شغل ها و رفتار سازمانی

Current literature on careers, social identity and meaning in work tends to understate the multiplicity, historical significance, and nuances of the concept of calling(s). In this article, we trace the evolution of the concept from its religious roots into secular realms and develop a typology of interpretations using occupation and religious orientation as core dimensions. We offer a definition of calling that emphasizes action, a convergence of selves, and a pro-social intention. Next, we identify a number of key conditions necessary for discovering a calling, explore the relevance of callings to a range of organizational behavior phenomena, and offer suggestions for future research.

The ancient concept of callings has been resurrected in recent organizational behavior literature and continues to garner growing attention from researchers and practitioners. Traditionally seen as “a meaningful beckoning toward activities that are morally, socially, and personally significant” (Wrzesniewski, Dekas, & Rosso, 2009, p. 115), researchers and theorists have rekindled efforts to understand the key features and qualities of a calling (Dik and Duffy, 2009, Novak, 1996 and Weiss et al., 2004), the circumstances under which a person may discover a calling (Levoy, 1997), the experiencing of a calling (Dobrow, 2004), the notion of a “callings orientation” (e.g., Bellah, Sullivan, Tipton, Madsen, & Swindler, 1996; Wrzesniewski, 2003), the importance of having a calling relative to a career (Dobrow, 2004 and Hall and Chandler, 2005), and the relationship between a calling and career development (e.g., Duffy & Sedlacek, 2007). Other, related concepts have also received increasing attention, such as finding personal meaning and purpose in work and life (Grant, 2007, Pratt and Ashforth, 2003, Ray, 2005, Steger and Frazier, 2005 and Wrzesniewski, 2003). Practitioners such as career counselors have invoked the idea of callings to help their audience critically assess their own jobs and careers and guide them towards better and more satisfying career choices (e.g., Hall and Chandler, 2005 and Webber, 1998). There is something about the concept of calling that has heretofore been mystical and amorphous. Our purpose in this article is to bring attention to this idea in a disciplined way that, we hope, will stimulate more scholarly inquiry. The renewed interest in callings is both important and interesting. The idea of a calling is so central to one’s identity and connection with his or her work (see Dik and Duffy, 2009 and Hall and Chandler, 2005) that it could cast a deeper and different light on a range of work-related behaviors. For example, emerging research on callings has collectively highlighted that the motivation, satisfaction, career self-assessment and development of people with a sense of calling tends to be different from those who view their daily work merely as a job (Davidson and Caddell, 1994, Hall and Chandler, 2005 and Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). A sense of calling was correlated with lower levels of stress and depression (Treadgold, 1999) and is claimed to foster the acquisition of meta-competencies (e.g., adaptability) which ultimately improve individual and organizational performance (Hall & Chandler, 2005). Also, a sense of personal mission, purpose-in-living and an element of service towards others characterizes people who are pursuing their calling (Dobrow, 2004), which has implications for citizenship behaviors in organizations. But most extant models and theories of work behavior are limited in accommodating or explaining many elements of work-related behaviors and attitudes (cf. Pinder, 2008). We believe that a deeper inquiry into callings and related dynamics could significantly enhance our understanding of work motivation, career choices, job satisfaction, employee stress, commitment, citizenship behaviors and other organizational phenomena. Accordingly, we have four major objectives in this article. First, we propose a definition of the concept of callings. Second, we explore the evolution of the concept over time, variously taking on religious or secular meanings, resulting in a typology of interpretations. Third, we address the conditions necessary for discovering a calling. We conclude by highlighting areas of research in organizational science in which the concept of callings may shed new light and advance both theory and practice.

In this section, we highlight some methodological and substantive issues to further encourage fresh investigation of the concept of callings. The three features in our conceptualization of calling – action orientation, convergence of selves and pro-social intention – offer the detail and specificity that Dik and Duffy (2009) called for to guide reliable and valid measurement. Further archival and qualitative enquiries need to be conducted to flush out these features of callings and then proceed with the usual scaling procedures employed in social science research, recognizing that callings have affective and cognitive elements (cf. Dobrow, 2004) as well as active, behavioral elements. This means that measurement will require more than self-report instruments; observation by second-parties may be required to detect behavioral indicators that appear to exhibit and express tell-tale signs of pursuit of a calling. Eventually, multivariate techniques such as those employed by Liu (2008) in the development of her new scale of spirituality could be applied to demonstrate construct validity (cf. Schwab, 1980) as well as criterion-related validity against appropriate, theory-generated criteria. 7.1. Early substantive questions to be addressed As noted earlier, research on callings can augment traditional perspectives on career development and occupational choice. The emphasis on a sense of purpose and meaning as well as on a pro-social intention not only complements the traditional focus on abilities and person-job match (e.g., Holland, 1966 and Lofquist and Dawis, 1969) but raises some interesting questions. Similarly, questions around selecting occupations come to forefront when viewed in light of the notion that callings do not need to fit neatly within occupational labels and roles. First, is it possible that some people may have more than a single calling, either simultaneously or in sequence? Addressing this question would have important implications for career counselors and notions of employee-job fit in organizations. The possibility that a person can have more than one calling at different stages of his/her life adds a temporal element to assessing and placing employees and eases the pressure on finding the “one right calling.” Rather than expending significant resources to do so, employees and human resource departments may come to acknowledge the importance of a person-job-time fit. Second, does being engaged in one’s calling necessarily imply excellence or effectiveness? In other words, does one have to be effective or successful in his or her calling for it to qualify as a calling? Our conceptualization of a calling emphasizes the merging of the actual, ideal and ought selves that may not necessarily or automatically translate to excellence in performance. For example, an individual may follow his or her calling to save the environment but not be very effective in his or her contributions or impact. One might argue that it is the engagement in the calling that is more important for the individual than the level of success or performance achieved. However, extreme levels of continued incompetence may prompt the individual to question whether he/she wants to or should pursue this course of action (i.e., may raise doubts in one’s mind about his/her ideal self and ought self). On the other hand, those who are engaged in callings will likely strive constantly for improved performance to achieve their maximum potential and would, more often than not, be reasonably competent. So while it is likely that high task-specific competence is generally associated with engaging in a calling, it is not a requirement. However, an individual pursuing a calling may deem him/herself to be highly competent at it even though in reality the actual competencies might be modest. Alternatively, high levels of performance or success in a certain activity or job need not necessarily imply that it is that individual’s calling. Future research is needed to study the link between being engaged in a calling and effectiveness to understand associations with ability and skill development. A de-coupling of effectiveness from engaging in a calling would have implications for career planning and placement since it would suggest that proficiency and aptitude may not be the only important determinants for selecting employees and maximizing the person-job fit. Third, is it possible to develop a typology of callings? Although we have proposed a typology of interpretations of callings, we have refrained from attempting to categorize callings per se. One approach would be to recognize and build on the link between callings and values that serve as the foundation for the sense of purpose and meaning underlying that calling. The classification of values ( Rokeach, 1973) or motivational domains of values (e.g., Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990) could serve as a starting point for developing a typology of callings. Although only one of the seven value motivational domains tested by Schwartz and Bilsky (1990) is explicitly labeled “pro-social”, it would be too narrow an interpretation to dismiss the other domains as being inapplicable to the concept of callings. A pro-social intention or flavor can permeate some of the value domains, especially the ones that are relatively more collective in their focus such as maturity, security and restrictive conformity. For example, maturity involves the appreciation and understanding of others (besides the self) which has an other-orientation that fits well with our conceptualization of callings being pro-social. Similar arguments could be made for other value domains as well. Fourth, it will be necessary to address the issues involved in identifying callings in other people. Is the identification of a calling to be done only by the individual to be called or can career counselors play a role in helping others discover their calling? Career counselors generally guide career choices of those who come to them on the basis of their aptitudes, interests and track records, with significant emphasis placed on providing information about careers and vocational training opportunities (Shiel & Lewis, 1993). What would be the reference points for identifying another’s calling, especially if aptitude or proficiency is not a pre-condition for a calling? Drawing on our conceptualization of callings, we can envision “callings counselors” focusing on guiding and framing the reflections of those seeking their help to clarify goals, understand their ideal and ought selves, and highlight pro-social intentions. Research on intrinsic aspirations or life-goals in the self-determination tradition (Deci & Ryan, 2008) can help us go beyond steps such as assisting clients gain clarity regarding their sense of meaning and purpose (which could happen through constructing narratives, open-ended writing exercises, etc.) by focusing on factors necessary to foster autonomous motivation. In counseling sessions, this could include steps such as highlighting internal locus of causality to clients, stressing availability of choice to mark volition, and drawing connections between potential courses of actions and the degree to which the clients’ basic needs of competence, autonomy and relatedness would be satisfied. Fifth, what is the cultural context in which callings emerge? Is the search for meaning, identity and sense (integral parts of the callings construct) a natural human endeavor that cuts across cultures as implied by most thinkers in this area (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, Frankl, 1984, Haidt, 2006 and Seligman, 2002)? Examples of the Dagara culture in West Africa where a person is defined by his/her purpose in life and is named accordingly (Somé, 1998), the concept of dharma in ancient Vedantic philosophy ( Bogart, 1994), and the importance of silence to listen to the call by the 13th century Persian poet Rumi ( Rumi, 2001) all point to the prevalence of the callings construct across cultures. Dik and Duffy (2009) hypothesized that callings are a cross-culturally relevant construct but how it is expressed may vary across cultures (e.g., more emphasis on meaningfulness in individualist cultures vs. more emphasis on social contributions in collectivist cultures). Studies that explore the role of culture in the search for and the presence and expression of callings are needed to broaden our understanding of this construct. The foregoing list is meant to be only suggestive of the issues we hope our study of callings may generate for organizational scholars as well as practitioners. We hope this paper stimulates further inquiry into the identification and dynamics of callings concepts, their antecedents and their effects on various individual and organizational phenomena. We believe that there are interesting implications of the concept for theory, research and practice in relation to phenomena such as work motivation, satisfaction, stress, commitment, citizenship behavior, and decision-making. What’s old (the concept of calling) may become new again and inform our understanding of organizational behavior with fresh insights.