Validation of the Polish version of the modular meaning in work inventory (ME-Work)

Since the onset of the Fourth Industrial Revolution ^[1], both scholars and practitioners have been confronted with the challenge of managing human resources in a manner that ensures economic efficiency while simultaneously addressing the fundamental human need for meaningful work. As machines and algorithms increasingly assume responsibility for routine organizational tasks, there has been a growing emphasis on identifying and cultivating dimensions of work that resist automation – particularly those imbued with subjective meaning and personal value. In this context, the significance of meaning in work (ME-Work) remains undiminished. Meaningful work constitutes a critical dimension of human well-being, strongly associated with a range of positive outcomes that are beneficial not only to individual employees but also to the organizations that employ them (Allan, Batz-Barbarich, Sterling, & Tay, 2019; Lozovetska, Pavlov, & Fedorenko, 2024). Consequently, the systematic assessment and ongoing monitoring of employees' experience of meaning in their professional roles emerges as an essential component of contemporary human resource management practices. While the relevance of meaningful work is widely acknowledged by both scholars and practitioners, debates persist regarding its precise conceptualization (van der Deijl, 2024). The adoption of a clear definitional framework is indispensable not only for the accurate diagnosis of ME-Work – whether at the individual or organizational level – but also for the development of targeted interventions aimed at enhancing employees' perceived ME-Work. Among the most commonly referenced approaches is the conceptualization of meaningful work as a personal and subjective experience, typically operationalized through the Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI) (Steger, Dik, & Duffy, 2012). The instrument has been translated and psychometrically validated for use in the Polish context (Puchalska-Kamińska, Czerw, & Roczniewska, 2019), though the Polish version revealed a two-factor structure, in contrast to the original three-factor solution proposed by the authors. While WAMI remains a useful diagnostic tool, its primary limitation lies in its narrow, individual-centric focus, which excludes contextual and organizational dimensions of meaning. A more integrative perspective is offered by the ME-Work inventory developed by Tatjana Schnell (Schnell & Hoffmann, 2020), which conceptualizes meaningful work through a multidimensional framework, encompassing both personal and organizational factors. However, this instrument has not yet undergone adaptation or validation in the Polish cultural and organizational context. The present study, therefore, aims to examine the psychometric properties of the Polish version of the ME-Work questionnaire. Specifically, the study will assess the theoretical validity, internal consistency and external validity of each of the instrument's subscales.

The question of meaning is addressed across multiple academic disciplines, each offering distinct conceptual frameworks and interpretative lenses. From philosophical and theological perspectives, the central inquiry often takes the form: Does life have a universal, objective meaning? This line of questioning presumes the existence of a singular, overarching source of meaning external to the individual. In contrast, disciplines such as psychology, as well as management and quality sciences, focus primarily on the subjective dimension of meaning – that is, how individuals experience and interpret meaning in their own lives (Debats, Drost, & Hansen, 1995). Within this framework, the central question shifts to: Which aspects of my life are meaningful, and which are not? Such reflection involves, often implicitly, a cognitive evaluation of one's life experiences through the lens of meaningfulness or its absence. The recognition that life holds personal value tends to activate motivational and goal-directed behavior, whereas the perception of meaninglessness may lead to psychological withdrawal and a reduction in purposeful action. One of the most salient life domains in which meaning is sought and experienced is the domain of work. The concept of ME-Work – sometimes referred to as meaningful work – has been extensively studied in recent decades (Steger & Dik, 2009). This construct is generally understood to encompass two interrelated dimensions: first, the extent to which an individual perceives their work activity as intrinsically valuable and personally significant, and second, the sense of connectedness the individual experiences with the broader context in which the work is embedded (Baumeister & Vohs, 2002). The former dimension encompasses elements such as alignment between one's work and personal interests or the perceived contribution of the work to the greater social good. The latter relates to the social structures, interactions and community within the organizational environment. Many contemporary definitions of meaningful work reflect this dual structure. For example, Pratt and Ashforth (2003) define meaningful work as work and its context that are experienced by the individual as purposeful and significant. Similarly, Lips-Wiersma and Morris (2009) describe it as an internal psychological state characterized by self-realization, the fulfillment of potential, the formation of authentic relationships with others and a sense of becoming one's true self through professional activity. Experiencing ME-Work – and identifying with one's professional role – has been identified as a vital psychological resource (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003) or as an internal state that means a sense of self-fulfillment at work – expressing one's full potential and creating a community with others and becoming oneself (Lips-Wiersma & Morris, 2009). Seeing meaning in one's professional activity and identifying with one's own work are important individual resources (Pietzonka, 2024). The belief that one's work is meaningful has demonstrable effects on a range of key organizational outcomes, including job satisfaction, work engagement and affective commitment to the organization (Allan et al., 2019; Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010; Steger et al., 2012). Conversely, low levels of perceived meaningfulness are associated with increased withdrawal intentions, reduced work engagement and diminished psychological well-being (Fairlie, 2011). Beyond these correlational associations, the perception of work as meaningful appears to exert long-term benefits. It is linked to intrinsic motivation, self-actualization and sustained commitment over time (Martela & Pessi, 2018; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Importantly, ME-Work is regarded as more stable and resilient than other work-related attitudes, such as job satisfaction, which is often more directly shaped by external factors like salary, benefits or working conditions. In empirical research, for instance, perceiving one's work as meaningful was found to moderate the impact of occupational stress, with employees reporting personal growth and benefit even after difficult work-related events (Britt, Adler, & Bartone, 2001). Cumulative scientific evidence suggests that individuals who perceive their work as meaningful are more likely to approach their professional responsibilities with conscientiousness, responsibility and a greater sense of purpose. It is also worth emphasizing that, although the positive role of meaningful work has been repeatedly confirmed in prior research, the ongoing transformations in the nature of work – driven by technological change, the rise of remote work arrangements and generational shifts in employee attitudes (Ugar, 2023; Gopal, Sengupta, & Abraham, 2025) – underscore the continued need for systematic inquiry into this construct. In this context, advancing research on meaningful work, including the development and refinement of robust measurement tools, remains both timely and essential.

In the context of diverse conceptualizations of ME-Work, particular attention should be given to the multidimensional framework proposed by Schnell, Höge, and Pollet (2013), according to which meaning is determined by the assessment of one's own work as coherent, significant, purposeful and belonging (Schnell et al., 2013). Within this perspective, the experience of meaning is derived from the individual's appraisal of their work in terms of four interrelated dimensions: coherence, significance, purpose and belonging. These components – referred to as facets of ME-Work – not only parallel the established dimensions of meaning in life (Schnell & Hoffmann, 2020), but also correspond closely to the four principal pathways to meaningful work outlined in the influential theoretical model developed by Rosso et al. (2010). Coherence pertains to the perceived alignment between an individual and their occupational role, encompassing such factors as interests, personality traits and long-term life goals. This congruence fosters both self-actualization and harmonious integration of work with other domains of life. Significance reflects the subjective conviction that one's professional activities contribute to a broader societal good, thereby imbuing daily tasks with moral or civic relevance. Purpose involves the individual's perception of their employer or organization as ethically grounded and socially responsible, which reinforces a sense of alignment between personal and organizational values. The fourth dimension – belonging – refers to the sense of being part of a team or professional community, reflecting the interpersonal and relational aspects of workplace experience (Schnell, Hoge, & Weber, 2019).

According to this multidimensional conceptualization, it may be posited that the perception of ME-Work is shaped not only by relatively stable individual characteristics, such as personality traits, but also by dynamic organizational factors. These include, among others, the prevailing organizational culture, the quality of relationships with colleagues, the degree of supervisory support and the design and structure of the job itself. Empirical evidence suggests that individuals report higher levels of perceived ME-Work when they draw upon multiple sources of meaning simultaneously, rather than relying exclusively on a single domain (Bailey, Yeoman, Madden, Thompson, & Kerridge, 2018). These four foundational facets – coherence, significance, purpose and belonging – comprise the first module of the ME-Work questionnaire developed by (Schnell & Hoffmann, 2020). Notably, this component focuses on workplace conditions that may be shaped or influenced by the organization, and in studies involving self-employed individuals, typically only the first two dimensions (coherence and significance) are assessed due to their direct relevance to individual agency. The second module of the ME-Work instrument is devoted to the measurement of psychological states associated with work meaning, operationalized through two distinct scales: meaningful work and meaningless work. The separate evaluation of positive and negative meaning-related experiences is theoretically grounded in extensive research indicating that positive and negative affective states do not necessarily lie at opposite ends of a unidimensional continuum (Diener & Emmons, 1984; Schnell, 2016). Thus, both constructs are treated as independent and non-reciprocal dimensions of subjective work experience. Finally, the third module assesses the extent to which work functions as a broader source of meaning in life. This scale captures the integrative role that professional activity may play in shaping an individual's overall sense of purpose and existential orientation.

The four facets of meaning identified in Module 1 of the ME-Work questionnaire, as proposed by Schnell and Hoffmann (2020), represent indicators of a single latent construct that sequentially predicts three key psychological outcomes: the experience of meaningful work, the perception of meaningless work and the extent to which work serves as a source of existential meaning (Modules 2 and 3, respectively). The ME-Work instrument is grounded in a dual theoretical foundation. First, it draws upon a robust body of literature concerning the multidimensional experience of meaning in life (Tommasi, Sartori, Ceschi, & Schnell, 2021), which supports the application of similar conceptual structures in the domain of professional activity. Second, the questionnaire integrates elements previously theorized within established and widely accepted frameworks for understanding meaningful work, particularly those articulated by Rosso et al. (2010) and other scholars in the field. Thus far, the ME-Work questionnaire has undergone validation in German-speaking, Italian and Japanese populations, with results demonstrating sound construct validity and internal consistency (Tommasi et al., 2021; Shimai, Urata, Yamamoto, & Schnell, 2022). One of the notable strengths of the instrument lies in its modular architecture, which enables flexible application across diverse occupational groups and organizational environments. In the Polish context, the ME-Work questionnaire holds promise not only as a research instrument but also as a diagnostic tool for organizational development initiatives. A comprehensive assessment of perceived ME-Work may enhance understanding of employee motivations and psychological needs, thereby informing the design of more effective and human-centered management strategies.

Participation in the study was entirely voluntary. All data were collected anonymously and treated as strictly confidential, ensuring that individual respondents could not be identified. Prior to the commencement of data collection, the research procedure was thoroughly outlined, and the study received a positive opinion from the Research Ethics Committee of the Scientific Federation of WSB-DSW no 1/2025.

Prior to initiating work on the Polish adaptation of the ME-Work questionnaire, contact was established with the original author, Tatiana Schnell, who granted permission to undertake the adaptation of the instrument for use in the Polish context. The translation process adhered to the standard “translation–back-translation” procedure. The initial translation from German into Polish was conducted independently by four individuals fluent in German – two psychologists and two specialists in German philology. Subsequently, a back-translation into German was performed to ensure conceptual and linguistic equivalence with the original version. To further refine the Polish version, the wording of individual items was reviewed and finalized based on the expert opinions of two independent psychologists who had not been involved in the initial translation phase. This multi-stage procedure was designed to ensure both semantic and cultural accuracy of the adapted instrument.

The data collection was conducted using a composite measurement tool comprising several standardized questionnaires. The primary instrument employed was the ME-Work questionnaire, whose Polish version was obtained through a standardized translation–back-translation procedure from the original German version (Schnell & Hoffmann, 2020). The instrument is modular and consists of three sections: Module 1 assesses four foundational facets of ME-Work – coherence (three items), significance (three items), purpose (three items) and belonging (three items). Module 2 includes two scales measuring psychological states: meaningful work (three items) and meaningless work (MeWN) (three items). Module 3 contains a single scale assessing the extent to which work is perceived as a source of meaning (four items). The complete wording of all items, as used in the Polish version of the questionnaire in the present study, is provided in Appendix 1, while the original German version was published in the appendix of an article by Schnell and Hoffmann (2020). An important feature of the ME-Work questionnaire is its modular structure, which allows the use of individual modules independently or in combination, depending on the research purpose and the characteristics of the studied population. For example, in studies involving self-employed individuals or professionals without formal organizational affiliation, only selected modules (e.g. coherence and significance) may be relevant.

In addition to assessing the internal structure and theoretical validity of the ME-Work instrument, the study also examined its external validity – specifically its convergent and discriminant validity. For this purpose, additional constructs were selected based on prior empirical evidence linking ME-Work to various antecedents and outcomes in the domain of employee attitudes and organizational behavior. Two antecedent constructs were included: perceived person–organization fit and cognitive orientation toward work. The construct of fit was measured using a Polish adaptation of the instrument developed by Czarnota-Bojarska (2010), which was based on the model of Muchinsky and Monahan (1987). This tool captures subjective fit and differentiates between two dimensions: supplementary fit (18 items; e.g. “My character is consistent with the expectations of the organization”) and complementary fit (16 items; e.g. “The company meets my expectations regarding working conditions and the workplace”). Responses were collected using a six-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). The second antecedent variable was cognitive orientation toward work, assessed using the “Job Crafting: Cognitive Crafting” subscale of the Job Crafting questionnaire (Kasprzak, Michalak, & Minda, 2017), in the Polish adaptation tool by Slemp and Vella-Brodrick (2013). This subscale includes five items, and participants respond on a six-point frequency scale, ranging from 1 (almost never) to 6 (very often).

To examine the consequences of perceived meaningfulness in work, several key employee attitude measures were included. These were selected based on prior research suggesting strong associations between meaningful work and job satisfaction, work engagement, affective commitment and turnover intentions. Work engagement was assessed using the nine-item version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) developed by Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova (2006). The scale includes three subscales – vigor, dedication and absorption – with three items each. Responses were provided on a seven-point scale from 0 (never) to 6 (always).

Affective organizational commitment was measured using a Polish adaptation of the scale by Meyer and Allen (1991) developed by Wnuk (2017). This subscale includes six items, rated on a six-point Likert scale. Job satisfaction was assessed using the General Job Satisfaction Scale developed by Zalewska (2003). The tool, inspired by the Satisfaction With Life Scale by Diener, Emmons, Larsem, and Griffin (1985) includes five items, answered on a seven-point Likert scale. Turnover intentions were measured with three items adapted from Kelloway, Gottlieb, and Barham (1999): “I am thinking about leaving this company,” “I plan to look for a new job” and “I intend to ask people about new employment opportunities.”

All data were collected via an online survey platform, ensuring anonymity and confidentiality in line with the approved research ethics protocol.

To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Polish version of the ME-Work questionnaire, a correlational study was conducted. The sample comprised 677 employees, including 367 women (54.2%), 305 men (45.1%) and 5 individuals (0.7%) identifying with a different gender. Participants represented diverse educational backgrounds: primary, lower secondary or vocational education (n = 9); general or technical secondary education (n = 111); vocational secondary education (n = 142) and higher education (n = 400). Additionally, 15 participants reported other levels of education. The sample collection process was non-random, and data were gathered through an online platform. The researchers distributed an invitation to participate in the study both via social media and through direct email outreach using their professional contacts. Participation in the study was voluntary and not associated with any form of compensation. The completion time for the questionnaire was approximately 10–15 minutes.

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics ver. 29, AMOS ver.22 and R software (for calculating McDonald's omega). Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. Both coefficients above 0.70 indicate acceptable reliability, above 0.80 good reliability and above 0.90 excellent reliability.

Validity was examined through three approaches. For convergent validity we tested using Pearson correlations whether ME-Work scales related to theoretically similar constructs (person–organization fit, engagement, satisfaction and commitment) and showed negative correlations with turnover intentions. For discriminant validity, we compared correlations between ME-Work and theoretically close versus distant constructs. ME-Work should correlate more strongly with close constructs than with distant ones (cognitive crafting (CC) and turnover intentions). We calculated discriminant validity ratios (mean correlation with close constructs ÷ correlation with distant construct) and tested significance using z-tests. For predictive validity, we used stepwise regression and identified which variables best predicted each ME-Work component (forward entry: p < 0.05; removal: p > 0.10).

Furthermore, stepwise regression analysis was employed to identify significant predictors for individual components of the ME-Work questionnaire. Structural equation modeling (SEM) tested the theoretical structure of ME-Work. We used maximum likelihood estimation and evaluated models using multiple fit indices: comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) (>0.90 acceptable, >0.95 excellent), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (<0.08 acceptable, <0.06 excellent) and standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) (<0.08 good). We tested the original seven-factor model and then refined it based on modification indices and theoretical considerations. Model comparisons used chi-square difference tests. Bootstrap resampling (2,000 iterations) provided robust confidence intervals for the final model parameters.

Mean scores for the individual ME-Work subscales ranged from 2.40 (meaningless work) to 3.57 (belonging), on a scale from 0 to 5. The score distributions for most subscales approximated a normal distribution, exhibiting slight negative skewness for the positively framed scales (e.g. meaningful work and coherence) and positive skewness for the meaningless work scale.

All scales demonstrated good or very good reliability, as shown in Table 1.

The total McDonald's omega values ranged from 0.787 (absorption) to 0.956 (complementary fit). In all instances, t the omega coefficients slightly exceeded Cronbach's alpha values, which aligns with theoretical expectations. These results indicate that all scales within the ME-Work questionnaire, as well as the validation scales demonstrate good to very good reliability.

In order to assess convergent and discriminant validity, an analysis of correlations between the scales of the ME-Work questionnaire and validation variables was conducted. The results are presented in Table 2.

The results demonstrate strong correlations between the ME-Work components and theoretically related constructs, such as fit, engagement, satisfaction and affective commitment, as well as weaker correlations with theoretically more distant constructs, including CC and intentions to leave. Notably, the strongest correlations were observed between the work as a source of meaning (MeWL) scale and satisfaction (r = 0.79), engagement (r = 0.76) and complementary fit (r = 0.75). The MeWN scale exhibited significant negative correlations with positive constructs (e.g. r = −0.74 with satisfaction) and a positive correlation with intentions to leave (r = 0.64).

To assess discriminant validity, a comparative analysis was conducted examining the differences in average correlations between each ME-Work component and theoretically proximal versus distal constructs. The discriminant validity was examined separately for intention to quit (IQ) and CC. The results are summarized in Table 3.

The analysis shows differences in discriminant validity patterns depending on the distant construct examined. When comparing ME-Work components with CC, all components had discriminant validity with values from 1.895 (MeWS) to 8.114 (MeWN), and all relationships were statistically significant (p < 0.05). On the other side, when examining discriminant validity against turnover intentions (IQ), the pattern looks different. Discriminant validity ratios are above 1.0 for all components (ranging from 1.009 for MeWN to 1.375 for MeWB); all components had statistically insignificant differences.

To identify the most robust predictors for each ME-Work component, separate stepwise regression analyses were performed. The results are presented in Table 4.

The results of the regression analysis confirm that theoretically proximal constructs, particularly job satisfaction and work engagement, are the strongest predictors of ME-Work components, while more distal constructs, such as job crafting and intention to leave, contribute a smaller but still statistically significant portion of the explained variance.

For a structural evaluation of the ME-Work inventory, an SEM was used to test the degree to which the four facets of meaning relate to the three scales of work as source of meaning, meaningful work and meaningless work, namely, the overall theoretical model. The initial model tested the complete seven-factor hierarchical structure as proposed in the original ME-Work framework and validated in the Italian adaptation (Tommasi et al., 2021). This baseline model included 23 items constituting 7 first-order factors: coherence (F_MEWC), significance (F_MEWS), purpose (F_MEWP), belongingness (F_MEWB), work as source of meaning (F_MEWL), meaningful work (F_MEWMean) and meaningless work (F_MEWN). The seven first-order factors load to the second-order factor – facets.

The baseline model has poor fit across multiple indices (CFI = 0.923, TLI = 0.912, RMSEA = 0.076 and SRMR = 0.124). Analysis of modification indices shows some theoretically justified error covariances that could improve model fit. So we added covariances between items within the same factors where conceptually appropriate. The addition of these covariances (Model 1a) resulted in modest improvements (CFI = 0.930 and TLI = 0.917), but the fit remained suboptimal.

Item MeW3R (“At my workplace, profit comes before people”) consistently demonstrated the lowest factor loading (λ = 0.547) and explained variance (R² = 0.299) across all model iterations (see Table 5). Additionally, this item showed high modification indices suggesting cross-loadings with other factors, indicating poor discriminant validity. Cultural analysis suggested that this item's content may be interpreted differently in Polish organizational contexts compared to the original context. The removal of MeW3R (Model 2) resulted in substantial improvement across all fit indices: CFI increased from 0.930 to 0.950, TLI improved from 0.917 to 0.942 and RMSEA decreased from 0.076 to 0.065. Most notably, SRMR improved dramatically from 0.117 to 0.056, indicating an excellent residual fit.

Despite the improvements in Model 2, the belongingness factor (F_MEWB) continued to show problematic characteristics. This factor demonstrated the weakest relationship with the second-order factor (λ = 0.489), explaining only 23.9% of its variance. Additionally, implementations of additional coviariances resulted often in negative error variances for this factor, indicating potential identification problems. The removal of the belongingness factor (Model 3) resulted in significant improvement in model fit. The chi-square difference test was highly significant (Δχ² = 204.993, Δdf = 56, p < 0.001), indicating that the simpler six-factor model provided significantly a better fit than the seven-factor model. Moreover, all incremental fit indices improved: CFI increased to 0.959, TLI to 0.949 and normed fit index to 0.946. This Model (3) is the final model with six-factors. It demonstrated several advantages over previous iterations. All fit indices reached excellent levels, with CFI and TLI exceeding the most rigorous 0.95 criterion. The comparison of the properties of successive versions of the model is presented in Table 6. The retained factors represented stable and core components of ME-Work. The model eliminated identification problems, maintaining excellent theoretical interpretability – the final structure reflects the specific characteristics of Polish organizational contexts while maintaining the theoretical essence of the ME-Work framework.

The improvement in the psychometric properties of the model after excluding the belongingness scale is statistically significant; however, Model 2, which includes this scale, also had acceptable parameters. Therefore, considering the structure of the studied sample, which is predominantly composed of individuals with higher education, a deeper reflection on the validity of modifying the model is necessary – this issue is discussed in more detail in the discussion section.

The Polish adaptation of the Me-Work inventory questionnaire (Schnell & Hoffmann, 2020) demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties. All scales exhibited high reliability and strong external validity. The assessment of external validity was conducted through the analysis of relationships between the model components and external constructs. Initially, the associations between the facets of meaning and work-related psychological outcomes were examined. Specifically, coherence demonstrated a significant positive correlation with supplementary fit (r = 0.63), which is consistent with the theoretical assumptions proposed by Schnell and Hoffmann (2020) and aligns with the expected direction of the relationship. Although the correlation indicates a strong association between these constructs, it does not imply complete equivalence. A key distinction appears to lie in the component related to life plans, which is an integral aspect of the coherence construct but is not explicitly addressed in Czarnota-Bojarska's (2010) conceptualization of supplementary fit.

Coherence is a more complex construct than merely aligning interests and personality traits, as it also encompasses compatibility with an individual's broader life plans. The results of the present study indicate that among all the analyzed facets of meaning, coherence exhibits the strongest correlations with both job satisfaction (r = 0.727) and work engagement (r = 0.59). These findings are corroborated by previous research demonstrating that person–job fit, the compatibility between an individual's characteristics and the demands and attributes of a given job, serves as a significant predictor of both job satisfaction and engagement (Lu, Wang, Lu, Du, & Bakker, 2014; Keane, Kwon, & Kim, 2024; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). From a theoretical standpoint, these results underscore the critical role of coherence as a central component of ME-Work, encompassing not only cognitive but also motivational and emotional dimensions. Furthermore, they support the validated model's premise that a sense of congruence between what a person does, who they are and where they are heading constitutes a vital factor in professional well-being. The second strongest correlate of both job satisfaction (r = 0.62) and work engagement (r = 0.56) was significance. The perception that one's work positively impacts others or society fosters positive emotions, which in turn enhance motivation and energy to act. This finding is consistent with prior research, starting with the Hackman and Oldham model (1976) and continuing through more recent studies (i.e. Allan, 2017; Grant, 2008; Martela & Pessi, 2018), which demonstrated that work meaning, understood as the belief in its beneficial impact on others, is significantly associated with higher levels of engagement, motivation and overall employee well-being. The third source of meaning identified was purpose. The results showed the strongest correlation between purpose (specifically, the employer's commitment to social responsibility) and complementary fit (r = 0.70). Although these constructs theoretically belong to different domains, this association may reflect that organizational social responsibility extends beyond external activities. It is important to note that social responsibility, according to one of its earliest definitions, refers to “voluntary actions of an organization that go beyond legal requirements to protect and support the interests of the community, environment and employees through ethical management of resources and engagement in social initiatives” (Carroll, 1991). Employers guided by pro-social values often implement practices that benefit their employees, which employees may perceive as a form of complementary fit. The last facet of meaning included in the model, belonging, showed the weakest relationships with the other examined constructs. The strongest correlation was observed between belonging and supplementary fit (r = 0.58), which aligns with theoretical frameworks that conceptualize belonging as a sense of community with the work team and an integral component of supplementary fit (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005). At the same time, the relatively weak associations between belonging and intention to leave (r = −0.31) and between belonging and emotional commitment to the organization (r = 0.36) suggest that identification with the immediate team does not directly translate into a durable bond with the organization as a whole. According to Meyer and Allen (1991), emotional commitment to the organization primarily develops through deep identification with its goals, values and culture rather than solely through interpersonal relationships within the team. Thus, belonging to a group of coworkers may strengthen local social ties but does not necessarily lead to internalization of organizational values, which constitute the psychological foundation of affective commitment.

In addition to the facets of meaning at work, the questionnaire includes three psychological states. Analysis of the relationships between employees' attitudes and psychological states related to the ME-Work indicates that satisfaction is the key attitude most strongly correlated with all three constructs: “meaningful work,” “meaningless work” and “work as a source of meaning.” This relationship was also confirmed in previous research conducted with a sample of teachers (Li, Jiao, Liu, & Yin, 2021) and tends to be stronger when measurements are based on a multidimensional understanding of ME-Work (Allan et al., 2019), such as that employed by the ME-Work questionnaire. When interpreting the relationship between meaningful work and satisfaction, it is important to note that the present study measured general satisfaction, which is not directly linked to the cognitive evaluation of specific working conditions. It should therefore be emphasized that satisfaction, as understood here, shows significant associations with personality traits including conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism and core self-evaluations (Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000, 2002; Törnroos, Jokela, & Hakulinen, 2019), which in turn are related to the experience of ME-Work. For example, previous studies have demonstrated connections between personality traits and engaging in work with positive passion or selecting occupations perceived as highly meaningful (Breu & Yasseri, 2023; Frieder, Wang, & Oh, 2018). Therefore, although the conducted research did not include individual traits among the external correlates, it is worth considering such steps in subsequent studies on the Me-Work inventory.

In addition to job satisfaction, all three psychological states measured by the Me-Work questionnaire demonstrate moderately strong and significant relationships with other assessed attitudes, namely engagement, emotional commitment and intention to leave. However, regression analyses indicate that emotional work commitment is of minimal importance in explaining any of the meaning-related states, as it does not appear as a significant predictor in any of the regression models. This finding may suggest only an apparent convergence of constructs. An interesting observation is that intention to leave significantly predicts both “the meaningless work” and the dimension of “work as a source of meaning” but does not significantly predict the meaningful work itself. This supports the conclusion that meaningful work and meaningless work, although related, are not opposite ends of a single continuum but rather distinct constructs, as proposed by Schnell and Hoffmann (2020).

The analysis of the relationships between the Me-Work inventory scales and external validity measures revealed unexpectedly low correlations with CC. This finding was particularly surprising in relation to the “work as a source of meaning” scale, as a strong convergence between these constructs had been anticipated based on previous literature (Berg, Dutton, & Wrzesniewski, 2008; Rosso et al., 2010). However, thinking about work – one of the three dimensions of job crafting in the theory of Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) – showed the weakest correlations with coherence, significance, purpose and belonging of all the studied constructs. One possible explanation is that CC functions as a compensatory mechanism, activated when employees experience a lack of strong coherence or meaning, rather than as a consequence of these experiences. Additionally, the relatively low correlations may reflect the inherently individual and introspective nature of CC, which is less dependent on social relationships (e.g. belonging) or organizational norms (e.g. purpose).

The Polish adaptation of the Me-Work inventory model introduces several modifications compared to the original model. The most notable change relates to the reconsideration of including the belonging scale in the measurement of meaning facets. This adjustment may be attributed to the specific characteristics of the Polish labor market (Kowalik & Magda, 2021) and the broader impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has significantly accelerated the adoption of remote work practices (Chandrasekaran, 2021; Springer & Grobelny, 2025). It can thus be inferred that a sense of belonging is not a fundamental element in building work-related meaning for Polish employees in the surveyed sample. However, at the same time, other researchers have shown that during remote work, an inclusive culture and a sense of belonging can be an important condition for maintaining a meaningfulness (Byrd, 2022), although in the absence of physical presence they require a redefinition of organizational values and culture (Bilderback & Kilpatrick, 2024). Before making the decision to exclude belonging as a facet of ME-Work, it is important to note that the majority of participants in our study were individuals with higher education, performing office-based work with a high degree of autonomy. This may have resulted in a shift toward remote work as the dominant form of work setting. The reduction of direct interpersonal contacts has weakened social relationships in the workplace, causing belonging to cease being a central aspect of the professional experience. Conversely, the importance of individual work factors, such as autonomy and task-person fit, has increased, potentially explaining the weaker associations between belonging and variables such as engagement, satisfaction and intention to leave. The persistence of this pattern and its underlying mechanisms warrant further investigation, particularly through longitudinal and comparative studies that consider different labor markets. Therefore, excluding the belonging scale from the facets of meaning would require conducting comparative studies among employees with varying levels of autonomy, different work setting and even taking into account the gender of employees, which, as previous studies have shown, may also be relevant to the significance of this construct (Schaechter, Goldstein, Zafonte, & Silver, 2023).

Another modification introduced in the model is the exclusion of one item from the purpose scale, namely, “In my workplace, profit is more important than people.” Two points are noteworthy regarding this change. First, this item was the only one in the questionnaire phrased negatively. Second, the specific context of the Polish labor market suggests that aspects related to the employer's social responsibility are often perceived as superficial and primarily directed toward external stakeholders rather than the internal organization. Despite this, analysis revealed that the purpose scale correlates significantly with the other two scales related to task-related experiences (job position facets such as significance and coherence), which may indicate that this component has greater importance than originally assumed.

The final modification introduced in the Model 3 involved accounting for the correlation between the “meaningful work” and “meaningless work” scales. It is important to emphasize that, although the experience of meaninglessness may influence the sense of meaningfulness and vice versa, these two dimensions are not identical. This distinction was further supported by the observed differences in their relationships with external validity measures.

Caution in formulating definitive conclusions also stems from several limitations of the conducted study. This study has three main limitations. First, all data came from self-report questionnaires, which may introduce common method bias. However, we took steps to minimize this (anonymous responses and mixed item order), and our results show that ME-Work scales correlate strongly with related constructs but weakly with unrelated ones – a pattern inconsistent with systematic bias. Second, the cross-sectional design prevents causal conclusions about relationships between meaning and other variables. Third, the most substantial of these relates to the research sample – both its relatively small size and its structural imbalance, in which, as previously noted, individuals with higher education are overrepresented. Consequently, further validation studies are warranted, particularly those focused on employees with lower levels of formal education who perform simple or manual tasks. Additionally, an important complement to the presented validation would be longitudinal research incorporating a test-retest reliability assessment. Such a procedure would make it possible to evaluate the temporal stability of the scales included in the proposed model. Despite these limitations, the Polish ME-Work questionnaire demonstrates strong psychometric properties.

Despite the aforementioned concerns, the Polish adaptation of the ME-Work questionnaire can be effectively applied in the assessment of domains related to employee well-being, intrinsic motivation and person–organization fit. The tool may be utilized by human resources professionals, career counselors, team leaders and management consultants as a support instrument in decision-making processes concerning employee development, engagement-building, the enhancement of meaningful work and turnover prevention. Due to its diagnostic capabilities, the ME-Work inventory may also be employed in employer branding initiatives, interventions designed to improve employee experience and organizational well-being programs. The ME-Work questionnaire, which addresses both identity-related dimensions (e.g. work as source of meaning) and organizational components (e.g. purpose), bridges psychological and managerial perspectives. It enables the assessment of subjective experiences of meaningfulness in work while also identifying individual and organizational antecedents – referred to as facets of meaning. Notably, an innovative aspect of the tool is its inclusion of a scale measuring meaninglessness in work, a dimension that is rarely captured in existing diagnostic instruments.

The tool may be applied in leadership and team-level interventions. Aggregated ME-Work results at the team or departmental level can help leaders identify areas in which employees experience reduced meaningfulness. These findings may guide leadership practices such as clarifying task significance, communicating organizational purpose and strengthening recognition and feedback processes. Organizations may use these insights to implement preventive tools, including role clarification, task redesign or reflective interventions that help employees reconnect with the perceived significance of their work. The ME-Work inventory may be integrated into organizational well-being and employee experience programs. Its use in repeated assessments enables organizations to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions grounded in positive psychology, such as purpose-driven initiatives or strengths-based management practices. Longitudinal application of the instrument supports evidence-based decision-making and continuous improvement in well-being strategies. Finally, the instrument may contribute to employer branding and organizational culture development. By identifying organizational practices that enhance or hinder meaningful work, organizations can better align internal employee experiences with external employer branding messages.

Me-Work inventory holds potential not only for strengthening organizational management practices but also for generating broader societal benefits. A growing body of research indicates that meaningful work is positively associated with psychological well-being and reduced burnout, suggesting that tools capable of reliably assessing this construct may support evidence-based interventions aimed at improving workforce mental health. At a societal level, such improvements are particularly important in light of recent international reports documenting rising levels of stress, anxiety and reduced life satisfaction across working populations (Gallup Consulting, 2024). Moreover, integrating insights from meaningful work assessments into educational and vocational guidance programs may help younger generations cultivate expectations and career trajectories aligned with long-term well-being. Consequently, a rigorous measurement instrument can serve as a bridge between organizational development, public health considerations and educational practice.

All scales of the Me-Work inventory questionnaire demonstrate high reliability and external validity, confirming that the instrument can be effectively applied in research on employees' meaningful work. Importantly, the findings not only affirm the practical usefulness of the questionnaire but also provide empirical support for Tatiana Schnell's broader theoretical framework of meaning, indicating that the multidimensional structure of meaningful work is largely preserved within the studied context. However, the results of the data analysis suggest that the model achieves a better fit when the belonging scale is excluded – an effect that may reflect specific characteristics of the Polish labor market and may also result from the characteristics of the sample. Thus, similarly to the model developed for self-employed individuals, in which two facets of meaning (belonging and purpose) were excluded, it can be assumed that for remote workers and those whose jobs are characterized by high autonomy, the belongingness scale could also be limited (Tommasi et al., 2021). This result leaves space for further theoretical discussion, particularly regarding how experiences of relational connectedness manifest among remote workers or those with high levels of autonomy and whether belongingness operates differently in work settings characterized by limited physical presence or reduced informal interaction.

In addition to these structural insights, the study offers robust evidence for the positive implications of meaningful work for key work attitudes, including job satisfaction, work engagement and organizational commitment. These findings align with the existing literature (Rosso et al., 2010) demonstrating the beneficial effects of meaningfulness for well-being and performance, further reinforcing the value of developing precise measurement tools in this domain. Although the current results indicate that the theoretical model achieves a better fit without the belonging scale, final conclusions require additional research – especially studies focused on selected occupational groups and those working in varied organizational cultures to determine the stability and boundary conditions of belongingness as a meaningfulness facet.

The authors declare that the research presented in this manuscript “Validation of the Polish version of the modular meaning in work inventory (ME-Work)” was conducted in full compliance with ethical standards and guidelines of the WSB Merito University in Poznań. The study received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Board of the Research Federation of WSB & DSW Universities (Approval number 1/2025 Date of Approval 22.01.2025).

All procedures were carried out in accordance with institutional and international ethical principles. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, who were informed of the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of participation and their right to withdraw at any time without consequence. All data were collected, stored confidentially and used solely for research purposes.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.