A Review of the Empirical Literature on Meaningful Work: Progress and Research Agenda

Abstract

Meaningful work is a topic of importance in core domains of HRD such as employee engagement and understandings of human performance and potentiality. However, there is little consensus over what comprises meaningful work, or concerning the antecedent and outcome factors associated with meaningfulness. Prior theorizing has tended to conflate conceptual and empirical arguments, and hence we lack clear insight into factors related to the experience of meaningfulness. We address this by presenting the results of an analysis of the empirical literature relating to meaningful work. 71 studies met the inclusion criteria. Our aim is to address the question: what is the empirical evidence base concerning meaningful work, and how can this inform theory and practice in HRD? The synthesis reveals dominant trends alongside significant gaps in understanding. We highlight the practical implications of our analysis for the HRD field, and propose avenues for future research on meaningfulness within HRD.

Viewing Meaningful Work Through the Lens of Time

“…The recent work of Bailey et al (2018) suggests a substantial way for classifying the conceptualizations of meaningful work literature. These authors have proposed a review of the existing empirical evidence on meaningful work, in which they discussed an original viewpoint on the boundaries of current knowledge.…”

“…They scrutinized the perspectives of 71 articles and argued that the underlying theoretical framework of the collected empirical studies generally referred to positive psychology (i.e., Oldham and Hackman, 1981 ) and the literature on spirituality and “calling.” As they indicated, some authors proposed definitions within the job characteristic model and conceptualized meaningful work as a core psychological state of work motivation. Others looked at studies that examined models around “workplace spirituality” in which the emphasis is on the role of organizations to enable human flourishing by sustaining people’s need for an inner life ( Milliman et al, 2017 ; Bailey et al, 2018 ). Bailey et al (2018) grouped all the approaches to meaningful work in a third strand of research, the humanistic perspective, to classify those contributions that principally define meaningful work as inherently subjective.…”

“…Others looked at studies that examined models around “workplace spirituality” in which the emphasis is on the role of organizations to enable human flourishing by sustaining people’s need for an inner life ( Milliman et al, 2017 ; Bailey et al, 2018 ). Bailey et al (2018) grouped all the approaches to meaningful work in a third strand of research, the humanistic perspective, to classify those contributions that principally define meaningful work as inherently subjective. In this class, some authors discuss meaningful work as the effect of the human ontological will for meaning (e.g., in reference to the classical works in the humanistic perspective, as Jung, 1933 ; Frankl, 1985 ).…”

“…Using the distinction advanced here, within the frame of the three groups of factors suggested, would offer an essential contribution in devising applied research programs and training interventions. Indeed, the studies analyzed suggest that the ways in which meaningfulness can arise depend on several factors ( Chalofsky and Krishna, 2009 ; Lee, 2015 ; Costantini et al, 2017a ; Bailey et al, 2018 ). By adopting the framework of the three levels of analysis (i.e., individual, organizational, and contextual), practitioners can deal with any possible discrepancies between interventions’ intentions and workforce expectations by approaching the phenomenon more innovatively, in particular by specifying both the intervention targets and the classes of agents to be addressed.…”

“…We must, therefore, regard meaningful work as a complex phenomenon ( Rosso et al, 2010 ; Dik et al, 2013 ; Bailey et al, 2019 ). Furthermore, there is still little agreement on the definition and operationalization of the construct among the scientific communities, and no agreed underlying framework for the development of descriptions of its dimensions ( Rosso et al, 2010 ; Both-Nwabuwe et al, 2017 ; Bailey et al, 2018 ).…”