Masterity: Definition and Research Trajectory

Definition of masterity

In the work of Chang (2015; 2018; 2023), modern masters who have reached the highest level in their fields are viewed as exemplars of work and learning. The term masterity describes the formative characteristics they develop as they learn and grow through work.

Modern masters realize their potential through work and learn and grow, improving the quality of their work. They extend the benefits of their achievements to the community (Chang, 2015; 2018; 2023).

As modern masters pursue achievement in their work, they engage in deliberate, sustained effort and practice (Duckworth, 2016). They learn in various ways (Chang & Koo, 2017; Kang et al., 2019; Ku et al., 2021), turning chance circumstances into learning opportunities (Mitchell et al., 1999).

The educational value of work

Masteristic learning describes how people grow as they cycle between learning and practice at work. It accounts for the educational value of work (Jang et al., 2021). A study by Lee et al. (2024) described the learning and growth embedded in masteristic learning as the educational value of work itself.

A critique by Dirkx (1997) examined most approaches to learning and their reliance on a technical-rational view of knowledge. This view emphasizes efficiency, clarity, and measurability in learning and systematically examines how knowledge is transmitted and applied. The critique examined how this approach addresses individuals’ search for meaning and the complex, multidimensional experiences involved in learning.

Masteristic learning accounts for how people learn at work by examining individual agency, sustained effort, cycles of reflection and practice, social exchange, and interaction with the environment (Jang et al., 2021). It views learning as an emergent process in which learners explore and use resources, internalize work-related experiences, and reapply the knowledge and insights they gain. This process connects with human needs for growth and meaning (Lee et al., 2024).

Scales related to masterity

Researchers have developed and validated scales for masteristic learning (Jang et al., 2021), masteristic work (Ku et al., 2021), masteristic achievement (Lee et al., 2021), and masteristic influence (Choi et al., 2021). All four concepts draw on masterity. Empirical research using these instruments has since grown (Lee et al., 2024).

The four scales resulted from “A study of women masters’ work and learning,” a project funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea’s Mid-Career Researcher Support Program (Ku et al., 2021).

Masteristic learning begins with a self-directed desire to grow and a commitment to learning. It involves developing proficiency through cycles of practice and reflection. It extends learning through interaction with objects or participation in learning networks (Jang et al., 2021).

Learning practices arise when people receive work instructions, use work tools, face situations that require independent learning, interact with others (stakeholders, supervisors, and colleagues), use organizational materials (records), and encounter difficulties at work (Jang et al., 2021).

Masteristic learning consists of autonomous learning, learning through tools, commitment to learning, open learning networks, and integrative learning (Jang et al., 2021).

Subfactor	Definition	Number of items	Related theory
Autonomous learning	An attitude of voluntarily seeking to learn about work even without assistance from others. Emphasizes learner agency alongside self-directed learning	4	Knowles et al. (2005)
Learning through tools	Cognition and behavior in the process of learning through interaction with objects needed for work	4	Engeström (2014)
Commitment to learning	Attitudes and behaviors that sustain learning despite difficulties arising during work and learning	3	Duckworth et al. (2021)
Open learning networks	Cognition and behavior involved in learning through exchanges with people with openness, curiosity, and humility	3	Lave & Wenger (1991), Higgins & Kram (2001)
Integrative learning	Cognition and behavior involved in learning about work through repeated cycles of reflection and practice	3	—

A study by Lee et al. (2024) identified tools, networks, and records of accumulated experience as major resources for masteristic learning. The authors described these three elements as learning resources available within and outside the organization. They distinguished these resources from members’ internal factors, including commitment, reflection, and self-directedness.

In a study by Ku et al. (2021), the research team developed the concept of masteristic work through a literature review and defined 5 subfactors. The team conducted 2 rounds of a Delphi survey with 24 experts in education and human resource development to develop 26 preliminary items across 5 factors. A preliminary survey of 219 workers in Korea indicated that a 3-factor structure was appropriate. After a main survey of 525 workers, the team finalized 24 items across 3 factors: work orientation, proactive work, and work creation. Development and validation of the masteristic work scale summarizes the development procedure.

The masteristic achievement scale was developed and validated in a study by Lee et al. (2021). A study by Lee (2024) reported that masteristic learning enhances members’ masteristic achievement through perceived organizational support and the meaning of work.

The masteristic influence scale was developed and validated in a study by Choi et al. (2021). The scale consists of 23 items across 3 subdimensions: sharing learning (8 items), being a role model (6 items), and contributing to community development (9 items).

Subdimension	Definition	Number of items
Sharing learning	Actively sharing knowledge and experience	8
Being a role model	Serving as a role model for others	6
Contributing to community development	Responsibility for and willingness to contribute to the development of one’s field and society	9

Relationships with adjacent concepts

Job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) describes how employees independently reconsider and adjust their perceptions of their work, the types of tasks they perform, and their relationships at work. The study by Lee et al. (2024) distinguished the scope of job crafting, which focuses on reinterpreting job characteristics, from that of masteristic learning, which addresses learning and growth at work. Because job crafting does not directly define learning, it offers a partial account of the full range of learning through work.

A study by Jang et al. (2021) examined how the subfactors of masteristic learning relate to adjacent concepts. Autonomous learning emphasizes both self-directed learning (Knowles et al., 2005) and learner agency. Commitment to learning shares an emphasis on sustained effort with grit (Duckworth et al., 2021). Open learning networks emphasize learning through exchanges with others, as do situated learning theory (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and developmental networks (Higgins & Kram, 2001). Learning through tools aligns with a view of learning that considers the roles of tools, objects, and artifacts (Engeström, 2014).

Research developments

Category	Research
Conceptualization and qualitative research	Chang (2015; 2018; 2023), Chang & Koo (2017), Kang, Lee, Choi, and Chang (2019) A study of the work and learning of masters at Sewoon Sangga
Scale development (2021)	Ku et al. masteristic work, Jang et al. masteristic learning, Lee et al. masteristic achievement, Choi et al. masteristic influence
Empirical research	Lee et al. (2021) Partial mediation by masteristic learning between empowering leadership and innovative work behavior, Choi (2022) Mediation between protean career attitudes and career satisfaction, Lee (2023) Mediation between the learning support environment and innovative work behavior, Lee (2024) Masteristic learning–perceived organizational support and meaning of work–masteristic achievement, Lee et al. (2024), Choi et al. (2025), Lee (2025), Lee (2026)

Related literature

In the account of craftsmanship offered by Sennett (2008), dedication to good work and the development of skill are central. Skills, tools, materials, and the quality of work are also treated as social and ethical questions. The account by Crawford (2009) examines thinking, judgment, and problem-solving in electrical and repair work, including the autonomy and responsibility that arise in concrete tasks.

The account in Dreyfus (2004) explains five stages from novice to expert. Accumulated experience changes how people interpret and judge situations, with intuitive performance playing an increasingly prominent role. The study by Ericsson et al. (1993) argued that high levels of performance arise from prolonged practice directed toward improving performance. The authors also argued that motivation and constraints on external resources affect whether practice continues. The work of Dreyfus and Ericsson focuses on performance levels and modes of judgment, while masterity research adds the meaning of work and contribution to the community.

The account in Billett (2001) explains that learning occurs as workplaces provide opportunities and support for participation in activities and individuals engage with those opportunities.

A study of hairdressing by Holmes (2015) showed that craft, developed through repeated practice and the cultivation of skill, also exists in service occupations with a high proportion of women. The study emphasized the impermanence and invisibility of the work and its outputs in understanding how craft in service work gains social recognition.

English terminology

Korean	English
장인성	masterity
장인적 일하기	masteristic work
장인적 학습	masteristic learning
장인적 성취	masteristic achievement
장인적 영향력	masteristic influence
일의 교육	education of work
학습지원환경	learning support environment
직무재구성	job crafting

References

• Billett, S. (2001). Learning through work: Workplace affordances and individual engagement. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(5), 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005548
• Crawford, M. B. (2009). Shop class as soulcraft: An inquiry into the value of work. Penguin Press.
• Dreyfus, S. E. (2004). The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 24(3), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467604264992
• Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
• Holmes, H. (2015). Transient craft: Reclaiming the contemporary craft worker. Work, Employment and Society, 29(3), 479–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017014535834
• Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. Yale University Press.