Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 156, Issue 4, pp 1045–1061 | Cite as

Generational Differences in Definitions of Meaningful Work: A Mixed Methods Study

  • Kelly Pledger WeeksEmail author
  • Caitlin Schaffert
Original Paper

Abstract

The search for meaningful work has been of interest to researchers from a variety of disciplines for decades and seems to have grown even more recently. Much of the literature assumes that employees share a sense of what is meaningful in work and there isn’t much attention given to how and why meanings might differ (Rosso et al. in Res Organ Behav 30:91–127, 2010). Researchers have not only called for more research studying demographic differences in definitions of meaning (e.g., Michaelson et al. in J Bus Ethics 121(1):77–90, 2014), but also more research utilizing mixed methods to study psychological concepts like meaningful work (e.g., Eid and Diener, in Eid, Diener (eds) Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology, American Psychological Association, Washington, 2006). This study specifically examines differences across generational cohorts on their prioritization of sources of meaningful work through qualitative, in-depth interviews followed by a more generalizable, quantitative survey. Findings from the qualitative study show that generational cohorts define the meaning in their jobs differently, and they hold negative perceptions about the lack of desire for meaning in each of the other cohorts. Study 2 maps generational cohorts on the comprehensive model of meaningful work designed by Lips-Wiersma and Morris (J Bus Ethics 88(3):491–511, 2009) to reveal that although there are some differences in prioritization of sources of meaningful work, all generational cohorts share similar desire to “develop and become themselves” when asked about their definitions of meaningful work. Implications and future research are discussed.

Keywords

Generational differences Meaningful work Mixed methods design Stereotypes 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Arneson, R. J. (1987). Meaningful work and market socialism. Ethics, 97(3), 517–545.Google Scholar
  2. Arsenault, P. (2004). Validating generational differences: A legitimate diversity and leadership issue. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25(1/2), 124–141.Google Scholar
  3. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in western man. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bartlett, C. J., Quay, L. C., & Wrightsman, L. S., Jr. (1960). A comparison of two methods of attitude measurement: Likert-type and forced choice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(4), 699–704.Google Scholar
  5. Beadle, R., & Knight, K. (2012). Virtue and meaningful work. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 433–450.Google Scholar
  6. Becton, J. B., Waker, H. J., & Jones-Farmer, A. (2014). Generational differences in workplace behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(3), 175–189.Google Scholar
  7. Biggs, S., & Lowenstein, A. (2011). Generational intelligence: A critical approach to age relations. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Bowie, N. E. (1998). A Kantian theory of meaningful work. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(9/10), 1083–1092.Google Scholar
  9. Brief, A. P., Brett, J. F., Futter, D., & Stein, E. (1997). Feeling economically dependent on one’s job: It’s origins and functions with regard to worker well-being. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(15), 1303–1307.Google Scholar
  10. Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings and the dual edges of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 32–57.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, W. K., Campbell, S. M., Siedor, L. E., & Twenge, J. M. (2015). Generational differences are real and useful. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 324–331.Google Scholar
  12. Cardador, M. T., Dane, E., & Pratt, M. G. (2011). Linking calling orientations to organizational attachment via organizational instrumentality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 367–378.Google Scholar
  13. Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156–2160.Google Scholar
  14. Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person-organization values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 891–906.Google Scholar
  15. Chalofsky, N., & Cavallaro, L. (2013). A good living versus a good life: Meaning, purpose, and HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15(4), 331–340.Google Scholar
  16. Constanza, D. P., & Finklestein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based differences in the workplace: Is there a there there? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 308–323.Google Scholar
  17. Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2006). The need for multimethod measurement in psychology. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 3–8). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  18. Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287–322.Google Scholar
  19. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Hirschi, A. (2012). Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation model of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 479–485.Google Scholar
  21. Hoole, C., & Bonnema, J. (2015). Work engagement and meaningful work across generational cohorts. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.Google Scholar
  23. Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., Franz, G., & Martocchio, J. J. (2010). Unpacking generational identities in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 392–414.Google Scholar
  24. Kovacs, G. (1986). Phenomenology of work and self-transcendence. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 20(3), 195–207.Google Scholar
  25. Lips-Wiersma, M., & Morris, L. (2009). Meaningful work’ and the ‘management of meaning. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 491–511.Google Scholar
  26. Lips-Wiersma, M., & Wright, S. (2012). Measuring the meaning of meaningful work: Development and validation of the comprehensive meaningful work scale. Group and Organizational Management, 37(5), 655–685.Google Scholar
  27. Lopez, F. G., & Ramos, K. (2016). An exploration of gender and career stage differences on a multidimensional measure of work meaningfulness. Journal of Career Assessment, online first publication.. doi: 10.1177/1069072716639851.Google Scholar
  28. Lyons, S. T., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S139–S157.Google Scholar
  29. Lyons, S. T., & Schweitzer, L. (2017). A qualitative exploration of generational identity: Making sense of young and old in the context of today’s workplace. Work, Aging, and Retirement, 3(2), 209–224.Google Scholar
  30. Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. Psychoanalytic Review, 57(3), 378–404.Google Scholar
  31. May, D. R., Gilson, L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11–37.Google Scholar
  32. Michaelson, C. (2009). Teaching meaningful work: Philosophical discussions on the ethics of career choice. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 6, 43–67.Google Scholar
  33. Michaelson, C. (2011). Whose responsibility is meaningful work? Journal of Management Development, 30(6), 548–557.Google Scholar
  34. Michaelson, C., Pratt, M. G., Grant, A. M., & Dunn, C. P. (2014). Meaningful work: Connecting business ethics and organization studies. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(1), 77–90.Google Scholar
  35. Munn, S. L. (2013). Unveiling the work-life system: The influence of work-life balance on meaningful work. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 15(4), 401.Google Scholar
  36. Paloacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the turk: Understanding mechanical turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188.Google Scholar
  37. Pfeffer, J., Hatano, T., & Santalainen, T. (1995). Producing sustainable competitive advantage through the effe. The Academy of Management Executive, 9(1), 55.Google Scholar
  38. Piccolo, R. F., & Colquitt, J. A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327–340.Google Scholar
  39. 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: Berret-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (pp. 157–177). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. Scroggins, W. A. (2008). Antecedents and outcomes of experienced meaningful work: A person-job fit perspective. Journal of Business Inquiry, 7, 68–78.Google Scholar
  43. Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363–382.Google Scholar
  44. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.Google Scholar
  45. Sullivan, S. E., Forret, M. L., Carraher, S. M., & Mainiero, L. A. (2009). Using the kaleidoscope career model to examine generational differences in work attitudes. Career Development International, 14(3), 284–302.Google Scholar
  46. Thory, K. (2016). Developing meaningfulness at work through emotional intelligence training. International Journal of Training and Development, 20(1), 58–77.Google Scholar
  47. Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business Psychology, 25(2), 201–210.Google Scholar
  48. Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational differences in work values: leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117–1142.Google Scholar
  49. Urick, M. J., Hollensbe, E. C., Masterson, S. S., & Lyons, S. T. (2017). Understanding and managing intergenerational conflict: An examination of influences and strategies. Work, Aging, and Retirement, 3(2), 166–185.Google Scholar
  50. Weeks, K. P., Weeks, M., & Long, N. (2017). Generational perceptions at work: in-group favoritism and out-group stereotypes. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 36(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  51. Wrzesniewski, A. (2002). “It’s not just a job”: Shifting meanings of work in the wake of 9/11. Journal of Managerial Inquiry, 11(3), 230–234.Google Scholar
  52. Yeoman, R. (2014). Conceptualizing meaningful work as a fundamental human need. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 235–251.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rhodes CollegeMemphisUSA
  2. 2.Centenary College of LouisianaGrapevineUSA

Personalised recommendations