At work, people don’t just complete a certain amount of tasks but rather they get a sense of who they are. So when the normal shape of work changes, identity may become fragile. Since, through work employees form a work identity such as pride in their skills, career or accomplishments and a collective identity like feeling part of a team or organization. Two studies found similar things which suggested that work identity is not just one simple thing:
- Kaltiainen and Hakanen (2026) focused on teleworkers and asked how social identification changes over a long period of time. They found that remote work did not impact everyone similarly as some employees kept strong connections with their organizations and colleagues, while others might experience a decline in identification. It is important to understand this as it challenges that telework is just black or white and that there is a gray area depending on how supported or connected employees feel.
- Nordhall et al. (2025) looked at work identity specifically during organizational change and their study was very reflective and qualitative. They showed how employees described familiarity, pride, uncertainty, bonding and attachment to their organization and work. Hence, here change was not just managerial or structural but it was also emotional. So when an organization changes its name or direction, employees might start to question if their workplace is still the same as the one with which they had identified previously.
Both these studies looked at how employees feel connected to their colleagues, work and organization. In telework, it was with change in the physical and social condition of the work whereas organizational change shifted the meaning and consistency that employees had had with their workplace. Yet both employees needed fairness, support, communication and a visible feeling that they actually belonged there. This can be seen with some quantitative data from Kaltiainen and Hakanen (2026), they saw the social identification profile of employees and found this:
- Favourable Identification Profile: 39%
- Mixed Profile: 32%
- Unfavourable Profile: 29%
It suggests that while almost 40% had favourable identification, the remaining groups showed some risk or weakness in identification. These numbers show that identity issues may be hidden since work can keep going on normally even when employees don’t feel as connected.
All in all, these studies state that organizations will benefit from focusing on identity as it needs care. Employees require more than just money, they need support from colleagues, communication and a sense of being part of a group. Hence, regardless of the type of work people are doing or if their organisation is changing: belonging can’t really be assumed. It needs to be maintained actively otherwise it may slowly weaken.
Food for thought: Work identity is easy to ignore because employees can seem fine on the surface as they may still attend meetings, complete tasks, and follow changes. But that doesn’t always mean that they feel connected. Distance and organizational change both show that belonging at work needs to be supported, not just assumed. When people lose that sense of connection, the workplace may continue functioning, but does it still feel like the place the employees truly identify with?
References
- Kaltiainen, J., & Hakanen, J. J. (2026). Antecedents and implications of changes in social identification at work amongst teleworkers: A longitudinal person-centered approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 104253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2026.104253
- Nordhall, O., Hörvallius, J., Nedelius, M., & Knez, I. (2025). Employees’ experiences of personal and collective work-identity in the context of an organizational change. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1382271. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1382271