Executive Summary in English

RELATIONSHIP TO WORK, MEANING, AND ENGAGEMENT: KEYS TO UNDERSTANDING AND TAKING ACTION

The issue of meaning at work is at the heart of concerns for all companies, which face phenomena such as “quiet quitting,” the “great resignation,” and challenges related to attracting, retaining, and engaging talent. Every day brings a new article or social media post highlighting a “loss of meaning at work.”

CIME has chosen not to produce yet another study on this widely covered topic, but rather to adopt an educational approach. This document is intended to provide leaders, managers, and HR professionals with a compiled, panoramic overview of the main ideas and entry points into this issue, so they in turn can share it with their teams. Indeed, one of the difficulties of this subject lies in building a shared understanding of what people actually mean when they speak of “bringing meaning to work.”

First, while all studies agree that meaning at work is deteriorating, none provide a single, consensual definition of the concept, nor do they reveal a uniform perception among respondents. The wide range of interpretations and the complexity of the notion of “meaning at work” underscore the need to avoid broad generalizations.

Meaning is an ongoing process for each individual—a search for balance between one’s aspirations, environment, needs, and the content of one’s work. Yet employees still expect direction, context, management, values, and coherence—elements that inspire engagement.

It is important to distinguish between the meaning of work—an objective dimension related to tasks or work activities (the nature of the tasks, the conditions under which they are carried out, or the skills required)—and meaning at work—a subjective dimension based on an individual’s personal judgment about their work experience and the importance they attribute to it.

Meaning at work is a precursor to engagement, that is, the physical, cognitive, and emotional investment a person puts into their job. But it is also the result of an ongoing process of “sensemaking”: reflecting on past events and projecting into the future to give meaning to collective experiences. Meaning-making is therefore a collective process, rooted in social interactions.

An analysis of practices in a dozen companies, based on interviews with executives, HR directors, and managers, revealed that companies tend to focus more on employee engagement through work rather than on the concept of meaning itself.

These interviews also showed that employees’ expectations vary widely from one individual to another, resulting in differing sensitivities to the initiatives offered by managers or organizational structures. Some commonly used engagement strategies are not universally effective and can even present contradictions or paradoxes, depending on the employee profile or circumstances.

In response to this “engagement crisis,” companies are deploying a variety of strategies, which we have grouped into eight “logics of action”, each illustrated by concrete practices. Some are well-established but reimagined (e.g., revisiting working conditions, improving recruitment methods, using employee surveys more systematically). Others are newer (e.g., building a sense of tribe, cultivating pride in belonging). Still others are essential, such as aligning organizational structures and transforming management practices.

What key takeaways emerge from these testimonies, observations, and analyses?

Two major factors explain disengagement at work:

1. The multiplicity and divergence of representations regarding work, organization, and performance.

2. Contradictions within organizational practices that clash with individual and collective needs, to the point of creating dissonance.

Moreover, individualization in the workplace, combined with digitalization and remote work, has weakened social bonds among employees—bonds they now seek to rebuild outside of work through more collective initiatives.

As traditional, single-minded workplace engagement fades, new forms of commitment are emerging beyond the organization—involvement in social and civic movements, associations, civil society, and volunteering within social, solidarity-based, and participative economies.

In light of these challenges, frontline managers have a critical role to play. They are developing, to the best of their ability, a wide array of tools and practices that can be described as “bottom-up initiatives,” complementing “top-down” strategies led by executives.

We are also witnessing growing efforts to rebalance power dynamics between employees and employers. In this context, Human Resources must support managers in finding new, more flexible, and more personalized responses to employee expectations.

Following this exploration of meaning at work, it is clear we are in the midst of a profound transformation. We are transitioning from a single, traditional model—defined by lifelong employment, shared workspaces and schedules, and a common understanding of job meaning based on stable markers (salary, job security, vertical career progression)—to a multiplicity of models. These new models emphasize activity diversity, hybrid work formats, and a range of perspectives on the meaning of work, reflecting increasingly fragmented needs and expectations, and a desire for better work-life balance.

This shift clearly calls for more personalized approaches to the employer-employee relationship, while still fostering a shared identity and collective purpose. However, this poses a significant challenge for frontline managers, who must navigate conflicting tensions and design practices that combine individualization with a sense of community.

In this regard, we must rethink how we support managers—going beyond standard training to provide real-time support and facilitation within their natural work teams, especially on these emerging topics.