Nonreligious Employees’ Perceptions of Microaggressions and Their Relationship With Job Satisfaction as Moderated by Calling

Abstract

Workplace microaggressions are related to person–organization fit (P-O fit) and job satisfaction. Additionally, P-O fit and calling predict job satisfaction. Given the religious connotations of calling, research has excluded study of these relationships in nonreligious samples, a growing segment of the U.S. population. To address this, it was predicted that P-O fit would mediate the relationship between microaggressions and job satisfaction, and calling would moderate the relationship between microaggressions and P-O fit. In a sample of 296 nonreligious employed adults, microaggressions predicted job satisfaction, while calling predicted P-O fit and job satisfaction; however, P-O fit did not mediate these relationships, and calling did not moderate microaggressions and P-O fit. Post hoc analyses revealed that calling moderated microaggressions and job satisfaction. Implications for research and vocational guidance with nonreligious individuals are discussed.

Keywords

nonreligious individuals calling microaggressions person–organization fit job satisfaction

Self-identified religious populations in the United States have reduced from 83.1% in 2007 to 76.5% in 2014 (Pew Research Center for Religion and Public Life, 2014). Conversely, population growth within the nonreligious community has been noted moving from 16.1% of the American population in 2007 to 22.8% of the population in 2014 (Cragun et al., 2018; Pew Research Center for Religion and Public Life, 2014). This trend has inspired interest in understanding the implications of a nonreligious identity in different contexts (Doane & Elliot, 2015; Galen & Kloet, 2011); yet, few studies have explored the implications of this minority identity within the workplace. Instead, research regarding workplace religious identity focuses on nonsecular experiences. For example, calling is a concept that has become popular in vocational research that focuses on the experiences of religious individuals. Previous studies on calling have examined religious characteristics of participants such as church attendance and spiritual well-being (Dik et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2014; Hovarth, 2015). However, results have yet to provide insight on nonreligious groups exclusively. The recent population growth of this minority group highlights the importance of expanding the literature involving calling and job satisfaction to include their experiences.

The current study makes important contributions to the literature. First, the examination of the effect of presence of and search for calling on job satisfaction in nonreligious groups could aid in career counseling strategies for this growing minority group. Second, understanding how calling might mitigate microaggressions against nonreligious individuals at work could add to the body of research regarding calling among minority groups to identify potential mechanisms for improving their work lives. Therefore, the aim of this study is to examine the relationships between microaggressions against nonreligious individuals at work, calling, and job satisfaction.

Microaggressions

Microaggressions have been described as intentional or unintentional brief slights that can be verbal, behavioral, or environmental which demonstrate hostility toward targeted groups or individuals (Nadal et al., 2015). Because of their commonplace nature, research in microaggressions often focuses on their prevalence within the workplace (Baseford et al., 2014; Nadal, Wong, et al., 2014). Like the effects of discrimination, microaggressions can be harmful to the well-being and job satisfaction of the targeted individuals (Nadal, Griffin, et al., 2014; Nadal, Wong et al., 2014). There is little research regarding workplace microaggressions against nonreligious groups. The Theory of Work Adjustment (TWA), a prevalent framework for predicting individuals’ job satisfaction, offers some hypotheses on how microaggressions against nonreligious individuals may affect their perceptions of fit with their organization and job satisfaction.

TWA

Known as a person–environment fit theory, the TWA (Dawis, 2005) describes that job satisfaction is a result of the fit between an individual’s needs and values and the reinforcement of those needs in the work environment. Needs and values vary across employees based on personal priorities. Reinforcement of different workers’ needs is also variable across work environments. This fit between worker and their organization, described by TWA, has also been termed as person–organization fit (P-O fit). However, multiple types of fit are described across the literature that vary based on the specific aspect of the environment being compared, such as the work group (person–group fit), supervisor (person–supervisor fit), or job (person–job fit; Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009). In particular, TWA assumes that P-O fit is sensitive to the interaction between individual differences in values for employees and differences in values for the organization as a whole, whereas other indices of fit are less sensitive to individual differences that may be affected by microaggressions. Therefore, P-O fit is assumed to vary widely across individuals, given that values are subjective and highly variable across individual workers (Dawis, 2005). Job satisfaction is predicted from how well the employee’s social, personal, and environmental needs are met as predicted by P-O fit (Dawis, 2005). A meta-analysis by Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) found a moderate positive correlation between P-O fit and job satisfaction (r = .45) across studies.

Given individual antecedents to P-O fit, it is not surprising that TWA is a common framework used to study work experiences of individuals from minority groups (Lovelace & Rosen, 1996; Lyons et al., 2014). In a number of studies, researchers have found that P-O fit is highly positively associated with supportive workplace climates for minorities, while experiences of workplace discrimination or unwelcoming climates relate to reduced perceptions of P-O fit and lowered job satisfaction for minorities (Lyons et al., 2014; Velez & Moraldi, 2012). Previous research comparing racial minorities’ perceptions of P-O fit with those from majority racial groups revealed that perceptions of fit vary based on group membership (Lovelace & Rosen, 1996). In economically distressed African Americans, increased P-O fit was associated with increased positive perceptions of racial climate at the workplace, and P-O fit was significantly positively related to an increase in job satisfaction (Lyons et al., 2014).

Similar to other minorities, research in workplace microaggressions or discrimination against Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) individuals has revealed a distinct negative relationship between P-O fit and microaggressions such that, when LGBT values (i.e., supportive work climates) are not met, perceptions of P-O fit decrease (Lyons et al., 2014; Velez & Moradi, 2012). For instance, among LGB individuals, high workplace heterosexist discrimination related to low P-O fit, which related to lowered job satisfaction while climates supportive of LGB individuals, lead to higher perceptions of P-O fit and higher reported job satisfaction (Velez & Moraldi, 2012). These findings may provide hypotheses about the experiences of nonreligious individuals as both groups have the ability to hide their religious and sexual identities while at work.

This research illustrates a strong relationship between P-O fit and job satisfaction reflecting the relationship described by the TWA in minority populations. However, P-O fit can be negatively affected by microaggressions commonly experienced by these populations in the workplace. When individuals experience microaggressions, their social and personal needs of acceptance are not being reinforced by the environment, thus affecting their P-O fit and job satisfaction. Consistent with TWA, it can be expected that microaggressions against nonreligious individuals at work would negatively relate to job satisfaction, as well as this relationship being mediated by P-O fit. Yet, minority groups may still experience high levels of job satisfaction due to factors other than P-O fit, such as calling, which relate to job satisfaction. Several studies have found that calling and job satisfaction are highly positively correlated (Duffy et al., 2012).

Calling

Calling is generally characterized by an individual’s drive to connect their work to meaningfulness derived from external sources (Dik & Duffy, 2009). A more detailed conceptualization of calling by Dik and Duffy (2009) proposes that calling is defined by three components: transcendent summons (TS), meaning/purpose (MP), and prosocial motivation (PM). Transcendent summons occurs when individuals feel compelled by something greater than themselves, from an external source, to pursue a specific career. When an individuals’ career decision is MP driven, they chose a career that aligned with their sense of purpose in life. PM-based calling occurs when an individual feels an obligation to help others in their career (Dik & Duffy, 2009; Dik et al., 2012; Duffy & Dik, 2013).

Originally, the concept of calling had a religious connotation. The historic definition assigned spiritual significance to occupations held by those who felt “called” specifically by a higher power (Dik & Duffy, 2009). Modern definitions place much more focus on the needs and values of the individual; however, much of calling research continues to explore the importance of religion or spirituality in career decision-making (Dik & Duffy, 2009; Dik et al., 2012; Duffy, Allan et al., 2012; Hall et al., 2014; Hovarth, 2015). Studies examining calling have compared groups of those with high religious importance to those with low religious importance and usually find that calling is significantly higher for those with high religious importance. For example, it was found that those who attended religious services on a regular basis had higher levels of calling than those with low attendance (Dik et al., 2012). Further research indicated that this was also true for the specific facets of calling (TS, MP, PM; Ponton et al., 2014).

Investigations on having or striving for a calling suggest that calling may serve to enhance both one’s career and individual well-being. This relationship has been demonstrated across multiple samples in the literature described by Duffy and Dik (2013). Researchers have found a positive correlation between calling and life meaning/satisfaction for both college students (Duffy, Allan et al., 2012) and adult samples (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). Related to work, calling is positively associated with organizational and career commitment, work engagement, and person–job fit (Duffy & Dik, 2013; Duffy et al., 2011; Hirschi, 2012).

More detailed explorations of religiousness and calling have illuminated a complicated relationship with attitudes and behavioral outcomes. Despite having higher levels of calling, those with high religiousness have less job involvement and work fewer hours (Hovarth, 2015). When comparing undergraduate students with high and low religiousness, it was found that religiousness did not moderate an established relationship between calling and life satisfaction (Duffy et al., 2011). Among graduate students in counseling psychology, when existential and spiritual well-being was compared, having high existential well-being was a better predictor of having a sense of calling than spiritual well-being (Hall et al., 2014). These findings indicate that those with high levels of religiousness generally report having a calling more so than those with low levels of religiousness, and higher calling correlates with positive outcomes regarding job satisfaction. Calling may have similar benefits for those with low levels of religiousness; however, there has been limited research conducted to examine the effect of having a calling among individuals identifying as nonreligious specifically.

The Current Study and Hypotheses

In sum, the TWA posits that there is a positive relationship between P-O fit and job satisfaction for employees (Dawis, 2005). Yet, research on microaggressions has found that microaggressions have a significant negative relationship to P-O fit leading to lowered job satisfaction within minority groups (Lyons et al., 2014; Velez & Moradi, 2012). Given that nonreligious individuals experience microaggressions similar to other minority groups (Doane & Elliot, 2015), it is likely that a similar relationship between microaggressions and P-O fit exists for these individuals, such that it can be expected that increased microaggressions should be related to decreased P-O fit and lowered job satisfaction.

Moreover, calling appears to be positively related to P-O fit and job satisfaction (Duffy & Dik, 2013; Duffy et al., 2011; Hirschi, 2012). Studies comparing religious and nonreligious individuals’ calling have yielded mixed results and very few have examined nonreligious individuals alone (Dik & Duffy, 2009; Dik et al., 2012; Duffy et al., 2011; Hall et al., 2014; Hovarth, 2015). Exploring interactions between calling and microaggressions and their relation to job satisfaction for nonreligious workers will simultaneously expand research on calling and those identifying as nonreligious. Furthermore, results of this study may help inform vocational counseling for the growing number of nonreligious individuals. Taking previous literature into consideration, the hypotheses about the relations among microaggressions, P-O fit, calling, and job satisfaction were as follows:
Hypothesis 1: Microaggressions and P-O fit will explain significant variance in job satisfaction.

High microaggressions will relate to decreased job satisfaction.

High P-O fit will relate to increased job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2: P-O fit will mediate the relationship between microaggressions and job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 3: Calling will be positively correlated with P-O fit and with job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 4: Calling will moderate the relationship between microaggressions and P-O fit in the workplace.

High presence of a calling will decrease strength of the relationship between microaggressions and P-O fit.

Method

Participants

Following data cleaning (described below), a total of 296 valid cases were identified. Participants’ age ranged from 18 to 67 years (M = 33.97, SD = 9.23) with 49.8% identifying as male and 50.2% identifying as female. Approximately 84.4% of participants identified as White/Caucasian, 5.4% Hispanic/Latino, 4.4% Multicultural/Multiracial, 2% Other, 1.7% Asian American, 1% Black/African American, and 0.7% Pacific Islander. Of respondents, 19.2% reported residing outside the United States. Most respondents (69.4%) had received a bachelor’s degree or above. Of the sample, 71% of individuals identified as Atheist, 17.8% identified as Agnostic, and 11.1% identified as spiritual nonreligious with most individuals supporting the accuracy of these labels with their identity (i.e. “on a scale of 1–10, how well does this label match your identity?” M = 8.8, SD = 1.78). Most individuals (59.6%) indicated that they never participate in religious activities and 88.9% of individuals that do participate do so less than one time per month. Many participants (42.4%) indicated that only one or two of their coworkers knew about their nonreligious identity.

Measures

Calling

The Calling Vocation Questionnaire (CVQ; Dik et al., 2012), which was used, is a 24-item Likert-style questionnaire developed for the purpose of measuring presence (i.e., currently working within the field to which they have been “called”) of and search for calling (i.e., actively seeking or pursuing a field or career to which they will feel “called”). These domains are further subdivided into three subcategories defined by the participant’s origin of their sense of calling. These include TS (feeling called by something greater than oneself), PM (feeling an obligation to those around them), and purposeful work (PW, providing meaning to the work role; Dik et al., 2012). Participants were asked to either agree or disagree with the statements (e.g., “I see my career as a path to purpose in life”) in the measure on a 4-point scale (1 = not at all true of me, 4 = absolutely true of me; Dik et al., 2012). Internal consistencies for CVQ subscales are high, ranging from .83 to .93 in adult samples (Dik et al., 2012). The authors of the CVQ (Dik et al., 2012) present evidence of convergent and construct validity given positive correlations between the CVQ presence and search subscales and other related constructs such as intrinsic (CVQ-presence r = .27, CVQ-search r = .31) and extrinsic (CVQ-presence r = .12, CVQ-search r = .16) work motivation and life satisfaction (CVQ-presence r = .14, CVQ-search r = .09), as well as evidence supporting the factor structure. In this study, the Cronbach’s αs among the three CVQ subscales were acceptable (PW = .87, PM = .84, TS = .65, overall α = .88) and are listed in Table 1 with the reliabilities for each measure for this sample.

Table 1.
Correlations Between Study Variables.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. CVQ-TS .646

2. CVQ-PW .540 .866

3. CVQ-PM .368 .622 .840

4. CVQ-Presence total .722 .893 .839 .878

5. P-O fit .086 .231 .165 .204 .917

6. Job satisfaction .106 .190 .168 .193 .673** .912

7. MANRIS .001 .014 .135* .067 −.060 −.137* .978

Mean 5.82 8.03 9.96 23.80 3.14 33.03 54.61

SD 2.38 3.32 3.35 7.49 .97 10.36 27.62

Note. CVQ-TS = Calling and Vocation Questionnaire–presence of transcendent summons; CVQ-PW = Calling and Vocation Questionnaire–presence of purposeful work; CVQ-PM = Calling and Vocation Questionnaire–presence of prosocial motivation; P-O fit = person–organization fit questionnaire; MANRIS = Microaggressions Against Nonreligious Individuals Scale (N = 296).

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed). αs for this sample are listed in the diagonal.

Microaggressions

The Microaggressions Against Nonreligious Individuals Scale (MANRIS; Cheng et al., 2018) was used to assess microaggressions experienced by nonreligious individuals. The measure is separated into five categories (assumptions of inferiority, denial of religious prejudice, assumptions of religiosity, endorsing nonreligious stereotypes, and pathology of nonreligious identity) each containing items that pertain to different common microaggressions experienced by nonreligious individuals. The measure has 31 items (e.g., “Others have assumed I am untrustworthy because of my lack of religion”) answered using a 5-point scale (1 = never, 5 = 10 or more times) to indicate the frequency a specific microaggression has occurred (Cheng et al., 2018). Due to the recent publication of this measure, research using the MANRIS is limited; however, items were developed by examining the relevant literature on religious minorities and microaggression and vetted by two microaggression experts prior to being tested with two samples of nonreligious identifying people (Cheng et al., 2018). Moreover, the authors of the MANRIS (Cheng et al., 2018) provide supportive evidence of convergent validity for MANRIS scores given correlations with Perceived Nonreligious Discrimination Scale (r = .67; Hammer et al., 2012), depression scores (r = .24), and nonreligious identity (r = .21; Cheng et al., 2018). Support for use of a total score was found by Cheng et al. (2018) along with high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .97) in an adult sample. Cronbach’s α for the current sample was high (α = .98).

Job satisfaction

Job satisfaction was assessed using five items taken from a larger measure of job satisfaction (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951). This shortened measure has been used in several studies examining job satisfaction in recent years and has shown evidence for strong reliability and validity (Duffy, Bott et al., 2012; Judge et al., 1998). The measure requires participants to rate their agreement with each statement (e.g., “each day of work seems like it will never end”) on a 10-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree; Judge et al., 1998). Validation studies on this measure have documented strong internal consistency (α = .88) in working adult samples (Duffy, Bott, et al., 2012; Judge et al., 1998), as was found in the current sample (α = .91).

P-O fit

This four-item measure requires participants to rate their agreement with the provided statements (e.g., “to what extent are the values of the organization similar to your own values”) using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = to a very little extent, 5 = to very large extent; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Strong internal consistency (α = .94) across previous studies with employed adults (Velez & Moraldi, 2012) has been found. Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity was supported given correlations between the P-O fit scale and a one-item assessment of P-O fit (r = .81) and a measure of person–job fit (r = .52; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). The Cronbach’s α for the current sample was .92.

Procedures

After Institutional Review Board approval for this study was obtained, the study was advertised on nonreligious internet communities on Facebook and Reddit to recruit non-religous individuals. A link to the questionnaires, hosted on Qualtrics, was posted to a thread requesting participants for a research study on experiences of nonreligious individuals in the workplace. Individuals were required to identify as nonreligious, be currently employed, and be above 18 years of age to be included. Once consent was given, participants were asked to provide demographic information (e.g., age, sex, annual income, education, marital status, employment status, hours per week, occupation, and tenure) and presented the above measures in a randomized order. In order to control for any potential distress caused by recalling microaggressions affecting responses to other items, participants were given the MANRIS last. Following the completion of these questionnaires, participants were thanked for their time and participation in the study.

Data Analysis

Data cleaning was performed to remove all invalid and incomplete cases from the data set prior to analyses. All cases that responded incorrectly to one or more of the three imbedded validity checks (i.e., “select mostly true for this item”) were removed from the study (n = 29; Meade & Craig, 2012). Cases (n = 85) that did not have all essential data (demographics, job satisfaction, P-O fit, CVQ, and MANRIS) available or were missing >25% of item responses were removed from the data set. Four missing data points across the measures were replaced by imputation using linear trend at point (Sterne et al., 2009). Following this, appropriate items were reverse scored and total scores for each measure were calculated. All cases with religious-identifying individuals were filtered from the data (n = 17). A multiple regression analysis was conducted to test assumptions and diagnostics of the data. Microaggressions and P-O fit variables were centered prior to this analysis. There were no issues with multicollinearity, linearity homoscedasticity, or normality. Following this, data were examined to reveal any possible outliers using centered leverage values, studentized residuals, and standardized difference in fits (DFFITs). This process revealed one outlier that was removed prior to the multiple regression analysis.

Results

All hypotheses were analyzed using IBM SPSS statistics (Version 25; IBM Corp., 2017) and Andrew Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS (v3.3) macro for SPSS. The first hypothesis predicted that microaggressions would be significantly negatively related to job satisfaction, while P-O fit would be significantly positively related to job satisfaction. The results of this analysis supported these predictions. P-O fit and microaggressions together accounted for 46.3% of the variance in job satisfaction, F(2, 293) = 126.17, p < .001. Microaggressions (b = −.036) were negatively related to job satisfaction, while P-O fit (b = 7.12) was positively related.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that P-O fit would mediate the relationship between microaggressions and job satisfaction. The analysis did not support this hypothesis. Specifically, results indicated that microaggressions were a significant predictor for job satisfaction, b = −.0514, t(294) = −2.37, p < .05, but not a significant predictor of P-O fit, b = −.002, t(294) = −1.025, p > .05. Without a significant relationship between microaggressions and P-O fit, further examination of possible mediation was not warranted.

The third hypothesis predicted calling would be significantly correlated with P-O fit and job satisfaction. It was found that presence of calling was significantly related (p < .001) to both P-O fit (r = .204) and job satisfaction (r = .193). Further analysis on the subscales of the CVQ (TS, PM, and PW) found P-O fit and job satisfaction were significantly related to PM (r = .165, r = .168, respectively) and PW (r = .231, r = .190, respectively, p < .001) but not TS (r = .086, r = .106) (see Table 1 for all correlations).

The fourth hypothesis predicted that presence of calling would moderate the relationship between microaggressions and P-O fit. A centered variable was created for presence of calling, and an interaction term was created from multiplying the centered CVQ and MANRIS scores. Results revealed that the proposed moderation model was not significant. While microaggressions (B = −.003) and presence of calling (B = .03) were significant predictors of P-O fit in the model, R² = .047, F(2, 293) = 7.204, p < .001, the interaction term was not significant, ΔR² = .001, B = .00, t(3, 292) = .402, p > .05.

To further examine the relations among microaggressions, calling, and P-O fit, a post hoc analysis was performed to examine both presence of calling and P-O fit as moderators of the relationship between microaggressions and job satisfaction. A regression model was created that included the mean-centered scores for the MANRIS, P-O fit, and CVQ, both two-way interactions (MANRIS × P-O fit; MANRIS × CVQ) and the three-way interaction (MANRIS × P-O fit × CVQ). As shown in Table 2, results revealed that both microaggressions (B = −.03, p < .05) and P-O fit (B = 6.97, p < .001) and the two-way interaction between microaggressions and presence of calling (B = .01, p < .01) were significant predictors of job satisfaction in the overall model, overall R² = .48, F(2, 289) = 45.28, p < .001. The interaction was probed to identify significant slopes at the mean and ±1 SD (Figure 1). Results revealed that microaggressions were significantly related to job satisfaction when nonreligious individuals reported average levels of calling (t = −2.45, p < .05, 95% CI around the simple slope [−.07, −.01]). However, the relationship between microaggressions and job satisfaction was not significant at high levels of calling (+1 SD; t = .001, n.s., 95% CI around the simple slope [−6.77, 6.72]) and low calling (−1 SD; t = −.02, n.s., 95% CI around the simple slope [−6.87, 6.70]). Thus, when calling was high or low, the negative association between microaggressions and job satisfaction was not significant.

Table 2.
Post Hoc Analysis of Calling and P-O Fit as Moderators in the Relationship Between Microaggressions and Job Satisfaction.

Variable B SE ΔR² ΔF

Step 1 .47 85.27*

MANRIS −.04 .02

P-O fit 6.97*** .47

CVQ .09 .06

Step 2 .02 3.28*

MANRIS −.03* .02

P-O fit 6.99* .47

CVQ .07 .06

MANRIS × P-O fit .00 .01

MANRIS × CVQ .01* .00

MANRIS × P-O fit × CVQ .00 .00

Note. MANRIS = Microaggressions Against Nonreligious Individuals Scale; P-O fit = person–organization fit questionnaire; CVQ = Calling and Vocation Questionnaire–presence total score (N = 296).

p < .05, p < .01, p < .001 (two-tailed).

Figure 1.
Simple slope analysis of calling as a moderator for the relationship between microaggressions and job satisfaction.

Discussion

Similar to previous research, and consistent with the TWA, results replicate previous literature, such that individuals experiencing more microaggressions are more likely to report lower job satisfaction (Lewis et al., 2003; Nadal, Griffin, et al., 2014; Nadal, Wong, et al., 2014; Salvatore & Shelton, 2007) and those with high P-O fit are more likely to report higher job satisfaction (Dawis, 2005; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Thus, these data extend this literature to include these relationships regarding microaggressions pertaining to a nonreligious identity.

However, the results regarding the relationship between P-O fit and microaggressions were inconsistent with previous research on other marginalized populations (Lyons et al., 2014; Velez & Moradi, 2012), given that microaggressions and P-O fit were unrelated. This divergence in findings may be explained by the difference in populations as previously this relationship had been found in African American (Lyons et al., 2014) and LGB samples (Velez & Moradi, 2012) both finding that microaggressions toward these identities related to reduced perceptions of P-O fit, which was not found in the current study. It may be that these identities related to ethnicity or sexual orientation are more closely held than a nonreligious identity and more apt to affect other attitudes when denigrated.

Alternatively, it may be that fit with the organization is less affected by nonreligious microaggressions, as fit with one’s organization overall is not the only aspect of the work environment that can be affected by microaggressions. Person–group fit and person–job fit (Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009) are additional aspects of the work environment which were not explored by the current research. Unlike P-O fit, these narrow aspects of fit may be affected by microaggressions in nonreligious individuals. For nonreligious groups, increased microaggressions may be interpreted as being a product of the values of those with whom they work (e.g., person–group and person–job fit) as opposed to the organization as a whole. Meanwhile, other minority groups may view microaggressions as being indicative of the values of the organization as a whole (e.g., P-O fit). Research examining the relationship between these narrower types of fit and microaggressions in minority groups is lacking; however, exploring these potential relationships may help researchers understand differences between minority groups’ interpretation of microaggressions in the workplace.

In line with previous research, we found calling was significantly related to P-O fit and job satisfaction (Duffy & Dik, 2013; Duffy et al., 2011; Hirschi, 2012). However, additional analyses revealed that not all components of the CVQ were significant predictors of job satisfaction or P-O fit for nonreligious individuals. Specifically, PW and PM were significantly related to job satisfaction and P-O fit, but TS was not. This finding may be due to the nonreligious identity of the sample as the majority of individuals in this sample do not believe in God or gods, a concept that is evoked with the questions associated with TS on the CVQ. For example, “I was drawn by something beyond myself to pursue my current line of work” may be interpreted by this specific group as having to do with God or gods, which may make them less likely to endorse this type of question. Relatedly, the internal consistency for the TS subscale of the CVQ was lower than has been found by others (Dik et al., 2012). Thus, while calling as a whole is significantly related to job satisfaction and P-O fit for nonreligious groups, items on the transcendent summons subscale may be less relevant. Future research could benefit from investigating the content validity of the CVQ with nonreligious individuals, particularly for the TS subscale.

Finally, it was predicted that calling would moderate the relationship between microaggressions and P-O fit such that those with high calling would express higher levels of P-O fit despite the level of perceived microaggressions. In this model, calling was a significant predictor of P-O fit but microaggressions were not. These findings indicate that the presence of calling has no effect on the relationship between microaggressions and P-O fit. Comparing this finding with similar models using other indices of person–environment fit (e.g., person–group and person–job fit) may explain the insignificant moderating effect. For example, when using these other types of fit, a significant relationship between fit and microaggressions may be found and significantly moderated by calling. Similar to the discussion of the third hypothesis, nonreligious individuals may be more likely to endorse P-O fit despite microaggressions because they are more likely to attribute these actions to the individuals with whom they work or their work values rather than the organization as a whole. Person–group and person–job fit capture these aspects of work. Thus, unlike P-O fit, person–group or person–job fit may be more sensitive to the effect of microaggressions because they are rooted in one’s perceptions of their fit with their colleagues’ values or the specific job which may be more sensitive to the effects of microaggressions than broader perceptions of fitting with one’s organization. Significant relationships between microaggressions and work-related outcomes should be examined using each component of calling, such as search for calling and presence of calling or TS and PM. Comparing the moderating effect of the different types of calling may offer further explanation for these findings and for the utility of calling as a whole for nonreligious minority groups.

Given the lack of research on calling in nonreligious samples, post hoc analyses were conducted to explore the moderating effect of calling and P-O fit on the relationship between microaggressions and job satisfaction. Results revealed that calling had a significant effect on the relationship between microaggressions and job satisfaction such that, when experiencing high levels of microaggressions, those with moderate calling have significantly lower job satisfaction than those with high or low calling. In other words, not only is calling present in nonreligious individuals, but its presence buffers the negative effect of microaggressions on job satisfaction when calling is at moderate levels. Previous research that has examined the connection between calling and work variables have found similar trends. Creed et al. (2014) found that calling had a protective effect for medical students dealing with high levels of stress such that those reporting a calling were less likely to experience burnout despite high academic demands. They attributed this finding to calling’s relationship with well-being and concluded that this increase in well-being may help individuals navigate the daily stressors associated with medical school (Creed et al., 2014). For nonreligious individuals, who experience moderate and high calling, microaggressions are less likely related to decreases in satisfaction they derive from their work.

Limitations

The current research and implications therein should be interpreted while acknowledging limitations associated with data collection procedures. Participants used for this study were recruited from online forums. It is possible that individuals experiencing increased discrimination related to this identity are more likely to belong to online communities centered on this identity. Therefore, replication of the results using other samples of nonreligious individuals is needed. Further, participant feedback indicated that though they may experience microaggressions from their family or loved ones on a regular basis, they less frequently experience these types of interactions with their coworkers. Many respondents posted comments to the thread beneath the survey explaining that the experience of microaggressions within the workplace based on religious identity is rare because religion is not commonly an appropriate workplace topic. Yet, an analysis of variance revealed that, while religious identity may not be a common workplace topic, level of religious/nonreligious outness at work—which may predispose those who are out at work to be the target of microaggressions—had no significant effect on the amount of microaggressions reported F(4, 292) = .588, p = .672. Additionally, the goal of this research was to examine the effect of marginalized groups with nonreligious identities including atheists, agnostics, and spiritual nonreligious; however, other niche identities exist (i.e., Satanists, Pastafarians, Humanists, etc.). These groups were solicited for this study, but specific religious demographic categories were not provided. Research examining differences between specific groups within the nonreligious identity such as these is limited. Future research with nonreligious populations may benefit from exploring a wider variety of secular identities. Moreover, individuals who identify as religious but are non-Christian often face microaggressions due to their status as a religious minority (Nadal et al., 2015). The present research focused on identifying the effect of workplace microaggressions within nonreligious individuals; however, future research should examine the effect of microaggressions and calling with non-Christian religious minorities.

Implications

Due to the recent growth of the nonreligious community, it has become more important to understand this population, yet few studies have been designed to examine and understand the experiences of this group especially within the workplace. Future research to examine the mental health impact of these experiences would be helpful as would determining if applying existing counseling strategies to address microaggressions are effective (e.g., Nadal, Griffin et al., 2014). Organizations may benefit from extending existing strategies to combat microaggressions at work to address experiences of nonreligious individuals specifically (Holder, 2016).

While previous research on calling has acknowledged the presence of calling within nonreligious individuals (Dik et al., 2014; Duffy et al., 2011), no previous research has explored the possibility of focusing on calling in career interventions to assist nonreligious clients with work-related concerns. Results suggest that having a high calling may mitigate the effects of microaggressions on reducing job satisfaction. As such, increasing the presence of calling may be a potential target for intervention. Implementing efforts to increase calling (i.e., assessing the importance of transcendent summons, connecting life meaning and work meaning, understanding social implications of current work-environment), or helping find and live out their calling in their work, may be a useful tool for helping diverse individuals overcome microaggressions and negative work environments. A number of authors have provided suggestions on how to do so (Dik et al, 2009, 2019) but with little empirical support for career interventions targeting calling; however, preliminary evidence suggests that they may be effective models (Dik & Steger, 2008). Future research examining the effect of calling within other minority groups and within more niche nonreligious groups will be necessary before implementation of calling as an intervention for minority individuals is recommended.

Taking the established growth of nonreligious populations into consideration, practitioners can expect to be exposed to more clients identifying as nonreligious in the future. Because of this, it follows that practitioners will need tools appropriate for serving these clients’ needs. According to the findings of this research, calling and measurements of person–environment fit may be worthwhile constructs to assess in this specific population. Practitioners with nonreligious clients may consider addressing issues of calling to mitigate the effect of microaggressions in the workplace. This may include using the CVQ to determine if there is a presence or search for calling and identifying which specific type of calling may be useful when doing career counseling with nonreligious individuals or having more intentional conversations about calling with this clientele. Further, practitioners who choose to use the CVQ or discuss the prevalence of calling with nonreligious clients may find it beneficial to focus on the MP and PM components of calling during the intervention as these are more relevant to this population than the TS component. Finally, the results of this study indicate that perception of P-O fit within the workplace is predictive of job satisfaction making it another possibly useful tool when working with nonreligious clients. Future practitioners working may find that discussing calling and P-O fit may be an effective way to improve satisfaction at the workplace for nonreligious clients.

In sum, results of this study supported the relationship between job satisfaction and P-O fit established by previous research (Dawis, 2005). Additionally, it was revealed that higher calling can be a protective factor for nonreligious individuals facing microaggressions in the workplace. These findings support a need for further exploration of calling in vocational research and counseling with minority groups.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, sj-docx-1-jcd-10.1177_08948453211013398 - Nonreligious Employees’ Perceptions of Microaggressions and Their Relationship With Job Satisfaction as Moderated by Calling

Supplemental Material, sj-docx-1-jcd-10.1177_08948453211013398 for Nonreligious Employees’ Perceptions of Microaggressions and Their Relationship With Job Satisfaction as Moderated by Calling by Jessica N. Schultz, Melanie E. Leuty, Emily Bullock-Yowell and Richard Mohn in Journal of Career Development

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. CVQ-TS	.646
2. CVQ-PW	.540**	.866
3. CVQ-PM	.368**	.622**	.840
4. CVQ-Presence total	.722**	.893**	.839**	.878
5. P-O fit	.086	.231**	.165**	.204**	.917
6. Job satisfaction	.106	.190**	.168**	.193**	.673**	.912
7. MANRIS	.001	.014	.135*	.067	−.060	−.137*	.978
Mean	5.82	8.03	9.96	23.80	3.14	33.03	54.61
SD	2.38	3.32	3.35	7.49	.97	10.36	27.62

Variable	B	SE	ΔR²	ΔF
Step 1			.47	85.27***
MANRIS	−.04**	.02
P-O fit	6.97***	.47
CVQ	.09	.06
Step 2			.02	3.28*
MANRIS	−.03*	.02
P-O fit	6.99***	.47
CVQ	.07	.06
MANRIS × P-O fit	.00	.01
MANRIS × CVQ	.01***	.00
MANRIS × P-O fit × CVQ	.00	.00

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Melanie E. Leuty

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Baseford

T. E.

Offermann

L. R.

Behrend

T. S.

(2014). Do you see what I see? Perceptions of gender microaggressions in the workplace. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(3), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313511420

Brayfield

A. H.

Rothe

H. F.

(1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(5), 307–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055617

Cheng

Z. H.

Pagano

L. A.

Shariff

A. F.

(2018). The development and validation of the microaggressions against non-religious individuals scale (MANRIS). Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 10(3), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000203

Cragun

R. T.

Hammer

J. H.

Nielsen

Autz

(2018). Religious/secular distance: How far apart are teenagers from their parents? Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 10(3), 288–295. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000205

Creed

P. A.

Rogers

Praskova

Searle

(2014). Career calling as a personal resource moderator between environmental demands and burnout in junior doctors. Journal of Career Development, 41, 547–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845313520493

Dawis

R. V.

(2005). The Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment. In Brown

S. D.

Lent

R. W.

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 3–23). John Wiley and Sons.

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

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

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

Eldridge

B. M.

(2009). Calling and vocation in career counseling: Recommendations for promoting meaningful work. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015547

Dik

B. J.

Eldridge

B. M.

Steger

M. F.

Duffy

R. D.

(2012). Development and validation of the calling and vocation questionnaire (CVQ) and brief calling scale (BCS). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711434410

10.

Dik

B. J.

Reed

Shimizu

A. B.

Marsh

D. R.

Morse

J. L.

(2019). Career callings and career development. In Athanasou

Perera

(Eds.), International handbook of career guidance (pp. 185–206). Springer.

11.

Dik

B. J.

Steger

M. F.

(2008). Randomized trial of a calling-infused career workshop incorporating counselor self-disclosure. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(2), 203–211.

12.

Doane

M. J.

Elliott

(2015). Perceptions of discrimination among atheists: Consequences for atheist identification, psychological and physical well-being. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 7(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000015

13.

Duffy

R. D.

Allan

B. A.

Bott

E. M.

(2012). Calling and life satisfaction among undergraduate students: Investigating mediators and moderators. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 469–479. https://doi.org/10.107/s10902-011-9274-6

14.

Duffy

R. D.

Allan

B. A.

Dik

B. J.

(2011). The presence of calling and academic satisfaction: Exploring potential mediators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 74–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.11.00

15.

Duffy

R. D.

Bott

E. M.

Allan

B. A.

Torrey

C. L.

Dik

B. J.

(2012). Perceiving calling, living a calling, and job satisfaction: Testing a moderated, multiple mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(1), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026129

16.

Duffy

R. D.

Dik

B. J.

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

17.

Galen

L. W.

Kloet

J. D.

(2011). Mental well-being in the religious and the non-religious: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 14(7), 673–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2010.510829

18.

Greguras

G. J.

Diefendorff

J. M.

(2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 465–477.

19.

Hall

S. F.

Burkholder

Sterner

W. R.

(2014). Examining spirituality and sense of calling in counseling students. Counseling and Values, 59, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-007x.2014.00038.x

20.

Hammer

Cragun

Hwang

Smith

(2012). Forms, frequency, and correlates of perceived anti-atheist discrimination. Secularism and Nonreligion, 1, 43–67. https://doi.org/10.5334/snr.ad

21.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.

22.

Hirschi

(2012). Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation model of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 479–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028949

23.

Holder

A. M. B.

(2016). Microaggressions workplace interventions. In Torino

G. C.

Rivera

D. P.

Capoldilupo

C. M.

Nadal

K. L.

Sue

D. W.

(Eds.), Microaggression theory: Influence and implications (pp. 261–275). Wiley.

24.

Hovarth

(2015). Predicting work outcomes from religiosity and perceived calling. The Career Development Quarterly, 63, 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12010

25.

IBM Corp. (Released 2017). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/downloading-ibm-spss-statistics-25

26.

Judge

T. A.

Locke

E. A.

Durham

C. C.

Kluger

A. N.

(1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 17–34.

27.

Kristof-Brown

A. L.

Zimmerman

R. D.

Johnson

E. C.

(2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.

28.

Lewis

R. J.

Derlega

V. J.

Griffin

J. L.

Krowinski

A. C.

(2003). Stressors for gay men and lesbians: Life stress, gay-related stress, stigma consciousness, and depressive symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22(6), 716–729. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.22.6.716.22932

29.

Lovelace

Rosen

(1996). Differences in achieving person-organization fit among diverse groups of managers. Journal of Management, 22, 703–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639602200502

30.

Lyons

H. Z.

Velez

B. L.

Mehta

Neil

(2014). The theory of work adjustment with economically distressed African Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(3), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000017

31.

Meade

A. W.

Craig

S. B.

(2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437.

32.

Nadal

K. L.

Davidoff

K. C.

Davis

L. S.

Wong

Marshall

Mckenzie

(2015). A qualitative approach to intersectional microaggressions: Understanding influences of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and religion. Qualitative Psychology, 2(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000026

33.

Nadal

K. L.

Griffin

K. E.

Wong

Hamit

Rasmus

(2014). The impact of racial microaggressions on mental health: Counseling implications for clients of color. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00130.x

34.

Nadal

K. L.

Wong

Griffin

K. E.

Davidoff

Sriken

(2014). The adverse impact of racial microaggressions on college students’ self-esteem. Journal of College Student Development, 55(5), 461–474. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0051

35.

Pew Research Center. (2014). America’s changing religious landscape (p. 201). Pew Research Center. http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

36.

Ponton

Brown

McDonnell

Clark

Pepe

Deykerhoff

(2014). Vocational perception: A mixed-method investigation of calling. The Psychologist Manager Journal, 17(3), 182–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000019

37.

Saks

A. M.

Ashforth

B. E.

(1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 395–426.

38.

Salvatore

Shelton

J. N.

(2007). Cognitive costs of exposure to racial prejudice. Psychological Science, 18, 810–815.

39.

Sterne

J. A.

White

I. R.

Carlin

J. B.

Spratt

Royston

Kenward

M. G.

Carpenter

J. R.

(2009). Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: Potential and pitfalls. British Medical Journal, 338:b2393.

40.

Velez

B. L.

Moradi

(2012). Workplace support, discrimination, and person-organization fit: Tests of the theory of work adjustment with LGB individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 399–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028326

41.

Wrzesniewski

McCauley

Rozin

Schwartz

(1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 21–33, https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162

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