The Map of Meaning® framework was developed through Dr. Marjolein Lips-Wiersma's groundbreaking doctoral research. In this interview, she recounts that fascinating journey and what it taught her about how humans find meaning at work and beyond.
The Map of Meaning ® is a deceptively simple tool with an enormous impact. Developed through rigorous research by Dr. Marjolein Lips-Wiersma, the Map is a visual framework that breaks down the human experience of meaning into four interconnected pathways and three tensions. It's been used to help individuals and organizations around the world create more meaningful work, and you may know it as the framework on which the Meaningful Work Inventory (MWI) is based. But have you ever wondered where this framework came from? Where did it all start, and how does one go about researching a topic as ineffable as meaning?
You may be surprised to learn that Lips-Wiersma, or “Marjo” as she’s known to friends and colleagues, didn’t set out to study meaning at all—let alone to design a framework for it. Her doctoral thesis is about the implications of individual spirituality within the workplace. In her research interviews, however, certain themes emerged that spoke to a broader human truth. Regardless of our individual beliefs, you see, we humans are wired to seek meaning. And as we move toward what matters to us most, Lips-Wiersma's research showed, there are predictable factors that influence our experience of meaning. The Map of Meaning illustrates these key factors and shows how they all work together.
Marjo spoke with us over Zoom from her home in New Zealand, where she is a professor of ethics and sustainability leadership at Auckland University of Technology. We discussed her early experiences of work, the fascinating research journey that led to the development of the Map, the difference between meaning and purpose, and the value she sees in MeaningSphere’s offerings.
MeaningSphere: Could you share where you’re from, and how this may have shaped your ideas about work?
Marjolein Lips-Wiersma: I was raised on a small farm in the north of the Netherlands. My dad was a trader, and my mom had two florist shops. I had the privilege of actually seeing my parents working. I think so many people, your parents go away, and then they come back, and you have no idea what they do. But quite early on, I got involved in their work: My dad would take me to places where they bought and sold cows. And my mom, I think when I was about 10 or 11, I got to work in [her] shop for 25 cents a day, or something. Very little, but you know it was more the learning of it. Seeing work, I think, had something to do with me being interested in work.
I was not somebody who immediately knew what I wanted to study or why. So I did a bit of this, bit of that. I worked for a while as a secretary, for instance, for one of those bureaus that hire you out for a month here, two months there. I worked in some factories. I worked in a hospital, but all as just temporary work.
MS: It's almost like you got to be a nomad in the world of work. I'm sure you had observations about what works, what doesn't, the different norms that exist, and cultures. Did that help you advance your thinking?
MLW: I think it did, because at some places you felt straight at home, and you felt comfortable working there. I remember places, like some law office where we would literally just fall off our chairs, laughing. There was a sense of humor in the whole workplace, and I don't know what that was, but it was fun. Or people were encouraging, or you felt that you could just try something. So there were places of work where you could be human, I think, and there were places of work that shut you down.
MS: You were already kind of doing your research without realizing it.
MLW: That's right. At a young age where you're just wanting to learn. And you're just observing.
MS: So much of what we learn about work takes place in university, but sometimes university is not the best place to learn.
MLW: Well, for me altogether, formal learning was not the best. I spent–certainly at high school–a large proportion of my time not being there. I think I was just bored.
MS: Now you would say that you were “unengaged.”
MLW: Yes, exactly. I was unengaged. My first bachelor's degree, in business studies, wasn't really the best place for me to learn as well. I think it’s not until you do your masters that you can actually do that self-driven learning. You can start pursuing your own interests. You're all of a sudden in smaller classes, so you can ask questions, and they'll speak directly to you and answer your question rather than kind of just throw stuff at large groups of people. So in that sense, I think I started to engage, when the system also started to engage with me.
MS: Can you take me through the timeline of your move to New Zealand and your eventual Ph.D work there?
MLW: I was 28 when I moved to New Zealand, and I would have been 29, 30 when I did my master's. And then, as I was doing my master’s, the university in the biggest city here, Auckland, gave me a scholarship to do my Ph.D.
I did it on diversity, initially. It interested me. I wrote, “Maybe diversity shouldn't be managed as much as it should be celebrated.”
And then my supervisor said, “Well, maybe, but where do you get that from? You can't just say that.”
And I said, “Well, that's from my own spiritual background.”
And then I thought, “Gosh, actually, this is much more of an interesting question: Can people freely express their spiritual beliefs? And what does that contribute? And where is that hindering? Where is that not helpful? And where is that actually quite helpful?”
And so that's how I then shifted to doing the Ph.D. on how people bring their spirituality into the workplace.
MS: How does one go about researching spirituality and work?
MLW: I interviewed people. There might be a Mormon person who owns a funeral home, and there might be a Buddhist person who is a nurse. I did interview a Baha'i couple, and they were mussel farmers. I interviewed a Quaker who was a CEO of quite a technical company. They were very, very different roles, and had very different spiritual backgrounds, and were from very different ethnic backgrounds as well.
And I kept going until what we call “the saturation of the data,” where nobody tells you anything that you haven't heard before. So that you feel that you have the full picture of what they meant by their spirituality in their workplace.
I asked them to tell me the story of their working life, a bit like you: where did it start? And then, as it got closer to where they were now, it got more detailed. Then I asked them to point out where they experienced their spirituality, and where their spirituality was lost or denied or silenced.
Over time, I saw these common themes. It had to do with what we call “Unity with Others”: High quality relationships. It had to do with making a difference, or Service to Others. One person said, “I’m a unique note in the universe. I have to express my full potential.” The negative stories were about being lonely or excluded, obstacles to making a difference, losing your integrity, not liking who you are becoming, those sorts of things. So those themes kept coming up in all of these stories of all of these people.
So, when I had completed the individual interviews, I invited them all to a feedback meeting. I had all those themes in front of them, and I just asked them: “Is this what you said?” So I did research with people rather than on people.
And I took their input with me. Then they explained the tensions between self and other and doing and being: “Yes, service is really important, but not if I do too much at the expense of my own integrity, or at the expense of expressing my own full potential.” So that's why the Map of Meaning is not just about dimensions of meaning, such as Unity and Service, but also about the tensions between these dimensions and work becoming meaningless when the tensions are not addressed over a long period of time.
And then they went, “Yeah, yeah. But there's also something about our organization, when you want to say something exciting or positive and everybody just goes, ‘Well, let's get real.’ Or when you hear a manager say ‘but in reality’ as if things will always stay in this same reality. And you feel so stuck in the here and now and reality. So, we need inspiration.”
And then other people went, “Yeah, we need inspiration. But some of my managers are giving these inspirational talks, and it's completely ungrounded, you know? And then I lose meaning as well, when things are ungrounded.”
So it's that balance between inspiration and the current reality where meaning is experienced.
The second phase of research was when the map started jumping off the page. People started using it to see meaning outside themselves and this seemed very helpful.
MS: What is the Map of Meaning? How would you describe its value to someone totally uninitiated?
MLW: I would simply say, you know your life is meaningful, but you often experience that as an emotion, and what the map does is it helps you to see it outside of yourself. I think it's only when you see it outside of yourself that you can make conscious decisions about it.
And also when meaning becomes visible, what is and is not meaningful to you, or your team, can be shared with other people. You can have the map as a couple or in your workplace. You can make it visible to other people, it can be a shared meaning, whereas otherwise meaning is often delegated or relegated to the private realm, and that is not at all helpful.
MS: When did the Map start to be used by the public?
MLW: You know, people started using it. For me, it was just a research framework, right? And then, when I started presenting that research at conferences, people went, “Oh, wow! Could we use that? Could we have a conversation using this? Could this guide questions that we ask from employees? Could we have it on the floor, and could we walk on it? Could we do this? Could we do that?”
We then started to have some very initial, very small courses. And that's how we learned the things that we try to train your Guides in: How to work respectfully with meaning so it emerges from people themselves, rather than telling them what is meaningful. But also to have a structure to work with so that people don’t get lost in these deep conversations. Some people started using it in coaching and stuff because they all went, “Oh, my God, I spent months trying to get clear on what is meaningful to people, and this does it in an hour! This is so helpful.”
At the time, we still had “spirituality” in the middle [of the Map]. And then people said, “Yeah, the word spirituality doesn't work for me.” And so then we put “inspiration” there, because inspiration literally still has spirit in it, but also means breathing life into something.
So that was how we decided that, actually, “spirituality” gets in the way, especially in public spaces. But people are always still invited to use their own words, so if they want to put spirit, or God, or the Great Unknown in the middle, that is totally fine. It is important that the words resonate with them and are based on their own worldview.
In Part 2 of this interview, we’ll get into the nuts and bolts of the Map of Meaning: How the pathways and tensions work together, the difference between purpose and meaning, and how individuals and organizations are using the Map to build a more meaningful experience of work. Stay tuned!
Marjolein Lips-Wiersma is professor of ethics and sustainability leadership at Auckland University of Technology. Her research takes place at the nexus of meaningful work, sustainability, and hope. She has published in journals such as the Journal of Business Ethics, the Journal of Organizational Behavior, the Journal of Management Studies, Leadership Quarterly, Human Relations, Group & Organization Management, and the Journal of Management Inquiry, and has been a member of several editorial boards.
Interview conducted by Anna Weltner.
Comentarios