MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Building Bridges of Meaning: Bridging Purpose, Meaning and Meaningfulness of Work

2025· article· en· W4416002395 on OpenAlexaff
Mirit K. Grabarski, Galina Boiarintseva, Jon P. Briscoe, Evgenia I. Lysova, Hina Kalyal, Megha Yadav, Claire Schulze Schleithoff, Viktoriya Voloshyna, Jelena Zikic, Bryan J. Dik, Michael F. Steger, Denise Daniels, Brittany Buis, B.J. Briscoe

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCareer Development and Diversity
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityThompson Rivers UniversityLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKaleidoscopeMeaning (existential)Work (physics)Bridging (networking)Career developmentSocial exchange theorySelf-determination theoryFocus (optics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why do people work, and what does work mean for them? Not long ago, there was consensus that work was mainly a means for survival, where individuals would engage in labor in exchange for pay (Dik et. al., 2013; Toaddy, 2019). Personal goals such as satisfaction, fulfillment and wellbeing were attained outside of work in domains such as family, hobbies, and the broader community (Bailey et al., 2017). Yet, the last few decades were characterized by growing interest in the personally meaningful aspects of work. Technological advances allowed to redesign work such that humans could do less repetitive work and focus on tasks that are more creative and interesting (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Development of psychological theories such as the self- determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), led to managers realizing the advantages of intrinsic motivation for individual and organizational performance. As a result, organizational researchers started exploring ideas of what makes work engaging and meaningful, how do individuals find meaning in trivial and even dirty jobs, and how this can be leveraged so support employees and employers. Within career theory, the meaning of work has a special place. Throughout one’s life cycle, people prefer to make career choices that will be aligned with their values. This notion has been essential in multiple theories (for example, Super’s lifespan theory (1990) that explains how career preferences shift over time, thus highlighting the different meanings of work). Protean career theory (Hall, 1996) emphasizes personal values and psychological success, and the kaleidoscope career model (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005) considers authenticity as one of its key factors. The sustainable careers framework (De Vos et al., 2020) places meaning as one of the central concepts in the development of satisfying, sustainable careers. Finally, the career construction theory (Savickas, 2001) focuses on individual interpretations and assigning meanings, which is particularly beneficial for career counselling. Beyond the question of how individuals perceive their work, and what makes work meaningful for them, the place of work in human life also has another closely related aspect, namely, purpose. Psychology of Working theory (Blustein et al., 2023; Duffy et al., 2016) posits that work has additional importance beyond monetary compensation, fulfilling multiple needs: survival, but also self-determination and social connection. Therefore, access to work, and particularly, decent work, is important not just for financial reasons, but also for mental health and general wellbeing. As another round of industrial revolution is unfolding, contemporary discourse on work considers questions such as: What would people do if work is not necessary anymore? Where would they find purpose and meaning, and can work be reinvented to this goal? The purpose of this symposium is to explore the different aspects of the purpose of work, meanings people assign to work, and what makes work meaningful for them. While our presentations distinguish between the three aspects, they also aim to provide an integrative view. By exploring meaning, meaningfulness, and purpose separately, while at the same time acknowledging their interconnectedness, we create a more holistic picture that allows a better understanding of human fulfillment at work, leading to improved personal and organizational outcomes. From Joining the Force to Staying the Course: Female Police Officers and the Meaning of Work Author: Galina Boiarintseva; Niagara University Author: Hina Kalyal; Author: Megha Yadav; Indiana University South Bend “Keep on Keeping On”: Individuals’ Strategies to Cope with Situations That Harm Meaningful Work Author: Claire Schulze Schleithoff; Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Can we help? The social facilitation of individual vocational purpose - from meaning to purpose Author: Jon P. Briscoe; Northern Illinois University Author: Brittany Buis; Northern Illinois University Author: Benjamin Briscoe; Northern Illinois University Working around: Temporary residents and multiple meanings of work Author: Mirit K. Grabarski; Lakehead University Author: Viktoriya Voloshyna; Thompson Rivers University Author: Jelena Zikic; York University Meaning Systems: An Integrative Framework for Meaning of Work Research Author: Bryan Dik; Colorado State University Author: Michael Steger; Colorado State University Author: Denise Daniels; Wheaton College

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicCareer Development and DiversityFrench-language works237,207