Passion at work: A meta‐analysis of individual work outcomes

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2434
• Date: 01 May 2020
• Published date: 01 May 2020
• Author: Ernest H. O'Boyle,Violet T. Ho,Bradley L. Kirkman,Jeffrey M. Pollack

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Passion at work: A meta-analysis of individual work outcomes

Jeffrey M. Pollack

1

| Violet T. Ho

2

| Ernest H. O'Boyle

3

| Bradley L. Kirkman

1

1

Poole College of Management, North

Carolina State University, Raleigh, North

Carolina, U.S.A.

2

Robins School of Business, University of

Richmond, Richmond, Virginia, U.S.A.

3

Kelley School of Business, Indiana University

Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana, U.S.A.

Correspondence

Jeffrey M. Pollack, Poole College of

Management, North Carolina State University,

Raleigh, NC 27695.

Email: jeff_pollack@ncsu.edu

Summary

Academic research on passion is much more complex than the extant literature

or popular press portray. Although research on work-related passion has prog-

ressed rapidly over the last decade, much remains unknown. We are now just

beginning to recognize the different theoretical underpinnings and empirical

operationalizations that work passion research has adopted, and the confusion

this has generated hampers our understanding of the construct and its relation-

ship to workplace outcomes. Accordingly, we use a meta-analytic examination to

study the work-related outcomes of three dominant literature streams of work

passion: general passion, dualistic passion (i.e., harmonious passion and obsessive

passion), and role-based passion (i.e., passion for developing, passion for founding,

and passion for inventing). We employ meta-analytic techniques using random

effects modeling summarizing 106 distinct samples across 87 manuscripts totaling

384 effect sizes (total unique N= 38,481; 43.54% women, average age is 38.04).

Importantly, we highlight how each of the three streams of passion relates to

various outcomes differently, illuminate several important heretofore undetected

nuances in passion research, and provide a roadmap for future inquiry on passion

at work.

KEYWORDS

dualistic model of passion, entrepreneurial passion, general work passion, meta-analysis, role-

based passion

1|INTRODUCTION

Contemporary perspectives on passion, both in the academic litera-

ture and the popular press, support the premise that passion for one's

work is generally desired due to a plethora of positive outcomes,

including perceived meaning, persistence, overall success, enthusiasm,

financial gain, and happiness (Vallerand & Houlfort, 2019; Vallerand,

Houlfort, & Forest, 2014). When passion is lacking, individuals are

urged to “rediscover their passion for work and life”(Boyatzis,

McKee, & Goleman, 2002, p. 5). Given the apparent consensus as to

the positive aspects of passion, it is perhaps not surprising that pas-

sion research has progressed rapidly over the last decade, with a pro-

liferation of passion-focused work emerging in the form of hundreds

of popular press books (e.g., Anderson, 2010; Gostick & Elton, 2014;

Guillebeau, 2012; Miller, 2009) as well as scholarly publications.

However, a closer look at studies related to passion at work

reveals a surprisingly nuanced literature. On the popular press side, a

recent New York Times opinion piece asked, “Should Work Be Passion,

Or Duty?”(DeBrabander, 2019). On the academic side, distinct

streams of research on work passion have emerged and progressed

independently of one another, with little integration or cross-

pollination across streams. For instance, some scholars define and

measure work passion as simply love of one's work (Baum & Locke,

2004), whereas others construe passion as involving not only positive

feelings but also meaning and salience to one's identity (e.g., Cardon,

Wincent, Singh, & Drnovsek, 2009). As another example of the field's

divergence, some studies found that passion is positively related to

firm performance (e.g., Ho & Pollack, 2014), whereas others failed to

find a linkage to firm growth (e.g., Baum & Locke, 2004). Problemati-

cally, this divergence in construct definition, empirical measurement,

Received: 6 February 2018 Revised: 15 January 2020 Accepted: 19 January 2020

DOI: 10.1002/job.2434

J Organ Behav. 2020;41:311–331. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 311

and outcomes of work passion not only contributes to potential con-

struct proliferation, but also makes it difficult for scholars and practi-

tioners to reach a consensus on what passion truly is and why it

matters (or should matter) in the workplace.

To the extent that the different conceptualizations and mea-

sures of passion relate to similar outcomes in an analogous fashion,

this underscores a need to synthesize and integrate various streams

into one and generalize findings from one stream to the others,

rather than “reinventing the wheel”and examining research ques-

tions that have already been addressed (albeit by researchers in a

different passion stream). In contrast, if the various streams of pas-

sion differentially relate to work outcomes, this suggests that each

stream offers unique value and merits separate attention and that

subsequent research should be explicit on the form of passion being

examined and avoid conflating that with other conceptualizations of

passion.

Our research objectives are to (a) ascertain key work outcomes

related to the different passion constructs; (b) identify similarities

and/or differences in the passion-to-outcome relationships across

the different streams; and, ultimately, (c) determine how each pas-

sion stream can inform the others, whether certain passion streams

should be synthesized and combined and/or whether a particular

passion conceptualization warrants treatment as an independent

construct. We describe and compare three major streams of passion

research: general passion, dualistic passion (i.e., harmonious passion

and obsessive passion), and role-based passion (i.e., passion for

developing, passion for founding, and passion for inventing).

Although research on general passion defines it as one's love

of work (Baum & Locke, 2004), the other two streams include an

identity element, such that passion not only involves positive feel-

ings toward work but also incorporates the work into one's iden-

tity (Cardon et al., 2009; Vallerand et al., 2003). In addition, role-

based passion, primarily examined in the entrepreneurship context,

distinguishes three roles that entrepreneurs play—developer, foun-

der, and inventor—whereas the dualistic model distinguishes

between two ways in which work is internalized into one's identity

(i.e., in an autonomous or controlled fashion). After detailing these

and other similarities and differences across the three streams, we

make predictions on the outcomes associated with each form of

passion and test them using a meta-analytic approach that incorpo-

rates findings from 106 distinct samples across 87 manuscripts

encompassing 384 effect sizes.

The findings from this study allow us to make at least three con-

tributions to the work passion literature. First, the meta-analytic find-

ings within each stream offer a more generalizable depiction of how

each form of passion specifically relates to work outcomes, thereby

reducing the risk that various idiosyncrasies in any one sample or

study may have accounted for the relationships. Even more impor-

tantly, our findings shed light on previously inconsistent results and

either demonstrate the relationships more conclusively or highlight

those that warrant further investigation of potential moderators and

contextual factors. For instance, in the context of general passion

research, although multiple studies document a positive link between

general passion and financial performance (e.g., Ma, Gu, & Liu, 2017),

others did not find a link between general passion and venture growth

(e.g., Baum & Locke, 2004; Baum, Locke, & Smith, 2001), thereby ren-

dering unclear whether general passion does relate to performance. In

the context of the dualistic model, in particular, relationships between

obsessive work passion and common work attitudes (e.g., job satisfac-

tion and turnover intention) and behaviors (e.g., organizational citizen-

ship behaviors [OCBs]) have been weak and mixed, thereby

underscoring the need for a meta-analytic examination of these rela-

tionships that were not investigated in a previous meta-analysis of

passion (Curran, Hill, Appleton, Vallerand, & Standage, 2015).

Second, comparing meta-analytic results across different passion

streams allows us to provide insight and clarity into the similarities

and differences of outcomes associated with each stream. In doing so,

we offer a more holistic, integrated understanding of when passion

constructs are similar, and when they are different, in their workplace

implications. This is valuable in shaping consensus as to whether work

passion, in its multiple forms and conceptualizations, is unequivocally

beneficial, or whether some forms of passion are beneficial for pro-

moting some outcomes (e.g., positive affect) but not others

(e.g., performance).

Finally, our third contribution is to help determine whether there

is value for scholars to continue pursuing research along each inde-

pendent stream, or whether more benefit can be derived from synthe-

sizing and integrating two (or more) of these conceptualizations and

engaging in a programmatic study of an integrated perspective. Doing

so can help the field avoid construct proliferation and the jingle-jangle

problem (Bansal, Bertels, Ewart, MacConnachie, & O'Brien, 2012;

Cole, Walter, Bedeian, & O'Boyle, 2012) and provide legitimacy for

the passion construct. In relation to that, by analyzing all three

streams of passion research concurrently, we expose scholars from

one stream to those in the others, thus providing a platform for them

to become familiar with research in each stream, engage in dialogue

with one another, and build on advances in one stream to generate

knowledge in another.

1.1 |Passion at work

In the process of reviewing and searching the literature, we noted that

three streams of passion research have emerged independently in the

work context: general passion, the dualistic model of passion, and

role-based passion. These three streams have distinct theoretical

underpinnings and empirical operationalizations. To illustrate this in

more detail, we provide a summary and comparison of the three

streams of passion research in Table 1, together with the theoretical

underpinnings and sample measures. We briefly summarize each

below.

General passion makes reference to one's love of, or intense affec-

tive state toward, work (e.g., Baum & Locke, 2004) and is the least

explicit in terms of the theoretical foundations from which it draws.

The core premise of general passion—that passion for work provides

employees with the perseverance and drive to achieve work goals and

312 POLLACK ET AL.