Employees generally relate to work in one of three ways: as a job, a career, or a calling. Some people work primarily for the paycheck. Others see the role as a step toward greater responsibility, opportunity, or growth. And some feel deeply connected to the work as part of their identity or vocation.
The mistake companies make is assuming that the third group will always be the most motivated or highest performing.
“There’s no evidence that I could ever find in my research that people perform any differently being in one of these job orientations.”
A person who views work as a job may still be exceptionally committed because the income supports a goal that matters deeply to them. A mission-driven employee, meanwhile, may still struggle with performance. Leaders should assess people based on expectations and outcomes — not on how passionately they repeat the company mission.
Not every company needs to promise personal transformation or claim it is changing the world. Jessica uses Joseph Pine’s work to describe three broad workplace models: service, experience, and transformation.
A service-oriented workplace offers a clear exchange: employees contribute their labor and receive compensation. An experiential workplace gives people access to learning, relationships, opportunities, and career progression. A transformational workplace promises that the employee will leave fundamentally changed.
“What you’re trying to do as a workplace is just broadly get the majority of your team aligned.”
The practical takeaway is to decide which experience your company can actually deliver. A career-oriented workforce may care far more about mobility, development, and access than lofty mission language. Build programs around the real value proposition instead of forcing every company into a purpose-driven mold.
For years, companies told employees they were changing the world. Mission statements went on walls, values became highly visible, and workplace perks were packaged as part of a larger sense of belonging.
That messaging often worked in the short term. It created energy and helped people feel part of something meaningful. But employees eventually started comparing the promise with the actual experience of work.
“I got sold that we’re changing the world, but I’m realizing now probably it was wrong to buy into that.”
That gap became even harder to ignore as companies navigated economic pressure, layoffs, and rapid AI adoption. People leaders should now audit whether their stated purpose is credible, useful, and supported by company decisions. When the message no longer matches reality, clarity is more motivating than inspiration.
The most useful question in the conversation was also the simplest:
What job is this job doing for you?
For one person, it may provide financial stability. For another, it may create access to a future role, a professional network, travel, mastery, or community. For someone else, it may be the primary outlet for meaningful work.
“What do you really want? What is the problem this is solving?”
Managers can use this question in career conversations, stay interviews, performance discussions, and onboarding. The answer helps leaders understand what employees value without assuming everyone is motivated by the same thing. It also makes it easier to create development opportunities, rewards, and working conditions that reflect real motivations.
Deep mission alignment is not always an uncomplicated advantage. Employees who feel personally attached to the company’s work may connect their identity and self-worth to the role.
That can make constructive feedback feel more personal, threatening, or destabilizing. It can also create disagreement over how the mission should be interpreted or carried out.
“Sometimes the folks in his team with the most difficult performance concerns can be people that are deeply mission-aligned.”
Managers should avoid using passion as a substitute for performance clarity. The strongest system separates intent from impact and makes expectations explicit. Employees can care deeply about the mission and still need direct feedback, clear standards, and accountability.
Many leaders privately understand that employees are motivated by different things. Yet they still maintain systems, rituals, and communications that suggest everyone should feel deeply inspired by the company’s purpose.
The cost is bigger than employee skepticism. People may start to believe something is wrong with them because they do not feel the same emotional connection others appear to express.
“Everyone is out there… understanding that not everyone is going to be motivated by your company purpose.”
The work now is to create more room for honest motivation. Leaders can acknowledge that a role may be meaningful, practical, developmental, financially valuable, or simply right for a particular season of life. The goal is not to eliminate purpose — it is to stop prescribing one acceptable source of it.