Gestión de Clientes

Whilst the classical work reviewed above continues to frame many of the scholarly        debates and empirical research on what gives work meaning, subsequent directions        have left the field somewhat fragmented, especially between the psychological and        sociological literature. The early sociologists focused on the contexts in which work        transpires, including questions of power relations, the construction of ascribed and        achieved social identities, and mutuality in social relations. The psychological        research on meaningful work has foregrounded the individual worker, focusing on        motivations, beliefs and personality preferences. For example scholars have        examined the relationship between meaning and the impact of transformational or        charismatic leadership (Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996; Schlechter and Engelbrecht        2006); the relationship between personality traits and job characteristics (Grant 2008;        Barrick et al 2013) the achievement of ‘flow states’ or optimal experiences when        performance skill and challenge intersect (Csikszentmihalyi 1990); and questions of        ‘happiness’, ‘wellbeing’ and ‘fulfilment’ at work (Ryff 1989; Ryan et al. 2001).  

One path through this fragmentation is to distinguish between meaning  in  work, or in                the nature of working tasks themselves; and meaning  at  work, or in the social                participation with working colleagues at the place of work. Whilst these have been        recognised as useful analytical distinctions for scholars (Pratt and Ashforth 2003), in        practice they were usually fused as a kind of gestalt experience for workers.        Standard employees, by definition, have little choice, not only over what they do, but        where and with whom they work. But Coworking offers a curious decoupling of        working tasks from working context and, potentially, a climate that can provide a        ‘cosmology of meaning’ for non­standard workers, conditions in which identity and        belonging can be explored so that individuals can find their place in the grand        ‘scheme of things’ (Pratt and Ashforth 2003). But we can advance further than this        single distinction between work tasks and workplace when conceptualising the core        components of the meaning of work.   

Rosso et al. (2010) provide an integrative framework that articulates many of the        dimensions of meaning associated with working experience discussed across the        psychological, sociological and organisational literatures. They do this by mapping        some of the core concepts within various disciplines to archetypal polarities of ‘Self,        Others, Agency and Communion’ . The authors construct this framework in two parts.        First, they order the literature into four sources of meaningful work, ‘the self’, ‘other        people’, ‘the work context’ and ‘spiritual life’. The literature organised under the        category of ‘the self’ includes research on the role of values; motivations; and beliefs.        The literature organised under ‘other people’ includes research on the role of        colleagues; leaders; groups and communities; and the family. The ‘work context’        category includes research on the design of job tasks; organisational mission;        financial circumstances; national culture; and non­work domains of life. The literature        under ‘spiritual life’ includes research on the role of spirituality; and sacred callings.    

Second, they examine underlying mechanisms  that drive perceptions of meaning                through work. If the above sources of meaningful work are largely tangible and        observable phenomena, the mechanisms are mostly invisible psychological and       

social processes that can span multiple sources. These are defined by Rosso et al.        (2010) as:      ● Authenticity,  or ‘a sense of coherence or alignment between one’s behaviour  and perceptions of the ‘true’ self’’ (p. 109);  ● Self­efficacy ,   or  ‘ individuals’ beliefs that they have the power and ability to  produce an intended effect or to make a difference’ (p.109);    ● Self­esteem,  or ‘an individual's assessment or evaluation of his or her own  self­worth’ (p. 110);  ● Purpose , or ‘a sense of directedness and intentionality in life’ (p. 110)   ● Belongingness,  or ‘a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum  quantity of lasting, positive and significant interpersonal relationships’ (p. 111);   ● Transcendence,  or   ‘to connecting or superseding the ego to an entity greater  than the self or beyond the material world’ (p. 112)    ● Cultural and interpersonal sensemaking, ‘ largely   concerns the production of  meaning  rather than meaningfulness’ (p. 112). Whilst the other mechanisms  focus more on fundamental human needs as intrapsychic processes, this  category includes research in the interactions and social constructionist  traditions that posit meaning is constructed through context bound social  interactions.    

Figure 17: Pathways to meaningful work 

These underlying mechanisms of meaningful work are then mapped onto four        conceptual polarities: ‘agency’ ,  or the drive to differentiate; ‘communion’ ,  or the    71              drive to connect; ‘the self’ ,  understood here as ‘self­concept’ or the complex                assemblage of facets and social roles rather than a single discrete ‘whole’; and        ‘others’, including other individuals, groups, collective, organisations and ‘higher        powers’. These culminate in four pathways towards meaningful work,  individuation ,       

contribution ,  self­connection and  unification.  An optimal experience of meaningful              work is imagined to be found at the intersection of these paths, where work enables        clear individuation and autonomy over a domain of skill; contribution to a larger        cause than self advancement; self­connection through alignment between various       

71 _{The definitions of agency and communion are drawn from the psychological and} 

philosophical traditions, exemplified for example by  Bakan (1966)  and should not be  confused with the use of the word ‘agency’ in economics and political theory, as used, for  example, in the ‘principal­agent problem’ to denote ownership.  

dimensions of the self in working roles; and unification through a sense of        identification and connection with working others.