在工作中追求意义感是员工的基本工作动机之一，有意义的工作可以提升员工的幸福感，并激励他们积极投入到工作中去。然而，以往关于工作意义的评价都只从正面积极的角度进行，只关注员工在工作中感受到的意义感的多少。基于生命意义危机文献，对意义的评价应该同时从积极和消极两个方面进行，有意义的反面是意义危机，这两个方面是独立的维度。本研究认为，对工作意义的评价也应该包括反面的空虚、迷茫和负面情绪等，即工作中的意义危机。本研究以工作意义危机为中心，指出管理者底线心智是导致工作意义危机的前因变量，而自我客体化则是员工应对意义危机的方法。此外，员工的经济担忧也会调节工作意义危机和自我客体化之间的关系。最终，提出了一个被调节的中介模型。本研究共包括四个子研究：

研究一采用问卷调查研究来验证本研究提出的全模型，对374名员工进行两次间隔一周的在线问卷调查，测量员工感知到的管理者底线心智、工作意义危机、自我客体化、经济担忧以及其他控制变量。结果完全验证了模型假设，即员工感知到的管理者底线心智通过工作意义危机的中介作用和自我客体化正向相关，而经济担忧能够加强工作意义危机和自我客体化间的正向关系，同时加强管理者底线心智和自我客体化间由工作意义危机中介的正向关系。

研究二采用日记法收集个体内问卷数据，进一步验证工作意义危机与自我客体化间的关系以及经济担忧的调节作用。对227名员工进行为期10天的在线日记调查，首先通过招募问卷测量员工的经济担忧和其他控制变量，然后每天测量员工的工作意义危机和自我客体化水平。结果发现员工每日的工作意义危机和自我客体化之间存在正相关关系，而且经济担忧能够增强它们之间的正向关系。

研究三采用实验法操纵被试的工作意义危机，验证日常工作场景中工作意义危机和自我客体化之间的因果关系，以及经济担忧的调节作用。研究包含86名被试，先测量被试在真实生活中体验到的经济担忧，然后实验组被试被要求描写他们工作中遇到的让他们感受到意义危机的任务或者事件，控制组被试则被要求描写印象深刻的一件事，最后测量被试的自我客体化。结果发现，实验组被试的自我客体化显著高于控制组。同时根据经济担忧量表的得分高低将被试分为两组，发现经济担忧和工作意义危机之间的交互作用显著。

研究四仍然是实验法，采用双因素被试间实验设计，同时操纵被试的工作意义危机和经济担忧，对研究三进行补充。研究包含118名被试，让被试阅读实验材料，随机呈现高、低工作意义危机条件和高、低经济担忧条件，然后测量被试的自我客体化水平。结果发现高意义危机组被试的自我客体化显著高于低意义危机组，而且工作意义危机和经济担忧之间的交互作用显著。

本研究从工作意义危机出发，通过一个被调节的中介模型提出了可能的前因后果以及调节因素，并通过问卷调查验证了模型假设。之后通过日记调查和实验研究进一步探索了工作意义危机和自我客体化间的关系以及经济担忧的调节作用。从理论角度来看，本研究基于生命意义危机和工作意义文献，提出了工作意义危机，为工作意义的相关研究做出补充。同时，本研究认为自我客体化是应对工作意义危机的一种手段，为自我客体化研究提供新的视角。从实践角度来看，本研究启示管理者要关注底线心智对于员工意义感的损害，而员工在产生意义危机后，要避免将自己客体化，可以尝试其他的解决方案。

The pursuit of meaning in work is a basic motivation for employees, as meaningful work can enhance their well-being and motivate them to be more engaged in work. However, previous research on work meaning has only focused on the positive aspects and the amount of meaning employees perceive. This study based on literature on crisis of meaning in life, argues that evaluations of work meaning should also include negative aspects such as emptiness, confusion, and negative affect, in order to fully understand the impact of work meaning on employees. This study centered on the concept of crisis of meaning in work, and proposed a moderated mediation model with bottom-line mentality as a possible predictor, self-objectification as a potential coping strategy, and financial worry as a moderating factor. Four sub-studies were conducted.

Study 1 used a questionnaire survey with 374 employees to test the full model proposed in this study. Two online questionnaire surveys were conducted with a one-week interval between them, bottom-line mentality, crisis of meaning in work, self-objectification, financial worry, and other control variables were measured. The results fully supported the model hypothesis, which suggested that bottom-line mentality positively relates to self-objectification via crisis of meaning in work. Financial worry also strengthened the positive relationship between crisis of meaning in work and self-objectification, as well as the positive relationship between bottom-line mentality and self-objectification mediated by crisis of meaning in work.

Study 2 collected daily diary data from 227 employees over a 10-day period to further examine the relationship between crisis of meaning in work and self-objectification, and the moderating effect of financial worry. After recruiting participants through a screening questionnaire that measured financial worry and other control variables, crisis of meaning in work and self-objectification were measured daily. Results showed a positive correlation between daily crisis of meaning in work and self-objectification, and financial worry strengthened their positive relationship.

Study 3 used an experimental design to manipulate crisis of meaning in work and examined its causal relationship with self-objectification as well as the interactive effect of financial worry. 86 employees were recruited and randomly assigned to an experimental or control group. The experimental group was asked to describe a situation in which their work had no meaning, while the control group was asked to describe a memorable event. Self-objectification was then measured and results showed that the experimental group had significantly higher self-objectification compared to the control group. Furthermore, the interaction effect between financial worry and crisis of meaning in work was significant.

Study 4 used a two-factor between-subjects design to supplement Study 3 by manipulating both crisis of meaning in work and financial worry. 118 employees were recruited and given materials to read that presented either a high or low level of crisis of meaning in work and financial worry. Self-objectification was then measured. Results showed that the high crisis of meaning in work group had significantly higher self-objectification than the low crisis of meaning in work group, and the interaction effect between crisis of meaning in work and financial worry was significant.

Overall, this study proposed a moderated mediation model centered on crisis of meaning in work and validated it through questionnaire surveys. The study further explored the relationship between crisis of meaning in work and self-objectification as well as the moderating effect of financial worry through daily diary data and experimental methods. From a theoretical perspective, this study complemented previous research on work meaning by proposing crisis of meaning in work based on literature on crisis of meaning in life. Additionally, it provided new insights on self-objectification as a coping strategy. From a practical perspective, this study suggests that management should be aware of the negative impact of bottom-line thinking on employee meaning, and that employees should explore alternative solutions rather than self-objectification when facing crisis of meaning in work.