Experiencing Meaningful Work as a Lower Socioeconomic Status Worker: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

Abstract

Meta-analytic evidence suggests that experiencing one’s work as meaningful is associated with many psychological benefits. The experience of meaningful work in people with lower socioeconomic status (LSES), however, is underrepresented in the literature. This study examines how LSES individuals describe their experience of meaningful work (MW) in their unique contexts through an interpretative phenomenological analysis approach. Eight LSES workers in the Western United States from diverse backgrounds were interviewed. Data analysis resulted in five domains and 17 nested super-ordinate themes which captured participants’ definitions and experiences of MW, psychosocial and contextual conditions that support or hinder MW, and the impact of MW in their personal lives. LSES individuals navigated their own way to experience MW in their unique contexts despite socioeconomic barriers. Implications for future research and practice for LSES workers are discussed.

Keywords

meaningful work meaning in work meaningfulness in work lower socioeconomic status social class interpretative phenomenological analysis

An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

Meta-analytic evidence suggests that experiencing meaningful work is strongly associated with positive work-related outcomes such as work engagement, commitment, and job satisfaction, as well as general well-being outcomes such as life satisfaction, life meaning, and health (Allan et al., 2019). Meaningful work has been conceptualized by many researchers as work that has personal significance and a broader purpose (Arnold et al., 2007; Chalofsky, 2003; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Steger et al., 2012). Although a few studies suggest that there is a “dark side” to meaningful work in certain contexts such as underemployment (Allan et al., 2020) and close personal relationships (Oelberger, 2018), research to date suggests that the personal benefits of meaningful work outweigh its negative consequences.

The promise of meaningful work as a positive psychological experience is encouraging, yet most participants in this research are professionals representing the mid-to-upper socioeconomic tiers; workers with lower socioeconomic status (LSES) are underrepresented. Indeed, the lack of attention directed toward the role of social class in the experience of meaningful work has been recognized as a substantial problem in the literature (e.g., Duffy et al., 2016; Rosso et al., 2010). Responding to this gap, several empirical studies on meaningful work have begun to explicitly include members of LSES, with social class as a focal point of the research.

In a series of studies, Allan et al. (2014, 2016) found that while there was a small, positive relationship between social class and work meaning, this relationship was mostly explained by work volition, a perceived sense of choice in one’s work. Moreover, primary sources of meaning in work (e.g., helping others) did not meaningfully differ across social class groups, and more surprisingly, higher social class was related to greater extrinsic motivation and lack of motivation when work volition was accounted for. In contrast, Lips-Wiersma et al. (2016) reported data indicating that white-collar workers not only more frequently experienced meaningful work (in terms of expressing their full potential, experiencing unity with others, and serving others) than blue-collar workers, they also viewed expressing their full potential and serving others as more important.

What does this initial mixed evidence reveal regarding the experience of meaningful work among LSES workers? Although LSES workers may have fewer choices and thus fewer opportunities for accessing meaningful work, the sources of, and motivation for, meaningful work may also depend on the person. Yet most of these studies have examined LSES individuals as a group in comparison with their upper-class counterparts, ignoring possible within-group variability (Fouad & Fitzpatrick, 2009). With very few exceptions such as Bailey and Madden’s (2017) qualitative study on the experience of meaningful work among refuse collectors, research has not specifically investigated the experience of LSES work as meaningful, which risks overlooking the richness and complexity of meaningful work among these individuals in their particular contexts. In response, we sought to explore the experience of meaningful work in LSES individuals in-depth, using a qualitative research methodology.

In this study, we did not impose a particular definition or theory of meaningful work to guide our research, opting instead to take an inductive approach to capture the perspectives of LSES workers on their understanding and experience of meaningful work. We initially consulted the extant literature on meaningful work while structuring our research questions but posed them in an open-ended format to allow room for new perspectives. Qualitative research is useful when there is a need to establish a complex and detailed understanding of an issue or its context, empower marginalized individuals to share their stories so they can be heard, and challenge existing theories or develop new hypotheses (Creswell, 2007). Furthermore, the importance of using qualitative methods to understand the work experience of people with little socioeconomic privilege has been stressed within vocational psychology (Blustein, 2001). Specifically, we deployed an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA; Smith et al., 2009) approach in this study. With its phenomenological, hermeneutic, and idiographic emphasis, IPA strives to understand how individuals make sense of their own experiences through “a detailed analysis of divergence and convergence across cases, capturing the texture and richness of each particular individual examined” (Smith et al., 2009, p. 200). These emphases make this method uniquely equipped for examining the various ways LSES workers might experience meaningful work.

Our study was initially inspired by the framework of Liu et al.’s (2004) Social Class Worldview Model (SCWM), which suggests that people work toward congruence among beliefs, behaviors, and perceptions within their social class worldview to meet the perceived expectations of their economic culture. We suspected that the scarcity of research on LSES workers’ meaningful work might reflect implicit lateral classism (i.e., keeping people within a group), which perpetuates the stereotype that LSES individuals are unable to pursue meaningfulness in their work (or that their work is not meaningful work; Ashforth & Kreiner, 2013). Indeed, existing research on the work experience of LSES workers has mostly focused on external barriers and negative aspects of their career development and work adjustment (Harris et al., 2011), neglecting positive work experiences they may encounter. This failure to include LSES workers in the discussion of meaningful work may act to further marginalize them (e.g., Dik & Steger, 2008; Dik et al., 2013). Alternatively, it is arguably an ethical obligation for psychologists to advocate for LSES workers through research and practice and and to support their experience of meaningful work (Steger, 2014). Thus, the view that meaningful work is a privileged experience only accessible to the affluent is a premature assumption that requires more empirical evidence. Building on the alternate assumption that meaningful work is indeed relevant for LSES workers, the following five research questions guided this study:

1. How is meaningful work defined by LSES workers?

2. How is meaningful work experienced by LSES workers?

3. What psychosocial conditions foster meaningful work among LSES workers?

4. What contextual factors influence meaningful work among LSES workers?

5. How does experiencing meaningful work impact LSES workers?

Method

Participants

IPA prefers a small, purposefully selected sample based on participants’ ability to share their particular perspectives on the phenomena of interest (Smith et al., 2009). Although IPA does not prescribe a certain sample size, three to six participants are considered reasonable and sufficient (Smith et al., 2009). Thus, we initially aimed to recruit six LSES working adults from a Western state in the United States who were willing to share their perspectives on their specific experiences in meaningful work. To achieve this goal, we used three specific purposive sampling strategies (Creswell, 2007). First, operational construct sampling was used to recruit participants who met criteria for LSES as operationalized by objective SES indicators. Next, maximum variation sampling was used to diversify the sample to capture the experience of meaningful work of LSES workers in diverse contexts. Finally, snowball sampling was used to help identify additional eligible participants as the population of interest was determined as “hard to reach” (Abrams, 2010) through a pilot study (Shim et al., 2013).

The final inclusion criteria for this study was limited to workers who (a) were at least 18 years old, (b) were currently employed in a non-managerial position (a proxy for occupational status), (c) had attained no more formal education than an associate degree, and (d) reported an approximate annual household income below $23,540, equivalent to 200% of the poverty guideline at the time of recruitment, which was pre-COVID-19 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015). The cut-off for low income was determined based on criteria used in previous studies (Kushel et al., 2006; Lowe et al., 2011).

After receiving Institutional Review Board approval, participants were recruited from a small city (population of approximately 9,000) with relatively lower levels of postsecondary education and median household income. With the help of a director of a non-profit organization who has gained trust in the community, the first author visited recommended workplaces to explain the purpose of the study and the inclusion criteria, and requested this information to be shared with employees who then self-selected into the study. After the first six participants who fit the inclusion criteria were initially recruited, two participants who worked at a fast food restaurant in a larger city (population of approximately 153,000) in the same state with higher average education and median income level were additionally recruited as potential negative cases (i.e., purposefully searching for examples that disconfirm developing theory; Johnson, 1997). This strategy was chosen not only to reduce researcher bias but also because several initially recruited participants expected that the above-mentioned work environments and residential area to have substantial barriers for meaningful work for LSES workers.

The final participants were eight LSES workers from a Western state in the United States. They were diverse in terms of age (range 20–56 years old) and race/ethnicity (three White, Non-Hispanic, four Latino/a, and one multi-racial), and women and men were equally represented. All participants met criteria for LSES as operationalized in this study. Participants’ highest education level, annual household income, number of dependents, employment status, and position/workplace are indicated in Table 1. Pseudonyms were used for all participants. Additional information about the particular contexts of each participant is provided in the online Supplemental Material.

Table 1.

Summary of Participants’ Demographic Characteristics and Particular Context.

Pseudonym	Age	Gender	Race/Ethnicity	Highest Education Level	Annual Household Income (FPL)	Number of Dependents	Employment Status	Position/Workplace
Doug	38	Male	Caucasian	High school	Below 100%	n/a	Part-time	Employee/Non-profit thrift store
Ralph	56	Male	Caucasian	Some college	100–138%	n/a	Part-time	Employee/Non-profit thrift store
Evelyn	51	Female	Latina	High school	100–138%	2	Full-time	Assistant cook/Local coffee shop
Cassidy	22	Female	Caucasian	Associate’s	Below 100%	n/a	Full-time	Cashier/Community health food store
Matt	23	Male	Multi-racial	Some college	Below 100%	1	Full-time	Sales associate/Community health food store
Andrea	30	Female	Latina	Some college	100–138%	1	Full-time	Animal caretaker, small farm operator, video editor, & musician/Private production company
Sofia	20	Female	Latina	GED	Below 100%	n/a	Part-time	Cashier/Franchise fast food restaurant
Daniel	26	Male	Latino	High school	Below 100%	1	Full-time	Cashier/Franchise fast food restaurant

Data Collection

A written consent form was reviewed and signed by all participants prior to data collection. Critical to IPA is the collection of sufficient data to provide the breadth and depth of information needed for analysis. To this end, the data collection strategy included two different forms of data: an in-person semi-structured interview designed to address the five research questions and a survey to collect participants’ demographic information, an objective measure of meaningful work, and subjective measure of social class to help situate the interview data. Semi-structured interviews are an exemplary method for IPA due to their flexibility in allowing the researcher to ask questions of interest while giving participants the opportunity to share stories with rich and novel information (Smith & Osborn, 2003). The initial interview questions were developed by the first author in consultation with previous literature on meaningful work and were modified through a pilot study, resulting in eight questions with prompts to elicit detailed responses (see Table 2). Interview questions were sent to participants in advance via e-mail to permit participants the opportunity to gather their thoughts ahead of the interviews, which were conducted by the first author in a private space at participants’ workplaces or homes. All interviews were audio-recorded and approximately an hour in length. Immediately after each interview, the interviewer recorded initial impressions and reflections in a brief research memo. Finally, participants were contacted for a 30-minute phone follow-up to discuss, review, and validate initial findings. Each received a $30.00 check enclosed with a letter of appreciation upon completion of data collection.

Table 2.

Interview Protocol.

1. Please tell me about your current work. (Prompts: What is your role in your work? Describe your typical workday. How do you feel about your work? How important is your work to you?)
2. Have you ever experienced your work as meaningful to you? When? Please describe a time when you experienced meaning in your work. (Prompts: How about in your previous jobs? Follow-up with Q1, using past job as the reference point. If participant reports experiencing meaning in work, continue with Q3. If participant reports no experience in experiencing meaning in work including current and past jobs, skip Q3 and proceed to Q4.)
3. What is it like when you experience meaning in your work? (Prompts: What thoughts and feelings arise when you experience meaning in your work? How is it different than times you’re your work is not meaningful?)
4. When you experience your work as (meaningful/meaningless), what do you think makes it particularly (meaningful/meaningless)? Where do you think meaning comes from?
5. In what way has experiencing your work as (meaningful/meaningless) influenced you and your life in general?
6. If you could make your work more meaningful, please tell me what you would do. What advice would you want to give to another person who has similar education, income, and job as you but is struggling to find meaning in their work, if any?
7. If you would define “meaningful work” in your own words, what would it be?
8. Is there anything you would like to add?

Data Analysis

All interview recordings were transcribed verbatim by two trained undergraduate research assistants, and the accuracy was checked by the first author. All identifiable information was masked in the transcripts and pseudonyms were used. Since IPA does not have fixed steps for data analysis (Smith et al., 2009), the procedure for the present study drew from multiple sources such as Shaw (2010), Smith et al. (2009), and Willig (2001). Data analysis was conducted in two phases: individual case analysis and cross-case analysis (See Figure 1). The detailed procedure of each phase is outlined below.

Figure 1.

IPA data analysis procedure.

For each individual case, the first author (a) skimmed the whole transcript and wrote an initial summary of the essence of the interview; (b) read the transcript line by line and generated exploratory comments comprised of a descriptive summary, an initial interpretation, and notable use of verbal and non-verbal language; (c) inductively constructed emergent themes from the exploratory comments; (d) created a list of emergent themes and grouped similar themes; (e) and developed a new label for each group of clustered emergent themes using super-ordinate themes at a higher level of abstraction.

For the cross-case analysis, a structure of domains was developed based on the five specific questions of the study to organize the super-ordinate themes from all cases. Super-ordinate themes that did not fit with the structure or that seemed irrelevant with the research questions were classified under the “other” domain. The following steps were conducted for the cross-case analysis: (a) a separate document for each domain was created with all super-ordinate and emergent themes of all cases; (b) a new cross-case super-ordinate theme was generated to represent the original individual super-ordinate themes; (c) each transcript was reviewed again to ensure that the domains and the new cross-case super-ordinate themes accurately represent the original data while refining the themes as needed; (e) final cross-case super-ordinate themes included in the write-up were selected based on their recurrence in half of the sample (Smith et al., 2009) and their addition of a unique perspective relevant to the research questions; and (g) quotes from each participant that support the super-ordinate themes were selected.

Methodological Integrity

Several strategies were used to establish the methodological integrity of the study. Levitt et al. (2017) proposed that methodological integrity in qualitative psychological research can be optimized through two synergetic processes: fidelity to the subject matter and utility in achieving goals. Fidelity to the subject manner can be improved through assessing the adequacy of data, describing how researchers’ perspectives were managed throughout the research process, and demonstrating how the findings are grounded within the data. Utility in achieving goals can be enhanced by providing contextual information relevant to the findings, presenting findings in a coherent manner, and demonstrating that the findings are insightful and make meaningful contributions (Levitt et al., 2018).

In the our study, the fidelity of data was pursued by using multiple data collection methods (i.e., survey and interview data) as a means of triangulation (Denzin, 1978) and perspective management in both data collection and analysis through engaging in researcher reflexivity (Creswell, 2007). Prior to data collection, the first author wrote a reflection of her own background, values, and assumptions about the phenomenon of interest and research memos were kept of any changes in these thoughts that occurred as the research progressed. As a South Korean native woman pursuing a doctoral degree in counseling psychology raised with middle-class values, it was acknowledged that there may be potential blind spots and biases in understanding the experience of meaningful work in LSES individuals.

An audit of the data analysis (Smith et al., 2009) was also conducted by one internal auditor and one external auditor. The internal auditor was the first author’s doctoral advisor and associate professor in counseling psychology who had expertise in meaningful work research. The external auditor was an emeritus professor in education and psychology with extensive expertise in qualitative research. Both auditors reviewed the initial data analysis independently to ensure that the emergent and super-ordinate themes of each individual case accurately represented the data. Themes were revised based on auditors’ comments and the final write-up of the cross-case analysis was also reviewed by the auditors. Importantly, the goal of the audit process in IPA was not to reach consensus, but to confirm that the data analysis is conducted in a systematic and transparent manner (Smith et al., 2009). Finally, a follow-up phone interview was conducted for purposes of member-checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Participants were contacted after the revised version of the individual case analysis was completed and five of the eight participants responded to this invitation. De-identified interview transcripts and emergent themes were sent to the participants for review via their method of choice (e.g., hardcopy and e-mail). Participants were informed about common reactions when reading one’s own transcript (e.g., embarrassment and feeling self-conscious) and were asked to focus on the accuracy of the researcher’s interpretations and any missing critical information rather than proofreading. During the member check, the first author asked clarifying questions, and participants were invited to bring up any corrections, or new information they would like to add. Participants reported that the emergent themes reflected their interviews well.

Second, the utility of the data was achieved by contextualizing the data using thick description (Creswell & Miller, 2000) of participants’ contexts, workplaces, and the findings (i.e., using as much detail as possible). We also provided additional contextual information for participants in online Supplemental Material due to space constraints. In addition, while the data collection methods were informed by extant literature on meaningful work, we remained open to the possibility that previous work may not represent the full experience of LSES workers. Therefore, the questions were shaped in an open-ended manner to allow space for new explanations of the experience of meaningful work in the participants’ particular contexts. Finally, we strove to make sense of any contradictions or disconfirming evidence in our data (Levitt et al., 2018), by explicating where the data from different participants converged and diverged.

Results

Data analysis revealed 17 recurrent super-ordinate themes across cases that captured the experience of meaningful work of the participants under five domains that correspond to the study’s research questions. The final domains and super-ordinate themes endorsed by each participant are summarized in Table 3. Descriptions of each domain and super-ordinate theme, and supporting quotes from participants’ interviews are presented below.

Table 3.

Domains and Recurrent Super-Ordinate Themes across Cases.

Domains	Super-Ordinate Themes	n	Doug	Ralph	Evelyn	Cassidy	Matt	Andrea	Sofia	Daniel
1. Definitions	1) Intrinsically motivating work	6	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	1
	2) Beneficial work to self and others	5	1	0	0	1	1	1	0	1
	3) Positive emotion-evoking work	4	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1
4. Experiences	4) Perception of meaningfulness	8	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
4. Experiences	5) Positive emotions	8	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
6. Psychosocial conditions	6) High self-efficacy and competence in work	8	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
	7) Fit between personal values and work	7	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1
	8) Positive social interactions and support	7	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1
	9) Benefitting and mattering to others	7	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	1
	10) Effective use of time	4	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	0
	11) Means for financial stability	4	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	1
4. Contextual conditions	12) Developmental stage	4	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1
	13) Access to resources and opportunities	7	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	1
	14) Family and close social relationships	5	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	0
	15) Local community and culture	5	1	0	1	0	0	1	1	1
8. Personal impact	16) Increase in well-being and satisfaction	6	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	1
8. Personal impact	17) Change in perspective, values, and behaviors in work and life	6	1	1	0	1	1	1	1	0

Domain 1: Definitions of Meaningful Work

How do LSES workers define meaningful work? Instead of providing an a priori definition of meaningful work, participants were asked how they would define meaningful work in their own words. Participants of our study defined meaningful work as intrinsically motivating work (Theme 1), beneficial work for to self and others (Theme 2), and positive emotion-evoking work (Theme 3).

Six participants viewed meaningful work as work that is motivating even when there is no extrinsic reason. For instance, Doug defined meaningful work as “something you don’t even need an alarm clock to get up for in the morning” and work that is meaningful “even though you’re not getting paid for it.” Other participants also noted that meaningful work is inherently enjoyable. For example, Cassidy indicated that meaningful work is about “not really feeling like you’re at work … because you would be enjoying yourself.”

Five participants described meaningful work as work that derives benefits to the self and others. Matt eloquently stated this definition of meaningful work in the following quote:

Uh, if somebody were to ask me what is meaningful work, I would say you kind of have to take a step back and look at who it benefits and if it benefits. If it benefits you that’s great, if it benefits other people it’s even better. If you’re benefitting the world around you than that’s probably the most excellent work you could ever do. If it harms nobody then that’s probably the best thing you can do. That’s what I think meaningful work is, not coming home with a huge paycheck, I mean if you can do something that benefits everybody and you have a big paycheck, then that’s great too, but if it benefits those around you and it benefits the quality of life for yourself and your own soul, then that’s meaningful.

Matt extends personal benefits of meaningful work to the larger community and notes that the benefit is not financial, but rather psychological. This idea was supported by several other participants, like Andrea, who defined meaningful work as work that “empowers yourself or others in some way.”

Finally, half the participants indicated that meaningful work should also evoke positive emotions. For example, participants described meaningful work as “something that could make you feel good about what you do” (Daniel), and “doing something that makes you happy” (Cassidy). Although commonalities in definitions of meaningful work were found among the participants, Andrea points out that it may be “different for everybody,” suggesting that meaningful work is a subjective phenomenon.

Domain 2: Experiences of Meaningful Work

Compared with the previous domain which focuses on how LSES workers understood and conceptualized meaningful work, this domain captured participants’ descriptions of their actual experiences of meaningful work. It appeared that participants in our study perceived meaningfulness in their work to varying degrees (Theme 4) and reported experiencing a range of positive emotions (Theme 5) during meaningful work.

All participants in our study perceived their current work as meaningful to some extent. Several participants particularly expressed a strong sense of meaning in their work (e.g., Doug and Andrea). After describing his work in the thrift store, Doug expressed that “it really doesn’t get more meaningful than that … I don’t really think there could be much more, besides going down to Haiti or something.” Although Doug perceived his level of meaningfulness in work in terms of quantity (i.e., it approaches the highest or deepest levels of meaning), Andrea appeared to recognize it through frequency. When asked about a time when she finds her work meaningful, she said, “Oh gosh, yeah, there’s a lot of moments like that are really full of meaning! … this happens, like, all the time.”

On the other hand, some participants viewed their current work as meaningful, but not quite to the extent that Doug and Andrea expressed. For Cassidy, the level of meaningfulness in her current work seemed to fluctuate day by day and depends on whether she gets to do tasks she finds meaningful on a given day: “[There are] days that are really meaningful when I’m telling people all this stuff, and some days that I’m like, ‘I don’t know why I’m here,’ you know, but a lot of the time it is really positive, and I would say yeah it’s, it’s meaningful to me.” Among all the participants, Daniel appeared to be the most uncertain, and initially struggled to apply the word “meaningful” to his work. However, even he acknowledged his work is meaningful to some extent after discussing his interactions with customers in the latter part of his interview, which seemed to have influenced his perception of meaningfulness in his work.

Several participants also compared their perceived meaningfulness in their current work with previous jobs and workplaces, and with other organizations and employees. For example, as a contrast to his current meaningful work experience, Matt talked about how he disliked his previous job as a carpenter’s assistant and did not experience it as meaningful: “I actually really hated that job. If it wasn’t for the money, I would’ve quit [earlier].” Although Matt’s sense of meaningfulness in work differed by the job, Evelyn appeared to experience meaningfulness in her work regardless of what job she held. When asked if there was any time she did not experience her work as meaningful, she stated, “I like working. I mean, I haven’t had too many jobs, but … I like to work. I like to do things.”

In addition to perceiving meaningfulness in their work, all participants reported experiencing some type of positive emotion at times when their work is perceived as meaningful. The common positive emotions experienced by participants were happiness, excitement, gratitude, pride, confidence, enjoyment, and fun. For example, Sofia described feelings of pride in her work at a fast food restaurant:

I think my FAST FOOD RESTAURANT on BRANCH 2 is the cleanest one I’ve seen, honestly the environment, to the people, to the food that’s being made. I’ve never tasted a FAST FOOD RESTAURANT sandwich that tastes so good … I guess you could say a little bit more pride in ourselves for delivering such good food, I mean ’cause personally, I think FAST FOOD RESTAURANT is great.

Despite the ubiquitous negative stereotypes of this type of work, Sofia seemed to show here that her work is pretty meaningful to her.

Domain 3: Psychosocial Conditions of Meaningful Work

This domain describes psychosocial conditions that are directly related to the participants’ work, workplace, or organizations which were identified as factors contributing to meaningfulness. Participants reported perceiving their work as meaningful when: they feel competent in their work (Theme 6), their work has a good fit with their personal values (Theme 7), positive social interactions and support are present at work (Theme 8), it benefits and matters to others (Theme 9), it is a good use of time (Theme 10), and it serves as means for financial stability (Theme 11).

The belief that participants are capable of doing their work and being able to do their tasks well appeared to be an important condition of meaningfulness endorsed by all participants. For example, Doug relayed that even though his previous work was not very meaningful to him, he found meaning in doing a good job at the task to which he was assigned: “Well, you gotta take everything you can get uh … to get you by. And for me, doing a good job at what I was assigned to do was meaningful, you know.” Andrea also indicated that her change in self-efficacy enabled her to do meaningful work: “I guess I woke up, in a way and realized that I could do all these other things and I had all these skills and I could just go for it.”

The importance of perceived fit between personal values and work were mentioned by seven participants. For Matt, this fit seems to have been what initially drew him to his current work. He said, “I really believe in what we’re doing here. I consider myself a really COMMUNITY HEALTH FOOD STORE-oriented person.” He not only sees his workplace as a good fit for him but he also sees himself as a good fit for the organization. Unlike Matt, Ralph did not initially choose his job based on his personal values, but he appeared to strongly identify with its values after learning about them:

Well it helps the community. And uh. (tears up) I get tearful after, (chuckles) because I didn’t know what all it did, but it helps the homeless. Like the other day they brought a homeless family and they supplied them with everything. A house, sheets, you name it. They supplied it with them. And that’s what this stuff does that we sell here…

His organization’s mission seemed to deeply touch Ralph because he himself had gone through a difficult time. He said, “Yeah. If you’ve lived it, you know it.”

Seven participants reported that quality interactions and receiving support from their boss, co-workers, and customers provide meaningful experiences at work for them. For instance, Evelyn described her current workplace as feeling like “home” and her co-workers and boss as “a little family” to her. In her first month at the coffee shop, her boss was on leave for a month due to injury. She expressed that “everybody made [her] feel good” by supporting her, which made this time, which otherwise could have been a very challenging period, very meaningful to her. The importance of this condition is reflected by several participants indicating that their work is less meaningful when there is a negative social interaction or absence of social opportunities at work. For example, Daniel indicated that the only thing he dislikes about his job is facing discrimination from customers based on his race:

… the only thing I don’t like about my job is the people that are discriminating, that’s the only thing I don’t like about my job, ’cause I can be the nicest person and outgoing person as well, but then you get these customers in there just ’cause I, you know, just the way I look or something?

Seven participants expressed that their work is meaningful when it benefits and matters to others. Doug, who works at a non-profit organization, found this particularly salient since he believed only people with privilege were benefitting from his previous job. He said, “It’s pretty rewarding for the fact of that it’s going to some place besides the chair[person] and CEOs.” For Cassidy, this was the main source of meaning for her work: “So I just feel excited that maybe I’ve made some sort of change in their life.” For Ralph, seeing the immediate effects of his work was important: “

I like it when I can see the progress that I’ve done for that. Now somebody’s getting their use out of it for a cheap price.

”. For LSES workers, helping people who are in similar or worse financial situations appear to imbue the work with greater meaning.

Half of the participants stated that they prefer being busy to not having much work to do, and the flow of activity helped them experience their work as meaningful. For example, Cassidy said, “a typical good day would just be like just being crazy busy and running everywhere.” On the other hand, she described a meaningless day as the following:

Days that, days that I’m just sitting, like days that we don’t have a lot of people come in, it’s just kind of like, ‘Cool, I’m here,’ getting paid to just kind of chill out, I’m not really doing anything for anybody or even myself?

However, there seems to be a limit in the extent to which the busyness of work can be meaningful. Ralph noted that he believes there are many things he can do to makes his work more meaningful, “but there’s so much to do on my own, that I don’t have time.”

Half of the participants also indicated having means for financial stability is an important source of meaningfulness in work. Evelyn, who is solely responsible for supporting her young daughter, seems to experience her work as more meaningful because it provides for her and her children:

I just got my own apartment. … And my daughter, and now my son came to live with me, I have my own money, I have a bank account, so that feels good. … And you know, I can get my daughter some stuff, she got her own room.

For Doug, it appeared that generating income made his current work very meaningful after having been unemployed for a while: “[J]ust being able to have some income, this job is everything for me. I’ve never made minimum wage before my life, but it actually gives me a reason to go to work, man.”

Domain 4: Contextual Conditions of Meaningful Work

In the participants’ interviews, there seemed to be personal and environmental contexts which also seemed to support or discourage their experience of meaningful work. These included their developmental stage (Theme 12), access to resources and opportunities for meaningful work (Theme 13), family and close relationships (Theme 14), and local community and culture (Theme 15).

Half the participants indicated that their developmental stage was relevant to their experience of meaningful work. Andrea stated that before she changed her lifestyle to pursue a meaningful work and life, she was too young to know: “I didn’t realize that there was more to life, I was still kind of growing up, you know, I was in my twenties and stuff and I was not in a space where I was ready to step out and be different.” Likewise, Sofia also viewed her maturity as contributing to her attitude toward her work: “[M]y thought process is so much different now… I’m more mature, more of an adult, I have more of a, adult thinking process.”

Seven participants reported experiences with unemployment and difficulty obtaining a job as a LSES individual. Evelyn stated, “it’s always hard for me to get a job.” She shared during the interview about a 7-month stretch of unemployment during which she had to move frequently because she was not successful in finding work. Due to this experience, she seemed to feel the need to work regardless of what type of work it is: “I mean I feel like I have to do what I have to do, because I have to take care of my daughter. (pause) And even though things are hard sometimes to me, I still have to do it.” Although none of the participants described their work as less meaningful than it might otherwise be due to such circumstances, the need to keep a job for financial support may nevertheless constrain their pursuit of greater meaningfulness.

Some participants also discussed experiences of limited access to resources that may have led to more meaningful work. Cassidy reported that even modest financial requirements prevented her from pursuing a desired career in massage therapy: “I thought of doing massage as a profession, but it costs a lot of money to take the test to get registered. I couldn’t lose 300 dollars.” However, Andrea noted that the accessibility to educational resources has changed with technology:

[B]ut now we have the internet, you know anybody can learn anything, and we found that out. We find things out that engineers don’t, they’re like, “How do you know that?” and it’s like, “Well, I watched it on a YouTube video,” you know? And not all of it’s true but you can definitely have more access to these things, and in a way that there’s so many everybody can do it in their own way, and now that we’re realizing that there isn’t one way for everybody to learn and there’s not one way for everybody to become successful in their own way …

Despite the real, tangible challenges that participants struggled to navigate due to socioeconomic constraints, those challenges had not yet barred them from experiencing meaningful work at least occasionally in their current jobs.

Five participants reported that family members and other loved ones had an influence on their pursuit of meaningful work. For example, Sofia’s family and friends encouraged her to aspire to a career that is meaningful and desirable for her despite the lack of educational or financial resources: “I’ve never, I’ve been told just from friends and family stuff like that, I was the only one that had to tell myself I’m gonna be something. And my mom told me that, too. She goes, ‘Even if you’re not rich, you’re gonna be someone in this life.'” For Evelyn, having to support dependents seemed to be a double-edged sword. She mentioned that she sometimes feels frustrated that she has to work in a job that likely would not have been her preferred choice because she has to support her children. However, this also seemed to serve as a source of meaningfulness in her work:

I have to take care of my daughter, so I mean she means everything to me, so I have to take care of her. And, can’t explain it, it’s like… I don’t know. Just, glad I found this job because, it’s good. … And this the first time I got my own place, I was always living with somebody. And, it’s like, she’s so happy that we’ve got our place, and I feel like I did this, for her.

Five participants reported that the local community and culture influenced their experience of meaningful work. For example, Doug shared how living in his current rural town was a source of meaning:

You better believe it, yeah, I’m getting less than half than what I was before, and I’m not even getting 40 hours here, so therefore I’m probably making a third of what I was, and I’m way happier for the fact of breathing better air, eating better food, less chance of getting shot on the way to work, you know, everything. So really I’m so much happier making way less than I was up at the RETAILER, but there’s nicer people here I mean, the list doesn’t end, where CITY, you can’t trust anybody to even watch your dog for a weekend, ’cause the dog will probably be gone by the time you get back, you know.

In contrast to his earlier environment, his current community seemed to boost his overall satisfaction with life, which in turn influenced his experience in his work.

Other participants discussed how their work-related values had been influenced by the societal values and cultural context in which they live. For instance, Daniel described having internalized a cultural value for achieving a higher SES, which appeared to impact his experience of meaningfulness in his work:

FAST FOOD RESTAURANT is not, any fast-food, OTHER FAST FOOD RESTARUANTS, it’s not a career somebody wants to make out of it, it really isn’t, it don’t even sound professional like, to me, I’ve always been taught to make sure you’re on top …

Domain 5: Impact of Meaningful Work

The fifth domain depicts how the experience of meaningful work has impacted the participants personally. Participants reported that they experienced an increase in well-being and satisfaction (Theme 17) and a change in perspective, values, and behaviors in work and life (Theme 18).

Six participants reported that meaningful work has enhanced their self-esteem. A key word Doug used multiple times in his interview was “self-worth.” He reported that his work gives him self-worth because “it makes me feel a part of the society, contributing.” This sense of contribution seemed to evoke feelings of worth by virtue of contributing value to the world. Participants also reported feeling generally happy and content despite financial constraints. Matt stated that he has a better quality of life despite receiving less income than in his previous job: “I mean I definitely don’t get as much money here as I did doing that, but the quality of life is better.” Similarly, Andrea noted that despite less money, she felt more abundance: “I had almost no money this year and I was better off, I had more food and more things, and more time to do stuff to help myself than I did most years.”

Six participants described how experiencing meaningful work changed their perspective and values in work and life. For instance, Ralph stated, “it makes me want to be more open and helping, to the public, more than what I already am and what I have been because I know what it does around here.” This also seemed to have prompted him to change his behaviors in this direction: “I’ve worked, made my work ethic a little stricter on account of what I am and what I know about this place.” Matt indicated that his meaningful work experience has made him live more in accordance with his religious values:

Well before I was working here I was still, I was in the religious path that I’m in now, but didn’t quite have a good understanding of a lot of the things in my life, I was kind of a selfish person. I didn’t really recycle, I believed in it, but I never did it you know, I always thought, ‘Well somebody else is doing it.’ But having worked here, and definitely a lot of the staff members here have become like family to me, and have helped me in certain ways, and just kind of opened my eyes to more than just like, I would say like what’s on TV, you know, who’s walking down the red carpet, maybe what Kim Kardashian’s wearing, stuff like that. There is so much more importance out there, and working here really brought me into that type of lifestyle. So it’s, it uh, this job has fundamentally changed my life, which I’m extremely grateful for.

Prior to his current work, Matt seemed to have experienced a discrepancy between his belief and actions, but through experiencing meaning in his work he described gaining a better understanding of his values and ways to live them out. One benefit of meaningful work may be re-evaluating personal behaviors and bringing them more in line with one’s values.

Most participants discussed positive impacts of meaningful work, but one participant noted a possible negative impact. Sofia described a time when she tried to help other co-workers and was yelled at by her manager for not staying at her assigned position. In another instance, she discusses how she was reprimanded for making something off-menu for a customer. In her words, “Policy at FAST FOOD RESTAURANT you can’t do that, because their food, they’re franchise, you can get in trouble.” Sometimes, taking steps to help or serve—actions that ordinarily are associated with meaningfulness—run counter to organizational policy and result in negative consequences.

Discussion

The present study explored the experience of meaningful work in eight LSES workers through an interpretative phenomenological analysis approach. In this section, the main findings are discussed in relation to the existing literature on meaningful work based on the five research questions that guided this study.

Main Findings

How is meaningful work defined by lower socioeconomic status workers?

Previous researchers have raised the need to think about possible “classed” assumptions of existing definitions of meaningful work and thus have suggested that the definition should be left open (Broadfoot et al., 2008; Steger, 2014). Therefore, we sought to capture definitions from the perspective of LSES workers by directly asking them to define meaningful work (Domain 1). Interestingly, our participants’ definitions of meaningful work substantially overlapped with previous conceptualizations suggested in the literature. Specifically, Themes 1 and 2 (i.e., intrinsically motivating and beneficial work) have been commonly noted as key components of meaningful work by other researchers (e.g., Arnold, et al., 2007; Chalofsky & Krishna, 2009; Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012; Rosso et al., 2010; Steger et al., 2012).

An affective component of meaningful work that is more controversial in the previous literature was also captured in Theme 3. Although meaningful work has been mainly suggested as a cognitive-motivational construct (e.g., Arnold et al., 2007; May et al., 2004; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Steger & Dik, 2012), some researchers include a sense of fulfillment as part of their definition of meaningful work (e.g., Chalofsky, 2003). Recent work on the conceptualization of general meaning in life has also raised the importance of including a component of “felt sense” of meaning, as some people might intuitively feel a sense of meaning even if they cannot articulate their experience (Hill, 2018; Hill et al., 2019).

Still, other possibilities exist that may have played a role in the endorsement of an affective definition of meaningful work among participants. First, it could be the case that the four participants who defined meaningful work in these terms are dispositionally high on positive affect which may have impacted their interpretation of meaningful work (e.g., Brief et al., 1993). It is also plausible that LSES workers may be especially inclined to identify meaningful work through the experience of positive emotions that emerge from their work. A third possibility is that the wording of the interviews or researcher biases may have evoked a tone of optimism in participants’ observations. A lack of understanding on how affect relates to the experience of meaningful work have been previously raised (i.e., Rosso et al., 2010), which points to a need for future research to clarify the relation between positive affect and the experience of meaningful work across populations of various social classes.

How is meaningful work experienced by lower socioeconomic status workers?

In Domain 2, we addressed how meaningful work is actually experienced by our participants. Regarding participants’ perception of meaningfulness in their work, all participants reported that they experience their current work as meaningful to some extent at least some of the time (Theme 4). Participants described varying levels of meaningfulness in work from an overall stable strong sense to a fluctuating sense. This finding supports the notion that meaningful work is dynamic rather than static; that is, there are “moments of meaning” (Bailey & Madden, 2017) which may vary from job-to-job, day-to-day, and task to task. This was also supported by participants describing their perception of meaningful work in terms of quantity but also frequency. This finding points to limitations in the common practice of using global measures of meaningful work (e.g., Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012; Steger et al., 2012) intended to capture how people perceive meaningful work as a whole at a single time point. Further investigation of specific moments and conditions and the apparent episodic nature of meaningful work is needed (Bailey & Madden, 2017).

Another interesting observation from our participants’ description of their experience of meaningful work was how they perceived their work in terms of its centrality in their life. Participants rated the meaningfulness of work by reflecting on the personal importance of work itself, or by comparing it to other meaningful domains in life. This is in line with the construct of work centrality (Paullay et al., 1994) which has recently been suggested to have absolute or relative dimensions that are thought to be associated with one’s appraisal of work meaningfulness (Fournier et al., 2020).

The most notable experiential components of meaningful work reported by participants combined a variety of positive emotions such as happiness, enjoyment, gratitude, excitement, fun, and pride in their work (Theme 5). This finding is encouraging, as experiencing such positive emotions in or at work may lead to a “broaden-and-build” effect (Fredrickson, 2001) which may lead to more psychological resources and longer-term well-being for LSES workers. Such an effect is rooted in the notion that when people experience positive emotions, they are better suited to adapt to changing and challenging environments than they are in the relative absence of positive emotions. The enhanced resilience that results (Cohn et al., 2009) may prove especially beneficial to LSES workers, a possibility that warrants further research.

What psychosocial and contextual factors make the work of lower socioeconomic status workers meaningful?

Domains 3 and 4 describe the various psychosocial sources and contexts that influence LSES workers’ experience of meaningfulness in work. Overall, the themes in Domain 3 appeared to converge with previous research on predictors of meaningful work. For example, self-efficacy (Theme 6) has been identified as a main mechanism of meaningfulness in work, which is provoked through one’s sense of control, competence, and perceived impact on others with regards to work (Rosso et al., 2010). This condition may serve as a particularly important source of meaningfulness in work for LSES workers, who may typically have less control and educational privilege.

The importance of congruence between a person’s values and the workplace (Theme 7) in predicting job satisfaction has long been supported by person-environment fit models (e.g., Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). Research also suggests that workers find meaning in their work through cues in an interpersonal sensemaking process (Wrzesniewski et al., 2003) which supports the positive relationship condition (Theme 8). Finally, research has revealed a strong association between prosocial desire and other aspects of meaningful work, indicating that benefitting others (Theme 9) is a core component of meaningful work for many people (Steger, 2014). Along this line, the perceived social impact of own work (Theme 9) also function as a mechanism for increased awareness of work’s positive outcomes (Grant, 2008), which in turn fosters one’s sense of work as meaningful, and ultimately contribute to one’s general well-being (Jung, 2015). This finding is particularly salient as having a positive impact on others’ lives may contribute to a sense of significance for those in roles that may not otherwise attract much recognition.

An effective use of time (Theme 10) as an important psychosocial condition for meaningful work has been recently supported in the literature on work orientation. Extending the widely cited tripartite orientation of work as job, career, and calling (Bellah et al., 1985), Willner et al. (2020) suggested that a "busyness orientation," which indicates perceiving work primarily to occupy time, also exists. Although work orientation is a more general and dominant meaning of one’s work, the participants of our study appeared to experience less meaningfulness in their work when busyness were in either suboptimal or extreme levels.

Another notable condition that was reported by our participants is providing a means for financial stability (Theme 11). Although financial stability is an important condition for meaningful work independent from the worker’s socioeconomic background, it may play a more significant role for LSES workers in our study, possibly because of their relatively precarious financial situations. Still, participants described this as a complimentary condition for meaningful work, supplementing other sources of meaningfulness.

Although participants reported a variety of sources of meaningful work as described above, they also described tangible barriers to the experience of meaningful work that arise from their socioeconomic context (Theme 16). They discussed real challenges of unemployment, the need to maintain a potentially meaningless job for financial support, and lack of resources to pursue meaningful work. However, our participants also found ways to ward off discouragement or helplessness in the face of this reality by seeking creative strategies to pursue meaningful work. Adequate support from family and close relationships (Theme 14), and the local community and culture (Theme 15) also seemed to facilitate this process. Researchers have suggested that relationships with others outside of work, especially families, can impact one’s sense of work meaning, and that a positive experience in the family domain may improve the quality of life in the work domain, and vice versa (Brief & Nord, 1990; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006).

In general, these conditions largely correspond with the three needs (i.e., survival, social connection, and self-determination) that foster work fulfillment when satisfied through decent work in the Psychology of Working Theory (PWT; Duffy et al., 2016), a model specifically designed to explain aspects of work experiences of socioeconomically marginalized populations. According to the PWT, decent work is hypothesized as a necessary condition for meaningful work, and longitudinal research has recently begun to empirically test the underlying mechanisms that lead decent work to meaningful work (e.g., Allan et al., 2020). However, this study was conducted with people with above average higher education. Thus, the findings of our study serve as initial evidence that could later be replicated with larger and more diverse samples of LSES workers

How does meaningful work impact lower socioeconomic status workers?

Findings from Domain 5 suggest that participants experienced predominantly positive personal changes, marked by increases in self-esteem, general well-being, and satisfaction in life (Theme 16), and changes in their values, perspective, and even behaviors (Theme 17) through the experience of meaningful work. Links between meaningful work and better psychological health and life satisfaction have been supported in previous empirical studies (e.g., Arnold et al., 2007; Steger & Dik, 2010). In addition, researchers suggest that when people engage in work and non-work domains in a way that is consistent with their identities, there could be a positive spillover effect that generates synergy between those domains and enriches both work and life (Thompson & Bunderson, 2001).

However, one participant described a possible negative impact of meaningful work when attempts to make one’s work more meaningful unintentionally go awry because it runs counter to the organization’s goals. Previous qualitative work also indicated challenges to job-crafting by low-rank employees due to lack of power. (Berg et al., 2010). Surprisingly, however, low-rank employees also perceived their work as more malleable to opportunities of job-crafting compared to their high-rank counterparts in the same study. More research is clearly needed to fully understand the relationship between the experience and impact of meaningful work of LSES workers in their particular contexts.

Limitations and Future Directions for Research

There are several limitations to consider when making sense of these findings. First, our data collection was only conducted at a single time point. The requisite retrospection may not fully capture the actual day-to-day experiences of meaningful work of LSES workers. Considering that the experience of meaningful work is not static, but rather a dynamic process, subsequent research would do well to capture the experiences of meaningful work at various time points and through other data collection methods such as ethnography or daily diary methods.

Second, we suggest that future research further examine how meaningfulness in non-work domains impact LSES workers. This study specifically investigated the experience of meaningfulness within the work domain, and its influence on meaning in life as a whole. However, considering the importance of contextual factors in the experience of meaningful work for LSES workers, the experience of meaningfulness within other life domains (e.g., partner, parent, citizen, volunteer, and leisurite) and how these influence one’s experience of meaningfulness in work and life is an important next step for research to pursue.

Finally, due to the nature of qualitative research, the findings of this study cannot be used to infer causation, nor should they be generalized to larger populations. Although more qualitative studies are needed to capture the subjective experience of meaningful work and the particular context of LSES workers that may impact their meaningful work experiences, quantitative studies can examine possible mediators and moderators in the various conditions of meaningful work and its impact on the well-being of LSES workers. In addition, future work should verify whether subjective definitions of meaningful work proposed by our particpants are present in other LSES workers actual experience of meaningful work.

Despite these limitations, the present study contributes to the meaningful work literature by providing a detailed capture of how LSES workers, a significantly underrepresented population in this area of study (Allan et al., 2014; Rosso et al., 2010), view their experience of meaningful work. Furthermore, while previous studies of meaningful work have mainly focused on intra-individual processes of meaningful work (Rosso et al., 2010), the present study explores unique contexts of diverse participants, enriching our understanding of how meaningful work can be experienced by LSES workers.

Implications for Practice

The findings of the present study also provide ingredients for the potential development of interventions for LSES workers who may struggle to experience their work as meaningful. In particular, the sources of meaningful work experiences demonstrated by LSES workers point to the places where interventions might be focused. For instance, highlighting the financial meaning of work may not undermine the pursuit of meaningful work among LSES workers; indeed, it could be used as a source of greater meaningfulness in their work. It is important to note that since meaningful work is an inherently subjective experience (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003), these should be considered guidelines, not necessarily a prescription for meaningful work for this population.

Finally, the present study also has implications for organizations and policy. Although this study focused on how LSES workers can make their own work more meaningful as an individual, it also depicted the unique structural challenges LSES workers must navigate in experiencing meaningful work. Sociocultural context plays a significant role in forming the understanding of meaningful work of an individual as well as the society as a whole, which may in turn influence the sociocultural conditions that can facilitate or hinder the experience of meaningful work of an individual (Broadfoot et al., 2008). Thus, organizational leaders and policy makers should consider the findings in developing ways to support LSES workers to reduce barriers and increase facilitative conditions of meaningful work for the benefit of the individual.

Conclusion

LSES workers appear to navigate through the challenges of working and living as a LSES individual by experiencing meaningfulness in their work in their own unique and diverse ways. Future research and practice on the experience of meaningful work among LSES workers should further address meaningful work’s potential as a positive psychological resource and mechanism for improving the life of LSES workers.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-jca-10.1177_10690727221074891 – Supplemental Material for Experiencing Meaningful Work as a Lower Socioeconomic Status Worker: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-jca-10.1177_10690727221074891 for Experiencing Meaningful Work as a Lower Socioeconomic Status Worker: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis by Yerin Shim, Bryan J. Dik and James H. Banning in Journal of Career Assessment

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all participants of this study, Drs. Michael Steger, Lorann Stallones and Sue Doe for reviewing an earlier version of this manuscript, and Drs. Arissa Walberg and Maeve O’Donnell for their significant contribution to the pilot study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from Division 9 (Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues) of the American Psychological Association with a matching fund from the College of Natural Sciences at Colorado State University. There was no involvement from the funders in the conduct of this research and preparation of the manuscript.

ORCID iDs

Yerin Shim

James H. Banning

Supplemental Material

Supplement material for this article is available in online.

References

Abrams

L. S.

(2010). Sampling ‘hard to reach’ populations in qualitative research: The case of incarcerated youth. Qualitative Social Work, 9(4), 536–550. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010367821

Allan

B. A.

Autin

K. L.

Duffy

R. D.

(2014). Examining social class and work meaning within the psychology of working framework. Journal of Career Assessment, 22(4), 543–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072713514811

Allan

B. A.

Autin

K. L.

Duffy

R. D.

(2016). Self-determination and meaningful work: Exploring socioeconomic constraints. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(186), 71. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00071

Allan

B. A.

Batz-Barbarich

Sterling

H. M.

Tay

(2019). Outcomes of meaningful work: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3), 500–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12406

Allan

B. A.

Rolniak

J. R.

Bouchard

(2020). Underemployment and well-being: Exploring the dark side of meaningful work. Journal of Career Development, 47(1), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845318819861

Arnold

K. A.

Turner

Barling

Kelloway

E. K.

McKee

M. C.

(2007). Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.193

Ashforth

B. E.

Kreiner

G. E.

(2013). Profane or profound? Finding meaning in dirty work. In Dik

B. J.

Byrne

Z. S.

Steger

M. F.

(Eds.), Purpose and meaning in the workplace (pp. 127–150). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14183-007

Bailey

Madden

(2017). Time reclaimed: Temporality and the experience of meaningful work. Work, Employment and Society, 31(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017015604100

Bellah

R. N.

Madsen

Sullivan

W. M.

Swidler

Tipton

S. M.

(1985). Habits of the heart. Harper & Row.

10.

Berg

J. M.

Dutton

J. E.

Wrzesniewski

(2010). Perceiving and responding to challenges in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2–3), 158–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.645

11.

Blustein

D. L.

(2001). Extending the reach of vocational psychology: Toward an inclusive and integrative psychology of working. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(2), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1823

12.

Brief

A. P.

Butcher

A. H.

George

J. M.

Link

K. E.

(1993). Integrating bottom-up and top-down theories of subjective well-being: The case of health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4), 646–653. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.64.4.646

13.

Brief

A. P.

Nord

W. R.

(1990). Meanings of occupational work a collection of essays. Lexington Books.

14.

Broadfoot

K. J.

Carlone

Medved

C. E.

Aakhus

Gabor

Taylor

(2008). Meaning/ful work and organizational communication: Questioning boundaries, positionalities, and engagements. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(1), 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318908318267

15.

Chalofsky

(2003). An emerging construct for meaningful work. Human Resource Development International, 6(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/1367886022000016785

16.

Chalofsky

Krishna

(2009). Meaningfulness, commitment, and engagement: The intersection of a deeper level of intrinsic motivation. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422309333147

17.

Cohn

M. A.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Brown

S. L.

Mikels

J. A.

Conway

A. M.

(2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9(3), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015952

18.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

19.

Creswell

J. W.

Miller

D. L.

(2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

20.

Dawis

R. V.

Lofquist

L. H.

(1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment: An individual differences model and its application. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

21.

Denzin

N. K.

(1978). Sociological methods: A source book (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

22.

Dik

B. J.

Steger

M. F.

(2008). Randomized trial of a calling-infused career workshop incorporating counselor self-disclosure. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(2), 203–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.04.001

23.

Dik

B. J.

Steger

M. F.

Fitch-Martin

A. R.

Onder

C. C.

(2013). Cultivating meaningfulness at work. In Routledge

Hicks

(Eds.), The experience of meaning in life: Classical perspectives, emerging themes, and controversies. Springer.

24.

Duffy

R. D.

Blustein

D. L.

Diemer

M. A.

Autin

K. L.

(2016). The psychology of working theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000140

25.

Fouad

N. A.

Fitzpatrick

M. E.

(2009). Social class and work-related decisions: Measurement, theory, and social mobility. Journal of Career Assessment, 17(3), 266–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072708330677

26.

Fournier

Lachance

Viviers

Lahrizi

I. Z.

Goyer

Masdonati

(2020). Development and initial validation of a multidimensional questionnaire on the relationship to work (RWQ). International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 20(1), 123–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-019-09397-0

27.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218

28.

Grant

A. M.

(2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108

29.

Greenhaus

J. H.

Powell

G. N.

(2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159186

30.

Harris

J. R.

Huang

Hannon

P. A.

Williams

(2011). Low–socioeconomic status workers: Their health risks and how to reach them. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(2), 132–138. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e3182045f2c

31.

Hill

C. E.

(2018). Meaning in life: A therapist’s guide. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000083-000

32.

Hill

C. E.

Kline V

Miller

Marks

Pinto-Coelho

Zetzer

(2019). Development of the Meaning in Life Measure. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 32(2), 205–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2018.1434483

33.

Johnson

R. B.

(1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118(2), 282.

34.

Jung

A.-K.

(2015). Interpersonal and Societal Mattering in Work: A Review and Critique. The Career Development Quarterly, 63, 194–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12013

35.

Kushel

M. B.

Gupta

Gee

Haas

J. S.

(2006). Housing instability and food insecurity as barriers to health care among low-income Americans. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(1), 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00278.x

36.

Levitt

H. M.

Bamberg

Creswell

J. W.

Frost

D. M.

Josselson

Suárez-Orozco

(2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151

37.

Levitt

H. M.

Motulsky

S. L.

Wertz

F. J.

Morrow

S. L.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2017). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology, 4(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000082

38.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.

39.

Lips-Wiersma

Wright

(2012). Measuring the meaning of meaningful work: Development and validation of the comprehensive meaningful work scale (CMWS). Group & Organization Management, 37(5), 655–685. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112461578

40.

Lips-Wiersma

Wright

Dik

(2016). Meaningful work: Differences among blue-, pink-, and white-collar occupations. Career Development International, 21(5), 534–551. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-04-2016-0052

41.

Liu

W. M.

Soleck

Hopps

Dunston

Pickett

Jr. (2004). A new framework to understand social class in counseling: The social class worldview model and modern classism theory. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32(2), 95–122. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2004.tb00364.x

42.

Lowe

S. R.

Chan

C. S.

Rhodes

J. E.

(2011). The impact of child-related stressors on the psychological functioning of lower-income mothers after Hurricane Katrina. Journal of Family Issues, 32(10), 1303–1324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X11412492

43.

May

D. R.

Gilson

R. L.

Harter

L. M.

(2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915892

44.

Oelberger

C. R.

(2018). The dark side of deeply meaningful work: Work‐relationship turmoil and the moderating role of occupational value homophily. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3), 558–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12411

45.

Paullay

I. M.

Alliger

G. M.

Stone-Romero

E. F.

(1994). Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 224–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.224

46.

Pratt

M. G.

Ashforth

B. E.

(2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In Cameron

K. S.

Dutton

J. E.

Quinn

R. E.

(Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 309-327). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

47.

Rosso

B. D.

Dekas

K. H.

Wrzesniewski

(2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001

48.

Shaw

(2010). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Forrester

M. A.

(Ed.), Doing qualitative research in psychology: A practical guide (pp. 177–201). Sage Publications.

49.

Shim

Fitch-Martin

O’Donnell

Dik

B. J.

Steger

M. F.

(2013, July 31-August 4). Is meaningful work a luxury? Experiences of lower social status individuals. [Symposium Presentation]. 121st American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Honolulu, HI, United States.

50.

Smith

J. A.

Flowers

Larkin

(2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method, and research. Sage Publications.

51.

Smith

J. A.

Osborn

M. O.

(2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In Smith

J. A.

(Ed.), Qualitative psychology (pp. 51–80). Sage Publications.

52.

Steger

M. F.

(2014). Meaningful work: An ethical obligation for vocational psychology? In Pope

Flores

L. Y.

Rottinghaus

P. J.

(Eds), The role of values in careers (pp. 233–244). Information Age Publishing.

53.

Steger

M. F.

Dik

B. J.

(2010). Work as meaning. In Linley

P. A

Harrington

Garcea

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Work (pp. 131–142). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

54.

Steger

M. F.

Dik

B. J.

(2012). Work as meaning: Individual and organizational benefits of engaging in meaningful work. In Garcea

Harrington

Linley

P. A.

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work (pp. 131–142). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195335446.013.0011

55.

Steger

M. F.

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

(2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436160

56.

Thompson

J. A.

Bunderson

J. S.

(2001). Work-nonwork conflict and the phenomenology of time: Beyond the balance metaphor. Work and Occupations, 28(1), 17–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888401028001003

57.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2015). Annual update of the HHS poverty guidelines (Document No. 2015-01120). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-01-22/pdf/2015-01120.pdf

58.

Willig

(2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: Adventures in theory and method. Open University Press.

59.

Willner

Lipshits-Braziler

Gati

Fox

T. S.

(2020). Construction and initial validation of the work orientation questionnaire. Journal of Career Assessment, 28(1), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072719830293

60.

Wrzesniewski

Dutton

J. E.

Debebe

(2003). Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 93–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25003-6

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.18 MB