Content uploaded by David Bryce Yaden
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Bryce Yaden on Jan 01, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpos20
The Journal of Positive Psychology
Dedicated to furthering research and promoting good practice
ISSN: 1743-9760 (Print) 1743-9779 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpos20
Mattering is an indicator of organizational health
and employee success
Andrew Reece, David Yaden, Gabriella Kellerman, Alexi Robichaux, Rebecca
Goldstein, Barry Schwartz, Martin Seligman & Roy Baumeister
To cite this article: Andrew Reece, David Yaden, Gabriella Kellerman, Alexi Robichaux, Rebecca
Goldstein, Barry Schwartz, Martin Seligman & Roy Baumeister (2019): Mattering is an indicator
of organizational health and employee success, The Journal of Positive Psychology, DOI:
10.1080/17439760.2019.1689416
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1689416
Published online: 28 Nov 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 582
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 2 View citing articles
Mattering is an indicator of organizational health and employee success
Andrew Reece
a
, David Yaden
b
, Gabriella Kellerman
a
, Alexi Robichaux
a
, Rebecca Goldstein
c
, Barry Schwartz
d
,
Martin Seligman
b
and Roy Baumeister
e
a
BetterUp, San Francisco, CA, USA;
b
Positive Psychology Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA;
c
Department of English, New York
University, New York, NY, USA;
d
BetterUpLabs,SwarthmoreCollege,Swarthmore,PA,USA;
e
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Lucia,
Australia
ABSTRACT
Mattering, one’ssenseofthedifference one makes in the world, has been variously described in
psychological and philosophical literatures. We propose the experience of mattering is tied to the
perceived impact of one’s actions and is best understood as an action-oriented, context-dependent
construct. We introduce the Organizational Mattering Scale (OMS) for measuring mattering in organi-
zations. Across four studies, factor analysis revealed a general mattering factor and two sub-factors,
recognition and achievement (CFI = .98, RMSEA = .06). Construct validity and predictive validity are
established across a range of psychological and organizational measures. Notably, OMS scores were
more related to self-efficacy than self-esteem (p< .01), and positively related to key business outcomes,
including job satisfaction (r=.51,p< .01), having a leadership role (t= 6.91, p< .01), recent promotions
(t= 2.26, p< .05) and retention (r=.31,p<.01).
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 1 August 2019
Accepted 31 October 2019
KEYWORDS
Mattering; self-efficacy;
organizational health; future
of work; employee thriving
Introduction
Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does.
—William James, Letter to Helen Keller (1905)
When people have a real sense of legacy, a sense of
mattering, a sense of contribution, it seems to tap into
the deepest part of their heart and soul. It brings out the
best and subordinates the rest.
—Stephen R. Covey, The Stephen R. Covey Interactive
Reader—4 Books in 1 (2015)
It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which employees
know their work does not matter to their organization, yet
still continue to be motivated, feel satisfied, and add value
to the organization. That one’s actions matter at work is
therefore a concern for employees, management, and
leadership. What it means to matter to one’s organization,
however, and how best to measure mattering, are divisive
questions in a body of literature that spans several dis-
ciplines. The goals of our investigation were to clarify the
concept of mattering, advance a new sense of mattering
for use in organizational settings, and to provide a new
measure for individual differences in subjective mattering.
Indeed, mattering can be conceptualized as either
objective or subjective. Objective mattering would be
assessed in terms of objective consequences, whereas
subjective mattering would be a person’s private sense
that his or her actions have important consequences. To
be sure, one can make the philosophical case that in the
very long run, such as beyond the life earth’s solar
system, nothing matters objectively (Nagel, 1971). But
in shorter time frames, clearly, some people and events
have more impactful consequences than others.
Subjective mattering can be studied either as a proxy
for objective mattering or as important in its own right.
A common theme across the various senses of matter-
ing in the literature is that it is generally beneficial.
Mattering has consistently demonstrated positive correla-
tions with positive affect, self-esteem, and well-being
(Elliott, Colangelo, & Gelles, 2005; Jung & Heppner, 2017;
Marcus, 1991; Rosenberg & McCullough, 1981) and has
shown negative correlations with hostility, aggression,
and several other pathological mental states (Elliott, Kao,
&Grant,2004; Jung & Heppner, 2017; Marshall, 2001;Rayle,
2005). While these findings provide some information
about mental health outcomes related to mattering, how
mattering operates in organizational settings has been
rarely investigated.
Philosophers have tended to consider mattering as
primarily related to actions and consequence. Recently,
philosopher Rebecca Goldstein (2015) observed one
could conceive of mattering as 1) arête (ἀρετή), the
achievement of excellence in one’s actions, and 2)
CONTACT Andrew Reece andrew.reece@betterup.co
Present affiliation for Barry Schwartz is Management Department, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, USA.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1689416
© 2019 BetterUp, Inc.
kleos (κλέος), the renown accrued for one’s excellence in
action.
1
O’Brien (1996) proposed that the most impor-
tant characteristic of mattering was when a subject ‘has
a sizeable influence, effect, bearing, or impact on [some
object]’(p. 340).
2
Given this framing, an individual mat-
ters because they have acted, and because their actions
have had an impact on some object in the environment
(which may be a person, a group, or an abstract entity,
such as society at large). Of course, there are a number of
different senses of the term mattering, such as one’s
intrinsic worth (i.e. one ‘matters’ethically because one
is a human being), but we propose that the most rele-
vant sense of mattering in organizational settings is the
impact of one’s actions. Further, we find the distinction
between excellence in achievement (arête) and recogni-
tion (kleos) in Goldstein’s work theoretically valuable
and worth exploring empirically.
This self-assessed action-oriented view of mattering
has been largely overlooked by psychological research-
ers, however. One’s sense of mattering was first intro-
duced as a topic of interest in the context of adolescent
and family counseling psychology, where it was charac-
terized as ‘the individual’s feeling that he or she counts,
makes a difference’(Rosenberg, 1985, p. 215). While
‘making a difference’arguably implies a degree of
agency and action on the part of the individual, this
line of inquiry has focused more on the affective
mechanisms that cause one person to matter to another.
Examples include feelings of dependence (Rosenberg &
McCullough, 1981), appreciation (Schlossberg, 1989),
and the feeling of being missed (Rosenberg, 1985).
In contrast to the action-oriented view of mattering,
Rosenberg and McCullough (1981) conceptualized mat-
tering in a way emphasizing one’s felt sense of whether
others ‘depend on us, [or] are interested in us’(p.165). This
feeling-oriented mattering has been explored in several
contexts, including adolescent counseling (Marshall, 2001;
Rayle, 2005,2005; Rosenberg & McCullough, 1981), col-
lege life (Dixon, Scheidegger, & McWhirter, 2009;France&
Finney, 2009;Schlossberg,Lassalle,&Golec,1990;Tovar,
Simon, & Lee, 2009), military education (Myers & Bechtel,
2004), and medical residency (Powers, Myers, Tingle, &
Powers, 2004). A few studies have focused on mattering
in adult populations as well (Connolly & Myers, 2003;
Corbière & Amundson, 2007; Elliott et al., 2004;
Froidevaux, Hirschi, & Wang, 2016; Jung & Heppner, 2017).
Research on this feeling-oriented mattering looks
much like the literature on self-esteem. Self-esteem,
broadly construed, is a measure of positive self-evalua-
tion–how highly one thinks of and how warmly one feels
about oneself (Rosenberg, 1965). This connection
between mattering and self-esteem is not entirely sur-
prising –Rosenberg, who was an early proponent of
mattering research, is also widely credited as a primary
author and researcher on self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965;
Rosenberg & McCullough, 1981). There is already a very
large literature on self-esteem, and it is not clear that
advances in theory or measurement of feeling-oriented
mattering would add anything, so that is not our focus.
Action-oriented mattering, by comparison, is more
similar to self-efficacy, the belief that one can accomplish
aspecific task (Bandura, 1977). These two constructs –
self-efficacy and action-oriented mattering –are related,
in that they both refer to an individual’scapacityfor
action, but they occupy different positions on the timeline
of action. Self-efficacy refers to one’s own self-assessed
potential for action (‘I can do it’). Mattering, on the other
hand, is a form of post-action self-assessment (‘How did
Ido?’). The perceived impact of one’s actions provides the
frame of reference. As such, self-efficacy and mattering
can be conceived of as bookends, of a sort, paired
together as precursor and successor of one’s own orienta-
tion to action (Figure 1). Self-efficacy, unlike self-esteem,
consistently predicts positive outcomes that are consis-
tent with one’s actual circumstances (Ajzen, 2002; Chen,
Gully, & Eden, 2004;Judge&Bono,2001;Pajares,1996;
Parker, 1998).
Self-efficacy, generally speaking, has been shown to
be a more relevant construct than self-esteem for orga-
nizational outcomes.
3
Parker (1998) demonstrated that
workplace self-efficacy was a distinct construct from self-
esteem, and found self-efficacy to be a stronger predic-
tor of key business metrics than self-esteem. Judge and
Bono (2001) found self-efficacy to correlate with job
satisfaction at almost double the strength of the rela-
tionship between job satisfaction and self-esteem. Chen
et al. (2004) found workplace self-efficacy to be more
related to motivational states and traits (e.g. goal orien-
tation, need for achievement), which in turn predicted
employee performance.
4
Given the relative abundance
of support for self-efficacy as more relevant to
Figure 1. The relationship of self-efficacy to action-oriented mat-
tering. Self-efficacy describes an assessment of one’scapacityfor
action which occurs prior to taking action, whereas action-oriented
mattering relates more to the perception of the impact one’s
actions have had on one’s environment. Note that the arrow in
the diagram is an indication of time passing, not of causality.
2A. REECE ET AL.
organizational outcomes than self-esteem, instruments
intended to measure organizational mattering should be
closer to self-efficacy than self-esteem.
This more action-oriented and behavioral emphasis
may disambiguate mattering from the related psycholo-
gical construct of meaning (see Figure 1). Meaning is
a central component of well-being (Seligman, 2012)with
a rich theoretical and empirical literature (Baumeister,
1992; Baumeister, Vohs, Aaker, & Garbinsky, 2013;
Fontaine, Haizlip, & Lavandero, 2018;Park,2010;
Prilleltensky, 2014). The relationship between meaning
and mattering may seem obvious, but the correlations
between the two constructs have not been empirically
established.
Moreover, a substantial literature exists on the topic of
meaning in work, which refers to the symbolic connections
people make between aspects of themselves, their work,
and other people (Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010;
Wrzesniewski, Dutton, & Debebe, 2003). Work that is
deemed extremely meaningful and central to one’ssense
of identity is sometimes referred to as a ‘calling’
(Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997;Yaden,
McCall, & Ellens, 2015). Meaning at work is bolstered by
perceived support from one’s organization (Rhoades &
Eisenberger, 2002) and knowing the significance of the
task that one is engaged in can improve productivity
(Grant, 2008). Characterizations of meaningful work in
a measurement context, however, have so far resisted
convergence; in a recent literature review of workplace
meaning, Both-Nwabuwe, Dijkstra, and Beersma (2017)
found no fewer than 14 distinct characterizations of the
construct across 72 publications, although the authors
identified the Comprehensive Meaningful Work Scale
(Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012) as one of the most repre-
sentative measures of workplace meaning.
Organizational mattering
Prior work has emphasized feeling-oriented mattering,
sometimes referred to as ‘interpersonal mattering’
(Marcus, 1991; Marshall, 2001; Rosenberg & McCullough,
1981) or societal mattering (Elliott et al., 2004;Jung&
Heppner, 2017; Rosenberg, 1985) in the extant literature.
But neither one of these formulations addresses the spe-
cifics of a work setting. When considering the relationship
of an employee to the organization, a sense of mattering is
oriented to the impact of that employee’s work, on the
organization. Rather than focusing on coworkers’affective
sentiments (as is typical of feeling-oriented, interpersonal
mattering), or on the broad, overarching implications of
one’sworkonone’s place in society (societal mattering),
organizational mattering hews closer to the themes of
identity and belonging addressed in the organizational
identification literature (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).
Organizations come with their own contained societal
and cultural structures, and assuch,anymeasureoforga-
nizational mattering should consider the organization as
a primary point of reference. Thus, our focus will be on
assessing how much individuals feel that their work perfor-
mance matters to their organization.
Research on mattering in organizational settings has
not addressed the action-oriented view of mattering (our
emphasis), although some preliminary findings point to
the promise of feeling-oriented mattering (including inter-
personal and/or societal mattering) in organizational set-
tings. Jung (2018) and Jung and Heppner (2017)proposed
that work may be seen as a means of feeling like one is
contributing to society. That work was cast as an explicit
revival of Rosenberg’s(1985) suggestion that ‘societal
mattering’might be an important, and altogether differ-
ent, sort of mattering than the feeling-oriented mattering
formulation. But in our view, this more emotional char-
acterization only tangentially addresses the action-
oriented basis for mattering, which is the impact of
one’s actions on one’s immediate environment, especially,
for our purposes, in organizational settings. In organiza-
tional settings, unlike in family or friend groups, one’s
actions usually matter most. We argue that our concep-
tualization of action-oriented mattering, drawing more on
self-efficacy, is more relevant to organizational contexts.
Therefore, we have created the Organizational Mattering
Scale, which operationalizes this more action-oriented
view (see Appendix A for scale items).
Action-oriented mattering in an organizational context,
then, is in part about the recognition of one’sefforts, as
opposed to any kind of personal or emotional sentiment
expressed by one’s coworkers. Empirical support motivat-
ing this position is provided in García-Herrero et al. (2017),
who showed that recognition of one’sactualactionshad
a stronger positive impact on employees than did expres-
sions of social support. In a meta-analysis of 558 studies of
organizational support, Kurtessis et al. (2017)foundthat
employee perceptions concerning the extent to which the
organization values their actual contributions strongly pre-
dicted positive orientation towards the organization, along
with worker productivity and well-being. These results
suggest that organizational mattering is not only of critical
importance for employees but also for employers, as orga-
nizational functioning improves when workers feel their
work matters. We refer to action-oriented mattering in
organizational contexts as organizational mattering.
The measurement of organizational mattering
Despite some indications of the potential value of mea-
suring the action-oriented kind of mattering in
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 3
organizational settings, no assessment instrument cur-
rently exists. The two most common mattering scales
are Rosenberg and McCullough’s(1981) original instru-
ment, and the General Mattering Scale (Marcus, 1991),
both of which emphasize feeling-oriented mattering that
is closely related to the self-esteem literature. The
Mattering to Others Questionnaire (MTOQ) is another
interpersonal measure that is typically used in adolescent
counseling work (Marshall, 2001). France and Finney
(2010) developed a University Mattering Scale for under-
graduate collegiate settings, and Elliot et al.’s(2004)
Interpersonal Mattering Scale for adult populations, both
of which also focus on the feeling-oriented formulation of
mattering, and are designed for use outside of organiza-
tional settings.
5
Connolly and Myers (2003) attempted to
apply the feeling-oriented General Mattering Scale
(Marcus, 1991) in an organizational setting, but found
scant support for a link between this sense of mattering
and work outcomes.
And while Jung and Heppner (2017) broached the
subject of societal mattering in a work setting, they
were primarily interested in assessing how one’s experi-
ence of work enables the feeling of mattering to society
in general. They largely overlooked the implications of
employee mattering within the organizational context,
per se. In short, organizational science is currently with-
out a satisfactory means of measuring action-oriented
organizational mattering. Thus, there is an opportunity
to measure the action-oriented sense of mattering in
organizational settings.
Organizational mattering is distinguished from pre-
vious formulations by one central tenet: at work, matter-
ing is a consequence of successful actions. According to
this view, an employee knows they matter due to self-
assessment and recognition of their actions, not because
they express emotional dependence. To be sure, expres-
sions of collegiality and social support among coworkers
are generally positive indicators of a healthy work cul-
ture –but they do not specifically inform this sense of
mattering. According to our action-oriented view of
mattering, employees may know they matter to the
organization more broadly because the quality of their
efforts add value. When considering whether one adds
value in this way, one can assess the quality and impact
of one’s own work as well as feedback from others. These
two features of mattering –1) excellence and 2) recogni-
tion –are similar to the Greek concepts of arete and
kleos discussed by Goldstein (2015).
In this study, we aimed to operationalize action-
oriented organizational mattering, including items
related to both excellence and recognition. To that
end, we created items and tested them using explora-
tory and confirmatory factor analyses. We then
compared our Organizational Mattering Scale (OMS) to
other mattering scales in the extant literature as well as
related constructs such as meaning, sense of calling,
purpose to check for convergent and divergent validity.
We also compared the OMS with self-esteem and self-
efficacy. Lastly, we correlated the OMS with various posi-
tive organizational outcomes of interest such as raises,
promotions, and retention. An assessment instrument
devoted to organizational concerns should be able to
predict outcomes which are relevant to business and
organizational settings.
Scale development occurred across four phases: (1)
item development and pilot testing, (2) item refinement
and exploratory factor analysis, (3) confirmatory factor
analysis, (4) reliability, construct validity, and predictive
validity for organizational outcomes of interest (senior-
ity, promotions, raises, turnover risk, and job satisfac-
tion). We address each phase in turn.
Present research
The present work had two objectives. First, we sought to
develop a new measure of mattering that would apply
specifically to organizational and business contexts.
Toward that end, we devised items to assess the belief
that one’s work performance had important conse-
quences for the organization. It was intended to be dis-
tinct from both self-esteem and self-efficacy, though
between those two we sought a closer link to self-efficacy
than self-esteem, primarily because the emphasis in orga-
nizational mattering should be on quality of action in task
performance, as opposed to inherent worth, dependence,
or self-love, all of which are prominent in self-esteem.
Second, we sought to link organizational mattering to
important organizational outcomes. Our approach was
correlational because we assumed bidirectional causality
between subjective mattering and organizational con-
tribution. On one hand, people who make important
contributions to the organization should feel that they
matter (to the organization) more than other people. On
the other hand, people who feel that they matter likely
should feel more motivated to perform effectively than
other people (indeed, the feeling that one’s work does
not matter would presumably be demotivating).
Therefore, high scores on mattering should be corre-
lated with a variety of positive outcome measures in
organizational functioning. Specifically, people who
score high on organizational mattering should be more
likely than low scorers to occupy leadership and/or man-
agerial positions in the organization; they should receive
more promotions and raises; and they should be more
committed to the organization, as indicated by lower
intention of leaving the organization in the near future.
4A. REECE ET AL.
All of these are important aspects of organizational
functioning. Advancing talented people to leadership
positions helps the organization’s overall health and
success, so leaders should matter more than followers
and promotions should go to those who matter most.
Meanwhile, employee turnover is often costly and dis-
ruptive to organizational functioning. Indeed, one long-
term goal of our research is to establish that by making
valuable employees recognize how much they do mat-
ter, they can become more likely to stay with the orga-
nization, thereby minimizing costly turnover.
Regarding our two hypothesized subcomponents of
organizational mattering, it seemed logical that both
achievement and recognition would be linked to promo-
tions, raises, and leadership positions. Presumably,
recognition would be more a result of these things
whereas achievement would be a cause of them.
Retention (i.e., low intention to leave the organization)
might well rest more heavily on recognition than
achievement. We reasoned that someone who achieves
a lot but does not receive recognition would potentially
be quite likely to move to a new organization, where his
or her efforts might be more appreciated.
Method
Phase 1: Item development and pilot study
Item development was initially informed by a literature
review of existing work on mattering, and via consulta-
tion with experts. A gathering of scholars from the dis-
ciplines of organizational behavior, social psychology,
positive psychology, and philosophy convened to iden-
tify key themes on the topic of mattering. Based on the
outcome of this extensive group discussion, we collec-
tively generated the items of the OMS.
After drafting a preliminary set of scale items, we con-
ducted a small pilot round of data collection to assess
construct validity and to compare our results with other
mattering scales. Data were obtained from 196 paid par-
ticipants, recruited through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
platform. Participants were invited to participate if they
were at least 18 years of age, employed full-time in the
United States (minimum 35 h per week), earned at least
$25,000 per year (pre-tax personal income), and were not
self-employed. These inclusion criteria were imposed to
constrain our respondent pool to people likely to be
employed in organizational settings. Additional vetting
measures, including reCAPTCHA verification, were
employed to improve data quality. These inclusion criteria
were applied to all subsequent phases of this research.
Participants
The resulting sample was 60.71% male (male = 119,
female = 77), and ages ranged from 22 to 71 years
(M= 37.65, SD = 9.33). Most respondents identified
as White (67.86%, n= 133). The rest of the sample
was composed of Black (11.73%, n= 23), Asian
(10.71%, n= 21), Latino (6.12%, n= 12), mixed-race
(2.55%, n= 5), Native American (0.51%, n=1),and
Pacific Islander (0.51%, n= 1) ethnicities.
Procedure
Participants completed the 17-item OMS, which consisted
of items with 5-point Likert-type multiple choice answers,
ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’to ‘Strongly agree’.Out
of the 17 items, eight were designed to represent the
achievement sub-dimension, and nine were designed to
represent the recognition sub-dimension of organizational
mattering. Participants also answered demographic ques-
tions, four additional mattering scales, and five measures
related to construct validity, including self-esteem and
self-efficacy.
6
Phase 2: Item refinement and exploratory factor
analysis
The original 17-item scale was reduced to eight items
(four items for each sub-dimension), and items were
reworded for clarity and cleaner delineation of the
achievement and recognition sub-dimensions. A new
round of data collection was conducted to reassess fac-
tor structure and collect additional construct validation
data. Other mattering and meaning scales were adminis-
tered, as in Phase 1, along with additional correlational
measures, including job satisfaction, life satisfaction,
depression and anxiety, and happiness.
Data were obtained from 569 adults recruited through
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform. Participants com-
pleted the eight-item OMS, along with demographic
questions and several correlational measures.
Participants
The resulting sample was 53.43% male (male = 304,
female = 264), and ages ranged from 19 to 69 years
(M = 35.74, SD = 9.45). Most respondents identified
as White (73.81%, n = 420). The rest of the sample
was composed of Asian (8.79%, n = 50), Latino
(6.50%, n = 37), Black (5.98%, n = 34), mixed-race
(3.87%, n = 22), Native American (0.53%, n = 3), and
Pacific Islander (0.18%, n = 1) ethnicities. Two
respondents chose not to disclose their ethnicity.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 5
Procedure
Bartlett’s(1950) test and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin metric
(Kaiser, 1970) were used to determine whether factor
analysis was appropriate. We employed principal axis
factoring to measure the relationship of scale items to
underlying latent factors. Given that we expected the two
dimensions of organizational mattering, achievement and
recognition, to positively correlate with one another, the
promax oblique rotation was applied (Hendrickson &
White, 1964). Goodness-of-fit statistics reported include
the root-mean-square of the residuals (RMSR), the Tucker-
Lewis Index of factoring reliability (Tucker & Lewis, 1973),
the root mean squared error of approximation and its 90%
confidence interval, BIC, and mean item complexity.
We checked our hypothesized two-factor structure
against a number of empirical methods for assessing the
most likely number of latent variables for a given sample.
A majority of these methods were in agreement as to the
number of factors supported in our sample (optimizing
for simple structure): Parallel analysis (Horn, 1965)com-
pares proportion of variance accounted for by each factor,
compared against factors generated from random permu-
tations of the sample data; Very Simple Structure (VSS)
(Revelle & Rocklin, 1979) uses a complexity metric to
determine best fit; Velicer’s(1976) Minimum Average par-
tial procedure uses the partial correlation matrix to deter-
mine best fit; Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), along
with the Sample-size Adjusted BIC (Sclove, 1987), are
common measures of statistical model fit.
Phase 3: Confirmatory factor analysis
We tested the proposed two-factor solution under the
structural equation modeling framework, using the fina-
lized seven-item OMS (one item was dropped during
exploratory factor analysis due to cross-loading) with
a new sample. Additional mattering and meaning scales
were administered, along with correlational measures,
including free will, narcissism, and vocational calling.
Participants
Data were obtained from 616 adults recruited through
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform, via the TurkPrime
web portal. Participants completed the seven-item OMS,
along with demographic questions and several correla-
tional measures. The resulting sample was 54.71% male
(male = 337, female = 279), and ages ranged from 19 to 81
years (M = 36.60, SD = 10.25). Most respondents identified
as White (76.30%, n = 470). The rest of the sample was
composed of Black (6.33%, n = 39), Asian (8.28%, n = 51),
Latino (5.03%, n = 31), mixed-race (3.73%, n = 23), and
unspecified ‘other’(0.16%, n = 1) ethnicities.
Procedure
Structural equation modeling was used for confirmatory
factor analysis, using a maximum likelihood estimator.
Following the recommendations of Hu and Bentler
(1999), the standardized root-mean-square residual
(SRMR), root mean squared error of approximation
(RMSEA) with 90% confidence intervals, Comparative Fit
Index (CFI), and Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) are reported as
goodness-of-fit statistics. Analysis of variance is employed
to test for significant differentiation among competing
models, using the Χ
2
metric of fit as a test statistic.
Phase 4: Predictive validity for organizational
measures
We administered the finalized OMS to a fourth sample to
establish the predictive validity of organizational mattering
to common organizational outcomes that might be most
relevant to employers. Items included were related to cur-
rent work status and performance, and attitudes towards
work, including items related to job satisfaction, manager
status, recent raises and promotions, and intent to leave.
Data were obtained from 423 adults recruited through
Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform. Participants com-
pleted the seven-item OMS, along with work-relatedques-
tions regarding current place of employment: manager
status, dates of recent raises and promotions, and intent
to quit within the next six months. The resulting sample
was 60.28% male (male = 255, female = 168), and ages
ranged from 18 to 69 years (M = 38.65, SD = 9.68). Most
respondents identified as White (80.61%, n = 341). The rest
of the sample was composed of Black (6.38%, n = 27),
Asian (7.09%, n = 30), Native American (3.31%, n = 14), and
unspecified ‘other’(0.47%, n = 2) ethnicities. Three percent
of respondents elected not to answer this question.
Convergent and divergent validity from all samples
Internal reliability of scale constructs was assessed using
Cronbach’sα(Cronbach, 1951) and the Spearman-Brown
Prophecy Formula measure (Brown, 1910; Spearman,
1910). The Spearman-Brown statistic, a standardized
measure of α, is often identical to α, but behaves more
stably, and so we report only standardized reliability
coefficients as α. Polychoric correlation matrices were
used as the basis for all factor-analytic procedures.
OMS items are Likert-type items, and polychoric correla-
tions have been shown as generally more suitable than
Pearson correlations for exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis of Likert-type items (Holgado–Tello,
Chacón–Moscoso, Barbero–García, & Vila–Abad, 2010).
Additionally, OMS item-response distributions demon-
strated a negative skew, and polychoric correlations are
6A. REECE ET AL.
also more robust to moderate violations of normality
than Pearson correlations (Flora & Curran, 2004).
Additional measures were included in each phase of
data collection for construct and predictive validity.
Only a subset of measures was administered during
each phase; sample sizes for each measure are reported
below.
Brief calling scale (Dik, Eldridge, Steger, & Duffy,
2012). 4-item measure of a person’s belief that she or
he is called upon to do a particular kind of work. Divided
into two sub-scales related to the current presence of,
and the search for, a specific calling. Only the ‘presence’
sub-scale was compared to OMS scores. In-sample relia-
bility: α= .78. Example item: I have a calling to
a particular kind of work.(N= 616)
Comprehensive meaningful work scale (Lips-
Wiersma & Wright, 2012). 28-item measure of seven
distinct ways that work can feel meaningful. In-sample
reliability: α= .95. Example item: The vision we collectively
work towards inspires me.(N= 569)
Free will and determinism scale (Rakos, Laurene,
Skala, & Slane, 2008). 22-item measure of personal
beliefs about other people having free will and about
free will related to oneself. In-sample reliability: α= .91.
Example item: I am in charge of the decisions I make.
(N= 616)
General mattering scale (Marcus, 1991). 5-item mea-
sure of interpersonal mattering. In sample reliability:
α= .86. Example item: How much do you feel others
would miss you if you went away? (N= 616)
Job satisfaction survey (Spector, 1985). 36-item
measure of employee job satisfaction. In-sample reliabil-
ity: α= .95. Example item: I like doing the things I do at
work.(N= 569)
Life satisfaction scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, &
Griffin, 1985). 5-item measure of global life satisfaction,
a distinct construct from positive affect. In-sample relia-
bility: α= .92. Example item: In most ways my life is close
to my ideal.(N= 569)
Mattering to others questionnaire (Marshall, 2001).
11-item measure of the perception of mattering to
others, designed originally for use with adolescents. In-
sample reliability: α= .90. Example item: People do not
ignore me.(N= 616)
Meaning in life questionnaire (Steger, Frazier, Oishi,
& Kaler, 2006). 10-item measure of the presence of, and
the search for, meaning in life. In-sample reliability:
α= .90. Example item: My life has a clear sense of purpose.
(N= 616)
Multidimensional existential meaning scale
(George & Park, 2017). 15-item measure of meaning in
life as consisting of comprehension, purpose, and
mattering. In-sample reliability: α= .94. Example item:
I am certain that my life is of importance.(N= 569)
Patient health questionnaire, 4-item (Löwe et al.,
2010). Consists of a 2-item depression scale and a 2-item
anxiety scale. In-sample reliability: α= .85. Example item:
Over the last two weeks, how often have you been both-
ered by the following problems: Feeling down, depressed,
or hopeless.(N= 569)
Rosenberg mattering scale (Rosenberg &
McCullough, 1981). 5-item measure, made for adoles-
cents, to assess the feeling that they mattered to their
parents. In-sample reliability: α= .88. Example item:
People depend on you.(N= 569)
Rosenberg self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965). 11-
item measure of self-esteem. In-sample reliability: α=.94.
Example item: I take a positive attitude toward myself.
(N=569)
Self-efficacy (Luthans, Avolio, Avey, & Norman, 2007).
6-item measure of employees’perceived ability to exe-
cute a specific task within a specific context. Part of the
larger Psychological Capital Index. In-sample reliability: α
= .87. Example item: I feel confident helping to set targets/
goals in my work area.(N= 569)
Single-item narcissism scale (Konrath, Meier, &
Bushman, 2014). Single-item measure of narcissistic per-
sonality. Example item: To what extent do you agree with
this statement: I am a narcissist.(N= 616)
Subjective happiness scale (Lyubomirsky & Lepper,
1999). 4-item measure of subjective personal happiness.
In-sample reliability: α= .92. Example item: In general,
I consider myself: (Answers range from ‘Not a very happy
person’to ‘A very happy person’)(N= 569)
Work mattering scale (Jung & Heppner, 2017). 10-
item measure of the perception of mattering to others
(coworkers) and to society at large. In-sample reliability:
α= .92 Example item: I am connected to society through
my work.(N= 196)
Employment circumstances
Individual items related to the specifics of current
employment. Topics included: manager status, recent
promotions, tenure at current job, self-care, and intent
to quit. (N= 423)
All scale development analyses were conducted using
R, a software environment for statistical computing and
graphics (R Core Team, 2013). The tidyverse suite of
packages (Wickham, 2017) was used for data manipula-
tion. The psych package (Revelle, 2018) was used for
reliability and exploratory factor analysis. The lavaan
package (Rosseel, 2012) was used for confirmatory factor
analysis. The corrplot package (Wei & Simko, 2017) was
used to generate correlation plots.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 7
Results
Phase 1: Pilot study
The goal of the pilot study was to establish key elements of
construct validity –namely, that the action-oriented char-
acterization of mattering correlated more with self-efficacy
than with self-esteem, and that the OMS instrument was
sufficiently distinct from other instruments to warrant
further development. Seventeen organizational mattering
items were generated and administered to a small sample
(n= 196).
Principal components and factor analyses indicated a
lack of clear structure across the full 17-item collection.
7
Removing reverse-coded items (which have been shown to
behave erratically under certain psychometric assessment
conditions, see Barnette, 2000) and eliminating items which
loaded significantly onto multiple factors, reduced the ori-
ginal 17 items down to seven, which produced a barely
tenable single-factor solution (RMSEA = .10). Despite the
clear need for further item refinement, we did use the
available single-factor model to run preliminary construct
validity tests against a number of related measures.
This single-factor organizational mattering construct
was slightly more associated with self-efficacy (r= .64)
than self-esteem (r= .61), although the difference in mag-
nitude between these two correlations was not significant.
Notably, all of the other mattering instruments showed
stronger relationships to self-esteem than to self-efficacy
(see Table 1).
Organizational mattering showed positive correla-
tions with the other mattering scales (Work Mattering
Scale: r= .77, Mattering To Others: r= .80, Rosenberg &
McCullough: r= .80, Multidimensional Existential
Meaning Scale: r= .59 (p< .001 for all correlations listed,
see Table 1). Despite the indication from factor-analytic
results that further item refinement was necessary, these
initial indicators of construct validity provided early sup-
port for the claim that our action-oriented view of orga-
nizational mattering is similar to, but not identical with,
other operationalizations of mattering.
Phase 2: Exploratory factor analysis
Based on results from the pilot study, we iterated a new
set of eight items to more clearly delineate between the
hypothesized mattering dimensions of: 1) achievement
and 2) recognition. A second sample (n= 569) was
collected and factor analyzed (see Figure 2).
Both Bartlett’s(Χ
2
= 2635.31, p< .001) and Kaiser-Meyer-
Olkin (overall MSA = .89) tests indicated factor analysis was
appropriate. Parallel analysis, Velicer’sMinimumAverage
Partial, and BIC all suggested a two-factor structure best fit
the data (Figure 3). An oblique two-factor solution (inter-
factor correlation: r= .61) demonstrated excellent good-
ness-of-fit (RMSR = .01; RMSEA = .05, 90% CI: [.02, .08];
BIC = −31.73; TLI = .99). Compared to a two-factor model,
one-factor (RMSEA = .25; 90% CI: [.24, .28]) and three-factor
(RMSEA = .09; 90% CI: [.05, .13]) models showed inferior
goodness-of-fit. The two-factor solution accounted for 67%
of the variance in the data. The two factors were positively
correlated (r= .61) as predicted, and the model achieved
simple structure (Mean Item Complexity = 1).
Seven items loaded cleanly onto the recognition and
achievement dimensions, with minimum loadings of .62
and .78, respectively, and maximum cross-factor loadings
of .15 and .18, respectively (the eighth item was dropped
due to cross loading). See Figure 3 for a graphical depic-
tion of the two-factor solution; a full table of EFA factor
loadings can be found in Appendix C.
In addition to achieving a two-factor fit with this
revised set of scale items, our primary construct validation
benchmark showed marked improvement. Factor scores
were computed for each mattering dimension in order to
generate correlations with self-efficacy and self-esteem
measures. The recognition sub-dimension of organiza-
tional mattering demonstrated a clear differentiation in
its relationship to self-efficacy (r=.58,p<.001)compared
to self-esteem (r= .41, p< .001), and the achievement sub-
dimension showed similar clear differentiation (self-effi-
cacy: r=.55,p< .001, self-esteem: r=.34,p<.001).For
both the recognition (t=6.34,p< .001) and achievement (t
=5.26,p< .001) OMS sub-scales, the correlation with self-
efficacy was significantly larger than with self-esteem. The
total organizational mattering score showed this pattern
as well (self-efficacy: r=.65,p< .001, self-esteem: r=.43,
p< .001, magnitude of difference between correlations:
Table 1. Construct validity correlation matrix from pilot study.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Organizational
Mattering Scale: Total
2. Organizational
Mattering Scale:
Recognition
0.95
3. Organizational
Mattering Scale:
Achievement
0.91 0.72
4. Self Esteem 0.61 0.56 0.57
5. Self Efficacy 0.64 0.59 0.60 0.54
6. Mattering: Work
Mattering Scale
0.77 0.74 0.68 0.48 0.47
7. Mattering:
Multidimensional
Existential Meaning
Scale
0.59 0.51 0.60 0.76 0.43 0.57
8. Mattering: Mattering
to Others
Questionnaire
0.80 0.76 0.73 0.75 0.65 0.66 0.66
9. Mattering: Rosenberg
Mattering Scale
0.80 0.72 0.79 0.68 0.59 0.74 0.69 0.83
Note. N = 196. All correlations are significant at p< .001.
8A. REECE ET AL.
t=7.09,p< .001). Notably, the other mattering scales
administered in this and the previous sample showed
either the opposite pattern or no significant relationship
with self-efficacy and self-esteem (see Table 2). Mattering
to Others (MTO) and Multidimensional Existential
Meaning (MEM) tracked significantly more closely with
self-esteem than self-efficacy. The Work Mattering Scale
(WMS) and Rosenberg Mattering Scale (RMS) showed no
significant differences between the strength of their rela-
tionship with self-esteem vs self-efficacy. Taken together,
the magnitude, direction, and significance of these corre-
lations, as well as their differential relationship to the
organizational mattering construct, provided a good
match to our theoretical framework.
Phase 3: Confirmatory factor analysis
Afirst-order, two-factor model which allowed for covar-
iance between the two latent variables demonstrated
excellent goodness-of-fit (SRMR = .03; TLI = .97; CFI = .98;
RMSEA = 0.06, 90% CI: [0.03, 0.08]). This model proved
a superior fit to both a single-factor model (Χ
2
difference
= 264.72, p< .001) and an orthogonal two-factor model (Χ
2
difference = 134.17, p< .001).
Figure 2. Parallel analysis indicated a two-factor structure for the Organizational Mattering Scale.
This scree plot compares factor eigenvalues of actual data versus simulated random data. Results from factor analysis (triangular marker) indicate a two-factor
solution, indicated by the eigenvalue divergence observed between actual and simulated data for the first two factors.
Figure 3. Oblique, Promax-rotated two-factor structure of organizational mattering. Factor-loading model shows two dimensions of
organizational mattering. Factor loadings ranged from .62 to .92, and the two factors were correlated at r= .61.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 9
Following the recommendation of Koufteros, Babbar,
and Kaighobadi (2009), we fit a second-order structural
equation, in which the recognition and achievement fac-
tors comprised a general mattering factor. Goodness-of-fit
was comparable to the first-order equation (SRMR = .03;
TLI = .97; CLI = .98; RMSEA = 0.06, 90% CI: [0.04, 0.08]), and
analysis of variance between the first- and second-order
model indicated fit-equivalency (Χ
2
difference: < .01,
p= 1.0). The sub-dimensions loaded onto the general
mattering factor at roughly equal strength (achievement:
.76; recognition: .74). See Figure 4 for the full path diagram
of the second-order equation.
8
Therefore, both the
achievement and recognition constructs emerged as dis-
tinct factors, but also combine to represent a general
mattering construct.
Phase 4: Reliability, validity and scale
characteristics
The general mattering factor and the two sub-dimen-
sions achievement and recognition all achieved good
internal reliability (mattering total:α= .86; achievement:
α= .84; recognition:α= .83). Construct validity for the
OMS measure of organizational mattering was assessed
across five validation themes. See Table 3–5for
a complete listing of correlations.
Theme 1: Emphasizes work and action
Organizational mattering, as a general construct, was
more strongly related to self-efficacy than to self-
esteem (see Results: Phase 2). Notably, this directional
difference was only observed for organizational mat-
tering; all other mattering scales for which data were
collected either failed to disambiguate between self-
Table 2. Significance testing correlation coefficients between
mattering, self-efficacy, and self-esteem.
Mattering Scale
Self-
Efficacy
Self-
Esteem pValue t
Organizational Mattering: Total
b
0.65* 0.43 <.01 7.09
Organizational Mattering:
Achievement
b
0.55* 0.34 <.01 6.34
Organizational Mattering:
Recognition
b
0.58* 0.41 <.01 5.26
Mattering to Others Scale
a
0.65 0.75* <.05 2.38
Multidimensional Existential
Mattering Scale
b
0.53 0.68* <.05 5.27
Work Mattering Scale
a
0.47 0.48 0.86 0.18
Rosenberg Mattering Scale
b
0.59 0.59 0.90 0.13
Note.
a
Pilot sample (N = 196).
b
EFA sample (N = 569). * Indicates a higher
correlation with either self-efficacy or self-esteem with a given mattering scale.
Note. N = 569. All correlations are significant at p< .001. PHQ-4 = Patient
Health Questionnaire-4. MEM = Multidimensional Existential Mattering
Scale. CWMS = Comprehensive Workplace Meaning Scale.
Figure 4. Structural Equation Model ofOrganizational Mattering. A second-order structural equation model provided the best theoretical
and empirical fit to OMS data. A general mattering factor enfolded the achievement and recognition factors, each of which was
represented in roughly equal measure within the general factor. See Appendix D and E for structural equation model specifics.
10 A. REECE ET AL.
efficacy and self-esteem (e.g. Jung and Heppner’s
(2017) Work Mattering Scale; Rosenberg and
McCullough’s(1981) mattering scale), or correlated
more strongly with self-esteem than with self-efficacy
(e.g. Marshall’s(2001) Mattering To Others
Questionnaire, and George and Park’s(2017)
Multidimensional Existential Meaning Scale (see
Table 3). OMS total scores were also more strongly
related to job satisfaction (r= .51, p< .001) than to
satisfaction with life in general (r= .35, p< .001)
(difference in magnitude of correlations: t= 4.12,
p< .001), which further supports the scale as targeting
a mattering formulation specifically relevant to orga-
nizational settings.
Theme 2: Positively correlates with other forms of
mattering
Medium-to-strong positive correlations were observed
with other mattering instruments, including Rosenberg
and McCullough’s(1981) mattering scale (r=.67,
p< .001), the General Mattering Scale (Marcus, 1991)
(r= .45, p< .001), and the Mattering to Others
Questionnaire (Marshall, 2001)(r=.58,p<.001).
Correlation between the achievement subscale and
other mattering scales was lower than the correlation
between the recognition subscale and other scales,
which fits with the notion that most mattering scales
focus on feelings, rather than the impact of one’s actions
(see Tables 3 and 4).
Theme 3: Positively correlates with measures of
workplace meaning
Although meaning and mattering are distinct constructs,
they are closely theoretically related. OMS total scores
demonstrated strong positive correlation (r= .63,
p< .001) with the Comprehensive Meaningful Work
Scale (Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012).
Theme 4: Matches known correlates of mattering
Previous research has found that some forms of matter-
ing are positively associated with positive affect and
well-being (Jung & Heppner, 2017; Marcus, 1991), and
negatively associated with pathological affective states,
such as anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation (Elliot
et al., 2005; Rosenberg & McCullough, 1981; Taylor &
Turner, 2001). In line with these previous findings, orga-
nizational mattering correlated positively with happi-
ness (r= .41, p< .001, using Lyubomirsky and Lepper’s
(1999) Subjective Happiness Scale), and negatively with
depression and anxiety (r=−.27, p< .001, using Löwe
et al.’s(2010) Patient Health Questionnaire). Correlations
are depicted in Table 3.
Theme 5: Validates against novel construct validity
metrics
Three novel construct validity measures were added:
narcissistic tendency, work-as-calling, and the percep-
tion of free will (Table 4). No relationship was observed
with a measure of narcissistic personality tendency
Table 3. Construct validity correlation matrix from EFA stage of data collection.
Variable 1234567891011
1. Organizational Mattering: Total
2. Organizational Mattering: Recognition 0.90
3. Organizational Mattering: Achievement 0.84 0.52
4. Job Satisfaction 0.51 0.51 0.36
5. Life Satisfaction 0.35 0.33 0.27 0.47
6. Happiness (Subjective Happiness Scale) 0.41 0.39 0.33 0.42 0.70
7. Self Esteem 0.43 0.41 0.34 0.51 0.67 0.71
8. Self Efficacy 0.64 0.58 0.55 0.46 0.44 0.46 0.57
9. Anxiety/Depression (PHQ-4)
b
−0.27 −0.26 −0.20 −0.51 −0.53 −0.60 −0.69 −0.38
10. Meaning (MEM)
c
0.48 0.43 0.41 0.44 0.68 0.67 0.68 0.53 −0.46
11. Workplace Meaning (CWMS)
d
0.63 0.61 0.48 0.79 0.50 0.50 0.52 0.59 −0.48 0.56
12. Mattering (Rosenberg Mattering Scale) 0.67 0.61 0.55 0.48 0.47 0.49 0.59 0.59 −0.40 0.61 0.58
Table 4. Construct validity correlation matrix from CFA stage of data collection.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Organizational Mattering Scale: Total
2. Organizational Mattering Scale: Recognition 0.88 ***
3. Organizational Mattering Scale: Achievement 0.81 *** 0.44 ***
4. Meaning (Meaning in Life Questionnaire) 0.34 *** 0.26 *** 0.32 ***
5. Narcissism (Single-Item Narcissism Scale) −0.02 −0.02 0.00 0.03
6. Mattering (General Mattering Scale) 0.45 *** 0.43 *** 0.33 *** 0.33 *** −0.06
7. Mattering (Mattering to Others Questionnaire) 0.58 *** 0.60 *** 0.35 *** 0.33 *** −0.08 0.66 ***
8. Career Calling (Brief Calling Scale) 0.36 *** 0.32 *** 0.28 *** 0.38 *** −0.05 0.35 *** 0.33 ***
9. Free Will (General) 0.22 *** 0.20 *** 0.17 *** 0.12 * −0.04 0.19 *** 0.17 *** 0.05
10. Free Will (Personal) 0.21 *** 0.18 *** 0.18 *** 0.11 * −0.10 * 0.20 *** 0.20 *** 0.06 0.66 ***
Note. N = 616. * p< .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .001.
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 11
(r=−.02, p= .41). This provides some refutation of the
perspective that mattering is, at least in part, related to
distorted perceptions of self-importance. Wrzesniewski
et al. (1997), who found that work that is highly mean-
ingful is associated with positive organizational out-
comes. OMS total scores showed a weak, albeit
significant, positive correlation with the ‘presence of
calling’factor of the Brief Calling Scale (Dik et al., 2012)
(r= .20, p< .01). Besides its extensive pedigree as a topic
in philosophy, belief in free will is another construct
closely tied to self-efficacy (e.g. Bandura, 2008). On the
other hand, the belief in determinism has been tied to
cheating behavior in laboratory settings (Vohs &
Schooler, 2008). OMS total scores were positively corre-
lated with both belief in personal free will (r= .21, p<
.001) and belief in the concept of free will in general (r=
.22, p< .001), as measured by Rakos et al. (2008).
Predictive validity
Instruments designed to measure some aspect of
employee sentiment should be significantly linked to
relevant organizational outcomes. We collected employ-
ment data for a subset of participants (n=423)and
compared key measures to OMS scores via either correla-
tion or logistic regression (in the case of categorical mea-
sures). Organizational variables of interest included
manager status, intent to quit within the next six months,
job satisfaction
9
, and recent promotions and raises.
Significant relationships were identified between organi-
zational mattering and several business- and organiza-
tionally relevant outcomes (see Table 5). The
relationships between total OMS score and organizational
variables are listed as Pearson correlation coefficients (in
the case of comparison against metric variables) or
tcoefficients (in the case of comparison against binomial
variables). The specificimpactoftheachievement and
recognition sub-dimensions are reported as coefficients
from a multiple regression with both sub-dimensions as
the predictors of organizational outcomes.
Organizational mattering significantly predicted
whether respondents occupied a managerial or leadership
role; high OMS total scores were associated with being
a manager or organizational leader (t=−6.91, df = 383.31,
p< .001). This relationship was driven by the recognition
sub-dimension (β= .62, SE = .15, t= 4.23, p< .001); achieve-
ment had a similarly positive, but weaker, relationship to
status (β= .17, SE = .14, t= 1.20, p= .23). OMS total scores
showed strong positive correlation with job satisfaction (r=
.51, p< .001). Both recognition (β= 6.44, SE =.61,t=−10.50,
p< .001) and achievement (β= 2.39, SE = .77, t= 3.10, p=
.002) were significant predictors of job satisfaction.
Organizational mattering was negatively associated with
intent to leave (r=−0.31, p< .001), a measure of how likely
an employee is to quit within the following 6 months. This
suggests that employees who experience high organiza-
tional mattering are more likely to remain at an organiza-
tion. Both recognition (β=−.08, SE = .03, t=−3.18, p< .01)
and achievement (β=−.07, SE = .03, t=−2.41, p= .02) were
significant predictors of this measure of retention. The
recognition subscale of organizational mattering was
asignificant positive predictor of the probability of having
received a promotion (β= .52, SE = .25, t= 2.09, p= .04) or
araise(β= .38, SE = .15, t= 2.50, p= .01) within the past 6
months. Neither total OMS total scores nor achievement
subscale scores were significant predictors of promotions
or raises.
Demographic characteristics
While we did not hypothesize any specificrelation-
ships between demographic factors and organiza-
tional mattering, we report correlations between
OMS scores and a number of common demographic
variables as indicators for potential future research.
Employee age showed a modest positive correlation
with organizational mattering (r=.15,p<.01).Gender
was not a significant differentiator of organizational
mattering (t=−1.37, p= .17). Respondents selected
from seven response levels to indicate their most
advanced level of education (some high school, high
school, some college, associate’s degree, bachelors,
masters, professional degree, doctoral). A one-way
ANOVA with organizational mattering as the depen-
dent variable indicated no significant difference across
education levels (F= .71, df =6,p= .64). See Table 5.
Table 5. Predictive validity correlation matrix.
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Organizational Mattering Scale: Total
2. Organizational Mattering Scale: Recognition 0.92 ***
3. Organizational Mattering Scale: Achievement 0.90 *** 0.66 ***
4. Age 0.15 ** 0.10 * 0.17 ***
5. Gender < 0.01 −0.03 0.04 0.10*
6. Leader or Manager 0.33 *** 0.33 *** 0.26 *** 0.04 0.02
7. Intent to Leave −0.31 *** −0.30 *** −0.28 *** −0.21 *** −0.02 −0.06
8. Raise, past six months 0.05 0.09 −0.01 −0.04 0.08 −0.02 −0.13*
10. Promotion, past six months 0.07 0.10 0.03 0.15 * 0.05 0.05 −0.04 0.50***
Note. N = 423. * p< .05. ** p< .01. *** p< .001.
12 A. REECE ET AL.
Discussion
When employees feel like they matter to their organiza-
tion, they are more satisfied with their jobs and life, more
likely to occupy leadership positions, more likely to be
rewarded and promoted, and less likely to quit. These
findings lend weight to the basic value of mattering in
organizational contexts. Even given the correlational
nature of these results, the construct of organizational
mattering is, at minimum, a valuable indicator of the
degree to which employees are happy and thriving.
We conceived of organizational mattering as being
composed of two distinct dimensions: recognition and
achievement, based on theoretical work by Goldstein
(2015). Factor analysis of the Organizational Mattering
Scale bore out this theoretical premise, with OMS achiev-
ing simple structure and clean item loadings on each of
the two dimensions. The general construct of organiza-
tional mattering showed good predictive validity, and
the achievement and recognition subscales also differ-
ently related to key constructs and measures.
Achievement was tied more closely than recognition to
self-efficacy, which is a central construct in the organiza-
tional mattering framework. On the other hand, recogni-
tion tracked more closely with manager status,
promotions, and raises than did achievement, a nod to
the importance of ensuring one’s good work is noticed
and appreciated by coworkers.
10
Future work may estab-
lish whether the recognition and achievement subscales
can consistently and differentially predict organizational
outcomes.
Mattering as action-oriented
In addition to the success of OMS as an indicator of impor-
tant organizational and human resources metrics, organi-
zational mattering also captures many of the positive
psychological states typically associated with mattering in
previous research: happiness, self-esteem, life satisfaction,
and meaning. However, the OMS stands apart from pre-
vious attempts to measure mattering in an important way:
it emphasizes mattering as tied to the fruits of one’sactions
more than affect, social circumstances, or self-image. This
emphasis on action differs from the concept of mattering
put forward by previous literature on the subject, which
has focused more on the link between mattering and self-
esteem. Given this framing, we expected that mattering
and self-efficacy should positively correlate, and this rela-
tionship should be stronger than the relationship between
mattering and self-esteem. Across three separate samples,
OMS scores demonstrated this pattern. The other matter-
ing scores we examined, however, did not –they either
failed to differentiate between self-efficacy and self-
esteem, or, in some cases, showed a stronger relationship
to self-esteem.
Organizational mattering’s proximity to the experi-
ence of organizational identification also presents
a number of intriguing questions for future research.
For example, it may be possible to identify with one’s
organization without necessarily having a feeling of per-
sonally mattering to the organization. The converse
case –the sense that one matters to an organization
but does not identify with it –to be less likely, but
equally intriguing. Whether organizational mattering
and identification occupy their own separate conceptual
spaces, or whether they interact with one another to
predict relevant outcomes for talent development and
retention, are questions that merit further investigation.
Limitations
Future developments on the topic of organizational
mattering will benefit by addressing a number of issues
that limited the present findings. Sample diversity is one
limitation of the current study. Our data were skewed
towards young (54% under 35), White (75%) respon-
dents, and as such were only roughly representative of
the true demographic distribution of adult working pro-
fessionals in the United States. It is possible that the
experience of mattering interacts with socioeconomic
status, or other demographic variables, in ways that
constrain the relevance of our findings.
This study did not address causality. The associations
we observed between organizational mattering and other
variables of interest, including job satisfaction, organiza-
tional status, and intent to leave, are strictly correlational.
For the time being, we may only claim that the measure
of an employee’s sense of organizational mattering can
serve as a useful barometer of employee sentiment –and,
perhaps, as a contributing indicator of an organization’s
cultural health more generally, though this requires
further empirical study. The hypothesis that an improve-
ment in one’s sense of mattering to one’s organization
might actually catalyze positive downstream conse-
quences, such as increased engagement or commitment,
remains untested. Future research might attempt experi-
mental manipulation of the experience of mattering to
one’s organization, and track the results longitudinally, to
determine whether a causal relationship exists between
mattering and organizational outcomes of interest.
Our research does not address whether the sense of
mattering is a relatively stable phenomenon (i.e., closer to
apsychologicaltrait) or whether it is instead more depen-
dent on circumstance (i.e., closer to a psychological state).
For example, can having a bad day at work make employ-
ees feel like they matter less to their organization?
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 13
A number of factors may impact one’s experience of
mattering, including organizational fluctuations such as
role changes, internal reorganization, and reprioritization
of organizational priorities, as well as psychological fac-
tors, including employee engagement and stress levels.
We predict that organizational mattering is a relatively
stable phenomenon, but subject to modulation when
relatively major changes occur in an employee’sworking
life (e.g. switching jobs, or being promoted, or mergers
that alter company culture). Longitudinal studies may be
able to observe how one’s sense of mattering responds
to various personal and organizational changes.
Conclusions
Mattering has been previously explored in general and
a few organizational settings from a theoretical perspec-
tive closely aligned with self-esteem, what we call feeling-
oriented mattering. We drew instead from philosophical
perspectives on mattering, which hew closer to the litera-
ture on self-efficacy, insofar as the emphasis is on actual
action. We empirically explored two dimensions of this
action-oriented mattering, achievement and recognition,
in the process of developing a scale for use in organiza-
tional contexts. We found that the resulting Organizational
Mattering Scale (OMS) predicts job satisfaction, occupying
leadership roles, and retention. It appears important,
across several outcomes, that employees feel that they
matter to their organizations –and that this sense is
enhanced when it is tied to one’s actual actions.
Notes
1. In ancient Greece, kleos meant songs that were sung of
one’s deeds –this was meant in a literal sense and the
term is sometimes even translated as ‘acoustic renown’
(Svenbro, 1993; Watson, 2016).
2. O’Brien (1996) actually used work as an example of how
mattering is generally framed in a positive context: ‘To
achieve excellence in my work is very important to me’
(p. 341).
3. But see Gardner and Pierce (1998), a study of 186 workers
at a Midwestern U.S. electrical company. While they found
positive relationships between self-efficacy, job satisfac-
tion and performance, they found self-esteem to be
a stronger predictor than self-efficacy among this sample.
4. Self-esteem, by comparison, also demonstrated
apositive relationship with performance, but by being
tied to affective, rather than motivational, traits (Chen
et al., 2004).
5. See Chan et al. (2014)for a review of existing mattering
scales, also Jung (2018).
6. Construct validation analyses are explored in-depth in
Results: Phase 4.
7. Given the small sample and exploratory nature of this
initial round of data collection, formal reporting of
factor-analytic statistical criteria are omitted; see
Results: Phase 2 for a fuller treatment.
8. Scoring for the OMS consists of a set of weighted sums:
items in the recognition and achievement sub-dimensions
are weighted by their factor loadings, and the general
mattering dimension is scored via a weighted sum of the
two sub-dimensions. See Appendix B for scoring specifics.
9. Job satisfaction data (n = 569) was collected in Phase 2
(exploratory factor analysis phase), but it is reported
here as it is topically related to other Phase 4 measures
of organizational predictive validity.
10. Considering the correlational nature of these data, it is, of
course, possible that becoming a manager or getting
a promotion is itself the cause of feeling one matters via
recognition for one’s accomplishments. Our emphasis is
on establishing the associations between mattering and
these organizational outcomes; with this groundwork laid,
future research may work towards establishing causality.
Disclosure statement
All of the authors on the paper who do not list their affiliation as
“BetterUp”were at one point paid invitees to a small workshop,
whereweconvenedtodiscussthetopicofthepaper(organiza-
tional mattering). All of the BetterUp-affiliated authors are paid
full-time employees at BetterUp. The concept and methods were
jointly conceived of by all the authors. As this was intended from
the outset as a scientific collaboration, and the results of the paper
do not position BetterUp to profit or gain in any material sense,
we do not feel the fact that the authors were paid by the sponsor-
ing institution constitutes a worrisome conflict of interest.
ORCID
Andrew Reece http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8400-2235
David Yaden http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9604-6227
References
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy,
locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology,32(4), 665–683.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the
organization. Academy of Management Review,14(1), 20–39.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychological review,84(2), 191–215.
Bandura, A. (2008). Reconstrual of “free wil”from the agentic
perspective of social cognitive theory. In J. Baer, J. C.
Kaufman, & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Are we free?: Psychology
and free will (pp. 86–127). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barnette, J. J. (2000). Effects of stem and likert response option
reversals on survey internal consistency: If you feel the need,
there is a better alternative to using those negatively
worded stems. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
60(3), 361–370. doi:10.1177/00131640021970592
Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis.
British Journal of Statistical Psychology,3(2), 77–85.
Baumeister, R. F. (1992). Meanings of life. New York: The
Guilford Press.
14 A. REECE ET AL.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Aaker, J. L., & Garbinsky, E. N.
(2013). Some key differences between a happy life and
a meaningful life. Journal of Positive Psychology,8(6),
505–516.
Both-Nwabuwe, J. M. C., Dijkstra, M. T. M., & Beersma, B. (2017).
Sweeping the floor or putting a man on the moon: How to
define and measure meaningful work. Frontiers in
Psychology,8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01658
Brown, W. (1910). Some experimental results in the correlation of
mental abilities. British Journal of Psychology,3(3), 296–322.
Chan, E. K., Munro, D. W., Huang, A. H., Zumbo, B. D.,
Vojdanijahromi, R., & Ark, N. (2014). Validation practices in
counseling: Major journals, mattering instruments, and the
Kuder Occupational Interest Survey (KOIS). In Validity and
validation in social, behavioral, and health sciences. (pp. 67–
87). Cham: Springer.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2004). General self-efficacy
and self-esteem: Toward theoretical and empirical distinc-
tion between correlated self-evaluations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior,25(3), 375–395.
Connolly, K. M., & Myers, J. E. (2003). Wellness and mattering:
The role of holistic factors in job satisfaction. Journal of
Employment Counseling,40(4), 152–160.
Corbière, M., & Amundson, N. E. (2007). Perceptions of the ways
of mattering by people with mental illness. Career
Development Quarterly,56(2), 141–149.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal struc-
ture of tests. Psychometrika,16(3), 297–334.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment,
49(1), 71–75.
Dik, B. J., Eldridge, B. M., Steger, M. F., & Duffy, R. D. (2012).
Development and validation of the Calling and Vocation
Questionnaire (CVQ) and Brief Calling Scale (BCS). Journal
of Career Assessment,20(3), 242–263.
Dixon, A. L., Scheidegger, C., & McWhirter, J. J. (2009). The
adolescent mattering experience: Gender variations in per-
ceived mattering, anxiety, and depression. Journal of
Counseling & Development,87(3), 302–310.
Elliott, G. C., Colangelo, M. F., & Gelles, R. J. (2005). Mattering
and suicide ideation: Establishing and elaborating a
relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly,68(3), 223–238.
Elliott, G. C., Kao, S., & Grant, A.-M. (2004). Mattering: Empirical
validation of a social-psychological concept. Self and
Identity,3(4), 339–354.
Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of
alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor ana-
lysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods,9(4), 466–491.
Fontaine, D. K., Haizlip, J., & Lavandero, R. (2018). No time to be
nice in the Intensive Care Unit. American Journal of Critical
Care,27(2), 153–156.
France, M. K., & Finney, S. J. (2009). What matters in the mea-
surement of mattering? Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development,42(2), 104–120.
France, M. K., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Conceptualization and
utility of university mattering: A construct validity study.
Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development,43(1), 48–65.
Froidevaux, A., Hirschi, A., & Wang, M. (2016). The role of
mattering as an overlooked key challenge in retirement
planning and adjustment. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
94,5
7–69.
García-Herrero, S., Lopez-Garcia, J. R., Herrera, S., Fontaneda, I.,
Báscones, S. M., & Mariscal, M. A. (2017). The influence of
recognition and social support on European health profes-
sionals’occupational stress: A demands-control-social sup-
port-recognition Bayesian network model [Research article].
BioMed Research International,2017,1–14.
Gardner, D. G, & Pierce, J. L. (1998). Self-esteem and self-efficacy
within the organizational context: An empirical examination.
Group & Organization Management,23(1), 48–70.
doi:10.1177/1059601198231004
George, L. S., & Park, C. L. (2017). The multidimensional existen-
tial meaning scale: A tripartite approach to measuring mean-
ing in life. Journal of Positive Psychology,12(6), 613–627.
Goldstein, R. (2015). Plato at the Googleplex: Why philosophy won’t
go away (Reprint edition). New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial
fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, perfor-
mance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology,93
(1), 48–58.
Hendrickson, A. E., & White, P. O. (1964). Promax: A quick
method for rotation to oblique simple structure. British
Journal of Statistical Psychology,17(1), 65–70.
Holgado–Tello, F. P., Chacón–Moscoso, S., Barbero–García, I., &
Vila–Abad, E. (2010). Polychoric versus Pearson correlations
in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal
variables. Quality & Quantity,44(1), 153–166.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors
in factor analysis. Psychometrika,30(2), 179–185.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoffcriteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal,6(1), 1–55.
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-
evaluations traits–Self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy,
locus of control, and emotional stability–With job satisfac-
tion and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology,86(1), 80–92.
Jung, A.-K. (2018). Interpersonal and societal mattering in work:
A review and critique. The Career Development Quarterly,63
(3), 194–208.
Jung, A.-K., & Heppner, M. J. (2017). Development and valida-
tion of a Work Mattering Scale (WMS). Journal of Career
Assessment,25(3), 467–483.
Kaiser, H. F. (1970). A second generation little jiffy.
Psychometrika,35(4), 401–415.
Konrath, S., Meier, B. P., & Bushman, B. J. (2014). Development
and validation of the Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS).
PLoS ONE,9(8), 1–15.
Koufteros, X., Babbar, S., & Kaighobadi, M. (2009). A paradigm
for examining second-order factor models employing struc-
tural equation modeling. International Journal of Production
Economics,120(2), 633–652.
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C.,
Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017). Perceived organizational
support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational sup-
port theory. Journal of Management,43(6), 1854–1884.
Lips-Wiersma, M., & Wright, S. (2012). Measuring the meaning
of meaningful work: Development and validation of the
Comprehensive Meaningful Work Scale (CMWS). Group &
Organization Management,37(5), 655–685.
Löwe, B., Wahl, I., Rose, M., Spitzer, C., Glaesmer, H.,
Wingenfeld, K., . . . Brähler, E. (2010). A 4-item measure of
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 15
depression and anxiety: Validation and standardization of
the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) in the general
population. Journal of Affective Disorders,122(1–2), 86–95.
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007).
Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relation-
ship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel
Psychology,60(3), 541–572.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective
happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation.
Social Indicators Research,46(2), 137–155.
Marcus, F. (1991). Mattering: Its measurement and theoretical
significance for social psychology. Presented at the Eastern
Sociological Association, Cincinnati, OH.
Marshall, S. K. (2001). Do I matter? Construct validation of
adolescents’perceived mattering to parents and friends.
Journal of Adolescence,24(4), 473–490.
Myers, J. E., & Bechtel, A. (2004). Stress, wellness, and mattering
among cadets at West Point: Factors affecting a fit and
healthy force. Military Medicine,169(6), 475–482.
Nagel, T. (1971). Brain bisection and the unity of consciousness.
Synthese,22(3), 396–413.
O’Brien, W. (1996). Meaning and mattering. Southern Journal of
Philosophy,34(3), 339–360.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings.
Review of Educational Research,66(4), 543–578.
Park, C. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An
integrative review of meaning making and its effects on
adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin,
136(2), 257–301.
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The
roles of job enrichment and other organizational
interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology,83, 835–852.
Powers, A. S., Myers, J. E., Tingle, L. R., & Powers, J. C. (2004).
Wellness, perceived stress, mattering, and marital satisfac-
tion among medical residents and their spouses:
Implications for education and counseling. The Family
Journal,12(1), 26–36.
Prilleltensky, I. (2014). Meaning-making, mattering, and thriving
in community psychology: From co-optation to amelioration
and transformation. Psychosocial Intervention,23(2), 151–154.
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statis-
tical computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
Rakos, R. F., Laurene, K. R., Skala, S., & Slane, S. (2008). Belief in
free will: Measurement and conceptualization innovations.
Behavior and Social Issues,17(1), 20–39.
Rayle, A. D. (2005). Adolescent gender differences in mattering
and wellness. Journal of Adolescence,28(6), 753–763.
Revelle, W. (2018). Psych: Procedures for personality and psycho-
logical research. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/
package=psychVersion=1.8.12
Revelle, W., & Rocklin, T. (1979). Very simple structure: An
alternative procedure for estimating the optimal number
of interpretable factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research,14
(4), 403–414.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational
support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied
Psychology,87(4), 698–714.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Rosenberg, M. (1985). Self-concept and psychological well-
being in adolescence. In R. Leahy (Ed.), The development of
the self (pp. 205–246). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Rosenberg, M., & McCullough, B. C. (1981). Mattering: Inferred
significance and mental health among adolescents. Research
in Community & Mental Health,2, 163–182.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for structural equation
modeling. Journal of Statistical Software,48(2), 1–36.
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the
meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review.
Research in Organizational Behavior,30,91–127.
Schlossberg, N. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in
building community. New Directions for Student
Services, 1989(48), 5–15.
Schlossberg, N. K., Lassalle, A. D., & Golec, R. R. (1990). The
mattering scales for adult students in postsecondary educa-
tion. Washington, DC: American Council on Education:
Center for Adult Learning and Educational Credentials.
Sclove, S. L. (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to
some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika,52
(3), 333–343.
Seligman,M.E.P.(2012). Flourish: A visionary new understanding of
happiness and well-being.NewYork,NY:SimonandSchuster.
Spearman, C. (1910). Correlation calculated from faulty data.
British Journal of Psychology,3(3), 271–295.
Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff
satisfaction: Development of the job satisfaction survey.
American Journal of Community Psychology,13(6), 693–713.
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The mean-
ing in life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and
search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling
Psychology,53(1), 80–93.
Svenbro, J. (1993). Phrasikleia: An anthropology of reading in
ancient Greece. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Taylor, J., & Turner, R. J. (2001). A longitudinal study of the role
and significance of mattering to others for depressive symp-
toms. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 310–325.
Tovar, E., Simon, M. A., & Lee, H. B. (2009). Development and
validation of the College Mattering Inventory with diverse
urban college students. Measurement and Evaluation in
Counseling and Development,42(3), 154–178.
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for max-
imum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika,38(1), 1–10.
Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from
the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika,41(3), 321–327.
Vohs, K. D., & Schooler, J. W. (2008). The value of believing in
free will: Encouraging a belief in determinism increases
cheating. Psychological Science,19(1), 49–54.
Watson,C.(2016). The songs of gods and men: Internal songs and
singers in archaic Greek epic (Masters Thesis). University of Kansas.
Wei, T., & Simko, V. (2017). R package “corrplot”: Visualization of
a Correlation Matrix (Version 0.84). Retrieved from https://
github.com/taiyun/corrplot
Wickham, H. (2017). Tidyverse: Easily install and load “tidy-
verse”packages (Version 1.2.1). Retrieved from https://
CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyverse
Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. (2003).
Interpersonal sensemaking and the meaning of work.
Research in Organizational Behavior,25,93–135.
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997).
Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work.
Journal of Research in Personality,31(1), 21–33.
Yaden, D. B., McCall, T. D., & Ellens, J. H. (2015). Being called:
Scientific, secular, and sacred perspectives. Santa Barbara, CA:
ABC-CLIO.
16 A. REECE ET AL.
Appendices
Appendix A. Items in organizational mattering scale
Achievement Subscale
1. My work contributes to my organization’s success.
2. The quality of my work makes a real impact on my organization.
3. My work influences my organization’s functioning.
Recognition Subscale
4. My organization praises my work publicly.
5. My co-workers praise my work.
6. I am well known for the quality of my work in my organization.
7. My work has made me popular at my work place.
Appendix B. Scale scoring information
The items in each of the OMS sub-scales do not load equally onto their respective factors. In addition, the two sub-scales
(recognition and achievement) contribute differentially to the general organizational mattering factor. As such, a simple sum or
mean of OMS items will not accurately reflect the validated structure of the scale. We have provided R code below to compute
a weighted average for each subscale, weighted again by each subscale’s correlation to the main factor to get the total.
# compute composite scores for each OMSfactor
# expected input: a data frame or tibblewith columns for each of the OMS items, labeled
oms1, oms2, oms3, oms4, oms5,oms6, oms7
# output: input data frame with threecolumns added: achievement_score, recognition_score,
total_score
# example use: get_scores(my_oms_data)
library(dplyr)
calc_oms <- function(df) {
loadings.1o <- structure(
c(0.755, 0.824, 0.704, 0.493, 0.637, 0.690, 0.768),
.Names = c("oms_1", "oms_2", "oms_3", "oms_4", "oms_5", "oms_6", "oms_7"))
loadings.2o <- structure(
c(0.759, 0.741),
.Names = c("oms_achievement", "oms_recognition"))
df %>%
mutate(oms_achievement_score =
oms_1 * loadings.1o["oms_1"] +
oms_2 * loadings.1o["oms_2"] +
oms_3 * loadings.1o["oms_3"],
oms_recognition_score =
oms_4 * loadings.1o["oms_4"] +
oms_5 * loadings.1o["oms_5"] +
oms_6 * loadings.1o["oms_6"] +
oms_7 * loadings.1o["oms_7"],
oms_total_score =
oms_achievement_score * loadings.2o["oms_achievement"] +
oms_recognition_score * loadings.2o["oms_recognition"])
}
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 17
Appendix C. Exploratory factor analysis (loadings and goodness-of-fit metrics)
18 A. REECE ET AL.
Appendix D. Confirmatory factor analysis (loadings and goodness-of-fit metrics)
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 19
20 A. REECE ET AL.
Appendix E. Confirmatory factor analysis (full goodness-of-fit metrics)
THE JOURNAL OF POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY 21
