Calling and the Good Life: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Extension

IF 8.3 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Shoshana R. Dobrow, Hannah Weisman, D. Heller, J. Tosti-Kharas
{"title":"Calling and the Good Life: A Meta-Analysis and Theoretical Extension","authors":"Shoshana R. Dobrow, Hannah Weisman, D. Heller, J. Tosti-Kharas","doi":"10.1177/00018392231159641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While a positive view of calling has been ubiquitous since its introduction into the literature over two decades ago, research remains unsettled about the extent to which it contributes to various aspects of the good life: an optimal way of living well via worthwhile endeavors. Further, scholars have identified two conceptual types of calling, marked by internal versus external foci; yet their differential impact on outcomes indicative of the good life, such as eudaimonic and hedonic well-being (characterized by the experience of purpose and meaning versus pleasure and happiness, respectively), is unknown. Through a meta-analysis of 201 studies, we provide the first systematic review focused on these two fundamental theoretical issues in the calling literature: how strongly related callings are to outcomes in the domains of work and life and which type of calling (internally or externally focused) more strongly predicts these outcomes, if either. We find that callings more strongly relate to outcomes indicative of the good life than recently argued. We further find that callings are more strongly linked to work than to life outcomes and to eudaimonic than to hedonic outcomes. The two types of calling converge in being associated with many similar outcomes, but they show some divergence: internally focused callings are more positively related to hedonic outcomes and less positively related to eudaimonic outcomes, relative to externally focused callings. This finding supports a view of callings as hierarchically structured, with a higher-order calling factor composed of two correlated yet distinct lower-order calling types. Integrating our meta-analytic findings with relevant literatures, we propose a theoretical model that addresses psychological and social need fulfillment through which different types of callings contribute to the good life.","PeriodicalId":7203,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Science Quarterly","volume":"68 1","pages":"508 - 550"},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Science Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392231159641","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

While a positive view of calling has been ubiquitous since its introduction into the literature over two decades ago, research remains unsettled about the extent to which it contributes to various aspects of the good life: an optimal way of living well via worthwhile endeavors. Further, scholars have identified two conceptual types of calling, marked by internal versus external foci; yet their differential impact on outcomes indicative of the good life, such as eudaimonic and hedonic well-being (characterized by the experience of purpose and meaning versus pleasure and happiness, respectively), is unknown. Through a meta-analysis of 201 studies, we provide the first systematic review focused on these two fundamental theoretical issues in the calling literature: how strongly related callings are to outcomes in the domains of work and life and which type of calling (internally or externally focused) more strongly predicts these outcomes, if either. We find that callings more strongly relate to outcomes indicative of the good life than recently argued. We further find that callings are more strongly linked to work than to life outcomes and to eudaimonic than to hedonic outcomes. The two types of calling converge in being associated with many similar outcomes, but they show some divergence: internally focused callings are more positively related to hedonic outcomes and less positively related to eudaimonic outcomes, relative to externally focused callings. This finding supports a view of callings as hierarchically structured, with a higher-order calling factor composed of two correlated yet distinct lower-order calling types. Integrating our meta-analytic findings with relevant literatures, we propose a theoretical model that addresses psychological and social need fulfillment through which different types of callings contribute to the good life.
召唤与美好生活:元分析与理论延伸
尽管自20多年前引入文献以来,积极的呼唤观一直无处不在,但研究仍不确定它在多大程度上促进了美好生活的各个方面:通过有价值的努力实现美好生活的最佳方式。此外,学者们已经确定了两种概念类型的呼唤,以内部焦点和外部焦点为标志;然而,它们对美好生活结果的不同影响,如幸福感和享乐幸福感(分别以目标和意义的体验与快乐和幸福为特征),尚不清楚。通过对201项研究的荟萃分析,我们首次对呼叫文献中的这两个基本理论问题进行了系统综述:呼叫与工作和生活领域的结果有多强的相关性,以及哪种类型的呼叫(内部或外部关注)更能有力地预测这些结果(如果有的话)。我们发现,与最近争论的相比,来电更能反映美好生活的结果。我们进一步发现,职业与工作的联系比与生活结果的联系更紧密,与幸福的联系比享乐的结果更紧密。这两种类型的呼叫在与许多相似的结果相关方面趋于一致,但它们显示出一些差异:与外部呼叫相比,专注于内部的呼叫与享乐结果呈正相关,而与日常结果不太呈正相关。这一发现支持了一种观点,即调用是分层结构的,高阶调用因子由两种相关但不同的低阶调用类型组成。将我们的元分析结果与相关文献相结合,我们提出了一个理论模型,该模型解决了心理和社会需求满足问题,不同类型的职业通过该模型为美好生活做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.50
自引率
3.80%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Administrative Science Quarterly, under the ownership and management of the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University, has consistently been a pioneer in organizational studies since the inception of the field. As a premier journal, it consistently features the finest theoretical and empirical papers derived from dissertations, along with the latest contributions from well-established scholars. Additionally, the journal showcases interdisciplinary work in organizational theory and offers insightful book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信