Suchergebnisse

AbstractPublic administration research suggests there may be disparity in the extent to which public servants experience their work as a calling. The purpose of this article is to better illustrate and integrate calling research, which grows out of the positive organizational scholarship movement, into how we understand public service motives. The calling scholarship offers a productive way to view differences in public servants' orientations toward their work. Integrating calling into the public administration scholarship—particularly the public service motivation scholarship—provides insights to researchers and managers about how to help employees discover a deeper sense of meaningfulness in their work. In presenting the arguments and corresponding conceptual framework, the authors seek to supplement rather than replace the public service motivation construct. The authors articulate a research agenda that they believe will strengthen and enrich research on public servants' experience with their work.

A qualitative examination of work meaning in the zoo-keeping profession pointed to the centrality of the notion of work as a personal calling. The view of calling expressed by zookeepers, however, was closer in basic structure to the classical conceptualization of the Protestant reformers than it was to more recent formulations. We used qualitative data from interviews with U.S. zookeepers to develop hypotheses about the implications of this neoclassical conceptualization of calling for the relationship between individuals and their work. We found that a neoclassical calling is both binding and ennobling. On one hand, zookeepers with a sense of calling strongly identified with and found broader meaning and significance in their work and occupation. On the other hand, they were more likely to see their work as a moral duty, to sacrifice pay, personal time, and comfort for their work, and to hold their zoo to a higher standard. Results of a survey of zookeepers from 157 different zoos in the U.S. and Canada supported the hypotheses from our emergent theory. These results reveal the ways in which deeply meaningful work can become a double-edged sword.

This article examines how the fulfillment of obligations viewed as essential to an individual's relationship with his or her employer (i.e., the psychological contract) affects attributions of friendship and influence within the organization. Drawing on social exchange theory and self-categorization theory, we hypothesize that individuals who fulfill relational obligations will receive more friendship nominations from others in the organization, whereas individuals who fulfill ideological obligations will receive more influence nominations. In contrast, we hypothesize that those who fulfill transactional obligations will receive fewer friendship and influence nominations. We also predict that individuals who hold similar beliefs about their relationship with the organization will be more likely to nominate similar coworkers as friends or as influential in the organization, and that ideological contract similarity may provide a more compelling rationale for influence nomination than transactional or relational contract similarity. We tested our framework in two samples and find support for these general hypotheses. Our findings suggest that positions of status and influence in ideologically oriented organizations may accrue to "true believers," i.e., those whose contracts with the organization are construed in ideological terms. Accordingly, this study has important implications for research on psychological contracts and social influence.