Calling for a meaningful contribution? Bridging contributing to society with motivation theory

Abstract

This paper examines the concept of “contributing to society” in the context of meaningful work and calling. While previous studies have identified it as a significant dimension within these concepts, little attention has been paid to trying to conceptualize it. Also, with “self-oriented” fulfillment being an important aspect of the experience of meaningfulness, the understanding of contribution to society might be more complex than being simply an “other-oriented” concept. In response to this conceptual unclarity, we define contributing to society as a belief individuals hold about whether tasks positively impact work beneficiaries. We integrate this with Situated Expectancy-Value Theory (SEVT) to determine the expected task value of such belief. Our argument is that fulfillment of a contribution depends on three factors: (1) the expectation of a contribution based on someone's calling and expected meaningfulness; (2) the extent to which the employee is invested in the task, the costs of such task, whether the beneficiary and impact value and the utility for the self and beneficiary match the preference; (3) the extent to which this contribution is sufficient considering someone's expectation. Therefore, the expected task value can differ between individuals concerning the number and types of beneficiaries and the extent and value of the impact. Moreover, in this way contributions to society should also be perceived from a self-oriented perspective to be fulfilling. This original concept offers a theoretical framework and a research agenda that proposes new avenues of inquiry for calling, meaningful work, contributing to society, and related fields such as job design, and public policy.

Do what you love and you’ll never work a day in your life? Testing fundamental assumptions about calling, effort, and enjoyment

“…Scholars have theorized effort as an important part of people's ability to meet their calling-relevant goals, which then in turn influences both their objective and subjective career success (Hall & Chandler, 2005). Finally, the effort required to complete work that benefits others is assumed to be part of our ability to contribute to society through our work, affecting not just the individual worker but the wider world (Bryant et al, 2023). Prior to our investigation, these important relationships were based on a link between calling and effort that was widely assumed to be true, but the evidence for which was tenuous at best.…”

“…Finally, the effort required to complete work that benefits others is assumed to be part of our ability to contribute to society through our work, affecting not just the individual worker but the wider world (Bryant et al, 2023). Prior to our investigation, these important relationships were based on a link between calling and effort that was widely assumed to be true, but the evidence for which was tenuous at best.…”

“…Multiple theoretical models of calling have specified—either explicitly or implicitly—an effect of calling on effort, including proposing links between calling and greater effort in pursuit of career-relevant goals (Hall & Chandler, 2005), meaningful work activities (Elangovan et al, 2010), making a societal contribution through work (Bryant et al, 2023), and accordingly better performance at work (Duffy et al, 2018). Because callings toward one's work imbue that work with a sense of meaningfulness and purpose, scholars theorize that those with strong callings will focus on goals that reflect their purpose.…”

“…This is true both because it is typically assumed rather than tested, and because when it has been tested, methodological limitations dampen the strength of the resulting evidence (e.g., Cho & Jiang, 2022; Praskova et al, 2014). However, given that a link between calling and effort underpins most “downstream” theorizing about the effects of calling on other outcomes, such as performance, subjective career success, and societal contribution, the lack of empirical support is problematic (Bryant et al, 2023; Hall & Chandler, 2005; Kim et al, 2018).…”