Open thematic sessions > Strong social sustainability in ‘called’ contexts

Contact pour soumission de communication

Stephanos Anastasiadis : stephanos.anastasiadis@gmail.com ; stephanos-thomas.anastasiadis@polizei.niedersachsen.de

Maleen Halter : maleen.halter@uni-kassel.de

Cadrage et objectif de la session

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals have guided much work on sustainability over the last decade. Our session will make a contribution to social aspects of strong sustainability. This is most directly relevant in relation to such goals as SDG5 (Gender Equality), SDG8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). This list is not exclusive. For example, calling is also relevant to such goals as SDG3 (Good Health and Well-being, under a generous definition of wellbeing).

In this session, we are seeking contributions that deal with organizations in which people live out their vocational calling. These are often to be found in the public or not-for-profit sector, but can also be in the private sector. We are especially interested in contexts where one or both of two conditions pertain. First, organizations contain at least some employees who are living out a calling despite having one or more characteristics for which discrimination is common, such as gender discrimination, sexual orientation or a disability, and whom one might expect to not find in the organizations in question. Second, organizations are seeking to find ways to become or remain a “realm of caring” (Tronto, 2013, p. XI).

Meaningful work has a positive impact on workers and organizations (Esteves & Lopes, 2017, Bailey et al., 2019). Calling can be seen as an extreme form of deeply meaningful work (Bunderson & Thompson, 2009), with vocational calling being defined as a prosocial vocation, perceived as meaningful, and which may be triggered by an external stimulus (e.g., ‘summons’ by God; Dik & Duffy, 2009). Living out one’s calling can lead to more motivation and productivity (Park et al., 2016), as well as higher life and career satisfaction (Duffy et al., 2018; Wrzesniewski et al., 1997), and called workers remain in their workforce for longer (Esteves & Lopes, 2017). In other words, called workers often work in prosocial jobs, and in contrast to the great majority of workers globally, who are disengaged from their work (Gallup, 2022), called workers are highly engaged. “Calling is [therefore] highly salient to individuals, organizations and society at large” (Anastasiadis & Zeyen, 2022, p. 841). Organizations in which people are able to live out their vocational calling therefore have the potential to be forerunners in promoting strong institutions, as well as reducing discrimination and inequalities and promoting decent work. Ethics of care, meanwhile, acknowledges the significance of relational thinking, emphasizing interpersonal relations and communal ties, in specific contextual circumstances (Held, 2006; Tronto, 1995; 2013; 2015). An ethics of care perspective posits that people do not exist as fully-independent rational agents, but rather that they are embedded in a number of social relationships, both within organizations and well beyond them. Care itself is about meeting needs, within a relational context, which changes over time. It is “always infused with power” (Tronto, 2015, p. 9), making it highly relevant in the context of social sustainability. The consequences of this perspective are potentially of great interest to scholars investigating sustainable organizations. This is particularly the case when vulnerable workers are in play – such as those with disabilities. However, the consequences of practicing ethics of care within organizations arguably have the potential to provide lessons in sustainability for all organizations seeking to move their culture and processes in a sustainable direction.

We would like to see contributions that address (but are not limited to) the following questions:

1. How do organizations encourage or hinder people with disabilities and other protected characteristics from living out their vocation?
2. What impact do diverse teams result have on social sustainability?
3. How can one best promote an ethics of care approach within organizations whilst also achieving the organization’s goals?
4. How can organizations that operate internationally both implement fair and caring policies and reflect the values, laws, customs and institutions of the countries in which they operate?
5. Which contexts are conducive to social sustainability in organizations?
6. What contextual elements are identifiable in organizations that enable a (e.g., disabled) person to live out their vocational calling?

References

Anastasiadis, S., & Zeyen, A. (2022). Families under pressure: The costs of vocational calling, and what can be done about them. Work, Employment and Society, 36(5), 841–857. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017020980986

Bailey, C., Yeoman, R., Madden, A., Thompson, M., & Kerridge, G. (2019). A Review of the Empirical Literature on Meaningful Work: Progress and Research Agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 18(1), 83–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484318804653

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/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.644

Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2009). Calling and Vocation at Work. The Counseling Psychologist, 37(3), 424–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000008316430

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

Esteves, T., & Lopes, M. P. (2017). Crafting a Calling. Journal of Career Development, 44(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845316633789

Gallup. (2022). State of the Global Workplace 2022 Report: The Voice of the World’s Employees. Gallup, 1–122. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace-2022-report.aspx (Last accessed 12 December 2023).

Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care: Personal, political, global. Oxford University Press.

Park, J., Sohn, Y. W., & Ha, Y. J. (2016). South Korean Salespersons’ Calling, Job Performance, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Mediating Role of Occupational Self-Efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 24(3), 415–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715599354

Tronto, J. C. (1995). Care as a Basis for Radical Political Judgments. Hypatia, 10(2), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1995.tb01376.x

Tronto, J. C. (2013). Caring democracy: Markets, equality, and justice. New York University Press.

Tronto, J. C. (2015). Who cares? How to reshape a democratic politics. Cornell University Press.

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