No abstract

The problem and the solution. The work motivation literature suggests the existence of a level of motivation that goes beyond the commonly known typologies of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The purpose of this article is to explore that deeper level of intrinsic motivation, meaningfulness, and to discuss the connections between meaning of work and meaning at work, represented by the concepts of employee commitment and engagement. This multidimensional approach combines the individual and psychological aspects of work motivation with the contextual and cultural factors that influence employee motivation.The managerial and popular literature has been increasingly referring to the "baby boomers" in America (the disproportionately large generation born just after World War II) nearing retirement age and questioning the meaning and purpose of their work and their lives. At the same time, their children, Generations X and Y, have started their careers asking the same questions.The classic motivation theorists and humanistic psychologists clearly supported the notion that individuals have an inherent need for a work life that they believe is meaningful (wrote that individuals who do not perceive the workplace as meaningful and purposeful will not work up to their professional capacity. There is a long history of research and discourse about what motivates employees and the relationship between job satisfaction and performance/ productivity. The need or content theories of the 1960s and 1970s and their emphasis on the individual gave way to the reinforcement and person-environment

In this introduction to the Journal of Management Studies Special Issue on Meaningful Work, we explain the imperative for a deeper understanding of meaningfulness within the context of the current sociopolitical environment, coupled with the growing use of organizational strategies aimed at ‘managing the soul’. Meaningful work remains a contested topic that has been the subject of attention in a wide range of disciplines. The focus of this Special Issue is the advancement of theory and evidence about the nature, causes, consequences, and processes of meaningful work. We summarize the contributions of each of the seven articles that comprise the Special Issue and, in particular, note their methodological and theoretical plurality. In conclusion, we set forth a future research agenda based on five fundamental paradoxes of meaningful work.

The human resource development field has long been struggling to develop an identity as a profession, especially in terms of its applied and interdisciplinary nature. One of the more debated issues in the field has been the need for a unifying definition that would not only provide a focus for the development of the profession but would also set limits on the boundaries of the field. This article presents a justification for a unifying definition, a history of the existing definitions of HRD, and several common themes or patterns found in these definitions and other literature in the field. The author proposes a unifying definition that would provide a vision for the profession and identifies several “next steps” that the field should consider in its quest for professional recognition and growth.

Human resource development (HRD) has long been considered a field with an interdisciplinary foundation. Unfortunately there has never been a consensus on the composition of the seminal disciplinary base of HRD. A description of the concept of an applied discipline is presented, and HRD, as represented by its academic association, the Academy of Human Resource Development, is compared to a set of criteria of a discipline that is set forth in the scholarly literature. A seminal foundation for a curriculum of the HRD discipline is presented around the framework of people, learning, and organizations.Human resource development (HRD) has long been considered a field with an interdisciplinary foundation. Galagan (1986), then editor of Training and Development, referred to this issue in an editorial when she described the field as an omnivorous discipline, incorporating over the years almost any theory or practice that would serve the goal of learning in the context of work. Like an amoeba, it has ingested and taken nourishment from whatever it deemed expedient in the social and behavioral sciences, in learning theory, and business. Indeed, it is a field that has borrowed heavily over the years from other disciplines, and will continue to do so in order to apply the best of approaches to the learning needs of the workplace [p. 4]. Jacobs (1990) stated that