Using self‐determination theory to understand the relationship between calling enactment and daily well‐being

• Published date: 01 November 2015
• Author: Michael Clinton,Ali Budjanovcanin,Neil Conway,Jane Sturges
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2014
• Date: 01 November 2015

Using self-determination theory to understand the

relationship between calling enactment and daily

well-being

NEIL CONWAY

1

*, MICHAEL CLINTON

2

, JANE STURGES

2

AND

ALI BUDJANOVCANIN

2

1

School of Management, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, U.K.

2

Department of Management, King’s College London, London, U.K.

Summary This paper contributes to the calling literature by using self-determination theory—a theory that makes dis-

tinctions between different types of motivation—in order to gain a better understanding of how enacting a

calling may relate both positively and negatively to well-being. We use a daily diary method novel to the call-

ing field and a sample with a distinctive calling, Church of England clergy. We expect daily calling enactment

to relate positively to daily well-being via more autonomous forms of motivation (intrinsic and identified mo-

tivation) and negatively via less autonomous forms (introjected motivation). Furthermore, we consider how

the relationship between calling enactment and motivation may be moderated by perceived competence.

The hypotheses were tested using multi-level structural equation modeling. There was strong support for call-

ing enactment relating positively to well-being, and this relationship was fully mediated by intrinsic and iden-

tified motivation; the hypothesized negative pathway, from calling enactment, to introjected motivation, to

well-being, was not supported. However, perceived competence was found to moderate some of the relation-

ships between calling and the motivation types, where calling enactment is linked to lower introjected moti-

vation at high levels of competence. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: calling; calling enactment; self-determination theory; motivation; competence; daily well-being

Introduction

There has been increased scholarly attention paid to the relationship between calling and well-being; it is generally

assumed that calling contributes to well-being and life satisfaction, as people with a calling pursue goals that they find

deeply meaningful (Duffy, Allan, Autin, & Bott, 2013). Nonetheless, how and why calling relates to well-being is

acknowledged to be under-researched and complex, as enacting a calling may also require people to make sacrifices

and therefore relate negatively to well-being (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Duffy et al., 2013). One reason for this

is that enacting a calling is motivationally complex. It is simplistic to assume that people pursuing their calling will be

more motivated; we need to examine in what ways they are motivated. Some behaviors may reflect intrinsic interests,

whereas others are the result of fulfilling an “unbending duty”(Bunderson & Thompson, 2009, p. 50).

This paper contributes to the calling literature by using self-determination theory—a theory that makes distinc-

tions between different types of motivation—to understand better how enacting a calling relates both positively

and negatively to daily well-being. Self-determination theory is highly apposite for understanding the relations hip

between calling and well-being because features of calling, when enacted, correspond with different types of moti-

vation which in turn have distinctive links with well-being. Although a small number of studies consider intrinsic

*Correspondence to: Neil Conway, School of Management, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, TW20 0EX, London, U.K. E-mail:

neil.conway@royalholloway.ac.uk

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 23 January 2014

Revised 25 March 2015, Accepted 30 March 2015

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 1114–1131 (2015)

Published online 3 June 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.2014

Research Article

motivation in a calling (e.g., Dik, Eldridge, Steger, & Duffy, 2012), the different types of motivations associated

with a calling have not yet been explored (Elangovan, Pinder, & McLean, 2010).

Our second contribution to calling research is to examine circumstances where enacting a calling may be difficult

for individuals, that is when the requirements of calling are outside a person’s perceived competence. Feeling called

to an area of work does not necessarily imply competence in that area of work, but as yet little is known about how

lacking competence in one’s calling affects motivation (Elangovan et al., 2010). We hypothesize that when enacting

a calling is at odds with a person’s perceived competence, individuals will draw less on internal and more on exter-

nal types of motivation (i.e., less intrinsic and more introjected).

Our third contribution is to literature that distinguishes between having and living a calling (Duffy et al., 2013).

Here we argue that even for those who are occupationally well-placed to live their calling (clergy in this case), the

extent to which people live—through enacting—their calling will vary on a daily basis. Daily work may entail

activities prototypical to a calling; however, it may also involve enacting activities that are much less central to it.

Previous research reveals little about how calling is enacted on a daily basis and in what ways this relates to daily

motivation and well-being.

We therefore expect calling to relate positively to well-being via more autonomous forms of motivation (intrinsic

and identified motivation) and negatively via less autonomous forms (introjected motivation); we also examine the

role of competence in the motivation process. Figure 1 summarizes our theoretical framework. We use a daily diary

method, novel to calling research, that is well-suited to capturing daily calling enactment, motivation and affective

well-being states, which are essentially dynamic constructs. Our study is based on a sample with a distinctive

calling, Church of England clergy.

Calling and its Links to Motivation and Well-being

Defining calling and calling enactment

A calling is a long-term work orientation (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985; Elangovan et al.,

2010; Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010; Wrzesniewski, 2011) that comprises individuals’core beliefs and pref-

erences about work in general and shapes how individuals make sense of work and life outside of work. In recent

reviews of calling definitions across the social sciences, (Dik & Duffy 2009; Duffy & Dik, 2013) identify three

common features of a calling as an external summons, profound meaning, and in most cases a clearly implied

prosocial motivation. Accordingly, we define calling as “a transcendent summons, experienced as originating

beyond the self, to approach a particular life role in a manner oriented toward demonstrating or deriving a sense

of purpose or meaningfulness and that holds other-oriented values and goals as primary sources of motivation”

Figure 1. Theoretical framework linking calling enactment, competence, motivation and daily well-being

CALLING AND SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY 1115

Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 36, 1114–1131 (2015)

DOI: 10.1002/job