Introductory Article

A Good Living Versus A Good Life: Meaning, Purpose, and HRD
Neal Chalofsky1 and Liz Cavallaro1

Advances in Developing Human Resources 15(4) 331–340 © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1523422313498560 adhr.sagepub.com

Abstract The Problem. The expectation for meaningful work and work–life integration is firmly entrenched in the minds of the GenerationY/Millennial generations in the workplace. Yet, in updating the literature and rethinking the impact on Chalofsky’s (2003) construct for meaningful work, the question arose as to whether meaningful work can and should exist in a vacuum or should it be viewed as part of a meaningful life. If so, what are the implications for the construct and for human resource development (HRD). How far can and should HRD go to help ensure a meaningful and purposeful life for present and future generations in the workplace? The Solution. This article provides a sketch of the current research and thinking about meaningful work and a basis for the rest of the articles in this issue. The tightness of the “fit” between self and work can determine how meaningful one’s work is perceived. How work fits within a meaningful life, and how one’s life fits within the context of the organization, the community, the society, and the planet can shape a meaningful existence. The Stakeholders. The intended audience for this article includes HRD scholars, scholar-practitioners, consultants, and students interested in the construct of meaningful work, and the implications of reframing HRD around meaning and purpose. Keywords meaningful life, meaningful work, evolving construct

Introduction
Meaning and purpose, in relation to work, is a topic that has gained increasing attention in the media as well as in the professional and scholarly literature. This attention has been fueled first by the baby boomers looking back at their careers and questioning the toll that all the hours of work took on the rest of their lives just so they could make a good living (Chalofsky, 2010). Then the children of the baby boomers, Generation Y and the Millennials, joined the workforce insisting that they wanted more balance between work and the rest of life (Tapia, 2008). Men have been taking on more of the parenting role in the home partnership and women have been taking on more of the leadership role in organizations. Most recently, there has been a “public and heated discussion” that surfaces every few years about women, work, and family (Walsh, 2013). In her essay, Walsh asked, “How can women have full lives, not just one squeezed around a career?” (p. 1). According to surveys and anecdotal evidence, young men are asking the same question. This past year, the Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago sponsored a grant competition on the subject of a purpose-driven life. According to their website, “The notion of purpose captures the desire and effort that individuals put forth to accomplish their goals, make significant contributions to society, and maintain a meaningful existence” (Booth School of Business, 2013, emphasis added). Ten years ago, I presented what I titled “An Emerging Construct for Meaningful Work” (Chalofsky, 2003). It was based on an extensive literature review over four years conducted by several doctoral students and myself. As a result of the popularity of the topic, a number of studies have been conducted since then on the topic and, more specifically, on my construct. In addition, there have been numerous articles, essays, book chapters, and books devoted to meaningful work in the mainstream and professional literature. In addition, generating a lot of press and attention especially among the big management consulting companies such as Gallup, McKinsey, and Blessing-White is the concept of employee engagement. Although engagement definitely relates to meaning and purpose, as Brad Shuck and Kevin Rose will discuss in one of the chapters in this issue, it is different than the meaning one finds in work. We believe that the distinction is that engagement is about the extent to which we relate to the work we do, and meaning has to do with the extent to how much the work reflects who we are. This dichotomy may actually be “two sides of the same coin” when it comes to the implications for organizations and human resource development (HRD). This introductory chapter will just deal with one side of the coin, that is, meaningful work.

The Evolving Construct of Meaningful Work
Ten years ago, meaningful work and work–life balance was framed as how people balance their work with the rest of their life. We believe that this picture needs to be reframed as how all the aspects of one’s life, work, family, friends, leisure, and so on fit together. Therefore, instead of work and life being two ends of a beam that needs to

Chalofsky and Cavallaro

333

Figure 1. The evolving construct of meaningful work.

be balanced, a puzzle is a more appropriate frame, where all the aspects of a meaningful existence need to fit together in harmony (refer to Figure 1A). However, this puzzle is much more difficult to put together, because all the pieces constantly change their shape and size. If we remove sense of balance from the original construct (refer to Figure 2), the two themes that are left are the “sense of self” and “the work itself.” The context for the evolving construct is now a meaningful life or meaningful existence, with work being one aspect of one’s life. The focus for HRD within the organization is the impact we can have on increasing the “fit” between the self and the work (refer to Figure 1B). We can also influence the organization in creating and maintaining a culture that strengthens the fit and supports the total self in and out of the workplace.

The Self
The self is about identity, purpose, and agency. Who am I, what is my purpose in life, what type of work fits with my purpose, and how much control and autonomy do I have for me to achieve my purpose? In the emerging construct, the sense of self was focused on being able to bring the whole self to the workplace. In the evolving construct, one must first “know thyself.” Too often, we ask ourselves the question, “What do I want to do?” But what we do, according to Matthew Fox (1994), is about a job, an

334

Advances in Developing Human Resources 15(4)

Sense of Self

Meaningful Work

The work Itself

Sense of Balance

Figure 2. The emerging construct.

occupational label. It is what we tell others when they ask the proverbial question, “So what do you do?” Work is who we are, it is part of our identity; how we see ourselves. My younger son delivers pizza part-time while going to school. But the act of driving is his passion. Delivering pizza is a job, driving is his work. In the helping professions, we cannot be effective without knowing the self first. In the organization development (OD) literature, there are a number of scholar-consultants who have written about the use of self in the practice of OD (Jamieson, Auron, & Shectman, 2010; Minahan, 2011). One of the most recent approaches to leadership, authentic leadership, talks about leaders having a “passion for their purpose, practice their values consistently. . . They know who they are” (George, Sims, McLean, & Mayer, 2007, p. 1). There are numerous tools and techniques for discovering the self, and they all have to do with critical reflection of one’s values, beliefs, strengths, and preferences. One aspect of this search is what John Dirkx, another of our authors, calls “the learning self,” the process of self-formation around meaning and purpose that puts us in touch with the spirituality of work. Up until the 1990s, career development was mainly about moving up the career ladder by either committing oneself to one organization that provided a path up the ladder or moving from organization-to-organization. However, either way, career development was organization-centric. Then the downsizing wave hit organizations and a new concept emerged, called the “new employee contract” (Kissler, 1994).

Chalofsky and Cavallaro

335

Career movement was the responsibility of the individual because you could not rely on the organization to take care of you. Peter Kuchinke, our third author, addresses human agency, the capacity to act independently, to make choices, and to pursue interests that are self-determined. To be agentic is to intentionally make things happen by one’s own actions (Bandura, 2001). Personality attributes related to personal agency include self-esteem, internal locus of control, purpose in life, and ego strength resilience (Cote, 2002). Today, many young people are choosing work that is not well-payed or careeroriented but is enjoyable, satisfying, and work–life integrated. My older son left a chef position where he was being groomed to be an executive chef with a popular and successful urban restaurant group to work on a food truck. He loves interacting with customers rather than being stuck in a kitchen. He works for several days and then is off for several days. He makes much less money and gets no benefits, but he loves the work. It allows him more control over his time and energy. The 12-hr days managing a kitchen in a busy restaurant left him with no time or energy to socialize, to get personal tasks accomplished, or to take care of himself. Self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) posits that work that fulfills the intrinsic needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence can result in the attainment of meaning and wellbeing. Agency and self-determination hinge on the locus of control being the individual rather than the organization. Agency and self-determination do not mean selfish-determination. People want their work and lives to be worthwhile to themselves, their families and friends, their community, and society. The baby-boomers are in Erikson’s (1982) generative stage of giving back to society. Generation Y and the Millennials talk about doing something that matters to others, whether that be helping someone in need or providing the best customer service. Miller’s (2008) research on meaningful work across the lifespan found that the importance of social contribution, that is, the value of contributing to others, is second only to personal fulfillment. Gardner (1989) talked about the moral imperative of leaders to provide meaningful work in the service of a value-based workplace and community. Even the literature on business ethics speaks to the moral imperative for meaningful work (Bowie, 1998). “What do I want to be when I grow up” is more than a cliché, note the word be rather than do. We want our work and our lives to be worthwhile.

The Work
The work is about the tasks themselves and how they fit with the self, our mastery of the competencies needed to perform the task, the continual learning that leads to mastery, and the energy that we bring to bear on meaningful work. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) found in his research on happiness and work performance that people in what he referred to as a flow state actually felt a sense of disappointment when they finished their task, because the work itself was the prime motivator, not the completion of the task or even the successful accomplishment. The thrill is in the journey, not in the reaching of the destination. Therefore, success was secondary to the work itself, and

336

Advances in Developing Human Resources 15(4)

risk of failure increased the challenge and the opportunity to learn. And learning is the key to continuous improvement and personal growth. Susan Gayle (1997) discovered that high technology system professionals who considered their work meaningful spent their time either deeply immersed in their work or continuously honing their skills and learning new advances. They were either improving the systems they were working on or improving themselves. Patricia (Patsy) Boverie and her associates refer to humans as learning organisms in their chapter. They believe that we are the happiest when we are learning. Learning leads to mastery. Senge (1990) believes that people who seek personal mastery live in a continual learning mode. They are aware of their competence and their potential and are continually striving to grow. And they are very self-confident that they are on the right path, because they see the problems and the difficulties as challenges to be overcome, not barriers to be avoided. People with personal mastery believe that they will succeed in what they set out to achieve, so they are motivated by the very fact that their actions will produce the outcomes they want. This is called selfefficacy (Bandura, 1986). Self-efficacy also influences how much effort people will sustain in an activity, how long they will persevere when confronting barriers, and how resilient they will be in dealing with adverse situations. People with high self-efficacy perceive themselves to be in control of their own lives, that their own actions and decisions shape their lives. They have learned the coping mechanisms to deal with the roadblocks and dilemmas that they encounter along the way and believe that they will successfully get past the roadblocks (Chalofsky, 2010). And learning will enable them to obtain the knowledge, experience, understanding, and wisdom to navigate the journey. Turner (2005) found in her research on learning and meaningful work that two characteristics stood out. First, learning was innately embedded in the core of each person who felt their work was meaningful. Second, all the people in her study were committed self-directed learners. Although they described themselves like a sponge and wanting to soak up as much as possible, they continuously reflected on new information, didn’t automatically accept new knowledge at face value, and questioned how it fit with their current knowledge and values. They always wanted to know the underlining assumptions and premises that their newfound knowledge was based on. They constantly dug deeper to learn more and were excited by discovery. The thrill of discovery, the struggle of critical reflection with values and beliefs, and dealing with change in understanding provided what Senge (1990) called creative tension. Creative tension is the feeling people have when they realize the difference between their current reality and where they want to be. This tension is motivational to people who see their work (and lives) as meaningful. This tension also is energizing. When we are excited by learning something new or accomplishing something challenging, we feel good; it provides energy because it feeds our meaningfulness. When we put on a piece of clothing and it feels like it was made just for our body and our self-image, it “fits just right.” When we know the work we do was what we were meant to be doing, it fits just right.

Chalofsky and Cavallaro

337

The Context of Work
Practically all of us work with or in an organization, network, or institution. Our last author, Sunny Munn, deals with the culture that organizations must have to support meaning and purpose. Even individual consultants and coaches are usually working with people in organizations, or belong to communities of practice or professional and scholarly associations. We need to relate to other people, and the quality of our relationships can play a significant role in meaningful work and a meaningful existence. Putnam (2000) wrote an essay that he titled, “Bowling Alone,” for a phenomenon he observed in Western society. People are working the equivalent of over a month more each year than they did a decade ago. Then they sit in their cars in traffic for hours going to and from work, and then get home only to have to answer their cell phones or check their emails. Work is grueling, home life is hectic, and many people experience a disconnect from friends, social activities, neighbors, and community life in general. Bowling has always been as much a socializing activity as it is a sport, most people would never think of bowling alone. Therefore, he used this as a metaphor for this feeling of disconnect. He and others coined the term “social capital,” the value that is placed on the quality of relationships at work, in the community, and in society. The workplace generates social capital in several ways (Bettertogether, 2002). First, the job is where people build trusting relationships based on mutual assistance. Second, workplaces act as recruiting grounds for individuals and community organizations that are building social capital outside the office or factory walls. Third, employers contribute as organizations—by sponsoring volunteer teams, donating money to worthy causes, and instituting “work–life” programs to make it easier for employees to meet family and community obligations. Social responsibility used to be about being concerned with how an organization affected the environment. Now it is about the holistic connection from employees out to the planet we live on and every level in between. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD, 2000) defines (corporate) social responsibility (CSR) as the business commitment and contribution to the quality of life of employees, their families (italics mine), and the local community and society overall. Therefore, whereas meaningful work is about the relationship between self and work, meaningful and purpose-driven work needs to fit in with the larger context of our lives, and our lives need to fit in with the larger context of our workplaces, our communities, our society, and the planet. In 1943, Maslow wrote that he believed that, “the integrated wholeness of the organism must be one of the foundation stones of motivation theory” (Maslow, 1943, p. 370).
People strive to become whole, or to complete themselves, through their choices and activities, including their work. . . . A new discontent and restlessness will soon develop, unless the individual is doing what he is fitted for. A musician must make music, an artist must paint, a poet must write, if he is to be ultimately happy. What a man can be, he must be. This need we may call self-actualization. . . . It refers to the desire for self-fulfillment,

338

Advances in Developing Human Resources 15(4)

namely, to the tendency for him to become actualized in what he is potentially. This tendency might be phrased as the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming. (Maslow, 1943, p. 377)

We strive for meaning and purpose in and through our work, our relationships, our connections to our communities, and in how we play out our values and beliefs in our lives. HRD needs to pursue how it can support this quest.

Implications for HRD
The relevance of this updated meaningful work construct is that it raises questions that are valuable for individuals and HRD practitioners to consider. Should it be a goal of HRD to help ensure a meaningful and purposeful life for present and future generations in the workplace? HRD practitioners can facilitate this process by encouraging organizational commitment and contribution to the quality of life of employees. HRD practitioners can help employees proactively increase the “fit” between the self and the work and provide the proper organizational environment by creating and maintaining a culture that supports the total self, in and out of the workplace. Though meaningful work is highly subjective and individual, it is worthwhile for HRD practitioners to be familiar with the literature and research on meaning. Having a frame of reference for the facets of meaning being discussed in research and practice prompts HRD to think about meaningful work and link it to the reality of the organization. In addition, this effort and emphasis aids in the development of organizational values toward meaning. The knowledge era, given its emphasis on people’s intellectual competencies, requires a humanistic orientation to work. It may be valuable for HRD practitioners to understand the framework of meaning to support individuals in the quest for meaning and purpose. This model can serve as a foundation to help start the conversation with employees. Because meaning has to do with the extent to how much the work reflects who we are, this model can be used as a mirror to show the individual how we see our work life. From there, we may contemplate how we want to live our life. In addition, conducive to this conversation is familiarity with some of the strategies individuals are currently using to develop meaning in their work, such as the effort to achieve continual learning, mastery of competencies, energizing work, valuable relationships, and increased fit. New generations hold different attitudes toward choices for work, and it is worthwhile to understand these perspectives to be prepared to respond effectively to employee needs. HRD practitioners should understand fit strategies such as job crafting (employees changing the boundaries of work) and job sculpting (organizations fitting the work to the worker), and how these might be accommodated in the organization. Other approaches, such as authentic and distributed leadership, and appreciative inquiry and dialogic OD are gaining acceptance in the workplace that is becoming more attuned to employees’ needs. Other strategies will be discussed in the following articles.

Chalofsky and Cavallaro Declaration of Conflicting Interests

339

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Bandura. A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26. Bettertogether. (2002). Work and social capital, Saguaro Seminar on Civic Engagement in America, John F, Kennedy School of Government. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/programs/saguaro/about/the-originalsaguaro-seminar-meetings/work-and-social-capital Booth School of Business. (2013). New paths to purpose: A project of the Chicago Booth Center for Decision Research, Overview, and Goals. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Retrieved from http://newpathstopurpose.org/grants/rfp/overview-and-goals Bowie, N. (1998). A Kantian theory of meaningful work. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1083-1092. Chalofsky, N. (2003). An emerging construct for meaningful work. Human Resource Development International, 6, 69-83. Chalofsky, N., (2010). Meaningful workplaces: Reframing how and where we work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Côté, J. E. (2002). The role of identity capital in the transition to adulthood: The individualization thesis examined. Journal of Youth Studies, 5, 117-134. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Fox, M. (1994). The reinvention of work. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Gardner, J. (1989). The moral aspects of leadership (National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. George, B., Sims, P., McLean, A., & Mayer, D. (2007). Discovering your authentic leadership. Harvard Business Review. Available from http://www.hbr.org Gayle, S. (1997). Workplace purpose and meaning as perceived by information technology professionals: A phenomenological study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The George Washington University, Washington, DC. Jamieson, D., Auron, M., & Shectman, D. (2010). Managing use of self for masterful professional practice. OD Practitioner, 42(3), 4-11. Kissler, G. D. (1994). The new employment contract. Human Resource Management, 33, 335-352. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396. Retrieved from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm#r13 Miller, C. (2008). Meaningful work over the life course (Unpublished dissertation). Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA.

Downloaded from adh.sagepub.com by guest on January 13, 2015

340

Advances in Developing Human Resources 15(4)

Minahan, M. (2011). The only tool you can always count on. Practicing: An Online OD Network Magazine. Retrieved from http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.odnetwork.org/resource/resmgr/ practicing_od/892.pdf Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Touchstone. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday. Tapia, A. (2008). The Millennials: Why this generation will challenge the workplace like no other. Lake Forest, IL: Hewett. Turner, L. (2005). Patterns of learning in the lives of people who experience meaningful work (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The George Washington University, Washington, DC. Walsh, E. (2013, April 18). Why women should embrace a “good enough” life. The Washington Post. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2000, January). Corporate social responsibility: Making good business sense. Conches-Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

Author Biographies
Neal Chalofsky, EdD, is an associate professor in the Human and Organizational Learning Department at the George Washington University. Previously, he was a professor and director of HRD graduate studies at Virginia Tech. He has also been an internal HRD practitioner, manager, and researcher for several federal government and corporate organizations. His most recent book, Meaningful Workplaces: Reframing How and Where We Work, was published by Jossey-Bass in 2010. Liz Cavallaro is a 3rd-year doctoral student in Human and Organizational Learning at the George Washington University (GW). She holds a masters from GW in organizational management and works as the advanced degree program coordinator for the Executive Leadership Doctoral Program in Human and Organizational Learning at GW.