Calling and Work Engagement in Priests: The Moderating Role of

Social Support

Missiliana Riasnugrahani

, Meta Dwijayanthy

and Cindy Maria

Department of Psychology, Maranatha Christian University, Jl. Surya Sumantri No.65, Bandung, Indonesia

Keywords: Calling, Work Engagement, Social Support, Priest.

Abstract: The priest has many jobs and responsibilities to fulfill the vision and missions of the church. This study

examines the moderating role of social support from spouses and presbyters in the relationship between

calling and work engagement in the priest. Using purposive sampling, we collected 121 priests that had

married and worked at least one year as a priest. The age range of respondents was 28-61 years old, and more

than half were male. This research data was gathered with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, Presbyters

Support Scale, Spousal Support Scale, and Calling and Vocation Questionnaire-presence Scale. The reliability

coefficient of each scale is .94, .89, .92 and .78. With regression technique – Model 2 from Hayes’ PROCESS

– we found that the relationship between calling and work engagement in priests is moderated only by

presbyters’ support. The results show that emotional and instrumental support from presbyters can increase

work engagement in a priest who has a weak calling. However, when analyzing social support by its basic

functions, informational support from spouses acts as a moderator in the relationship between calling and

work engagement. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

1 INTRODUCTION

Work engagement refers to positive conditions and a

fulfilling, affective-motivational state of work related

to well-being (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter & Taris,

2008). Engagement is characterized by a high level of

vigor and strong identification with one’s work

(Bakker & Leiter, 2010). Employees who have work

engagement will appear enthusiastic, energized and

seem to be “immersed” in their work, so they will

have a better work performance (Bakker & Albrecht,

2018). Work engagement has a reciprocal

relationship with an employee's mental health and job

satisfaction (Simbula & Guglielmi, 2013). Work

engagement is not only beneficial for individuals, but

also for teams and organizations.

Previous studies on work engagement have shown

that there are differing levels of work engagement

between individuals which are influenced by factors

such as working conditions, personal characteristics

and behavioral strategies (Bakker & Albrecht, 2018).

The combination of personal resources and job

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7287-3941

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2202-3727

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9984-0904

characteristics is considered to be an important source

of work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017).

Personal resources are the affective and cognitive

aspects of personality, in the form of positive belief

systems about oneself and the world, which motivate

individuals to achieve goals and overcome obstacles

and challenges (Van den Heuvel, Demerouti, Bakker

& Schaufeli, 2010). Job resources are aspects of the

job that can help individuals to achieve goals, reduce

job demands, and stimulate personal growth and

development (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner &

Schaufeli, 2001).

Job resources can be represented in the form of

physical, psychological, social or organizational

aspects of the job, including equipment, participation

in decision making, flexible working time and

support from colleagues. Personal resources that are

considered to influence work engagement include

psychological capital or PsyCap (hope, efficacy,

resilience, optimism), self-regulation and meaning

making (Van den Heuvel et al, 2010). These factors

have been shown to have an influence on increasing

Riasnugrahani, M., Dwijayanthy, M. and Maria, C.

Calling and Work Engagement in Priests: The Moderating Role of Social Support.

DOI: 10.5220/0010752000003112

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Emerging Issues in Humanity Studies and Social Sciences (ICE-HUMS 2021), pages 349-356

ISBN: 978-989-758-604-0

349

work engagement among employees. Employees who

have adequate personal and job resources will show

high levels of work involvement and satisfying work

performance.

Although there have been many studies on work

engagement, currently further research is still needed

to understand the factors that influence work

engagement in certain demographic groups, across

industrial sectors (private, public, non-profit) and in

various jobs (Bakker & Albrecht, 2018). One of the

unique demographic groups in the non-profit sector

consists of the priests of churches. A church is a faith-

based organization (FBO), meaning that it is a non-

profit organization that incorporates religious identity

and expression in its activities (Bielefeld &

Cleveland, 2013). The identification of work

demands and resources that are unique to this group

will help practitioners in determining appropriate and

effective interventions to increase priests’ work

engagement.

In order to develop work engagement, the priest

must have both personal resources and job resources.

One of the personal resources that is considered

important for a priest is meaning making, which is the

ability to understand why an event occurs and what

impact it has on oneself (Van den Heuvel et al, 2010).

Meaning making is a cognitive-affective resource that

can be developed and affects attitudes towards change

as well as the motivation to stay involved in work

(Van den Heuvel et al, 2010).

One form of meaning making that is done while

working is perceiving one’s work as a calling.

Individuals with a calling will perceive their job as

purposeful, meaningful, and having an impact on

many people. Individuals with a calling even feel they

are "called" to carry out the job (Dik & Duffy, 2009).

Individuals with a strong calling will perceive

meaningfulness, have a full of sense dedication, and

feel a personal involvement in their work (Dobrow &

Tosti-Kaharas, 2011). Individuals with a strong

calling will show work engagement when

experiencing both high and low frustration (Ugwu &

Onyishi, 2018).

Priesthood is regarded as one of the professions

which requires a calling. Being a priest is often

thought of as a “calling” from God. This belief

prompts a priest to offer his or her life to serve the

community, be involved, and dedicate him or herself

to work above personal desires (Christopherson,

1994). Even though a priest discerns his or her

profession as a calling, sometimes in doing his or her

job the priest experiences obstacles. The extent of

perceived barriers in the workplace makes it difficult

for individuals to derive meaning or purpose from the

work context (Blustein, 2006) and even prompts

individuals to question the calling they already have

(Elangovan, Pinder & McLean, 2010). Doubt about a

calling can weaken the priest's work engagement

(Kolodinsky, Ritchie & Kuna, 2017). However,

according to Erum, Abid and Toreas (2020), a calling

as a “psychological driver” only explains 30% of the

variance in work engagement, which indicates that

other factors can affect the relationship.

Social support, especially leader support, was

found to increase the relationship between calling and

work engagement, and further research on the

influence of co-worker support is needed

(Kolodinsky, Ritchie & Kuna, 2017). Therefore, in

this study, we examine presbyters' support as a

priest’s co-workers. The support of presbyters

becomes a job resource for the priest and acts as a

moderator on the direct relationship between calling

and work engagement.

The presence of presbyters as co-workers is

strongly felt within churches that adhere to a

presbyteral polity (presbyterial sinodal) system,

which has three special characteristics, namely: (a)

organizational control, seen from the source of

funding, strength in the organization, and the

decision-making process; (b) religious expression,

seen through organizational identity, people’s

religiosity, and organizational outcome measures;

and (c) program implementation, seen through the

services provided, religious elements involved in

service delivery, and voluntary participation in

religious activities (Bielefeld & Cleveland, 2013).

The organizational control of churches that adhere

to a presbyterial sinodal system comes from the

leadership that is held collectively by the presbyters,

and the highest level of decision can only be made

through the presbyterial session that is held by the

presbytery. Each member of the church council has

the same position and duties. The expression of

diversity can be seen from the vision and mission of

the organization, which develops the spirituality of

the church and carries out missionary tasks in the

community. The church also performs religious

services for both the congregation and the

community, which are carried out by the priest

together with the church council (Bielefeld &

Cleveland, 2013). These special circumstances

indicate that in carrying out their duties, the priests

also need the support of their fellow co-workers,

namely the presbyters.

Apart from co-workers’ support, the Book of

Order also mentions that the priest’s spouse is

expected to support the priest’s job by attending to the

priest's work while also serving the congregation

ICE-HUMS 2021 - International Conference on Emerging Issues in Humanity Studies and Social Sciences

350

through religious services in the church. Although a

priest’s spouse is allowed to have other activities or

jobs, it is expected that the spouse’s profession will

not become an obstacle to the priest's ministry. Seeing

the unique demands not only of priests, but also of the

priests’ spouses, we argue that apart from job

resources and personal resources, priests also need

other resources, such as support from family,

especially spouses.

According to the work-family enrichment theory

by Greenhaus and Powell (2006), family-to-work

enrichment is a resource that can improve work

performance. Family support is non-work-related

social support, and as a role resource, it can activate

employees’ work engagement (Karatepe, 2015).

Family support for individuals was found to affect

individual work engagement in conditions of both

high and low job demands (Lu, Siu, Chen & Wang,

2011). On the other hand, work-family conflict

reduces individual work engagement (Opie & Henn,

2013). Based on these understandings, we maintain

that it is important to include family factors,

especially spousal support, to be able to describe the

dynamics of work engagement more

comprehensively. Presbyters and spousal support will

be operationalized as a priest’s social support.

Social support is the comfort, care, appreciation,

or assistance available to someone from another

person or group (Sarafino, 2011). Priests who

perceive and recognize the social support from those

around them will believe that they are loved, valued

and are a part of the community. The four basic

functions of social support are emotional or self-

esteem support, tangible or instrumental support,

informational support and companionship support.

Emotional or self-esteem support involves

empathy, care, concern, positive outlook, and

encouragement for the priest. It provides comfort and

serenity with a sense of belonging and being loved in

stressful situations. Tangible or instrumental support

includes direct assistance, such as when the spouse or

the presbyters provide material support or assist with

assignments when the priest is in a stressful situation

or needs help. Informational support includes

providing input, suggestions, or feedback on what the

priest is doing. Companionship support incorporates

the willingness of the spouse or presbyters to spend

time with the priest so that the priest can feel like he

or she is part of a group that shares the same interests

and social activities.

Based on the discussion above, we assume that the

calling that a priest feels toward his or her job can be

affected by the extent of social support that he or she

receives. Presumably, priests who get various

resources from both co-workers and spouses while

carrying out their job will increasingly discern their

job as a calling and be more involved with their work.

Conversely, if a priest feels less support, it can

decrease work engagement even if the priest has

perceived his or her calling. The lack of social support

can cause hindrances for priests who undergo their

job as calling. Thus, the purpose of this study was to

determine the moderating role of presbyteral and

spousal support on the relationship between calling

and work engagement.

2 METHODS (AND MATERIALS)

The study was initiated by asking the synod for

permission to conduct the research. After obtaining

approval, a personal approach was made to each

priest to ask about his or her willingness to become a

participant. The research population in this study was

a group of priests at churches that adhere to the

presbyteral polity (presbyterial sinodal) system, who

had been married and worked for at least one year. A

total of 121 priests were willing to participate in this

study. The study variables of social support (from

presbyters and spouse), calling, and work

engagement would be measured using questionnaires

with good reliability (Cronbach’s α = .78‒.94).

The work engagement questionnaire was

modified from the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale

(UWES) (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Seppälä et. al.,

2009), which is comprised of 30 items with seven

answer choices (α = .94). The social support

questionnaire was adapted based on social support

theory by Cutrona and Gardner (2004) as well as

Sarafino (2011). This questionnaire consisted of 20

items with four answer choices and measured social

support from spouse (α = .92) and presbyters (α =

.89). The calling questionnaire was adapted by

employing the “Presence of Calling” dimension from

the Calling and Vocation Questionnaire (CVQ-

presence; Dik et al., 2012). The calling questionnaire

consisted of 12 items with six answer choices (α =

.78). Furthermore, data collection was done using an

online questionnaire.

Data was analyzed using the regression technique;

specifically, we employed the second model of SPSS

PROCESS Macro (Hayes, 2018). Through this

analysis, we would like to investigate the moderating

effect of spousal and presbyteral support on the

relationship between calling and work engagement.

Calling and Work Engagement in Priests: The Moderating Role of Social Support

351

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations of the Study Variable.

Variable

Descriptive Correlation

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9

1. Age 44.15 8.5

2. Gender - - .02

3. Age of Marriage 14.37 8.63 .88

4. Education - - .38

-.12 .35

5. Tenure 10.34 7.26 .22

.08 .18 .13

6. Calling 5.47 0.49 .27

.14 .29

.19

.02

7. Spouse Support 3.47 0.41 .00 .06 .03 .05 -.06 .18

8. Presbyteral Support 3.25 0.47 -.09 .04 -.07 -.05 .10 .23

.32

9. Work Engagement 5.99 0.54 .25

.05 .25

.13 –.05 .61

.30

.28

Note: N = 121, age, age of marriage and tenure in years, minimum education bachelor

**P < 0.01 level (2-tailed); *p < 0.05 level (2-tailed)

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Results

3.1.1 Descriptive Statistics

A total of 121 priests who had been working for one

year were willing to participate in this study.

Participants’ age range was from 28 to 61 years old

(M = 44.15, SD = 8.50), and 79.3% were male. The

tenure range was from 1 to 35 years (M = 15.10, SD

= 8.69). More than half of the participants hold a

bachelor’s degree (55.4%), and 71.9% of the

participants’ spouses also hold a bachelor’s degree.

Additionally, 52% of the participants had a spouse

who worked (Table 1).

3.1.2 Results of Classical Assumption Test

The results of classical assumption tests showed that

our data satisfied the assumptions of normality,

homoscedasticity, and absence of multicollinearity.

The results of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov asymptotic

test (sig. 2-tailed) were nonsignificant for both work

engagement (D = .835, p > .05) and calling (D = .052,

p > .05), meaning that both scores were normally

distributed. Furthermore, the collinearity test

indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern

(Tolerance = 0.899, VIF = 1.11).

3.1.3 Results of Hypothesis Testing

Based on the results of the hypothesis testing, it was

found that calling and the interaction terms of calling

with spousal support as well as calling with

presbyteral support explained 45% of variances in

work engagement scores (Table 2). Table 3 shows

that there is a significant effect of the relationship

between calling and the priest's work engagement (B

= 2.2, p < .01), and only presbyteral support

moderates the relationship between calling and work

engagement (B = -0.35, p < .05). This negative value

indicates that presbyteral support can increase a

priest's work engagement only if the priest has a weak

calling. Spousal support did not significantly

moderate the effect of calling on work engagement (B

= –.14, p > .05). The visualization of the overall

model can be seen in Figure 1. We also analyzed

social support by its basic functions. Informational

support from spouses acts as a moderator in the

relationship between calling and work engagement (B

= –.35, p < .05) (Table 3). The basic functions of

presbyteral support that have noticeable influences

are emotional (B = –.43, p < .01) and instrumental

support (B = –.43, p < .01).

Figure 1: A Moderated Model.

ICE-HUMS 2021 - International Conference on Emerging Issues in Humanity Studies and Social Sciences

352

Table 2: Model Summary.

-s

MSE F df1 df2

.67 .45 .17 18.81 5.00 115.00 .00

Table 3: Results from Moderation Analysis of Spousal Support and Presbyteral Support on the Relationship between Calling

and Work Engagement.

B se t p-value 95%CI

Calling 2.2 .74 2.98 .00 .74; 3.66

Spousal Support 1.00 1.16 0.86 .39

–

1.29; 3.29

a. Emotional support

.56 .90 .62 .53

–

1.22; 2.35

b. Instrumental support

–

1.17 .85

–

1.38 .17

–

2.85; .51

c. Informational support

2.15 .93 2.31 .02 .31; 4.00

d. Companionship support

.93 .74 1.26 .21

–

.53; 2.38

Interaction_1

(Calling*Spousal Support)

–.14 .21 –.68 .50 –.56; 27

a. Interaction 1a

–

.07 .17

–

.42 .67

–

.40; 26

b. Interaction 1b

.23 .15 1.48 .14

–

.08; 53

c. Interaction 1c

–

.35 .17

–

2.11 .04

–

.69;

–

.02

d. Interaction 1d

–

.16 .13

–

1.16 .25

–

.42; .11

Presbyteral Support 2.01 .88 2.28 .02 .26; 3.77

a. Emotional support

2.50 .80 3.12 .00 .91; 4.09

b. Instrumental support

2.44 .73 3.35 .00 1.00; 3.88

c. Informational support

.97 .82 1.19 .24

–

.65; 2.59

d. Companionship support

.86 .69 1.25 .22

–

.51; 2.23

Interaction_2

(Calling*Presbyteral Support)

–.35 .16 –2.17 .03 –.66; –.03

a. Interaction 2a

–

.43 .14

–

2.98 .00

–

.72;

–

.14

b. Interaction 2b

–

.43 .13

–

3.27 .00

–

.69;

–

.17

c. Interaction 2c

–

.15 .15

–

.99 .32

–

.44; .15

d. Interaction 2d

–

.15 .13

–

1.18 .24

–

.40; .10

Note: N = 121. CI = Confidence Interval. Dependent variable = work engagement.

3.2 Discussion

Based on the results, calling has a significant effect

on priests' work engagement. This shows that in

carrying out their work, priests have a very strong

sense of a calling to serve their congregation. Priests

believe that their work is God's calling, meaningful,

and contributes positively to the congregation, so they

carry out their duties and responsibilities seriously.

When working, priests give most of their energy,

put forth their best effort, do not give up easily, and

persevere when faced with difficulties. Priests also

show enthusiasm and a strong identification with their

work such that they carry out tasks with totality and

feel happiness when they successfully complete their

assignments. Often priests feel absorbed in their

activities such that time seems to pass quickly as they

complete all services.

In carrying out their duties, priests also need

support from the presbyters. In this study, it was

revealed that the support of the presbyters was more

effective in increasing the priests’ work engagement

if the priests had a weak calling to their work. This

means that a priest with a strong calling will easily

feel engaged in his or her duties, even without the

support of the presbyters. This is in line with previous

studies which found that social support from

colleagues and superiors is an important predictor of

work engagement (Halbesleben, 2010). If an

individual has a lot of resources (in the form of social

support), he or she will feel more engaged with his or

her job, even in conditions with a lot of work demands

Calling and Work Engagement in Priests: The Moderating Role of Social Support

353

(Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti & Xanthopoulou,

2007).

The basic functions of presbyteral support that

have noticeable influences are emotional and

instrumental support. Therefore, priests with a weak

sense of calling need support in the form of empathy,

care, attention, and encouragement from the

presbyters to provide comfort and calmness in

stressful situations (e.g., doing service). Our results

are consistent with Madjar (2008) that the

effectiveness of support also depends on the source.

Emotional and instrumental support from co-workers

had a stronger impact than support from non-work-

related sources (i.e., spouse). The reason is that

emotional support from colleagues is directly related

to how new decisions or ideas are received by those

associated with them. Moreover, emotional support

from co-workers is more effective because it is most

needed when problems arise and more helpful in

coping with job-related stress.

Priests with a weak calling also need presbyters’

instrumental support to carry out their duties and deal

with strenuous situations. Supporting facilities from

colleagues related to domain-relevant knowledge and

expertise assist the priest in finding a solution to

problems faced (Madjar, 2008).

The presbyters' support is less effective for priests

who already have a strong calling. This could be

related to the priest’s internal factors as a recipient of

the support. The internal factors of those who receive

support also determine whether a person will get

social support or not (Sarafino, 2011). If a person

believes that he or she must be able to independently

fulfill job responsibilities, then the person may not be

assertive in asking for help. Additionally, a person

may feel reluctant to ask for help if the person finds

that sources of support are also in a state of stress and

need help. Priests with a strong calling may think that

the presbyters' support is not necessary because they

believe that they must carry out their responsibilities

with totality while being fully independent.

Therefore, they are reluctant to ask the presbyters for

help because they perceive that the presbyters already

have their own responsibilities and difficulties in

carrying out their duties in the church.

On the other hand, priests are church leaders who

have attended special education programs, both

theoretically and practically through services in the

church, and thus they have more adequate knowledge

and skills to complete theological ministry than

presbyters. As church leaders, priests also have a

higher status socially. As someone who has higher

competence and social status, seeking help can be

considered a weakness, lower social status (Nadler,

2015), or show dependence and inability.

Consequently, it is possible that priests feel better

about solving problems alone and avoid seeking help

(Nadler & Chernyak-Hai, 2014).

The act of receiving help can also reduce self-

esteem (Deelstra et al., 2003) and task-specific self-

efficacy (belief in being able to do specific tasks) in

individuals. Accepting assistance may make someone

feel incapable of solving work problems

independently (Chou & Chang, 2016) or restricted

from free choice (Deelstra et al., 2003).

Consequently, for priests, asking for help with church

services may seem like a threat to self-esteem and

reduce their self-confidence in doing specific tasks.

This perception may have influenced the priests’

preference to complete their duties individually and

not rely on the presbyters. In short, reaction to

receiving support also depends on the need for

support (Deelstra et al., 2003).

In this study, we also found interesting data

patterns related to spousal support. When analyzing

social support by its basic functions, we found that

informational support from spouses acts as a

moderator in the relationship between calling and

work engagement. This finding is in line with Madjar

(2008) that informational support from non-work-

related sources is more impactful than that from

work-related sources because it provides cognitive

stimulation. People who are not directly related to the

problem sometimes give a unique perspective. This

result also shows that informational support from

spouses is more acceptable than informational

support from presbyters. Feedback or advice from co-

workers is sometimes received as critical social

support, namely social support that directly leads to

feeling insulted, criticized, or attacked (Gray et al.,

2019).

4 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the above discussion, it can be concluded

that:

1. Calling increases work engagement among

priests.

2. Presbyters’ emotional and instrumental

support is effective in promoting priests’ work

engagement, especially when addressed to

priests with a weak calling.

3. Spousal support, specifically informational

support, can enhance work engagement

among priests with a weak calling.

ICE-HUMS 2021 - International Conference on Emerging Issues in Humanity Studies and Social Sciences

354

Suggestions that can be made based on the results

of this study are:

1. Presbyters and priests can jointly develop

more open communication such that they can

better understand each other’s needs, thereby

enabling them to help each other according to

their respective needs.

2. Presbyters are expected to provide support to

priests, especially those who have a weak

calling, so that they can fully engage in their

ministerial duties.

3. To retain their calling, priests can proactively

develop their abilities and skills in carrying

out their ministerial tasks and seek

constructive feedback from people who can

provide inspiration for self-development.

4. The priest’s spouse is expected to provide

input, suggestions, or feedback on what the

priest is doing, but constructively.

REFERENCES

Bakker, A. B. & Albrecht, S. (2018). Work engagement:

current trends. Career Development International,

23(1), 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2017-

0207

Bakker, A. B. & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands-

resources theory: taking stock and looking forward.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3),

273–285.

Bakker, A. B. & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Work Engagement:

A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research.

Psychology Press.

Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P. & Taris, T.

W. (2008). Work Engagement: An Emerging Concept

in Occupational Health Psychology. Work & Stress,

22(3), 187–200.

Bielefeld, W., & Cleveland, W. S. (2013). Defining Faith-

Based Organizations and Understanding Them

Through Research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Quarterly, 42(3), 442–467. https://doi.org/10.1177/

0899764013484090

Blustein, D. L. (2006). The psychology of working: A new

perspective for career development, counseling, and

public policy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chou, S. Y., & Chang, T. (2017). Being helped and being

harmed: A theoretical study of employee self-concept

and receipt of help. Journal of Happiness Studies: An

Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being,

18(6), 1573–1592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-

9788-z

Christopherson, R. W. (1994). Calling and Career in

Christian Ministry. Review of Religious Research,

35(3), 219. https://doi.org/10.2307/3511890

Cutrona, C. E., & Gardner, K. A. (2004). Social Support. In

A. J. Christensen, R. Martin, & J. M. Smyth (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of Health Psychology (pp. 280–284).

New York: Kluwer.

Deelstra, J. T., Peeters, M. C. W., Schaufeli, W. B., Stroebe,

W., Zijlstra, F. R. H., & van Doornen, L. P. (2003).

Receiving instrumental support at work: When help is

not welcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2),

324–331. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.324

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli,

W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of

burnout. Journal of Applied psychology, 86(3), 499.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

Dik, B. J., & Duffy, R. D. (2009). Calling and vocation at

work: Definitions and prospects for research and

practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 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, 242–263.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711434410

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

Elangovan, A. R., 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

Erum, H., Abid, G., & Contreras, F. (2020). The calling of

employees and work engagement: the role of

flourishing at work. Business, Management and

Economics Engineering, 18(1), 14–32. https://doi.org/

10.3846/bme.2020.11430

Gray, C. E., Spector, P. E., Lacey, K. N., Young, B. G.,

Jacobsen, S. T., & Taylor, M. R. (2019). Helping may

be harming: unintended negative consequences of

providing social support. Work & Stress, 1–27.

doi:10.1080/02678373.2019.1695294

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and

family are allies: a theory of work–family enrichment.

Academy of Management Review, 31, 72−92.

https://doi.org/10.2307/20159186

Halbesleben, Jonathon R.B. (2010). A Meta-Analysis of

Work Engagement: Relationship with Burnout,

Demands, Resources, and Consequences. In Arnold B.

Bakker (Ed.) & Michael P. Leiter, Work Engagement:

A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research (pp.

102–117). Psychology Press.

Hayes, Andrew F. (2018). Introduction to Mediation,

Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. A

Regression-Based Approach. New York: A Division of

Guilford Publications, Inc.

Karatepe, O. M. (2015). The effects of family support and

work engagement on organizationally valued job

outcomes. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary

Journal, 63(4), 447–464.

Kolodinsky, R. W., Ritchie, W. J., & Kuna, W. A. (2017).

Meaningful engagement: Impacts of a “calling” work

orientation and perceived leadership support. Journal of

Calling and Work Engagement in Priests: The Moderating Role of Social Support

355

Management & Organization, 24(03), 406–423.

doi:10.1017/jmo.2017.19

Lu, C. Q., Siu, O. L., Chen, W. Q., & Wang, H. J. (2011).

Family mastery enhances work engagement in Chinese

nurses: A cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 78(1), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/

j.jvb.2010.07.005

Madjar, N. (2008). Emotional and informational support

from different sources and employee creativity. Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(1),

83–100. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317907X202464

Nadler, A. (2015). The other side of helping: Seeking and

receiving help. In D. A. Schroeder & W. G. Graziano

(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Prosocial Behavior

(pp. 307–328). Oxford University Press.

Nadler, A., & Chernyak-Hai, L. (2014). Helping them stay

where they are: status effects on dependency/

autonomy-oriented helping. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 106(1), 58–72.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034152

Opie, T. J., & Henn, C. M. (2013). Work-family conflict

and work engagement among mothers:

Conscientiousness and neuroticism as moderators. SA

Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(1).

Sarafino, Edward P., & Smith, T. W. (2011). Healthy

Psychology, Biopsychosocial Interaction. Seventh

Edition. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Defining and

Measuring Work Engagement: Bringing Clarity to the

Concept. In Arnold B. Bakker (Ed.) & Michael P.

Leiter, Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential

Theory and Research (pp. 10–24). Psychology Press.

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). UWES Utrecht

Work Engagement Scale, Preliminary Manual Version

1.1. Occupational Health Psychology Unit Utrecht

University.

Seppälä, P., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., Hakanen, J., Kinnunen,

U., Tolvanen, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2009). The

construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement

Scale: Multisample and longitudinal evidence. Journal

of Happiness Studies, 10, 459–481.

doi:10.1007/s10902-008-9100-y

Simbula, S. & Guglielmi, D. (2013). I Am Engaged, I Feel

Good, and I Go the Extra-mile: Reciprocal

Relationships Between Work Engagement and

Consequences. Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 29, 117–125.

Ugwu, F. O., & Onyishi, I. E. (2018). Linking perceived

organizational frustration to work engagement: The

moderating roles of sense of calling and psychological

meaningfulness. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(2),

220–239.

ICE-HUMS 2021 - International Conference on Emerging Issues in Humanity Studies and Social Sciences

356