Meaning, Mission, and Measurement: How Organizational Performance Measurement Shapes Perceptions of Work as Worthy

Beer, Haley; Micheli, Pietro; Besharov, Marya L.

doi:10.5465/amj.2019.0916

Cited by 22 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 115 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This mechanism, which has been referred to as unification, involves the fulfillment of other-oriented needs-needs that originate outside the self and involve behavior aimed at aligning oneself with significant others or with the value systems or principles of society writ large (Rosso, Dekas, and Wrzesniewski, 2010). These needs include having a sense of belongingness in one's occupation and society (Baumeister and Leary, 1995;Tyler and Blader, 2003;Bunderson and Thompson, 2009), relatedness to others (Deci and Ryan, 2000), and perceptions that one's work is worthy, moral, or virtuous in the eyes of others (Lepisto, Crosina, and Pratt, 2015;Lepisto and Pratt, 2017;Beer, Micheli, and Besharov, 2022). In sum, people's externally focused callings, marked by moral obligation, duty, and a sense of destiny, fulfill these social needs, which in turn enhance work meaningfulness and psychological well-being.…”

Section: Types Of Calling and The Good Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some scholars have viewed calling as having an internal focus, that is, focusing on people’s ability to attain self-realization and fulfillment via their work without necessarily benefiting society or originating from a sense of duty (e.g., Rosso, Dekas, and Wrzesniewski, 2010; Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas, 2011). Other scholars have viewed calling as having an external focus, that is, focusing on people’s sense of doing work that contributes to society and fulfills a sense of duty and destiny, without necessarily involving self-fulfillment (Rosso, Dekas, and Wrzesniewski, 2010; Lepisto and Pratt, 2017; Thompson and Bunderson, 2019; Beer, Micheli, and Besharov, 2022). This conceptual distinction points to a second key tension that lies at the heart of calling theory and research: is calling’s focus ultimately internal or external?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Calling and the Good Life: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Extension

Riza

Weisman²,

Heller

et al. 2023

Administrative Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While a positive view of calling has been ubiquitous since its introduction into the literature over two decades ago, research remains unsettled about the extent to which it contributes to various aspects of the good life: an optimal way of living well via worthwhile endeavors. Further, scholars have identified two conceptual types of calling, marked by internal versus external foci; yet their differential impact on outcomes indicative of the good life, such as eudaimonic and hedonic well-being (characterized by the experience of purpose and meaning versus pleasure and happiness, respectively), is unknown. Through a meta-analysis of 201 studies, we provide the first systematic review focused on these two fundamental theoretical issues in the calling literature: how strongly related callings are to outcomes in the domains of work and life and which type of calling (internally or externally focused) more strongly predicts these outcomes, if either. We find that callings more strongly relate to outcomes indicative of the good life than recently argued. We further find that callings are more strongly linked to work than to life outcomes and to eudaimonic than to hedonic outcomes. The two types of calling converge in being associated with many similar outcomes, but they show some divergence: internally focused callings are more positively related to hedonic outcomes and less positively related to eudaimonic outcomes, relative to externally focused callings. This finding supports a view of callings as hierarchically structured, with a higher-order calling factor composed of two correlated yet distinct lower-order calling types. Integrating our meta-analytic findings with relevant literatures, we propose a theoretical model that addresses psychological and social need fulfillment through which different types of callings contribute to the good life.

show abstract

Section: Types Of Calling and The Good Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Calling and the Good Life: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Extension

Riza

Weisman²,

Heller

et al. 2023

Administrative Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As members internalize their organization's purpose and contribute to realizing it, Selznick argued, this gives them a sense of worth and value from their work (Besharov and Khurana 2015, Podolny et al 2004, Selznick 1957. This perspective on the role of purpose in fostering meaningfulness is consistent with contemporary research that recognizes a sense of worth as one of two fundamental forms of work meaningfulness (Lepisto and Pratt 2017) and examines how an organization's mission and purpose can contribute to this (Beer et al 2022, Besharov 2014, Bunderson and Thompson 2009, Carton 2018, Kouamé et al 2022.…”

Section: Purpose As An Overarching Reason For Beingmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…In these ways, early organization theory perspectives complement and extend contemporary corporate purpose research by raising questions about the consequences of purpose for meaningfulness and the mechanisms through which purpose enables or inhibits a greater sense of meaningfulness as well as related outcomes such as wellbeing (see Jasinenko and Steuber 2022). Future studies of purpose can build on these insights by broadening the range of outcomes considered to include a value-laden not just instrumental factors, examine these across multiple levels, and explore the relationships between them (e.g., Beer et al 2022).…”

Section: Purpose As An Overarching Reason For Beingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Multiple Facets of Corporate Purpose: An Analytical Typology

Besharov

Mitzinneck

2023

Strategy Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As firms increasingly adopt a corporate purpose, there is substantial variation in what this turn to purpose actually entails and divergent views about whether and how firms can realize their purpose aspirations. To capture this variation and analyze its implications for enacting purpose, we leverage three existing bodies of research in organization and management theory: Early organization theory illuminates uses of purpose to convey an organization’s overarching reason for being, organizational hybridity sheds light on purpose as an alternative organizational objective to profit maximization, and systems perspectives offer tools for explaining purpose as a catalyst of systemic change beyond the boundaries of the firm. The typology that we develop based on these three bodies of research provides analytical clarity about distinct facets of the corporate purpose phenomenon and surfaces complementary insights into challenges and opportunities associated with purpose enactment. In doing so, it illuminates the value of drawing on existing organization and management theories for advancing corporate purpose scholarship and provides a springboard for future research. History: This paper has been accepted for the Strategy Science Special Issue on Corporate Purpose.

show abstract

“…Multisited ethnographies enable indepth understanding of subjective experiences across spaces (Horst, 2009;Hovland, 2011;Marcus, 1995) where they are diffused and shaped (Coleman & von Hellermann, 2011;Falzon, 2009). While our focus is individual experiences of impactful work, these cannot be separated from the organization, whose structures and targeted social need influence how impact is catalyzed and perceived (Beer et al, 2021;Jiang, 2021). In addition, an inductive approach is appropriate for researching "how" questions (Edmondson, & McManus, 2007), such as ours, particularly in complex entrepreneurship settings (Henry & Foss, 2015).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Working For Impact, But Failing to Experience It: Exploring Individuals’ Sensemaking in Social Enterprises

Drencheva

Yew³

2023

Business & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals start and join social enterprises to catalyze social impact but may not subjectively experience their work as impactful. In this article, we inductively uncover when social enterprise members question the impactfulness of their work and how they engage in sensemaking to experience their work as impactful. Exploring the experiences of members across two social enterprises with different missions, we provide insights into instances creating ambiguity of or discrepancies in impactfulness and unearth how individuals navigate these in different circumstances with two distinct sensemaking practices: internalizing and compensating. We reveal the efforts required to experience work as impactful, highlight the heterogeneity and agency in maintaining this perception, and suggest a potential dark side for members and missions of social enterprises.

show abstract

Meaning, Mission, and Measurement: How Organizational Performance Measurement Shapes Perceptions of Work as Worthy

Abstract: Finally, we thank the leaders and employees of Youth Futures and Organic Earth for opening their doors to us and generously sharing their time, experiences, and insights. All authors contributed equally.

Cited by 22 publications

References 115 publications

Calling and the Good Life: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Extension

Calling and the Good Life: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Extension

The Multiple Facets of Corporate Purpose: An Analytical Typology

Working For Impact, But Failing to Experience It: Exploring Individuals’ Sensemaking in Social Enterprises

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About