined as the conflict that arises when the different roles within an individual’s work life and family life impose conflicting expectations and are difficult to reconcile creating more demands than the person can handle [22]. According to the role stress theory, when pressures on the two interrelated roles within the work and family domains are incompatible or contradict each other, the individual experiences a conflict between work and family obligations. As such, WFC is a type of hindrance stressor related to inter-role conflict and involving the interface between the domains of work life and private life [54,55].

As noted above, belongingness is the desire to establish and maintain social bonds and provides emotional significance in association with a valued group membership. While, to date, there are no studies on the link between organizational stressors and belongingness, the literature suggests that belonging is a top social motive [56], and its perceived presence may influence cooperation in organizations as well as the organizational climate [57]. Specifically, belonging to a group engenders prosocial behavior towards the in-group and helps create a security climate when people believe that they are contributing to a meaningful common mission. According to the literature [27], belonging to a group serves as a psychological resource and provides a lens through which people see the world and perceive the contest, such as organizational stressors that stem from hampering situations. For example, a study aimed at developing belongingness among women in a predominantly male engineering setting found that the intervention generated more friendships with their male colleagues and increased the women’s ability to handle daily stressors [33]. Moreover, people’s need to belong refers to a human emotional need to affiliate with other co-workers and be accepted by members of a group. Coherently, individuals tend to present themselves in a particular way in order to belong to a specific social group and adopt some of the same behaviors and attitudes of group’s members in order to conform and gain greater acceptance [25,26]. As such, the intrinsic motivation to affiliate and to seek out stable, long-lasting relationships works towards the development of fluid and non-conflicting relationships and thus helps prevent interpersonal conflict.

Overall, workplace belongingness qualifies as a factor that favors a positive perception of contextual features such as organizational practices and functioning (i.e., organizational constraints) as well as the psychosocial environment (i.e., interpersonal conflict). Furthermore, emotional attachment to a workplace community and the related sense of membership arguably provides workers with a psychological resource that helps build resilience and coping with the stressful difficulties of juggling conflicting work and family demands (i.e., work-to-family conflict). Indeed, extensive research suggests that according to the COR theory, hindrance stressors are perceived as circumstances that primarily put at risk current resources or jeopardize opportunities to obtain more resources [52], such as putting too much of one’s resources into one’s work, which may lead to family problems at home (i.e., WFC; [58]). Overall, using the COR theory [16] as a theoretical framework and building on the literature on belongingness (e.g., [10]) and workplace stressors (e.g., [22,23]), we hypothesize that higher workplace belongingness (i.e., to desire to seek out companionship and participate in a common purpose of the organizational community; [33]) may act as a resource that exerts a powerful influence over employees’ mental states and generates a more favorable perception of their working environment, and is thus associated with lower levels (i.e., negative relationship) of workplace situational hindrances (i.e., organizational constraints) and interpersonal problems with others at work (i.e., interpersonal conflict), as well as reducing the burden of work obligations interfering with an employee’s family life (i.e., work-to-family conflict).

Based on the above arguments, we may pose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3. 

Organizational belongingness is negatively associated with (3a) organizational constraints, (3b) interpersonal conflict, and (3c) work-to-family conflict.

2.3. Work Stressors as Predictors of Employee Performance Impairment and Poor Well-Being

By definition, organizational constraints refer to impediments and constraints on performance at work [23] and thus qualifies as a stressor directly causing interference with employees’ performance of their job tasks. Relatedly, interpersonal conflict is intended to assess the failure to work well with others, which is likely associated with feelings of frustration and apprehension about coming to work that pose mental demands on the work being performed and interfere with on-task performance [23]. Moreover, working demands that exert pressure and/or generate conflict with family life (i.e., WFC) represent a source of work-related stress that metanalytic findings have found to be associated with worse employee mental health outcomes [59] and decreased productivity and poor task performance [60].

Organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, and WFC all represent contextual factors potentially perceived as obstacles that may interfere with workers’ ability to get the job done and pose demands that are difficult to bear, thus qualifying as hindrance stressors that are likely to wear out workers’ resources and are conducive to performance and health impairment [51,52,53]. A basic tenet of the Conservation of Resources theory (COR; [16]) posits that resource loss is more harmful for individuals in comparison to resource gain, and thus, resource loss is more salient and likely conducive to the emergence of stress.

Voluminous studies suggest that employees’ exposure to stressful working conditions (i.e., hindrance stressors) can affect important resources (e.g., time, energy and commitment), and can emotionally drain individuals leading to psychological strain and work-related stress (e.g., [52,61,62]). Specifically, the literature on workplace stressors (e.g., [23,52,53]) suggests that organizational constraints and interpersonal conflict are stressful aspects of the job conducive to psychological distress (i.e., low mental health) and emotional exhaustion (e.g., [63,64]). Similarly, numerous studies have demonstrated that exposure to organizational constraints and interpersonal conflict can have deleterious effects on employees’ performance (e.g., [52,53]). Through the lens of the COR theory and building on the literature on workplace stressors (e.g., [22,23]), we may posit that organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, and WFC are situational factors that may pose a threat to employees’ valued resources (e.g., time, energy, home life) and thus act as hindrance stressors that interfere with workers’ full dedication to the task, increase the likelihood of distractions (i.e., errors), wear out their emotional resources, and adversely impact their mood. Consistently, we hypothesize that higher workplace stressors (i.e., organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, and WFC) are all associated with lower (i.e., negative relationship) performance and lower mental health, whereas they are all associated with greater (i.e., positive relationship) cognitive failures and exhaustion.

Therefore, we posit the following:

Hypothesis 4. 

Organizational constraints are negatively associated with (4a) performance and (4b) mental health, whereas they are positively associated with (4c) cognitive failures and (4d) exhaustion.

Hypothesis 5. 

Interpersonal conflict is negatively associated with (5a) performance and (5b) mental health, whereas it is positively associated with (5c) cognitive failures and (5d) exhaustion.

Hypothesis 6. 

Work-to-family conflict is negatively associated with (6a) performance and (6b) mental health, whereas it is positively associated with (6c) cognitive failures and (6d) exhaustion.

2.4. Do Working Arrangements Matter for Belongingness and Its Link with Stressors and Outcomes?

According to the literature, social links are essential to develop a sense of belongingness to a group perceived as important, and physical proximity allows the necessary perceived propinquity in creating and maintaining social bonding [65]. Arguably, in-person working provides physical propinquity and the occasion for frequent spontaneous communication and interaction that facilitates the development of strong interpersonal connections [66] and feelings of emotional attachment to others within the network [67].

As noted, organizations worldwide have massively implemented remote working during the pandemic and are now often adopting flexible work arrangements that include remote work and/or hybrid solutions of mixed in-person and remote work in the post-pandemic setting. Interestingly, OSHA [7] reports increased levels of workplace stress, also due to feelings of loneliness and isolation at work, likely stemming from being away from the workplace and missing people [8]. Similarly, [68] suggests that psychosocial risks for employee health arise from poor work design and organization as well as a poor social work context. In line with this, research suggests that while the advantages of hybrid work arrangements include an improved work–life balance and productivity, hybrid working also comes with the cost of employees’ unwanted feelings of isolation [3]. Working alone for a large chunk of the week can make some workers feel isolated and excluded by their colleagues, thus underlining the relevance of crafting hybrid working patterns that better fit to employees and may help contrast their detachment from the workplace [69]. Alternative work arrangements may cause many workers to feel that they do not formally belong to the organization and make it harder for employees in traditional work arrangements (i.e., in-person) to feel a sense of unity with them. Moreover, while technology potentially enables instantaneous communication and capillary connections with virtually anyone in a social network, the way people use that technology contributes to increased feelings of isolation [14]. Relatedly, increased remote interactions built on technology-mediated communication foster predetermined interactions and prevent workers from socially interacting spontaneously as well as establishing meaningful relationships that may contribute to developing a sense of workplace belongingness and avoid the unease due to feelings of alienation and loneliness [5,9]. Finally, employees who feel a strong sense of belonging to their organization are also reported to be over six times more engaged and, therefore, productive than those who do not feel they belong [15]. However, a survey in the United Kingdom from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development [4] reports that nearly half (48%) of organizations are concerned that a move to hybrid or home working may potentially put at risk the sense of inclusion (e.g., belongingness), whereas a quarter (24%) of employees are worried that working remotely may result in being treated less favorably in comparison to their colleagues who work traditionally on site.

Based on these arguments, we might arguably expect a differential pattern of nomological network among our study variables (i.e., belongingness, stressors, productivity, and well-being) in the in-person vs. flexible (i.e., remote and hybrid) subsamples. While the initial research has examined the moderating role of working arrangements on the relationship between disconnectedness and mental health as well as productivity [70], we could not find published studies examining the effects of this moderator on the relationship between workplace belongingness and work stressors or cognitive failures and exhaustion. Hence, we pose the following research question:

Research Question: Do working options (in-person vs. hybrid) moderate the relationship between workplace belongingness and work stressors (i.e., organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, WFC) as well as employee productivity (i.e., cognitive failures, in-role performance) and well-being (i.e., mental health, exhaustion)?

3. Method

3.1. Participants and Procedure

The survey data were anonymous and collected via Survey Monkey from a sample of Italian adult workers. Data were collected during the months of November and December in 2021 and during the months of November and December in 2022. The sampling technique was based on a convenience sample strategy. The research team reached potential participants belonging to the same organization to request their participation in the study based on opportunity and accessibility of the study’s participants. Participation was voluntary and not rewarded by any incentive. The study followed the guidelines of research ethics in compliance with the Ethical Principles of the Helsinki Declaration of 1964, in order to protect individual participants from any form of potential physical and/or emotional harm. The research team provided participants with informed consent materials that explained their rights as research participants and the anonymous nature of the data collection consistent with the current Italian law (N. 196 of 2003) and the GDPR (EU Regulation 2016/679) (e.g., anonymity, confidentiality, aggregate level of analyses). Moreover, the survey provided five quality check items in order to detect careless responding.

The sample consisted of 1.963 workers from 205 organizations in Italy (see

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample.

Characteristic
Age (M; SD)		41.9 years (13.20)
Gender	Male (%)	50.3%
	Female (%)	49.7%
Education	College (%)	42.4%
	High school (%)	26.8%
	Other	30.8%
Employment Status	Permanent (%)	47.8%
	Contingent (%)	52.2%
Work Arrangement	In-person (%)	73.8%
	Flexible (%)	26.2%
Tenure in position (M; SD)		11.7 years (10.27)

for details), equally divided between males (50.3%) and females (49.7%). The average age of respondents was 41.9 years (SD = 13.20), with a range from 18 to 68 years. The slight majority (52.2%) held a fixed-term position within their organization. The average tenure in the position was 11.7 years (SD = 10.27), with a range from less than 1 year to 42 years. The education of respondents was mainly college (42.4%) and high school (26.8%) level. Seventy four percent of the participants worked in-person, whereas the remaining 26% worked within flexible work arrangements (i.e., remote and hybrid). Organizations were recruited from the following industry sectors: health care (11.4%); education (18.2%); hotel (10.2%); manufacturing (1.3%); commerce (5.7%); transportation (4.6%); communication and technology (12.3%); military (2.8); construction (2.4%); services and finance (5.6%); Approximately twenty-five percent did not specify the sector.

3.2. Transparency and Openness

The rationale for data exclusion is reported above. The covariances matrix and analysis code are available upon request from the first author. Row data for this study are not available as we do not have permission from participants for raw data sharing.

3.3. Measures

Below is a description of the measures used to provide data for the analyses in this study.

Organizational Belongingness. Organizational belongingness was assessed using eight items from the Social Connectedness Scale (SCS—[10]), adapted to organizational contexts. Specifically, the original SCS developed by the authors aimed at measuring belongingness for the general population. As such, the items generally referred to peoples’ feeling of connectedness with the society and the world at large as well as with people like peers or friends in general. In order to contextualize the measurement of the individuals’ sense of belongingness to their organization and workplace, (a) we first translated the SCS using the standard translation/back-translation procedure recommended by Brislin [71], which includes the verification by the authors of the correspondence of the original and the back-translated items, and then (b) we adapted the items’ content such that they reflected workers’ feelings of connectedness with their organization (as opposed to the world in general) and to colleagues and other people at work (as opposed to peers or friends in the general life). The full item list of the new Organizational Belongingness scale is reported in Appendix A (

Table A1. English version of the Organizational Belongingness Scale used in this research and the related item factor loadings from the exploratory factor analysis.

English Version	Factor Loadings
I feel disconnected from the organization I work for	0.63
2. Even around people I know at work, I don’t feel that I really belong	0.74
3. I feel so distant from people at work	0.82
4. I have no sense of togetherness with my colleagues	0.87
5. I don’t feel related to anyone at work	0.83
6. I catch myself losing all sense of connectedness with my organization	0.78
7. Even among my colleagues, there is no sense of brother/sisterhood	0.74
8. At work, I don’t feel I participate with anyone or any group	0.78

). The adapted items are intended to capture the feelings of employees’ psychological attachment to their own organization and colleagues. The scale’s items are also negatively worded by the authors of the SCS scale [10] to avoid possible response sets. A sample item is as follows: “I don’t feel related to anyone at work.” Respondents were asked to rate their degree of agreement with the proposed statements, using a 5-step Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly agree) to 5 (Strongly disagree). Items were reverse-coded such that higher scores reflect greater levels of connectedness with one’s workplace (i.e., organizational belongingness).

Organizational Constraints. We used the Italian validated version [72] of the Organizational Constraints Scale [23]. Six items measured employees’ perception of situational interferences and contextual factors that makes it difficult to carry on their work tasks. The lead for each statement was the following: “How many times do you find it difficult or impossible to do your job because of …”. A sample item is as follows: “Organizational rules and procedures”. Items were responded to on a 5-point Likert-type frequency scale (1 = Never; 5 = Always). Higher scores represent frequent contextual constraints to one’s work.

Interpersonal Conflict. We used the Italian validated version [72] of the Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale [23]. Four items measured how often the employee reports getting into arguments with others and others acting nastily at work. A sample item is as follows: “How often you happen to discuss with others”. Items were responded to on a 5-point Likert-type frequency scale (1 = Never, 5 = Always). Higher scores represent frequent conflicts with others.

Work-to-family Conflict. We used the Italian validated version [73] of the short version of the Work–Family Conflict scale from Matthews, Kath, and Barnes-Farrell [74]. Three items measured the extent to which work obligations interfere with family commitments (i.e., WFC). A sample item is as follows: “I am often so emotionally drained when I get home from work that it prevents me from contributing to my family”. All items were responded to on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree).

Performance. We used the Italian validated version [75] of the scale by Williams and Anderson [18]. Three items measured employee performance of in-role behavior as behaviors that are formally recognized as required by job descriptions. A sample item is as follows: “I fulfill the responsibilities specified in my job role”. Items were responded to on a 5-point Likert-type frequency scale (1 = Never; 5 = Always).

Cognitive Failures. We used the Italian validated version [41] of the Workplace Cognitive Failure Scale, developed by Wallace and Chen [19], to measure cognitively-based mistakes that occur during the performance of a task. Nine items measured three components of workplace cognitive failures: (a) attention (i.e., failures in perception; sample item: Do you not fully concentrate your attention on working activities?); (b) memory (i.e., information retrieval failures; sample item: Do you forget where you have put something that you use for work (e.g., instruments)?); and (c) action (i.e., performance of unintended actions; sample item: Do you say things to others which you did not intend to say? Participants rated their agreement using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Items were averaged to reflect an overall measure of cognitive failures at work.

Mental health. We used the Italian validated version [73] of Veit and Ware’s mental health scale [20]. Three items assessed respondents’ psychological distress. A sample item is as follows: “During the past month...—How often have you been a very nervous person?”. All items were responded to on a 5-point Likert-type frequency scale (1 = None of the time; 5 = All of the time). Negative items were reverse coded such that higher scores reflect greater levels of mental health and well-being.

Exhaustion. We used the Italian validated [76] of the Maslach Burnout Inventory—General Survey (MBI—GS; [77]) to assess exhaustion. Five items measured employee feelings of energy and emotional depletion. A sample exhaustion item is as follows: “I feel emotionally drained from my work”. Items were rated on a 7-point frequency scale ranging from Never (0) to Daily (6).

3.4. Analytical Strategy

We conducted an explanatory factor analysis (EFA) on the total sample using Mplus 8.0 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998–2021 [78]) to explore the number of factors underlying the eight-item Organizational Belongingness scale. While the scale is developed as a monodimensional tool, the EFA may provide evidence of its hypothesized dimensionality using the scree test and parallel analysis. The Mplus robust maximum likelihood estimation procedure (i.e., MLR estimation) was used for the analyses.

Next, to maximize the reliability and parsimony of our structural equation model, item parcels were created for construct measures with more than three items (i.e., belongingness, organizational constraints, exhaustion, mental health, cognitive failures). We followed Little, Rioux, Odejimi, and Stickley’s [79] recommendations and sequentially assigned items based on the highest to lowest corrected item-to-scale correlations to create three item-parcels per construct. Subsequent analyses were conducted with Mplus 8.10 [78] using the parcels as manifest indicators of the latent variables.

Interestingly, the resulting data for this study were hierarchical in nature, with people nested within organizations. Because such data are non-independent, they can result in artificially low estimates of standard errors. To rectify this, we tested the hypothesized measurement and structural equation models by using a multilevel partially saturated approach [80]. Specifically, we simultaneously estimated all variances and covariances among organizational-level components of manifest indicators and we modeled substantive measurement and structural relationships between latent constructs at the individual level. This approach allowed us to estimate measurement and structural models by taking directly into account the employee relative standing on each latent variable compared to other employees within the same organization (i.e., within-cluster construct model approach; see [81]). That is, individual scores and individual-level relationships among the latent constructs were directly controlled for potential differences between organizations. All models were carried out by using robust maximum likelihood estimators (MLR, see [78]) along with the full information maximum likelihood (FIML; [82]) method. Consistently with our approach, level-specific (i.e., individual) fit indices of both measurement and structural models were provided [80], as well as reliability coefficients for the individual-level (within-cluster) constructs [83].

First, we performed a multilevel Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to determine if the meaning attributed to latent constructs was the same across in-person and flexible worker groups. Specifically, we evaluated the impact of the hierarchical structure of the data on individual responses on item parcels by means of the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs₍₁₎; [84]) and design effect indices (deffs; [85]). An average ICC ≥ 0.10 and average deff ≥ 2 were interpreted. Next, we established a multilevel measurement model by defining the hypothesized confirmatory factorial structure at the individual level and simultaneously estimating all variances and covariances between item parcels at the organizational level, and we tested this model separately for each group of interest and on the overall sample. Thus, consistently with the restricted factor analysis (RFA) approach suggested by Jak, Oort, and Dolan [86], we tested the above multilevel measurement model on the overall sample by adding the grouping variable (i.e., in-person vs. flexible workers) as a covariate of all within-level latent variables. The absence of significant modification indices (critical α = 0.01) signaling unmodeled direct effects of the grouping variable on item parcels can be interpreted as a valid proof of the absence of measurement bias between in-person and flexible workers, holding constant the organizational differences.

Second, we tested our nomological network using multilevel structural equation modeling adopting the partially saturated approach described above, also testing for the moderating role of work arrangement (i.e., in-person vs. flexible) on the hypothesized structural effects. Since the posited nomological network among latent variables included three mediators between belonginess and outcomes, indirect effects were estimated along with their 99% Monte Carlo confidence intervals (MC CIs; [87]).

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Means, standard deviations, individual-level composite reliability and composite reliability coefficients (Geldhof et al., 2014) and zero-order correlations among the scales are reported in

Table 2. Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliabilities.

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Workplace Belongingness	3.29	0.74	0.90
2. Organizational Constraints	2.42	0.86	−0.39 ***	0.95
3. Interpersonal Conflict	1.95	0.69	−0.41 ***	0.34 ***	0.78
4. Work-to-family Conflict	2.30	0.78	−0.30 ***	0.25 ***	0.31 ***	0.66
5. Mental Health	4.12	0.93	0.42 ***	−0.27 ***	−0.37 ***	−0.35 ***	0.76
6. Exhaustion	2.67	1.40	−0.40 ***	0.33 ***	0.34 ***	0.42 ***	−0.59 ***	0.82
7. In-role Performance	4.53	0.65	0.26 ***	−0.08 ***	−0.21 ***	−0.11 ***	0.20 ***	−0.08 **	0.81
8. Cognitive Failures	2.14	0.57	−0.32 ***	0.30 ***	0.32 ***	0.23 ***	−0.38 ***	0.37 ***	−0.29 ***	0.78

Note. Reliability estimates (individual-level McDonald’s ω coefficients) are on the diagonal. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01.

. As shown in the diagonal of this table, each study variable demonstrates a good degree of internal consistency reliability (individual-level McDonald’s ω), ranging from 0.66 to 0.96 (M = 0.81; SD = 0.09).

4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis

The results from the EFA on the eight items of the Organizational Belongingness scale using the scree test and a parallel analysis supported the extraction of one factor. Each item loaded on the intended factor with substantial factors loadings ranging from 0.63 to 0.87 (see Appendix A). Overall, the results supported the monodimensional nature of the scale and the hypothesized factor structure.

4.3. Analyses of Variance Between In-Person and Flexible Workers on Belongingness, Stressors, and Outcomes Scores

Given our interest in assessing the potential differences between in-person and flexible employees’ experiences of workplace social environments, before conducting the tests of our hypotheses, we examined whether statistically significant differences existed between in-person and flexible workers with regard to belongingness, stressors, and outcome variable scores. To ascertain this, we conducted a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with the type of working arrangement (i.e., in-person vs. flexible) assigned as the within-subjects factor. When contrasting the in-person and flexible workers’ scores on the eight latent dimensions, five out of the eight factors were significant (see details in Table S1 of Supplementary Materials). Interestingly, belongingness mean scores were the same for in-person vs. flexible workers, thus suggesting that despite their working under different arrangements, both sub-samples were exposed to “similar” socio-affective environments and belongingness experience.

4.4. Goodness of Fit of the Partially Saturated Measurement Models

ICC₍₁₎ coefficients calculated on the total sample ranged between 0.05 and 0.23 (M = 0.13, SD = 0.05), while deff indices ranged between 1.47 and 3.06 (M = 2.15, DS = 0.43), which supports the need to take into account the hierarchical structure of our data for further analysis.

The partially saturated multilevel confirmatory factor model assessing the distinctiveness of the eight hypothesized latent variables at the individual level (i.e., belongingness, organizational constraints, work–family conflict, interpersonal conflict at work, mental health, exhaustion, cognitive failures, in-role performance) for the in-person workers showed an acceptable fit to the data (Yuan-Bentler (YB)χ²_{(df=247, Nindividuals=1432, Norganizations=188)} = 1018.253; p < 0.001; RMSEA_within = 0.047; CFI_within = 0.969; TLI_within = 0.901; SRMR_within = 0.036; SRMR_between = 0.029), as did the same measurement model tested on the flexible workers’ sample (YBχ²_{(df = 247, Nindividuals = 509, Norganizations = 112)} = 454.161; p < 0.001; RMSEA_within = 0.041; CFI_within = 0.969; TLI_within = 0.925; SRMR_within = 0.049; SRMR_between = 0.051). Similar results were obtained on the overall sample: YBχ²_{(df=247, Nindividuals=1941, Norganizations=205)} = 1051.664; p < 0.001; RMSEA_within = 0.041; CFI_within = 0.964; TLI_within = 0.913; SRMR_within = 0.035; SRMR_between = 0.024.

Finally, we added to the above measurement model a within-level covariate (i.e., work arrangements, coded as 1 for in-person and 2 for flexible workers) which was allowed to covary with all within-level latent constructs. This model reached a good fit: YBχ²_{(df=264, Nindividuals=509, Norganizations=205)} = 1197.721; p < 0.001; RMSEA_within = 0.041; CFI_within = 0.969; TLI_within = 0.901; SRMR_within = 0.036; SRMR_between = 0.036. No significant modification indices suggested the improvement of model fit by the estimation of any direct effect of working arrangements on manifest indicators. Moreover, no significant correlation between the covariate and any latent variable was detected. These results provided evidence of the absence of uniform measurement biases. Thus, we can conclude that equal levels of constructs produced the same effect on manifest indicators for both in-person and flexible workers, after controlling for potential differences in manifest indicators’ scores between organizations. Finally, the within-level factor loadings were all significant, ranging from 0.50 to 0.90. Correlations among the latent factors ranged from 0.09 to 0.44. These results demonstrated the appropriateness of the eight hypothesized latent factors and the distinctiveness of the study’s latent variables after controlling for organizational differences in manifest indicators’ scores.

4.5. Test of Structural Model

Consistently with the partial saturation approach adopted for the purpose of measurement model testing, we tested the hypothesized nomological network. The final best-fitting partially saturated model was performed on the total sample and showed a good fit to the data: YBχ²_{(df=264, Nindividuals=1941, Norganizations=205)} = 1150.534; p < 0.001; RMSEA_within = 0.042; CFI_within = 0.960; TLI_within = 0.905; SRMR_within = 0.035; SRMR_between = 0.038. Additionally, we tested all possible interactive effect of work arrangement on the hypothesized direct structural effects, and none resulted in being statistically significant, nor did they improve the overall model fit. Figure 2 shows the within-level standardized coefficients for the final structural relations among the latent variables. As can be seen, workplace belongingness negatively predicted organizational constraints (−0.39, p < 0.001), interpersonal conflict at work (−0.45, p < 0.001), and WFC (−0.37, p < 0.001), thus lending support to Hypothesis 3. Additionally, in general support of Hypothesis 1, workplace belongingness positively predicted mental health (0.23, p < 0.001), both directly and indirectly through organizational constraints (Unstandardized point estimate: 0.05, 99% MC CI 0.01−0.08), and WFC (Unstandardized point estimate: 0.15, 99% MC CI 0.11−0.19), as well as in-role performance (0.19, p < 0.001), both directly and indirectly through interpersonal conflict (Unstandardized point estimate: 0.07, 99% MC CI 0.03−0.11). Furthermore, in general support of Hypothesis 2, workplace belongingness negatively predicted exhaustion (−0.21, p < 0.001) both directly and indirectly through organizational constraints (Unstandardized point estimate: −0.14, 99% MC CI −0.18–−0.09), through interpersonal conflict (Unstandardized point estimate: −0.06, 99% MC CI −0.12–−0.01), and through WFC (Unstandardized point estimate: −0.29, 99% MC CI −0.36–−0.22), as well as cognitive failures (−0.13, p < 0.001), both directly and indirectly through organizational constraints (Unstandardized point estimate: −0.06, 99% MC CI −0.08–−0.03), interpersonal conflict (Unstandardized point estimate: −0.07, 99% MC CI −0.04–−0.10), and WFC (Unstandardized point estimate: −0.02, 99% MC CI −0.01–−0.04). Finally, in partial support of Hypothesis 4, organizational constraints positively predicted exhaustion (0.17, p < 0.001), cognitive failures (0.20, p < 0.001), and negatively predicted mental health (−0.09, p < 0.01), but did not significantly predict in-role performance. Similarly, in partial support of Hypothesis 5, WFC negatively predicted mental health (−0.30, p < 0.001) and positively predicted both exhaustion (0.40, p < 0.001) and cognitive failures (0.09, p < 0.001), whereas it did not significantly predict in-role performance. In support of Hypothesis 6, interpersonal conflict at work negatively predicted mental health (−0.18, p < 0.001) and in-role performance (0.17, p < 0.001), and positively predicted exhaustion (0.07, p < 0.05) and cognitive failures (0.23, p < 0.001).

Overall, the model explained 36% of the variance in within-level mental health, 41% of the variance in within-level exhaustion, 24% of the variance in within-level cognitive failures, and 9% of the variance in within-level in-role performance.

4.6. Post Hoc Analyses

Research indicates that workers perceive both benefits and disadvantages to flexible working [3]. Noteworthy, research [4] suggest a potential mismatch emerging between the ways organizations want their employees to work and how employees want to work. For example, while 25% of employers want their employees to be working in-person all of the time, 39% of employees would prefer future work-from-home arrangements all or most of the time. This is likely due to the fact that a majority (63%) of employees who could potentially work flexibly still have not been asked about their working preferences. In line with this, we focused on the flexible worker subsample (N = 509) and performed correlation analyses between the variable “flexible work choice” (i.e., the flexible work arrangement as an employee choice = 0 vs. as an organizational mandatory decision = 1) and all of the study variables. The results suggest that the possibility for an employee to choose a flexible working mode was significantly related to higher levels of workplace belongingness (−0.12, p < 0.01), lower levels of organizational constraints (0.16, p < 0.001), and cognitive failures (0.10, p < 0.05), whereas it did not significantly correlate with interpersonal conflict, WFC, performance, mental health, and the exhaustion of flexible workers.

5. Discussion

Due to the lockdowns and sanitary measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, organizations worldwide have massively implemented remote working arrangements, and post-pandemic scenarios display an increased use of flexible work methods (i.e., mixed in-person and remote working) that are not without risks to workers’ health and productivity [2,3]. Flexible work options and physical distance from the workplace further challenges employees’ sense of personal connectedness with coworkers and leaders that overall contribute to make them feel intertwined with the whole organizational system (i.e., workplace belongingness) and arguably strengthens feelings of isolation and loneliness that ultimately may impair their health [7]. Despite the mounting evidence on the unwanted consequences of social isolation for employee well-being, unfortunately, little research has examined whether employees’ sense of belongingness might be moderated by working remotely or, conversely, in-person, and whether the feelings of attachment to one’s organization may contribute to a resistance of the effects of workplace stressors. The goal of this study was to investigate across in-person and flexible worker groups the role of an employee’s attachment to their organization and coworkers (i.e., belongingness) in shaping their perception of organizational stressors (i.e., organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, work–family conflicts) and subsequent employee productivity (i.e., cognitive failures, performance) and well-being (i.e., exhaustion, mental health).

Our findings based on a multigroup and multilevel design suggest that organizational belongingness is associated with a positive perception of workplace stressors (i.e., organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, work–family conflict) and increased well-being (i.e., mental health, exhaustion) and productivity (i.e., in-role performance, cognitive failures), both directly and indirectly through workplace stressors. Interestingly, these results are independent of the organization to which they belong. Hence, when employees feel connected with others at work and involved with the organizational system, they participate towards achieving a common meaningful purpose of a community that likely serves as a psychosocial resource in coping with the difficulties of juggling conflicting work and family demands, and provides them with a prosocial lens through which they perceive less hampering organizational constraints and more positive interactions at work. Moreover, feeling accepted provides them with emotional (e.g., happiness) and relational (e.g., support) resources that help them feel comfortable (i.e., well-being) and effectively engaged in performing their work tasks (i.e., performance, cognitive failures). Interestingly, and contrarily to our predictions, organizational constraints are not associated with in-role performance. It is also noteworthy that our finding is in line with the literature [88] challenging the view that organizational constraints are a direct barrier to performance and demonstrating that constraints have an indirect effect via decreased motivation. Specifically, organizational rules and procedures exert particularly detrimental effects on employees’ internal motivation to do their job and feel ready to tackle obstacles in their work. Finally, contrarily to our prediction, WFC did not predict in-role performance. However, in line with the above arguments, the literature [89] suggests that WFC may exert indirect effects on employee performance via their feelings of depletion and emotional exhaustion.

When considering the role of working arrangements (i.e., in-person vs. flexible) as a moderator of the hypothesized nomological network among belongingness, stressors, and employee productivity and well-being, our findings suggest a similar pattern of relationships for employees working in-person and flexibly. Overall, the more employees are attached to their workplace and co-workers, the more they are filled with emotional energies that empower their productivity and protect them from hinderance stressors, such as organizational restrictions or conflicts at work or interference of work demands on family life, as well as work-related distress. While being socially connected is essential in order to develop a sense of belongingness to a valued group, according to our findings, working remotely and in-person seems to equally set the ground for social interactions that underpin employees’ sense of organizational belongingness and related outcomes. This comports with the literature [65] suggesting that being physically near is essential in creating and nourishing the social bonding that underpins the sense of belonging. However, people who are physically close by may experience relational distance from each other, whereas coworkers who are geographically distant may feel emotionally close. That is, social bonding seems to rely more on subjectively perceived proximity (i.e., one person’s perception of how far vs. close another person is) rather than the actual physical distance [90]. Interestingly, post hoc analyses on the flexible worker sub-sample suggest that the possibility to choose remote working (as opposed to mandatory organizational assignment) is associated with higher employee workplace belongingness as well as a more positive perception of organizational constraints and lower levels of cognitive failures. Taken together, while the effect of employees’ belongingness on their perception of work stressors and subsequent distress and poor productivity is similar for both employees working in-person and flexibly, an employee’s choice of remote work results in a greater sense of membership to the organizational community and a more favorable view of organizational obstacles as well as more efficient cognitive functioning. That is, when employees are involved in designing hybrid working practices, they are provided greater involvement in the organizational life that likely fosters their sense of membership to a valued community (i.e., belongingness). Arguably, high degrees of freedom in choosing one’s preferred working arrangement provide employees with a lower sense of restrictions on the part of the organization (i.e., low organizational constraints) and less interference in their functioning (i.e., less cognitive failures). Overall, our findings provide full support for the role of belongingness in predicting workplace stressors and employee well-being and productivity while suggesting a non-significant moderating role of working arrangements on the hypothesized nomological network.

5.1. Theoretical Implications

Our results have implications for the extant literature in the areas of belongingness, workplace stressors, WFC, and occupational health. First, our findings inform the underdeveloped workplace belongingness literature and add to the COR theory by demonstrating that belongingness at work is associated with greater employee productivity (i.e., higher performance and lower cognitive failures) and improved well-being (i.e., higher mental health and lower emotional exhaustion). Specifically, the sense of connectedness with others at work and being part of the organizational system (i.e., workplace belongingness; [11]) represents an employees’ emotional and relational resource and protective factor as well as sets employees up for further gains in resources [16]. That is, acceptance from others at work and companionship in addition to the sense of participating in a shared purpose of the whole organizational community makes employees feel emotionally satisfied and motivates them to bring their best selves to work, thus leading them to experience an optimal functioning in performing their work tasks and lower feelings of emotional depletion due to perceived threats and work pressures.

Second, our findings also expand the hinderance stressors literature [22,23,51] and further add to the field of workplace belongingness by showing how employees’ sense of organizational connectedness is associated with a more positive perception of workplace stressors such as organizational constraints, interpersonal conflict, and WFC. In this study, we found evidence that employees’ desire to establish and maintain social bonds at work serves as a psychological resource and provides a lens [27] through which workers perceive their contest more positively. That is, employees with a higher sense of belongingness to their community are likely enabled to fulfill a basic human need and core social motive, and thus tend to experience fewer workplace situational hindrances and interpersonal problems with others at work, as well as work commitments interfering less with their family obligations. Moreover, our findings show that workplace belongingness not only predicts employee productivity and well-being directly, but also indirectly through workplace stressors.

Third, our study is the first to investigate the role of working arrangements (i.e., in-person vs. flexible) as a moderator of the hypothesized nomological network linking belongingness, stressors, and employee productivity and well-being, thus contributing to bridge the literature on the still-fragmented fields of belongingness at work and occupational health. Our findings suggest a similar pattern of relationships for employees working in-person and flexibly and show that employees attached to their workplace and co-workers are filled with emotional energies that empower their productivity and improve their well-being, while also protecting them from hinderance stressors, such as organizational restrictions, conflicts at work, and the interference of work demands on family life. This comports with the literature suggesting that social interaction and bonding that underpins employees’ sense of belongingness to a valued group seems to rely more upon subjective relational distance and perceived proximity (i.e., one person’s perception of how close or how far another person is; [90]) rather than objective physical proximity [65].

5.2. Practical Implications

From a practical standpoint, the results of this study have several implications. First, our findings suggest that high employee belongingness is associated with fewer work stressors as well as lower distress and impaired productivity. Indeed, previous research [32] found that not only is a high sense of belonging associated with a 56% increase in job performance, but it is also good for the business, in that employees with higher workplace belonging show a 167% increase in their enthusiasm in recommending their company to outsiders (i.e., employer promoter score).

How can organizations boost their workforce sense of belonging to the company? As noted, social connections and a sense of acceptance and inclusion from co-workers are essential to a feeling of belonging [25], and leaders are the key to helping foster an inclusive environment that enhances employees’ desire to be part of the organizational community [91]. At the organizational level, widespread supervisory behavior that is attentive to employees’ sense of belonging could be achieved with training programs that assist leaders in developing inclusive skills while simultaneously avoiding practices that are irrelevant for belonging. For example, while checking in and asking followers how they are doing both personally and professionally is suggested to fill employees with the greatest sense of belonging, face time with senior leadership that is not personal, being copied in on senior leaders’ emails, and being invited by senior leaders to big alienating events where followers feel invisible and not included is less meaningful to employees and, therefore, does not seem to matter much for belonging [30]. Conversely, inclusive leadership skills could be enhanced by raising leaders’ awareness of (a) the necessity to make employees feel appreciated and valued by engaging in meaningful gestures and actions that resonate with the employee and foster their sense of belonging; (b) the relevance of building employee—organization fit that helps develop workers’ belongingness by assisting employees with feedback that increases their awareness of their identity in relationships with others and within the organizational context; (c) the challenges of nurturing employees enduring sense of belonging by achieving a balanced mixed between the need for appreciation for their distinctiveness and unique contribution and the need to be accepted by others in the team; and (d) the dynamic evolution of the feelings of belongingness in newcomers who are, by definition, outsiders and who need to build their sense of belongingness to the workplace by overcoming the initial feelings of otherness and exclusion and experiencing their colleagues’ acceptance and inclusion; yet, the leader may contribute to avoiding newcomers’ insecurity that might manifest in damaging their sense of organizational belonging by facilitating such dynamics of inclusion and acceptance.

Second, our preliminary findings suggest that the effect of employees’ belongingness on their perception of work stressors and subsequent distress and poor productivity is similar both for employees working in-person and flexibly. Yet, for employees working flexibly, the possibility to choose remote working (as opposed to mandatory organizational assignment) is associated with higher workplace belongingness, a more positive perception of organizational constraints, and lower levels of cognitive failures. Hence, when employees participate in the designing of hybrid working practices, they are provided greater involvement in the organizational life, which likely fosters their sense of membership in a valued community [4]. Practically speaking, the benefits of remote and hybrid working can include self-reported productivity and increased well-being, reduced work–life conflict, and more inclusive ways of working through the use of technology, whereas challenges may include longer working hours and an inability to disconnect from work, increased distractions and health issues, and decreased social interactions. As such, organizations are advised that the benefits of remote and hybrid working could be maximized for both the organization and individuals if organizations consult and collaborate with their employees when designing hybrid working practices and provide optional access to hybrid working [4]. Moreover, according to our results, physical proximity (e.g., working in-person) and distance (e.g., working remotely) do not affect the links between belongingness, stressors, and health/productivity outcomes. Yet, perceived proximity could be a deciding factor in creating and maintaining employees’ sense of belongingness (Wilson, Oleary, Metiu, & Jett, 2008) and organizations are advised to train leaders in social connection skills through behaviors like follow-through, openness, trust, and work completion [65].

Third, our findings demonstrate that employees’ sense of belonging to their organization may prevent feelings of emotional depletion (i.e., exhaustion), depression and anxiety (i.e., mental health), and thwarted cognitive functioning (i.e., cognitive failures), as well as improve task performance. Indeed, nearly every aspect of people’s lives is organized around belonging to something, and the social ties and support that accompany a sense of belonging may help in feeling that one is not alone, and thus represents a resource for coping effectively with difficulties and a protective factor that helps them to manage stress and decreases the likelihood of physical and mental effects of hardships [92,93]. As such, organizations may contrast the unwanted increase in employees’ feelings of physical and emotional isolation [7,30] and develop their inclusion and belongingness to the workplace by projecting interventions aimed at assisting employees in boosting their sense of organizational connectedness through the mastery of individual strategies such as [42] (a) making an effort to engage with others and create social occasions for personal interactions with co-workers; (b) being mindful of others by mutually asking questions, making small talk, self-disclosing skillfully, and listening to co-workers’ responses; (c) practicing acceptance by recognizing that other co-workers have different ways of being, and focusing on similarities that tend to increase bonding; and (d) acknowledging and appreciating co-workers’ efforts to seek contact and social bonding that help build a sense of connectedness to a common workplace network.

Finally, the literature [92] suggests that feelings of (un)belongingness and related health impairments may stem from employees’ dislike of being treated with disregard by management, which heavily contributes to the perception of organizational distance between production employees and board members. Moreover, workplace health is to be considered as fundamentally social and constructed by social practices among colleagues. Belongingness is strongly associated with the sharing of information and communication, and also involvement and recognition practices, whether enacted by employees and/or supervisors and/or managers. All organizational members, regardless of the role held, contribute to building a sense of belonging. Relatedly, the same members addressing consideration and inclusion towards a target social group may boost belongingness as well as involuntarily generate (un)belongingness among member socially neglected or unappreciated. Organizations aiming to enhance the sense of belongingness among all members are advised to take action in two main areas [92]. First, managers themselves must feel like they belong in order to have the best possible health at work. Towards this end, it is essential that they feel important, needed, and valued, as well as experiencing the sensation of fitting into the system [17]. As such, organizations should develop inclusive and participatory workplace health programs where (a) managers are employees themselves and not superior to these programs, and (b) all types of knowledge and expertise are considered when making decisions. Second, organizations should consider the dynamics that mobilize and mediate experiences and practices of (un)belonging, such as task divisions, collegiality, acknowledging employees’ expertise and roles in the organization’s primary processes, and increasing employee involvement in decision making. By visiting the workplace more frequently, genuinely listening to workers’ concerns, and acknowledging their areas of expertise, organizations could utilize implicit knowledge. Additionally, in order to identify and utilize employees’ knowledge, responsive leadership styles are necessary. Conversely, project-based interventions that have predetermined aims and outputs which are ill-suited to flexibly adapt to contextual dynamics and events should be avoided.

5.3. Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

While this study’s findings are promising and suggest that employees’ sense of belongingness to their organization may prevent the development of workplace hinderance stressors, and improve well-being and productivity, they also warrant further investigation. Our study is an important first step at demonstrating the relationship between the still-understudied field of belongingness at work and occupational stressors, as well as employee health and performance outcomes; yet, this framework can be further expanded. While we focused on employee work demands interfering with family life, future research could consider the role of belongingness in predicting an additional hinderance stressor, or rather, family obligations interfering with work requirements (i.e., family-to-work conflict; [22]). Further, given the non-significant effects of organizational constraints on performance, and in line with the literature suggesting that such a hinderance stressor may exert its barrier effects on employee outcomes indirectly via other factors [53,88], future studies should investigate the potentially detrimental effects of perceived workload and employee intrinsic (de)motivation in escalating employees’ distress and impaired productivity. Relatedly, an additional venue for advancing the literature on the link between workplace belongingness and stressors points at incorporating the study of how the contextual effects of psychosocial organizational processes in one’s workplace influence and shape the individual experience of productivity and well-being. Indeed, the literature on stressors [88] suggests that constraints that negatively affect employee functioning are mainly an expression of the psychosocial aspects of the organization, such as its cultural norms and values, rather than the more objective aspects of its physical environment. Similarly, the literature on belongingness suggests that an organization’s culture contributes to determining employees’ feelings of attachment and belongingness to a group and the accompanying experience of job happiness [94]. Towards that end, future research may examine the role of organizational culture (e.g., culture of inclusion and diversity) in shaping the nomological network among the study variables and using a full multilevel modeling framework that accounts for possible organizational differences by targeting employees nested within organizations. In line with this, an additional notable strength of this study is the multilevel data analysis performed at an individual level while accounting for variance at an organizational level. Moreover, the large number of organizations allowed for a multilevel modeling within a full structural framework. While the set of data for this study was drawn from numerous organizational samples representing a wide variety of industry sectors, our sampling technique relied on a convenience sample obtained by the research team based on opportunity and the accessibility of the study’s participants. Consistently, an arguable self-selection bias may have affected our findings, and future studies may attempt to include not only different types of occupational sectors but also organizational samples from different countries, in order to strengthen the generalizability of our findings.

Relatedly, an additional limitation due to the types of industry sectors included in our convenience sample is the exclusion of employees holding a job inherently performed in isolated spaces (e.g., truck’s cab) or mainly in touch with clients rather than with colleagues or leaders (e.g., logistics), those particularly at risk of loneliness and potential lack-of workplace belongingness due to poor social bonds and low levels of workplace social closeness. Indeed, the literature suggests that social media (e.g., Facebook) and other sources of technological connectivity (e.g., regular quality communication to stay up to date and connected with co-workers and leaders) is key in overcoming this situation and pursuing a social relatedness that underpins the development of belongingness and a sense of attachment in employees hired by companies from these industry sectors [95,96,97].

Notably, despite cumulative evidence suggesting that belonging is a key component of employee happiness [91] and builds upon the network of supportive relationships provided by work [98], research on psychosocial factors and emotional processes affecting the collective development of employees’ need to belong are still absent. Future studies may explore how emotional contagion dynamics rooted in signals exchanged during interactions in the workplace [99] contribute to the spreading (among the larger organizational community) of the happiness associated with the experience of one’s colleagues choosing to let one in, and the accompanying “we feeling” that translates into employee well-being. Given the stratified nature of leadership (i.e., top management, supervisors) and its differential effects on the multiple layers of organizational social context (respectively, whole organization and work groups; [100]), future studies may examine whether different leadership roles diversely contribute towards building and boosting employees’ distinct feelings of belongingness [92] to their organization and/or their team.

Finally, an arguable limitation is that this study relies on self-reporting and cross-sectional data. While individuals may be considered the best informants when measuring factors such as perceived stressors and well-being, future studies may obtain multi-source-based measures of employee outcomes, such as supervisor assessments of employee performance and task errors (i.e., cognitive failures) and physical health records, where available. This would contribute towards reducing the likelihood of common-method bias often identified in self-reported data [101] as an explanation for our observed relationships. Additionally, while the use of cross-sectional data precludes causal conclusions on our findings, longitudinal designs introducing temporal distance between our predictors (i.e., belongingness, stressors) and outcomes could provide added support for the theoretically driven causal links posited in our model. Such longitudinal research could examine within-person processes (i.e., workplace belongingness) using latent growth curve models that allow us to evaluate via a parallel process model whether concomitant increases or decreases in employees’ sense of belongingness (i.e., belonging as a transient and mutable employee feeling; [102]) are associated with similar trends in workplace stressors over time and changes in workers’ well-being and productivity. Finally, longitudinal data could also better delineate the potentially recursive relationships between organizational contextual factors (e.g., workplace stressors) and employees’ need to connect with their workplace community as proposed by research suggesting that inclusive leadership and organizational engagement practices and procedures affect workers’ enduring sense of belongingness over time [91].