Journal of Vocational Behavior 114 (2019) 88–99

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Finding the “I” in “Team”: The role of groups in an individual's

T
pursuit of calling
⁎
Brittany C. Buis , Amanda J. Ferguson, Jon P. Briscoe
Department of Management, College of Business, Northern Illinois University, Barsema Hall 245, DeKalb, IL 60115-2897, USA

A R T IC LE I N F O ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Extant literature on work as a calling is primarily focused on individual factors. The role of social
Calling context, particularly the groups to which individuals belong, is largely unexplored despite the
Careers importance of others in the construction of meaning and the central role of groups in the orga-
Teams nization of work. We seek to address this conspicuous gap by exploring work groups as a rich and
Optimal distinctiveness
relevant context in which individuals engage in the evaluative experiences inherent in the pursuit
Social identity
of calling. In so doing, we integrate research on calling with research on social identity theory
and optimal distinctiveness in groups to present a conceptual typology of groups and calling. Our
typology crosses the calling dimensions of search and presence with the identity motives of
belonging and distinctiveness reflected in the group context, proposing six classifications of in-
dividual experiences of calling in these social contexts. Finally, we suggest practical considera-
tions for individuals and groups in each of these classifications to help individuals satisfy unmet
needs in identity motives related to calling, and to ultimately improve success in pursuing
callings.

1. Introduction

How do individuals realize that they have been “called” to do something? Calling is a deep sense of purpose and meaningfulness
in work (Dik & Duffy, 2009) that has been linked to a number of positive outcomes for individuals including career and psychological
success (Hall & Chandler, 2005). Understanding the process through which individuals clarify and develop a career calling is critical
yet challenging because calling is subjective and inherently unique to each person (Dobrow, 2004; Hunter, Dik, & Banning, 2010). As
such, much of the extant literature on career as a calling is focused on individual antecedents of calling, such as unique experiences of
special significance or spirituality (Dik & Duffy, 2009), or individual characteristics like self-confidence and self-awareness (Hall &
Chandler, 2005). However, calling inherently involves others as important contributors to the construction of meaning (Rosso, Dekas,
& Wrzesniewski, 2010). For example, others may help individuals discern what they have been called to do, or may be a critical
motivating factor that individuals consider when contemplating meaning in their work (Dik & Duffy, 2009; Duffy, Dik, Douglass,
England, & Velez, 2018). After all, “individuals do not enact their vocation in a vacuum. Rather, work involves, to some degree,
responding to the expectations of various stakeholders” (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006: p. 1040).
This said, we have relatively little understanding about how social contexts shape calling. Separate streams of research suggest
that individuals may look to family members (Conklin, 2012), to others doing similar work in a given domain or occupation
(Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Dobrow, 2013; Schabram & Maitlis, 2017), or to leaders and mentors to help them construe meaning
in their work. Leaders, for example, use values-driven techniques to help motivate followers to higher levels of morality and purpose

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bcbuis@uic.edu (B.C. Buis), amanda.j.ferguson@niu.edu (A.J. Ferguson), jonbriscoe@niu.edu (J.P. Briscoe).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.02.009
Received 23 December 2017; Received in revised form 3 November 2018; Accepted 22 February 2019
Available online 25 February 2019
0001-8791/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
B.C. Buis, et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 114 (2019) 88–99

(Burns, 1978) as well as greater personal expressiveness and development (Ilies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005). Individuals may also
be influenced by the broader organizational context, such as organizational culture (Schein, 2010) or practices (Dik & Duffy, 2009),
in discerning their callings. For example, a serving culture can highlight a “priority on helping others” (Liden, Wayne, Liao, & Meuser,
2014: p. 1435) and strong work-family cultures result in stronger work-family attitudes (Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999).
However, the groups to which individuals belong represent an important yet relatively unexplored source of relational in-
formation about calling. Group memberships influence “much of what people consider important, from the work they accomplish to
the emotions they feel” (Lickel et al., 2000: p. 223). Work groups are common social contexts in which work is performed (Devine,
Clayton, Philips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999) and individuals typically belong to multiple teams1 during their careers (O'Leary,
Mortensen, & Woolley, 2011). People perceive work groups as high in importance and entitativity (i.e., bonded together in a coherent
unit: Campbell, 1958) and strongly value membership in these groups (Lickel et al., 2000). Indeed, individuals tend to identify with
and form attachments with work groups more than they do with their organizations (Riketta & Van Dick, 2005) or professions
(Johnson, Morgeson, Ilgen, Meyer, & Lloyd, 2006), which have previously been highlighted in research on calling (e.g., Bunderson &
Thompson, 2009; Dobrow, 2013; Schabram & Maitlis, 2017). Finally, work groups are central in socializing individuals to work-
related norms and values (Feldman, 1981), suggesting that individuals generate and contemplate meanings associated with work in
groups.
Thus, it is curious that, given the influence of groups on individuals in work-related contexts, we have such a limited body of
evidence relating teams to the development of individual calling. To address this gap, we draw on research on social identity theory
and optimal distinctiveness theory (Brewer, 1991) to provide a theoretical framework of how individuals experience callings in
teams. We first review literature on calling, particularly focusing on known antecedents as well as the dimensions of “search” and
“presence” in the pursuit of calling (Dik & Duffy, 2009; Dik, Eldridge, Steger, & Duffy, 2012). Next, we present arguments for how and
why groups are an important context in which individuals engage in evaluative activities related to calling, with particular attention
to how groups fulfill or thwart individual needs for distinctiveness and belonging (Brewer, 1991; Hornsey & Jetten, 2004)—identity
motives that have implications for calling (Conklin, 2012; Hunter et al., 2010; Rosso et al., 2010). Finally, we present a typology of
individual experiences based on whether the individual is searching for calling or acknowledges the presence of a calling, and
whether the group context reflects the fulfilment of individual needs to belong, to be distinct, or both. This typology includes
examples of each experience as well as considerations for both individuals and groups within these types. Ultimately, we seek to open
a dialogue about teams and calling, and spur ideas for theory, empirical research, and practical implications on these themes.

2. Calling

Calling is not a singular event; it is not at once discovered. It involves engaging in evaluative activities and experiences to
determine purpose, meaningfulness, and contribution to others (Dik & Duffy, 2009; Duffy et al., 2018), and finding work “that one
feels destined to fill by virtue of particular gifts, talents and/or idiosyncratic life opportunities” (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009: p.
38). While not everyone views work as a calling (Dik et al., 2012; Dik & Duffy, 2009; Wrzesniewski, McCauley, Rozin, & Schwartz,
1997), current population estimates suggest that calling is relevant to at least half of the American workforce (Duffy, Autin, Allan, &
Douglass, 2015), and extant research suggests it is significant in other cultural contexts as well (e.g., Dumulescu & Opre, 2014;
Praskova, Hood, & Creed, 2014; Zhang, Hirschi, Herrmann, Wei, & Zhang, 2015).
Research on antecedents of calling suggests this may be related to both individual and external factors. For example, self-con-
fidence, self-awareness, a clear sense of identity, intrinsic religiosity, and a strong urge to find meaning can spark an interest in calling
(Davidson & Caddell, 1994; Elangovan, Pinder, & McLean, 2010; Hall & Chandler, 2005). Self-awareness, for instance, might enable
individuals to sense their lives unfolding in such a way that reveals their unique gifts (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). Individuals
with prosocial motives or other-oriented values are also drawn to pursue their work as a calling, aligning their work with their sense
of purpose and with others who share and support their motivation and values (Davidson & Caddell, 1994; Dik et al., 2012). Yet
people might also feel a strong external summons to a calling, such as through a strong relationship with God or a unique experience
of special significance (Dik & Duffy, 2009), or through life experiences with and/or comfort in a specific domain (Dobrow, 2013). For
example, growing up in a family business may spark introspection and reflection on one's unique gifts as well as how best to serve the
family legacy and others. Such individuals might feel destined to take on a role (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009) or seek a calling
through a sense of social comfort with others who work in a specific domain (Dobrow, 2013). In short, one of these factors, or a
combination, must occur to ignite an interest in calling.
Importantly, Dik and Duffy (2009) specify two distinct yet overlapping dimensions related to the pursuit of calling: “search” and
“presence”. The search dimension involves the degree to which individuals are seeking a calling whereas the presence dimension
involves the degree to which individuals are perceiving a calling (Dik et al., 2012).2 Individuals searching for a calling are open to

1
Although technical distinctions can be made between teams, which are collectives of individuals working toward a common goal, and working
groups, which are collectives of individuals who interact with one another but work more autonomously and independently (Thompson, 2011), we
follow previous reviews of groups and teams research in using these terms interchangeably (e.g., Ilgen, 1999; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Kozlowski &
Ilgen, 2006).
2
For clarity, we use the terms “searching” and “seeking” to refer to individuals who are looking for a calling (i.e. the “search” dimension) and
“presence of”, “perception of” and “perceiving” to refer to individuals who have acknowledged, at least to some extent, that they have a calling (i.e.
the “presence” dimension).

89
B.C. Buis, et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 114 (2019) 88–99

engaging with this approach to work, and are actively attempting to do so (Dik et al., 2012; Duffy & Sedlacek, 2007). In terms of
careers, individuals are searching for what aligns with what they are meant to do, for what will give their lives purpose and meaning,
and they are evaluating what this may be (Dik et al., 2012). In this dimension, therefore, individuals engage in the evaluation and
construction of identity and meaning (e.g., assessing factors within and beyond themselves as part of this search). This process,
combined with adaptability, fosters the discernment of calling (e.g., Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Dobrow, 2004; Hall & Chandler,
2005; Kreiner et al., 2006). Such ‘identity work’ promotes awareness of calling and, together with adaptability, enables individuals to
learn new career skills in the cyclical process of discernment of calling (Hall & Chandler, 2005).
In contrast, individuals with a presence of calling acknowledge to some extent that they have a calling and, with regard to their
careers, are attempting to pursue a line of work that aligns with this calling (Dik et al., 2012; Dik & Duffy, 2009). Pursuing a career
within the domain of one's calling contributes to an overall sense of life purpose and meaning (Dik et al., 2012), increases occu-
pational identification (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009), and leads to the “intertwining” of personal and work identities (Dobrow,
2004). Further, as the presence of calling strengthens, the antecedents that previously functioned as sources of ignition now act as
sources of fuel, and once the fire is sparked, it must be tended. The tending of the fire is continual and may occur as through a
bellows: as one engages in evaluative experiences, these experiences serve to expand the bellows and as one pursues behavioral
involvement in the domain of calling, the bellows contracts and consequently the fire expands. As such, calling is an ongoing process
in which individuals seek out opportunities in which to engage with and further refine their perceived callings (Dik et al., 2012; Hall
& Chandler, 2005). Moreover, as individuals live out their callings (Duffy et al., 2018), they continue to negotiate the demands that
emerge from overlaps between the personal and social identities associated with their callings (Kreiner et al., 2006).
In summary, calling inherently involves meaning, purpose, and contributing to and with others. Yet individuals vary in their
pursuit of calling, with some actively searching, others with a presence of calling and attempting to live it out, and still others who
may not yet view calling as a concept that is relevant to them. However, even individuals without a calling “may enter work
environments where meaning builds first and then a calling develops because of their experiences in the workplace” (Duffy et al.,
2018: p. 428). Here, we argue that groups can provide individuals with these experiences that contribute to the building of meaning
and the search and presence of calling.

3. Groups and calling

Although most of our understanding of the calling process is based on individual-level factors like personal characteristics (Hall &
Chandler, 2005), much of the work individuals do is executed in teams. Work groups or teams are collectives of individuals who are
interdependent, interact socially, and are embedded in an organizational context as they perform tasks together (Kozlowski & Bell,
2003). The omission of work groups in our theoretical and empirical work on calling is somewhat glaring, given the prevalence of
groups in work-related contexts (Devine et al., 1999) and the importance of these group memberships to individuals (Lickel et al.,
2000). For example, individuals frequently look to their immediate work groups to learn the values of their organization or profession
and engage in sensemaking about whether these values align with their own inherent values and purpose (Feldman, 1981;
Greenwood, 1957). They also engage in social comparisons with fellow group members, evaluating their own abilities and opinions
against those of others (Festinger, 1954). Such comparisons can reveal or affirm an individual's particular gifts, talents, and/or
abilities (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Novak, 1996) or interest in and passion for a given role or domain (Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas,
2011). Ashforth and Schinoff (2016) argue that this is an important part of identity construction, suggesting that an individual's
“identity fit is measured against the apparent fit attained by others” (p. 125).
Work teams are, of course, not the only social contexts in which an individual searches for or perceives a calling. While literature
on the influence of family or peers on calling is scant, we do know that these social groups can impact occupational choice and career
aspirations (Simpson, 1962; Whiston & Keller, 2004), especially in one's youth (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). Research on calling, however,
is often focused on college or adult populations (Duffy & Dik, 2013), which are influenced by a myriad of relationships beyond family
or friends as well as a historical and cultural context (Blustein, Schultheiss, & Flum, 2004). For example, individuals may be in-
fluenced by mentors and peers in dyadic mentoring relationships (Kram & Isabella, 1985). They may also be influenced by the
prevailing norms or values of a specific organization or profession (e.g., Bunderson & Thompson, 2009; Dobrow, 2013; Greenwood,
1957).
However, field theory suggests that, while any number of factors contribute to individual behavior, it is important to emphasize
those which are salient at a given time (Lewin, 1943). Groups are more salient and proximal to individuals than are organizations or
professions, and individuals are also more emotionally attached to groups than to organizations or professions (Johnson et al., 2006;
Riketta & Van Dick, 2005). Thus groups may help individuals find “that place in the occupational division of labor in society that one
feels destined to fill” (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009: p. 38) as they experience, evaluate, and construct meaning and vocational
identity in these social contexts (Blustein et al., 2004). Here we draw on social identity theory and optimal distinctiveness theory (i.e.,
ODT) (Brewer, 1991) to explain how and why groups might inform individuals regarding calling.

4. Optimal distinctiveness in groups and calling

Social identity theory has long posited that the groups to which individuals belong are an important source of individual identity -
specifically, that individuals' perceptions of themselves and their groups are influenced by the need for positive identity and self-
esteem (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Central to perceptions of positive identity, however, is a tension between the need to be unique (i.e.,
the distinctiveness identity motive) (Vignoles, Chryssochoou, & Breakwell, 2000) and the need to belong (i.e., the belonging identity

90
B.C. Buis, et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 114 (2019) 88–99

motive) (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, & Schreindorfer, 2013). These identity motives are universal across
contexts (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Vignoles et al., 2000) and also integral in an individual's experience of calling. For instance, in
the pursuit of calling individuals may not only sense unique gifts and special experiences (i.e., distinctiveness) but also seek re-
lationships with others with whom they can pursue their passions (i.e., belonging) (see Conklin, 2012; Hunter et al., 2010; Rosso
et al., 2010).
Brewer (1991) described these identity motives as opposing forces, such that the more distinctiveness individuals experience, the
less belonging they experience, and vice versa. Her optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT) posits that individuals strive to balance the
need for belonging with the need for distinctiveness – searching for the ‘optimal’ level of both needs. She notes, “we are un-
comfortable in social contexts in which we are either too distinctive or too undistinctive” (Brewer, 1991: p. 478), and argued that
individuals address this tension by categorizing themselves as members of specific groups (i.e., to achieve belonging) and accent-
uating differences between their groups and others' groups (e.g., to achieve distinctiveness).
However, individuals can also strive for optimal distinctiveness by balancing these identity motives within their teams (Hornsey &
Jetten, 2004; Ormiston, 2016), suggesting that intragroup contexts are integral to the construction of individual identity, and as we
will explore, the experience of calling. For example, Ormiston and colleagues (Kim, Ormiston, Easterbrook, & Vignoles, 2017;
Ormiston, 2016) highlight demographic diversity within the team (e.g., ethnicity, functional background, etc.) as a driver of how
individuals define themselves with respect to their fellow group members. We believe this focus on identity differences can also be
expanded to include perceptions of meaning, purpose, gifts, and special experiences inherent in calling. Moreover, in these intragroup
situations in which identity motives are not optimally balanced, individuals take steps to achieve either greater distinctiveness or
belonging, based on whichever need is presently thwarted in their teams (Ormiston, 2016). For example, they may alter their
perceptions of themselves or their team, or even exit a team and join another team, to satisfy a need that is frustrated (Hornsey &
Jetten, 2004; Ormiston, 2016). Again, we expect that these strategies may also be employed by individuals who experience unmet
needs in the pursuit of calling.
Therefore, we extend these optimal distinctiveness perspectives to an individual's search for and presence of calling, by first
suggesting that others in a team make individuals aware of their uniqueness or belonging, and this awareness allows for “self-
exploration and discernment” related to calling (Hall & Chandler, 2005: p. 163). Groups literature notes that social categorizations of
uniqueness or belonging are based on any number of attributes, including both surface-level (e.g., ethnicity; age) and deep-level (e.g.,
functional background; personality) attributes (Kim et al., 2017; Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004; Williams & O'Reilly,
1998). Here, we apply this to self-definitions related to calling – as individuals evaluate themselves in relation to others on attributes
like passion for a domain (Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011), an experienced summons (Dik et al., 2012; Dik & Duffy, 2009), or the
existence of particular gifts and talents (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009). For example, individuals who are searching for calling
experience an urge to find meaning in their work and what they are uniquely “meant to do” (Hall & Chandler, 2005: p. 155). Teams in
which individuals satisfy that need for uniqueness, for example because they help reveal an individual's special talents and con-
tribution, may be especially integral in the search for calling (and, conversely, teams in which an individual's need for uniqueness is
thwarted may hinder or delay a presence of calling). Such revelations may happen explicitly, for instance via dialogue with team
members (Dickerson, 2000; Novak, 1996), or more implicitly, for instance via perceptions (Ormiston, 2016). Eventually, they might
offer insight toward a sense of destiny.
Additionally, when individuals experience unmet needs of distinctiveness or belonging within their team, they will attempt to
either become more unique or more embedded socially, enabling them to pursue “a course of action that would result in psycho-
logical success” with respect to calling (Hall & Chandler, 2005: p. 164). Individuals can do this by engaging in perceptual framing
strategies, such as perceiving themselves as more distinct from their team members (i.e., an identity differentiation strategy) or more
similar to their team members (i.e., a self-stereotyping strategy) (Ormiston, 2016), or by joining different teams (i.e., a structural
reality strategy) (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004). For example, people with a presence of calling but whose belonging motive is frustrated
may attempt to connect to a specific subset of team members or even other teams whose members share their gifts or sense of destiny,
which could provide “a healthy support system for the continued effort for one's passion” (Conklin, 2012: p. 305).
Balancing the need for distinctiveness with the need for belonging is an ongoing process that occurs across multiple groups and,
we argue, multiple dimensions of calling. As such, we develop a typology of six conceptual classifications of how individuals ex-
perience calling in teams based on the two dimensions of calling, search and presence, and the three team contexts in which identity
motives of belonging and distinctiveness are balanced (i.e., optimal distinctiveness) or in which one need outweighs the other (and
vice versa).

5. A typology of callings and teams: conceptual classifications

In Table 1, we profile six different conceptual classifications, first according to an individual's calling dimension (i.e., individuals
who are searching for calling and those that have acknowledged the presence of a calling3), and second according to the individual's
team context (i.e., too much assimilation: i.e., belonging > distinctiveness; too much distinctiveness: i.e., belonging <
distinctiveness; or optimal distinctiveness: i.e., belonging = distinctiveness). For each classification, we highlight considerations for

3
Note that it is possible for individuals to have a presence of calling but, through various circumstances, they are unable to live out or enact their
callings (Duffy et al., 2018). However, these “unanswered callings” (Berg, Grant, & Johnson, 2010) are outside the scope of this typology; our
primary focus is on those who are searching for calling and those who have a presence of calling and are engaging in work in line with this calling.

91
 Table 1
A typology of individual experiences of calling based on calling dimension and group context.
Dimension of Group/team context Conceptual Examples
calling classification
Search Belonging > distinctiveness Clone Financial analyst feels included and affirmed as
a group member but does not perceive
uniqueness either positively or negatively
relative to others in the analyst cohort
Search Distinctiveness > belonging Pilgrim Bank examiner sees uniqueness and passion in
interest/talent/meaning for credit risk
assessment while working in teams of field
examiners without this interest/talent/meaning
Salesperson feels lack of interest/talent/
meaning for sales relative to the perceived
interest/talent/meaning of other salespeople in
team
Search Belonging = distinctiveness Authenticator Musician who feels included and affirmed in
small ensemble, but who also perceives
uniqueness in interest/talent/meaning for
instrument (context is rich for experimenting
with and verifying potential callings)
92
Presence Belonging > distinctiveness Servant Professional athlete who acknowledges the
presence of a calling to compete in a team sport
but not enjoying ‘star’ status relative to
teammates
Presence Distinctiveness > belonging Islander Priest with a presence of calling in ministry but
who joins a new parish (in which inclusion is
relatively or initially low)
Firefighter uniquely good at search and rescue
but lacks integration with a cohort of team
newcomers
Presence Belonging = distinctiveness Blossom Academic with a presence of a calling in a
department with a culture of inclusion, in
which diverse research areas are also valued
Task specialist perceiving a calling in a cross-
functional team in which individual feels
included and affirmed
Considerations for the individual
Consider other interests/talents outside of
current group. Explore other group contexts
that provide meaning. Negotiate job
enlargement and enrichment options in place,
perhaps revealed in other group contexts (e.g.,
hobby groups).
Pursue other team roles or other teams in which
potential callings as revealed by discovered
uniqueness can be experimented with.
Experiment through engaging in role-taking on
current or alternate team. May need to exit
current team.
Use this time to test, clarify, and deepen
experiences in search. Attempt other activities
related to anticipated calling. Go beyond
individual skills to see how related skills and
passion can strengthen calling in group context.
Experiment with new ways to fill
distinctiveness needs that remain in alignment
with perceived calling through additional
interpersonal roles, such as mentoring others,
exploring extra-group roles (e.g. with
stakeholders) or expand role on team. Explore if
move to different group would better fulfill
distinctiveness needs.
Seek out alternate ways to connect with current
group or reach out to others with similar calling
but outside focal work team for social support
and advice. Seek ways in which unique gifts
may serve another group or subset of current
group. Consider when personal sustenance
needs outweigh contribution to unresponsive
group.
Be mindful of how this resonance has been
achieved. Recognize how outside factors and
personal factors (including growth) may alter
the equilibrium. Expand by helping others grow
and nurture sense of calling.
Considerations for the group/team
B.C. Buis, et al.
Involve individual in innovative role building
and high involvement job-enrichment.
Encourage group dialogue of emerging
identities.
Provide psychological safety and social support
for individuals who perceive that they differ
from others. Take steps to improve their
potential in place or create segue to new options.
Engage in peer mentoring and coaching.
Keep challenging individual to greater heights.
Help them be more mindful of their reasons for
satisfaction. Provide recognition of individual
interests and talents and also reiterate shared
purposes and goals. Celebrate group
achievements.
Reinforce group norms that value diverse
functional skills and levels of expertise. Allow
individuals to be innovative, but do not
emphasize individual contributions in a way that
discourages group unity/common identity.
Socialize newcomer. Provide opportunities for
unique individual to belong (e.g., highlighting
and affirming common team goals/values). If
merited, allow talented individuals to change
group culture, norms, behaviors to function
better in support of passionate members.
Offer respect and resources to talented and
passionate group members contributing to self
and group mission simultaneously. Encourage
others to explore callings through mentoring.
Uphold values that allow tolerance of differences
in order to minimize potential conflict from
recognizing individuality.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 114 (2019) 88–99
B.C. Buis, et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 114 (2019) 88–99

individuals in terms of finding ways to satisfy their unmet needs, as well as considerations for groups in terms of supporting in-
dividuals. Both areas offer original contributions not only in terms of theory, but also in terms of practicality to improve individuals'
success in the search for and presence of their callings. While such outcomes are obviously beneficial for the individual, they are
beneficial for the group and larger organization as well. Calling impacts engagement through work meaningfulness (Hirschi, 2012),
thus to the degree that groups can help people define and understand the meaning of their work, they can help them establish a fit
with a current group and engagement with group tasks.

5.1. Clone

Individuals who are searching for calling and find themselves in a group context in which they experience more assimilation or
belonging than distinctiveness could be described as clones. In this situation, individuals feel very comfortable with their groups and
affirmed as group members, but they also feel much like everyone else in the group and thus their need for distinctiveness is
frustrated. As such, they may not perceive that they are unique in a way that helps them in the search for their calling.
To illustrate, consider Maria, a financial analyst and part of a group of recent hires at Madison Investments. Everyone in the new
hire group identifies with their newcomer status, and individuals from this group are stereotyped by other people in the organization,
who label them as “cappers”, a term derived from the acronym for Madison's training program. The cappers embrace this identity,
however, and enjoy a strong bond with each other which extends outside of their office. Interestingly, one factor that strengthens this
bond is that a majority of the cappers are seeking meaning in their work yet are not finding it as cappers. Maria feels the same way,
and she is very much affirmed by the other cappers, but she does not perceive uniqueness either positively or negatively relative to
the others in the capper group.
As in Maria's case, when the distinctiveness motive is frustrated or overwhelmed by the assimilation that occurs when belonging
outweighs distinctiveness, there are several ways in which a clone could pursue differentiation to find work that will provide purpose
and meaning. Employing self-assessment, clones might consider meaningful interests or talents outside of the group that could
differentiate them from their group members. Maria might explore her interest in yoga, immersing herself in a local yoga community,
and in turn define herself as the “zen” capper of her work group, realizing her unique talent to heighten mindfulness amongst the
group. Here she will attempt to align and connect what she finds purposeful (i.e., yoga) with her work role and activities, which is an
integral part of discerning calling (Dik & Duffy, 2009). Alternatively, she might engage in job crafting or expanding to pursue
additional opportunities within the organization (Berg et al., 2010; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). In the process, she would evaluate
whether she uniquely finds meaning in these opportunities relative to others.
Groups could support clones in their search for calling by emphasizing and encouraging an “innovative” (more than just “cus-
todial”) response to their roles. Van Maanen and Schein (1979) discuss how such an approach asks the individual to bring part of
themselves into their role, versus enacting the role based upon the status quo or precedents set by previous role holders. Role-sending
and role-receiving (Katz & Kahn, 1978) are dependent upon interpretation, which suggests that groups may influence the extent to
which individuals are free to interpret their roles (or are not free to do this). Also, group dialogue could be driven amongst all team
members to encourage new ideas and validate emerging identities in a supportive climate. Novak (1996) suggests that dialogue with
others is critical to discovering a calling. Such dialogue heightens understanding of both individual and group identities (Dickerson,
2000; Koenig Kellas, 2005) and increases individual and group learning (Isaacs, 1993), which would certainly benefit individuals
such as Maria when career and work purpose are a topic of communication.

5.2. Pilgrim

Individuals who are searching for calling and find themselves in group contexts in which they experience more distinctiveness
than belonging could be described as pilgrims. In this situation, individuals sense their uniqueness, for example in terms of talents or
passion for the work they do, relative to their team members. However, their needs for belonging may be frustrated in some way.
Being comfortable with others within the domain to which one is called is important to the experience of calling (Dobrow, 2013), and
therefore these individuals can be considered pilgrims in that their uniqueness provides some basis for exploring work that might
represent a calling for them, but they do not yet feel that they have found their home, or “the place where [their] deep gladness and
the world's deep hunger meet” (Buechner, 1973: p. 95).
To illustrate how pilgrims may experience uniqueness relative to others on their teams, consider Jim, a bank examiner who works
with multiple examination teams. As part of his duties as a bank examiner, Jim travels to a new bank every few weeks to complete an
exam with a team of examiners. During his tenure, he has had the opportunity to serve in a variety of roles, developing his abilities in
different subject areas and gathering feedback from other field examiners. In evaluating his experiences and engaging in social
comparisons, Jim perceives that he is uniquely gifted at assessing credit risk compared to the others on his exam teams. This makes
him feel distinct and provides him with self-efficacy and self-confidence that can fuel the development of calling (Hall & Chandler,
2005).
Although Jim has a better sense of his unique talents in comparison to others in his work environment, which may eventually lead
to a presence of calling, he also must tend to the excessive differentiation he is experiencing in this process. Thus, pilgrims may need
to pursue other team roles or other teams in which they can experiment with potential callings as revealed by the uniqueness they
have discovered as well as to enhance their sense of belonging. For example, Jim may initially take on an informal ‘credit risk
specialist’ role on his teams, discovering the meaning he derives from this role and the particular talent he has for it. In this way, he
may act out this credit specialist identity and note whether others grant his ‘identity claim’ (Bartel & Dutton, 2001). As he grows in his

93
B.C. Buis, et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 114 (2019) 88–99

experience of meaning with this role and to fulfill his need to belong, he may seek to join a different team in which he can more
thoroughly explore this potential calling (e.g., by joining a credit risk specialty team of others who have similar interests and
passions).
Teams could support pilgrims by providing psychological safety and social support for these members who perceive that they are
different from others on the team. In many ways, psychological safety acts as a secure base (Bowlby, 2008). While the idea of a secure
base finds its roots in attachment theory and childhood, it has been accepted by many that a secure base “script” develops into
adulthood and can be applied to adult contexts (Waters & Cummings, 2000). Kahn (1996) specifically applied this theory to careers
and working relationships, highlighting the necessity for a secure base for one to develop a protean career which involves values-
awareness, a seeming precondition of calling as well. The primary idea here is that Jim might not venture into new learning to seek
out and clarify his calling if he does not feel he has a secure base to which he could retreat, find stability, and gain confidence. A
secure base within the team and the learning and risk it might afford can be inculcated in part through developmental relationships
including peer coaching and mentoring (Hall, 2002). Thus psychological safety can provide the social validation that enables pilgrims
to learn about themselves—perhaps through sensemaking (Weick, 1995) or trying out possible selves (Ashforth & Schinoff, 2016;
Markus & Nurius, 1986).

5.3. Authenticator

The authenticator is still in the search stage of calling, in that this individual has not yet acknowledged having a calling. However,
conditions are such that authenticators experience an optimal balance of distinctiveness and belonging within their groups. In this
situation, the individual does not experience frustration of one need at the expense of fulfilling the other and is thus in a state of
equilibrium. With such optimal distinctiveness, people experience security and feelings of self-worth, and are likely to identify
strongly with the groups that enable them to jointly fulfill these needs (Brewer, 1991). These groups may enable these individuals to
test, or authenticate, their ideas about the meaning of their work.
To illustrate, consider Ursula, who has always enjoyed playing the violin, and has grown in her musical skills and interests by
being a part of different musical groups in school (e.g., orchestras, string quartets, etc.). She has recently joined a chamber orchestra
called the Rosemont Sinfonia, in which she has been able to hone her performing skills by taking on violin solos in the repertoire they
play. In this group, she has started to feel a unique talent in playing the violin, and yet also a strong sense of belonging to the musical
group and profession. Ursula has not yet claimed that playing the violin is her calling, but this is a group in which she is deeply
considering the meaning of playing the violin and the centrality of music to her life.
For authenticators, using the time spent with the group in which this optimal distinctiveness occurs is an opportunity to clarify
and deepen their experiences, with the idea that over time these individuals may realize that the work they are doing with the group
does, in fact, align with their calling, or at least provides a springboard for further refining their search. For instance, the time Ursula
spends rehearsing and performing with the Rosemont Sinfonia may help her steep in the enjoyment she gets from playing the violin
and continue to reveal her unique talents and roles within that group (e.g., potentially becoming the principal violinist or an ad-
ministrative leader of the group). Over time and through these experiences, she may come to realize that performing the violin is her
calling. Alternatively, she may refine the meaning she gets from working with this group by discovering that she has a passion and a
talent for composing chamber music or serving as a music librarian.
Groups can support authenticators by helping them be mindful of the reasons for their satisfied needs of uniqueness and be-
longing, for example by reflecting their individuality yet inclusion in the team. Following Derr (1986), some “careerists” will need
recognition, others will need opportunity to exceed new challenges. The group might recognize individual members for their unique
talents, and they can also make belonging salient by articulating the shared purposes for which they all strive. Returning to our
example, the Rosemont Sinfonia might explicitly acknowledge Ursula for her violin solos in the program notes or group members
might compliment her playing. Yet the musicians also might affirm their similarity to one another by discussing their shared love for
music or memorable performances in which the whole group came together to achieve an unprecedented sound.

5.4. Servant

Individuals who have a presence of calling, yet who find themselves in group contexts in which they experience more belonging
than distinctiveness could be described as servants. Although they are distinct enough to have identified their calling (Hall &
Chandler, 2005; Hunter et al., 2010), like clones, they have a tendency to feel “too undistinctive” (Brewer, 1991) relative to their
team members. Thus, in working in these group contexts, they serve others through their callings but, in so doing, their own needs for
distinctiveness may be frustrated.
To illustrate, Jasper has acknowledged his calling to play professional football (soccer). In turn, his club, the FC Krijgers, has
welcomed him as a member of their club and has affirmed his ability to play and fit with the club. While Jasper is competent enough
to play professional football, he is not one of the star players receiving endorsements and signing autographs; rather, he falls in with
the rest of his teammates. This is contrary to his prior experiences, in which he was frequently singled out for star-status in school and
enjoyed an upward trajectory throughout his career. In acknowledging his current experiences relative to the past, Jasper's dis-
tinctiveness motive is thereby frustrated.
Individuals who strive to be distinct might engage in identity differentiation tactics in an effort to reduce frustration of this
identity motive (Ormiston, 2016). While Jasper finds meaning in his role as a teammate, he might consider the other ways in which
he describes himself that connect to his “larger framework of meaning and purpose” (Dik & Duffy, 2009: p. 440), and determine

94
B.C. Buis, et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 114 (2019) 88–99

which of these aspects of identity is unique relative to the club. For instance, Jasper is also a father, and happens to be the only parent
on the team. Jasper might accentuate this aspect of his identity relative to his teammates, expanding his calling as not only a
professional footballer but also as one to whom others look for fatherly guidance and support. This sequence may enable Jasper to
restore equilibrium with respect to distinctiveness and belonging within his team in a way that is consistent with his calling. Another
possibility would be for Jasper to find a new football club where he could reclaim distinctiveness as a star player again.
Groups can support servants by validating them through recognition and appreciation of their offerings to the team and who they
are as individuals (Kazdin, 1977; Schimel, Arndt, Pyszczynski, & Greenberg, 2001). Greater efforts can be made to help them stand
out, for example in Jasper's case by celebrating his unique contribution by referring to him as the team ‘papa’ or seeking his advice in
matters related to this role. Similar to the clone classification, servants should be offered a chance to be innovative and not custodial
in role-fulfilment (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). The difference here, of course, is that in this calling dimension they are performing
and maybe perfecting a role more than learning it.

5.5. Islander

Individuals with a presence of calling who are in a group context in which they experience more distinctiveness than belonging
could be described as islanders. Like pilgrims, islanders sense their uniqueness relative to others in their group. However, they differ
from pilgrims in that they have found a “home” with a presence of calling, and are continually seeking ways to develop and expand
this calling (Dik et al., 2012). Yet, islanders may face difficulty in doing this if the uniqueness they feel is also isolating when they
compare themselves to others in their work groups, and therefore may seek to fulfill their need to belong in various ways.
To illustrate, we turn to Father Grant, a priest who has recently received a new parish assignment. Father Grant loved his previous
parish. He was well-liked by his parishioners, fellow priests, and staff, and was often praised for his work. Not only did he feel that his
unique gifts fit with the parish's needs, but also he felt a sense of community with others there. However, duty beckoned to rotate to a
new parish, and so we find Father Grant six months into his latest assignment at St. Cecilia's. In his first parish, his ease in relating to
others and sense of humor were well-received by the community; however, in his new parish, he has yet to receive an invitation to
dinner, let alone a chuckle at his jokes during homilies. In comparing himself to his pastor and deacons (i.e., the ministry team at St.
Cecilia's), Father Grant perceives that they have close bonds to the community despite their seemingly introverted ways (e.g., he
rarely sees them at the rectory, except for official meetings). Yet Father Grant perceives that he does not have the same fit with the
community that they do—or with them (Ashforth & Schinoff, 2016).
As Brewer (1991) suggests, given the excessive differentiation and individuation Father Grant is experiencing, his need to belong
will be heightened. As such, he will likely engage in tactics to satisfy this need (Ormiston, 2016), seeking out ways to connect with his
parishioners or others who can affirm him in his calling. For instance, he might attend the parish picnic with St. Cecilia's pastor and
deacons in an effort to find more common ground with them. However, since islanders have acknowledged their calling, they could
also benefit from experimenting with other ways, and perhaps even other groups, to refine and expand their calling (Berg et al., 2010;
Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Father Grant may try other forms of ministry and in doing so, discovers that his distinct gift of
empathy helps him relate to a group of chaplains and patients at the local hospital. They affirm his talent and passion, and thus his
needs for belonging are fulfilled by a different group that is connected to his calling. Alternatively, Father Grant could reach out to his
classmates from seminary, who themselves serve in different parishes, for support and belonging.
Groups can support islanders by providing opportunities for the unique individual to belong, such as socializing the individual
when they are in newcomer mode (Levine & Moreland, 1991) and affirming their membership within the group, inviting the in-
dividual to invest in common group goals, and celebrating common group values. If merited, the group might even allow talented
individuals to alter group culture, norms, and behaviors to function better in support of similar members (Rink, Kane, Ellemers, & Van
der Vegt, 2013). Returning to our example, the ministry team of St. Cecilia's might invite Father Grant to meals upon moving in to the
rectory and the staff might give him a tour of the church to explain its heritage and key cultural artifacts. His pastor might assign him
to several different ministries in the beginning, allowing Father Grant to discern where his unique gifts are most needed and ap-
preciated—and where he feels he fits the most (Dik & Duffy, 2009).

5.6. Blossom

Individuals that have a presence of calling and are experiencing an optimal balance of distinctiveness and belonging within their
group could be described as blossoms. Like authenticators, these individuals do not experience frustration of one need at the expense
of fulfilling the other; however, they differ in that they are enjoying the fruits of their experimentation and evaluative experiences of
their calling. Blossoms have found a group that they identify strongly with, and also experience feelings of self-worth from their
unique contributions as a result of their identity motives being in equilibrium (Brewer, 1991).
Dr. Sai is a blossom. She is a professor in an academic department where the faculty have diverse research interests while
maintaining an inclusive, supportive culture. This yields successful research collaborations up and down the hallway, and Dr. Sai's
self-esteem is augmented when a colleague seeks her out for her unique knowledge in her research area and talents in research
methods. She clearly identifies her work as a professor as what she was “put on this earth” to do (Davidson & Caddell, 1994) and feels
at home with her group of colleagues.
For Dr. Sai to continue to enjoy the benefits of her calling, she must be able to live it out (Duffy, Bott, Allan, Torrey, & Dik, 2012),
and continue to grow and develop her calling. In this way, blossoms must be mindful of their own growth and potential to change as
well as how changes in their environments will interact with such personal changes to continue a satisfying unfolding of their calling.

95
B.C. Buis, et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 114 (2019) 88–99

Blossoms should identify existing and potential external and internal barriers to living their calling and where they might be able to
exert some control (Duffy & Autin, 2013; Duffy & Dik, 2009). For instance, in the face of budget cuts in which travel is limited only to
conferences where one presents a research paper, Dr. Sai might increase her efforts for a successful submission for a specialized
conference in her area. Dr. Sai might also engage in job-crafting activities (Duffy et al., 2018; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) such as
holding voluntary research talks on her latest projects to further live her calling.
For the blossom to fully flower and thrive, it must be nurtured. A blossom is usually short-lived, which illustrates its vulnerability
in human form. For groups to help individuals continuously blossom, formal and informal group activity must nurture them, validate
their contributions, and provide the human and temporal resources that help them shine and maximize meaning in their work (Duffy
et al., 2012). This is an especially delicate and sophisticated endeavor because hopefully there is more than one blossom blooming in
a given group. Yet individuality can be affirmed without sacrificing the identity of others or the group, and indeed the uniqueness of
individual group members can be a source of strong group identification and entitativity (Jans, Postmes, & Van der Zee, 2011). This
demonstrates that even when callings are perceived, both individuals and groups are living systems that interact with one another
and their environments, and they must be monitored and served.
One sustainable advantage of having individual blossoms on the team is that they might validate their own callings as they
simultaneously help others find or maintain their callings. Research shows that positive self-regard (Bennis & Nanus, 1985) and a
developed relational concept (Lapierre, Naidoo, & Bonaccio, 2012) contribute to effective mentorship. Blossoms have asked the hard
questions and answered them in their own careers and group experiences and thus they can, in turn, share their knowledge of
successful processes in the hope that their experience will benefit others (Kram, 1988; Ragins & Verbos, 2007).

6. Discussion

To our knowledge no other framework has offered ideas for how individuals interact with groups (and vice versa) in the ex-
perience of callings. These ideas are important because those seeking or perceiving callings do so largely in group contexts. In this
paper we have demonstrated how groups can critically shape the dimensions of calling as individuals find their equilibrium between
belonging and distinctiveness. We believe that calling cannot be divorced from the need to belong and the need to be dis-
tinct—fundamental needs that can be fulfilled or thwarted by group memberships (Brewer, 1991; Hornsey & Jetten, 2004; Ormiston,
2016).
Overall, our conceptual typology of individual experiences of calling in group contexts is meant to initiate theoretical develop-
ment, empirical testing, and practical ideas for callings. Research on the themes presented here would make questions of individual
need fulfilment related to calling in group contexts tractable. For example, how do people evaluate the utility of potential groups, or
simultaneous group memberships (e.g., at work, home, community, etc.) to assess their possibility for exploring calling? We have
acknowledged earlier that not all individuals are aware of the concept of calling nor searching for one, but we would posit that all
individuals seek meaning and identity to some degree. How do those for whom the question of calling is more of an active issue vary
in how they respond to group socialization, development, and initiating transitions within and between groups?
Individual differences such as self-confidence or self-esteem have been linked to calling (Hall & Chandler, 2005) and we suggest
others could be fruitfully researched based upon how they influence individuals grappling with issues of calling within groups. For
example, we would anticipate that agreeableness (McCrae & Costa, 2010) could attenuate individuals' proclivity for exploring calling
via distinctiveness at the expense of greater belonging. A learning goal orientation (Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996) might promote
willingness to experiment with search and/or presence of calling in groups. Finally, individual differences in the desire to fulfill the
identity motives of belonging (e.g., trait-based need to belong: Leary et al., 2013) and distinctiveness (e.g., trait-based need for
uniqueness: Snyder & Fromkin, 1977) may affect perceived equilibria of belonging and distinctiveness in group settings, and the
extent to which individuals engage in tactics to individuate or assimilate to others in the pursuit of calling.
A final consideration might be situations in which individuals experience difficulty or are unsuccessful at achieving unmet needs
of distinctiveness or belonging as they search for or perceive a calling. For example, a clone who is searching for calling and has an
unmet need for distinctiveness may not easily be able to change roles or groups to meet that need and discover unique talents. People
experience job embeddedness, in which their mobility is constrained due to on-the-job and off-the-job factors like family, geo-
graphical, or financial concerns (Mitchell, Holtom, Lee, Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). A financial advisor, for instance, might not feel
particularly gifted in his role but might not feel free to explore other groups in which his unique talents could be revealed without
compromising his livelihood or accumulated on-the-job benefits. Another example might be a pilgrim who feels unique, but only
because others seem to have a calling where the pilgrim does not (i.e., negative distinctiveness). A member of a sales team might
wonder if there is something more personally meaningful she could do, but she notices that this contrasts with others on her team,
who seem to experience a great deal of meaning when selling (e.g., “they are really passionate about selling but I am not”). Our
typology would suggest that she experiment with other roles or teams to fulfill her need to belong in her ongoing search for calling,
but again, such experimentation might be thwarted by other factors (e.g., a lack of discernment of unique gifts and/or contextual
constraints that prevent this exploration). Thus our typology may represent more of a normative conceptual model than a descriptive
one, and investigations into thwarted and unsuccessful need fulfilment could provide even further insight into the search for and
presence of calling in group contexts.
As theory on teams and calling dimension in groups is nascent, empirical work could greatly enhance our understanding of the
ideas presented here. Qualitative interviews or even written accounts of individuals' experiences with groups that have helped or
hindered their search for meaning in work could be an initial step to discovering more. Qualitative work could also provide some
insights on how these themes might relate to individuals who are not familiar with the idea of calling, are not highly motivated to

96
B.C. Buis, et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 114 (2019) 88–99

pursue their callings, or are unable to engage in work that is consistent with their perceived callings (Berg et al., 2010; Duffy et al.,
2018). Individuals in group contexts balance their needs for belonging and distinctiveness in a myriad of ways not necessarily linked
to calling, such as through perceptions of diversity on any number of characteristics (Ormiston, 2016). Yet examining research
questions like the ones above regarding group memberships and the development of calling could be compared with the utility of
group memberships for those who are not exploring meaning or calling in work. Surveys and larger-scale studies across contexts could
provide more generalizability as this body of work grows.
We offer many practical implications for individuals, groups and organizations that may become more obvious with increasing
familiarity with these concepts. To this end, in Table 1 and the corresponding text we reviewed several tools that could be used more
deliberately and explicitly to help people in both the search and presence of calling, as well as those perhaps simply seeking a good fit
with the group and organization. Socialization can emphasize values, calling, and meaning in bi-directional ways, inviting per-
spectives in addition to offering them. An emphasis upon an innovative (versus custodial) approach to role performances (Van
Maanen & Schein, 1979) will allow for greater distinctiveness, and respectful dialogue can increase individual and group learning,
paving the way for experimentation and innovation within both individual careers and group functions. Job crafting could be utilized
as a way of helping individuals search for ways to be distinctive and also experience belonging and team contribution, aiding their
search and perception of callings. At any point along the journey of calling in groups, team members could be taught to exercise
leadership behaviors by serving as peer coaches and mentors (Parker, Hall, Kram, & Wasserman, 2018)—assisting one another in
career development as partners in creating individual, group, and organizational engagement.
In these ways, work groups could transcend functional and social functions as they typically are practiced (Bales, 1958; McGrath,
1984). Those searching for or who acknowledge a presence of calling could have group support in developing and living their
callings. However, all individuals could have better clarity and self-awareness about how their personal, group, and organization's
values intersect. Groups could essentially act more effectively as agents of motivation and career development. Our point is that old
dogs can learn new tricks. In this case, we feel the potential of groups to assist members to consider questions of purpose, meaning,
and calling is largely untapped.

7. Conclusion

Callings have been considered largely a private affair and our research and theory have matched that approach, but we question
whether that orientation is accurate or ideal. We suggest that group life clearly impacts how people make sense of themselves and
their calling in context. Indeed, can calling have meaning independent of others? Our hope is that this less understood intersection of
group and individual in matters of calling will receive the attention it deserves.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Ashforth, B. E., & Schinoff, B. S. (2016). Identity under construction: How individuals come to define themselves in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 111–137. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062322.
Bales, R. F. (1958). Task roles and social roles in problem-solving groups. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.). Readings in social psychology (pp.
437–447). New York: Holt Reinhart and Winston.
Bartel, C., & Dutton, J. (2001). Ambiguous organizational memberships: Constructing organizational identities in interactions with others. In M. A. Hogg, & D. J. Terry
(Eds.). Social identity processes in organizational contexts (pp. 115–130). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3),
497–529.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). The strategies for taking charge. Leaders. New York: Harper Row.
Berg, J. M., Grant, A. M., & Johnson, V. (2010). When callings are calling: Crafting work and leisure in pursuit of unanswered occupational callings. Organization
Science, 21(5), 973–994. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0497.
Blustein, D. L., Schultheiss, D. E. P., & Flum, H. (2004). Toward a relational perspective of the psychology of careers and working: A social constructionist analysis.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(3), 423–440.
Bowlby, J. (2008). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0146167291175001.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723–742.
Buechner, F. (1973). Wishful thinking: A theological ABC. New York: Harper-Collins.
Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 54(1), 32–57. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.32.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 26–48. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0063.
Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25.
Conklin, T. A. (2012). Work worth doing: A phenomenological study of the experience of discovering and following one's calling. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21(3),
298–317. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492611414426.
Davidson, J. C., & Caddell, D. P. (1994). Religion and the meaning of work. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33(2), 135–147.
Derr, C. (1986). Managing the new careerist: The diverse career success orientations of today's workers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group
Research, 30, 678–711.
Dickerson, P. (2000). ‘But I'm different to them’: Constructing contrasts between self and others in talk-in-interaction. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 381–398.

97
B.C. Buis, et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 114 (2019) 88–99

Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2009). Calling and vocation at work: Definitions and prospects for research and practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(3), 424–450. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0011000008316430.
Dik, B. J., Eldridge, B. M., Steger, M. F., & Duffy, R. D. (2012). Development and validation of the calling and vocation questionnaire (CVQ) and brief calling scale
(BCS). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711434410.
Dobrow, S. R. (2004). Extreme subjective career success: A new integrated view of having a calling. Paper presented at the Academy of Management. New Orleans: LA.
Dobrow, S. R. (2013). Dynamics of calling: A longitudinal study of musicians. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1808.
Dobrow, S. R., & Tosti-Kharas, J. (2011). Calling: The development of a scale measure. Personnel Psychology, 64(4), 1001–1049. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.
2011.01234.x.
Duffy, R. D., & Autin, K. L. (2013). Disentangling the link between perceiving a calling and living a calling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(2), 219–227. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0031934.
Duffy, R. D., Autin, K. L., Allan, B. A., & Douglass, R. P. (2015). Assessing work as a calling: An evaluation of instruments and practice recommendations. Journal of
Career Assessment, 23(3), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714547163.
Duffy, R. D., Bott, E. M., Allan, B. A., Torrey, C. L., & Dik, B. J. (2012). Perceiving a calling, living a calling, and job satisfaction: Testing a moderated, multiple
mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59(1), 50–59.
Duffy, R. D., & Dik, B. J. (2009). Beyond the self: External influences in the career development process. The Career Development Quarterly, 58(1), 29–43. https://doi.
org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2009.tb00171.x.
Duffy, R. D., & Dik, B. J. (2013). Research on calling: What have we learned and where are we going? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 428–436.
Duffy, R. D., Dik, B. J., Douglass, R. P., England, J. W., & Velez, B. L. (2018). Work as a calling: A theoretical model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(4), 423–439.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000276.
Duffy, R. D., & Sedlacek, W. E. (2007). The presence of and search for a calling: Connections to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(3), 590–601.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.03.007.
Dumulescu, D., & Opre, A. (2014). Calling in career and life satisfaction among Romanian students. European Health Psychologist, 16, 450.
Elangovan, A., Pinder, C. C., & McLean, M. (2010). Callings and organizational behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 428–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jvb.2009.10.009.
Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of Management Review, 6(2), 309–318. https://doi.org/10.2307/257888.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202.
Greenwood, E. (1957). Attributes of a profession. Social Work, 2(3), 45–55.
Hall, D. T. (2002). Protean careers in and out of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hall, D. T., & Chandler, D. E. (2005). Psychological success: When the career is a calling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/
job.301.
Hirschi, A. (2012). Callings and work engagement: Moderated mediation model of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, and occupational self-efficacy. Journal
of Counseling Psychology, 59(3), 479–485. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028949.
Hornsey, M. J., & Jetten, J. (2004). The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 8(3), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_2.
Hunter, I., Dik, B. J., & Banning, J. H. (2010). College students' perceptions of calling in work and life: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(2),
178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.10.008.
Ilgen, D. R. (1999). Teams embedded in organizations: Some implications. American Psychologist, 54(2), 129–139.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. The Leadership
Quarterly, 16(3), 373–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.002.
Isaacs, W. N. (1993). Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-
2616(93)90051-2.
Jans, L., Postmes, T., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2011). The induction of shared identity: The positive role of individual distinctiveness for groups. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), 1130–1141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211407342.
Johnson, M. D., Morgeson, F. P., Ilgen, D. R., Meyer, C. J., & Lloyd, J. W. (2006). Multiple professional identities: Examining differences in identification across work-
related targets. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 498–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.498.
Kahn, W. A. (1996). Secure base relationships at work. In D. T. Hall (Ed.). The career is dead—Long live the career: A relational approach to careers (pp. 158–179). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Katz, R., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Assessing the clinical or applied importance of behavior change through social validation. Behavior Modification, 1(4), 427–452. https://doi.org/
10.1177/014544557714001.
Kim, K., Ormiston, M. E., Easterbrook, M. J., & Vignoles, V. L. (2017). Ethnic dissimilarity predicts belonging motive frustration and reduced organizational at-
tachment. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217733116.
Koenig Kellas, J. (2005). Family ties: Communicating identity through jointly told family stories. Communication Monographs, 72(4), 365–389.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of psychology:
Industrial and organizational psychology. Vol. 12. Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 333–375). London: Wiley.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest (Wiley-Blackwell), 7(3),
77–124.
Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. University Press of America.
Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 110–132.
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. (2006). Where is the “me” among the “we”? Identity work and the search for optimal balance. Academy of Management
Journal, 49(5), 1031–1057. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.22798186.
Lapierre, L. M., Naidoo, L. J., & Bonaccio, S. (2012). Leaders' relational self-concept and followers' task performance: Implications for mentoring provided to followers.
The Leadership Quarterly, 23(5), 766–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.01.001.
Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2013). Construct validity of the need to belong scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 95(6), 610–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.819511.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1991). Culture and socialization in work groups. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.). Perspectives on socially shared
cognition (pp. 257–279). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the ‘field at a given time.’. Psychological Review, 50(3), 292–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062738.
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 223–246.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Liao, C., & Meuser, J. D. (2014). Servant leadership and serving culture: Influence on individual and unit performance. Academy of
Management Journal, 57(5), 1434–1452. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0034.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2010). NEO inventories professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(6), 1102–1121.
Novak, M. (1996). Business as a calling: Work and the examined life. New York: The Free Press.
O'Leary, M. B., Mortensen, M., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). Multiple team membership: A theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and

98
B.C. Buis, et al. Journal of Vocational Behavior 114 (2019) 88–99

teams. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 461–478.

Ormiston, M. E. (2016). Explaining the link between objective and perceived differences in groups: The role of the belonging and distinctiveness motives. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 101(2), 222. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000051.
Parker, P., Hall, D. T., Kram, K. E., & Wasserman, I. C. (2018). Peer coaching at work: Principles and practices. Stanford University Press.
Praskova, A., Hood, M., & Creed, P. A. (2014). Testing a calling model of psychological career success in Australian young adults: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 85(1), 125–135.
Ragins, B. R., & Verbos, A. K. (2007). Positive relationships in action: Relational mentoring and mentoring schemas in the workplace. Exploring positive relationships at
work: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 91–116). .
Riketta, M., & Van Dick, R. (2005). Foci of attachment in organizations: A meta-analytic comparison of the strength and correlates of workgroup versus organizational
identification and commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67(3), 490–510.
Rink, F., Kane, A. A., Ellemers, N., & Van der Vegt, G. (2013). Team receptivity to newcomers: Five decades of evidence and future research themes. [Article]. Academy
of Management Annals, 7(1), 247–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2013.766405.
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001.
Schabram, K., & Maitlis, S. (2017). Negotiating the challenges of a calling: Emotion and enacted sensemaking in animal shelter work. [Article]. Academy of Management
Journal, 60(2), 584–609. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0665.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Schimel, J., Arndt, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (2001). Being accepted for who we are: Evidence that social validation of the intrinsic self reduces general
defensiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 35.
Simpson, R. L. (1962). Parental influence anticipatory socialization, and social mobility. American Sociological Review, 27(4), 517–522.
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 86(5), 518. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.86.5.518.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp.
33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work–family benefits are not enough: The influence of work–family culture on benefit utilization,
organizational attachment, and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3), 392–415. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1998.1681.
Thompson, L. (2011). Making the team: A guide for managers (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008.
Van Maanen, J. E., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior
(pp. 209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Vignoles, V. L., Chryssochoou, X., & Breakwell, G. M. (2000). The distinctiveness principle: Identity, meaning, and the bounds of cultural relativity. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 4(4), 337–354. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0404_4.
Waters, E., & Cummings, E. M. (2000). A secure base from which to explore close relationships. Child Development, 71(1), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
8624.00130.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. London: Sage.
Whiston, S. C., & Keller, B. K. (2004). The influences of the family of origin on career development: A review and analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 32(4), 493–568.
Williams, K. Y., & O'Reilly, C. A., III (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. Staw, & R. Sutton (Vol. Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior. Vol. 20. Research in organizational behavior (pp. 77–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201.
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: People's relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(1),
21–33. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2162.
Zhang, C., Hirschi, A., Herrmann, A., Wei, J., & Zhang, J. (2015). Self-directed career attitude as predictor of career and life satisfaction in Chinese employees: Calling
as mediator and job insecurity as moderator. Career Development International, 20(7), 703–716.

99