Connectivity without belonging: human-technology interaction and the loneliness paradox of digital work

1 Introduction

The professional world appears more connected than at any previous point in history. Remote and hybrid work arrangements, virtual teams, enterprise communication platforms, and artificial intelligence systems that assist with scheduling and task allocation have become common features of organizational life. Workers send and receive more messages, attend more meetings, and remain reachable for longer hours than earlier generations of employees. Systematic review evidence indicates that this “always-on” condition is sustained by institutional norms rather than individual habits, and that it carries documented costs for stress and work–life boundaries (Mdhluli, 2025). Yet this increase in contact has not produced a similar increase in felt belonging. Research on professional isolation in telework continues to show that remote workers often feel less socially connected than their office-based colleagues and report higher levels of loneliness (Golden et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2021). A recent meta-analysis of 108 studies confirms that isolation operates as a distinct negative pathway through which remote work intensity affects employee outcomes, even where autonomy benefits accrue simultaneously (Gajendran et al., 2024). A recent integrative review of more than 200 empirical studies indicates growing evidence that workplace loneliness has become a significant occupational concern (McCarthy et al., 2025). The pattern is now well-established. What remains less clear is how digitally mediated work contributes to it.

The central issue is not simply that remote workers sometimes feel lonely. The more important issue is that loneliness may increase even when communication becomes more frequent. Employees may spend entire days in video meetings, exchange hundreds of digital messages, and remain continuously visible online, while still experiencing a sense of professional disconnection. This paper examines that condition. Existing workplace loneliness research developed largely in contexts where physical co-presence was the normal condition of work (Wright et al., 2006). Although the literature has expanded to include remote and hybrid work, the processes through which digital work systems weaken workplace connection have not been systematically explained. Research on digital work has focused mainly on technostress, boundary management, and task performance (Tarafdar et al., 2019). The relational consequences of digitally mediated work have received less sustained theoretical attention. Research on virtual teams has advanced understanding of distributed collaboration and cohesion (Raghuram et al., 2019), while individual studies have documented isolation and loneliness among remote workers (Golden et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2021). However, these literatures have not clearly explained how high levels of digital interaction may coexist with weakened professional belonging. The purpose of this paper is to close this gap.

The issue has become more important as artificial intelligence increasingly shapes the coordination of work. AI systems now schedule meetings, allocate tasks, prioritize communication, summarize information, and monitor productivity at scale (Parent-Rocheleau and Parker, 2022). Many of these activities were previously carried out through direct interpersonal interaction. Even brief work-related exchanges often communicated relational signals alongside practical information. Conversations about scheduling could communicate consideration and flexibility. Discussions about task allocation could communicate trust, recognition, or confidence in a colleague's abilities. When algorithmic systems replace these interactions, the practical task may still be completed efficiently, but the relational element of the interaction is reduced or removed. Over time, this may weaken the social quality of working life, even in organizations where technical systems appear to function effectively. This development is not only a theoretical concern. It also raises important organizational and occupational health questions given the established links between workplace loneliness, job performance (Ozcelik and Barsade, 2018), turnover intentions (Sasaki et al., 2025; Wright and Silard, 2021), and mental health outcomes (Gajendran et al., 2024; Golden et al., 2008). The present paper does not suggest that digitally mediated work inevitably produces loneliness. Recent review evidence confirms that digital connectivity exerts genuinely dual effects, enhancing productivity and communication while simultaneously elevating risks of digital fatigue, stress, and impaired wellbeing (Bondanini et al., 2025). Digital technologies can support collaboration, inclusion, flexibility, and meaningful workplace relationships when organizational practices encourage connection. It is nevertheless important to distinguish between two analytically separable processes that the present paper addresses. Digital platforms reduce relational cue availability and fragment interaction rhythms, effects that are well-documented in computer-mediated communication and virtual work research. AI-mediated coordination introduces a qualitatively distinct process by replacing interactions that previously contained incidental relational content with automated outputs that do not. The relational cost of digital platforms is a reduction in relational quality. The relational cost of AI coordination is a substitution of human contact altogether. These two processes may co-occur and reinforce one another, but they involve different organizational mechanisms and may necessitate distinct responses. The purpose of this paper is to identify the conditions under which digitally mediated work, including AI-mediated coordination, may weaken belonging and increase the likelihood of organizational loneliness.

This paper makes three contributions. The first is a contextual refinement of the construct of workplace loneliness. The concept of organizational loneliness is introduced to capture how loneliness develops specifically within digitally mediated work environments, and particular attention is given to the relational qualities whose deterioration produces the experiences and to the limitations of current measurement approaches. The second contribution is the development of four mechanisms through which digital work systems may weaken professional belonging. These mechanisms are distinguished from related processes associated with burnout, technostress, and social isolation. The third is to situate the analysis within a sociotechnical perspective, treating organizational loneliness as a condition shaped by the design of digital work rather than by the characteristics of individual employees. Repositioning the construct in this way has direct implications for research design, organizational practice, and occupational health policy. The central question guiding the paper is as follows: how do digitally mediated work systems alter the relational conditions required for workplace belonging, and why can increased connectivity intensify rather than reduce loneliness?

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the theoretical framework. Section 3 explains the conceptual development approach. Section 4 outlines the four proposed mechanisms. Section 5 presents the conceptual model. Section 6 advances six formal hypotheses. Section 7 discusses the theoretical contributions, practical implications, limitations, and directions for future research.

2 Theoretical framework

2.1 Defining organizational loneliness

Existing workplace loneliness research explains the experience of feeling disconnected when contact is sparse or relationships are poor in quality (Peplau and Perlman, 1982; Wright et al., 2006; Wright and Silard, 2021). It does not adequately explain a different situation, now common in digital work, in which interaction remains frequent while the relational quality of that interaction weakens. Organizational loneliness, as developed here, is the construct that addresses this second situation. It is not a new psychological phenomenon. It is a contextual refinement that captures how workplace loneliness develops when digital interaction is abundant but relational quality is thin. The value of the construct lies not in identifying a new form of loneliness, but in explaining a pattern that existing workplace loneliness models were not developed to address, namely loneliness that persists despite frequent and continuous interaction.

The experience emerges in environments where employees are continuously reachable but do not feel professionally held. It is not produced by a small network or by low contact frequency. It is produced by an inadequate relational quality of contact that may be perfectly adequate in volume. What is felt to be missing, when the experience is examined closely, is some combination of genuine recognition, spontaneous affirmation, enduring collegial presence, and informal accessibility. Digital work systems, particularly those built around task coordination and continuous communication, may weaken the conditions through which these qualities ordinarily develop.

The paper asserts three related claims about the construct. The first is that loneliness can emerge from the inadequate quality of present contact, not only from the absence of contact. Existing instruments such as the Loneliness at Work Scale (Wright et al., 2006) capture the second case well but were not designed to detect the first. The second claim is that the specific relational qualities whose absence produces the experience can be named, which gives measurement and intervention a clearer target. The third is that the experience is shaped by how work is organized and how workplace interaction is structured, as much as by personality or interpersonal preference. Because organizational loneliness overlaps in surface terms with several adjacent constructs, the boundaries need to be set out before the rest of the argument proceeds. These distinctions matter for theory and for practice, since the appropriate organizational response to loneliness is not the same as the appropriate response to burnout, technostress, low engagement, or social isolation. The contribution is not the introduction of a new form of loneliness, but the identification of specific mechanisms through which loneliness develops in digitally mediated work despite sustained communication. Table 1 summarizes the key differences.

Table 1. Organizational loneliness and adjacent constructs: a discriminant map.

Distinctions reflect theoretical separability. Empirical co-occurrence is expected and does not undermine discriminant validity. Each construct differs in its defining feature, its causal patterns, and its primary intervention logic.

2.2 Belonging at work

The Belongingness theory, as developed by Baumeister and Leary (1995), proposes that people have a fundamental need to form and maintain stable and meaningful interpersonal relationships. According to the theory, this need is fulfilled when two conditions are present together. The first is frequent positive interaction with other people over time. The second is the existence of stable and enduring relationships that provide continuity and a sense of ongoing connection. Both conditions are necessary. Frequent interaction alone is not enough to create a lasting sense of belonging. This distinction is important in digitally mediated work settings. Digital work often maintains high levels of communication while weakening the continuity and stability that meaningful workplace relationships require. Employees may interact with colleagues throughout the day through email, messaging platforms, video meetings, and collaborative systems, yet still experience limited relational continuity. Team compositions may shift regularly, communication may become fragmented across asynchronous channels, and interactions may remain highly task-focused. Under these conditions, contact remains frequent, but the deeper sense of ongoing relational connection may fail to develop. From a belongingness perspective, loneliness becomes a predictable outcome of this imbalance. More recent research has extended this understanding of belonging in organizational settings. Allen et al. (2021) argue that belonging involves more than positive interpersonal interaction. It also includes psychological safety, authentic self-expression, and the experience of being valued as a person rather than only for task performance. Similarly, Schinoff et al. (2020) introduce the concept of relational cadence, referring to the regularity and predictability of interpersonal interaction over time. Their findings suggest that disrupted patterns of interaction weaken organizational identification and relationship development in virtual work settings, even when individual interactions remain positive. Together, these perspectives suggest that digital work does not necessarily reduce communication, but it may weaken the relational conditions that support belonging. Interactions may become less continuous, less personal, and less socially meaningful over time. Belongingness theory therefore provides an important foundation for understanding organizational loneliness in digitally mediated work environments.

2.3 The demand-resource imbalance in digital work

The Job Demands-Resources framework (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017; Bakker et al., 2023; Demerouti et al., 2001) offers the systemic logic through which the belonging deficit becomes a strain outcome. The framework holds that wellbeing at work depends on the relationship between two categories of job characteristic. Job demands are aspects of work that require sustained physical, cognitive, or emotional effort. Job resources are aspects that help workers achieve their goals, manage demands, and sustain motivation. When demands consistently outpace resources, strain follows. The framework has been validated extensively across occupational settings and remains the dominant lens in occupational health psychology for understanding how work design produces wellbeing outcomes (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).

Two extensions of the framework are pertinent to this discussion. The first concerns the demand side. Digital work generates a distinctive form of demand that the literature has not adequately named, which can be called digital relational demand. This refers to the cognitive and emotional effort required to decode affective cues from low-bandwidth channels, manage asynchronous response expectations, navigate communication norms that vary across platforms, sustain impression management across fragmented and visible interactions, and interpret the social signals embedded in AI-generated workflow communications. These demands are amplified by always-on connectivity norms, which review evidence shows are predominantly institutional in origin and are met largely with individual coping responses rather than organizational redesign (Mdhluli, 2025). These are not just variations of workload or role conflict. They are specifically relational in character, and they arise from the design of digitally mediated interaction rather than from the volume or content of work. There is a notable distinction between these variations and Hochschild's (1983) concept of emotional labor. Emotional labor concerns the management of one's own emotional display in service of organizational expectations. Digital relational demand concerns the cost of operating within work conditions that make meaningful workplace connection harder to maintain. The source of the burden is different. Digital relational demand may be assessed through indicators capturing three related experiences: the perceived effort required to decode affective intent from text-based or asynchronous messages; the cognitive load associated with managing response expectations across multiple communication platforms simultaneously; and the sense of relational ambiguity produced when workflow communications are generated or filtered by AI systems rather than by a colleague directly. These indicators should be developed and validated as part of a broader scale development program. In the present paper, they are offered as a conceptual starting point rather than a validated measurement approach. The second extension addresses the resource side. Meaningful relational connection, which refers to the experience of recognition, affirmation, and continuity in collegial relationships, is best understood as a job resource in and of itself. It protects against emotional exhaustion, sustains organizational identification, supports recovery from effort, and provides the psychological foundation for the kinds of creative and discretionary contribution that organizations depend on. When digital frameworks simultaneously raise digital relational demands and deplete this resource, the result is the demand-resource imbalance that the framework predicts will produce strain. Strain can manifest itself in the form of organizational loneliness.

This framing also clarifies the relationship between organizational loneliness and burnout. Burnout, as Maslach et al. (2001) and Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) have shown, is produced by chronic demand excess. Heavy workloads, role conflict, and emotional labor all deplete personal resources over time. Organizational loneliness is produced through a different pathway altogether: the work structure fails to provide a specific relational resource, and the failure persists regardless of demand level. An employee can be overloaded but relationally attached, in which case burnout may develop without loneliness. An employee can work at a comfortable pace while feeling relationally deprived, resulting in loneliness without burnout. The two states frequently co-occur, and each can exacerbate the other. However, they have distinct causal pathways, require distinct organizational responses, and implicate distinct resources. Conflating them causes organizations to reduce workload when they should be redesigning the workplace communication systems of work. Conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll et al., 2018) adds a useful temporal element to this picture. Resources are lost in a spiral pattern. When the relational resource is depleted, the worker becomes more vulnerable to further losses in adjacent domains, including self-efficacy, organizational commitment, and felt meaning. This spiral logic additionally assists to explain the feedback loop described in Section 5, in which loneliness reduces the worker's propensity to invest in relational contact. That withdrawal in turn accelerates the thinning of the very connections that the work arrangement already under-provides (see Section 5). The construct should therefore be regarded as a theoretically derived demand category that requires empirical validation before broader adoption.

2.4 The sociotechnical frame

The Sociotechnical systems theory provides the conceptual lens through which the rest of the argument hangs together. The original Tavistock studies (Trist and Bamforth, 1951), and the contemporary extensions of that tradition (Pasmore et al., 2019), hold that organizations are made up of two interdependent subsystems, one technical and one social, and that effective performance requires both to be optimized together. When technical change outpaces social adaptation, the misalignment produces costs that are predictable in character and that fall across the workforce, not only on individuals with particular vulnerabilities. Trist and Bamforth (1951) documented a pattern in which the longwall method disrupted the small-group structures that coal miners had relied on to maintain their working relationships. This pattern has resonances in contemporary digital work. Communication throughput, task accountability, productivity measurement, and AI-assisted coordination are all areas in which the technical subsystem has been optimized with considerable sophistication. The social dimensions of work, including the conditions required for relational wellbeing, have received considerably less attention. The conditions in question are spontaneous affirmation, relational continuity, embodied co-presence, and informal social anchoring, and they are systematically absent or degraded in most digitally mediated work designs. A recent systematic review by Charalampous et al. (2019) documents this pattern across studies of remote e-workers, in which the technical flexibility gains of digital work are reliably accompanied by relational losses that organizations do not routinely recognize. This perspective serves a specific function that belongingness theory and the JD-R framework cannot perform on their own. Belongingness theory establishes what relational conditions workers need. The JD-R framework explains how the absence of those conditions produces strain. The sociotechnical lens explains why those conditions are missing in the first place, implying that their absence is a feature of how digital work systems were designed, rather than an unintended consequence of how specific workers behave. The four mechanisms developed in Section 4 are proposed as potential consequences of digital work arrangements that prioritize efficiency and coordination while giving limited attention to the conditions that support workplace relationships.

2.5 Loneliness as psychosocial risk

Workplace loneliness has increasingly been recognized within occupational health research as a psychosocial hazard that may affect employee wellbeing, functioning, and organizational outcomes (Leka and Jain, 2010; World Health Organization and International Labor Organization, 2022). This perspective shifts loneliness away from being viewed solely as a personal experience and places attention on the broader work conditions that may contribute to it. Psychosocial safety climate is especially relevant in this regard. Dollard and Bakker (2010) define psychosocial safety climate as employees' shared perceptions that organizational policies, practices, and management decisions genuinely support psychological health and wellbeing. In digitally mediated work settings, psychosocial safety climate may shape how employees experience the relational demands associated with remote and hybrid work. Where this climate is strong, organizations are more likely to recognize relational strain early, create supportive communication practices, and maintain conditions that strengthen collegial connection. Under these conditions, the harmful effects of digital work demands on loneliness may be reduced. Where psychosocial safety climate is weak, employees are more likely to experience loneliness as a personal problem that they must manage individually, even when the underlying causes are linked to the organization of work itself. This creates a risk that organizations respond with interventions aimed primarily at individual coping, such as resilience training or employee assistance programs, while overlooking the work practices that contribute to relational strain. From this perspective, organizational loneliness should be understood as an occupational health concern that requires organizational as well as individual responses. Attention must be directed toward how work is organized, how communication is structured, and how opportunities for meaningful collegial connection are maintained in digitally mediated environments.

3 Model development

The model presented in this paper was developed through theoretical synthesis and abductive reasoning, following established approaches to conceptual theory development in organizational research (Shepherd and Sutcliffe, 2011; Weick, 1995). The analysis brought together four related areas of research.

The first area included research on workplace loneliness and belongingness (Baumeister and Leary, 1995; McCarthy et al., 2025; Peplau and Perlman, 1982; Wright and Silard, 2021). The second emphasized digital work and virtual teams (Gajendran and Harrison, 2007; Gajendran et al., 2024; Raghuram et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021). The third included research on computer-mediated communication and social presence (Byron, 2008; Daft and Lengel, 1986; Short et al., 1976; Walther, 1996). The fourth drew from occupational health psychology, particularly research on job demands, work resources, and psychosocial safety climate (; Dollard and Bakker, 2010; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).

The four mechanisms discussed in Section 4 emerged through repeated comparison across these bodies of work and through engagement with empirical findings on professional isolation (Golden et al., 2008), virtual work relationships (Schinoff et al., 2020), technostress (Tarafdar et al., 2019), and digitally mediated work practices (Leonardi, 2021). The aim was to identify recurring relational patterns that existing research had recognized in parts but had not yet integrated into a broader explanation of loneliness in digital work settings.

Two principles guided the selection of mechanisms. The first was theoretical consistency. Each mechanism needed to follow logically from existing theory on belongingness, digital communication, work demands and resources, or sociotechnical systems. The second was conceptual distinctiveness. Each mechanism needed to represent a different relational process rather than a variation of the same process. For instance, employees may maintain relationships that involve substantial mutual knowledge and regular interaction, yet still experience limited spontaneous affirmation when communication remains highly scheduled, and task focused. In this case, relationship continuity may still exist while informal recognition and emotional connection remain weak. The framework, therefore, treats these as related but distinct processes.

The four mechanisms are not presented as a complete explanation of loneliness in digital work. Digital technologies continue to evolve rapidly, particularly with the expansion of generative artificial intelligence, synthetic interaction tools, and mixed-reality collaboration systems. Additional relational processes may emerge as these technologies become more integrated into everyday work practices. The model is therefore intended as a foundation for future empirical research rather than a final account of all possible pathways through which digital work may weaken workplace belonging.

4 The four mechanisms

The four mechanisms presented below operate at different levels of organizational life, and this distinction is important to the overall argument. Loneliness in digital work does not emerge through a single process. It develops through several related processes that unfold across workplace relationships, everyday interaction patterns, and digital communication systems. A single-level explanation would, therefore, provide only a partial account of how loneliness develops under conditions of continuous connectivity. Relational thinning and weak relational continuity operate primarily at the level of workplace relationships over time. These mechanisms focus on how relationships gradually become less socially meaningful, less stable, and less personally significant in digitally mediated work settings. Reduced spontaneous affirmation operates at the level of everyday interaction. It concerns the small but important exchanges of informal recognition, encouragement, and personal acknowledgment that help employees feel socially valued within the workplace. Symbolic presence without emotional availability operates at the level of digital communication systems and visibility practices. It concerns how digital platforms shape the forms of interaction that become possible, encouraged, or restricted in everyday work. Distinguishing between these levels is important for both research and practice. Different mechanisms require different forms of measurement and may call for different organizational responses. Some mechanisms relate to communication patterns between coworkers, others relate to broader work practices, and others relate to how digital systems structure visibility and interaction. Treating these mechanisms as distinct therefore helps clarify both how organizational loneliness develops and where meaningful intervention may be required.

4.1 Relational thinning

Relational thinning refers to the gradual weakening of the depth, warmth, and personal significance of workplace relationships under conditions of sustained digital communication. It describes relationships that remain functional for task coordination but become less emotionally meaningful over time. Employees may communicate frequently with colleagues while emotional investment, mutual personal knowledge, and felt connection decline. Interaction volume remains high; relational depth does not. The mechanism is specific to digitally mediated work, and it is distinct from the absence of contact that earlier loneliness research described. It is also distinct from weak relational continuity. Relational thinning concerns the depth and quality of relationships at a given point in time. Weak relational continuity, set out below, concerns the stability and predictability of relational contact across time. The two often co-occur in digital work, but they are conceptually and empirically separable.

Several theoretical perspectives support the argument. Sociotechnical systems theory suggests that organizations may prioritize technical efficiency without giving equal attention to the social conditions that sustain strong workplace relationships (Pasmore et al., 2019; Trist and Bamforth, 1951). As digitally mediated work expands, the informal and spontaneous interaction through which relational depth develops becomes less common. Belongingness theory likewise holds that frequent interaction alone is not enough to sustain belonging if relationships lack continuity and personal significance (Baumeister and Leary, 1995). From a Job Demands-Resources perspective, workplace relationships function as a social resource, and this resource is depleted when work practices no longer support meaningful interpersonal connection (; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Research on computer-mediated communication adds the interaction-level explanation. Low-bandwidth channels reduce access to non-verbal and emotional cues (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Short et al., 1976), while asynchronous communication interrupts the natural rhythm of conversation through which mutual understanding accumulates (Karr-Wisniewski and Lu, 2010; Schinoff et al., 2020).

Several conditions within digital work contribute to thinning in practice. Text-based communication limits access to tone, expression, and other cues that carry warmth. Asynchronous communication fragments interaction across time. Remote and hybrid work reduce opportunities for informal contact that would otherwise occur through shared physical presence, such as brief exchanges before meetings or casual conversation during the workday (Kniffin et al., 2021). Hyperconnectivity norms push communication toward rapid and highly task-focused exchange, leaving little room for informal relational interaction (Tarafdar et al., 2019). AI-supported communication systems may intensify the process further. When systems automatically summarize messages, prioritize communication, allocate tasks, or filter interaction, employees become increasingly separated from the interpersonal aspects of communication itself (Leonardi, 2021; Parent-Rocheleau and Parker, 2022). Tasks may continue to move efficiently, but the social qualities ordinarily carried through direct interaction may weaken over time.

Relational thinning is treated as the central mechanism within the model for three reasons. It represents a continuous process rather than an isolated event. It links directly to broader changes in how digitally mediated work shapes relationships over time. And it can become self-reinforcing, since employees who experience loneliness may gradually reduce relational investment, which further weakens relationships over time (Wright and Silard, 2021). The mechanism can be examined through measures of perceived relationship quality, including mutual personal knowledge, emotional investment, perceived warmth, and the extent to which communication includes non-task interaction. These indicators should be examined alongside interaction frequency to test whether relationships become weaker even when contact remains constant. Existing research on relational social capital provides a useful starting point for operationalization (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), though additional items sensitive to digital work contexts will be needed.

4.2 Reduced spontaneous affirmation

Spontaneous affirmation refers to small and unplanned expressions of recognition, appreciation, or care that occur naturally between colleagues during everyday work. These interactions may include a brief compliment, shared humor, a casual check-in, or an informal acknowledgment of effort. Although individually minor, these interactions become important when experienced repeatedly over time. They help employees feel noticed, valued, and socially connected within the workplace.

Belongingness theory helps explain why these interactions matter. Baumeister and Leary (1995) argue that belonging depends partly on frequent positive interaction that is not tied only to performance or obligation. In office-based work settings, this kind of interaction often develops naturally through shared physical space and routine interpersonal contact. Employees encounter one another before meetings, during breaks, while walking through shared spaces, or during unplanned conversations throughout the day. These interactions do not require deliberate planning, yet they contribute significantly to relationship development and social connection (Allen et al., 2021; Baumeister and Leary, 1995). Digital work alters these interaction patterns. From a sociotechnical perspective, informal social interaction may gradually receive less attention as organizations prioritize efficiency, speed, and task coordination (Pasmore et al., 2019; Trist and Bamforth, 1951). Informal moments of recognition rarely appear in performance indicators or productivity systems, and as a result they may become less common in digitally mediated work settings. From a Job Demands–Resources perspective, this means that an important relational resource is no longer replenished consistently (; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Recognition may become more formal, more scheduled, and more closely linked to task performance rather than personal connection.

In practice, digital communication channels direct much workplace interaction into task-oriented spaces. Opportunities for unplanned interaction become more limited in remote and hybrid work settings (Kniffin et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021). Recognition may still occur, but it is often formalized through structured feedback processes, public team announcements, or digital reaction features such as emojis and badges. While these signals may communicate acknowledgment, they may not provide the same sense of interpersonal warmth or genuine personal regard. Media richness theory suggests that leaner communication channels provide fewer social and emotional cues than face-to-face interaction (Daft and Lengel, 1986). Similarly, Walther (1996) argues that text-based interaction may become increasingly impersonal when communication lacks sufficient social context and interpersonal depth. Research on emotional communication in digital interaction further supports this concern, showing that emotional tone is often misunderstood or weakened in email and text-based communication (Byron, 2008).

Reduced spontaneous affirmation differs from relational thinning in important ways. Employees may still maintain long-standing workplace relationships and substantial mutual knowledge while experiencing very little informal recognition in everyday interaction. Relationships may remain stable, yet interaction may become increasingly structured, scheduled, and task-focused. The mechanism therefore concerns the weakening of everyday interpersonal affirmation rather than the overall existence of workplace relationships. This mechanism may be examined through measures capturing the frequency of unsolicited and non-task recognition from colleagues, separate from formal performance feedback or scheduled recognition processes. Experience sampling approaches may be especially useful because they capture these interactions as they occur during normal work activities, rather than relying solely on retrospective reporting (Schinoff et al., 2020).

4.3 Weak relational continuity

Relational continuity refers to the sense that workplace relationships remain stable across time and contexts, with predictable interaction, accumulated shared experience, and familiarity that builds over repeated contact. The boundary against relational thinning is important. Relational thinning concerns the depth of relationships in the present moment, while relational continuity concerns the stability and predictability of relational contact over time. The two can move independently. A worker may have continuous but shallow contact with the same colleagues, in which case continuity is strong while depth is thin. A worker may also have deep but episodic relationships, in which case depth is high while continuity is weak. In digital work, the two often weaken together, but they do so through different pathways and call for different responses.

In the office work environment, continuity develops naturally through repeated informal contact during ordinary work activities. Employees interact before meetings, during breaks, and across routine daily encounters, and these interactions allow relationships to develop in a continuous way (Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Wright et al., 2006). Schinoff et al. (2020) describe this through the concept of relational cadence, by which they mean the regularity and predictability of interpersonal interaction. Their evidence shows that when cadence is disrupted, organizational identification, and relationship development suffer even when individual interactions remain positive. Relationships start to feel episodic or fragmented rather than continuous. Similar concerns appear in virtual work research, where distributed communication patterns weaken cohesion and continuity over time (Raghuram et al., 2019).

Several theoretical perspectives support the argument. Sociotechnical systems theory holds that asynchronous and digitally mediated work practices weaken the informal social patterns through which teams maintain shared understanding over time (Pasmore et al., 2019; Trist and Bamforth, 1951). According to belongingness theory, stable and long-term social connections are required for belonging to develop and persist. The Job Demands-Resources framework interprets relational continuity as a workplace resource that necessitates continuous support, particularly when interaction is fragmented across digital channels (; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).

Several aspects of digital work undermine continuity in practice. Asynchronous communication interrupts the natural rhythm of interaction between colleagues (Karr-Wisniewski and Lu, 2010). Virtual meetings are highly structured and time-bound, with limited informal interaction before or after the scheduled discussion (Kniffin et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021). Hybrid arrangements create uneven relational experiences between employees who are physically present and those who participate remotely (Charalampous et al., 2019). Temporary project teams and short-term digital channels dissolve once tasks are completed, ending the relational infrastructure that had begun to develop within them (Raghuram et al., 2019). AI-supported scheduling may further reinforce the pattern by organizing interaction around efficiency rather than around longer-term relational continuity (Leonardi, 2021; Parent-Rocheleau and Parker, 2022). When continuity weakens, employees may need to repeatedly re-establish relational context during interaction rather than build on an already established sense of familiarity. Over time, this also contributes to relational thinning (Schinoff et al., 2020; Wright and Silard, 2021).

The mechanism can be examined through measures of perceived interaction continuity, relational predictability, and relational cadence, adapting the ideas of Schinoff et al. (2020) for broader digital work contexts. Longitudinal designs are particularly informative because they allow changes in relationships to be examined across shifts in team composition, communication practices, and work arrangements (Golden et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2021).

4.4 Symbolic presence without emotional availability

Digital work platforms make employees continuously visible to one another through online status indicators, read receipts, shared calendars, activity logs, and other forms of digital trace data (Leonardi, 2021). This visibility creates what we call symbolic presence. Employees appear available and engaged, even when their actual interpersonal availability is limited. Emotional availability is something different. It involves attentiveness, the capacity to engage with a colleague as a person rather than only as a task partner, and a willingness to communicate beyond what the immediate workflow requires. Digital work environments often make this kind of availability harder to sustain because communication is structured around speed, responsiveness, and workflow efficiency rather than around interpersonal connection (Raghuram et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021).

A simple example demonstrates the mechanism. A worker sees a colleague online and sends a message asking how a recent piece of work has been going. The status indicator is green. The message is read in mere seconds. The reply, when it arrives several minutes later, is short, task-focused, and does not engage with the personal part of the question. The colleague was visible throughout. The colleague was not emotionally available at any point in the exchange. The worker now has a different experience than if no contact had been attempted at all. It is not the experience of being alone. It is the experience of trying to connect with someone who appears available but is not. This is what makes the mechanism distinctive. The visibility signals create an expectation of interpersonal availability that the interaction itself does not fulfill, and the discrepancy between the two contributes to relational disappointment. This mechanism differs from emotional exhaustion, shallow communication, or broader social presence concerns because it concerns the repeated experience of apparent availability without meaningful interpersonal engagement. It is the demand to respond quickly, which the worker experiences in their own work. Emotional exhaustion is the feeling of being depleted, which can occur for a variety of reasons other than emotional availability. Shallow communication refers to the quality of a single message. Social presence theory describes how communication channels convey the impression that others are real and present. In contrast to emotional availability, symbolic presence refers to a more restricted and specific experience: the disappointment that accumulates over numerous interactions when an individual who appears to be available is found to be unreliable.

Several theoretical perspectives support the argument. From a sociotechnical perspective, digitally mediated work systems may separate visible participation from meaningful social involvement (Pasmore et al., 2019; Trist and Bamforth, 1951). Employees learn to maintain the appearance of availability through rapid replies, active status indicators, and continuous online presence while remaining disengaged from the interaction itself. The Job Demands-Resources framework helps explain why this matters. Employees may appear socially connected while lacking the relational resources associated with genuine interpersonal support (; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Belongingness theory adds that interaction alone is not enough when contact lacks genuine personal engagement and relational warmth (Baumeister and Leary, 1995). Research on computer-mediated communication reaches a similar conclusion. Social presence work shows that visible connection does not always translate into genuine interpersonal presence (Biocca et al., 2003; Short et al., 1976). Walther's (1996) hyperpersonal model suggests that text-based communication may become more impersonal and task-focused when interpersonal cues are reduced. Byron (2008) demonstrates that emotional meaning is frequently misinterpreted or weakened in digital communication channels.

The mechanism may be examined through survey items assessing the perceived gap between visible availability and genuine interpersonal engagement. Relevant indicators include: the extent to which colleagues are experienced as digitally present but emotionally absent during interactions; the degree to which online status signals read receipts, and activity indicators are felt to misrepresent actual interpersonal availability, and whether communication feels personally responsive rather than purely operational. Possible item stems include: “My colleagues appear available online but rarely engage with me personally,” “When I reach out to colleagues digitally, I often receive a response that does not address the personal dimension of my message,” as well as “The online presence of my colleagues gives me a sense of connection that the actual interaction rarely confirms.” These indicators should be developed and validated as part of a larger-scale development program. In the current paper, they are presented as a conceptual starting point rather than a validated measurement tool. Symbolic presence without emotional availability also plays two roles within the broader model. It functions as a mechanism through which digital work conditions contribute to loneliness, and it moderates the relationship between communication volume and loneliness outcomes. Hypothesis 4 specifically tests whether high levels of symbolic presence strengthen the relationship between communication volume and loneliness, on the reasoning that the gap between apparent and genuine relational availability widens as contact volume increases. The defining feature of symbolic presence without emotional availability is therefore not low communication quality, low responsiveness, or weak social presence alone, but the repeated mismatch between visible accessibility and meaningful interpersonal engagement.

5 The conceptual model

Figure 1 presents the full conceptual model proposed in this paper. The model is theoretically derived and intended to guide future empirical testing rather than to represent an established causal sequence. All pathways should therefore be interpreted as hypothesized relationships.

The antecedent conditions shown on the left side of the model represent key features of digitally mediated work that are expected to activate the four proposed mechanisms. These conditions include asynchronous communication norms, text-based interaction, hyperconnectivity expectations, continuous visibility systems, reduced embodied co-presence, fragmented communication rhythms, AI-mediated coordination, and algorithmic scheduling. Together, these conditions alter how employees interact, maintain relationships, and experience collegial connection within contemporary organizations.

The four mechanisms are proposed as conceptually distinct but empirically co-occurring parallel pathways, rather than as stages in a predetermined sequence. Each mechanism describes a distinct relational process by which digital work conditions can undermine workplace belonging. Relational thinning refers to the depth and warmth of relationships at any given point. Weak relational continuity refers to the consistency and predictability of those relationships over time. Reduced spontaneous affirmation refers to everyday interpersonal signals that help employees feel recognized and valued. Symbolic presence without emotional availability refers to the difference between visible accessibility and genuine interpersonal engagement. The mechanisms are separable because they can operate independently: a worker may have strong relational continuity with a long-term colleague while receiving little spontaneous affirmation from that colleague. A worker may feel emotionally connected to a team despite repeatedly encountering symbolic presence without emotional availability in brief exchanges. The mechanisms are expected to co-occur in most digital work settings, and their combined influence is likely to produce stronger loneliness outcomes than any single mechanism in isolation. However, the model is modular by design, and future empirical research may investigate mechanisms independently before testing the entire pathway.

Table 2 links each mechanism to its primary antecedent conditions and identifies the theoretical perspective most directly supporting the proposed relationship. This mapping clarifies the internal logic of the model and highlights the most important areas for future empirical investigation.

Table 2. Antecedent-to-mechanism mapping: primary activators and theoretical derivation.

STS, sociotechnical systems theory; JD-R, Job Demands-Resources theory; CMC, computer-mediated communication scholarship. Primary antecedents are those with the most direct theoretical and empirical link to each mechanism. Multiple antecedents may activate multiple mechanisms simultaneously.

Together, the four mechanisms explain how digital work conditions may lead to organizational loneliness. The model is modular in nature, and future research may examine specific mechanisms independently rather than testing the full framework simultaneously. Subsequently, it is anticipated that organizational loneliness will affect outcomes in three broad categories. The wellbeing outcomes include emotional exhaustion, frustration of relatedness needs, and reduced meaning at work. The organizational outcomes include weaker organizational identification, stronger turnover intentions, and declining social capital within teams and organizations. The behavioral outcomes include decreased voice behavior, decreased citizenship behavior, silent withdrawal, and presenteeism with no genuine interpersonal connection.

These outcomes are not expected to be uniform across all mechanisms. Relational thinning and weak relational continuity are likely to have the greatest impact on organizational identification and social capital decline because both mechanisms affect the long-term quality and stability of collegial relationships. Because it concerns the everyday interpersonal signals that employees use to feel recognized and valued, reduced spontaneous affirmation is expected to be more strongly associated with emotional exhaustion and decreased meaning at work. Symbolic presence without emotional availability is expected to be most strongly associated with silent withdrawal and disengaged presenteeism, as repeated experiences of apparent availability without meaningful interpersonal response may promote behavioral disengagement rather than visible distress.

Several boundary conditions are expected to influence these relationships. At the organizational level, these include psychosocial safety climate, organizational belonging culture, hybrid work arrangements, leader relational capability, and team stability. Individually relevant conditions include digital relational efficacy, trait need to belong, attachment style, and the degree to which a role is dependent on digitally mediated interaction. The level of AI-mediated coordination is expected to strengthen a number of the proposed mechanisms, and its effects are analytically distinct from those of digital platforms generally. Where digital platforms reduce the quality and richness of relational interaction, AI coordination may eliminate the human contact through which relational signals were previously transmitted, making its contribution to organizational loneliness potentially more pronounced. Higher levels of AI mediation may increase symbolic presence while decreasing emotional availability, reducing opportunities for spontaneous affirmation, and further fragmenting communication rhythms beyond what is typically seen in digitally mediated work.

The dashed feedback loop in Figure 1 depicts Hobfoll's (1989) conservation-of-resources process, which allows loneliness to become self-reinforcing. Employees who have repeatedly encountered disappointing or emotionally unsatisfying interactions may gradually reduce their own relational investment as withdrawal becomes psychologically easier in the short term. Over time, this withdrawal further weakens workplace relationships and intensifies loneliness. This process may help explain why interventions focused only on increasing communication frequency, such as adding meetings or requiring more check-ins, often produce limited improvement. Increased interaction does not solve the underlying problem if the quality of interpersonal connection remains poor.

Each mechanism is theoretically, and empirically separable, and future studies may test individual mechanisms in isolation rather than examining the full pathway simultaneously. Empirical work on relational thinning, spontaneous affirmation, relational continuity, or symbolic presence is possible without committing to the full framework. This allows the model to be tested incrementally as the empirical research program develops.

6 Hypotheses

Six hypotheses emerge from the proposed model. Each hypothesis is presented as a directional prediction with sufficient detail to support future measurement development and study design. Suggested research designs are also included because mediation, moderation, and resource-based relationships require different methodological approaches.

6.1 Hypothesis 1. Relational thinning as the primary mediator

Relational thinning mediates the relationship between conditions of digitally mediated work and organizational loneliness. Operationally, relational thinning can be evaluated by examining perceived relational richness, mutual personal knowledge, and emotional investment in workplace relationships. The antecedent conditions that are anticipated to activate this mechanism include reduced embodied co-presence, hyperconnectivity expectations, text-based interaction, and asynchronous communication norms. Individual studies are not required to manipulate or measure all four antecedents simultaneously. The mediation effect is anticipated to persist after controlling for interaction frequency, as the mechanism of action pertains to relationship quality rather than contact volume. The recommended method combines longitudinal survey design or experience sampling with mediation analysis, varying specific antecedent conditions across studies as the research program progresses.

6.2 Hypothesis 2. Reduced spontaneous affirmation as an independent pathway

Reduced spontaneous affirmation, assessed through the perceived frequency of unsolicited and non-task recognition from colleagues, mediates the relationship between digital work conditions and organizational loneliness. This pathway is expected to remain significant even after controlling for communication volume and formally scheduled recognition practices, implying that spontaneous affirmation contributes independently to feelings of belonging. The recommended method is experience sampling, which captures affirmation episodes in real time.

6.3 Hypothesis 3. Weak relational continuity

Weak relational continuity, as measured by disrupted relational cadence and fragmented communication rhythms based on Schinoff et al. (2020), predicts organizational loneliness after controlling for communication frequency, relationship duration, and prior relationship quality. The recommended method is longitudinal survey research that tracks changes in relational continuity as workers transition between remote, hybrid, and office-based work arrangements.

6.4 Hypothesis 4. Symbolic presence as a boundary condition

Symbolic presence without emotional availability moderates the relationship between communication volume and organizational loneliness. Greater communication volume is expected to correlate with stronger feelings of loneliness and weaker belonging at high levels of symbolic presence, as the gap between apparent and genuine availability increases relational disappointment. Recommended methods include quasi-experimental narrative design or longitudinal survey research with moderated regression analysis.

6.5 Hypothesis 5. Embodied co-presence as a relational resource

Higher-quality and more predictable forms of embodied co-presence, particularly stable team co-presence arrangements with explicit interpersonal functions, have a negative correlation with organizational loneliness and a positive correlation with relational continuity. These relationships are expected to be stronger among employees who work in roles that require a lot of digitally mediated interaction. Equivalent increases in video meeting frequency are unlikely to have the same effect because embodied co-presence provides forms of interpersonal connection that synchronous digital communication cannot fully replicate. The recommended method is quasi-experimental research with naturally occurring variation in hybrid work and return-to-office policies. Meta-analytic evidence that isolation mediates the negative effects of remote work intensity provides initial support for this prediction (Gajendran et al., 2024).

6.6 Hypothesis 6: Psychosocial safety climate as a buffer

The psychological safety climate (Dollard and Bakker, 2010) moderates the positive relationship between digital relational demands and organizational loneliness. The relationship is expected to be weaker in workplaces with a strong psychosocial safety climate because organizational practices that promote psychological and relational wellbeing help to mitigate the negative effects of digitally mediated work demands. The recommended method is multilevel survey research, which combines team-level psychosocial safety climate measures with individual-level organizational loneliness measures.

7 Discussion

7.1 Theoretical contributions

This paper contributes to the workplace loneliness, digital work, human-technology interaction, and occupational health psychology literatures in four main ways.

The first contribution concerns construct clarification. Organizational loneliness is defined as a form of workplace loneliness that emerges within digitally mediated work settings and highlights relational experiences that existing frameworks do not adequately explain. Three measurement gaps are identified. The first is the loneliness paradox: employees may experience loneliness despite frequent communication. The second is the gap between communication quantity and relational quality: employees may interact constantly while relationships remain emotionally thin. The third is the gap between digital visibility and genuine interpersonal recognition: online presence may signal availability without producing felt connection. Existing instruments, including the Loneliness at Work Scale (Wright et al., 2006), were developed in context where lower interaction frequency was assumed to indicate weaker social connection. In highly connected digital environments, communication volume alone may conceal rather than reveal loneliness. The contribution here is precise rather than broad. Where existing workplace loneliness research explains disconnection produced by limited contact or poor relationships quality, the present framework explains disconnection that develops under conditions of continuous interaction.

The second contribution concerns the identification of mechanisms. Four distinct mechanisms are proposed, each operating at a different level of analysis, and each linked to specific features of digitally mediated work. Their theoretical foundations are traced across belongingness theory, the JD-R framework, sociotechnical systems theory, and computer-mediated communication research. The contribution moves the literature beyond the general claim that digital work may produce loneliness by specifying the processes through which this occurs. The framework also supports a more differentiated approach to intervention. Relational thinning points to the importance of richer and more sustained interpersonal interaction. Reduced spontaneous affirmation highlights the need for informal recognition and unscheduled social contact. Weak relational continuity draws attention to team stability and interaction rhythm. Symbolic presence without emotional availability suggests the need to reconsider digital communication norms and visibility expectations.

The third contribution is to situate organizational loneliness within the design of digital work rather than within the personality of individual employees. Grounding the analysis in sociotechnical thinking leads to the view that organizational loneliness may be shaped by the conditions under which people work, not by who they are. For research design purposes, this means that digital work features should be treated as primary predictors. For organizational practice, this means that the appropriate response is to focus on how digital work is organized rather than recommending individual resilience training. For policy purposes, this means that the risk of loneliness should be assessed at the organizational level rather than at the individual employee level. This reframing is also directly related to the growing role of artificial intelligence in everyday work (Parent-Rocheleau and Parker, 2022). As AI assumes a greater role in coordinating work activities, understanding its implications for workplace relationships becomes increasingly important. Future research should examine the conditions under which AI-mediated coordination may strengthen, weaken, or reshape opportunities for workplace connection.

The fourth contribution extends the JD-R framework by introducing digital relational demands as a distinct category of work demand. Existing demand categories such as workload, role conflict, and emotional labor do not fully capture the interpersonal strain associated with digitally mediated work. Digital relational demands involve the ongoing effort required to maintain meaningful workplace relationships within communication systems that often fragment interaction, reduce continuity, and limit interpersonal depth. This differs from emotional labor, which primarily concerns the management of emotional display. The distinction matters because it draws attention to a different form of work-related strain, one linked to the conditions under which interpersonal connection is sustained in contemporary digital work settings.

7.2 Practical implications

7.2.1 Implications for organizational design and human resource practice

The primary implication of this paper is that loneliness in digital work may be best understood as a work design concern in addition to an individual support concern. The diagnostic question is therefore not only which employees are struggling, but which specific relational conditions in the way digital work is organized may be weakening over time. The purpose of the framework is not to suggest that digital work inevitably weakens workplace relationships, but rather to identify the conditions under which this outcome becomes more likely. Four conditions, each corresponding to one of the mechanisms proposed in this paper, may be worth examining. The first requirement is the availability of interaction channels that enable informal and non-task communication. The second factor is the degree to which employees have opportunities for spontaneous and unscheduled contact with coworkers. The third factor is the predictability and consistency of team interaction patterns. The fourth factor is the extent to which visibility systems create the appearance of availability while not promoting genuine engagement. These four conditions can be examined through ordinary employee survey methods, and the present model offers a clearer view of what specifically to ask about. Belonging may also be worth measuring directly rather than inferring from engagement scores. Employees can be highly engaged with their work while feeling lonely within the organization. Engagement and belonging are related but distinct, with different causes. Organizations that rely solely on engagement indicators may fail to recognize loneliness until it manifests itself as turnover intentions, withdrawal, or declining collaboration. These diagnostic questions, however, should be approached with an understanding that digital work does not uniformly produce relational loss. It is worth noting that relational loss is not consistently generated by digitally mediated work. The mechanisms proposed in this paper delineate the circumstances in which the relational quality of digital work may be compromised. However, digital technologies can also facilitate the development of relational development, connection, and belonging when the organizational conditions are favorable. For employees who encounter geographic, physical, or social obstacles to in-person interaction, digital communication environments that are well-designed may enhance their accessibility. Stressors that would otherwise disrupt relational engagement may be mitigated by flexible work arrangements, although review evidence indicates that realizing these benefits while containing the wellbeing costs of constant accessibility requires deliberate organizational policy rather than default connectivity norms (Bondanini et al., 2025). Structured inclusion practices, intentional virtual team practices, and communication norms that safeguard informal interaction can assist digital work environments in maintaining the relational qualities that spontaneous co-present interaction naturally provides. The model proposed in this paper is thus better understood as an explanation for when and why digital work causes loneliness, rather than a claim that it invariably does. The organizational conditions under which the proposed mechanisms are anticipated to be most and least pronounced are represented by the boundary conditions identified in Section 5: psychosocial safety climate, organizational belonging culture, leader relational capability, and team stability.

7.2.2 Implications for people managers

The mechanism of reduced spontaneous affirmation has particular implications for managers. Scheduled recognition and spontaneous recognition do not function in the same way. Formal recognition programs, performance reviews, and structured feedback systems remain important, but they do not replace the interpersonal value of brief and unplanned expressions of appreciation or concern. In co-present settings, many of these interactions occur naturally through everyday contact. In digital work, they tend to disappear unless they are protected. Managers who rely only on formal recognition processes may leave an important interpersonal gap, even when their performance management practices are strong. Brief conversational check-ins, unstructured interaction opportunities, and small moments of personal acknowledgment appear to play a role in sustaining belonging in digital work.

7.2.3 Implications for policy and occupational health

The World Health Organization and International Labor Organization (2022) already recognize social wellbeing as an important consideration in telework. The present framework may help give that recognition more specific content by identifying the relational conditions whose weakening contributes to loneliness in digital work. The psychosocial safety climate framework (Dollard and Bakker, 2010) provides an effective organizational foundation. Assessments of psychosocial working conditions may benefit from focusing on interaction quality, recognition practices, team continuity, communication rhythms, and the difference between visible availability and genuine engagement. Current policies addressing remote and hybrid work tend to prioritize ergonomic risk and individual mental health concerns. The current analysis suggests that relational conditions may warrant attention as a distinct area of occupational health risk, and that this consideration will likely become more important as AI-mediated coordination plays a larger role in communication organization.

7.3 Future research agenda

Six priorities for future research emerge from the proposed model.

A key priority is scale development. There is a need for a validated measure of organizational loneliness designed specifically for digitally mediated work settings. Such a measure should capture the three issues identified earlier in the paper: loneliness despite high communication frequency, weak relational quality despite frequent interaction, and the gap between digital visibility and genuine interpersonal recognition. Establishing discriminant validity against the Loneliness at Work Scale (Wright et al., 2006) and established burnout measures will be especially important. Scale development should follow established psychometric guidelines (DeVellis, 2017) and should include employees across different industries, organizational settings, and forms of digital work. Establishing discriminant validity against workplace loneliness, burnout, technostress, and work engagement will be particularly important for demonstrating that organizational loneliness captures a distinct relational experience. Another important direction involves longitudinal testing of the proposed mechanisms. Experience sampling methodology is particularly well suited to examining the temporal dynamics of relational thinning and the resource loss process described by Hobfoll (1989). Repeated assessments of relational quality, spontaneous affirmation, and loneliness may help determine whether the proposed self-reinforcing cycle develops over time and identify the points at which intervention may be most effective.

Greater causal insight may come from quasi-experimental work on hybrid arrangements. Changes in return-to-office policies, hybrid work schedules, and team configurations create opportunities to examine Hypothesis 5 under naturally occurring organizational conditions. Future studies should examine whether changes in co-presence arrangements influence relational continuity, relationship quality, and organizational loneliness over time. Another important area concerns AI-mediated coordination. Future research should directly examine whether increasing levels of AI involvement in scheduling, workflow coordination, and communication management strengthen the proposed mechanisms, particularly symbolic presence without emotional availability and reduced spontaneous affirmation. Organizations adopting AI-assisted coordination systems may provide useful settings for examining these relationships.

Future research should further investigate individual-level moderators. The model identifies attachment style, trait need to belong, and digital relational efficacy as possible moderating influences. Future research should examine whether some employees are more vulnerable to specific mechanisms than others and whether different forms of support are needed across employee groups. The sixth priority is cross-cultural and cross-sector research. The proposed mechanisms are unlikely to operate identically across all cultural and organizational settings. Relational norms, communication practices, and access to digital infrastructure vary substantially across contexts. Research conducted in under-resourced settings and informal work environments is especially important because many of the assumptions underlying digital work research, such as stable connectivity and formal employment structures, are not universally applicable.

7.4 Limitations

The initial limitation is that the paper is conceptual in nature. The proposed model and hypotheses require empirical testing before causal conclusions can be drawn. The arguments presented here should, therefore, be interpreted as theoretically derived propositions rather than established empirical findings. The second limitation pertains to the manner in which individual differences are addressed. Variables such as attachment style, personality, and prior relational experiences were not included in the core model in order to maintain conceptual clarity and parsimony. These factors are instead treated as potential moderators of the proposed relationships. Future empirical research will need to incorporate these variables to determine how structural work conditions interact with individual relational tendencies. The third limitation is the rate at which technology advances. Digital and AI technologies continue to evolve rapidly, and future developments may introduce relational processes not captured in the present framework. This is especially relevant for generative AI in communication, synthetic social agents, and mixed-reality collaboration technologies. The long-term interpersonal consequences of these developments remain uncertain and require further investigation. The contextual scope is the fourth limitation. The model assumes a relatively stable digital infrastructure and formal employment arrangements. Employees who work in precarious conditions, on gig economy platforms, or in settings with limited digital access may have different experiences with workplace relationships. Future research should investigate these conditions directly, rather than treating them as background contextual factors.

8 Conclusion

This paper examines a specific and undertheorized condition of contemporary work: the development of loneliness under conditions of continuous digital connectivity. The contribution is precise. Existing workplace loneliness models explain disconnection produced by limited contact or poor relationship quality. The present framework explains why loneliness may persist when contact is frequent, by identifying four mechanisms through which the quality of workplace relationships may weaken even as their volume remains high. Relational thinning, reduced spontaneous affirmation, weak relational continuity, and symbolic presence without emotional availability each describes a different pathway through which digital work conditions may erode relational foundations of professional belonging.

The three theoretical perspectives used in this paper complement one another in specific ways. Belongingness theory identifies the interpersonal conditions that workplace connection requires. The Job Demands and Resources framework explains how digital work raises relational demands while simultaneously depleting the relational resources that would otherwise buffer their effects. Sociotechnical thinking explains why these conditions arise in the first place, treating them as predictable consequences of designing work systems primarily around efficiency and coordination. Together, the three perspectives support a view of organizational loneliness as a condition produced by work design rather than individual disposition.

The practical and policy implications follow from this framing. Organizations that respond to loneliness only through individual support programmes may be addressing a secondary effect of the structural problem. The organization of digital work, including communication rhythms, visibility norms, recognition practices, and team continuity conditions that shape everyday collegial life, may be a more important intervention target. As artificial intelligence becomes more involved in coordinating work activities that previously required direct human interaction, the relational costs of digital work design are likely to increase rather than decrease. The framework presented in this study is provisional, and its hypotheses require empirical testing. If the proposed mechanisms are supported, the framework may offer a more precise foundation for designing digital work in ways that sustain meaningful professional connection.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Gabriele Giorgi, European University of Rome, Italy

Reviewed by: Yujia Zhu, Sofia University, United States

Branka Zolak Poljašević, University of Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina