a review on work meaningfulness focusing on cultural contexts...

勞使關係硏究, 제30권 (2019년 12월)

75

A Review on Work Meaningfulness: Focusing on

Cultural Contexts in Organizations

Seonyoung Ji*

To improve the understanding of work meaningfulness, the present paper conducts a comprehensive

review on work meaningfulness literature and discusses the limitations of the literature and presents

recommendations for future research. This paper analyzes 29 different definitions of work meaningfulness

and proposes a clear definition of work meaningfulness, which integrates the distinct dimensions of work

meaningfulness: significance, purpose, and self-realization. Work meaningfulness is the individually perceived

significance of one’s own work, stemming from a sense of broader purpose and self-realization achieved via

work. Seven multidimensional measures are then evaluated based on how well the subscales incorporate

different dimensions of work meaningfulness. Moreover, this paper reviews extant literature on antecedents

and outcomes of work meaningfulness. Research on the antecedents is analyzed by levels of construct and

perspectives on work meaningfulness to address the imbalance issue in extant literature. The paper also

justifies research on cultural accounts of work meaningfulness by proposing the theoretical relevance between

collective sensemaking and organizational culture. Lastly, outcomes of work meaningfulness are reviewed

by domain and proximity. Building on the review, the present paper presents implications of the present

research, limitations of the existing literature, and new research agenda on work meaningfulness, with a focus

on cultural sources.

Keywords: work meaningfulness, cultural contexts, organizational culture, justification perspective,

sensemaking

*서울대학교 경영대학 석사과정

I. Definition and Measures of Work

Meaningfulness

II. Antecedents and Outcomes of Work

Meaningfulness

III. Implications and Recommendations

<목 차>

76 勞使關係硏究, 제30권

A Review on Work Meaningfulness: Focusing on Cultural Contexts in Organizations

What do we value the most in our work? According to a study involving millennial

undergraduate students (Allan, Owens, & Duffy, 2017), students place the highest regard

on meaningful work among 10 different work values. They value work meaningfulness and

contributions to a greater good more than they value their future earnings, intrinsic interest,

and the prestige of their work. Moreover, over 95% of the students desire meaningful work.

Work meaningfulness can be broadly defined as how individuals perceive work as

purposeful and significant (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). Scholars and practitioners have recently

recognized the importance of meaningfulness to work outcomes, such as work engagement,

commitment, job satisfaction, job performance, and turnover intention. Nevertheless, a recent

survey in the United Kingdom reports that about a third of workers perceive their work as

meaningless (YouGov, 2015). Therefore, scholars and practitioners are now seeking ways to

cultivate work meaningfulness in organizations.

However, endeavors toward work meaningfulness have been impeded by the lack of

consensus on the definition of work meaningfulness and a paucity of research on social

and cultural contexts as antecedents. Since its first introduction in the job characteristics

theory (Hackman & Oldham, 1975), work meaningfulness has been defined in various

ways. This broad range of definition has led to overlapping and differing constructs and

operationalizations studied in each work (Both-Nwabuwe, Dijkstra, & Beersma, 2017; Martela

& Pessi, 2018). Moreover, the majority of research on the sources of work meaningfulness

focuses on self- or job-related constructs. Accordingly, other-related constructs, namely social

and cultural contexts, have not received much attention.

To address this problem, the current work comprehensively reviews existing studies on

the definition and sources of work meaningfulness, focusing on cultural accounts. This

paper begins by reviewing works on the definitions and measures of work meaningfulness.

Works on different sources of work meaningfulness are then reviewed by levels of construct

and perspectives on work meaningfulness, and the relevance of cultural contexts to work

meaningfulness is discussed. Lastly, the paper reviews the outcomes of work meaningfulness

지 선 영 77

by domains and the proximity of outcome variables. It then discusses the implications of the

review, limitations of the existing literature, and recommendations for future research, with

focus on the cultural sources of meaningfulness.

This work mainly aims to clarify the definition of work meaningfulness and identify the

unexplored sources of work meaningfulness. Furthermore, it takes a justification perspective

(Boova, Pratt, & Lepisto, 2019; Lepisto & Pratt, 2017) and contends that cultural contexts

in organizations can work as a powerful source of work meaningfulness, in accordance with

theoretical similarities between work meaningfulness and cultural context in organizations.

Thus, this work provides directions for future research on work meaningfulness and culture-

related constructs in organizations.

I. Definition and Measures of Work Meaningfulness

1. Definition of Work Meaningfulness

In the last 43 years, researchers have proposed various definitions of work meaningfulness

or meaningful work. To analyze how the definitions vary, this paper collected studies

defining meaningful work or work meaningfulness. Studies using existing definitions were

excluded from the subject of analysis. According to the criteria, 29 studies were analyzed as

in <Table 1>. Furthermore, analysis of text data from 29 definitions in <Table 1> generated

a word cloud (Mueller et al., 2018), as shown in <Figure 1>. The size of each word in the

word cloud represents the frequency of the word (see <Appendix> for the frequency table).

Three words (“meaningfulness,” “meaningful,” and “work”) were excluded from the subject of

analysis to ensure the clarity of the result.

Analysis revealed that the varying definitions shared two features. First, work

meaningfulness is conceptualized as an individual phenomenon. In other words, work

meaningfulness is subjectively perceived or experienced by individuals. This definition is

reflected in words, such as individual, one, sense, subjective experience, and experience.

Second, work meaningfulness is inherently positive. That is, most of the definitions describe


work meaningfulness as positive perceptions or experiences individuals derive from their

works. The text “positive” in the word cloud shows this nature of work meaningfulness.

Nevertheless, the definitions showed a substantial difference regarding the elements or

dimensions of work meaningfulness. While certain studies in early days conceptualized

meaningful work as a unidimensional construct, recent studies tend to define meaningful

work as a multidimensional construct. For example, before 2000, two out of four studies (50%)

defined meaningful work as a unidimensional construct. By contrast, in 2000s and 2010s,

only 4 out of 25 (16%) studies defined meaningful work as a unidimensional construct,

whereas 21 out of 25 (84%) defined meaningful work as a multidimensional construct.

Accordingly, a line of research is trying to extract essential elements of the construct from

different definitions (Both-Nwabuwe et al., 2017; Lepisto & Pratt, 2017; Martela & Pessi,

2018). For the analysis in <Table 1>, the present paper employed the framework of Martela

and Pessi (2018), which examined meaningful work in the dimensions of significance,

<Figure 1> word cloud from 29 Definitions of work Meaningfulness

지 선 영 79

purpose, and self-realization. In the process, this paper analyzed different definitions and

determined if the definitions included the three dimensions. The analysis revealed that

“significance” dimension is most commonly used for definitions (82.8% of the whole subject

of analysis), followed by “purpose” (62.1%) and “self-realization” (34.5%). Word cloud also

exhibited similar trends.

First, significance dimension reflects the amount of intrinsic value people put on their

work (Martela & Pessi, 2018). This dimension is expressed in terms, such as significance,

value, worth, and importance in definitions. Another dimension, purpose, is defined as the

perceived contribution people make to greater goods. It is reflected in various expressions,

including purpose, purposeful, broader, and transcendent. Lastly, self-realization indicates how

well the work reflects one’s identity (Martela & Pessi, 2018). Words, such as self, realization,

actualization, existential, and autonomy, illustrate this dimension.

For an integrated definition, meaningful work must be defined as a multidimensional

construct that consists of all the three elements (Allan, Batz-Barbarich, Sterling, & Tay, 2019;

Martela & Pessi, 2018). Moreover, Martela and Pessi (2018) tried to explain how the three

dimensions are related, suggesting that meaningfulness is significance in essence and that

purposefulness and self-realization work together to contribute to significance. Considering

the ratio of each element suggested in the literature and the meaning of each construct,

significance might be the central element of work meaningfulness. As such, the present paper

defines work meaningfulness as significance of one’s work perceived by individuals, which

stems from a sense of broad purpose and realization of oneself via the work.

80 勞使關係硏究, 제30권< Tab

le 1

> Defi

nitio

ns of work Meaning

fulness

No.

Lite

ratu

reD

efin

ition

Dim

ensio

nPu

rpos

e*Si

gnifi

canc

e*Se

lf-

Rea

lizat

ion*

Oth

ers*

1H

ackm

an &

Old

ham

(197

6)

“The

deg

ree

to w

hich

the

indi

vidu

al e

xper

ienc

es t

he jo

b as

one

whi

ch is

gen

eral

ly m

eani

ngfu

l, va

luab

le, a

nd w

orth

whi

le.”

Uni

dim

ensio

nal

X

2K

ahn

(199

0)

“…a

feel

ing

that

one

is r

ecei

ving

a r

etur

n on

inve

stmen

ts o

f one

’s

self

in a

cur

renc

y of

phy

sical

, cog

nitiv

e, or

em

otio

nal e

nerg

y. Pe

ople

expe

rienc

ed s

uch

mea

ning

fuln

ess

whe

n th

ey fe

lt w

orth

whi

le, u

sefu

l,

and

valu

able a

s th

ough

the

y m

ade

a di

ffere

nce

and

wer

e no

t ta

ken

for

gran

ted.”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

X

X

3R

uiz

Qui

ntan

illa

(199

1)

“…va

lues

, bel

iefs,

and

exp

ecta

tions

tha

t in

divi

dual

s ho

ld,”

com

pose

d

of “

Wor

k C

entr

ality

(de

fined

as

the

degr

ee o

f gen

eral im

port

ance

that

wor

king

has

in t

he li

fe o

f an

indi

vidu

al a

t an

y gi

ven

poin

t in

time)

,” “W

ork

Goa

ls (t

he r

elativ

e im

port

ance

of 1

1 w

ork

goal

s an

d

valu

es t

hat

are

soug

ht o

r pr

efer

red

by in

divi

dual

s in

the

ir w

ork

life)

,”

“Soc

ieta

l Nor

ms

Abo

ut W

orki

ng (

the

entit

lemen

t an

d th

e ob

ligat

ion

norm

tow

ards

wor

k),”

and

“Wor

k D

efin

ition

s (r

atio

nale

s or

rea

sons

for

doin

g or

bei

ng e

ngag

ed in

wor

king

, per

spon

al o

utco

mes

or

state

s

resu

lting

from

the

eng

agem

ent

in w

orki

ng a

ctiv

ities

, and

con

trai

nts

or c

ontr

ols

relat

ed t

o th

e pe

rfor

man

ce o

f wor

k).”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

XX

4Sp

reitz

er (

1995

)“…

a fit

bet

wee

n th

e ne

eds

of o

ne’s

wor

k ro

le a

nd o

ne’s

belie

fs, v

alue

s,

and

beha

vior

s.”U

nidi

men

siona

l

X

5W

rzes

niew

ski &

Dut

ton

(200

1)

“…in

divi

dual

s’ un

ders

tand

ing

of t

he p

urpo

se o

f the

ir w

ork

or w

hat

they

bel

ieve

is a

chie

ved

in t

he w

ork.”

Uni

dim

ensio

nal

X

6Pr

att

& A

shfo

rth

(200

3)“…

the

wor

k an

d/or

its

cont

ext

are

perc

eive

d by

its

prac

titio

ners t

o

be, a

t m

inim

um, p

urpo

sefu

l and

sig

nific

ant.”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

XX

7C

halo

fsky

(200

3)“in

tegr

ated

who

lenes

s” o

f “se

nse

of s

elf”,

“the

wor

k its

elf”,

and

“sens

e

of b

alan

ce”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

XX

지 선 영 81

No.

Lite

ratu

reD

efin

ition

Dim

ensio

nPu

rpos

e*Si

gnifi

canc

e*Se

lf-

Rea

lizat

ion*

Oth

ers*

8M

ay, G

ilson

, & H

arte

r

(200

4)

“…th

e va

lue

of a

wor

k go

al o

r pu

rpos

e, ju

dged

in r

elatio

n to

an

indi

vidu

al’s

own

idea

ls or

sta

ndar

ds.”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

XX

9Po

doln

y, K

hura

na, &

Hill

-

Popp

er (

2004

)

“…su

ppor

ts s

ome

ultim

ate

end

that

the

indi

vidu

al p

erso

nally

val

ues

and

affir

ms

the

indi

vidu

al’s

conn

ectio

n to

the

com

mun

ity o

f whi

ch

he o

r sh

e is

a pa

rt.”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

XX

10C

hene

y, Z

orn,

Plan

alp,

Lair

(200

8)

“…a

job, a

coh

eren

t se

t of

tas

ks, o

r an

y en

deav

or r

equi

ring

men

tal

and

or p

hysic

al e

xert

ion

that

an

indi

vidu

al in

terp

rets a

s ha

ving

a

purp

ose.”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

XX

11G

rant

(20

08a)

“…a

judg

men

t of

the

gen

eral v

alue

and

pur

pose

of t

he jo

b, w

ith n

o

refe

renc

e to

the

peo

ple

who

it a

ffect

s.”M

ultid

imen

siona

lX

X

12Li

ps-W

iers

ma

& M

orris

(200

9)

“Thu

s, w

hen

som

eone

exp

erie

nces

his

or h

er w

ork

as m

eani

ngfu

l thi

s

is an

indi

vidu

al s

ubje

ctiv

e ex

perie

nce

of t

he e

xiste

ntia

l sig

nific

ance

or

purp

ose

of w

ork.”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

XX

13M

icha

elso

n (2

009)

“…en

able

s se

lf-re

aliz

atio

n an

d se

rvic

e to

oth

ers

whi

le fi

tting

wha

t th

e

mar

ket

dem

ands

.”M

ultid

imen

siona

l

XX

14Bu

nder

son

& T

hom

pson

(200

9)“…

a se

nse

of s

igni

fican

ce, p

urpo

se, o

r tr

ansc

ende

nt m

eani

ng.”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

XX

15R

osso

, Dek

as, &

Wrz

esni

ewsk

i (20

10)

“…w

ork

expe

rienc

ed a

s pa

rtic

ular

ly s

igni

fican

t an

d ho

ldin

g m

ore

posit

ive

mea

ning

for

indi

vidu

als.”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

X

16Li

ps-W

iers

ma

& W

right

(201

2)

“…in

divi

dual s

ubje

ctiv

e ex

perie

nce

of t

he e

xiste

ntia

l sig

nific

ance

or

purp

ose

of w

ork.”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

XX

17St

eger

, Dik

, & D

uffy

(201

2)

“…w

ork

that

is b

oth

signi

fican

t an

d po

sitiv

e in

val

ence

(mea

ning

fuln

ess)

, gro

wth

- and

pur

pose

-orie

nted

.”M

ultid

imen

siona

l

X

X


No.

Lite

ratu

reD

efin

ition

Dim

ensio

nPu

rpos

e*Si

gnifi

canc

e*Se

lf-

Rea

lizat

ion*

Oth

ers*

18Ye

oman

(20

14)

“…a

fund

amen

tal h

uman

nee

d, w

hich

all

pers

ons

requ

ire in

ord

er t

o

satis

fy t

heir

ines

capa

ble

inte

rests

in fr

eedo

m, a

uton

omy,

and

dign

ity.”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

X

X

19Ta

blan

(20

15)

“…ac

tual

izes

cer

tain

hum

an p

oten

tials:

cre

ativ

ity, a

uton

omy,

abili

ties

and

talen

ts, i

dent

ity, a

nd s

ocia

lity.

Thi

s is

not

simpl

y a

mat

ter

of

pers

onal p

refe

renc

e, fo

r th

e cu

ltiva

tion

of t

hese

goo

ds is

nec

essa

ry t

o

fulfi

ll a

hum

an e

nd o

r pu

rpos

e…”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

X

X

20A

mab

ile &

Pra

tt (

2016

)“…

work

that is

per

ceive

d as ‘p

ositi

ve’ a

nd si

gnifi

cant

in so

me

way.”

Uni

dim

ensio

nal

X

21Ba

iley

& M

adde

n (2

017)

“…w

hen

an in

divi

dual p

erce

ives

an

auth

entic

con

nect

ion

betw

een

thei

r w

ork

and

a br

oade

r tr

ansc

ende

nt li

fe p

urpo

se b

eyon

d th

e se

lf.”

Uni

dim

ensio

nal

X

22Ba

iley,

Mad

den,

Alfe

s,

Shan

tz, &

Soa

ne (

2017

)

“…w

ork

that

is p

erso

nally

enr

ichi

ng a

nd t

hat

mak

es a

pos

itive

cont

ribut

ion.

”M

ultid

imen

siona

lX

X

23Bo

th-N

wab

uwe,

Dijk

stra,

& B

eers

ma

(201

7)

“…th

e su

bjec

tive

expe

rienc

e of

exi

stent

ial s

igni

fican

ce r

esul

ting

from

the

fit b

etw

een

the

indi

vidu

al a

nd w

ork.”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

X

X

24Le

pisto

& P

ratt (

2017

)“…

an in

divi

dual le

vel p

heno

men

on p

ositi

vely a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith o

ne’s

wor

k.”M

ultid

imen

siona

l

XX

25M

arte

la &

Pes

si (2

018)

“…m

eani

ngfu

lnes

s in

the

bro

ades

t se

nse

is ab

out

wor

k sig

nific

ance

as a

n ov

eral

l eva

luat

ion

of w

ork

as r

egar

ds w

heth

er it

is in

trin

sical

ly

valu

able a

nd w

orth

doi

ng. F

urth

erm

ore,

we

argu

e th

at t

here

are

two

key

sub-

dim

ensio

ns t

o th

is w

ork

signi

fican

ce: B

road

er p

urpo

se

as w

ork

serv

ing

som

e gr

eate

r go

od o

r pr

osoc

ial g

oals.

And

self

-

real

izat

ion

as a

sen

se o

f aut

onom

y, au

then

ticity

and

self

-exp

ress

ion

at

wor

k.” “

The

sub

ject

ive

expe

rienc

e of

wor

k as

intr

insic

ally s

igni

fican

t

and

wor

th d

oing

, the

exp

erie

nce

that

one

is a

ble

to r

ealiz

e on

eself

thro

ugh

wor

k, a

nd t

he w

ork

serv

ing

a br

oade

r pu

rpos

e. T

he la

tter

two

are

take

n to

be

two

key

dim

ensio

ns o

r ty

pes

of in

trin

sic v

alue

that

tog

ethe

r de

fine

wha

t m

akes

wor

k fe

el s

igni

fican

t.”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

XX

X

지 선 영 83

No.

Lite

ratu

reD

efin

ition

Dim

ensio

nPu

rpos

e*Si

gnifi

canc

e*Se

lf-

Rea

lizat

ion*

Oth

ers*

26Ly

sova

, Alla

n, D

ik, D

uffy

,

& S

tege

r (2

019)

“…w

ork

that

tha

t is

pers

onal

ly s

igni

fican

t an

d w

orth

whi

le.”

Uni

dim

ensio

nal

X

27Sh

igih

ara

(201

9)“…

how p

eopl

e su

bjec

tivel

y co

nstr

uct

the

signi

fican

ce, v

alue

, wor

th, o

r

purp

ose

of t

heir

lives

.”M

ultid

imen

siona

lX

X

28A

llan,

Bat

z-Ba

rbar

ich,

Ster

ling, &

Tay

(20

19)

“…th

e gl

obal ju

dgem

ent

that

one

’s w

ork

acco

mpl

ishes

sig

nific

ant,

valu

able

, or

wor

thw

hile g

oals

that

are

con

grue

nt w

ork

with

one

’s

exist

entia

l val

ues.”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

XX

X

29R

otha

usen

& H

ende

rson

(201

9)

“…a

posit

ive

psyc

holo

gica

l sta

te r

esul

ting

from

an

eval

uatio

n of

whe

ther

one

’s jo

b, o

r jo

b-re

lated

exp

erie

nces

or

outc

omes

ful

fill

purp

oses

one

con

sider

s w

orth

whi

le, w

here

pos

itive

eva

luat

ions

res

ult

in s

tate

s of

felt

right

ness a

nd m

eani

ngfu

lnes

s.”

Mul

tidim

ensio

nal

XX

*X: T

he d

efin

ition

has

the

elem

ent.


2. Measures of Work Meaningfulness

Ambiguity in the definition of the construct has led to development of inconsistent

operationalization and various instruments. According to Bailey et al. (2019), 28 different

measurement scales are used for work meaningfulness. However, only seven measures available

to this date operationalize work meaningfulness as a multidimensional construct. That is,

most of the scales available operationalize work meaningfulness as a unidimensional construct,

use only one item for the measure, or are developed into upgraded versions.

First, Ashmos and Duchon (2000) developed the Meaning at Work scale, which consists

of seven items and three dimensions (significance, purpose, and joy). Second, Bunderson

and Thompson (2009) proposed the Work Meaningfulness scale, which measures two

subdimensions of work meaningfulness (significance and purpose) with five items. Third,

the Comprehensive Meaningful Work Scale (CMWS) by Lips-Wiersma and Wright (2012)

measures seven dimensions of meaningful work (developing the inner self, unity with others,

serving others, expressing full potential, reality, inspiration, and balance) with 28 items.

Fourth, the Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI) by Steger, Dik, and Duffy (2012)

measures three dimensions of meaningful work (meaning making, greater good, and positive

meaning in work) with 10 items. Fifth, Bendassolli, Borges-Andrade, Alves, and Torres (2015)

proposed the 25-item Meaningful Work Scale (MWS), which consists of six dimensions (moral

correctness, expressiveness and identification at work, autonomy, development and learning,

quality of working relationships, and work utility). Sixth, a 25-item Meaning in Work Scale

(MIWS) by Lee (2015) measures four subscales of meaningful work (experienced positive

emotion in work, meaning from work itself, meaningful purpose and goals of work, and work

as a part of life toward meaningful existence). Lastly, Arnoux-Nicolas, Sovet, Lhotellier, and

Bernaud (2017) proposed Meaning of Work Inventory (IST; Inventaire du Sens du Travail),

a 15-item inventory that measures four subscales of meaningful work (importance of work,

understanding of work, direction of work, and purpose of work).

Analysis of the seven measurement scales (<Table 2>) revealed that different scales measure

different dimensions of work meaningfulness. Among the seven scales, WAMI (Steger et al.,

2012), MIWS (Lee, 2015), and IST (Arnoux-Nicolas et al., 2017) best reflect the current

지 선 영 85< Tab

le 2

> Measures of

work Meaning

fulness

No.

Lite

ratu

reM

easu

reN

o. o

f Su

bsca

les

No. o

f ite

ms

Cro

nbac

h’s

Alp

haSi

gnifi

canc

e*Pu

rpos

e*Se

lf-re

aliz

atio

n*O

ther

s*

1A

shm

os &

Duc

hon

(200

0)M

eani

ng a

t W

ork

Scal

e3

7.8

58sig

nific

ance

purp

ose

jo

y

2Bu

nder

son

& T

hom

pson

(200

9)W

ork

Mea

ning

fuln

ess

Scal

e2

5.9

1–.9

8sig

nific

ance

purp

ose

3Li

ps-W

iers

ma

& W

right

(201

2)C

ompr

ehen

sive

Mea

ning

ful

Wor

k Sc

ale

(CM

WS)

728

.92

se

rvin

g ot

hers

deve

lopi

ng t

he in

ner

self,

exp

ress

ing

full

pote

ntia

l

unity

with

oth

ers,

balan

cing

ten

sions

(bei

ng v

s do

ing, s

elf

vs o

ther

s), r

ealit

y, in

spira

tion

4St

eger

, Dik

, & D

uffy

(201

2)W

ork

and

Mea

ning

ful

Inve

ntor

y (W

AM

I)3

10.9

3po

sitiv

e m

eani

ng

in w

ork, m

eani

ng

mak

ing

grea

ter

good

mea

ning

mak

ing

5Be

ndas

solli

, Bor

ges-

And

rade

, Alv

es, &

Tor

res

(201

5)

Mea

ning

ful W

ork

Scal

e (M

WS)

625

.81–

.92

wor

k ut

ility

expr

essiv

enes

s an

d id

entif

icat

ion

at

wor

k, a

uton

omy,

deve

lopm

ent

and

lear

ning

mor

al c

orre

ctne

ss,

qual

ity o

f wor

king

relat

ions

hips

6Le

e (2

015)

Mea

ning

in W

ork

Scal

e (M

IWS)

425

.95

mea

ning

from

wor

k its

elf, e

xper

ienc

ed

posit

ive

emot

ion

in

wor

k

mea

ning

ful

purp

ose

and

goal

s of

wor

k

wor

k as

a p

art

of li

fe

tow

ard

mea

ning

ful

exist

ence

, exp

erien

ced

posit

ive

emot

ion

in

wor

k

7A

rnou

x-N

icol

as, S

ovet

, Lh

otel

lier,

& B

erna

ud

(201

7)

Mea

ning

of W

ork

Inve

ntor

y (I

ST; I

nven

taire

du S

ens

du T

rava

il)4

15.9

0im

port

ance

of w

ork,

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

wor

k

purp

ose

of

wor

kim

port

ance

of w

ork,

dire

ctio

n of

wor

k

*: S

ubsc

ales

are

cat

egor

ized

by

dim

ensio

ns o

f wor

k m

eani

ngfu

lnes

s.


definition of work meaningfulness. Specifically, WAMI, MIWS, and IST measured all the

three dimensions of work meaningfulness, whereas other scales measured only two of them.

The present paper suggests that future researchers should employ integrative scales, such as

WAMI and MIWS, to properly operationalize and measure work meaningfulness. However,

none of the scales has subscales, each of which corresponds with each dimension of work

meaningfulness. Developing such a scale would be beneficial for work meaningfulness

literature, allowing empirical research on each dimension.

II. Antecedents and Outcomes of Work Meaningfulness

1. Two Perspectives on Work Meaningfulness

Studies on sources of work meaningfulness could be further understood with the awareness

of how researchers approach the matter of work meaningfulness, particularly the theoretical

perspectives researchers take in their study. Existing research in meaningful work literature

and managerial efforts toward meaningful work can be categorized into two different theoretical

perspectives, namely, realization perspective and justification perspective (Boova et al., 2019;

Lepisto & Pratt, 2017). The classification is based on the description of how problems arise

at work and how such problems could be solved. Accordingly, this difference leads to varied

sources of work meaningfulness pursued by each perspective.

According to Lepisto and Pratt (2017), realization perspective emphasizes the fulfillment of

needs related to self-actualization. It considers work conditions that derive alienation as the

main problem. Such conditions include prescription, domination, inauthenticity, and limited

autonomy at work. Thus, realization perspective focuses on enrichment of work conditions

that allow individuals to achieve self-realization, which include autonomy, authenticity, and

self-efficacy at work. By contrast, justification perspective involves the ability to account for

one’s work as worthy. In this light, the main problem is perceived uncertainty and ambiguity

toward value of one’s work, which originate from the lack of social meanings that can be used

to justify the value of the work. As a solution, justification perspective pursues the enrichment

지 선 영 87

of sensemaking or account-making activity by conveying social meaning through practices and

members in the work environment. Such bases of sensemaking include policies, leaders, and

organizational culture.

Each of these two perspectives addresses different dimensions of meaningful work.

Realization perspective reflects the self-realization dimension of meaningful work, whereas

justification perspective reflects the significance dimension (Martela & Pessi, 2018). However,

justification perspective remains relatively poorly developed. This finding is quite surprising,

considering the substantial ratio of scholars who have included the significance dimension in

their definitions.

Moreover, in the Journal of Management Studies’ special issue on meaningful work

(Filatotchev, Patriotta, & Siegel, 2019), Bailey et al. (2019) addressed five paradoxes in the

current meaningful work literature. Three of the five paradoxes point to the importance

of “others” in the formation of a sense of meaningfulness. According to Paradox 2,

meaningfulness is achieved in self-actualization, but such a sense of self relies on interaction

with others (Bailey et al., 2019; Dutton, Debebe, & Wrzesniewski, 2016; Grant, 2007;

Wrzesniewski, 2003). Furthermore, Paradox 3 points out that—notwithstanding the fact

that meaningfulness is a subjective construct—individuals develop a sense of meaningfulness

through making accounts of cultural and societal contexts (Bailey et al., 2019; Lepisto

& Pratt, 2017; Lysova, Allan, Dik, Duffy, & Steger, 2019; Michaelson, 2009; Mitra &

Buzzanell, 2017; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). Finally, Paradox 4 suggests that, while some argue

that meaningfulness is subjective and thus cannot be managed, certain studies contend that

meaningfulness can be managed by managerial efforts (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Ghadi, Fernando,

& Caputi, 2013; Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1976; Kahn, 1990; Lips-Wiersma & Morris,

2009; May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004; Michaelson, Pratt, Grant, & Dunn, 2014). Nevertheless,

Paradox 4 also acknowledges that such efforts might lead to negative outcomes when

conducted in the form of normative control (Lips-Wiersma & Morris, 2009; Michaelson et

al., 2014).


2. Antecedents of Work Meaningfulness by Levels of Construct

Extending the review study of Lysova et al. (2019), the present paper reviews existing

literature on sources of work meaningfulness, as shown in <Table 3>. Each source of work

meaningfulness is discussed by levels of construct, namely, individual, team, and organization.

In this paper, the individual level includes job-related constructs, such as work characteristics

and job design. Furthermore, to address the imbalance in perspectives, each source is classified

into the following groups by relevant perspectives: “realization,” “justification,” and “others.”

<Table 3> Antecedents of work Meaningfulness

Level Type Antecedent Literature Perspective

Individual

Disposition

Big Five traits- Conscientiousness (+)- Openness to experience (+)- Extraversion (+)- Neuroticism (–)

Frieder, Wang, & Oh (2018)Woods & Sofat (2013)

Realization

Positive affective disposition (+)Steger, Littman-Ovadia, Miller, Menger, & Rothmann

(2013)Realization

Hardiness (+) Britt, Adler, & Bartone (2001) Realization

Benevolence (+) Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski (2010)

Realization

Self-actualization value (+) Realization

Ability (+)Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas (2011)

Realization

Job performance (+)Fouché, Rothmann, & Van

der Vyver (2017)Realization

Signature strengths (+)Harzer & Ruch (2012)Littman-Ovadia & Steger (2010)

Realization

Characteristic adaptations

Four implicit goals (+)- Striving for competence- Autonomy- Status/power- Relatedness

Barrick, Mount, & Li (2013) (yet to be tested)

Realization

지 선 영 89


Intrinsic work motivation (+) Allan, Autin, & Duffy (2016) Realization

Work volition (+)Allan et al. (2016)Blattner & Franklin (2017)

Realization

Service & greater good

motivation (+)

Allan, Autin, & Duffy (2014)Allan, Duffy, & Collisson

(2018a)Others

Spirituality (+)Park (2012)Rosso et al. (2010) (yet to be tested)

Others

Personal narratives

Shared experiences (+)Bailey & Madden (2017)

Justification

Work that fosters autonomy (+) Realization

Work that syncs with one’s identity (+)

Schabram & Maitlis (2017) Realization

Type, quality, and

amount of work

Working in safe and fair conditions (+)

Duffy et al. (2017) Realization

Underemployment (–) Allan, Tay, & Sterling (2017) Realization

“White-collar” jobs (+)Lips-Wiersma, Wright, & Dik (2016)

Realization

Limited developmental opportunities and resources in

job (–)

Arnoux-Nicolas, Sovet, Lhotellier, Di Fabio, &

Bernaud (2017)Rautenbach & Rothmann

(2017)

Realization

Job design

Job characteristics (+)- Autonomy- Skill variety- Task identity- Task significance

Allan (2017)Grant (2007, 2008b)Grant et al. (2007)Hackman & Oldham (1976)Rosso et al. (2010)

Realization

Job crafting (+)

Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski (2013)Grant (2007)Heuvel (2017)Petrou, Bakker, & Van den

Tims, Derks, & Bakker (2016)Wrzesniewski & Dutton

(2001)

Realization



Team Leadership

Transformational leadership (+)

Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, & McKee (2007)Dzieweczynski (2006)Purvanova, Bono, & Tummers & Knies (2013)

Justification

Ethical leadership (+)Demirtas, Hannah, Gok, Arslan, & Capar (2017)Wang & Xu (2019)

Justification

Empowering leadership (+) Lee, Idris, & Delfabbro (2017) Justification

Communicating organizational mission (+)

Carton (2018)Steger & Dik (2010)

Justification

Leaders as architects of meaning (+)

Carton (2018) (yet to be tested)

Justification

Organizational

Organizational culture

Innovative and supportive cultures (+) Cardador & Rupp (2011) (yet

to be tested)

Justification

Integrating elements of ethical culture (+)

Justification

Hierarchical culture ( –) Lee et al. (2017) Justification

Learning culture (+)Sorakraikitikul & Siengthai (2014)

Justification

Organizational policies and

practices

Corporate social responsibility (+)

Akdoğan, Arslan, & Demirtaş (2016)Glavas & Kelley (2014)Raub & Blunschi (2014)

Justification

Corporate volunteering (+)

Caligiuri, Mencin, & Jiang (2013)Geroy, Wright, & Jacoby (2000)Grant (2012)Rodell (2013)

Justification

HR practices focused on

engagement and development (+) (recruitment, selection, socialization, skill and career development)

Fletcher (2016, 2019) Realization

Social context at work

Good workplace relationships (+)

Colbert, Bono, & Purvanova (2016)Grant (2007)Kahn (2007)

Justification

Social-moral climate (+) Schnell, Höge, & Pollet (2013) Justification

지 선 영 91

In general, the analysis of sources of work meaningfulness shows that relatively less research

interest is given to team and organizational level antecedents of work meaningfulness in

comparison with individual level antecedents. Examining the perspective of each study, the

present paper noted that the imbalance between levels of construct could be viewed as the

imbalance between two perspectives on sources of work meaningfulness, namely, realization

and justification. However, a line of research has recently begun to take the justification

perspective and examine team- and organizational-level sources of work meaningfulness. Still,

certain approaches tend to focus on fragmentary aspects of team- or organizational-level

constructs (e.g., ethical leadership, ethical culture, and corporate social responsibility).

3. Cultural Contexts as Sources of Work Meaningfulness

1) Relationships or Similarities Between Sensemaking Process and cultural contexts

According to the justification perspective, the experience of meaningful work requires

sensemaking activities. In this part, the theoretical relevance of the sensemaking process and

cultural contexts is discussed. Specifically, analysis suggests that collective sensemaking or


Access to decent work

Safe working conditions (+)

Ashforth & Kreiner (1999)Duffy et al. (2016)Duffy et al. (2017)Lips-Wiersma et al. (2016)

Justification

Access to healthcare (+)

Adequate compensation (+)

Hours that allow free time and

rest (+)

Match of organizational, cultural, and family values (+)

Cultural norms

Emphasis on individual fulfilment and wellbeing (+)

Claes & Ruiz Quintanilla (1994)England &Whitely (1990)Harpaz & Fu (2002)Magun & Rudnev (2012)

JustificationEmphasis on work as a pathway to individual fulfilment and

wellbeing (+)

*: Modified from Lysova, E. I., Allan, B. A., Dik, B. J., Duffy, R. D., & Steger, M. F. (2019). Fostering meaningful work in organizations: A multi-level review and integration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 374–389, with permission of Elsevier.


social construction of accounts could be formed in organizations, and cultural contexts can

work as accounts in the sensemaking process.

Sensemaking is a process through which individuals understand ambiguous and uncertain

events by constructing or activating accounts for decision-making (Maitlis, 2005; Maitlis

& Christianson, 2014; Weick, 1995). Several researchers suggested that sensemaking is

inherently a social process, which involves interaction with other members and social contexts

(Maitlis, 2005; Maitlis & Christianson, 2014; Weick, 1995). Sensemaking is often initiated

deliberately by leaders in organizations (Corley & Gioia, 2004; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991;

Gioia, Thomas, Clark, & Chittipeddi, 1994; Howard-Grenville, Metzger, & Meyer, 2013;

Mantere, Schildt, & Sillince, 2012; Ravasi & Schultz, 2006). The sensemaking activity is

then internalized and disseminated by middle managers and other members (Balogun &

Johnson, 2004, 2005; Walsh & Bartunek, 2011). In the process, organizational languages,

such narratives, history, metaphor, and symbols (Brown, Stacy, & Nandhakumar, 2008;

Cornelissen, 2005, 2012; Cornellissen & Clarke, 2010; Currie & Brown, 2003; Gioia et

al., 1994; Humphreys & Brown, 2002; Sonenshein, 2010), and the situated sociocultural

context are used to construct collective meaning (Rouleau, 2005; Rouleau & Balogun, 2011).

Consequently, this process of collective sensemaking involves shared understandings of certain

events in the organization.

The idea of collective sensemaking closely relates to cultural contexts, such as organizational

culture, organizational climate, and organizational identity. First, shared understanding in

collective sensemaking overlaps with the definition of organizational culture, “a system of

shared meaning” (Schein, 1996). The deliberate initiation of collective sensemaking process by

top management teams could then be understood as management of organizational culture.

Moreover, the dissemination of the sensemaking would resemble socialization or education

process in organizations. Lastly, accounts used for collective sensemaking would correspond to

components of cultural contexts. Indeed, narratives, history, metaphors, and symbols belong

to the artifact level of organizational culture; and the socially constructed account, namely

shared meanings and assumptions, belongs to the assumption level of organizational culture

(Ott, 1989; Schein, 1996).

지 선 영 93

2) Research on cultural contexts as Antecedents of work Meaningfulness

Limited research is conducted in the organizational culture context, despite the importance

of shared meaning and values, namely culture, in fostering meaningfulness of work (Cardador

& Rupp, 2011; Lepisto & Pratt, 2017; Lysova et al., 2019; Rosso et al., 2010). This part

reviews theoretical and empirical studies on cultural accounts of work meaningfulness to

this date. Most of the works on the relationship between culture and work meaningfulness

are proposed as theoretical research. As for empirical works, only few studies investigate the

relationship between organizational culture and work meaningfulness.

One of the first theoretical works that proposed culture’s contribution to meaningfulness

is the study of Baumeister (1991) on meaning of life, which contended that culture plays

an important role as value bases in the account-making process. This work is consistent

with the study of Shamir, House, and Arthur (1993), who claimed that workers use external

factors, such as organizational culture, to build account of their work, and such factors are

disseminated through interaction with other workers and leaders. In the same light, Pratt and

Ashforth (2003) suggested that organizational culture and charismatic leadership can work

to enrich the social meanings of work. Furthermore, Cardador and Rupp (2011) proposed

consistency of culture, which is the alignment of building blocks of organizational culture,

as one of the factors that could contribute to work meaningfulness. Recently, scholars have

begun to come up with theoretical frameworks on specific relationships between culture and

work meaningfulness, such as relationship between different types of organizational culture

and meaningful work (Cardador & Rupp, 2011) and the relationship between different

work orientations and cultural understanding of works (Boova et al., 2019; Pratt, Pradies, &

Lepisto, 2013).

Nevertheless, as for empirical works, few studies investigate the relationship between

organizational culture and meaningful work (Lee, Idris, & Delfabbro, 2017; Sorakraikitikul

& Siengthai, 2014). Moreover, most of these empirical works use only specific types of

organizational culture in their model, leaving the relationship between general organizational

culture and meaningful work empirically unexplored. Further empirical research should be

conducted to test and confirm theories in work meaningfulness literature.


4. Outcomes of Work Meaningfulness

Work meaningfulness relates to many important outcome variables around workplaces.

Several studies investigate the correlation between work meaningfulness and these outcome

variables as well as the causal relationships between them. Following the framework suggested

by Allan et al. (2019), the outcomes of work meaningfulness could be categorized into

proximal work-related outcomes, distal work-related outcomes, and distal well-being related

outcomes.

Proximal work-related outcomes comprise work engagement, job satisfaction, and

commitment matters. Many researchers suggest or prove that meaningfulness of work

contributes to work engagement (Chen, Zhang, & Vogel, 2011; Hirschi, 2012; Kahn, 1990;

May et al., 2004; Soane et al., 2013). In addition, job satisfaction is proposed as one of the

four major work outcomes of work meaningfulness in job characteristics theory (Hackman &

Oldham, 1976), and this hypothesis is empirically supported (Duffy, Allan, Autin, & Bott,

2013; Steger et al., 2012). Work meaningfulness contributes to commitment as well (Duffy,

Allan, Autin, & Douglass, 2014; Steger et al., 2012). Meta-analysis shows that these three

proximal work-related outcomes are largely correlated with meaningful work (Allan et al.,

2019).

Distal work-related outcomes include job performance, organizational citizenship behavior

(OCB), turnover intention, absenteeism, and knowledge-sharing behavior. Specifically,

Allan, Duffy, and Collison (2018b) found that work meaningfulness mediates the causal

relationship between task significance and self-rated performance. Work meaningfulness

is also positively related with self-rated performance (Harris, Kacmar, & Zivnuska, 2007).

Similarly, meaningfulness of work mediates the causal relationship between energy and OCB

(Lam, Wan, & Roussin, 2016) and positively relates to OCB (Steger et al., 2012). Moreover,

meaningfulness of work mediates the causal relationship between psychosocial work

characteristics and turnover (Clausen & Borg, 2010) and the causal relationship between

perceived work conditions and turnover intentions (Arnoux-Nicolas, Sovet, Lhotellier, Di

Fabio, & Bernaud, 2016; Sun, Lee, & Sohn, 2019). Work meaningfulness negatively relates

to withdrawal intention as well (Steger et al., 2012). The meta-analysis of Allan et al. (2019)

지 선 영 95

shows that meaningful work has a moderate to large correlation with turnover intention

and small to moderate correlations with OCB and self-rated performance. The research also

speculated that meaningfulness of work might influence the variables indirectly via proximal

work-related outcomes, such as work engagement, job satisfaction, and commitment. Lastly,

although the relationship was not included in the meta-analysis of Allan et al. (2019),

meaningful work is also negatively related to absenteeism (Soane et al., 2013, Steger et al.,

2012) and knowledge-sharing behavior (Chen et al., 2011).

Work meaningfulness also results in distal well-being related outcomes, such as life

satisfaction, life meaning, general health, and negative affect. Arnoux-Nicolas et al. (2017)

and Shockley, Ureksoy, Rodopman, Poteat, and Dullaghan (2016) found significant moderate

positive correlations between work meaningfulness and life satisfaction. Furthermore,

Steger et al. (2012) found a significant and positive correlation between meaningful work

and life satisfaction, which lasted even after controlling other established antecedents of

life satisfaction. Meaningful work is also positively correlated with life meaning (Steger

et al., 2012) and positively influences life meaning (Duffy et al., 2013). Moreover, work

meaningfulness is positively correlated with general health (i.e. well-being) (Arnold & Walsh,

2015; Soane et al., 2013) and positively influences general health (Arnold & Walsh, 2015).

Lastly, as for negative affect, Steger et al. (2012) found that hostility and depression are

negatively correlated with meaningful work. Allan, Douglass, Duffy, & McCarty (2016)

also found that meaningful work is negatively correlated with work stress, which is a part of

negative affect. Meta-analysis shows that meaningful work has moderate to large correlations

with life satisfaction, life meaning, and general health; and a small to moderate correlation

with negative affect (Allan et al., 2019).

III. Implications and Recommendations

1. Theoretical Implications

Extant literature on work meaningfulness has been impeded by overlapping and fragmented


definitions of the construct. This paper contributes to the work meaningfulness literature in

several ways. The contributions include (1) developing a clear and integrative definition of

work meaningfulness, (2) establishing the need for research taking a justification approach, (3)

providing theoretical backgrounds for research on cultural accounts of meaningful work, and

(4) presenting future research agenda for the literature of work meaningfulness.

This work reviewed ambiguous and various definitions of work meaningfulness, and

it analyzed the corpus of definitions to extract essential elements, namely, significance,

purpose, and self-realization. Thus, it proposed a clear and integrative definition of work

meaningfulness. Work meaningfulness is subjectively perceived significance of one’s work,

which derives from contribution to a broad purpose and self-realization within work settings.

This definition is in line with the work of Both-Nwabuwe et al. (2017) and Martela and

Pessi (2018). Extending the clearness and comprehensiveness to the operationalization and

measurement, the present paper reviewed seven existing measures of work meaningfulness.

In the process, each measure was evaluated by its comprehensiveness, based on the elements

identified in the preceding part. Three scales, namely, WAMI (Steger et al., 2012), MIWS (Lee,

2015), and IST (Arnoux-Nicolas et al., 2017), were found to measure all the three elements

of work meaningfulness.

In the “antecedents of work meaningfulness” chapter, this paper demonstrated the

imbalance of current research on sources of work meaningfulness. Extant studies on

antecedents of work meaningfulness tended to take the realization perspective rather than the

justification perspective. This disproportion in research is exhibited on the substantial number

of studies on job characteristics and work meaningfulness. On the contrary, relatively few

studies on work meaningfulness in team-level and organizational-level contexts testify to the

paucity of research taking a justification perspective.

The subsequent chapter on cultural accounts of meaningful work provided a sound

theoretical basis for research on cultural accounts of work meaningfulness. The chapter

examined theoretical similarities and relationship between the process of collective

sensemaking and organizational culture. Shared understanding involved in the collective

sensemaking process itself is a component of organizational culture, and its management and

dissemination resemble those of cultural contexts in organizations. Nevertheless, despite the

지 선 영 97

relevance between cultural contexts and work meaningfulness, few studies examined cultural

sources of work meaningfulness. Especially, few works took the form of empirical research

rather than theoretical research.

Finally, this paper provides guidance for future research on relationships between culture

and meaningful work, in the current chapter. Extending the research questions provided in

this paper, scholars in work meaningfulness literature would be able to attain fruitful progress.

Therefore, the work meaningfulness literature might gain a comprehensive understanding that

covers all the elements of the construct.

2. Practical Implications

Practitioners might benefit from the present work as well. First, this paper could guide

practitioners to properly and clearly understand the notion of work meaningfulness despite

the overlaps and ambiguity found in the current literature. Moreover, practitioners could

learn diverse sources of work meaningfulness and could come up with initiatives to manage

such sources. Especially, they would acquire extensive knowledge on cultural sources of work

meaningfulness and build organizations fostering work meaningfulness through its culture,

climate, and identity. Such management of work meaningfulness would be beneficial for

organizations because work meaningfulness is the work value greatly pursued by workers

(Allan, Owens, et al., 2017) and leads to important outcome variables in work and nonwork

domains, including work engagement, job satisfaction, performance, OCB, turnover, and even

life satisfaction and well-being.

3. Limitations of Foregoing Studies and Recommendations

for Future Research

Based on the review of work meaningful literature, this paper identified limitations of the

existing studies as follows. The existing studies defined work meaningfulness in a vague and

fragmented way. Moreover, various instruments resulted in inconsistent understandings of

work meaningfulness.


Varying definitions were vague and did not integrate different dimensions of

work meaningfulness. Although recent studies considered work meaningfulness as a

multidimensional construct, most of them did not fully integrate the three distinct

dimensions of work meaningfulness, that is, significance, purpose, and self-realization.

Therefore, the current paper proposed a new, clear definition that integrates these dimensions.

Nevertheless, dimensions other than the three dimensions might be included as well. In

the <Appendix>, the present work provides a set of expressions extracted from different

definitions. Some of the repeated expressions, which do not seem to fall under one of the

three dimensions, could be considered as a potential, new dimension of work meaningfulness.

Still, how each dimension discriminates from each other should be considered as well. One

potential dimension of work meaningfulness is coherence, which can be defined as how well

individuals comprehend their experience and feel that the experience makes sense (Battista

& Almond, 1973; Heine, Proulx, & Vohs, 2006; Heintzelman & King, 2014; Martela &

Steger, 2016; Reker & Wong, 1988, 2012). Expressions such as connectedness, connection,

alignment, coherent, and fit reflect this term. Indeed, coherence, purpose, and significance are

considered as three distinct dimensions of life meaningfulness (Heintzelman & King, 2014;

Martela & Steger, 2016).

Another limitation is that previous studies employed varying definitions and instruments

for work meaningfulness, which might impede a consistent understanding of the construct

and its relationships to antecedents and outcome variables. Part of this inconsistency issue

lies on the fact that most of the existing instruments for work meaningfulness address only

a fraction of the three dimensions of the construct. Furthermore, even the instruments

that include all the three dimensions do not seem to fully reflect the dimensions. That is,

subscales of the instruments do not exactly match the dimensions of work meaningfulness. As

in <Table 2>, some subscales applied to two different dimensions, and certain subscales even

failed to fall under the three-dimension classification. To solve this problem, scholars should

reach a consensus on the definition and dimensions of work meaningfulness and develop

integrative measures to operationalize the construct properly. Developing another perspective

to reflect the purpose dimension would be another way to increase the comprehensiveness of

theoretical and empirical research on work meaningfulness.

지 선 영 99

Based on the discussions above, the present research found several research agenda that

might be useful for future researchers in work meaningful literature. Upon noticing the

lack of research on cultural accounts of meaningful work, this paper took the justification

perspective. With a focus on cultural accounts of work meaningfulness, this paper then

presents some of the research agenda as follows: (1) relationship between culture and

different dimensions of work meaningfulness, (2) how definitions of work meaningfulness

vary by people defining the construct, (3) power of different cultural accounts in predicting

work meaningfulness, (4) influence of formation and maintenance of work meaningfulness on

the level of collectively perceived work meaningfulness, (5) relationship between newcomer

socialization and work meaningfulness, and (6) influence of removal and change of cultural

account on work meaningfulness.

The first two agenda derive from the definition of work meaningfulness. Upon establishing

the three dimensions of work meaningfulness, researchers could investigate how the different

dimensions relate to cultural accounts of work meaningfulness. As the current definition

of work meaningfulness considers work meaningfulness as the perceived significance of

work arising from a sense of purpose and self-realization achieved via work, it would be

plausible to hypothesize that only the significance and purpose dimensions significantly relate

to work meaningfulness, whereas the self-realization dimension does not. Whether work

meaningfulness could be achieved when one of the dimensions of work meaningfulness is

controlled or limited to a certain amount would be another intriguing question to solve.

Indeed, not all the workers are provided with the best context for work meaningfulness.

Workers often face challenges in their job, but they overcome them and achieve work

meaningfulness (Schabram & Maitlis, 2017). This claim is consistent with a line of research

examining how workers derive meaningfulness from dirty work (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999,

2014; Bosmans et al., 2016), adversity ( Jiang et al., 2016), or boring work (Chandler &

Kapelner, 2013).

Moreover, one could investigate how people frame the construct of work meaningfulness

differently depending on their teams or job levels. Employees in the same team or job level

would exhibit similarity in defining work meaningfulness because they are likely to share some

team- or organizational-level accounts of work meaningfulness. Such similarity in definitions


of work meaningfulness may also result in similarity in work orientations, thus leading to

similar levels of work meaningfulness. Moreover, diverse definitions of work meaningfulness

made by employees can also be collected and compared with definitions in academic fields.

Such a comparison would allow identification and inclusion of certain dimensions of work

meaningfulness, which are not included in current research.

The third recommendation directly addresses the cultural sources of work meaningfulness.

Although several theoretical models of the relationships between types of organizational

culture and work meaningfulness exist (e.g., Cardador & Rupp, 2011), the current line of

research does not fully address the influence of different types, components, levels, or aspects

of cultural accounts on work meaningfulness. Future researchers could work on such causal

relationships to improve our understandings of cultural sources of work meaningfulness. For

instance, how organizational culture, organizational climate, and organizational identity relate

to work meaningfulness could be a good research question. Other research agenda include

components of the culture, such as 7S (shared value, system, strategy, structure, staff, skill, and

style) (Peters & Waterman, 1982; Waterman, Peters, & Phillips, 1980); levels of the culture,

which range from artifacts, to espoused values, and to shared assumptions (Schein, 1985); and

aspects of culture, such as culture gaps (Kilmann & Saxton, 1983), competing values (Cameron

& Quinn, 1999), and culture strength (Payne, 2001). Comparing the powers of such sources

would be a compelling approach as well.

The last three agenda involve the processes of formation, maintenance, dissemination, and

change, which are accompanied by the collective sensemaking. Researchers could study how

formation and maintenance of cultural accounts affect the collectively perceived level of work

meaningfulness in organizations. This line of research would require a longitudinal research

design. For instance, researchers could observe how levels of work meaningfulness vary as

certain practices or climates emerge, develop, and become disseminated in the organization.

Similarly, newcomer socialization would be another good research agendum. Newcomers

in organizations gradually learn and internalize the culture of organizations as they

encounter a line of members, events, and practices in the organizations. Tracking how work

meaningfulness perceived by newcomers changes over time could provide an insight into the

development of work meaningfulness in a within-subject research design.

지 선 영 101

Lastly, how removal and change of cultural accounts relate to work meaningfulness should

be studied as well. Workers can develop a sense of work meaningfulness if proper accounts of

work meaningfulness are provided at workplaces. Nevertheless, workers can experience change

or loss of such accounts as they change their teams, positions, jobs, workplaces, or careers.

Most workers are likely to get involved in such removals or changes as they experience

important events, such as promotion, turnover, marriage, and retirement throughout their

life. Would such removals or changes of cultural account lead to immediate change of work

meaningfulness? How long could work meaningfulness be maintained? Researchers could

determine patterns of change in work meaningfulness employees exhibit after experiencing

important work events, such as turnover, retirement, leave of absence, and change of jobs or

teams.

참고문헌

Akdoğan, A. A., Arslan, A., & Demirtaş, Ö. (2016). A strategic influence of corporate social

responsibility on meaningful work and organizational identification, via perceptions of

ethical leadership. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235, 259–268. doi:10.1016/

j.sbspro.2016.11.029

Allan, B. A. (2017). Task significance and meaningful work: A longitudinal study. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 102, 174–182. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.011

Allan, B. A., Autin, K. L., & Duffy, R. D. (2014). Examining social class and work meaning within

the psycholog y of working framework. Journal of Career Assessment, 22(4), 543–561.

doi:10.1177/1069072713514811

Allan, B. A., Autin, K. L., & Duffy, R. D. (2016). Self-determination and meaningful work: Exploring

socioeconomic constraints. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 71. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00071

Allan, B. A., Batz-Barbarich, C., Sterling, H. M., & Tay, L. (2019). Outcomes of meaningful work: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3), 500–528. doi:10.1111/joms.12406

Allan, B. A., Douglass, R., Duffy, R., & McCarty, R. (2016). Meaningful work as a moderator of the

relation between work stress and meaning in life. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(3), 429–440.

doi:10.1177/1069072715599357


Allan, B. A., Duffy, R. D., & Collisson, B. (2018a). Helping others increases meaningful work:

Evidence from three experiments. Journal of Counseling Psycholog y, 65(2), 155–165.

doi:10.1037/cou0000228

Allan, B. A., Duffy, R. D., & Collisson, B. (2018b). Task significance and performance: Meaningfulness

as a mediator. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(1), 172–182. doi:10.1177/1069072716680047

Allan, B. A., Owens, R. L., & Duffy, R. D. (2017). Generation me or meaning? Exploring meaningful

work in college students and career counselors. Journal of Career Development, 44(6), 502–515.

doi:10.1177/0894845316667599

Allan, B. A., Tay, L., & Sterling, H. M. (2017). Construction and validation of the Subjective

Underemployment Scales (SUS). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 99, 93–106. doi:10.1016/

j.jvb.2017.01.001

Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation

in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36,

157–183. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001

Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007). Transformational

leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 193–203. doi:10.1037/1076–8998.12.3.193

Arnold, K. A., & Walsh, M. (2015). Customer incivility and employee well-being : Testing the

moderating effects of meaning, perspective taking and transformational leadership. Work &

Stress, 29(4), 362–378. doi:10.1080/02678373.2015.1075234

Arnoux-Nicolas, C., Sovet, L., Lhotellier, L., Di Fabio, A., & Bernaud, J. L. (2016). Perceived work

conditions and turnover intentions: The mediating role of meaning of work. Frontiers in

Psychology, 7, 704. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00704

Arnoux-Nicolas, C., Sovet, L., Lhotellier, L., & Bernaud, J. L. (2017). Development and validation of

the meaning of work inventory among French workers. International Journal for Educational

and Vocational Guidance, 17(2), 165–185. doi:10.1007/s10775-016-9323-0

Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). “How can you do it?”: Dirty work and the challenge

of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 413–434.

doi:10.2307/259134

Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (2014). Contextualizing dirty work: The neglected role of cultural,

historical, and demographic context. Journal of Management & Organization, 20(4), 423–440.

doi:10.1017/jmo.2014.38

Ashmos, D. P., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and measure. Journal

지 선 영 103

of Management Inquiry, 9(2), 134–145. doi:10.1177/105649260092008

Bailey, C., Lips-Wiersma, M., Madden, A., Yeoman, R., Thompson, M., & Chalofsky, N. (2019). The

five paradoxes of meaningful work: Introduction to the special issue ‘Meaningful work: Prospects

for the 21st century’. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3), 481–499. doi:10.1111/joms.12422

Bailey, C., & Madden, A. (2017). Time reclaimed: Temporality and the experience of meaningful

work. Work, Employment and Society, 31(1), 3–18. doi:10.1177/0950017015604100

Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., & Soane, E. (2017). The mismanaged soul: Existential

labor and the erosion of meaningful work. Human Resource Management Review, 27(3), 416–

430. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.11.001

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking.

Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523–549. doi:10.5465/20159600

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The

impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1573–1601.

doi:10.1177/0170840605054624

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of

personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, 38(1),

132–153. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0479

Battista, J., & Almond, R. (1973). The development of meaning in life. Psychiatry, 36, 409–427. doi:1

0.1080/00332747.1973.11023774

Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meaning of life. New York, New York: Guilford Press.

Bendassolli, P. F., Borges-Andrade, J. E., Alves, J. S. C., & Torres, T. D. L. (2015). Meaningful

Work Scale in creative industries: A confirmatory factor analysis. Psico-USF, 20(1), 1–12.

doi:10.1590/1413-82712015200101

Berg, J. M., Dutton, J. E., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2013). Job crafting and meaningful work. In B. J.

Dik, Z. S. Byrne, & M. F. Steger (Eds.), Purpose and meaning in the workplace (pp. 81–104).

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Blattner, M. C. C., & Franklin, A. J. (2017). Why are OST workers dedicated—Or not? Factors

that influence commitment to OST care work. Afterschool Matters, 25, 9–17. Retreived from

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1138048

Boova, L., Pratt, M. G., & Lepisto, D. A. (2019). Exploring work orientations and cultural accounts

of work. In R. Yeoman, C. Bailey, A. Madden, & M. Thompson (Eds.), The oxford handbook of

meaningful work (pp. 186–207). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bosmans, K., Mousaid, S., Cuyper, N., Hardonk, S., Louckx, F., & Vanroelen, C. (2016). Dirty


work, dirty worker? Stigmatisation and coping strategies among domestic workers. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 92, 54–67. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.008

Both-Nwabuwe, J. M. C., Dijkstra, M. T. M., & Beersma, B. (2017). Sweeping the floor or putting a

man on the moon: How to define and measure meaningful work. Frontiers in Psychology, 8,

1658. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01658

Britt, T. W., Adler, A. B., & Bartone, P. T. (2001). Deriving benefits from stressful events: The role of

engagement in meaningful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1),

53–63. doi:10.1037//1076-8998.6.1.53

Brown, A. D., Stacey, P., & Nandhakumar, J. (2008). Making sense of sensemaking narratives. Human

Relations, 61(8), 1035–1062. doi:10.1177/0018726708094858

Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-

edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 32–57.

doi:10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.32

Caligiuri, P., Mencin, A., & Jiang, K. (2013). Win–win–win: The influence of company-sponsored

volunteerism programs on employees, NGOs, and business units. Personnel Psychology, 66(4),

825–860. doi:10.1111/peps.12019

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on

the competing values framework, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman.

Cardador, M. T., & Rupp, D. E. (2011). Organizational culture, multiple needs, and the

meaningfulness of work. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds.), The

handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 158–180). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Carton, A. M. (2018). “I’m not mopping the floors, I’m putting a man on the moon”: How NASA

leaders enhanced the meaningfulness of work by changing the meaning of work. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 63(2), 323–369. doi:10.1177/0001839217713748

Chalofsky, N. (2003). An emerging construct for meaningful work. Human Resource Development

International, 6(1), 69–83. doi:10.1080/1367886022000016785

Chandler, D., & Kapelner, A. (2013). Breaking monotony with meaning: Motivation in crowdsourcing

markets. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 90, 123–133. doi:10.1016/

j.jebo.2013.03.003

Chen, Z. J., Zhang, X., & Vogel, D. (2011). Exploring the underlying processes between conflict and

knowledge sharing: A work-engagement perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(5),

1005–1033. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00745.x

Cheney, G., Zorn, T. E., Jr., Planalp, S., & Lair, D. J. (2008). Meaningful work and personal/social well-

지 선 영 105

being organizational communication engages the meanings of work. Annals of the International

Communication Association, 32(1), 137–185. doi:10.1080/23808985.2008.11679077

Claes, R., & Ruiz Quintanilla, S. A. (1994). Initial career and work meanings in seven European

countries. The Career Development Quarterly, 42(4), 337–352. doi:10.1002/j.2161-0045.1994.

tb00517.x

Clausen, T., & Borg, V. (2010). Do positive work-related states mediate the association between

psychosocial work characteristics and turnover? A longitudinal analysis. International Journal of

Stress Management, 17(4), 308–324. doi:10.1037/a0021069

Colbert, A. E., Bono, J. E., & Purvanova, R. K. (2016). Flourishing via workplace relationships:

Moving beyond instrumental support. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4), 1199–1223.

doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0506

Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (2004). Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-

off. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(2), 173–208. doi:10.2307/4131471

Cornelissen, J. P. (2005). Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory. Academy of

Management Review, 30(4), 751–764. doi:10.5465/amr.2005.18378876

Cornelissen, J. P. (2012). Sensemaking under pressure: The influence of professional roles and social

accountability on the creation of sense. Organization Science, 23(1), 118–137. doi:10.1287/

orsc.1100.0640

Cornelissen, J. P., & Clarke, J. S. (2010). Imagining and rationalizing opportunities: Inductive

reasoning and the creation and justification of new ventures. Academy of Management Review,

35(4), 539–557. doi:10.5465/amr.35.4.zok539

Currie, G., & Brown, A. D. (2003). A narratological approach to understanding processes of organizing

in a UK hospital. Human Relations, 56(5), 563–586. doi:10.1177/0018726703056005003

Demirtas, O., Hannah, S. T., Gok, K., Arslan, A., & Capar, N. (2017). The moderated influence of

ethical leadership, via meaningful work, on followers’ engagement, organizational identification,

and envy. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 183–199. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2907-7

Dobrow, S. R., & Tosti-Kharas, J. (2011). Calling: The development of a scale measure.

Personnel Psychology, 64(4), 1001–1049. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01234.x

Duffy, R. D., Allan, B. A., Autin, K. L., & Bott, E. M. (2013). Calling and life satisfaction:

It’s not about having it, it's about living it. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(1), 42–52.

doi:10.1037/a0030635

Duffy, R. D., Allan, B. A., Autin, K. L., & Douglass, R. P. (2014). Living a calling and

work well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(4), 605–615.


doi:10.1037/cou0000042

Duffy, R. D., Allan, B. A., England, J. W., Blustein, D. L., Autin, K. L., Douglass, R. P.,

… Santos, E. J. R. (2017). The development and initial validation of the Decent Work

Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(2), 206−221. doi:10.1037/cou0000191

Duffy, R. D., Blustein, D. L., Diemer, M. A., & Autin, K. L. (2016). The psychology

of working theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 127–148. doi: 10.1037/

cou0000140

Dutton, J. E., Debebe, G., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2016). Being valued and devalued at work: A social

valuing perspective. In Qualitative organizational research: Best papers from the Davis

Conference on Qualitative Research (Vol. 3, pp. 9 –52). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

England, G. W., & Whitely, W. T. (1990). Cross-national meanings of working. In A. P. Brief, & W. R.

Nord (Eds.). Meanings of occupational work (pp. 65–106). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Filatotchev, I., Patriotta, G., & Siegel, D. (Eds.). (2019). Meaningful work: Prospects for the 21st

century [Special issue]. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3).

Fletcher, L. (2016). Training perceptions, engagement, and performance: Comparing work engagement

and personal role engagement. Human Resource Development International, 19(1), 4–26. doi:1

0.1080/13678868.2015.1067855

Fletcher, L. (2019). How can personal development lead to increased engagement? The roles of

meaningfulness and perceived line manager relations. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 30(7), 1203–1226. doi:10.1080/09585192.2016.1184177

Fouché, E., Rothmann, S. S., & Van der Vyver, C. (2017). Antecedents and outcomes of meaningful

work among school teachers. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 43(1), 1–10. doi:10.4102/

sajip.v43i0.1398

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta-

analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287–322. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00605.x

Frieder, R. E., Wang, G., & Oh, I.-S. (2018). Linking job-relevant personality traits,

transformational leadership, and job performance via perceived meaningfulness at work: A

moderated mediation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(3), 324–333. doi:10.1037/

apl0000274

Geroy, G. D., Wright, P. C., & Jacoby, L. (2000). Toward a conceptual framework of

employee volunteerism: An aid for the human resource manager. Management Decision,

38(4), 280–287. doi:10.1108/00251740010326333

Ghadi, M. Y., Fernando, M., & Caputi, P. (2013). Transformational leadership and work engagement:

지 선 영 107

The mediating effect of meaning in work. Leadership and Organization Development Journal,

34(6), 532–550. doi:10.1108/LODJ-10-2011-0110

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation.

Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448. doi:10.1002/smj.4250120604

Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change

in academia: The dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization Science, 5(3), 363–383.

doi:10.1287/orsc.5.3.363

Glavas, A., & Kelley, K. (2014). The effects of perceived corporate social responsibility on employee

attitudes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(2), 165–202. doi:10.5840/beq20143206

Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy

of Management Review, 32, 393–417. doi:10.2307/20159308

Grant, A. M. (2008a). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational

mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108–124.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108

Grant, A. M. (2008b). Employees without a cause: The motivational effects of prosocial

impact in public service. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 48–66.

doi:10.1080/10967490801887905

Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning : Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the

performance effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2),

458–476. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0588

Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007). Impact and the

art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 53–67. doi:10.1016/

j.obhdp.2006.05.004

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159–170. doi:10.1037/h0076546

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. doi:10.1016/0030-

5073(76)90016-7

Harpaz, I., & Fu, X. (2002). The structure of the meaning of work: A relative stability amidst change.

Human Relations, 55(6), 639–667. doi:10.1177/0018726702556002

Harris, K., Kacmar, K., & Zivnuska, S. (2007). An investigation of abusive supervision as a predictor

of performance and the meaning of work as a moderator of the relationship. The Leadership


Quarterly, 18(3), 252–263. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.03.007

Harzer, C., & Ruch, W. (2012). When the job is a calling : The role of applying one's signature

strengths at work. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(5), 362–371. doi:10.1080/17439760.20

12.702784

Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: On the coherence

of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 88–110. doi:10.1207/

s15327957pspr1002_1

Heintzelman, S. J., & King, L. A. (2014). (The feeling of ) Meaning-as-Information. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 18(2), 153–167. doi:10.1177/1088868313518487

Hirschi, A. (2012). Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation model of work

meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 59(3), 479–485. doi:10.1037/a0028949

Howard-Grenville, J., Metzger, M. L., & Meyer, A. D. (2013). Rekindling the flame: Processes

of identity resurrection. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 113–136. doi:10.5465/

amj.2010.0778

Humphreys, M., & Brown, A. D. (2002). Narratives of organizational identity and identification:

A case study of hegemony and resistance. Organization Studies, 23(3), 421–447.

doi:10.1177/0170840602233005

Jiang, W., Wrzesniewski, A., Boova, L., Siriwardane, N., Walk, M., Alcadipani, R., …

Pratt, M. G. (2016). The Meaning of Work in Difficult Times. Academy of Management

Proceedings, 2016(1). doi:10.5465/ambpp.2016.11782symposium

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work.

Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. doi:10.5465/256287

Kahn, W. A. (2007). Meaningful connections: Positive relationships and attachments at work. In J. E.

Dutton, & B. R. Ragins (Eds.). Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical

and research foundation (pp. 189–206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kilmann, R. H., & Saxton, M. J. (1983). Kilmann-Saxton culture gap survey, Pittsburgh, PA:

Organizational Design Consultants Incorporated.

Lam, C. F., Wan, W. H., & Roussin, C. J. (2016). Going the extra mile and feeling energized: An

enrichment perspective of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology,

101(3), 379–391. doi:10.1037/apl0000071

Lee, M. C. C., Idris, M. A., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2017). The linkages between hierarchical culture and

empowering leadership and their effects on employees’ work engagement: Work meaningfulness

지 선 영 109

as a mediator. International Journal of Stress Management, 24(4), 392–415. doi:10.1037/

str0000043

Lee, S. H. (2015). Meaning in work in nursing as a positive personal attribute (Doctoral

dissertation, University of Michigan), Retrieved from https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/

handle/2027.42/113359

Lepisto, D. A., & Pratt, M. G. (2017). Meaningful work as realization and justification:

Toward a dual conceptualization. Organizational Psycholog y Review, 7(2), 99–121.

doi:10.1177/2041386616630039

Lips-Wiersma, M., & Morris, L. (2009). Discriminating between ‘meaningful work’ and the

‘management of meaning’. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 491–511. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-

0118-9

Lips-Wiersma, M., & Wright, S. (2012). Measuring the meaning of meaningful work: Development

and validation of the Comprehensive Meaningful Work Scale (CMWS). Group & Organization

Management, 37(5), 655–685. doi:10.1177/1059601112461578

Lips-Wiersma, M., Wright, S., & Dik, B. (2016). Meaningful work: differences among blue-, pink-,

and white-collar occupations. Career Development International, 21(5), 534–551. doi:10.1108/

CDI-04-2016-0052

Littman-Ovadia, H., & Steger, M. (2010). Character strengths and well-being among volunteers and

employees: Toward an integrative model. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(6), 419–430. doi:

10.1080/17439760.2010.516765

Lysova, E. I., Allan, B. A., Dik, B. J., Duffy, R. D., & Steger, M. F. (2019). Fostering meaningful work

in organizations: A multi-level review and integration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110,

374–389. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2018.07.004

Magun, V., & Rudnev, M. (2012). Basic values of Russians and other Europeans: (According to the

materials of surveys in 2008). Problems of Economic Transition, 54(10), 31–64. doi:10.2753/

PET1061-1991541003

Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management

Journal, 48(1), 21–49. doi:10.2307/20159639

Maitlis, S., & Christianson, M. (2014). Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving

forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 57–125. doi:10.1080/19416520.2014.873177

Mantere, S., Schildt, H. A., & Sillince, J. A. (2012). Reversal of strategic change. Academy of

Management Journal, 55(1), 172–196. doi:10.5465/amj.2008.0045

Martela, F., & Pessi, A. B. (2018). Significant work is about self-realization and broader


purpose: Defining the key dimensions of meaningful work. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 363.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00363

Martela, F., & Steger, M. F. (2016). The three meanings of meaning in life: Distinguishing

coherence, purpose, and significance. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(5), 531–545. do

i:10.1080/17439760.2015.1137623

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions

of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit

at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psycholog y, 77(1), 11–37.

doi:10.1348/096317904322915892

Michaelson, C. (2009). Meaningful work and moral worth. Business & Professional Ethics Journal,

28(1/4), 27–48. doi:10.5840/bpej2009281/42

Michaelson, C., Pratt, M. G., Grant, A. M., & Dunn, C. P. (2014). Meaningful work: Connecting

business ethics and organization studies. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(1), 77–90. doi:10.1007/

s10551-013-1675-5

Mitra , R ., & Buzzanell , P. M. (2017). Communicative tensions of meaning ful work :

Th e ca s e o f susta ina b i l i t y pra c ti t i on er s . Hum a n R el a t i o n s , 7 0 ( 5 ) , 5 9 4 – 6 1 6 .

doi:10.1177/0018726716663288

Mueller, A., Fillion-Robin, J-C., Boidol, R., Tian, F., Nechifor, P., Kim, Y., … Mai, F. (2018). amueller/

word_cloud: WordCloud (Version 1.5.0) [Computer software]. Zenodo. doi:10.5281/

zenodo.1322068

Ott, J. S. (1989). The organizational culture perspective. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Park, C. L. (2012). Meaning, spirituality, and growth: Protective and resilience factors in health and

illness. In A. Baum, T. A. Revenson, & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of health psychology (pp. 405–

429). New York: Psychology Press.

Payne, R. L. (2001). A three dimensional framework for analyzing and assessing culture/climate

and its relevance to cultural change. In C. L. Cooper, S. Cartwright, & P. C. Earley (Eds.), The

international handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 107–122). New York: John

Wiley & Sons.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run

companies. New York: Harper & Row.

Petrou, P., Bakker, A. B., & Van den Heuvel, M. (2017). Weekly job crafting and leisure crafting:

Implications for meaning-making and work engagement. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 90(2), 129–152. doi:10.1111/joop.12160

지 선 영 111

Podolny, J. M., Khurana, R., & Hill-Popper, M. (2004). Revisiting the meaning of leadership. Research

in Organizational Behavior, 26, 1–36. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(04)26001-4

Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In Cameron,

K., Dutton, J. and Quinn, R. (Eds), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 309–327). San

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Pratt, M. G., Pradies, C., & Lepisto, D. A. (2013). Doing well, doing good, and doing with:

Organizational practices for effectively cultivating meaningful work. In B. J. Dik, Z. S. Byrne, &

M. F. Steger (Eds.), Purpose and meaning in the workplace (pp. 173–196). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Purvanova, R. K., Bono, J. E., & Dzieweczynski, J. (2006). Transformational leadership, job

characteristics, and organizational citizenship performance. Human Performance, 19(1), 1–22.

doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1901_1

Raub, S., & Blunschi, S. (2014). The power of meaningful work: How awareness of CSR initiatives

fosters task significance and positive work outcomes in service employees. Cornell Hospitality

Quarterly, 55(1), 10–18. doi:10.1177/1938965513498300

Rautenbach, C., & Rothmann, S. (2017). Antecedents of flourishing at work in a fast-moving

consumer goods company. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 27(3), 227–234. doi:10.1080/14330

237.2017.1321846

Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to organizational identity threats: Exploring the role

of organizational culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 433–458. doi:10.5465/

amj.2006.21794663

Reker, G. T., & Wong, P. T. P. (1988). Aging as an individual process: Toward a theory of personal

meaning. In J. E. Birren & V. L. Bengtson (Eds.), Emergent theories of aging (pp. 214–246). New

York: Springer.

Reker, G. T., & Wong, P. T. P. (2012). Personal meaning in life and psychosocial adaptation in the later

years. In P. T. P. Wong (Ed.), The human quest for meaning: Theories, research, and applications

(2nd ed.) (pp. 433–456). New York: Routledge.

Rodell, J. B. (2013). Finding meaning through volunteering: Why do employees volunteer and what

does it mean for their jobs?. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1274–1294. doi:10.5465/

amj.2012.0611

Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical

integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127. doi:10.1016/

j.riob.2010.09.001


Rothausen, T., & Henderson, K. (2019). Meaning-Based Job-Related Well-being : Exploring a

Meaningful Work Conceptualization of Job Satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology,

34(3), 357–376. doi:10.1007/s10869-018-9545-x

Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro-practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle managers

interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 1413–1441.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00549.x

Rouleau, L., & Balogun, J. (2011). Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and discursive competence.

Journal of Management Studies, 48(5), 953–983. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00941.x

Ruiz Quintanilla, S. A. (1991). Introduction: The meaning of work. The European Work and

Organizational Psychologist, 1(2-3), 81–89. doi:10.1080/09602009108408514

Schabram, K., & Maitlis, S. (2017). Negotiating the challenges of a calling: Emotion and enacted

sensemaking in animal shelter work. Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 584–609.

doi:10.5465/amj.2013.0665

Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 41(2), 229–240. doi:10.2307/2393715

Schnell, T., Höge, T., & Pollet, E. (2013). Predicting meaning in work: Theory, data, implications. The

Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(6), 543–554. doi:10.1080/17439760.2013.830763

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A

self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594. doi:10.1287/orsc.4.4.577

Shigihara, A. M. (2019). “I mean, define meaningful!”: Accounts of meaningfulness among restaurant

employees. Qualitative Sociology Review, 15(1), 106–131. doi:10.18778/1733-8077.15.1.05

Shockley, K. M., Ureksoy, H., Rodopman, O. B., Poteat, L. F., & Dullaghan, T. R . (2016).

Development of a new scale to measure subjective career success: A mixed-methods study. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 37(1), 128–153. doi:10.1002/job.2046

Soane, E., Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., Rees, C., & Gatenby, M. (2013). The association of

meaningfulness, well-being, and engagement with absenteeism: A moderated mediation model.

Human Resource Management, 52(3), 441–456. doi:10.1002/hrm.21534

Sonenshein, S. (2010). We're changing—Or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive, and

stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Academy of Management Journal,

53(3), 477–512. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.51467638

Sorakraikitikul, M., & Siengthai, S. (2014). Organizational learning culture and workplace spirituality:

지 선 영 113

Is knowledge-sharing behaviour a missing link?. The Learning Organization, 21(3), 175–192.

doi:10.1108/TLO-08-2011-0046

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). An empirical test of a comprehensive model of intrapersonal empowerment

in the workplace. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23(5), 601–629. doi:10.1007/

BF02506984

Steger, M. F., & Dik, B. J. (2010). Work as meaning: Individual and organizational benefits of engaging

in meaningful work. In P. A. Linley, S. Harrington, & N. Garcea (Eds.), Oxford handbook of

positive psychology and work (pp. 131–142). New York: Oxford University Press.

Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duff y, R . D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The Work

and Meaning Inventor y (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322–337.

doi:10.1177/1069072711436160

Steger, M. F., Littman-Ovadia, H., Miller, M., Menger, L., & Rothmann, S. (2013). Engaging

in work even when it is meaningless: Positive affective disposition and meaningful work

interact in relation to work engagement. Journal of Career Assessment, 21(2), 348–361.

doi:10.1177/1069072712471517

Sun, J., Lee, J., & Sohn, Y. (2019). Work context and turnover intention in social enterprises:

The mediating role of meaning of work. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(1), 46–60.

doi:10.1108/JMP-11-2017-0412

Tablan, F. (2015). Catholic social teachings: Toward a meaningful work. Journal of Business Ethics,

128(2), 291–303. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2104-0

Tims, M., Derks, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2016). Job crafting and its relationships with person–job fit and

meaningfulness: A three-wave study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 44–53. doi:10.1016/

j.jvb.2015.11.007

Tummers, L. G., & Knies, E. (2013). Leadership and meaningful work in the public sector. Public

Administration Review, 73(6), 859–868. doi:10.1111/puar.12138

Wang, Z., & Xu, H. (2019). When and for whom ethical leadership is more effective in eliciting work

meaningfulness and positive attitudes: The moderating roles of core self-evaluation and perceived

organizational support. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(4), 919–940. doi:10.1007/s10551-017-

3563-x

Walsh, I., & Bartunek, J. (2011). Cheating the fates: Organizational foundings in the wake of demise.

Academy of Management Journal, 54(5), 1017–1044. doi:10.5465/amj.2008.0658

Waterman, R. H., Jr., Peters, T. J., & Phillips, J. R. (1980). Structure is not organization. Business

Horizons, 23(3), 14–26. doi:10.1016/0007-6813(80)90027-0


Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Woods, S. A., & Sofat, J. A. (2013). Personality and engagement at work: The mediating role of

psychological meaningfulness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(11), 2203–2210.

doi:10.1111/jasp.12171

Wrzesniewski, A. (2003). Finding positive meaning in work. In Cameron, K., Dutton, J. and Quinn, R.

(Eds), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 296–308). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of

their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201. doi:10.5465/amr.2001.4378011

Yeoman, R. (2014). Conceptualising meaningful work as a fundamental human need. Journal of

Business Ethics, 125(2), 235–251. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1894-9

YouGov. (2015, August 12). YouGov Survey Results. Retrieved from https://d25d2506sfb94s.

cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/g0h77ytkkm/Opi_InternalResults_150811_

Work_W.pdf

지 선 영 115

<Appendix> Frequency of words from 29 Definitions of Meaningful work

No. Words Frequency* No. Words Frequency*

1 individual 1.0000 101 context 0.0714

2 purpose 1.0000 102 practitioners 0.0714

3 one 0.7857 103 minimum 0.0714

4 value 0.6429 104 purposeful 0.0714

5 significant 0.5714 105 integrated 0.0714

6 significance 0.5000 106 wholeness 0.0714

7 self 0.4286 107 balance 0.0714

8 job 0.3571 108 judged 0.0714

9 worthwhile 0.3571 109 relation 0.0714

10 sense 0.3571 110 ideals 0.0714

11 goal 0.3571 111 standards 0.0714

12 positive 0.3571 112 supports 0.0714

13 valuable 0.2857 113 ultimate 0.0714

14 working 0.2857 114 affirms 0.0714

15 experience 0.2857 115 community 0.0714

16 existential 0.2857 116 part 0.0714

17 subjective experience 0.2857 117 coherent 0.0714

18 people 0.2143 118 set 0.0714

19 life 0.2143 119 tasks 0.0714

20 resulting 0.2143 120 endeavor 0.0714

21 personally 0.2143 121 requiring 0.0714

22 human 0.2143 122 mental 0.0714

23 autonomy 0.2143 123 exertion 0.0714

24 broader 0.2143 124 interprets 0.0714

25 evaluation 0.2143 125 judgment 0.0714

26 worth 0.2143 126 reference 0.0714

27 two 0.2143 127 affects 0.0714

28 state 0.2143 128 Thus 0.0714

29 degree 0.1429 129 someone 0.0714

30 physical 0.1429 130 enables 0.0714

31 experienced 0.1429 131 service 0.0714

32 felt 0.1429 132 others 0.0714

33 taken 0.1429 133 fitting 0.0714

34 beliefs 0.1429 134 market 0.0714

35 general 0.1429 135 demands 0.0714



36 importance 0.1429 136 particularly 0.0714

37 norm 0.1429 137 holding 0.0714

38 personal 0.1429 138 valence 0.0714

39 outcomes 0.1429 139 growth 0.0714

40 related 0.1429 140 oriented 0.0714

41 fit 0.1429 141 fundamental 0.0714

42 perceived 0.1429 142 persons 0.0714

43 end 0.1429 143 require 0.0714

44 connection 0.1429 144 order 0.0714

45 realization 0.1429 145 satisfy 0.0714

46 transcendent 0.1429 146 inescapable 0.0714

47 meaning 0.1429 147 interests 0.0714

48 need 0.1429 148 freedom 0.0714

49 fulfill 0.1429 149 dignity 0.0714

50 makes 0.1429 150 actualizes 0.0714

51 whether 0.1429 151 certain 0.0714

52 intrinsically 0.1429 152 potentials 0.0714

53 key 0.1429 153 creativity 0.0714

54 dimensions 0.1429 154 abilities 0.0714

55 serving 0.1429 155 talents 0.0714

56 good 0.1429 156 identity 0.0714

57 generally 0.0714 157 sociality 0.0714

58 feeling 0.0714 158 simply 0.0714

59 receiving 0.0714 159 matter 0.0714

60 return 0.0714 160 preference 0.0714

61 investments 0.0714 161 cultivation 0.0714

62 currency 0.0714 162 necessary 0.0714

63 cognitive 0.0714 163 positive' 0.0714

64 emotional 0.0714 164 way 0.0714

65 energy 0.0714 165 perceives 0.0714

66 useful 0.0714 166 authentic 0.0714

67 though 0.0714 167 beyond 0.0714

68 made 0.0714 168 enriching 0.0714

69 difference 0.0714 169 contribution 0.0714

70 granted 0.0714 170 level 0.0714

71 expectations 0.0714 171 phenomenon 0.0714

지 선 영 117


72 hold 0.0714 172 positively 0.0714

73 Composed 0.0714 173 associated 0.0714

74 Centrality 0.0714 174 broadest 0.0714

75 defined 0.0714 175 overall 0.0714

76 given 0.0714 176 regards 0.0714

77 point 0.0714 177 Furthermore 0.0714

78 time 0.0714 178 argue 0.0714

79 relative 0.0714 179 sub 0.0714

80 sought 0.0714 180 greater 0.0714

81 preferred 0.0714 181 prosocial 0.0714

82 Societal 0.0714 182 authenticity 0.0714

83 entitlement 0.0714 183 expression 0.0714

84 obligation 0.0714 184 able 0.0714

85 towards 0.0714 185 realize 0.0714

86 Definitions 0.0714 186 oneself 0.0714

87 rationales 0.0714 187 latter 0.0714

88 reasons 0.0714 188 types 0.0714

89 engaged 0.0714 189 intrinsic 0.0714

90 engagement 0.0714 190 together 0.0714

91 activities 0.0714 191 define 0.0714

92 constraints 0.0714 192 feel 0.0714

93 controls 0.0714 193 subjectively 0.0714

94 performance 0.0714 194 construct 0.0714

95 role 0.0714 195 lives 0.0714

96 behaviors 0.0714 196 global 0.0714

97 individuals' 0.0714 197 judgement 0.0714

98 understanding 0.0714 198 accomplishes 0.0714

99 believe 0.0714 199 congruent 0.0714

100 achieved 0.0714 200 psychological 0.0714*: Frequency values were normalized to range from 0 to 1.


일의 의미성에 관한 문헌연구:

조직 내 문화적 맥락을 중심으로

지 선 영*

본 연구는 일의 의미성에 대한 이해를 증진시키고자 일의 의미성에 관한 문헌을 종합적으로 검토하

고 선행연구들의 한계점과 미래 연구를 위한 제안사항들을 제시한다. 우선, 본 연구는 일의 의미성을 정

의한 29개 문헌을 검토 및 분석하여, 중요성, 목적성, 그리고 자아실현, 즉 일의 의미성의 세가지 요소들

을 모두 포괄하는 명확한 정의를 다음과 같이 제시한다. 일의 의미성은 개인이 인지하는 본인의 일의 중

요성이며, 이러한 중요성은 개인이 일을 통해 보다 큰 목적에 기여한다고 느끼는 것, 그리고 자아를 실현

한다고 느끼는 것에서 비롯된다. 그리고 일의 의미성의 다면적 측정도구 7가지를 일의 의미성의 3요소

의 반영 정도에 따라 평가한다. 본 연구는 일의 의미성의 선행변수와 결과변수에 관한 기존 연구들 역시

검토한다. 선행변수에 관한 연구들은 구성개념의 조직 내 수준, 그리고 채택한 관점에 따라 분석하여, 기

존 연구들이 불균형적으로 분포되어 있음을 보인다. 또한, 집단적 의미부여와 조직문화 간의 이론적 관

련성을 제시하여, 일의 의미성의 원천으로서의 문화적 맥락을 연구하는 것의 타당성을 제시한다. 마지막

으로, 일의 의미성의 결과 변수를 그 소속 영역, 그리고 일의 의미성 개념과의 근접성에 따라 검토한다.

이러한 문헌 검토에 기반하여, 본 연구의 함의, 기존 문헌의 한계점, 그리고 일의 의미성에 관한 새로운

연구주제들을 제시한다.

핵심 주제어: 일의 의미성, 문화적 맥락, 조직문화, 정당화 관점(justification perspective), 의미부여

(sensemaking)

a review on work meaningfulness focusing on cultural contexts...

Documents