experiencing work an essay on a person centric work psychology

Person‐Centric Work Psychology: Additional Insights Into Its Tradition, Nature, and Research Methods

• February 2011
• Industrial and Organizational Psychology 4(1):105 - 108

• Georgia State University

• Wilfrid Laurier University
• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

No full-text available

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

• J SMALL BUS MANAGE

• Nicolas Gillet

• Sophia Teresa Zimmermann

• Hum Resource Manag J

• Véronique Van Vlasselaer

• J ORGAN BEHAV

• Weichun Zhu
• Haixia Zhao
• Howard M. Weiss

• J OCCUP ORGAN PSYCH
• Thomas A. O’Neill

• Stephanie J. Law

• Jennifer C. Cullen
• Chris Wright

• Eva J. Mojza

• Michael J. Zyphur

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Download Free PDF

Person-Centric Work Psychology: Additional Insights Into Its Tradition, Nature, and Research Methods

2011, Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Related papers

The Emerald Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2018

Work and organizational psychology is a branch of mainstream psychology which has a truly global reach. This subject covers a broad array of aspects such as individual, team and organizational effectiveness, creativity and innovation, cross-cultural leadership and the organization of health services, health care and employee well-being. In five thematic volumes, this collection brings together key papers on the topic, and together with the introductory chapters written by the editors for each volume, is designed to serve the interests of psychology scholars, and also those involved in the social and behavioural sciences, more broadly.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 2008

this article we focus on yet another perspective, i.e. that of the work # ow and the psychological processes by which it is regulated

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1996

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd eBooks, 2017

Frontiers in Psychology, 2016

Human Resource Management Journal, 2019

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

American Psychologist, 1979

Handbook of Psychology, 2003

Personnel Psychology, 1973

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2021

Anuario de Psicología

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2004

Journal of Business and Psychology, 2011

Work & Stress, 2000

Related topics

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01302.x
• Corpus ID: 59061838

Experiencing Work: An Essay on a Person-Centric Work Psychology

• H. Weiss , D. Rupp
• Published in Industrial and Organizational… 1 March 2011

218 Citations

Person-centric work psychology: additional insights into its tradition, nature, and research methods, a person-centered work psychology: changing paradigms by broadening horizons, the human experience of working: richer science, richer practice, meeting the challenges of a person-centric work psychology, workers as whole people with their own objectives, a snapshot in time: industrial–organizational psychology today, whence applied science in a person-centric work psychology, the science, practice, and morality of work psychology, the psychology of corporate social responsibility and humanitarian work: a person-centric perspective, agreement, disagreement, and a person-centered psychology of working, 36 references, motivation through the design of work: test of a theory., predicting flow at work: investigating the activities and job characteristics that predict flow states at work., the case for inductive theory building†, introduction, an episodic process model of affective influences on performance., integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature., the restless mind., the experience of emotion., the pleasures and sorrows of work, mind: a brief introduction, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Journals
• > Industrial and Organizational Psychology
• > Volume 4 Issue 1
• > Envisioning a Person-Centric Work Psychology

Article contents

Envisioning a person-centric work psychology.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 January 2015

We have structured our response around 3 rough categories of commentary themes: those that provided illustrations of existing person-centric research, those that provided novel ideas about extending the viewpoint to traditional research areas, and those that criticized our neglect of issues of morality and power differences. In our response, we clarify and reiterate our position as advocating a science of first-person work experience. In doing so, we differentiate our agenda from others labeled person-centric but not first-person experiential in the way we describe it. We also differentiate our position from a primary interest in worker treatment and well-being, except as part of work experience, and defend that difference.

Access options

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

• Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

• Volume 4, Issue 1
• Howard M. Weiss (a1) and Deborah E. Rupp (a2)
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01313.x

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

Browse Econ Literature

• Working papers
• Software components
• Book chapters
• JEL classification

More features

• Subscribe to new research

RePEc Biblio

Author registration.

• Economics Virtual Seminar Calendar NEW!

Experiencing Work: An Essay on a Person-Centric Work Psychology

• Author & abstract
• 13 Citations
• Related works & more

Corrections

• Weiss, Howard M.
• Rupp, Deborah E.

Suggested Citation

Download full text from publisher.

Follow serials, authors, keywords & more

Public profiles for Economics researchers

Various research rankings in Economics

RePEc Genealogy

Who was a student of whom, using RePEc

Curated articles & papers on economics topics

Upload your paper to be listed on RePEc and IDEAS

New papers by email

Subscribe to new additions to RePEc

EconAcademics

Blog aggregator for economics research

Cases of plagiarism in Economics

About RePEc

Initiative for open bibliographies in Economics

News about RePEc

Questions about IDEAS and RePEc

RePEc volunteers

Participating archives

Publishers indexing in RePEc

Privacy statement

Found an error or omission?

Opportunities to help RePEc

Get papers listed

Have your research listed on RePEc

Open a RePEc archive

Have your institution's/publisher's output listed on RePEc

Get RePEc data

Use data assembled by RePEc

Leading People and Leading Work Are Two Different Jobs

Combining these responsibilities hurts leaders, but teams suffer the most..

Posted September 25, 2024 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

• The data show the corporate leadership model is broken, but selection and incentives remain the same.
• Disproportionate status makes the achievement-oriented aspire to leadership despite a distaste for the work.
• The modern leader's job is too big for anyone to accomplish, so team engagement commonly gets ignored.
• Separating work and people leadership can give everyone what they need to thrive.

You don’t have to study organizational psychology to know there’s a bad boss problem in the U.S.—you just have to work.

The research confirms what we all experience. Only 1 in 10 people are natural leaders, and organizations make the wrong decisions when promoting leaders 82 percent of the time.

It’s not just their teams that suffer. It’s estimated that poor leadership costs the U.S. economy more than $1 trillion per year.

It’s easy to blame the bosses themselves, and sometimes they deserve it. But that’s not why there’s a leadership problem in corporate America.

The issue is systemic. People with the wrong orientations are chosen and then aren't provided the resources they need. The most talented leaders in the world couldn’t cover the insane range of responsibilities thrust upon them.

The one metric that most directly reflects leader effectiveness is employee engagement , which recently clocked in at 32 percent. That makes you an All-Star in baseball but a failure in everything else.

Despite the data and experience, most companies aren’t doing anything meaningful about the problem. The ways we train leaders have changed, but the ways in which we select and incentivize them largely have not. This is a failure but not a failing; it’s human nature which cannot be overcome. But it can be counter-programmed.

Top Heavy Status

In theory, there is sufficient status within an organization for everyone to thrive. In practice, status is reserved for those at the top of the pyramids: leaders.

The “independent contributor—team leader—org leader” career track is so hardwired into the culture that no one actually asks themselves whether they want to lead. They ask themselves whether they want to succeed.

By making leadership the (almost) sole source of status, we incentivize everyone to aspire to it, including those who are not only ill-suited but hate the actual work involved. Even those who know they don’t want to lead also know that they will limit their careers by not doing so.

In the race for status, the most talented leaders win far less often than the most talented workplace politicians. And based on personalized motives, workplace politicians are the least suited to lead people.

Until organizations can offer equal status to non-leadership roles, this problem cannot be solved.

What “Achieve” Meant

People are usually promoted into leadership roles for achievements in something other than leadership; the best salespeople become sales leaders, the best coders become tech leaders, etc. But as the data indicate, the correlation between high achievement and successful leadership is quite low. It's not hard to understand why.

Leading people requires patience, empathy, and a tolerance for irrationality. It is best suited for those who feel most fulfilled by connection.

Achievement-oriented people are usually the opposite. They like hitting clear, unambiguous goals and moving on to the next challenge. They are used to being the star performers, receiving the accolades rather than providing them. The idea of tending to others’ emotional needs is beyond unappealing. People responsibilities drain and slow them down.

Very few people can be exceptional achievers and exceptional leaders. For achievers, managing people usually means giving up what they love, a punishment for them and the people they will lead.

But because achievers want status by nature, it’s a punishment they demand, even though it will make them unhappy.

Why are we rewarding star performers by giving them different jobs? I guess Chicago Bulls fans should be grateful Michael Jordan's playing career didn't end because he was promoted to GM.

Mission Farcical

The amount of responsibility heaped upon the modern team leader is absurd: strategy, execution, and team engagement, all in a 24-hour day.

Strategy is planning, and planning never stops. They may teach strategy models to MBAs, but they don’t teach internal politics . At large companies, that can eat up more than half your day, and a failure to engage can dramatically constrain your career.

Execution is hitting numbers, the biggest determinant in job security and the top priority for virtually every manager and leader. (And, at the end of each quarter, it is the sole priority.)

Engagement is the process of motivating, developing, and guiding teams. It requires trust-building. It is a time-intensive process with non-guaranteed results.

Is it a surprise that most leaders continue to focus on strategy and execution, leaving their teams effectively un-led? Even if new leaders are enthusiastic about engaging their teams, when, exactly, are they supposed to do it?

Everyone loves employee development until you miss your numbers because you spent your time teaching instead of doing.

Threading the Needle

There is a way for organizations to grow status exponentially while giving everyone what they need. It happens by separating work leadership from people leadership, the equivalent of adding a functional psychologist to every team.

Work leaders continue to lead strategy and execution, engaging directly with team members while overseeing deliverables. But work leaders are not responsible for 1:1s, engagement, development, or psychological safety.

That is the purview of the people leader.

And if the work leader is dissatisfied with performance, they don’t address it. They tell the people leader, who does.

This may sound somewhat like HR, but HR practitioners cannot play this role effectively because they are outsiders. Teams don’t trust them, and they can’t defuse problems before they become crises.

The talent function has to be brought within teams to be psychologically effective for team members. And to free up work leaders from conflicting responsibilities.

Work leaders maintain their status while losing the responsibilities that drain them the most. People leaders gain new status by taking on work they love. And team members gain new status by receiving the type of attention and support they need.

Now that’s what I call threading the needle. We all may end up status-fied after all.

Jordan Scott Birnbaum, M.A., is an I/O psychologist, applied behavioral scientist, and serial entrepreneur who specializes in leadership, motivation, organizational design, product design, sales, marketing, UX, and HR tech.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Skip to content

School of Psychology

College of sciences, search form.

Howard M. Weiss

Professor of psychology.

Ph.D. in Organizational Psychology from New York University

Selected Publications

• Weiss, H. M. and Rupp, D. E. (2011). Experiencing work: An essay on a person-centric work psychology.  Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice , 4, 83-97.
• Beal, D. J., Weiss, H. M., Barros, E. & MacDermid, S. M. (2005) An episodic process model of affective influences on performance.  Journal of Applied Psychology,  90,1054-1086.
• Weiss, H. M. & Cropanzano, R. (1996).  Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work.  In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.),  Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 (pp. 1-74).  Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Google Plus

Georgia Tech Resources

• Offices & Departments
• News Center
• Campus Calendar
• Special Events
• Institute Communications
• Visitor Resources
• Campus Visits
• Directions to Campus
• Visitor Parking Information
• GTvisitor Wireless Network Information
• Georgia Tech Global Learning Center
• Georgia Tech Hotel & Conference Center
• Barnes & Noble at Georgia Tech
• Ferst Center for the Arts
• Robert C. Williams Paper Museum

School of Psychology J.S. Coon Bldg Georgia Institute of Technology 654 Cherry Street Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0170 Telephone: 404-894-2680

Georgia Institute of Technology North Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30332 404.894.2000

• Emergency Information
• Enable Accessibility
• Legal & Privacy Information
• Human Trafficking Notice
• Title IX/Sexual Misconduct
• Hazing Public Disclosures
• Accessibility
• Accountability
• Accreditation

© Georgia Institute of Technology

Experiencing Meaningful Work through Corporate Volunteering: The Other as a Source of Meaning

• Original research
• Open access
• Published: 23 September 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Akram Hatami   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5664-6669 1 ,
• Aldona Glińska-Neweś 2 , 3 &
• Jan Hermes 1  

86 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Global social, ecological and economic crises are contributing to the need for meaningfulness in different spheres of life, including work, as an increasing concern to employees. However, the current understanding of meaningfulness is bound by its normativity and thus does not meet the uncertainty present in today’s work. We utilize the Levinasian concept of “the Other” to provide a non-normative conceptualization of meaningfulness in the context of corporate volunteering (CV) and empirically explore work meaningfulness in CV projects in Poland and Finland. We find work meaningfulness to arise from proximity to the Other and the otherness of the Other. Our study contributes to the discussion on meaningful work in the fields of business ethics and management studies through a non-normative reconceptualization of meaningfulness.

Similar content being viewed by others

Saving the World? How CSR Practitioners Live Their Calling by Constructing Different Types of Purpose in Three Occupational Stages

Why Authenticity in Corporate and Employee Volunteering Matters for Employee Engagement: An Organisational Behaviour Perspective

“Capturing People’s Hearts, Hands, and Wallets”: Corporate Foundations as a Vehicle for Promoting Volunteering

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence
• Medical Ethics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

With the world changing at an ever-quickening pace, unpredictable technological developments, armed conflicts and global health threats, people are faced with uncertainty and anxiety that have a significant impact on many aspects of life, including work. For example, artificial intelligence (AI), technological development and cybernetics will increasingly change the rules of the game (Cohen 2000 ; Coeckelbergh 2020 ; Bankins and Formosa 2023 ; Schulte et al. 2020 ), while new working environments resulting from global pandemics (e.g., COVID-19) and other phenomena will challenge both the role of people in their organizations and the meaning that work provides people (Michaelson 2019 ). In this paper, following suggestions by other researchers of meaningful work (Schulte et al. 2020 ; Battilana et al. 2022 ; Haarjärvi and Laari-Salmela 2022 ), we argue that the provision of opportunities for meaningful work enables organizations to prepare their employees for the uncertainty and dynamism of the workplace.

More generally, scholars in various disciplines argue that work needs to provide employees with a sense of meaning enriching both their work and lives (Rosso et al. 2010 ; Malone 2004 ; Michaelson 2019 ; Hummels and Nullens 2022 ). However, there is still no clear answer as to what makes the work meaningful (Mortimer 2023 ). Our study contributes to closing this gap by combining approaches derived from business ethics and management studies. Hence, we build a bridge between the two biggest “camps” identified in research on work meaningfulness (Mortimer 2023 ). The first camp is situated in management studies and focuses on the antecedents and outcomes of meaningful work. Based on the assumption that work has a prominent role in fulfilling psychological and social needs and thereby contributing to individual well-being (Casey 1995 ; Ryan and Deci 2001 ; Rosso et al. 2010 ; Michaelson et al. 2014 ), work meaningfulness serves as a concept that explains various attitudes, actions and experiences of employees in the organization (Rosso et al. 2010 ).

The second camp in work meaningfulness research is connected to philosophy and focuses on the objective aspects of meaningful work (Mortimer 2023 ). Meaningfulness, as related to human beings’ life, has always been a central issue in philosophical discussions. Aristotle, for example, believed that meaningfulness is tied to good work (Michaelson 2005 ). In modern terms, it usually translates into considering meaningful types of work as those that help others directly or indirectly by making life better and easier (Ciulla 2000 ). For Levinas, “[t]he works of man all have meaning” ( 1969 , 297) because there is some good in them (Ciulla 2000 ), and work is part of people’s conceptions of what is good (Moriarty 2009 ).

In our study, we draw on the ethics of Emmanuel Levinas, and particularly on his philosophy of the Other and otherness. For Levinas, meaningful world is one where there is someone else who gives purpose and significance to my experiences and enjoymentthe (Levinas 1969 ). The Other, written with a capital “O”, refers to someone with a radical otherness (Jones et al. 2005 ). The capital “O” highlights that the other person cannot be controlled by putting them in a category through a word; the Other is unique (Aasland 2005 , 67). We chose Levinas’ lens to explore meaningfulness in a non-normative sense. Non-normativivity in a Levinasian manner helps to deepen our understanding of the nature of ethical relationships through encounters with the Other, rather than providing a set of moral norms and rules of behavior. Footnote 1 In fact, Levinas does not follow the epistemological biases of conventional and normative ethical theories, but directs us towards understanding how a call for responsibility for the Other is experienced by the subject (Aasland 2007 ; Faldetta 2019 ; Dubbs 2020 ) and thus brings meaning to work. Therefore, we ask: How can the Other enhance employees’ sense of meaning in their work?

We draw on corporate volunteering (CV) as a practical phenomenon and organizational context in which employees’ experience of work meaningfulness can be investigated and understanding of the Other advanced. Through CV, companies encourage and support their employees to freely give their time, knowledge or skills to serve external beneficiaries (Grant 2012 ; Dreesbach-Bundy and Scheck 2017 ). As a prosocial activity, CV has been defined as an important source of meaning (Grant 2012 ) because it creates opportunities for employees to fulfill their own passion by providing service and care to other people (Michaelson 2005 ). Therefore, CV helps also to reduce the distance between the self and the Other and move beyond egoism, while employees feel proximity to the Other which “appears as the relationship with the Other” (Levinas 1981 , 100). As a vehicle for responsibility towards the Other, CV is thus an ideal way for employees to experience meaning in their work (Aguinis and Glavas 2019 ), and indeed, the desire for meaningful experiences is one of the most highly cited reasons for volunteering (Rodell 2013 , 1282).

By turning our attention to the Other as discussed by Levinas, we can broaden the understanding of the contribution of the Other to meaningful work. For this purpose, we have taken an interdisciplinary approach (management studies and business ethics) toward meaningful work, which according to Michaelson ( 2005 ), does not produce a theory of meaningful work; rather, it creates a case for necessity of meaningful work.

This paper is structured as follows. We theoretically explore the concept of meaningful work in management studies and business ethics and sketch the current understanding of the Other as a source of work meaningfulness. Then, we highlight the main differences between the other in management studies and the Other in the Levinasian sense. In the following section, we introduce the methodology of our empirical study and present the findings categorized as Proximity to the Other , the Otherness of the Other and CV as meaningful work . Finally, we discuss the findings against the background of business ethics and management studies and conclude with future research avenues for a non-normative approach to meaningful work.

Meaningful Work in Management Studies

The problem of meaningful work and meaningfulness has received scholarly attention in management studies since purpose and significance of work more generally were considered (Pratt and Ashforth 2003 ; Heine et al. 2006 ; Rosso et al. 2010 ). Work has become the prominent domain of life and it is expected to fulfill a large set of psychological and social needs contributing to individual well-being, including its eudaimonic aspects (Casey 1995 ; Ryan and Deci 2001 ; Rosso et al. 2010 ; Michaelson et al. 2014 ). Understanding why and how employees find meaning in their work can help explain their attitudes, actions and experience in the organization (Rosso et al. 2010 ), including work engagement, commitment, job satisfaction, withdrawal intentions, organizational citizenship behaviors and self-rated job performance (Allan et al. 2019 ).

There is no one definition of meaningful work shared by management scholars (Michaelson 2019 ) because the meaning of work includes a wide range of things, such as general beliefs, values and attitudes about work (Brief and Nord 1990 ; Ros et al. 1999 ); personal experience and the significance of work (MOW International Research Team 1987 ; Wrzesniewski et al. 2003 ); and reflections on socially or culturally influenced worldviews and value systems (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck 1961 ; Geertz 1973 ). The diversity in definitions results also from differences in perspectives, which include psychological angles (Brief and Nord 1990 ; Baumeister 1991 ; Wrzesniewski 2003 ; Rosso et al. 2010 ) or sociological standpoints (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck 1961 ). Interestingly, in management studies, the term “meaning” is used in a positive sense; this may explain why it is used interchangeably with the term “meaningfulness,” although work that holds a specific meaning is not necessarily meaningful (Pratt and Ashforth 2003 ; Rosso et al. 2010 ). Work meaningfulness has a positive connotion through the amount of significance that work holds for an employee (Pratt and Ashforth 2003 ; Rosso et al. 2010 ). Pratt and Ashforth ( 2003 ) further distinguish between meaningfulness “in work” and “at work,” where the former arises from what an employee does, and the latter arises from being part of an organization, community or culture.

Although management scholars explore a large variety of problems related to meaningfulness, the review by Rosso et al. ( 2010 ) shows that two key questions prevail. The first is the question about the sources of meaning, where other people are considered as sources of work meaningfulness (Lips-Wiersma and Morris 2009 ; Rosso et al. 2010 ). The second question pertains to the underlying psychological and social mechanisms through which sources of meaning contribute to perceived meaning and meaningfulness. Other people appear among the answers to this question because psychological and social mechanisms include belongingness, i.e., identification and the feeling of connection with individuals or social groups through work (Hogg and Terry 2000 ; Dutton et al. 2006 ; Kahn 2007 ; Rosso et al. 2010 ), as well as cultural and interpersonal sensemaking, i.e., the role of the social environment in shaping the meaning that people make of different aspects of their work (Wrzesniewski et al. 2003 ).

Researchers have called for further investigation into how other people influence the meaning and meaningfulness of work because such a perspective is underrepresented in current research, and empirical studies are scarce (Aleksić et al. 2024 ; McAllum et al. 2024 ). Moreover, there are calls to broaden the frameworks by including more holistic conceptions of human connectedness (see, e.g., Haarjärvi and Laari-Salmela 2022 ). To our knowledge, these calls have not been satisfactorily responded to.

Meaningful Work and Business Ethics

Meaningful work is connected to business ethics as an integral part of responsible business (Michaelson 2009 ). For example, there are moral situations that enhance the potential for employees to find meaningful work (Ciulla 2012 ). Business ethics is considered a sub-discipline of philosophy (Wilcke 2004 ); hence, understanding meaningful work involves understanding one of the most important philosophical questions, i.e., the question of the meaning of life (Michaelson 2005 ). From an ethical perspective, Bowie ( 1998 ) argues that one of the moral obligations of corporations is to create meaningful work for workers. For Bowie ( 1998 ), meaningful work supports employees’ moral development because meaningful work is full of moral value (Michaelson 2005 ) and serves others (Melé 2021 ), thus contributing to the human well-being and flourishing (Bankins and Formosa 2023 ). Taken together, meaningful work is considered an ethical claim as it allows human beings to discover fulfillment and completion (Beadle and Knight 2012 ) and exercise their moral capacities to create a prosocial contribution (Michaelson et al. 2014 ). We argue that, with Levinas’ account of responsibility towards the Other, people find meaning in their work and life. In fact, Levinas argues that work is enjoyable because employees encounter the Other, thereby inititating an ethical and responsible relationship (Levinas 1969 ). Therefore, people find their work meaningful if they are able to realize their full potential as a person and if they are part of an ethical organization (Mitroff and Denton 1999 ). In addition, work is meaningful if it is considered good and worthy in one’s own eyes and in the eyes of others (Michaelson 2019 , 7). Such features would mean an employee is involved in ethical conduct in their workplace (Michaelson 2019 ) to benefit others (Bankins and Formosa 2023 ). In this ethical conduct, the role of the Other is important, as the Other has a considerable impact on meaningful work (cf. Levinas 1969 ).

The Other: A Source of Meaning

Levinas believes that recognizing the Other and a relation to the Other “makes the world common, creates commonplaces” ( 1969 , 76). Being with the Other is the main cornerstone of Levinasian ethics (Byers and Rhodes 2007 ). Hence, the Other plays a vital role in the philosophy of Levinas. For Levinas ( 1969 , 174), the Other is first and foremost a person who opens the path to meaningfulness through demanding meaningful answers, which calls for the shouldering of responsibility (Levinas 1969 ), which is the essence of humanity (Maboloc 2023 ).

In reviewing Levinas’ concept of the Other, two distinctions are important for the purpose of our study. First, we argue that by understanding the Other in a Levinasian sense, people can find meaning in their life and work through the awakening of emotions because meaning-making is constructed on emotional conditions (Anthony 1989 ). In this emotional state, encountering the Other plays an important role, as it can trigger a sense of proximity. For Levinas, the concept of proximity is the first aspect in any ethical relation (Maboloc 2023 ) and the main source of ethics and responsibility (Mansell 2008 ). This proximity highlights the otherness or alterity of the Other.

Second, the Other in Levinas’ sense is important in its alterity and otherness, so that the Other cannot be reduced to the same (Levinas 1969 ). Hence, in order to see the Other, it is important to understand that the Other could be different from me (Levinas 1969 ). We cannot reduce the Other to the same in order to be able to understand the Other.

The meaning of the otherness of the Other is given in the sense of responsibility (Beavers 1990 ). We cannot limit the Other to a set of rational categories such as gender and race (Beavers 1990 ). In other words, the Other is non-limited. Levinas tries to awaken the singularity of the Other (Biesta 2003 ), and by this singularity and uniqueness of the Other one “first acquires a meaning” (Levinas 1981 , 13; cited in Biesta 2003 , 63). Because of the singularity and uniqueness of the Other, the relation with Others cannot be defined in terms of rules, laws and instructions (Jones 2003 ); rather, it is a non-normative approach embedded in feeling responsibility toward them. “No one can stay in himself; the humanity of man, subjectivity, is a responsibility for Others” (Levinas 2003 , 67). We argue for this as a significant contribution to the understanding of work meaningfulness dominated by management studies in which the other, as the source of meaning, so far refers to people in general, without specific emphasis on their otherness and uniqueness (Pratt and Ashforth 2003 ; Wrzesniewski et al. 2003 ; Kahn 2007 ; Grant 2008 ). Although the Other in a Levinasian sense mainly refers to human beings (as is the case in management studies), we argue that the alterity of the Other allows us to extend it beyond inter-human relations to the non-human (Davy 2007 ; Mansell 2008 ; Atterton 2011 ; Hatami and Firoozi 2019 ), for the capacity for human speech is not a necessary condition for being the Other (Davy 2007 ). In the interview “The Paradox of Morality” in The Provocation of Levinas , Levinas himself asserted that “the ethical extends to all living beings” (Wright et al. 1988 , 172). With this regard, we conclude that ethical obligations are not limited to only human others, but also extends to animals, planets and other creatures (Davy 2007 ; Badiou 2009 ; Atterton 2011 ).

A Comparative Analysis of the Other in Management Studies and the Other in Levinasian Philosophy

In organizational studies, others are among the primary sources of meaningful work. For example, Lips-Wiersma and Morris ( 2009 ) emphasize unity with others and serving others as sources of meaningful work, alongside developing, becoming and expressing the self. Rosso et al. ( 2010 ) also refer to the self and others in proposing two dimensions to explain meaningful work. The first, the “self vs. others” dimension, reflects the aim of efforts to create meaningfulness. The second, the “agency vs. communion” dimension, reflects the individual desire for agency with respect to the self or others and a desire to connect or unite with the self or other entities. They identified four main sources of meaning or meaningfulness in/at work: the self, other persons, the work context and spiritual life (Rosso et al. 2010 ). They also identified mechanisms that contribute to perceived meaning of work, such as: authenticity, self-efficacy, self-esteem, purpose and belongingness. Studies on how others influence work meaningfulness analyze employee interactions and relationships with others (other humans) both within and outside the workplace (Pratt and Ashforth 2003 ; Wrzesniewski et al. 2003 ; Kahn 2007 ; Grant 2008 ). In research on the work context, perceived meaning has been linked to job characteristics such as social context and specifically the extent to which individuals feel their work has an impact on others (Hackman and Oldham 1980 ; Grant 2007 , 2008 ; Grant et al. 2007 ; Astakhova et al. 2024 ). Work promoting a sense of purpose derived from the positive impact on others results in greater perceived task significance and work meaningfulness (Grant 2008 ).

In considering the Other in Levinas’ philosophy and the other in management studies, two significant differences are to be noted. First, the other in management studies mostly refers to human beings, while as mentioned above, the Other in Levinasian ethics is not limited to the human being, encompassing also animals or the environment (Davy 2007 ; Atterton 2011 ; Hatami and Firoozi 2019 ). Second, the uniqueness and otherness of the Other is not mentioned in management studies, and otherness is limited (or reduced) to a few selected characteristics such as gender, age, religion or culture. Hence, the wide perspective encapsulated in the notion of the Other can shed more light on the search for meaning in work. As we will show later, one of the ways to consider the Other in their otherness is through CV, which we claim brings more meaning to work. Figure  1 summarises the conceptual framework of this study.

Our study, providing an answer to the question of how the Other can enhance employees’ sense of meaning in their work, is an interdisciplinary attempt to address the Other from the perspective of management studies and business ethics disciplines. It allows this concept to cross-fertilize (Michaelson et al. 2014 ) and contributes to extending the understanding of meaningful work. We argue that management studies can help business ethics deepen knowledge about experiencing meaningful work through organizational practices that influence work meaningfulness by providing employees with an opportunity for perceiving otherness and experiencing proximity to the Other. On the other hand, business ethics can contribute to management studies by scrutinizing organizations’ responsibility for fostering meaningful work as well as individual responsibility for purposeful work.

Conceptual framework of meaningful work (MW) in management and business ethics studies

Methodology

Data collection.

In order to answer our research question, we resort to a qualitative approach because the nature of our research is subjective and interpretative (Liu 2016 ). Data were collected in late 2018 and early 2019 from within a larger research project aimed at investigating the wider effects of CV. Data analysis was based on interview data from seven companies, of which five are registered and operate in Poland and two in Finland. The study was designed in a way that ensures the reliability and trustworthiness of data (Glinka and Czakon 2021 ). Specifically, in order to triangulate data sources, the authors interviewed both coordinators and employee-volunteers from the companies; anonymity was guaranteed to interviewees and the data collection process met ethical standards of qualitative research. Conceptual adequacy, i.e. correctness and consistency of terminology, was applied in the interview scenario.

Interviewees were selected based on our search for companies implementing CV that would agree to conduct a survey among employees participating in CV programs. As a philanthropic practice, CV is rarely reported publicly by companies. Therefore, in Poland, the search was based on a ranking published by the Responsible Business Forum [ http://odpowiedzialnybiznes.pl ], which publishes CSR reports of companies. Nineteen Polish companies listed there and implementing CV agreed to participate in the study. In all of them, coordinators of CV were interviewed, while in five companies we received consent to conduct additional interviews with employee-volunteers. In Finland, CV appeared to be a less common practice in companies. Therefore, convenience sampling was used and interviews were conducted in two Finnish companies with both managers and employees participating in CV.

The types of CV varied in the companies we examined. The two Finnish companies offered one day off per year to employees to engage in CV. Employees were free to choose the kind of volunteering activities they wished to do and, for this, they collaborated with NGOs. Polish companies offered volunteering grant programs, i.e., once or twice a year there was a call inviting employees to submit their proposals for volunteer projects. The project needed to address a social or environmental problem and it was expected that employee teams would carry out the project.

In this paper, we use data from the companies in which we could interview both coordinators and participants of corporate volunteering, i.e. from five Polish and two Finnish companies. In total, we interviewed 25 employees from different organizational levels of these seven companies. Table  1 illustrates the details of interviewees (anonymized) cited in this study. Statements labelled “MGR” are from managers and statements from employees are labelled “EE”.

Data Analysis

The interview scenario contained a wide range of questions regarding the employee motivations, competence, experiences, challenges and feelings arising from CV (Appendix 1). The interviewees were also free to tell their stories about CV, which we used to further interpret the data for this study. Taking into account the aim of the study, in data analysis, we concentrated on the non-normative characteristics of the Levinasian approach to the Other and tried to understand how this non-normativity was presented in the interviews. Therefore, in the interview transcripts, we trace the Other not simply through the idea of “seeing” the Other but also by concentrating on the recognition and openness to the Other in its otherness, and the proximity that arises toward the Other through CV. Otherness is non-normative, as there are no conditions to being considered the Other; in turn, proximity is non-normative as it is related to feeling and emotions. Since the case companies provided little or no instructions or guidelines for CV and the motivation for CV came from the employees’ desire to do something good, the nature of CV as meaningful work is also non-normative.

For data analysis, we employed two-stage coding (Charmaz 2006 ). In the initial stage, the authors identified parts of the interview transcripts referring to the Other. We started coding with a list of researcher-generated codes reflecting broad topics such as “who is the Other”, “Other as a source of meaning”, and “meaningful work”. In the second stage—i.e., the focused stage—we followed the inductive approach; based on interviewees’ statements we identified new codes. Each interview was coded independently by the authors, and both codes and coding were discussed multiple times in order to reach consensus. The following codes were created in vivo: “variety of the others”, “noticing otherness”, “closeness”, “empathy”, “helping others”, “making a change”, “the need for meaningfulness”, “source of pride”, “working with passion”. For further analysis and reporting findings these codes were grouped into three categories derived from Levinasian approach: Otherness of the Other and Proximity to the Other and CV as meaningful work . These categories, codes and exemplary quotations from interviews are presented in Table  2 .

Proximity to the Other

Proximity to the Other is essential for moral considerations and highlights human vulnerability. It is the beneficiaries’ vulnerability and dependency that call for protection and responsibility. Beneficiaries are vulnerable beings who need support, and volunteers see this need and respond to that. As a result, a feeling of proximityy arises from the experience of the relationship between the human I and the Other. Our data shows that CV creates the opportunity for proximity through which employee-volunteers can see the Other, and their ethical relationship with the Other begins; CV facilitates proximity and closeness: “ Volunteering has brought a sense of togetherness .” (MGR 2).

Proximity is fundamental to taking responsibility for the Other. This is also the case in CV which, as a prosocial activity, delivers many opportunities to experience closeness with the Other and leads to emotions that can be very strong. The closer the relationship, the more employees’ awareness and understanding of the importance for empathy grow. As one of the employees reported: “ We figured out that we could actually help them (beneficiaries) with their problem , and maybe create more empathy in this world .” (EE 2.1).

The proximity and closeness created through CV enables the employees to see and understand the Other better. Moreover, exposure to the Other brings employee-volunteers a sense of meaning and passion, with empathy as an Other-oriented motivation playing a mediating role between helping others and contributing to their well-being and finding meaning in work.

Otherness of the Other

Our data show that corporate volunteering gives employees an opportunity to experience interaction with different others, including both humans (e.g., young people, elderly citizens, refugees, society at large) and non-humans (such as natural environment, animals). The varied CV projects in which our interviewees participated enabled them to see the Other as not limited to human beings. As one of them said: “ Some people find it more meaningful to work with the elderly and others want to work with youth and others with nature .” (EE 2.3).

It is the otherness of the Other and the sense of responsibility stimulated by the participation in CV that makes it possible to extend the scope of the Other to the non-human. CV makes employees aware that not only humans but also natural and built environments need consideration, care and understanding. Moreover, the sense of responsibility was more important for volunteers than focusing on certain entities or groups as beneficiaries of CV projects. For example, characteristics such as being a majority or minority, social categories, gender, power and religion were not seen as relevant. Therefore, the meaning of the otherness of the Other is given through the lens of responsibility and the Other is not reduced to a set of rational categories such as gender or race.

Otherness and singularity of the Other lies at the very core of understanding the Other. Our study shows that CV is a way to be with other entities, and it helps volunteers to make sense of the differences and uniqueness of the Other. In other words, CV is a good mechanism for finding the Other and exploring its otherness. Giving the voice to our interviewees: “[In CV] we also talk about accepting differences; not everyone needs to be the same and this is an important realization [in CV]— that we shouldn’t isolate ourselves in small groups .” (MGR 1).

Comprehending the Other in their otherness requires self-distancing, which raises awareness of the uniqueness of the Other. An example of how CV contributes to this process comes from a volunteer project of making a theatrical play with audio descriptions for children with vision impairment (see Table  2 ). This project created a relationship between the volunteers and those children and highlighted the differences in their emotions and understanding of the world. As a result, the recognition of the otherness contributed to a better life for both volunteers and beneficiaries.

The Other, CV and work Meaningfulness

In our data, volunteering itself is shown to be meaningful work. At the same time, however, employees reported that CV brings meaning to their daily work in the company. Our interviewees referred to a variety of aspects of meaningfulness experienced through volunteering work. Here we focus only on those related to/caused by relations with the Other.

Through CV, employees can help the Other by producing goods or services meeting their needs and making the beneficiaries happier. This reflects self-efficacy considered among mechanisms contributing to perceived meaning of work. In addition, our interviewees stated that through CV they feel they serve a greater purpose (another mechanism contributing to work meaningfulness) because they can make a change, i.e., change the world to be a better place. This is the moment that the individual moves away from their ego and toward the Other.

However, our interviewees admit that meaningful work is not only about doing something for the Other; meaningfulness is also derived from the feeling that volunteers have after conducting volunteering work, such as pride in having done something good (and meaningful). The aforementioned interrelations between mechanisms of work meaningfulness are nicely described by one of the interviewees: “ Doing corporate volunteering changes us a lot. We become better people , and we think about ourselves in better terms . […] It is the feeling of doing something meaningful. It is helping yourself in the sense that you just feel good after such actions , after actions where you can help someone , but also help yourself .” (EE 4.1).

CV addresses the employee’s need for meaningful work. Considering CV from a work design perspective and job characteristics contributing to work meaningfulness, we can see that CV creates the freedom to explore possibilities for making work more meaningful; employees are able to step out of their typical routines and have more autonomy in their work. They are able to incorporate their interests, passions, individual needs and motives into work; this reflects another mechanism contributing to perceived meaningfulness, i.e. authenticity referring to consistency between the self-concept and one’s behavior.

Our data show that employees expect meaningful work to be an inherent characteristic in new working environments. Helping the Other through CV makes employees proud to work for the employer that supportings it, which creates a sense of belonging. It became apparent that making employees’ work meaningful is beneficial for employers. Therefore, also from the managerial perspective, it is meaningful to make a positive difference in the lives of the Other.

Bowie ( 1998 ,106) claimed that “the primary purpose of business is to provide meaningful work for employees”. Meaningful work, the way we envision it in this paper, is not utopian; it is a management practice in organizations (Bowie 1998 ). As we have shown, meaningful work cannot provide a set of instructions and guidelines; instead, we are convinced that Levinas’ philosophy and, in particular, the idea of the Other is an invitation to create opportunities for meanful work as management practice (Bruna and Bazin 2018 ). In this invitation, discovery of the otherness of the Other is vital because it prepares organizations for encountering the uncertainty of work. By considering the Other in CV projects, companies create an environment where employees can make a unique contribution to society. Companies can cultivate a culture of empathy, respect and mutual recognition with the aim of creating meaningful work for all employees involved.

Considering the Other is an open invitation for employees in particular in a world where we do not yet know what kind of Other we will face in a future influenced by artificial intelligence (AI), technological development and cybernetics. As we illustrate in our data, CV is a management practice that allows employees to discover the otherness of the Other. Our findings show that participation in CV enables employees to see and meet otherness not only in other humans but also in animals and the natural environment. We argue, therefore, that Levinas’ ethics enriches the catalogue of Others influencing employees and their behavior which have thus far been considered in management studies. In this sense, our findings offer a more inclusive perspective of the other in management studies (see Rosso et al. 2010 ).

Levinas offers the Other as a source of meaning and considers the Other’s demands to be unconditional. This unconditionality is significant because providing meaningful work to every employee is impossible, as individual satisfaction is too broad and ambiguous to be the basis of creating meaningful work (Tablan 2015 ). Unconditionality towards the Other, such as CV activities, opens up new vistas for moving toward meaningful work as employees are increasingly interested in doing work that makes a difference and has meaning (Colby et al. 2001 ). In addition, and from a philosophical approach, social contribution is a way to create meaningful work (Mortimer 2023 ). In our findings, volunteers express how CV creates an opportunity for them to make a difference in beneficiaries’ life, thus making a meaningful contribution to the society. Our findings support that CV is a means to help employees engage in meaningful work by fostering greater purpose, connecting with Others, experiencing personal growth and developing empathy. Through interactions with Others, employees cultivate empathy and understanding, recognizing a common humanity with beneficiaries. They step out of their comfort zones to discover meaning in their work, thereby developing new skills and becoming more attuned to their surroundings than before.

Our data indicate that CV creates proximity between volunteer and beneficiaries. Faldetta ( 2019 ) discusses that proximity is one of the characteristics of the relationship between self and the Other. In fact, “proximity becomes the subject but always as an asymmetrical relationship” (Faldetta 2019 , 61). This asymmetrical and non-reciprocal relationship is embedded in CV because volunteers do not expect to receive something from the beneficiaries. In some cases, they do not even have any direct contact with the beneficiaries, which resonates with the asymmetrical nature of CV.

Proximity and otherness—focal points in Levinas’ study of the Other—can overcome ego-centered ontologies (Bruna and Bazin 2018 ), create empathy and give meaning to life. “In the relation to the Other I am overcome, I encounter something more than Myself” (Jones 2003 , 227). As the moral desire for the well-being of the others, empathy is able to facilitate interpersonal relationships (Mencl and May 2009 ), because people experience the Others to come close to them for help. Our findings resonate with Levinas’ elaboration of the Other as “‘not autochthonous, […] uprooted, without a country, not an inhabitant, exposed to the cold and the heat of the seasons” ( 1998 , 91). Proximity and empathy towards the Other helps employees awaken their emotions and move beyond egoism so that they find the Other as a source of meaning.

A certain level and type of emotional engagement in one’s work is needed for meaningful work (May et al. 2014 ). People tend to see the world, its events and every phenomenon through their own eyes; they interpret their experience egocentrically (Joy et al. 2010 , 356). Levinas ( 1969 ) invites us to turn our attention towards the Other and see the world from the eyes of the Other. This attention creates proximity to the Other that is essential for moral considerations and highlights human vulnerability. Thus, proximity unsettles our egocentric existence (Introna and Brigham 2007 ). As we show in our findings, employees feel the presence of the Other through CV, bringing closeness and proximity to the Other. In fact, through CV, companies create an opportunity for employees to encounter the vulnerability and marginalization of the Other. For Levinas, proximity is an experience, emotional and bodily, and not an idea (Manderson 2006 , 14). Through this, employees first experienced and then found meaning in their work because CV is a way to show how work could be more meaningful if it had a greater impact on others (Steger et al. 2012 ).

Proximity enables understanding of the Other and generates empathy contributing to work meaningfulness. Both proximity and otherness, as concepts derived from Levinasian ethics, mean something different than togetherness, mutuality and interpersonal connectivity, which have been emphasized in management literature (Pratt and Ashforth 2003 ; Rosso et al. 2010 ). Therefore, our study addresses the call for broadening the understanding of work meaningfulness with more holistic approaches of human connectedness (Rosso et al. 2010 ). Our data support the claim that, due to the inherent ethical and value-laden nature of CV, employees will engage in meaning-making in their work (Clary et al. 1998 ; Rodell 2013 ; Demirtas et al. 2017 ) because CV reates social benefits (Steger et al. 2012 ). The desire to have a positive impact on other people, as we have shown is possible through CV, is related to experiencing meaningful work (Steger et al. 2012 ). Volunteer activities can link employees to the larger community. The more they connect to different communities, the more they can recognize the Other and the otherness of the Other and feel proximity to them. In fact, the desire to help others is fundamental in volunteering (Wilson 2000 ). As discussed in Pratt and Ashforth ( 2003 ), creating these communities is a vehicle for creating meaningfulness at work. Workplaces have a crucial role in making employees’ work more meaningful. Work meaningfulness is not necessarily part of an employee’s job description or routines and may not be related to their expertise. Rather, it can be something general, which is not contained in their job description and in concrete terms and conditions but goes beyond their job’s boundaries and engages them in citizenship behavior (Rodell 2013 ). Searching for meaning can thus happen everywhere. In our study, we found that employees had a positive feeling toward their employers and were satisfied doing something other than their assigned work tasks. Such feelings can lead to proximity and meaningful work.

The relationship between employers and employees has a direct impact on the meaning of work (Ciulla 2012 ). CV is considered meaningful work in itself, despite it being outside the economic definition of work (Ciulla 2012 ). Burggraeve ( 2016 , 302) argued that meaningful work includes activities that are neither forbidden nor obligatory; there is no moral law or authority prescribing them. Instead, valuable actions surpass ethical rules or obligatory duties, and these actions cannot be measured by accepted moral instructions and norms (Burggraeve 2016 ). These characteristics resonate with those discussed in the philosophy of Levinas. We initially argued that Levinasian ethics moves beyond ethical boundaries and rules. It is more about the meaning of ethics, human behavior and responsibility (Hatami 2020 ), providing a non-normative approach to business ethics. Ethics without rules and boundaries highlight the role of corporations and working environments because they can create a venue of virtue or of vice for employees (Sadler-smith 2012 ). Wilson and Musick ( 1997 ) argue that the work environment can create the conditions that make volunteer work feasible and accessible. Meaningfulness is thus an important mediator between workplace characteristics and individual outcomes (Humphrey et al. 2007 ).

Despite the powerful opportunities our approach to work meaningfulness arguably provides, it is important to mention the ciriticism it has received. The application of Levinas’ ethical philosophy to organizations has been criticized for not providing a coherent system of ethical instructions and rules (cf., Bevan and Corvellec 2007 ). Furthermore, Levinas prioritizes the interest of the Other while business is primarily about self-interest and economic rationality (Robert 2001 ). However, for some scholars (e.g., Aasland 2005 ; van der Ven 2005 ), Levinas’ work sheds new light on the relationship between business and ethics, as he attempts to connect ethics with the economy. Instead of providing us additional knowledge, “we must recur to practical, social and economic life and the existing empirical knowledge about it” (Aasland 2005 , 76. Italic as in origin). In fact, Levinas does not aim to provide a normative ethical theory; his project is to find the basic source of moral demands (Nortvedt et al. 2011 ; Hatami 2020 ). For Levinas, ethics goes beyond mere rules, happiness or utility, focusing rather on what defines our humanity (Maboloc 2023 ). “Levinas’s moral vision is an inclusive one which embraces all of humanity (at least of those present today) irrespective of historical, linguistic, cultural differences and diversities” (Soares 2008 , 545). Levinas takes distance from the traditional way of encountering with the other that requires the other person to be reduced to the same (Blok 2021 ). This redutionist approach leads to the general principle, rules and instructions for ethical conduct based on the simalrities (Blok 2021 ). Byers and Rhodes ( 2007 ) suggest that the lack of any rule book for ethics opens up a space for futher exploration of the implications of Levinasian ethics in organizations due to the depth and radicality of his rethinking of ethics. In fact, a non-normative approach to moral considerations by Levinas develops an ethics that concentrates on the singularity and situatedness of the Other (Blok 2021 ). In addition, to humanize business in the Levinasian sense, corporate leaders and managers must cultivate an organizational environment where every single employee can thrive, fostering their well-being through meaningful encounters with the Other (Hummels and Nullens 2022 ).

Contributions

In this study, we contribute to the fields of both business ethics and management studies. In business ethics, as discussed before, the application of Levinasian ethics in corporations has received multiple criticisms (e.g., Robert 2001 ; Bevan and Corvellec 2007 ) while other scholars (Aasland 2007 ; Byers and Rhodes 2007 ; Soares 2008 ; Hatami and Firoozi 2019 ) argue that it can create a foundation for ethics and justice in corporations. In line with the latter group of scholars, we show that the ethics of Levinas can be applied and operationalized in business, with CV being one way to do so.

Our contribution to management studies is twofold. First, we argue for extending the notion of others as a source of meaningful work to include the non-human Other, such as natural environments. Management scholars suggest that employees experience work meaningfulness through identification with a social or workplace group which they value or through an affective experience of interpersonal connectedness with other people (Rosso et al. 2010 ). In our study, we add to these explanations and argue that encountering the otherness of the Other, who is not only human, is an experience through which employees increase their sense of meaning derived from work. According to Haarjärvi and Laari-Salmela ( 2022 ), meaningfulness arises from a flow of experiences within the stream of events, here CV, during work activities.

Second, our paper develops the understanding of mechanisms through which others as sources of meaning contribute to perceived work meaningfulness. Among these mechanisms, belongingness builds and maintains positive and significant interpersonal relationships (Baumeister and Leary 1995 ). Specifically, the Levinasian concept of the otherness of—and proximity to—the Other contributes to explaining the mechanism of belongingness, i.e., identification and the feeling of connection with others through work (Rosso et al. 2010 ).

In connection with both business ethics and management studies, our article also contributes to explaining source of employees’ well-being. Meaningful work increases employees’ well-being (Ilies et al. 2024 ), as meaningful work supports the creation of a postive relationships with others and their sense of belonging flourishes (Putra et al. 2024 ). CV as meaningful work in itself creates well-being among employees as they assume roles and responsibilities beyond their daily ruotines and tasks (Hatami et al. 2024 ).

Radical social, technological and physical changes in contemporary society not only affect the nature of human work but also force us to rethink its meaningfulness. In this study, we argued that the current, normative understanding of work meaningfulness informed by respective discourses in business ethics and management studies does not account for the uncertainty that work is embedded in. Instead, drawing on the thought of Levinas, we suggest turning to the Other as a source of meaning using a non-normative approach. We empirically explored work meaningfulness in CV projects in Poland and Finland and conceptualized the Other as seen by volunteering employees. We found meaningful work to arise from proximity to the Other and the otherness of the Other. Also, CV’s ability to highlight the proximity and otherness of the Other creates opportunities for meaningful work. Our study contributes to a reconceptualization of what is considered meaningful work. At the same time, our study shows the relevance of including Levinasian ethics in management studies. Operationalizing Levinas’ ideas contributes not only to the field of work meaningfulness, as we showed in this study, but has the potential to contribute also to other streams of research with a focus on the connection to others (e.g., Dutton and Ragins 2007 ; Grant 2007 ). The Other by Levinas offers insights that help deepen our understanding of meaningful work in everyday life because Levinas’ ethical stance is rich in considering interpersonal relationship (Gardiner 2018 , 33) by taking distance from egoism. Hence, our paper contributes to discussions of meaningful work in both business ethics and management studies.

Managerially, our empirical data suggests that combining a philosophical approach to business ethics with management practices and studies enables us to more thoroughly understand the Other as a source of meaning. In this exploration, we found that considering the Other in its otherness is important because it brings proximity and awakens emotions. Levinas reminds us that the Other calls me, invites me and makes demands of me. If we practice recognizing the Other, we will be able to see a new Other in our surroundings and bring meaning to both our work and life and our (professional) environment.

This study also provides recommendations for the application of Levinasian ethics in organizations. First, as disussed throughout this study, Levinas’ ethics provides a framework for empathy, respect and compassion through a focus on human and non-human relationships. In this regard, Mansell ( 2008 ) argues that Levinas and his ideas of the Other and otherness incorporate the element of flexibility in ethical frameworks and instructions within organizations. This flexibility acts as a barrier against any exaggeration in the application of rules and principles, reflecting a genuine openness to ethics (Mansell 2008 ). Second, Levinas’ ethics provide relational aspects to ethical codes that allow the company’s decisions and actions to be continuously questioned (Painter-Morland 2010 ). Third, a performative concept of corporate code inspired from Levinas (Blok 2017 ) can bridge the inherent gap between moral impulse and corporate codes and regulations (Blok 2013 ).

Our exploratory study is subject to limitations, too. First, the application of Levinasian ethics to the corporation has been criticized by some scholars (e.g., Bevan and Corvellec 2007 ) because a corporation cannot open itself to the Other and their otherness (Bevan and Corvellec 2007 ) with infinite responsibility. Furthermore, the ethics of Levinas provide neither an ethics in the classical sense of the term (Aasland 2005 ; van de Ven 2005 ) nor a blueprint (Kalmanson and Mattice 2015 ; Ketcham et al. 2016 ). However, in this paper, we show that the ethics of Levinas can be operationalized in business, and CV is among the ways it can be done. Employees’ engagement in CV is a way to see and comprehend the Other in a way that is not required in professional tasks nor in the ethical code of the organizations. Second, we interviewed managers and employees regarding their experience with participation in CV and the understanding we created of proximity and otherness of the Other and sense of work meaningfulness is based on a qualitative approach. In order to gain an in-depth understanding of the nature and strengths of links between these concepts, more systematic analyses and other approaches such as discourse analysis or quantitative methodologies may be useful in future studies. Moreover, our study was conducted in selected companies operating in Finland and Poland. To explore the role of contextual factors in meaningful work, more research is needed in other national, cultural and organizational contexts.

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Defining non-normativity poses a contradiction in itself, as a non-normative approach deviates from accepted norms, standards or behaviour. Defining it would create a norm or standard about it and, as such, make it normative. Instead, we see non-normativity to deal with continuous changes over time and to lend itself to matters of inclusion, diversity, and diverse aspects of human experiences and behaviours.

Aasland, D. G. 2005. Ethics and Economy: After Levinas . London: MayFlyBooks.

Google Scholar  

Aasland, D. G. 2007. The exteriority of ethics in management and its transition into justice: A levinasian approach to ethics in business. Business Ethics: A European Review 16: 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2007.00494.x

Article   Google Scholar  

Aguinis, H., and A. Glavas. 2019. On corporate social responsibility, sensemaking, and the search for meaningfulness through work. Journal of Management 45: 1057–1086. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063176915

Aleksić, D., M. Černe, and S. Batistič. 2024. Understanding meaningful work in the context of technostress, COVID-19, frustration, and corporate social responsibility. Human Relations 77 (3): 426–451.

Allan, B. A., C. Batz-Barbarich, H. M. Sterling, and L. Tay. 2019. Outcomes of meaningful work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies 56 (3): 500–528.

Anthony, James E. 1989. The psychoanalytic approach to learning theory. In Learning and Education. Psychoanalytic Perspectives , edited by K. Field, B. J. Cohler, and G. Wool. Madison: International Universities.

Astakhova, M. N., A. S. McKay, D. H. Doty, and B. R. Wooldridge. 2024. Does one size fit all? The role of job characteristics in cultivating work passion across knowledge, blue-collar, nonprofit, and managerial work. Human Resource Management 63 (3): 443–462.

Atterton, P. 2011. Levinas and our moral responsibility toward other animals. Inquiry: A Journal of Medical Care Organization, Provision and Financing 54: 633–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2011.628186

Badiou, A. 2009. Jacques Derrida. In Pocket Pantheon: Figures of Postwar Philosophy , 125–144. London: Verso.

Bankins, S., and P. Formosa. 2023. The ethical implications of artificial intelligence (AI) for meaningful work. Journal of Business Ethics 185 (4): 725–740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05339-

Battilana, J., J. Yen, I. Ferreras, and L. Ramarajan. 2022. Democratizing work: Redistributing power in organizations for a democratic and sustainable future. Organization Theory 3: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221084714

Baumeister, R. F. 1991. Work, Work, Work, Work. Meanings of Life , 116–144. New York: The Guilford Press.

Baumeister, R. F., and M. R. Leary. 1995. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117: 497–529.

Beadle, R., and K. Knight. 2012. Virtue and meaningful work. Business Ethics Quarterly 22: 433–450. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201222219

Beavers, A. F. 1990. Introducing Levinas to Undergraduate Philosophers . Colloquy Paper. Undergraduate Philosophy Association, University of Texas: Austin.

Bevan, D., and H. Corvellec. 2007. The impossibility of corporate ethics: For a levinasian approach to managerial ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review 16: 208–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2007.00493.x

Biesta, G. 2003. Learning from Levinas: A response. Studies in Philosophy and Education 22: 61–68.

Blok, V. 2013. The power of speech acts: Reflections on a performative concept of ethical oaths in economics and business. Review of Social Economy 71 (2): 187–208.

Blok, V. 2017. Bridging the gap between individual and corporate responsible behaviour: Toward a performative concept of corporate codes. Philosophy of Management 16: 117–136.

Blok, V. 2021. Levinasian ethics in business. In Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics , edited by D. C. Poff and A. C. Michalos, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23514-1_97-1 .

Bowie, N. E. 1998. Business ethics, philosophy, and the next 25 years. Business Ethics Quarterly 7–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857690

Brief, A. P., and W. R. Nord. 1990. Work and meaning: Definitions and interpretations. In Meanings of Occupational Work , edited by A. P. Brief, and W. R. Nord, 1–19. Lexington: Lexington Books.

Bruna, M. G., and Y. Bazin. 2018. Answering Levinas’ call in organization studies. European Management Review 15: 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12137

Burggraeve, R. 2016. Volunteering and ethical meaningfulness. Foundations of Science 21: 301–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-014-9389-4

Byers, D., and C. Rhodes. 2007. Ethics, alterity, and organizational justice. Business Ethics: A European Review 16: 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2007.00496.x

Casey, C. 1995. Work, Self and Society: After Industrialism . London: Routledge.

Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis . London: SAGE.

Ciulla, J. B. 2000. The Working Life: The Promise and Betrayal of Modern Work . New York: Three Rivers.

Ciulla, J. B. 2012. Worthy work and Bowie’s Kantian theory of meaningful work. In Kantian Business Ethics . Edward Elgar Publishing.

Clary, E. G., M. Snyder, R. D. Ridge, J. Copeland, A. A. Stukas, J. Haugen, and P. Miene. 1998. Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 1516. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1516

Coeckelbergh, M. 2020. Artificial intelligence, responsibility attribution, and a relational justification of explainability. Science and Engineering Ethics 26: 2051–2068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00146-8

Cohen, R. A. 2000. Ethics and cybernetics: Levinasian reflections. Ethics and Information Technology 2: 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010060128998

Colby, A., L. Sippola, and E. Phelps. 2001. Social responsibility and paid work in contemporary American life. In Caring and Doing for Others: Social Responsibility in the Domains of Family, Work, and Community , edited by A. Rossi, 349–399. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Davy, B. J. 2007. An other face of ethics in Levinas. Ethics and the Environment 1: 39–65.

Demirtas, O., S. T. Hannah, K. Gok, A. Arslan, and N. Capar. 2017. The moderated influence of ethical leadership, via meaningful work, on followers’ engagement, organizational identification, and envy. Journal of Business Ethics 145: 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2907-7

Dreesbach-Bundy, S., and B. Scheck. 2017. Corporate volunteering: A bibliometric analysis from 1990 to 2015. Business Ethics: A European Review 26 (3): 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12148

Dubbs, C. 2020. Whose ethics? Toward clarifying ethics in mathematics education research. Journal of Philosophy of Education 54: 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12427

Dutton, J. E., and B. R. Ragins. eds. 2007. Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dutton, J. E., M. Worline, P. Frost, and J. Lilius. 2006. Explaining compassion organizing. Administrative Science Quarterly 51: 59–96. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.51.1.59

Faldetta, G. 2019. When relationships are broken: Restorative justice under a levinasian approach. Philosophy of Management 18: 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-018-0094-1

Gardiner, R. A. 2018. Ethical responsibility-an Arendtian turn. Business Ethics Quarterly 28: 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2017.32

Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures . New York: Basic Books.

Glinka, B., and W. Czakon. 2021. Podstawy Badan Jakościowych . Warszawa: PWE.

Grant, A. M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review 32: 393–417. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351328

Grant, A. M. 2008. Employees without a cause: The motivational effects of prosocial impact in public service. International Public Management Journal 11: 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490801887905

Grant, A. M. 2012. Giving time, time after time: Work design and sustained employee participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of Management Review 37: 589–615. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0280

Grant, A. M., E. M. Campbell, G. Chen, K. Cottone, D. Lapedis, and K. Lee. 2007. Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103: 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.004

Haarjärvi, T., and S. Laari-Salmela. 2022. Examining the role of dignity in the experience of meaningfulness: A process-relational view on meaningful work. Humanistic Management Journal 7: 417–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-022-00133-5

Hackman, J. R., and G. R. Oldham. 1980. Work Redesign . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hatami, A. 2020. Keep others in mind: A way to proceed with ethical decisions under uncertainty. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis . Finland.

Hatami, A., and N. Firoozi. 2019. A dynamic stakeholder model: An Other-oriented ethical approach. Business Ethics: A European Review 28: 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12222

Hatami, A., J. Hermes, A. Keränen, and P. Ulkuniemi. 2024. Happiness management through corporate volunteering in advancing CSR. Management Decision 62 (2): 575–590.

Heine, S. J., T. Proulx, and K. D. Vohs. 2006. The meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review 10: 88–110. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_1

Hogg, M. A., and D. J. Terry. 2000. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review 25: 121–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/259266

Hummels, H., and P. Nullens. 2022. Other-wise’ Organizing. A levinasian approach to agape in work and business organizations. Humanistic Management Journal 7: 211–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-022-00132-6

Humphrey, S. E., J. D. Nahrgang, and F. P. Morgeson. 2007. Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 1332. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332

Ilies, R., J. E. Bono, and A. B. Bakker. 2024. Crafting Well-Being: Employees can enhance their own well-being by savoring, reflecting upon, and capitalizing on positive work experiences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 11: 63–91.

Introna, L. D., and M. Brigham. 2007. Reconsidering community and the stranger in the age of virtuality. Society and Business Review 2: 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465680710757385

Jones, C. 2003. As if business ethics were possible, within such limits’. Organization 10: 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508403010002003

Jones, C., M. Parker, and R. Ten Bos 2005. For Business Ethics . London: Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Joy, A., J. F. Sherry Jr, G. Troilo, and J. Deschenes. 2010. Re-thinking the relationship between self and other: Levinas and narratives of beautifying the body. Journal of Consumer Culture 10: 333–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540510376902

Kahn, W. A. 2007. Meaningful connections: Positive relationships and attachments at work. In Exploring Positive Relationships at Work: Building a Theoretical and Research Foundation , edited by J. E. Dutton, and B. R. Ragins. 189–206. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kalmanson, L., and S. Mattice. 2015. The De of Levinas: Cultivating the heart-mind of radical passivity. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 10: 113–129. https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-004-015-0007-2

Ketcham, C., J. Jones, R. C. Arnett, and J. H. Fritz. 2016. Colloquium on Levinas, leadership, and ethics. Leadership and the Humanities 4: 38. https://doi.org/10.4337/lath.2016.01.03

Kluckhohn, F. R., and F. L. Strodtbeck. 1961. Variations in Value Orientations . Evanston, IL: Row Peterson & Co.

Levinas, E. 1969. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority . vol. 1 Springer Science & Business Media.

Levinas, E. 1981. Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence (No. 3) . Springer Science & Business Media.

Levinas, E. 2003. Humanism of the Other . University of Illinois Press.

Levinas, E. 1998. Entre Nous: On Thinking-of-the-Other . Translated by B. Michael, and Smith. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lips-Wiersma, M., and L. Morris. 2009. Discriminating between ‘meaningful work’ and the ‘management of meaning’. Journal of Business Ethics 88: 491–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0118-9

Liu, L. 2016. Using generic inductive approach in qualitative educational research: A case study analysis. Journal of Education and Learning 5: 129–135. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v5n2p129

Maboloc, C. R. B. 2023. Beyound proximity and substitution: Levinas on transcendence. Prajñā Vihāra: Journal of Philosophy and Religion 24 (1): 34–34.

Malone, T. W. 2004. The Future of Work . Incorporated: Audio-Tech Business Book Summaries.

Manderson, D., and Tortologies. 2006. Australasian Journal of Legal Philosophy 31: 14–49.

Mansell, S. 2008. Proximity and rationalization: The limits of a levinasian ethics in the context of corporate governance and regulation. Journal of Business Ethics 83: 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9639-2

May, D. R., C. Li, J. Mencl, and C. C. Huang. 2014. The ethics of meaningful work: Types and magnitude of job-related harm and the ethical decision-making process. Journal of Business Ethics 121: 651–669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1736-9

McAllum, K., M. M. Elvira, and M. Villamor Martin. 2024. I only tell them the good parts: How relational others influence paid Careworkers’ descriptions of their work as Meaningful. Management Communication Quarterly 38 (1): 171–202.

Melé, D. 2021. Ethics at the workplace in the fourth industrial revolution: A catholic social teaching perspective. Business Ethics the Environment & Responsibility 30: 772–783. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12368

Mencl, J., and D. R. May. 2009. The effects of proximity and empathy on ethical decision-making: An exploratory investigation. Journal of Business Ethics 85: 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1736-9

Michaelson, C. 2005. I want your shower time! Drowning in work and the Erosion of life. Business & Professional Ethics Journal 24: 7–26.

Michaelson, C. 2009. Teaching meaningful work: Philosophical discussions on the ethics of career choice. Journal of Business Ethics Education 6: 43–67.

Michaelson, C. 2019. A normative meaning of meaningful work. Journal of Business Ethics 170: 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04389-0

Michaelson, C., M. G. Pratt, A. M. Grant, and C. P. Dunn. 2014. Meaningful work: Connecting Business Ethics and Organization studies. Journal of Business Ethics 121: 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1675-5

Mitroff, I. I., and E. A. Denton. 1999. A study of spirituality in the workplace. MIT Sloan Management Review 40: 83.

Moriarty, J. 2009. Rawls, self-respect, and the opportunity for meaningful work. Social Theory and Practice 35: 441–459. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract200935325

Mortimer, S. A. 2023. What makes work Meaningful? Journal of Business Ethics 185 (4): 835–845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05356-6

MOW International Research Team. 1987. The Meaning of Working . New York: Academic.

Nortvedt, P., M. H. Hem, and H. Skirbekk. 2011. The ethics of care: Role obligations and moderate partiality in health care. Nursing Ethics 18 (2): 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733010388926

Painter-Morland, M. 2010. Questioning corporate codes of ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review 19 (3): 265–279.

Pratt, M. G., and B. E. Ashforth. 2003. Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In Positive Organizational Scholarship , edited by K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, and R. E. Quinn, 309–327. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Putra, A. S. B., E. D. Kusumawati, and D. Kartikasari. 2024. Unpacking the roots and impact of Workplace Well-being: A Literature Review. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach Research and Science 2 (01): 312–321.

Robert, J. 2001. Corporate governance and the ethics of narcissus. Bussiness Ethics Quaterly 11 (1):109–127. https://doi.org/10.2307/3857872

Rodell, J. B. 2013. Finding meaning through volunteering: Why do employees volunteer and what does it mean for their jobs? Academy of Management Journal 56: 1274–1294. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0611

Ros, M., S. H. Schwartz, and S. Surkiss. 1999. Basic individual values, work values, and the meaning of work. Applied Psychology: An International Review 48: 49–71.

Rosso, B. D., K. H. Dekas, and A. Wrzesniewski. 2010. On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior 30: 91–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001

Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2001. To be happy or to be self-fulfilled: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. In Annual Review of Psychology , vol 52, edited by S. Fiske, 141–166. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.

Sadler-Smith, E. 2012. Before virtue: Biology, brain, behavior, and the moral sense. Business Ethics Quarterly 22: 351–376. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201222223

Schulte, P. A., J. M. K. Streit, F. Sheriff, G. Delclos, S. A. Felknor, S. L. Tamers, S. Fendinger, J. Grosch, and R. Sala. 2020. Potential scenarios and hazards in the work of the future: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and Gray Literatures. Annals of Work Exposures and Health 64: 786–816. https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxaa051

Soares, C. 2008. Corporate legal responsibility: A levinasian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 81: 545–553. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9523-0

Steger, M. F., B. J. Dik, and R. D. Duffy. 2012. Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment 20: 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/10690727114361

Tablan, F. 2015. Catholic social teachings: Toward a meaningful work. Journal of Business Ethics 128: 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2104-0

van de Ven, B. 2005. The (Im) possibility of a levinasian business ethics: Towards an interpretation of the ethical in business. Levinas Business Ethics 33.

Wilcke, R. W. 2004. An appropriate ethical model for business and a critique of Milton Friedman’s thesis. The Independent Review 9: 187–209.

Wilson, J., and M. Musick. 1997. Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review 694–713.

Wilson, J., and Volunteering. 2000. Annual Review of Sociology 26:215–240. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.215 .

Wright, T., P. Hughes, and A. Ainley. 1988. The Paradox of Morality: An interview with Emmanuel Levinas. In The Provocation of Levinas: Rethinking the Other , edited by Robert Bernasconi and David Wood, 168–180. London: Routledge.

Wrzesniewski, A. 2003. Finding positive meaning in work. In Positive Organizational Scholarship , edited by K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, and R. E. Quinn. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Wrzesniewski, A., J. E. Dutton, and G. Debebe. 2003. Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behavior 25: 93–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(03)25003-6

Download references

Acknowledgements

The corresponding author gratefully acknowledges the financial support from the Foundation for Economic Education (Grant ID: 6437-88c52) in Finland and the Finnish Cultural Foundation (Grant ID: 60202418). The paper was developed as part of the project “Positive social change in the organization as a factor of company involvement in the implementation of sustainable development” in Poland. The project was founded by the National Science Center, on decision number DEC-2017/25/B/HS4/01113.

Open Access funding provided by University of Oulu (including Oulu University Hospital).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Oulu Business School, University of Oulu, Pentti Kaiteran katu 1, Oulu, 90014, Finland

Akram Hatami & Jan Hermes

Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University, ul. Gagarina 13a, Toruń, 87-100, Poland

Aldona Glińska-Neweś

Department of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Nelson Mandela University, Gqeberha, South Africa

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akram Hatami .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hatami, A., Glińska-Neweś, A. & Hermes, J. Experiencing Meaningful Work through Corporate Volunteering: The Other as a Source of Meaning. Humanist Manag J (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-024-00186-8

Download citation

Received : 21 November 2023

Accepted : 20 August 2024

Published : 23 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-024-00186-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Work meaningfulness
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research