The nuts and bolts of meaningful work: How to read the Map of Meaning

In Part 1 of our conversation with Dr. Marjolein Lips-Wiersma, creator of the Map of Meaning, we talked about how her fascinating doctoral research led to the discovery of this impactful framework. Now, in Part 2 of that conversation, she offers practical insight into how to read the Map, the difference between meaning and purpose, and how organizations can foster more meaning in the workplace.

Photo courtesy of Marjolein Lips-Wiersma. Photo collage by MeaningSphere.

What makes work meaningful? 

In 1999, Marjolein Lips-Wiersma submitted a doctoral thesis on the topic of spirituality and meaning-making in the workplace. As part of that thesis—which was grounded in research interviews with people from a wide range of professions and spiritual backgrounds—she developed a powerful, deceptively simple tool: the Map of Meaning. 

As its name suggests, the Map of Meaning illustrates how humans find meaning in their work and lives. Its design reflects an understanding of meaning not as a static goal, but as an ongoing balance between opposite fundamental needs. On the Map, there are four “pathways” through which we experience meaning in our day-to-day—Unity with Others, Service to Others, Expressing Full Potential, and Integrity with Self—which are kept in balance by three “tensions”—between Self and Others, Being and Doing, and Reality and Inspiration.

Lips-Wiersma, currently a full professor at Auckland University of Technology, where she did her doctoral work all those years ago, had only intended the Map as a research framework. But it quickly took on a life of its own, as she told us in Part 1 of our two-part interview: the Map soon caught on with people and institutions from many disciplines, who found applications for it in both the personal and professional spheres. Today, the Map is used by organizations around the world, as well as by individuals looking to deepen their self-understanding. You may also know it as the basis of the Meaningful Work Inventory (MWI), a self-assessment tool for determining what matters to you most at work.

In this second part of our conversation, she offers valuable insight into how to read the Map, the difference between meaning and purpose, and how organizations can foster more meaning in the workplace. 

MeaningSphere: Now that we’ve discussed the origin story of the Map of Meaning, can you describe it in the most practical terms? How the parts—the pathways and tensions—fit together?  

Marjolein Lips-Wiersma: Yes. So, the inner circle is Inspiration: what enchants you, what breathes life in, what gives you hope, or what purpose do you want to work towards. Some people even just put “sustainable development” in there, or “no more poverty,” or something like that. It can be anything from the very personal, like growing closer to God, or something that's quite broad. And I that is very helpful, because it means that you have language from the very personal to much more “community” type of language. This inner circle is more of a big-picture purpose. It gives direction, something you want to work towards, [while] the four dimensions, such as Unity or Integrity, are much more about your daily experience of meaning. 

The outer circle [which balances this Inspiration] is Reality. The reality is about, “What grounds this? What do you see in the here and now, what do you see happening?”  

The design of the Map of Meaning reflects an understanding of meaning not as a static goal, but as an ongoing balance between opposite fundamental needs. On the Map, there are four “pathways” through which we experience meaning in our day-to-day, which are kept in balance by three “tensions."

MS: Can you talk about the difference between this day-to-day meaning and the “big picture” purpose? 

MLW: I think the distinction between meaning and purpose is really, really important. Because a lot of people confuse meaning and purpose. They think that as soon as they're clear on their purpose, their life will sort of magically align and feel meaningful. 

But you know, there's the example of all the nurses who become real estate agents. They really thought their purpose was: “I want to contribute to people's health and well-being,” but their daily nursing life doesn't feel meaningful to them because there may be gossip and hence there is no unity, or they may not get opportunities to train and hence they feel stuck and do not develop their full potential.  On the other hand, you can have people working in an arms factory say that they might have great connections with others and learn something new every day. It might feel really meaningful. But if you look at the purpose, it's a bit doubtful, right? So that's why you have to really have both meaning and purpose, not one without the other. 

I think purpose without meaning, means that we become individually unwell, you know, and I think meaning without purpose—or a good purpose, beyond profit—means that we collectively become unwell. 

MS: For those who are unfamiliar, could you list off the pathways, and share a little bit about how they're interrelated? 

MLW: Yes. So, Unity with Others: The fastest, easiest way is to explain that is, “What is the quality of your relationships? Some of us experience high-quality relationships at work. And high-quality relationships are signified by things like having a sense of belonging. I just came back from six weeks of being overseas, and I walked into my workplace, and it felt like home. It felt like, I just belong there. And people were happy to see me. It can also be about feeling supported in a workplace, or about having the opportunity to not just talk about the tasks but share the values underneath that. Let’s say, courage is really important to me when we're making decisions about teaching in universities: “Let's do something courageous,” you know. “Let's do something a little on the edge.” But that I can share that value, and then someone else can say, “Well, actually, students are quite risk-averse. And they just want to get their degrees.” And that we can talk about that: meeting the needs of the students versus doing something a bit on the edge. Both of these values are important. 

And how do we then work around that, so that I don't have to silence my values just because somebody else has other values--or brings in another perspective on my values? Belonging, support, and being able to openly talk about your values (which is different from everybody always agreeing on these) create the dimension of Unity with Others. 

I think purpose without meaning, means that we become individually unwell, you know, and I think meaning without purpose—or a good purpose, beyond profit—means that we collectively become unwell.     

Integrity With Self is a really interesting one. Of course when you say, “is integrity important to living meaningfully?” Everyone says yes.  And then, you say, “Give me some examples of that.” People actually find that very hard. 

When I did my qualitative research,  I realized it was mainly spoken about when people didn't have it; when they were out of integrity. 

One of the most profound [things people said about] that was, “I don't like who I am becoming at work.” It’s the idea that [being out of integrity] at work, you become something that you're not: you become a harder person, for instance, or you become more of a perfectionist person, or you put on your mask if you walk into the workplace. Or you're realizing that with your family or in your community, you just breathe a lot more often than you do at work. And because it's negative, you know, “I don't like who I am becoming,” people immediately got it. 

The other part of it is being true to yourself, and that is different from liking who you are becoming. I think being true to yourself has more to do with your identity: being gay at work, being Dutch at work, being a perfectionist at work, if that is who you really, truly are. It has to do with being true to the self that is unique, and that can uniquely contribute from that place. 

And then the last part of Integrity with Self is: Are you developing or losing some of your value/virtues? Things like compassion, kindness, courage. Are you actually developing those at work? Or did you walk into work with those qualities, and are slowly losing them over time?  

Integrity is about your thinking, your feeling, your being. Whereas, Expressing Full Potential is much more about what you're actually doing, and therefore, in organizations, often more visible. But people often leave organizations because of the invisible stuff, you know. Because they don't have good relationships—the unity—or because they feel out of integrity. 

Expressing Potential is about ongoing learning and about actually trying things out and being creative. It is also about influencing. What that means is that when decisions are made that you also feel you can help influence those decisions. That when you speak, your voice is actually heard. 

Service to Others is more about that immediate contribution that you make. That feeling of, “Today, I helped.” For example, “Today I worked in a community garden that will help someone get better quality food.” 

And this goes back to the overall purpose, you know. The purpose is much more in terms of, “Can we change the food system to make it more healthy, more local, etc?” But you don't achieve that overnight. But the day-to-day stuff is making a difference. And that's the meaning. That's the daily meaning that you feel. 

MS It's important to make that distinction between your “North Star” and the daily question of, “Did someone today have a slightly better experience because I exist?” 

MLW: Exactly. It could just be because I listened to them. You know, it doesn't have to be because I put a potato in the ground. It can be, “I listened to somebody,” you know, all those micro-actions. But they need to connect to that larger purpose because otherwise we can go off the rails. 

MS: Can you share an example of how the four dimensions work together? 

MLW: If we take the community gardens example, of course you can make more of a difference if you do it with others, but also if you get much more input from others: What do they actually need? What should you be growing? Because you might decide that spinach is the best thing to grow because it has the most vitamins. But what if people in the community don't want to eat it? How do you then work with others to have the best outcome, while maintaining your own integrity, and expressing your full potential so that you still have your own voice and your own ideas and develop your skills? 

You can want to help in the community, but if you don't develop any gardening skills, it's likely that you’ll take out all the carrots or something, because you think they’re weeds. So they’re all connected. You can serve much better if you also develop the skills to do that, co-decide on the outcomes and develop virtues such as kindness or compassion. 

We just did some research with midwives who joined that profession in order to make a difference to the birth mother. But they weren't making enough of a difference—or a difference that everybody was happy with—if they didn't first create a good relationship with that mother. 

At the same time, there was the integrity [piece,] because doctors would come in with quite different ideas about birth and health, and then [the midwives] may feel they couldn't assist the mother in a way that was truly aligned with their values.

But then there was also the developing full potential, because it's one of those professions that keeps evolving, and we keep having new technology around it, etc. So, how do you do it in the best way? How do you keep evolving? 

And it was interesting that those midwives who spontaneously talked about those dimensions of meaningful work had a much better experience. Unfortunately, we couldn't interview the mothers, but [the midwives] themselves reported a much better work outcome when they could work in meaningful ways.  

What kind of leadership do you have? Does it get people to shrink and not express their full potential because there’s a finger [being pointed] the whole time, versus a tolerance towards mistakes? If you feel out of integrity with the decisions being made, can you actually mention that?

MS: Could you discuss the value that you see in the experience that MeaningSphere has built around the Map—the Meaningful Work Inventory report, for example, and Guided Discussion? 

MLW: Glad to. I see a lot of value. By using the Map as a whole, by really sticking with the [Inventory] items, and using well-trained people to back that up—people who know the map, but also how to work with people—I think those three things are really the value. 

By combining the Inventory with the Guides, it immediately takes the conversation to what people are really interested in, which is meaning. The Map holds [the conversation] together well, which means the Guides can be very effective in helping people to make decisions about it. Once you have done the Inventory and know what meaning is, you can see where you may have a lot of meaning and where it is lacking , you can start making some decisions.

MS: Can the Map be useful when work is going well? And not just when it's terrible? 

MLW Yes, yes, yes. Absolutely. If work is going well, then—for instance, with unity; you have really high-quality teamwork. And then if you wanted to change something—say, at that moment, we really want to get people to develop their talents more. Well, forget the teamwork. We all of sudden start looking at the individual development of people, you know? So, when we want to change something that is good, we still need to put incentives into place that help people to develop all dimensions of meaning and not one at the expense of the other. 

At the moment, there's a lot about “job crafting,” And so, yes, the teamwork was going really well. But then you do job crafting. But how do you craft your job in the context of a team? I might craft my job in a direction that you feel actually leaves you all by yourself, holding some can somewhere, because I crafted my way out of that responsibility.

So, even when things are going well, I think if you can't articulate and capture what is actually meaningful about it, then it's so easy to lose it, even with the best intentions. 

MS: For people who don't experience meaning at work or say things aren't going well, what do you think gets in the way? 

MLW: I think that that is where individual Guides are so helpful, because at an individual level it's so different, isn't it? For the young person, it might be that you feel you're not appreciated, and so therefore you feel insecure, and you can't really express your full potential. Whereas a person at the other side of their career—say, at 60—their bosses have assumed that they're already slowing down. And they're not getting to work to their full potential. They're not getting the most exciting new assignments anymore. And therefore all those years of experience, they can't use. So at an individual level, I think it's quite different depending on so many factors. 

In factories, they're trying to redesign the job so that you're not screwing the same screw in the same hole the whole day, you know? So that you actually help put together the whole car, or at least know where your role is in the whole car, so that you have much more of an experience of serving.  

So you always have the individual first, then you have work, your role. How do we design the role? And then, how do we align that with a bigger purpose? 

MS: I think what you’re describing, with the example of the screw and never seeing the completed car, is alienation; being alienated from your work as a result of the organizational design.

MLW: Absolutely. How do you know that your training, your expression of your ideas,  expressing full potential, your integrity—really helps to make a difference? How do you design, for instance, a succession plan so that a person can let go, so that others can step in, but still feel that they all can also make a difference, with their wisdom and all their experience? 

And then you have much larger organizational things: What remuneration system do you have, for instance? Does it get people to compete, or does it get them to work together? What kind of leadership do you have? Does it get people to shrink and not express their full potential because there’s a finger [being pointed] the whole time, versus a tolerance towards mistakes? If you feel out of integrity with the decisions being made, where you go, “Actually, I can't really live with this,” can you actually mention that? Or do you have to silence that, because you know that your career is going to be inhibited by that? 

So yes, organizations need to design around meaningful work, and remove blockages to meaningful work. But it all starts with the Map and making meaning visible and taking it out of the private sphere into a safe collective place. Without that, organizations that do want to create more meaningful work are actually in the dark and may even destroy meaning while attempting to enable it. 

---

Marjolein Lips-Wiersma is professor of ethics and sustainability leadership at Auckland University of Technology. Her research takes place at the nexus of meaningful work, sustainability, and hope. She has published in journals such as the Journal of Business Ethics, the Journal of Organizational Behavior, the Journal of Management Studies, Leadership Quarterly, Human Relations, Group & Organization Management, and the Journal of Management Inquiry, and has been a member of several editorial boards.  

Interview conducted by Anna Weltner.