Abstract
Purpose
This study examines the relationship between the use of management controls and the perception of meaningful work. Meaningful work is an important driver of individual performance of managers, and employees and can be enabled by sufficient use of management controls. The purpose of this paper is to address this issue.
Design/methodology/approach
Based on bibliometric analyses and a structured literature review of academic research studies from the organizational, management and accounting literature, the authors develop a conceptual model of the relationship between the use of management controls and the perception of meaningful work.
Findings
First, the authors propose that the use of formal management controls in a system (i.e. the levers of the control framework) is more powerful than using unrelated formal controls only. Second, they suggest that the interaction of a formal control system together with informal controls working as a control package can even stretch the perception of meaningful work. Third, they argue that the intensity of the control use matters to enhance the perception of meaningful work (inverted u-shaped relationship).
Originality/value
This study presents the first conceptual model of the relationship between the use of management controls and the perception of meaningful work. It provides valuable implications for practice and future research in the field of performance management.
Keywords
Citation
Burghardt, J. and Möller, K. (2023), "The use of management controls to enhance the perception of meaningful work – a systematic literature review and conceptional model development", Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 209-255. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAL-07-2022-0073
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2022, Emerald Publishing Limited
1. Introduction
Meaningful work is defined as the assessment that one's work achieves purposeful, valuable or worthwhile goals that are consistent with one's values (Allan et al., 2019), and it is a significant driver of motivation, work engagement (Allan et al., 2019; Barrick et al., 2015; Rich et al., 2010) and individual performance (Gartenberg et al., 2019; Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Wrzesniewski, 2003). Research on meaningful work is growing (Amabile and Pratt, 2016; Bailey et al., 2017; Lysova et al., 2019; Steger et al., 2012). It is still unclear how and under what circumstances meaningful work can be enabled by management (Bailey et al., 2017).
This study aims to address whether and how the use of management controls can influence the perception of meaningful work by managers and employees. First, we draw on insights from the management control literature on control design choices and its use (Bedford, 2020; Gerdin, 2020; Grabner and Moers, 2013; Kruis et al., 2016; Malmi and Brown, 2008) to examine the relationship between management controls and meaningful work as an outcome. We focus on control design choices such as enabling versus coercive uses, considerations of systems or packages, the involvement of informal controls to formal systems and the intensity of use of controls.
Second, we use bibliometric and structured literature review techniques to determine the conceptualization, antecedents and limits of meaningful work. We conduct a citation analysis and a keyword co-occurrence analysis to examine the underlying steams. The citation analysis shows that the literature is highly fragmented and new theories are still emerging. The keyword co-occurrence analysis (van Eck and Waltman, 2014; van Eck et al., 2010) reveals four distinct clusters that are connected to meaningful work. This finding is in line with a few prior meaningful work studies that have also proposed four main dimensions of meaningful work (Bailey et al., 2017; Lips-Wiersma and Wright, 2012; Rosso et al., 2010; Steger et al., 2012). Next to the bibliometric analysis, we gain further insights on antecedents and limits of meaningful work with a structured literature search.
With these findings and the theoretical knowledge from the management control literature, we develop a conceptual model of a non-linear, inverted u-shaped relationship between the use of controls and the perception of meaningful work. We propose that the use of enabling formal controls in a system, rather than used independently, can enhance the perception of meaningful work. Thus, management needs to design and implement control practices that address the different dimensions of meaningful work. We apply the levers of control (LOC) framework (Simons, 1994, 1995). We propose that beliefs and interactive levers may offer shared vision and community, and higher levels of autonomy, skill variety and task significance. Additionally, the diagnostic and boundary levers provide structure, set clear expectations and give resources and feedback.
We also propose that this positive relationship can even be stretched by the interaction of these formal controls with informal controls as an enabling control package. Recent management accounting studies started analysing the interactions of informal controls and formal systems (Evans and Tucker, 2015; Ferreira and Otley, 2009; Gerdin et al., 2019; Pfister and Lukka, 2019). Informal controls are less well-defined practices, routines, social relationships, cultures, links or loose connections between individuals (Chenhall et al., 2010). Especially the worker-centric dimensions of meaningful work can be facilitated by informal interactions (Carton, 2018; Grant, 2007, 2012; Tepper et al., 2018).
The intensity of use of controls is important, as well. We propose that after a certain degree of intensity, the positive relationship between the use of management controls and the perception of meaningful work will decrease. We rely on the too-much-of-a-good-thing (TMGT) effect that suggests that antecedent variables widely accepted as directing to desirable outcomes can lead to negative effects in practice (Pierce and Aguinis, 2013). The meaningful work literature notices that the perception of meaningful work can quickly shift to meaningless work when employees perceive a lack of self-control (Cartwright and Holmes, 2006; Lips-Wiersma and Wright, 2012), feel monitored (Stein et al., 2019) or pressured (Amabile and Pratt, 2016; Bunderson and Thompson, 2009).
Our study contributes to the literature in several ways. We contribute to the research stream that suggests that it matters how controls are perceived by employees to influence behavioural outcomes (Mahama and Cheng, 2013; Speklé et al., 2017; Tessier and Otley, 2012). Especially, we contribute to the stream that regards enabling control configurations (Ahrens and Chapman, 2004; Franco-Santos and Doherty, 2017; Wouters and Wilderom, 2008). Further, we contribute to the management accounting literature that examines the LOC framework (Kruis et al., 2016; Speklé et al., 2017; Widener, 2007). We also add knowledge to research that focusses on the configurations of formal and informal controls as a package (Evans and Tucker, 2015; Ferreira and Otley, 2009; Gerdin et al., 2019; Malmi and Brown, 2008; Pfister and Lukka, 2019). Besides, we follow calls of the recent management accounting literature to consider capturing non-linear models (Bedford, 2020; Burkert et al., 2014; Luft and Shields, 2003), and thereby, we contribute to a small but growing stream of the accounting literature that focusses on non-linear relationships (Gordon and Smith, 1992; Heggen and Sridharan, 2021; Sturman, 2003; Voußem et al., 2016).
This paper proceeds as follows. In Section 2, we discuss the theoretical basis of design choices and use of management controls. Section 3 explains the methodology to review the meaningful work construct. In Section 4, we present the findings of our reviews and outline organizational mechanisms that drive or trouble the perception of meaningful work. In Section 5, we develop a conceptual model of how management controls affect the perception of meaningful work and pose our propositions. In Section 6, we discuss the findings along with implications, limitations and suggestions for further research.
2. Background of management control designs and use
Organizations can articulate how work serves a valued purpose (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003, p. 321). By promoting a clear corporate purpose, organizations give employees a system of values (Rosso et al., 2010, p. 111), job design initiatives (Hackman and Oldham, 1980) and regular feedback on their performance (Bailey et al., 2017), and they make clear how employees' work have an impact on others (De Boeck et al., 2019, p. 553). So, a well matched set of controls can form the organizational environment to enhance meaningful work. Busco et al. (2018) suggest that management accountants can use management controls as a powerful and positive tool for aligning a meaningful purpose with sustainable, value creating business models if these controls are well designed.
One central aspect in the management control literature lies on control design attributes to enhance the effect and quality of controls (Bedford, 2020; Gerdin, 2020; Grabner and Moers, 2013; Kruis et al., 2016; Malmi and Brown, 2008). From a contingency perspective (Otley, 1980, 1999), there is no universally applicable management control formulation. The theory argues that the choice of appropriate control techniques is determined by contextual factors, and each organization needs to design own control configurations to avoid a loss of control and unintended consequences – e.g. the loss of meaningful work (Bedford et al., 2016; Chenhall, 2003; Franco-Santos and Otley, 2018; Gerdin, 2005). Next to the design of certain management control practices, their introduction and daily use by management is of central importance (Ferreira and Otley, 2009; Merchant and Otley, 2020; Wouters and Wilderom, 2008). We therefore define design as the plan (“the What”) and use as the implementation (“the How”) of controls.
Figure 1 provides a conceptual framework of management control design and use choices that are often discussed in the management control research stream. This framework might not be complete to consider all aspects, but it aims to be used as a typology for enabling the perception of meaningful work.
First, formal control mechanisms include formal organizational practices – e.g. comprehensive performance measurement and evaluation processes, incentive compensation systems, behavioural constraints or detailed standard operating procedures (Merchant and Van der Stede, 2012). The LOC framework by Simons (1994, 1995) is a holistic system of formal management controls and a prominent approach that is frequently cited (Heinicke et al., 2016; Kruis et al., 2016; Mundy, 2010; Speklé et al., 2017; Tessier and Otley, 2012; Widener, 2007).
The framework consists of beliefs, boundary, diagnostic and interactive systems. Beliefs systems are “the explicit set of organizational definitions that senior managers communicate formally and reinforce systematically to provide basic values, purpose, and direction for the organization” (Simons, 1995, p. 34). Beliefs systems signal core values to employees to inspire and motivate them to take the initiative to seek opportunities, make decisions and find solutions to problems that are consistent with the organization's values (Mundy, 2010). Interactive systems are intended to help the organization to search for new ways to strategically position itself in a dynamic marketplace (Simons, 1995). They communicate the concerns of top managers throughout the organization (Adler and Chen, 2011). Employees become aware of where potential opportunities and threats may arise and are motivated to proactively seek new opportunities and guarding against threats (Ferreira and Otley, 2009). In contrast, boundary and diagnostic systems communicate expectations of behaviour, set limits on what is acceptable behaviour and provide feedback (Simons, 1995). Boundary controls set restrictions or minimum requirements on employee behaviour to focus the attention and motivation to critical operations (Adler and Chen, 2011). Diagnostic controls communicate targets on critical performance measures that serve to guide behaviours and provide feedback to facilitate employee learning (Simons, 1995). These systems are intended to give employees structure which influences their feelings of competence (Speklé et al., 2017).
It is noted that the power of the LOC resides not in how they are used in isolation but rather in how they complement each other when used together (Simons et al., 2000). Kruis et al. (2016) suggest that different types of balances amongst the LOCs are required based on the strategic type of the firm. Prior empirical research provided evidence that firms which jointly use all four levers are associated to have desirable organizational outcomes such as learning (Widener, 2007), development of organizational capabilities (Mundy, 2010) and creativity (Speklé et al., 2017). Therefore, the use of the LOC framework might be a way to enhance the perception of meaningful work.
Despite the theoretical prominence of the LOC, some studies noted limitations of the framework (Ferreira and Otley, 2009; Tessier and Otley, 2012) and began to examine informal controls that incorporate with formal management control systems working together as a control package (Evans and Tucker, 2015; Ferreira and Otley, 2009; Malmi and Brown, 2008; Otley, 1999). Informal controls are characterized by less clearly defined practices, social relationships, connections or loose links between individuals that facilitate free-flowing, open and flexible communication, structures and decision-making processes (Chenhall et al., 2010). Thereby, different formal and informal control configurations can be used simultaneously within an organization (Bedford, 2020; Ferreira and Otley, 2009). Prior research noted how cultural controls (Malmi and Brown, 2008) like organizational culture (Evans and Tucker, 2015; Heinicke et al., 2016; Henri, 2006) or personnel controls (Gerdin et al., 2019; Pfister and Lukka, 2019) positively interact with formal systems. The influence of organizational culture and leadership practices as informal controls may also enhance meaningful work perceptions.
Building on Adler and Borys (1996), many studies focus on enabling rather than on coercive uses of controls (Ahrens and Chapman, 2004; Burney et al., 2017; Franco-Santos and Doherty, 2017; Heggen and Sridharan, 2021; Mahama and Cheng, 2013; Wouters and Wilderom, 2008). Coercive controls aim to force employees' compliance, while enabling controls aim employees to feel facilitated or motivated by the rules and the systems in place (Wouters and Wilderom, 2008).
Furthermore, two distinct perspectives of the control design evolved in the literature. The system approach claims that control practices form a control system, when these practices are interdependent and the design choice has taken the interdependencies, i.e. complements and substitutes into account given a certain control problem (Grabner and Moers, 2013). The package approach begins with an aggregate examination of management control practices to determine which practices are more likely to be complements or substitutes, and then places these controls independently as a control package (Bedford et al., 2016; Malmi and Brown, 2008
Finally, some studies started to analyse the intensity of the use of controls and its outcomes on individuals (Widener, 2007; Mahama and Cheng, 2013; Bedford et al., 2016; Kruis et al., 2016; Speklé et al., 2017). A growing body of management studies suggest that antecedent variables widely accepted as directing to desirable consequences (e.g. an enabling work environment that might enhance the meaning of work) can lead to negative outcomes in practice (loss of meaning of work) which often represent counter-intuitive findings. This is called the TMGT effect (Pierce and Aguinis, 2013). A few recent management control studies integrated such non-linear relationships into their research models (Heggen and Sridharan, 2021; Voußem et al., 2016). For example, Heggen and Sridharan (2021) indicate an inverted u-shaped association between an enabling control approach and environmental performance. The prior literature also argues that it matters how controls are perceived by employees to influence behavioural outcomes (Mahama and Cheng, 2013; Speklé et al., 2017; Tessier and Otley, 2012). Thus, the design, interactions and intensity of the use of management controls can have important effects to enhance the perception of meaningful work which becomes more and more important in organizational practice. The preceding overview discusses diverse aspects of the control design and use from the selected literature. It does not seek to be complete but rather intends to assist drawing the relationship between the design of management controls and the perception of meaningful work to develop the conceptual model later in this study.
3. Review methods to assess meaningful work literature
We examine the most influential articles that have dealt with meaningful work in order to reveal interactions with the use of controls. We apply bibliometric techniques such as citation and keyword co-occurrence analyses combined with a cluster analysis. We also conduct a structured literature review following the recommendation of van Eck and Waltman (2014) to use bibliometric techniques as a complement to other review methods.
3.1 Bibliometric analyses
We collected our data from the Scopus database. Since we were primarily interested in the field of general business research, we limited the query to the subject area “Business, Management, and Accounting” which is a filter criterion in the database covering also other management disciplines. In addition, we focussed on English-language publications and included only published articles, press articles, conference papers, reviews, books and book chapters, which is the most promising selection of document types in the database for our search term “meaningful work” which we entered in the fields of title, abstract and keywords of documents published from 1976 (as in this year the first match for meaningful work occurred in Scopus) until 2021, inclusively. Our initial search resulted in 384 hits for each of which we downloaded the full bibliographic record. We found 319 journal articles, 45 book sections, ten books and ten conference proceedings. Within these 384 publications in total 10,261 citations were found. We summarized these publications, including citations, by four publication periods in Appendix 1. Past studies have noticed that it is most valuable to assess the impact of publications that have been cited heavily over time, since they can be regarded as certified knowledge, even if there are thousands of studies in a field (Ramos-Rodríguez and Ruíz-Navarro, 2004). Therefore, we conducted a citation analysis to identify the 100 most cited articles on the topic of meaningful work. Furthermore, we applied a keyword co-occurrence analysis that indicates relevant objects closely related to meaningful work. We used the text mining functionality of the bibliometric visualization tool VOSviewer [1] (van Eck and Waltman, 2014; van Eck et al., 2010) that extracts textual data from titles and abstracts of publications. VOSviewer provides distance-based visualizations of bibliometric networks (van Eck and Waltman, 2014). It applies the association strength normalization to normalize for differences between nodes in the number of edges (van Eck and Waltman, 2009). The mapping and clustering techniques use a variant of the Scaling by MAjorizing a COmplicated Function (SMACOF) algorithm [2] (van Eck et al., 2010; Waltman et al., 2010).
3.2 Structured literature review
A limitation of bibliometric techniques is a potential loss of information (van Eck and Waltman, 2014). Therefore, a structured literature review has been applied in this study as a second literature review technique. First, we read an ad hoc list of academic papers that focus on meaningful work aspects and management controls that might be relevant in association to meaningful work. That step of the literature review process is meant to identify the key sources of research, the type of evidence available and the main keywords required to find relevant studies. The list includes organizational behaviour and management control studies of Barrick et al. (2015), Bunderson and Thompson (2009), Gartenberg et al. (2019), Henderson and Van den Steen (2015), Hollensbe et al. (2014), Kempster et al. (2011), Lips-Wiersma and Wright (2012), Malmi and Brown (2008), Martela and Pessi (2018), Pratt and Ashforth (2003), Rich et al. (2010), Rosso et al. (2010), Simons (1994) and Thakor and Quinn (2013). After analysing the papers and their references, we found that the constructs’ meaningful work and purpose (which are often used synonymously) are mostly researched in the disciplines of organizational behaviour and strategic management. To capture management control aspects related to meaningful work, we also consider the management accounting literature. We defined following keywords for the further literature review: “beliefs systems,” “corporate purpose,” “meaningful work” and “value-based controls”. Especially “beliefs systems” and “value-based controls” are terms that are used when considering management controls on behavioural aspects in the management accounting field. The keywords aim to guide the search of relevant articles for the structured literature review.
We chose additional criteria to narrow the scope of the review. We reviewed key journals in organizational behaviour: Journal of Organizational Behavior, Organization Science, Research in Organizational Behavior, Group and Organization Management; Journal of Applied Psychology; key journals in strategy and general management: Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science Quarterly, Strategic Management Journal and Journal of Management Studies; and key journals in accounting: Accounting, Organizations and Society, The Accounting Review, Management Accounting Research, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Journal of Accounting Literature and Journal of Management Accounting Research. Selected studies can also come from the references included in any of the above-mentioned journals to avoid missing relevant studies. However, to ensure the quality of the additional studies we only included studies at a minimum B ranking according to German VHB (Verband der Hochschullehrer für Betriebswirtschaft) rating.
The review involves studies published between 1994 and 2021. We chose 1994 because of the first call for scholars to consider purpose as the essential lever to effective strategic management initiated by Bartlett and Ghoshal (1994). The authors found after extensively researching the largest companies in Europe, the USA and Japan that the most successful ones create environments which share a sense of purpose and members perceive their work as meaningful (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1994). This article sets a mind shift for “purpose, process, and people” (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1994, p. 80) and generated an increasing interest of academic research on meaningful work (see Figure 2 in the next section).
We conducted an electronic search to cover the academic literature in the chosen journals, using EBSCOhost, Web of Science, Scopus, JSTOR and WISO. We found 90 papers that met our review selection criteria. All academic sources are systematically reviewed to acquire knowledge for answering the illustrated research question (see Appendix 2).
4. Findings
The bibliometric and the structured literature reviews indicate that research on meaningful work related to business and management publications is growing in attention. Figure 2 shows the distribution of publications over the last decades from 1976 to 2021 using the output of the bibliometric search from the Scopus database. The number of studies increased considerably from the early 2000s. Most articles about meaningful work have been published in 2019 with a count of 79 publications. Most citations arise from the publication period between 2006 and 2015 with 5,802 citations.
4.1 Citation analysis of meaningful work research
Table 1 portrays the list of the 100 most influential articles in the meaningful work literature resulting from the citation analysis of the output from the Scopus database. These 100 most cited articles account for 87% of the total number of citations. This high percentage of citation coverage suggests that the origins of the research on “meaningful work” are largely captured. The 100 most influential articles on meaningful work illustrate that the research is mostly embedded in research streams of business ethics, human resources, management, psychology and organizational behaviour, as these appear amongst the highest positions. Furthermore, 88% of the research articles have been published from 2010, including 15 studies out of the 20 most cited articles. This indicates a relatively recent interest in meaningful work in the academic field of business and organizational research and can be explained by the changing awareness of the role of employees in the organization (Ghoshal, 2005; Luthans, 2002; Quinn et al., 2003).
The most cited article in this sample is from Rosso et al. (2010). The study focusses on the underlying mechanisms of meaningful work by reviewing the literature and developing a theoretical scheme of main pathways by which meaningful work is created and maintained: individuation (self-agency), contribution (other agency), self-connection (self-communion) and unification (other communion). The second-most-cited article adds knowledge to the growing literature by developing a meaningful work scale (Steger et al., 2012). Based on a survey with employees of a US American university, the authors find that meaningful work appears to be important to workers' well-being, job satisfaction and contentment with their organization. The third-most-cited study by Amabile and Pratt (2016) develops a model on creativity and innovation in organizations (revision of their model from 1988). In this article the authors focus primarily on the individual level psychological processes like meaningful work that enhances individual creativity (Amabile and Pratt, 2016).
4.2 Keyword co-occurrence analysis of meaningful work research
Over the last decades, several management scholars have recognized the importance of meaningful work (Allan et al., 2019; De Boeck et al., 2019; Lips-Wiersma and Wright, 2012; Martela and Pessi, 2018; Rosso et al., 2010). However, some boundaries and definitions concerning the construct remain unclear, which is shown by the citation analysis in the last section. Therefore, we use the bibliographic record of the 384 hits from the Scopus database as inputs for a network analysis. Figure 3 shows the bibliographic co-occurrences of the bibliographic record using the VOSviewer mapping technique. A keyword co-occurrence analysis analyses all keywords of the chosen publications and indicates similarities which are shown by proximity, colour and strength of the nodes, revealing clusters. The analysis indicates four clusters which are represented by different node colours. We briefly describe each cluster using the gained knowledge from the reviewed literature in Appendix 3. The structure of the network reflects the current understanding of the main antecedents of meaningful work. It further represents the categorization of meaningful work in meaningfulness at work and in working from Pratt and Ashforth (2003) that has either a work-centric or worker-centric focus (Michaelson et al., 2014; Pratt and Ashforth, 2003; Wrzesniewski, 2003).
4.3 Antecedents and categorization of meaningful work
The term meaningful work contains an implicit positive bias from the individual's perspective (Bailey et al., 2017). Pratt and Ashforth (2003) argue that any task, job or organization can be imbued with meaningfulness and such words as “fit”, “match” and “alignment” are often used to explain how and why members see their work as meaningful. Previous research has conceptualized meaningful work in various ways. It is argued that meaningful work scales concerning its significance (Martela and Pessi, 2018) or within several dimensions that are in balance to each other (Bailey et al., 2017; Lips-Wiersma and Wright, 2012; Rosso et al., 2010; Steger et al., 2012) which is shown in Figure 3 in the previous section. Appendix 3 shows further a summary of meaningful work antecedents based on the cluster analysis of the previous section.
Many studies propose that meaningful work correlates with the constructs of “self”, in terms of work that is satisfying and fulfilling to the individual, and “other”, in terms of work that is of service to a wider cause or gives rise to a sense of belonging to a broader group (Bailey et al., 2017; Lips-Wiersma and Wright, 2012; Pratt and Ashforth, 2003; Robertson et al., 2020; Rosso et al., 2010). According to empirical findings of Lips-Wiersma and Wright (2012), meaningful work consists of the four dimensions developing the inner self, unity with others, service to others and expressing full potential. This concept has recently been updated to seven dimensions with facing reality, inspiration and balancing tensions as three new dimensions to conceptualize meaningful work (Lips-Wiersma et al., 2020).
A rather broader and highly prominent conceptualization is the classification of meaningful work proposed by Pratt and Ashforth (2003). They divide the construct in meaningfulness in working and meaningfulness at work. The former focusses on enriching tasks, providing autonomy, offering feedback and facilitate learning, e.g. job design practices (Hackman and Oldham, 1980). The later focusses on enriching membership by building cultures and identities or visionary, charismatic or transformational leadership practices (Grant, 2012; Tepper et al., 2018). Research further proposes to allow a sense of balance between work and worker-centric elements (Bailey et al., 2017; Cartwright and Holmes, 2006).
4.4 Limits of meaningful work
A growing number of recent studies focusses on limits of the perception of meaningful work (Amabile and Pratt, 2016; Bailey et al., 2017; Cartwright and Holmes, 2006; Iatridis et al., 2021). Hereby, the management of meaningfulness can have drawbacks in case of manipulative or unethical behaviours of the employer that might cause employee cynicism (Cartwright and Holmes, 2006; Michaelson et al., 2014). The literature shows that inauthenticity will lead to negative outcomes such as a loss of meaningful work when organizations seek to manage employees' experienced meaningfulness through processes of pressure (Fineman, 2006; Lips-Wiersma and Morris, 2009). Although organizational values provide an important source of meaningfulness (Rosso et al., 2010), the lack of authenticity or dishonesty can lead to negative responses such as anger or stress (Bailey et al., 2017; Cartwright and Holmes, 2006; Lips-Wiersma and Morris, 2009).
Besides, when people cannot regulate their action when working towards a higher goal, purpose or ideal, they experience hopelessness or existential despair (Brieger et al., 2020; Florian et al., 2019; Lips-Wiersma and Wright, 2012). Bunderson and Thompson (2009) show that the notion of “calling” can be used as a form of normative social control to increase the experienced meaningfulness of work. This encourages exploitation of workers through low wages, long hours and even damage to their physical and mental health. The authors interviewed zookeepers and found that the benefits of a calling do not come without a cost, as a sense of calling complicates the relationship between zookeepers and their work. On the one hand, it fosters a sense of professional identification, meaning and importance. On the other hand, it is associated with unbending duty, personal sacrifice and heightened vigilance.
Florian et al. (2019) explored the influence of shifting societal and organizational contexts on individuals' experience of meaningfulness when task becomes “too much” meaningful. The authors find that shifting contexts can lead to exploitation or feelings of imbalance and cause a loss of meaningfulness.
Moreover, the perception of meaningful work can be hindered when employees are not given enough autonomy in doing their work (Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Ryan and Deci, 2000). This is the case when management sets limits in how to meet project goals, restricts the idea flow or overreacts to problems (Amabile and Pratt, 2016). The negative experience of untapped potential can also lead to meaningless work (Amabile and Pratt, 2016; De Boeck et al., 2019). Untapped potential occurs when employees are not given the right or insufficient resources, by unclear or shifting goals, an overemphasis on the status quo or by ignoring problems (Amabile and Pratt, 2016).
5. Conceptual model development
In this section, we will link the insight of the design and use of management controls and findings of the literature analysis about the perception of meaningful work. The literature review indicates that meaningful work is socially constructed and the meaning creation is seen as a type of sensemaking (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003). Hence, organizations have the power to influence whether and how members interpret their work as meaningful. According to Stein et al. (2019), it even becomes the responsibility of organizations to customize control systems to encourage a meaningful work experience. By capturing the insights on meaningful work antecedents and limits, we provide a conceptual model of the configuration and intensity of use of management controls to facilitate the perception of meaningful work (see Figure 4).
As indicated in Area 1 of Figure 4 the knowledge about the meaning of one's work is limited if controls are unrelatedly used. Further, inappropriate resource allocations, unclear goals or a destructive work culture may not facilitate one's personal growth and may lead to the negative experience of untapped potential, where the perception of meaningful work is not realized (De Boeck et al., 2019).
On the other hand, too intensely used formal and informal controls (even if they are meant to be enabling) may reduce the meaningful work perception, if individuals feel monitored (Stein et al., 2019) or pressured (Bunderson and Thompson, 2009), see Area 3 of Figure 4. According to the model, there is a “perfect medium” of control uses where people perceive meaningful work the most; see Area 2 of Figure 4. We see especially the LOC framework as a helpful ordering approach to enable meaningfulness, as it systematically combines formal controls. We also emphasize the importance of informal controls that interact with this formal system to build a control package. In the following sections, we derive five propositions from the findings that guide practitioners as well as future research in the adequate application of controls to increase meaningfulness of work.
5.1 Influence of enabling controls on the perception of meaningful work
Research of Amabile and Pratt (2016) discusses elements of a work environment that enhance meaningful work. They highlight clear goals, support for reasoned risk-taking, sufficient resources, frequent and constructive feedback, collaboration and fair reward and recognition. When management controls align those practices, then they might enhance the perception of meaningful work. The prior literature regarding the use of controls as either enabling or coercive suggests that an enabling system is one that is flexible and allows employees to determine the best way to achieve or exceed multiple goals. In a coercive system, employees are given multiple goals; they are instructed how to achieve them and should not deviate from them (Ahrens and Chapman, 2004; Mundy, 2010; Wouters and Wilderom, 2008). Coercive control systems might produce strategic behaviours or gaming and lead to decreased well-being (Franco-Santos and Doherty, 2017; Van De Voorde et al., 2012), stress (Fogarty et al., 2000), mistrust, unfairness or inequalities (Franco-Santos and Otley, 2018). Employees in an enabling system feel more empowered and committed to their goals than employees in a coercive system. As a result, they derive more meaning from their jobs (Burney et al., 2017). Following this argumentation and reflecting the recent discussion about unintended consequences of coercive control systems we raise our first proposition.
The use of enabling controls will enhance the perception of meaningful work.
5.2 Influence of formal controls on the perception of meaningful work
In terms of formal controls, this study draws on the LOC framework as it offers a broad typology for alternative uses of formal control systems by considering a range of controls and how they are used by management (Ferreira and Otley, 2009; Widener, 2007). Simons' beliefs controls are defined as enabling management controls (Mundy, 2010; Simons, 1995). They are intended to positively affect motivation and task coordination of individuals through the internalization of organizational values and purpose (Adler and Chen, 2011; Widener, 2007). However, there is substantive evidence that belief systems may not be effective unless strongly supported by alternative mechanisms like the other LOC (Kruis et al., 2016; Speklé et al., 2017). The meaningful work literature argues that the perception of meaningful work is not fully realized unless management implements a variety of control practices that interact to enhance all aspects of meaningful work (Amabile and Pratt, 2016; Bailey et al., 2017; Cartwright and Holmes, 2006). It is noted that limited knowledge about the contribution of one's work, not getting the appropriate resources and clear goals, a destructive work culture, an overemphasis on the status quo or the disregard of problems can hinder one's personal growth (Amabile and Pratt, 2016). This might lead to the negative experience of untapped potential which is related to meaninglessness of work (De Boeck et al., 2019). Even if the provision of freedom is intended by management, it can be perceived as too much flexibility and may result in inefficiencies, resource wastage, stress due to unclear priorities and ultimately a decline of motivation and performance (Heggen and Sridharan, 2021). Formally stated
The use of unrelated formal control levers will not enhance the perception of meaningful work.
Diverse mechanisms are needed to enable the perception of meaningful work (Amabile and Pratt, 2016). The complementary use of all LOC as a management control system might positively affect the perception of meaningful work. The literature suggests that the power of the LOC resides in how they complement each other when used together in a balance according to the organizational contingencies and the control targets (Kruis et al., 2016; Mundy, 2010; Simons et al., 2000). As mentioned earlier, the meaningful work construct is usually categorized in either meaningfulness at work as work-centric meaningfulness or meaningfulness in working as worker-centric meaningfulness (Michaelson et al., 2014; Pratt and Ashforth, 2003; Wrzesniewski, 2003). The LOC framework might support meaningfulness at work and meaningfulness in working. On the one hand, the beliefs and interactive levers offer shared vision and community, higher levels of autonomy, skill variety and task significance by allowing employees a freedom of choice in selecting their courses of action. On the other hand, the diagnostic and boundary levers provide structure by placing limits on inappropriate behaviours, setting clear expectations and giving resources and feedback. Thus, we expect that the interdependent use of all four LOC will enhance the employee's perception of meaningful work.
The use of the LOC can enhance the perception of meaningful work.
5.3 Influence of informal controls on the perception of meaningful work
Simons' LOC framework offers a broad perspective how different controls work together (Kruis et al., 2016; Mundy, 2010; Widener, 2007). However, it has been criticized for not giving sufficient emphasis to informal controls (Ferreira and Otley, 2009). Therefore, it is unlikely that the LOC framework, as a formal control system, can explain all the mechanisms that are needed to fully enhance the perception of meaningful work. Informal controls are less well-defined practices, routines, social relationships, culture, links or loose connections between individuals that facilitate free-flowing open and flexible communication, structures and decision processes (Chenhall et al., 2010). Widener (2007) already mentioned that the combined use of the LOC is more likely to be powerful when there is a consensus amongst members on the fundamental values and purpose of the organization. Other scholars see the use of formal and informal controls as a package as most effective (Ferreira and Otley, 2009; Gerdin et al., 2019; Malmi and Brown, 2008). In a package of controls, both control categories are used simultaneously, loosely coupled within an organization and are even able to stretch positive outcomes (Pfister and Lukka, 2019). A concrete example is mentioned by Evans and Tucker (2015) in case of beliefs controls. Beliefs controls are the formal controls like the vision, mission or value statements to encourage a certain behaviour. However, they are not entirely effective, if these beliefs are not or insufficiently proclaimed by management in their daily interactions with employees. The meaningful work literature states as well that meaningful work is strongly influenced by authentic and transformational leaders (Grant, 2012) as well as an empowering organizational culture (Ashforth et al., 2016; Bailey et al., 2017). Thus, we raise our next proposition:
The package use of the LOC (formal controls) and informal enabling controls (such as organizational culture) can stretch the perception of meaningful work.
5.4 Influence of the intensity of the used controls on the perception of meaningful work
Research on meaningful work has shown that meaningfulness can shift into meaninglessness under certain circumstances (Bailey et al., 2017; Cartwright and Holmes, 2006; De Boeck et al., 2019; Lips-Wiersma and Morris, 2009). Therefore, the enhanced relationship between management controls and the perception of meaningful work may have a limit when controls are used too intensely (even if they are meant to be enabling), as indicated by the inverted u-shaped relationship in Figure 4. If individuals are overwhelmed by the volume and scale of the control environment, they are likely to perceive a lack of self-control over their situation (Lips-Wiersma and Wright, 2012), feel monitored (Stein et al., 2019) or pressured (Bunderson and Thompson, 2009). This leads to a TMGT effect (Pierce and Aguinis, 2013), that comes with a trade-off between the benefits and drawbacks of the control use and causes a shift from meaningful to meaningless work [3]. For example, Tessier and Otley (2012) stated that beliefs controls can be perceived as enabling, but they can also be used by management as constraints (integrity, honesty, transparency, etc.). Thus, we deviate the following proposition:
The enabling interaction effect of formal and informal controls to enhance the perception of meaningful work decreases after a certain intensity of their use (TMGT effect).
6. Discussion and conclusion
We view this research as a first attempt to investigate the relationship between the use of management controls and the perception of meaningful work. We illustrate in a conceptual model, that a package use of enabling formal and informal controls is most suitable to fully enhance the perception of meaningful work, which in turn can contribute to achieve organizational goals. On the contrary, meaningful work can shift to meaningless work when the management control use is not effective. Therefore, the design as well as the intensity of use of management controls is of particular importance.
Understanding how management controls are most effective is an important managerial as well as research issue as usually high investments are required to design them. First, our findings reveal that the meaningful work perception can be managed using sufficient interactions of enabling management controls. The perception of meaningful work will not be realized if controls are unrelated and specific practices are not executed by management. This happens when employees are not getting the appropriate resources or clear goals, when a destructive work culture ignores problems or when management sets an overemphasis on the status quo (Amabile and Pratt, 2016; De Boeck et al., 2019). This hinders one's personal growth and might lead to the negative experience of untapped potential by employees.
Second, the interaction of formal and informal controls used in a control package may fully empower the perception of meaningful work and even stretch the effects of the mere use of a formal control system. The relevance of informal controls is increasingly highlighted in the management accounting literature (Evans and Tucker, 2015; Gerdin et al., 2019; Pfister and Lukka, 2019). The meaningful work literature also emphasizes the relevance of organizational culture and leadership aspects to enable meaningful work (Bailey et al., 2017). Practitioners should therefore reflect on which informal control practices could be activated to support formal control systems to fully enhance the employee’s perception of meaningful work.
Third, our findings reveal that meaningful work has limits and a too intense control use might impair the perception of meaningful work. That happens if individuals cannot regulate their responses to set controls (Lips-Wiersma and Wright, 2012, p. 661) i.e. feel monitored (Stein et al., 2019), have restricted autonomy (Ryan and Deci, 2000) or feel pressured (Amabile and Pratt, 2016; Bunderson and Thompson, 2009). We illustrate that the perception of meaningful work can decrease after a specific peak leading to a TMGT effect, even when management controls are intended to enable meaningful work. The control use needs to be flexibly adapted to prevent unintended consequences, if practitioners mention a decrease of work meaningfulness,
This study is not free of limitations. First, to examine the meaningful work concept, we used bibliometric analyses and a structured literature review method. Bibliometric analyses rely on high levels of abstraction and require the judgement of the researcher in determining the technical parameters of the output. Moreover, bibliographic methods quantify citations without concerning the intention of the authors’ citation behaviour, as there is no distinction between confirmative or critical citations (van Eck and Waltman, 2014). The second limitation lies in the use of the Scopus database, which might not capture all work, relevant for the topic. Regarding the structured literature review, we might have missed some relevant work, e.g. articles that have been published in a journal outside of our list of selected journals. Third, the discussion about management control design choices might be not complete, and we might have missed important research streams that influence the development of our conceptual model and the propositions. For example, in case of formal controls, we only rely on the LOC framework and omit other frameworks from the management accounting literature (Merchant and Van der Stede, 2012; Otley, 1999; Ouchi, 1979).
This study offers avenues for future research. The development of our conceptual model is based on the findings from the literature review. A future study could examine how management control design and use choices affect the perception of meaningful work empirically. Further research could also involve cultural differences that might influence the relationship between the use of management controls and the perception of meaningful work. Malmi et al. (2020) recently demonstrate that cultural values and preferences significantly influence the management control use. The authors find differences even in Western cultural regions. Therefore, more caution is needed when making cross-cultural generalizations about the design and the intended effects of management controls. Concerning the current development to big data and quantification in the professional and private life (Mennicken and Espeland, 2019), it is important to further study these effects on the perception of meaningful work, as well. A recent study from Stein et al. (2019) makes a first attempt to investigate data-driven approaches and their consequences on the meaningful work perception of employees. The authors find amongst others that if management has only a narrow understanding of datafication and the design of appropriate accountability systems, then the perception of meaningful work is likely to be hindered (Stein et al., 2019). We did not capture the aspects of datafication in this study. However, we see a huge demand for future studies in this filed to examine the monitoring, transparency and governance aspects of the use of big data in relation to the perception of meaningful work.
Figures
Figure 1
Management control design choices
Figure 2
Number of publications on “meaningful work” in the management literature from 1976 to 2021 (384 articles from Scopus database)
Figure 3
Network visualization of keyword co-occurrences of meaningful work
Figure 4
Influence of management controls on meaningful work
100 most influential articles on meaningful work
Publications on meaningful work
| The publication period | Publication count | Citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1976–1995 | 6 | 107 |
| Journal of Organizational Behavior | 1 | 83 |
| Journal of Management | 1 | 10 |
| Futures | 1 | 6 |
| Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management | 1 | 5 |
| Information and Management | 1 | 3 |
| Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal | 1 | 0 |
| 1996–2005 | 17 | 964 |
| Queensland University of Technology Research Week International Conference, QUT Research Week 2005 – Conference Proceedings | 2 | 2 |
| Work and Occupations | 2 | 136 |
| Career Development Quarterly | 1 | 42 |
| Human Resource Development International | 1 | 159 |
| The International Labour Review | 1 | 14 |
| Journal of Business Ethics | 1 | 120 |
| Journal of Career Development | 1 | 8 |
| Journal of Managerial Psychology | 1 | 45 |
| The Leadership Quarterly | 1 | 387 |
| Organization | 1 | 2 |
| Presstime | 1 | 0 |
| Research in Ethical Issues in Organizations | 1 | 1 |
| Research in the Sociology of Organizations | 1 | 15 |
| Science and Engineering Ethics | 1 | 27 |
| T and D | 1 | 6 |
| 2006–2015 | 98 | 5,802 |
| Journal of Business Ethics | 7 | 610 |
| Advances in Developing Human Resources | 6 | 450 |
| Journal of Career Assessment | 6 | 961 |
| Kantian Business Ethics: Critical Perspectives | 4 | 26 |
| Human Resource Development International | 3 | 157 |
| Human Resource Management International Digest | 3 | 4 |
| Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal | 2 | 44 |
| Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion | 2 | 46 |
| Journal of Managerial Psychology | 2 | 71 |
| Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies | 2 | 14 |
| Academy of Management 2006 Annual Meeting: Knowledge, Action and the Public Concern, AOM 2006 | 1 | 69 |
| Academy of Management Journal | 1 | 178 |
| Action Learning: Research and Practice | 1 | 6 |
| Advances in Positive Organizational Psychology | 1 | 38 |
| British Journal of Management | 1 | 111 |
| Business Ethics Quarterly | 1 | 78 |
| Colourage | 1 | 0 |
| Cornell Hospitality Quarterly | 1 | 101 |
| Critical Perspectives on Accounting | 1 | 2 |
| Development and Learning in Organisations | 1 | 0 |
| Development and Learning in Organizations | 1 | 0 |
| Educational Management Administration and Leadership | 1 | 4 |
| European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology | 1 | 45 |
| Gender, Work and Organization | 1 | 16 |
| Group and Organization Management | 1 | 137 |
| Handbook of Faith and Spirituality in the Workplace: Emerging Research and Practice | 1 | 1 |
| Handbook of Research on Sustainable Careers | 1 | 8 |
| Harvard Business Review | 1 | 4 |
| Hospitality and Society | 1 | 16 |
| Human Performance | 1 | 118 |
| Human Relations | 1 | 55 |
| Human Resource Management | 1 | 92 |
| Human Resource Management Review | 1 | 295 |
| Innovation Management in Robot Society | 1 | 1 |
| International Journal of Business and Management Science | 1 | 6 |
| International Journal of Consumer Studies | 1 | 35 |
| International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management | 1 | 15 |
| International Journal of Production Research | 1 | 25 |
| Issues in Business Ethics | 1 | 0 |
| Journal of Business and Psychology | 1 | 158 |
| Journal of Career Development | 1 | 2 |
| Journal of Employment Counseling | 1 | 11 |
| Journal of Enterprising Communities | 1 | 9 |
| Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education | 1 | 35 |
| Journal of Management Development | 1 | 18 |
| Journal of Management Inquiry | 1 | 5 |
| Journal of Organizational Change Management | 1 | 53 |
| Journal of Organizational Effectiveness | 1 | 12 |
| Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism | 1 | 5 |
| Leadership and Organization Development Journal | 1 | 26 |
| The Leadership Quarterly | 1 | 31 |
| Management Communication Quarterly | 1 | 35 |
| Management Decision | 1 | 75 |
| Management Research Review | 1 | 40 |
| Mass Flourishing: How Grassroots Innovation Created Jobs, Challenge, and Change | 1 | 179 |
| Meaningful Work and Workplace Democracy: A Philosophy of Work and a Politics of Meaningfulness | 1 | 54 |
| Museum Management and Curatorship | 1 | 29 |
| Organization | 1 | 145 |
| The Organization Development Journal | 1 | 41 |
| Personnel Review | 1 | 26 |
| Philosophy of Management | 1 | 3 |
| PICMET 2014 – Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology, Proceedings: Infrastructure and Service Integration | 1 | 0 |
| Proceeding of the International Conference on e-Education Entertainment and e-Management, ICEEE 2011 | 1 | 0 |
| The Psychologist-Manager Journal | 1 | 11 |
| Public Administration Review | 1 | 102 |
| Research in Organizational Behavior | 1 | 853 |
| Research on Emotion in Organizations | 1 | 0 |
| Research Technology Management | 1 | 0 |
| Social Innovation: Solutions for a Sustainable Future | 1 | 2 |
| Storytelling and the Future of Organizations: An Antenarrative Handbook | 1 | 0 |
| Work, Employment and Society | 1 | 3 |
| 2016–2021 | 263 | 3,388 |
| The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work | 27 | 85 |
| Journal of Career Assessment | 14 | 198 |
| Journal of Business Ethics | 12 | 174 |
| Journal of Management Studies | 7 | 211 |
| Journal of Vocational Behavior | 7 | 387 |
| Work, Employment and Society | 7 | 92 |
| Journal of Career Development | 6 | 49 |
| Development and Learning in Organizations | 4 | 1 |
| Employee Relations | 4 | 22 |
| Academy of Management Journal | 3 | 206 |
| Career Development International | 3 | 64 |
| International Journal of Human Resource Management | 3 | 13 |
| International Journal of Organizational Analysis | 3 | 50 |
| Journal of Business and Psychology | 3 | 50 |
| Personnel Review | 3 | 31 |
| Advances in Developing Human Resources | 2 | 11 |
| Asian Academy of Management Journal | 2 | 4 |
| Business Ethics Quarterly | 2 | 1 |
| Group and Organization Management | 2 | 16 |
| Human Resource Development International | 2 | 2 |
| Human Resource Management International Digest | 2 | 0 |
| Human Resource Management Review | 2 | 71 |
| IIMB Management Review | 2 | 12 |
| International Journal of Hospitality Management | 2 | 138 |
| International Journal of Process Management and Benchmarking | 2 | 14 |
| International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management | 2 | 4 |
| International Journal of Stress Management | 2 | 15 |
| International Journal of Training and Development | 2 | 28 |
| International Public Management Journal | 2 | 8 |
| Journal of Asia Business Studies | 2 | 16 |
| Journal of Human Values | 2 | 34 |
| Journal of Management and Organization | 2 | 2 |
| The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology | 2 | 21 |
| Journal of Organizational Behavior | 2 | 86 |
| Management Research Review | 2 | 7 |
| Management Revue | 2 | 0 |
| Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes | 2 | 6 |
| Purushartha | 2 | 4 |
| Sport Management Review | 2 | 50 |
| The Palgrave Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Fulfillment | 2 | 1 |
| Vocational Interests in the Workplace: Rethinking Behavior at Work | 2 | 2 |
| Technology and Engineering Management Society Conference, 2017 | 1 | 0 |
| 78th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, AOM 2018 | 1 | 0 |
| Academy of Management Perspectives | 1 | 20 |
| Asian Journal of Business Ethics | 1 | 3 |
| Biblical Perspectives on Leadership and Organizations | 1 | 4 |
| Business Ethics and Care in Organizations | 1 | 0 |
| Business Ethics, Environment and Responsibility | 1 | 0 |
| Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective: Second Edition | 1 | 34 |
| Business: Theory and Practice | 1 | 8 |
| California Management Review | 1 | 8 |
| Career Development Quarterly | 1 | 3 |
| Cogent Business and Management | 1 | 34 |
| Contemporary Work and the Future of Employment in Developed Countries | 1 | 0 |
| Digital Nomads: In Search of Meaningful Work in the New Economy | 1 | 2 |
| DLSU Business and Economics Review | 1 | 3 |
| The Economic and Labour Relations Review | 1 | 2 |
| Emerald Emerging Markets Case Studies | 1 | 0 |
| Employees and Employers in Service Organizations: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities | 1 | 3 |
| Enhancing Employee Engagement: An Evidence-Based Approach | 1 | 16 |
| The Enterprise Engineering Series | 1 | 0 |
| European Journal of Innovation Management | 1 | 0 |
| European Journal of Training and Development | 1 | 4 |
| European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology | 1 | 0 |
| European Management Journal | 1 | 3 |
| Foresight and STI Governance | 1 | 3 |
| Fostering Employee Buy-in Through Effective Leadership Communication | 1 | 1 |
| Gender in Management | 1 | 2 |
| Global Business Review | 1 | 24 |
| Harnessing Human Capital Analytics for Competitive Advantage | 1 | 3 |
| Health Care Management Review | 1 | 4 |
| Human Relations | 1 | 53 |
| Human Resource Development Review | 1 | 67 |
| International Journal of Action Research | 1 | 1 |
| International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research | 1 | 8 |
| International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management | 1 | 16 |
| International Journal of Economics and Management | 1 | 0 |
| International Journal of Management Reviews | 1 | 1 |
| International Journal of Public Sector Performance Management | 1 | 2 |
| International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering | 1 | 0 |
| International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research | 1 | 5 |
| International Journal of Workplace Health Management | 1 | 1 |
| Journal of Advances in Management Research | 1 | 10 |
| Journal of Business Research | 1 | 8 |
| Journal of Business Venturing Insights | 1 | 3 |
| Journal of Change Management | 1 | 36 |
| Journal of East European Management Studies | 1 | 1 |
| Journal of Education and Work | 1 | 5 |
| Journal of Health Organization and Management | 1 | 1 |
| Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies | 1 | 44 |
| Journal of Management Accounting Research | 1 | 4 |
| Journal of Managerial Psychology | 1 | 8 |
| Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice | 1 | 3 |
| Journal of Organizational Effectiveness | 1 | 1 |
| Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice | 1 | 12 |
| Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism | 1 | 3 |
| Journal of Service Theory and Practice | 1 | 19 |
| Journal of Strategic Marketing | 1 | 1 |
| Labor Studies Journal | 1 | 1 |
| Labour Economics | 1 | 17 |
| Leadership and Organization Development Journal | 1 | 3 |
| Leadership in Health Services | 1 | 17 |
| Leading, Managing, Caring: Understanding Leadership and Management in Health and Social Care | 1 | 1 |
| The Management and Labour Studies | 1 | 0 |
| Management and Marketing | 1 | 4 |
| Management Communication Quarterly | 1 | 15 |
| Management Decision | 1 | 0 |
| Management Science Letters | 1 | 9 |
| Managing Sport and Leisure | 1 | 5 |
| Marketing Intelligence and Planning | 1 | 8 |
| Meaningful Work: Viktor Frankl's Legacy for the 21st Century | 1 | 3 |
| Motivation in Organisations: Searching for a Meaningful Work-Life Balance | 1 | 0 |
| New Technology, Work and Employment | 1 | 11 |
| Nonprofit Management and Leadership | 1 | 19 |
| Organization Studies | 1 | 14 |
| Organizational Psychology Review | 1 | 76 |
| Organizing Inclusion: Moving Diversity from Demographics to Communication Processes | 1 | 1 |
| Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities | 1 | 0 |
| Philosophy of Management | 1 | 0 |
| Post-Growth Work: Employment and Meaningful Activities within Planetary Boundaries | 1 | 0 |
| Proceedings - 2017 IEEE/ACM 5th International Workshop on Conducting Empirical Studies in Industry, CESI 2017 | 1 | 7 |
| Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management | 1 | 0 |
| Professional and Practice-based Learning | 1 | 6 |
| Psychology of Retention: Theory, Research and Practice | 1 | 1 |
| Public Administration Review | 1 | 4 |
| Public Organization Review | 1 | 6 |
| Publications | 1 | 3 |
| Research in Organizational Behavior | 1 | 389 |
| Revista de Administracao Mackenzie | 1 | 1 |
| SA Journal of Human Resource Management | 1 | 0 |
| The Scandinavian Journal of Management | 1 | 1 |
| Science and Engineering Ethics | 1 | 5 |
| The Service Industries Journal | 1 | 35 |
| Small Business Economics | 1 | 0 |
| Smart Working: Creating the Next Wave | 1 | 9 |
| Social Enterprise Journal | 1 | 0 |
| Social Responsibility Journal | 1 | 0 |
| South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management | 1 | 1 |
| Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal | 1 | 2 |
| The Palgrave Handbook of Creativity at Work | 1 | 1 |
| The Palgrave Handbook of Organizational Change Thinkers | 1 | 0 |
| The Positive Side of Occupational Health Psychology | 1 | 1 |
| Proceedings of the 29th International Conference of the International Association for Management of Technology, IAMOT 2020 | 1 | 0 |
| Vikalpa | 1 | 15 |
| Voluntas | 1 | 3 |
| Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes | 1 | 11 |
| Total | 384 | 10,261 |
Sample characteristics: the research method and journal categorization
| Strategy and general management journals | Organizational behaviour and psychology journals | Accounting journals | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Literature Review | 6 | 3 | 0 | 9 |
| Archival | 3 | 4 | 0 | 7 |
| Conceptual | 6 | 6 | 2 | 14 |
| Analytical/Modelling | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Survey | 12 | 8 | 11 | 31 |
| Experimental | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Qualitative | 9 | 3 | 8 | 20 |
| Mixed Methods | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| Total | 40 | 26 | 24 | 90 |
Summary of selected studies in strategy and general management research
| Author(s) | Year | Journal | Area of research | Underlying theories | Context/Scope | Method of data collection | Country of the study | Industry of the study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allen, Blake et al. | 2019 | Journal of Management Studies | Meaningful work | The job characteristics theory | Meaningful work outcomes | Meta-analysis | ||
| Ashforth, Blake. et al. | 2016 | Academy of Management Review | Personal identification in organizations | The organizational behaviour | The relationship between identification and organizational and personal outcomes | Conceptual | ||
| Bailey, C. et al. | 2017 | Human Resource Management Review | Meaningful work and existential labour | The job characteristics theory and the leadership theory | Job design to perceive meaningful work | Conceptual | ||
| Barrick, Murry et al. | 2013 | Academy of Management Review | Purposeful work behaviour | Motivation theories | Personality, higher order goals and job characteristics | Conceptual | ||
| Barrick, Murry et al. | 2015 | Academy of Management Journal | Collective organizational engagement | The job characteristics theory and leadership theories | Performance improvement through organizational engagement | Survey | The USA | The credit unions |
| Bode, Christiane.; Singh, Jasjit | 2018 | Strategic Management Journal | Prosocial participation of employees | The self-determination theory | CSR involvement in management strategy | Interviews and survey | Italy | Consulting |
| Brammer, Stephen; Millington, Andrew | 2008 | Strategic Management Journal | Financial and corporate social performance | The stakeholder theory | Improvement of financial performance | Archival data | The UK | Different industries |
| Brammer, Stephen et al. | 2015 | Group and Organization Management | Effects of CRS on employees | Cognition theories | Influence of corporate ability | Survey | Spain | The communication |
| Bunderson, Stuart J; Thompson, Jeffery A | 2009 | Administrative Science Quarterly | Meaningful work and calling | The job characteristics theory and behavioural theories | The positive and negative effects of “calling” | Interviews | The USA and Canada | The zoo |
| Carton, Andrew M | 2018 | Administrative Science Quarterly | Sensemaking and meaningful work | The leadership and job characteristics theory | Transformational leadership of day-to-day job activities | Archival data | The USA | NASA |
| Carton, Andrew M, Lucas, Brian J | 2018 | Academy of Management Journal | Leadership and vision communication | Communication theories | Overcoming blurry vision bias | Experiment | The UK | |
| Cartwright, Susan, Holmes, Nicola | 2006 | Human Resource Management Review | Meaningful work and employee engagement | The job characteristics theory | The meaningful work framework | Conceptual | ||
| Colbert, Amy. et al. | 2016 | Academy of Management Journal | Employee motivation | The positive work relationships theory | Work relationships | Survey | The USA | Different industries |
| De Boeck, Giverny, et al. | 2019 | Journal of Management Studies | Untapped potential | The job characteristics theory | Opportunities to realize future work selves | Survey | Belgium | Different industries |
| Dutton, Jane. et al. | 2010 | Academy of Management Review | Positive work related identities | The identity theory | Organizational influence in positive identity construction | Literature review | ||
| Fineman, Stephen | 2006 | Academy of Management Review | Positiveness at work | The organizational behaviour | Research of positiveness at work and in HR practices | Literature review | ||
| Florian, Mona et al. | 2019 | Journal of Management Studies | Meaningful work | The sensemaking theory | Context factors of meaningfulness of work | Case study | Germany | Volunteer work |
| Franco-Santos, Monica; Doherty, Noeleen | 2017 | International Journal of Human Resource Management | Performance management systems | The agency theory and stewardship theory | Well-being through enabling controls | Survey | The UK | Universities |
| Franco-Santos, Monica, Otley, David | 2018 | International Journal of Management Reviews | Performance management systems | The agency theory and stewardship theory | Identifying unintended consequences of PMS | Literature review | ||
| Grant, Adam | 2007 | Academy of Management Review | Job design and employee motivation | The job characteristics theory | Positive contribution effects | Literature review | ||
| Grant, Adam | 2012 | Academy of Management Journal | Transformational leadership | Leadership theories | Motivation to performance by beneficiary contract | Survey | The USA | Government |
| Henderson, Rebecca, Van den Steen, Eric | 2015 | American Economic Review | Corporate purpose | The principal agent theory | Improvement of corporate reputation | Analytical modelling | ||
| Hollensbe, Elaine et al. | 2014 | Academy of Management Journal | Corporate purpose | Behaviour theories | Research directions to study purpose | Conceptual | ||
| Kempster, Steve. et al. | 2011 | Leadership | Transformational leadership | The sensemaking theory | The role of purpose in leadership | Case study | The USA | The health services |
| Lin, W., Koopmann, J., and Wang, M | 2020 | Journal of Management | Extra role behaviour at work | The organizational citizenship behaviour | Psychological conditions and effects of helping behaviour over time | Survey | China | The IT company |
| Lips-Wiersma, M.; Wright, S | 2012 | Group and Organization Management | Meaningful work scale development | The motivation theory | Fostering meaningful work in organizations | Multiple case studies | New Zealand | Different industries |
| Martikainen, S.-J., Kudrna, L., and Dolan, P | 2021 | Group and Organization Management | Narrative investigation of affective eudaimonia | The narrative theory | Narratives of meaningful and meaningless work moments | Interviews | The UK | Different industries |
| Müller M. et al. | 2019 | European Management Journal | Meaningful work | The sensemaking theory | Perception of meaningful work without direct contact to beneficiaries | Case study | The European country | The hospital laboratory |
| Nilsson, Warren | 2015 | Academy of Management Review | Positive institutional work | The institutional theory | Relationship between institutional work and social purpose | Literature Review | ||
| Rich, Bruce L. et al. | 2010 | Academy of Management Journal | Job engagement and performance | Motivation theories | Antecedents and effects of job engagement | Survey | The USA | The public authorities |
| Robertson, K. M. et al. | 2020 | Academy of Management Review | Meaningful work perception through social relationships | The social networks theory | Model development of three network types (entrepreneurial, clique and community-of-practice) | Conceptual | ||
| Rodell, Jessica B | 2013 | Academy of Management Journal | Meaningful work | The agency theory | Effects of volunteering | Multiple case studies | The USA | Volunteer |
| Schaubroeck, John et al. | 2012 | Academy of Management Journal | Ethical leadership | The organizational culture | Ethical behaviour as a part of corporate culture | Survey | The USA | The US Army |
| Simons, Robert | 1994 | Strategic Management Journal | Levers of Control Framework | The contingency theory | Strategic change and organizational renewal | Case Study | The USA | Different industries |
| Spreitzer, Gretchen M | 1996 | Academy of Management Journal | Psychological empowerment | The institutional theory | Span of control and psychological empowerment | Survey | Various countries | Different industries |
| Stein, Mari-Klara et al. | 2019 | Journal of Management Studies | Meaningful work and datification | The sensemaking theory | Consequences of data-driven management approaches | Multiple case studies | The USA | Universities |
| Thakor, Anjan V.; Quinn, Robert E | 2013 | ECGI Working Paper Series in Finance; Finance Working Paper N° 395/2013 | Principal agency utility maximization | The principal agent theory | Economic consequences of traditional business goals and a higher purpose | Analytical modelling | ||
| Treppner, Bennet. et al. | 2018 | Academy of Management Journal | Transformational leadership | The person–environment fit | Leadership effects | Survey | The USA | Different industries |
| Van De Voorde, Karina et al. | 2012 | International Journal of Management Reviews | Performance management and well-being | The social exchange theory | Organizational performance relationship | Literature review | ||
| Vogel, Ryan et al. | 2016 | Academy of Management Journal | Value congruence and employee engagement | The job characteristics theory | Job crafting activities | Survey | The USA | Different industries |
Summary of selected studies in organizational behaviour and psychology research
| Author(s) | Year | Journal | Area of research | Underlying theories | Context/Scope | Method of data collection | Country of the study | Industry of the study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amabile, Teresa M, Pratt, Michael G | 2016 | Research in Organizational Behavior | Creativity | The sensemaking theory | The conceptual model of creativity in organizations | Conceptual | ||
| Bauman, Christopher W. and Skitka, Linda J | 2012 | Research in Organizational Behavior | CSR and job satisfaction | The need and behaviour theories | Miro-level influences of CSR | Conceptual | ||
| Brieger, S., et al. | 2019 | Journal of Business Ethics | CSR and employee work addiction | The social identity theory and social exchange theory | Influence of CSR, org. identification, and meaningfulness on work addiction | Survey (archival) | Switzerland | Different industries |
| Brieger, S. A. et al. | 2020 | Journal of Business Ethics | Well-being of entrepreneurs | The social value creation | Creation of social value positively effects work meaningfulness and well-being | Survey (archival) | Germany and Switzerland | Different industries |
| Deeg, M. D., and May, D. R | 2021 | Journal of Business Ethics | Effects of ethical (moral) work behaviour | The self-determination theory and affective events theory | Positive benefits for individuals who incorporate professional moral courage | Survey | USA | The nonprofit sector |
| Foulk, Trevor A. et al. | 2019 | Journal of Applied Psychology | Purposeful work behaviour | The self-determination theory | Employee motivation | Survey | India | Different industries |
| Gartenberg, Claudine et al. | 2019 | Organization Science | Corporate purpose | The principal agent theory and motivation theory | Financial performance improvement by enhancing purpose and clarity | Archival survey data | The USA | Different industries |
| Grant, Adam | 2008 | Journal of Applied Psychology | Task significance | The expectancy theory and motivation theory | Task significance and performance relationship | Field experiments | The USA | The fundraising lifeguards’ |
| Gregori, P., et al. | 2021 | Journal of Business Research | Environmental entrepreneurship | The institutional logics and social identity theory | Emotions in identity work and meaningfulness in entrepreneurship | Qualitative | Austria | Different industries |
| Humphrey, Stephen et al. | 2007 | Journal of Applied Psychology | Motivational work design features | The job characteristics theory | Work design and job satisfaction | Meta-analysis | ||
| Iatridis, K., et al. | 2021 | Organization Studies | Meaningful work in emerging professions | The social identity theory | Formation of three distinct professional identities by meaningful work | Qualitative | Greece | CSR consulting |
| Kristof, Amy L | 1996 | Personnel Psychology | Person–organization fit | The principal agent theory | Outcomes of P–O fit | Literature review | ||
| Lips-Wiersma, M. et al. | 2020 | Journal of Business Ethics | Antecedents of meaningful work | The organizational behaviour | Effects of fairness, leadership and worthy work on meaningful work | Survey | International | Different industries |
| Lips-Wiersma, Marjolein; Morris, Lani | 2009 | Journal of Business Ethics | Management of meaningful work | The need and behaviour theories | Meaningful work categorization | Mixed methods – action research | The USA and Netherlands | Different industries |
| Martela, Frank Pessi, Anne B | 2018 | Frontiers in Psychology | Dimensions of meaningful work | Self-determination theory, job characteristics theory | Understanding of meaningful work | Literature review | ||
| May, Douglas R. et al. | 2004 | The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology | Employee engagement | The self-determination theory and job characteristics theory | Antecedents of employee engagement | Survey | USA | The insurance company |
| Michaelson, Christopher | 2021 | Journal of Business Ethics | Meaningful work | The normative perspective | An approach of defining meaningful work | Conceptual | ||
| Michaelson, Christopher et al. | 2014 | Journal of Business Ethics | Meaningful work | The prosocial behaviour | Connection of business ethics with organization studies | Literature review | ||
| Nielsen, J., et al. | 2020 | Journal of Organizational Behavior | Work–family interface | The identity theory | Role of calling for job and life satisfaction | Survey | The USA and Canada | Different industries |
| Oerlemans, Wido G. M.; Bakker, Arnold B | 2018 | Journal of Applied Psychology | Motivating job characteristics and happiness at work | The job characteristic theory | Employees' reaction to perceived motivating job characteristics | Survey | The Netherlands | Different industries |
| Opoku-Dakwa, Akwasi et al. | 2018 | Journal of Organizational Behavior | CSR and employee engagement | The social cognitive theory | Employees as potential agents of social change, enabled by CSR | Conceptual | ||
| Paterson, Ted et al. | 2014 | Journal of Organizational Behavior | Work positivity and individual enabling | The self-determination theory and the social cognitive theory | Thriving at work as the joint experience of learning and vitality | Survey | The USA | Different industries |
| Pratt, Michael Ashforth, Blake | 2003 | Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a new Discipline | Work as a source of meaning | The positive organizational behaviour | Conceptual understanding of meaningful work | Conceptual | ||
| Rosso, B. D. et al. | 2010 | Research in Organizational Behavior | Meaningful work pathways | The self-determination theory and the job characteristics theory | Underlying mechanisms of meaningful work | Conceptual | ||
| Sonenshein, Scott et al. | 2013 | Organization Science | Organizational striving | The sensemaking theory | Progressive self-change in organizations | Multiple case studies | ||
| Wong, S. I. et al. | 2020 | The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology | Digital labour | The career construction theory | Conditions to perceive meaningful work for micro-work employees | Survey | International | Platform organizations (MTurk and Clickworker) |
Summary of selected studies in accounting research
| Author(s) | Year | Journal | Area of research | Underlying theories | Context/Scope | Method of data collection | Country of the study | Industry of the study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adler, Paul S, Chen, Xiaoling | 2011 | Accounting, Organizations and Society | Creativity and control | The perceived locus of causality | Conflict between creativity and control | Conceptual | ||
| Bedford, David S | 2015 | Management Accounting Research | Use of management control configurations | The configuration theory | Simultaneous balance between exploration and exploitation | Survey | Australia | Different industries |
| Bedford, David S. et al. | 2016 | Accounting, Organizations and Society | Management control effectiveness and strategy | The complementarity theory | Effectiveness of MC in different strategic contexts | Survey | Australia | Different industries |
| Chenhall, Robert; Langfield-Smith, Kim | 2003 | Journal of Management Accounting Research | The role of reward systems and trust in strategic change | The contingency theory | Effectiveness of MCS and change management | Case study | The USA | The manufacturing |
| Davila, Antonio. et al. | 2017 | Journal of Management Accounting Research | MCS in creative organizations | The sensemaking theory | MCS and creativity | Multiple case studies | Europe | The fashion |
| Drake, Andrea, R. et al. | 2007 | Behavioral Research in Accounting | Empowerment and motivation of non- management employees | The behavioural accounting | Antecedents of motivation and financial performance | Experiment | The USA, Canada, Asia and Europe | |
| Evans, M., and Tucker, B. P | 2015 | Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management | Management controls and environmental change | The complementarity theory | Organizational change | Case study | Australia | The energy |
| Ferreira, Aldónio. and Otley, David, T | 2009 | Management Accounting Research | Development of a holistic performance management system | The contingency theory | Simplification of performance management and management control systems | Multiple case studies | Portugal | |
| Fogarty, Timothy, J. et al. | 2000 | Behavioral Research in Accounting | Antecedents and consequences of burnout in accounting | The role stress model | Functional and dysfunctional aspects of role stressors | Survey | The USA | The accounting |
| Grabner, Isabella | 2014 | The Accounting Review | Incentive systems in a creativity dependent company | The complementarity theory | Conflict between creativity and control | Survey | Germany, Austria and Switzerland | Different industries |
| Groen, Bianca, A. C. et al. | 2012 | Management Accounting Research | Employee performance | The theory of planned behaviour | Co-development of performance measurements | Multi-method | The Netherlands | Beverage |
| Hall, Matthew | 2008 | Accounting, Organizations and Society | Behavioural consequences of PMS | Behaviour theories | Improvement of individual performance | Survey | Australia | Different industries |
| Henri, Jean-François | 2006 | Accounting, Organizations and Society | Organizational culture | The contingency theory | Influence of organizational culture on the design and use of control systems | Survey | Canada | Different industries |
| Kruis, Anne- Marie et al. | 2016 | Management Accounting Research | Balance of levers of control framework | The configuration theory | Configuration of controls in relation of the strategic objective | Survey | The Netherlands | Different industries |
| Mahama, Habib Cheng, Mandy M | 2013 | Behavioral Research in Accounting | Managers' enabling perceptions in relation to cost systems | Behaviour theories | Costing systems and empowerment | Survey | Australia | Different industries |
| Malmi, Teemu Brown, David A | 2008 | Management Accounting Research | Management control systems as a package | The configuration theory | Control design | Conceptual | ||
| Morales, Jeremy | 2019 | Management Accounting Research | Search for meaningful work through symbolic categories | Behavioural theories | Symbolic categorization | Multiple case studies | The UK | Different industries |
| Mundy, Julia | 2010 | Accounting, Organizations and Society | Enabling use of MCS | Complementarity theory | Balanced use of Levers of Control Framework | Multiple case studies | The UK | The financial |
| Pfister, Jan; Lukka, Kari | 2019 | The Accounting Review | Management controls and motivation | The self-determination theory | Relevance of personnel and culture controls | Case study | Finland | The IT |
| Speklè, Roland, F. et al. | 2017 | Behavioral Research in Accounting | Creativity and control | The self-determination theory | Control system use to drive empowerment and creativity | Survey | The Netherlands | Different industries |
| Tillmann, Katja Goddard, Andrew | 2008 | Management Accounting Research | Management control use for organizational sensemaking | The sense-making theory | Perception and use of strategic management accounting | Grounded theory development | Germany | Chemicals |
| Tuomela, Tero-Seppo | 2005 | Management Accounting Research | Interplay of Levers of Control Framework | The complementarity theory | Levers of Control Framework use for business strategy | Multiple case studies | Finland | Different industries |
| Voußem, Ludwig et al. | 2016 | Management Accounting Research | Fairness perception of annual bonus payments | The equity theory | Behavioural management accounting | Survey | Germany, Austria and Switzerland | Different industries |
| Widener, Sally | 2007 | Accounting, Organizations and Society | Associations of control use to attention and learning | The contingency theory and the complementarity theory | Antecedents of control use and costs and benefits | Survey | The USA | Different industries |
Notes
VOS (which stands for “visualization of similarities”) is a mapping technique for constructing and visualizing bibliometric networks (van Eck et al., 2010). The VOSviewer takes a distance-based approach which allows the visualization of any type of bibliometric network (van Eck and Waltman, 2014).
The SMACOF algorithm is a multidimensional scaling algorithm (Borg and Groenen, 2005).
The TMGT effect suggests that antecedent variables widely accepted as directing to desirable outcomes can lead to negative effects in practice (Pierce and Aguinis, 2013).
Table A2 illustrates the sample characteristics of the structured literature review. A summary (Tables A3–A5) of the review illustrates the main attributes and of the 90 found studies including the authors' names, date and the journal the study was published, the area of research, underlying theory or theories used, methods of data collection and the country and industry where the research took place.
Cluster 1: Meaningfulness can arise from the roles in that people perform (Deeg and May, 2022; Dutton et al., 2010; May et al., 2004; Spreitzer, 1996). Roles go beyond individual job tasks, and include sets of norms and expectations concerning the behaviour and identity of the employee, relating to “who I am” rather than “what I do” (Bailey et al., 2017) or “why am I here?” (Lips-Wiersma and Wright, 2012). Morales (2019) finds that management accountants build symbolic categories to create a bridge between what they do and who they are, to secure a feeling of meaningfulness. Practices that best typify meaningful work are those that nurture callings. When one's work is a calling, it is seen as the sum of “socially” valuable activities that are pleasurable (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003). A qualitative study of zookeepers noted that those with a sense of calling were more willing to sacrifice money, time and physical comfort or well-being for their work (Bunderson and Thompson, 2009).
Pratt and Ashforth (2003) draw on the social identity theory to show how individuals' membership in valued groups can enhance the perception of meaningful work through raised levels of self-esteem. They suggest that the creation of family-like dynamics at work such as through fostering care and connection between people can promote solidarity and cohesion. Chatman et al. (1991) point out that when employees have consistent values with the organization, the culture of the organization could contribute to the employees' working morale, their promises to the company and their efficiency or performance. Brickson (2007) suggests that employees' perceived congruence between their identities and the identity orientation of their organization (i.e. individualistic, relational or collectivistic) play a role in the meaning of their work. Colbert et al. (2016) indicate that positive workplace relationships increase perceptions of meaningfulness. Duchon and Plowman (2005) argue that a meaningful work climate is a set of perceptions that workers have about the local work unit, how it is managed and how workers relate to each other. This climate enhances workplace spirituality and improves work unit performance. Many authors agree that meaningful work is highly associated with strong value-driven organizational cultures and spirituality where personal identification or individual-organization value congruence is identified as a principal source of meaningfulness (Ashforth et al., 2016; Bailey et al., 2017; Brickson, 2005, 2007; Chatman et al., 1991; Kristof, 1996; Robertson et al., 2020).
Cluster 2: Interactions with beneficiaries are motivating because they highlight the prosocial impact that work can have on others (Brieger et al., 2020; Grant, 2007, 2008; Lin et al., 2020; Rodell, 2013; Rosso et al., 2010). Grant (2008)'s theory of prosocial motivation further proposes that meaningful work tasks are those that provide service to society or the community and contribute to the sense of a greater good or higher purpose. Furthermore, Colbert et al. (2016) find empirically that giving to others is positively related to perceptions of meaningful work. Lately, the meaningful work perception of entrepreneurs, who may face various challenges in establishing their business, has been discussed in some studies (Brieger et al., 2020; Gregori et al., 2021). Entrepreneurs who perceive that their work has a positive direct effect on beneficiaries and create social value, rate higher on work meaningfulness and engagement (Brieger et al., 2020). Entrepreneurial engagement in environmental businesses further relates to positive work identities and the perception of meaningful work (Gregori et al., 2021). However, research also argues that altruistic motivation is not the only driver for social contribution. Employees also expect that altruism would lead to private benefits such as developing skills to enhance career prospects (Bode and Singh, 2018), and according to Grant (2008), social contribution is more likely to improve job performance for employees with strong prosocial values than for employees with weak prosocial values.
Cluster 3: The perception of meaningful work is positively influenced when the individual perceives higher levels of autonomy, skill variety, task significance and task identity (Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Oerlemans and Bakker, 2018), which, in turn, contributes positively to motivation, performance and satisfaction (Rosso et al., 2010). When employees experience their work as meaningful (i.e. significant, challenging and complete), the potential for that work to be internally motivating is greatly improved because employees feel that their work matters (Hackman and Oldham, 1976, 1980). Especially, employees who experience making a difference or impact (Grant, 2007, 2008; Pratt and Ashforth, 2003) are associated with higher levels of work motivation (Foulk et al., 2019; Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Humphrey et al., 2007), i.e. autonomous motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000), engagement and productivity (Grant, 2008; Kahn, 1990).
Cluster 4: Researchers have explored that certain leadership styles can influence the degree to which work is perceived as meaningful (Gartenberg et al., 2019; Kempster et al., 2011; Rosso et al., 2010; Schaubroeck et al., 2012) and particularly emphasize meaningful work related to transformational leadership practices (Carton and Lucas, 2018; Tepper et al., 2018). Moreover, different studies show that if employees experience meaningful work their engagement increases (Allan et al., 2019; Barrick et al., 2015; Humphrey et al., 2007; Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004). In a current meta-analysis of meaningful work, Allan et al. (2019) find amongst others, that meaningful work highly correlates with work engagement, commitment and job satisfaction and has moderate to large correlations with life satisfaction, life meaning and general health.
Individuals are further not passive respondents; they help create meaning that express and confirm their desired sense of self (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003). Extra role behaviour (Lin et al., 2020), job crafting (Sonenshein et al., 2013; Vogel et al., 2016) or sensemaking (Müller et al., 2019; Tillmann and Goddard, 2008) are methods to enhance the perception of meaningful work by changing the parameters of one's job to suit personal needs, preferences and abilities that can lead to more meaningfulness. As a result, psychological empowerment (Drake et al., 2007; Hall, 2008), thriving (Paterson et al., 2014), employee well-being (Franco-Santos and Doherty, 2017; Van De Voorde et al., 2012) and individual performance (Hackman and Oldham, 1980; Humphrey et al., 2007; Wrzesniewski, 2003) are positively affected.
References
Adler, P.S. and Borys, B. (1996), “Two types of bureaucracy: enabling and coercive”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 1, p. 61, doi: 10.2307/2393986.
Adler, P.S. and Chen, X. (2011), “Combining creativity and control: understanding individual motivation in large-scale collaborative creativity”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 63-85, doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2011.02.002.
Ahrens, T. and Chapman, C., S. (2004), “Accounting for flexibility and efficiency: a field study of management control systems in a restaurant chain”, Contemporary Accounting Research, No. 2, p. 271, doi: 10.1506/VJR6-RP75-7GUX-XH0X.
Albrecht, S.L. (2013), “Work engagement and the positive power of meaningful work”, in Bakker, A.B. (Ed.), Advances in Positive Organizational Psychology, Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp. 237-260.
Allan, B.A. (2017), “Task significance and meaningful work: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 102, pp. 174-182.
Allan, B.A., Autin, K.L. and Duffy, R.D. (2014), “Examining social class and work meaning within the psychology of working framework”, Journal of Career Assessment, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 543-561, doi: 10.1177/1069072713514811.
Allan, B.A., Douglass, R.P., Duffy, R.D. and McCarty, R.J. (2016), “Meaningful work as a moderator of the relation between work stress and meaning in life”, Journal of Career Assessment, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 429-440, doi: 10.1177/1069072715599357.
Allan, B.A., Duffy, R.D. and Collisson, B. (2018), “Task significance and performance: meaningfulness as a mediator”, Journal of Career Assessment, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 172-182, doi: 10.1177/1069072716680047.
Allan, B.A., Batz-Barbarich, C., Sterling, H.M. and Tay, L. (2019), “Outcomes of meaningful work: a meta‐analysis”, Journal of Management Studies, John Wiley & Sons, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 500-528, doi: 10.1111/joms.12406.
Amabile, T.M. and Pratt, M.G. (2016), “The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: making progress, making meaning”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 36, pp. 157-183, doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001.
Anser, M.K., Ali, M., Usman, M., Rana, M.L.T. and Yousaf, Z. (2021), “Ethical leadership and knowledge hiding: an intervening and interactional analysis”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 41 Nos 5-6, pp. 307-329, doi: 10.1080/02642069.2020.1739657.
Ashforth, B.E., Schinoff, B.S. and Rogers, K.M. (2016), “‘I identify with her’, ‘I identify with him’: unpacking the dynamics of personal identification in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 28-60, doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0033.
Asik-Dizdar, O. and Esen, A. (2016), “Sensemaking at work: meaningful work experience for individuals and organizations”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 2-17, doi: 10.1108/IJOA-12-2013-0728.
Bailey, C. and Madden, A. (2017), “Time reclaimed: temporality and the experience of meaningful work”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 3-18, doi: 10.1177/0950017015604100.
Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., Shantz, A. and Soane, E. (2017), “The mismanaged soul: existential labor and the erosion of meaningful work”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 416-430, doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.11.001.
Bailey, C., Yeoman, R., Madden, A., Thompson, M. and Kerridge, G. (2019), “A review of the empirical literature on meaningful work: progress and research agenda”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 83-113, doi: 10.1177/1534484318804653.
Barrick, M.R., Thurgood, G.R., Smith, T.A. and Courtright, S.H. (2015), “Collective organizational engagement: linking motivational antecedents, strategic implementation, and firm performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 111-135, doi: 10.5465/amj.2013.0227.
Bartlett, C. and Ghoshal, S. (1994), “Beyond strategy to purpose”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 79-88, available at: https://hbr.org/1994/11/beyond-strategy-to-purpose.
Beadle, R. and Knight, K. (2012), “Virtue and meaningful work”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 433-450, doi: 10.5840/beq201222219.
Bedford, D.S. (2020), “Conceptual and empirical issues in understanding management control combinations”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 86, 101187, doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2020.101187.
Bedford, D.S., Malmi, T. and Sandelin, M. (2016), “Management control effectiveness and strategy: an empirical analysis of packages and systems”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 51, pp. 12-28, doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2016.04.002.
Berkelaar, B.L. and Buzzanell, P.M. (2015), “Bait and switch or double-edged sword? The (sometimes) failed promises of calling”, Human Relations, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 157-178, doi: 10.1177/0018726714526265.
Bode, C. and Singh, J. (2018), “Taking a hit to save the world? Employee participation in a corporate social initiative”, Strategic Management Journal, John Wiley & Sons, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 1003-1030, doi: 10.1002/smj.2762.
Borg, I. and Groenen, P.J.F. (2005), Modern Multidimensional Scaling, 2nd ed., Springer.
Bowie, N.E. (1998), “A Kantian theory of meaningful work: JBE”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 1083-1092, available at: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/kantian-theory-meaningful-work/docview/198097023/se-2.
Bowie, N. (2017), Business Ethics: A Kantian Perspective, 2nd ed., doi: 10.1017/9781316343210.
Brickson, S., L. (2005), “Organizational identity orientation: forging a link between organizational identity and organizations' relations with stakeholders”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 4, p. 576, available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30037222.
Brickson, S., L. (2007), “Organizational identity orientation: the genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, p. 864, available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20159339.
Brieger, S.A., Anderer, S., Fröhlich, A., Bäro, A. and Meynhardt, T. (2020), “Too much of a good thing? On the relationship between CSR and employee work addiction”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 166 No. 2, doi: 10.1007/s10551-019-04141-8.
Bunderson, S.J. and Thompson, J.A. (2009), “The call of the wild: zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 54, pp. 32-57, doi: 10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.32.
Burkert, M., Davila, A., Mehta, K. and Oyon, D. (2014), “Relating alternative forms of contingency fit to the appropriate methods to test them”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 6-29, available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1044500513000735.
Burney, L.L., Radtke, R.R. and Widener, S.K. (2017), “The intersection of ‘bad apples,’ ‘bad barrels,’ and the enabling use of performance measurement systems”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 25-48, doi: 10.2308/isys-51624.
Busco, C., Frigo, M., Hickey, L., Pavlovic, A. and Riccaboni, A. (2018), “Toward business 2030”, Strategic Finance, Vol. 12, pp. 27-35.
Buzzanell, P.M., Long, Z., Anderson, L.B., Kokini, K. and Batra, J.C. (2015), “Mentoring in academe: a feminist poststructural lens on stories of women engineering faculty of color”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 440-457, doi: 10.1177/0893318915574311.
Carton, A.M. (2018), “‘I'm not mopping the floors, I'm putting a man on the moon’: how NASA leaders enhanced the meaningfulness of work by changing the meaning of work”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 323-369, doi: 10.1177/0001839217713748.
Carton, A.M. and Lucas, B.J. (2018), “How can leaders overcome the blurry vision bias? Identifying an antidote to the paradox of vision communication”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 61 No. 6, pp. 2106-2129, doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.0375.
Cartwright, S. and Holmes, N. (2006), “The meaning of work: the challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 199-208, doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.012.
Chalofsky, N. (2003), “An emerging construct for meaningful work”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 69-83, doi: 10.1080/1367886022000016785.
Chalofsky, N. and Cavallaro, L. (2013), “A good living versus A good life: meaning, purpose, and HRD”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 331-340, doi: 10.1177/1523422313498560.
Chalofsky, N. and Krishna, V. (2009), “Meaningfulness, commitment, and engagement:the intersection of a deeper level of intrinsic motivation”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 189-203, doi: 10.1177/1523422309333147.
Chatman, J., O'Reilly, C.A. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991), “People and organizational culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 487-516, doi: 10.2307/256404.
Chen, S.-J., Wang, M.-J. and Lee, S.-H. (2018), “Transformational leadership and voice behaviors: the mediating effect of employee perceived meaningful work”, Personnel Review, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 694-708, doi: 10.1108/PR-01-2017-0016.
Chenhall, R.H. (2003), “Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 127-168, doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682(01)00027-7.
Chenhall, R.H., Hall, M. and Smith, D. (2010), “Social capital and management control systems: a study of a non-government organization”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 737-756, doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2010.09.006.
Colbert, A.E., Bono, J.E. and Purvanova, R.K. (2016), “Flourishing via workplace relationships: moving beyond instrumental support”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 1199-1223, doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0506.
Daniel Ayala, J.L. (2015), “Workplace spirituality and stress: evidence from Mexico and US”, Management Research Review, Vol. 38, pp. 29-43.
De Boeck, G., Dries, N. and Tierens, H. (2019), “The experience of untapped potential: towards a subjective temporal understanding of work meaningfulness”, Journal of Management Studies, John Wiley & Sons, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 529-557, doi: 10.1111/joms.12417.
De Hauw, S. and De Vos, A. (2010), “Millennials' career perspective and psychological contract expectations: does the recession lead to lowered expectations?”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 293-302, doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9162-9.
Deeg, M.D. and May, D.R. (2022), “The benefits to the human spirit of acting ethically at work: the effects of professional moral courage on work meaningfulness and life well-being”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 181 No. 2, pp. 397-411, doi: 10.1007/s10551-021-04980-4.
Demirtas, O., Hannah, S.T., Gok, K., Arslan, A. and Capar, N. (2017), “The moderated influence of ethical leadership, via meaningful work, on followers' engagement, organizational identification, and envy”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 145 No. 1, pp. 183-199, doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2907-7.
Dempsey, S.E. and Sanders, M.L. (2010), “Meaningful work? Nonprofit marketization and work/life imbalance in popular autobiographies of social entrepreneurship”, Organization, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 437-459, doi: 10.1177/1350508410364198.
Dik, B.J. and Shimizu, A.B. (2019), “Multiple meanings of calling: next steps for studying an evolving construct”, Journal of Career Assessment, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 323-336, doi: 10.1177/1069072717748676.
Dik, B.J., Eldridge, B.M., Steger, M.F. and Duffy, R.D. (2012), “Development and validation of the calling and vocation questionnaire (CVQ) and brief calling scale (BCS)”, Journal of Career Assessment, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 242-263, doi: 10.1177/1069072711434410.
Dobernig, K. and Stagl, S. (2015), “Growing a lifestyle movement? Exploring identity-work and lifestyle politics in urban food cultivation”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 452-458, doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12222.
Drake, A.R., Wong, J. and Salter, S.B. (2007), “Empowerment, motivation, and performance: examining the impact of feedback and incentives on nonmanagement employees”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 19, pp. 71-89, doi: 10.2308/bria.2007.19.1.71.
Duchon, D. and Plowman, D.A. (2005), “Nurturing the spirit at work: impact on work unit performance”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 807-833, available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984305000767.
Dutton, J.E., Roberts, L.M. and Bednar, J. (2010), “Pathways for positive identity construction at work: four types of positive identity and the building of social resources”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 265-293, doi: 10.5465/amr.35.2.zok265.
Evans, M. and Tucker, B.P. (2015), “Unpacking the package: management control in an environment of organisational change”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 346-376, doi: 10.1108/QRAM-07-2015-0062.
Fairlie, P. (2011), “Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key employee outcomes: implications for human resource development”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 508-525, doi: 10.1177/1523422311431679.
Faro Albuquerque, I., Campos Cunha, R., Dias Martins, L. and Brito Sá, A. (2014), “Primary health care services: workplace spirituality and organizational performance”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 59-82, doi: 10.1108/JOCM-11-2012-0186.
Ferreira, A. and Otley, D. (2009), “The design and use of performance management systems: an extended framework for analysis”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 263-282, doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2009.07.003.
Fineman, S. (2006), “On being positive: concerns and counterpoints”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, p. 270, doi: 10.2307/20159201.
Florian, M., Costas, J. and Kärreman, D. (2019), “Struggling with meaningfulness when context shifts: volunteer work in a German refugee shelter”, Journal of Management Studies, John Wiley & Sons, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 589-616, doi: 10.1111/joms.12410.
Fogarty, T.J., Singh, J., Rhoads, G.K. and Moore, R.K. (2000), “Antecedents and consequences of burnout in accounting: beyond the role stress model”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 12, p. 31.
Foulk, T.A., Lanaj, K. and Krishnan, S. (2019), “The virtuous cycle of daily motivation: effects of daily strivings on work behaviors, need satisfaction, and next-day strivings”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 104 No. 6, pp. 755-775, doi: 10.1037/apl0000385.
Franco-Santos, M. and Doherty, N. (2017), “Performance management and well-being: a close look at the changing nature of the UK higher education workplace”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 28 No. 16, pp. 2319-2350, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2017.1334148.
Franco‐Santos, M. and Otley, D. (2018), “Reviewing and theorizing the unintended consequences of performance management systems”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 696-730, doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12183.
Gartenberg, C., Prat, A. and Serafeim, G. (2019), “Corporate purpose and financial performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1287/orsc.2018.1230.
Gerdin, J. (2005), “Management accounting system design in manufacturing departments: an empirical investigation using a multiple contingencies approach”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 99-126, doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2003.11.003.
Gerdin, J. (2020), “Management control as a system: integrating and extending theorizing on Mc Complementarity and institutional logics”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 49, 100716, doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2020.100716.
Gerdin, J., Johansson, T. and Wennblom, G. (2019), “The contingent nature of complementarity between results and value-based controls for managing company-level profitability: a situational strength perspective”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 79, 101058, doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2019.101058.
Ghoshal, S. (2005), “Bad management theories are destroying good management practices”, Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 75-91, doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2005.16132558.
Gordon, L.A. and Smith, K.J. (1992), “Postauditing capital expenditures and firm performance: the role of asymmetric information. Accounting”, Organizations and Society, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 741-757, doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(92)90002-A.
Grabner, I. and Moers, F. (2013), “Management control as a system or a package? Conceptual and empirical issues”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 38, pp. 407-419, doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2013.09.002.
Grady, G. and McCarthy, A.M. (2008), “Work-life integration: experiences of mid-career professional working mothers”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 599-622, doi: 10.1108/02683940810884559.
Grant, A. (2007), “Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 393-417, doi: 10.5465/amr.2007.24351328.
Grant, A. (2008), “The significance of task significance: job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 108-124, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108.
Grant, A. (2012), “Leading with meaning: beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance effects of transformational leadership”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 2, p. 458, doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0588.
Gregori, P., Holzmann, P. and Wdowiak, M.A. (2021), “For the sake of nature: identity work and meaningful experiences in environmental entrepreneurship”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 122, pp. 488-501, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.032.
Guindon, M.H. and Hanna, F.J. (2002), “Coincidence, happenstance, serendipity, fate, or the hand of God: case studies in synchronicity”, The Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 195-208.
Gupta, M., Kumar, V. and Singh, M. (2014), “Creating satisfied employees through workplace spirituality: a study of the private insurance sector in Punjab (India)”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 122, pp. 79-88, doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1756-5.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-279, doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading.
Hall, M. (2008), “The effect of comprehensive performance measurement systems on role clarity, psychological empowerment and managerial performance”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 141-163, doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2007.02.004.
Hassan, M., Bin Nadeem, A. and Akhter, A. (2016), “Impact of workplace spirituality on job satisfaction: mediating effect of trust”, Cogent Business and Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, 1189808, doi: 10.1080/23311975.2016.1189808.
Heggen, C. and Sridharan, V.G. (2021), “The effects of an enabling approach to eco-control on firms' environmental performance: a research note”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 50, 100724, doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2020.100724.
Heinicke, A., Guenther, T.W. and Widener, S.K. (2016), “An examination of the relationship between the extent of a flexible culture and the levers of control system: the key role of beliefs control”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 33, pp. 25-41, doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2016.03.005.
Henderson, R. and Van den Steen, E. (2015), “Why do firms have ‘purpose’? The firm's role as a carrier of identity and reputation”, American Economic Review, Vol. 105 No. 5, pp. 326-330.
Henri, J.-F. (2006), “Organizational culture and performance measurement systems”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 77-103, doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2004.10.003.
Hodson, R. (2002), “Management citizenship behavior and its consequences”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 64-96, doi: 10.1177/0730888402029001004.
Hollensbe, E., Wookey, C., Hickey, L., George, G. and Nichols, C.V. (2014), “Organizations with purpose”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 1227-1234.
Holmes, K. (2006), “Experiential learning or exploitation? Volunteering for work experience in the UK museums sector”, Museum Management and Curatorship, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 240-253, doi: 10.1080/09647770600502103.
Humphrey, S.E., Nahrgang, J.D. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5, pp. 1332-1356, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332.
Iatridis, K., Gond, J.-P. and Kesidou, E. (2021), “How meaningfulness and professional identity interact in emerging professions: the case of corporate social responsibility consultants”, Organization Studies, Vol. 43 No. 9, pp. 1401-1423, 01708406211035506, doi: 10.1177/01708406211035506.
Jiang, L. and Johnson, M.J. (2018), “Meaningful work and affective commitment: a moderated mediation model of positive work reflection and work centrality”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 545-558, doi: 10.1007/s10869-017-9509-6.
Jung, H.S. and Yoon, H.H. (2016), “What does work meaning to hospitality employees? The effects of meaningful work on employees' organizational commitment: the mediating role of job engagement”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 53, pp. 59-68, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.12.004.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724, doi: 10.5465/256287.
Kempster, S., Jackson, B. and Conroy, M. (2011), “Leadership as purpose: exploring the role of purpose in leadership practice”, LEADERSHIP, Vol. 7, pp. 317-334, doi: 10.1177/1742715011407384.
Kim, M. and Beehr, T.A. (2018), “Organization-based self-esteem and meaningful work mediate effects of empowering leadership on employee behaviors and well-being”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 385-398, doi: 10.1177/1548051818762337.
Kim, M., Kim, A.C.H., Newman, J.I., Ferris, G.R. and Perrewé, P.L. (2019), “The antecedents and consequences of positive organizational behavior: the role of psychological capital for promoting employee well-being in sport organizations”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 108-125, doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2018.04.003.
Kinjerski, V. and Skrypnek, B.J. (2006), “Measuring the intangible: development of the spirit at work scale”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2006 No. 1, pp. A1-A6, doi: 10.5465/ambpp.2006.22898605.
Korek, S., Felfe, J. and Zaepernick-Rothe, U. (2010), “Transformational leadership and commitment: a multilevel analysis of group-level influences and mediating processes”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 364-387, doi: 10.1080/13594320902996336.
Kristof, A.L. (1996), “Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 1-49, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x.
Kruis, A.-M., Speklé, R.F. and Widener, S.K. (2016), “The levers of control framework: an exploratory analysis of balance”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 32, pp. 27-44, doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2015.12.002.
Lepisto, D.A. and Pratt, M.G. (2017), “Meaningful work as realization and justification: toward a dual conceptualization”, Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 99-121, doi: 10.1177/2041386616630039.
Li, W., Zhou, L. and Yan, S.-J. (2015), “A case study of blade inspection based on optical scanning method”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 7, pp. 2165-2178, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2014.974851.
Lin, W., Koopmann, J. and Wang, M. (2020), “How does workplace helping behavior step up or slack off? Integrating enrichment-based and depletion-based perspectives”, Journal of Management, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 385-413, doi: 10.1177/0149206318795275.
Lips-Wiersma, M. and Morris, L. (2009), “Discriminating between ‘meaningful work’ and the ‘management of meaning’”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 491-511, doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0118-9.
Lips-Wiersma, M. and Wright, S. (2012), “Measuring the meaning of meaningful work: development and validation of the comprehensive meaningful work scale (CMWS)”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 37, pp. 655-685, doi: 10.1177/1059601112461578.
Lips-Wiersma, M., Wright, S. and Dik, B. (2016), “Meaningful work: differences among blue-, pink-, and white-collar occupations”, Career Development International, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 534-551, doi: 10.1108/CDI-04-2016-0052.
Lips-Wiersma, M., Haar, J. and Wright, S. (2020), “The effect of fairness, responsible leadership and worthy work on multiple dimensions of meaningful work”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 161 No. 1, pp. 35-52, doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3967-2.
Luft, J. and Shields, M.D. (2003), “Mapping management accounting: graphics and guidelines for theory-consistent empirical research”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 169-249, doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682(02)00026-0.
Luthans, F. (2002), “The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 6, p. 695, doi: 10.1002/job.165.
Lysova, E.I., Allan, B.A., Dik, B.J., Duffy, R.D. and Steger, M.F. (2019), “Fostering meaningful work in organizations: a multi-level review and integration”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 110, pp. 374-389, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2018.07.004.
Mahama, H. and Cheng, M.M. (2013), “The effect of managers' enabling perceptions on costing system use, psychological empowerment, and task performance”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 89-114, doi: 10.2308/bria-50333.
Malmi, T. and Brown, D.A. (2008), “Management control systems as a package—opportunities, challenges and research directions”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 287-300, doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2008.09.003.
Malmi, T., Bedford, D.S., Brühl, R., Dergård, J., Hoozée, S., Janschek, O., Willert, J., Ax, C., Bednarek, P., Gosselin, M., Hanzlick, M., Israelsen, P., Johanson, D., Johanson, T., Madsen, D.Ø., Rohde, C., Sandelin, M., Strömsten, T. and Toldbod, T. (2020), “Culture and management control interdependence: an analysis of control choices that complement the delegation of authority in western cultural regions”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 86 October, pp. 101-116, 101116, doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2020.101116.
Martela, F. and Pessi, A.B. (2018), “Significant work is about self-realization and broader purpose: defining the key dimensions of meaningful work”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00363.
Martin, M.W. (2002), “Personal meaning and ethics in engineering”, Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 545-560, doi: 10.1007/s11948-002-0008-3.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and 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, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 11-37, doi: 10.1348/096317904322915892.
May, D.R., Li, C., Mencl, J. and Huang, C.-C. (2014), “The ethics of meaningful work: types and magnitude of job-related harm and the ethical decision-making process”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 121 No. 4, pp. 651-669, doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1736-9.
McClure, J.P. and Brown, J.M. (2008), “Belonging at work”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 3-17, doi: 10.1080/13678860701782261.
Mennicken, A. and Espeland, W.N. (2019), “What's new with numbers? Sociological approaches to the study of quantification”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 223-245, doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-073117-041343.
Merchant, K.A. and Otley, D. (2020), “Beyond the systems versus package debate”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 86, 101185, doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2020.101185.
Merchant, K.A. and Van der Stede, W.A. (2012), Management Control Systems. Performance Measurement, Evaluation and Incentives, 3rd ed., Financial Times Prentice Hall, Essex.
Michaelson, C., Pratt, M., Grant, A.M. and Dunn, C. (2014), “Meaningful work: connecting business ethics and organization studies”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 121 No. 1, p. 77, available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42921366.
Miller, J.G. and Wheeler, K.G. (1992), “Unraveling the mysteries of gender differences in intentions to leave the organization”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 465-478, doi: 10.1002/job.4030130504.
Mitra, R. and Buzzanell, P.M. (2017), “Communicative tensions of meaningful work: the case of sustainability practitioners”, Human Relations, Vol. 70 No. 5, pp. 594-616, doi: 10.1177/0018726716663288.
Morales, J. (2019), “Symbolic categories and the shaping of identity: the categorisation work of management accountants”, Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 252-278, doi: 10.1108/QRAM-06-2018-0040.
Müller, M., Huber, C. and Messner, M. (2019), “Meaningful work at a distance: a case study in a hospital”, European Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 719-729, doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2019.03.008.
Mundy, J. (2010), “Creating dynamic tensions through a balanced use of management control systems”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 35, pp. 499-523, doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2009.10.005.
Munn, S.L. (2013), “Unveiling the work–life system: the influence of work–life balance on meaningful work”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 401-417, doi: 10.1177/1523422313498567.
Nair, N. and Vohra, N. (2010), “An exploration of factors predicting work alienation of knowledge workers”, Management Decision, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 600-615, doi: 10.1108/00251741011041373.
Newstead, T., Macklin, R., Dawkins, S. and Martin, A. (2018), “What is virtue? Advancing the conceptualization of virtue to inform positive organizational inquiry”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 443-457, doi: 10.5465/amp.2016.0162.
Oelberger, C.R. (2019), “The dark side of deeply meaningful work: work‐relationship turmoil and the moderating role of occupational value homophily”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 558-588, doi: 10.1111/joms.12411.
Oerlemans, W.G.M. and Bakker, A.B. (2018), “Motivating job characteristics and happiness at work: a multilevel perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 11, pp. 1230-1241, doi: 10.1037/apl0000318.
Otley, D. (1980), “The contingency theory of management accounting: achievement and prognosis”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 413-428, available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0361368280900409.
Otley, D. (1999), “Performance management: a framework for management control systems research”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 10, pp. 363-382, doi: 10.1006/mare.1999.0115.
Ouchi, W.G. (1979), “A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control mechanisms”, Readings in Accounting for Management Control, Vol. 25, p. 833, Springer US.
Pasmore, W., Winby, S., Mohrman, S.A. and Vanasse, R. (2019), “Reflections: sociotechnical systems design and organization change”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 67-85, doi: 10.1080/14697017.2018.1553761.
Paterson, T.A., Luthans, F. and Jeung, W. (2014), “Thriving at work: impact of psychological capital and supervisor support”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 434-446, doi: 10.1002/job.1907.
Perko, K., Kinnunen, U. and Feldt, T. (2014), “Transformational leadership and depressive symptoms among employees: mediating factors”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 286-304, doi: 10.1108/LODJ-07-2012-0082.
Petchsawang, P. and Duchon, D. (2009), “Measuring workplace spirituality in an Asian context”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 459-468, doi: 10.1080/13678860903135912.
Pfister, J.A. and Lukka, K. (2019), “Interrelation of controls for autonomous motivation: a field study of productivity gains through pressure-induced process innovation”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 345-371, doi: 10.2308/accr-52266.
Phelps, E. (2013), Mass Flourishing: How Grassroots Innovation Created Jobs, Challenge, and Change, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Pierce, J.R. and Aguinis, H. (2013), “The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 313-338, doi: 10.1177/0149206311410060.
Pradhan, S. and Jena, L.K. (2017), “Effect of abusive supervision on employee's intention to quit and the neutralizing role of meaningful work in Indian IT organizations”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 825-838, doi: 10.1108/IJOA-01-2017-1107.
Pradhan, S. and Pradhan, R.K. (2016), “Transformational leadership and job outcomes: the mediating role of meaningful work”, Global Business Review, Vol. 17 3_suppl, pp. 173S-185S, doi: 10.1177/0972150916631211.
Pratt, M. and Ashforth, B. (2003), “Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work”, in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, pp. 309-327.
Purvanova, R.K., Bono, J.E. and Dzieweczynski, J. (2006), “Transformational leadership, job characteristics, and organizational citizenship performance”, Human Performance, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-22, doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup1901_1.
Quinn, R.E., Dutton, J.E. and Cameron, K.S. (2003), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, 1st ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco.
Rafferty, A.E. and Restubog, S.L.D. (2011), “The influence of abusive supervisors on followers' organizational citizenship behaviours: the hidden costs of abusive supervision”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 270-285, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00732.x.
Ramos-Rodríguez, A.-R. and Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004), “Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: a bibliometric study of the strategic management journal”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 981-1004, 1980-2000, John Wiley & Sons, available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20142173.
Raub, S. and Blunschi, S. (2014), “The power of meaningful work: how awareness of CSR initiatives fosters task significance and positive work outcomes in service employees”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 10-18, doi: 10.1177/1938965513498300.
Rich, B., Lepine, J. and Crawford, E. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53, pp. 617-635, doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2010.51468988.
Robertson, K.M., O'Reilly, J. and Hannah, D.R. (2020), “Finding meaning in relationships: the impact of network ties and structure on the meaningfulness of work”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 596-619, doi: 10.5465/amr.2015.0242.
Rodell, J.B. (2013), “Finding meaning through volunteering: why do employees volunteer and what does it mean for their jobs?”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 1274-1294, doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0611.
Rosso, B.D., Dekas, K.H. and Wrzesniewski, A. (2010), “On the meaning of work: a theoretical integration and review”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30, pp. 91-127, available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191308510000067.
Ruhanen, L., Robinson, R. and Breakey, N. (2013), “A tourism immersion internship: student expectations, experiences and satisfaction”, Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, Vol. 13, pp. 60-69, doi: 10.1016/j.jhlste.2013.02.001.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 54-67, doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
Schaubroeck, J.M., Hannah, S.T., Avolio, B.J., Kozlowski, S.W., Lord, R.G., Trevino, L.K., Dimotakis, N. and Peng, A.C. (2012), “Embedding ethical leadership within and across organizational levels”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 1053-1078, doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0064.
Scroggins, W.A. (2008), “The relationship between employee fit perceptions, job performance, and retention: implications of perceived fit”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 57-71, doi: 10.1007/s10672-007-9060-0.
Sharabi, M. and Harpaz, I. (2010), “Improving employees' work centrality improves organizational performance: work events and work centrality relationships”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 379-392, doi: 10.1080/13678868.2010.501960.
Shockley, K.M., Ureksoy, H., Rodopman, O.B., Poteat, L.F. and Dullaghan, T.R. (2016), “Development of a new scale to measure subjective career success: a mixed‐methods study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 128-153, doi: 10.1002/job.2046.
Shuck, B. and Rose, K. (2013), “Reframing employee engagement within the context of meaning and purpose: implications for HRD”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 341-355, doi: 10.1177/1523422313503235.
Simons, R. (1994), “How new top managers use control systems as levers of strategic renewal”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 169-189, available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2486965.
Simons, R. (1995), How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Simons, R., Dávila, A. and Kaplan, R. (2000), Performance Measurement and Control Systems for Implementing Strategy, Prentice-Hall, Hoboken, NJ.
Soane, E., Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., Rees, C. and Gatenby, M. (2013), “The association of meaningfulness, well-being, and engagement with absenteeism: a moderated mediation model”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 52, pp. 441-456, doi: 10.1002/hrm.21534.
Sonenshein, S., Dutton, J.E., Grant, A.M., Spreitzer, G.M. and Sutcliffe, K.M. (2013), “Growing at work: employees' interpretations of progressive self-change in organizations”, Organization Science, Vol. 24 No. 2, p. 552, doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0749.
Sparrow, P.R. (2000), “New employee behaviours, work designs and forms of work organization: what is in store for the future of work?”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 202-218, doi: 10.1108/02683940010320561.
Speklé, R.F., van Elten, H. and Widener, S. (2017), “Creativity and control: a paradox: evidence from the levers of control framework”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 73-96, doi: 10.2308/bria-51759.
Spreitzer, G.M. (1996), “Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment”, The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, p. 483, doi: 10.2307/256789.
Steger, M.F., Pickering, N.K., Shin, J.Y. and Dik, B.J. (2010), “Calling in work: secular or sacred?”, Journal of Career Assessment, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 82-96, doi: 10.1177/1069072709350905.
Steger, M.F., Dik, B.J. and Duffy, R.D. (2012), “Measuring meaningful work: the work and meaning inventory (WAMI)”, Journal of Career Assessment, Vol. 20, pp. 322-337, doi: 10.1177/1069072711436160.
Steger, M.F., Littman-Ovadia, H., Miller, M., Menger, L. and Rothmann, S. (2013), “Engaging in work even when it is meaningless: positive affective disposition and meaningful work interact in relation to work engagement”, Journal of Career Assessment, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 348-361, doi: 10.1177/1069072712471517.
Stein, M.K., Wagner, E.L., Tierney, P., Newell, S. and Galliers, R.D. (2019), “Datification and the pursuit of meaningfulness in work”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 685-717, doi: 10.1111/joms.12409.
Sturman, M.C. (2003), “Searching for the inverted U-shaped relationship between time and performance: meta-analyses of the experience/performance, tenure/performance, and age/performance relationships”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, p. 609, doi: 10.1016/S0149-2063_03_00028-X.
Supanti, D. and Butcher, K. (2019), “Is corporate social responsibility (CSR) participation the pathway to foster meaningful work and helping behavior for millennials?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 77, pp. 8-18, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.001.
Tepper, B.J., Dimotakis, N., Lambert, L.S., Koopman, J., Matta, F.K., Man Park, H. and Goo, W. (2018), “Examining follower responses to transformational leadership from a dynamic, person–environment fit perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 1343-1368, doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0163.
Tessier, S. and Otley, D. (2012), “A conceptual development of Simons' levers of control framework”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 171-185, doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2012.04.003.
Thakor, A.V. and Quinn, R.E. (2013), “The economics of higher purpose”, Finance Working Paper, p. 395.
Thory, K. (2016), “Developing meaningfulness at work through emotional intelligence training”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 58-77, doi: 10.1111/ijtd.12069.
Tillmann, K. and Goddard, A. (2008), “Strategic management accounting and sense-making in a multinational company”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 80-102, doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2007.11.002.
Tims, M., Derks, D. and Bakker, A.B. (2016), “Job crafting and its relationships with person–job fit and meaningfulness: a three-wave study”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 92, pp. 44-53, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.11.007.
Tolbert, P.S. and Moen, P. (1998), “Men's and women's definitions of ‘good’ jobs: similarities and differences by age and across time”, Work and Occupations, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 168-194, doi: 10.1177/0730888498025002003.
Tummers, L.G. and Bronkhorst, B.A.C. (2014), “The impact of leader-member exchange (LMX) on work-family interference and work-family facilitation”, Personnel Review, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 573-591, doi: 10.1108/PR-05-2013-0080.
Tummers, L.G. and Knies, E. (2013), “Leadership and meaningful work in the public sector”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 859-868, doi: 10.1111/puar.12138.
Van De Voorde, F.C., Paauwe, J. and Veldhoven, M.J.P.M.v. (2012), “Employee well-being and the HRM-organizational performance relationship: a review of quantitative studies”, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00322.x.
van Eck, N.J. and Waltman, L. (2009), “How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 60 No. 8, pp. 1635-1651, doi: 10.1002/asi.21075.
van Eck, N.J. and Waltman, L. (2014), “Visualizing bibliometric networks”, in Ding, Y., Rousseau, R. and Wolfram, D. (Eds), Measuring Scholarly Impact: Methods and Practice, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 285-320.
van Eck, N.J., Waltman, L., Dekker, R. and van den Berg, J. (2010), “A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: multidimensional scaling and vos”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 61 No. 12, pp. 2405-2416, doi: 10.1002/asi.21421.
Vogel, R.M., Rodell, J.B. and Lynch, J.W. (2016), “Engaged and productive misfits: how job crafting and leisure activity mitigate the negative effects of value incongruence”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 1561-1584, doi: 10.5465/amj.2014.0850.
Voußem, L., Kramer, S. and Schäffer, U. (2016), “Fairness perceptions of annual bonus payments: the effects of subjective performance measures and the achievement of bonus targets”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 30, pp. 32-46, doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2015.10.001.
Waltman, L., van Eck, N.J. and Noyons, E.C.M. (2010), “A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks”, Journal of Informetrics, No. 4, p. 629, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002.
Weeks, K.P. and Schaffert, C. (2019), “Generational differences in definitions of meaningful work: a mixed methods study”, J Bus Ethics, Vol. 156, pp. 1045-1061, doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3621-4.
Weinberg, F.J. and Locander, W.B. (2014), “Advancing workplace spiritual development: a dyadic mentoring approach”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 391-408, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.009.
Wesner, M.S. and Miller, T. (2008), “Boomers and millennials have much in common”, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 89-96, available at: https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/boomers-millennials-have-much-common/docview/198009222/se-2.
Widener, S.K. (2007), “An empirical analysis of the levers of control framework”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 32 Nos 7-8, pp. 757-788, doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2007.01.001.
Word, J. (2012), “Engaging work as a calling: examining the link between spirituality and job involvement”, Journal of Management, Spirituality and Religion, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 147-166, doi: 10.1080/14766086.2012.688622.
Wouters, M. and Wilderom, C. (2008), “Developing performance-measurement systems as enabling formalization: a longitudinal field study of a logistics department”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 488-516, doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2007.05.002.
Wrzesniewski, A. (2003), “Finding positive meaning in work”, in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, pp. 296-308.
Yeoman, R. (2014), “Conceptualising meaningful work as a fundamental human need”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 125 No. 2, pp. 235-251, doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1894-9.