How do callings relate to job performance? The role of organizational commitment and ideological contract fulfillment

Abstract

Do individuals with callings perform better than those without? Why or why not? There are not clear answers to these questions in the literature. Using a social exchange framework, we posit an intervening process between callings and job performance, focusing on the role of organizational commitment and ideological contract fulfillment – the degree to which organizations live up to their ideological promises. Specifically, individuals with callings will be more committed to their organization, and this commitment, in turn, leads to job performance. Further, this relationship of calling to job performance through commitment will be attenuated when employees perceive under-fulfillment of ideological contract. We found support for these hypotheses across three studies that utilized self- or supervisor-rated performance data from a non-profit organization and multiple for-profit organizations. Interestingly, while the relationship between commitment and performance did depend on fulfillment of the ideological psychological contract, contrary to our prediction, the calling-commitment relationship was not attenuated by under-fulfillment of ideological contract. Our findings deepen our understanding of the organizational implications of callings from a social exchange-based perspective. This study further informs practitioners as to hiring and motivating individuals with a calling.

Keywords

calling ideology-based psychological contract job performance organizational commitment social exchange

Individuals are increasingly turning to work to find meaningfulness in their lives (Colby et al., 2001; Tams and Marshall, 2011). For individuals pursuing meaningfulness in their employment, working merely for compensation or a promotion is insufficient. Instead, people look for opportunities in order to pursue a calling, the ‘place in the occupational division of labor in society that one feels destined to fill by virtue of particular gifts, talents, and/or idiosyncratic life opportunities’ (Bunderson and Thompson, 2009: 37). In line with this societal trend, the concept of callings has gained a great deal of attention from researchers (e.g., Berg et al., 2010; Dobrow, 2013). Extant research shows that callings have usually been associated with beneficial individual outcomes such as enhanced levels of work and life satisfaction (Duffy et al., 2011; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997), zest (Peterson et al., 2009) and well-being (Conway et al., 2015).

In light of the growing trend of pursuing a calling, it has also become important to understand the organizational implications of hiring individuals with a calling. Yet, the impact of callings on organizational outcomes, such as job performance, remains unclear in this nascent field of research. An association between one’s calling and job performance is commonly anticipated to be positive owing to calling-oriented employees’ devotion to their work (e.g., Miller-Perrin and Mancuso, 2015). Studies utilizing self-reported performance have begun to support this relationship (Lobene and Meade, 2013; Rawat and Nadavulakere, 2015). Nevertheless, other scholars doubt whether calling-oriented employees make superior performers, speculating that these employees may prioritize the objectives mandated by their occupationally-based calling over organizational objectives (Dobrow, 2004) or organizational community involvement (Pratt and Ashforth, 2003). Indeed, a recent study reported that the hypothesized positive association was not found between callings and objective performance (Park et al., 2016), leaving the nature of this focal relationship still uncertain.

Even less is known about the mechanisms through which callings relate to job performance (for an exception, see Park and colleagues (2016), who identified occupational self-efficacy as a mechanism). Further, scholarly efforts to explain the impact of callings on individual outcomes have typically focused on work- or occupation-related mediators such as work meaningfulness or occupational identity (Bunderson and Thompson, 2009; Duffy et al., 2011; Hirschi, 2012), relying on the assumption that callings transcend any organizational context (e.g., Hall and Chandler, 2005). However, research has hinted that there could be additional pathways through which callings relate to workplace behaviors, requiring a broader understanding of the underlying mechanisms. In particular, Cardador and colleagues (2011) questioned the focus on occupational variables in favor of also including organizational characteristics, such as organizational instrumentality. In addition, a recent qualitative study of calling-oriented animal shelter workers illustrated that employees with a similar passion and purpose exhibited vastly different behaviors as they navigated the challenge of callings in their varying organizational contexts (Schabram and Maitlis, 2016), suggesting organizationally embedded mechanisms underlying the relationship between callings and workplace behaviors. As such, there is a need to better understand how the organizational context impacts the calling-performance relationship.

Our objective in this article is thus to explore an intervening process between callings and performance. Drawing from social exchange theory, we argue that the calling-performance relationship is mediated by the quality of the social exchange relationship between employees and their organization, as indicated by affective organizational commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1984). Additionally, we theorize that the mediated relationship is contingent on ideological contract fulfillment (ICF) – the extent to which an employee believes his/her organization fulfills its implicit obligations toward the pursuit of valued principles or causes (Thompson and Bunderson, 2003). Given that the ideological contract is based on the pursuit of values beyond self-interest, its fulfillment likely becomes a critical context that shapes the workplace experiences of calling-oriented employees.

We conducted three independent studies in very different contexts to test our hypotheses. In Study 1, we utilized self-rated in-role performance involving 200 staff members from a US megachurch. The follow-up studies extend Study 1 by utilizing a two-phased survey (Study 2) and supervisor-rated in-role performance (Study 3) in for-profit organizations. Across the three studies, we found that affective commitment serves as a mediator between callings and performance. Further, and perhaps counterintuitively, ICF does not play a moderating role in the relationship between callings and affective commitment. However, in all three samples, it does play an important moderating role in the relationship between affective commitment and performance, indicating that individuals who have callings and high affective commitment may still have low levels of performance if the organization does not live up to its ideological promises. Ultimately, we unpack the calling-job performance relationship by offering an organizationally embedded explanation of how callings relate to in-role performance.

Callings and job performance

According to Bunderson and Thompson (2009), a calling implicates (although it is distinct from) individuals’ strong identification with their line of work, that is, occupation and their occupational community. Thus, those with callings come to accept the occupational beliefs and ideologies about the significance of their work to society. As a result, they derive heightened meaningfulness and motivation to contribute to society from their work. Furthermore, although the authors’ conceptualization of a calling does not rely on religious beliefs, it still resonates with the term’s classical origins, such as ‘God’s commandment to the individual to work for the divine glory’ (Weber, 1930: 106), and emphasizes one’s moral obligation to contribute to society (e.g. prosocial orientation) (Dik and Duffy, 2009). According to the job characteristics model (Hackman and Oldham, 1975) and prosocial motivation theory (Grant and Berg, 2011), work meaningfulness and a prosocial orientation are associated with higher levels of persistence and job performance (e.g. Grant, 2008; Grant et al., 2007; Naff and Crum, 1999). In line with this reasoning, prior studies provide preliminary evidence that calling-oriented employees exhibit superior performance in various occupations (e.g. police officers, teachers, ministers). These individuals are so devoted to their work that they tend to take on higher workloads voluntarily (Chen, 2010), spend their non-paid time on their jobs (Clinton et al., 2017; Serow, 1994), and evaluate their performance highly (Lobene and Meade, 2013). Hence, we propose (Figure 1):

Figure 1.

Moderated mediated relationship among calling, ICF, affective commitment and in-role performance.

Hypothesis 1: Calling is positively related to in-role performance.

Affective commitment as a mediator of the calling-performance relationship

Social exchange (Blau, 1964) has been frequently adopted as a theoretical framework to understand the relationship between employees and their organizations (Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2005). A social exchange relationship refers to an enduring interaction pattern, entailing unspecified, trustful mutual obligations (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Generally speaking, the social exchange process is initiated when one party perceives a benefit from the other party, which may be returned in kind based on the norm of reciprocity (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960). A series of successful exchanges contribute to the formation of a quality social exchange relationship, where the parties perceive personal feelings and obligations toward each other (Cropanzano et al., 2017). Owing to this emphasis on the attachments that one party feels toward the exchange partner, past research has utilized affective commitment – an employee’s emotional attachment to his or her organization (Meyer and Allen, 1984) – as an indicator of the quality of the social exchange relationship (Cropanzano et al., 2003; Lavelle et al., 2009).

Prior studies have shown that employees with a calling tend to develop quality social exchange relationships with their organizations (as indicated by affective commitment, for example) (e.g. Duffy et al., 2011). Cardador et al. (2011) drew upon theories of role investment and argued that individuals’ fundamental devotion to their line of work through their callings may be extended to their organizations because they may view their organizations as instrumental in achieving the valued goals associated with their callings. Given the perceived instrumentality of their organization, these employees with a calling become willing to invest in the relationship with it (Labroo and Kim, 2009). This argument is consistent with a core tenet of social exchange theory: individuals form social exchange relationships to the extent that they receive worthwhile benefits (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005).

The social exchange relationship with an organization provides a proximal cause for employees’ workplace behaviors (Cropanzano et al., 2017). Indeed, prior research suggests that employees reciprocate a quality social exchange relationship with an organization (as indicated by affective commitment) through their behaviors to help organizations reach their goals (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Cropanzano et al., 2003). In addition, as affectively committed employees come to internalize the goals of the organization and identify with its well-being (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986), they are motivated to engage in behaviors that benefit the organization. Meta-analytic studies provide further support for the relationship between affective commitment and performance (Meyer et al., 2002; Riketta, 2002). All together, we suggest:

Hypothesis 2: Affective commitment mediates the positive relationship between calling and in-role performance.

ICF as a key moderator

In order to investigate how the organizational context influences this proposed mediated relationship, we look to research on ICF. The psychological contract refers to ‘individual beliefs in a reciprocal obligation between the individual and the organization’ (Rousseau, 1989: 121). As such, psychological contracts are predicated on a social exchange framework, with an emphasis on promises made and kept by a partner, rather than the benefits provided by the partner (Coyle-Shapiro and Conway, 2005; Wayne et al., 1997). Psychological contract research traditionally focused on economic (e.g. pay, benefit) and socio-emotional (e.g. long-term growth, security) currencies exchanged between employees and their employers (Robinson and Morrison, 1995; Robinson and Rousseau, 1994) until Thompson and Bunderson (2003) proposed ideological currency as a third component of the psychological contract. An ideological contract entails employees’ implicit expectations for their organizations to demonstrate a credible dedication to valued principles that transcend instrumental interests and benefit some constituency (e.g. employees, the community, or broader society) (Bingham et al., 2013). The ideological contract also entails employees’ own obligations to participate in the organizations’ pursuit of these principles (Thompson and Bunderson, 2003). Studies have since demonstrated the distinctiveness of ideological currency from the other two currencies in for-profit and non-profit sectors (Bal and Vink, 2011; Bingham, 2005; Vantilborgh et al., 2013, 2014).

We focus on an organization’s core values as the central content of the ideological contract (e.g. Scheel and Mohr, 2012), as they stand for an organization’s beliefs regarding desirable, motivational goals, which serve as guiding principles to those inside the organization (Van Lee et al., 2002). Furthermore, organizational members are likely to develop the belief that their organization is obligated to demonstrate a credible commitment to its core values, as they are formally endorsed and espoused by an organization to its members in order to create shared interpretations and commitments between organizations and members (Cable and Parsons, 2001; Gruys et al., 2008). As a result, core values are reflected in members’ understanding of the core character of their organization (Ashforth and Mael, 1996; Gioia et al., 2000), and they react to the extent to which the organization behaves in line with its core values (Cha and Edmondson, 2006; Lencioni, 2002). Employees with a calling, in particular, are likely to be drawn to the core values of the organization as they actively search to work for organizations that uphold values represented in their calling (Hagmaier and Abele, 2012; Hirschi and Herrmann, 2013).

There are two possible ways in which ICF may impact the relationship between callings and job performance. First, ICF may strengthen the relationship between callings and affective commitment. Employees make evaluations of their organization before they ‘invest in’ social exchange relationships, characterized by affective commitment (Cropanzano et al., 1997; Randall et al., 1999). However, such evaluations are not necessarily based on all expectations, but those that are of high personal importance (Morrison and Robinson, 1997; Wanous et al., 1992). Expectations of high personal importance are those that are value-based (Bunderson, 2001; Thompson and Bunderson, 2003) and rooted in ‘pre-employment schemas [which] provide a lens through which workers view employment experiences and the obligations these create’ (Rousseau, 2001: 515). Thus, for employees with a calling, their affective commitment depends on the extent to which the organization fulfills the promises concerning its core values.

There is reason to believe that employees with high and low levels of callings will deem different types of expectations as critical. For instance, materialistic concerns (e.g. extrinsic rewards and security) are related to organizational attachment only for employees with a low level of calling (Cardador et al., 2011). Instead, owing to their personal emphasis on prosocial goals and the transcendent meaning derived from their work (Wrzesniewski, 2003), employees with a high level of calling prioritize ideological expectations relating to social values that go beyond economic interests (Thompson and Bunderson, 2003); therefore, these employees are likely to be more responsive to an organizational climate where values such as humanism are emphasized (Vandenberghe, 2011). As a result, when employees with a high level of calling gauge their organization and decide how much to invest in a social exchange relationship with it, they examine the extent to which their organization lives up to its commitment to its espoused principles (i.e. ICF). In contrast, ICF should have less influence on social exchange development among those with a low level of calling, owing to less emphasis on ideological concerns:

Hypothesis 3: ICF moderates the positive relationship between calling and affective commitment such that the relationship is stronger when ICF is higher.

Second, we also propose that ICF strengthens the relationship between affective commitment and job performance. The basic tenet of social exchange theory is that benefits from one party oblige the other party to reciprocate on the basis of the norm of reciprocity (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960). However, as Blau (1964) also noted, the reciprocation is not solely based on the benefits or services already rendered; when an individual does a favor for someone, there is an expectation of some future return. The estimation of a high probability of an organization to carry out its obligations over the long run (Holmes, 1981) would prompt employees to be more willing to balance their future benefits from the organization with present contributions to the exchange relationship (Coyle-Shapiro and Kessler, 2002). In support of the role of future return in reciprocation, a prior study showed that the less wary employees were about the organization’s future reciprocation, the more they reciprocated quality relationships (Lynch et al., 1999).

Linking the expectation of future return and reciprocation (Blau, 1964), we argue that employees are more likely to act upon their affective commitment to generate job performance under high ICF, as it may signal a high probability that their organization will reciprocate future benefits to them. An organization’s discretionary actions to pursue prosocial values – such as fulfilling its ideological promises – would likely be interpreted by employees as indications that the organization generally values social relationships (Rupp et al., 2006), or even that the organization has moral character (i.e. it does the right thing) (Bauman and Skitka, 2012; see Lange and Washburn, 2012). Such favorable pro-relational or moral judgments of one’s organization would mitigate employees’ inherent concerns in social exchange relationships about being exploited by their exchange partner (Abele and Wojciszke, 2007; Wojciszke, 2005). As a result, once committed employees derive the necessary confidence about their organization from a fulfilled ideological contract, they are likely to engage in behaviors that are beneficial to their organizations. In contrast, when the organization falls short of fulfilling its ideological promises, employees, while still compelled by the values claimed by the organization, may become less confident that their organization would honor its exchange obligations over the long run; thus, employees may reciprocate by engaging in fewer beneficial behaviors for their organizations.

Additionally, ICF may affect the skill development of calling-oriented employees, and thus their performance. For instance, Schabram and Maitlis (2016: 594) illustrated how calling-oriented animal-shelter workers responded to workplace challenges such as ‘moral injustices committed against animals by the staff tasked to serve them’, which may be construed as under-fulfillment of the ideological contract, and thus may evoke negative emotions. Workers who felt intensely negative emotions from such challenges tended to work alone or to take on leadership roles. In both cases, they were less likely to develop their skills because in the first case, they already felt they were uniquely gifted and in the second case, they were no longer focused on their primary veterinary tasks. In contrast, workers who felt less intense negative emotions approached the same situations as opportunities to develop their skills and capacity. Accordingly, we predict:

Hypothesis 4: ICF moderates the positive relationship between affective commitment and in-role performance such that the relationship is stronger when ICF is higher.

In combining Hypotheses 2 through 4, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 5: ICF moderates the mediated relationship between calling and in-role performance through affective commitment such that the relationship is stronger when ICF is higher.

The empirical studies

Study 1

Participants and procedure

The data for Study 1 were collected among the staff members of a Presbyterian megachurch in the Eastern United States. The salience of callings and values in a church setting makes it a suitable research setting to examine callings and the ideological contract (Conway et al., 2015; Scheel and Mohr, 2012). Studies of volunteers can also provide valid insights that are applicable to paid-workers (Rodell, 2013). The megachurch has over 30,000 members, and 1000 staff members (100 paid staff members and 900 non-paid volunteers). After receiving permission from the pastor, staff completed confidential questionnaires in a large auditorium. Among our study variables, ICF and demographic variables were collected at Time 1, whereas calling, affective commitment, and in-role performance were collected at Time 2 after a five-month interval. Respondents created their own personal codes at Time 1 in order for the researchers to match their responses at Time 2. At Time 1, 609 individuals, or 60.9% of the entire staff population, completed the survey. At Time 2, we received 614 completed surveys, 200 of which were successfully matched to the Time 1 surveys (final response rate = 20%).¹ In the final sample, 24% were men, and 92% were volunteers (vs paid employees). The respondents had a mean age of 48.77 years (SD = 14.39).

Measures

Calling was measured with Bunderson and Thompson’s (2009) six-item scale (α = .93), which asks participants to indicate the degree to which they believe their current occupations are consonant with their callings (e.g. ‘I was meant to do the work I do’) on a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). We measured ICF by asking participants to rate the extent to which their church fulfilled each of eight, formally endorsed organizational values (the Bible, integrity, discipline/self-control, relationships, leadership, superior service, stewardship and a good reputation) since they had become staff members (α = .83) on a five-point scale (1 = much less than expected, 5 = much more than expected). Our approach is consistent with prior studies (Bunderson, 2001; Scheel and Mohr, 2012) in that participants evaluated their organization against a set of an organization’s core values. We measured affective commitment with Meyer and Allen’s (1984) eight-item scale (e.g. ‘I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own’) (α = .88), using a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). We measured in-role performance using Ashford and Black’s (1996) five-item scale (α = .94), which has been used to capture self-rated performance (e.g. Briscoe et al., 2012). Participants were asked to rate how their supervisors would evaluate, for example, their ‘quality of performance,’ relative to that of their co-workers on a seven-point scale (1 = very poor, 7 = excellent). We controlled for age (Ng and Feldman, 2010), tenure (years) (Mathieu and Zajac, 1990), gender (0 = male, 1 = female) (Taylor, 2006), worker status (0 = paid, 1 = non-paid) (Vandenberghe and Tremblay, 2008), and employment status (0 = full time, 1 = part time) (Conway and Briner, 2002).

Results

To examine discriminant validity, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis on the four self-reported study variables. The four-factor model showed a good fit to the data (χ² [318, N = 197] = 549.72; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .94; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .06), and a significantly better fit (p < .001) than any other more parsimonious model.² Table 1a summarizes the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the study variables. Among the planned control variables, we did not include age in further analyses in light of its high missing rate (20%) and the non-significant correlations between age and affective commitment, and age and performance among the remaining participants (Becker, 2005). In subsequent analyses, all substantive variables were mean-centered to compute the interaction terms for the moderation analyses (Aiken and West, 1991) and to facilitate the plotting of moderated mediation (Edwards and Lambert, 2007).

Table 1.

Means, standard deviations and correlations.

(a) Study 1.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Age	48.77	14.39
2. Organizational tenure	3.98	1.05	.53**
3. Gender	0.76	0.43	−.05	−.06
4. Worker status	0.92	0.27	−.01	−.06	−.02
5. Employment status	0.87	0.34	.01	−.02	−.01	.62**
6. Calling	5.32	1.15	−.04	.00	.02	−.11	.04
7. ICF	4.03	0.77	−.08	.06	−.02	−.10	−.05	.23**
8. Affective commitment	4.34	0.58	.00	.11	−.06	−.05	−.03	.33**	.44**
9. In-role performance	4.17	0.69	−.08	.00	.02	−.01	.01	.35**	.21**	.33**

Max N = 200. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; ICF: ideological contract fulfillment. Organizational tenure: 1 = less than 1 year, 2 = 1–5 years, 3 = 5–10 years, 4 = 10–15 years, 5 = over 15 years. Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female. Worker status: 0 = paid, 1 = non-pad. Employment status: 0 = full time, 1 = part time.

p < .01.

(b) Study 2.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Age	39.86	11.16
2. Organizational tenure	2.99	1.08	.42**
3. Gender	0.58	0.49	−.02	.02
4. Calling	5.06	1.53	−.05	.11	.07
5. ICF	5.30	1.31	−.06	.06	.04	.55**
6. Affective commitment T2	5.03	1.28	−.04	.13*	.14*	.59**	.58**
7. In-role performance T2	5.76	1.04	.24**	.11	.16**	.11	.24**	.27**

Max N = 304. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; ICF: ideological contract fulfillment; T: time. Organizational tenure: 1= less than 1 year, 2 = 1–5 years, 3 = 5–10 years, 4 = 10–15 years, 5 = over 15 years. Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female.

p ≤ .05; ** p < .01.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Age	33.45	6.66
2. Organizational tenure (years)	2.82	2.80	.18*
3. Gender	0.48	0.50	−.31**	−.05
4. Employment status	1.20	0.40	−.12	−.12	.14
5. Calling	4.35	1.79	.19**	.18*	−.04	−.01
6. ICF	4.77	1.28	.03	−.04	.11	−.02	.40**
7. Affective commitment	3.64	1.04	.23**	.04	−.21**	−.10	.41**	.39**
8. Supervisor-rated in-role performance	4.02	0.97	.25**	.30**	−.15*	−.04	.33**	.24**	.48**

Max N = 201. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; ICF: ideological contract fulfillment. Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female. Employment status: 1 = full time, 2 = part time.

p ≤ .05; ** p < .01.

Lending support to Hypothesis 1, the results of the hierarchical regression shown in Table 2a indicate that calling is significantly and positively related to in-role performance (B = .23, t = 5.38, p < .001). Hypothesis 2 predicted a mediated relationship between calling and in-role performance via affective commitment. As shown in Table 2b, calling is positively related to affective commitment (B = .14, t = 3.95, p < .001) and affective commitment is, in turn, positively related to in-role performance (B = .20, t = 2.23, p < .05). We formally tested the mediation with PROCESS macro created by Hayes (2013), which employs a bootstrapping procedure to determine bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around the estimates of mediation effects based on 1000 bootstrapped samples. Bootstrapping provides evidence of mediation if the calculated CI excludes zero. The produced CIs for the mediated effect of calling on in-role performance (.028, 95% CI = .002, .083) provided support for Hypothesis 2.

Table 2.

Regression analyses predicting affective commitment and in-role performance – Study 1

(a) Coefficients estimates for the direct model for in-role performance.

Variable	DV = In-role performance
	Step 1			Step 2
	B	SE	t	B	SE	t
Organizational tenure	.01	.05	.15	.00	.04	.11
Gender	.07	.12	.54	.07	.11	.58
Worker status	−.13	.24	−.53	.14	.22	.62
Employment status	.01	.19	.08	−.14	.17	−.80
Calling				.23	.04	5.38***
ICF				.14	.06	2.30*
R²			.00			.20
∆F			.19			20.72***

(b) Coefficients estimates for the moderated mediation model for in-role performance.

Variable	First stage						Second stage
	DV = Affective commitment						DV = In-role performance
	Step 1			Step 2			Step 1			Step 2
	B	SE	t	B	SE	t	B	SE	t	B	SE	t
Organizational tenure	.05	.04	1.28	.04	.04	1.22	.00	.04	−.10	.00	.04	−.11
Gender	−.06	.09	−.63	−.06	.09	−.62	.08	.11	.70	.07	.11	.66
Worker status	.08	.18	.42	.08	.18	.44*	.12	.22	.55	.21	.22	.96*
Employment status	−.04	.14	−.29	−.06	.14	−.43	−.13	.17	−.76	−.19	.17	−1.09
Calling	.14	.04	3.95 ***	.14	.04	4.03***	.20	.04	4.57***	.20	.04	4.40***
ICF	.30	.05	5.89***	.30	.05	5.85***	.08	.07	1.21	.11	.07	1.58
Affective commitment							.20	.09	2.23 *	.29	.10	2.84**
Calling × ICF				−.04	.04	−.92				−.07	.06	−1.15
Commitment × ICF										.17	.09	1.96 *
R²			.28			.28			.22			.24
∆F			11.17***			.85			6.90***			2.00

N = 181. Numbers are unstandardized regression coefficients. DV = dependent variable; SE = standard error; ICF: ideological contract fulfillment. Organizational tenure: 1= less than 1 year, 2 = 1–5 years, 3 = 5–10 years, 4 = 10–15 years, 5 = over 15 years. Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female. Worker status: 0 = paid, 1= non-paid. Employment status: 0 = full time, 1 = part time.

p ≤ .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Hypotheses 3 through 5 concerned the moderating role of ICF. We examined Hypotheses 3 and 4 using a moderated multiple regression procedure (Aiken and West, 1991). Results in Table 2b indicate that the interaction term of calling and the moderator did not predict affective commitment (B = −.04, t = −.92, NS), thus failing to support Hypothesis 3. In contrast, the interaction term of affective commitment and the moderator significantly predicted in-role performance (B = .17, t = 1.96, p = .05). We plotted the interaction effect and calculated simple slopes at high (1 SD above the mean) and low (1 SD below the mean) levels of ICF (Dawson, 2014) (Figure 2a). The positive relationship between affective commitment and in-role performance was stronger when ICF was high (B = .41, t = 2.91, p < .01) versus low (B = .15, t = 1.62, NS). Thus, these results provide support for Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 5 predicted a moderated mediation of calling on in-role performance through affective commitment. Moderated mediation occurs when the strength of the mediation effect of calling on in-role performance depends on the level of ICF (Preacher et al., 2007). The bootstrapping procedure utilizing PROCESS macro created by Hayes (2013) indicated that the mediation effect of calling on in-role performance was significant and positive at a high level of ICF (.046, 95% CI =.013, .121), but decreased to non-significance at a low level of ICF (.027, 95% CI = −.005, .116). To facilitate the interpretation, we plotted the moderated mediation effect in Figure 2d (Edwards and Lambert, 2007). These analyses provide support for Hypothesis 5.

Figure 2.

Moderating role of ICF.

Discussion

Study 1 provided support for the direct relationship between calling and in-role performance, as well as the mediated relationship through affective commitment. Further, the mediated relationship was stronger when ICF was high (vs low), because the relationship between affective commitment and in-role performance was attenuated by low ICF. However, Study 1 is limited in at least two ways. Our results might have been valid only within a church context, and the simultaneous collection of the calling and performance variables from respondents may bias our findings³ (Podsakoff et al., 2003a, 2003b). Hence, we conducted a follow-up study, utilizing a two-phased survey from employees in the for-profit sector.

Study 2

Participants and procedure

Participants were a part of a US-based survey response panel run by Qualtrics^TM. The panel members are paid with points, which they can redeem for merchandise from online merchants. We took procedural controls against potential common method bias by means of collecting perceptual variables one-month apart: calling and ICF at Time 1, and commitment and performance at Time 2 (Podsakoff et al., 2003a). Consistent with existing research that has used online survey organizations, we calculated the response rate based on the number of participants who opened the survey invitation (Brown and Robinson, 2011; Dumas et al., 2013; Long et al., 2011). At Time 1, 2587 out of 5497 individuals who opened the survey completed it (Time 1 response rate = 47.1%). A review of these completions as for the completion time resulted in a total of 2226 final respondents for Time 1, who were contacted through the email addresses they provided at Time 1. At Time 2, 304 out of 369 individuals who opened the survey completed it, representing our final sample (Time 2 response rate = 82.4%, or 13.7% of all invitations sent out).⁴ Fifty-eight percent was female, and the average age was 39.9 years (SD = 11.2). More than 19 industries (e.g., finance, healthcare) were represented.

Measures

Participants rated their agreement using a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). As in Study 1, calling was measured with Bunderson and Thompson’s (2009) scale (α = .94). We measured ICF by adapting Robinson and Morrison’s (2000) five-item measure of psychological contract fulfillment to capture how true employees perceive their companies are to their core values (α = .86).⁵ We specified the content of ‘promises’ in the original items to be ‘core values’ (e.g. ‘So far my company has done an excellent job of fulfilling its core values since I joined the staff’), in light of our focus on core values as the central content of ideological contracts. Affective commitment was measured with Meyer et al.’s (1993) six-item scale (α = .86). In-role performance was measured with Williams and Anderson’s (1991) seven-item scale (e.g. ‘adequately completes assigned duties,’ α = .81). We controlled for age, gender (0 = male, 1 = female), and organizational tenure, as in Study 1. Employment status was not used, as all respondents reported full-time status.

Results

The hypothesized four-factor measurement model demonstrated a reasonable fit to the data, with one residual covariance added between two reverse-coded items of in-role performance (Bachman and O’Malley, 1986) (χ² [245, N = 304] = 695.70; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .08), and was significantly better (p < .001) than any other more parsimonious model. The mean scores, standard deviations, and correlations are presented in Table 1b. We tested our hypotheses with the same procedure as in Study 1. As shown in Table 3a, calling was not a significant predictor of T2 in-role performance (B = −.03, t = −.64, NS). Hence, Hypothesis 1 was not supported. Despite the non-finding of the direct effect in Hypothesis 1, we proceeded to test a mediation relationship in Hypothesis 2, as unlike the widely used, traditional approach recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986), a more recent approach does not require a significant direct relationship between an independent and a dependent variable as a precondition to examine the mediation between the two (MacKinnon et al., 2002; Rucker et al., 2011; Shrout and Bolger, 2002). As shown in Table 3b, calling is positively related to T2 commitment (B = .31, t = 7.12, p < .001), and T2 commitment is, in turn, positively related to T2 performance (B = .20, t = 3.39, p < .001). The bootstrapping procedure provided formal support for Hypothesis 2, the mediated effect of calling on T2 in-role performance (.063, 95% CI = .019, .116).

Table 3.

Regression analyses predicting affective commitment and in-role performance – Study 2

(a) Coefficients estimates for the direct model for in-role performance.

Variable	DV = T2 In-role performance
	Step 1			Step 2
	B	SE	t	B	SE	t
Age	.02	.01	3.91***	.02	.01	4.40***
Organizational tenure	.01	.06	.12	−.01	.06	−.24
Gender	.35	.12	3.02**	.34	.11	3.00**
Calling				−.03	.04	−.64
ICF				.22	.05	4.24***
R²			.08			.15
∆F			9.16***			11.03***

(b) Coefficients estimates for the moderated mediation model for in-role performance.

Variable	First stage						Second stage
	DV = T2 Affective commitment						DV = T2 In-role performance
	Step 1			Step 2			Step 1			Step 2
	B	SE	t	B	SE	t	B	SE	t	B	SE	t
Age	.00	.01	−.79	.00	.01	−.78	.03	.01	4.63***	.02	.01	4.52***
Organizational tenure	.10	.06	1.77	.10	.06	1.75	−.03	.06	−.56	−.02	.06	−.34
Gender	.24	.11	2.17*	.25	.11	2.20*	.30	.11	2.64**	.26	.11	2.39*
Calling	.31	.04	7.12 ***	.30	.04	6.90***	−.09	.05	−1.91+	−.08	.05	−1.74+
ICF	.36	.05	7.10***	.35	.05	6.78***	.15	.05	2.71**	.20	.05	3.60***
T2 Affective commitment							.20	.06	3.39 **	.24	.06	4.10***
Calling × ICF				−.01	.02	−.58				.03	.03	.99
Commitment × ICF										.09	.03	2.52 *
R²			.45			.45			.18			.23
∆F			49.42***			.34			10.79***			9.25***

N = 191. Numbers are unstandardized regression coefficients. DV = dependent variable; SE = standard error; ICF: ideological contract fulfillment. Organizational tenure: 1= less than 1 year, 2 = 1–5 years, 3 = 5–10 years, 4 = 10–15 years, 5 = over 15 years. Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female.

p ≤ .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

In Table 3b, the interaction term of calling and ICF was not significant in predicting T2 affective commitment (B = –.01, t = –.58, NS), thereby failing to provide support for Hypothesis 3. However, the interaction term of T2 affective commitment and ICF was a significant predictor of T2 in-role performance (B = .09, t = 2.52, p < .05). Figure 2b shows that the relationship between T2 affective commitment and T2 in-role performance was positive and stronger at a high level of ICF (B = .36, t = 4.30, p < .05) than at a low level of ICF (B = .13, t = 1.93, NS), thereby supporting Hypothesis 4. The bootstrapping procedure indicated that the mediation effect of calling on T2 in-role performance was stronger at a high level of ICF (.106, 95% CI =.051, .194) than at a low level of ICF (.041, 95% CI = −.011, .110). We plotted the moderated mediation effect in Figure 2e. These analyses indicate that Hypothesis 5 is supported.

Discussion

Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1, with the only exception being that the data did not support the direct effect of calling on in-role performance. Such replication demonstrates the generalizability of our findings, as Study 2 utilized a two-phased dataset collected from individuals in various for-profit organizations. Yet, Study 2 is still limited by the use of a self-rated performance measure, although such a measure has been found to correlate with other-rated or actual performance (Harris and Schaubroeck, 1988; Harrison et al., 2011; Pearce and Porter, 1986). Hence, a follow-up study was conducted with a supervisor-rated performance measure, which has been rarely utilized in calling research.

Study 3

Participants and procedure

The participants were all employed in service teams of six companies operating banking, telecommunications or electricity in Eastern Canada. Owing to the prevalence of conflicts between organizational and occupational values such as the organizational focus on service efficiency versus the occupational concern with service quality (i.e. occupational concerns) (Frei, 2006; Zeithaml et al., 1988), these service teams provide an excellent research setting to examine the tension between organizational and occupational concerns (Bowen and Ford, 2002). Matched field data were collected from French-speaking employees and their supervisors. Employees completed a questionnaire including calling, ICF, and commitment, while supervisors rated employee performance in a separate questionnaire. Questionnaires were coded so as to allow matching the data. All respondents were assured of confidentiality. In total, 201 usable responses were obtained from employees (response rate = 79%). In the final employee sample, 52% were men, and 80% worked full time. Employees had a mean age of 33.30 years (SD = 7.00), a mean tenure with the supervisor of 1.98 years (SD = 1.78), and a mean organizational tenure of 2.82 years (SD = 2.80). Employees had high school (9%) or at least a two-year college (91%) education. Supervisors had a mean age of 44.33 years (SD = 3.20), with 9.67 years (SD = 5.24) of tenure. Four of the six supervisors were male.

Measures

Since the participants were French-speaking employees, all survey items, unless they were already available in French, were translated into French (Brislin, 1980). Participants rated their agreement using a seven-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) for calling and ICF, and a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) for affective commitment and in-role performance. As in Studies 1 and 2, calling was measured with Bunderson and Thompson’s (2009) scale (α = .95). The same scales as in Study 2 were used for the remaining variables: ICF with the adapted measure of Robinson and Morrison’s (2000) (α = .78), affective commitment with the French version (Vandenberghe et al., 2001) of Meyer et al.’s (1993) scale (α = .94), and in-role performance with Williams and Anderson’s (1991) scale (α = .93). We controlled for age, gender (0 = male, 1 = female), organizational tenure (years), and employment status (1 = full time, 2 = part time).

Results

The hypothesized four-factor measurement model demonstrated a good fit to the data (χ² [246, N = 198] = 440.49; CFI = .96; RMSEA = .06), and a significantly better fit (p < .001) than other more parsimonious model. The descriptive statistics and correlations are shown in Table 1c. The results of the hierarchical regression⁶ indicate that calling is significantly related to in-role performance (B = .10, t = 2.71, p < .05), thus supporting Hypothesis 1 (Table 4a). Calling is positively related to affective commitment (B = .16, t = 4.13, p < .001), and affective commitment is, in turn, positively related to in-role performance (B = .38, t = 5.75, p < .001) (Table 4b). A CI produced by the PROCESS procedure indicated a significant mediated effect of calling on in-role performance (.062, 95% CI = .028, .109), supporting Hypothesis 2. Results in Table 4b indicate that the interaction term of calling and ICF did not predict affective commitment (B = .00, t =.14, NS), thus failing to support Hypothesis 3. However, the interaction term of affective commitment and ICF was a significant predictor of in-role performance (B = .09, t = 2.11, p < .05). The plot of the interaction effect (Figure 2c) shows that the positive relationship between commitment and performance was stronger when ICF was high (B = .52, t = 5.53, p < .001) than low (B = .28, t = 3.46, p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was supported. Hypothesis 5 predicted a moderated mediation of calling on in-role performance. The bootstrapping procedure indicated that the mediation effect of calling on in-role performance was stronger when ICF was high (.088, 95% CI =.028, .166) versus low (.044, 95% CI = .004, .112) (see Figure 2f for the plot of the moderated mediation effect). Hence, Hypothesis 5 was supported.

Table 4.

Regression analyses predicting affective commitment and in-role performance – Study 3

(a) Coefficients estimates for the direct model for in-role performance.

Variable	DV = Supervisor-rated in-role performance
	Step 1			Step 2
	B	SE	t	B	SE	t
Age	.03	.01	2.37*	.02	.01	1.93
Organizational tenure	.09	.02	3.97***	.09	.02	3.78***
Gender	−.19	.13	−1.45	−.23	.13	−1.78
Employment status	.01	.16	.06	.02	.15	.14
Calling				.10	.04	2.71**
ICF				.13	.05	2.47*
R²			.14			.24
∆F			7.59***			11.57***

(b) Coefficients estimates for the moderated mediation model for in-role performance.

Variable	First stage						Second stage
	DV = Affective commitment						DV = Supervisor-rated in-role performance
	Step 1			Step 2			Step 1			Step 2
	B	SE	t	B	SE	t	B	SE	t	B	SE	t
Age	.02	.01	2.28*	.02	.01	2.27*	.01	.01	1.11	.01	.01	1.17
Org. tenure	−.02	.02	−.77	−.02	.02	−.78	.09	.02	4.42***	.09	.02	4.40***
Gender	−.39	.13	−2.9**	−.39	.13	−2.90**	−.08	.12	−.69	−.03	.12	−.26
Employment status	−.07	.16	−.42**	−.07	.16	−.43	.05	.14	.33	.00	.14	−.03
Calling	.16	.04	4.13 ***	.17	.04	4.12***	.04	.04	1.14	.04	.04	1.20
ICF	.23	.06	4.18***	.23	.06	4.13***	.04	.05	.86	.02	.05	.47
Commitment							.38	.07	5.75 ***	.40	.07	6.05***
Calling × ICF				.00	.03	.14				−.03	.03	−1.15
Commitment × ICF										.09	.05	2.11 *
R²			.31			.31			.35			.37
∆F			13.93***			.02			14.27***			2.24

N = 191. Numbers are unstandardized regression coefficients. DV = dependent variable; SE = standard error; ICF: ideological contract fulfillment. Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female. Employment status: 1 = full time, 2 = part time.

p ≤ .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Discussion

Study 3, which incorporated supervisor-rated performance variables, provided consistent results with previous studies. As with Study 1, Study 3 replicated a positive direct effect of calling on performance. As with both Studies 1 and 2, Study 3 demonstrated the mediated effect of calling on performance via commitment, and the moderating effect of ICF on the commitment-performance link, and hence, the moderated mediated effect, while it failed to support the moderating effect of ICF on the calling-commitment link.

General discussion

Despite increasing attention to the concept of callings (Berg et al., 2010; Bunderson and Thompson, 2009; Cardador et al., 2011; Elangovan et al., 2010), it is not clear how individuals with a calling perform in their work roles. We addressed this question by unpacking the intervening process between callings and in-role performance. Three studies provided convergent evidence for our moderated mediated model of callings and performance. Affective commitment serves as a mediator of the relationship between callings and performance, and ICF is a moderator of the mediated relationship. Taken together, our findings deepen our understanding of the mechanisms that lead those with callings to be high performers; moreover, our results highlight the organizational conditions that explain why employees with a similar level of calling exhibit varied performance behaviors.

Theoretical contributions

First, our findings extend previous research by introducing a novel framework to understand the organizational implications of callings in the workplace. Departing from the previous focus in the literature on work- and occupation-centered explanations for the effect of callings, our study investigates organizationally embedded mechanisms between callings and job performance, drawing on the social exchange perspective. Extending the pioneering works demonstrating that calling-oriented employees tend to forge high-quality exchange relationships with their organization (Cardador et al., 2011; Duffy et al., 2011), our findings suggest that this quality exchange relationship becomes the mechanism that drives their superior job performance. Our findings further suggest that when employees perceive their organization as upholding its ideological obligations, their affective commitment acts as a stronger driver of their performance. Thus, social exchange, with an emphasis on ideological currency, provides a useful conceptual lens for examining how callings may shape employees’ attitudes and behaviors.

Second, our findings contribute to resolving divergent views on the performance implications of callings by suggesting that higher levels of calling and the resulting higher levels of affective commitment may be associated with increased job performance to the extent that employees perceive their organization as living up to its ideological promises. Our findings thus underscore the importance of the immediate context for the enacting process of callings. Although scholars tend to believe that calling-oriented individuals are largely guided and motivated by an ‘internal compass’ (Hall and Chandler, 2005) and ‘the purpose and meaningfulness of activities’ (Dik and Duffy, 2009: 429), the present findings suggest that their workplace behaviors are also heavily affected by their ongoing assessments of their organizational context. In that sense, our findings direct future research toward examining the interaction between individuals with a calling and their immediate context (Conway et al., 2015; Dobrow, 2013).

Third, our study sheds fresh light on employment relationships for calling-oriented employees by indicating that, counter to our expectations, the relationship between callings and affective commitment does not depend on ICF. Calling-oriented individuals have been thought to hold a more self-directed, protean approach toward their careers, which also implies high mobility and fragile organizational attachment (Hall, 2004; Hall and Chandler, 2005). As a result, they are often assumed to be misfits in their organization when its values are not aligned with their callings (e.g. teaching-oriented faculty at a research-oriented institution (Serow et al., 2002)), to the point that Elangovan et al. (2010: 437) speculated that a calling ‘could be a mixed blessing for the organization.’ Yet, this null finding, obtained across all three studies, indicates that an exchange relationship between calling-oriented employees and their organization, after all, may not be as fragile as previously anticipated, even when these employees admit under-fulfillment of the ideological contract on the part of the organization. Calling-oriented people may be less susceptible to violation when they encounter a breach, as compared to people with job- or career-orientations (Thompson and Bunderson, 2003). Such individuals may develop a distinctive coping strategy in which they stay committed in hopes of a closer alignment with their calling-based values in the future, but also decrease their behavioral input into the organization. Future research should further investigate the contingencies that determine when employees with callings will be affectively committed to their organizations.

Finally, our findings bear implications for our understanding on the complementarity, rather than the competition, between attachment to occupations and organizations (Noordegraaf, 2011). Previous studies have shown that employees can develop compatible attachments to their occupations and organizations (Russo, 1998; Vough, 2012; Wallace, 1993, 1995). We also find this compatibility and indicate that organizations may be seen as a vehicle through which callings can be enacted, but that the relationship goes further than that. Employees actually become attached to their organization because of the prospect of it addressing their goals. As such, the interplay between organizational and occupational attachment is not straightforward, but instead, reciprocal or synergistic. In order to fully explicate the interplay, future research should delve into this relationship in more depth, particularly for those employees with callings.

Practical implications

Our research has important practical implications. From the perspective of individuals with a calling, the results of our study point out the importance of their agency in finding the right organizational context if they desire to fulfill their callings and make personally and socially meaningful contributions in their work roles. Despite the good intentions and organizational loyalty on the part of calling-oriented individuals, organizations that fail to meet their ideological expectations could inhibit them from enacting their callings in their work roles. Thus, they need to select organizations that not only emphasize transcendent values, but are also capable of acting consistently with those values. In contrast, individuals with a calling who are already affiliated with organizations that tend not to fulfill their ideological promises should strive to make an impact on their organization in order to make it a better fit with their callings.

There are HR implications with respect to hiring practices, as well. Traditional practices of hiring based on skill sets alone may limit an organization’s ability to hire individuals with a calling, who are likely to be self-motivated and ready to expend effort for good performance. Indeed, some changing trends to hiring practices are noticeable. Managers are increasingly advised to base their hiring decisions on passion (e.g. Fisher, 2006; Sundheim, 2014), a defining component of a calling (Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas, 2011; Hunter et al., 2010), even more so than on experience or degrees (e.g. Finnigan, 2014). Yet, managers should be aware that the performance benefits from calling-oriented employees may be attainable only when employees feel that their ideological contract is upheld by their organizations. Therefore, managers should be careful about supporting an occupational ideology associated with employees’ callings. Managers should also be mindful of employee perceptions. Even when managers believe they are acting in accordance with organizational core values, their actions may be perceived otherwise. Managers need to communicate the intentions behind their actions in situations that are subject to potential misunderstanding. Along these same lines, the core values need to be clearly articulated in order to reduce differences in interpretation (Cha and Edmondson, 2006).

Limitations and future research directions

Our datasets across three studies do not permit us to test the direction of causality directly. Although our findings suggest that callings contribute to better job performance, the reverse causal direction cannot be ruled out. For example, good performance and resulting self-efficacy could lead to a strong sense of calling (Dobrow Riza and Heller, 2015). Research using experimental or longitudinal designs is necessary to clarify the issue of causality. There is no precedent use of our measure of ICF used in Studies 2 and 3, a modified scale of an extant psychological contract. The supplementary analysis of Study 2 data and a separate pilot study support the validity of this measure (see endnote 5). Our measure of ICF diverges from two trends in measuring psychological contracts: the separation of promise and delivery (Turnley and Feldman, 2000) and the use of polynomial regression (Lambert et al., 2003). Despite the merits in these approaches, our focus lies in participants’ conscious evaluation of ICF, rather than the effects of over- or under-fulfillment.

There are several venues to extend our study. Future research may investigate additional, organizationally embedded mechanisms that are complementary to social exchange relationships, especially considering the predominant focus on work or occupational explanations so far in the field. Besides, future research may investigate the conditions under which callings and employee attitudes and behaviors can vary in order to further clarify the organizational implications of callings. In particular, it would be beneficial to examine the variables that represent a more proximal context to one’s job, since work itself is important to these individuals. Further, future research may look into other consequences of callings than in-role performance, a positive outcome of callings from the employer’s point-of-view. As callings may have a darker side such as potential labor exploitation (Berkelaar and Buzzanell, 2015; Duffy and Dik, 2013), researchers need a balanced approach in investing the implications of callings.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that employees with callings are inclined to be strong contributors to their organization through their in-role performance. This relationship makes sense from a social exchange perspective, which takes into consideration the conveyance of ideological resources between the organization and the employee. Employees with callings are strongly committed to their organization and want to see the organization succeed. However, when organizations do not live up to their value-based promises, employees with callings may withhold their contributions in order to maintain parity in the exchange relationship. As such, we uncover important new insights for organizations employing those with callings.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Associate Editor Mathew Sheep and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on our manuscript through the revision process. We would also like to thank the participants of the Management Department Brown Bag meeting at the Daniels School of Business, University of Denver for their comments on earlier stages of this article.

Funding

Data collection for Study 2 and Study 3 was funded by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (grant number: 435-2016-1688) awarded to Patricia Hewlin and Canada Research Chairs Program (grant number: 950-219143) awarded to Christian Vandenberghe, respectively.

Notes

Sung Soo Kim is an assistant professor in the Daniels College of Business at the University of Denver, USA. Her research interests include values-based management, leadership and employee engagement. Her work has been published in Journal of Business and Psychology, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Management International Review and Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. [Email: sungsoo.kim@du.edu]

Donghoon Shin is an assistant professor at the College of Business & Economics, University of Wisconsin Whitewater, USA. His research interests include organizational responses to institutional pressures, the legitimization of entrepreneurial organizations and forms, organizational responses to damaged trust, and reciprocal relationships between individuals and organizations. His research was published in Journal of World Business. [Email: shind@uww.edu]

Heather C Vough is an associate professor of management in the Carl H Lindner College of Business at the University of Cincinnati, USA. She earned her PhD from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Heather’s research interests revolve around how individuals construct meaning and identity within their organizational and professional contexts. In her research, she primarily uses qualitative methods and has performed research in a variety of settings including an architecture firm, a call center, an international security organization and a radio station. Her research has been published in journals including Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administration Science Quarterly, Journal of Management Studies and Organization Science. She is a member of the Academy of Management and is currently serving on the executive committee for the Managerial and Organizational Cognition Division. She serves on the editorial board of five journals, including Human Relations. [Email: voughhr@ucmail.uc.edu]

Patricia Faison Hewlin is an associate professor of organizational behavior in the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University. She primarily conducts research on how organization members and leaders engage in authentic expression, as well as factors that impede authenticity in every day work interactions. Her work has been published in the Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Organization Science, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Group and Organization Management and Harvard Business Review. [Email: patricia.hewlin@mcgill.ca]

Christian Vandenberghe is a professor of organizational behaviour at HEC Montreal and holder of the Research Chair in management of employee commitment and performance. His research interests include organizational commitment, turnover and performance, and attitude change. His work has been published in a variety of journals, including Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Group & Organization Management, Human Relations, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice and Human Resource Management. [Email: christian.vandenberghe@hec.ca]

References

Abele

Wojciszke

(2007) Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93(5): 751–763.

Aiken

West

(1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Ashford

Black

(1996) Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology 81(2): 199–214.

Ashforth

Mael

(1996) Organizational identity and strategy as a context for the individual. Advances in Strategic Management 13: 19–64.

Bachman

O’Malley

(1986) Self-concepts, self-esteem, and educational experiences: The frog pond revisited (again). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(1): 35–46.

Bal

Vink

(2011) Ideological currency in psychological contracts: The role of team relationships in a reciprocity perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 22(13): 2794–2817.

Baron

Kenny

(1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173–1182.

Bauman

Skitka

(2012) Corporate social responsibility as a source of employee satisfaction. Research in Organizational Behavior 32: 63–86.

Becker

(2005) Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods 8(3): 274–289.

10.

Berg

Grant

Johnson

(2010) When callings are calling: Crafting work and leisure in pursuit of unanswered occupational callings. Organization Science 21(5): 973–994.

11.

Berkelaar

Buzzanell

(2015) Bait and switch or double-edged sword? The (sometimes) failed promises of calling. Human Relations 68(1): 157–178.

12.

Bingham

(2005) Multiple obligations: Distinguishing the dimensionality and confirming the role of ideology within the psychological contract framework. PhD dissertation, Texas A&M University.

13.

Bingham

Mitchell

Bishop

Allen

(2013) Working for a higher purpose: A theoretical framework for commitment to organization-sponsored causes. Human Resource Management Review 23(2): 174–189.

14.

Bingham

Oldroyd

Thompson

(2014) Status and the true believer: The impact of psychological contracts on social status attributions of friendship and influence. Organization Science 25(1): 73–92.

15.

Blau

(1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.

16.

Bliese

(2000) Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In: Klein

Kozlowski

SWJ

(eds) Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 349–381.

17.

Bowen

Ford

(2002) Managing service organizations: Does having a ‘thing’ make a difference? Journal of Management 28(3): 447–469.

18.

Briscoe

Henagan

Burton

Murphy

(2012) Coping with an insecure employment environment: The differing roles of protean and boundaryless career orientations. Journal of Vocational Behavior 80(2): 308–316.

19.

Brislin

(1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In: Triandis

Beny

(eds) Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology, Vol. 2. London: AIlyn and Bacon, 349–444.

20.

Brown

Robinson

(2011) Reactions to territorial infringement. Organization Science 22(1): 210–224.

21.

Bunderson

(2001) How work ideologies shape the psychological contracts of professional employees: Doctors’ responses to perceived breach. Journal of Organizational Behavior 22(7): 717–741.

22.

Bunderson

Thompson

(2009) The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly 54(1): 32–57.

23.

Cable

Parsons

(2001) Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology 54(1): 1–23.

24.

Cardador

Dane

Pratt

(2011) Linking calling orientations to organizational attachment via organizational instrumentality. Journal of Vocational Behavior 79(2): 367–378.

25.

Cha

Edmondson

(2006) When values backfire: Leadership, attribution, and disenchantment in a values-driven organization. The Leadership Quarterly 17(1): 57–78.

26.

Chen

C-W

(2010) The relationship among the sense of calling workload and work satisfaction - taking police officer as the example. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, National Sun Yat-Sen University.

27.

Clinton

Conway

Sturges

(2017) ‘It’s tough hanging-up a call’: The relationships between calling and work hours, psychological detachment, sleep quality, and morning vigor. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 22(1): 28–39.

28.

Colby

Sippola

Phelps

(2001) Social responsibility and paid work in contemporary American life. In: Rossi

(ed) Caring and Doing for Others: Social Responsibility in the Domains of Family, Work, and Community. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 349–399.

29.

Conway

Briner

(2002) A daily diary study of affective responses to psychological contract breach and exceeded promises. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(3): 287–302.

30.

Conway

Clinton

Sturges

Budjanovcanin

(2015) Using self-determination theory to understand the relationship between calling enactment and daily well-being. Journal of Organizational Behavior 36(8): 1114–1131.

31.

Coyle-Shapiro

JAM

Conway

(2005) Exchange relationships: Examining psychological contracts and perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 90(4): 774–781.

32.

Coyle-Shapiro

JAM

Kessler

(2002) Exploring reciprocity through the lens of the psychological contract: Employee and employer perspectives. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 11(1): 69–86.

33.

Cropanzano

Anthony

Daniels

Hall

(2017) Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Academy of Management Annals 11(1): 1–38.

34.

Cropanzano

Howes

Grandey

Toth

(1997) The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior 18(2): 159–180.

35.

Cropanzano

Mitchell

(2005) Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management 31(6): 874–900.

36.

Cropanzano

Rupp

Byrne

(2003) The relationship of emotional exhaustion to work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(1): 160–169.

37.

Dawson

(2014) Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology 29(1): 1–19.

38.

Dik

Duffy

(2009) Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects for research and practice. The Counseling Psychologist 37(3): 424–450.

39.

Dobrow Riza

Heller

(2015) Follow your heart or your head? A longitudinal study of the facilitating role of calling and ability in the pursuit of a challenging career. Journal of Applied Psychology 100(3): 695–712.

40.

Dobrow

(2004) Extreme subjective career success: A new integrated view of having a calling. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, New Orleans, LA.

41.

Dobrow

(2013) Dynamics of calling: A longitudinal study of musicians. Journal of Organizational Behavior 34(4): 431–452.

42.

Dobrow

Tosti-Kharas

(2011) Calling: The development of a scale measure. Personnel Psychology 64(4): 1001–1049.

43.

Duffy

Dik

(2013) Research on calling: What have we learned and where are we going? Journal of Vocational Behavior 83(3): 428–436.

44.

Duffy

Dik

Steger

(2011) Calling and work-related outcomes: Career commitment as a mediator. Journal of Vocational Behavior 78(2): 210–218.

45.

Dumas

Phillips

Rothbard

(2013) Getting closer at the company party: Integration experiences, racial dissimilarity, and workplace relationships. Organization Science 24(5): 1377–1401.

46.

Edwards

Lambert

(2007) Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods 12(1): 1–22.

47.

Elangovan

Pinder

McLean

(2010) Callings and organizational behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior 76(3): 428–440.

48.

Finnigan

(2014) Hiring for passion, not experience. Inc, 23 December. Available at: http://www.inc.com/dan-finnigan/hiring-for-passion-not-experience.html (accessed 10 May 2017).

49.

Fisher

(2006) How to hire passionate employees. Fortune Magazine, 12 July. Available at: http://archive.fortune.com/2006/07/11/news/economy/annie0712.fortune/index.htm (accessed 10 May 2017).

50.

Frei

(2006) Breaking the trade-off between efficiency and service. Harvard Business Review 84(11): 92–101.

51.

Gioia

Schultz

Corley

(2000) Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review 25(1): 63–81.

52.

Gouldner

(1960) The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review 25(2): 161–178.

53.

Grant

(2008) The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology 93(1): 108–124.

54.

Grant

Berg

(2011) Prosocial motivation at work: When, why, and how making a difference makes a difference. In: Gretchen

Kim

(eds) Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press, 28–44.

55.

Grant

Campbell

Chen

(2007) Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103(1): 53–67.

56.

Gruys

Stewart

Goodstein

Bing

Wicks

(2008) Values enactment in organizations: A multi-level examination. Journal of Management 34(4): 806–843.

57.

Hackman

Oldham

(1975) Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology 60(2): 159–170.

58.

Hagmaier

Abele

(2012) The multidimensionality of calling: Conceptualization, measurement and a bicultural perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior 81(1): 39–51.

59.

Hall

(2004) The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior 65(1): 1–13.

60.

Hall

Chandler

(2005) Psychological success: When the career is a calling. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26(2): 155–176.

61.

Harris

Schaubroeck

(1988) A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology 41(1): 43–62.

62.

Harrison

Sluss

Ashforth

(2011) Curiosity adapted the cat: The role of trait curiosity in newcomer adaptation. Journal of Applied Psychology 96(1): 211–220.

63.

Hayes

(2013) An Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. New York: Guilford Press.

64.

Hirschi

(2012) Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation model of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology 59(3): 479–485.

65.

Hirschi

Herrmann

(2013) Calling and career preparation: Investigating developmental patterns and temporal precedence. Journal of Vocational Behavior 83(1): 51–60.

66.

Holmes

(1981) The exchange process in close relationships: Microbehavior and macro-motives. In: Lerner

Lerner

(eds) The Justice Motive in Social Behavior. New York: Plenum, 261–284.

67.

Hunter

Dik

Banning

(2010) College students’ perceptions of calling in work and life: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior 76(2): 178–186.

68.

Labroo

Kim

(2009) The ‘instrumentality’ heuristic: Why metacognitive difficulty is desirable during goal pursuit. Psychological Science 20(1): 127–134.

69.

Lambert

Edwards

Cable

(2003) Breach and fulfillment of the psychological contract: A comparison of traditional and expanded views. Personnel Psychology 56(4): 895–934.

70.

Lange

Washburn

(2012) Understanding attributions of corporate social irresponsibility. Academy of Management Review 37(2): 300–326.

71.

Lavelle

Brockner

Konovsky

et al . (2009) Commitment, procedural fairness, and organizational citizenship behavior: A multifoci analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30(3): 337–357.

72.

Lencioni (2002) Make your values mean something. Harvard Business Review 80(7): 113–117.

73.

Lobene

Meade

(2013) The effects of career calling and perceived overqualification on work outcomes for primary and secondary school teachers. Journal of Career Development 40(6): 508–530.

74.

Long

Bendersky

Morrill

(2011) Fairness monitoring: Linking managerial controls and fairness judgments in organizations. Academy of Management Journal 54(5): 1045–1068.

75.

Lynch

Eisenberger

Armeli

(1999) Perceived organizational support: Inferior versus superior performance by wary employees. Journal of Applied Psychology 84(4): 467–483.

76.

MacKinnon

Lockwood

Hoffman

et al . (2002) A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods 7(1): 83–104.

77.

Mathieu

Zajac

(1990) A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin 108(2): 171–194.

78.

Meyer

Allen

(1984) Testing the ‘side-bet theory’ of organizational commitment: Some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology 69(3): 372–378.

79.

Meyer

Allen

Smith

(1993) Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology 78(4): 538–551.

80.

Meyer

Stanley

Herscovitch

Topolnytsky

(2002) Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior 61(1): 20–52.

81.

Miller-Perrin

Mancuso

(2015) Faith from a Positive Psychology Perspective. New York: Springer.

82.

Morrison

Robinson

(1997) When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review 22(1): 226–256.

83.

Naff

Crum

(1999) Working for America. Review of Public Personnel Administration 19(4): 5–16.

84.

TWH

Feldman

(2010) The relationships of age with job attitudes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 63(3): 677–718.

85.

Noordegraaf

(2011) Risky business: How professionals and professional fields (must) deal with organizational issues. Organization Studies 32(10): 1349–1371.

86.

O’Reilly

Chatman

(1986) Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 71(3): 492–499.

87.

Park

Sohn

(2016) South Korean salespersons’ calling, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment 24(3): 415–428.

88.

Pearce

Porter

(1986) Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology 71(2): 211–218.

89.

Peterson

Park

Hall

Seligman

MEP

(2009) Zest and work. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30(2): 161–172.

90.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

J-Y

Podsakoff

(2003a) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903.

91.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

J-Y

Podsakoff

(2003b) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.

92.

Pratt

Ashforth

(2003) Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In: Cameron

Dutton

Quinn

(eds) Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 309–327.

93.

Preacher

Rucker

Hayes

(2007) Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research 42(1): 185–227.

94.

Randall

Cropanzano

Bormann

Birjulin

(1999) Organizational politics and organizational support as predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 20(2): 159–174.

95.

Rawat

Nadavulakere

(2015) Examining the outcomes of having a calling: Does context matter? Journal of Business and Psychology 30(3): 499–512.

96.

Richardson

Simmering

Sturman

(2009) A tale of three perspectives. Organizational Research Methods 12(4): 762–800.

97.

Riketta

(2002) Attitudinal organizational commitment and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(3): 257–266.

98.

Robinson

Morrison

(1995) Psychological contracts and OCB: The effect of unfulfilled obligations on civic virtue behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 16(3): 289–298.

99.

Robinson

Morrison

(2000) The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21(5): 525–546.

100.

Robinson

Rousseau

(1994) Violating the psychological contract: Not the exception but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior 15(3): 245–259.

101.

Rodell

(2013) Finding meaning through volunteering: Why do employees volunteer and what does it mean for their jobs? Academy of Management Journal 56(5): 1274–1294.

102.

Rousseau

(1989) Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 2(2): 121–139.

103.

Rousseau

(2001) Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 74(4): 511–541.

104.

Rucker

Preacher

Tormala

Petty

(2011) Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5(6): 359–371.

105.

Rupp

Ganapathi

Aguilera

Williams

(2006) Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior 27(4): 537–543.

106.

Russo

(1998) Organizational and professional identification: A case of newspaper journalists. Management Communication Quarterly 12(1): 72–111.

107.

Schabram

Maitlis

(2016) Negotiating the challenges of a calling: Emotion and enacted sensemaking in animal shelter work. Academy of Management Journal 60(2): 584–609.

108.

Scheel

Mohr

(2012) The third dimension: Value-oriented contents in psychological contracts. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 22(4): 390–407.

109.

Serow

(1994) Called to teach: A study of highly motivated preservice teachers. Journal of Research & Development in Education 27(2): 65–72.

110.

Serow

Van Dyk

McComb

Harrold

(2002) Cultures of undergraduate teaching at research universities. Innovative Higher Education 27(1): 25–37.

111.

Shrout

Bolger

(2002) Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods 7(4): 422–445.

112.

Sundheim

(2014) Hiring motivated and engaged employees. Forbes.com , 30 January. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensundheim/2014/01/30/hiring-motivated-and-engaged-employees/#5afdc9137791 (accessed 10 May 2017).

113.

Tams

Marshall

(2011) Responsible careers: Systemic reflexivity in shifting landscapes. Human Relations 64(1): 109–131.

114.

Taylor

(2006) Tend and befriend: Biobehavioral bases of affiliation under stress. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15(6): 273–277.

115.

Thompson

Bunderson

(2003) Violations of principle: Ideological currency in the psychological contract. Academy of Management Review 28(4): 571–586.

116.

Turnley

Feldman

(2000) Re-examining the effects of psychological contract violations: Unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators. Journal of Organizational Behavior 21(1): 25–42.

117.

Van Lee

Fabish

McGaw

(2002) The values of corporate values. Strategy+Business Magazine 39: 1–14.

118.

Vandenberghe

(2011) Workplace spirituality and organizational commitment: An integrative model. Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion 8(3): 211–232.

119.

Vandenberghe

Stinglhamber

Bentein

Delhaise

(2001) An examination of the cross-cultural validity of a multidimensional model of commitment in Europe. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 32(3): 322–347.

120.

Vandenberghe

Tremblay

(2008) The role of pay satisfaction and organizational commitment in turnover intentions: A two-sample study. Journal of Business and Psychology 22(3): 275–286.

121.

Vantilborgh

Bidee

Pepermans

et al . (2013) Revisiting the relationship between personality and psychological contracts: A moderated mediation model explaining volunteer performance. Social Service Review 87(1): 158–186.

122.

Vantilborgh

Bidee

Pepermans

(2014) Effects of ideological and relational psychological contract breach and fulfilment on volunteers’ work effort. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 23(2): 217–230.

123.

Vough

(2012) Not all identifications are created equal: Exploring employee accounts for workgroup, organizational, and professional identification. Organization Science 23(3): 778–800.

124.

Wallace

(1993) Professional and organizational commitment: Compatible or incompatible? Journal of Vocational Behavior 42(3): 333–349.

125.

Wallace

(1995) Organizational and professional commitment in professional and nonprofessional organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(2): 228–255.

126.

Wanous

Poland

Premack

Davis

(1992) The effects of met expectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 77(3): 288–297.

127.

Wayne

Shore

Liden

(1997) Perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Journal 40(1): 82–111.

128.

Weber

(1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (trans. Parsons

). London and New York: Routledge Classics.

129.

Williams

Anderson

(1991) Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management 17(3): 601–617.

130.

Wojciszke

(2005) Morality and competence in person- and self-perception. European Review of Social Psychology 16(1): 155–188.

131.

Wrzesniewski

(2003) Finding positive meaning in work. In: Cameron

Dutton

Quinn

(eds) Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 296–308.

132.

Wrzesniewski

McCauley

Rozin

Schwartz

(1997) Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality 31(1): 21–33.

133.

Zeithaml

Berry

Parasuraman

(1988) Communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality. The Journal of Marketing 52(2): 35–48.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB