1
Calling and well-being: the mediating role of
enhancing job crafting
ABSTRACTSeveral studies have identified the benefits of seeing work as a calling, but little research has focused on the negative outcomes that callings might have. This study examines the relationship between callings and well-being, which is measured by job satisfaction (positive indicator for well-being), emotional exhaustion, and role overload (both negative indicators for well-being). This relationship is explored via a specific pathway; it is tested whether the relationship between calling and well-being is mediated by enhancing job crafting. It is argued that people who see work as a calling are so motivated for the job that they are going to do more (engage in enhancing job crafting), which can end up in doing too much whereby employee are at risk for burnout and role overload. Data was collected from people working in a variety of Dutch organizations (N = 187). First of all, the results show that callings are related to job satisfaction, but not to emotional exhaustion and role overload. Secondly, callings are also related to enhancing job crafting. Thirdly, it is found that enhancing job crafting is positively related to role overload, but not to job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion. Finally, it is found that the relationship between callings and role overload is mediated by enhancing job crafting. No mediation effect of crafting was found for the relationship between callings and job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion. Altogether, this suggests that employees who see work as a calling are not at exposed to the possible ‘darks side of calling’, unless these employees engage in enhancing job crafting.
Maud Kruijer 10643125
29-06-2016 BSc Business Administration
2 STATEMENT OF ORIGINALTIY
This document is written by Student Maud Kruijer who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 4
2. Theoretical framework 6
2.1 Employee well-being 7
2.2 Calling and employee well-being 9
2.3 Calling and enhancing job crafting 13
2.4 Enhancing job crafting and well-being 16
2.5 Mediating role of enhancing job crafting 17
3. Method 18
3.1 Design 18
3.2 Procedure and sample 19
3.3 Measurements 19
3.4 Analysis and predictions 21
4. Results 23
4.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations 23
4.2 Hypothesis testing 24
4.3 Additional tests and results 29
5. Discussion 30
5.1 Contributions 34
5.2 Limitations and future research 35
5.3 Strengths 36
5.4 Practical implications 36
6. Conclusion 37
References 38
Appendix A: Items of questionnaire 46
4 1. INTRODUCTION
The last decade, a lot attention is drawn to the meaning that employees attribute to their work. Employees are seeking for meaning in their work, and therefore they want to see their work more and more as a calling. This is “a view towards work in which one expects the work to be intrinsically meaningful and sees the work as making a difference in some way” (Cardador & Caza, 2012, p. 143). In turn, the meaning that people attribute to their work can have an impact on employee outcomes, like job satisfaction, job performance, organizational citizenship behavior, and well-being (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 1997). As well-being of employees is in the best interest of communities and organization and influences the performance on the job of the employee (Harter, Schmidt & Keyes, 2002), it might be particularly interesting for organizations to know what influences employee well-being. Because of the meaning employees find in their work, callings often seem to have a positive impact on well-being. However, it is precisely those occupations which seem to have a strong calling whereby employees have a low(er) well-being. For instance, teachers see themselves as highly motivated and passionate hardworking professionals who have responded to a calling (Farkas, Johnson, and Foleno, 2000), but this is precisely the sector wherein the burnout percentage is the highest in the Netherlands: one out of five teachers gets a burnout (Boonstra, 2016).
Derived from this, it might be particularly interesting to look at callings and the way these callings influences employee well-being. It is already known that callings have a positive impact on for example life and job satisfaction (Duffy, Allan & Bott, 2012; Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Duffy, Dik & Steger, 2011) On the contrary, scholars recently think there may be negative outcomes of callings, like exploitation by managers and spending too much time at work (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Carcador & Cara, 2012). However, there are hardly any (empirical) studies about the negative outcomes of callings, and the influence it might have on the
5 well-being of employees (Dik & Duffy, 2013; Berkelaar & Buzzanel, 2015). Hence, Dik and Duffy (2013) wrote in their paper that until now, research about the dark side of callings is suggestive rather than definitive, and that therefore no actual conclusions can be drawn from it.
The mixed results from the studies done about the effect of callings on employee well-being indicate that more research is necessary to better understand the relationship between callings and well-being. In the present study, this is done by looking into a specific way that can both explain the positive and the negative outcomes of callings. It could be argued that employees who see their work as a calling are so deeply motivated that this motivation could translate into enhancing job crafting. Enhancing job crafting is a process whereby individuals make physical and cognitive changes in the task or relational boundaries of their work (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001) but in a way that employees are going to do more (the enhancing part) (Bindl, Unsworth & Gibson, 2014). On the one side, this is a good thing, because job crafting can lead to positive outcomes and higher well-being (Tims & Bakker, 2010; Tims et al., 2013). On the other hand, it is known that doing more might also have some risks bad coming with it (Bunderson & Thompson, (2009). Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) have already suggested that work orientations might influence the way employees craft their jobs, but there are no studies about possible outcomes of this. Besides this, the relationship between callings and job crafting is only empirically tested once and no significant relationship between callings and job crafting is found (Leana, Appelbaum and Shevchuk, 2009).
In order to investigate the suggested relationship above, the following research question is studied: To what extent is the relationship between callings and well-being of employees mediated by enhancing job crafting? With the answer on this question, this study firstly contributes to literature new insights about the outcomes of callings, and particularly about the dark side of callings (Dik & Duffy, 2013). With other words, these are insights about the relationship between
6 callings and well-being. Also the way in which the relationship between callings and well-being works is explored. Finally, insights about the influence of callings on job crafting are also a contribution to the literature. All this might help organizations to prevent employees from the ‘dark side of callings’ and foster ‘the bright sights of callings’. For instance, in case of the teachers, this means that organizations need to make sure that their strong motivation for the job does not end up in a burnout.
First, a theoretical framework is presented which is based on a literature review. Well-being, callings and job crafting are further explained and hypothesis are proposed. Next, the method is presented in which is described how this study is conducted. Subsequently, the results of the study are discussed. Then there is a discussion wherein the results are discussed. Also avenues for future research and some implications are discussed in this section. In the end there is a conclusion.
2. THEORETHICAL FRAMEWORK
Based on a literature review, a theoretical framework is created. In the framework, it is explained how seeing work as a calling can lead to being. Both positive and negative aspects of well-being are considered. It is argued that seeing work as a calling can lead to engaging more in enhancing job crafting, which in turn can end up in doing too much. This all together can lead one the side higher well-being, and on the other side lower well-being. First, employee well-being is discussed whereby the different constructs (job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and role overload) are explained. Second, employee well-being is connected to callings. Callings are explained and it is illustrated what is already known about the relationship between callings and well-being. Then, callings are connected enhancing job crafting. (Enhancing) job crafting is explained and it is illustrated what research is already done about callings and job crafting. Based on the self-determination theory, a positive relationship between these constructs is expected. Next,
7
+ +
+
enhancing job crafting is connected to employee well-being. It is explained why these constructs are related. Finally, the mediating role of enhancing job crafting on the relationship is illustrated. An overview of the theoretical framework is presented in figure 1.
Figure 1. Overview of the theoretical framework: the conceptual model
2.1 Employee well-being
As said in the problem definition “the well-being of employees is in the best interest of communities and organizations” (Harter, Schmidt & Keyes, 2002, p. 2). As employees spend much time of their life at work, a substantial part of life satisfaction that people have results from work. More importantly, the well-being of employees may particularly be interesting for employers and their organizations. Well-being can have major impact on the performance of an employee on the job, and therewith, on the performance of an organization (Harter et al., 2002). Many scholars have studied the effect of well-being on performance. For instance, Wright and Cropanzano, (2000) and Wright, Cropanzano, and Bonett (2007) found that a higher well-being lead to higher job performance. This suggests that for organizations, well-being of employees is important; it can influence overall performance of the organization.
Calling
Enhancing job crafting
Job satisfaction Emotional exhaustion
8 For this study, job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion and role overload are used as a proxy for well-being. Job satisfaction is a positive indicator for well-being. Job satisfaction is defined as a positive feeling that employees have about their job after evaluating the characteristics of the job (Robbins & Judge, 2014) Job satisfaction is used as indicator for well-being, because it an important predictor of well-being (Argyle, 1989; Judge and Watanabe, 1993, Sousa-Poza & Sousa Poza, 2000).
Besides job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion is an indicator for well-being, but this is a negative one. Emotional exhaustion happens when employees feel that their emotional resources become depleted, and they no longer feel able to give of themselves at a psychological level (Gaines & Jermier, 1983). It includes general loss of feeling and concern, trust, interest, and spirit (Maslach, 1982b). Employees often also feel fatigue, used up, irritable, frustrated, and worn out (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Here, emotional exhaustion is used as indicator of burnout, which in turn is a type of employee well-being (Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008). Burnout is “a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur among individuals who do ‘people work’ of some kind” (Maslach and Jackson, 1986, p. 1) of which emotional exhaustion is the key indicator (Shirom, 1989).
In addition to emotional exhaustion, role overload is also used as a negative indicator for well-being. “Role overload is a social condition in which the focal person is faced with obligations which, taken as a set, require him to do more than he is able to do in the time available” (Sales, 1970, p. 592-593). With other words, employees are role overloaded when they feel that too many responsibilities or activities are expected of them in light of the time available, their abilities, and other constraints (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1972). Role overload is found to be a negative predictor of well-being (Coverman, 1989).
9 2.2 Callings and employee well-being
There are three ways in which employees can view their work; they can see it as either a calling, a job, or a career (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 2007; Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz, 1997). Employees who see their work as their calling focus on fulfilment of doing the work. They see their work as inseparable of their life. These people do not work for material benefits or advancement, but focus instead on enjoyment of fulfilling the work that one does. Employees who see work as a job only focus on the material benefits, such as pay, and do not seek other benefits from it. They see work as “a means that allow individuals to acquire the resources needed to enjoy their time away from their job” (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997, p. 22). Finally, employees who see their work as a career are more engaged to their work than people with a job orientation. They are focused on advancement. This advancement brings higher social standing, higher self-esteem, and increased power in the scope of one’s occupation (Bellah et al., 1985). However, employees with a career orientation are not as devoted to their work as employees with a calling orientation (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997)
There exist a lot definitions of callings in literature, and there is little consensus around these definitions. For instance, Bellah et al. (1985) say that callings are pursue for personal meaning and value, whereas Wrzesniewski (2003) argues that callings do not have to be personally fulfilling per se, but that callings focus on societal significance, and that they are associated with “the belief that work contributes to the greater good and makes the world a better place” (p.301). And whereas Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas (2011) argue that people pursue callings out of passion, Hall and Chandler, (2005) argue that callings are more fundamental, as something that is people’s purpose in life. While there is still little consensus around the definitions, callings share the common idea that calling entails a sense of purpose and meaning in work (Cardador & Caza, 2012), and that seeing work as a calling is something very personal (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). In the present
10 study, the following definition of al calling is used: “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” (Cardador & Caza, 2012, p. 143).
In order to make more sense of the concept callings, Dik & Duffy (2009) identified three dimensions, which, when combined, were emblematic of a calling. The first dimension represents the extent to which the individual feels ‘called’ by an external source. This external source can come in different forms; it can a higher power (e.g. God), but also the need for society or family legacy, or any other source external to the individual. The second dimension is that an individual’s approach to work needs to align with the broader sense of purpose and meaning in life; “work is either a source of purpose in life, or serves as a life domain that allow an expression of a sense of purpose” (Dik & Diffy, 2013, p. 429). The third component involves that the purpose and meaningfulness of work has to contribute (directly or indirectly) in some positive way to ‘the common good’ or to the well-being of society. However, a few scholars have argued that the first dimension might not always stand. In several studies it is found that it is not always an external source by which people are ‘called’ (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Duffy, Foley et al., 2012). Participants described different sources of the callings. These were external, but also internal or a combination of these two. Some scholars suggest that ‘the internal view’ is a better fit for how the callings are viewed today, noting that individuals who have a calling do not identify an external source, but the individuals indicate that they rather work in the job aligns with their strongest internal passion (Hall & Chandler, 2005; Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011).
Three more comments need to be made about the notion of callings. First, it is noted that callings are not binary (Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011). It is not the case that people ‘have’ or ‘do not have’ a calling, but it is suggested that people endorse a calling along a continuum from weaker to stronger callings (Dik & Diffy, 2009; Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011). It is an ongoing process
11 rather than something that is fixed, and callings can change over time (Dik & Diffy, 2009). Second, it does not have to be work toward which people feel a strong sense of calling (Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011). It can also be something different which people find intrinsically motivated and socially fulfilling, like volunteer efforts or family. Third, callings are not associated with particular occupations (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997; Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011). One might expect that there are certain occupations whereby people only have a job orientations or a calling orientations, but in all occupations the three different work orientations can be found (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997).
Although the interest in callings by social scientists is a relatively recent phenomenon (Cardador & Caza, 2012), the notion of people seeing work as a calling dates back several centuries in the literature. In the sixteenth century, callings were more used in a religious context; people were ‘called’ by God to do something meaningful for the world, but now callings have lost their religious context (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011). In recent years, callings have received more and more attention. Different scholars have looked into calling and the possible outcomes of callings, in particular well-being and work-related outcomes (Duffy & Dik, 2013). A set of studies which examined the outcomes of callings used undergraduate students as participants. It was found that callings are related to life satisfaction and life meaning (Duff et al., 2012; Duffy, Allan & Dik, 2011; Duffy and Sedlacek; 2010; Steger, Pickering, Shin & Dik., 2010; Duffy, Manuel, Borges & Bott., 2011). Duffy and Sedlacek (2007) used undergraduate students as well and found that callings are also related to career- and work related outcomes; calling are found to correlate with career, self-efficacy, and vocational clarity. Also Steger et al. (2010) found that callings are correlated with career decidedness. Furthermore, Duffy et al. (2011) found that, using employees of a university, callings are lead to higher organizational commitment and lower withdrawal intentions, and that these relationships are mediated by career commitment.
12 Other studies looked into a specific occupation to examine callings. For instance, Dobrow (2007) examined callings in in the musicians’ profession. It was found that musicians with a calling had higher involvement in music activities, enjoyed practicing music more, and enjoyed socializing with other musicians more. Bunderson and Thompson (2009) examined zookeepers. They found that the level of callings was related to identification with the occupation, importance of occupation, work meaningfulness, and perceived organizational duty.
As found in several early studies, employees who find their work meaningful beyond the monetary gain that they get from it, have higher enjoyment and are more satisfied with work (Claes & Ruiz Quintanilla, 1994; Knoop, 1994b; Mottaz, 1985; Davidson & Caddell, 1994). Since these early studies about callings and work related outcomes, several other scholars have found for the effect of callings on job satisfaction, either at a moderate or a strong level (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Duffy, Dik et al, 2011; Harzer & Ruch, 2012; Peterson et al., 2009). Calling orientations are also found to have a stronger and more rewarding relationship to work, which is associated spending more time at work (whether or not this is compensated) and result more enjoyment and higher job satisfaction (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997).
However, some literature suggests that these positive things might not be the only outcomes of seeing work as a calling. There are scholars who already identified ‘the dark side of callings’ (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Cardador and Caza, 2012; Duffy & Dik, 2012; Berkelaar & Buzzanell, 2015). For instance, it is found that employees with a calling are at risk of investing too much time at work and make personal sacrifices and sacrifices in non-work domains (e.g. family and friends) (Ng, Sorensen & Feldman, 2007; Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). Also, Cardador and Caza (2012) describe that callings come with high investment and high expectations, and these are higher than normal. They discuss that these higher than normal expectations are a possible antecedent for burnout. Since the job is very important for the employees, they feel required to put
13 all their energy in it in order to meet these expectations (Duffy, Douglass & Autin, 2015), and this suggests that it might deplete individuals’ resources. The high expectations, together with the sacrifices individuals makes for their calling, suggest that people who see their work as a calling have a higher chance a higher chance on burnout (Duffy et al, 2015).
Bunderson and Thompson (2009) describe more negative outcomes of callings. For example, they found that some zookeepers, although they felt that they were doing their calling, were at risk of being exploited by their managers (the zookeepers were asked for unpleasant jobs, because they would do it anyway) and were overworked. That these employees are overworked suggest that they might be overloaded.
So at the same time, callings can lead to better well-being (higher job satisfaction) and lead to worse well-being (higher emotional exhaustion and higher role overload). Therefore, the first hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 1. Callings are positively associated with (a) job satisfaction, (b) emotional exhaustion, and (c) role overload.
2.3 Callings and enhancing job crafting
Job crafting is a process whereby employees themselves redesign their job by changing the characteristics of their job from bottom-up (Wang, Demerouti & Bakker, 2015). Employees proactively change their job, but within the context of the defined job (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). There are three ways in which employees can redesign their job; they can change the task boundaries of their job, the relational boundaries of their job and the cognitive boundaries of their job (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). By changing the task boundaries of the job, employees alter the form or number of tasks that they do. Changing the relational boundaries means that employees change the interactions and relationships they have at work. Changing cognitive boundaries of a
14 job refers to employees changing the way how they see their job. This involves a cognitive process of task redefinition, while no actual change is made to the job (Wang et al., 2015).
In these days, job crafting behavior is important in order to cope with the dynamics of today’s business world. Employees need proactive job crafting in order to respond to change, and especially in order to facilitate change to keep to respond to these dynamics (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Furthermore, since job crafting influences which tasks get completed and how these tasks are completed, job crafting has the potential to influence the performance of the employee, and therewith, the performance of the organization (Berg, Dutton & Wrzesniewski, 2008).
Whether this influence is positive or negative for the organization depends on how employees craft their jobs (Berg et al., 2008). With other words, it might depend on whether employees are going to do more, or less activities. Bindl et al. (2014) make this distinction in job crafting; they differentiate between enhancing job crafting and limiting job crafting. Enhancing job crafting refers to increasing the number and complexity of tasks and interaction with others and limiting job crafting is reducing the complexity and number of tasks and interaction with others (Laurence, 2010). In the present study, the focus lies on enhancing job crafting. Limiting job crafting is not further addressed. In the following parts it will become clear why enhancing job crafting is more relevant for this study.
The work orientations described earlier “help to determine our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward work” (Wrzesniewski, 2003, p. 300). They provide a window into the way employees see work (Wrzesniewski, 2003), but more importantly, into the way employees craft their work (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Wrzesniewski and Dutton (2001) say for example that employees who have a job orientation just focus on the parts that needs to be done in order to get payed, rather than for example focus on helping as many employees as possible. This raises the
15 question of how employees who see work as a calling craft work differently than employees who see work as a job or career.
Here it is argued that employees who see their work as calling engage more in enhancing job crafting, and not in limiting job crafting. The idea behind this is that when employees see their work as a calling, they will be very motivated to do their work. As a consequence, employees will proactively do more than is required of them (i.e. engage in enhancing job crafting) (Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). This can be explained with the use of the self-determination theory developed by Deci and Ryan (1985). These scholars define two sorts of motivation (i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) to explain why people do what they do. People who are intrinsically motivated engage in activities for their own sake; they engage in it for pleasure and satisfaction. Furthermore, people do things because they find these things interesting, they do it freely, and without getting any reward (Deci & Ryan, 1985). People will only be intrinsically motivated to do things when those things intrinsically interesting for them (Ryan & Deci, 2000) – “those that have the appeal of novelty, challenge, or aesthetic value for that individual” (p.60). Deci and Ryan (2000) say that intrinsic motivation start with a proactive person; it assumes that people are naturally active. Particularly, intrinsic motivation is about active engagement in tasks that are interesting for people (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Since callings are associated with this kind of motivation (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997), people who see work as a calling will be actively engaged in their work, and therefore end up doing more. Thus it could thus be argued that employees who see work as a calling find their work so intrinsically motivated that they engage more in enhancing job crafting (Leana et al., 2009). So therefore I hypothesize the following:
16 2.4 Enhancing job crafting and well-being
Although job crafting is a fairly new subject in literature, the idea that redesigning jobs may have influence on well-being is not new. In 1978, Hackman, Pearce, and Wolfe already examined the effect of job redesign on well-being of employees. They found that people were more satisfied and more motivated after their job was enriched. Recently, there has also been some research that examined the impact of job crafting on well-being and other employee outcomes. First of all, multiple scholars found that job crafting is related to work engagement (Bakker, Tims & Derks, 2012; Petrou, Demerouti, Peeters, Schaufeli & Hetland, 2012), which in turn lead to better performance (Bakker et al., 2012). Job crafting is also found to influence the person-job fit, which also leads to more engagement of employees (Chen, Yen & Tsai, 2014). Most relevant for this study is the finding of Tims et al. (2013) that when employees engage job crafting, they have in general higher job satisfaction. This suggests that when employees proactively change the job themselves, they can adapt it to their own preferences and expectations (Berg et al., 2008; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). This can lead to more enjoyment and meaning in work, and therewith higher job satisfaction (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007).
However, as enhancing job crafting simply means doing more, it seems reasonable to assume that the additional tasks and/or the additional relationships can bring some stress with it. In addition to the basic specifications of the job, an employee does more on top these basic specifications (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). The example of Berg et al., 2008 clarifies this: when a teacher agrees to test new software in her classroom, (s)he might enjoy learning the new technology. But this learning could also have some drawbacks, because the teacher has to do this learning on top of the ‘normal’ workload. The teacher thus takes additional tasks and responsibilities whereby the possibility exists that he or she becomes overloaded. Furthermore, when it is necessary that this teacher need to work extra hours to complete these additional tasks
17 and responsibilities, it could deplete their personal resources (Wang et al., 2015). This depletion of resources suggests that there is a higher chance on burnout.
Derived from what is just described, enhancing job crafting lead to higher job satisfaction, but, at the same time, doing more can also lead to worse well-being (higher emotional exhaustion and higher role overload). Therefore, I hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3. Enhancing job crafting behavior is positively associated with (a) job satisfaction, and negatively associated with (b) emotional exhaustion and (c) role overload.
2.5 Mediating role of job crafting
Despite the studies about callings and well-being of employees (whereby the focus particularly is on positive outcomes), little is known about the underlying constructs of this relationship. There are however some studies which examine the mediation between calling and well-being. For instance, Duffy, Dik et all. (2011) suggest that career commitment mediates the relationship between callings and well-being. In the present study, it is proposed that enhancing job crafting mediates the relationship between callings and employee well-being. As said earlier, callings lead to more enhancing job crafting and enhancing job crafting is associated with the well-being of employees. These relationships suggest that one possible way that callings influences well-being of employees is through the mediating role of job crafting. This means that people who see work as a calling are so intrinsically motivated for work that they are going to do more (engage in enhancing job crafting), which can initially lead to job satisfaction. But when employees are doing too much, they are at risk for burnout and role overload. So therefore, the last hypothesis is
Hypothesis 4. The relationship between callings and with (a) job satisfaction, (b) emotional exhaustion, and (c) role overload is mediated by enhancing job crafting.
18 3. METHOD
3.1 Design
In order to test the proposed research question and hypotheses, an empirical quantitative study is used. This makes it possible to examine the relationship between variables on the basis of the quantitative data (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). The quantitative data is used in a deductive way; the data is used to test the hypothesis which are proposed in the previous paragraph. This is an explanatory study, because in this study it is tried to establish relationships between variables, and explain how this relationship might work (Saunders et al., 2012).
A cross-sectional design with survey is used to gather the data. First of all, a survey is used because of the necessity for empirical research about callings and the influence on crafting and well-being (Dick & Duffy, 2013). Furthermore, a survey offers a cheap way to collect data (Saunders et al., 2012). The data collection is done with an online questionnaire. In this way, it is easy the collect standardized data from a population in an economical way, and it allows comparison within the data (Saunders et al., 2012). The questionnaire is self-completed. The variables are measured numerically on a scale and analyzed using statistical techniques. Because the collected data comes from direct sources, it is primary data.
The level of analysis in the present study is the individual level. The study aims to explain why individuals, in this case employees, act in a certain way. Therefore, the results of this study are applicable on the individual level. Furthermore, because the participants are working in different Dutch organizations in a variety of sectors, the results are applicable in all Dutch companies. These sectors are the health sector (13.8%), logistic sector (1.8%), education (2.8%), the agricultural sector (4.6%), the government (2.8%), construction sector (7.3%), the industry sectors (15.6%), trade, hotel and catering service (8.3%), consulting and financial services (11.9%), non-profit sector (2.8%), media (2.8%), IT sector (2.8%), and remaining sectors (17,4%). The
19 variety of organizations make sure that the results are more external valid. With other words, the variety of organizations makes sure the results are applicable in different sectors.
3.2 Procedure and sample
The participants are approached by a group of four university bachelor students. Participants are approached in person, because the response rate tends to be higher in this way. Most of the time the students contacted potential participants by email or phone. Two prices of €100 are raffled in order to motivate people to participate. The participants fill out the questionnaire online. They receive an email with the link to the questionnaire and the instructions about the questionnaire. Employees assess themselves on work orientation, enhancing job crafting and well-being (job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, role overload). They further fill out some demographics, like gender, age, working hours and sector they work in, of which gender and age are control constructs. The control constructs are used in order to check whether the hypothesized relationships actually are the way they are described, and not caused by another construct.
The sample consisted of 109 employees. The response rate of the employees was 90.1% (109 out of 121). Participants are residents of the Netherlands, working in a variety of Dutch organizations. For employees the average tenure was 6.03 years (SD = 6.395). 55% of the participants was male and 45% was female. The average age was 33,42 (range = 18-62, SD = 12.284). Incomplete data of participants for a certain measure were cancelled out for that measure.
3.3 Measurements
Dependent variable job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is self-rated by the employees. To measure job satisfaction, the questionnaire of Tims et al. (2013) is used. The questionnaire consists of three items. The items are: “I am satisfied with my current work”, “Generally speaking, I’m really
20 satisfied with my job”, and “Usually, I really enjoy my work”. The items are rated on a Likert scale, ranging from (1) totally disagree to (7) totally agree. A high score indicates that employees are satisfied with their job. The Cronbach’s alpha for job satisfaction is satisfying (⍺ = .809).
Dependent variable emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion is self-rated by the employees. Emotional exhaustion is measured by the questionnaire developed by Demerouti Bakker, Vardakou & Kantas, (2003). The questionnaire consists of eight items. One of the items is: “There are days when I feel tired before I arrive at work”. The items are assessed on a Likert-scale, ranging from ranging from (1) totally disagree to (7) totally agree. A high score indicates high emotional exhaustion, which means that employees have higher chance on a burnout. The Cronbach’s alpha for job satisfaction is satisfying (⍺ = .780).
Dependent variable role overload. Role overload is self-rated by the employees. To measure it, the items of the questionnaire of Bolino and Turnley (2005) are used. It consists of three items, which are “The amount of work I am expected to do is too great”, “I never seem to have enough time to get everything done at work”, and “It often seems like I have too much work for one person to do”. The items are rated on a Likert-scale, ranging from ranging from (1) totally disagree to (7) totally agree. A high score indicates that employees have a high role overload, which means that the employee feels that there is expected too much of him/her. The Cronbach’s alpha for role overload is satisfying (⍺ = .828).
Mediating variable enhancing job crafting. Enhancing job crafting of employees is self-rated by the employees. To measure enhancing job crafting of employees, the scale of Bindl et al. (2014) is used, of which 14 items are used. Examples of the items are “I actively took on more tasks in my work”, and “I actively sought to meet new people at work”. Task crafting, relational crafting, and cognitive crafting are measured, but also skill crafting is measured. The items are assessed on a Likert-scale, ranging from ranging from (1) totally disagree to (7) totally agree. A
21 high score indicates high enhancing job crafting, which means that employees actively do more that is required. The Cronbach’s alpha for enhancing job crafting is satisfying (⍺ = .868).
Independent variable work orientation. Work orientation is self-rated by the employees. The scale developed by Leana et al. (2009) is used to measure work orientation. For the present study, only the items which measure calling are used (not job and career). The scale consists of four items. One of the items is “My work is a chance to give back to the community”. The items are rated on a Likert-scale, ranging from ranging from (1) totally disagree to (7) totally agree. A high score indicates have high calling, which means that employee find their work socially fulfilling. Besides this scale of Leana et al. (2009), also a calling-fit measure, which is an adaption of the scale of Duffy et al. (2012), is used to measure calling. This item is added to get a higher Cronbach’s alpha. The question is “I am living out my calling right now in my job”, and is used to measure of employees are doing their calling at the current job. The Cronbach’s alpha for the measure of calling is unsatisfying (⍺ = .645), but workable.
Control variables. In this study there is controlled for two variables. First it is expected that age could influence the results, because Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas (2011) found that age is related to callings. So there is controlled for age in order to really measure the effect of callings. Furthermore, it is expected that gender might also influence the results. Bolino and Turnly (2005) found that doing more affect women more that man, so therefore we also control for gender in this study.
3.4 Analysis & Predictions
In this study, several regressions analysis are executed. With a regression it can be tested whether there is a relationship between the variables or not. And if there is one, the strength of these relationship can be tested too. In this study, four regression models are used in order to test the
22 hypothesis. In the first regression model hypothesis 1 is tested. To be precise, it is tested whether independent variable callings predict the dependent variables job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and role overload. I expect a positive effect of callings on well-being, which means that people who see their work as socially fulfilling have a higher job satisfaction, higher emotional exhaustion, and higher role overload.
In the second regression model the second hypothesis is tested. With other words, it is tested if the independent variable callings predict the mediating variable enhancing job crafting. The expectation is that callings have a positive effect on enhancing job crafting. To be precise, I expect that employees who see their work as socially fulfilling actively enhance the scope of their job.
In the third regression model the third hypothesis is tested. It is tested if mediating variable enhancing job crafting predicts the dependent variables job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and role overload. Again, I expect a positive effect between these two variables. With other words, I expect that employees who actively enhance the scope of their job have a higher job satisfaction, higher emotional exhaustion, and higher role overload.
In the fourth regression model hypothesis 4 is tested. To be precise, it is tested if the relationship between the independent variable callings and dependent variables job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and role overload are better explained if the mediating variable enhancing job crafting is used. This is done with the process of Hayes (2013). I expect that this is the case. With other words, I expect that if employees see their work as socially fulfilling, they actively enhance the scope of their job, which leads to a higher job satisfaction, higher emotional exhaustion, and higher role overload.
23 4. RESULTS
4.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations
The means, standard errors, and correlations of all the variables that are used in the present study are displayed in table 1. Expectedly, calling did correlate positively with job satisfaction (r(109) = .527, p = .000) and with role overload (r(109) = .195, p = .042). This means that employees who see their work as a calling also have higher job satisfaction and role overload. Unexpectedly, callings did correlate negatively, instead of positively, with emotional exhaustion (r(109) = -.213,
p = .026). This means that employees who see their work as a calling have lower emotional
exhaustion, instead of the expected higher emotional exhaustion. As expected, callings did correlate positively related to enhancing job crafting (r(109) = .246, p = .010). This indicates that people who see their work as a calling actively do more on the job. Unexpectedly, enhancing job crafting did not correlate significantly with job satisfaction (r(109) = -.169, p = .080), emotional exhaustion (r(109) = .114, p = .237), or role overload (r(109) = .074, p = .445). This means that people who engage in job crafting do not have higher job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, or role overload. Furthermore, age did correlate significantly with callings. However, it is not found that gender is related to callings, and neither are job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, or role overload.
24 Table 1. Means, SD's and correlations among study variables
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Age 33.42 12.284 1
2. Gender (1 = male, 2 =
female) 1.55 0.5 .134 1
3. Calling 4.479 0.970 .344** .143 1
4. Enhancing job crafting 5.018 0.693 -.120 -.057 .246** 1
5. Job satisfaction 5.395 0.958 .264** -.077 .527** .114 1
6. Emotional exhaustion 3.301 0.993 -.191* .130 -.213* -.169 -.518** 1
7. Role overload 3.477 1.455 .154 .094 .195* .445 -.127 .472** 1 Note: N = 121, *p < .05, **p < .01
4.2 Hypothesis testing
Model 1. In the first regression model the ability of callings to predict job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and role overload is examined, after controlling for age and gender. The results are presented in table 2. Firstly, the prediction was that callings have a positive effect on job satisfaction. Model 1 shows the predicted effect for callings (β = .513, p = .000), which confirms hypothesis 1a. This means that employees who see their work as a calling are in general more satisfied with their job. Together with age and gender, callings predict 31.3% of the variance in job satisfaction.
Secondly, the prediction was that callings have a positive effect on emotional exhaustion. However, model 1 does not show this positive effect, but instead it shows a negative effect (β = -.187, p = .063), which means that hypothesis 1b is not confirmed. This result indicates that people who see their work as a calling are not more emotionally exhausted. Together with age and gender, callings predict 9.1% of the variance in emotional exhaustion.
25 The third prediction was that callings also have a positive effect on role overload. Model 1 does not show this effect (β = .155, p = .131). This means that hypothesis 1c is not confirmed as well, which indicates that people who see their work as a calling do not feel more overloaded. Despite that the effect is not significant, the effect is in the predicted direction. Together with age and gender, callings predict 5.0% of the variance in job satisfaction.
Table 2. Regression results of callings on well-being
Dependent variable
Job satisfaction Emotional exhaustion Role overload
Model 1 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Control variables Age .280** .110 -.212* -.150 .144 .093 Gender -.115 -.165* .158 .177 .075 .059 Independent variable Calling .513*** -.187 .155 R² .083 .313 .061 .091 .029 .050 Adjusted R² .066 .293 .043 .066 .011 .023 Change in adjusted R² .230 .030 .021 Note: N = 109, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Model 2. In the second regression model the ability of callings to predict enhancing job crafting of employees is examined, after controlling for age and gender. The results are presented in table 3. The prediction was that callings have a positive effect on enhancing job crafting of employees. The model shows this effect (β = .382, p = .000). This confirms hypothesis 2. This results means that employees who see their work as a calling actively do more on the job. Callings predict, together with age and gender, 11.4% of the variance in enhancing job crafting.
26 Table 3. Regression results of callings on enhancing job crafting
Note: N = 109, * p < .05, ** p < .01
Model 3. In the third regression model it is tested whether enhancing job crafting of employees predicts job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and role overload. The results are displayed in table 4. The first prediction was that enhancing job crafting of employees has a positive effect on job satisfaction. However, the model does not show this effect (β = .083, p = .380). This means that hypothesis 3a is not confirmed., which indicates that employees who actively do more on the job are not more satisfied with their job. Age, gender and enhancing job crafting explain 9.0% of the variance in job satisfaction.
Secondly, it was predicted that enhancing job crafting of employees has a positive effect on emotional exhaustion. The model does show an effect, but in contrast to what was predicted, it is a negative effect (β = -.036 p = .704), which does not confirm hypothesis 3b. This results indicate that employees who actively do more on the job are not more emotionally exhausted. Enhancing
Mediation variable Enhancing job crafting
Model 2 Step 1 Step 2
Control variables Age -.123 -.249* Gender -.062 .024 Independent variable Calling .382*** R² .017 .114 Adjusted R² -.002 .120 Change in adjusted R² .127
27 job crafting of employees, together with age and gender, explains 6.2% of the variance in emotional exhaustion.
Thirdly, the prediction was that enhancing job crafting has a positive effect on role overload. However, the model does not show this effect (β = .274, p = .004). This means that 3c is confirmed, which indicates that employees who actively do more on the experience more role overload in general. Together with age and gender, enhancing job crafting of employees explains 10.3% of the variance in role overload.
Table 4. Regression results of enhancing job crafting on well-being
Note: N = 109, * p < .05, ** p < .01
Model 4. In the fourth regression model it was tested whether the relationship between callings and job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and role overload is mediated by enhancing job crafting. The results are presented in table 5. Firstly, it was predicted that enhancing job crafting mediates the relationship between callings and job satisfaction. The total effect was found (effect size = .507,
Dependent variable
Job satisfaction Emotional exhaustion Role overload
Model 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2
Control variables Age .280** .290** -.212* -.216* .144 .177 Gender -.115 -.115 .158 .161 .075 .058 Independent variable Calling .083 -.036 .274** R² .083 .090 .061 .062 .029 .103 Adjusted R² .066 .064 .043 .036 .011 .077 Change in adjusted R² .007 .001 .074
28
p = .000). Also the direct effect was found (effect size = .547, p = .000). The effect size of the
indirect effect was -.040. However, the confidence interval contains zero (CI = -.112, .008), so this effect is not significant. This means that hypothesis 4a is not confirmed. The result indicates that people who see work as a calling are in general more satisfied with their job. However, there is no evidence found that employees who see their work as a calling are more satisfied because they actively enhance their job.
Secondly, it was expected that enhancing job crafting mediates the relationship between callings and emotional exhaustion. The total effect was not found (effect size = -.191, p = .063). Also the direct effect was not found (effect size = -.204, p = .067). The effect size of the indirect effect was .012. However, the confidence interval contains zero (CI = -.067, .092), so this effect is not significant. This indicates that hypothesis 4b is not confirmed, which means that people who see work as a calling do not feel more emotionally exhausted, even not if these employees proactively do more on the job.
Thirdly, it was predicted that enhancing job crafting mediates the relationship between callings and role overload. The total effect was not found (effect size = .232, p = .131). Also the direct effect was not found (effect size = .088, p = .589). The effect size of the indirect effect was .146. The confidence interval does not contain zero (CI = -.047, .304), so this effect is significant. This indicates that hypothesis 4c is partially confirmed, which means that people who see their work as calling are not overloaded in general. However, if employees who see their work as a calling engage proactively do more on the job, they can feel more overloaded. With other words, the increase in role overload, although not directly significant, can be fully explained by the increased enhancing job crafting of people who see their work as a calling.
29 Table 5. Regression results of mediation effects with enhancing job crafting as mediator
Note: Independent variable is calling, BC = bias corrected, CI = confidence interval, N = 109
4.3 Additional tests and results
Besides the tests for the hypothesis, there are some additional test done. For the relationship between callings and job crafting it is examined which kind of crafting is predicted by callings the most. It is found that it is particularly the enhancing cognitive crafting that callings predict (β = .378, p = .000). But also enhancing skill crafting (β = .340, p = .001) and enhancing task crafting (β = .280, p = .006) are predicted by calling. In contrast to this, enhancing relational crafting is not predicted (only marginally) by callings (β = .192, p = .059).
Also, it is examined which kind of crafting predicts role overload the most. It is enhancing skill crafting that has the biggest impact on role overload (β = .292, p = .002). Also enhancing cognitive crafting (β = .230, p = .016) and enhancing task crafting (β = .220, p = .022) have an Model 4
DV Job satisfaction Bootstrapping BC 95% CI
Mediator Point estimate SE Lower Higher
Enhancing job crafting -.040 .030 -.112 .008
DV Emotional exhaustion Bootstrapping BC 95% CI
Mediator Point estimate SE Lower Higher
Enhancing job crafting .012 .039 -.067 .092
DV Role overload Bootstrapping BC 95% CI
Mediator Point estimate SE Lower Higher
30 influence on role overload. Again, enhancing relational crafting does not have an influence on role overload (β = .110, p = .261).
5. DISCUSSION
In the present study it is examined if callings predict enhancing job crafting, which may in turn predict being. To be specific, it is tested whether the relationship between callings and well-being, which is measured by job satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, and role overload, is mediated by enhancing job crafting. Four hypothesis were proposed. The first hypothesis was partly confirmed; only the effect of callings on job satisfaction was found. The second hypothesis was confirmed. The third hypothesis was also partly confirmed; only the effect of enhancing job crafting on role overload is found. Finally, the fourth hypothesis is partly confirmed as well; only the effect for role overload is found. This means that people who see their work as a calling feel more role overloaded because they proactively do more on the job.
Callings and job satisfaction. The finding that callings are positively related to job satisfaction is completely in line with the expectations and extant literature. Several studies already found this relationship (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Duffy, Dik et al, 2011; Harzer & Ruch, 2012; Peterson et al., 2009), and in the present study this relationship is proved again.
Callings and enhancing job crafting. The expectation that people who see their work as a calling engage more in enhancing job crafting was confirmed. The only other study which tested the relationship between callings and job crafting is the study of Leana et al. (2009). The result of this study is not in line with the result of study of Leana et al. (2009). In their research about childcare workers, they did not found that employees with a calling orientation engage more in enhancing job crafting. Not finding the effect for callings might possibly have to do with the fact that Leana et al. (2009) only looked at one occupation, while callings are associated with all
31 occupations. However, the relationship between callings and enhancing job crafting is well explicable. Wrzesniewski et al. (1997) found that employees who see their work as a calling are more engaged with their work, spend more time working, and view the job as more central to their lives. As a consequence, employees who see their work as a calling actively craft their job because of a higher investment in work itself (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Also, the effect of callings on enhancing job crafting can be well explained with the self-determination theory (as done earlier in this paper); employees with a calling are so intrinsically motivated to do their work, and therefore these employees are actively engaged to their work. This active engagement can end up enhancing job crafting. With other words, the active engagement makes sure that the employees end up doing more.
Furthermore, the results of the additional test suggest that callings lead mostly to enhancing cognitive crafting. This means that people who see their work as a calling are not actually going to do more, but they only cognitively redefine their tasks (Wang et al., 2015). “For example, academic researchers may view their job as a combination of teaching students and writing papers, but they also can change their view by seeing their work as making an important contribution to the scientific community and society as a whole” (Wang et al., 2015, p. 3). That people with a calling cognitively craft more might be due to that employees who see work as a calling also have a strong identification with their work and occupation (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). Employees with a calling view work as an important part of themselves (Wrzesniewski et al., 1997). Therefore, they may see their work as an integrated whole, and not just a set of loose activities.
Callings and role overload. Another interesting finding is the relationship between callings and role overload. The direct effect of this relationship is not found, but the indirect effect, with enhancing job crafting as mediator, is found. The indirect effect can be explained well; employees who see their work as a calling tend to proactively do more on the job, which results in the feelings
32 of overload (Bolino & Turnly, 2005). This finding is in line with the theory about the inverted U that Grant and Schwartz (2011) use to explain that too much of a good thing can have negative outcomes. They argue that people should find the mean between low and high levels of a good things. In this case, when people with a calling engage in enhancing job crafting, they are going to do too much of a good thing, and therefore feel overloaded.
Striking is that employees do not feel overloaded when they only see work as a calling, and do not engage in enhancing job crafting. This might be due to another process that causes an effect in the opposite direction. With other words, enhancing job crafting is a positive mediator, because more enhancing job crafting results in higher role overload. At the same time, there is a negative mediator which mediates between callings and role overload, which causes that the total effect is partly being nullified. Therefore, the total effect is no longer significant. A possible negative mediator can be picked out from another job crafting theory than is used in the present study. Tims et al. (2013) use the Job Demands – Resources (JD-R) model to operationalize job crafting. They define job crafting as “the changes that employees initiate to modify their levels of job demands and resources” (p. 236). Job demands are job characteristics that require sustained effort from employees, and therefore, are associated with certain costs (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli., 2001). Job resources are job characteristics that contribute to achieving work related goals, reducing the effect of job demands and the associated costs, and stimulation personal development (Demerouti et al., 2001). In brief, high levels of job resources protect employees from role overload, because having access to many resources makes sure that employees have enough resources to fulfill the job demands (Tims et al., 2013). This suggests that people who see work as a callings engage more in enhancing job crafting (positive mediator), and simultaneously craft enough resources to fulfill these extra things (negative mediator), so that the total effect of callings on role overload is not found.
33 Calling and emotional exhaustion. The finding that, although not significant, callings have a negative effect on emotional exhaustion is an interesting one, because the prediction was that callings had positive effect on emotional exhaustion. The negative effect of callings on emotional exhaustion could be declared by the view of Birkeland and Buch (2014) about passion. These scholars make a distinction between harmonious passion and obsessive passion. “Harmonious passion (HP) results from an autonomous internalization of the activity into the person’s identity” (Vallerand et al. 2003, p.757). The activity is important for individuals and individuals are very motivated to do it. With this type of passion, the activity occupies a significant but not overpowering space in the person’s identity and is in harmony with other aspects of the person’s life. “Obsessive passion (OP), by contrast, results from a controlled internalization of the activity into one’s identity” (p. 757). Although individuals like what they do, they feel compelled to engage in the activity due to internal contingencies that control them. They are ‘forced’ to do the passionate activity. Because the activity engagement is out of the person’s control, it eventually takes disproportionate space in the person’s identity and causes conflict with other activities in the person’s life (Vallerand et al. 2003).
It could be argued that callings are associated with HP, because of the importance of work and employees’ strong motivation for the work. When the passion, with which employees do their callings, changes from HP to OP, this could have detrimental outcomes, since it can take a disproportionate space in one’s life and can cause conflict with other aspects of life. Birkeland and Buch (2014) found indeed that that HP was negatively related to burnout, and OP was positively related to burnout. So a logical explanation for not finding a negative effect on burnout is that callings are only associated with HP, and not with OP.
34 5.2 Contributions
The findings of the present study contribute to the existing literature on callings and job crafting in several ways. First, there is almost no research about the relationship between callings and job crafting. This study then examined this relationship. The findings extend the literature with insights about the relationship about callings and job crafting. It is not found earlier that employees with a calling orientation engage more in enhancing job crafting. Also, insights about which kind of crafting influence job crafting the most is new to the literature. It is found that enhancing cognitive crafting is influenced the most by callings, but also enhancing skill and task crafting are influenced by callings.
Second, a contribution to literature is the finding about job crafting and role overload; result suggests that enhancing job crafting predicts role overload. Job crafting is studied earlier, but these studies have never looked at role overload as outcome. In addition, the different kinds of crafting are considered again. Finding suggest that skill crafting, cognitive crafting, and task crafting all predict role overload.
The third contribution to the literature is the finding that callings are positively related to job satisfaction, in a way that it confirms what other scholars already found (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Duffy, Dik et al., 2011; Harzer & Ruch, 2012; Peterson et al., 2009). This confirms the ‘bright side of callings’. However, the findings suggest there is some evidence for the ‘dark side of callings’ as well, but only if employees who see work as a calling engage in enhancing job crafting. Thus, the final contribution to literature is that callings and (enhancing) job crafting is not always a good combination, because it can lead to role overload. This finding contributes to the understanding of how the relationship between callings and well-being might work.
35 5.3 Limitations and future research
This study also has limitations. First, it is acknowledged that causality cannot by proved. This study is cross-sectional study, which has as a consequence that it cannot be proved that callings actually result in enhancing job crafting, job satisfaction, and role overload (unless employees enhance their job). For instance, it is possible that the causality proposed in this study, although plausible, is reversed. It can be the case that job crafting predicts callings. As Wrzesniewski (2003) says: “Through job crafting, one can realize a calling orientation by reshaping the tasks and relational boundaries of the job in ways that allow one to view the work as making a bigger contribution to the wider world” (p. 304).) This suggests that employee firstly craft their job, and through those crafting activities they can realize their calling. For future research it is important to prove causality by doing a longitudinal study.
Furthermore, Cardador and Caza (2012) describe that many of the negative outcomes of callings become more salient the longer employees are pursuing their calling. With other words, when entering a profession which an employee sees as a calling, he or she may experience positive benefits. However, there seems to be evidence for the fact that the longer one is pursuing a calling, sustaining those benefits may be challenging. In order to better understand callings and the way they might influence well-being, it is necessary to conduct more research into this subject. For example, scholars should measure calling time 1, and well-being at time 2. Even better would be calling at time 1, positive indicator for well-being at time 2, and negative indicators at time 3, because Cardador and Caza (2012) suggest that sustaining positive outcomes over time might be difficult. A longitudinal study is necessary to prove this proposition.
Finally, the data is gathered by self-reported questionnaire, which raises the possibility of common method bias. This means that participants are biased, and that there is a chance that participants for example fill out socially desirable answers or are exposed to the common rater
36 effect (Podsakoff et al., 2003). However, the evaluation of well-being may be subjective, and self-reported questionnaire might be the best method to measure these perception and feelings (Sousa-Poza & Sousa-(Sousa-Poza, 2000).
The findings of this study suggest more paths for future research. Scholars can also look into why people who see their work as a calling are more satisfied with their job. In this study, and several other studies, it is already proved that callings influence job satisfaction, but how this works is not really clear. Scholars should look into why, and also when, this relationship exists. Another possible path for future research is to determine the impact callings have on the performance of employees and on the performance of the organizations. Also, it might be interesting for scholars to look deeper into the different kinds of job crafting; task, relational, and cognitive (and skill) crafting. Finally, because it is found that callings are related to age, it might be interesting to examine if there are certain generations that are more associated with having a calling.
5.4 Strengths
Besides limitations, this study also has strengths. One of the strengths of this study is that objective tests are used since the participants were not personally involved with the research and the results. This means that the participants filled out the questionnaire not (or less) biased. Also, the participants who filled out the survey were from organizations in several sectors. Because of this, the results can be generalized and used by organizations in different sectors.
5.5 Practical implications
The findings of the present study have implications for organizations. Organizations might benefit from the fact that their employees see their work as a calling. Firstly, because people who see work as a calling engage more in enhancing job crafting, which means that employees are expanding
37 their activities at work. And secondly, because employees who see their work as a calling are more satisfied with their job, which result in higher performance (Wright and Cropanzano, 2000; Wright, et al., 2007). For organizations this means that HRM department can for example recruit people who see the vacancy as their calling. However, when hiring people with a calling, management should also keep an eye on the crafting activities of the employees. When these employees are proactively going to do more, they have a higher risk to become overloaded, even when employees do not have a calling.
6. CONCLUSION
Nowadays, scholars are more and more interested in callings and their possible outcomes. Several studies have already shown that callings have positive effects on the well-being employees. However, there are also signals that calling might have ‘a dark side’. The results of this study indicate that people who see their work as a calling have indeed a higher well-being (higher job satisfaction). But if people who see their work as al calling proactively do more on the job, it may also result in lower well-being (higher role overload). This means that the relationship between calling and well-being is mediated for one of the indicator of well-being, and not for all. In general, the findings suggest that callings can be a good thing, but when people with a calling engage in enhancing job crafting it can have detrimental outcomes. For the education sector this suggests that it is not the callings that cause the high burnout percentage, so teachers can keep doing their job with great interest and passion.
