Meaning in work – too little, too much or contested

Abstract

This article debates whether the increased focus on meaning in work may improve or develop work. It argues that it depends on how meaning in work is conceived, or what theoretical perspective is taken as point of departure. The article identifies three different perspectives on meaning in work: a management perspective, a critical perspective and a transformative perspective and discuss these perspectives based on review of selected literature. The management perspective may be characterized as attempts to combine elements form HRM, corporate social responsibility and positive psychology, and is considered a part of the increasing focus on managing ‘hearts and minds’. The critical perspective takes departure in critical theory, but actually represents revisions of the traditional Marxist insistence on capitalist work as inherently meaningless. Post constructivist contributions are gathered in the headline of the transformative perspective. It could be argued that post constructivism is all about meaning, but in fact only little research focus explicitly on meaning in work. Contributions that take inspiration from Karl Weick form one part of this research; another part consists of literature on the transformation of professions and vocations. The article discusses the implications of these perspectives, and argues that if we conceive meaning in work from the management perspective, the promises of a meaningful work might soon be converted to just another normative request to the self-managing worker. The critical perspective offers valuable insights, but is often compromised by its tendency to look nostalgically at the past. The article ends up with a discussion of the potentials of different constructivist contributions, and maintains that if meaning in work should be useful in attempts to improve and develop work, meaning in work should be conceived as plural, processual and contested.