The moderating role of calling in the work–family interface: Buffering and substitution effects on employee satisfaction

This research seeks for improved understanding regarding the interaction of meaningful work and the work–family interface. Existing literature suggests that experiencing a sense of calling toward work makes the work domain particularly salient to employees compared to other life domains. In this article, we draw on this idea, rooted in identity theory, to hypothesize that a sense of calling toward work diminishes the effects of work–family conflict and work–family enrichment on employee's job and life satisfaction. We test these ideas in two studies. First, we surveyed an alumni sample of 598 employees from various jobs, industries, and job levels. Then, in a constructive replication, we surveyed 327 employees using a time-lagged design. Calling was found to significantly buffer the effect of work–family conflict on job satisfaction in Study 2, but not Study 1. Calling did not buffer the effect of conflict on life satisfaction in either study. However, both studies demonstrated that calling attenuated (substituted for) the effect of work–family enrichment on job satisfaction. Study 1 supported the idea that calling attenuates the effect of enrichment on life satisfaction; however, this interactive effect was reversed in Study 2, contrary to expectations. We discuss implications for theory and practice related to callings and career choices, as well as for the role of calling and work identity in the work–family interface.     

Abusive according to whom? Manager and subordinate perceptions of abusive supervision and supervisors' performance

Recognizing that supervisor–subordinate dyads exist within a broader organizational hierarchy, we examine how the individual's role within the organizational hierarchy influences perceptions of abusive supervision. Specifically, we examine how supervisors' abusive behaviors are perceived by abusive supervisors' managers as well as abusive supervisors' subordinates. Drawing on role theory, we propose that these perceptions will differ. Further, we suggest that these differences will be reflected in different relationships between manager-rated abusive supervision and subordinate-rated abusive supervision and managers' evaluations of supervisor performance. Results from manager–supervisor–subordinate triads indicate differences between managers' and subordinates' view of abusive supervision. Further, managers' perceptions of abuse were related to supervisors' in-role performance, whereas subordinates' perceptions of abuse were related to workgroup performance. In Study 2, we replicate these findings and expand our investigation to an examination of supervisors' contextual performance. Additionally, we examine another contextual characteristic—aggressive climate—and demonstrate it influences how abusive supervision relates to managerial evaluations of supervisor performance. Future research and managerial implications are discussed.