Managers Feel Less Belonging When Rules Tighten

by Jon Scaccia May 21, 2025

“How was your last performance review?”

Depending on who you ask, you’ll hear everything from “felt seen” to “felt blindsided.” But a new study suggests that it might not be your manager’s mood—or even your performance—that makes the difference. It’s the structure.

Researchers just dropped a two-part investigation into how structured evaluation systems—think clear criteria, standardized forms, and consistent check-ins—affect employees’ sense of belonging. And the takeaway is simple: more structure, more belonging.

But before you start mandating annual reviews for everyone, know this: not everyone benefits the same way. In fact, managers may feel less connected when their autonomy shrinks. So what’s the sweet spot? Let’s dig in.

🏗️ Why Structure Matters

Unstructured evaluations might feel “flexible,” but that ambiguity leaves room for bias—whether conscious or not. That’s especially risky for employees from marginalized groups, who often face stereotyping and inconsistent standards.

Structured evaluations—like using the same rubric for all employees or training managers to apply consistent criteria—aren’t just about efficiency. According to this study of 28,000+ workers across 120 companies, they signal fairness and a real commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB).

And employees pick up on that signal.

The Belonging Boost

Across the board, workers in companies with more structured evaluation systems felt more respected, valued, and “part of the team.” This makes sense—when people see clear rules applied to everyone, they’re more likely to believe the workplace is fair.

In fact, structure worked through two psychological pathways:

• Perceived Fairness: People believed their company was allocating promotions and feedback fairly.
• Perceived DEIB Commitment: Employees thought their organization wasn’t just paying lip service to diversity—it was putting systems in place to back it up.

These two perceptions boosted the sense of belonging—a key ingredient in retention, morale, and overall well-being at work.

But Managers? Mixed Feelings

Here’s the twist: while non-managers saw their sense of belonging rise with more structured systems, managers didn’t see the same lift. Why?

Because structure can feel like a straightjacket.

Managers reported lower feelings of autonomy when evaluation systems became more rigid. Less room to make judgment calls. Less ownership over their team’s development. And that hit their own sense of belonging.

The result? Structure narrows the belonging gap between managers and their teams—but doesn’t necessarily boost belonging for everyone.

Field + Lab: The Power of Mixed Methods

What makes this study especially strong is its two-part approach:

• Study 1: A massive field survey showed a clear correlation between perceived structure and belonging.
• Study 2: A controlled experiment confirmed causation and dug deeper into why structure matters—especially for non-managers.

In both, the findings were clear: structure matters, but who you are in the organization matters too.

So Should Every Org Go Full Bureaucracy?

Not so fast. Over-structuring can backfire if it feels robotic, inflexible, or performative. If evaluation rubrics become checklists that ignore context—like illness, caregiving, or external life stressors—they can alienate people rather than include them.

That’s why researchers recommend “structured flexibility.”

Set clear rules, but allow for exceptions—with guardrails to prevent bias from creeping back in. One idea: crowdsourcing examples of valid exceptions from diverse employee groups to create fair, context-aware guidance.

What This Means for DEIB Efforts

The study offers a crucial reminder for organizations chasing DEIB goals: belonging isn’t just a byproduct of diversity. It’s a prerequisite for making diversity work.

If employees don’t feel like they belong—especially those from underrepresented backgrounds—they’re less likely to stay, thrive, or trust their organization’s intentions.

And for once, the fix isn’t just another training—it’s a system change. A way to build fairness into the bones of your company culture.

What’s Next?

The study suggests several big opportunities:

• For HR teams: Audit your evaluation processes. Where’s the wiggle room? Who benefits from it?
• For managers: Balance consistency with empathy. Make space for exceptions—but don’t let them become excuses.
• For researchers: Test how these dynamics play out across industries, identities, and cultures.

Belonging isn’t just a feeling—it’s an outcome shaped by systems. And now we know one of the levers that can make it real.

Join the Conversation

• How structured are performance evaluations where you work?
• Have you ever felt more (or less) belonging based on how you were reviewed?
• What would “structured flexibility” look like in your organization?

You’re Missing the Headlines That Matter

🚨 Critical science is unfolding—are you in the loop?
Each week, This Week in Public Health delivers need-to-know insights that shape policy, practice, and community health. If you’re not reading it, you’re already behind.👉 Subscribe for free now to stay ahead.
📢 Share this blog—someone you know needs to see it too.