Absolute autonomy, respectful recognition and derived dignity: Towards a typology of meaningful work

Laaser, Knut; Bolton, Sharon Article — Published Version Absolute autonomy, respectful recognition and derived dignity: Towards a typology of meaningful work International Journal of Management Reviews Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Laaser, Knut; Bolton, Sharon (2021) : Absolute autonomy, respectful recognition and derived dignity: Towards a typology of meaningful work, International Journal of Management Reviews, ISSN 1468-2370, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 24, Iss. 3, pp. 373-393, https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12282 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/265007 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Received: 16 February 2019 Revised: 21 October 2021 Accepted: 22 October 2021 DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12282 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Absolute autonomy, respectful recognition and derived dignity: Towards a typology of meaningful work Knut Laaser1,2Sharon Bolton1 1Stirling Management School, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK 2Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, 03046 Cottbus, Germany Correspondence BrandenburgUniversityof Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg,Erich Weinert Str. 1-2 03046Cottbus,Germany. Email:[email protected] Abstract Theoretical and empirical contributions to meaningful work (MW) have flourished in the last two decades; investigating how the interplay of organizational factors with employee attitudes and experiences enables or denies MW. This paper reviews MW literature in the fields of management and organizational behaviour, political philosophy, the humanities and sociology with the aim of identifying and comparing conceptualizations of MW and how they relate to low-skilled work. The review illustrates that a wide range of MW concepts either interpret low-skilled work as bereft of essential sources for MW, or focus exclusively on workers’ innate drive to make meaningful experiences and thereby neglect the politics of working life. Making the point that low-skilled work can also be meaningful, the paper develops a framework for low-skilled work that has at its heart the interplay between the unique characteristics and dynamics of the labour process and workers’ agential responses. The framework rests on a combination of labour process analysis and industrial relations approaches, along with sociological concepts of agency. It develops three interdependent conceptual dimensions of core autonomy, respectful recognition and derived dignity that aim to capture MW in low-skilled work settings. The framework contributes to vibrant debates in the MW literature by showcasing how meaningfulness emerges through bottom-up collective and individual practices, relations and strategies that are reflective of the formal structures, demands and relations of low-skilled work. INTRODUCTION Theoretical and empirical contributions to meaningful work (MW) have flourished in the last two decades; investigating how the interplay of organizational factors with employee attitudes and experiences enables or denies MW. However, while continuing discussions contribute important insights, MW remains a contested concept in terms of its scope and meaning as new conceptual puzzles emerge This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. © 2021 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. (Bailey et al., 2019a;Yeomanetal.,2019). A key aspect that this paper aims to address is the paucity of MW concepts that enable an analysis of how MW emerges in low-skilled work settings, while considering the interplay between the unique characteristics and dynamics of the labour process and workers’ agential responses. We take a unique point of departure in order to address this gap by developing a framework that captures how MW emerges through bottom-up collective and individual practices, relations Int J Manag Rev. 2022;24:373–393. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ijmr 373 374 LAASER and BOLTON and strategies in the formal and informal aspects of the labour process of low-skilled work. The MW framework proposed is informed by a review of the MW literature from four academic research fields: management and organizational behaviour; political philosophy; the humanities; and sociology. The review illustrates that a dominant perspective in these fields associates low-skilled work with alienated and thereby meaningless work. Consequently, a wide range of approaches suggest that low-skilled work needs to be redesigned and ‘enriched’ by generating high levels of job autonomy that foster task identity and significance, and generating MW enablers such as self-efficacy, competence and self-worth (Beadle, 2019; Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004;Yeoman,2014a). Nevertheless, case studies highlight that people in high-skilled work may also experience a lack of meaning; posing questions about theoretical frameworks that rest on a ‘job-enrichment’ perspective (Berg et al., 2010; Lepisto & Pratt, 2017; Sennett, 2006). Furthermore, recent research provides ample evidence that workers in low-skilled jobs, characterized by low levels of formalized technical knowledge and skills, narrow task autonomy and few training and development opportunities, find ways to make their work satisfying and meaningful (Deery et al., 2019;Findlay &Thompson,2017; Wrzesniewski et al., 2003). Adding to the discussion, the review also considers alternative MW perspectives that focus on the intra-subjective dynamics of individuals’ accounts that render work worthy and meaningful (Lepisto & Pratt, 2017; Lips-Wiersma & Morris, 2009), or discuss leadership practices and organizational cultures that infuse work with meaning (Carton, 2018; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Rosso et al., 2010). Based on the literature review, we argue that such approaches provide invaluable perspectives on MW that offer important questions for approaching MW in low-skilled work. Nevertheless, the majority of approaches follow either an up-skilling and job enrichment perspective or focus on inter-subjective and intra-subjective dynamics that foster the individual experience of MW (Lepisto & Pratt, 2017), so that conceptual frameworks that capture how MW emerges ‘beyond managerial reach’ (Harding, 2019:136) remain scarce. Attempting to fill this conceptual gap, the paper combines labour process analysis (LPA) and industrial relations analysis (IRA) to capture how MW is experienced at the individual level, while its ingredients are relational and shaped by structural enablers and constraints at the organizational, corporate and labour process level. This understanding informs the formulation of a novel conceptual framework for exploring meaningful low-skilled work that highlights the politics and social relations of low-skilled labour, as well as the agency of human labour. Within this conceptual realm, the paper develops the following three core dimensions of MW for low-skilled work: core autonomy, derived dignity and respectful recognition. The review highlights how the dimensions play an important role, though in different shapes and forms, in the four fields of existing MW research. Furthermore, the paper suggests that in order to capture MW in low-skilled work settings, the three dimensions need to be revised and tailored towards the particularities of low-skilled work so that it can be emphasized how MW is achieved individually and in connection with others via the utilization of core autonomy, relations and structures that foster respectful recognition and practices, as well as human bonds that support dignityatwork. This paper combines LPA and IRA with a relational human agency approach that takes objective structures and their impact on people seriously, conceptualizing people as meaning-makers as well as interdependent beings who possess a concern for, and develop commitments to, their own and other’s well-being; revealing a vulnerable, reflective, needy and relational character (Archer, 1995; Sayer, 2011). While acknowledging that people seek spaces to create and sustain MW, the framework we are proposing also acknowledges the pressures a fast-paced global capitalism brings; leading to a significant rise in reports of ‘bad jobs’ and concern for the serious consequences meaningless work can have, even when it is buffered and mediated by human connection (Felstead et al., 2009; Warhurst et al., 2012). The paper answers calls for integrative conceptual frameworks that go beyond the dichotomist understanding of MW as either a product of managerial practices or as an entirely individual experience (Bailey et al., 2019b; Harding, 2019; Lepisto & Pratt, 2017). In a similar vein, the lack of MW concepts that focus on the interplay of its subjective and objective dimensions has been noted (Yeoman, 2014a;Yeomanetal.,2019). In this way, the paper offers two key contributions. First, addressing the scarcity of MW frameworks for low-skilled work, a novel MW framework is presented that acknowledges the politics of MW by combining insights from LPA and IRA, and work and employment research, while emphasizing the power of human agency for creating and sustaining MW, even under conditions that are far from fulsome. This offers an understanding of how MW can be created and sustained by low-skilled workers from what may be objectively meaningless work against the backdrop of the contested terrain of the workplace. Second, the typology offers important discussion points for approaches to MW in the four reviewed fields of organizational behaviour, political philosophy, humanities and sociology; highlighting the relationship between the formal and informal organization of work, exploring what it is that enables and, respectively, constrains MW TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF MEANINGFUL WORK 375 and the role of human agency in experiencing meaningfulness within the labour process. REVIEWING MEANINGFUL WORK The review of literature was driven by the overarching question of if and how conceptual and empirical MW approaches offer an understanding of the experience of MW in low-skilled work. This focus informed three key objectives: (1) to identify key enablers and outcomes of MW as portrayed in the leading academic fields; (2) to compare the conceptualization of key enablers and outcomes of MW across the identified academic fields; and (3) to discuss the explanatory power of conceptualizations for MW in lowskilled work settings. When approaching the field of MW, we found it to be characterized by a high level of heterogeneity rooted in the contribution of different academic disciplines. The initial sweep of literature supported recent observations that the most prevalent disciplines in the field of MW are management and organizational behaviour, political philosophy, the humanities and sociology (Bailey et al., 2019b;Yeoman et al., 2019). Representing the heterogeneity of the field, MW conceptualizations have a strong tendency to differ within and between the identified disciplines and fields, informed by the various conceptual frameworks and level of analysis. Furthermore, while MW research has increasingly been published in highly ranked social science and business and management peer-review journals, many influential MW approaches, particularly in the humanist discipline and field of political philosophy, have been published as monographs, or in nonand lowerranked journals and policy reports. The paradigmatic diversity of MW research means that precise boundaries for inclusion or exclusion of publications would lead, if applied too narrowly, to a neglect of ideas that could be crucial for understanding MW in low-skilled workplace settings or, if applied too broadly, would result in an unmanageable number of findings. Nevertheless, we also considered the heterogeneity of the MW debate as a potential strength that offered rich possibilities for understanding the enablers and constraints of MW from different angles. In this light, a mixed-method literature review approach was utilized that combines systematic review methods with ‘eclectic’ methods (Franco-Santos & Otley, 2018); aiming to identify and understand key contributions and research traditions within the diverse field of MW. The mixed-method approach enabled the review to evolve over time, so that literature that has been published throughout the writing of this paper and recommendations from reviewers were evaluated, analysed and integrated, while keeping the selection and analysis criteria transparent and rigorous. This approach has been recommended, on the one hand, for topics that are conceptualized in different ways and shaped by diverse disciplines and, on the other hand, for theory building and inquiries such as what and why theory does or does not work for a specific objective (Gough et al., 2012; Heyvaert et al., 2016). The review began with an extensive search of popular journal databases that covered a wide range of fields (Business Source Complete, International Bibliography for the Social Sciences, Proquest and Scopus). The authors agreed on the following search terms and inclusion criteria. First, the subject of interest: ‘meaningful work’; keywords for the search included ‘meaningful work’; OR ‘meaningfulness at work’; OR ‘meaningfulness in work’; OR ‘meaning of work’; OR ‘meaning at work’; OR ‘decent work’. The keywords ‘meaning in work’ and ‘meaning of work’ were deliberately included as recent reviews have highlighted that they were frequently used interchangeably with MW (Bailey et al., 2017; Rosso et al., 2010). The second inclusion criterion was the format of each contribution: empirical literature (qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods), conceptual work and literature reviews were sought. The third inclusion criterion was contributions that were published in English. To respect the longevity of some MW discussions, the time period for published research was left open. The search produced more than 96 000 hits. To make the process more manageable, a fourth criterion was introduced that reduced the search terms to: ‘meaningful work’; OR ‘meaningfulness in/at work’; OR ‘meaning in work’; OR ‘meaning of work’. This created 4347 hits. In order to narrow down the number of findings further, a fifth and sixth criterion were introduced. The fifth specified the document type: leading peer-reviewed academic journals that were rated 3 or higher by the Academic Journal Guide (AJG) 2015. The sixth criterion introduced the additional search terms of ‘work’; OR ‘employment’; OR ‘management’ with the aim to ensure that the publications offer a focus that meets the objectives of this paper. This search produced 163 findings. Both authors reviewed the abstracts independently, and after reaching consensus, removed duplicates and editorial publications without a unique conceptual contribution, or publications that were focusing only on the meaning ‘of’ or ‘in’ work without reference to MW. As a result, 89 empirical and conceptual articles were selected and analysed. Due to the focus on leading peer-reviewed academic articles, the 89 publications had overwhelmingly a management and organizational behaviour and humanities focus. As the fields of political philosophy and sociology have a long tradition of publishing monographs, book chapters and in journals that do not conform to the fifth selection criteria, an eclectic review method was applied to 376 LAASER and BOLTON increase the number of publications from the two fields. This allowed a search, using the same keywords, in digital library databases, such as JSTOR and university libraries, that traditionally offer access to monographs, handbooks and alternative academic journals. In addition, ancestral searches were conducted, reviewing reference lists of selected articles to find sociological and political philosophical literature on MW. For the purpose of ensuring that the quality and relevance of the findings met the objectives of this paper, both authors reviewed the abstracts and, in some cases, included or removed publications from the process once consensus was reached. This search produced another 48 hits, reaching a total of 137 publications. Literature recommendations from the article reviewers were also considered and included where they met the criteria mentioned above. To reflect the diversity of the field, more than one publication from the same author(s) is only referenced in this paper when the contribution is distinguishable from their other publication(s). Due to this, not all publications that were selected and analysed are referenced in the final version of this paper. A qualitative synthesis allowed a crystallization of shared, but also different, conceptual and empirical assumptions about MW. Each publication was double-coded by the two authors along the following coding determinants: definition of MW; dimension(s) of MW; theories and/or measures of MW; disciplinary grounding; level of analysis; focus on type of work; key findings. In case of different outcomes, the authors revisited their analysis and mutually agreed the coding. As discussed above, MW research is a heterogenous academic field and the concept of MW is characterized as ‘contested’ due to the lack of a commonly accepted definition (Yeoman et al., 2019). In order to provide a more coherent analysis, the literature was grouped under one of the above-mentioned fields in an attempt to emphasize more clearly commonalities and differences between MW approaches. The allocation of the articles was based on one or several of the following categories: self-categorization of the article; theories that reflected a particular disciplinary focus; the publication outlet and the level of analysis. In order to meet the three objectives of the article, we analysed and compared definitions of MW, MW dimensions, their conceptualization and link to particular types of work or jobs. This allowed recognition of the multilevel and multi-dimensional nature of the MW debate and enabled a comparison of conceptual and empirical contributions from different fields. As a result of this process, four tables have been produced for the four fields of MW (Tables 1–4). The tables offer clarity on the strongest emergent themes that inspired the introduction of an MW framework for low-skilled work. They also highlight how the newly introduced framework reconceptualizes critical dimensions of MW via a unique theoretical approach that is rooted in the sociology of work and industrial relations. THE LANDSCAPE OF MEANINGFUL WORK The review of literature begins with the organizational behaviour approach to MW that includes management scholarship as well as social psychological approaches to work and organizations, ranging from early work on engagement to recent prominent work from positive organizational psychology. This is followed by a review of some of the most influential views from political philosophy; featuring classic Marxism and contemporary political philosophy that offers normative approaches to MW. The third section reviews the growing humanities literature on MW, which is characterized by an approach to MW that is grounded in ethical theory. The fourth section discusses sociological approaches to MW that offer a focus on subjective experiences, as well as structural enablers and constraints. Management and organizational behaviour approaches to meaningful work A guiding principle in classic psychological work motivation theories is a desire to be engaged in work and social relationships that support people’s development as workers and human beings (Herzberg et al., 1959; Maslow, 1968). Grounded in the assumption that meaningless work is counter-productive to high performance, early organizational psychological accounts emphasize the identification of job design and a humanized leadership style that meets workers’ individual psychological, social and economic needs, thus contributing to the experience of meaningfulness. Hackman and Oldham’s (1975) influential job characteristics model (JCM) highlights the importance of job design for the experience of MW. They identify task variety, task identity and task significance, in tandem with job autonomy and a supportive feedback system, as key job dimensions that foster a psychological state from which the experience of MW arises (see also May et al., 2004). Hackman and Oldham’s contribution was a milestone for MW research in the way it focused on the experience of MW as founded on the design of worthwhile, interesting and useful jobs. Indeed, the JCM inspired a wide range of MW accounts that explore the importance of stable and specific job characteristics involved in the formal organization of work, in combination with leadership styles, for the experience of MW and its positive outcomes for the organization in general and job engagement in particular TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF MEANINGFUL WORK 377 TABLE 1 Management and organizational behaviour Authors Definition of MW Dimensions of MW Conceptual underpinning Focus of MW approach Hackman and Oldham (1975) ‘The degree to which the individual experiences the job as one which is generally meaningful, valuable, and worthwhile’ (p. 256). Primary dimensions are task variety, task identity and task significance. Secondary dimensions are autonomy and feedback. Psychological behaviour and motivation theory. Meaningful work as a positive affect emerging from a psychological state that is prompted by primary and secondary dimensions. Kahn (1990)‘People experienced such meaning fulness when they felt worthwhile, useful, and valuable – as though they made a difference and were not taken for granted’ (p. 704). Task characteristics (autonomy and interesting tasks); role characteristics (formal recognition of valuable status) and work interaction (promotion of dignity). Psychological concepts of personal role engagement and personal disengagement. Meaningful work is experienced when the individual receives a subjectively sufficient return of his/her physical or emotional investment. Rosso et al. (2010) ‘Work experienced as particularly significant and holding more positive meaning for individuals’ (p. 95). Four dimensions: individuation (e.g. autonomy); self-connection (e.g. authenticity); contribution (e.g. self-efficacy); unification (e.g. purpose). Primarily social psychology, that is, social identity theory. Four key pathways to MW that emerge from the intersection of the four dimensions. They can be, but do not have to be, activated simultaneously. Chalofsky and Cavallaro (2013) ‘(...)meaningful work suggests an inclusive state of being. It is the way we express the meaning and purpose of our lives through the activities (work) that take up most of our waking hours’ (p. 11). Three key interdependent factors: sense of self (e.g. finding one’s purpose); the work itself (autonomy; opportunities to learn and master skills; work that matches perceptions of higher purpose); the workplace (e.g. work–life balance). Primary focus on social psychological theories on individual and organizational behaviour. Quality of the match between self, work and the workplace. Steger (2019) ‘Meaningful work is work that people gladly, gratefully, and energetically give their best selves and effort’ (p. 218). When CARMA (clarity, authenticity, respect, mattering and autonomy) and SPIRE (strengths, personalization, integration, resonance and expansion) mutually reinforce each other. Psychological theories that identify ‘high-value levers’ (p. 215) that enable the experience of MW. When meaningful leadership meets individuals’ construction of a meaningful life. 378 LAASER and BOLTON TABLE 2 Political philosophy Authors Definition of MW Dimensions of MW Conceptual underpinning Focus of MW approach Schwartz (1982) ‘Work that allows workers to act as autonomous individuals and thus foster instead of stunting their autonomous development’ (p. 642). Autonomy; participation in decision-making; democratic division of labour; skilled work; training; good pay. Political economy and philosophy. Normative approach that calls for a restructuring of work. Focus is on enhancing participation in decision-making. Breen (2019)‘Work that facilitates and enhances our sense of self and broader personal life’ (p. 51). Freedom as autonomy that fosters self-determination, ‘a status basic to human dignity’ (p. 59); freedom as self-realization and freedom as non-domination. Political philosophy. Normative concept that calls for a strengthening of protective measurements that safeguard workers from exploitation and abuse in capitalist organizations. Bowie (2019) Six characteristics: (1) autonomy on the job; (2) work that supports development of autonomy and rationality; (3) a wage that supports independency; (4) work that develops workers’ rational capacities; (5) work that does not conflict with workers’ moral development; and (6) work that is not paternalistic. Autonomy; sufficient pay; task variety and task identity that fosters rational capacities and moral development; respect for different pathways to obtain happiness. Ethical philosophy. Focus is on the implementation of management practices that grant workers genuine autonomy (e.g. open book management) and supports their moral development. Yeoman (2014a,b)Meaningful work as work that allows workers to fulfil their fundamental needsandthus‘(...)satisfytheir inescapable interests in freedom, autonomy, and dignity’ (2014b, p. 235). When work is structured by the features of dignity, autonomy as non-alienation, respect, recognition and freedom. Human capability approach; moral philosophy. Implementation of a workplace democracy that enforces co-determination at work and allows workers to fulfil their fundamental needs. Sayer (2009) ‘Complex, interesting work [that] allows workers(...)todevelopandexercise their capacities, and gain the satisfaction from achieving the internal goods of a practice, but to gain the external goods of recognition and esteem’ (p. 1). Challenging and interesting tasks; opportunities for workers to apply and develop their capacities; internal satisfaction; recognition from others; esteem from others. Political philosophy: moral economy. Emphasis is on the objective organization of work that allows all labour market participants equal access to meaningful tasks. TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF MEANINGFUL WORK 379 TABLE 3 Humanities Authors Definition of MW Dimensions of MW Conceptual underpinning Focus of MW approach Madden and Bailey (2019) Work is meaningful when it ‘allows us to transcend our selfhood, expanding our self-boundaries inter-subjectively, enabling us to flourish and realize our potential by gaining insight with and through others into the significance of our work’ (p. 159). Inter-subjective experience of the significance of one’s work that goes beyond the individual. The experience is assumed to be embedded in an interpersonal, temporal or spatial context. Humanist approaches to self-transcendence. MW is experienced when contexts, activities or encounters at work are of great significance to the individual and go beyond the self. This experience can be temporal. Pavlish et al. (2019)‘Meaningfulness emerges from actions that reflect the self and particularly from actions that aim to do good for others’ (p. 243). Useful work; purpose; task significance; contribution to well-being. Interdisciplinary care theory; philosophy of meaning. Focus is on the positive individual experience of the actor and the relational dimensions of work and its positive impact. Bunderson and Thompson (2009) MW as work that has ‘significance, purpose, or transcendent meaning’ (p. 32). Significance, purpose and transcendence. Humanist theories of calling; transcendence. Focus is on the individual experience of work as a calling; that is, performing work that is perceived as one’s destiny and duty. Schnell et al. (2013)‘(...)meaningfulness as full mediator of relationships between task significance, task identity, autonomy, feedback, and skill variety and work engagement’ (p. 544). Self-efficacy, work-role fit, task significance, socio-moral climate and self-transcendent orientation. Primary focus on social psychological theories of individual and organizational behaviour. The dimensions of MW operate at an individual, work task and organizational level. They foster simultaneously, and incrementally, the experience of MW. Lips-Wiersma and Morris (2009) Meaningful work is ‘a property of human beings’ (p. 493); that is, activated by ‘a combination of work meanings’ (p. 502). Developing and becoming one’s self; unity with others; serving others and expressing self (p. 499). Eclectic combination of humanist approaches. MW is a property of human beings that is activated by a set of enablers. 380 LAASER and BOLTON TABLE 4 Sociology Authors Definition of MW Dimensions of MW Conceptual underpinning Focus of MW approach Kalleberg and Marsden (2019) MW as ‘opportunities to exercise autonomy and to help others and society’ (p. 45). Importance people place on work generally; importance of specific work conditions, such as earnings, security, autonomy, advancement and intrinsic qualities of work. Sociology of work values; life course. Multi-dimensional view of work values, focusing on the importance workers place on specific conditions and features of work and how these enable them to care for others. Bailey and Madden (2017) ‘Meaningfulness arises when an individual perceives an authentic connection between their work and a broader transcendent life purpose beyond the self’ (p. 4). TwopathwaystoMW(p.4):(1)when ‘individuals perceive their work invokes the greater good in terms of societal or economic benefits’; (2) ‘In the service of a“higherpower”(...)’. Social philosophy and sociology. Stigmatized, craft and professional work can be experienced as meaningful when the two pathways are fulfilled. The experience of MW can be episodical. Simpson et al. (2019) MWasa‘(...)complex system of interactions between psychological processes, institutionalized meanings, embodied practices, and normative judgment(...)’(p.226). Work that is characterized by inter-subjective, self-actualized and/or stigmatized dimensions that offer recognition and autonomy. Sociological theory of habitus and agency. Work-based meanings are created by workers; a sense of dignity and worth is derived even in stigmatized occupations through camaraderie and shared work values and norms. Gallie (2019)Work that is characterized by ‘opportunities for people to pursue activities that they regard as worthwhile in terms of widely shared salient values’ (p. 382). Autonomy as job discretion; participation in decision-making; opportunities for self-determination and for realizing other valued objectives. Sociology of job quality. Focus is on objective workplace conditions and how these allow workers to develop and meet values that foster meaningful work. Taylor and Roth (2019) Meaningful work is discursively framed by its social context and wider cultural norms (p. 267). Dimensions include autonomy, dignity, self-realization and use-value. Sociology of vocations; calling; identity theory. The experience of MW is shaped by context; that is, culture, policies and work conditions and subjective characteristics, such as experience of calling, social identity and work orientation. TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF MEANINGFUL WORK 387 FIGURE 1 A typology of the essential ingredients for meaningful work in low-skilled work settings. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com] of justice and fairness (Axelsson et al., 2019; Burawoy, 1979;Harding,2019; Roy, 1959). For example, Burawoy’s (1979)andRoy’s(1959) celebrated ethnographies of manual work point towards low levels of objective autonomy at work, but refer to workers’ informal shopfloor games and ‘making out’ practices that created autonomy and made work more meaningful. Analysing service work, Korczynski’s (2003) concept of ‘communities of coping’ captures workers’ reflexive deliberations via networks of support in light of constrained autonomy and exhausting emotional labour. In a similar vein, Harding (2019:146)highlights how workers in a manufacturing firm experienced meaningfulness by creating temporal spaces throughout the working day in which they socialized informally and pursued personal interests on the shopfloor, experiencing themselves as ‘fully human rather than an appendage of a machine’. Meanwhile, Bailey and Madden (2017) illustrate how refuse collectors pursued relative autonomy in the labour process that allowed them to experience meaningfulness by extending control over the pace and structure of their work. These examples reveal the importance of core agency for MW, resting on the ‘thick cultural ensembles of [workers’] own making’ (Vallas, 2006: 1709). It is through core autonomy that workers express voice, infuse autonomous spaces in the labour process and establish informal communities and practices that are built on mutuality and the aim to humanize and reappropriate work beyond managerial reach (Gunawardana, 2014;Hodson,2001; Korczynski, 2016; Thompson & Newsome, 2016). These relational practices are complemented by individuals’ pursuit of autonomy, such as developing individualized approaches to work patterns, but also subtle oppositional practices. For example, Wrzesniewski et al.’s (2003) research on hospital cleaners shows how cleaners derived meaning from their work by informally including or excluding tasks, as well as modifying their sequence and number, while autonomously deciding how they relationally engage with patients. Labour unions and non-governmental organizations can be important enablers for the development of core autonomy through the promotion of values such as solidarity, the securing of voice patterns and opportunities for getting together and participating in actions to improve workplace conditions (Gunawardana, 2014; Korczynski & Wittel, 2020). Respectful recognition The social philosophy of recognition, most prominently represented by Honneth (2012), suggests that healthy self-relations, self-development and stable social relations are more broadly dependent on the experience of intersubjective recognition. This perspective plays a key role in political philosophy accounts of MW (Sayer, 2009;Yeoman, 2014a), where it is suggested that inter-subjective experiences of recognition foster MW when social relations in the workplace are free and equal. Nevertheless, the potential explanatory power of recognition theory for understanding MW in the capitalist labour process has recently been restated, arguing that the experience of MW is inevitably interwoven with workers’ experience of self-worth and self-respect at work, which is fostered or destroyed through inter-subjective recognition acts (Baileyetal.,2019a;Duttonetal.,2012; Wrzesniewski et al., 2003). Going back to sociological recognition theory and its long-standing history in emphasizing the relational and dependent nature of people, the term ‘respectful recognition’ emphasizes the importance of how actions and commitments are recognized and esteemed by others, but also how structures—such as the organization of work and employment conditions—enable and enhance recognition exchanges (Calhoun, 2004; Honneth, 1982;Sayer, 2011). 388 LAASER and BOLTON Inspired by Honneth (2012), respectful recognition plays out via two forms of recognition: conditional and unconditional recognition (see also Sayer, 2009; Voswinkel, 2012). Conditional recognition refers to a form of esteem for achievements, capabilities and contributions, whereas unconditional recognition is represented in the experience of being esteemed and regarded as a person within a mutual value system. At the workplace level, the social environment of work is understood to shape intersubjective communication through which achievements, actions, contributions, relations and commitments are recognized and esteemed by colleagues and line managers. Conditional recognition at the workplace level connects the granting of formalized esteem and worth with satisfying performances and relations, while unconditional recognition refers to the respect and esteem workers exchange as part of a mutual web of obligations and commitments (Sayer, 2009). Conditional and unconditional recognition is also experienced in relationships with customers, no matter how transient, as customer service is humanized and care is offered and recognition received (Foden, 2020;Hodson,2001;ILO,2017; Voswinkel, 2012). For example, though lacking objective status, care workers experience meaningfulness by attributing worth to their activities via caring labour (Bolton & Laaser, 2013). Indeed, work involved in personnel services, which is mostly made up of different types of ‘care work’, has been found to offer rich sources of recognition on the micro-level that are clearly missing from the mainly ‘dirty work’ done by cleaners (Pavlish et al., 2019; Simpson et al., 2019)and front-line ‘McJobs’ (Lindsay & McQuaid, 2004). Regarding the latter, the biggest complaint from workers, other than low pay and unsociable hours, is the lack of recognition from either employers or the public—despite feelings of pride in the work itself (Dutton et al., 2012). In a similar vein, research on street cleaners (Simpson et al., 2019) and refuse collectors (Bailey & Madden, 2017)amplifies how unconditional peer recognition encoded in mutual respect for the use-value of the work and its physicality contributed to a strengthening of workers’ self-esteem and self-worth. Respectful recognition shares similarities with previously reviewed MW dimensions such as ‘unity with others’ (Lips-Wiersma et al., 2016) or ‘self-esteem’ (Rosso et al., 2010), but differs in its acknowledgement of the politics of low-skilled work. At the workplace level, respectful recognition refers to workers’ drive to ‘constitute sociality’ (Harding, 2019: 139) inter-subjectively, and create and defend informal social spaces that reassure their worth. Adding to the social analysis at the workplace level, unconditional recognition may also be inherent to the organization of work and concrete HRM practices, and whether well-being is supported via support and safetyoriented policies, such as flexible and family-friendly work patterns, employment security and health and safety policies (Guest, 2017; Voswinkel, 2012). Though offering similarities with approaches in the management and organizational behaviour field of MW, and their emphasis on objective job dimensions, our utilization of respectful recognition differs as we acknowledge that a sophisticated HRM employee well-being agenda is unlikely in low-skilled workplace settings. In this way, the term ‘respectful recognition’ places emphasis on how the experience of meaningfulness relies on mutuality, recognition and respect from co-workers, customers and management (rarely offered in tandem) to support a sense of selfworth and instil pride and dignity into the day-to-day work process. Derived dignity In the last two decades, dignity has emerged as a central factor for the conceptualization of decent work (Bolton, 2007; Budd, 2004;ILO,2017; Noronha et al., 2020). Though much of the decent work debate has centred on achieving quantifiable measures, such as secure and non-discriminatory terms of employment, to aid in its realization, the emphasis on the capacity to create and defend dignity in low-skilled work from the bottom up has encouraged a growing body of work that highlights well-being and meaningfulness being closely associated with the experience of dignity (Breen, 2019; Dutton et al., 2012;Hodson, 2001; Karlsson, 2012;Lamont,2000;Yu,2016). A widely deployed concept is Bolton’s (2007)‘dimensions of dignity at work’ model that refers to the objective factors of security, just reward, equality, voice and wellbeing, and subjective factors of autonomy, meaning and respect. This approach allows a stronger focus on how subjective dimensions might defend or result in experiences of dignity, even though objective characteristics of work are tenuous. Hand in hand with the emphasis on meso-level recognition, the term ‘derived dignity’ is not a substitute for objective measures of decentwork, such as secure,safe and well-paid work. Rather, it offers insight into the power of core autonomy and respectful recognition to maintain selfworth in the face of crushing structural pressures that deny objective dimensions of dignity. Indeed, Hodson’s (2001) influential work illuminates the quest for dignity in lowskilled and low-status work, stating that workers derive or defend dignity at work and thereby ‘transform jobs with insufficient meaning into jobs that are more worthy of their personal stature, time and effort’ (p. 45). For example, Lamont (2000) and Simpson et al. (2019) illustrate how dignity is derived from low-skilled and stigmatized work through emphasizing how the physical and mental labour involved is experienced as a personal sacrifice to support families. Informed by this research, the term ‘derived dignity’ refers TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF MEANINGFUL WORK 389 to workers’ capacities for self-command, responsibility and care for oneself and others. Derived dignity is visible in autonomously organized spaces, activities and relationships that value and esteem people independently of their work effort, while providing a shield against disrespect and abuse (Sayer, 2011;Yeoman, 2014a). For example, research on ‘dirty work’, such as refuse and garbage collectors (Deery et al., 2019;Simpson et al., 2019), emphasizes that workers derive dignity by informally modifying or enhancing work tasks, reorganizing work processes within the work group and building informal communities of learning. At the heart of these practices is, on the one hand, workers’ desire to buffer the commodification of labour to experience dignity beyond price (Breen, 2019) and, on the other hand, to create spaces in which their inclination for responsibility and self-command shape the organization and nature of work (Hodson, 2001). Thus, in tandem with core autonomy and respectful recognition, derived dignity is encoded in relations and actions that establish, enhance and defend workers’ self-worth and respect, offering options to address injustice and experience meaningfulness through the power of webs of responsibility, mutuality and care (Korczynski, 2016). In low-skilled work, derived dignity emerges as a vulnerable but imminent condition of workers that is deeply relational. Following Sayer (2011), dignity is viewed as a subjective value, activity or experience that is intertwined with a person’s autonomy, quality of relationships, concerns, needs and if and how they are met. Derived dignity is thus dependent on the core autonomy of employees not being violated via attempts to control or even manipulate their ultimate concerns, needs and interests. Furthermore, even though the concept of derived dignity celebrates people’s subjective and relational characteristics of responsibility, self-command and sense-making, these characteristics and practices are in a dialectical relationship with the objective structures of work and employment. In this way, the informal practices, strategies and cultures workers develop at work to rescue and enhance self-worth are reflective of the objective social and economic structures of the workplaces and, therefore, a reaction to them (Karlsson, 2012). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: CORE AUTONOMY, RESPECTFUL RECOGNITION AND DERIVED DIGNITY In reviewing four fields of MW literature, this paper has highlighted and compared the dimensions and dynamics considered essential for MW. The review discusses the rich conceptualizations of organizational behaviour and management approaches to MW that rest on sophisticated management and leadership practices in combination with privileged employment conditions. Meanwhile, philosophically fuelled normative accounts provide frameworks on how waged work ought to be structured in order to become meaningful, whereas humanist accounts illustrate the many ways people’s powerful will for meaning shapes the experience of MW. Lastly, sociological accounts offer rich insights into ‘bad jobs’ and appear well equipped to investigate single dimensions of MW. The differences in approach reveal how important a clarification of the type and nature of work is for conceptualizing MW. Important insights are also drawn from the review in terms of similarities rather than differences in what are understood as the key pillars of MW. Despite conceptual disparity, autonomy, recognition and dignity continually emerge as important factors for the achievement of MW. However, theoretical differences mean that the typology introduced in this paper allows new pathways for understanding and researching MW in low-skilled work. The introduction of the typology is timely; as the global demand for service, retail and personal care workers continues to increase, the proportion of people working in low-skilled jobs also grows significantly (Foden, 2020). By illustrating how workers experience and defend meaningfulness in low-skilled work, the typology represents insight into the centrality and importance of work and how core autonomy, respectful recognition and derived dignity fuel people’s capacity to add meaningfulness to work that holds little status or material reward. This is an important contribution to the field of MW research and beyond, as it addresses some conceptual weaknesses in current MW research. Indeed, a strong theme in the field of management and organizational behaviour and political philosophy is the association of low-skilled work with alienated, and thus meaningless, work (Hackman & Oldham, 1975; Yeoman, 2014a). Therein, an MW framework that captures the nature, dynamics and politics of low-skilled work remains, thus far, under-developed. The typology that this paper introduces addresses this gap by acknowledging the particular politics, nature and experience of low-skilled work through the introduction of an agency-informed theoretical framework involving LPA, IRA and sociologically informed theories of agency. In this way, the paper offers two novel contributions. First, a new theoretical scaffold is built from established approaches to support the introduction of an MW typology. The paper showcases how the new theoretical framework is well equipped to capture the interplay between the nature of low-skilled work and workers’ individual and relational responses that are at the heart of MW. Second, by developing three dimensions of MWfor low-skilled work, the paper offers a pathway for future research to explore the complexity of low-skilled work and the power 390 LAASER and BOLTON of worker agency to establish and defend MW beyond the constraints of the formal work process. In this way, a balanced approach is offered that explores the objective conditions of low-skilled work and the subjective dimensions of MW (Yeoman et al., 2019), along with understandings of how MW is created ‘beyond managerial reach’ (Harding, 2019: 136). Indeed, the MW framework emphasizes that the practices and relations workers engage in to create MW are enabled, and respectively constrained, by the organization of work and wider economic, political and social structures in which organizations are embedded. This highlights how relationships and actions at work stand in a dialectical relationship with the way work is organized and managed (Ackroyd & Thompson, 1999; Korczynski & Wittel, 2020). Therein, how the three dimensions of core autonomy, derived dignity and respectful recognition in low-skilled work are created and sustained is subject to the concrete conditions and structures at work. The combination of the three dimensions adds to the fields of MW literature an acknowledgement of the importance of workers’ bottom-up practices that include oppositional practices, informal spaces and relationships vis-à-vis the formal organization. These practices are particularly strong when the formal organization of work significantly constrains agency, dignity and recognition, as is often the case in low-skilled work (Burawoy, 1979; Karlsson, 2012). It would be useful to explore the explanatory power of the MW framework for high-skilled work to reveal how core autonomy, respectful recognition and derived dignity play out in different labour processes and workplace settings. For some labour market participants, opportunities to experience autonomy, respect and dignity may be more plentiful and the space more supportive so that subjective and objective dimensions of MW can be achieved. That is, the structures and practices are in place that offer pathways to grow and develop and fully utilize core autonomy; one feels safe at work and is justly rewarded so that the objective elements of MW are achieved. In such an environment, it is more likely that a sense of pride in work and achievement of recognition for the contribution to the well-being of others (as individuals or as a society), and a sense of freedom to be flexible in how practices and processes may be enacted, are achieved (Sayer, 2009). The framework that we propose is not free from limitations. There are work environments that deny possibilities for both objective and subjective MW in the way that the basic needs of safety and security are not met, and autonomy, self-worth and dignity are squeezed dry by minutely controlled and mindless work processes. There are other situations where people engage in dirty work and their status is undermined so that through the eyes of others, work becomes demeaned and meaningless (Simpson et al., 2019). However, it is in recognizing these material conditions that we continue to hold the normative ideal of MW while understanding that it remains a political issue. In stating that people actively seek MW no matter how poor the objective conditions, we are relying on the notion of available spaces to do so. This is all the more salient in light of the rise of highly routinized low-skilled work and new forms of paid work, such as platform-mediated work, where spaces to experience core autonomy, respectful recognition and derived dignity are further constrained. Finally, we argue that the perception of MW (whether it is achieved or not) is ingrained in a vibrant mixture of employees’ ambivalent experiences at work, ranging from the safeguarding of dignity to the establishment of autonomy at work, to experiences of objectification. However, these experiences, though they are often incompatible, are not contradictory, but reflected upon, evaluated and interwoven by people within their wider needs, commitments and attachments. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. ORCID KnutLaaser https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3230-3423 REFERENCES Ackroyd, S. & Thompson, P. (1999). Organizational Misbehaviour. London: Sage. Allan, B.A., Batz-Barbarich, C., Sterling, H.M. & Tay, L. (2019). Outcomes of meaningful work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 56, pp. 500–528. Archer, M. (1995). Realist Social Theory: The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Archer, M. (2003). Structure, Agency and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Axelsson, J., Karlsson, J.C. & Skorstad, E.J. (2019). Collective Mobilization in Changing Conditions: Worker Collectivity in a Turbulent Age. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Bailey, C., Lips-Wiersma, M., Madden, A., Yeoman, R., Thompson, M. & Chalofsky, N. (2019a). The five paradoxes of meaningful work: Introduction to the special issue ‘Meaningful work: Prospects for the 21st century’. Journal of Management Studies,56, pp. 481–499. Bailey, C. & Madden, A. (2017). Time reclaimed: Temporality and the experience of meaningful work. Work, Employment, and Society, 31, pp. 3–18. Bailey, C., Madden, A., Alfes, K., Shantz, A. & Soane, E. (2017). The mismanaged soul: Existential labor and the erosion of meaningful work. Human Resource Management Review,27,pp.416–430. Bailey, C., Yeoman, R., Madden, A., Thompson, M. & Kerridge, G. (2019b). A review of the empirical literature on meaningful work: Progress and research agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 18, pp. 83–113. Beadle, R. (2019). Work, meaning, and virtue. In Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (eds). The Oxford TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF MEANINGFUL WORK 391 Handbook of Meaningful Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 73–87. Berg, J., Grant, A. & Johnson, V. (2010). When callings are calling: Crafting work and leisure in pursuit of unanswered occupational callings. Organization Science, 21, pp. 973–994. Berkelaar, B. & Buzzanell, P. (2015). Bait and switch or double-edged sword? The (sometimes) failed promises of calling. Human Relations,68,pp.157–178. Blauner, R. (1964). Alienation and Freedom: The Factory Worker and His Industry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bolton, S. (2007). Dignity in and at work: Why it matters. In Bolton, S. (ed.), Dimensions of Dignity at Work. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann, pp. 3–16. Bolton, S. & Laaser, K. (2013). Work, employment and society through the lens of moral economy. Work, employment and society,508–525. Bowie, N.E. (2019). Dignity and meaningful work. In Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 36–50. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press. Breen, K. (2019). Meaningful work and freedom: Self-realization, autonomy, and non-domination in work. In Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 51–72. Budd, J. (2004). Employment with a Human Face: Balancing Efficiency, Equity, and Voice. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Bunderson, S.J. & Thompson, J.A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly,54,pp.32–57. Burawoy, M. (1979). Manufacturing Consent. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Calhoun, C. (2004). An apology for moral shame. Journal of Political Philosophy,12,pp.127–146. Carton, A.M. (2018). “I’m not mopping the floors, I’m putting a man on the moon”: How NASA leaders enhanced the meaningfulness of work by changing the meaning of work. Administrative Science Quarterly,63,pp.323–369. Chalofsky, N. & Cavallaro, L. (2013). A good living versus a good life: Meaning, purpose, and HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources,15,pp.331–340. Ciulla, J.B. (2019). The moral conditions of work. In Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–45. Deery, S., Kolar, D. & Walsh, J. (2019). Can dirty work be satisfying? A mixed method study of workers doing dirty jobs. Work, Employment and Society, 33, pp. 631–647. DGB (2019). Arbeiten am Limit. Available at https://index-gutearbeit. dgb.de/++co++07123474-1042-11ea-bc98-52540088cada [accessed 19th September 2020]. Dutton, J., Debebe, G. & Wrzesniewski, A. (2012). Being valued and devalued at work: A social valuing perspective. Qualitative Organizational Research,3,pp.9–51. Eurofound (2016). Living and Working in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Felstead, A., Fuller, A., Jewson, N. & Unwin, L. (2009). Improving Working as Learning. New York: Routledge. Findlay, P. & Thompson, P. (2017). Contemporary work: Its meanings and demands. Journal of Industrial Relations,59,pp.122–138. Florian, M., Costas, J. & Kärreman, D. (2019). Struggling with meaningfulness when context shifts: Volunteer work in a German refugee shelter. Journal of Management Studies,56,pp.589– 616. Foden, D. (2020). Employment and work in Europe – improvement or just change? In Wilkinson, A. & Barry, M. (eds), The Future of Work and Employment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 83–101. Franco-Santos, M. & Otley, D. (2018). Reviewing and theorizing the unintended consequences of performance management systems. International Journal of Management Reviews,20,pp. 696–730. Gallie, D. (2019). Direct participation and meaningful work: The implications of task discretion and organizational participation. In Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 373–387. Gomberg, P. (2007). How to Make Opportunity Equal. Oxford: Blackwell. Gough, D., Thomas, J. & Oliver, S. (2012). Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Systematic Reviews,1,pp. 1–9. Guest, D.E. (2017). Human resource management and employee wellbeing: Towards a new analytic framework. Human Resource Management Journal,27,pp.22–38. Gunawardana, S. (2014). Reframing employee voice: A case study in Sri Lanka’s export processing zones. Work, Employment and Society,28,pp.452–468. Hackman, R. & Oldham, G. (1975). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Experience,16,pp.250–279. Harding, H. (2019). Identity and meaningful/meaningless work. In Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 133–147. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. & Snyderman, B. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley. Heyvaert, M., Hannes, K. & Onghena, P. (2016). Using Mixed Methods Research Synthesis for Literature Reviews. London: Sage. Hirschi, A. (2012). Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation model of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology,59, pp. 479–485. Hodson, R. (2001). Dignity at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Honneth, A. (1982). Work and instrumental action: On the normative basis of critical theory. Thesis Eleven,5–6,pp.162–184. Honneth, A. (2012). The I in We: Studies in the Theory of Recognition. Cambridge: Polity. ILO (2017). A Reflection on the Future of Work and Society. Geneva: International Labour Office. Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal,33, pp. 692–724. Kahn, W.A. & Fellows, S. (2013). Employee engagement and meaningful work. In Dik, B., Byrne, Z. & Steger, M. (eds), Purpose and Meaning in the Workplace. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 105–126. Kalleberg, A.L. (2011). Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the United States 1970s to 2000s. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. 392 LAASER and BOLTON Kalleberg, A. (2018). Precarious lives: Job insecurity and well-being in rich democracies. Polity Press: Cambridge. Kalleberg, A.L. & Marsden, P.V. (2019). Work values in the United States: Age, period, and generational differences. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,682,pp.43–59. Karlsson, J.C. (2012). Organizational Misbehaviour in the Workplace: Narratives of Dignity and Resistance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Karlsson, J.C. (2019). Refining Archer’s account of agency and organization. Journal of Critical Realism,19,pp.45–57. Korczynski, M. (2003). Communities of coping: Collective emotional labour in service work. Organization,10,pp.55–79. Korczynski, M. (2016). From workplace culture to collective resistance: An ethnography. Research in the Sociology of Work,28,pp. 3–30. Korczynski, M. & Wittel, A. (2020). The workplace commons: Towards understanding commoning within work relations. Sociology,54,pp.711–726. Lamont, M. (2000). The Dignity of Working Men. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Lepisto, D.A. & Pratt, M.G. (2017). Meaningful work as realization and justification: Toward a dual conceptualization. Organizational Psychology Review, 7, pp. 99–121. Lindsay, C. & McQuaid, R. (2004). Avoiding the ‘McJobs’: Unemployed job seekers and attitudes to service work. Work, Employment and Society, 18, pp. 297–319. Lips-Wiersma, M. & Morris, L. (2009). Discriminating between ‘meaningful work’ and the ‘management of meaning’. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, pp. 491–511. Lips-Wiersma, M., Wright, S. & Dik, B. (2016). Meaningful work: Differences among blue-, pinkand white-collar occupations. Career Development International, 21, pp. 534–551. Lysova, E.I., Allan, B.A., Dik, B.J., Duffy, R.D. & Steger, M.F. (2019). Fostering meaningful work in organizations: A multi-level review and integration. Journal of Vocational Behavior,110,pp.374–389. MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory.London: Duckworth. Madden, A. & Bailey, C. (2019). Self-transcendence and meaningful work. In Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work.Oxford:Oxford University Press, pp. 148–164. Madden, A., Bailey, C. & Kerr, R.C. (2015). ‘For this I was made’: Conflict and calling in the role of a woman priest. Work, Employment and Society, 29, pp. 866–874. Marx, K. (1964). Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.New York: International Publishers. Marx, K. (1974). The Process of Production of Capital. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Maslow, A.H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: Van Nostrand. May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. & Harter, L.M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, pp. 11–37. Mei, T. (2019). Work and the meaning of being. In Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 88–99. Noronha, E., Chakraborty, S. & D’Cruz, P. (2020). ‘Doing dignity work’: Indian security guards’ interface with precariousness. Journal of Business Ethics, 162, pp. 553–575. Oelberger, C.R. (2019). The dark side of deeply meaningful work: Work-relationship turmoil and the moderating role of occupational value homophily. Journal of Management Studies,56,pp. 558–588. Pavlish, C., Hunt, R.J., Sato, H.W. & Brown-Saltzman, K. (2019). Finding meaning in the work of caring. In Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 237–256. Pradhan, S. & Pradhan, R.K. (2016). Transformational leadership and job outcomes: The mediating role of meaningful work. Global Business Review,17,pp.173–185. Pratt, M.G. & Ashforth, B.E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. & Quinn, R.E. (eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, pp. 309–327. Roessler, B. (2012). Meaningful work: Arguments from autonomy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 20, pp. 71–93. Rosso, B.D., Dekas, K.H. & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, pp. 91–127. Roy, D. (1959). ‘Banana time’: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human Organization, 18, pp. 158–168. Sayer, A. (2005). The Moral Significance of Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sayer, A. (2009). Contributive justice and meaningful work. Res Publica,15,pp.1–16. Sayer, A. (2011). Why Things Matter to People: Social Science, Values and Ethical Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schnell, T., Höge, T. & Pollet, E. (2013). Predicting meaning in work: Theory, data, implications. The Journal of Positive Psychology,8, pp. 543–554. Schnell, T., Höge, T. & Weber, W.B. (2019). ‘Belonging’ and its relationship to the experience of meaningful work. In Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 165–185. Schwartz, A. (1982). Meaningful work. Ethics,92,pp.634–646. Sennett, R. (2006). The Culture of the New Capitalism.NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press. Sharabi, M. (2017). The meaning of work dimensions according to organizational status: Does gender matter? Employee Relations,39, pp. 643–659. Shuck, B. (2019). Does my engagement matter? In Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 288–301. Simpson, R., Slutskaya, N. & Hughes, J. (2019). Meanings and dirty work: A study of refuse collectors and street cleaners. In Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 223–236. Steger, M.F. (2019). Meaning in life and in work. In Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 208–220. Taylor, R. & Roth, S. (2019). Exploring meaningful work in the third sector. In Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work.NewYork: Oxford University Press, pp. 257–273. Thompson, M. (2019). Bringing political economy back in: A comparative institutionalist perspective on meaningful work. In Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (eds), The TOWARDS A TYPOLOGY OF MEANINGFUL WORK 393 Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 447–465. Thompson, P. (1990). The Nature of Work: An Introduction to Debates on the Labour Process. London: Macmillan. Thompson, P. & Newsome, K. (2016). The dynamics of dignity at work. In Keister, L.A. (ed.), A Gedenkschrift to Randy Hodson: Working with Dignity. Bingley: Emerald Group, pp. 31–56. Vallas, S. (2006). Empowerment redux: Structure, agency, and the remaking of managerial authority. American Journal of Sociology, 111, pp. 1677–1717. Veltman, A. (2016). Meaningful Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Voswinkel, S. (2012). ‘Recognition’ and ‘interest’: A multidimensional concept in the sociology of work. Sammendrag Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, 13, pp. 21–41. Warhurst, C., Carre, F., Findlay, P. & Tilly, C. (2012). Are Bad Jobs Inevitable? Trends, Determinants and Responses to Job Quality in the Twenty-First Century. London: Palgrave. Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Scribners. Wolf, S. (2010). Meaning in Life and Why It Matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J.E. & Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 25, pp. 93–135. Yeoman, R. (2014a). Meaningful Work and Workplace Democracy: A Philosophy of Work and a Politics of Meaningfulness.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Yeoman, R. (2014b). Conceptualising meaningful work as a fundamental human need. Journal of Business Ethics,125,pp. 235–251. Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (2019). Introduction and overview. In Yeoman, R., Bailey, C., Madden, A. & Thompson, M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Meaningful Work. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–22. Yu, K.-H. (2016). Immigrant workers’ responses to stigmatized work: Constructing dignity through moral reasoning. Journal of Industrial Relations, 58, pp. 571–588. How to cite this article: Laaser, K. & Bolton, S. (2022) Absolute autonomy, respectful recognition and derived dignity: Towards a typology of meaningful work. International Journal of Management Reviews, 24, 373–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12282