The two sides of meaningful work

a conceptual model of organizational discrepancy, moral-identity conflict, and behavioral nudging

Abstract

The literature on Meaningful Work has largely conceptualized it as a fundamentally positive organizational resource associated with well-being, engagement, commitment, and work identification. That interpretation, although influential, is theoretically incomplete. It explains reasonably well why meaningful work strengthens the individual’s attachment to the role, but it explains much less effectively why deeply committed workers may also become sources of tension, criticism, or withdrawal when they perceive inconsistencies between their values and organizational practices. This article develops a conceptual model that reinterprets meaningful work as an ambivalent mechanism. We argue that meaningful work increases identity integration with the role and, consequently, expectations of coherence between the value attributed to work and the organization’s actual practices. When that expectation is violated, organizational discrepancy emerges and, if sustained over time, may erode the perceived value of work and activate a specific form of conflict: moral-identity conflict. We further propose that organizational nudging may modulate the perception and processing of discrepancy, attenuating or reframing conflict without necessarily addressing its structural causes. The article advances propositions for future research and contributes to integrating the literatures on meaningful work, organizational conflict, work identity, and behavioral economics within a single analytical framework.