A systematic review of meaningful work unifying 20 years of theoretical and substantive contributions (2000–2020)

Kim-Lim Tan, Adriel K. S. Sim, Steffi Sze-Nee Yap, Sanhakot Vithayaporn, A. Rachmawati
{"title":"A systematic review of meaningful work unifying 20 years of theoretical and substantive contributions (2000–2020)","authors":"Kim-Lim Tan, Adriel K. S. Sim, Steffi Sze-Nee Yap, Sanhakot Vithayaporn, A. Rachmawati","doi":"10.1108/jamr-11-2022-0225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeMeaningful work is gaining importance in the core domains of human resources research. However, there is confusion regarding what constitutes meaningful work and its determinants and outcomes. Earlier studies have conflated conceptual and empirical arguments. Hence, researchers lack clear insights into factors related to employees' experiences of meaningfulness. This study aims to discuss the aforementioned issue.Design/methodology/approachThe authorsconducted a systematic literature review (SLR) of 88 studies (2000–2020) meeting relevant criteria to identify dominant trends and significant gaps in the authors’ understanding of meaningful work.FindingsThis review identified six aspects to conceptualize meaningful work. At the same time, the authors highlighted the dominant theory and the instrument used to explain and measure meaningful work. Based on the same, the authors identified different groups of individual and organizational-level determinants and outcomes of finding meaning in work. The analysis also indicates that the comprehension of meaningful work was restricted because most data were obtained from the USA, Europe and certain regions of Asia. During this assessment, the authors observed that several studies emphasized individual-level effects, self-reporting and cross-sectional studies, which restricted the ability to make causal inferences.Originality/valueThis study extends earlier works where the authors stock-take existing research for the past 20 years and build on past trajectories to enrich the authors’ understanding of meaningful work. Unlike earlier works that focused on a specific domain, such as human resource development, this work differentiates by taking an integrated framework-based approach leveraging the antecedents, decisions and outcomes (ADO) and the theories, contexts and method (TCM) framework to consolidate and advance knowledge in the field thoroughly.","PeriodicalId":46158,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Advances in Management Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Advances in Management Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jamr-11-2022-0225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeMeaningful work is gaining importance in the core domains of human resources research. However, there is confusion regarding what constitutes meaningful work and its determinants and outcomes. Earlier studies have conflated conceptual and empirical arguments. Hence, researchers lack clear insights into factors related to employees' experiences of meaningfulness. This study aims to discuss the aforementioned issue.Design/methodology/approachThe authorsconducted a systematic literature review (SLR) of 88 studies (2000–2020) meeting relevant criteria to identify dominant trends and significant gaps in the authors’ understanding of meaningful work.FindingsThis review identified six aspects to conceptualize meaningful work. At the same time, the authors highlighted the dominant theory and the instrument used to explain and measure meaningful work. Based on the same, the authors identified different groups of individual and organizational-level determinants and outcomes of finding meaning in work. The analysis also indicates that the comprehension of meaningful work was restricted because most data were obtained from the USA, Europe and certain regions of Asia. During this assessment, the authors observed that several studies emphasized individual-level effects, self-reporting and cross-sectional studies, which restricted the ability to make causal inferences.Originality/valueThis study extends earlier works where the authors stock-take existing research for the past 20 years and build on past trajectories to enrich the authors’ understanding of meaningful work. Unlike earlier works that focused on a specific domain, such as human resource development, this work differentiates by taking an integrated framework-based approach leveraging the antecedents, decisions and outcomes (ADO) and the theories, contexts and method (TCM) framework to consolidate and advance knowledge in the field thoroughly.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对有意义的工作的系统回顾,将20年的理论和实质性贡献统一起来(2000-2002)
有意义的工作在人力资源研究的核心领域越来越重要。然而,对于什么是有意义的工作及其决定因素和结果,人们感到困惑。早期的研究将概念论点和实证论点混为一谈。因此,研究人员对与员工意义体验相关的因素缺乏明确的见解。本研究旨在讨论上述问题。设计/方法论/方法作者对88项符合相关标准的研究(2000-2002)进行了系统的文献综述(SLR),以确定作者对有意义工作的理解中的主要趋势和重大差距。发现这篇综述确定了六个方面来概念化有意义的工作。同时,作者强调了主导理论以及用于解释和衡量有意义工作的工具。基于此,作者确定了不同群体的个人和组织层面的决定因素以及在工作中寻找意义的结果。分析还表明,对有意义的工作的理解受到限制,因为大多数数据来自美国、欧洲和亚洲的某些地区。在这项评估中,作者观察到,几项研究强调了个人层面的影响、自我报告和横断面研究,这限制了做出因果推断的能力。原创性/价值这项研究扩展了早期的工作,作者对过去20年的现有研究进行了总结,并在过去的轨迹上进行了构建,以丰富作者对有意义的工作的理解。与早期专注于特定领域(如人力资源开发)的工作不同,这项工作采用了一种基于框架的综合方法,利用先例、决策和结果(ADO)以及理论、背景和方法(TCM)框架来彻底巩固和推进该领域的知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
3.20%
发文量
30
期刊最新文献
The type of supplier involvement in new product development in the automotive industry: metaheuristic-based K-means clustering and analytic hierarchical process methods Resilience of developing economies to external shocks: empirical evidence from CEMAC countries Unbraiding the effect of policy benefits on subjective well-being: the mediating role of work-related well-being Development and psychometric validation of a scale for sources of resistance to change in higher education institutions Assessment of bus fleet service quality: a graph theoretical approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1