Relational and Identity Perspectives on Healthy Versus Unhealthy Pursuit of Callings

Calling Orientations

Although the notion that all areas of work can be pursued as a calling dates at least to the 16th century, the interest in callings by social scientists is a relatively recent phenomenon. In the mid-1980s, Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, and Tipton (1985) used the term calling in reference to one of the three orientations that individuals can hold toward work (the other two orientations are a job and a career). They described those with callings as having work that they perceive to be personally fulfilling and socially valuable. A decade later, researchers operationalized Bellah’s notion of work orientation through an empirical examination of employees from multiple occupations (Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997). Work orientations are considered to (a) capture one’s belief about the role of work in life, (b) inform people’s basic goals for working, and (c) influence work-related feelings and behavior (Wrzesniewski, 2003, 2010).

Since these early conceptualizations, scholars have further expanded the notion of callings. Some scholars associate callings with a “transcendent summons,” noting that callings may stem from God or some external source, such as the needs of society (Dik & Duffy, 2009). Others argue that a calling stems from within the individual and is derived through introspection, as well as an understanding of one’s interests and talents (Hall & Chandler, 2005; Hunter, Dik & Banning, 2010). Still others combine internal and external sources of calling, suggesting that callings are marked by personal passion, a sense of duty, sacrifice, and transcendent meaning (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). While no consensus definition of calling has been achieved (Hirschi, 2011), contemporary views of calling share in common the idea that a calling entails a sense of purpose and meaning in work. Drawing on existing research, we define a calling orientation as a view toward work in which one expects the work to be intrinsically meaningful and sees the work as making a difference in some way (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Duffy et al., 2011; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997).

Callings have been closely linked to personal identity. Scholars have noted that callings are associated with strong identification with one’s work and occupation (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Dobrow, 2004), and that one’s view of work as a calling is closely connected to one’s sense of self (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). Those with callings view work as an integral part of themselves, as well as their life outside of work (Wrzesniewski et. al., 1997). Work is considered to be central and valued and is often viewed as one of the most important aspects of life (Dobrow 2004; Hirschi, 2011). One reason for the strong work identity associated with callings is that this view of work is thought to be closely connected to one’s personal values and to derive from considerable personal introspection, reflection, and discernment (Hall & Chandler, 2005).

This condensed review highlights two important features of extant research on callings that have relevance for the current research. First, much of the research on callings has connected the experience of callings with one’s view of the work itself, rather than with the relationships associated with work. There is a paucity of research linking callings to one’s experience of personal and work relationships, and perhaps a needlessly narrow view of people’s experience of callings. Taking a relational perspective, we argue that the impact of pursuing one’s calling should be clearly seen in one’s relationships (Wrzesniewski, 2010).

A second feature highlighted by our review of the calling literature is the connection between callings and one’s work identity; scholars have noted that callings are generally associated with a strong work identity, such that the meaning of one’s work is closely connected to one’s sense of “who I am” (Dobrow, 2004; Hirschi, 2011; Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). However, researchers have yet to uncover the specific ways in which work identity may interface with one’s calling to shape one’s experience of work. We combine these features to present relational and identity perspectives on healthy versus unhealthy pursuit of callings.

A Relational Perspective on Callings and Well-Being

Human beings have a strong desire to form lasting and positive relationships with others, and such relationships have a profound influence on personal well-being (cf. Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; Gersick, Dutton, & Bartunek, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Positive relationships are considered a central source of life satisfaction, enrichment, and development for individuals (cf. Ragins & Dutton, 2007; Reis & Gable, 2003). Given the tight connection between positive relationships and a host of well-being indicators (Roberts, 2007), as well as evidence that interpersonal conflict or lack of social support have detrimental consequences for personal well-being in both the short and the long run (De Dreu, Van Dierendonck, & De Best-Waldhober, 2002), organizational researchers are more interested than ever in understanding the important interaction between one’s work and one’s personal relationships (Wrzesniewski et al., 2003).

What distinguishes positive and enriching relationships from those that are negative or depleting? While positive relationships have been variously defined, many definitions share the idea that these types of relationships are experienced as mutually rewarding and create possibilities for personal development and growth (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; Kahn, 2007). Deleterious or negative relationships, in contrast, are unrewarding to the individuals involved and inhibit personal development and expression (Ragins & Dutton, 2007). Such relationships are often characterized by stress, conflict, and a lack of support.

A relational perspective on personal well-being places importance on positive relationships as sources of well-being, and negative relationships as undermining to one’s psychological health (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Kahn, 2007). Applying a relational perspective to callings, we suggest that the impact of one’s calling should be seen not only in one’s work but also in the quality of one’s relationships with others. This should be the case for a number of reasons. First, as noted, one’s view of work as a calling is likely to shape how one thinks and behaves toward others (Wrzesniewski, 2010). Second, work relationships are critical in serving organizational roles and completing most work tasks (Kahn, 2007). As the fulfillment of work goals is of particular importance to those with callings, relationships with others should be considered critical. Third, relationships provide a sense of being valued, as well as feedback about one’s contribution (Wrzesniewski et al., 2003), both of which should be considered important to those who attach high levels of meaning to work. As Wrzesniewski, Dutton, and Debebe (2003) note, “Because the meaning of work is largely constituted at work, with others, it becomes a living social account that employees make of their experience at work” (p. 97). Accordingly, the meaning of one’s work—specifically of work as a calling—should shape interactions and relationships with others both inside and outside of work. One's pursuit of work as a calling should have implications for the nature and quality of his or her social ties. We suggest that the pursuit of one’s calling could have either positive and enriching or negative and depleting effects on one’s personal and work relationships. We develop each of these possibilities in the following two sections below.

Discussion

We believe that our framework has several theoretical implications for the study of callings. First, the majority of research on callings has focused mainly on positive outcomes associated with one’s calling. While there has been some recent work suggesting the possible downsides of callings, there is little work that combines the two perspectives in search of variables that may determine when a calling might be good and when it may be bad. The framework presented here is an early step toward understanding the complexity of positive and negative effects of callings by showing when and why pursuit of callings may sometimes be unhealthy or detrimental to the well-being of the individuals who hold them.

Second, in highlighting the relation between pursuit of a calling and personal, work and organizational relationships, this article takes an initial step toward developing an explicit relational theory of callings. As noted, the idea that the experience of one’s work as a calling is often a social experience is not new (Wrzesniewski, 2010). Nevertheless, the extant literature has not yet addressed the direct impact of the pursuit of one’s calling on the quality of one’s relationships. While scholars have linked callings to factors such as job satisfaction (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997), occupational identification (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009) and organizational commitment and identification (Cardador et al., 2011; Duffy et al., 2011), this is the first work to our knowledge to link one’s pursuit of a calling to the relationships that one forms in and around work. In so doing, this work offers an important contribution by shedding light on how callings might affect one’s interpersonal relationships—both positively and negatively.

Third, this framework contributes to an understanding of how work identity may shape people’s experience of calling. While most research on callings focuses on the strength of one’s work identity, noting that strong and well-developed work identities are associated with greater engagement and fulfillment in work (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Dobrow, 2004), this framework suggests that the flexibility of one’s work identity may also be important. Our theory suggests that it may not only be the strength and clarity of the work identity that is important for one’s sense of calling, but also how one’s work identity is enacted (i.e., in a flexible vs. rigid manner). In articulating this possibility, this framework helps to move the conversation about callings and identity toward an understanding of the specific ways in which work identity and one’s experience of calling are linked. Moreover, linking healthy pursuit of callings to work-identity flexibility contributes to the growing literature on how the structure of one’s identity contributes to important personal and work-related outcomes.

Finally, while our theory does not specifically highlight the ways in which callings unfold over time, it may have implications for the specific trajectories that a calling may take. The most traditional view of calling is one in which individuals thrive in their work and nonwork relationships. This can be considered a progressive trajectory, characterized by growth in the strength of one’s calling over time. According to Gergen (1994), progressive trajectories involve growth and advancement toward a desired goal or outcome, whereby experience exceeds personal expectations. The healthy pursuit of one’s calling should be likely to follow a progressive trajectory. Under this scenario, investment in the work role leads people toward behaviors which promote supportive relationships with others and the organization. When faced with difficult work events and challenges, workers engaged in healthy pursuit of callings should be more likely to reframe them as opportunities for growth, learning, and development (Thompson, 1985). They should be more able to see benefits in their personal and work relationships, and may therefore be better able to overcome events or situations that challenge their calling. The work-identity flexibility associated with the healthy pursuit of a calling should allow the individual to progress toward a higher-order stage of development, thereby contributing to growth in the strength and significance of one’s calling over time.

In contrast, this research has also suggested one of the pathways through which callings might take a regressive trajectory associated with a diminished strength and significance of one’s calling. Regressive trajectories refer to those that involve moving further away from one’s desired goal or outcome, such that individuals are unable to align their personal experience with their work goals (Gergen, 1994). Regressive calling trajectories should be more likely to result from negative and depleting relationships associated with a rigid work identity with respect to one’s calling. In this trajectory, investing in one’s calling leads people toward behaviors which undermine positive interpersonal relationships and relationships with one’s organization. As a result, workers are likely to shift their perceptions of whether they are making progress toward achieving their purpose in work. They are no longer able to align their daily experience of work with the meaning and purpose they desire. This is likely to involve increased stress, and a shift in one’s interpretation of the meaning of work (Carver & Scheier, 1991; Park & Folkman, 1997). Those engaged in unhealthy pursuit of callings should possess the desire to find work meaningful but experience relational roadblocks to doing so. Under these conditions, one’s calling should diminish in strength and significance over time. Linking the healthy pursuit of callings to progressive trajectories and the unhealthy pursuit of callings to regressive trajectories might help provide an explanation of why some individuals are able to sustain or grow in their calling, while others lose their sense of calling. While others have suggested that callings often involve sacrifice (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009), this framework provides some indication of the point at which sacrifice—in the form of strained relationships with others and one’s organization—may interfere with one’s ability to sustain a calling. This framework may also help explain individual level variance in rates of burnout in contexts where some people languish while others thrive.

The ideas presented here have important practical implications as well. In many cases, clients seek work that will bring maximal satisfaction, often in the form of increased meaning and purpose (Dik, Duffy, & Eldridge, 2009). Our research suggests that career counselors should not only assist clients in finding their calling but also in learning how to follow their calling. Often it is assumed that acquiring a sense of calling might be the end result of successful career counseling and planning (Finney & Dasch, 1998); however, we suggest that it is just as critical to consider how the call is enacted. We propose that a sustainable sense of calling needs to be flexibly enacted if individuals and their employing organizations are to reap the rewards, and avoid the costs, of this highly valued view of work. We posit that when individuals have strong work identities—such as those associated with callings—but are not flexible in their approach to work, it may lead to forms of entrenchment and an inability to respond appropriately when workers encounter stressors or challenges in their work. Accordingly, it is important for career counselors to teach workers with a strong sense of calling to be adaptive and flexible in their work identity (Caza & Wilson, 2009). Encouraging workers to have both strong and flexible work identities may be a tall order, given that in some cases, strong work identities may contribute to greater inflexibility. For instance, in Weick’s (1993) analysis of the Mann Gulch disaster, firefighters were so strongly entrenched in their identities that they were unable to “drop their tools” when the situation called for it and lost their lives as a result. However, it would seem that if workers are more capable and willing to adjust to their view their work, they may be able to better respond to the natural stressors and challenges associated with high personal investment in work. This becomes even more important if individuals are pursuing their calling.

As we have pointed out, pursuing one’s calling has the potential to be associated with either strengthening of relational bonds or the alienation of others. The ability to adjust one’s view of work is a key factor in determining which of these scenarios individuals experience. To assist clients with inflexible work identities, career counselors may want to work with these individuals to aid them in developing behaviors associated with positive work and nonwork relationships, such as adaptability, cooperation, balance, and openness. In doing so, they may help clients to buffer the negative effects of a rigid work identity. However, it is important to remember that even for individuals with the most flexible of work identities, challenges, and stressors created by a hostile or unsupportive work environment may weaken a sense of calling. Given evidence that those with callings tend to form strong attachment to their employing organizations (Cardador et al., 2011; Duffy et al., 2011), they may remain in depleting work environments or be susceptible to organizational exploitation (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). Therefore, career counselors may need to actively guide clients away from such work environments in order to help them retain their sense of calling.

Conclusion

A calling orientation can lead to increased subjective well-being, but pursuit of one’s calling may also be a difficult path that leads to high sacrifice, personal strain, and depletion, resulting in lowered subjective well-being. We suggest that individuals are engaged in healthy pursuit of their callings when they are able to develop and sustain positive and mutually rewarding personal and work relationships, facilitated by not only a strong investment in work but also a flexible work identity. This flexibility allows individuals to adapt to natural changes in their profession, their own lives, and their organizational environment. In contrast, individuals are engaged in unhealthy pursuit of callings when they form negative and depleting relationships, facilitated by a strong investment in work accompanied by a rigid work identity. Without work-identity flexibility, individuals with callings have more difficulty adapting to the natural changes and stressors in their profession, lives, and work environment.