Datification and the Pursuit of Meaningfulness in Work

• Author: Erica L. Wagner,Robert D. Galliers,Pamela Tierney,Mari‐Klara Stein,Sue Newell
• Date: 01 May 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12409
• Published date: 01 May 2019

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Lt d and Society for the Adva ncement of Management Stud ies

Datification and the Pursuit of Meaningfulness in

Wor k

Mari-Klara Stein, Erica L. Wagner, Pamela Tierney,

Sue Newell and Robert D. Galliers

Copenhage n Business School; Por tland State University; T he University of Warwick; B entley University;

Loughborough Universi ty

ABST RACT Proliferation of di gital means of trackin g worker ac tivities has contributed to the

rise of data- driven approaches to managing people, w it h employe es often required to record

their activ ities for accountability purposes. I ncreased requirement for such datificat ion work

occurs at a junctur e wher e me aningfulness is one of the most sought-aft er work feat ures.

Datific ation work could both facilitate and hinder t he pu rsuit of meaningfulness , yet l iterature

provides little g uidance into the nature of the connection a nd how it tr anspires. Our inductive

study of academic professional s using an accountability sy stem suggests that datif ication work

characteri stics link to meaning ful work experiences in complex ways. We advance current

theory on work meaning fulness by theorizing t he role of a new work cond ition – datification

– in meaning fulness experiences of professionals, out lining how system design and t he i nstitu-

tional context become impor tant elements influencing mean ingful work experiences, and

explaini ng how meaningfulness exp er iences are constructed through sy stem appropriations.

Keywo rds: accountability s ystems, appropriation, datif ication work, meaningful work

experiences, professional employees

INTRODUCTION

As a result of pervasive computer mediation, nearly ever y aspect of the world is

rendered in a new symbolic dimension as events, objects, processes, and people be-

come visible, knowable, and shareable in a new way. The world is reborn as data…

(Zuboff, 2015, pp. 76–77).

Professional work in the 21st century is going through significant changes due to ubiq-

uitous information and communication technologies, automation, and more recently,

Journal of Man agement Studi es 56:3 May 2019

doi: 10 .1111/jo ms.1 240 9

Address for re prints: Mar i-Klara Stein , Department of Digita lization, Copenh agen Business School,

Howitzvej 60, Fr ederiksberg 2000 , Denmark (ms.digi@cbs .dk).

686 M.-K. Stein et al.

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Lt d and Society for the Adva ncement of Management Stud ies

datification (Forman et al., 2014; Günther et al., 2017; Susskind and Susskind, 2015),

resulting in what Wired Magazine called the ‘quantified self ’ (Fuller, 2015). Datification

(Newell and Marabelli, 2015) refers to the process of taking an activity, event or charac-

teristic, codifying it and turning it into data. The data thus collected allow organizations

to assess worker performance and productivity, and so are a key element in the ‘audit

society’ (Power, 1997) and in a data-driven approach to managing people at work (Bersin,

2015; Waber, 2013). While datification can be automatic (as when a GPS system tracks a

delivery driver’s movements), many organizations rely on the adoption of accountability

systems (Vieira da Cunha, 2013) that involve individuals manually entering data about

their activities – we term this activity datification work. Datification work has the capac-

ity to shape work experience in significant ways because, depending on what is codified,

‘work roles, knowledge practices and labor processes of professional practice’ can trans-

form (Edwards and Fenwick, 2016, p. 216).

Increased requirements for professionals to engage in datification work occur at a junc-

ture where meaningful work is considered ‘the single most valued feature of employment

for the majority of employees’ (Bailey et al., 2017, p. 416). Meaningful work is a salient

pursuit because it helps employees answer the question ‘Why am I here?’ (Pratt and

Ashforth, 2003) and contributes to positive outcomes including job satisfaction, motiva-

tion, engagement, and creativity (Cohen-Meitar et al., 2009; Fairlie, 2011; May et al.,

2004; Rosso et al., 2010). Thus, it has been found that ‘employees actively seek ways to

construct meaningfulness, even in cases of repetitive drudgery’ (Bailey et al., 2017, p.

416). These are interesting co-developments in that while meaningfulness and datifi-

cation work both have implications for the employee experience, at this point, research

evidence appears to be divided about whether such work has positive or negative impli-

cations for experiences of meaningfulness. As such, the overall goal of our inquiry was to

reach a greater understanding of how datification work influences experiences of meaningfulness

for employees.

Datification work has been described as standardized, reductionist, and highly con-

trolling (Brivot and Gendron, 2011; Findlay and Newton, 1998). Meaningfulness, on the

other hand, stems from autonomous and significant work (Bailey and Madden, 2016;

Cartwright and Holmes, 2006; Lips-Wiersma and Morris, 2009). Based on this contrast,

we could deduce that employees required to codify their work activities on a regular basis

for accountability purposes (i.e., to engage in datification work) might experience a lack

of meaningfulness. However, some studies suggest that accountability systems can also

function as technologies through which one’s self can be examined and transformed

(Covaleski et al., 1998; Styhre, 2001; Townley, 1994). Tracking and recording data about

one’s activities is considered by some to be a superior, objective form of pursuing the age-

old adage of ‘know thyself ’ (Hong, 2016).

This seeming contradiction suggests that the manner in which datification work influ-

ences meaningfulness may be complex. It is known that various factors influence how

employees respond to their work, including the technologies they use, and that workers

‘do not simply impute meaning from the characteristics of their jobs’ (Rosso et al., 2010,

p. 103). Meaning is not the property of a job, rather employees construct accounts of

why their work is meaningful (or not) in a particular context (Lepisto and Pratt, 2017).

Datificat ion and the Pursuit of Meaningfu lness in Work 687

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Lt d and Society for the Adva ncement of Management Stud ies

Also, employees craft their jobs and appropriate the technologies that they use in order

to shape the meaning of their work (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). Taken together,

these two tenets indicate that the contradictory predictions about whether datification will

impact work meaningfulness positively or negatively, need to be addressed by considering

how this impact unfolds.

In order to explore how positive and negative effects of datification work influence

meaningfulness experiences, we conducted an inductive field study. We chose a university

setting because it provides a good current example of employees conducting seemingly

meaningful jobs (Lepisto and Pratt, 2017) while also having to increasingly engage in

datification work (Dodd, 2014).

Our study stands to make a number of contributions. First, it answers the call for

research to examine work meaningfulness experiences (and lack thereof), considering

meaningfulness from the viewpoint of the contemporary employee, and relatedly, utiliz-

ing research methods that permit the ‘story’ of the meaningfulness experience to unfold

(Lips-Wiersma and Morris, 2009). By immersing ourselves in situ, we were able to ob-

tain a rich understanding of how academics were personally experiencing meaningful-

ness with the introduction of a specific work condition – the requirement to engage in

datification work. Second, we make advances in our theoretical understanding of how

accountability system design, via specific datification work characteristics, becomes an

important element influencing meaningful work experiences. Third, we contribute to

the theorization of work meaningfulness construction by detecting system appropriation

patterns, supporting the idea that instead of being ‘passive recipients’ employees may

enact a role of ‘motivated crafters of meaning’ when faced with work conditions influ-

encing meaningfulness (Rosso et al., 2010, pp. 60–1). Fourth, we expand current theory

on work meaningfulness by identifying how the institutional context may moderate the

impact work conditions have on meaningfulness experiences. In sum, our findings bridge

the literature on work meaningfulness with that addressing behavioral aspects of tech-

nology adoption and use, and in so doing, advance theory in both realms. Practically, our

findings should prove useful in guiding organizations in their approach to successfully

develop accountability through technology whilst simultaneously improving experiences

of meaningfulness among employees.

WORK MEA NINGFULNESS A ND DAT IFICATION

Meaning fulness in Work

In broad terms, meaning ful work refers to ‘work [that is] experienced as particularly

signif ic ant’ (Rosso et al., 2010, p. 95). I n principle, all jobs can be experienced as being

more and less meaningfu l (Bailey and Madden, 2017). Work meaningfulness may stem

from a variety of sources such as developing and becom ing one’s authentic self, serving

others, and expressing one’s full potential ( Lips-Wiersma and Morris, 2009; Rosso et al.,

2010). Meanwhile, there are many barriers to work meaningfulness, such as lack of

control over, and inability to see value in, one’s work (Lepisto and Pratt, 2017). Debates

around how workers performing seemingly enr iched jobs can experience a lack of