Introduction
The role of work in people’s lives has been discussed repeatedly throughout human history. In order to better understand the nature and the effect of meaningful work, the notion of ‘calling’ has emerged as a burgeoning research interest in the fields of organizational behavior (e.g., Hall & Chandler, Reference Hall and Chandler2005; Peterson, Park, Hall, & Seligman, 2009), career development (e.g., Duffy, Dik, & Steger, Reference Duffy, Dik and Steger2011; Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, Reference Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas2011), industrial and organizational psychology and positive psychology (Dik & Duffy, Reference Dik and Duffy2009; Berg, Grant, & Johnson, Reference Berg, Grant and Johnson2010; Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, Reference Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas2011). For example, the Journal of Career Assessment launched a special issue about research on ‘work as a calling’ in 2012. However, even with the increasing amount of calling studies, plenty of issues associated with calling in the work context have still not yet been empirically examined (Dik & Duffy, Reference Dik and Duffy2009).
In accordance with several key studies on calling, we define calling as ‘a source or expression of one’s broader sense of meaning and purpose in life, and having a calling is in a manner that one feels called by an external, beyond-the-self force to a particular career, and holds other-oriented values and gofals as primary sources of motivation’ (Dik & Duffy, Reference Dik and Duffy2009, p. 427; Duffy, Dik, & Steger, Reference Duffy, Dik and Steger2011, p. 210). Previous research has recognized that people who identify their work as a calling are correlated with positive work attitude attributes, such as career commitment, job satisfaction, lower turnover intention (Duffy, Dik, & Steger, Reference Duffy, Dik and Steger2011). Both scholars and practitioners promote the concept of calling as a highly beneficial motivation for people to engender better work behaviors within organizations.
Despite increasing evidence of the positivity and desirability of calling, seldom has the concept been linked to concrete work outcome, such as individual performance. In addition, there are some inconsistent results implying that the effect of calling is not always promising and beneficial (Bunderson & Thompson, Reference Bunderson and Thompson2009; Lee, Chen, Chen, & Chen, Reference Lee, Chen, Chen and Chen2014). On the one hand, we expect that people with a higher sense of calling will devote their efforts to work and be driven to pursuit better performance for themselves and their organizations (Locke, Latham, Smith, Wood, & Bandura, Reference Locke, Latham, Smith, Wood and Bandura1990; Hall & Chandler, Reference Hall and Chandler2005; Grant, Reference Grant2007). Yet, Bunderson and Thompson (Reference Bunderson and Thompson2009) described that calling could also be a ‘double-edged sword’ because those with callings may have a constant dissatisfaction at what is not being achieved and are more likely to experience negative effects on work-related outcomes (Cardador & Caza, Reference Cardador and Caza2012). These results suggest that the perception of calling and its effect on performance might be dynamic, and a moderating effect is possible and is worth further examination on how it works.
In this study, we further propose that a supportive climate, defined as ‘the extent to which there are kindly and supportive relationships among organizational members’ (González-Romá, Peiró, & Tordera, Reference González-Romá, Peiró and Tordera2002, p. 466), to broadly depict the support the employees perceive from the whole working environment. That is, a supportive climate is created and perceived by all members within an organization regardless of their groups or units. Furthermore, Hellriegel and Slocum (Reference Hellriegel and Slocum1974, p. 256) suggested that a supportive climate ‘could be perceived about a particular organization and/or its subsystems, and that might be induced from the way that organization and/or its subsystems deal with their members and environment.’ Hence, a supportive climate is regarded as a crucial boundary condition for the calling–performance relationship for two reasons. First, based on the social interaction perspective, organizational climate is an important factor that would affect the relationship among different individual-level variables (Ostroff, Reference Ostroff1993; Smith-Crowe, Burke, & Landis, Reference Smith-Crowe, Burke and Landis2003a), such as calling and individual performance in this study. It is believed that if employees are comfortable with their work environment and perceive a large amount of support from colleagues and supervisors, there will be benefits for both the organization and the individual (Shadur, Kienzle, & Rodwell, Reference Shadur, Kienzle and Rodwell1999). Second, people with a sense of calling would treat their work as meaningful and purposeful (Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, Reference Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin and Schwartz1997; Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011), and the accomplishment of their work would not only be for personal fulfillment but also contribute to society or even the world (Thompson & Bunderson, Reference Thompson and Bunderson2003). Therefore, one’s sense of calling is relational-oriented and is able to have an influence on others. In other words, while in the work context, an individual’s sense of calling should be associated with others’ behaviors such as the performance of their colleagues (Bellah, Sullivan, Tipton, Swidler, & Madsen, Reference Bellah, Sullivan, Tipton, Swidler and Madsen1985; Cardador & Caza, Reference Cardador and Caza2012).
Taken together, the present study intends to expand the application of calling in the context of work and empirically examine the relationship between calling and individual performance along with its interaction with the organizational factor of supportive climate. As noted, while there is a growing body of research on calling in the past few years, why and how it should become a major focus in the context of work remains unanswered. We believe that it is important to study the calling–performance relationship for three main reasons. First, given that the need for understanding and the intention to effectively manage one’s sense of calling in the work context has been increasing (Duffy & Dik, Reference Duffy and Dik2013), an empirical examination of the link between calling and individual performance would be highly desirable for both academic and practical interests. Second, little is known about the cross-level moderator in the relationship between calling and performance within the work domain. We intend to illustrate the previous inconsistency findings regarding the influence of calling on individual performance (Duffy & Dik, Reference Duffy and Dik2013) along with the mechanism of it from both individual and organizational perspectives by utilizing a cross-level model to test the interaction between the individuals’ sense of calling and their supportive organizational climate to advance our understanding of the calling–performance relationship in the work context. Finally, due to the specific characteristics of calling, previous studies on the subject mainly focused on certain kinds of occupations, such as musicians (Dobrow, Reference Dobrow2013), teachers (Serow, Reference Serow1994), zoo keepers (Bunderson & Thompson, Reference Bunderson and Thompson2009), and policemen (Lee, Chen, Chen, & Chang, Reference Lee, Chen, Chen and Chang2012). However, those with these occupations have a relatively high degree of motivation and autonomy in conducting their work. Therefore, they are believed to have unusually higher degrees of calling. To examine a more common phenomenon of how one’s sense of calling affects their performance in the work context, we do not aim at any specific occupation or organization in this study.
Beginning with the next section of literature review, a theoretical framework of major concepts in this study would be established. The following two sections of method and results provide the details of our research design and the empirical results, respectively, and the discussion and the conclusion parts are addressed in the final section.
Literature Review
Sense of calling
The concept of calling can be traced back to five centuries ago in Western Europe when people believed that only a devout few were called by God to service the world (Davidson & Caddell, Reference Davidson and Caddell1994). Nowadays, scholars generally agree to view the sense of calling from a secular perspective and recognize calling as a powerful connection with work, which makes it applicable in the context of today’s society (Dobrow, Reference Dobrow2004). Bellah et al. (Reference Bellah, Sullivan, Tipton, Swidler and Madsen1985), first, asserted that viewing work as a calling would have an influence on other people and the environment, and thus could never be merely to serve private or self-interest. Until now, many studies have successfully linked the sense of calling to work-related variables such as subjective career success (Dobrow, Reference Dobrow2004; Hall & Chandler, Reference Hall and Chandler2005), job satisfaction (Dik & Duffy, Reference Dik and Duffy2009; Elangovan, Pinder, & McLean, Reference Elangovan, Pinder and McLean2010), career commitment (Elangovan, Pinder, & McLean, Reference Elangovan, Pinder and McLean2010; Duffy, Dik, & Steger, Reference Duffy, Dik and Steger2011), and so on, providing strong support that justifies the presence of calling in the work context and, in the meantime, infuses the newly transforming connotation into the definition of calling.
There are two major approaches to conceptualizing the sense of calling – to view it as an orientation toward work (Bellah et al., Reference Bellah, Sullivan, Tipton, Swidler and Madsen1985; Wrzesniewski et al., Reference Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin and Schwartz1997) or as a process one experiences at work (Duffy & Sedlacek, Reference Duffy and Sedlacek2007; Bunderson & Thompson, Reference Bunderson and Thompson2009; Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011; Duffy, Allan, & Dik, Reference Duffy, Allan and Dik2011). To view calling as an orientation toward work connotes that the concept is categorized as one specific type of relationship with work. In other words, calling is defined as an orientation toward work, and this particular orientation implies the meaning and purpose people seek and receive from their work (Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, Reference Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas2011), which is supposed to differ from job and/or career orientation. On the other hand, the perspective that views calling as a process one experiences at work emphasizes individual differences and acknowledges that everyone is suited for various specializations depending upon their particular talents and station in life, causing them to occupy different places in the occupational division of labor. For example, those with occupations such as police officers, physicians, or pilots are more likely to have a higher sense of calling through their daily work practices, which provides strong work motivation for them (Grant & Sumanth, Reference Grant and Sumanth2009; Lee et al., Reference Lee, Chen, Chen and Chen2014).
If one takes the process perspective, it is actually one’s sense of calling that has been brought into discussion in this study. The term ‘sense of calling,’ refers to the process one experiences at work, implying that calling is no longer a binary concept but rather that it should span a continuum from weaker to stronger (Dobrow, Reference Dobrow2007). While emphasizing the sense of calling in this study, an individual’s values and beliefs are found underneath. In accordance with the inference of Elangovan, Pinder, and McLean (Reference Elangovan, Pinder and McLean2010) and Bunderson and Thompson (Reference Bunderson and Thompson2009), it is believed that the calling one perceives is ‘I am what I want to be and should be.’ In other words, an individual’s sense of calling is the result of his/her understanding of calling, and thus everyone’s perception of calling should be unique and could serve as a psychologically driven incentive that is embedded with choices made on the basis of his/her own value or belief system.
In this study, it is assumed that everyone has a sense of calling at a different level, ranging from low to high (Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, Reference Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas2011). Therefore, we conceptualize the sense of calling as defined in the manner proposed by Dik et al. (Dik & Duffy, Reference Dik and Duffy2009; Duffy, Dik, & Steger, Reference Duffy, Dik and Steger2011) and mainly emphasize in the work domain. We define one’s sense of calling as the perception that an individual receives at work in which he/she feels drawn to pursue it, expects it to be enjoyable and meaningful, sees it as the purpose of life, and intends to promote through it the greater good in some way (e.g., Wrzesniewski et al., Reference Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin and Schwartz1997; Berg, Grant, & Johnson, Reference Berg, Grant and Johnson2010). In short, calling is the perception of individuals regarding the degree to which they experience their work as meaningful and are aware that their duties will help them reach subjective goals.
The role of calling in work performance
Dobrow (Reference Dobrow2004) concluded previous calling-related studies by pointing out that calling is one of the critical predictors for work outcomes. In fact, most studies have pointed out a positive direction for those having a calling within the work domain (e.g., Duffy, Dik, & Steger, Reference Duffy, Dik and Steger2011), despite the linkage between calling and negative consequences that is possible to observe sometimes (e.g., Bunderson & Thompson, Reference Bunderson and Thompson2009). Given the nature of sense of calling and our intention to better understand the role of calling in one’s work performance, making a distinction between ‘task performance’ and ‘contextual performance’ is required.
Calling and task performance
Task performance is referred to as the job-specific performance that differentiates one job from another (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, Reference Van Scotter and Motowidlo1996). In addition, task performance is close to ‘in-role’ performance and has a direct relation to the organization’s technical core. Also, it is regarded as the degree to which an individual transforms raw materials into the goods and services that are the products of organizations (Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997; Harrison, Newman, & Roth, Reference Harrison, Newman and Roth2006; Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006).
The association between calling and task performance can be built up on the basis of self-determination theory, in which ‘autonomous motivation’ and ‘controlled motivation’ are both regarded as intentional and are against ‘amotivation,’ which refers to a lack of intention and motivation (Gagné & Deci, Reference Gagné and Deci2005). Autonomous motivation emerges when people enjoy doing something simply because they find it interesting and meaningful, whereas controlled motivation involves acting with a sense of pressure or obligation. Looking into the concept of calling, some people may perceive it as what they ‘want to do,’ while others may perceive it as their sense of responsibility and duty and thus impose a heavy burden upon them because that is what they ‘should do.’ According to self-determination theory, people with sense of calling could be treated as those with autonomous or controlled motivation, and hence are more likely to have better task performance because they find their tasks interesting, important, and meaningful (Koestner & Losier, Reference Koestner and Losier2002; Gagné & Deci, Reference Gagné and Deci2005). This implies that when people experience their sense of calling, they may either find their own interests in activities or identify with the value of actions for their calling at work, which in turn would make them understand the value of their own jobs and, in the end, yield better task performance. Therefore, calling is most likely to motivate one’s job-directed actions and the task itself becomes the platform for people to practice their sense of calling. Therefore, calling is most likely to motivate one’s job-directed behavior, and the task itself becomes the platform for people to practice their sense of calling. Thus, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 1: An individual’s sense of calling is positively related to his/her task performance.
Calling and contextual performance
Harrison, Newman, and Roth (Reference Harrison, Newman and Roth2006) pointed out that contextual performance is an important criterion for judging an individual’s work-related behavior regarding to interpersonal facilitation and job dedication (Van Scotter & Motowidlo, Reference Van Scotter and Motowidlo1996). As argued by Van Scotter and Motowidlo (Reference Van Scotter and Motowidlo1996), interpersonal facilitation implies interpersonally oriented behaviors that contribute to organizational goal accomplishment while job dedication centers on self-disciplined behaviors that motivate people to act for the organization’s best interests. In short, contextual performance is a more inclusive criterion dimension including behaviors that are more interpersonally oriented, more discretionary, and more ‘extra role’ (Motowidlo & Van Scotter, Reference Motowidlo and Van Scotter1994; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, Reference Van Scotter and Motowidlo1996). For example, a person might try to help coworkers with their personal problems, leading to the trust and cohesiveness among team members and in the end, contributing to better performance. In other words, contextual performance can be seen as those behaviors that enhance organization’s effectiveness in which task performance can more easily occur (Aguinis, Reference Aguinis2013).
Therefore, it is likely to produce high levels of both task and contextual performance under certain circumstances (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, Reference Harrison, Newman and Roth2006) such as having employees with higher sense of calling within an organization. In spite of limited empirical evidence, some researchers have argued that those with a higher sense of calling are meant to engage in not only their work but also other activities related to it (Elangovan, Pinder, & McLean, Reference Elangovan, Pinder and McLean2010) in order to achieve subjective success or pursue the greater good. In this case, the extra effort in terms of contextual performance are deemed to be necessary to complete one’s own task successfully or, to put one’s calling into practice. Serow’s (Reference Serow1994) study also revealed that the willingness to sacrifice as well as the passion to devote extra time to work are more likely to be observed in those with higher sense of callings. Accordingly, it is logical to assume that, along with higher sense of callings, people tend to have better contextual performance. Thus, we also propose that:
Hypothesis 2: An individual’s sense of calling is positively related to his/her contextual performance.
The cross-level moderating effect of supportive climate
In addition to individual differences in the degree of sense of calling, aspects of one’s job and work climate are also able to have impacts on the relationship between calling and performance. Organizational climate has long been seen as an important aspect in the work context and its effect on individuals’ performance is in no way to be neglected. In particular, a supportive environment is critical and greatly needed when asking employees for better performance (Luthans, Norman, Avolio, & Avey, Reference Luthans, Norman, Avolio and Avey2008). There is an assumption held by many scholars and managers that if employees are comfortable with their working environment and perceive a large amount of support from colleagues and supervisors, there will be benefits for both the organization and the individual (Shadur, Kienzle, & Rodwell, Reference Shadur, Kienzle and Rodwell1999).
In addition, researchers have already proven that organizational climate could play a moderating role between individual difference variables (e.g., Ostroff, Reference Ostroff1993; Smith-Crowe, Burke, & Landis, Reference Smith-Crowe, Burke and Landis2003b). Their arguments coincide with the social interaction perspective, of which personal and situational factors are believed to have a joint influence on individuals’ attitudes and behavior. Derived from the work of James, Demaree, Mulaik, and Ladd (Reference James, Demaree, Mulaik and Ladd1992), the effect of organizational climate is expected to be seen on the magnitude of the correlation between individual difference variables (such as sense of calling and performance). For example, James et al. (Reference James, Demaree, Mulaik and Ladd1992) demonstrated that whether the individual ability–performance relationship could be strengthened or weakened depends on different conditions of climate (i.e., restricted vs. unrestricted climate). Luthans et al. (Reference Luthans, Norman, Avolio and Avey2008) also argued that there is a positive link between supportive climate and employee attitudes and behaviors in which an indirect impact of supportive climate on individual performance is also implied. Furthermore, as Smith-Crowe, Burke, and Landis (Reference Smith-Crowe, Burke and Landis2003b) suggested, climate is usually aligned with organizational goals; therefore, individuals would intentionally seek a fit between their personal goals and the organization’s goals. Once it matches, individuals would be more willing to exhibit their involvement with as well as commitment to organizations. In short, it seems reasonable to assume that the supportive climate is likely to play a moderating role in the relationship between one’s sense of calling and performance.
More specifically, given that task and contextual performance are two different types of individual performance, the way the supportive climate interacts into calling–performance relation could differ. For example, task performance contains core activities employees should act, and with the support from organization such as providing good materials or having advanced technology, employees will be more easily to involve into their jobs (Motowildo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997). Therefore, people would treat their jobs as a platform to accomplish their calling, and under a supportive climate, whenever employees facing problems or having difficulties complete their tasks, they are still confident of having others support and help. Accordingly, a supportive climate would have a positive moderating effect on the relation between one’s calling and task performance.
On the other hand, contextual performance emphasizes on extra-role performance, such as helping others or volunteer to carry out task activities that are not formally part of own job (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997). People with a higher sense of calling are more willing to devote extra time to accomplish what they believe are worth of doing or should be done (Serow, Reference Serow1994). And the support from organizations such as providing job autonomy could become a critical factor to encourage those with callings to conduct contextual performance (Gellatly & Irving, Reference Gellatly and Irving2001). In short, although the way the supportive climate interacts with employees’ task and contextual performance may differ, we propose that the supportive climate would positively moderate the relationship between calling and task and contextual performance, respectively. Thus, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 3: The relationship between an individual’s sense of calling and task performance is moderated by supportive climate such that the relationship between an individual’s sense of calling and task performance is stronger when there is a positive supportive climate.
Hypothesis 4: The relationship between an individual’s sense of calling and contextual performance is moderated by supportive climate such that the relationship between an individual’s sense of calling and contextual performance is stronger when there is a positive supportive climate.
All the relationships are reflected in our overall theoretical model, illustrated in Figure 1.
The theoretical framework
Method
Participants and procedure
To understand and emphasize an individual’s sense of calling in the work context, data were collected from employees in different organizations from two major industries in Taiwan. There were two levels of analysis; therefore, the amount of individual respondents in each organization as well as the size of the organization were noted. In order to obtain as many respondents as needed, access to the participating organizations was obtained through personal contacts and a snowballing technique that utilized the contacts of contacts. Easterby-Smith and Molina (1999) recognized the usefulness of this approach when working within the Chinese culture, where personal contacts are believed to facilitate company access. Individuals who were employed full-time in a variety of occupations and organizations were contacted, and the information regarding the characteristics of their organization, the type of work, and the demographic data were collected and treated as control variables in this convenience sample.
A two-wave procedure was employed to administer the questionnaire for this study to diminish the respondent’s ability and motivation to use his/her prior responses to answer subsequent questions; doing so ensured that consistency motifs and demand characteristics were likely to be reduced and the threat of common method bias limited (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003). Participants read an introductory paragraph in the beginning at both Time 1 and Time 2, indicating the purpose of the study and the instructions for filling in the questionnaire. Only those who agreed to the instructions would continue to take the survey. In order to track the participants from Time 1 to Time 2, all participants were emailed and asked to complete the survey and directly reply the email to us. Given the redundancy of personal and work email addresses, it is not possible to estimate with any accuracy exactly how many individuals were sent emails, though our best estimate is that ~500 were sent. Although participants were asked to provide their email addresses as needed information in order to integrate their responses from two different stages, the confidentiality of their answers and identities were guaranteed.
At Time 1, the questionnaire contained items regarding sense of calling along with some basic information about the participants and organizations they were currently involved with. One month after completion of the first survey (Time 2), a total of 290 employees from >30 organizations were gathered, and the second survey was sent out, again through email, which including the items regarding supportive climate, task performance, and contextual performance. Two major industries with the largest employment in Taiwan were covered in our sample, which were the high-tech and service industries. In the end, 239 out of 290 completed and returned the second survey. The final usable sample consisted of 186 employees from 24 organizations, with the number of employees per organization ranging from 3 to 21 (
$\bar{x}$
=7.75).
Measures
This study used questionnaire surveys, and we also asked participates to provide their basic information, such as gender, age, tenure, position, education, and the name of their organization. Conventional translation and back-translation from Chinese to English were employed (Brislin, 1980) to check the validity and appropriateness of the scales.
Sense of calling
Sense of calling was measured using the Calling and Vocation Questionnaire developed by Dik, Eldridge, and Steger (Reference Dik, Eldridge and Steger2008). Their questionnaire is aimed at measuring the perceptions of calling in the work domain; therefore, it is appropriate for employment in this study as we also emphasized the sense of calling in the work context. There are in total 12 items with three dimensions (i.e., prosocial orientation, transcendent summons, and purposeful work) for measuring the sense of calling. Example items include the following: ‘My work helps me live out my life’s purpose,’ and ‘My career is an important part of my life’s meaning.’ The responses to these items were ranged from 1=‘not at all true of me,’ to 4=‘absolutely true of me.’ The Cronbach’s α was 0.90.
Task performance
The measure of task performance adopted Williams and Anderson’s (1991) measure of in-role behavior. Employees were asked to self-report upon their task performance. There are a total of seven items, and the example items include the following: ‘Performs tasks that are expected of him/her,’ ‘Adequately completes responsibilities,’ etc. The response to each item was recorded on a 5-point scale ranging from 1=‘not at all,’ to 5=‘frequently, if not always,’ and then was computed by averaging the seven items. The Cronbach’s α was 0.86.
Contextual performance
Recognizing the theoretically and empirically overlap between contextual performance and organizational citizenship behavior, this study followed Judge, LePine, and Rich’s (2006) suggestion to employ the 24-item scale developed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990) to measure contextual performance. Employees self-reported on their contextual performance. Each item was rated from 1=‘not at all,’ to 5=‘frequently, if not always,’ and then the scores from all five dimensions were aggregated into an overall contextual performance score. The Cronbach’s α was 0.85.
Supportive climate
Originating from Rogg, Schmidt, Shull, and Schmitt (Reference Rogg, Schmidt, Shull and Schmitt2001) questionnaire, the revised shortened 12-item scale developed by Luthans et al. (Reference Luthans, Norman, Avolio and Avey2008) was used to measure the supportive climate. Each item was rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1=‘strongly disagree,’ to 6=‘strongly agree.’ Sample items include the following: ‘Managers consistently treat everyone with respect’ and ‘Employees trust each other.’ The Cronbach’s α was 0.90.
Control variables
In this study, gender, marital status, religion, and tenure are recorded as the individual-level control variables. In addition, industry is served as the organizational-level control variable.
Data analysis strategy
Furthermore, results of the interclass correlation coefficient (ICC(1)) values and the associated χ2 tests revealed that 7% of the variance in task performance resided between organizations (χ2 [23]=36.56, p<.05), 7% of the variance in contextual performance resided between organizations (χ2 [23]=35.77, p<.05), and 13% of the variance in calling resided between organizations (χ2 [23]=48.80, p<.01). Although a relatively small percentage of the variance in task and contextual performance resided between organizations, they were significant and, therefore, provided a basis for examining the organizational-level predictors of them as well as individual-level predictors of the within-group variance in task and contextual performance (Gavin & Hofmann, 2002). ICC(2) values for sense of calling, task performance, and contextual performance are 0.51, 0.35, and 0.34, respectively.
Supportive climate is treated as an organizational-level variable, and, according to Chan’s (1998) typology, it would be better to apply direct consensus approach to aggregate organizational members’ perceptual responses and then use them to operationalize the higher-level supportive organizational climate. In this case, within-organization agreement is a prerequisite for arguing that an organizational-level supportive climate can be operationalized and that it exists (González-Romá, Peiró, & Tordera, Reference González-Romá, Peiró and Tordera2002).We thus ran a series of tests including r wg, ICC(1) and ICC(2) before aggregating to the organizational level. The median r wg value is 0.83 for supportive climate (F[23, 162]=2.88, p<.01, η 2=0.29), indicating the appropriateness of aggregation of supportive climate (Bliese & Castro, Reference Bliese and Castro2000; James et al., Reference James, Demaree, Mulaik and Ladd1992). ICC(1) is 0.17 (F=1.606, p<.01), and ICC(2) is 0.62. Thus, we created organizational-level measures of supportive climate by averaging the individual-level scores within each organization.
Accordingly, taken that our conceptual model was multilevel in nature, a hierarchical linear model was chosen as the ideal approach to analyze the data in this study (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002). To test the proposed cross-level moderation model, we grand-mean centered the variables as recommended by Hofmann and Gavin (1998).
Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 provides the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables. Internal consistency reliabilities for the measures are presented on the diagonal. All variables possess an acceptable degree of internal consistency reliability, and the correlations between calling and task performance (r=0.20, p<.01), contextual performance (r=0.35, p<.01), and supportive climate (r=0.17, p<.05) are all significant and positive.
Descriptive statistics and correlationsFootnote a
Note. Reliability (α) estimates are listed on the diagonal.
a Total number of the samples: employees (N)=186; organizations (N)=24.
b Gender: 0=female; 1=male.
c Marital status: 0=single; 1=married.
d Religiosity: 0=none; 1=yes.
e Tenure: 0=under 3 years; 1=over 4 years.
f Industry: 0=service industry; 1=high-tech industry.
*p<.05, **p<.01 (two-tailed tests).
Positive effect of sense of calling on individual performance
Hypotheses 1 and 2 assert that one’s sense of calling predicted his/her task and contextual performance, respectively. The results supported that individuals with a higher sense of calling would perform better on their task and contextual performance (see Table 2). An individual’s sense of calling was significantly positively related to task (γ50=0.17, p<.05) and contextual performance (γ50=0.21, p<.01).
Hierarchical linear model (HLM) results for sense of calling, task performance, and contextual performance
Note. n=186.
† p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01.
Moderating effect of supportive climate on sense of calling
Hypotheses 3 and 4 predict a cross-level moderator of the relationship between sense of calling and individual performance. Gender, marital status, religion, and tenure were entered as level 1 control variables whereas industry sector was entered as a level 2 control variable. Further, the grand-mean centered sense of calling and supportive climate were treated as the level 1 predictor and level 2 moderator, respectively. The results are shown in Table 2, indicating no significant interaction effect on task performance, while there was a significant positive moderating effect on contextual performance (γ51=0.18, p<.05). Hypothesis 4 is thus supported. Figure 2 illustrates the interaction (Table 3).
The moderating effect of supportive climate on the relationship between sense of calling and contextual performance
HLM results predicting the moderating effect of supportive climate
Note. n=186.
† p<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01.
Discussion
The major reason to discuss sense of calling in the work context is its prominent effect on individual performance. As expected, an individual’s sense of calling helps to bring better performance within organizations. Although one’s sense of calling is subjective to his/her own goals and different interpretations of the concept of calling, this study further pointed out that sense of calling indeed could motivate employees to perform well for their organizations. Accordingly, this finding explored the concept of calling and contributed to organization studies by demonstrating its effect on individual performance, enabling the application of calling to be expanded and broadened.
More specifically, it is found that having a higher sense of calling seems to contribute to both task and contextual performance. A possible explanation is that people’s sense of calling to some degree presents the expression of their values and beliefs. Therefore, as long as employees can relate their sense of calling to their work, calling itself could serve as the specific intention that leads to their performance (Ajzen, 1991). From managers’ perspectives, one’s calling would contribute to his/her performance regardless of task or contextual performance. This conclusion once again highlights the importance of employees’ sense of calling for organizations.
We also found that under a strong supportive climate, employees with a higher sense of calling would have better contextual performance, while no significant effect was detected in terms of task performance. The rationale behind this finding can be illustrated two ways. First, the association between calling and task performance is basically based on the work itself. That is, sensing the calling in one’s work implies the perception of work meaningfulness, leading to find their own interests in activities and identify the value of their working behavior. Thus, those with callings would have stronger motivation according to the self-determination theory (Gagné & Deci, Reference Gagné and Deci2005) and would invest and be involved more in their work even with the limited help and support from others (Novak, Reference Novak1996; Wrzesniewski et al., Reference Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin and Schwartz1997; Cardador, Dane, & Pratt, Reference Cardador, Dane and Pratt2011). Second, just as the old saying, ‘The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak,’ without organizational support, an individual will find it difficult deliver contextual performance which requires extra efforts and personal time outside of work. In order to attain a desired level of contextual performance, a working environment with a strong supportive climate is needed for providing available resources and supports, which in the end, making extraordinary contextual performance possible.
Management implications
Based on the results of our study, emphasizing the importance of calling in an organization seems logical and is likely to be applied in practice. First, the evidence of the link between one’s sense of calling and performance should be able to convince managers to recruit/locate those with a higher sense of calling that coordinates with the organization. Similar to the study of personality and job attitude, once it is able to identify the positive relationship between certain individual characteristics and job performance, the next thing to do is to look for people with that certain characteristic. The same philosophy applies here. Therefore, we suggest that managers employ questionnaires such as Calling and Vocation Questionnaire as a selective tool for recruitment, or explore employees’ sense of calling through observation or interview during performance evaluation. As a result, managers will be more likely to identify employees with a higher sense of calling compatible with the organization.
Second, we are aware that, except for one’s inner nature, one’s sense of calling is likely to derive from his/her perception of responsibility or duty, as well (Bunderson & Thompson, Reference Bunderson and Thompson2009; Elangovan, Pinder, & McLean, Reference Elangovan, Pinder and McLean2010). Based on this argument, and along with the effect of supportive climate on the relationship between calling and contextual performance, we are convinced that some organizational practices should be implemented in order to develop and foster one’s sense of calling within organizations. For example, the declaration of an organizational mission might enhance the employees’ understanding of the organization’s values and thus strengthen their sense of obligation; the encouragement of coaching might benefit the interaction between employees and supervisors and make it easier for employees to perceive the support from colleagues and supervisors. Accordingly, being able to count on those with whom you work would definitely strengthen one’s determination to pursue their calling.
Limitations and implications for future research
The construct of calling has been investigated mostly in the United States and other Western societies (i.e., Duffy & Dik, Reference Duffy and Dik2013); however, to examine it under the framework of Taiwanese culture is still an initial step and remains uncertain. The reliability and validity of measurements in this study are expected to provide a starting point for future studies in terms of calling in different cultures. In addition, the data for this study were collected from the same source so that the results are likely to suffer from common method bias. In order to prevent common method bias and examine the cause-and-effect relationship, temporal separation research design was adopted (Podsakoff et al., Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003). Harman’s single-factor test was also used to examine whether the issue of common method variance (CMV) existed in this study (Podsakoff et al., Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff2003). There was no single-factor account for the majority of the covariance among the measure, indicating that the issue of CMV is not a seriously concern. Although temporal separation research design brought some advantages to this study, it limited the sample size at the same time. All things being equal, with a relatively small sample size, effects are much more difficult to detect. Moreover, whether calling is important for all roles within an organization is another issue that is worth to study in order to further contribute to both theoretical and managerial implications. Therefore, enlarging the sample size to cover more different roles and positions within organizations and collecting data from other sources would be expected to obtain more information and more accurate results in future studies.
Previous studies have merely focused on individual-level factors when discussing one’s sense of calling without including organizational factors into consideration. In our study, we found that with a strong supportive climate, an individual’s sense of calling exerts more positive influences on individual performance for organizations. This finding has pointed out the necessity and significance of organizational factors to an individual’s sense of calling. In other words, to treat calling in the work context, it is no longer something attribute to oneself alone. Rather, there are certain approaches that an organization can manipulate to strengthen the influence of calling on performance. Future studies are encouraged to expand on our effort, and to develop practical applications of sense of calling in the workplace.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their helpful and constructive comments that largely contributed to the final version of our paper.
