Research paper · RP27

Purpose at Work Pays

Can meaning at work be trained, and does the training move engagement and turnover intention? An exploratory random-effects pool of five meaning-specific controlled samples found a small effect on work engagement (Hedges g = 0.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.40; I² = 0%; 95% prediction interval 0.07 to 0.46). A pooled effect on turnover intention is not yet possible: no eligible trial measured that outcome with a standard scale. We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, CTRI, ClinicalTrials.gov and OSF (2005–2026) for randomised and controlled trials of job crafting for meaning, purpose reflection, beneficiary contact and values-at-work exercises among employed adults. Ten controlled studies met the meaning-focused eligibility bar. Brief writing and reflection practices raised measured meaning by about g = 0.26 (four samples). The largest field trial — a purpose-discovery workshop randomised among 2,976 white-collar staff in 14 countries, including India — raised a meaning index by 0.11 standard deviations and raised the annual exit rate by 2.8 percentage points (21% relative to a 13.2% control rate). Stayers improved their performance. Certainty is low. Trials are small, unblinded and short, except the one large administrative-data experiment. Correlational work still shows a large link between meaning and engagement (r ≈ 0.70) and a moderate inverse link with withdrawal intentions (r ≈ −0.49); those associations are not intervention effects and are kept separate. For an Indian workplace programme the practical reading is narrow: meaning can be practised as a daily rep; engagement may rise a little; purpose work can also help the misaligned leave. That is a selection effect, not a failure of the practice.