Meaningful Work and Organizational Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Individual Outcomes In Public Jordanian Universities

Meaningful Work and Organizational Outcomes:
The Mediating Role of Individual Outcomes
By
Supervisor
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Business Administration
Production and Operation Management
Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u Abstract PAGEREF _Toc507587749 h 3Purpose PAGEREF _Toc507587750 h 3Design and Methodology PAGEREF _Toc507587751 h 3Findings PAGEREF _Toc507587752 h 4Research Limitations PAGEREF _Toc507587753 h 4Practical and Managerial Implications PAGEREF _Toc507587754 h 4Originality and Value PAGEREF _Toc507587755 h 5Introduction PAGEREF _Toc507587756 h 5Aim of the Study PAGEREF _Toc507587757 h 6Problem Statement PAGEREF _Toc507587758 h 6Research Questions PAGEREF _Toc507587759 h 6The Objectives of the Study PAGEREF _Toc507587760 h 6Theoretical Framework PAGEREF _Toc507587761 h 7Research Hypothesis and Framework PAGEREF _Toc507587762 h 9Methodology PAGEREF _Toc507587763 h 10Research Setting and Sampling PAGEREF _Toc507587764 h 10Research Measures and Questionnaire Design PAGEREF _Toc507587765 h 11Reliability and Validity Measures PAGEREF _Toc507587766 h 14Reliability for the Meaningfulness of Work PAGEREF _Toc507587767 h 14Reliability for Organizational Performance and Outcomes PAGEREF _Toc507587768 h 14Results and Findings PAGEREF _Toc507587769 h 15Participant’s Profile PAGEREF _Toc507587770 h 18Hypothesis Testing PAGEREF _Toc507587771 h 19Findings from the Hypothesis Tests PAGEREF _Toc507587772 h 19Discussion and Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc507587773 h 21Theoretical Implications PAGEREF _Toc507587774 h 22Managerial Implications PAGEREF _Toc507587775 h 23Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies PAGEREF _Toc507587776 h 24References PAGEREF _Toc507587777 h 25Appendices PAGEREF _Toc507587778 h 27The Reliability Statistics of Total Meaningfulness of Work PAGEREF _Toc507587779 h 27Reliability Statistics for total individual outcome subscales items PAGEREF _Toc507587780 h 27Reliability Statistics for total Organizational outcomes subscales items PAGEREF _Toc507587781 h 27Descriptive Statistics for Mean Organizational Outcomes PAGEREF _Toc507587782 h 28Summary for Normal Distribution Outcomes PAGEREF _Toc507587783 h 28Positive Meaning of Work by University PAGEREF _Toc507587784 h 28Meaning Making through Work PAGEREF _Toc507587785 h 29Greater Good Motivation by University PAGEREF _Toc507587786 h 30Total Score for Greater Good Motivation after Reverse Coding PAGEREF _Toc507587787 h 30Meaningfulness of Work Total Score PAGEREF _Toc507587788 h 31Task Performance – Individual Outcome by Gender PAGEREF _Toc507587789 h 32Task Performance – Individual Outcome by Universities Institutions PAGEREF _Toc507587790 h 32Individual Contextual Performance by University PAGEREF _Toc507587791 h 33Individual Contextual Performance by Employee Gender PAGEREF _Toc507587792 h 33Individual Work Performance of Total Score by University PAGEREF _Toc507587793 h 34Organizational Level Quality PAGEREF _Toc507587794 h 34Organizational Outcomes Total Scores PAGEREF _Toc507587795 h 35Summary of Hypothesis Testing PAGEREF _Toc507587796 h 35
AbstractPurposeThe purpose of the research is to examine the relationship between individual outcome, meaning-making through work, meaningfulness of work and organizational outcomes in higher learning institutions in Jordan region.

It is clear that individual outcomes are influenced when employees have a purpose, and when they believe individual contributions bear a lasting meaning in the organizations they work for. Also, when employees realize the purposes in the organizations they serve, it is easy to create value as a result of increased commitment and dedication. This present study purposes to identify what the administrative staff of universities and higher learning institutions in Jordan perceive as productive and meaningful work. This examination will make it possible to attain personal satisfaction in employees and workers, it will boost the outcomes of higher learning institutions in Jordan. This will be achieved when school administrations consider improving their managerial and administrative functions to address the fundamental aspects of meaningful work, individual, and organizational outcomes.
Design and MethodologyThe chapter sheds light on the methodology and the design used to conduct and do the present study as follows; firstly, this chapter justified using the positivism research philosophy as a research design. Secondly, the current chapter explains using the quantitative research method and the cross-sectional research design applied in the study. Thirdly, the present chapter introduces scales and tools used for measuring variables under investigation. Fourthly, this chapter presents and addresses issues related to research population and sample targeted and its. Finally, the methodology views procedures and techniques used for the data collection and analysis stages and data validity.
FindingsComparisons between the four Jordanian higher educational institutions’ findings show that individual and organizational outcomes differ from one university to the other. The level of the meaningfulness of work also differs greatly among universities under study. For instance, HU registered the highest total scores for meaningfulness in work. Interestingly, the same university scored the highest points for the individual outcome. Based on the findings in this study, leading in two areas (individual outcome and meaningfulness in work) is not a coincidence for HU. Instead, it shows impact of the meaningfulness in work on the individual outcome, which is an association that leads to the overall organizational outcome. The new evidence supports previous findings by Geldenhuys et al. (2014) indicate that an employee who derives purpose and meaning for their work is more likely to work towards the realization of organizational goals. Similarly, Barrick et al. (2013) explained how striving for purposefulness and meaningfulness motivates employees in a workplace leading to a positive outcome. The evidence regarding the partial mediating effect of individual outcome between individual outcome and organizational outcome confirms the argument by previous researchers that employees want their careers and work to be more than just a means of earning income (Barrick et al., 2013).
Research LimitationsA major limitation of the study was failing to achieve the required target as pertains to the work satisfaction of employees and staff. More clearly, it was not clear that what the employee respondents reported as ‘job satisfaction’ what was they believed gave them satisfaction and gratification. This study felt that NOT all employee respondents were in their dream jobs to achieve the level of satisfaction that comes with doing what we love. Another limitation was the fear of achieving the true and credible outcomes from respondents. Job satisfaction is a perception rather than a reality which means that measuring the level of satisfaction differed greatly on each respondent based on personal feelings, values, and cultures. Hence, there was lack of uniformity and homogeneity in the findings making it hard to derive the true findings that reflect meaningful work and job outcomes in all the job categories.
Practical and Managerial ImplicationsUnderstanding what brings job satisfaction is crucial in managerial works. This is because the primary focus of managerial work is to monitor and assess the performance and productivity of all workers and ensure they meet regular organizational outcomes. The significance of job satisfaction and meaningful work for managers is to add value to the firm’s practices. This means that managers can measure and evaluate the actions and activities of workers and determine whether they constitute to the organization. This analysis supports that the meaningful work, job satisfaction, and organizational outcomes are key facets in the operation of any enterprise. Other than streamlining managerial functions and roles, the understanding of meaningful work and its significance will help firms’ realize better performance and overall productivity.
Originality and ValueThis study tries to provide a framework for understanding how the meaningfulness in work translates to the organizational performance. In particular, the contribution of this study is laying on the idea of the attempt to understand how individual outcome becomes a mediating factor in such link. The study seeks to justify that motivation of work should not necessarily be a byproduct of monetary rewards. Maslow’s hierarchical theory attests to the fact that firms ought to give their employees more than financial freedom. The work environment and the satisfaction derived out of the workplace play influential roles in motivating the employee to deliver optimal outcomes out of their work environment. With the new perspective, current and future researchers can now conduct further investigations to investigate and examine the relationship between these variables.
IntroductionA majority of individuals prefer a job or work that is meaningful. The meaningfulness of Work (MW) is an area of study that has attracted diverse ideas, as researchers seek new methods to explore and assess it. Organizations should foster the need to create meaningful work environments. Having to mean in work environments provides the platform upon which employees derive their inspiration to realize not only their personal goals but also those of the organizations where they work. Conversely, “Meaning” can be analyzed as a concept that is intimate to one’s existence. The concept of meaning has stimulated numerous viewpoints in an attempt to define it in the perspective of the workplace. Meaning also plays an influential role in unlocking workers potential and hence the realization of their purpose at work. Steger, Dik, and Duffy (2012) mentions that meaning allows workers to realize positive social relationships and understand their purpose in life. The capacities to realize meaning amongst individuals helps employers to customize and develop appropriate job descriptions that suit the needs of their employees. This study examines the aspects of positive meaning in work, meaning-making through work, and greater good motivation. Regarding the organizational outcome, the study examines the level of organizational-level quality and external adaptability like growth and acceptability by the society. Accordingly, the study seeks to demonstrate that when staff derives meaning from the work environs, they will yield better outcomes. Meaningful work environments ensure that staff develop a sense of responsibility for work. It implores that Jordanian Universities should foster in creating meaning for employees builds satisfaction and thus superior organizational performances.
Aim of the StudyThe study aims at demonstrating that meaningful work fosters organization performance. It tries to demonstrate that when employees have a better understanding of meaning for work, they are likely to perform well individually at work which might influence the overall performances of Jordanian universities.
Problem StatementThe success of an organization is dependent on its ability to meet the needs of its clients through the satisfaction of its employees. Reviews on some of the most successful firms in the world indicate that their employees admit to deriving meaningfulness in their tasks. Their work is based on the need to attain organizational and personal success. Karatepe et al. (2014) described organizational commitment as an involuntary and subconscious pressure to act in ways that lead to the accomplishment of the objectives and goals of an organization. Thus, there is a close relationship between the outcome of the people and their level of productiveness. Different to the past trend, money is no longer a motivation in the work setting. The results of organization performance are a direct measure of the way its employees realize the meaning of work.
Research QuestionsWhat is the link between the meaningfulness of work MW and the organizational outcome in Jordanian higher education sector?
Does individual outcome in educational settings have a mediating effect and role on meaningful work and organizational outcomes?
How can Jordanian public universities achieve growth and quality improvement through confirming the link between individual outcome and meaningful work?
The Objectives of the StudyTo measure the work meaningfulness and individual outcomes upon employees and organizational outcomes in public Jordanian universities.
To identify the impact of employees’ meaningfulness of work on overall organizational outcome in Jordanian higher educational sector.
To examine whether Individual Outcome in an educational setting has a mediating effect and role on the impact of the meaningfulness of work on the overall organizational outcomes.
To recommend ways by which Public Jordan universities achieve growth and quality improvement through understanding the impact of the individual outcome on meaningful work.

Theoretical FrameworkThe concept of meaning is linked to an individual’s existence. It covers the workplace as an unavoidable part of a person’s life. According to Seligman (2012), meaning allows people to excel, by promoting positive social and workplace relationships. Consequently, people are likely to find meaning by viewing their lives as significant, purposeful, and understandable (Seligman, 2012). Yeoman (2014) argued that it is uncommon that intellectual philosophers speak about and study meaningfulness in life. Michaelson, Pratt, Grant, and Dunn (2014) and Steger et al. (2012) defined meaningful work as the meaning and significance of work to individuals. A study by Raub and Blunschi (2014) indicated the scarcity in research concerning meaningfulness in all facets. In essence, the meaning that is attached to work, and psychological experiences, lead to effective work outcomes and mainly work engagement.
Meaningful work is attached to the significance and purpose, a person’s contribution and the way one’s work impact positively the mission and goals of the organization they work. Since meaningful work is attached to purpose and significance of a person’s work (Barrick et al., 2013); (Saks and Grumman, 2014), there is a connection between individual satisfaction, autonomy, fulfillment, and ability to learn and meaningfulness of an employee’s work. Thus, the individual outcome has a role of mediation in the relationship between organizational outcome and meaningful work. Several scholars have examined the organizational outcomes of meaningful work (Geldenhuys et al. 2014). Therefore, a review of the recently conducted studies provides crucial insights and understanding of what the scholars have found about the relationship between variables under investigation. When workers defined themselves and wanted, an organization was bound to achieve absolute productivity because laborers were given liberty of offering their input in the business. Such initiatives managed to motivate them and gave them morale to become loyal and produce formidable results in the execution of tasks.
The outcomes become more meaningful to employees once they have established that they are making good use out of their energy and the returns are worthwhile. In line with the assertion, it suffices to say that persons who fail to derive meaning out of the results of their duties experience senses of rejection, misunderstanding, and prejudice. Such emotions, which are products of bad leadership, have a negative relationship with the important organizational outcomes such as wellbeing in the sense that they make employees feel that their outcomes are meaningless. As an example, through the application of intellectual stimulation, transformational leaders can influence their followers to seek solutions for challenges and problems as well as embrace high levels of innovativeness and creativity.
Research Hypothesis and FrameworkThe hypothesis derives its concept from the research question and objectives developed. The study hypothesizes as follows:
H1 = Meaningful work has a positive direct impact on organizational outcome
H2 = Individual outcomes mediates the impact of meaningful work on organizational outcome
As part of the Barron & Kenny Difference of Coefficients Approach, the two main hypotheses are broken down into the following specific hypotheses:
H 1.1: The meaningfulness of work (IV) significantly influences the organizational outcome (DV)
H 1.2: The meaningfulness of work (IV) significantly influences the individual outcomes (MV)
H 1.3: The individual outcome (MV) significantly influences the organizational outcome (DV)
H 2.2: There is an impact of the meaningfulness of work (IV) on the organizational outcome (DV) when controlling for the effect of the individual outcome (MV).

MethodologyThe chapter justifies the use of positivism research philosophy as the appropriate design. There will further be the use of the cross-sectional research design and the quantitative method. The cross-sectional study makes it possible to examine two or more studies simultaneously while offering comparisons. The quantitative method further makes it possible to collect findings from respondents, record the findings based on job satisfaction across different job categories. The issues relating to sample groups and the study population will further be discussed to help bring to insight the relevant respondents. Finally, the procedures and techniques utilized as part of data collection is discussed.
Research Setting and SamplingThe research setting was in higher learning institutions; these are universities in the Jordan region. The study leveraged a university set-up, identifying staff and respondents who would offer findings to fulfill outlined goals and objectives. The sampling was done based on certain criteria such as; age, gender, and professional level of the job held by the respondent. The sampling was done based on four universities in Jordan. The research premises that the four institutions would provide information and data that reflects the findings of other universities in the Jordan region. Hence, the sample was drawn based on the four universities. The respondents, who include the university administrative staff, provided insightful information with regards to; individual outcomes, what they believed as meaningful work, and the implications of meaningful work and individual outcomes on the overall organizational outcomes.
Research Measures and Questionnaire Design
The measures for the study was based primarily on three paradigms; the individual work, the meaningfulness of work, and the organizational outcomes. Another measure focused on data of the variables studied: meaningful work, individual outcome, and organizational outcome. The WAMI tool by Steger et al. (2012) is leveraged in measuring meaningfulness in work. Therefore, ten items were derived from the WAMI, as suggested by scholars (Steger et al. 2012). Regarding the individual outcome, the Individual Work Performance Questionnaire (IWPQ) designed by Koopmans et al. (2012) is applied as a measure of individual and organizational performance. The tool is applied in similar studies. The Organizational Effectiveness Inventory (OEI), which was created by Robert Cooke to collect data on organizational processes, was applied to measure organizational outcomes (Fess & Henderson, 2000). The questionnaire design was based on the underlying objectives and goals of the study. Given the research focused on evaluating the inter-connection of the variable, the questions captured in the questionnaires were primarily centered on the three mentioned variables.
The Work and Meaning Inventory by Steger et al. (2012) was used to collect data on the Meaningful work as the independent variable. The tool was the most appropriate since the original subscales showed acceptable internal consistency (as from.82 to.89). Initial reliability (α’s from 0.82 to 0.89 for subscale scores and.93 for total scores), validity, and factor structure estimates are solid, and this may be a promising measure. Precisely, the independent variable was divided into three dimensions. They included positive meaning in work, meaning-making through work, and greater good motivation, as suggested by Steger et al. (2012).
The positive meaning subscale focused on the various aspects of the workplace that reflect positivity were collected using four items. Information about positive practices, relationships, culture, and leadership was covered. Meaning-making through work focused on how employees aim at achieving meaning in their lives through the work they do. Three items were used to evaluate the extent to which the participants were mean-making through work.
The Greater Good Motivation
The Greater Good Motivation facet reflects commonly held ideas that work is most meaningful if it has a broader impact on others. Tonin and Vlassopuolos (2010) investigated whether workers are motivated by the “greater good” or not. Basically, what most employees find motivating is monetary incentives and promotions but some workers find this not enough. This is because there is another important motivator which is interest in the social welfare the organization pursues or simply altruism towards the betterment of a third party. Such motivated workers contribute greatly to the organization’s engagement if the provision of healthcare, education and social services, in both non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and charities. Tonin and Vlassopuolos (2010) identify two types of “greater good” motivated individuals; the “purely altruistic” and the “warm glow”. The pure altruistic is one who is completely concerned with the well-being of others even when they are not directly involved. The warm glow altruistic is the one who contributes to a cause they care about because they enjoy it.
The Individual Outcome (IO) was used as a mediating variable. Besides providing the link between the organizational outcome and the meaningfulness of work, the concept of individual outcome attempts to clarify the nature of the impact of meaningful of work on the organizational outcome. In particular, the Individual Work Performance (IWP) parameter by Koopmans et al. (2012) was applied. Several adjustments were made to make the IWP scale suitable for this study. For instance, only two dimensions (task and contextual scales) were applied in this study. The thought was to concentrate on the positive scales to facilitate the analysis of the meaningfulness in work as the independent variable in a model involving two other variables.
Thirdly, since motivation relates to performance, the greater good motivation was assessed based on the level of task performance. For example, six out of seven items were used to measure the task performance. In particular, the items measured the performance of participants when handling specific duties. On the other hand, eight out of 12 items were used to evaluate the participants’ contextual performance by focusing on the setting or circumstances in which such employees conduct their tasks.
Organizational-Level Quality
The performance of organizations is a common topic of research, as scholars seek new ways to improve their performance and efficiency. The performance of organizations can be evaluated from different dimensions depending on the role and nature of the organization. For instance, Mitchell and Sevilla (2011) tried to define the performance of not-for-profit non-governmental organizations (NGOs). According to Mitchell and Sevilla (2011), the organizational outcome of NGOs can be defined as the ability to achieve the organizational visions and goals in an effective way. In another study, Bartuseviciene and Sakalytė (2013) assessed the organizational outcomes of profit-making organization. The study revealed financial performance, efficiency, and market performance define the outcomes of a profit-making organization. While efficiency defines the successful transformation of input into outputs, effectiveness measures the interaction between the output and the economic and social environments.
Using a questionnaire, the data collection was conducted by the researcher in a step-wise manner. The questionnaires were distributed to 576 participants. In particular, the questionnaires were given to full-time employees from JU, JUST, HU, and YU. The questionnaires provided an introductory paragraph for informing the participants about study’s purpose. The employees completed the survey of their own accord during their regular scheduled work hours at their respective work sites. To encourage respondents to provide their opinions, anonymity was assured both verbally and written means. Once filled, the researcher collected the questionnaires from the four universities to facilitate the analysis. Also, the questionnaire incorporated all the issues subject to discussion in this particular study. The questions focused on establishing:
The views of the workers regarding meaningful work to determine the psychological aspect of the workers’ outcome.
The motivating factors that play a part in the overall work of the employees and how these motivating factors have a bearing on the organization’s outcome.
The individual outcomes of the employees. How they can achieve the outcome with the motivations and the drive for meaningful work.
The effectiveness of the concept about the organizational outcomes.
Organizational Outcomes
The Organizational Outcome (OO) was the dependent variable. Items from the Organizational Effectiveness Inventory (OEI) were applied (Fess & Henderson, 2000; Szumal, 2001). When measuring the OO, the measurement scale focused on two major aspects (Appendix 19). Firstly, the organizational level quality, which measured the quality of services rendered to students. In particular, the reputation of the universities regarding the services rendered and the appeal of the universities to the society in general. Therefore, the items on quality of services measured the organizational effectiveness, which is an outcome of the organizational culture and behavioral norms among the employees at the selected universities. In this study, the organizational-level quality examined the extent to which the participants believed that their respective universities provide high-quality services. Secondly, the external adaptability that measured the effectiveness and efficiency of the university programs. Also, the external adaptability focused on the pro-activeness of the universities and their ability to adjust to changes. Therefore, the second aspect focused on the ability of the universities to respond effectively to external opportunities and threats. Consequently, the outcome of the organization was defined by the various factors and relationships highlighted in the research problem.

Reliability and Validity MeasuresReliability for the Meaningfulness of WorkThe reliability test was first done for the specific meaningfulness in work dimension. Once the Cronbach’s alpha scores for the dimensions were calculated, all the items were brought together to determine the overall internal consistency. The inclusion of all the three subscales of meaningfulness in work provided high internal consistency (α=.823) (Table 3.1). With an alpha score of 0.823, it is evident the items were reliable parameters for measuring the meaningfulness of work (Appendix 3). Evidently, all the items contributed the high Cronbach’s Alpha score since deleting any of them would produce a lower score.
Table 3.1 Reliability Outcomes for Total Meaningfulness of work

Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items No of Items
Meaningfulness of work subscales Positive Meaning subscale .710 .716 4
Meaning making through work subscale .622 .620 3
Greater Good Motivation subscale .739 .745 3
Total Statistics for meaningfulness of work .823 .827 10
Reliability for Organizational Performance and OutcomesConcerning the items for organizational performance outcome, Cronbach’s alpha score test was done for Organizational-Level Quality and External Adaptability before bringing the items together. The thought was to measure the internal consistency of the items for the Organizational-Level Quality and External Adaptability. Finally, it was necessary to determine whether the items can be used together as the overall measurement of organizational performance outcome. The items for Organizational-Level Quality shows a high level of internal consistency (α=0.825) (Table 3.3). Similarly, the items for External Adaptability scale demonstrated an acceptable level of internal reliability (α=0.881) (Table 3.3).
??? Table 3. SEQ Table_3. * ARABIC 3 : Reliability Statistics for total Organizational outcomes subscales items
Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
Organizational performance outcome Organizational-Level Quality subscale .825 .825 3
External Adaptability subscale .881 .881 3
Total Statistics for Organizational outcome .900 .900 6
Results and FindingsA thorough critique of the literature shows the limitations and research gaps. This study has addressed several gaps of knowledge that were identified in the review of the literature. Firstly, the majority of previous studies covered only one variable. In particular, previous researchers examined meaningfulness in work, individual outcome, or organizational outcomes. separately and not in one model For instance, O’Boyle (2013) and Brown et al. (2015) and Geldenhuys et al. (2014) and Kettenbohrer et al. (2015) focused on the various aspects of individual outcome to determine the need for individual outcome evaluation and how organizations can evaluate the performance of their employees. These studies examined how meaningfulness in work can influence the overall performance of an organization. For instance, the findings of Geldenhuys et al. (2014) revealed that there is a positive relationship between meaningfulness in work and the organizational outcome. Similarly, other researchers concentrated on the attributes that create meaningfulness in work; for instance, positive meaning in work (Steger at al., 2012; Morrow & Conger, 2015; Lips-Wiersma et al., 2016), greater good motivation (Steger at al. 2012), meaning making through work (Steger at al. 2012; Langridge, 2014). Therefore, this study was crucial in bringing all the three variables together. The partial mediation effect of the individual outcome between meaningfulness in work and organizational outcome has expanded the equation to accommodate individual outcome as the third variable.
Secondly, previous studies covering Jordanian universities have addressed many issues surrounding organizational outcome. The studies provide crucial insights regarding the challenges facing public Jordanian universities. For instance, Al-Nsour (2012) highlighted how motivating employees working in Jordanian universities had become a difficult task. In a recent study, Al-Hawary and Nusair (2017) revealed that selection and appointment, training and development, and performance appraisal are three critical human resource strategies that determine the organizational outcome of Jordanian universities. In other words, the outcomes of such universities depend on whether the selection and recruitment process picks the right employees. Also, the outcome depends on whether the training program equips the existing employees with the right attitude or skills to work towards the goal of achieving a positive outcome. Although this study addresses the same issues, it takes a different approach by bringing together three variables that interact leading to the desired outcome. For instance, Al-Hawary and Nusair (2017) emphasized the need for Jordanian universities to select and appoint the right personnel. This study delves deeper into the same factor by showing how recruiting bodies can assess the meaningfulness in work at the point of recruitments or appointment. In other words, the empirical evidence in this study supports Al-Hawary and Nusair (2017) work by identifying the exact qualities of the individuals that will lead to the desirable outcome.
Thirdly, several studies focused on providing solutions to Jordanian universities on how they can improve their organizational outcomes. For instance, Khasawneh, Omari, and Abu-Tineh (2012) and Orabi (2016) addressed the relationship between transformational leadership and the organizational outcome. Khasawneh et al. (2012) agreed with Orabi (2016) that leaders in Jordanian universities should consider the elements of transformational leaders to improve outcomes for organizational performance. While the studies show that transformational leadership leads to better organizational performance, they are unclear how the transformational leaders influence their employees to achieve the organizational outcome. Therefore, this study provides the much-needed empirical evidence to explain how the mechanism within the human resource management plan and implement ideas that leads to positive organizational outcome.
Participant’s ProfileNumber of participants by Frequency Percentage
Participants Gender Valid Female 183 41.4
Male 247 55.9
Total 430 97.3
Missing System 12 2.7
Total 442 100.0
Participants’ Age
Valid 55 years and more 12 2.7
45 – Less than 55 years 91 20.6
35 – Less than 45 years 155 35.1
25 – Less than 35 years 171 38.7
Less than 25 years 11 2.5
Total 440 99.5
Missing System 2 .5
Total 442 100.0
Participants’ job category Valid Any other job 44 10.0
Professional 29 6.6
Technical 99 22.4
Administrative 268 60.6
Total 440 99.5
Missing System 2 .5
Total 442 100.0
Participant’s education level Valid PhD Degree 10 2.3
Master Degree 47 10.6
Bachelor Degree 196 44.3
Diplomas Degree 100 22.6
Secondary 71 16.1
Less than secondary 18 4.1
Total 442 100.0
Years of experience Valid 20 years and more 72 16.3
15 -20 years 49 11.1
10 -15 years 114 25.8
5-10 years 134 30.3
1-5 years 60 13.6
Hypothesis TestingIn line with the conceptual framework, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) approach was applied to test hypotheses developed earlier in this study. In particular, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedures focus on four steps to explore whether the mediation impact exists or not. A similar approach was initially applied by Judd and Kenny (1981) and James and Brett (1984).
Step One: The meaningfulness of work (IV) and the organizational outcome, which is the dependent variable (DV) -The independent variable, must be correlated with the dependent variable in the first equation. This step is critical for establishing that there is an effect that may be mediated.
Step Two: The meaningfulness of work, which is the independent variable (IV) and the individual outcomes, which is the independent variable the mediator variable (MV). The independent variable must be correlated with the mediator variable in the second equation. Accordingly, the mediator variable is treated as if it were am outcome variable.
Step Three: The individual outcome (MV) and the organizational outcome (DV) -The mediator variable must be correlated with the dependent variable in the third equation. Scholars argue that it is not sufficient just to correlate the mediator with the outcome. This is due to the possibility that the outcome and the mediator may be correlated just because they are both caused by the independent variable, which is the causal variable. Therefore, controlling the causal variable is necessary for establishing the effect of the mediator on the outcome.
Step Four: The effect of the meaningfulness of work (IV) on the organizational outcome (DV) when controlling for the effects of the individual outcome (MV)
Findings from the Hypothesis TestsPath C
Direct Effect
-4445165100Meaningfulness of work
Meaningfulness of work
Organizational Outcome
Organizational Outcome
Individual Performance
Individual Performance
00Meaningfulness of work
Meaningfulness of work
Organizational Outcome
Organizational Outcome
Individual Performance
Individual Performance
74294916891000501014916891000
3636826120195Path b
Path b
00Path b
Path b
1497330118745Path a
Path a
00Path a
Path a

227012530480Path c’
Indirect effect
Indirect effect
00Path c’
Indirect effect
Indirect effect

Figure 4. SEQ Figure_4. * ARABIC 1: The Mediation Impact of MV IV- DVAccording to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) model, three conditions must hold in establish the mediation effect of a third variable. The conditions include:
The independent variable must affect the mediator
The independent variable must be shown to affect the dependent variable
The mediating variable as well as the independent variable must affect the dependent variable
As part of the Barron & Kenny Difference of Coefficients Approach, the two main hypotheses are broken down into the following specific hypotheses to ensure that all the necessary steps are covered. However, it was necessary to confirm whether there is an impact among the three variables before proceeding to the hypothesis testing procedure. As the Table shows, there is a positive influence between the meaningfulness of work and the organizational outcome.
Step one: H 1.1: The meaningfulness of work (IV) is significantly influence the organizational outcome (DV)
Testing this hypothesis is a critical step in achieving the main objective of the study. In particular, regressing the organizational outcome (DV) on the meaningfulness of work (IV) is critical step that confirmed if there is a significant relationship to be mediated. As Figure 4.2 demonstrates, the meaningfulness in work is the predictor in this step. Path c in the model is called the total effect. The effect meaningfulness of work (IV) on organizational outcome (DV).
20510560325Meaningfulness of work
Meaningfulness of work
Organizational Outcome
Figure STYLEREF 1 s ‎0. SEQ Figure * ARABIC s 1 1: The relationship between the meaningfulness of work, which is the independent variable (IV) and the organizational outcome, which is the dependent variable (DV)Organizational Outcome
00Meaningfulness of work
Meaningfulness of work
Organizational Outcome
Figure STYLEREF 1 s ‎0. SEQ Figure * ARABIC s 1 1: The relationship between the meaningfulness of work, which is the independent variable (IV) and the organizational outcome, which is the dependent variable (DV)Organizational Outcome

208597573025Path c (β=.339)
Path c (β=.339)
00Path c (β=.339)
Path c (β=.339)

-21590187325Figure 4. SEQ Figure_4. * ARABIC 2 : The impact of the meaningfulness of work, which is the independent variable (IV) on the organizational outcome, which is the dependent variable (DV)Figure 4. SEQ Figure_4. * ARABIC 2 : The impact of the meaningfulness of work, which is the independent variable (IV) on the organizational outcome, which is the dependent variable (DV)
Table 4. SEQ Table_4. * ARABIC 15 : Model SummaryModel R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics
R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 .339a .115 .113 .757 .115 56.999 1 440 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Meaningfulness of Work Total Score -mean (using r3Reversecoded)
b. Dependent Variable: Organizational outcome _ mean
As Table 4.15 shows, the r value is.339 while the R square is.115. From the r square value, it is clear that 11.5% of the organizational outcome results are due to the meaningfulness in work among the employees. The adjusted r square is a more reliable statistic since it takes account the sample of size of 442 participants in this study. Therefore, it is more accurate to work with 11.3% than 11.5%.
Table 4. SEQ Table_4. * ARABIC 16 : Coefficients aModel Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta Meaningfulness of Work _ mean .522 .069 .339 7.550 .000
As Table 4.16 shows, regressing the meaningfulness of work with the organizational outcome generated a beta weight of.339. With a significance of 0.000 (p<0.05), the meaningfulness of work is a predictor of organizational outcome (Table 4.16). Therefore, this step established that there is an effect between the meaningfulness of work and organizational outcome.
Step Two: H.1.2: The meaningfulness of work (IV) is significantly influence the individual outcomes (MV)
As indicated earlier, the first step was to regress the individual outcome, which is the mediating factor, on the meaningfulness of work (IV). In doing so, it was possible to determine the size, significance, and the direction of the relationship. In this step, mediating variable (the individual outcome) was treated as the outcome variable. In so doing, it was possible to show the effect of the causal variable (meaningfulness of work) on the mediating factor.
center15280Path a (β=.597)
Figure STYLEREF 1 s ‎0. SEQ Figure * ARABIC s 1 2: The relationship between the meaningfulness of work (IV) and the individual outcomes (MV)Path a (β=.597)
00Path a (β=.597)
Figure STYLEREF 1 s ‎0. SEQ Figure * ARABIC s 1 2: The relationship between the meaningfulness of work (IV) and the individual outcomes (MV)Path a (β=.597)
2051053175Meaningfulness of work (IV)
Meaningfulness of work (IV)
Individual outcome (MV)
Individual outcome (MV)
00Meaningfulness of work (IV)
Meaningfulness of work (IV)
Individual outcome (MV)
Individual outcome (MV)

center160020Figure 4. SEQ Figure_4. * ARABIC 3 The impact of the meaningfulness of work (IV) on the individual outcomes (MV)Figure 4. SEQ Figure_4. * ARABIC 3 The impact of the meaningfulness of work (IV) on the individual outcomes (MV)
Table 4. SEQ Table_4. * ARABIC 17 : Model Summary bModel R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics
R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 .597a .356 .355 .381 .356 243.416 1 440 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Meaningfulness of Work outcome – mean (usingr3Reversecoded)
b. Dependent Variable: Individual Work Performance outcome – mean
As Table 4.17 shows, the meaningfulness of work was the constant variable. The R value is 0.597 while the R square is.356. With an adjusted r square of 0.355, it is evident that 35.5% of the individual work performance outcome is linked to the meaningfulness in work among the employees surveyed. There is a statistically significant association between the meaningfulness of work and the individual outcome (p<0.001)
Table 4. SEQ Table_4. * ARABIC 18 : Coefficients aModel Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta Meaningfulness of Work the mean of the .543 .035 .597 15.602 .000
Similarly, the coefficient table provides insights regarding the direction and significance of the relation. In particular, a beta weight of 0.597 shows that meaningfulness of work is a predictor of individual outcome (Table 4.18).
With a beta weight of 0.597, it is evident that meaningfulness of work is a strong predictor of how employees working in Jordanian universities perform at the individual level (Table 4.18). Therefore, the Jordanian learning institutions can predict the individual performance by analyzing the responses that employees give regarding meaningfulness of work. Most importantly, the outcome fulfills one of the conditions in testing the mediating effect of individual outcome in a relationship between the meaningfulness of work and the organizational outcome.
Step Three: H 1.3: The individual outcome (MV) is significantly influence the organizational outcome (DV)
7175261857198Individual outcome
Individual outcome
Organizational outcome
Organizational outcome
Path b (β=.270)
Figure STYLEREF 1 s ‎0. SEQ Figure * ARABIC s 1 3: The relationship between the individual outcome (MV) and the organizational outcome (DV)Path b (β=.270)
0Individual outcome
Individual outcome
Organizational outcome
Organizational outcome
Path b (β=.270)
Figure STYLEREF 1 s ‎0. SEQ Figure * ARABIC s 1 3: The relationship between the individual outcome (MV) and the organizational outcome (DV)Path b (β=.270)
In Step Three, the hypothesis focuses on showing the mediator (individual outcome) on the outcome variable (organizational outcome). However, the outcome in this step is not sufficient to conclude that individual outcome is a predictor of organizational outcome due to the possibility that the MV and DV are both caused by the IV. Therefore, the next step is necessary so that the effect of MV can be controlled. In other words, this step justifies proceeding to the next and final step that determined the mediating effect of the individual outcome.
30353040005Figure 4. SEQ Figure_4. * ARABIC 4 : The impact of the individual outcome (MV) on the organizational outcome (DV)Figure 4. SEQ Figure_4. * ARABIC 4 : The impact of the individual outcome (MV) on the organizational outcome (DV)
Table 4. SEQ Table_4. * ARABIC 19 : Model Summary bModel R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics
R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 .270a .073 .071 .774 .073 34.712 1 440 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Individual Work Performance outcome _ mean
b. Dependent Variable: Organizational outcome _ mean
As Table 4.19 demonstrates, the R=.270 while the R2=.073. From the figures, it is clear that the link between individual work performance outcome and the organizational outcome is minimal. For instance, an r square of.073 means that only 7.3% of the organizational outcome is due to individual outcome (Table 4.19). The percentage contribution of the individual work performance, as the predictor, reduces to 7.1% when the r square is adjusted.
Table 4. SEQ Table_4. * ARABIC 20 : Coefficients aModel Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta Individual Work Performance Total Score the mean of the mean of the 2 subscale .458 .078 .270 5.892 .000
The beta weight for the path stands at.270 (p=0.000) (Table 4.20). Therefore, the null hypothesis that individual outcome is a predictor of organizational outcome.
Step Four: H2.2: There is an impact of meaningfulness of work (IV) on the organizational outcome (DV) when controlling for the effect of the individual outcome (MV)
As indicated earlier, the fourth step to control the effects of the MV to determine the impact of the IV on the DV. According to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) model and Kenny (2016), the effect of the meaningfulness of work on organizational outcome while controlling for the individual outcome should be zero to establish that the individual outcome completely mediates the IV and DV. A two-step hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to include the individual outcome and the meaningfulness of work as the IVs and the organizational outcome as the DV.
262255114521Individual outcome (MV)
Individual outcome (MV)
Organizational Outcome (DV)
Organizational Outcome (DV)
Meaningfulness of work (IV)
Meaningfulness of work (IV)
00Individual outcome (MV)
Individual outcome (MV)
Organizational Outcome (DV)
Organizational Outcome (DV)
Meaningfulness of work (IV)
Meaningfulness of work (IV)

324294460273β=.106 (p=0.000)
β=.106 (p=0.000)
00β=.106 (p=0.000)
β=.106 (p=0.000)

167704265405Path c’ (β=.275) (p=0.000)
Figure STYLEREF 1 s ‎0. SEQ Figure * ARABIC s 1 4: The relationship between MV and DV when the IV is controlledPath c’ (β=.275) (p=0.000)
00Path c’ (β=.275) (p=0.000)
Figure STYLEREF 1 s ‎0. SEQ Figure * ARABIC s 1 4: The relationship between MV and DV when the IV is controlledPath c’ (β=.275) (p=0.000)

281305231775Figure 4. SEQ Figure_4. * ARABIC 5 : The impact among MV and DV when the IV is controlled0Figure 4. SEQ Figure_4. * ARABIC 5 : The impact among MV and DV when the IV is controlled
Path c’ is called the direct effect. Complete mediation is the case in which the independent variable (Meaningfulness of work) no longer affect the dependent variable (Organizational outcome) after the mediator variable (individual outcome)has been controlled , making path c’ zero . Partial mediation is the case in which the path c’ is reduced in absolute size but still different from zero when mediator is introduced.
Total effect = direct effect + indirect effect
Or by using symbols
c = c’ + ab
Table 4. SEQ Table_4. * ARABIC 21 : Model Summary cModel R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics
R Square Change F Change Sig. F Change
2 .349b .122 .118 .754 .007 3.623 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Meaningfulness of Work Outcome mean
b. Predictors: (Constant), Meaningfulness of Work Outcome mean, Individual Work Outcome mean
c. Dependent Variable: Organizational Outcome mean
As Table 4.21 shows, the R value is.349 while the R square is.122. Therefore, 12.2% of the organizational outcome is as a result of both meaningfulness in work and individual work performance. Table 4.15 shows that using meaningfulness of work mean as the sole predictor generates an R value of 0.339 and R2 of.115. However, as Table 4.21 shows that introducing the individual outcome mean increases the R value to.349 and the R2 to.122. With regard to the coefficients, the individual outcome contributes a beta weight of.106 (p=0.000) while the meaningfulness of work has a beta weight of 0.275 (p=0.000) (Table 4.22).
Table 4. SEQ Table_4. * ARABIC 22 : Coefficients aModel Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta Meaningfulness of Work Outcome .425 .086 .275 4.940 .000
Individual Work Performance Outcome .180 .094 .106 1.903 .000
As Table 4.22 shows, the relationship between the meaningfulness of work, which is the IV, and organizational outcome, which is DV, is partially mediated by individual outcome. This is due to the fact that the significance of the relationship between the two variables (IV and DV) has been reduced from ß=0.339 (p=000) to ß=0.275 (p=0.000) when the individual outcome is included in the model as a mediating variable. As Figure 4.13 illustrates, the partial mediation occurred since the path between the IV and DV was reduced in absolute size but it is still different from zero , Note also that the indirect effect equals the reduction of the effect of the causal variable on the outcome:
Indirect effect = Total effect – direct effect = c – c’
= 0.339 – 0.275 = 0.064
In contemporary mediational analyses, the indirect effect or ab is the measure of the amount of mediation ab=.0632 so the amount of mediation is 6%
Farther investigating needed to test if there are multiple mediators.
21907524121590018718373493135Path c
Figure STYLEREF 1 s ‎0. SEQ Figure * ARABIC s 1 5: The Mediation Impact of MV IV- DV in and out the modelPath c
00Path c
Figure ‎0.5: The Mediation Impact of MV IV- DV in and out the modelPath c
22896791902159Path c’
Path c’
0Path c’
Path c’
23495147320003302007620(β=.597)
(p=0.000)
Path a
(β=.597)
(p=0.000)
Path a
β=.106 (p=0.000)
Path b
β=.106 (p=0.000)
Path b
β=.275 (p=0.000)
β=.275 (p=0.000)
β= 0.339 (p=0.000)
β= 0.339 (p=0.000)
Meaningfulness of work
Meaningfulness of work
Organizational Outcome
Organizational Outcome
Individual Performance
Individual Performance
Meaningfulness of work
Meaningfulness of work
Organizational outcome
Organizational outcome
Mediation not in the model
Mediation not in the model
Mediation in the model
Mediation in the model
00(β=.597)
(p=0.000)
Path a
(β=.597)
(p=0.000)
Path a
β=.106 (p=0.000)
Path b
β=.106 (p=0.000)
Path b
β=.275 (p=0.000)
β=.275 (p=0.000)
β= 0.339 (p=0.000)
β= 0.339 (p=0.000)
Meaningfulness of work
Meaningfulness of work
Organizational Outcome
Organizational Outcome
Individual Performance
Individual Performance
Meaningfulness of work
Meaningfulness of work
Organizational outcome
Organizational outcome
Mediation not in the model
Mediation not in the model
Mediation in the model
Mediation in the model

Discussion and ConclusionFirstly, Cronbach’s Alpha score was necessary ascertaining reliability and accuracy of the selected items to test the individual outcome, meaningfulness in work, and the organizational outcome. Therefore, whatever is discussed in this chapter is based on accurate and reliable data collection and analysis tools and procedures. Secondly, the skewness and kurtosis analyses revealed that the data were normally distributed. Therefore, it was possible to test the hypothesis and come up with accurate findings.
As shown in Descriptive Analysis of sample profile and demographic data, the second first research objective was to explore the impact of employees’ meaningfulness of work on the overall organizational outcome in Jordanian higher education sector. As shown in the hypothesis testing, it is evident that meaningfulness in work among staff leads to an improved organizational outcome. Other researchers had done similar studies. These studies also showed similar outcomes, where meaningfulness in work leads to an improved organizational outcome. However, the studies were conducted in other parts of the world; hence, the findings may not reflect the actual situation in Jordanian public universities. This study was critical in reflecting Jordanian universities as a workplace with different departments.
The third research objective was to determine whether individual performance outcome has a mediating role in the impact of meaningful work on the overall organizational outcomes. Evidently, the individual outcome has a partial mediating role of individual performance for the impact of the meaningfulness of work on the organizational outcome. The review of literature in chapter two shows that meaningfulness in work, individual outcome, and organizational outcome are widely researched topics. The studies provide crucial insights regarding the three variables, which assisted formulating the hypotheses and the design of a conceptual framework for this study. Notably, the Expectancy Theory and the Goal-setting Theory offered the much-needed theoretical assumptions to understand how the interplay between meaningfulness in work and individual outcome lead to the organizational outcome. The findings in this study can also be described from the same theoretical premises.
Theoretical ImplicationsIn scientific and social researches, the objective of theories is to provide both the new and interesting areas to work on or explore further. The aspect of theoretical implications is to identify additions to existing models and theories. The theoretical implications for this study is to provide a critical insight on organizational and management theories. This means that leadership theories like contingency, situational, classical and systems theories should consider infusing the aspects of meaningful work, the positive meaning of work, and greater good motivation in their approach. More clearly, the concepts elaborated throughout this study provide insight to the existing theories in management, corporate theory, and leadership studies at an organizational level.
Managerial ImplicationsFirst, with the current findings, it is easier for HR departments of Jordanian universities to predict the organizational outcome by assessing the level of meaningfulness in work and individual outcome among their employees. Second, as a partial mediating factor, the individual outcome can provide crucial insights on whether an employee’s performance will reflect and enhance the overall outcome. Third, since tools to assess the two variables are readily available, Jordanian universities can use them to investigate the needs of staff regarding training and development. Fourth HR management in Jordanian universities should pay more attention to the mediating effect of the individual outcome when designing HR development strategies. Also, engaging employees and providing them with a sense of meaning at work is not a one-size-fits-all approach (Hoole and Bonnema, 2015). Finally, this study supported the argument by showing how the level of the meaningfulness of work and the organizational outcome different from one university to the other. Therefore, the findings inform how institutions can evaluate employees and provide organization-specific HRM strategies.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future StudiesThe insights from this study open new avenues for future researchers to further develop the body of literature regarding the mediating effect of the individual outcome. In doing so, many key points will be addressed as limitations in this study. Firstly, it is important to mention that during this study, only four public universities in Jordan were investigated, which is a limitation by itself, because the total number of Public universities are ten universities. Also, all private universities in Jordan were not under exploration in this research. Therefore, the findings of this study are not only limited to a few number of public universities within the higher education sector in Jordan but also lapsed all private universities. Secondly, further research is required to include other crucial relevant variables. For instance, Belias and Koustelios (2014) noted how occupational, national, and organizational cultures influence the behavior, conduct, and attitudes of employees towards work. In this study, the participants from the four universities share the same national and occupational culture. However, there is a possibility that they subscribe to different organizational culture depending on their institutions. Moreover, the inability to control or acknowledge the organizational culture limits the applicability of the findings.
ReferencesAlfes, K., Shantz, A. D., Truss, C., & Soane, E. C. (2013). The link between perceived human resource management practices, engagement and employee behavior: a moderated mediation model. The international journal of human resource management, 24(2), 330-351.
Anuradha, M. V., Srinivas, E. S., Singhal, M., & Ramnarayan, S. (2014). To Work or Not to Work: Construction of Meaning of Work and Making Work Choices. Vikalpa, 39(2), 7-20.
Bailey, C. and Madden, A. (2016). What Makes Work Meaningful or Meaningless? MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(4), 53.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of management review, 38(1), 132-153.
Barsade, S. G., & O’Neill, O. A. (2014). What’s love got to do with it? A longitudinal study of the culture of companionate love and employee and client outcomes in a long-term care setting. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(4), 551-598.
Belias, D., & Koustelios, A. (2014). Organizational culture and job satisfaction: A review. International Review of Management and Marketing, 4(2), 132-149.
Bipp, T., & Kleingeld, A. (2011). Goal-setting in practice, Personnel Review, 40(3), 306-323.
Cullen, K. L., Edwards, B. D., Casper, W. C., & Gue, K. R. (2014). Employees’ adaptability and perceptions of change-related uncertainty: Implications for perceived organizational support, job satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 269-280.
Fess, G., & Henderson, D. A. (2000). Tools at work: Nine ways to evaluate the effectiveness of your team-based organization. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 23(2), 36 -39.
Geldenhuys, M., Łaba, K., & Venter, C. M. (2014). Meaningful work, work engagement, and organizational commitment. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 40(1), 1-10.
Ghadi, M. Y., Fernando, M., & Caputi, P. (2015). Describing work as meaningful: towards a conceptual clarification. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 2(3), 202-223.
Hoole, C., &Bonnema, J. (2015). Work engagement and meaningful work across generational cohorts. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(1), 1-11.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1264-1294.
Judd, C.M., and Kenny, D.A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5(5), pp.602-619
Karatepe, O. M., Beirami, E., Bouzari, M., & Safavi, H. P. (2014). Does work engagement mediate the effects of challenge stressors on job outcomes? Evidence from the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 36, 14-22.
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., de Vet, H. C., & van der Beek, A. J. (2014). Measuring individual work performance: Identifying and selecting indicators. Work, 48(2), 229-238.
Langridge, N. L. (2014). Beyond Earnings: Meaning in Work and Meaning in Life as Byproducts of the Collegiate Experience (Doctoral dissertation, James Madison University).
Lips-Wiersma, M., Lips-Wiersma, M., Wright, S., Wright, S., Dik, B., &Dik, B. (2016). Meaningful work: Differences among blue-, pink-, and white-collar occupations. Career Development International, 21(5), 534-551.
Michaelson, C., Pratt, M. G., Grant, A. M., & Dunn, C. P. (2014). Meaningful work: Connecting business ethics and organization studies. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(1), 77-90.
Morrow, D., & Conger, S. (2015). Exploring Meaningfulness in Work: Why Sensitivity Matters. Journal of Positive Management, 6(4), 3-14.
O’Boyle, I. (2013). Traditional performance appraisal versus 360-degree feedback. Training & Management Development Methods, 27(1), 201-212.
Raub, S., & Blunschi, S. (2014). The power of meaningful work: How awareness of CSR initiatives fosters task significance and positive work outcomes in service employees. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55(1), 10-18.
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2014). What do we know about employee engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 155-182.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A., 2009. Understanding research philosophies and approaches. Research methods for business students, 4, pp.106-135.
Seligman, M. E. (2012). Flourish a visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. Simon and Schuster.
Siengthai, S., & Pila-Ngarm, P. (2016). The interaction effect of job redesign and job satisfaction on employee performance. In Evidence-based HRM: a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 4(2), 162-180.
Song, W., Yu, H., Zhang, Y., & Jiang, W. (2015). Goal orientation and employee creativity: The mediating role of creative role identity. Journal of Management & Organization, 21(1), 82-97.
Steger, M. F., Littman-Ovadia, H., Miller, M., Menger, L., &Rothmann, S. (2013). Engaging in work even when it is meaningless: Positive affective disposition and meaningful work interact with work engagement. Journal of Career Assessment, 21(2), 348-361.
Steger, M.F., Dik, B.J., & Duffy, R.D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322-337.
Sudnickas, T. (2016). Different levels of performance evaluation-individual versus organizational. Viesoji Politikair Administravimas, 15(2), 195-205.
Yeoman, R. (2014). Conceptualizing meaningful work as a fundamental human need. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(2), 235-251.

Appendices
Table 3.1 Reliability Outcomes for Total Meaningfulness of Work
Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items No of Items
Meaningfulness of work subscales Positive Meaning subscale .710 .716 4
Meaning making through work subscale .622 .620 3
Greater Good Motivation subscale .739 .745 3
Total Statistics for meaningfulness of work .823 .827 10
Table 3.3 Reliability Statics for Total Organizational Outcomes Sub-Scale Outcomes
Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
Organizational performance outcome Organizational-Level Quality subscale .825 .825 3
External Adaptability subscale .881 .881 3
Total Statistics for Organizational outcome .900 .900 6
Participant’s Profile
Number of participants by Frequency Percentage
Participants Gender Valid Female 183 41.4
Male 247 55.9
Total 430 97.3
Missing System 12 2.7
Total 442 100.0
Participants’ Age
Valid 55 years and more 12 2.7
45 – Less than 55 years 91 20.6
35 – Less than 45 years 155 35.1
25 – Less than 35 years 171 38.7
Less than 25 years 11 2.5
Total 440 99.5
Missing System 2 .5
Total 442 100.0
Participants’ job category Valid Any other job 44 10.0
Professional 29 6.6
Technical 99 22.4
Administrative 268 60.6
Total 440 99.5
Missing System 2 .5
Total 442 100.0
Participant’s education level Valid PhD Degree 10 2.3
Master Degree 47 10.6
Bachelor Degree 196 44.3
Diplomas Degree 100 22.6
Secondary 71 16.1
Less than secondary 18 4.1
Total 442 100.0
Years of experience Valid 20 years and more 72 16.3
15 -20 years 49 11.1
10 -15 years 114 25.8
5-10 years 134 30.3
1-5 years 60 13.6
Figure 4. 2 : The impact of the meaningfulness of work, which is the independent variable (IV) on the organizational outcome, which is the dependent variable (DV)
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics
R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 .339a .115 .113 .757 .115 56.999 1 440 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Meaningfulness of Work Total Score -mean (using r3Reversecoded)
b. Dependent Variable: Organizational outcome _ mean
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta Meaningfulness of Work _ mean .522 .069 .339 7.550 .000
Table 4.17 Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics
R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 .597a .356 .355 .381 .356 243.416 1 440 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Meaningfulness of Work outcome – mean (usingr3Reversecoded)
b. Dependent Variable: Individual Work Performance outcome – mean
Table 4.18 Co-Efficient
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta Meaningfulness of Work the mean of the .543 .035 .597 15.602 .000
Model Summary b
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics
R Square Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 .270a .073 .071 .774 .073 34.712 1 440 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Individual Work Performance outcome _ mean
b. Dependent Variable: Organizational outcome _ mean
Co-Efficient
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta Individual Work Performance Total Score the mean of the mean of the 2 subscale .458 .078 .270 5.892 .000
The Reliability Statistics of Total Meaningfulness of Work
Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items No of Items
Meaningfulness of work subscales Positive Meaning subscale .710 .716 4
Meaning making through work subscale .622 .620 3
Greater Good Motivation subscale .739 .745 3
Total Statistics for meaningfulness of work .823 .827 10
Reliability Statistics for total individual outcome subscales itemsReliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
Individual outcome subscales Task performance subscale .793 .803 7
Individual contextual performance subscale .822 .827 8
Total Statistics for individual performance .876 .881 15
Reliability Statistics for total Organizational outcomes subscales itemsReliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items N of Items
Organizational performance outcome Organizational-Level Quality subscale .825 .825 3
External Adaptability subscale .881 .881 3
Total Statistics for Organizational outcome .900 .900 6
Descriptive Statistics for Mean Organizational OutcomesStatistic Std. Error
Organizational outcome mean Mean 3.58 .038
95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 3.50 Upper Bound 3.65 5% Trimmed Mean 3.61 Skewness -.505 .116
Kurtosis .154 .232
Summary for Normal Distribution OutcomesConstruct Dimension Mean Std. Deviation Skewness Kurtosis
Meaningful Work Positive Meaning in Work 4.14 .642 -1.262 2.728
Meaning-Making through Work 4.12 .645 -.797 .578
Greater Good Motivation 4.23 .627 -.862 .726
Meaningful of Work Total Score 4.16 .521 -.832 1.304
Individual Outcome Individual Task Performance 4.19 .498 -.577 1.171
Individual Contextual Performance 4.05 .546 -.510 .402
Individual Work Performance Total Score 4.12 .474 -.522 .606
Organizational Outcome Organizational-Level Quality 3.79 .783 -.656 .562
External Adaptability 3.36 .953 -.382 -.167
Organizational Outcome Total Score 3.58 .803 -.505 .154
Positive Meaning of Work by University
University I Consider my career as meaningful Job I understand that my work contributes to making my life meaning I have a good knowledge of what makes my work meaningful I believe that my work has a satisfying purpose Positive meaning subscale Sum of score Positive Meaning subscale
score mean
HU Mean 4.29 4.09 4.29 4.14 16.60 4.19
N 98 100 99 98 100 100
Std. Deviation .799 .889 .659 .760 2.663 .620
JU Mean 4.43 4.08 4.20 3.98 16.50 4.17
N 152 148 150 151 152 152
Std. Deviation .715 .937 .819 .890 2.697 .622
JUST Mean 4.26 4.17 4.15 3.85 16.20 4.11
N 104 104 105 105 106 106
Std. Deviation .955 .853 .806 1.007 2.843 .662
Yarmouk Mean 4.21 4.17 4.07 3.71 15.98 4.04
N 84 83 83 82 84 84
Std. Deviation .945 .809 .934 1.048 2.879 .676
Total Mean 4.32 4.12 4.19 3.93 16.35 4.14
N 438 435 437 436 442 442
Std. Deviation .843 .881 .807 .934 2.761 .642
Meaning Making through Work
University My work contributes to my personal development (increasing my knowledge and my experience) My work helps me better understand myself My work helps me understand the University around me Meaning-Making through work subscale
Sum of score Meaning-Making through Work subscale
mean Score
HU Mean 4.11 4.11 4.16 12.30 4.13
N 100 100 98 100 100
Std. Deviation .815 .764 .699 1.834 .576
JU Mean 4.16 3.93 4.14 12.23 4.08
N 152 152 152 152 152
Std. Deviation .977 .954 .798 2.089 .696
JUST Mean 4.21 4.05 4.24 12.42 4.16
N 104 106 106 106 106
Std. Deviation .855 .797 .763 1.936 .612
Yarmouk Mean 4.29 3.98 4.20 12.37 4.15
N 82 84 84 84 84
Std. Deviation .882 .944 .875 2.155 .671
Total Mean 4.18 4.01 4.18 12.32 4.12
N 438 442 440 442 442
Std. Deviation .895 .875 .783 2.005 .645
Greater Good Motivation by UniversityUniversity My work does not make any impact at my university (R3subtracted from item 6) I know that my work is making a positive difference in the University The work I do serves great goals for my University Greater good motivation sub scale score – Sum (R3subtracted from 6) Greater good motivation subscale score mean (R3subtracted from 6)
HU Mean 2.44 4.17 4.260 10.85 3.63
N 99 100 100 100 100
Std. Deviation 1.319 .697 .7992 2.488 .825
JU Mean 2.47 4.18 4.325 10.95 3.65
N 152 152 151 152 152
Std. Deviation 1.357 .720 .7262 2.560 .853
JUST Mean 2.31 4.06 4.236 10.50 3.54
N 103 105 106 106 106
Std. Deviation 1.615 .818 .8113 3.018 .962
Yarmouk Mean 1.93 3.94 4.286 10.15 3.38
N 84 84 84 84 84
Std. Deviation 1.906 .936 .8722 3.232 1.077
Total Mean 2.32 4.10 4.281 10.67 3.57
N 438 441 441 442 442
Std. Deviation 1.538 .787 .7908 2.804 .922

Total Score for Greater Good Motivation after Reverse CodingUniversity My work does not make any impact at my University (R3 Reverse coded ) I know that my work is making a positive difference in the University The work I do serves great goals for my University Greater good motivation sub scale
Sum of score (R3 Reverse coded) Greater good motivation sub scale score
mean (R3 Reverse coded)
HU Mean 4.32 4.17 4.260 12.71 4.25
N 99 100 100 100 100
Std. Deviation .726 .697 .7992 1.805 .581
JU Mean 4.36 4.18 4.325 12.84 4.29
N 152 152 151 152 152
Std. Deviation .686 .720 .7262 1.773 .571
JUST Mean 4.32 4.06 4.236 12.49 4.19
N 104 105 106 106 106
Std. Deviation .895 .818 .8113 2.260 .695
Yarmouk Mean 4.25 3.94 4.286 12.48 4.16
N 84 84 84 84 84
Std. Deviation .863 .936 .8722 2.050 .683
Total Mean 4.32 4.10 4.281 12.66 4.23
N 439 441 441 442 442
Std. Deviation .782 .787 .7908 1.960 .627
Meaningfulness of Work Total ScoreUniversity Positive Meaning subscale Meaning-Making through Work subscale Greater Good motivation subscale score
(using R3 Reverse coded) Meaningfulness of Work
the mean of the 3 subscales
HU Mean 4.19 4.13 4.25 4.19
N 100 100 100 100
Std. Deviation .620 .576 .581 .453
JU Mean 4.17 4.08 4.29 4.18
N 152 152 152 152
Std. Deviation .622 .696 .571 .525
JUST Mean 4.11 4.16 4.19 4.15
N 106 106 106 106
Std. Deviation .662 .612 .695 .554
Yarmouk Mean 4.04 4.15 4.16 4.11
N 84 84 84 84
Std. Deviation .676 .671 .683 .550
Total Mean 4.14 4.12 4.23 4.16
N 442 442 442 442
Std. Deviation .642 .645 .627 .521
Task Performance – Individual Outcome by Gender
employee gender Item
1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Task performance
Sum of scores Task performance mean
female Mean 4.35 4.18 4.28 4.21 4.33 4.29 3.97 29.45 4.23
N 182 183 183 183 182 181 180 183 183
Std. Deviation .620 .667 .650 .647 .640 .681 .881 3.422 .463
male Mean 4.23 4.15 4.23 4.11 4.24 4.21 4.02 29.09 4.17
N 247 246 245 246 246 247 246 247 247
Std. Deviation .806 .769 .729 .758 .742 .785 .912 3.758 .520
Total Mean 4.28 4.16 4.25 4.15 4.28 4.25 4.00 29.25 4.20
N 429 429 428 429 428 428 426 430 430
Std. Deviation .734 .727 .696 .713 .701 .743 .898 3.619 .496

Task Performance – Individual Outcome by Universities InstitutionsUniversity Item
1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Task performance
Sum of Scores Task performance
mean
HU Mean 4.23 4.12 4.28 4.21 4.38 4.29 4.04 29.43 4.22
N 99 100 99 100 100 99 100 100 100
Std. Deviation .740 .756 .671 .729 .546 .627 .828 3.403 .473
JU Mean 4.27 4.14 4.28 4.13 4.31 4.24 3.88 29.10 4.18
N 152 152 151 151 151 152 149 152 152
Std. Deviation .746 .713 .685 .680 .634 .700 .944 3.588 .482
JUST Mean 4.35 4.18 4.21 4.14 4.12 4.21 4.05 29.18 4.18
N 106 106 106 106 105 106 105 106 106
Std. Deviation .731 .753 .740 .749 .817 .801 .892 3.812 .536
Yarmouk Mean 4.27 4.22 4.24 4.17 4.29 4.22 4.06 29.31 4.21
N 84 83 84 84 84 83 83 84 84
Std. Deviation .700 .682 .670 .742 .815 .898 .915 3.774 .513
Total Mean 4.28 4.16 4.25 4.16 4.28 4.24 3.99 29.23 4.19
N 441 441 440 441 440 440 437 442 442
Std. Deviation .731 .725 .691 .718 .705 .749 .901 3.628 .498
Individual Contextual Performance by University
University Item
1 Item 2 Item
3 Item
3 Item
4 Item
5 Item
6 Item 7 Sum of Individual contextual performance outcome Individual contextual performance outcome mean
HU Mean 4.20 3.94 4.15 4.30 4.21 3.94 3.87 4.20 32.69 4.10
N 99 100 99 100 99 100 100 100 100 100
Std. Deviation .857 .814 .676 .611 .718 .827 .971 .829 4.259 .520
JU Mean 4.19 4.02 4.09 4.18 4.08 3.88 3.80 4.02 32.13 4.03
N 152 152 152 152 148 151 152 152 152 152
Std. Deviation .770 .714 .665 .631 .733 .848 .871 .849 4.262 .518
JUST Mean 4.06 3.98 4.00 4.08 4.21 3.90 3.83 4.22 32.12 4.03
N 106 105 105 106 105 106 105 106 106 106
Std. Deviation .893 .909 .760 .841 .730 .883 .945 .894 4.830 .592
Yarmouk Mean 4.01 3.90 4.01 4.14 4.21 3.98 3.85 4.19 32.25 4.04
N 84 84 84 84 84 83 84 84 84 84
Std. Deviation 1.012 .952 .814 .730 .695 .883 .912 .898 4.586 .572
Total Mean 4.13 3.97 4.07 4.18 4.17 3.92 3.83 4.14 32.28 4.05
N 441 441 440 442 436 440 441 442 442 442
Std. Deviation .870 .832 .721 .703 .722 .856 .917 .867 4.456 .546

Individual Contextual Performance by Employee Genderemployee gender Item
1 Item 2 Item
3 Item
3 Item
4 Item
5 Item
6 Item 7 Sum of Individual contextual performance outcome Individual contextual performance outcome mean
female Mean 4.07 4.04 4.12 4.17 4.12 3.83 3.71 4.07 31.96 4.02
N 182 182 181 183 181 182 182 183 183 183
Std. Deviation .801 .746 .689 .678 .762 .866 .864 .812 4.249 .518
male Mean 4.16 3.91 4.02 4.17 4.21 3.99 3.92 4.20 32.49 4.07
N 247 247 247 247 243 246 247 247 247 247
Std. Deviation .918 .879 .743 .722 .685 .840 .953 .888 4.550 .560
Total Mean 4.12 3.97 4.06 4.17 4.17 3.92 3.83 4.15 32.26 4.05
N 429 429 428 430 424 428 429 430 430 430
Std. Deviation .871 .827 .722 .703 .720 .854 .921 .858 4.427 .542

Individual Work Performance of Total Score by UniversityUniversity Task performance individual outcome mean Individual contextual performance outcome mean the mean of the 2 subscale of Individual Work Performance Total Score
HU Mean 4.22 4.10 4.16
N 100 100 100
Std. Deviation .473 .520 .440
JU Mean 4.18 4.03 4.10
N 152 152 152
Std. Deviation .482 .518 .450
JUST Mean 4.18 4.03 4.11
N 106 106 106
Std. Deviation .536 .592 .514
Yarmouk Mean 4.21 4.04 4.12
N 84 84 84
Std. Deviation .513 .572 .508
Total Mean 4.19 4.05 4.12
N 442 442 442
Std. Deviation .498 .546 .474
Organizational Level QualityUniversity Programs offered at the University meet students’ expectation The University has a distinctive reputation as a result of the programs it offers I recommend prospective students to join this University Organizational-level quality
Sum of scales Organizational-level quality
mean
HU Mean 3.58 4.02 4.13 11.73 3.91
N 100 100 100 100 100
Std. Deviation .794 .841 .734 1.927 .642
JU Mean 3.26 3.73 3.78 10.70 3.60
N 151 150 152 152 152
Std. Deviation .971 .917 .936 2.487 .813
JUST Mean 3.75 4.30 4.41 12.42 4.15
N 106 105 106 106 106
Std. Deviation .882 .709 .701 1.981 .639
Yarmouk Mean 3.23 3.61 3.81 10.60 3.54
N 84 84 83 84 84
Std. Deviation 1.022 .982 .930 2.607 .852
Total Mean 3.45 3.91 4.01 11.33 3.79
N 441 439 441 442 442
Std. Deviation .945 .903 .876 2.393 .783
Organizational Outcomes Total Scores
University Organizational-level quality
External Adaptability Organizational Outcome Score
HU Mean 3.91 3.47 3.69
N 100 100 100
Std. Deviation .642 .935 .726
JU Mean 3.60 3.17 3.38
N 152 152 152
Std. Deviation .813 .918 .796
JUST Mean 4.15 3.79 3.97
N 106 106 106
Std. Deviation .639 .867 .689
Yarmouk Mean 3.54 3.04 3.29
N 84 84 84
Std. Deviation .852 .938 .825
Total Mean 3.79 3.36 3.58
N 442 442 442
Std. Deviation .783 .953 .803
Summary of Hypothesis TestingDependent Variable (DV)
Organizational Outcome
Independent Variable (IV) Beta T R2 P value
Variable when mediation not in the mode meaningfulness of work (MW) .339 7.550 .115 0.000
the individual outcome (IO) .270 5.892 .073 0.000
Model: A combination of meaningfulness of work and individual outcome: .122 Variable when mediation in the mode meaningfulness of work (MW) .275 4.940 .122 0.000
the individual outcome (IO) .106 1.903 0.000