7
VOCATIONAL INTERESTS AND MEANINGFUL WORK
M. Teresa Cardador
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
Vocational interests—trait-like preferences for vocational activities that energize goal striving (Rounds, 1995; Strong, 1943)—have long been considered critical in the areas of vocational counseling, and educational and occupational choice (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Low & Rounds, 2006; Rounds & Su, 2014; Walsh & Osipow, 1986). Moreover, the degree to which individual interests fit their work environment has been linked to important work outcomes such as job performance and persistence behaviors, as well as career success (e.g., Nye, Su, Rounds, & Drasgow, 2012). Because interests reflect preferences for situations, contexts, and behaviors (Rounds, 1995), it seems plausible that interests should not only reflect one’s career preferences and work outcomes, but also how individuals make sense of the purpose and significance of the work in which they are engaged. That is, how people experience their work as meaningful. The aim of this chapter is to build theory at the intersection of the vocational interest and meaningful work literatures. In particular, I draw on theories of meaningful work to explain why and how people with different vocational interests may experience meaningful work through unique pathways. I then describe the relationship between the structure of interest profiles and individuals’ experiences of work meaningfulness, and conclude with implications for how organizations might attempt to foster meaningfulness for individuals with different vocational interests.
Meaningful Work
Meaningful work refers to the amount and type of purpose and significance work holds for an individual (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesneiwski, 2010). Research on meaningful work examines questions such as: How and where do workers find meaningfulness in their work? How do people derive different types of meaningfulness from similar jobs? And how do work meanings differ across cultures? Recent research has linked meaningful work to some of the most important outcomes in organizational science, such as performance (Wrzesniewski, 2003), absenteeism (Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997), organizational attachment (Cardador, Dane, & Pratt, 2011), engagement (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004), and employee stress (Elangovan, Pinder, & McLean, 2010).
Scholars have identified several sources of meaningfulness in work. The term “source” is used to refer to ways in which meaningfulness is experienced and derived through work. In their comprehensive review, Rosso and colleagues identified others, the work context, and the self as three primary sources of work meaningfulness (Rosso et al., 2010). Research on the role of others in shaping perceptions of work meaningfulness has offered theoretical and empirical insight into how individuals experience meaningfulness in connection with interpersonal relationships with coworkers (Kahn, 2006; Wrzesniewski, Dutton, & Debebe, 2003), group and community memberships associated with work (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003), and leader behaviors that help employees grasp the purpose and significance of their work (Podolny, Khurana, & Hill-Popper, 2004). Research on the role of work contexts in shaping work meaningfulness has highlighted the critical influence of factors such as job design (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Grant, 2007; Hackman & Oldham, 1976), sense of community at work (Blatt & Camden, 2007), and organizational mission (Pratt, 2000; Thompson & Bunderson, 2003). Finally, research on the self and meaningful work has focused on how individual work values, motives, and orientations influence perceptions of the meaningfulness of work (Nord, Brief, Atieh, & Doherty 1990; Rokeach, 1960; Super & Šverko, 1995; Wresniewski et al., 1997).
While this literature has presented important insights, it is limited in a least two ways relevant to theory presented in this chapter. First, it has largely ignored the role of individual traits in people’s experiences of meaningful work. Second, there is a paucity of research examining how and why different types of occupations may provide individuals with differential access to sources of meaningful work. Because interests are traits predictive of occupational preferences (Rounds, 1995; Walsh & Osipow, 1986), understanding the link between meaningful work and vocational interests begins to address both these gaps. Moreover, given that vocational interests are considered to be relatively stable and enduring (Low, Yoon, Roberts, & Rounds, 2005), understanding how interests link to individual sources of work meaningfulness may not only provide theoretical advances in understanding how and why workers experience the meaningfulness of their work, but may also have practical implications for helping workers to realize greater meaningfulness in their work.
The Relationship Between Pathways to Meaningful Work and Vocational Interests
Rosso and colleagues (2010) proposed a theoretical framework that highlights four main pathways to meaningful work. The four pathways rest at the intersection of two dimensions reflecting types of individual motives: (1) desire for agency versus communion and (2) action directed toward the self versus others. Desire for agency refers to the drive to master, assert, expand, and create, while desire for communion refers to the desire to connect, attach, contact, and unite (Bakan, 1966; Schneider, Ryan, Tracey, & Rounds, 1996). Action directed toward the self versus others refers to the degree to which work experiences are perceived as internal or external to the self. Internal experiences include authenticity and identity affirmation, while external experiences may include social impact or interpersonal connectedness (see also Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; Gecas 1982; Grant, 2008; Shamir, 1991). Rosso and colleagues (2010) identify four pathways to meaningful work associated with different combinations of these dimensions: (1) Individuation, (2) Contribution, (3) Self-Connection, and (4) Unification.
Individuation (agency-self dimensions) refers to work meaningfulness stemming from actions or outcomes that primarily define and distinguish the self as competent, valuable, and worthy. For example, individuals may experience meaningfulness in conjunction with personal achievement, or the opportunity to work on freely chosen tasks or projects. Contribution (agency-other dimensions) refers to work meaningfulness sourced from actions or outcomes in the service of making a difference to identifiable others (e.g., coworkers, clients, customers, one’s work unit or organization). For example, individuals may experience contribution-based meaningfulness when they see that their work has a positive impact on clients or that they are part of a collective (e.g., team, organization) that values what they contribute. Self-Connection (communion-self dimensions) refers to work meaningfulness stemming from actions or outcomes that provide individuals with a sense of authenticity. That is, they allow for personal expressiveness or bring individuals into concordance with how they see themselves. Examples include having the chance to express one’s “true self” among colleagues or “being heard” at work. Finally, Unification (communion-other dimensions) refers to actions or outcomes that help individuals experience a harmony with broader values, ideals, or principles (e.g., belongingness, altruism, morality, beauty). For example, one may experience unification when they feel their work improves society and/or when they experience their work environment as characterized by mutual closeness and support.
Before linking these meaningful work pathways to vocational interests, a brief overview of the RIASEC types is in order. Holland’s theory (1973, 1997) states that vocational interests are multilevel dispositional traits, represent preferences for distinct work relevant characteristics, and can be used to meaningfully categorize people and work environments into six types—Realistic (R), Investigative (I), Artistic (A), Social (S), Enterprising (E), and Conventional (C). The Realistic person prefers activities involving the systematic manipulation of machinery, tools, or animals. The Investigative person tends to be analytical, curious, methodological, and precise. Artistic individuals are expressive, nonconforming, original, and introspective. Those with Social interests enjoy working with and helping others, as well as developing relationships, but avoid ordered activities involving tools and machinery. Enterprising individuals prefer activities that entail managing and persuading others to attain organizational goals or economic gain, but they tend to lack scientific ability. Finally, Conventional individuals enjoy the systematic manipulation of data, filing records, or reproducing materials.
How and why do vocational interests map on to the four different pathways to work meaningfulness? In particular, I theorize that individuals with E, R, I, and A interests should be more likely to experience work meaningfulness via Individuation; individuals with S, E, and C interests should be more likely to experience work meaningfulness via Contribution; individuals with A and E interests should be more likely to experience work meaningfulness via Self-Connection; and individuals with I and S interests should be more likely to experience work meaningfulness via Unification. See Table 7.1 for a summary of how the six RIASEC types relate to the four meaningful work pathways.
TABLE 7.1 Summary of Relationships Between RIASEC Types and Pathways to Meaningful Work
Before theorizing about the specific interest-pathway linkages, a note about interest fit is instructive. Previous research has shown that individuals find jobs and work environments reinforcing and satisfying to the extent that they fit with their interests (Low & Rounds, 2006; Nye et al., 2012). In line with this previous research, I suggest that accessing specific sources of work meaningfulness should be dependent on “interest-meaningfulness source” congruence—that is, being able to access the source of work meaningfulness that fits with your interests. However, departing a bit from the previous interest fit literature, I also suggest that perceptions of interest-meaningfulness source fit are not necessarily dependent on the job or environment fitting with one’s interests, but rather on whether the context affords access to the source(s) of meaningfulness preferred. For example, a person high on SEC interests may or may not find him/herself in a job that matches this interest profile (e.g., Early Education Administration), but regardless of the job they hold, Contribution should be an important source of work meaningfulness. Consistent with the meaningful work literature, this means that all jobs have the potential for meaningfulness (Wrzesniewski, 2003), but preferred sources will vary according to interests.
Individuation and E, R, I, and A Interests
Individuals who are high on Enterprising (E), Realistic (R), Investigative (I) and Artistic (A) interests should be most likely to experience work as meaningful when they are able to define and distinguish themselves as worthy and valuable. Individuation places emphasis on experiencing a sense of mastery, control, and autonomy through work (Rosso et al., 2010). While these four interests differ in significant ways, all three share in common valuing the opportunity to experience differentiation and competence through work. E individuals prefer opportunity to manage and influence others, and be involved in administration, R type individuals prefer opportunities that allow them to develop technical and mechanical skills, I individuals seek intellectual challenge and growth, and A types show a preference for being recognized for their personal uniqueness (Holland, 1997; Su, Rounds, & Armstrong, 2009). All four interests show a preference for developing and demonstrating skill in a particular domain, and for experiencing differentiation and control in the forms of management (E), technical mastery (R), intellectual challenge (I), and artistic expression (A). Accordingly, those with combinations of E, R, I, and A interests should experience work meaningfulness when they experience high degrees of autonomy and control over their work, and when they have opportunities to experience progressive development and a sense of mastery through work (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Masten & Reed, 2002).
Illustrating occupations, high on combinations of E, R, I, and A types are lawyers and designers (O⋆Net, 2016). Though very different occupations, both are individualist professions in the sense that they emphasize competitiveness (law [Shneidman, 1984]) and one’s personal artistic expression (design [Hauge & Hracs, 2010]). Table 7.2 lists additional occupations in which individuals should value meaningfulness through Individuation. Individuals in these professionals seek out and are rewarded for mastery and distinguishing themselves from others in the chosen field.
The following prediction follows:
Proposition 1: Individuals who are high on E, R, I and A interests should be more likely than those high on S and C interests to experience meaningful work via Individuation.
TABLE 7.2 Jobs Linked to Pathways to Meaningful Work via RIASEC Types
Pathway |
Jobs |
Individuation (RIAE) |
Commercial Pilot (RIE) |
Contribution (SEC) |
Human Resources Manager (ESC) |
Self-Connection (AE) |
Actor (AE) |
Unification (IS) |
Registered Nurse (SI) |
Contribution and S, E, and C Interests
Individuals who are highest on Social (S), Enterprising (E), and Conventional (C) interests should be most likely to experience meaningfulness when their work makes a difference to identifiable others or they see that their effort benefits their organization or work unit. Contribution as a source of meaningfulness places emphasis on perceived impact on others through work (Rosso et al., 2010; see also Grant, 2007, and Lips-Wiersma, 2002). Because it emphasizes a combination of personal agency and a focus on others, it differs from Individuation because the attention is on meaningfulness stemming from work that extends beyond the self to benefit and impact others (Grant, 2007; Lips-Wiersma & Morris, 2009).
Those with S, E, and C interests should experience meaningfulness through Contribution, but via different mechanisms. Individuals with S interests like to use their abilities to help others and/or solve social problems. Individuals with strong E interests show a preference for managing others and administration. And, individuals with C types engage tasks in a dutiful way. Based on these differences, for S types meaningfulness through contribution should be linked to experiences of being helpful and altruistic (Holland, 1997; Armstrong & Anthoney, 2009); for E types Contribution might be linked to having the ability to have a positive impact on others or one’s organization through one’s leadership; for C types, Contribution should be linked to their strong sense of duty, and tendency to show strong self-discipline and self-sacrifice (Armstrong & Anthoney, 2009). The C person’s propensity for self-sacrifice should be associated with subordinating oneself to something larger than the self (e.g., one’s family, an organization’s mission, etc.). For S, E, and C types, meaningful work should be experienced to the extent that one’s work provides them with opportunities to feel that they are having a positive impact on important others—that is, family, coworkers, customers, followers, the organization.
Occupations high on combinations of S, E, and C are clinical nurse specialists and social workers (O⋆Net, 2016). Both are social mission occupations that emphasize social contribution to individuals in need (Aldridge, 1994). Individuals in these occupations typically seek out and prefer opportunities to have a positive impact on patients and clients. See Table 7.2 for additional occupations in which individuals are likely experience meaningfulness through Contribution.
Thus, I predict the following:
Proposition 2: Individuals who are high on S, E, and C interests should be more likely than those high on R, I, and A interests to experience meaningful work via Contribution.
Self-Connection and A and E Interests
Self-Connection refers to integrity with how one sees oneself and the experience of authenticity or personal identity-affirmation (Rosso et al., 2010: see also Kahn, 2006; Waterman, 1993). Thus, Self-Connection is associated with experiencing one’s “true” self at work (Gecas, 1982; Guevara & Ord, 1996; Waterman, 1990; Wrzesniewski et al., 2003), and individuals who experience meaningfulness through Self-Connection value opportunities to fully express themselves at work. Because Self-Connection is about being seen as you see yourself, those with certain types of interests may have a stronger need for Self-Connection to experience work meaningfulness. Specifically, those with A and E interests should be most likely to experience meaningfulness through Self-Connection, but, again, for different reasons. Those with A interests are adventurous, imaginative, creative, expressive, and original (Armstrong & Anthoney, 2009; Armstrong, Day, McVay, & Rounds, 2008; Holland, 1997). Because of these strong personal expressiveness traits, individuals with A interests should be likely to need to experience opportunities for personal expressiveness in order to experience work as meaningful (Waterman, 1993). Individuals with E interests generally seek positive affirmation from others, and benefit from verification that others are influenced by their actions (Holland, 1997; Su et al., 2006), thus they also should be likely to need self-affirmation and self-verification to experience work meaningfulness. For A and E types, meaningfulness should be associated with work experiences that suggest that others see them as they see themselves.
Occupations high on A and E interests include musicians and public relations specialists (O⋆Net, 2016). Both are creative occupations, and require individuals to have strong personal communication with stakeholders, such as clients or the public (Christopherson, 2004; Kent & Taylor, 2002). High degrees of personal expressiveness are required for such encounters, and to the extent that stakeholders validate such personal expression, individuals in these occupations should experience greater meaningfulness. Table 7.2 lists additional occupations in which individuals should experience meaningfulness through Self-Connection.
Thus, the following prediction:
Proposition 3: Individuals who are high on A and E interests should be more likely than those high on R, I, S, and C interests to experience work meaningfulness via Self-Connection.
Unification and I and S Interests
Individuals with strong Investigative (I) and Social (S) interests should be most likely to experience work meaningfulness through Unification (i.e., a harmony with others or valued ideals). Unification emphasizes finding meaningfulness through a strong value system (e.g., social, moral, religious), and sense of belongingness in a like-minded community (Rosso et al., 2010; see also Baumeister, 1991 and Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Value systems provide a compass for right and wrong, and acting in accordance with value systems gives individuals purpose associated with work (Schwartz, 1992; Weiner, 1988). For individuals who experience work meaningfulness through Unification, guiding ideals are fundamental to their work experience, and/or they feel a strong connection or shared identity with work-related social groups (such as their coworkers, units, or organizations [Rosso et al., 2010; see also Pratt & Ashforth, 2003]).
Individuals with I interests should find meaningfulness from being part of social groups that allow them to further value ideals, such as rigorous scientific inquiry or intellectual pursuit (Glenna, Welsh, Erwin, Lacy, & Biscotti, 2001; Holland, 1997). Those with strong S interests value helping and cooperating with others (Armstrong & Anthoney, 2009, Holland, 1997). These individuals should experience meaningfulness when they further altruistic or social ideals, and/or when they experience a sense of belongingness at work (Rosso et al., 2010; Dutton & Heaphy, 2003).
Occupations high on I and S interests include physicians and physical therapists (O⋆Net, 2016). In their work, individuals in these occupations are likely to be committed to furthering values such as scholarly pursuit, cooperation, and service (Hartung, Taber, & Richard, 2005; Stenmar & Nordholm, 1994), and should desire opportunities to experience meaningfulness in association with furthering these values through their work. See Table 7.2 for additional occupations in which individuals should value meaningfulness through Unification.
Accordingly, I predict the following:
Proposition 4: Individuals who are high on I and S interests should be more likely than those high R, A, E, and C interests to experience meaningful work via Unification.
Thus far, I have suggested that different interests should be associated with unique pathways to meaningful work. In particular, E, R, I, and A types should be most likely to experience meaningful work through Individuation, S, E, and C types through Contribution, A and E types through Self-Connection, and I and S types through Unification. This means that each interest type is linked to between one and three pathways to work meaningfulness: R types through the Individuation pathway; I types through the Individuation and Unification pathways; A types through the Individuation and Self-Connection pathways; S types through the Contribution and Unification Pathways; E types through the Individuation, Contribution, and Self-Connection pathways; and C types through the Contribution pathway. See Figure 7.1 for a visual representation of the integration of RIASEC interests with the pathways to meaningful work.
FIGURE 7.1 Integrating the RIASEC Interests with Pathways to Meaningful Work.
An interesting pattern that emerges from the preceding predictions is that, starting with C and R interests and moving to the right around the RIASEC hexagon, the number of relevant pathways to meaningful work increases. One possible explanation for this pattern may be provided by the two bipolar task dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon—working with “people” versus “things” and working with “ideas” versus “data” (Prediger, 1982; Su et al., 2009). When the RIASEC types are overlaid onto these dimensions, the following categorizations are evident: R anchors the “things” dimension; I is associated with “ideas” and “things”; A is associated with “people” and “ideas”; S anchors the “people” dimension; E is associated with “people” and “data”; and C is associated with “data” (Su et al., 2009). Using these dimensions as a foundation, the pattern suggests that one reason that R and C interests link with fewer sources of work meaningfulness may be that working with “people” and “ideas” increases the likelihood that one will experience work meaningfulness (Thompson & Bunderson, 2003; Wrzesniewski et al., 2003). Thus:
Proposition 5: Individuals will experience higher levels of work meaningfulness when they work in occupational environments characterized by “people” and “ideas.”
In the next section, I present evidence that meaningful work pathways should be linked, not only to certain interests across individuals, but also to the pattern of a particular individual’s interest profile.
Patterns of Interest Profiles and Meaningful Work
Holland (1973) proposed, and researchers have found evidence to support, additional constructs derived from interest scores. Two frequently examined constructs are differentiation and elevation. Differentiation captures the degree to which an individual shows a strong preference for one interest type over others (Holland, 1997; Im, 2011; Lowe, 1981; Nauta & Kahn, 2007). When profiles are high on differentiation, individuals demonstrate significantly higher levels of one or two interests; when profiles are low on differentiation, individuals display a “flat profile,” representing almost equal interests across the six RIASEC types. Elevation refers to the strength of interest scores (Swanson & Hansen, 1986; Holland, 1997). High elevation interest profiles show strong interest scores across all types; low elevation interest profiles are those in which interest scores are depressed across RIASEC types. Low elevation profiles are indicative of people who don’t like any of the activities associated with the RIASEC types; high elevation people like them all.
Based on these profile distinctions, certain profiles of interests should be differently linked to the pathways to meaningful work. In particular, I suggest that different interest profiles will lead to differences in potentiality for experiencing work meaningfulness connected with interests, and criticality of certain pathways for experiencing meaningful work. Those individuals who are low on differentiation and high on elevation should have the greatest potential to experience meaningful work. These individuals should be more likely to experience work meaningfulness since they are likely to have more options for pathways through which work meaningfulness can be realized. Individuals with high levels of multiple interests should be more likely to experience meaningfulness because if one pathway is blocked (e.g., few high-quality connections are available in the work environment, and thus the Unification pathway is blocked), then the individual can look to other pathways to experience work as meaningful (e.g., having opportunities for a high level of social impact, and thus experiencing meaningful work through the Contribution pathway). This type of flexibility should allow workers more opportunity to experience meaningfulness in work (Cardador & Caza, 2012). Thus:
Proposition 6: Individuals with high elevation and low differentiation of RIASEC types should have the greatest potential to experience work meaningfulness.
In contrast, those who are high on differentiation and high on elevation should consider a more limited number of pathways to be most critical to their experience of meaningful work for two reasons. First, a narrowness of interests limits the individual’s ability to adapt to the conditions of his/her work environment with respect to opportunities for work meaningfulness (Cardador & Caza, 2012). For example, if someone’s profile is characterized by high elevation on the R type, and high differentiation of the R type from others interests, he/she should experience work meaningfulness primarily through opportunities for Individuation, and is less likely to experience work meaningfulness through the other three pathways—Contribution, Self-Connection, and Unification. This means that avenues for experiencing Individuation will be critical to this individual’s experience of meaningful work. For this individual, if opportunities to experience Individuation are not available, the ability to experience work meaningfulness will be significantly undermined.
Second, the criticality of certain meaningful work pathways for those with high differentiation and high elevation can also be explained using a certainty-authenticity argument (Gecas 1982). Individuals with strong interests in few areas are likely to be highly certain about their work preferences and to seek opportunities that allow these preferences to be more readily realized. Thus, they may look to critical pathways not because others are unavailable, but because their strong preferences dictate a clear and specific path to work meaningfulness though a smaller number of potential pathways.
Based on these arguments, I predict the following:
Proposition 7: Individuals with high elevation and high differentiation of RIASEC types should require fewer, and thus more critical, pathways to experience work as meaningful.
In contrast to individuals with high elevation in interest profiles just described, individuals with low elevation of RIASEC types should be less likely to experience work as meaningful. Meaningful work scholars point out that meaningful work refers to not only the type of meaning that one experiences at work, but also the amount of meaningfulness (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Wrzesniewski, 2003). Individuals with low elevation in their interest profiles should experience low levels of work meaningfulness regardless of their level of interest differentiation because they are less likely to show a preference for any of the four pathways to meaningful work. For these individuals, non-work avenues for meaningfulness—for example, marriage, hobbies and leisure pursuits, religion—may provide stronger pathways to meaningfulness than work avenues. Thus:
Proposition 8: Regardless of their level of differentiation of RIASEC types, individuals with low elevation of RIASEC types should be most likely to experience meaningfulness outside of the work domain.
To summarize this section, individuals with more and stronger interests should have access to more and varied sources of work meaningfulness, while those with fewer and weaker interests should have less access to fewer sources of meaningful work. While RIASEC types and interest profiles are important, given that a major assumption of Holland’s (1973, 1997) theory is that the degree of congruence between a person’s interest type and the environment is predictive of beneficial outcomes for individuals (e.g., Nye et al., 2012), considering the role of the organizational context should also be important. In the next section, I describe how organizations might foster meaningful work in connection with interests.
The Role of Organizations in Fostering Meaningfulness via Interest Profiles
Research has shown that people find environments reinforcing and satisfying when they fit with their interests (Low & Rounds, 2006). Additionally, because the experience of meaningful work is based on the fit between individual traits and what the work context provides (Rosso et al., 2010), organizations are seen as instrumental to individuals’ experiences of meaningful work (Cardador, Dane, & Pratt, 2011; Podolny et al., 2004). This begs the question of how organizations might foster work meaningfulness for individuals with different interests, and suggests that workers may find work more meaningful when organizations are able to create conditions that allow individuals with different interests to access preferential sources of meaningfulness through work. I present organizational practices that foster meaningfulness via the four pathways—Individuation, Contribution, Self-Connection, and Unification. Figure 7.2 presents a summary of how the organizational practices summarized below apply to each of the six RIASEC types.
FIGURE 7.2 Role of Organizations in Fostering Work Meaningfulness via Interest Profiles.
Organizational Role in Fostering Meaningfulness Through Individuation
Because meaningful work via Individuation is about employees experiencing meaningfulness through a sense of personal competence, control, and autonomy in the workplace, (Rosso et al., 2010), organizational strategies to promote these conditions should increase employee access to meaningfulness. Based on the theorizing above, these strategies should be most useful for those with E, R, I, and A interests.
To address competency, control, and autonomy needs, organizations can engage in several practices. First, provide employees with opportunities for challenge, learning, and growth. Learning and growth provides individuals with a sense of progression in their work and improves feelings of personal mastery (Amabile & Kramer, 2011; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagne & Deci, 2005; Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007; Masten & Reed, 2002). Experiencing challenge, learning, and growth increases workers’ sense of efficacy and self-determination, thus providing greater access to opportunities to experience meaningful work through Individuation. A second organizational practice is managing employees in ways that foster greater participation and personal initiative (Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989). For example, managers can provide employees with voice in decision making, and flexibility to decide how their work tasks will be carried out (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Personal involvement and choice of work and task engagement can enhance employee feelings of autonomy and control and should thus promote greater meaningfulness via Individuation. Together, these practices—providing opportunities for challenge and development, and managerial styles that emphasize employee participation and initiative should be most effective for E, R, I, and A interests because of their preference for meaningful work via Individuation. Thus:
Proposition 9: Organizational practices that foster Individuation, such as opportunities for challenge and development, and managerial styles that emphasize employee participation and initiative, should be most effective at increasing work meaningfulness for those with E, R, I, and A interests.
Organizational Role in Fostering Meaningfulness Through Contribution
Because meaningful work via Contribution is about having a positive impact on others (Rosso et al., 2010), organizational strategies to promote perceptions of impact should increase employee access to meaningfulness. Based on the theorizing above, these strategies should be most useful for those with S, E, and C interests. Two specific practices for improving meaningful work via Contribution are relational job design and transformational leadership. First, research on relational job design—connecting employees with the impact that their work has on others (Grant, 2007)—shows that when employees have contact with, or receive information about, the beneficiaries of their work they experience greater perceptions of social impact (Grant, 2008; Grant et al., 2007). This idea is supported by research establishing that people are more likely to perceive the positive impact of their actions on others when they have clear and objective opportunities to benefit others through their work (Batson, 1998; Latane & Darley, 1970; Grant, 2007). Work designed to promote a positive sense of impact on others contributes to greater task significance, which is associated with more meaningful work (Grant, 2007, 2008). Organizations can play a role in helping employees see how their work is contributing to others through such strategies as providing employees with customer testimonials and customer profiles (Grant, 2011), or by encouraging employees to reflect—perhaps during performance reviews or other feedback sessions—about how their work has a positive impact on others (Cardador, 2014).
A second practice associated with employees’ increased sense of meaningfulness via Contribution is transformational leadership. Transformational leaders articulate a vision that makes employees more aware of, and attentive to, how their work benefits others (Colby, Sippola, & Phelps, 2001; Grant, 2012; Podolny et al., 2004). Motivating employees to transcend self-interest by highlighting how and why employees’ work has important consequences for others can help improve meaningfulness via Contribution.
Based on this evidence:
Proposition 10: Organizational practices that foster Contribution, such as relational job design and transformational leadership, should be most effective at increasing work meaningfulness for those with S, E, and C interests.
Organizational Role in Fostering Meaningfulness Through Self-Connection
Because meaningful work via Self-Connection relates to integrity with how one sees themselves, the experience of authenticity and personal identity-affirmation (Rosso et al., 2010; see also Kahn, 2006; Waterman, 1993), organizational practices that allow individuals to retain consistency of self, and to fully express themselves at work should increase employee access to this pathway to meaningfulness. Two practices that should promote greater meaningfulness through Self-Connection—and thus be most effective for employees with A and E interests—are selecting employees for organizational culture fit and providing opportunities for job crafting. First, when employees are selected for fit with an organization’s culture, they should feel that they can express their true selves in the organization and should therefore feel more able to be personally expressive at work (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005).
It is important to note that ensuring job-interest fit may be a strategy for fostering Self-Connection for employees with any of the RIASEC types. Though job-interest fit may not be necessary for employees to experience work meaningfulness, being hired into jobs and work environments that fit with one’s interests may make it more likely for all employees to access their most impactful sources of work meaningfulness.
A second organizational practice for fostering personal authenticity and identity-affirmation is for organizations to provide workers with opportunities to engage in job crafting—that is, the opportunity to proactivity design (or redesign) the relational and task boundaries of their jobs to align them with employees’ needs for personal expression (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Providing opportunities for crafting can include small acts, such as allowing employees to personalize their workspaces and work environment (Elsbach, 2003), or can include more significant changes, such as providing employees options to create new task assignments that allow them to develop skills in preferred areas, or simply to feel that they are behaving in line with personal interests, goals, and values (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). For example, an individual who is highly artistic may feel more authentic when allowed to craft his work to allow for greater creativity and artistic expression.
Proposition 11: Organizational practices that foster Self-Connection, such as selecting employees for culture fit and allowing opportunities for job crafting, should be most effective at increasing work meaningfulness for those with A and E interests.
Organizational Role in Fostering Meaningfulness Through Unification
Because meaningful work via Unification is associated with individuals experiencing harmony with broader values, ideals, or principles (Rosso et al., 2010), organizational practices that increase this harmony should increase employee access to this pathway to meaningfulness, and should thus be most beneficial for those with I and S interests. Two organizational practices to improve work meaningfulness via Unification should be articulating clear organizational values and goals and fostering positive interpersonal relationships at work. First, organizational values and ideals can be expressed through a general belief system and/or through a set of organizational practices that guide and control organizational action and employee behavior (Bowen & Schneider, 1988). When organizations articulate clear goals and values—and communicate to employees how their work furthers them (Grant, 2012) —it makes it easier for employees to grasp how their work contributes to broader ideals beyond profit (Baumeister & Wilson, 1996: Podolny et al., 2004).
Another organizational strategy for fostering Unification is creating a social environment that encourages positive interpersonal interactions between individuals. Positive interpersonal interactions at work provide opportunities for workers to experience a sense of relatedness and closeness with others (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003), and to experience a sense of belongingness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Additionally, interpersonal relationships with coworkers influence workers’ interpretation of the meaning of their work. Wrzesniewski and colleagues (2003) draw on information-processing theory to describe how interactions with others at work serve as sources of information regarding the value or significance of one’s work. Through interpersonal cues provided by proximal coworkers, employees come understand the significance of their work. Based on this evidence:
Proposition 12: Organizational practices that foster Unification, such articulating values and ideals, and fostering positive interpersonal relationships, should be most effective at increasing work meaningfulness for those with I and S interests.
To summarize this section, because different types of organizational practices should be most effective in fostering meaningfulness via unique pathways, different types of practices should be more or less effective depending on one’s vocational interest profile. However, if organizations engage in an array of meaningfulness-fostering practices, they should increase their changes of fostering work meaningfulness among a greater number of employees.
Summary and Conclusions
The principal aim of this chapter was to integrate the vocational interests and meaningful work literatures to build theory on why and how vocational interests and profiles may be associated with different sources of work meaningfulness. The theory explains why those with particular interests should be expected to experience work meaningfulness through unique pathways. In particular, those with E, R, I, and A interests should be most likely to experience meaningful work through Individuation, those with S, E, and C interests through Contribution, those with A and E interests through Self-Connection, and those with I and S interests through Unification. Moreover, the theory presented here suggested that those with high interest elevation and low differentiation should have the greatest potential to experience work meaningfulness, while those with high interest elevation and high differentiation will experience some pathways as more critical to their experience of meaningfulness. Finally, I suggested ways that organizations might foster work meaningfulness for those with different types of interests.
This chapter contributes to both the vocational interests and meaningful work literatures. With respect to the vocational interests literature, previous research has demonstrated that interests play a critical role in educational and occupational choice (e.g., Rounds & Su, 2014; Walsh & Osipow, 1986), and—to the degree that individuals experience congruence between their interests and their work environment—interests predict beneficial work outcomes such as job performance and career success (e.g., Nye et al., 2012). Building on this prior research, this chapter shows that individual differences in interests may also be critical for how workers experience the meaningfulness of their work. Further, when there is congruence between the ways in which the worker is most likely to experience work meaningfulness and what the organization and job provide, the amount and degree of purpose and significance attached to work should be heightened. This chapter has highlighted how and why people with different interests may look to different sources for work meaningfulness, and that organizations can foster meaningful work by creating the conditions through which people with unique interests can access critical sources of meaningfulness.
While not specifically focused on occupations, the theory developed in this chapter may also have implications for fostering meaningful work among members of different occupational groups. Because interests are linked to occupations (i.e., teachers tend to be high on S, A, and C interests, and civil engineers high on R, I, and C interests [O⋆Net, 2016]), knowing the most likely sources of meaningful work for individuals with these types can help organizations to develop specific, actionable, and tailored strategies to increase meaningful work for individuals in certain occupations. Understanding the relationship between interests and pathways to meaningfulness may help researchers and practitioners to better understand why certain occupations experience certain types of meaningfulness, as well as how meaningfulness gets thwarted in certain occupations because employees may lack access to critical meaningful work pathways.
This research also makes contributions to the meaningful work literature by showing the relationship between traits and pathways to meaningful work. While previous research has considered the role of individual differences in factors such as values, intrinsic motivation, job involvement, and work orientation (see Rosso et al., 2010, for a review), researchers have paid scant attention to the role of individual differences in enduring traits, such as vocational interests. Paying attention to this linkage is important given calls to examine the effect of meaningful work on more multidimensional conceptualizations of self. For example, Rosso and colleagues (2010) have noted that one limitation of current research is that it “tends to use singular elements of the self-concept to conceptualize the self” (e.g., values, motivations, beliefs [p. 99]). These scholars have suggested that this focus on singular elements presents an incomplete picture of how individual differences affect experiences of meaningful work. Because interests encompass goals, motives, preferences, and beliefs (Holland, 1997; Rounds, 1995), linking interests to meaningful work may represent an important initial step in explaining how a more multi-dimensional individual-difference construct is linked to pathways to meaningful work. Because these multiple dimensions of the self combine to influence single interests or profiles of interests, a focus on interests may provide a more parsimonious and perhaps more actionable theoretical lens through which to understand when and how different types of individuals are most likely to experience their work as purposeful and significant.
Moreover, this chapter highlights the role of organizations in shaping employees’ work meaningfulness by fostering greater “interest-meaningfulness” congruence. Though previous research has highlighted a role for organizations in fostering meaningful work through strategies such as job design (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Grant, 2007; Hackman & Oldham, 1976), transformational leadership (Grant, 2012), organizational values (Poldony et al., 2005), and work environments characterized by positive interpersonal relationships (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003), this chapter offers a number of propositions suggesting that these different strategies should be more or less appealing and useful to individuals depending on their specific interest profile.
To conclude, while the vocational interest and meaningful work literatures have each provided unique and valuable insights into how workers make decisions about and experience their work environments, this research bridges these two literatures to provide new insights to each and to suggest interest-tailored avenues for organizations (and occupations) to improve the experience of meaningfulness for workers.
References
Aldridge, M. (1994). Unlimited liability? Emotional labour in nursing and social work. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20(4), 722–728.
Amabile, T. M., & Kramer, S. J. (2010). The power of small wins. Harvard Business Review, 89, 70–80.
Armstrong, P. I., & Anthoney, S. F. (2000). Personality facets and RIASEC interests: An integrated model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 346–359.
Armstrong, P. I., Day, S. X., McVay, J. P., & Rounds, J. (2008). Holland’s RIASEC model as an integrative framework for individual differences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(1), 1–18.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and Communion in Western man. Boston: Beacon.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1990). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. In C. L. Cooper & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Personality: Critical concepts in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 231–254). New York: Routledge.
Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 282–316). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Meanings of life. New York: Guilford Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1990). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–530.
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2000). The pursuit of meaningfulness in life. In C. R. Snyder, and S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The handbook of positive psychology (pp. 608–618). New York: Oxford University Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Wilson, B. (1996). Life stories and the four needs for meaning. Psychological Inquiry, 7(4), 322–377.
Blatt, R., & Camden, C. T. (2007). Positive relationships and cultivating community. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bowen, D. E., & Schneider, B. (1988). Services marketing and management: Implications for organizational behavior. In B. M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 43–80). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Cardador, M. T. (2014). The effects of positive versus negative impact reflection on change in job performance and work-life conflict. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1370–1377.
Cardador, M. T., & Caza, B. B. (2010) Relational and identity perspectives on healthy versus unhealthy pursuit of callings. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 338–353.
Cardador, M. T., Dane, E. I., & Pratt, M. G. (2010). Linking calling orientations to organizational attachment via organizational instrumentality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 367–378.
Christopherson, S. (2004). The divergent worlds of new media: How policy shapes work in the creative economy. Review of Policy Research, 21(4), 543–558.
Colby, A., Sippola, L., & Phelps, E. (2001). Social responsibility and paid work in contemporary American life. In A. Rossi (Ed.), Caring and doing for others: Social responsibility in the domains of family, work, and community (pp. 349–399). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dawis, R. V. (Eds), Assessing individual differences in human behavior: New concepts, methods, and findings (pp. 177–232). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (198Connell0). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Dutton, J. E., & Heaphy, E. D. (2000). The power of high quality connections. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp. 263–278). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Elangovan, A. R., Pinder, C. C., & McLean, M. (2010). Callings and organizational behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 428–440.
Elsbach, K. D. (2003). Relating physical environment to self-categorizations: Identity threat and affirmation in a non-territorial office space. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 622–654.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job characteristics model: A review and meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287–322.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.
Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 1–33.
Glenna, L. L., Welsh, R., Ervin, D., Lacy, W. B., & Biscotti, D. (2011). Commercial science, scientists’ values, and university biotechnology research agendas. Research Policy, 40(7), 957–968.
Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32 (2), 393–417.
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.
Grant, A. M. (2011). How customers can rally your troops. Harvard Business Review, 89(6), 96–103.
Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 458–476.
Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007). Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103 (1), 53–67.
Guevara, K. & Ord, J. (1996). The search for meaning in a changing work context. Futures, 28, 709–722.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1970). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250–279.
Hartung, P. J., Taber, B. J., & Richard, G. V. (2000). The physician values in practice scale: Construction and initial validation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(2), 309–320.
Hauge, A., & Hracs, B. J. (2010). See the sound, hear the style: Collaborative linkages between indie musicians and fashion designers in local scenes. Industry and Innovation, 17(1), 113–129.
Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choice: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2000). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332.
Im, S. (2011). The effect of profile elevation on the relationships between interest differentiation and vocational identity. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 39(2), 149–160.
Kahn, W. A. (2006). Meaningful connections: Positive relationships and attachments at work. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 189–206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2000). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.
Latane, B., & Darley, J. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Lips-Wiersma, M. (2002). The influence of spiritual “meaning making” on career behavior. Journal of Managerial Development, 7, 497–550.
Lips-Wiersma, M., & Morris, L. (2009). Discriminating between “meaningful work” and the “management of meaning.” Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 491–511.
Low, K. S. D., & Rounds, J. (2006). Vocational interests: Bridging person and environment. In D. L. Segal & J. Thomas (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of personality and psychopathology, Volume 1: Personality and everyday functioning (pp. 251–267). New York: Wiley.
Low, K. D., Yoon, M., Roberts, B. W., & Rounds, J. (2005). The stability of vocational interests from early adolescence to middle adulthood: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological bulletin, 131(5), 713–737.
Lowe, B. (1981). The relationship between vocational interest differentiation and career undecidedness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 19, 346–349.
Masten, A. S., & Reed, M. J. (200Masten0). Resilience in development. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. López (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74–88). New York: Oxford University Press.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (200Gilson0). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77 (1), 11–37.
Nauta, M. M., & Kahn, J. H. (2000). Identity status, consistency and differentiation of interests, and career decision self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(1), 55–65.
Nord, W., Brief, A., Atieh, J., & Doherty, E. (1990). Studying meanings of work: The case of work values. In A. Brief & W. Nord (Eds.), Meanings of occupational work (pp. 21–64). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Nye, C. D., Su, R., Rounds, J., & Drasgow, F. (2012). Vocational interests and performance: A quantitative summary of over 60 years of research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 384–403.
O*Net Online. (2016). https://www.onetonline.org/find/
Podolny, J. M., Khurana, R., & Hill-Popper, M. (2004). Revisiting the meaning of leadership. Research in Organizational Behavior, 26, 1–36.
Pratt, M. G. (2000). The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: Managing identification among Amway distributors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 456–493.
Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (200Pratt0). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Prediger, D. J. (1982). Dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon: Missing link between interests and occupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21(3), 259–287.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127.
Rounds, J. (1995). Vocational interests: Evaluating structural hypotheses. In D. J. Lubinski & R. V. Dawis, (Eds), Assessing individual differences in human behavior: New concepts, methods, and findings (pp. 177–232). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Rounds, J., & Su, R. (2014). The nature and power of interests. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), 98–103.
Schneider, P. L., Ryan, J. M., Tracey, T. J. G., & Rounds, J. (1996). Examining the relation between Holland’s RIASEC model and the interpersonal circle. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29, 123–133.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.
Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12, 405–424.
Shneidman, E. S. (1984). Personality and “success” among a selected group of lawyers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(6), 609–616.
Stenmar, L., & Nordholm, L. A. (1994). Swedish physical therapists’ beliefs on what makes therapy work. Physical Therapy, 74(11), 1034–1039.
Strong, E. K., Jr. (1943). Vocational interests of men and women. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859.
Super, D. E., & Šverko, B. (Eds.). (1995). Life roles, values, and careers: International findings of the Work Importance Study. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Swanson, J. L., & Hansen, J. I. C. (1986). A clarification of Holland’s construct of differentiation: The importance of score elevation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28(2), 163–173.
Thompson, J. A., & Bunderson, J. S. (2000). Violations of principle: Ideological currency in the psychological contract. Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 571–586.
Walsh, W. B., & Osipow, S. H. (Eds.). (1986). Advances in vocational psychology. Vol. 1: The assessment of interests. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Waterman, A. S. (1990). Personal expressiveness: Philosophical and psychological foundations. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 11, 47–74.
Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia) and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 678–691.
Wiener, Y. (1988). Forms of value systems: A focus on organizational effectiveness and cultural change and maintenance. Academy of Management Review, 13(4.), 534–545.
Wrzesniewski, A. (2003). Finding positive meaning in work. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, J. E. & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 296–308). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Reenvisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179–201.
Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. In R. M. Kramer & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 25, pp. 93–136). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 21–33.