the meaning of research work

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Psicol Reflex Crit
• v.34; 2021 Dec

What factors contribute to the meaning of work? A validation of Morin’s Meaning of Work Questionnaire

Anne pignault.

1 Université de Lorraine, Psychology & Neuroscience Laboratory (2LPN, EA7489), 23 boulevard Albert 1er, 54000 Nancy, France

Claude Houssemand

2 University of Luxembourg, Department of Education and Social Work, Institute for Lifelong Learning & Guidance (LLLG), 2 Avenue de l’Université, L-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

Associated Data

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author.

Considering the recent and current evolution of work and the work context, the meaning of work is becoming an increasingly relevant topic in research in the social sciences and humanities, particularly in psychology. In order to understand and measure what contributes to the meaning of work, Morin constructed a 30-item questionnaire that has become predominant and has repeatedly been used in research in occupational psychology and by practitioners in the field. Nevertheless, it has been validated only in part.

Meaning of work questionnaire was conducted in French with 366 people (51.3% of women; age: ( M = 39.11, SD = 11.25); 99.2% of whom were employed with the remainder retired). Three sets of statistical analyses were run on the data. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted on independent samples.

The questionnaire described a five-factor structure. These dimensions (Success and Recognition at work and of work, α = .90; Usefulness, α = .88; Respect for work, α = .88; Value from and through work, α = .83; Remuneration, α = .85) are all attached to a general second-order latent meaning of work factor (α = .96).

Conclusions

Validation of the scale, and implications for health in the workplace and career counseling practices, are discussed.

Introduction

Since the end of the 1980s, many studies have been conducted to explore the meaning of work, particularly in psychology (Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010 ). A review of the bibliographical data in PsychInfo shows that between 1974 and 2006, 183 studies addressed this topic (Morin, 2006 ). This scholarly interest was primarily triggered by Sverko and Vizek-Vidovic’s ( 1995 ) article, which identified the approaches and models that have been used and their main results.

Whereas early studies on the meaning of work introduced the concept and its theoretical underpinnings (e.g., Harpaz, 1986 ; Harpaz & Fu, 2002 ; Morin, 2003 ; MOW International Research team, 1987 ), later research tried to connect this aspect of work with other psychological dimensions or individual perceptions of the work context (e.g., Harpaz & Meshoulam, 2010 ; Morin, 2008 ; Morin, Archambault, & Giroux, 2001 ; Rosso et al., 2010 ; Wrzesniewski, Dutton, & Debebe, 2003 ). Nevertheless, scholars, particularly those in organizational and occupational psychology, soon found it difficult to precisely identify the meaning of work because it changes in accordance with the conceptualizations of different researchers, the theoretical models used to describe it, and the tools that are available to measure it for individuals and for groups.

This article first seeks to clarify the concept of the meaning of work (definitions and models) before bringing up certain problems involved in its measurement and the diversity in how the concept has been used. Then the paper focuses on a particular meaning of work measurement tool developed in Canada, which is now widely used in French-speaking countries. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Morin et al. ( 2001 ) developed a 30-item questionnaire to better determine the dimensions that give meaning to a person’s work. The statistical analyses needed to determine the reliability and validity of Morin et al.’s meaning of work questionnaire have never been completed. Indeed, some changes were made to the initial scale, and the analyses only based on homogenous samples of workers in different professional sectors. Thus and even though the meaning of work scale is used quite frequently, both researchers and practitioners have been unsure about whether or not to trust its results. The main objective of the present study was thus to provide a psychometric validation of Morin et al.’s meaning of work scale and to uncover its latent psychological structure.

Meaning of work: from definition to measurement

Meaning of work: what is it.

As many scholars have found, the concept of the meaning of work is not easy to define (e.g., Rosso et al., 2010 ). In terms of theory, it has been defined differently in different academic fields. In psychology, it refers to an individual’s interpretations of his/her actual experiences and interactions at work (Ros, Schwartz, & Surkiss, 1999 ). From a sociological point of view, it involves assessing meaning in reference to a system of values (Rosso et al., 2010 ). In this case, its definition depends on cultural or social differences, which make explaining this concept even more complex (e.g., Morse & Weiss, 1955 ; MOW International Research team, 1987 ; Steers & Porter, 1979 ; Sverko & Vizek-Vidovic, 1995 ).

At a conceptual level, the meaning of work has been defined in three different ways (Morin, 2003 ). First, it can refer to the meaning of work attached to an individual’s representations of work and the values he/she attributes to that work (Morse & Weiss, 1955 ; MOW International Research team, 1987 ). Second, it can refer to a personal preference for work as defined by the intentions that guide personal action (Super & Sverko, 1995 ). Third, it can be understood as consistency between oneself and one’s work, similar to a balance in one’s personal relationship with work (Morin & Cherré, 2004 ).

With respect to terms, some differences exist because the meaning of work is considered an individual’s interpretation of what work means or of the role it plays in one’s life (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003 ). Yet this individual perception is also influenced by the environment and the social context (Wrzesniewski et al., 2003 ). The psychological literature on the meaning of work has primarily examined its positive aspects, even though work experiences can be negative or neutral. This partiality about the nature of the meaning of work in research has led to some confusion in the literature between this concept and that of meaningful , which refers to the extent to which work has personal significance (a quantity) and seems to depend on positive elements (Steger, Dik, & Duffy, 2012 ). A clearer demarcation should be made between these terms in order to specify the exact sense of the meaning of work: “This would reserve ‘meaning’ for instances in which authors are referring to what work signifies (the type of meaning), rather than the amount of significance attached to the work” (Rosso et al., 2010 , p. 95).

The original idea of the meaning of work refers to the central importance of work for people, beyond the simple behavioral activity through which it occurs. Drawing on various historical references, certain authors present work as an essential driver of human life; these scholars then seek to understand how work is fundamental (e.g., Morin, 2006 ; Sverko & Vizek-Vidovic, 1995 ). The concept of the meaning of work is connected to the centrality of work for the individual and consequently fulfills four different important functions: economic (to earn a living), social (to interact with others), prestige (social position), and psychological (identity and recognition). In this view, the centrality of work is based on an ensemble of personal and social values that differ between individuals as well as between cultures, economic climates, and occupations (England, 1991 ; England & Harpaz, 1990 ; Roe & Ester, 1999 ; Ruiz-Quintanilla & England, 1994 ; Topalova, 1994 ; Zanders, 1993 ).

Meaning of work: which theoretical model?

The first theoretical model for the meaning of work was based on research in the MOW project (MOW International Research team, 1987 ), considered the “most empirically rigorous research ever undertaken to understand, both within and between countries, the meanings people attach to their work roles” (Brief, 1991 , p. 176). This view suggests that the meaning of work is based on five principal theoretical dimensions: work centrality as a life role, societal norms regarding work, valued work outcomes, importance of work goals, and work-role identification. A series of studies on this theory was conducted in Israel (Harpaz, 1986 ; Harpaz & Fu, 2002 ; Harpaz & Meshoulam, 2010 ), complementing the work of the MOW project (MOW International Research team, 1987 ). Harpaz ( 1986 ) empirically identified six latent factors that represent the meaning of work: work centrality, entitlement norm, obligation norm, economic orientation, interpersonal relations, and expressive orientation.

Another theoretical model on the importance of work in a person’s life was created by Sverko in 1989 . This approach takes into account the interactions among certain work values (the importance of these values and the perception of possible achievements through work), which depend on a process of socialization. The ensemble is then moderated by an individual’s personal experiences with work. In the same vein, Rosso et al. ( 2010 ) tried to create an exhaustive model of the sources that influence the meaning of work. This model is built around two major dimensions: Self-Others (individual vs. other individuals, groups, collectives, organizations, and higher powers) and Agency-Communion (the drives to differentiate, separate, assert, expand, master, and create vs. the drives to contact, attach, connect, and unite). This theoretical framework describes four major pathways to the meaning of work: individuation (autonomy, competence, and self-esteem), contribution (perceived impact, significance, interconnection, and self-abnegation), self-connection (self-concordance, identity affirmation, and personal engagement), and unification (value systems, social identification, and connectedness).

Lastly, a more recent model (Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012 ) converges with the theory suggested by Rosso et al. ( 2010 ) but distinguishes two dimensions: Self-Others versus Being-Doing. This model describes four pathways to meaningful work: developing the inner self, unity with others, service to others, and expressing one’s full potential.

Without claiming to be exhaustive, this brief presentation of the theoretical models of the meaning of work underscores the difficulty in precisely defining this concept, the diversity of possible approaches to identifying its contours, and therefore implicitly addresses the various tools designed to measure it.

Measuring the meaning of work

Various methodologies have been used to better determine the concept of the meaning of work and to grasp what it involves in practice. The tools examined below have been chosen because of their different methodological approaches.

One of the first kinds of measurements was developed by the international MOW project (MOW International Research team, 1987 ). In this study, England and Harpaz ( 1990 ) and Ruiz-Quintanilla and England ( 1994 ) used 14 defining elements to assess agreement on the perception of work of 11 different sample groups questioned between 1989 and 1992. These elements, resulting from the definition of work given by the MOW project and studied by applying multivariate analyses and textual content analyses ( When do you consider an activity as working ? Choose four statements from the list below which best define when an activity is “ working,” MOW International Research team, 1987 ), can be grouped into four distinct heuristic categories (Table ​ (Table1 1 ).

Items used to define the concept of work

These items were taken from Ruiz-Quintanilla and England ( 1994 ). The letter in front of each item corresponds to the initial order of the items (MOW International Research team, 1987 )

Similarly, England ( 1991 ) studied changes in the meaning of work in the USA between 1982 and 1989. He used four different methodological approaches to the meaning of work: societal norms about work, importance of work goals, work centrality, and definition of work by the labor force. In the wake of these studies, others developed scales to measure the centrality of work in people’s lives, either for the general population (e.g., Warr, 2008 ) or for specific subpopulations such as unemployed people, on the basis of a rather similar conceptualization of the meaning of work (McKee-Ryan, Song, Wanberg, & Kinicki, 2005 ; Wanberg, 2012 ).

Finally, Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, and Schwartz ( 1997 ) developed a rather unusual method for evaluating people’s relationships with their work. Although not directly connected to research on the meaning of work, this study and the questionnaire they used ( University of Pennsylvania Work-Life Questionnaire ) addressed some of the same concepts. Above all, they employed the concepts in a very particular way that combined psychological scales, scenarios, and sociodemographic questions. Through these scenarios (Table ​ (Table2) 2 ) and the extent to which the respondents felt like the described characters, their relationship to work was described as either a Job, a Career, or a Calling.

Scenarios used to measure the relationship to work

These scenarios were taken from Wrzesniewski et al. ( 1997 , p. 24)

This presentation of certain tools for measuring the meaning of work reveals a variety of methodological approaches. Nevertheless, whereas certain methods have adopted a rather traditional psychological approach, others are often difficult to use for various reasons such as their psychometrics (e.g., the use of only one item to measure a concept; England, 1991 ; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997 ) or for practical reasons (e.g., the participants were asked questions that pertained not only to their individual assessment of work but also to various other parts of their lives; England, 1991 ; Warr, 2008 ). This diversity in the possible uses of the meaning of work makes it difficult to select a tool to measure it.

In French-speaking countries (Canada and Europe primarily), the previously mentioned scale created by Morin et al. ( 2001 ) has predominated and has repeatedly been used in research in occupational psychology and by practitioners in the field. Nevertheless, there has not been a complete validation of the scale (i.e., different forms of the same tool, only the use of exploratory factor analyses, and no similar structures found) that was the motivation for the current study.

The present study

The present article conceives of the meaning of work as representing a certain consistency between what an individual wants out of work and the individual’s perception, lived or imagined, of his/her work. It thus corresponds to the third definition of the meaning of work presented above—consistency between oneself and one's work (Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). This definition is strictly limited to the meaning given to work and the personal significance of this work from the activities that the work implies. Within this conceptual framework, some older studies adopted a slightly different cognitive conception, in which individuals constantly seek a balance between themselves and their environment, and any imbalance triggers a readjustment through which the person attempts to stabilize his/her cognitive state (e.g., Heider, 1946 ; Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955 ). Here, the meaning of work must be considered a means for maintaining psychological harmony despite the destabilizing events that work might involve. In this view, meaning is viewed as an effect or a product of the activity (Brief & Nord, 1990 ) and not as a permanent or fixed state. It then becomes a result of person-environment fit and falls within the theory of work adjustment (Dawis, Lofquist, & Weiss, 1968 ).

Within this framework, a series of recurring and interdependent studies should be noted (e.g., Morin, 2003 , 2006 ; Morin & Cherré, 1999 , 2004 ) because they have attempted to measure the coherence that a person finds in the relation between the person’s self and his/her work and thus implicitly the meaning of that work. Therefore, these studies make it possible to understand the meaning of work in greater detail, meaning that it could be used in practice through a self-evaluation questionnaire. The level of coherence is considered the degree of similarity between the characteristics of work that the person attributes meaning to and the characteristics that he/she perceives in his/her present work (Aronsson, Bejerot, & Häremstam, 1999 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). Based on semi-structured interviews and on older research related to the quality of life at work (Hackman & Oldham, 1976 ; Ketchum & Trist, 1992 ), a model involving 14 characteristics was developed: the usefulness of work, the social contribution of work, rationalization of the tasks, workload, cooperation, salary, the use of skills, learning opportunities, autonomy, responsibilities, rectitude of social and organizational practices, the spirit of service, working conditions, and, finally, recognition and appreciation (Morin, 2006 ; Morin & Cherré, 1999 ). Then, based on this model, a 30-item questionnaire was developed to offer more precise descriptions of these dimensions. Table ​ Table3 3 presents the items, which were designed and administered to the participants in French.

Items from the meaning of work scale by Morin with their theoretical dimensions and exploratory factor analyses

P personal power at work, U usefulness of work, R success at work, A autonomy at work, S safety, E ethics, UT usefulness of work, VP personal value, EF personal efficacy, ET ethics of work, RT rationalization of work, IE personal influence

(*) = French version. 1 = Morin and Cherré ( 1999 ). 2 = Morin et al. ( 2001 ) and Morin ( 2003 ). 3 = Morin and Cherré ( 2004 )

Some studies for structurally validating this questionnaire have been conducted over the years (e.g., Morin, 2003 , 2006 , 2008 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). However, their results were not very precise or comparable. For example, the number of latent factors in the meaning of work scale structure varied (e.g., six or eight factors: Morin, 2003 ; six factors: Morin, 2006 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ), the sample groups were not completely comparable (especially with respect to occupations), and finally, items were added or removed or their phrasing was changed (e.g., 30 and 33 items: Morin, 2003 ; 30 items: Morin, 2006 ; 26 items: Morin, 2008 ). Yet the most prominent methodological problem was that only exploratory analyses (most often a principal component analysis with varimax rotation) had been applied. This scale was entirely relevant from a theoretical point of view because it offered a more specific definition of the meaning of work than other scales and, mainly, because some subdimensions appeared to be linked with anxiety, depression, irritability, cognitive problems, psychological distress, and subjective well-being (Morin et al., 2001 ). It was also relevant from a practical point of view because it was short and did not take much time to complete. However, its use was questionable because it had never been validated psychometrically, and a consistent latent psychological structure had not been identified across studies.

As an example, two models representing the structure of the 30-item scale are presented in Table ​ Table3 3 (Morin et al., 2001 ; Morin, 2003 , for the first model; Morin & Cherré, 2004 , for the second one). This table presents the items, the meaning of work dimensions they are theoretically related to, and the solution from the principal component analysis in each study. These analyses revealed that the empirical and theoretical structures of this tool are not stable and that the latent structure suffers from the insufficient use of statistical methods. In particular, there was an important difference found between the two models in previous studies (Morin et al., 2001 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). Only the “usefulness of work” dimension was found to be identical, comprised of the same items in both models. Other dimensions had a maximum of only three items in common. Therefore, it is very difficult to utilize this tool both in practice and diagnostically, and complementary studies must be conducted. Even though there are techniques for replicating explanatory analyses (e.g., Osborne, 2012 ), such techniques could not be used here because not all the necessary information was given (e.g., all factor loadings, communalities). This is why collecting new data appeared to be the only way to analyze the scale.

More recently, two studies (which applied a new 25-item meaningful work questionnaire ) were developed on the basis of Morin’s scale (Bendassolli & Borges-Andrade, 2013 ; Bendassolli, Borges-Andrade, Coelho Alves, & de Lucena Torres, 2015 ). Even though the concepts of the “meaning of work” and “meaningful work” are close, the two scales are formally and theoretically different and do not evaluate the same construct.

The purpose of the present study was thus to determine the structure of original Morin’s 30-item scale (Morin, 2003 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ) by using an exploratory approach as well as confirmatory statistical methods (structural equation modeling) and in so doing, to address the lacunae in previous research discussed above. The end goal was thus to identify the structure of the scale statistically so that it can be used empirically in both academic and professional fields. Indeed, as mentioned previously, this scale is of particular interest to researchers because its design is not limited to measuring a general meaning of work for each individual; it can also be used to evaluate discrepancies or a convergence between a person’s own personal meaning of work and a specific work context (e.g., tasks, relations with others, autonomy). Finally, and with respect to previous results, the scale could be a potential predictor of professional well-being and psychological distress at work (Morin et al., 2001 ).

Participants

The questionnaire was conducted with 366 people who were mainly resident in Paris and the surrounding regions in France. The gender distribution was almost equal; 51.3% of the respondents were women. The respondents’ ages ranged from 19 to 76 years ( M = 39.11, SD = 11.25). The large majority of people were employed (99.2%). Twenty percent worked in medical and paramedical fields, 26% in retail and sales, and 17% in human resources (the other respondents worked in education, law, communication, reception, banking, and transportation). Seventy percent had fewer than 10 years of seniority in their current job ( M = 8.64, SD = 9.65). Only three people were retired (0.8%).

Morin’s 30-item meaning of work questionnaire (Morin, 2003 ; Morin et al., 2001 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ) along with sociodemographic questions (i.e., sex, age, job activities, and seniority at work) were conducted in French through an online platform. Answers to the meaning of work questionnaire were given on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ).

Participants were recruited through various professional online social networks. This method does not provide for a true random sample but, owing to it resulting in a potentially larger range of respondents, it enlarges the heterogeneousness of the participants, even if it cannot ensure representativeness (Barberá & Zeitzoff, 2018 ; Hoblingre Klein, 2018 ). This point seems important because very homogenous samples were used in previous studies, especially with regard to professions.

Participants were volunteers, and were given the option of being able to stop the survey at any time. They received no compensation and no individual feedback. Participants were informed of these conditions before filling out the questionnaire. Oral and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Moreover, the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity (LARI on which the researchers in this study depend) specified that according to Code de la santé publique—Article L1123-7, it appears that France does not require research ethics committee [Les Comités de Protection des Personnes (CPP)] approval if the research is non-biomedical, non-interventional, observational, and does not collect personal health information, and thus CNR approval was not required.

Participants had to answer each question in order to submit the questionnaire: If one item was not answered, the respondent was not allowed to proceed to the next question. Thus, the database has no missing data. An introduction presented the subject of the study and its goals and guaranteed the participant’s anonymity. Researchers’ e-mail addresses were given, and participants were informed that they could contact the researchers for more information.

Data analyses

Three sets of statistical analyses were run on the data:

• Analysis of the items, using traditional true score theory and item response theory, for verifying the psychometric qualities (using mainly R package “psych”). The main objectives of this part of analysis were to better understand the variability of respondents’ answers, to compute the discriminatory power of items, and to verify the distribution of items by using every classical descriptive indicator (mean, standard-deviation, skewness, and kurtosis), corrected item-total correlations, and functions of responses for distributions.
• An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with an oblimin rotation in order to define the latent structure of the meaning of work questionnaire, performed with the R packages “psych” and “GPArotation”. The structure we retained was based on adequation fits of various solutions (TLI, RMSEA and SRMR, see “List of abbreviations” section at the end of the article), and the use of R package “EFAtools” which helps to determine the adequate number of factors to retain for the EFA solution. Finally, this part of the analysis was concluded using calculations of internal consistency for each factor found in the scale.
• A confirmatory factor analysis using the R package Lavaan and based on the results of the EFA, in order to verify that the latent structure revealed in Step c was valid and relevant for this meaning of work scale. The adequation between data and latent structure was appreciated on the basis of CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR (see “Abbreviations” section).

For step a, the responses of the complete sample were considered. For steps b and c, 183 subjects were selected randomly for each analysis from the total study sample. Thus, two subsamples comprised of completely different participants were used, one for the EFA in step b and one for the CFA in step c.

Because of the ordinal measurement of the responses and its small number of categories (5-point Likert), none of the items can be normally distributed. This point was verified in step a of the analyses. Thus, the data did not meet the necessary assumptions for applying factor analyses with conventional estimators such as maximum likelihood (Li, 2015 ; Lubke & Muthén, 2004 ). Therefore, because the variables were measured on ordinal scales, it was most appropriate to apply the EFA and CFA analyses to the polychoric correlation matrix (Carroll, 1961 ). Then, to reduce the effects of the specific item distributions of the variables used in the factor analyses, a minimum residuals extraction (MINRES; Harman, 1960 ; Jöreskog, 2003 ) was used for the EFA, and a weighted least squares estimator with degrees of freedom adjusted for means and variances (WLSMV) was used for the CFA as recommended psychometric studies (Li, 2015 ; Muthén, 1984 ; Muthén & Kaplan, 1985 ; Muthén & Muthén, 2010 ; Yang, Nay, & Hoyle, 2010 ; Yu, 2002 ).

The size of samples for the different analyses has been taken into consideration. A model structure analysis with 30 observed variables needs a recommended minimum sample of 100 participants for 6 latent variables, and 200 for 5 latent variables (Soper, 2019 ). The samples used in the present research corresponded to these a priori calculations.

Finally, according to conventional rules of thumb (Hu & Bentler, 1999 ; Kline, 2011 ), acceptable and excellent model fits are indicated by CFI and TLI values greater than .90 and .95, respectively, by RMSEA values smaller than .08 (acceptable) and .06 (excellent), respectively, and SRMR values smaller than .08.

Item analyses

The main finding was the limited amount of variability in the answers to each item. Indeed, as Table ​ Table4 4 shows, respondents usually and mainly chose the answers agree and strongly agree , as indicated by the column of cumulated percentages of these response modalities (%). Thus, for all items, the average answer was higher than 4, except for item 11, the median was 4, and skewness and kurtosis indicators confirmed a systematic skewed on the left leptokurtic distribution. This lack of variability in the participants’ responses and the high average scores indicate nearly unanimous agreement with the propositions made about the meaning of work in the questionnaire.

Distribution and analysis of the 30 items of the scale

M average of the answers to the item, SD standard deviation of the answers to the item, Med median, % cumulated percentages of answers 4 ( agree ) and 5 ( strongly agree ) for each item, skew skewness, kurt kurtosis, rit corrected item-total correlations

Table ​ Table4 4 also shows that the items had good discriminatory power, expressed by corrected item-total correlations (calculated with all items) which were above .40 for all items. Finally, item analyses were concluded through the application of item response theory (Excel tools using the eirt add in; Valois, Houssemand, Germain, & Belkacem, 2011 ) which confirmed, by analyses of item characteristic curves (taking into account that item response theory models are parametric and assume that the item responses distributions follow a logistic function, Rasch, 1980 ; Streiner, Norman, & Cairney, 2015 , p. 297), the psychometric quality of each item and their link to an identical latent dimension. These different results confirmed the interest in keeping all items of the questionnaire in order to measure the work-meaning construct.

Exploratory analyses of the scale

A five-factor solution was identified. This solution explained 58% of the total variance in the responses of the scale items; the TLI was .885, the RMSEA was .074, and the SRMR was .04. The structure revealed by this analysis was relatively simple (saturation of one main factor for each item; Thurstone, 1947 ), and the communality of each item was high, except for item 11. The solution we retained presented the best adequation fits and the most conceptual explanation concerning the latent factors. Additionally, the “EFAtools” R package confirmed the appropriateness of the chosen solution. Table ​ Table5 5 shows the EFA results, which described a five-factor structure.

Loadings and communalities of the 30 items from the meaning of work scale

EFA with five factors, oblimin rotation. Bold = loading ≥ .30. h 2 = communality

Nevertheless, the correlation matrix for the latent factors obtained by the EFA (see Table ​ Table6) 6 ) suggested the existence of a general second-order meaning of work factor, because the five factors were significantly correlated each with others. This result could be described as the existence of a general meaning of work factor, which alone would explain 44% of the total variance in the responses.

Correlations between the latent factors from the EFA, Cronbach’s alpha, and McDonald omega for each dimension and general factor

F1: success and recognition at work and from work; F2: usefulness; F3: respect; F4: value from and through work; F5: remuneration; general: total scale

Internal consistency of latent factors of the scale

The internal consistency of each latent factor, estimated by Cronbach alpha and McDonald omega, was high (above .80) and very high for the entire scale (α = .96 and ω = .97). Thus, for S uccess and Recognition at work and from work ’ s factor ω was .93, for Usefulness ’s factor ω was .92, for Respect ’s factor ω was .91, for Value from and through work ’s factor ω was slightly lower and equal to .85, and finally for Remuneration ’ s factor for which ω was .87.

Confirmatory factor analyses of the scale

In order to improve the questionnaire, we applied a CFA to this five-factor model to improve the model fit and refine the latent dimensions of the questionnaire. We used CFA to (a) determine the relevance of this latent five-factor structure and (b) confirm the relevance of a general second-order meaning-of-work factor. Although this procedure might appear redundant at first glance, it enabled us to select a definitive latent structure in which each item represents only one latent factor (simple structure; Thurstone, 1947 ), whereas the EFA that was computed in the previous step showed that certain items loaded on several factors. The CFA also easily verified the existence of a second-order latent meaning of work factor (the first-order loadings were .894, .920, .873, .892, and .918, respectively). Thus, this CFA was computed to complement the previous analyses by refining the latent model proposed for the questionnaire.

According to conventional rules of thumb (Hu & Bentler, 1999 ; Kline, 2011 ), although the RMSEA value for the five-factor model was somewhat too high, the CFI and TLI values were excellent (χ 2 = 864.72, df = 400, RMSEA = .080, CFI = .989, TLI = .988). Table ​ Table7 7 presents the adequation fits for both solutions: a model with 5 first-order factors (as EFA suggests), and a model with 5 first-order factors and 1 second-order factor.

Solutions of confirmatory factor analyses

χ 2 Chi-square, df degrees of freedom, CFI comparative fit index, TLI Tucker-Lewis Index of factoring reliability, RMSEA root mean square error of approximation, SRMR standardized root mean square residual

Figure ​ Figure1 1 shows the model after the confirmatory test. This analysis confirmed the existence of a simple structure with five factors for the meaning of work scale and with a general, second-order factor of the meaning of work as suggested by the previous EFA.

Standardized solution of the structural model of the Meaning of Work Scale

The objective of this study was to verify the theoretical and psychometric structure of the meaning of work scale developed by Morin in recent years (Morin, 2003 ; Morin et al., 2001 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). This scale has the advantages of being rather short, of proposing a multidimensional structure for the meaning of work, and of making it possible to assess the coherence between the aspects of work that are personally valued and the actual characteristics of the work environment. Thus, it can be used diagnostically or to guide individuals. To establish the structure of this scale, we analyzed deeply the items, and we implemented exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, which we believe the scale’s authors had not carried out sufficiently. Moreover, we used a broad range of psychometric evaluation methods (traditional true score theory, item response theory, EFA, and structural equation modeling) to test the validity of the scale.

Item analyses confirmed results found in previous studies in which the meaning-of-work scale was administered. The majority of respondents agreed with the proposals of the questionnaire. Thus, this lack of variability is not specific to the present research and its sample (e.g., Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). Nevertheless, this finding can be explained by different reasons (which could be studied by other research) such as social desirability and the importance of work norms in industrial societies, or a lack of control regarding response bias.

The various versions of the latent structure of the scale proposed by the authors were not confirmed by the statistical analyses seen here. It nevertheless appears that this tool for assessing the meaning of work can describe and measure five different dimensions, all attached to a general factor. The first factor (F1), composed of nine items, is a dimension of recognition and success (e.g., item 17: work where your skills are recognized ; item 19: work where your results are recognized ; item 24: work that enables you to achieve the goals that you set for yourself ). It should thus be named Success and Recognition at work and from work and is comparable to dimensions from previous studies (personal success, Morin et al., 2001 ; social influence, Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). The second factor (F2), composed of seven items, is a dimension that represents the usefulness of work for an individual, whether that usefulness is social (e.g., Item 22: work that gives you the opportunity to serve others ) or personal (e.g., Item 28: work that enables you to be fulfilled ). It can be interpreted in terms of the Usefulness of work and generally corresponds to dimensions of the same name in earlier models (Morin, 2003 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ), although the definition used here is more precise. The third factor (F3), described by four items, refers to the Respect dimension of work (e.g., Item 5: work that respects human values ) and corresponds in part to the factors highlighted in prior studies (respect and rationalization of work, Morin, 2003 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). The fourth factor (F4), composed of four items, refers to the personal development dimension and Value from and through work (e.g., Item 2: work that enables you to learn or to improve ). It is in some ways similar to autonomy and effectiveness, described by the authors of the scale (Morin, 2003 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). Finally, the fifth and final factor (F5), with six items, highlights the financial and, more important, personal benefits sought or received from work. This includes physical and material safety and the enjoyment of work (e.g., item 14: work you enjoy doing ). This dimension of Remuneration partially converges with the aspects of personal values related to work described in previous research (Morin et al., 2001 ). Although the structure of the scale highlighted here differed from previous studies, some theoretical elements were nevertheless consistent with each other. To be convinced of this, the Table ​ Table8 8 highlights possible overlaps.

Final structure the items of the meaning of work scale by Morin and their theoretical dimensions

1 = Previous dimensions of Morin et al. ( 2001 ) and Morin ( 2003 ). 2 = Morin and Cherré ( 1999 )

A second important result of this study is the highlighting of a second-order factor by the statistical analyses carried out. This latent second-level factor refers to the existence of a general meaning of work dimension. This unitary conception of the meaning of work, subdivided into different linked facets, is not in contradiction with the different theories related to this construct. Thus, Ros et al. ( 1999 ) defined the meaning of work as a personal interpretation of experiences and interaction at work. This view of meaning of work can confer it a unitary functionality for maintaining psychological harmony, despite the destabilizing events that are often a feature of work. It must be considered as a permanent process of work adjustment or work adaptation. In order to be effective, this adjustment needs to remain consistent and to be globally oriented toward the cognitive balance between the reality of work and the meaning attributed to it. Thus, it has to keep a certain coherence which would explain the unitary conception of the meaning of work.

In addition to the purely statistical results of this study, whereas some partial overlap was found between the structural model in this study and structural models from previous work, this paper provides a much-needed updating and improvement of these dimensions, as we examined several theoretical meaning of work models in order to explain them psychologically. Indeed, the dimensions defined here as Success and Recognition , Usefulness , Respect , Value , and Remuneration from the meaning of work scale by Morin et al. ( 2001 ) have some strong similarities to other theoretical models on the meaning of work, even though the authors of the scale referred to these models only briefly. For example, the dimensions work centrality as a life role , societal norms regarding work , valued work outcomes , importance of work goals , and work-role identification (MOW International Research team, 1987 ) concur with the model described in the present study. In the same manner, the model by Rosso et al. ( 2010 ) has some similarities to the present structure, and there is a conceptual correspondence between the five dimensions found here and those from their study ( individuation , contribution , self-connection , and unification ). Finally, Baumeister’s ( 1991 ), Morin and Cherré’s ( 2004 ), and Sommer, Baumeister, and Stillman ( 2012 ) studies presented similar findings on the meaning of important life experiences for individuals; they described four essential needs that make such experiences coherent and reasonable ( purpose , efficacy - control , rectitude , and self - worth ). It is obvious that the parallels noted here were fostered by the conceptual breadth of the dimensions as defined in these models. In future research, much more precise definitions are needed. To do so, it will be essential to continue running analyses to test for construct validity by establishing convergent validity between the dimensions of the various existing meaning of work scales.

It is also interesting to note the proximity between the dimensions described here and those examined in studies on the dimensions that characterize the work context (Pignault & Houssemand, 2016 ) or in Karasek’s ( 1979 ) and Siegrist’s ( 1996 ) well-known models, for example, which determined the impact of work on health, stress, and well-being. These studies were able to clearly show how dimensions related to autonomy, support, remuneration, and esteem either contribute to health or harm it. These dimensions, which give meaning to work in a manner that is similar to the dimensions highlighted in the current study (Recognition, Value, and Remuneration in particular), are also involved in health. Thus, it would be interesting to verify the relations between these dimensions and measures of work health.

Thus, the conceptual dimensions of the meaning of work, as defined by Morin ( 2003 ) and Morin and Cherré ( 1999 ), remained of strong theoretical importance even if, at the empirical level, the scale created on this basis did not correspond exactly. The present study has had the modest merit of showing this interest, and also of proposing a new structure of the facets of this general dimension. One of the major interests of this research can be found in the possible better interpretations that this scale will enable to make. As mentioned above, the Morin’s scale is very frequently used in practice (e.g., in state employment agencies or by Human Resources departments), and the divergent models of previous studies could lead to individual assessments of the meaning of work diverging, depending on the reading grid chosen. Showing that a certain similarity in the structures of the meaning of work exists, and that a general factor of the meaning of work could be considered, the results of the current research can contribute to more precise use of this tool.

At this stage and in conclusion, it may be interesting to consider the reasons for the variations between the structures of the scale highlighted by the different studies. There were obviously the different changes applied to the different versions of the scale, but beyond that, three types of explanation could emerge. At the level of methods, the statistics used by the studies varied greatly, and could explain the variations observed. At the level of the respondents, work remains one of the most important elements of life in our societies. A certain temptation to overvalue its importance and purposes could be at the origin of the broad acceptance of all the proposals of the questionnaire, and the strong interactions between the sub-dimensions. Finally, at the theoretical level, if, as our study showed, a general dimension of meaning of work seems to exist, all the items, all the facets and all the first order factors of the scale, are strongly interrelated at each respective level. As well, small variations in the distribution of responses could lead to variations of the structure.

The principal contribution of this study is undoubtedly the use of confirmatory methods to test the descriptive models that were based on Morin’s scale (Morin, 2003 , 2006 ; Morin & Cherré, 1999 , 2004 ). The principal results confirm that the great amount of interest in this scale is not without merit and suggest its validity for use in research, both by practitioners (e.g., career counselors and Human Resources departments) and diagnostically. The results show a tool that assesses a general dimension and five subdimensions of the meaning of work with a 30-item questionnaire that has strong psychometric qualities. Conceptual differences from previous exploratory studies were brought to light, even though there were also certain similarities. Thus, the objectives of this study were met.

Limitations

As with any research, this study also has a certain number of limitations. The first is the sample size used for statistical analyses. Even if the research design respected the general criteria for these kind of analyses (Soper, 2019 ), it will be necessary to repeat the study with larger samples. The second is the cultural and social character of the meaning of work, which was not addressed in this study because the sample was comprised of people working in France. They can thus be compared with those in Morin’s studies ( 2003 ) because of the linguistic proximity (French) of the samples, but differences in the structure of the scale could be due to cultural differences between America and Europe. Nevertheless, other different international populations should be questioned about their conception of the meaning of work in order to measure the impact of cultural and social aspects (England, 1991 ; England & Harpaz, 1990 ; Roe & Ester, 1999 ; Ruiz-Quintanilla & England, 1994 ; Topalova, 1994 ; Zanders, 1993 ). In the same vein, a third limitation involves the homogeneity of the respondents’ answers. Indeed, there was quasi-unanimous agreement with all of the items describing work (see Table ​ Table4 4 and previous results, Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). It is worth examining whether this lack of variance results from a work norm that is central and promoted in industrialized countries as it might mask broader interindividual differences. Thus, this study’s protocol should be repeated with other samples from different cultures. Finally, a fourth limitation that was mentioned previously involves the validity of the scale. Concerning the content validity and because some items loaded similarly different factors, it could be interesting to verify the wording content of the items, and potentially modify or replace some of them. The purpose of the present study was not to change the content of the scale but to suggest how future studies could analyze this point. Concerning the construct validity, this first phase of validation needs to be followed by other phases that involve tests of convergent validity between the existing meaning of work scales as well as tests of discriminant validity in order to confirm the existence of the meaning of work construct examined here. In such studies, the centrality of work (Warr, 2008 ; Warr, Cook, & Wall, 1979 ) should be used to confirm the validity of the meaning of work scale. Other differential, individual, and psychological variables related to work (e.g., performance, motivation, well-being) should also be introduced in order to expand the understanding of whether relations exist between the set of psychological concepts involved in work and individuals’ jobs.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Authors’ contributions

Both the authors are responsible for study conceptualization, data collection, data preparation, data analysis and report writing. The original questionnaire is a public one. No permission is required. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

No funding.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity (LARI) specifies that according to Code de la santé publique - Article L1123-7, it appears that France does not require research ethics committee (Les Comités de Protection des Personnes (CPP)) approval if the research is non-biomedical, non-interventional, observational, and does not collect personal health information. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements. At the beginning of the questionnaire, the participants had to give their consent that the data could be used for research purposes, and they had to consent to the publication of the results of the study. Participation was voluntary and confidential. No potentially identifiable human images or data is presented in this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Anne Pignault, Email: [email protected] .

Claude Houssemand, Email: [email protected] .

• Aronsson G, Bejerot E, Häremstam A. Healthy work: Ideal and reality among public and private employed academics in Sweden. Personal Public Management. 1999; 28 (2):197–215. doi: 10.1177/009102609902800203. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barberá P, Zeitzoff T. The new public address system: why do world leaders adopt social media? International Studies Quarterly. 2018; 62 (1):121–130. doi: 10.1093/isq/sqx047. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumeister RF. Meaning of life. New York: Guilford; 1991. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bendassolli PF, Borges-Andrade JE. Meaningfulness in work in Brazilian and French creative industries. Spanish Journal of Psychology. 2013; 16 :1–15. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2013.107. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bendassolli PF, Borges-Andrade JE, Coelho Alves JS, de Lucena Torres T. Meaningful work scale in creative industries: A confirmatory factor analysis. Psico-USF. 2015; 20 (1):1–12. doi: 10.1590/1413-82712015200101. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brief AP. MOW revisited: A brief commentary. European Work and Organizational Psychology. 1991; 1 :176–182. doi: 10.1080/09602009108408523. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brief AP, Nord WR. Meaning of occupational work. Toronto: Lexington Books; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carroll JB. The nature of the data, or how to choose a correlation coefficient. Psychometrika. 1961; 26 :247–272. doi: 10.1007/bf02289768. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dawis RV, Lofquist LH, Weiss DJ. A theory of work adjustment (a revision) Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, XXIII. 1968; 47 :1–14. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-08-013391-1.50030-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• England, G. W. (1991). The meaning of working in USA: Recent changes. The European Work and Organizational Psychologist , 1 , 111–124.  10.1111/j.1464-0597.1990.tb01036.x 
• England GW, Harpaz I. How working is defined: National contexts and demographic and organizational role influences. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1990; 11 :253–266. doi: 10.1002/job.4030110402. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hackman JR, Oldham GR. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1976; 16 :250–279. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harman HH. Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1960. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harpaz I. The factorial structure of the meaning of work. Human Relations. 1986; 39 :595–614. doi: 10.1177/001872678603900701. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harpaz I, Fu X. The structure of the meaning of work: A relative stability amidst change. Human Relations. 2002; 55 :639–−668. doi: 10.1177/0018726702556002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harpaz I, Meshoulam I. The meaning of work, employment relations, and strategic human resources management in Israel. Human Resource Management Review. 2010; 20 :212–223. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.08.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heider F. Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology. 1946; 21 :107–112. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoblingre Klein H. Réseaux sociaux professionnels: instruments d’empowerment professionnel ?: Analyse de cas de consultants RH et de recruteurs sur LinkedIn. 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999; 6 :1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jöreskog KG. Factor analysis by MINRES. 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Karasek RA. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1979; 24 :285–308. doi: 10.2307/2392498. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ketchum LD, Trist E. All teams are not created equal. How employee empowerment really works. Newbury Park: Sage; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kline RB. Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. 3. New-York: Guilford; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Li, C. H. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Method , 1–14. 10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7. [ PubMed ]
• Lips-Wiersma M, Wright S. Measuring the meaning of meaningful work: Development and validation of the Comprehensive Meaningful Work Scale (CMWS) Group & Organization Management. 2012; 37 (5):655–685. doi: 10.1177/1059601112461578. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lubke GH, Muthén BO. Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Structural Equation Modeling. 2004; 11 :514–534. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1104_2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McKee-Ryan F, Song Z, Wanberg CR, Kinicki AJ. Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: A meta- analytic study. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2005; 90 :53–76. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.53. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morin E. Sens du travail. Définition, mesure et validation. In: Vandenberghe C, Delobbe N, Karnas G, editors. Dimensions individuelles et sociales de l’investissement professionnel. Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain; 2003. pp. 11–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morin E. Document—Centre de recherche et d’intervention pour le travail, l’efficacité organisationnelle et la santé (CRITEOS), HEC Montréal. 2006. Donner un sens au travail. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morin E. Sens du travail, santé mentale et engagement organisationnel. Montréal: IRSST; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morin E, Archambault M, Giroux H. Projet Qualité de Vie au Travail. Rapport Final. Montréal: HEC Montréal; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morin E, Cherré B. Les cadres face au sens du travail. Revue Française de Gestion. 1999; 126 :83–93. doi: 10.3166/rfg.251.149-164. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morin E, Cherré B. Réorganiser le travail et lui donner du sens. In: Lancry A, Lemoine C, editors. La personne et ses rapports au travail. Paris: L’Harmattan; 2004. pp. 87–102. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse NC, Weiss RS. The function and meaning of work and the job. American Sociological Review. 1955; 20 :191–198. doi: 10.2307/2088325. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• MOW International Research team . The meaning of working. London: Academic Press; 1987. [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén B. A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika. 1984; 49 :115–132. doi: 10.1007/bf02294210. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén LK, Kaplan D. A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. 1985; 38 :171–189. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00832.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user’s guide. 6. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Osborne, J. W. & Fitzpatrick, D. C. (2012). Replication analysis in exploratory factor analysis: what it is and why it makes your analysis better. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation , 17 (15), 1–8. 10.7275/h0bd-4d11.
• Osgood CE, Tannenbaum PH. The principle of congruity in the perception of attitude change. Psychological Review. 1955; 62 :42–55. doi: 10.1037/h0048153. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pignault A, Houssemand C. Construction and initial validation of the Work Context Inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2016; 92 :1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pratt MG, Ashforth BE. Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In: Cameron KS, Dutton JE, Quinn RE, editors. Positive organizational scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers; 2003. pp. 309–327. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roe RA, Ester P. Values and Work: Empirical findings and theoretical perspective. Applied Psychology: An international review. 1999; 48 (1):1–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00046.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ros M, Schwartz SH, Surkiss S. Basic individual values, work values, and meaning of work. Applied Psychology: An international review. 1999; 48 (1):49–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00048.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosso BD, Dekas KH, Wrzesniewski A. On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2010; 30 :91–127. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruiz-Quintanilla SA, England GW. How working is defined: Structure and stability. 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Siegrist JA. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 1996; 1 :27–41. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.1.1.27. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sommer KL, Baumeister RF, Stillman TF. The construction of meaning from life events: Empirical studies of personal narratives. In: Wong PTP, editor. The Human Quest for Meaning. New York: Routledge; 2012. pp. 297–314. [ Google Scholar ]
• Soper DS. A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [Software] 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steers RM, Porter L. Work and motivation: An evaluative summary. In: Steers RM, Porter L, editors. Motivation and work behaviour. New-York: McGraw-Hill; 1979. pp. 555–564. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steger MF, Dik BJ, Duffy RD. Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI) Journal of Career Assessment. 2012; 20 (3):322–337. doi: 10.1177/1069072711436160. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales. Oxford Medicine Online. 10.1093/med/9780199685219.001.0001.
• Super DE, Sverko B. Life roles, values, and careers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sverko B. Origin of individual differences in importance attached to work: A model and a contribution to its evaluation. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1989; 34 :28–39. doi: 10.1016/0001-8791(89)90062-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sverko B, Vizek-Vidovic V. Studies of the meaning of work: Approaches, models, models and some of the findings. In: Super DE, Sverko B, editors. Life roles, values, and Careers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1995. pp. 3–21. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thurstone LL. Multiple-factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1947. [ Google Scholar ]
• Topalova V. Changes in the attitude to work and unemployment during the period of social transition. In: Roe RA, Russinova V, editors. Psychosocial aspects of employment: European perspectives. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press; 1994. pp. 21–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Valois P, Houssemand C, Germain S, Belkacem A. An open source tool to verify the psychometric properties of an evaluation instrument. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2011; 15 :552–556. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.140. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wanberg, C.R. (2012) The Individual Experience of Unemployment. Annual Review of Psychology, 63 (1), 369-396. 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100500 [ PubMed ]
• Warr P. Work values: Some demographic and cultural correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2008; 81 :751–775. doi: 10.1348/096317907x263638. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Warr PB, Cook JD, Wall TD. Scales of measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 1979; 52 :129–148. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1979.tb00448.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE, Debebe G. Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behavior. 2003; 25 :93–135. doi: 10.1016/s0191-3085(03)25003-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wrzesniewski A, McCauley C, Rozin P, Schwartz B. Jobs, careers, and callings: people’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality. 1997; 31 :21–33. doi: 10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang C, Nay S, Hoyle RH. Three approaches to using lengthy ordinal scales in structural equation models. Parceling, latent scoring, and shortening scales. Applied Psychological Measurement. 2010; 34 :122–142. doi: 10.1177/0146621609338592. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yu C-Y. Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Dissertation. Los Angeles: University of California; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zanders H. Changing work values. In: Ester P, Halman L, de Moor R, editors. The individualizing society. Value changes in Europe and North-America. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press; 1993. pp. 129–153. [ Google Scholar ]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Journal Club
• Published: 01 August 2023

Organizational behaviour

The meaning of work

• Hannah Weisman   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6874-9339 1  

Nature Reviews Psychology volume  2 ,  page 522 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

211 Accesses

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Human behaviour

Close your eyes for a moment and imagine it is 9 a.m. tomorrow. You are opening your laptop to start your workday. Why are you working?

Work holds different meanings for different people. For some people, work is a means to a financial end (a job), an unfortunate necessity of life that provides a paycheck and funds life’s more enjoyable, non-work pursuits. For other people, work is a means of advancement in the world (a career), an opportunity to achieve higher social standing by ascending in an occupational or organizational hierarchy. Finally, for some people, work is a meaningful end in itself (a calling), an intrinsically rewarding endeavour that they see as central to their identity and, often, as making the world a better place.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

55,14 € per year

only 4,60 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on Springer Link
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Original article

Wrzesniewski, A. et al. Jobs, careers, and callings: people’s relations to their work. J. Res. Pers. 31 , 21–33 (1997)

Article   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Harvard Business School, Boston, MA, USA

Hannah Weisman

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hannah Weisman .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Weisman, H. The meaning of work. Nat Rev Psychol 2 , 522 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00223-7

Download citation

Published : 01 August 2023

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00223-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Psychology: Research and Review

• Open access
• Published: 04 January 2021

What factors contribute to the meaning of work? A validation of Morin’s Meaning of Work Questionnaire

• Anne Pignault   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7946-3793 1 &
• Claude Houssemand 2  

Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica volume  34 , Article number:  2 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

7606 Accesses

7 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Considering the recent and current evolution of work and the work context, the meaning of work is becoming an increasingly relevant topic in research in the social sciences and humanities, particularly in psychology. In order to understand and measure what contributes to the meaning of work, Morin constructed a 30-item questionnaire that has become predominant and has repeatedly been used in research in occupational psychology and by practitioners in the field. Nevertheless, it has been validated only in part.

Meaning of work questionnaire was conducted in French with 366 people (51.3% of women; age: ( M = 39.11, SD = 11.25); 99.2% of whom were employed with the remainder retired). Three sets of statistical analyses were run on the data. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted on independent samples.

The questionnaire described a five-factor structure. These dimensions (Success and Recognition at work and of work, α = .90; Usefulness, α = .88; Respect for work, α = .88; Value from and through work, α = .83; Remuneration, α = .85) are all attached to a general second-order latent meaning of work factor (α = .96).

Conclusions

Validation of the scale, and implications for health in the workplace and career counseling practices, are discussed.

Introduction

Since the end of the 1980s, many studies have been conducted to explore the meaning of work, particularly in psychology (Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010 ). A review of the bibliographical data in PsychInfo shows that between 1974 and 2006, 183 studies addressed this topic (Morin, 2006 ). This scholarly interest was primarily triggered by Sverko and Vizek-Vidovic’s ( 1995 ) article, which identified the approaches and models that have been used and their main results.

Whereas early studies on the meaning of work introduced the concept and its theoretical underpinnings (e.g., Harpaz, 1986 ; Harpaz & Fu, 2002 ; Morin, 2003 ; MOW International Research team, 1987 ), later research tried to connect this aspect of work with other psychological dimensions or individual perceptions of the work context (e.g., Harpaz & Meshoulam, 2010 ; Morin, 2008 ; Morin, Archambault, & Giroux, 2001 ; Rosso et al., 2010 ; Wrzesniewski, Dutton, & Debebe, 2003 ). Nevertheless, scholars, particularly those in organizational and occupational psychology, soon found it difficult to precisely identify the meaning of work because it changes in accordance with the conceptualizations of different researchers, the theoretical models used to describe it, and the tools that are available to measure it for individuals and for groups.

This article first seeks to clarify the concept of the meaning of work (definitions and models) before bringing up certain problems involved in its measurement and the diversity in how the concept has been used. Then the paper focuses on a particular meaning of work measurement tool developed in Canada, which is now widely used in French-speaking countries. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Morin et al. ( 2001 ) developed a 30-item questionnaire to better determine the dimensions that give meaning to a person’s work. The statistical analyses needed to determine the reliability and validity of Morin et al.’s meaning of work questionnaire have never been completed. Indeed, some changes were made to the initial scale, and the analyses only based on homogenous samples of workers in different professional sectors. Thus and even though the meaning of work scale is used quite frequently, both researchers and practitioners have been unsure about whether or not to trust its results. The main objective of the present study was thus to provide a psychometric validation of Morin et al.’s meaning of work scale and to uncover its latent psychological structure.

Meaning of work: from definition to measurement

Meaning of work: what is it.

As many scholars have found, the concept of the meaning of work is not easy to define (e.g., Rosso et al., 2010 ). In terms of theory, it has been defined differently in different academic fields. In psychology, it refers to an individual’s interpretations of his/her actual experiences and interactions at work (Ros, Schwartz, & Surkiss, 1999 ). From a sociological point of view, it involves assessing meaning in reference to a system of values (Rosso et al., 2010 ). In this case, its definition depends on cultural or social differences, which make explaining this concept even more complex (e.g., Morse & Weiss, 1955 ; MOW International Research team, 1987 ; Steers & Porter, 1979 ; Sverko & Vizek-Vidovic, 1995 ).

At a conceptual level, the meaning of work has been defined in three different ways (Morin, 2003 ). First, it can refer to the meaning of work attached to an individual’s representations of work and the values he/she attributes to that work (Morse & Weiss, 1955 ; MOW International Research team, 1987 ). Second, it can refer to a personal preference for work as defined by the intentions that guide personal action (Super & Sverko, 1995 ). Third, it can be understood as consistency between oneself and one’s work, similar to a balance in one’s personal relationship with work (Morin & Cherré, 2004 ).

With respect to terms, some differences exist because the meaning of work is considered an individual’s interpretation of what work means or of the role it plays in one’s life (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003 ). Yet this individual perception is also influenced by the environment and the social context (Wrzesniewski et al., 2003 ). The psychological literature on the meaning of work has primarily examined its positive aspects, even though work experiences can be negative or neutral. This partiality about the nature of the meaning of work in research has led to some confusion in the literature between this concept and that of meaningful , which refers to the extent to which work has personal significance (a quantity) and seems to depend on positive elements (Steger, Dik, & Duffy, 2012 ). A clearer demarcation should be made between these terms in order to specify the exact sense of the meaning of work: “This would reserve ‘meaning’ for instances in which authors are referring to what work signifies (the type of meaning), rather than the amount of significance attached to the work” (Rosso et al., 2010 , p. 95).

The original idea of the meaning of work refers to the central importance of work for people, beyond the simple behavioral activity through which it occurs. Drawing on various historical references, certain authors present work as an essential driver of human life; these scholars then seek to understand how work is fundamental (e.g., Morin, 2006 ; Sverko & Vizek-Vidovic, 1995 ). The concept of the meaning of work is connected to the centrality of work for the individual and consequently fulfills four different important functions: economic (to earn a living), social (to interact with others), prestige (social position), and psychological (identity and recognition). In this view, the centrality of work is based on an ensemble of personal and social values that differ between individuals as well as between cultures, economic climates, and occupations (England, 1991 ; England & Harpaz, 1990 ; Roe & Ester, 1999 ; Ruiz-Quintanilla & England, 1994 ; Topalova, 1994 ; Zanders, 1993 ).

Meaning of work: which theoretical model?

The first theoretical model for the meaning of work was based on research in the MOW project (MOW International Research team, 1987 ), considered the “most empirically rigorous research ever undertaken to understand, both within and between countries, the meanings people attach to their work roles” (Brief, 1991 , p. 176). This view suggests that the meaning of work is based on five principal theoretical dimensions: work centrality as a life role, societal norms regarding work, valued work outcomes, importance of work goals, and work-role identification. A series of studies on this theory was conducted in Israel (Harpaz, 1986 ; Harpaz & Fu, 2002 ; Harpaz & Meshoulam, 2010 ), complementing the work of the MOW project (MOW International Research team, 1987 ). Harpaz ( 1986 ) empirically identified six latent factors that represent the meaning of work: work centrality, entitlement norm, obligation norm, economic orientation, interpersonal relations, and expressive orientation.

Another theoretical model on the importance of work in a person’s life was created by Sverko in 1989 . This approach takes into account the interactions among certain work values (the importance of these values and the perception of possible achievements through work), which depend on a process of socialization. The ensemble is then moderated by an individual’s personal experiences with work. In the same vein, Rosso et al. ( 2010 ) tried to create an exhaustive model of the sources that influence the meaning of work. This model is built around two major dimensions: Self-Others (individual vs. other individuals, groups, collectives, organizations, and higher powers) and Agency-Communion (the drives to differentiate, separate, assert, expand, master, and create vs. the drives to contact, attach, connect, and unite). This theoretical framework describes four major pathways to the meaning of work: individuation (autonomy, competence, and self-esteem), contribution (perceived impact, significance, interconnection, and self-abnegation), self-connection (self-concordance, identity affirmation, and personal engagement), and unification (value systems, social identification, and connectedness).

Lastly, a more recent model (Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012 ) converges with the theory suggested by Rosso et al. ( 2010 ) but distinguishes two dimensions: Self-Others versus Being-Doing. This model describes four pathways to meaningful work: developing the inner self, unity with others, service to others, and expressing one’s full potential.

Without claiming to be exhaustive, this brief presentation of the theoretical models of the meaning of work underscores the difficulty in precisely defining this concept, the diversity of possible approaches to identifying its contours, and therefore implicitly addresses the various tools designed to measure it.

Measuring the meaning of work

Various methodologies have been used to better determine the concept of the meaning of work and to grasp what it involves in practice. The tools examined below have been chosen because of their different methodological approaches.

One of the first kinds of measurements was developed by the international MOW project (MOW International Research team, 1987 ). In this study, England and Harpaz ( 1990 ) and Ruiz-Quintanilla and England ( 1994 ) used 14 defining elements to assess agreement on the perception of work of 11 different sample groups questioned between 1989 and 1992. These elements, resulting from the definition of work given by the MOW project and studied by applying multivariate analyses and textual content analyses ( When do you consider an activity as working ? Choose four statements from the list below which best define when an activity is “ working,” MOW International Research team, 1987 ), can be grouped into four distinct heuristic categories (Table 1 ).

Similarly, England ( 1991 ) studied changes in the meaning of work in the USA between 1982 and 1989. He used four different methodological approaches to the meaning of work: societal norms about work, importance of work goals, work centrality, and definition of work by the labor force. In the wake of these studies, others developed scales to measure the centrality of work in people’s lives, either for the general population (e.g., Warr, 2008 ) or for specific subpopulations such as unemployed people, on the basis of a rather similar conceptualization of the meaning of work (McKee-Ryan, Song, Wanberg, & Kinicki, 2005 ; Wanberg, 2012 ).

Finally, Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, and Schwartz ( 1997 ) developed a rather unusual method for evaluating people’s relationships with their work. Although not directly connected to research on the meaning of work, this study and the questionnaire they used ( University of Pennsylvania Work-Life Questionnaire ) addressed some of the same concepts. Above all, they employed the concepts in a very particular way that combined psychological scales, scenarios, and sociodemographic questions. Through these scenarios (Table 2 ) and the extent to which the respondents felt like the described characters, their relationship to work was described as either a Job, a Career, or a Calling.

This presentation of certain tools for measuring the meaning of work reveals a variety of methodological approaches. Nevertheless, whereas certain methods have adopted a rather traditional psychological approach, others are often difficult to use for various reasons such as their psychometrics (e.g., the use of only one item to measure a concept; England, 1991 ; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997 ) or for practical reasons (e.g., the participants were asked questions that pertained not only to their individual assessment of work but also to various other parts of their lives; England, 1991 ; Warr, 2008 ). This diversity in the possible uses of the meaning of work makes it difficult to select a tool to measure it.

In French-speaking countries (Canada and Europe primarily), the previously mentioned scale created by Morin et al. ( 2001 ) has predominated and has repeatedly been used in research in occupational psychology and by practitioners in the field. Nevertheless, there has not been a complete validation of the scale (i.e., different forms of the same tool, only the use of exploratory factor analyses, and no similar structures found) that was the motivation for the current study.

The present study

The present article conceives of the meaning of work as representing a certain consistency between what an individual wants out of work and the individual’s perception, lived or imagined, of his/her work. It thus corresponds to the third definition of the meaning of work presented above—consistency between oneself and one's work (Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). This definition is strictly limited to the meaning given to work and the personal significance of this work from the activities that the work implies. Within this conceptual framework, some older studies adopted a slightly different cognitive conception, in which individuals constantly seek a balance between themselves and their environment, and any imbalance triggers a readjustment through which the person attempts to stabilize his/her cognitive state (e.g., Heider, 1946 ; Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955 ). Here, the meaning of work must be considered a means for maintaining psychological harmony despite the destabilizing events that work might involve. In this view, meaning is viewed as an effect or a product of the activity (Brief & Nord, 1990 ) and not as a permanent or fixed state. It then becomes a result of person-environment fit and falls within the theory of work adjustment (Dawis, Lofquist, & Weiss, 1968 ).

Within this framework, a series of recurring and interdependent studies should be noted (e.g., Morin, 2003 , 2006 ; Morin & Cherré, 1999 , 2004 ) because they have attempted to measure the coherence that a person finds in the relation between the person’s self and his/her work and thus implicitly the meaning of that work. Therefore, these studies make it possible to understand the meaning of work in greater detail, meaning that it could be used in practice through a self-evaluation questionnaire. The level of coherence is considered the degree of similarity between the characteristics of work that the person attributes meaning to and the characteristics that he/she perceives in his/her present work (Aronsson, Bejerot, & Häremstam, 1999 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). Based on semi-structured interviews and on older research related to the quality of life at work (Hackman & Oldham, 1976 ; Ketchum & Trist, 1992 ), a model involving 14 characteristics was developed: the usefulness of work, the social contribution of work, rationalization of the tasks, workload, cooperation, salary, the use of skills, learning opportunities, autonomy, responsibilities, rectitude of social and organizational practices, the spirit of service, working conditions, and, finally, recognition and appreciation (Morin, 2006 ; Morin & Cherré, 1999 ). Then, based on this model, a 30-item questionnaire was developed to offer more precise descriptions of these dimensions. Table 3 presents the items, which were designed and administered to the participants in French.

Some studies for structurally validating this questionnaire have been conducted over the years (e.g., Morin, 2003 , 2006 , 2008 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). However, their results were not very precise or comparable. For example, the number of latent factors in the meaning of work scale structure varied (e.g., six or eight factors: Morin, 2003 ; six factors: Morin, 2006 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ), the sample groups were not completely comparable (especially with respect to occupations), and finally, items were added or removed or their phrasing was changed (e.g., 30 and 33 items: Morin, 2003 ; 30 items: Morin, 2006 ; 26 items: Morin, 2008 ). Yet the most prominent methodological problem was that only exploratory analyses (most often a principal component analysis with varimax rotation) had been applied. This scale was entirely relevant from a theoretical point of view because it offered a more specific definition of the meaning of work than other scales and, mainly, because some subdimensions appeared to be linked with anxiety, depression, irritability, cognitive problems, psychological distress, and subjective well-being (Morin et al., 2001 ). It was also relevant from a practical point of view because it was short and did not take much time to complete. However, its use was questionable because it had never been validated psychometrically, and a consistent latent psychological structure had not been identified across studies.

As an example, two models representing the structure of the 30-item scale are presented in Table 3 (Morin et al., 2001 ; Morin, 2003 , for the first model; Morin & Cherré, 2004 , for the second one). This table presents the items, the meaning of work dimensions they are theoretically related to, and the solution from the principal component analysis in each study. These analyses revealed that the empirical and theoretical structures of this tool are not stable and that the latent structure suffers from the insufficient use of statistical methods. In particular, there was an important difference found between the two models in previous studies (Morin et al., 2001 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). Only the “usefulness of work” dimension was found to be identical, comprised of the same items in both models. Other dimensions had a maximum of only three items in common. Therefore, it is very difficult to utilize this tool both in practice and diagnostically, and complementary studies must be conducted. Even though there are techniques for replicating explanatory analyses (e.g., Osborne, 2012 ), such techniques could not be used here because not all the necessary information was given (e.g., all factor loadings, communalities). This is why collecting new data appeared to be the only way to analyze the scale.

More recently, two studies (which applied a new 25-item meaningful work questionnaire ) were developed on the basis of Morin’s scale (Bendassolli & Borges-Andrade, 2013 ; Bendassolli, Borges-Andrade, Coelho Alves, & de Lucena Torres, 2015 ). Even though the concepts of the “meaning of work” and “meaningful work” are close, the two scales are formally and theoretically different and do not evaluate the same construct.

The purpose of the present study was thus to determine the structure of original Morin’s 30-item scale (Morin, 2003 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ) by using an exploratory approach as well as confirmatory statistical methods (structural equation modeling) and in so doing, to address the lacunae in previous research discussed above. The end goal was thus to identify the structure of the scale statistically so that it can be used empirically in both academic and professional fields. Indeed, as mentioned previously, this scale is of particular interest to researchers because its design is not limited to measuring a general meaning of work for each individual; it can also be used to evaluate discrepancies or a convergence between a person’s own personal meaning of work and a specific work context (e.g., tasks, relations with others, autonomy). Finally, and with respect to previous results, the scale could be a potential predictor of professional well-being and psychological distress at work (Morin et al., 2001 ).

Participants

The questionnaire was conducted with 366 people who were mainly resident in Paris and the surrounding regions in France. The gender distribution was almost equal; 51.3% of the respondents were women. The respondents’ ages ranged from 19 to 76 years ( M = 39.11, SD = 11.25). The large majority of people were employed (99.2%). Twenty percent worked in medical and paramedical fields, 26% in retail and sales, and 17% in human resources (the other respondents worked in education, law, communication, reception, banking, and transportation). Seventy percent had fewer than 10 years of seniority in their current job ( M = 8.64, SD = 9.65). Only three people were retired (0.8%).

Morin’s 30-item meaning of work questionnaire (Morin, 2003 ; Morin et al., 2001 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ) along with sociodemographic questions (i.e., sex, age, job activities, and seniority at work) were conducted in French through an online platform. Answers to the meaning of work questionnaire were given on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 5 ( strongly agree ).

Participants were recruited through various professional online social networks. This method does not provide for a true random sample but, owing to it resulting in a potentially larger range of respondents, it enlarges the heterogeneousness of the participants, even if it cannot ensure representativeness (Barberá & Zeitzoff, 2018 ; Hoblingre Klein, 2018 ). This point seems important because very homogenous samples were used in previous studies, especially with regard to professions.

Participants were volunteers, and were given the option of being able to stop the survey at any time. They received no compensation and no individual feedback. Participants were informed of these conditions before filling out the questionnaire. Oral and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Moreover, the Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity (LARI on which the researchers in this study depend) specified that according to Code de la santé publique—Article L1123-7, it appears that France does not require research ethics committee [Les Comités de Protection des Personnes (CPP)] approval if the research is non-biomedical, non-interventional, observational, and does not collect personal health information, and thus CNR approval was not required.

Participants had to answer each question in order to submit the questionnaire: If one item was not answered, the respondent was not allowed to proceed to the next question. Thus, the database has no missing data. An introduction presented the subject of the study and its goals and guaranteed the participant’s anonymity. Researchers’ e-mail addresses were given, and participants were informed that they could contact the researchers for more information.

Data analyses

Three sets of statistical analyses were run on the data:

Analysis of the items, using traditional true score theory and item response theory, for verifying the psychometric qualities (using mainly R package “psych”). The main objectives of this part of analysis were to better understand the variability of respondents’ answers, to compute the discriminatory power of items, and to verify the distribution of items by using every classical descriptive indicator (mean, standard-deviation, skewness, and kurtosis), corrected item-total correlations, and functions of responses for distributions.

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with an oblimin rotation in order to define the latent structure of the meaning of work questionnaire, performed with the R packages “psych” and “GPArotation”. The structure we retained was based on adequation fits of various solutions (TLI, RMSEA and SRMR, see “List of abbreviations” section at the end of the article), and the use of R package “EFAtools” which helps to determine the adequate number of factors to retain for the EFA solution. Finally, this part of the analysis was concluded using calculations of internal consistency for each factor found in the scale.

A confirmatory factor analysis using the R package Lavaan and based on the results of the EFA, in order to verify that the latent structure revealed in Step c was valid and relevant for this meaning of work scale. The adequation between data and latent structure was appreciated on the basis of CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR (see “Abbreviations” section).

For step a, the responses of the complete sample were considered. For steps b and c, 183 subjects were selected randomly for each analysis from the total study sample. Thus, two subsamples comprised of completely different participants were used, one for the EFA in step b and one for the CFA in step c.

Because of the ordinal measurement of the responses and its small number of categories (5-point Likert), none of the items can be normally distributed. This point was verified in step a of the analyses. Thus, the data did not meet the necessary assumptions for applying factor analyses with conventional estimators such as maximum likelihood (Li, 2015 ; Lubke & Muthén, 2004 ). Therefore, because the variables were measured on ordinal scales, it was most appropriate to apply the EFA and CFA analyses to the polychoric correlation matrix (Carroll, 1961 ). Then, to reduce the effects of the specific item distributions of the variables used in the factor analyses, a minimum residuals extraction (MINRES; Harman, 1960 ; Jöreskog, 2003 ) was used for the EFA, and a weighted least squares estimator with degrees of freedom adjusted for means and variances (WLSMV) was used for the CFA as recommended psychometric studies (Li, 2015 ; Muthén, 1984 ; Muthén & Kaplan, 1985 ; Muthén & Muthén, 2010 ; Yang, Nay, & Hoyle, 2010 ; Yu, 2002 ).

The size of samples for the different analyses has been taken into consideration. A model structure analysis with 30 observed variables needs a recommended minimum sample of 100 participants for 6 latent variables, and 200 for 5 latent variables (Soper, 2019 ). The samples used in the present research corresponded to these a priori calculations.

Finally, according to conventional rules of thumb (Hu & Bentler, 1999 ; Kline, 2011 ), acceptable and excellent model fits are indicated by CFI and TLI values greater than .90 and .95, respectively, by RMSEA values smaller than .08 (acceptable) and .06 (excellent), respectively, and SRMR values smaller than .08.

Item analyses

The main finding was the limited amount of variability in the answers to each item. Indeed, as Table 4 shows, respondents usually and mainly chose the answers agree and strongly agree , as indicated by the column of cumulated percentages of these response modalities (%). Thus, for all items, the average answer was higher than 4, except for item 11, the median was 4, and skewness and kurtosis indicators confirmed a systematic skewed on the left leptokurtic distribution. This lack of variability in the participants’ responses and the high average scores indicate nearly unanimous agreement with the propositions made about the meaning of work in the questionnaire.

Table 4 also shows that the items had good discriminatory power, expressed by corrected item-total correlations (calculated with all items) which were above .40 for all items. Finally, item analyses were concluded through the application of item response theory (Excel tools using the eirt add in; Valois, Houssemand, Germain, & Belkacem, 2011 ) which confirmed, by analyses of item characteristic curves (taking into account that item response theory models are parametric and assume that the item responses distributions follow a logistic function, Rasch, 1980 ; Streiner, Norman, & Cairney, 2015 , p. 297), the psychometric quality of each item and their link to an identical latent dimension. These different results confirmed the interest in keeping all items of the questionnaire in order to measure the work-meaning construct.

Exploratory analyses of the scale

A five-factor solution was identified. This solution explained 58% of the total variance in the responses of the scale items; the TLI was .885, the RMSEA was .074, and the SRMR was .04. The structure revealed by this analysis was relatively simple (saturation of one main factor for each item; Thurstone, 1947 ), and the communality of each item was high, except for item 11. The solution we retained presented the best adequation fits and the most conceptual explanation concerning the latent factors. Additionally, the “EFAtools” R package confirmed the appropriateness of the chosen solution. Table 5 shows the EFA results, which described a five-factor structure.

Nevertheless, the correlation matrix for the latent factors obtained by the EFA (see Table 6 ) suggested the existence of a general second-order meaning of work factor, because the five factors were significantly correlated each with others. This result could be described as the existence of a general meaning of work factor, which alone would explain 44% of the total variance in the responses.

Internal consistency of latent factors of the scale

The internal consistency of each latent factor, estimated by Cronbach alpha and McDonald omega, was high (above .80) and very high for the entire scale (α = .96 and ω = .97). Thus, for S uccess and Recognition at work and from work ’ s factor ω was .93, for Usefulness ’s factor ω was .92, for Respect ’s factor ω was .91, for Value from and through work ’s factor ω was slightly lower and equal to .85, and finally for Remuneration ’ s factor for which ω was .87.

Confirmatory factor analyses of the scale

In order to improve the questionnaire, we applied a CFA to this five-factor model to improve the model fit and refine the latent dimensions of the questionnaire. We used CFA to (a) determine the relevance of this latent five-factor structure and (b) confirm the relevance of a general second-order meaning-of-work factor. Although this procedure might appear redundant at first glance, it enabled us to select a definitive latent structure in which each item represents only one latent factor (simple structure; Thurstone, 1947 ), whereas the EFA that was computed in the previous step showed that certain items loaded on several factors. The CFA also easily verified the existence of a second-order latent meaning of work factor (the first-order loadings were .894, .920, .873, .892, and .918, respectively). Thus, this CFA was computed to complement the previous analyses by refining the latent model proposed for the questionnaire.

According to conventional rules of thumb (Hu & Bentler, 1999 ; Kline, 2011 ), although the RMSEA value for the five-factor model was somewhat too high, the CFI and TLI values were excellent (χ 2 = 864.72, df = 400, RMSEA = .080, CFI = .989, TLI = .988). Table 7 presents the adequation fits for both solutions: a model with 5 first-order factors (as EFA suggests), and a model with 5 first-order factors and 1 second-order factor.

Figure 1 shows the model after the confirmatory test. This analysis confirmed the existence of a simple structure with five factors for the meaning of work scale and with a general, second-order factor of the meaning of work as suggested by the previous EFA.

Standardized solution of the structural model of the Meaning of Work Scale

The objective of this study was to verify the theoretical and psychometric structure of the meaning of work scale developed by Morin in recent years (Morin, 2003 ; Morin et al., 2001 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). This scale has the advantages of being rather short, of proposing a multidimensional structure for the meaning of work, and of making it possible to assess the coherence between the aspects of work that are personally valued and the actual characteristics of the work environment. Thus, it can be used diagnostically or to guide individuals. To establish the structure of this scale, we analyzed deeply the items, and we implemented exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, which we believe the scale’s authors had not carried out sufficiently. Moreover, we used a broad range of psychometric evaluation methods (traditional true score theory, item response theory, EFA, and structural equation modeling) to test the validity of the scale.

Item analyses confirmed results found in previous studies in which the meaning-of-work scale was administered. The majority of respondents agreed with the proposals of the questionnaire. Thus, this lack of variability is not specific to the present research and its sample (e.g., Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). Nevertheless, this finding can be explained by different reasons (which could be studied by other research) such as social desirability and the importance of work norms in industrial societies, or a lack of control regarding response bias.

The various versions of the latent structure of the scale proposed by the authors were not confirmed by the statistical analyses seen here. It nevertheless appears that this tool for assessing the meaning of work can describe and measure five different dimensions, all attached to a general factor. The first factor (F1), composed of nine items, is a dimension of recognition and success (e.g., item 17: work where your skills are recognized ; item 19: work where your results are recognized ; item 24: work that enables you to achieve the goals that you set for yourself ). It should thus be named Success and Recognition at work and from work and is comparable to dimensions from previous studies (personal success, Morin et al., 2001 ; social influence, Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). The second factor (F2), composed of seven items, is a dimension that represents the usefulness of work for an individual, whether that usefulness is social (e.g., Item 22: work that gives you the opportunity to serve others ) or personal (e.g., Item 28: work that enables you to be fulfilled ). It can be interpreted in terms of the Usefulness of work and generally corresponds to dimensions of the same name in earlier models (Morin, 2003 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ), although the definition used here is more precise. The third factor (F3), described by four items, refers to the Respect dimension of work (e.g., Item 5: work that respects human values ) and corresponds in part to the factors highlighted in prior studies (respect and rationalization of work, Morin, 2003 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). The fourth factor (F4), composed of four items, refers to the personal development dimension and Value from and through work (e.g., Item 2: work that enables you to learn or to improve ). It is in some ways similar to autonomy and effectiveness, described by the authors of the scale (Morin, 2003 ; Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). Finally, the fifth and final factor (F5), with six items, highlights the financial and, more important, personal benefits sought or received from work. This includes physical and material safety and the enjoyment of work (e.g., item 14: work you enjoy doing ). This dimension of Remuneration partially converges with the aspects of personal values related to work described in previous research (Morin et al., 2001 ). Although the structure of the scale highlighted here differed from previous studies, some theoretical elements were nevertheless consistent with each other. To be convinced of this, the Table 8 highlights possible overlaps.

A second important result of this study is the highlighting of a second-order factor by the statistical analyses carried out. This latent second-level factor refers to the existence of a general meaning of work dimension. This unitary conception of the meaning of work, subdivided into different linked facets, is not in contradiction with the different theories related to this construct. Thus, Ros et al. ( 1999 ) defined the meaning of work as a personal interpretation of experiences and interaction at work. This view of meaning of work can confer it a unitary functionality for maintaining psychological harmony, despite the destabilizing events that are often a feature of work. It must be considered as a permanent process of work adjustment or work adaptation. In order to be effective, this adjustment needs to remain consistent and to be globally oriented toward the cognitive balance between the reality of work and the meaning attributed to it. Thus, it has to keep a certain coherence which would explain the unitary conception of the meaning of work.

In addition to the purely statistical results of this study, whereas some partial overlap was found between the structural model in this study and structural models from previous work, this paper provides a much-needed updating and improvement of these dimensions, as we examined several theoretical meaning of work models in order to explain them psychologically. Indeed, the dimensions defined here as Success and Recognition , Usefulness , Respect , Value , and Remuneration from the meaning of work scale by Morin et al. ( 2001 ) have some strong similarities to other theoretical models on the meaning of work, even though the authors of the scale referred to these models only briefly. For example, the dimensions work centrality as a life role , societal norms regarding work , valued work outcomes , importance of work goals , and work-role identification (MOW International Research team, 1987 ) concur with the model described in the present study. In the same manner, the model by Rosso et al. ( 2010 ) has some similarities to the present structure, and there is a conceptual correspondence between the five dimensions found here and those from their study ( individuation , contribution , self-connection , and unification ). Finally, Baumeister’s ( 1991 ), Morin and Cherré’s ( 2004 ), and Sommer, Baumeister, and Stillman ( 2012 ) studies presented similar findings on the meaning of important life experiences for individuals; they described four essential needs that make such experiences coherent and reasonable ( purpose , efficacy - control , rectitude , and self - worth ). It is obvious that the parallels noted here were fostered by the conceptual breadth of the dimensions as defined in these models. In future research, much more precise definitions are needed. To do so, it will be essential to continue running analyses to test for construct validity by establishing convergent validity between the dimensions of the various existing meaning of work scales.

It is also interesting to note the proximity between the dimensions described here and those examined in studies on the dimensions that characterize the work context (Pignault & Houssemand, 2016 ) or in Karasek’s ( 1979 ) and Siegrist’s ( 1996 ) well-known models, for example, which determined the impact of work on health, stress, and well-being. These studies were able to clearly show how dimensions related to autonomy, support, remuneration, and esteem either contribute to health or harm it. These dimensions, which give meaning to work in a manner that is similar to the dimensions highlighted in the current study (Recognition, Value, and Remuneration in particular), are also involved in health. Thus, it would be interesting to verify the relations between these dimensions and measures of work health.

Thus, the conceptual dimensions of the meaning of work, as defined by Morin ( 2003 ) and Morin and Cherré ( 1999 ), remained of strong theoretical importance even if, at the empirical level, the scale created on this basis did not correspond exactly. The present study has had the modest merit of showing this interest, and also of proposing a new structure of the facets of this general dimension. One of the major interests of this research can be found in the possible better interpretations that this scale will enable to make. As mentioned above, the Morin’s scale is very frequently used in practice (e.g., in state employment agencies or by Human Resources departments), and the divergent models of previous studies could lead to individual assessments of the meaning of work diverging, depending on the reading grid chosen. Showing that a certain similarity in the structures of the meaning of work exists, and that a general factor of the meaning of work could be considered, the results of the current research can contribute to more precise use of this tool.

At this stage and in conclusion, it may be interesting to consider the reasons for the variations between the structures of the scale highlighted by the different studies. There were obviously the different changes applied to the different versions of the scale, but beyond that, three types of explanation could emerge. At the level of methods, the statistics used by the studies varied greatly, and could explain the variations observed. At the level of the respondents, work remains one of the most important elements of life in our societies. A certain temptation to overvalue its importance and purposes could be at the origin of the broad acceptance of all the proposals of the questionnaire, and the strong interactions between the sub-dimensions. Finally, at the theoretical level, if, as our study showed, a general dimension of meaning of work seems to exist, all the items, all the facets and all the first order factors of the scale, are strongly interrelated at each respective level. As well, small variations in the distribution of responses could lead to variations of the structure.

The principal contribution of this study is undoubtedly the use of confirmatory methods to test the descriptive models that were based on Morin’s scale (Morin, 2003 , 2006 ; Morin & Cherré, 1999 , 2004 ). The principal results confirm that the great amount of interest in this scale is not without merit and suggest its validity for use in research, both by practitioners (e.g., career counselors and Human Resources departments) and diagnostically. The results show a tool that assesses a general dimension and five subdimensions of the meaning of work with a 30-item questionnaire that has strong psychometric qualities. Conceptual differences from previous exploratory studies were brought to light, even though there were also certain similarities. Thus, the objectives of this study were met.

Limitations

As with any research, this study also has a certain number of limitations. The first is the sample size used for statistical analyses. Even if the research design respected the general criteria for these kind of analyses (Soper, 2019 ), it will be necessary to repeat the study with larger samples. The second is the cultural and social character of the meaning of work, which was not addressed in this study because the sample was comprised of people working in France. They can thus be compared with those in Morin’s studies ( 2003 ) because of the linguistic proximity (French) of the samples, but differences in the structure of the scale could be due to cultural differences between America and Europe. Nevertheless, other different international populations should be questioned about their conception of the meaning of work in order to measure the impact of cultural and social aspects (England, 1991 ; England & Harpaz, 1990 ; Roe & Ester, 1999 ; Ruiz-Quintanilla & England, 1994 ; Topalova, 1994 ; Zanders, 1993 ). In the same vein, a third limitation involves the homogeneity of the respondents’ answers. Indeed, there was quasi-unanimous agreement with all of the items describing work (see Table 4 and previous results, Morin & Cherré, 2004 ). It is worth examining whether this lack of variance results from a work norm that is central and promoted in industrialized countries as it might mask broader interindividual differences. Thus, this study’s protocol should be repeated with other samples from different cultures. Finally, a fourth limitation that was mentioned previously involves the validity of the scale. Concerning the content validity and because some items loaded similarly different factors, it could be interesting to verify the wording content of the items, and potentially modify or replace some of them. The purpose of the present study was not to change the content of the scale but to suggest how future studies could analyze this point. Concerning the construct validity, this first phase of validation needs to be followed by other phases that involve tests of convergent validity between the existing meaning of work scales as well as tests of discriminant validity in order to confirm the existence of the meaning of work construct examined here. In such studies, the centrality of work (Warr, 2008 ; Warr, Cook, & Wall, 1979 ) should be used to confirm the validity of the meaning of work scale. Other differential, individual, and psychological variables related to work (e.g., performance, motivation, well-being) should also be introduced in order to expand the understanding of whether relations exist between the set of psychological concepts involved in work and individuals’ jobs.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

Confirmatory factor analyses

Comparative Fit Index

Exploratory factor analyses

Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity

• Meaning of work

Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability

Root mean square error of approximation

Standardized root mean square residual

Aronsson, G., Bejerot, E., & Häremstam, A. (1999). Healthy work: Ideal and reality among public and private employed academics in Sweden. Personal Public Management , 28 (2), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/009102609902800203 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Barberá, P., & Zeitzoff, T. (2018). The new public address system: why do world leaders adopt social media? International Studies Quarterly , 62 (1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqx047 .

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

Google Scholar  

Bendassolli, P. F., & Borges-Andrade, J. E. (2013). Meaningfulness in work in Brazilian and French creative industries. Spanish Journal of Psychology , 16 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2013.107 .

Bendassolli, P. F., Borges-Andrade, J. E., Coelho Alves, J. S., & de Lucena Torres, T. (2015). Meaningful work scale in creative industries: A confirmatory factor analysis. Psico-USF , 20 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-82712015200101 .

Brief, A. P. (1991). MOW revisited: A brief commentary. European Work and Organizational Psychology , 1 , 176–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602009108408523 .

Brief, A. P., & Nord, W. R. (1990). Meaning of occupational work . Toronto: Lexington Books.

Carroll, J. B. (1961). The nature of the data, or how to choose a correlation coefficient. Psychometrika , 26 , 247–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02289768 .

Dawis, R. V., Lofquist, L. H., & Weiss, D. J. (1968). A theory of work adjustment (a revision). Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, XXIII , 47 , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-013391-1.50030-4 .

England, G. W. (1991). The meaning of working in USA: Recent changes. The European Work and Organizational Psychologist , 1 , 111–124.   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1990.tb01036.x  

England, G. W., & Harpaz, I. (1990). How working is defined: National contexts and demographic and organizational role influences. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 11 , 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030110402 .

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 16 , 250–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7 .

Harman, H. H. (1960). Modern Factor Analysis . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Harpaz, I. (1986). The factorial structure of the meaning of work. Human Relations , 39 , 595–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678603900701 .

Harpaz, I., & Fu, X. (2002). The structure of the meaning of work: A relative stability amidst change. Human Relations , 55 , 639–−668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702556002 .

Harpaz, I., & Meshoulam, I. (2010). The meaning of work, employment relations, and strategic human resources management in Israel. Human Resource Management Review , 20 , 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.08.009 .

Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology , 21 , 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275 .

Hoblingre Klein, H. (2018). Réseaux sociaux professionnels: instruments d’empowerment professionnel ?: Analyse de cas de consultants RH et de recruteurs sur LinkedIn. PhD manuscript, Education, Université de Strasbourg. Retrieved from https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02133972 .

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling , 6 , 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 .

Jöreskog, K. G. (2003). Factor analysis by MINRES. Retrieved from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/minres.pdf

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly , 24 , 285–308. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392498 .

Ketchum, L. D., & Trist, E. (1992). All teams are not created equal. How employee empowerment really works . Newbury Park: Sage.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling , (3rd ed., ). New-York: Guilford.

Li, C. H. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Method , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7 .

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112461578 .

Lubke, G. H., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Structural Equation Modeling , 11 , 514–534. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1104_2 .

McKee-Ryan, F., Song, Z., Wanberg, C. R., & Kinicki, A. J. (2005). Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: A meta- analytic study. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 , 53–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.53 .

Morin, E. (2003). Sens du travail. Définition, mesure et validation. In C. Vandenberghe, N. Delobbe, & G. Karnas (Eds.), Dimensions individuelles et sociales de l’investissement professionnel , (pp. 11–20). Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.

Morin, E. (2006). Donner un sens au travail. In Document—Centre de recherche et d’intervention pour le travail, l’efficacité organisationnelle et la santé (CRITEOS), HEC Montréal .

Morin, E. (2008). Sens du travail, santé mentale et engagement organisationnel . Montréal: IRSST.

Morin, E., Archambault, M., & Giroux, H. (2001). Projet Qualité de Vie au Travail. Rapport Final . Montréal: HEC Montréal.

Morin, E., & Cherré, B. (1999). Les cadres face au sens du travail. Revue Française de Gestion , 126 , 83–93. https://doi.org/10.3166/rfg.251.149-164 .

Morin, E., & Cherré, B. (2004). Réorganiser le travail et lui donner du sens. In A. Lancry, & C. Lemoine (Eds.), La personne et ses rapports au travail , (pp. 87–102). Paris: L’Harmattan.

Morse, N. C., & Weiss, R. S. (1955). The function and meaning of work and the job. American Sociological Review , 20 , 191–198. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088325 .

MOW International Research team (1987). The meaning of working . London: Academic Press.

Muthén, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika , 49 , 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02294210 .

Muthén, L. K., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology , 38 , 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00832.x .

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide , (6th ed., ). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

Osborne, J. W. & Fitzpatrick, D. C. (2012). Replication analysis in exploratory factor analysis: what it is and why it makes your analysis better. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation , 17 (15), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.7275/h0bd-4d11 .

Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955). The principle of congruity in the perception of attitude change. Psychological Review , 62 , 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048153 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Pignault, A., & Houssemand, C. (2016). Construction and initial validation of the Work Context Inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 92 , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.006 .

Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship , (pp. 309–327). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Roe, R. A., & Ester, P. (1999). Values and Work: Empirical findings and theoretical perspective. Applied Psychology: An international review , 48 ( 1 ), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00046.x .

Ros, M., Schwartz, S. H., & Surkiss, S. (1999). Basic individual values, work values, and meaning of work. Applied Psychology: An international review , 48 (1), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1999.tb00048.x .

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001 .

Ruiz-Quintanilla, S. A. & England, G. W. (1994). How working is defined: Structure and stability. Working paper, Cornell University.

Siegrist, J. A. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 1 , 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.1.1.27 .

Sommer, K. L., Baumeister, R. F., & Stillman, T. F. (2012). The construction of meaning from life events: Empirical studies of personal narratives. In P. T. P. Wong (Ed.), The Human Quest for Meaning , (pp. 297–314). New York: Routledge.

Soper, D.S. (2019). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [Software]. Available from http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc .

Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. (1979). Work and motivation: An evaluative summary. In R. M. Steers, & L. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behaviour , (pp. 555–564). New-York: McGraw-Hill.

Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment , 20 (3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436160 .

Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales. Oxford Medicine Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199685219.001.0001 .

Super, D. E., & Sverko, B. (1995). Life roles, values, and careers . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Sverko, B. (1989). Origin of individual differences in importance attached to work: A model and a contribution to its evaluation. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 34 , 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(89)90062-6 .

Sverko, B., & Vizek-Vidovic, V. (1995). Studies of the meaning of work: Approaches, models, models and some of the findings. In D. E. Super, & B. Sverko (Eds.), Life roles, values, and Careers , (pp. 3–21). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple-factor analysis . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Topalova, V. (1994). Changes in the attitude to work and unemployment during the period of social transition. In R. A. Roe, & V. Russinova (Eds.), Psychosocial aspects of employment: European perspectives , (pp. 21–28). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

Valois, P., Houssemand, C., Germain, S., & Belkacem, A. (2011). An open source tool to verify the psychometric properties of an evaluation instrument. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences , 15 , 552–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.140 .

Wanberg, C.R. (2012) The Individual Experience of Unemployment. Annual Review of Psychology, 63 (1), 369-396. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100500

Warr, P. (2008). Work values: Some demographic and cultural correlates. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 81 , 751–775. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317907x263638 .

Warr, P. B., Cook, J. D., & Wall, T. D. (1979). Scales of measurement of some work attitudes and aspects of psychological well-being. Journal of Occupational Psychology , 52 , 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1979.tb00448.x .

Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behavior , 25 , 93–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(03)25003-6 .

Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: people’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality , 31 , 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162 .

Yang, C., Nay, S., & Hoyle, R. H. (2010). Three approaches to using lengthy ordinal scales in structural equation models. Parceling, latent scoring, and shortening scales. Applied Psychological Measurement , 34 , 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621609338592 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Yu, C.-Y. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Dissertation . Los Angeles: University of California.

Zanders, H. (1993). Changing work values. In P. Ester, L. Halman, & R. de Moor (Eds.), The individualizing society. Value changes in Europe and North-America , (pp. 129–153). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

No funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Université de Lorraine, Psychology & Neuroscience Laboratory (2LPN, EA7489), 23 boulevard Albert 1er, 54000, Nancy, France

Anne Pignault

University of Luxembourg, Department of Education and Social Work, Institute for Lifelong Learning & Guidance (LLLG), 2 Avenue de l’Université, L-4365, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

Claude Houssemand

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Both the authors are responsible for study conceptualization, data collection, data preparation, data analysis and report writing. The original questionnaire is a public one. No permission is required. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Pignault .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The Luxembourg Agency for Research Integrity (LARI) specifies that according to Code de la santé publique - Article L1123-7, it appears that France does not require research ethics committee (Les Comités de Protection des Personnes (CPP)) approval if the research is non-biomedical, non-interventional, observational, and does not collect personal health information. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements. At the beginning of the questionnaire, the participants had to give their consent that the data could be used for research purposes, and they had to consent to the publication of the results of the study. Participation was voluntary and confidential. No potentially identifiable human images or data is presented in this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Pignault, A., Houssemand, C. What factors contribute to the meaning of work? A validation of Morin’s Meaning of Work Questionnaire. Psicol. Refl. Crít. 34 , 2 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-020-00167-4

Download citation

Received : 19 March 2020

Accepted : 30 November 2020

Published : 04 January 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-020-00167-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Structure validation
• Psychometrics
• Organizational psychology

Creating Meaning and Purpose at Work

• November 2016
• In book: The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Positivity and Strengths-Based Approaches at Work (pp.60-81)

• Colorado State University

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Dina Amalina
• Lita Ariani
• Julaibib Julaibib
• Pepijn R. Hagenaar

• Arjan W. Braam

• Juan-Mari Kruger

• Paul B. Harris

• Andre William
• Yusak Novanto

• Safia Rehman
• Ferdos Jamal
• Jess Annison
• Adam Davidson
• Laura Wahlin

• Ashley W. Sutton
• J CAREER ASSESSMENT

• Ryan D. Duffy
• Kelsey L. Autin

• S. Nakamura

• Richard Fenn
• Barbara Hargrove
• Dean R. Hoge

• Blake A. Allan
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Is this work? Revisiting the definition of work in the 21st century

Journal of Work-Applied Management

ISSN : 2205-2062

Article publication date: 23 June 2023

Issue publication date: 27 September 2023

The purpose of the study was to specify the perceived outdated nature and lack of definitional clarity associated with the concept of work and further to outline that the nature of work has dramatically changed in the 21st century, while definitions of work referenced in research remain those that were dominant in the previous century. Lastly, the study aimed to propose an updated conceptualisation and definition of work to aid future research.

Design/methodology/approach

A scoping literature review was adopted as the methodology guiding the study. A scoping review is particularly suited to identifying the conceptual boundaries on a given multi-disciplinary topic and is used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area as well as to clarify working definitions.

Nine main themes underpinning the concept of work were extracted from the extant literature. These were assimilated with contemporary literature across multiple disciplines. Contexts of work as they relate to dimensions of work and workspace are developed and visualised. A proposed contemporary definition of work is presented.

Research limitations/implications

The aim of the study was to address the problem with current and future research continuing to refer to traditional conceptualisations of work, while the nature of work has dramatically changed. The findings are preliminary and intended to stimulate further discourse towards a greater consensus of a definition. The implications of proposing an updated definition of work is that it is intended to better inform future research reflective of its multi-disciplinary and significantly changed nature.

Practical implications

The implications to practice are the main impetus of this study. The authors found that research associated with work was being confounded by traditional and outdated interpretations, excluding alternative forms of work or not recognising its multi-dimensionality. It is proposed by the paper that an updated conceptualisation of the nature of work in this era, as it is reflected across disciplines and practice, would positively contribute to the understanding, management and conceptualisation of work in practice.

Originality/value

A systematic literature review across disciplines of the definition of work will reveal the outdated nature and disparate interpretation of the concept of work. An inclusive, multi-disciplinary and contemporary definition of work has not been suggested. This scoping review was conducted to address this problem and gap in the literature. Further, this paper presents a multi-dimensional and spatial conceptualisation of work that is proposed to better inform future research and practice associated with work.

• Definition of work
• Meaning of work

van der Laan, L. , Ormsby, G. , Fergusson, L. and McIlveen, P. (2023), "Is this work? Revisiting the definition of work in the 21st century", Journal of Work-Applied Management , Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 252-272. https://doi.org/10.1108/JWAM-04-2023-0035

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Luke van der Laan, Gail Ormsby, Lee Fergusson and Peter McIlveen

Published in Journal of Work-Applied Management . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Work in the 21st century

The United Nation's Declaration of Human Rights states in Article 23: “Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment … the right to equal pay for equal work”. With that goal not achieved a half century later, the International Labour Organization articulated the Decent Work Agenda as an added dimension of human rights. Still grappling with how to achieve full and productive employment and decent work, the United Nations incorporated the Decent Work Agenda in their 17 Sustainable Development Goals, to promote “sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all”. Progress towards securing these rights and goals which acclaim work as a self-evident good is undermined by a paradox: We are still left wondering; What is work?

Traditional perspectives of work define it in narrow terms, including work as functional and transactional framed in terms of a predetermined workplace (e.g. Colbert et al ., 2016 ; Lester and Costley, 2010 ), remuneration (e.g. Guthrie, 2008 ; Kustini and Purwanto, 2020 ) and/or employment (e.g. Pettinger, 2019 ; Taylor, 2004 ). Indeed, these traditional perspectives of work have been dominant within research discourse on the topic throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

However, literature emerging in the early part of the 21st century points towards a need to revisit what work means to individuals and humanity more broadly. This is especially relevant within the context of rapid technological and social change in this era of the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution ( Hirschi, 2018 ; Schwab, 2016 ). More recently, the dramatic changes in the nature of work have become more stark. The COVID pandemic not only forced a significant shift towards remote work enabled by technology, while emptying city office blocks, but also forced many production workers to remain at home, closing down whole industries and resulting in increased economic hardship for those unable to go to work. Similarly, while we have anticipated the automation of work in terms of artificial intelligence, its rapid adoption have given rise to a dramatic increase in the discourse as to what constitutes work and what forms of human work will become redundant.

More than a decade ago for example, Dejours (2007 , p. 72) maintained “there is no such thing as purely mechanical work” and Deranty (2009 , p. 70) argued that “the definition of work remains a serious theoretical problem”. Veltman (2016) concurs and observes that “yet the topic of work has received only minor attention in leading theories of justice and human flourishing”. The purpose of the present research is to examine the dimensions which define the nature of work at the individual unit level and consider what a suitable definition of work might be for the 21st century. Following on from the recommendation by Cho (2020 , np) that future research should consider micro and macro boundaries in “advancing our knowledge on the boundaries in work and careers”, we revisit the micro boundaries of the notion of work.

2. Conventional conceptualisations

Earlier industrial era literature about work was primarily concerned with human productivity in exchange for remuneration and the conditions under which such transactional exchanges took place. This focus reflected and was largely shaped by liberal economic theory as articulated by Smith (1937) and theories of labour, such as those of Marx ( Sayers, 2005 ). The work of Fayol (1916) and Taylor (1947) further served to stimulate research in terms of the management of labour and the outputs of work as part of an increasingly dominant economic rationale associated with productivity and the performance of work, particularly in relation to the organisation of work.

Conceptualisations of work have changed over time and reflect transitions from agrarian to industrial and post-industrial production systems ( Savickas and Baker, 2005 ). Accordingly, “the meaning of work literature is the product of a long tradition of rich inquiry spanning many disciplines” ( Rosso et al ., 2010 ), such as applied psychology (vocational psychology, organisational and industrial psychology), sociology and economics. However, “the field of industrial sociology (work and occupations) … has moved it even farther away from the study of work to a concern with individuals conceived as economic beings” ( Simpson, 1986 , p. 578). Furthermore, “conceptual confusion” has resulted in what Deranty (2009 , p. 70) described as “operating on an ultra-thin definition of work … [that] claim[s] for sole authority in the other social sciences”. Conceptual confusion and concomitantly thin or disparate operational definitions of work hamper research and should be countered with conceptual clarity ( Bringmann et al ., 2022 ).

Work is commonly defined in terms of outputs of production or as associated with notions of employment and capital, most notably the problematic term “human capital” ( Tan, 2014 ). However, highly cited work by Casey (1995) suggests that based on this, “the industrial legacy of the centrality of production and work in social and self-formation hovers precipitously with the post-industrial condition in which work is declining in social primacy”. This continues to hold true ( Casey, 2013 ). It appears that the precipitous balance between research being guided by such industrial era “thin definitions” associated with economic perspectives fail to capture the context of significant societal changes, due to dramatic shifts in technology, knowledge systems, human mobility and production systems. Furthermore, traditionally dominant definitions of work no longer capture its full meaning and, therefore, the multi-disciplinary field of work studies requires a comprehensive analysis of work's theoretical foundations from a people-centred and current pragmatic perspective ( Provis, 2009 ; Rosso et al ., 2010 ).

More recently the literature has broadened to include the psychology of working ( Blustein, 2006 , 2013 ; Duffy et al ., 2016 ). Yet despite what seem to be advances in the research on work, the notion of work largely remains within the paradigm of employment and economic theory. Rarely has the literature acknowledged, as an example, unpaid or unrecognised forms of work, such as voluntary service ( Taylor, 2004 ), entrepreneurial activities, subsistence activities, modern slavery ( Craig, 2017 ) or the care work done by women without compensation ( Richardson, 2012 ; Richardson and Schaeffer, 2013 ) or those in forced marriages ( Fellows and Chong, 2020 ). It is the work of women which seems invisible to the dominant paradigm and discourse of economics ( Shah, 2006 ).

Humans are “capable of genuine intentionality, forethought, self-regulation, and self-reflectiveness”;

“Humans are meaning-making organisms who consciously and subconsciously construct both global and particular meanings for life experience”;

“Individuals enact a constellation of life roles that interact in varied and complex ways … [and] work to occupy one of these life roles and define working broadly to include any activity or effort, paid or unpaid, that is directed toward accomplishing or producing something that fills a societal or organizational need”;

“Humans, by necessity, live in societies bound by common needs and mutual service and that work role activities therefore have direct or indirect social implications that vary in magnitude”; and

“Obstacles to meaningfulness and purpose at work are present on multiple levels (e.g. individual, organisational, societal) but also that these obstacles are amenable to change”.

However, the failure to recognise work as an innate human function and one which is not always defined in terms of remuneration, employment or place has depersonalised human work activity. In turn, this has allowed conditions of exploitation and economic rationalism to remain unchecked for many decades ( Dejours, 2002 ; Deranty, 2009 ; Mauss, 1979 ). The concept of the division of labour conforms to a “logic that is strictly functional and instrumental” ( Deranty, 2009 , p. 74) within an economic rationalism that does not fully take into account the personal and social fluidity of work. Even when addressed outside its economic paradigm, a primary focus of the psychology of work has traditionally aimed at the clinical, pathogenic nature and impact of experiences of work, particularly those usually associated with employment ( Deranty, 2009 ). In an attempt to resolve this problem within psychology, Blustein (2011) promoted the relational theory of working as a way in which the meaning of work can be better understood.

An examination of the chronological development of the notion of work forms a foundation for what is proposed as moving towards a more holistic definition of this important human function. We seek to progress the recognition of work as a broader concept and start by building on the foundational definitions promoted by the sociology and psychology of work.

3. Decent work?

Work has evolved alongside changing societal trends driven most recently by the industrialisation of society ( Laurance, 2019 ). In the mid-1960s, work was increasingly promoted as a virtue for the development of an individual's career ( Quey, 1968 ) and became regarded as a vehicle for the development and expression of an individual's self-concept ( Super, 1957 ). However, the definition of work at this time continued to be the theme of linking the individual to a form of economic benefit and incompatible with, or at least indifferent to, individual and political freedom ( Deranty, 2009 ). As Quey (1968 , p. 223) stated at that time, “work is purposeful mental and physical human activity which deliberately points beyond the present by creating economic products or values to be consumed in the future”. The understanding of the work environment within which this economic exchange was to occur was predominantly restricted to a place, with set times and well-defined procedures and outcomes.

Yet Quey (1968) also opposed the potential depersonalisation of the human being within the context of work and as such shifted the economic benefit perspective from the system (i.e. the macro-environment) to the individual (i.e. the micro-environment) as a beneficiary. The general work–remuneration relationship however continued to be a key component of the argument for work, but this shift started a recognition of broader meaning that is ascribed to work. Thus, Quey (1968 , p. 225) concluded, “In order to preserve its own health, society periodically may need to revalidate its overarching values and purposes including the meaning and role of work in society”. This paper furthers that dialogue about the role of work but has as its key premise, work as a fundamentally innate human concept influenced, but not defined, by an economic rationale of remuneration and place of production.

In this Fourth Industrial Revolution ( Schwab, 2016 ), the world of work is fast moving from an information age to a conceptual age where the processing and conceptualisation of new knowledge and ideas typifies much work ( European Foundation of Management Development, 2012 ). As such, the conceptual age has been significantly influenced by traditional liberalism and the notion of freedom of the individual. Driven primarily through technological progress, increasing access to information, social networks and media and communications, emphasis on individual freedom has become more widespread and acceptable. Enabled by dynamic technological platforms, global and cultural communications have exponentially increased creating “a new wave of networked social movements [positive and negative], which have been mobilized in the urban space and in the institutional space [introducing new] movements and actors of social change” ( Castells, 2012 , pp. 19–20). These shifts have altered the nexus between individuals and work in an unprecedented way.

The impact of a largely networked global society ( Castells, 2010 ) has added to what we refer to as the “liberalisation of work”, making certain previously defining dimensions redundant. In short, we put forward the “liberalisation of work” to mean that individuals are increasingly being liberated from the confines of traditional notions of work in favour of shifting the emphasis towards finding meaning in and/or an awareness of their relationship with work. The liberalisation of work seeks to acknowledge all forms of work as an inclusive concept whose purpose is to accommodate the multitudes of positive or negative outcomes resulting from work and the changes currently transforming the “social structure of society” ( Castells, 2012 ).

Evidence in the last 15 years suggests there is increased uncertainty among those who work in the traditional workplace as to the existential nature of work in their lives, which in turn has eroded the individual's confidence in the idea of having a predictable long-term career or secure employment ( Blustein, 2006 ; Blustein et al ., 2013 ; Savickas et al ., 2009 ). It is increasingly evident that an individual's purpose and work meaningfulness can no longer be generally attributed to a stable career or place of work ( Paulík et al ., 2014 ; Pratt and Ashforth, 2003 ; Steger et al. , 2009 ; Steger et al ., 2012 ). Consequently, traditional and persistent paradigms which describe work are questionable and a broad, multi-disciplinary revisiting of the concept is required.

4. Towards conceptual clarity and thick definitions of work

Definitions of work have been referred to by Deranty (2009) as thin and thick. “Thin” definitions of work have been typified by narrowly categorised descriptions that are strictly functional and instrumental and usually occur within a particular economic worldview. Clot (2004 , p. 98) subsequently termed this narrow focus of work as “directed activity”, suggesting the organisation of human effort towards productivity aims. However, Wisner (1995) had earlier made the critical observation that the modelling of work activities under these definitions rarely accounts for real-world experiences, overlooking working conditions and the consequence to lived experiences of the worker.

In contrast, “thick” definitions account for the richer subjective meanings ascribed to work, including personal interpretation and investment in work activities. The relationship of thin and thick descriptions of work provided by Deranty has been provided in Table 1 .

To resolve the suggested dichotomy between thin and thick definitional approaches to the construct of work, as well as considering that not all work is defined by institutional productivity parameters, remuneration, employment and workplace, it is necessary to conduct a review of the theoretical perspectives of work.

This paper therefore systematically explores the literature and seeks to propose a tentative revised definition of work for the 21st century in order to promote a common understanding of the universal nature of work. A more human-centric and pragmatic perspective is arguably needed to accommodate rapidly changing notions of work, where it takes place, what it is exchanged for and how it is recognised in the different lines of scholarly enquiry. As Provis (2009 , p. 124) suggests, “The point here is not that we need to get rid of the idea of work or define it precisely for everyday purposes, but that we need to do so for purposes of theory and policy development”. As such the paper therefore aims to review the literature and work towards a more contemporary conceptual definition of work.

A scoping literature review is a relatively newer form of mapping the literature on a given multi-disciplinary topic ( Arksey and O'Malley, 2005 ; Cacchione, 2016 ; Peters et al ., 2015 ). Scoping studies, as defined by Arksey and O ' Malley (2005 , p. 21), “aim to map rapidly the key concepts underpinning a research area” and can “be used to map the key concepts underpinning a research area as well as to clarify working definitions, and/or the conceptual boundaries of a topic” ( Peters et al ., 2015 , p. 141). Munn et al . (2018) agree that scoping reviews are appropriate to clarify key concepts or definitions in the literature. A key premise of the study is that current definitions of work are inadequate in capturing the contemporary nature of work. As such, the paper's intent is to collate a multi-disciplinary perspective of work including its conceptual boundaries. To this end, a scoping review was deemed an appropriate initial research method.

Tricco et al . (2016) further indicate that scoping reviews are helpful in exploring evidence to inform future research. The purpose of this paper aligns with the motivation to conduct a preliminary study that (1) recognises the conceptual limitations of current definitions of work, (2) identifies underlying dimensions and parameters of what may constitute a contemporary, multi-disciplinary definition and (3) stimulates future discourse and research in order to contribute to theory.

In contrast to a systematic literature review, where the investigation is structured and defined by narrow parameters to exhaustively answer a clearly defined question, a scoping review can utilise a flexible approach to search for descriptive meaning surrounding a topic of interest setting a foundation for further research ( Peters et al ., 2015 ). Similarly, while an integrative review seeks to provide a comprehensive and holistic understanding of a particular topic in order to generate new theory ( Torraco, 2005 ), a scoping review is a preliminary assessment of the nature of the phenomenon and may inform a more exhaustive review ( Grant and Booth, 2009 ). As the intent of this paper is to stimulate further discourse and future research, a scoping review was deemed an appropriate approach.

Identifying the research question;

Identifying the relevant studies and study selection (i.e. inclusion criteria);

Study selection;

Charting the data;

Collating, summarizing and reporting the results;

Step 1: Identifying the research question

The key premise of this paper is that work is an “area in philosophy where progress has stalled” ( Deranty, 2009 , p. 70), yet its nature is irrevocably changing. Further, those previously dominant definitions of work do not adequately capture its current nature. In order to address this apparent stagnation despite very clear indications to those certain paradigms continue to frame academic discourse, the primary purpose of this scoping literature review was to identify and examine current definitions or pseudo-definitions of work within a multi-disciplinary context. This was deemed necessary as definitions typically inform the theories of disciplines and the operationalisation of concepts which, in the case of “work”, have arguably led to the fragmented nature of current research.

The question that the scoping review seeks to address is What are the definitions of “ work ” in peer reviewed literature and do they capture the broad and rapidly changing nature of work in the 21 st century?

Step 2: Identifying the relevant studies and study selection (i.e. inclusion criteria)

Decisions have to be made at the outset about the coverage of the scoping review ( Peters et al ., 2020 ). These are determined based on the purpose of the review and within the constraints of resources and time. The search strategy for this paper adopted Peters et al .'s (2020) three-stage process: (1) initial search of multiple databases to determine the extent of use of the term “work”; (2) an analysis of the key words “definition of work” and “work is defined as” as contained in retrieved papers and (3) search of the reference list of retrieved papers to identify additional sources.

As this study is concerned with definitions of work as presented and cited in academic literature, only peer-reviewed published academic articles related directly to the definition or description of work were considered. Grey literature was not included as the study sought to identify definitions as peer reviewed and cited in mainstream disciplines.

The point of departure for the review was that if the notion of work is universal in nature, its definition should be clear, be current and not be constrained by disciplinary boundaries. As such, search results across all disciplines were considered.

Step 3: Study selection

Due to the preliminary nature of a scoping review, two main databases were selected for the review search. A number of databases were considered including Google Scholar, Primo.exlibris, Scopus and Web of Science. It was deemed that due to the preliminary nature of the study, Google Scholar and Primo.exlibris would provide sufficient coverage and avoid duplication of the results.

A Google Scholar search yielded approximately 19,300 results that referred to meanings attributed to “work”. These mostly included articles associated with “the meaning of work”, “organising work”, “psychology of work”, “employment and work”, “work productivity”, “socialisation of work” and “workplace”, and search for academic publications between 2010 and 2020 yielded 9,920 results reflecting these different fields. These results confirmed the vast breadth and application of the notion of work, yet few moved beyond being descriptive and actually defined ”work”.

A second search using Primo.exlibris group for the term “definition of work” yielded 157 results. These papers were cross-checked with the results from the Google Scholar search. After applying a test that the paper must contain the phrases “work is defined as” or “the definition of work is”, 22 papers and two UN Charters were left to review.

Step 4: Charting the data

Step 4 identifies and presents the definitions and main themes that have emerged from the selected literature. A thematic analysis of retrieved sources was conducted that sought to identify the main themes that were associated with “work”. These definitions and themes have been tabulated and presented in Table 2 .

Step 5: Collating, summarizing and reporting the results

Based on the key literature identified in step 4, the data were collated and presented for analysis.

6. Summary and analysis of results

From this preliminary scan of the literature as presented in Table 2 , there are indications that work has predominantly been defined in terms of its being associated with the workplace, remuneration and employment. In contrast, some mention has been made of the need to adopt a more holistic view ( Veltman, 2015 ), understand work as a mental and physical human activity common to all humans ( Quey, 1968 ), identify work as fundamentally inherent to all people's lives ( Harpaz and Fu, 2002 ), be inclusive of all workers within a broader experiential and psychological context ( Duffy et al ., 2016 ), see work as relational made up of social interactions ( Blustein et al ., 2019 ) and see work as critical in the development of all individuals ( Blustein et al ., 2019 ; Duckenfield and Stirner, 1992 ; Issa, 2014 ; Duckenfield and Stirner, 1992 ; Issa, 2014 ; Duffy et al ., 2016 ; Mikkonen et al. , 2017 ; Blustein et al ., 2019 ).

It appears that there is growing recognition that work is a complex relational dynamic rather than a purely transactional exchange ( Richardson, 1993 ; Casey, 1995 ; Provis, 2009 ; Blustein, 2013 ; Veltman, 2016 ; Blustein et al ., 2019 ). Not all work is remunerated ( Duffy et al ., 2016 ).

Three papers discuss the nature of the definitions of work. As noted earlier, Deranty (2009) points to the conceptual confusion associated with “work” and that its philosophical development has stalled. He suggests that “today the area [of work] suffers from added conceptual confusion since economic theory, operating with an ultra-thin definition of work, has come to occupy a position of quasi-hegemony in policy debates and is pressing its claim for sole authority in the other social sciences” ( Deranty, 2009 , p. 70). Dejours' perspective was that work can be constitutive and normative and rejects the notion that work is only functional and instrumental ( 2002 , 2007 ). The observation justifies the criticism that not all work is transactional and related to economic precepts but rather that its description should be broader and normative so as to capture the full human experience of work.

Blustein recognises the social aspects of work especially in its being relational in nature ( 2011 , 2013 ). The “real world” of work impacts people's lives, and he asserts that the sociology of work cannot be ignored. The dynamic human interchanges and interactions (both positive and negative) that occur during work processes help to define the nature of work.

The main themes associated with work that were identified include the following.

6.1 Work as employment

Veltman (2016) points out that work can be autonomous or lack autonomy such as that conducted by the stay-at-home parent, family carers, slaves, volunteers or the subsistence farmer, amongst others. Work that lacks autonomy largely falls outside the parameters of employment. One is compelled to agree that despite not being employed and largely unpaid, such work influences agency, identity and self-worth but is not easily definable ( Geens and Vandenbroeck, 2014 ; Pfau-Effinger et al ., 2009 ). Albeit that most work is in the form of employment, definitions of work that make employment defining conditions to qualify as work are flawed. It is necessary to frame future discourse in a way that is able to accommodate unpaid work and work outside of employment.

6.2 Work and the workplace

It is increasingly apparent, especially as illustrated by the COVID-19 pandemic, that the notion of workplace is fluid ( Issa, 2014 , Veltman, 2016 ) and probably better described in terms of a “space within which work takes place”. A spatial model for work, as Harrison and Dourish (1996) argued, includes features of relational orientation, proximity, partitioning and presence relative to the real world. The creation and existence of new spaces where “work” is carried out encompass new behavioural and collaborative interactions that have become exponentially more prevalent. Workplaces, as locales of organised work, are still predominant but are no longer an apt or defining feature of work. Instead, it is suggested that space for working is three dimensional, with multiple determinants and possibilities of how that space is organised into a locale including the digital environment that locates human action and behaviours ( Harrison and Dourish, 1996 , p. 69). Dourish (2006 , p. 300) further concludes that “digital technologies have colonized other locations and other aspects of life” including that of work.

6.3 Work as ubiquitous

Quey (1968 , p. 223) defined work as “purposeful mental and physical human activity which deliberately points beyond the present”. Richardson broadened the definition of work as “embedded in family and personal lives, as well as in paid employment” ( 1993 p. 431). All people work as noted by Veltman (2016) .

6.4 Work as relational

Blustein (2011 , 2013) and Blustein et al . (2019) have appropriately concentrated on exploring aspects of the psychology of work to strengthen and theorise the importance of human relationship as experienced in the context of work. They suggests that “work-based decisions, transitions, and experiences are not simply the expression of individual agency, but are rooted in interactions with a broad array of external influences … new theoretical positions are needed for the 21st century that encompass an expanded vision of working along with an integrative understanding of the complex, reciprocal relationships between work and other life domains” ( Blustein, 2013 , pp. 1–2). Blustein therefore agrees that due to the dramatic global societal changes of this century, a new, holistic theoretical position is needed to accurately describe work.

6.5 Work and meaningfulness

Work is also one of the most significant contributing factors to one’s inner life and development … Work is the means by which we form our character and complete ourselves as persons … Work is the yardstick by which we measure ourselves against others. It is the means by which we establish our rank, role, and function within a community. Work not only conditions our lives; it is the necessary condition for life ( Gini, 2001 , pp. 2–3).

There is general agreement in the papers sourced that work needs to offer meaning. That said, not all work may be very meaningful and certain forms of work may confound the idea that work has any formative value.

6.6 Work and career

In the early 1900s, the term “career” aligned with the choice and development of a vocation and a career path often determined by an organisation. However, there has been a significant shift over the last few decades in that individuals are now mostly responsible for the development of their own career or, more recently, different careers ( European Foundation of Management Development, 2012 ). The variability of careers and transferability of skills have made career changes more common and less definable as categories work. Instead, it has been recognised since the later stages of the 20th century that “developmental considerations need to be shifted from a focus on career to a more central focus on the individual” ( Richardson, 1993 , p. 431).

Blustein similarly differentiated working from the notion of a career. He notes ( 2011 , p. 3) that the “conceptual view of working is not meant to replace the notion of career; rather, working is viewed as set of activities that, under optimal circumstances, may yield greater volition levels in educational and work-based options”. These activities may culminate in a particular career, but the work itself is not defined by it.

6.7 Work and well-being

Sigmund Freud believed that work was an essential and a fundamentally human characteristic, describing it as a “pillar of a healthy life”. Duffy and Dik (2013) , in defining work as a “calling”, propose a linkage between work-related and general well-being outcomes. They indicate that connecting one's work with a tangible, pro-socially oriented purpose rather than a career is more relevant in modern times. Simpson (1986 , p. 563) warns that “the field of industrial sociology (work and occupations) has shifted from work and workers to economic concerns, and has transformed our conception of the worker from a social actor to a passive object acted on by macro level forces”. Indeed, Cho (2020) suggests that work should instead be determined in terms of role boundaries that impact health outcomes rather than economic considerations only. He points out the negative health outcomes that result from work that falls outside of role boundaries as perceived by the individual. Duffy and Dik (2013 , p. 140) conclude that conceptions of work should be “inclusive of all workers, capturing the primarily contextual and secondarily psychological variables that impact the ability to secure decent work, satisfy needs, and experience work fulfilment and well-being”.

6.8 Work and remuneration

Traditionally, remuneration refers to the way in which employees are rewarded in exchange for their efforts ( Kessler, 2000 ). Bloom and Milkovich (1992 , p. 22) defined remuneration as a “bundle of returns offered in exchange for a cluster of employee contributions”. The transactional nature of remuneration has thus traditionally framed work as a product of one's effort in exchange for financial rewards. This perspective of work is overwhelmingly still referred to as defining work (and is able to accommodate the nuances and shifts described above). However, it has also been observed that a view fixated on the transactional nature of work threatens the inherent meaning, social and individual value of work by becoming commoditised and packaged to reflect financial value ( Cho, 2020 ). As such, remuneration is mostly seen as the organisation of a payroll system in relation to a performance assessment system of work outcomes ( Sardjana et al ., 2019 ) rather than work relative to human capability, expression of professional identity or agency and self-realisation. This standard view has also driven much of the research on work especially as it relates to enhancing productivity, processes and costs/benefits (See, e.g. Martono et al. , 2018 ).

Despite sufficient evidence and recognition in the literature that (1) work may take place in the absence of remuneration ( Veltman, 2016 ), (2) work is a service to society and a community ( Issa, 2014 ) and (3) work is relational and an expression of self-determination including the “full spectrum of work that people do to survive” ( Blustein, 2011 , p. 3), a consensual and holistic definition of work that includes these perspectives remains elusive.

6.9 Work as innate function

Harpaz and Fu (2002 , p. 569) note that “work constitutes a pivotal and fundamental component of people's lives”. Blustein's (2011 , p. 3) examination of the definition of work includes additional concepts such as “working is a central aspect of life, providing a source of structure, a means of survival, connection to others and optimally a means of self-determination”.

In summary, work is not constrained by employment, place, remuneration or career even though it is often linked to these notions. The next section discusses emergent perspectives about work in the scholarly literature.

7. Discussion

Monumental changes have taken place in the way work and workers are conceived throughout the period of industrial modernisation. The literature reflects these shifts from early 19th century works to more recent studies. A thematic analysis of located literature identified using a scoping review methodology is presented above. The analysis identified themes associated with work conceived in studies in terms of employment, the workplace, being ubiquitous, being relational, being meaningful, career, well-being, remuneration and as an innate human function. Despite the array of themes, they have not been assimilated into a cohesive concept that balances the internal (individual, human centric and experiential) perspectives of work with the external (contextual and economic) conceptions of work.

Commentators are increasingly acknowledging that the values and attributes of dignity, equality and mutual respect are important conditions for decent work. This has allowed more recent extensions of studies of “work” to include individual interests in the development of knowledge and capabilities ( European Foundation of Management Development, 2012 ; Gherardi, 2009 ; Smith, 2001 ); human-centric resource management ( Dal Poz et al. , 2009 ); work as an expression of human foresight, intentionality and self-reflectiveness ( Dik and Duffy, 2009 ); qualities of leadership in the workplace ( Gill, 2002 ; Kumar, 2015 ); emotions and organisational behaviour ( Benozzo and Colley, 2012 ) and workplace reflection ( Nilsen et al. , 2012 ), amongst others.

Despite the emergence of these perspectives in more recent studies, the traditional understanding of work defined in terms of employment and economic rationalism continue to guide dominant discourses despite no longer being universally applicable ( Veltman, 2016 ). However, the literature does agree across disciplines that work is largely relational in nature ( Blustein et al ., 2019 ) and is a social construct that differs according to context and culture ( Cruess and Cruess, 2016 ).

Dik and Duffy (2009) argue there is congruence between work and the subjective perceptions of life satisfaction and vocational identity/conditions. These are not solely aspirational but functional, thus representing a spectrum of internal individual experiences and external functional conditions and metrics with which it can be perceived. The point being made is that humans' perception of work and their response to it is experiential and relative to their environment but functions within a rational and instrumental context. Blustein et al . (2019 , p. 5) expand on this by suggesting that the Psychology of Working Framework focuses on the “role of social connections throughout many aspects of contemporary working … the relational theory present(s) a set of propositions about the interpersonal and social contexts of working, encompassing relationships throughout the life span”. This reinforces the idea of an internal and external dichotomy framing how work can be conceived.

Employment was often historically associated with achieving one's career, worth or identity through work and employment ( Gini, 2001 ; Tausig, 2013 ). However, as Pouyaud (2016 , p. 12) states, “Work [employment] has become increasingly precarious and constraining. This change does not only concern the poorest countries, where work may not even allow survival, but also rich ones, where work has become a form of alienation, even if it provides sufficient income”. There is growing awareness that work is increasingly able to alienate individuals from society especially when the work is ad hoc and conducted in virtual spaces. Despite this awareness, the conceptualisation of work in the literature is not yet broad enough to inform these new lines of enquiry.

Arguably, the world of work serves to broaden the individual's experience and its influence on self-esteem, self-worth and the individual's physical and psychological well-being ( Burke, 2012 ; Kuhnert and Palmer, 1991 ). Meaningful work is closely associated with worker well-being ( Steger et al ., 2012 ) and increasingly extends beyond the traditional parameters of workplace. Well-being can be associated with positive relationships; personal growth; purpose in life; environmental mastery; self-acceptance; and autonomy ( Wright and Huang, 2012 ) or by its components such as psychological well-being (e.g. happiness), physical well-being (e.g. health) and social well-being (e.g. friendships and human interaction) ( Grant et al. , 2007 ). The interpretation of well-being, happiness and life satisfaction are terms increasingly associated with meaningful work ( Steger et al. , 2009 ) and require further investigation across different physical, social and political structures and economic systems ( Selezneva, 2011 ). Broadening the conceptualisation of work therefore is necessary to be more representative of the lived experience of work while being more inclusive of different forms of work that fall outside of employment.

Work experiences are based on the interaction between the person and his or her environment. Experiences are influenced by the confluence of an individual's desires, needs, purpose and capacities and the individual's environment, i.e. the world, both physically and increasingly digital. Provis (2009) notes that in the past, the notion of work was primarily given meaning within the context of an institution and/or workplace. This arguably is embedded in the idea that one's place of work and institution shapes the identity of individuals. Based on these interactions with their environment, individuals learn to improvise, revise and create new ways of deriving meaning from their experiences ( Fouad and Bynner, 2008 ). All forms of work result in individual experiences, both positive and negative. These experiences inform the way individuals behave, both consciously and subconsciously. Associated with learned behaviours influenced by work experiences, Smith (2017) notes that workers are, in essence, learners and that they learn through the activities that make up work.

Fouad and Bynner (2008 , p. 241) conclude that “work has a central place in adult life and in shaping individuals' identities.” Identity is defined as self-categorisation in the formation of one's identity, in which categorisation depends upon a named and classified world which includes terms learned within a culture ( Brenner and DeLamater, 2016 ; Stets and Burke, 2000 ). Cultures that shape personal identity include workplaces and institutional cultures ( Angouri, 2018 ) which have symbols used to designate positions in social structures and are described as roles ( Stets and Burke, 2000 ). Gini (2001 , pp. 2–3) agrees and states that “work is the yardstick by which we measure ourselves against others. It is the means by which we establish our rank, role, and function within a community.” This dynamic and effect of work on identity is not well captured within the context of work framed by employment, productivity and remuneration. Certainly with the significant shift towards remote and digitally enabled work, the associated effect on self-identity is of interest.

With the dynamic changes in work described earlier and its more subjective interpretation as suggested in emerging literature, it can be proposed that the cultural symbols that dominated identity formation in the past will have shifted and have become confounded. As an example, the physical determinations of workplaces, such as the executive corner office or one's position in a production line, are no longer as deterministic of identity as before. Similarly, increasingly different forms of work experienced by individuals in the 21st century suggest that new cultural “symbols” will inform identity formation. A broader frame of reference beyond workplaces and institutions is needed to sufficiently capture this shift.

Blustein (2013 , p. 2) alludes to these new places of work but still largely confines his definitions to workplaces as “the space shared by working and relationships is considerable, with each domain of life affecting the other, often in profound ways”. It is suggested that nature of these new “workspaces” have created new forms of relational interactions and identity formation. Figure 1 tentatively illustrates the notion of the world of work occurring within a space for thinking and doing beyond the confines of a workplace. The degree to which an individual's work takes place within a workplace is variable and may differ in proportion, but such places are often shared with others and as such lie partly or completely outside the individual's realm of thinking and doing.

Lefebvre (1996) outlines three dimensions of learning spaces: (1) the perceived space, (2) conceived space and (3) the lived space. Extending Lefebvre's argument more broadly, the same dimensions can be applied to where work takes place. The academic discourse still largely associates work with a geographical location and the physical environment as conceived by the parameters of employment but fails to capture the broader notion of spaces where work takes place as described by Lefebvre (1996) and Dourish (2006) . Work in the home, in the park, on the golf course, in the shower or in a coffee shop can be represented as a “perceived” and “lived” workspaces and thereby prompts reconfiguring how work is associated with workplaces.

8. A tentative new definition of work

Blustein (2013 , p. 4) suggests that “this shifting context will require different conceptual and practice tools … that are designed for a radically different work context that has framed most 20th century career development theories”. This paper presents the results of a scoping review aimed at providing a preliminary clarification of the dimensions and parameters of what may constitute a contemporary, multi-disciplinary definition of work.

In response to the scoping review question, Do current definitions of work capture the broad and rapidly changing nature of work in the 21st century? , the results of this review suggest that there have been calls for a more contemporary approach to studies of work reflecting the significant shifts that have been taken/are taking place. The literature notes that there are numerous instances of work that are not captured by mainstream definitions of work. From the preliminary review, the paper suggests that the dominant themes of employment, remuneration, workplace and career, among others, are “external” contexts of work and that these interact with the “internal” dimensions of work.

Work is innate. Work is an innate human function ( Dejours, 2002 ; Dik and Duffy, 2009 ) which inherently informs the individual's life purpose and role ( Ward and King, 2017 );

Work affects well - being. Work influences well-being ( Dejours, 2002 ; Deranty, 2009 ; Duffy and Dik, 2013 ; Duffy et al ., 2017 );

Work is relational. Work is relational ( Blustein, 2011 , 2013 ; Richardson, 1993 ) and is manifest through various socialisation processes ( Dejours, 2002 ; Deranty, 2009 ; Veltman, 2015 );

Work is identity. Work is driven by personal and societal codes of ethos and praxis ( Fergusson et al ., 2019 ), which in turn is manifest through one's expression of professional or vocational identity ( Savickas et al ., 2009 ; Ward and King, 2017 ) and/or social service ( Issa, 2014 ) and

Work is learning. Workers are learners, and they learn through the activities that make up work (Smith, 2017). Learning through work is a product of the subjective experience of the worker ( Dewey, 1938 ) as they derive meaning ( Fouad and Bynner, 2008 ) from the interactions within the contexts of work ( Rodgers, 2003 ).

Building on the analysis and argument extracted from the aforementioned literature, it is proposed that the definitional perspective suggested by this paper contributes to (1) justifying a delineation of the definition and study of work in order to addresses redundant assumptions associated with dominant paradigms in a vastly changed approach to and modality of work and (2) developing a more inclusive approach that is a more accurate description of work. To this end, a summary is proposed that may inform a new definition of work: Work is an innate human function which inherently informs the individual's life purpose and role; work is relational and is manifest through various socialisation processes comprising interactions with the contexts of work, deriving meaning from conscious thought and activity and/or efforts, and is driven by personal and societal codes of ethos and praxis which in turn is manifest in the expression of one's work and social service, while influencing one's well - being .

8.1 Conclusion

The dramatic changes to the nature, context and manifestations of work evident in this century show no signs of being linear or reducing in the rate of change. Rather, exponential and material changes in the way humans work are anticipated and require proactive research and design for future application. Failing this, emerging threats to the autonomy of individuals and humanity are possible.

We have argued that work can no longer be primarily defined in terms of place, employment, productivity or remuneration. Our scoping review of the literature establishes that previously dominant conceptualisations and lines of enquiry of work do not adequately capture the contemporary nature of work, its diversity of the forms it takes, and may be redundant in certain contexts. Instead, this review identified emerging dimensions of work, such as the innate nature of work, work and well-being, work as identity and learning as common underlying dimensions of work that interact with contexts of work.

Guided by the notion of thin and thick definitions of work, the paper provides insights into the convergent and divergent perspectives associated with how work is described in the extant literature. The literature suggests there needs to be better consensus on the definition of work and its meaning as these have far-reaching implications for future research and society more generally.

This study thus proposes that understanding work at the individual unit of analysis in terms of the dimensions of work and contexts of work is more meaningful than current, bounded disciplinary paradigms. This paper seeks to stimulate discourse and lead to more meaningful, future research, particularly across the areas of sociology, psychology, education, health and economics. The implications of the paper do not necessarily exclude helpful perspectives associated with the rational economics of work. Rather, it seeks to encapsulate a holistic perspective that may better understand and organise work in the future.

It is proposed that future research critically considers the summary definition proposed by the paper. The dimensions identified should also be tested in order to develop greater consensus on a contemporary definition. Further, it is suggested that new lines of enquiry emerge that include comprehensive reviews, qualitative and quantitative studies that seek to confirm, develop and elaborate on the taxonomy of work and its underlying dimensions suggested by the paper. It is noted that the paper is a preliminary investigation of the literature aimed to inform future research by proposing a taxonomy of work and tentative definition.

The interface of individual and work occurring within a workplace and more generally within a space for thinking and doing

Illustration of the interaction between “contexts of work” and “dimensions of work”

Thin or thick definitions to explain the world of work