The Connected Professional: Master Workplace Relationships

Key Takeaways:

1. Many workplace challenges stem from social factors such as feeling unsupported, lacking meaningful relationships, and workplace loneliness.

2. Address workplace disconnection by considering both individual and structural causes.

3. Data and numbers alone do not tell the complete picture; thus, it is important to spot methodological issues and approach data with healthy skepticism.

Resources:

Bryan, B. T., Andrews, G., Thompson, K. N., Qualter, P., Matthews, T., & Arseneault, L. (2023). Loneliness in the workplace: a mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis. Occupational Medicine, 73(9), 557-567.
Gallup. (2024). State of the Global Workplace 2024 Report. Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/645566/employees-worldwide-feel-lonely.aspx

Pendell, R. (2024, June 12). 1 in 5 employees worldwide feel lonely. Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/645566/employees-worldwide-feel-lonely.aspx

Gallup. (2024). State of the Global Workplace 2024 Report – Remote vs On-site Comparison. Gallup.https://www.gallup.com/workplace/645566/employees-worldwide-feel-lonely.aspx

Key Takeaways:

1. Ask not “What’s wrong with me?” but “What conditions create this, and how can we change them?”

2. Isolation shifts brain function toward hypervigilance and reduced perspective, increasing cognitive load.

Resources:

McAuliffe, P., & IJzerman, H. (2025, July 20). Loneliness at work is costly — Here’s how employers can respond. Humans: Connecting. https://www.humansconnecting.org/post/dear-phil-loneliness-at-work-workplace-cost

Further readings related to High-Functioning Loneliness:

Note: This is Phil McAuliffe’s coined term based on observed patterns. While not formally defined in the literature, these resources align with this observation.

Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of management Journal, 46(1), 86-96.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. University of California Press.

Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative science quarterly, 44(4), 764-791.

Key Takeaways:

1. Isolation is shaped by physical separation, weakened belonging, unfamiliar locations, role barriers, and culture.

2. Coan’s Social Baseline Theory: when support is out of reach, the brain carries more load and works harder.

3. Align the work environment with professional and social connection needs to improve performance and well-being.

Resources:

Arendt, J. F., Kugler, K. G., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2023). Being on the same page about social rules and norms: Effects of shared relational models on cooperation in work teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(5), 1119-1139.

Berendzen, K. M., Sharma, R., Mandujano, M. A., Wei, Y., Rogers, F. D., Simmons, T. C., ... & Manoli, D. S. (2023). Oxytocin receptor is not required for social attachment in prairie voles. Neuron, 111(6), 787-796.

Bryan, B. T., Andrews, G., Thompson, K. N., Qualter, P., Matthews, T., & Arseneault, L. (2023). Loneliness in the workplace: A mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis. Occupational Medicine, 73(9), 557–567.

Cacioppo, J. T., & Hawkley, L. C. (2009). Perceived social isolation and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 447–454.
Coan, J. A., & Sbarra, D. A. (2015). Social baseline theory: The social regulation of risk and effort. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 87–91.

Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 86–96.

Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of behavioral medicine, 40(2), 218-227.

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.

Taylor, G. J. (2000). Recent developments in alexithymia theory and research. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 45(2), 134–142.

Key Takeaways:

1. The “epidemic” frame pushes short-term, individual fixes over sustainable solutions.

2. More time alone does not always mean greater loneliness; individual preferences and social connection needs matter.

3. Treat loneliness as a useful signal that your social environment needs attention.
   

Resources:

Loneliness Epidemic
Kannan, V. D., & Veazie, P. J. (2023). US trends in social isolation, social engagement, and companionship — nationally and by demographics, 2003–2020. SSM - Population Health, 21, 101331.

Rocha IJzerman, H. (2025, April 2). Loneliness is not an epidemic. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/202504/loneliness-is-not-an-epidemic

Rocha IJzerman, H. (2025, May 2). Is the "loneliness epidemic" what it seems? Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/body-meet-mind/202504/is-the-loneliness-epidemic-what-it-seems

Supporting Evidence for Stable Loneliness Trends
Hawkley, L. C., Wroblewski, K., Kaiser, T., Luhmann, M., & Schumm, L. P. (2019). Are US older adults getting lonelier? Age, period, and cohort differences. Psychology and aging, 34(8), 1144.

Surkalim, D. L., Luo, M., Eres, R., Gebel, K., van Buskirk, J., Bauman, A., & Ding, D. (2022). The prevalence of loneliness across 113 countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. bmj, 376.

Dahlberg, L., Agahi, N., & Lennartsson, C. (2018). Lonelier than ever? Loneliness of older people over two decades. Archives of gerontology and geriatrics, 75, 96-103.

Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2019, December 11). Is there a loneliness epidemic? Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/loneliness-epidemic

Current Prevalence Data
Gallup. (2024). State of the Global Workplace 2024 Report. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/645566/employees-worldwide-feel-lonely.aspx

Theoretical Frameworks

Amsden, A. H., DiCaprio, A., & Robinson, J. A. (Eds.). (2012). The role of elites in economic development. Oxford University Press.

Giridharadas, A. (2018). Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. Knopf.

Key Takeaways:

1. Check how different terms are defined in reports; this clarifies what the results do and do not say and helps you interpret their implications.

2. Keep a healthy skepticism; methods can be weak, including some reviews and publication bias.
   

Resources:

Primary Meta-Analysis Source:
Bryan, B. T., Andrews, G., Thompson, K. N., Qualter, P., Matthews, T., & Arseneault, L. (2023). Loneliness in the workplace: A mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis. Occupational Medicine, 73(9), 557–567.

Prevalence Data Sources
Gallup. (2024). State of the Global Workplace 2024 Report. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/645566/employees-worldwide-feel-lonely.aspx

Measurement Research
Rocha IJzerman, H. (2024). Social Isolation and Loneliness: The Critical Need for High-Quality Research. Medium. https://medium.com/@hans_53576/social-isolation-and-loneliness-the-critical-need-for-high-quality-research-and-evidence-based-555f8ce91405

Franco, A., Malhotra, N., & Simonovits, G. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science, 345(6203), 1502-1505.

Welch, V., Ghogomu, E. T., Barbeau, V. I., Dowling, S., Doyle, R., Beveridge, E., ... & Mikton, C. (2023). Digital interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness in older adults: an evidence and gap map. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19(4), e1369.

Business Impact of Loneliness

Bowers, A., Wu, J., Lustig, S., & Nemecek, D. (2022). Loneliness influences avoidable absenteeism and turnover intention reported by adult workers in the United States. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 9(2), 312-335.

Cigna Group. (2025). Loneliness in America 2025: A pervasive struggle requires a communal response.

Jeffrey, K., Abdallah, S., & Michaelson, J. (2017). The cost of loneliness to UK employers, New Economics Foundation.

Key Takeaways:

1. Attachment at work and in romance can relate but are distinct systems.

2. Physical pain and social rejection show distinct neural patterns; overlap is anatomical, not functional.

3. Oxytocin supports bonding and cognitive efficiency.

4. Social relationships can be understood through Fiske’s four fundamental relational models: communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, and market pricing.

Resources:
Coan, J. A., & Sbarra, D. A. (2015). Social baseline theory: The social regulation of risk and effort. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 87–91.
Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations. Free Press.

Greškovičová, K., & Lisá, E. (2023). Beyond the global attachment model: domain-and relationship-specific attachment models at work and their functions. Frontiers in psychology, 14, 1158992.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 270–280.

Woo, C. W., Koban, L., Kross, E., Lindquist, M. A., Banich, M. T., Ruzic, L., ... & Wager, T. D. (2014). Separate neural representations for physical pain and social rejection. Nature communications, 5(1), 5380.

Díaz-Mardomingo, M. D. C., Utrera, L., Baliyan, S., García-Herranz, S., Suárez-Falcón, J. C., Rodríguez-Fernández, R., ... & Venero, C. (2023). Sex-related differences in the associations between diurnal cortisol pattern and social and emotional loneliness in older adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1199405.

Jopling, E., Rnic, K., Tracy, A., & LeMoult, J. (2021). Impact of loneliness on diurnal cortisol in youth. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 132, 105345.

Montoliu, T., Hidalgo, V., & Salvador, A. (2019). The relationship between loneliness and cognition in healthy older men and women: The role of cortisol. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 107, 270-279.

Norton, S. A., Baranger, D. A., Young, E. S., Voss, M., Hansen, I., Bondy, E., ... & Bogdan, R. (2023). Reliability of diurnal salivary cortisol metrics: A meta-analysis and investigation in two independent samples. Comprehensive Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16, 100191.

Key Takeaways:

1. Loneliness has social, emotional, and existential dimensions.

2. Loneliness manifests differently across cultures and contexts.

3. Complexity is empowering because it suggests that even within the same workplace, different people need different connection strategies.

Resources:

ABSL Loneliness Questionnaire: https://connect.absl.io/

Cheung, S. L., Hobbelen, H. J. S. M., van der Schans, C. P., & Krijnen, W. P. (2022). Cross-cultural equivalence of De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale among older native and diasporic Chinese adults. The Gerontologist, 62(2), e62–e72.

de Jong Gierveld, J., & van Tilburg, T. (2010). The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: Tested on data from 7 countries in the UN Generations and Gender Surveys. European Journal of Ageing, 7(2), 121–130.

Fokkema, T., de Jong Gierveld, J., & Dykstra, P. A. (2013). Cross-national differences in older adult loneliness. In Loneliness updated (pp. 200–227). Routledge.

Masi, C. M., Chen, H.-Y., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2011). A meta-analysis of interventions to reduce loneliness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(3), 219–266.

Van Tilburg, T. G. (2021). Social, emotional, and existential loneliness: A test of the multidimensional concept. The Gerontologist, 61(7), e335-e344.

Weiss, R. S. (1973). Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. MIT Press.

Key Takeaways:

1. Sometimes isolation is protective; not all ties support well-being.

2. Toxic relationships predict turnover more than compensation.

3. Use strategic, trauma-informed approaches and build psychological safety without forcing participation.

Resources:

Primary Toxic Relationship Research:

Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64–80.

Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91(1–2), 114–121.

Rook, K. S. (2001). Emotional health and positive versus negative social exchanges: A daily diary study. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 3(2), 149–168.

Sull, D., Sull, C., & Zweig, B. (2022). Toxic culture is driving the great resignation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 63(2), 1–9.

Attachment Theory Applications:

Crittenden, P. M. (2008). Raising parents: Attachment, parenting and child safety. Willan Publishing.

Ein-Dor, T., Mikulincer, M., Dor-Shav, O., & Shaver, P. R. (2010). The attachment paradox: How can so many of us (the insecure ones) have no adaptive advantages? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(2), 123–141.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Love and work: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(2), 270–280.

Relationship Quality vs. Quantity Research:

Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Loving, T. J., Stowell, J. R., Malarkey, W. B., Lemeshow, S., Dickerson, S. S., & Glaser, R. (2005). Hostile marital interactions, proinflammatory cytokine production, and wound healing. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(12), 1377–1384.

Yang, Y. C., Boen, C., Gerken, K., Li, T., Schorpp, K., & Harris, K. M. (2016). Social relationships and physiological determinants of longevity across the human life span. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 578–583.

Newsom, J. T., Nishishiba, M., Morgan, D. L., & Rook, K. S. (2003). The relative importance of three domains of positive and negative social exchanges: a longitudinal model with comparable measures. Psychology and aging, 18(4), 746.

Porath, C., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard business review, 91(1-2), 114-121.

Strategic Isolation Research:

Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (2009). Social withdrawal in childhood. Annual review of psychology, 60(1), 141-171.

Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2008). Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. Bmj, 337.

Trauma-Informed Relationship Research:

Hershcovis, M. S., & Barling, J. (2010). Towards a multi‐foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta‐analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators. Journal of organizational Behavior, 31(1), 24-44.

Roisman, G. I., Padron, E., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (2002). Earned-security attachment status in retrospect and prospect. Child Development, 73(4), 1204–1219.

Psychological safety

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Key Takeaways:

1. Contextual factors that shape connection include psychological safety, role clarity, workload manageability, communication norms, and inclusion practices.

2. Design initiatives with cultural context in mind, both geographic and organizational.

3. Remote work is not inherently lonelier; specific environmental drivers matter.

Resources:

Allen, T., & Henn, G. (2007). The organization and architecture of innovation. Routledge.

Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.

Fostervold, K. I., Ulleberg, P., Nilsen, O. V., & Halberg, A. M. (2024). The hidden costs of working from home: examining loneliness, role overload, and the role of social support during and beyond the COVID-19 lockdown. Frontiers in Organizational Psychology, 2, 1380051.

Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of applied psychology, 92(6), 1524.

Golden, T. D., Veiga, J. F., & Dino, R. N. (2008). The impact of professional isolation on teleworker job performance and turnover intentions: does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face, or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter?. Journal of applied psychology, 93(6), 1412.

Heu, L. C., Hansen, N., van Zomeren, M., Levy, A., Ivanova, T. T., Gangadhar, A., & Radwan, M. (2021). Loneliness across cultures with different levels of social embeddedness: A qualitative study. Personal Relationships, 28(2), 379-405.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Newman, A., Donohue, R., & Eva, N. (2017). Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Human resource management review, 27(3), 521-535.

Pendell, R. (2024, June 12). 1 in 5 employees worldwide feel lonely. Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/645566/employees-worldwide-feel-lonely.aspx

Waber, B., Magnolfi, J., & Lindsay, G. (2014). Workspaces that move people. Harvard Business Review, 92(10), 68–77.*

Key Takeaways:

1. Social support helps reduce stress, but only when there’s genuine trust and familiarity. Simply being around others isn’t enough.

2. When employees can’t depend on others, their stress systems work harder. Building connection helps, but lasting change also requires improving organizational culture and working conditions that make it easier to manage stress.

Resources:

Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(5), 365–376.

Coan, J. A., Schaefer, H. S., & Davidson, R. J. (2006). Lending a hand: Social regulation of the neural response to threat. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1032–1039.

Coan, J. A., & Sbarra, D. A. (2015). Social baseline theory: The social regulation of risk and effort. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 87–91.

Coan, J. A., Beckes, L., Gonzalez, M. Z., Maresh, E. L., Brown, C. L., & Hasselmo, K. (2017). Relationship status and perceived support in the social regulation of neural responses to threat. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12(10), 1574–1583.

Ein-Dor, T., Coan, J. A., Reizer, A., Gross, E. B., Dahan, D., Wegener, M. A., ... & Zohar, A. H. (2015). Sugarcoated isolation: Evidence that social avoidance is linked to higher basal glucose levels and higher consumption of glucose. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 492.

Sparacio, A., Ropovik, I., Jiga-Boy, G., Cem Lağap, A., & IJzerman, H. (2023). Stress Regulation via Being in Nature and Social Support in Adults, a Meta-analysis. Collabra: Psychology, 9(1), 77343.

Key Takeaways:

1. Loneliness can trigger protective responses, especially in psychologically unsafe workplaces. When people feel disconnected, their brains shift into “social threat mode,” becoming hypervigilant, such as interpreting neutral feedback as criticism or avoiding optional team activities.

2. In supporting team members or designing wellness programs, remember that not everyone responds the same way. We can identify loneliness patterns and risk factors, but we can’t predict exactly how each person will respond. Factors like attachment style, cultural background, past experiences of exclusion, and biological sensitivity to stress all influence how people react to isolating conditions.

Resources:

Cole, S. W. (2019). The conserved transcriptional response to adversity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 28, 31-37.

Elovainio, M., Hakulinen, C., Pulkki-Råback, L., Virtanen, M., Josefsson, K., Jokela, M., ... & Kivimäki, M. (2017). Contribution of risk factors to excess mortality in isolated and lonely individuals: an analysis of data from the UK Biobank cohort study. The Lancet Public Health, 2(6), e260-e266.

Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., & Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS medicine, 7(7), e1000316.

Shavelle, R. M., Paculdo, D. R., Strauss, D. J., & Kush, S. J. (2008). Smoking habit and mortality: a meta-analysis. J Insur Med, 40(3-4), 170-178.

Smith, K. J., Gavey, S., RIddell, N. E., Kontari, P., & Victor, C. (2020). The association between loneliness, social isolation and inflammation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 112, 519-541.

Spreng, R. N., Dimas, E., Mwilambwe-Tshilobo, L., Dagher, A., Koellinger, P., Nave, G., ... & Bzdok, D. (2020). The default network of the human brain is associated with perceived social isolation. Nature communications, 11(1), 6393.

Key Takeaways:

1. Performance challenges aren’t always about skill gaps. Sometimes, they are signs that someone feels disconnected or unsupported. When people experience social isolation, their brains shift into “social threat mode,” draining focus and energy and making it harder to perform at their best.

2. There is no single way to know whether loneliness is affecting performance. It takes careful observation and, ideally, validated tools that consider each person’s context. Often, what looks like a performance problem can also reflect deeper issues such as unclear roles, limited resources, or an unhealthy culture. Taking time to understand the root cause leads to more meaningful support.

3. Begin by addressing the structural factors that make connection difficult. Then focus on strengthening key relationships within teams. Once the environment feels safe and supportive, individual skill development efforts have a much greater chance to succeed.

Resources:

Bryan, B. T., Andrews, G., Thompson, K. N., Qualter, P., Matthews, T., & Arseneault, L. (2023). Loneliness in the workplace: a mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis. Occupational Medicine, 73(9), 557-567.

Peng, J., Chen, Y., Xia, Y., & Ran, Y. (2017). Workplace loneliness, leader-member exchange and creativity: The cross-level moderating role of leader compassion. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 510-515.

Key Takeaways:

1. Environmental changes show the greatest potential for impact, yet they remain the least studied. In contrast, social skills training is the most common approach but tends to be less effective in workplace settings.

2. Focusing on individual resilience without addressing structural or cultural issues allows disconnection to persist. Sustainable solutions begin by improving the environment people work in.

3. When designing workplace loneliness initiatives, avoid three common pitfalls. First, don’t ignore stigma. Programs labeled “for lonely employees” discourage participation. Second, avoid one-size-fits-all solutions since people experience loneliness differently and need tailored support. Finally, don’t stop too soon. Real change takes sustained effort, and meaningful progress often appears only after six to twelve months.

Resources:

Masi, C. M., Chen, H. Y., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2011). A meta-analysis of interventions to reduce loneliness. Personality and social psychology review, 15(3), 219-266.

Hansen, T., Nes, R. B., Hynek, K., Nilsen, T. S., Reneflot, A., Stene-Larsen, K., ... & Bidonde, J. (2024). Tackling social disconnection: an umbrella review of RCT-based interventions targeting social isolation and loneliness. BMC Public Health, 24(1), 1917.

Key Takeaways:

1. Matching people through buddy systems or hosting mandatory social events may look good on paper, but real connection can’t be scripted or forced.

2. Connection works when the fit is right. It takes intention and deliberate execution. Design working conditions that respect individuality and enable genuine relationships to grow.

Key Takeaways:

1. As HR leaders and managers, equip yourselves with research literacy, pattern recognition, and a realistic expectations mindset when designing workplace connection initiatives.

2. Being empowered to evaluate programs does not mean being cynical. It means being discerning about the evidence presented to you so your decisions are realistic and effective.

Key takeaways

1. Many “proven” interventions lean on weak or biased studies. Small samples, missing null results, and vague measures can make success claims look bigger than they are.

2. Statistical significance is not the same as trustworthiness. Ask for effect sizes, confidence intervals, and evidence of replication.

3. Protect the organization by checking the basics first. Look at sample size and power, whether the measures are reliable and validated, and whether the study was preregistered or had a documented analysis plan.

Resource:

Balki, E., Hayes, N., & Holland, C. (2022). Effectiveness of technology interventions in addressing social isolation, connectedness, and loneliness in older adults: systematic umbrella review. JMIR aging, 5(4), e40125.

Cohen-Mansfield, J., & Perach, R. (2015). Interventions for alleviating loneliness among older persons: a critical review. American Journal of Health Promotion, 29(3), e109-e125.

Evers, A., Lucassen, W., Meijer, R., & Sijtsma, K. (2010). COTAN review system for evaluating test quality. Dutch Committee on Tests and Testing (COTAN), Netherlands Institute of Psychologists (NIP). https://www.nip.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/COTAN-review-system-for-evaluating-test-quality.pdf

Linden, A., & Fenn, J. (2003). Understanding Gartner’s hype cycles. Strategic Analysis Report Nº R-20-1971. Gartner, Inc, 88, 1423.

Jin, W., Liu, Y., Yuan, S., Bai, R., Li, X., & Bai, Z. (2021). The effectiveness of technology-based interventions for reducing loneliness in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 711030.

Patil, U., & Braun, K. L. (2024). Interventions for loneliness in older adults: a systematic review of reviews. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, 1427605.

Key Takeaways:

Why well-meaning interventions fail:

1. Superficial program design – Focusing on how to connect people without addressing the why behind it, or without grounding the program in the root causes of the problem.

2. Stigma and participation issues – Programs accidentally stigmatize the very people they aim to help by framing participation around deficits and disorders rather than human needs.

3. Resource and sustainability problems – Programs sit on top of existing workloads, aren’t embedded in daily work, and often fade out once external support ends.

4. One-size-fits-all approach – Programs are designed generically instead of targeting individuals’ specific loneliness patterns and needs.

Key Takeaways:

1. Surface analysis blames the format. Sophisticated analysis identifies the mismatch between the intervention design and real human needs.

2. Interventions must match actual problems, not assumed ones.

Key Takeaways:

1. Effective interventions are voluntary, context specific, sustained, multidimensional, and personalized.

2. Interventions can be more effective and well-rounded when evidence is paired with lived experience.

Key Takeaways:

1. Be on the look out for program failure patterns, apply evidence-based principles, and use healthy skepticism to spot study design flaws.

2. Your individual experience matters. Even if most interventions show modest effects, the right one can be transformational for you.

3. Research limitations are not barriers to connection; they are information you can use to pursue connection more effectively.

Key Takeaways:

1. Individual workplace loneliness is tied to broader organizational dynamics. Shift from treating it as an individual problem to recognizing it as a systemic challenge that requires systemic solutions.

2. Supporting people facing chronic loneliness matters because it is costly for individuals, organizations, and society. It can impair decision making by activating threat-detection systems, especially in high-stakes environments.

Reference:

Cacioppo, S., Bangee, M., Balogh, S., Cardenas-Iniguez, C., Qualter, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2016). Loneliness and implicit attention to social threat: A high-performance electrical neuroimaging study. Cognitive neuroscience, 7(1-4), 138–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2015.1070136

Humans:Connecting. (2024, September 15). Creating your connected workplace: with Dr Hans Rocha IJzerman [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feXgHCj0xlA

Maor, D., Kaas, H. W., Strovink, K., & Srinivasan, R. (2024). How leaders can tap the power of vulnerability. The McKinsey Quarterly.

McAuliffe, P. (2018, September 16). The price of being a diplomat. The Lonely Diplomat. https://www.thelonelydiplomat.com/post/20180916-the-price-of-being-a-diplomat

Miller, D. T. (2023). A century of pluralistic ignorance: what we have learned about its origins, forms, and consequences. Frontiers in Social Psychology, 1, 1260896.

Wu, H., & Lv, H. (2025). The Strength of Vulnerability: How Does Supervisors’ Emotional Support-Seeking Promote Leadership Influence? Behavioral Sciences, 15(10), 1326. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15101326

Key Takeaways:

1. Individual workplace loneliness is tied to broader organizational dynamics. Shift from treating it as an individual problem to recognizing it as a systemic challenge that requires systemic solutions.

2. Supporting people facing chronic loneliness matters because it is costly for individuals, organizations, and society. It can impair decision making by activating threat-detection systems, especially in high-stakes environments.

   
   

Reference:

Cacioppo, S., Bangee, M., Balogh, S., Cardenas-Iniguez, C., Qualter, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2016). Loneliness and implicit attention to social threat: A high-performance electrical neuroimaging study. Cognitive neuroscience, 7(1-4), 138–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2015.1070136

Humans:Connecting. (2024, September 15). Creating your connected workplace: with Dr Hans Rocha IJzerman [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feXgHCj0xlA

Maor, D., Kaas, H. W., Strovink, K., & Srinivasan, R. (2024). How leaders can tap the power of vulnerability. The McKinsey Quarterly.

McAuliffe, P. (2018, September 16). The price of being a diplomat. The Lonely Diplomat. https://www.thelonelydiplomat.com/post/20180916-the-price-of-being-a-diplomat

Miller, D. T. (2023). A century of pluralistic ignorance: what we have learned about its origins, forms, and consequences. Frontiers in Social Psychology, 1, 1260896.

Wu, H., & Lv, H. (2025). The Strength of Vulnerability: How Does Supervisors’ Emotional Support-Seeking Promote Leadership Influence? Behavioral Sciences, 15(10), 1326. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15101326

Key Takeaways:

1. You can’t forecast exact results from one person’s change, but when actions align with real unmet needs, they reliably spark positive, emergent shifts in the organization.

2. Individual change scales through these mechanisms: the 25% committed minority as a tipping point, social contagion, small changes that create emergent patterns, and network structure.

Reference:

Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American journal of sociology, 110(2), 349-399.

Centola, D., Becker, J., Brackbill, D., & Baronchelli, A. (2018). Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention. Science, 360(6393), 1116–1119.

Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives.

Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2010). Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(12), 5334–5338.

Key Takeaways:

1. Cultural change is highly beneficial when people live out their core values authentically, rather than treating them as just a corporate strategy. This makes the culture more sustainable.

2. Organizational change needs to align with evidence-based principles and take into consideration the pace at which members can adapt to new social norms. It is also essential to ensure psychological safety so that people can go through transitions collaboratively.

3. Scaling individual change can benefit more from small-group efforts than from organization-wide initiatives (e.g., the Civility, Respect, and Engagement in the Workplace program).

Organizational change considerations:

Failure factors include:

• Top-down implementation without buy-in

• Attempting to change everything simultaneously

• Ignoring existing organizational strengths

• Lack of support during transition periods

• No measurement or feedback mechanisms

Success factors include:

• Personal authenticity from influential individuals

• Voluntary adoption rather than mandates

• Gradual implementation that allows adaptation

• Alignment with genuine organizational needs

• Measurement and adjustment based on outcomes

• Psychological safety throughout the process

Reference:

Askin, N., Petriglieri, G., & Lockard, J. (2016). Tony Hsieh at Zappos: Structure, culture and change (Case No. 6181). INSEAD Publishing.

Feloni, R. (2016, January 8). Everyone at Buffer can see each other’s salaries. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/everyone-at-buffer-can-see-each-others-salaries-2016-1

Marcario, R. (2020, February 29). Why Patagonia gets 9,000 applications for each new internship position. Equities.com.

Mautz, S. (2019, March 30). Patagonia has only 4 percent employee turnover because they value this 1 thing so much. Inc. (Inc.)

Osatuk, K., Cash, M., Belton, L. W., & Dyrenforth, S. R. (2016). Civility, respect and engagement in the workplace (CREW): Creating organizational environments that work for all. In Creating Healthy Workplaces (pp. 147-167). Routledge.

Paul, M. (2021, December 15). Umbrella summary: Workplace incivility. Quality Improvement Center for Workforce Development. https://www.qicwd.org/umbrella/workplace-incivility

World Economic Forum. (2023). Patagonia: Sparking the sustainability cultural shift at every level (Industry Net Zero Accelerator case study). World Economic Forum.

Key Takeaways:

1. Barriers to change exist at multiple levels and must be addressed systematically. At the individual level: fear of vulnerability, career risk, and burnout. At the supervisor or middle management level: resource constraints, ROI pressure, and competing priorities. At the organizational level: power dynamics, traditional structures, and how success is defined and measured.

2. When designing evidence-based solutions, plan for resistance. Set realistic expectations for individual resistance, align initiatives with business priorities when organizational resistance appears, and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements to address system-level resistance.

Reference:

Brown, B. (2015). Daring greatly: How the courage to be vulnerable transforms the way we live, love, parent, and lead. Penguin.

Deligkaris, P., Panagopoulou, E., Montgomery, A. J., & Masoura, E. (2014). Job burnout and cognitive functioning: A systematic review. Work & stress, 28(2), 107-123.

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (2002). Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Strategy: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, 1(1983), 283.

Gallup, & Workhuman. (2022). Amplifying wellbeing at work and beyond: Through the power of recognition [Report]. https://assets.ctfassets.net/hff6luki1ys4/Qu9UUxsvV9iJy0uN23M6t/acf085b6de297317538bd43de686d023/amplifying-wellbeing-at-work-and-beyond-through-recognition.pdf

Gallup. (2019). Building a high‐development culture through your employee engagement strategy.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 87(2), 268.

Isaac, F. (2013). A role for private industry: comments on the Johnson & Johnson's wellness program. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44(1), S30-S33.

Jiang, L., John, L. K., Boghrati, R., & Kouchaki, M. (2022). Fostering perceptions of authenticity via sensitive self-disclosure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 28(4), 898.

National Alliance on Mental Illness, & Ipsos. (2024). NAMI workplace mental health survey 2024 [Slide deck]. https://www.nami.org/wp-content/upl

Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of management review, 16(1), 145-179.

Schabram, K., & Heng, Y. T. (2022). How other- and self-compassion reduce burnout through resource replenishment. Academy of Management Journal, 65(2), 453–478.

Key Takeaways:

1. Leverage your network position to maximize your influence for creating change. When assessing readiness, consider personal authenticity, professional credibility, emotional resources, organizational alignment, and risk tolerance.

2. When identifying the right people to convince, look for information brokers, cross-group connectors, informal leaders, and early adopters.

3. To overcome implementation obstacles sustainably, start small and build gradually. Measure and communicate progress, and identify early wins.

Reference:

Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American journal of sociology, 110(2), 349-399.

DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627–647.

Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343–372.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.

Valente, T. W., & Davis, R. L. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566(1), 55-67.

Key takeaway:

Company size matters. People can sustain only a limited number of meaningful work relationships, about 150 in total.

Reference:

Dunbar, R. I. (1993). Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and brain sciences, 16(4), 681-694.

Key takeaways:

1. Humans can maintain about 5 intimate relationships, 15 close friends, 50 meaningful connections, and 150 in a broader network.

2. Team effectiveness depends on more than size. Psychological safety, dependability, clear structure and roles, shared meaning, and visible impact all matter.

3. Digital collaboration is prone to siloing. Prevent it by creating deliberate cross-team touchpoints with clear purpose and cadence.

Reference:

Bernerth, J. B., Beus, J. M., Helmuth, C. A., & Boyd, T. L. (2023). The more the merrier or too many cooks spoil the pot? A meta‐analytic examination of team size and team effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 44(8), 1230-1262.

Dunbar, R. I. (2018). The anatomy of friendship. Trends in cognitive sciences, 22(1), 32-51.

Google. (n.d.). Understanding team effectiveness. re:Work. https://rework.withgoogle.com/intl/en/guides/understanding-team-effectiveness

Hamel, G. A. R. Y., & Breen, B. (2007). Building an innovation democracy: WL Gore. The future of management.

McEwan, D., Ruissen, G. R., Eys, M. A., Zumbo, B. D., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2017). The effectiveness of teamwork training on teamwork behaviors and team performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled interventions. PloS one, 12(1), e0169604.

Salazar Miranda, A., & Claudel, M. (2021). Spatial proximity matters: A study on collaboration. Plos one, 16(12), e0259965.

Microsoft. (2021, March 22). The next great disruption is hybrid work: Are we ready? WorkLab.https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/hybrid-work

Key takeaways:

1. Open-plan offices are consistently linked with poorer health and wellbeing compared to individual offices. At the same time, well-designed shared areas and “collision points” can soften hierarchy and encourage informal interaction between different levels of the organization.

1. When you design for connection at work, aim for balance. Give people both collaborative spaces and quiet, private areas for focused work. Bring in natural elements like plants and daylight. Design spaces where people can naturally bump into each other and have quick conversations, without feeling forced to interact all the time.

References:

Bernstein, E. S., & Turban, S. (2018). The impact of the ‘open’workspace on human collaboration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1753), 20170239.

Interface. (2015). Human spaces: The global impact of biophilic design in the workplace. Interface. https://greenplantsforgreenbuildings.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Human-Spaces-Report-Biophilic-Global_Impact_Biophilic_Design.pdf

O'Hare, D., Gaughran, F., Stewart, R., & Da Costa, M. P. (2024). A cross-sectional investigation on remote working, loneliness, workplace isolation, well-being and perceived social support in healthcare workers. BJPsych Open, 10(2), e50.

Peteri, V., Lempiäinen, K., & Kinnunen, M. (2025). A break room as spatial and material order for interaction. Culture and Organization, 31(1), 46-63.

Richardson, A., Potter, J., Paterson, M., Harding, T., Tyler-Merrick, G., Kirk, R., ... & McChesney, J. (2017). Office design and health: a systematic review. New Zealand Medical Journal, 130(1467), 39.

Key Takeaways:

1. Interventions that target unhelpful thinking patterns about relationships show the strongest results.

2. Consider the frequency of interaction for buddy programs.

3. Mentorship programs can provide a strong return on investment based on retention data.

4. "Mandatory fun" can backfire, as it may breed resentment.

References:

Catalino, N., Gardner, N., Goldstein, D., & Wong, J. (2022, December 7). Effective employee resource groups are key to inclusion at work: Here’s how to get them right. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/effective-employee-resource-groups-are-key-to-inclusion-at-work-heres-how-to-get-them-right

Dickinson, K., Jankot, T., & Gracon, H. (2009). Sun Mentoring: 1996-2009. Sun Microsystems.

Hadley, C. N., & Wright, S. L. (2024, November 1). We’re still lonely at work. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2024/11/were-still-lonely-at-work

University of Sydney. (2021, February 25). Benefits of team building exercises jeopardised if not truly voluntary. https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2021/02/25/benefits-of-team-building-exercises-jeopardised-if-not-truly-vol.html

Waytz, A. (2017, October 4). The dangers of “mandatory fun”. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/10/the-dangers-of-mandatory-fun

Yang, L., Holtz, D., Jaffe, S., Suri, S., Sinha, S., Weston, J., ... & Teevan, J. (2022). The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers. Nature human behaviour, 6(1), 43-54.

Key takeaways:

1) Equipping managers to foster good working relationships with their employees can reduce workplace loneliness. However, it is important to note that if structural limitations are not addressed, problems may persist despite having excellent managers. Therefore, a systemic approach is needed.

2) Psychological safety is a key driver of team success. It refers to the belief that one can take interpersonal risks without fear of retribution.

References:

Beck, R., & Harter, J. (2015, April 21). Managers account for 70% of variance in employee engagement. Gallup Business Journal. https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/182792/managers-account-variance-employee-engagement.aspx

Bryan, B. T., Andrews, G., Thompson, K. N., Qualter, P., Matthews, T., & Arseneault, L. (2023). Loneliness in the workplace: a mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis. Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 73(9), 557–567. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqad138

Coe, E., Eisenberg, A., Finzi, G., & Goldberg, A. (2022, May 27). Addressing employee burnout: Are you solving the right problem? McKinsey Health Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/mhi/our-insights/addressing-employee-burnout-are-you-solving-the-right-problem

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams Amy Edmondson. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Edmondson, A. [TEDx Talks]. (2014, May 4). Building a psychologically safe workplace | Amy Edmondson | TEDxHGSE [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhoLuui9gX8

Google. (n.d.). Understanding team effectiveness. re:Work. https://rework.withgoogle.com/intl/en/guides/understanding-team-effectiveness

Hammer, L. B., Dimoff, J., Mohr, C. D., & Allen, S. J. (2024). A framework for protecting and promoting employee mental health through supervisor supportive behaviors. Occupational health science, 8(2), 243-268.

Wright, S. (2025). The future of work loneliness research. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 65, 101571.

Key takeaways:

1. Loneliness has annual financial costs for organizations, especially when you consider absenteeism.

2. Proactively investing in the right connection initiatives is typically more cost-effective and offers a strong return on investment.

Reference:

Baicker, K., Cutler, D., & Song, Z. (2010). Workplace wellness programs can generate savings. Health affairs, 29(2), 304-311.

Bowers, A., Wu, J., Lustig, S., & Nemecek, D. (2022). Loneliness influences avoidable absenteeism and turnover intention reported by adult workers in the United States. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 9(2), 312-335.

Dickinson, K., Jankot, T., & Gracon, H. (2009). Sun mentoring: 1996–2009. Sun Microsystems. http://www.mentoringstandard.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2009-Sun-Mentoring-1996-2000-Dickinson.pdf

Flowers, L., Houser, A., Noel-Miller, C., Shaw, J., Bhattacharya, J., Schoemaker, L., & Farid, M. (2017). Medicare spends more on socially isolated older adults. Insight on the Issues, 125, 1119-1143.

Gallup. (2017). State of the American workplace. Gallup.

Jeffrey, K., Abdallah, S., & Michaelson, J. (2017). The cost of loneliness to UK employers, New Economics Foundation.

Kellerman, G. R., & Reece, A. (n.d.). The value of belonging at work: The business case for investing in workplace inclusion [Webinar]. BetterUp. https://grow.betterup.com/resources/the-value-of-belonging-at-work-the-business-case-for-investing-in-workplace-inclusion-event

Stewart, A. (2021, February 26). Microsoft's new remote perks package lets employees expense up to $1,200 on things like student-loan payments and gardening supplies, but excludes nunchucks and DNA testing. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-remote-work-perks-package-perks-plus-2021-2

Key takeaways:

1. Start small, think systems. Address structural issues even in pilot programs.

2. Design with data. Combine leading and lagging indicators when you design initiatives.

3. Plan for pitfalls. Be sensitive to common failure patterns in programs and design around them from the start.