Outcomes of Meaningful Work: A Meta‐Analysis

• Author: Haley M. Sterling,Cassondra Batz-Barbarich,Blake A. Allan,Louis Tay
• Published date: 01 May 2019
• Date: 01 May 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12406

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

Outcomes of Meaningful Work: A Meta-Analysis

Blake A. Allan, Cassondra Batz-Barbarich,

Haley M. Sterling and Louis Tay

Purdue University

ABST RACT Using job character istics theory as a framework, we ca lculated meta-an alytic effect

sizes between mean ingful work and various outcomes and tested a med iated model of mean-

ingful work pred icting proximal and dist al outcomes with meta-analytic st ructural equation

modelling ( MASEM). From 44 art icles (N = 23,144), we found that meaning ful work had large

correlations (r = 0.70+) with work engagement, commit ment, and job satisfact ion; moderate to

large correlat ions (r = 0.44 to −0.49) with li fe satisfaction, l ife meaning, general health, and

withdrawal i ntentions; and smal l to moderate correlations (r = −0.19 to 0.33) with organiza-

tional citiz enship behaviours, self-rated job performa nce, and negative affect. The best

MASEM f itting model was meaning ful work predicting work engagement, commit ment, and

job satisfaction and these variables subsequently predicting self-rated performance, organiza-

tional citiz enship behaviours, and withdrawa l intentions. This meta-analys is provides esti-

mated effect sizes bet ween meaningful work and its outcomes and revea ls how meaningful

work relates directly and indirectly to key outcomes.

Keywo rds: job attitudes, job character istics theory, job outcomes, meaningful work ,

wellbeing, work engag ement

INTRODUCTION

Management scholars have long searched for factors that improve the performance, pro-

ductivity, and wellbeing of workers. The Job Characteri stics Theory (JCT; Hackma n

and Oldham, 1976) proposed meaning ful work as a key psychological dimension that

leads to higher job satisfaction, qual ity work performance, and lower turnover. However,

since the publication of this theor y, scholars have positioned other variables as outcomes

of meaningfu l work, which the JCT has not incorporated. Moreover, meaningfu l work’s

Journal of Man agement Studi es 56:3 May 2019

do i: 10 .1111/jo ms. 1240 6

Address for re prints: Bla ke A. Allan, A ssociate Professor, Counse ling Psychology, Depar tment of Educational

Studies, 100 N. Univer sity St., West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA (bal lan@purdue.edu).

Meaningfu l Work Meta-Analysis 5 01

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

relations to these outcomes have been heterogeneous across samples, which may be due to

the diversity of meanin gful work scales. In addition, meaning ful work has demonstrated

large correlations w ith work engagement, commitment, and job satisfaction, raising the

possibilities that mean ingful work either represents the same underlying constr uct or is a

more proximal cause of these outcomes. Large correlat ions between work engagement,

commitment, and job satisfaction and outcomes, such as performa nce, organizational

citizenship behaviours (OCB s), and withdrawal intentions ( Meyer et al., 2002), further

suggest that meaning ful work may have effects on more distal work-related outcomes

through work engagement, commitment, and job satisfact ion. Given these possibilities,

the aims of thi s meta-analysis were to (a) estimate the meta-analyt ic effect sizes of the

relations between meaning ful work and its potential outcomes, (b) examine whether

different ty pes of meaningful work scales relate di fferentially to outcomes, and (c) test

meaningfu l work’s relation to work engagement, commitment, and job satisfaction in

the prediction of work-related outcomes using MASEM.

Meaningful Work

Scholars have defined and operationalized meaningfu l work in various ways and some-

times used dif ferent terms interchangeably. A key distinction is between ‘meaning’ and

‘meaningfu l work’ (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003). ‘Mean ing’ refers to what something

signif ies, so ‘meanings’ are closely related to meanin g-making – a cognitive process

whereby people construe, interpret, and understand their ex periences (Wrzesniewski et

al., 2003). Meanings, t herefore, can have positive, negative, or neutral valence (L episto

and Pratt, 2017). In contrast, ‘meaningfu l work’, ‘meaningfulness’, or ‘meaning in work’

refers to the signif icance or value of work, which by definition has positive va lence (Lips-

Wiersma et al., 2016).

Early conceptualizations of meaningful work were unidimensional and captured

workers’ perceptions that their work is worthwhile, important, or valuable (Hackman

and Oldham, 1976; Pratt and Ashforth, 2003). While some scholars have maintained

this conceptualization (e.g., May et al., 2004; Pratt and Ashforth, 2003; Spreitzer, 1995),

others have developed broader, multidimensional conceptualizations that bring together

aspects of the self – for example, self-actualization and personal growth – with aspects of

being other-oriented – for example, helping others and contributing to the greater good

(Lips-Wiersma and Wright, 2012; Rosso et al., 2010). These multidimensional models

outline experiences that are meaningful; for example, expressing full potential and help-

ing others are inherently meaningful experiences (Lepisto and Pratt, 2017; Martela and

Pessi, 2018). Therefore, our perspective is that these are processes of meaningful experi-

ences, rather than meaningful work itself.

To explain further, having meaningful work does not reflect a continuous psychological

state (Bailey and Madden, 2017). Rather, people have many episodic experiences at work

that are meaningful or meaningless, which they integrate into a belief system about the

significance of their work. We contend that experiences are meaningful when people

conduct actions that fulfil values that are relevant to their existence and explain why their

work is worth doing (Allan et al., 2014; May et al., 2004). Therefore, meaningful experi-

ences are individualized but not necessarily self-serving, and people must find a balance