Do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life: testing fundamental assumptions about calling, effort and enjoyment

We test the fundamental assumptions that people experiencing a stronger sense of calling invest more effort in their work tasks, and find those tasks more enjoyable, than people with a weaker sense of calling. Both assumptions have been expressed theoretically, yet received limited empirical support. Among 2,839 workers in a crowdsourced marketplace, we found that people with a stronger calling toward their work completed more of a relatively unengaging work task and enjoyed the task more than those with a weaker calling. The calling-effort relationship was particularly strong when there was no financial incentive for effort (i.e., paid a fixed amount), highlighting the risk of exploitation for strong-calling employees. People with stronger callings nonetheless responded to financial incentives—they completed more work when offered additional pay to do so. The relationship between calling and enjoyment of the task was particularly strong when there was a financial incentive for effort (i.e., paid piece-rate), indicating that extrinsic rewards did not “crowd out” intrinsic rewards. Our findings are thus consistent with research about the presence of multiple motives for behavior. Our empirical support for these assumptions using more appropriate, rigorous methods paves the way to further develop novel calling theory

Calling and the good life: a meta-analysis and theoretical extension

While a positive view of calling has been pervasive since its introduction into the literature over two decades ago, research remains unsettled about its unequivocal contribution to various aspects of the “good life,” an optimal way of living well via worthwhile endeavors. Further, scholars have identified two conceptual types of calling, marked by internal versus external foci; yet their differential impact on outcomes indicative of the good life, such as eudaimonic and hedonic well-being, is unknown. Through a meta-analysis of 201 studies, we provide the first systematic review focused on these two fundamental theoretical tensions in the calling literature: how strongly related callings are to outcomes in the domains of work and life, and which type of calling (internally- vs. externally-focused) more strongly predicts these outcomes, if either. We find that callings more strongly relate to outcomes indicative of the good life than recently argued. We further find that callings are more strongly linked to work than life outcomes, and to eudaimonic than hedonic outcomes. The two types of calling converge with each other in being associated with many similar outcomes, yet show some divergence: internally-focused callings are more positively related to hedonic outcomes and less positively related to eudaimonic outcomes, relative to externally-focused callings, thus supporting a view of callings as hierarchically-structured with a higher-order calling factor composed of two correlated, yet distinct, lower-order calling types. Integrating our metaanalytic findings with relevant literatures, we propose a theoretical model that addresses psychological and social need fulfillment through which different types of callings contribute to the good life

When the stars align: career and life consequences of calling

In this paper we argue for the importance of disentangling the psychological experience of calling from its behavioral pursuit. We examine the strength of people's calling and their ultimate pursuit-or lack of pursuit-of that calling in their work. We conducted a 4-wave, 11-year prospective longitudinal field study of 508 people anchored in a common calling domain, music, to examine how calling and the pursuit of that calling interact to influence key career and life outcomes. We find differential effects based on whether people with varying calling strengths pursued the calling or not

Calling attention to 20 years of research: a comprehensive meta-analysis of calling

This study provides the first comprehensive meta-analysis of the relationship between calling and its central constructs. This approach sheds light on what we know, as well as what we do not know, about calling’s relationships with a range of outcomes, antecedents, and correlates to outline an agenda for future research

Ethics and the Future of Meaningful Work:Introduction to the Special Issue

The world of work over the past 3 years has been characterized by a great reset due to the COVID-19 pandemic, giving an even more central role to scholarly discussions of ethics and the future of work. Such discussions have the potential to inform whether, when, and which work is viewed and experienced as meaningful. Yet, thus far, debates concerning ethics, meaningful work, and the future of work have largely pursued separate trajectories. Not only is bridging these research spheres important for the advancement of meaningful work as a field of study but doing so can potentially inform the organizations and societies of the future. In proposing this Special Issue, we were inspired to address these intersections, and we are grateful to have this platform for advancing an integrative conversation, together with the authors of the seven selected scholarly contributions. Each article in this issue takes a unique approach to addressing these topics, with some emphasizing ethics while others focus on the future aspects of meaningful work. Taken together, the papers indicate future research directions with regard to: (a) the meaning of meaningful work, (b) the future of meaningful work, and (c) how we can study the ethics of meaningful work in the future. We hope these insights will spark further relevant scholarly and practitioner conversations.</p

Mapping methods in careers research: A review and future research agenda

Based on recent developments in science mapping techniques, this chapter presents a review of methodologies that have been used in the field of career studies. We analyzed 831 methods sections from all published articles in five careers journals between 2014 and 2018 to uncover the key methodologies in the field. Our main conclusions are that quantitative methods dominate career studies, although the specific methods applied vary considerably between the clusters we revealed. Furthermore, we found that the methods used in career studies seem to be intricately linked to the discipline that the studies can be tied to, and the journals that publish these studies. We conclude the chapter with recommendations for future research, including the use of more long-term temporal designs, more exchange of knowledge and approaches between disciplines, and an awareness of existing norms and cultures in disciplines