Journal of Managerial Psychology

Job demands, job resources and meaning at work

Thomas Clausen Vilhelm Borg
Article information:
To cite this document:
Thomas Clausen Vilhelm Borg, (2011),"Job demands, job resources and meaning at work", Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26 Iss 8 pp. 665 - 681
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941111181761
Downloaded on: 14 May 2015, At: 05:42 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 57 other documents.
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2184 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Arnold B. Bakker, Evangelia Demerouti, (2007),"The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art",
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. 309-328 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115
Evangelia Demerouti, Arnold B. Bakker, Yitzhak Fried, (2012),"Work orientations in the job
demands-resources model", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 27 Iss 6 pp. 557-575 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683941211252428
Qiao Hu, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Toon W. Taris, (2013),"Does equity mediate the effects of job demands
and job resources on work outcomes?: An extension of the job demands-resources model", Career
Development International, Vol. 18 Iss 4 pp. 357-376 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-12-2012-0126

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 198285 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

Job demands,
Job demands, job resources and resources and
meaning at work meaning
Thomas Clausen and Vilhelm Borg
National Research Centre for the Working Environment (NRCWE), 665
Copenhagen, Denmark
Received January 2011
Revised March 2011
Abstract April 2011
Accepted April 2011
Purpose – This paper aims to identify longitudinal associations between job demands, job resources
and experience of meaning at work.
Design/methodolgy/approach – Using data from a longitudinal survey study among 6,299
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

employees in Danish eldercare who were divided into 301 work-groups, experience of meaning at work
was predicted from a series of job demands and job resources measured at individual level and group
level.
Findings – A combination of individual-level and group-level measures of job demands and job
resources contributed to predicting meaning at work. Meaning at work at follow-up was predicted by
meaning at work at baseline, role ambiguity, quality of leadership, and influence at work at individual
level and emotional demands at group level. Individual-level measures of job demands and job
resources proved stronger predictors of meaning at work than group-level measures.
Research limitations/implications – Psychosocial job demands and job resources predict
experience of meaning at work.
Practical implications – Experience of meaning at work constitutes an important organizational
resource by contributing to the capacities of employees to deal with work-related stresses and strains,
while maintaining their health and well-being.
Social implications – Experience of meaning at work is positively associated with well-being and
reduces risk for long-term sickness absence and turnover. Attention towards enhancing employee
experiences of meaning at work may contribute towards the ability of western societies to recruit the
necessary supply of labour over the coming decades.
Originality/value – This is the first study to provide longitudinal, multi-level evidence on the
association between job demands, job resources and experience of meaning at work.
Keywords Meaning at work, Psychosocial work environment, Job demands-resource model,
Longitudinal analysis, Multi-level analysis, Eldercare services, Denmark, Older workers, Work identity
Paper type Research paper

The ability of individuals to derive meaning from their experiences constitutes a

central element of individual well-being (Antonovsky, 1987; Chalofsky, 2003; Kanungo,
1979; Keyes, 2007), and such experiences can be characterised as meaningful insofar as
they are considered purposeful and significant in terms of individual identity
(Baumeister and Vohs, 2005; Chalofsky, 2003; Pratt and Ashforth, 2003). Experience of
meaning at work has been associated with well-being (Arnold et al., 2007),
organizational commitment (Milliman et al., 2003), reduced risk of long-term sickness
absence (Clausen et al., 2010), and reduced risk of turnover (Clausen and Borg, 2010a; Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 26 No. 8, 2011
Leiter et al., 1998; Milliman et al., 2003). Accordingly, experience of meaning at work is pp. 665-681
associated with a series of positive labour market outcomes at both individual and q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
societal level. DOI 10.1108/02683941111181761
 JMP Due to ageing work-forces many western countries are faced with the risk of
26,8 shortages of labour over the coming decades (Nordic Council of Minsters, 2008; Simoens
et al., 2005). It appears pertinent, therefore, to investigate how experience of meaning at
work can be enhanced in organizational settings, thereby improving the potential for
recruiting and retaining the necessary supply of labour in the years to come. However,
only few empirical studies have focussed on predictors of experience of meaning at work,
666 and the available evidence in the field has largely been based on cross-sectional studies
(e.g. Arnold et al., 2007; Leiter et al., 1998). In this study we add to this knowledge by
assessing the longitudinal association between psychosocial job demands and job
resources on the one side and experience of meaning at work on the other. The present
analysis will furthermore add to the literature by investigating the interplay between
individual perceptions of the psychosocial work environment and shared perceptions of
the psychosocial work environment at the level of workgroups in predicting experience
of meaning at work. The aim of this study is, therefore, to conduct a longitudinal
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

multi-level analysis of the association between job demands, job resources and
experience of meaning at work among staff in the Danish eldercare sector.

Experience of meaning at work

The concept of experience of meaning at work has been addressed in a variety of
studies. A dominant conception was put forward by the MOW-International Research
Team (1987) who articulated “meaning of work” as “the significance, beliefs,
definitions and the value which individuals attach to working as a major element of
human activity that transpire over much of their lives” (Harpaz and Fu, 2002).
According to the MOW-International Research Team, meaning of work is a concept
that can be divided into five dimensions:
(1) Work centrality as a life role.
(2) Societal norms regarding work entitlement and obligations.
(3) Valued work outcomes.
(4) Importance of work goals.
(5) Work role identification (Harpaz and Fu, 2002).

MOW-International Research Team, 1987). However, this understanding of the

‘meaning of work’-concept appears to be rather wide-ranging, as it simultaneously
focuses on work as a social institution (2) and more individually held work-related
values (1, 3, 4, 5).
A more specific understanding of the concept points towards the sense that
employees subjectively make of their work tasks as a central component in
experiencing meaning at work (Wrzesniewski, 2003). A central feature in experiences
of meaning at work is the experience of possibilities of expressing oneself through the
work activities (Chalofsky, 2003), and, accordingly, experiences of congruency between
personal values and work activities may contribute to affirming individual identity
and enhance individual identification with the concrete work tasks (Sagiv et al., 2004;
Wrzesniewski, 2003). Indeed, individuals experience meaning at work when the work
roles and work context are considered purposeful and significant (Pratt and Ashforth,
2003), thereby affirming central aspects of individual identity and satisfying basic
psychological needs, such as self-acceptance, autonomy, and purpose in life
 (Baumeister and Vohs, 2005; Deci and Ryan, 2000; Keyes, 2007; Van den Broeck et al., Job demands,
2008). Furthermore, experience of meaning at work can be described as an “. . . resources and
on-going, day-by-day, constantly unfolding phenomenon, not an end-state that is
once-and-for-all-resolved” (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003, p. 313), and experience of meaning
meaning at work must thus be construed as a psychological state that is continuously
reproduced in the individual’s daily work-related experiences. Experience meaning at
work must furthermore be expected to elicit high levels of intrinsic motivation (see Deci 667
and Ryan, 1985), thus reflecting the psychological attachment of individuals towards
their specific work tasks (see Hall and Chandler, 2005).
Accordingly the concept of experience of meaning at work points towards
experiences at work that add purpose and significance to the lives of individual
employees.

Predictors of experience of meaning at work

Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

As experience of meaning at work appears to be closely associated with the satisfaction

of basic psychological and social needs, situational factors in the psychosocial work
environment may be of import in predicting experience of meaning at work. According
to Keyes (2007) the satisfaction of basic psychological and social needs, like experiences
of purposefulness, autonomy, and a sense of social belongingness contributes towards
bringing individuals into a state of “complete mental health”, whereas individuals who
do not experience the satisfaction of such basic needs are at risk for developing mental
illness. It follows, that experiences of, e.g. purposefulness, autonomy, and a sense of
social belongingness at work may lead to experience of meaning at work to the extent
that the work-related satisfaction of such basic psychological and social needs entails an
affirmation of central aspects of individual identity (see Baumeister and Vohs, 2005).
This line of reasoning can be traced back to Marxian sociology, as Marx regards work as
an innately creative activity that may enable the individual to fulfil his or her creative
and productive potential (Ritzer, 1992). Accordingly, work activities “. . . should make
man dignified, integrated, complete and free, so that the resources and potentials that
reside in him . . . may develop, expand, and find fruitful expression” (cited in Ritzer, 1992,
p. 61). However, a work situation that does not contribute to – or even negates – the
satisfaction of basic psychological and social needs may lead to alienation, which – in
the words of Marx – is a situation in which the individual “does not affirm himself but
denies himself, does not feel content but feels unhappy, does not develop freely his
physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind” (cited in Ritzer,
1992, p. 59; see also Kanungo, 1979).
Accordingly, experience of meaning of work depends on the extent to which the
individual experience satisfaction of basic psychological and social needs at work. The
Job Demands-Resource model (JD-R) (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Demerouti et al.,
2001; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004) may contribute towards understanding the interplay
between factors in the psychosocial work environment and experience of meaning at
work. The JD-R model states that employee perceptions of job demands and job
resources have an impact on individual well-being. Job demands are those aspects of
the job that require sustained physical or psychological effort that may be associated
with certain physiological or psychological costs. Job resources are those aspects of the
job that are functional in achieving work goals, and stimulate personal growth,
learning and development (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).
 JMP This understanding of job demands and job resources can be interpreted in the
26,8 ‘basic needs’ perspective. According to the JD-R model, job resources stimulate
personal growth, learning and development. The presence of job resources in the
psychosocial work environment – as for instance quality of leadership, influence, and
a positive team climate – may therefore contribute towards the satisfaction of basic
psychological and social needs regarding experiences of autonomy, competence and
668 positive social relations at work. In contrast, the JD-R model describes job demands as
those aspects of the job that may be associated with physiological and/or psychological
costs. The presence of high job demands – as for instance work pace, emotional
demands and role conflicts – may therefore hinder the employee in doing their job
satisfactorily, which again may block for the work-related satisfaction of basic needs
regarding, e.g. autonomy, competence and positive social relations.
The JD-R model furthermore states that specific occupations are characterised by
specific configurations of job demands and job resources (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007).
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

Employees in eldercare are engaged in the provision of human services and according to
the JD-R model particular types of job demands and job resources should be present in
this sector. In the literature, the following types of job demands – emotional demands
(Nielsen et al., 2009; Tufte et al., 2008), role ambiguity (Borritz et al., 2005), and quantitative
demands (work pace) (Nielsen et al., 2009; Tufte et al., 2008) – and job resources – quality
of leadership (Munir and Nielsen, 2009; Nielsen et al., 2008), team climate (Tufte et al.,
2008; Xyrichis and Lowton, 2008), and influence (Nielsen et al., 2009) – have been found to
hold particular relevance for staff in the eldercare services. It will, therefore, be
investigated whether these types of job demands and job resources are prospectively
associated with experience of meaning at work. This leads us to propose two hypotheses:
H1. Job demands – work pace, emotional demands and role ambiguity – are
negatively associated with experience of meaning at work.
H2. Job resources – quality of leadership, influence and positive team climate –
are positively associated with experience of meaning at work.

Experience of meaning at work as a multi-level phenomenon

Empirical research within work and organizational psychology has primarily applied
an individualistic focus in seeking to understand organizational phenomena using
survey data. In understanding individual-level outcomes it may, however, be of interest
to draw upon explanatory factors at other organizational levels than the individual
level, as the experience of meaning at work of individual employees may be formed and
constrained by social and contextual factors in organizations and workgroups (Bliese
and Jex, 1999; Diez Roux, 2004; van Emmerik and Peeters, 2009).
Accordingly, we expect that experience of meaning at work is influenced by social
processes in the workplace. This may particularly hold for processes within
workgroups, as such processes involve exchanges of positive and/or negative
work-related feelings context (see van Emmerik and Peeters, 2009). Such exchanges
may occur in workgroups when group-members share their perceptions of
psychosocial job demands and job resources. For instance, employees complaining
about the load of the emotional demands or employees praising the quality of
leadership in the workgroup may transfer their feelings to their colleagues (see van
Emmerik and Peeters, 2009), which again may contribute towards forming and
 constraining perceptions of job demands and job resources of other group members. Job demands,
Wrzesniewski et al. (2003) also argue that experience of meaning at work is affected by resources and
the interpersonal episodes that employees have with each others at work. When
employees share and discuss their perceptions of job demands and job resources, they meaning
may also be influencing each others’ perception of the extent to which basic
psychological and social needs are satisfied through the work activities, which again
must be expected to have an impact on the experience of meaning at work of individual 669
employees. Therefore, individual experiences of meaning at work can be expected to be
influenced by both individual-level and group-level appraisals of job demands and job
resources.
On the basis of the JD-R model, we expect that experience of meaning at work is
predicted by individual appraisals of job demands and job resources in the
psychosocial work environment. It seems plausible, however, that these
individual-level appraisals are formed and constrained by interpersonal processes at
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

the group level, and we therefore expect that shared group-level appraisals of job
demands and job resources also predict individual-level experience of meaning at
work. We therefore propose the two following hypotheses.
H3. Experience of meaning at work is predicted by individual-level appraisals of
psychosocial job demands and job resources.
H4. Experience of meaning at work is predicted by group-level appraisals of
psychosocial job demands and job resources.

The present study

The aim of the study is to investigate whether experience of meaning at work at the
individual level can be longitudinally predicted by job demands and job resources
measured at both individual level and workgroup level. On the basis of the findings in
the literature, we investigate whether experience of meaning at work can be predicted
from three job demands (work pace, emotional demands, and role ambiguity), and three
job resources (influence, team climate, and quality of leadership).

Method
Procedure
This study is based on a prospective cohort study of all employees in the
eldercare-services in 35 Danish municipalities. The aim of the cohort study was to
investigate work environment, health, and well-being among employees in eldercare. We
conducted two rounds of questionnaire-interviewing, using self-administered
questionnaires. The first round of data collection took place in late 2004 and early
2005 and the second round was conducted in the autumn of 2006. In the first round, 9,949
of the 12,744 potential participants responded (78 percent). Of the respondents in the first
round, 7,864 were eligible for interviewing in the second round. Of these, 6,299 responded
which gives a response rate of 80 percent in the follow-up population. The follow-up
period between the baseline and follow-up study varied between 18 and 22 months.
Participation in the survey was voluntary, but we applied measures that
contributed towards obtaining a high response rate. At each workplace contact persons
handed out questionnaires and briefed employees about the aims of the study. The
municipalities were also promised feedback-reports with results for municipalities and
 JMP workgroups. In order to boost response rates, non-respondents were sent reminders
26,8 after two and four weeks.
Using information from the participating workplaces, respondents were subdivided
into 301 workgroups with 10 or more employees. The workgroups counted between ten
and 231 members and the average size of the workgroups was 32 employees. Three
workgroups counted more than 100 employees.
670
Measures
Outcome variable. Meaning at work was measured using a three item scale from the
Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) (Pejtersen et al., 2010). Sample
item: Do you feel that the work you do is important? Cronbach’s alpha at baseline: 0.70.
Cronbach’s alpha at follow-up: 0.70. The factorial validity of the scale was assessed in a
confirmatory factor analysis that included the three items that make up the scale
measuring experience of meaning at work and four items of a scale measuring affective
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

organizational commitment. The results showed that a two-factor solution, as opposed

to a one-factor solution comprising the seven items of the two scales, provided the best
fit to the data, thereby confirming the factorial validity of the two scales (One-factor
solution: x2 ¼ 2; 304ðdf ¼ 14), AGFI ¼ 0:86, RMSEA ¼ 0:14; Two-factor solution:
x2 ¼ 610 ðdf ¼ 12), AGFI ¼ 0:96, RMSEA ¼ 0:07) (Clausen and Borg, 2009). The
scale measuring experience of meaning at work is negatively associated with risk of
long-term sickness absence (Clausen et al., 2010), and turnover (Clausen and Borg,
2010a), which also supports the construct validity of the scale.
Predictors. Job demands: Emotional demands. Four-item scale from COPSOQ
(Pejtersen et al., 2010). Sample item: “Is your work emotionally demanding?”
Cronbach’s alpha: 0.81. Work pace: a single item from COPSOQ: “Is it necessary for you
to work very fast?” Role ambiguity was measured as the inversed three-item role
clarity scale from in COPSOQ. Sample item: “Do you know exactly how much say you
have at work?” Cronbach’s alpha: 0.75.
Job resources: Influence. Four-item scale from COPSOQ. Sample item: “Do you have
a large degree of influence concerning your work?” Cronbach’s alpha: 0.75. Quality of
leadership: four-item scale from COPSOQ. Sample item: “To what extent would you
say that your immediate superior gives high priority to job satisfaction?” Cronbach’s
alpha: 0.89. Team climate: five-item scale adapted from the seven-item
Participation-scale in the Team Performance Inventory (West et al., 2004). Sample
item: “We know that we can count on each other in the team/group.” Cronbach’s alpha:
0.92. Response was scored on five-point Likert-scales. The scales measuring job
demands and job resources were recoded into scales ranging from 0 to 100 with 100
representing the highest degree of the measured dimension.
The scales were measured at individual level using questionnaires. As stated above,
our respondents were classified into 301 workgroups and, hence, the individual-level
data were averaged at the workgroup level to measure workgroup levels of job demands
and job resources (see Bliese and Castro, 2000; Konradt et al., 2009; van Emmerik and
Peeters, 2009).

Statistical analyses
As we predicted experience of meaning at work from predictors measured at individual
level and workgroup level, data were analysed using multi-level analysis. Multi-level
 analysis was also relevant as respondents were clustered within work-groups, which Job demands,
meant that we could not assume statistical independence between our observations. resources and
Multi-level models are furthermore able to take random effects at the group-level into
account in the analyses – i.e. the effects of differences between workgroups that are not meaning
measured by the specific variables (Cohen and Keren, 2008; Diez Roux, 2004).
In order to assess whether the predictor variables could be characterised as
phenomena that were shared by employees in the workgroups, we calculated intra-class 671
correlations (rwg) for each of the six psychosocial predictors. High intra-class correlations
indicate a high level of agreement within groups and high variance between groups,
which indicates that the relevant construct is highly influenced by phenomena
manifesting themselves at the group-level (Twisk, 2006). We included variables with
intra-class correlations of 0.70 or more, which is the accepted level for good within-group
agreement (Konradt et al., 2009; van Emmerik and Peeters, 2009), in our analyses.
In the multi-level analyses we predicted experience of meaning at work at follow-up
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

using four explanatory models that were all adjusted for random effects at
workgroup-level. All predictors were simultaneously included in the statistical
analyses, and respondents with missing values on the individual scales were excluded
from the analyses. All analyses were adjusted for age, gender, living with
spouse/partner, children living at home (yes/no), tenure, and job function (care
work/other work). All variables were standardized. Data-analyses were conducted
using the proc mixed procedure in the SAS 9.1.3 package.

Results
The analyses were based on longitudinal survey-data from employees in the Danish
eldercare services. Of the respondents 96 percent were women, and the mean age was
45.4 years (SD ¼ 10:0). Care work was provided by 82 percent and 18 percent filled
other job functions. Mean tenure was 9.1 years (SD ¼ 7:2). An analysis of non-response
showed that non-respondents at follow-up were significantly younger, were more
likely to be men, and had significantly lower tenure than respondents at follow-up.
Finally, non-respondents at follow-up had a significantly lower average score on the
scale measuring experience of meaning at work than respondents.
Table I shows descriptive statistics, intra-class correlations and inter-correlations
among study variables. Table I shows that the scales measuring work pace, emotional
demands, influence, and quality of leadership exhibited intra-class correlations above
0.70. Accordingly, these scales were included in the analysis of group-level predictors
of experience of meaning at work.
Initial multi-level analysis of the scale measuring experience of meaning at work at
follow-up showed that 2.4 percent of the variance of the scale was located at the
workgroup level, whereas the remaining variance was located at the individual level
(results not shown). Table II shows the results of our analyses.
Model 1, 2 and 3 in Table II shows that experience of meaning at work is predicted
by psychosocial job demands and job resources. Table II shows that experience of
meaning at work is positively associated with job resources in all instances. Against
our expectations, emotional demands and work pace were positively associated with
meaning at work, whereas we observed negative associations between role ambiguity
and experience of meaning at work. Finally, in model 4, we found experience of
meaning at work at follow-up to be positively associated with emotional demands
 Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

26,8
JMP

672

Table I.

and intercorrelations
Descriptive statistics,

among study variables

intra-class correlations,
ICC M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Workgroup level
1. Work pace * 64.7 6.3 –
2. Emotional * 44.7 6.1 0.22 * * * –
demands
3. Influence * 45.9 6.9 20.42 * * * 2 0.32 * * * –
4. Quality of * 57.0 9.2 20.35 * * * 2 0.15 * * * 0.41 * * * –
leadership
Individual level
5. Work pace 0.70 64.7 6.3 0.31 * * * 0.07 * * * 2 0.13 * * * 2 0.11 * * * –
6. Emotional 0.71 44.7 6.1 0.07 * * * 0.32 * * * 2 0.10 * * * 2 0.05 * * * 0.23 * * * –
demands
7. Role ambiguity 0.50 26.1 15.0 0.03 * * 0.03 * * 2 0.03 * * * 2 0.08 * * * 0.04 * * 0.17 * * * –
8. Influence 0.74 45.9 20.8 20.14 * * * 2 0.10 * * * 0.33 * * * 0.13 * * * 2 0.19 * * * 2 0.10 * * * 2 0.21 * * * –
9. Quality of 0.84 57.1 21.9 2 0.15 * * * 2 0.06 * * * 0.17 * * * 0.41 * * * 2 0.18 * * * 2 0.16 * * * 2 0.32 * * * 0.33 * * * –
leadership
10. Team climate 0.61 70.0 18.4 2 0.08 * * * 2 0.02 0.12 * * * 0.13 * * * 2 0.13 * * * 2 0.13 * * * 2 0.34 * * * 0.26 * * * 0.35 * * * –
11. Meaning at 0.43 60.8 19.2 2 0.04 * * 2 0.01 0.06 * * * 0.09 * * * 2 0.02 2 0.05 * * * 2 0.51 * * * 0.27 * * * 0.30 * * * 0.32 * * * –
work at
baseline
12. Meaning at 0.33 60.0 18.9 2 0.02 0.02 0.06 * * * 0.09 * * * 0.01 2 0.00 20.36 * * * 0.19 * * * 0.22 * * * 0.23 * * * 0.53 * * * –
work at follow-
up
Notes: ICC: Intra-class correlation; M: Mean; SD: Standard deviation; All correlations are Pearson’s r correlations; *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001
 Job demands,
Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
b b b b b resources and
Workgroup level
meaning
Work pace 0.01 0.00 0.01
Emotional demands 0.06 * * 0.03 0.03 *
Influence 0.05 * * 20.00 0.00 673
Quality of leadership 0.08 * * * 0.02 0.02
Individual level
Work pace 0.04 * * 0.04 * * 0.02
Emotional demands 0.06 * * * 0.05 * * 0.02
Role ambiguity 20.30 * * * 20.30 * * * 2 0.10 * * *
Influence 0.10 * * * 0.10 * * * 0.04 *
Quality of leadership 0.09 * * * 0.08 * * * 0.04 * *
Team climate 0.08 * * * 0.08 * * * 0.02
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

Meaning at work at baseline 0.48 * * *

Residual variance 1.00 0.99 0.83 0.83 0.69
Explained variance (%) 1.2 17.0 17.1 30.9
Notes: All models are adjusted for Age, Gender, Living with spouse/partner, Children living at home Table II.
(Yes/No), Tenure, Job function (care work/other work; Results of standardized, prospective, Predictors of experience
multivariate multi-level regression analyses; *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001; explained variance of meaning at work at
is calculated as the reduction in the variance in the four models divided by the variance in model 0 follow-up

measured at workgroup level and with the individual-level measures of influence,

quality of leadership, and meaning at work measured at baseline. In model 4, we
furthermore found a negative association between role ambiguity and experience of
meaning at work.
Table II also shows that the fit of our models gradually improves as we move from
model 1 to model 4. In model 4 almost 31 percent of the variance is explained. Table II
furthermore shows that psychosocial job demands and job resources measured at
group level contribute very little towards predicting experience of meaning at work.

Discussion
The results showed that experience of meaning at work is predicted from a series of
psychosocial job demands and job resources among staff in the Danish eldercare
services. Furthermore, the results showed that experience of meaning at work is
predominantly predicted by individual-level appraisals of job demands and job
resources rather than group-level appraisals of job demands and job resources. This
study added to the literature on two counts, as it:
(1) provided longitudinal evidence on the association between psychosocial job
demands and job resources on the one hand and experience of meaning at work
on the other; and
(2) assessed the relative importance of group-level and individual-level perceptions
of job demands and job resources in predicting individual-level organizational
outcomes.
 JMP Job demands, job resources and experience of meaning at work
26,8 In our first two hypotheses, we expected that job resources would be positively
associated with experience of meaning at work, whereas job demands would be
negatively associated with experience of meaning at work. The results only offered
partial support for H1, as emotional demands at workgroup level were positively
associated with experience of meaning at work, whereas we observed a negative
674 association between individual-level role ambiguity and meaning at work (model 4). It
seems likely, therefore, that certain levels of emotional demands can be construed as
occupational challenges (see Podsakoff et al., 2007) that may provide employees with
the opportunity to develop new skills and abilities to deal successfully with
emotionally demanding situations (De Pater et al., 2009), thereby enhancing experience
of meaning at work. In a post hoc analysis, we divided the scale measuring emotional
demands at workgroup level into tertiles and entered it into model 4 in Table II. This
analysis showed that the lowest tertile on the scale measuring emotional demands had
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

a significantly lower experience of meaning at work than the middle and highest tertile
on the scale that did not differ significantly from each other (results not shown). The
post hoc analysis, therefore, supports the interpretation that emotional demands can be
considered occupational challenges, as medium and high levels of emotional demands
may ‘activate’ employees to a larger extent than low levels. Role ambiguity, on the
other hand, is negatively associated with experience of meaning at work. Accordingly,
role ambiguity appears to constitute a job demand that hinders the expression of
professional identities of employees (see Podsakoff et al., 2007). The findings of this
study thus run counter to the propositions of the JD-R model that exclusively
associates job demands with adverse health-related outcomes and job resources with
motivational outcomes (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). Instead, the findings of this study
indicate that job demands that are associated with the core of the work can positively
affect motivational outcomes.
Regarding job resources, the results followed the expectations of H2. The
associations between job resources and experience of meaning at work were positive in
all instances. This means that perceived increases in influence, team climate, and/or
quality of leadership predict increases in experience of meaning at work. Accordingly,
our results support H2, and these findings are also in accordance with the findings in
the literature (Arnold et al., 2007; Brown, 1996; Milliman et al., 2003) and the
propositions of the JD-R model (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).

The multi-level character of experience of meaning at work

H3 and H4 regarded whether experience of meaning at work is best understood
through individualistic explanatory models or explanatory models that take
phenomena at different organizational levels – such as individual-level and
workgroup-level appraisals of psychosocial job demands and job resources – into
account. Initially, we expected that these individual-level appraisals were formed and
constrained by interpersonal processes at the group level (van Emmerik and Peeters,
2009; Wrzesniewski et al., 2003).
The results showed, however, that experience of meaning at work to a very high
extent is predicted by individual-level phenomena. The group-level measures of job
demands and job resources only accounted for 1.2 percent of the variance in the outcome,
whereas the individual-level measures of job demands and job resources accounted for
 17 percent of the variance in the outcome. A study on the same study-population showed Job demands,
that group-level measures of job demands and job resources accounted for 7.4 percent of resources and
the variance in a measure of affective organizational commitment (Clausen and Borg,
2010b), and these findings imply that the work-related states of affective organizational meaning
commitment and experience of meaning at work differ in terms of their “sharedness”
among staff members in work organizations. This conclusion is furthermore supported
by the low intra-class correlations observed the applied measure of experience of 675
meaning at work – 0.43 at baseline and 0.33 at follow-up – which indicates that
experience of meaning at work only to a low extent is influenced by phenomena
manifesting themselves at the group-level (see Twisk, 2006). Accordingly, the findings of
this study seem to counter the assertion of Wrzesniewski et al. (2003), who argued that
experience of meaning at work was affected by the interpersonal episodes between
colleagues. Furthermore, although we observe high levels of workgroup agreement on
our measures of job demands and job resources – i.e. high intra-class correlations –
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

these high levels of workgroup agreement did not manifest themselves in relatively
uniform experiences of meaning at work in workgroups. So, although interpersonal
episodes between employees may contribute towards shaping perceptions of job
demands, job resources and, to a wider extent, the social climate at work, shared
employee-perceptions of these interpersonal episodes do not materialize themselves into
relatively uniform experiences of meaning at work among employees in workgroups.
Experience of meaning at work therefore largely appears to depend on individual
appraisals of and reflections regarding the work situation (see Schnell and Becker, 2006).
We were therefore able to affirm H3 but not H4.

Practical implications
The results of the study have important implications in terms of enhancing the
possibilities of employees to experience meaning at work. As stated previously,
experience of meaning at work was associated with a series of beneficial individual,
organizational and socio-economic outcomes. Organizational efforts aimed at
enhancing experience of meaning at work can thus have positive consequences for
organizations and societies beyond the immediate experiences of employees.
First, the results of our analyses corroborate the findings of previous studies that
show that psychosocial job demands and job resources are associated with positive
work-related states (Brown, 1996; Hakanen et al., 2008; Meyer et al., 2002; Ng and
Sorensen, 2008; Parzefall and Hakanen, 2010). The study furthermore shows that
experience of meaning at work can be promoted in modern work organizations – both
at the level of workgroups and at the level of individual employees – by boosting job
resources and managing job demands. Experience of meaning at work can thus be
promoted by enhancing employee-influence in decisions regarding work and by
improving the quality of leadership. Furthermore, experience of meaning at work can
be promoted by keeping occurrences of emotionally demanding situations and
experiences of role ambiguity at work at a level that is manageable for employees and
by enhancing the capacities of individual employees to deal with emotional demands
and experiences of role ambiguity.
The results also indicate that experience of meaning at work can be considered an
important work-life resource. According to Hobfoll’s (2001, 2002) Conservation of
Resources theory, resources contribute to the capacities of employees to deal with the
 JMP stresses and strains of their work-lives, while maintaining their health and well-being.
26,8 As demonstrated in this study, experience of meaning at work is predicted by
psychosocial job demands and job resources. Experience of meaning at work has
furthermore been found to be positively associated with a series of favourable
work-related outcomes (Arnold et al., 2007; Brown, 1996; Clausen and Borg, 2010a;
Clausen et al., 2010; Leiter et al., 1998; Milliman et al., 2003), which supports our view of
676 experience of meaning at work as a work-life resource, as it is predicted by
environmental factors on the one side while it simultaneously associates with
important individual and organizational outcomes on the other.
From an organizational perspective, the concept of experience of meaning at work
thus constitutes an interesting organizational resource, as it can be characterised as a
psychological state that can be developed and managed for the simultaneous benefit of
employees and work organizations (see Luthans, 2002). However, empirical evidence
from a representative sample of Danish employees suggests that the psychosocial
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

work environment has been deteriorating from 1997 to 2005 (Pejtersen and Kristensen,
2009). Pejtersen and Kristensen (2009) furthermore found a significant reduction in the
reported level of meaning at work and this reduction is likely to be associated with the
overall deterioration of the psychosocial work environment. Changing these adverse
developmental tendencies in organizational contexts, therefore, implies an important
organizational challenge.
Finally, the Western societies are faced with the prospects of shortages of labour
over the coming decades – an issue of labour supply is predominantly approached
from the vantage point of economics. However, experience of meaning at work has
been associated with well-being (Arnold et al., 2007), reduced risk of long-term sickness
absence (Clausen et al., 2010), and reduced risk of turnover (Clausen and Borg, 2010a;
Leiter et al., 1998; Milliman et al., 2003). Enhancing experiences of meaning at work
may therefore contribute towards improving the potential for recruiting and retaining
the necessary supply of labour over the coming decades while simultaneously
contributing towards increasing work-related well-being at the level of individual
employees. Accordingly, the results from this study indicate that insights from work
and organizational psychology may complement traditional perspectives on salient
socio-economic challenges thereby contributing to the social and economic
reproduction of contemporary societies.

Limitations
All data were based on self-report measures which may entail a risk of common methods
biases (Podsakoff et al., 2003). According to Podsakoff et al. (2003) one way of adjusting
for common methods biases is to temporally separate the measurement of dependent and
independent variables. As the present study is a longitudinal study, our design to some
extent eliminates the biases associated with common methods. Our usage of aggregated
variables further eliminates common methods biases in the relevant analyses, as the
aggregated variables remove the direct association between those who rate exposures
and outcomes. Also, effect sizes reported in Table II are rather small. However, in spite of
these relatively small effect sizes, model 3 and 4 respectively explain 17 and 31 percent of
the variance in the outcome variable. It can also be considered a weakness that the
results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the factorial validity of the scale measuring
meaning at work shows a sub-optimal fit to the data (RMSEA ¼ 0:07). According to the
 literature a “good” fit to the data requires an RMSEA of 0.05 or less (Schumacker and Job demands,
Lomax, 2010). However, the scale exhibits satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha values and the resources and
content and construct validity of the scale are also satisfactory. We therefore conclude
that the scale measuring experience of meaning at work constitutes a satisfactory meaning
although not optimal measure of the concept.
As stated in the methods section, individual-level data were averaged at the
work-group level in order to assess work-group-levels of job demands and job resources. 677
It can be considered a weakness that the group-level indicators are constructed on the
basis of survey-data on job demands and job resources, as it can be argued that the
group-level measures are difficult to differentiate from the individual-level measures.
However, this mode of constructing group-level indicators has been used in other studies
(e.g. Bliese and Castro, 2000; Konradt et al., 2009; van Emmerik and Peeters, 2009), and
our analyses did show that the individual- and group-level indicators of job demands and
job resources contributed differentially in the explanatory models. Table I furthermore
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

showed that correlations between individual-level and group-level measures of job

demands and job resources were only moderate in strength – between 0.31 and 0.41.
Moreover, we only used scales with appropriate intra-class correlations as indicators of
job demands and job resources at work-group level.
Respondents who took part in the follow-up study had a significantly higher
average score on the scale measuring experience of meaning at work than
non-respondents at follow-up. These differences imply that employees experiencing
low meaning at work are under-represented in the study, which leads to an
underestimation of the associations, as we loose variance in the lower end of the scale.
However, in a longitudinal study as the present it appears difficult to avoid such
selection effects, as experience of meaning at work has been shown to be negatively
associated with turnover (see Clausen and Borg, 2010a).
Finally, the present study was able to account for 31 percent of the variance in the
scale measuring experience of meaning at work. The majority of the variance therefore
remains unexplained. It could be expected, however, that personality factors could
have an impact on experience of meaning at work (see Schnell and Becker, 2006), and
that other work-related factors – as for instance physical work environment exposures
and interpersonal relations, such as social support, interpersonal conflicts and
exposure to bullying – could have an impact in experience of meaning at work.
Therefore, the present study must not be considered an exhaustive analysis of
predictors of experience of meaning at work.

Conclusions
This study investigated longitudinal associations between psychosocial job demands
and job resources on the one hand and experience of meaning at work on the other. We
identified psychosocial job demands and job resources at both group level and
individual level that were associated with experience of meaning at work at follow-up.
The analyses showed, however, that experience of meaning at work is a phenomenon
that is predominantly predicted by individual-level phenomena. The findings suggest
that organizational interventions aimed at boosting job resources and managing job
demands contribute towards enhancing employee-experiences of meaning at work. As
previous studies have shown that experience of meaning at work increases
employee-well-being and reduces the risk for long-term sickness absence and
 JMP turnover, increased attention towards enhancing employee-experiences of meaning at
26,8 work may contribute towards the ability of the western societies to recruit and retain
the necessary supply of labour in the years to come.

References
Antonovsky, A. (1987), “Health promoting factors at work: the sense of coherence”, in Kalimo, R.,
678 El-Batawi, M.A. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds), Psychosocial Factors at Work and Their Relation to
Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, pp. 153-67.
Arnold, K.A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K. and McKee, M.C. (2007), “Transformational
leadership and psychological well-being: the mediating role of meaningful work”, Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 193-203.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: state of the art”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-28.
Baumeister, R.F. and Vohs, K.D. (2005), “The pursuit of meaningfulness in life”, in Snyder, C.R.
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

and Lopez, S.J. (Eds), Handbook of Positive Psychology, Oxford University Press, New
York, NY, pp. 608-18.
Bliese, P.D. and Castro, C.A. (2000), “Role clarity, work overload and organizational support:
multilevel evidence of the importance of support”, Work and Stress, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 65-73.
Bliese, P.D. and Jex, S.M. (1999), “Incorporating multiple levels of analysis into occupational
stress research”, Work and Stress, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
Borritz, M., Bültmann, U., Rugulies, R., Christensen, K.B., Villadsen, E. and Kristensen, T.S.
(2005), “Psychosocial work characteristics as predictors for burnout: findings from 3-year
follow up of the PUMA study”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,
Vol. 47 No. 10, pp. 1015-25.
Brown, S.P. (1996), “A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 120 No. 2, pp. 235-55.
Chalofsky, N. (2003), “An emerging construct of meaningful work”, Human Resource
Development International, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 69-83.
Clausen, T. and Borg, V. (2009), “Organizational commitment and meaning at work”,
in Christensen, M. (Ed.), Validation and Test of Central Concepts in Positive Work and
Organizational Psychology. The Second Report from the Nordic Project Positive Factors at
Work, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, pp. 49-54.
Clausen, T. and Borg, V. (2010a), “Do positive work-related states mediate the association
between psychosocial work characteristics and turnover? A longitudinal analysis”,
International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 308-24.
Clausen, T. and Borg, V. (2010b), “Psychosocial work characteristics as predictors of affective
organisational commitment: a longitudinal multi-level analysis of occupational
well-being”, Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 182-203.
Clausen, T., Christensen, K.B. and Borg, V. (2010), “Positive work-related states and long-term
sickness absence: a study of register-based outcomes”, Scandinavian Journal of Public
Health, Vol. 38, Supplement 3, pp. 51-8.
Cohen, A. and Keren, D. (2008), “Individual values and social exchange variables: examining
their relationship to and mutual effect on in-role performance and organizational
citizenship behavior”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 425-52.
De Pater, I.E., Van Vianen, A.E.M., Humphrey, R.H., Sleeth, R.G., Hartman, N.S. and Fischer, A.H.
(2009), “Individual task choice and the division of challenging tasks between men and
women”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 563-89.
 Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Job demands,
Behaviour, Plenum, New York, NY.
resources and
Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000), “The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: human needs and the
self-determination of behavior”, Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 227-68. meaning
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The job demands-resources
model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 499-512.
Diez Roux, A.V. (2004), “The study of group-level factors in epidemiology: rethinking variables, 679
study designs, and analytic approaches”, Epidemiological Reviews, Vol. 26, pp. 104-11.
Hakanen, J.J., Perhoniemi, R. and Toppinen-Tanner, S. (2008), “Positive gain spirals at work: from
job resources to work engagement, personal initiative and work-unit innovativeness”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 78-91.
Hall, D.T. and Chandler, D.E. (2005), “Psychological success: when the career is a calling”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 155-76.
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

Harpaz, I. and Fu, X. (2002), “The structure of the meaning of work: a relative stability amidst
change”, Human Relations, Vol. 55, pp. 639-68.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2001), “The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:
advancing conservation of resources theory”, Applied Psychology: An International Review,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 337-70.
Hobfoll, S.E. (2002), “Social and psychological resources and adaptation”, Review of General
Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 307-24.
Kanungo, R.N. (1979), “The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 119-38.
Keyes, C.L.M. (2007), “Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: a complementary
strategy for improving national mental health”, American Psychologist, Vol. 62 No. 2,
pp. 95-108.
Konradt, U., Andressen, P. and Ellwart, T. (2009), “Self-leadership in organizational teams:
a multilevel analysis of moderators and mediators”, European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 322-46.
Leiter, M.P., Harvie, P. and Frizzel, C. (1998), “The correspondence of patient satisfaction and
nurse burnout”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 47 No. 10, pp. 1611-7.
Luthans, F. (2002), “Positive organizational behavior: developing and managing psychological
strengths”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 57-72.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), “Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 20-52.
Milliman, J., Czaplewski, A.J. and Ferguson, J. (2003), “Workplace spirituality and employee work
attitudes: an exploratory empirical assessment”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 426-47.
MOW-International Research Team (1987), The Meaning of Working, Academic Press, London.
Munir, F. and Nielsen, K. (2009), “Does self-efficacy mediate the relationship between
transformational leadership behaviours and healthcare workers’ sleep quality?
A longitudinal study”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 65 No. 9, pp. 1833-43.
Ng, T.W.H. and Sorensen, K.L. (2008), “Toward a further understanding of the relationships
between perceptions of support and work attitudes: a meta-analysis”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 243-68.
 JMP Nielsen, K., Albertsen, K., Brenner, S.O., Smith-Hansen, L. and Roepsdorff, C. (2009), “Comparing
working conditions and physical and psychological health complaints in four occupational
26,8 groups working in female-dominated workplaces”, International Archives of Occupational
and Environmental Health, Vol. 82, pp. 1229-39.
Nielsen, K., Yarker, J., Brenner, S.O., Randall, R. and Borg, V. (2008), “The importance of
transformational leadership style for the well-being of employees working with older
people”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 63 No. 5, pp. 465-75.
680
Nordic Council of Minsters (2008), Nordic Statistical Yearbook 2008, Nordic Council of Minsters,
Copenhagen.
Parzefall, M.R. and Hakanen, J. (2010), “Psychological contract and its motivational and
health-enhancing properties”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 4-21.
Pejtersen, J.H. and Kristensen, T.S. (2009), “The development of the psychosocial work
environment in Denmark from 1997 to 2005”, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment
and Health, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 284-93.
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

Pejtersen, J.H., Kristensen, T.S., Borg, V. and Bjørner, J.B. (2010), “The second version of
Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQII)”, Scandinavian Journal of Public
Health, Vol. 38, Supplement 3, pp. 8-24.
Podsakoff, N.P., LePine, J.A. and LePine, M.A. (2007), “Differential challenge stressor-hindrance
stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal
behavior: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 438-54.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Pratt, M.G. and Ashforth, B.E. (2003), “Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work”,
in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship.
Foundations of a New Discipline, Berett-Kohler Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA,
pp. 309-27.
Ritzer, G. (1992), Sociological Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill International Editions, New York, NY.
Sagiv, L., Roccas, S. and Hazan, O. (2004), “Value pathways to well-being: healthy values, valued
goal attainment, and environmental congruence”, in Linley, P.A. and Joseph, S. (Eds),
Positive Psychology in Practice, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 68-85.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 293-315.
Schnell, T. and Becker, P. (2006), “Personality and meaning in life”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 117-29.
Schumacker, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (2010), A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling,
3rd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Simoens, S., Villeneuve, M. and Hurst, J. (2005), Tackling Nurse Shortages in OECD Countries,
OECD Health Working Papers No. 19, OECD Publications Services, Paris.
Tufte, P., Clausen, T. and Borg, V. (2008), “Oplevelser af psykisk nedslidning blandt
seniormedarbejdere i den danske ældrepleje”, Tidsskrift for Arbejdsliv, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 78-92.
Twisk, J.W.R. (2006), Applied Multilevel Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Vanden Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H. and Lens, W. (2008), “Explaining the
relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: the role of basic
psychological need satisfaction”, Work and Stress, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 277-94.
 van Emmerik, I.J.H. and Peeters, M.C.W. (2009), “Crossover specificity of team-level work-family Job demands,
conflict to individual-level work-family conflict”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 254-68. resources and
West, M.A., Markiewicz, L. and Dawson, J.F. (2004), TPI – Team Performance Inventory: User meaning
Guide, Aston Organization Development Ltd, Birmingham.
Wrzesniewski, A. (2003), “Finding positive meaning in work”, in Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and
Quinn, R.E. (Eds), Positive Organizational Scholarship. Foundations of a New Discipline, 681
Berett-Kohler Publishers, San Francisco, CA, pp. 296-308.
Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J.E. and Debebe, G. (2003), “Interpersonal sensemaking and the
meaning of work”, Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical
Essays and Critical Reviews, Vol 25, Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford, pp. 93-135.
Xyrichis, A. and Lowton, K. (2008), “What fosters or prevents interprofessional teamworking in
primary and community care? A literature review”, International Journal of Nursing
Studies, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 140-53.
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

About the authors

Thomas Clausen is a Researcher at the National Research Centre for the Working Environment
(NRCWE) in Copenhagen, Denmark. Thomas received his PhD at the Department of Psychology,
at the University of Copenhagen in 2010. Thomas’s main research area is work and
organizational psychology with a particular emphasis on antecedents and consequences of
positive work-related states. Thomas has written and published on affective organizational
commitment, experience of meaning at work, long-term sickness absence, and turnover. Thomas
Clausen is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: tcl@nrcwe.dk
Vilhelm Borg is a Psychologist and a Senior Researcher at the National Research Centre for
the Working Environment (NRCWE) in Copenhagen, Denmark. Vilhelm’s main research area is
work and organizational psychology with particular emphasis on positive psychology and issues
related to mental health in the workplace. As a pioneer within the field of work and
organizational psychology in Denmark, Vilhelm has published extensively over the past three
decades on various topics within the field of work and organizational psychology.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Thomas Clausen, Hermann Burr, Vilhelm Borg. 2014. Do psychosocial job demands and job resources
predict long-term sickness absence? An analysis of register-based outcomes using pooled data on 39,408
individuals in four occupational groups. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health
87, 909-917. [CrossRef]
2. Thomas Clausen, Hermann Burr, Vilhelm Borg. 2014. Does affective organizational commitment and
experience of meaning at work predict risk of disability pensioning? An analysis of register-based outcomes
using pooled data on 40,554 observations in four occupational groups. American Journal of Industrial
Medicine 57:10.1002/ajim.v57.6, 709-717. [CrossRef]
3. Lars G. Tummers, Babette A.C. Bronkhorst. 2014. The impact of leader-member exchange (LMX) on
work-family interference and work-family facilitation. Personnel Review 43:4, 573-591. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
4. Kaisa Perko, Ulla Kinnunen, Taru Feldt. 2014. Transformational leadership and depressive symptoms
Downloaded by New York University At 05:42 14 May 2015 (PT)

among employees: mediating factors. Leadership & Organization Development Journal 35:4, 286-304.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Thomas Clausen, Hermann Burr, Vilhelm Borg. 2014. Does Affective Organizational Commitment
and Experience of Meaning at Work Predict Long-Term Sickness Absence? An Analysis of Register-
Based Outcomes Using Pooled Data on 61,302 Observations in Four Occupational Groups. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine 56, 129-135. [CrossRef]
6. Marta Bassi, Gertraud Bacher, Luca Negri, Antonella Delle Fave. 2013. The Contribution of Job
Happiness and Job Meaning to the Well-Being of Workers from Thriving and Failing Companies. Applied
Research in Quality of Life 8, 427-448. [CrossRef]
7. Lars G. Tummers, Eva Knies. 2013. Leadership and Meaningful Work in the Public Sector. Public
Administration Review 73:10.1111/puar.2013.73.issue-6, 859-868. [CrossRef]
8. Tatjana Schnell, Thomas Höge, Edith Pollet. 2013. Predicting meaning in work: Theory, data,
implications. The Journal of Positive Psychology 8, 543-554. [CrossRef]
9. Lourdes Susaeta, José Ramón Pin, Sandra Idrovo, Alvaro Espejo, Maria Belizón, Angela Gallifa,
Marisa Aguirre, Eugenio Avila Pedrozo. 2013. Generation or culture?. Cross Cultural Management: An
International Journal 20:3, 321-360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]