8/17/2019 Corrigendum to on the Meaning of Work_a Theoretical
Integration and Review_rosso_dekas_wrzesniewski_2010
http:///reader/full/corrigendum-to-on-the-meaning-of-worka-theoretical-integration-and-reviewrossodekaswrzesnie…
1/1
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to ‘‘On the meaning of work: A
theoretical integrationand review’’ [Res. Organ.
Behav. 30 (2010) 91–127]
Brent D. Rosso a, Kathryn H. Dekas b, Amy
Wrzesniewskic,*aUniversity of
Michigan, 701 Tappan Street,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109,
United States
bGoogle Inc., 1600
Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain
View, CA 94043, United Statesc
Yale University, 135 Prospect
Street, New Haven, CT
06511, United States
Available
online
27
October
2011
The
authors
regret
that
the
following
footnote
was
omitted
from
Fig.
1,
p.
114
of
their
published
article.
The theoretical framework that we
present to organize the extant
literature on the meaning of
work draws from
Bakan (1966), who proposed a tension
between self and other, on
the one hand, and agency
and communion on the
other. Similar frameworks have been
derived from action research on
existential meaning. Lips-Wiersma and
Morris
(2009) introduce a multidimensional,
dual-axis model of meaningful
work and life, where existential
meaning lies in
equilibrium among self-other and
being-doing. In their theorizing,
Pratt and Ashforth (2003) also
propose a 2 2
model of meaningfulness in work,
highlighting the importance of
belongingness, authenticity, and transcendence
in
fostering meaningful work. These
frameworks share important and encouraging
similarities with the
framework we
derived from our review, and
were pioneering steps in bringing
various sources of the meaning
of work together into
a
more unified
view.
Our
model
shares
a
focus
on
the
tension
between
self
and
other
described
in
one dimension
of
Lips-Wiersma’s (2002; Lips-Wiersma&
Morris, 2009) multidimensional model.
The tension we describe in
the dimension
of our
model
that
is
anchored
by
agency
and
communion
also
draws
from
Bakan
(1966)
and
contrasts
seeking
communion with
the
self
and
other
entities
with
differentiating
or
individuating
the
self
from
said
entities.
Alternatively, the second dimension of
Lips-Wiersma’s (2002; Lips-Wiersma &
Morris, 2009) multidimensional
model emphasizes the tension between
‘‘being,’’ or pursuing personal growth,
authenticity, and belongingness and
‘‘doing,’’ or
pursuing
individual
creation
and
impact
on
others.
The
four
quadrants
that
result
in
our model,
emphasizing unification,
individuation,
contribution,
and
self-connection
share
some
elements
in
common
with
the
empirical results of Lips-Wiersma’s
(2002; Lips-Wiersma & Morris, 2009)
multidimensional model regarding
the focus of activity and thought
in work.
Available online at
www.sciencedirect.com
Research in Organizational Behavior
31 (2011) 277
DOI
of
original
article:
10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1
203 432 5979.
E-mail address: [email protected]
(A. Wrzesniewski).
0191-3085/$ – see front matter
# 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All
rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01913085http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.001http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01913085
