Social purpose in an organization from the perspective of an employee: a self-determination outlook on the meaning of work

Abstract

Objective
Advancing social purpose in organizations is usually studied from the macro perspective, i.e., how it benefits organizational business goals or society more broadly. In this paper, we focus on social purpose from the perspective of the employee and propose that advancing social purpose in an organization allows individuals to fulfil an important human need for the meaning of work (MW). This study’s objective was to assess whether a volunteering Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) program in a manufacturing company allows employees to fulfil their basic psychological needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy. The data was collected through in-depth interviews with 15 employees and an analysis of artifacts.

Results
In the analysis, three main themes describing different aspects of voluntary work at the company were identified. We found that across all groups of interviewed employees the voluntary activities served the needs of (1) relatedness, (2) competence, and (3) autonomy. We conclude that CSR programs have the most positive impact on MW when they allow employees to engage in prosocial actions and satisfy those needs.

Full text

Puchalska‑Kamińskaetal. BMC Res Notes (2021) 14:16
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104‑020‑05432‑4
RESEARCH NOTE
Social purpose inanorganization
fromtheperspective ofanemployee:
aself‑determination outlook onthemeaning
ofwork
Malwina Puchalska‑Kamińska1, Agnieszka Łądka‑Barańska2 and Marta Roczniewska3,4*
Abstract
Objective: Advancing social purpose in organizations is usually studied from the macro perspective, i.e., how it
benefits organizational business goals or society more broadly. In this paper, we focus on social purpose from the
perspective of the employee and propose that advancing social purpose in an organization allows individuals to fulfil
an important human need for the meaning of work (MW). This study’s objective was to assess whether a volunteer‑
ing Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) program in a manufacturing company allows employees to fulfil their basic
psychological needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy. The data was collected through in‑depth interviews
with 15 employees and an analysis of artifacts.
Results: In the analysis, three main themes describing different aspects of voluntary work at the company were
identified. We found that across all groups of interviewed employees the voluntary activities served the needs of (1)
relatedness, (2) competence, and (3) autonomy. We conclude that CSR programs have the most positive impact on
MW when they allow employees to engage in prosocial actions and satisfy those needs.
Keywords: Corporate social responsibility, Meaning of work, Self‑determination theory, Autonomy, Competence,
Relatedness, Case study, Employee volunteering
© The Author(s) 2021. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and
the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material
in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material
is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creat iveco
mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creat iveco mmons .org/publi cdoma in/
zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Introduction
Recent research demonstrates that finding the mean-
ing of work (MW) is a growing need among employees
[1]. MW is the subjective experience of significance and
intrinsic value in one’s work [2]. Definitions of MW high-
light an individual’s need to make sense of one’s self [3],
find a sense of purpose in work [4, 5], and the desire to
serve the greater good [6]. Based on Bakan’s [7] frame-
work of two fundamental modalities of human existence
(agency and communion), two aspects of MW can be
derived [8]. Agentic MW relates to perceiving one’s work
as meaningful to the extent to which the work brings
personal benefits: enhances the meaning of one’s life,
contributes to a sense of self-development, and allows to
accomplish goals central to the self [8]. Communal MW
refers to the degree to which an employee perceives the
work as having a beneficial impact on other people or
‘world’ in general: it involves viewing one’s work as a call-
ing, a sense of fulfilling a mission at work, and acting for
the good of the humanity or the environment [8].
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs,
designed to serve a greater good, seem to have a poten-
tial to support the need for MW among employees,
Open Access
BMC Research Notes
*Correspondence: marta.roczniewska@ki.se
3 Procome Research Group, Medical Management Center, Department
of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet,
Stockholm, Sweden
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

Page 2 of 6
Puchalska‑Kamińskaetal. BMC Res Notes (2021) 14:16
especially in its communal aspect. e problem is that
many of the CSR initiatives are ill-suited to fulfil this
need because they are often planned top-down, pre-
cluding employees from directly engaging in prosocial
activities. is ‘distance’ can impede creation of com-
munal MW for individual employees. In fact, research
shows that most employees have little knowledge about
their firm’s CSR activities, and increasing employees’
proximity to the CSR initiatives is seen as a major chal-
lenge for managers [9]. Yet, only active involvement in
CSR activities relates to the meaning of work [10]. Fol-
lowing self-determination theory (SDT) [11, 12], we
argue that prosocial actions in an organization create
individual MW when they involve intrinsic (i.e., inher-
ent drive) rather than extrinsic (i.e., external regula-
tion) motivation.
e basic psychological needs for relatedness, compe-
tence, and autonomy are the basis of intrinsic motiva-
tion and behavior [13]. Relatedness reflects the extent to
which a person feels that he or she “belongs”, i.e., is con-
nected to other people. is need is fulfilled when indi-
viduals are able to interact with others, experience caring
for them [14], and have a sense of relevance in their lives
[15]. CSR activities that are focused on helping others are
inherently interpersonal. Relatedness is also developed by
setting common goals, which builds a sense of cohesive-
ness in a team. Competence represents a sense of efficacy:
the notion of being able to achieve one’s goals [13]. To
satisfy this need one ought to feel effective, i.e., perform
a behavior that has a positive effect on the world [13].
Competence is related to the sense of mastery: an expe-
rience of being good at what one does [13]. Autonomy
signifies undertaking decisions and actions with a sense
of volition and internal locus of control. An autonomous
act is considered to be an expression of one’s values and
reflects the self. To fulfil the need for autonomy, the
actions need to be experienced as self-initiated, self-cho-
sen, or self-endorsed. us, extrinsic awards or others-
imposed conditions hamper intrinsic motivation [16].
Fulfilment of relatedness, competence, and autonomy
needs is linked with positive employee outcomes [17].
Additionally, enhancement in well-being from prosocial
behavior is mediated by the satisfaction of autonomy,
competence and relatedness [18]. It follows, therefore,
that CSR activities may be instrumental in creating com-
munal MW as long as they serve the basic needs enlisted
by SDT. In this article, we study a case of a manufacturing
company whose business goals are not devoted to social
purpose, like teaching, curing or helping. us, com-
munal MW cannot be simply achieved by the employees
by means of pursuing a job with a clear calling. Here, we
focus on one of the company’s core CSR activities, i.e.,
volunteer work, to answer a question whether it allows
employees to fulfil the basic needs outlined by SDT.
Main text
Materials andmethods
Organizational context
e study was conducted in a manufacturing company in
Poland, which currently employs over 80 people (c. 50%
white collar employees). Voluntary work in this company
is a part of their CSR. Each employee engages a mini-
mum of 16 working hours in voluntary actions per year.
ere is a list of voluntary projects from which employ-
ees can choose activities, and they can submit new pro-
jects. Additionally, 1.5% of each employee’s remuneration
is allocated to the charity budget.
Data collection andmethods
e study used qualitative research method. e data was
collected through in-depth interviews and an analysis of
artifacts, i.e., multimedia materials like employer brand-
ing ads and lectures where managers share knowledge
about leadership. Semi-structured interviews with 15
employees from different departments were conducted:
five blue-collar employees, five white-collar employ-
ees, and five managers. e interview guide contained
questions about the characteristics of work, employee
attitudes, and voluntary activities of employees (see
Additional file 1). e interviews lasted 45 to 90 min,
were recorded, and transcribed verbatim.
Based upon SDT, three categories of codes were
derived: relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Two
team members (MPK, AŁB) independently reviewed the
interviews and assigned the codes. Discrepancies were
discussed and final decisions made by the whole team.
Results
In the analysis, three main themes related to SDT the-
ory were derived. ey described how voluntary activi-
ties served the needs of relatedness, competence, and
autonomy. e themes are illustrated with quotes that are
poignant and representative of the findings (see Table1).
e results are discussed for the three groups jointly (i.e.,
managers [M1–M6], white collar employees [WC1–
WC6], blue collar employees [BC1–BC6]), but we also
point to differences in their experiences and perceptions.
Relatedness
One of the most distinctive characteristics of this volun-
teering program is the focus on local environment and
personal contact. An example of this is an annual action
of preparing Christmas gifts for the families in need
who come from the city where the company is based. All
employees are involved in this project. ey form teams

Page 3 of 6
Puchalska‑Kamińskaetal. BMC Res Notes (2021) 14:16
Table 1 Quotations fromthree groups ofresearch participants divided intothree identied themes
M Managers, WC White‑collar employees, BC Blue‑ collar employees
Position Relatedness Competence Autonomy
Managers (M) M1. "After a year, you meet the person you helped, and they
remember you. It is a pleasant feeling."
M3. "You have to try new things and leave your comfort zone
while helping."
M5. "I can submit any project for consideration. I do this
through an internal tool where I describe the situation and
what sort of help is needed. Then all employees can vote to
make it happen.”
M2. "The Foundation is not separated from the company and
its employees, at least we don’t see it that way. The founda-
tion is ’us’ and we are the foundation."
M4. “You can provide long-term support and change people’s
lives in a positive way.”
M6. "We treat ourselves as adults. If we commit to volunteering,
the company trusts that we will fulfill it."
White‑collar (WC) WC1. "We invite our families and friends to join these actions
It is a positive experience for everyone—spending time
together and doing something valuable. It integrates us.”
WC3. "While interviewing family, we learn to have difficult
conversations—to ask difficult, uncomfortable questions
and to accept that someone may not want to answer."
WC5. "We all decide where our money from the charity fund
goes."
WC2. “We have to face difficult situations while helping, for
example, during a difficult conversation with recipients of
our help, to whom we have to set psychological bounda-
ries. We can rely on ourselves in these situations. We know
that we are together, and this builds trust.”
WC4. "We can organize help to families and friends in need.
Thanks to this we know that we can help when the need
arises. I know that I can help directly. I don’t have to send
them anywhere else.”
WC6. "I like planting trees and spending time outdoors. I
choose such voluntary actions that fit my preferences."
Blue‑collar (BC) BC1. "My wife works in a prosocial organization, and we
are co-organizing a fair with this place. It is a win–win
strategy—children get money, and we are happy that we
can help."
BC3. "I volunteer when I feel competent in a certain area. If I
feel good at something, I will gladly use this skill. I used to
work in a renovation company so I took part in a project to
renovate the apartment of a lady living off a pension with a
family of many children."
BC5. "I do not have too many of my own charity initiatives. I
am happy to contribute to someone else’s initiative."
BC2. “We all work together. We know who has what skills and
we help each other and trust each other, like in a family.”
BC4. "It brings such a joy when you see that you have helped
someone. Someone who really needed it."
BC6. “Nobody is forcing me to do anything. Lately, I have little
time for after-work activities—small children—so I’m less
involved.”

Page 4 of 6
Puchalska‑Kamińskaetal. BMC Res Notes (2021) 14:16
representing different departments and are responsible
for finding a family that needs help. e gifts are deliv-
ered in person. ese activities allow employees to cre-
ate bonds with the help recipients (M1). As employees
often invite their families to help, they feel that they are
building a larger community of people who care for oth-
ers. Spending time together with colleagues’ relatives is
considered a bonding experience (WC1, BC1).
Although projects are conducted in small teams,
employees celebrate and exchange their experiences at
the organizational level, e.g., during Christmas party,
employees describe their Christmas gift project and
show pictures/videos of the experience. Respondents
expressed that helping under the auspices of their organi-
zation allows them to create a sense of mutual goals and
values with other team members. Some of them declared
that volunteering and dealing with potentially difficult
situations together builds trust towards their coworkers
(WC2). ey often used metaphors of “a family” or “a
sports team” when describing their organizational com-
munity (M2, BC2). ey viewed the work at the company
and their charity work as coherent, and they identified
with both of them.
Competence
e fact that employees can freely choose a voluntary
activity rather than being assigned to one, gives them an
opportunity to utilize their strengths. Blue-collar workers
focused mostly on being able to utilize their sills—they
declared that they help in a way that is possible for them
and that involves their skills and knowledge (BC3). us,
they perceived their input from the perspective of being
‘useful’. Managers and white-collar workers, one the other
hand, saw the wide variety of possible voluntary activities
as a chance to develop their competences or learn new
things (M3, WC3). For example, helping others in need
allowed them to develop necessary skills to deal with dif-
ficult emotions or situations.
As the projects are focused on solving concrete prob-
lems and are well-planed, respondents deemed observ-
ing the short- and long-term effects of their efforts as
rewarding (M4). Being personally engaged in helping
enables them to perceive the positive consequences of
their actions (BC4) and enhance agency (WC4), which
can further build self-efficacy.
Autonomy
Having a choice was one of the most important char-
acteristics of volunteering expressed by respondents.
Employees highlighted that they feel free to choose which
voluntary action to engage in, and they described them-
selves as agents of decisions and actions. Managers and
white-collar employees more often declared that they use
a possibility to launch new projects (M5, WC5), while
blue collar employees appreciated the opportunity to
join others’ initiatives (BC5). e freedom also enabled
employees to act in accordance with their values and
interests (WC6).
Respondents stated that when it comes to volunteering,
they do not feel controlled. ere are no official sched-
ules or implemented ways to monitor employee vol-
unteering activities by the management (M6) and they
can engage to a varying extent given the circumstances
(BC6). Importantly, there are no rewards for voluntary
work. Employees treat it as part of their job rather than
something unusual.
Discussion
In this case study, we showed that CSR activities can
be construed so as to allow employees to create social
bonds, to use strengths and build competence, as well as
to be experienced as self-chosen and coherent with the
self. Positive outcomes of helping for meaningfulness
occur through the satisfaction of autonomy, competence
and relatedness [18, 19]. MW, being an ‘abstract’ concept,
may be hard to put into practice [19]. Our findings point
to concrete organizational practices that are support-
ive of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and give
managers more executable suggestions on how to sup-
port employees’ MW.
e interviews uncovered that helping was perceived
as an important aspect of employees’ identification to the
company, allowing them to create shared organizational
identity. is finding points to possible additional ben-
efits of satisfying relatedness, competence, and autonomy
needs in CSR actions. For instance, social identifica-
tion has been linked with positive health outcomes [20]
and lower turnover intentions [21]. Additionally, shared
experiences and a possibility to discuss them allows
employees to create ‘shared reality’, which increases inter-
personal connectedness and trust [22, 23]. Purposeful
recruitment which considers person-organization fit as it
relates to congruence in values that relate to benevolence
can facilitate this process [24].
While acting for the ‘greater good’ serves the commu-
nal MW fulfilment [8], respondents in our interviews
pointed to additional personal benefits of voluntary
work, such as competence development or increasing
the meaning life. us, we contribute to the literature by
showing that CSR activities may be instrumental in shap-
ing both the agentic and communal MW. e design of
the presented CSR initiative can serve the full MW iden-
tified by Lips-Wiersma [25] as a combination of devel-
oping and becoming self, expressing full potential, unity
with others, and serving others.

Page 5 of 6
Puchalska‑Kamińskaetal. BMC Res Notes (2021) 14:16
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case study
which analyses the practical use of SDT in CSR solu-
tions. Notably, SDT is a well-established framework and
can provide evidence-based guidelines to design human
resource management practices [11], including CSR solu-
tions that support MW at work. Another strength of this
case is its universality, since presented solutions are not
industry-specific and can be adapted in different organi-
zational contexts.
Conclusions
Implementing SDT theory in organizational CSR pro-
grams can serve as an evidence-based method of enhanc-
ing social purpose in organization and employees’ MW.
SDT initiatives should involve building connections, uti-
lizing people’s strengths, as well as allowing for auton-
omy. By engaging workforces in volunteering that follows
these principles, companies may not only build its posi-
tive image but also enable employees to experience their
organization as positive, which is an important factor of
well-being at work [26].
Limitations
Some limitations need to be addressed. First, the inter-
views were drawn from one company in the private sec-
tor, which limits our ability to generalize the findings
to the public sector [27]. Specifically, possibilities for
empowerment may be limited in the latter context. Sec-
ond, we only interviewed 15 employees; however, they
represented distinct hierarchical levels (managers vs.
non-managers) as well as position types (blue vs. white
collar).
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https ://doi.
org/10.1186/s1310 4‑020‑05432 ‑4.
Additional le1. Interview guide for the study.
Abbreviations
MW: Meaning of work; CSR: Corporate social responsibility; SDT: Self‑determi‑
nation theory.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions
Conceptualization: MPK, AŁB, MR. Acquisition of data: AŁB. Analysis: MPK, AŁB.
Writing—original draft preparation: MPK, AŁB, MR. Writing—review and edit‑
ing: MR. Supervision: MR. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
Open Access funding provided by Karolinska Institute.
Availability of data and materials
The data used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the
corresponding author on reasonable request.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study described in this manuscript was carried out in accordance with the
recommendations of the Ethics Committee for Research Projects of the Insti‑
tute of Psychology at the University of Gdansk who provided specific approval
for this research project after the research was reviewed (43/2020). All subjects
provided written informed consents.
Consent to publish
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author details
1 Institute of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humani‑
ties, Warsaw, Poland. 2 Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk, Gdansk,
Poland. 3 Procome Research Group, Medical Management Center, Depart‑
ment of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet,
Stockholm, Sweden. 4 Center of Research On Cognition and Behaviour,
Institute of Psychology, Faculty in Sopot, SWPS University of Social Sciences
and Humanities, Sopot, Poland.
Received: 16 October 2020 Accepted: 24 December 2020
References
1. Gallup Inc. State of the workplace. 2017. https ://www.gallu p.com/workp
lace/23808 5/state ‑ameri can‑workp lace‑repor t‑2017.aspx. Accessed 12
May.
2. Rosso BD, Dekas KH, Wrzesniewski A. On the meaning of work: a theoreti‑
cal integration and review. Res Organ Behav. 2010;30:91–127. https ://doi.
org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001.
3. Shamir B. Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organ Stud.
1991;12(3):405–24. https ://doi.org/10.1177/01708 40691 01200 304.
4. Haslam SA, Powell C, Turner J. Social identity, self‑categorization, and
work motivation: rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and
sustainable organisational outcomes. Appl Psychol. 2000;49(3):319–39.
https ://doi.org/10.1111/1464‑0597.00018 .
5. Sparks JR, Schenk JA. Explaining the effects of transformational leader‑
ship: an investigation of the effects of higher‑order motives in multilevel
marketing organizations. J Organ Behav. 2001;22(8):849–69. https ://doi.
org/10.1002/job.116.
6. Wrzesniewski A, McCauley C, Rozin P, Schwartz B. Jobs, careers, and call‑
ings: people’s relations to their work. J Res Pers. 1997;31(1):21–33. https ://
doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162.
7. Bakan D. The duality of human existence: isolation and communion in
Western man. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1966.
8. Puchalska‑Kamińska M, Czerw A, Roczniewska M. Work meaning in self
and world perspective: a new outlook on the WAMI scale. Soc Psychol
Bull. 2019;14(1):1–29. https ://doi.org/10.32872 /spb.v14i1 .30207 .
9. Bhattacharya CB, Sen S, Korschun D. Using corporate social responsibility
to win the war for talent. MIT Sloan Manag Rev. 2008;49(2):37–44. https ://
sloan revie w.mit.edu/artic le/using ‑corpo rate‑socia l‑respo nsibi lity‑to‑win‑
the‑war‑for‑talen t/.
10. Supanti D, Butcher K. Is corporate social responsibility (CSR) participa‑
tion the pathway to foster meaningful work and helping behavior for
millennials? Int J Hosp Manag. 2019;77:8–18. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2018.06.001.
11. Rigby CS, Ryan RM. Self‑determination theory in human resource
development: new directions and practical considerations. Adv Dev Hum
Resour. 2018;20(2):133–47. https ://doi.org/10.1177/15234 22318 75695 4.
12. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self‑determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well‑being. Am Psychol.
2000;55(1):68–78. https ://doi.org/10.1037//0003‑066x.55.1.68.
13. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Overview of self‑determination theory : an organismic‑
dialectical perspective. In: Ryan RM, Deci EL, editors. Handbook of
self‑determination research. New York: The University of Rochester Press;
2002. p. 3–33.

Page 6 of 6
Puchalska‑Kamińskaetal. BMC Res Notes (2021) 14:16
•
fast, convenient online submission
•
thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field
•
rapid publication on acceptance
•
support for research data, including large and complex data types
•
gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations
maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year
•
At BMC, research is always in progress.
Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions
Ready to submit your research
Ready to submit your research
? Choose BMC and benefit from:
? Choose BMC and benefit from:
14. Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: desire for interper‑
sonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull.
1995;117(3):497–529. https ://doi.org/10.1037/0033‑2909.117.3.497.
15. Rosenberg M, McCullough BC. Mattering: inferred significance and men‑
tal health among adolescents. Res community Ment Health. 1981;2:163–
182. https ://psycn et.apa.org/recor d/1983‑07744 ‑001.
16. Deci EL. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. J
Pers Soc Psychol. 1971;18(1):105–15. https ://doi.org/10.1037/h0030 644.
17. Van den Broeck A, Ferris DL, Chang C‑H, Rosen CC. A review of self‑
determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. J Manage.
2016;42(5):1195–229. https ://doi.org/10.1177/01492 06316 63205 8.
18. Weinstein N, Ryan RM. When helping helps: autonomous motivation for
prosocial behavior and its influence on well‑being for the helper and
recipient. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010;98(2):222–44.
19. Martela F, Riekki TJJ. Autonomy, competence, relatedness, and benefi‑
cence: a multicultural comparison of the four pathways to meaningful
work. Front Psychol. 2018. https ://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg .2018.01157 .
20. Steffens NK, Haslam SA, Schuh SC, Jetten J, van Dick R. A Meta‑analytic
review of social identification and health in organizational contexts. Pers
Soc Psychol Rev. 2017;21(4):303–35. https ://doi.org/10.1177/10888 68316
65670 1.
21. Van Dick R, Wagner U, Stellmacher J, Christ O, Tissington PA. To be(long)
or not to be(long): social identification in organizational contexts. Genet
Soc Gen Psychol Monogr. 2005;131(3):189–218. https ://doi.org/10.3200/
MONO.131.3.189‑218.
22. Rossignac‑Milon M, Bolger N, Zee KS, Boothby EJ, Higgins ET. Merged
minds: generalized shared reality in dyadic relationships. J Pers Soc
Psychol. 2020. https ://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0 00026 6.
23. Higgins ET. Shared reality: what makes us strong and tears us apart. New
York: Oxford University Press; 2019.
24. Andersson O, Huysentruyt M, Miettinen T, Stephan U. Person‑organization
fit and incentives: a causal test. Manage Sci. 2017;63(1):73–96. https ://doi.
org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2331.
25. Lips‑Wiersma M. The influence of spiritual “meaning‑making” on
career behavior. J Manag Dev. 2002;21(7):497–520. https ://doi.
org/10.1108/02621 71021 04346 38.
26. Czerw A. Diagnosing well‑being in work context—eudemonic well‑
being in the workplace questionnaire. Curr Psychol. 2017;38:1–16. https ://
doi.org/10.1007/s1214 4‑017‑9614‑8.
27. Wynen J, Verhoest K, Rübecksen K. Decentralization in public sector
organizations: do organizational autonomy and result control lead to
decentralization toward lower hierarchical levels? Public Perform Manag
Rev. 2014;37(3):496–520. https ://doi.org/10.2753/PMR15 30‑95763 70307 .
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub‑
lished maps and institutional affiliations.