ArticlePDF Available

The Relationship between Career Calling and Workaholism: The Mediating Role of Career Orientation

Social Sciences

October 2023
12(10):564

DOI:10.3390/socsci12100564

License
CC BY 4.0

Authors:

Liliana Pitacho

Polytechnic Institute of Setúbal

João Pedro Cordeiro

Polytechnic Institute of Setubal Portugal

The difference between having workers involved in their work, on the one hand, or too exhausted to contribute, on the other, can be tenuous and compromise work orientation. The positive outcomes of career calling (a deep purpose and meaningfulness in work characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption) to organizations are clear, namely the relationship of career calling with high levels of commitment and engagement. However, the dark side of career calling remains a less explored point. The main purpose of this study analyzes this side of career calling and explores the relationship between sense of work purpose—perceived career calling—and workaholism. The sample consists of 743 Portuguese employees from different sectors of activity. The main hypothesis intends to test the presence of career orientation as a mechanism to explain the ambiguity of career calling outcomes, that is, the mediating effect of career orientation on the relationship between career calling and workaholism. The results showed that the workers’ career orientation helps to explain this relationship. Career orientation partially mediated the relation between career calling and the positive dimension of workaholism, involvement and enjoyment, and completely mediated the relation between career calling and negative dimensions of workaholism, drive. These results allow us to reflect on career calling, and how organizations manage workforce efforts to avoid work addiction and the negative consequences that compromise workforce sustainability. Career calling was looked at as an element of a mixed profile work orientation, rather than not just as a pure work orientation. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Available via license: CC BY 4.0

Content may be subject to copyright.

Citation: Pitacho, Liliana, and João

Pedro Cordeiro. 2023. The

Relationship between Career Calling

and Workaholism: The Mediating

Role of Career Orientation. Social

Sciences 12: 564. https://doi.org/

10.3390/socsci12100564

Received: 6 July 2023

Revised: 16 September 2023

Accepted: 28 September 2023

Published: 9 October 2023

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

This article is an open access article

distributed under the terms and

conditions of the Creative Commons

Attribution (CC BY) license (https://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by/

4.0/).

€

£¥

social sciences

Article

The Relationship between Career Calling and Workaholism:

The Mediating Role of Career Orientation

Liliana Pitacho * and João Pedro Cordeiro

Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal (IPS), Centro de Investigação em Ciências Empresariais (CICE),

2910-761 Setúbal, Portugal; joao.cordeiro@esce.ips.pt

*Correspondence: liliana.pitacho@esce.ips.pt; Tel.: +351-265-709-300

Abstract:

The difference between having workers involved in their work, on the one hand, or too

exhausted to contribute, on the other, can be tenuous and compromise work orientation. The positive

outcomes of career calling (a deep purpose and meaningfulness in work characterized by vigor,

dedication, and absorption) to organizations are clear, namely the relationship of career calling with

high levels of commitment and engagement. However, the dark side of career calling remains a less

explored point. The main purpose of this study analyzes this side of career calling and explores

the relationship between sense of work purpose—perceived career calling—and workaholism. The

sample consists of 743 Portuguese employees from different sectors of activity. The main hypothesis

intends to test the presence of career orientation as a mechanism to explain the ambiguity of career

calling outcomes, that is, the mediating effect of career orientation on the relationship between

career calling and workaholism. The results showed that the workers’ career orientation helps to

explain this relationship. Career orientation partially mediated the relation between career calling

and the positive dimension of workaholism, involvement and enjoyment, and completely mediated

the relation between career calling and negative dimensions of workaholism, drive. These results

allow us to reﬂect on career calling, and how organizations manage workforce efforts to avoid work

addiction and the negative consequences that compromise workforce sustainability. Career calling

was looked at as an element of a mixed proﬁle work orientation, rather than not just as a pure work

orientation. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Keywords:

career calling; workaholism; career orientation; work orientation; work orientation dy-

namics

1. Introduction

The concept of career calling is not new in the literature, but it has grown exponentially

in recent decades. To Choi et al. (Choi et al. 2020) calling is a cognition process that drives

individuals to a deep, meaningful, and fulﬁlling experience related to their work. The

term calling was born out of the idea of divine connection, as a calling from God to fulﬁll

the work (Dalton 2001). This divine connection disappeared, but the concept of calling

remained in the literature with the meaning of a relationship with work marked by a strong

internal source that drives towards a certain work (Wrzesniewski et al. 1997). The concept

of career calling has been widely used in the literature (Chen et al. 2023;Cai et al. 2021;

DiRenzo et al. 2022;Parola et al. 2023;Shang et al. 2022) and represents a perfect ﬁt between

work and an individual’s identity and sense of destiny or inevitability (Duffy et al. 2014;

Pitacho et al. 2019a). In career calling, a professional occupation is an extension of an

individual themself, of their values and interests. If vocation is ‘what I love to do’, career

calling is ‘who I am and how I express myself through work’ (Wrzesniewski et al. 1997;

Pitacho et al. 2019a).

Work plays a fundamental role in life and individual identity (Rodrigues et al. 2018)

and plays an important role in meeting social and psychological needs (Morkeviˇci

e et al.

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12100564 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 2 of 27

2021). Career calling is the deepest way of experiencing work. Research has consistently

shown the positive relation between living a career calling and positive outcomes of work,

life, and well-being (Bunderson and Thompson 2009). Employees who live a career calling

are often among the happiest, most committed, most satisﬁed, and most engaged (Duffy

and Dik 2013;Wrzesniewski 2003).

Career calling has received increasing attention from researchers over the past two

decades. Extensive research has been placed on career calling as a signiﬁcant predictor of

relevant individual and work outcomes. Usually, career calling seems to be a deep and

truly positive experience (Bloom et al. 2021). It often even looks like something that was

idyllic, with its proponents focusing on its beneﬁts for employees (Sharma et al. 2022). For

example, career calling orientation is positive and signiﬁcantly related to higher levels of

social and psychological well-being (Mesurado et al. 2022), as well as work engagement

(Zhu et al. 2017).

However, some authors have warned of what they have called the double-edged

sword of career calling (Bunderson and Thompson 2009;Yang and Chen 2020;Hirschi et al.

2019). These authors have demonstrated that career calling does not always have positive

consequences. In their study with zookeepers, Bunderson and Thompson (2009) veriﬁed

that workers who showed high levels of career calling were more predisposed to making

personal sacriﬁces, which included both physical and time sacriﬁces; they are predisposed

to working more and earning less. Consequently, the authors veriﬁed that these workers

have the most risk of work–family conﬂict and suffered a higher risk of exploitation as well.

The authors Dik et al. (2009) showed that students with high levels of career calling showed

more difﬁculty in accepting career counselling. Additionally, career calling has a positive

and signiﬁcative relation with excessive work investment and workaholism (Keller et al.

2016). In a study with Chinese nurses, Yang and Chen (2020) showed that career calling

has a positive impact on work–life conﬂict levels.

A disturbing and prominent example of the dark side of career calling is that living a

career calling has been regularly associated with workaholism (Berkelaar and Buzzanell

2015;Dalla Rosa and Vianello 2020). Typically, common sense sees workaholism as some-

thing positive because such individuals work more. But it is also an addiction, and like

other addictions, it has negative consequences for both individuals and organizations.

Knowledge about the dark side of career calling is scarce, but it is important to

understand when and by what means career calling has good or bad consequences for

individuals and organizations. The present research looks for explanations for and about

this double-edged sword and has two main purposes: ﬁrst, to deepen the study of the

relationship between career calling and workaholism, and second, to test the role of career

orientation on the relationship between career calling and workaholism.

This study contributes to ﬁlling an existing gap in the literature on work orientation,

namely work orientation and its impact on workaholism. Speciﬁcally, this study explores

how perceived career calling (or a sense of purpose in one’s work) affects workaholism

and how this relationship is more complex than a simple dichotomy between “positive”

and “negative” work orientation. This study’s ﬁndings suggest that career calling can be a

double-edged sword, potentially leading to both positive outcomes (such as engagement

and achievement) and negative outcomes (such as workaholism). The need for this study

relative to existing research stems above all from the need for a nuanced understanding of

work orientation, which has important implications for how we conceptualize and measure

these constructs in research and how we design interventions to promote healthy work

habits. Previous studies (Berkelaar and Buzzanell 2015;Dalla Rosa and Vianello 2020) only

relate career calling to workaholism and say nothing about the relationship between the

remaining work orientations (job and career) and workaholism. The present study also

aims to ﬁll this gap, as it studies the dynamics of work orientation as recently recommended

by Schabram et al. (2022) in the Academy of Management Annals. Furthermore, this study

investigated the relationship between the three dimensions of work orientation and the

three dimensions of workaholism. Additionally, for the ﬁrst time, this study links a hybrid

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 3 of 27

proﬁle (Pitacho et al. 2021) of work orientation with workaholism and not just calling

orientation. The aim is to verify whether the combination of the calling with a second

orientation towards work can change the consequences of the calling and make it oscillate

between positive and negative results, as demonstrated in the literature (Bunderson and

Thompson 2009;Yang and Chen 2020;Hirschi et al. 2019).

Regarding the structure of this paper, the literature review focuses on work orientation.

To give it consistency and analytical robustness, the analysis over some fundamental

constructs was privileged, such as work orientation, workaholism, career calling, and

career orientation, with a focus on improving workforce sustainability. The method section

describes the empirical study, instruments, procedures, and sample. The results section

presents the descriptive analysis, the comparison analysis, and the hypotheses test. The

last section is dedicated to the discussion of results, conclusions, and implications.

1.1. Work Orientation

A large part of a human being’s life is spent studying and preparing for professional

life, and a third of an adults’ time is spent at work (Sharabi 2017). Ortiz and Jaimes-Osma

(2012) argue that suffering, love, and work are the three main areas of action from which

individuals derive meaning for their lives. It is through work that people build identity

and cultural integration, as well as seek dignity, socioeconomic freedom, status, and social

prestige (Bendassolli and Tateo 2018).

The meaning of work has been a theme of research since at least the 1930s. However,

the concept of career calling emerges later from the literature with the work of sociologists

Bellah et al. (1985). These authors, in their work entitled Habits of the Heart, introduced the

concept of work orientation into the literature. Work orientation addresses the purpose that

work serves in an individual’s life as a way of contributing meaning (

Willner et al. 2020

This construct reﬂects different motivations and relationships with work, ranging from a

more intrinsic to a more instrumental perspective (Jaffery and Abid 2020). This concept

has been deﬁned as the fundamental purpose that paid work assumes in one’s life and a

reﬂection on how one ﬁnds meaning in the work context (Fossen and Vredenburg 2014).

Bellah et al. (1985) proposed a three-dimensional model of work orientation. In other

words, the authors developed a model where they postulate the existence of three distinct

ways of attributing meaning to work. Bellah et al. (1985) argue there are three ways of

conceiving the relationship with work, job orientation, career orientation, and career calling

orientation. The three dimensions of this theoretical model were later empirically tested

and corroborated (Wrzesniewski et al. 1997). Each of these orientations guides individuals

towards their basic goals, understanding the individuals’ beliefs about the role of work in

their lives, and reﬂects their feelings and behaviors regarding the organizational context

(Wrzesniewski 2003).

While the literature has been consensual in deﬁnitions of job and career orientation,

the same is not true of career calling itself (Dobrow 2004). People who see their work as a

job seek to derive only material beneﬁts from it and look at their work as an instrumental

activity. That is, they do not see work as an end but as a means or instrument to receive

ﬁnancial resources that allow them to enjoy their leisure time (Wrzesniewski et al. 1997).

For individuals with job orientation, the relationship with the worker is superﬁcial and

merely instrumental. Working is just a way to make money and make a living. All major

and deepest interests are not expressed through work (Schabram et al. 2022).

On the other hand, the people who see their work as a career invest more deeply

in their professional life or professional career, and they want to achieve high levels of

recognition and self-esteem. These people look for success; such success includes advances

in the organizational structure or career growth, recognition, social status, and power

(Jaffery and Abid 2020;Fossen and Vredenburg 2014;Dobrow 2004). That is, in career

orientation, the deepest personal investment in work arises not from monetary gains or

personal fulﬁllment but rather from the motivation for career progression and hierarchical

ascension, marked by status and the ambition for power (Schabram et al. 2022).

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 4 of 27

Finally, career calling has the least consensual deﬁnition but is the work orientation

that has gleaned the most interest from researchers. Initially, in classic deﬁnitions, career

calling was related to religion and seen as a divine appeal (Dalton 2001). Later, it appears in

the literature with the neoclassic deﬁnition. Career calling gave up its divine character, but

its source is still external and focuses instead on sense of mission or destiny and prosocial

desire to positively impact society or community (Dik and Shimizu 2019). Wrzesniewski

et al. (1997, p. 22) appeal to external sources of career calling and prosocial motivation.

These authors argue that a work that is seen as a career calling is a “work that people feel

called to do [that] is usually seen as socially valuable—an end in itself—involving activities

that may, but need not be, pleasurable

. . .

and think that it contributes to making the

world a better place”. Finally, in modern perspectives, some authors have reformulated the

previous deﬁnitions focusing on passion and internal, personal, and deep motivation. From

this perspective, the source of career calling is internal and can be illustrated, for example,

by the deﬁnition of Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas (2011, p. 1005) that deﬁnes career calling as “a

consuming, meaningful passion people experience toward a domain”. Recently, in a critical

review of the literature, the authors consider that in the calling dimension, work constitutes

a practical ideal of activity and is felt to be morally inseparable from life. For those who

live with work as a career calling, do not work for ﬁnancial gain or career progression but

rather for the fulﬁllment that the work brings them (Schabram et al. 2022).

Based on the deﬁnitions of the different dimensions of work orientation, it can be

considered that “calling versus job orientations are related to, yet conceptually different

from, ostensibly similar constructs—especially intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation and

passion” (Cho and Jiang 2022, p. 1355). These two dimensions of work orientation may be

antagonistic, but career orientation appears as a possible orthogonal dimension. In other

words, it is possible to combine career orientation with the remaining two dimensions.

This conjunction of orientations has been discussed in the literature and presented as

hybrid work orientation proﬁles (Schabram et al. 2022;Pitacho et al. 2021). Despite the

enormous number of research articles that address career calling, the number of works that

address work orientation capturing the three dimensions is scarce (Pitacho et al. 2019b).

Furthermore, the study of the dynamics of work orientation and hybrid proﬁles is incipient,

meaning more information is needed on the results of this type of mixed proﬁle. Some

articles point theoretically to their existence (Schabram et al. 2022;Fossen and Vredenburg

2014;Pitacho et al. 2019b) and a work that empirically proved the existence of these proﬁles

(Pitacho et al. 2021).

Regardless of the definition of career calling, the literature has predominantly “paint[ed]

a rosy picture” of career calling (Bunderson and Thompson 2009, p. 427). This picture

has shown positive outcomes for those who live a career calling. For example, career

calling has been associated with high levels of life and work satisfaction (Wrzesniewski

et al. 1997) and enhanced overall health and health satisfaction (Wrzesniewski et al. 1997;

Conway et al. 2015). Living a career calling has been associated with increased experiential

work-related well-being, too (Duffy et al. 2012). Additionally, Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas

(2011) contributed to the positive perception of career calling when they veriﬁed that career

calling was associated with high levels of work engagement. Moreover, living a career

calling has been associated with positive career outcomes. For example, Chen et al. (2018)

veriﬁed that people who see their work as a career calling self-report more career success,

and Kim et al. (2018) revealed that career calling was associated with self-reported high

work performance.

However, despite the evident positive perception of living a career calling, it has

a dark side, and negative outcomes of living a career calling have been gaining more

attention from scholars. Understanding the potential dangers of a career calling contributes

to a more balanced theoretical understanding of this construct (Duffy et al. 2018). In this

study, we seek to deepen the understanding of the relationship between career calling and

workaholism.

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 5 of 27

1.2. Workaholism

The labor market is very unstable, and organizations are increasingly differentiating

their employees according to their performance and their effective contribution. Employees

feel increasingly compelled to work hard to stand out favorably from their peers. However,

the experience of this competitive climate seems to have both advantages and disadvan-

tages: on the one hand, it is associated with excellent performance, but on the other, with

work addiction (Morkeviˇci

e and Endriulaitien

e 2021a;Keller et al. 2016). Hard-working

or workaholic behavior is commonly valued in this organizational environment and highly

appreciated by employers (Molino et al. 2016). The workaholic is often seen as a more

competitive, more productive, effective person who lives for the company and is always

in search of work-related objectives, reaching high levels of professional performance

(

Van Wijhe et al. 2014

). However, like any other addiction, workaholism can lead to nega-

tive consequences for individuals and organizations (Choi et al. 2020;

Van Beek et al. 2012

Workaholism was initially deﬁned as a need or uncontrollable compulsion to work

incessantly (Oates 1971). More recently, Clark et al. (2020) deﬁned workaholism as an addic-

tion to work. Although it is not a recent concept, the deﬁnition of workaholism is far from

being consensual. The ambiguity of this concept begins in its components or dimensions

(Clark et al. 2020). Ng et al. (2007) argue that there are three components or dimensions:

the behavioral, the cognitive, and the affective. The behavioral dimension corresponds to

the time the individual dedicates to work. The cognitive dimension corresponds to the

obsession with work being seen as an uncontrollable work involvement and to the presence

of constant and invasive thoughts about work. Finally, the affective dimension is the most

controversial of all. This dimension matches both positive or negative emotions related to

work, depending on whether they are related to a source of satisfaction and pleasure or

to feelings such as fear, guilt, and depression (Shkoler et al. 2017). Ng et al. (2007) point

out that workaholics take pleasure in their work, arguing that the real enjoyment they take

from the activity comes from the acts of working themselves and not necessarily from the

real tasks they perform. On the other hand, Van Wijhe et al. (2014) argue that workaholics

continue to work incessantly not because they are enjoying the tasks or the work itself,

but because they constantly feel that they have not done enough. In addition, when they

are not working, they remain focused on work tasks, duties, or responsibilities, thinking

about work continuously, even feeling guilt or anxiety. Additionally, such workaholism

cannot be seen as a way of coping with heavy workloads. The excess of time and energy

that a person with this behavior spends in their work is not justiﬁed by monetary needs or

by the competitive environment; it is not just an external driver at play. The person with

this behavior is internally motivated, as there is an internal force compelling the person to

work, like a compulsion (Morkeviˇci ¯

ut˙

e and Endriulaitien˙

e 2021a).

Spence and Robbins (1992) presented a classic model of workaholism that is still one of

the most used in the literature today. The authors introduced a triad into the workaholism

literature: work involvement, feeling driven to work, and enjoyment in work. Work

involvement represents a generalized attitude of psychological involvement with work

(McMillan et al. 2002). It is the degree to which an individual is constructive in the use

of their time at work and how committed the individual is to being productive at work

(Erkmen et al. 2010). Enjoyment represents the level of pleasure and fun that individuals

derive from their work (McMillan et al. 2002). And drive represents a compulsion to work,

an acute need to be active, which causes anguish and guilt when the individual leaves

work (Spence and Robbins 1992).

A workaholic or work addict can be identiﬁed as someone with a high involvement

with work and a high drive for work. They have high performance and compulsion

that represent a great deal of time dedicated to work but with little pleasure taken from

work itself.

Combining these three dimensions of workaholism through cluster analysis identiﬁed

three workaholic patterns (work addicts, work enthusiasts, enthusiastic addicts) and three

nonworkaholic patterns (relaxed, disenchanted, unengaged). Work Addicts are represented

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 6 of 27

by high work involvement, high inner drive to work, and low enjoyment. In this pattern

of workaholism, individuals work intensely and compulsively but do not derive pleasure

or fun from their activity. Work addiction is the most serious and dangerous form of

workaholism. Work enthusiasts present high work involvement and low inner drive but

high enjoyment. In this pattern of workaholism, individuals feel deeply involved in work

activities and derive pleasure and fun. However, they do not feel a compulsion and do

not feel distressed or guilty when they are not working. Without compulsive behavior,

there is a positive cognition and feeling towards work. In their turn, enthusiastic addicts

are represented by high values in three dimensions: work involvement, inner drive to

work, and work enjoyment. This is an ambiguous pattern of workaholism. The individual

becomes deeply involved in their work and derives pleasure and fun from their activity, but

they behave compulsively due to the acute need to be active and feels guilty when they are

not working. Despite obtaining pleasure from their activity, compulsion is present, which

is a relevant factor in characterizing addiction and its harmfulness for individuals. Relaxed

workers manifest high enjoyment but low work involvement and low inner drive to work.

Unengaged workers present low values in all three dimensions. Finally, disenchanted

workers feel high inner drives to work and low work involvement and enjoyment. For this

study, the workaholism model of Spence and Robbins (1992) was adopted.

1.3. Career Calling, Workaholism, and the Mediating Role of Career Orientation

A person with career calling orientation is commonly viewed as a hard worker and

seems to achieve excellent individual and organizational excellent. But where is the thin line

between career calling and workaholic behavior that can have bad results for organizations

and oneself?

Despite the positive consequences of living a career calling being ostensibly described

and portrayed in the current literature, some authors demonstrate that it can increase the

propensity for workaholism (Berkelaar and Buzzanell 2015;Clinton et al. 2017;Dalla Rosa

and Vianello 2020;Keller et al. 2016). Despite the reduced amount of literature showing the

dark side of career calling, some studies have reported in a supported way the relationship

between career calling and workaholism.

The relationship between career calling and workaholism can be complex and multidi-

mensional. On one hand, career calling refers to a strong sense of purpose and meaning

that an individual derives from their work. It is characterized by a deep connection to

chosen profession or occupation, a strong desire to contribute and make a difference, and a

sense of fulﬁllment and personal identity linked to work (Wrzesniewski et al. 1997). On

the other hand, workaholism refers to an excessive and uncontrollable need to work, often

resulting in neglect of other vital areas of life such as relationships, self-care, and leisure

activities. Workaholics tend to deﬁne their self-worth through work achievements and may

feel a compulsive need to remain constantly busy and engaged in work-related activities

to the point of exhaustion (Spence and Robbins 1992). Like workaholism, career calling

has been associated with working long hours and with personal sacriﬁces that take away

from nonwork domains (Bunderson and Thompson 2009;Duffy and Dik 2013;Clinton et al.

2017). In an emblematic study with zookeepers, Bunderson and Thompson (2009) veriﬁed

that because of their career calling that translates into there being a strong passion for their

work, zookeepers work more hours, seem not to value extrinsic rewards, and present a high

risk of being exploited by abusive employers. In another recent study, career calling not

only motivated people to work longer hours but limited their psychological detachment

from work in the evenings and when they were away from the workplace. The results of

this are that sleep quality and morning vigor are reduced (Clinton et al. 2017). This means

that intense career calling can limit the process of recovering work experiences. Looking at

the constructs of career calling and workaholism, it is intuitive to perceive the relationship

between career calling and work involvement and enjoyment (Pitacho et al. 2018) that

characterizes workaholism, or more precisely, the work enthusiast pattern. However, the

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 7 of 27

relationship between career calling and drive, the compulsive dimension of workaholism,

has not yet been explained or found.

In this study, we intend to contribute to the increasing knowledge of this relationship,

studying more deeply the contribution of the career orientation dimension as a mediator of

the relationship between career calling and workaholism. Pitacho et al. (2021) showed that

the same person can have a dual orientation, and the hybrid orientation proﬁle Calling–

Career was the most represented in their sample (34.8%). Other recent studies also point

to the existence of orthogonal dimensions of work orientation that can result in hybrid

proﬁles (Schabram et al. 2022;Pitacho et al. 2019b). That is, until now, previous studies

assumed that career calling is a pure orientation, and the scales used only allow checking

the career calling level but not the identiﬁcation of a secondary or primary orientation. This

means that previous studies only evaluated the relationship between career calling and

its positive and negative outcomes. However, career calling cannot be a single orientation;

high results in calling scale can represent the hybrid orientation proﬁle Calling–Career

as well (Pitacho et al. 2021). The outcomes of career calling can depend on the simple or

hybrid proﬁle of career calling.

With this information considered, we hypothesize the following:

H1:

Career calling has a positive and signiﬁcative relation with the positive dimensions of worka-

holism (involvement and enjoyment).

Both constructs, career calling and workaholism, seem to be correlated to job in-

volvement and enjoyment with work. That is, apparently, people that see their work as a

calling, as well as workaholic people, share these two characteristics (

Pitacho et al. 2018

Ng et al. (2007)

argue that workaholic employees are people who like to work, enjoy their

work, and that can derive pleasure and fun from these activities. Remember that accord-

ing to Spence and Robbins (1992), high levels of work involvement and high levels of

enjoyment can be associated with two workaholics proﬁles, work enthusiastic and work

addicted; the difference between these two proﬁles is the manifested level of drive. While

there may be overlap between the two concepts, they can also diverge. Career calling can

motivate individuals to engage deeply in their work, strive for excellence, and make a

meaningful impact. When aligned with a healthy work–life balance and overall well-being,

it can increase job satisfaction and overall happiness. This is contrary to workaholism,

which is marked by compulsion-driven health hazards.

H2: Career calling does not have a signiﬁcative effect on the drive dimension of workaholism.

This hypothesis reﬂects the difference between wanting to work and the compulsion

to work. In the career calling orientation, people work from their own self-will, and

people with the career calling orientation work because they want to work; it makes them

feel good. Drive here is an internal force that compels workaholics to work even if it

is painful for them. This dimension is not like living a career calling. We instead can

see the drive dimension as the dark dimension of workaholism, and such a dimension

can be associated with a pathological pattern of addiction. This difference can be seen in

two studies.

Van Wijhe et al. (2014)

showed that workaholic employees work incessantly

because they feel that still have not done enough, and not because they feel real pleasure in

continue the activity; they are driven by this need like a compulsion. In the career calling

orientation, the literature showed us the opposite: people that are living a career calling see

their work as internally gratifying, and it provides them with feelings of fulﬁllment. This

experience results in high levels of personal and professional satisfaction.

H3:

Career orientation mediates the relationship between career calling and the three dimensions of

workaholism.

This hypothesis is congruent with the recommendation of Schabram et al. (2022)

that it is important to include career orientation in future research as a moderation or

mediation variable to garner more knowledge regarding career calling. This idea assumes

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 8 of 27

that work orientation is organized into two orthogonal dimensions from which proﬁles

result (Schabram et al. 2022).

Concerning work orientation theory, the terms “calling orientation” and “career orien-

tation” represent distinct concepts. On the one hand, the career calling orientation refers to

a fundamental belief that work is more than just a means of earning a living. It is seen as a

higher calling or vocation that aligns with an individual’s values, passions, and purpose.

Individuals with a calling orientation strongly identify with their work, seeing it as a

path to making a meaningful contribution to society and ﬁnding fulﬁllment. They seek

work that allows them to express their unique talents and make a positive impact. On the

other hand, career orientation focuses more on the practical and strategic aspects of work.

Career-oriented individuals make decisions based on ﬁnancial stability, opportunities for

advancement, and professional growth. The main goal of career-oriented individuals is

to build a prosperous career that provides them with stability and advancement. In other

words, although both the career calling orientation and career orientation are related to

work; they differ in underlying motivations and perceptions. Calling orientation empha-

sizes a sense of purpose, meaning, and personal fulﬁllment, while career orientation focuses

more on professional growth, ﬁnancial rewards, and long-term stability. It is important to

note that these orientations are not mutually exclusive, and individuals can have varying

degrees of calling and career orientations.

The theoretical assumption about the existence of hybrid work orientation proﬁles was

presented by Schabram et al. (2022) in their integrative review published in the Academy

of Management Annals. But there are two previous empirical studies that prove this

assumption. Pitacho et al. (2021) proved that two orthogonal dimensions exist. A mixed

proﬁle with two orientations, career calling and career orientation, also exists and has a

high representation. Pure career calling is not the only manifestation of career calling that

exists (Pitacho et al. 2021).

The high values of drive associated with high values of work involvement and enjoy-

ment result in the enthusiastic addicted pattern of workaholism (

Spence and Robbins 1992

The enthusiastic, addicted workaholic worked the longest hours and reported the least pri-

vate time with negative consequences to work and family balance and satisfaction, health,

and stress. Additionally, this group is represented by employees in higher hierarchical po-

sitions and the self-employed, who are strongly and intrinsically motivated; they manifest

focus on self-development but worry little about their level of salary. These results differ

from the enthusiastic worker pattern of workaholism (high levels of work involvement and

enjoyment and low levels of drive) because enthusiastic workers do not report harm to

their health or dissatisfaction with their work–family balance due the time spent at work,

long hours, or few hours of sleep (Buelens and Poelmans 2004). This hypothesis assumes

that the presence of career orientation potentiates the drive levels of individuals with the

career calling orientation.

H4:

When mediated by career orientation, career calling has a positive impact on the drive dimension

of workaholism.

2. Materials and Methods

At the methodological level, this research conﬁgures a quantitative and correlational

methodology (Field 2009) focused on the analysis of the relationship between the career call-

ing and workaholism of employees from different Portuguese enterprises and industries.

2.1. Research Design

To carry out this study, a conceptual model following the analytical–interpretative logic

postulated by Pitacho et al. (2018) is adopted, as well as Spence and Robbins’ (1992) work

regarding the relationship between career calling and the drive dimension of workaholism,

and Schabram et al.’s (2022) regarding the mediating effect of the career orientation variable

in this relationship.

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 9 of 27

An ex post facto design was adopted in this study since the variables were not ma-

nipulated by the researcher. The independent variable of this study is “career calling”,

while the dependent variable is “workaholism” through its two the positive dimensions—

involvement and enjoyment. The variable “career orientation” is a mediator of the relation-

ship between career calling and the drive dimension of workaholism (Figure 1).

Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 28

To carry out this study, a conceptual model following the analytical–interpretative

logic postulated by Pitacho et al. (2018) is adopted, as well as Spence and Robbins’ work

(1992) regarding the relationship between career calling and the drive dimension of work-

aholism, and Schabram et al.’s (2022) regarding the mediating effect of the career orienta‐

tion variable in this relationship.

An ex post facto design was adopted in this study since the variables were not ma-

nipulated by the researcher. The independent variable of this study is “career calling”,

while the dependent variable is “workaholism” through its two the positive dimensions—

involvement and enjoyment. The variable “career orientation” is a mediator of the rela‐

tionship between career calling and the drive dimension of workaholism (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Based on the main goals and the literature review, a cross-sectional research design

was adopted (Ahiauzu and Asawo 2016). This study does not involve manipulating vari-

ables and can provide information about what is happening in a population. This kind of

study can provide correlations that may exist at a particular point; that is, researchers can

collect data on a few different variables to see how they affect a certain condition. In this

specific case, trends are analyzed based on whether there are differences between career

calling and workaholism.

2.2. Instruments

This is a descriptive and comprehensive study that aimed to describe the character-

istics of a given phenomenon or population and relationships between variables. The facts

were analyzed and interpreted by the researcher without being influenced by them.

The data for this study were collected using an online survey. The first part of this

survey was composed of sociodemographic questions. The second and third parts of this

survey are composed of the Work Orientation Questionnaire and the Workaholism Bat-

tery, respectively.

Calling

Workaholism

involvement & enjoy

Workaholism

drive

Career Orientation

Source: authors’ own elaboration.

Workaholism

involvement, enjoyment,

drive

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

Based on the main goals and the literature review, a cross-sectional research design was

adopted (Ahiauzu and Asawo 2016). This study does not involve manipulating variables

and can provide information about what is happening in a population. This kind of study

can provide correlations that may exist at a particular point; that is, researchers can collect

data on a few different variables to see how they affect a certain condition. In this speciﬁc

case, trends are analyzed based on whether there are differences between career calling

and workaholism.

2.2. Instruments

This is a descriptive and comprehensive study that aimed to describe the characteristics

of a given phenomenon or population and relationships between variables. The facts were

analyzed and interpreted by the researcher without being inﬂuenced by them.

The data for this study were collected using an online survey. The ﬁrst part of this

survey was composed of sociodemographic questions. The second and third parts of this

survey are composed of the Work Orientation Questionnaire and the Workaholism Battery,

respectively.

2.2.1. Work Orientation Questionnaire (WOQ)

The WOQ was initially developed and validated by Pitacho et al. (2019a) and is com-

posed of three independent scales: career calling (ﬁfteen items), job orientation (fourteen

items), and career orientation (nine items). All items were scored on a 10-point Likert scale

ranging from 0 (“not at all true of me”) to 10 (“totally true of me”). To test the validity of

this instrument, a three-factor conﬁrmatory factor analysis was performed. The adjustment

indices obtained are adequate (KMO = 0.916;

χ2

(703) = 12,362.78; p< 0.001). In addition,

this scale has an explained variance of 56%. As for internal consistency, career calling has

a Cronbach alpha value of 0.87, career orientation has a value of 0.82, and job orientation

has a value of 0.85. Regarding the composite reliability construct (CR), career orientation

has a value of 0.91, career calling 0.92, and job orientation 0.90. Three dimensions showed

good convergence validity, with the value of average variance extracted (AVE) for career

orientation being 0.53, for career calling being 0.51, and for job orientation being 0.50

(Hair et al. 2019).

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 10 of 27

2.2.2. Workaholism Battery (Work BAT)

The Work Bat was developed by Spence and Robbins (1992). This battery is composed

of three self-report scales that reﬂect the tridimensional theory of workaholism developed

by Spence and Robbins (1992). The items on the Work Bat are divided into work involve-

ment, drive, and enjoyment. This battery comprised a total of 25 items answered on a

5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.

To test the validity of this instrument, a three-factor conﬁrmatory factor analysis was

performed. The adjustment indices obtained are adequate (KMO = 0.870;

χ2(325) = 9816.27

;

p< 0.001). Furthermore, this scale has an explained variance of 49%. As for internal

consistency, drive has a Cronbach alpha value of 0.77, enjoyment has a value of 0.87,

and involvement has a value of 0.65. Regarding the composite reliability construct (CR),

enjoyment has a value of 0.89, drive 0.90, and involvement 0.86. Three dimensions showed

good convergence validity, with the average variance extracted (AVE) value of enjoyment

being 0.53, drive being 0.54, and involvement being 0.50 (Hair et al. 2019).

2.3. Procedures

Data were collected through an online survey available on the Google Forms platform

over 3 months, between March 2021 and June 2021, with a response time of 15 to 20 min.

The only requirement for the participants was that they be professionally active. The survey

was randomly distributed by social and professional networks. In addition, respondents

were invited to share the questionnaire with their colleagues (snowball technique).

At the beginning of the questionnaire, participants were informed about the objectives

of this study, with the conﬁdentiality of their answers being guaranteed since only an

analysis of the results would be performed.

The research follows the standards set out in the declaration of Helsinki. As ethical

procedures, participation was voluntary and anonymous, and conﬁdentiality of the partici-

pants was also guaranteed. Participants did not receive any compensation for participating

in this study. Before starting to answer any questions, the participants gave their free

and informed consent, and the research team’s contacts were made available to clarify

doubts. Consent was made available on the web-based platform where the questionnaire

was administered, and the access link was sent to the participants.

2.4. Sample

The sample was composed of 743 Portuguese employees. Concerning gender, 59.7%

were females and 39.5% were males; the mean age for this sample was 40.61 years old

(

SD = 9.54 years

), and the mean of professional seniority was 14.87 years (

SD = 10.00 years

Additionally, 34.9% of the participants held a leadership position; 63.4% held a nonlead-

ership position; 31.2% worked in the public sector; 56.2% worked in the private sector;

and 10.7% worked in the social institutions. Finally, regarding the size of the organization,

57.3% of participants worked in SMEs and 40.5% worked in large or multinational enter-

prises. Regarding the sector of activity, 1.3% of participants worked in the primary sector

(agriculture, ﬁshing, and livestock). A total of 11.6% of respondents were employed in the

secondary sector, namely industry. In the tertiary sector, 9.5% of respondents worked in

commerce and 77.7% worked in the service industry.

As inclusion criteria, participants had to be 18 or older. All participants must have

been professionally active, work in Portugal, and be a native Portuguese speaker.

2.5. Data Analysis

Once the process of applying the survey was completed, the data were exported and

analyzed through the Haye’ PROCESS Macro. The analysis was essentially quantitative,

using univariate and multivariate analysis techniques to assess the strength and direction

of associations between variables.

A descriptive analysis of the data was carried out through the analysis of means and

standard deviation.

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 11 of 27

The reliability of the questionnaire was analyzed by Cronbach’s alpha coefﬁcient,

where values of 0.70 were considered (Streiner 2003). Pearson’s r correlation coefﬁcient was

used to perform the convergence validity analysis of the instrument items, assessing the

magnitude and direction of the associations between the variables (Marôco 2018).

Factor analysis was performed, having considered as acceptable in all solutions factor

loadings values (

) greater than 0.40 (Brown 2015). A normality analysis of the variables

included in the model was performed. To understand if there are signiﬁcative differences

in workaholism dimensions in people with different primary work orientations, the para-

metric Kruskal–Wallis test was performed. The averages of the orders were compared

using Dunn’s test with Bonferroni correction. The error type I probability was considered

(α= 0.05).

To test the research hypotheses, linear regression was used with the stepwise entry

method (

= 0.05 to “Entry” and

= 0.10 to “Removal”), and the assumptions of indepen-

dence and multicollinearity were checked through the Durbin–Watson Statistic and VIF.

Finally, the Model 4 test of Haye’ PROCESS Macro 4.1. was performed. The mediating

effect is considered signiﬁcant if the 95% bias-corrected and accelerated conﬁdence intervals

(cIs) (lower limit and upper limit) for the indirect effect (IE) based on 5000 bootstrapped

samples are not equal to 0.

3. Results

The analysis was divided into three different steps: descriptive analysis, multivariate

analysis, and hypotheses tests. Table 1presents descriptive statistics for this study’s

variables (means, standard deviations, median and correlation coefﬁcients).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of this study’s variables.

Variables M SD MeCareer

Calling

Career

Orientation

Job

Orientation Involvement Drive Enjoyment

1. Career Calling 5.80 1.52 5.83 1

2. Career

Orientation 6.75 1.43 6.88 0.560 ** 1

3. Job Orientation

4.27 1.52 4.07 −0.313 ** −0.282 ** 1

4. Involvement 5.88 1.16 5.86 0.320 ** 0.296 ** −0.313 ** 1

5. Drive 6.16 1.65 6.29 0.260 ** 0.393 ** 0.005 0.216 ** 1

6. Enjoyment 6.11 1.64 6.10 0.724 ** 0.435 ** −0.528 ** 0.316 ** 0.337 ** 1

N = 743; ** p< 0.01.

Before analyzing the correlations, it must be veriﬁed whether they are in fact due to

the relationship between the variables or to the common method bias. Studies like this,

where data for independent and dependent variables are obtained from the same context

and the same person, are more susceptible to common method bias. Harman’s one-factor

test was run to conﬁrm whether common method bias was present. If common method bias

inﬂuenced the results, the total variance extracted by one factor is equal to or greater than

50% (Podsakoff et al. 2003). The results show that total variance extracted by one factor is

38.7%. This value is less than 50%; therefore, the common method bias is not present in this

study and is not driving the results.

Table 1allows us to verify the relationships between the different variables under

analysis. As in previous studies, career calling, and job orientation have a negative (

−

0.313)

signiﬁcant correlation (Pitacho et al. 2020;Pitacho et al. 2019b;Podsakoff et al. 2003;

Wrzesniewski et al. 1997). Additionally, career orientation has a positive signiﬁcative

correlation (0.560) with career calling but a negative signiﬁcative correlation (

−

0.282) with

job orientation. These results are like those previously collected (Pitacho et al. 2020;Pitacho

et al. 2019a;Podsakoff et al. 2003).

As expected, workaholism dimensions are positively and signiﬁcantly correlated

with each other. The results of the relationship between work orientation dimensions and

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 12 of 27

workaholism dimensions reveal that career calling is positively and signiﬁcantly correlated

with the three variables. The high correlation between career calling and enjoyment (0.724)

stands out. Like career calling, career orientation is positively and signiﬁcantly correlated

with the three variables, but the correlations with enjoyment (0.435) and involvement (0.296)

are less strong than the correlations between career calling and these variables. In respect to

drive, the correlation with career orientation is stronger (0.393) than between career calling

and drive (0.260). Job orientation does not have signiﬁcant correlation with drive, and it

has a negative signiﬁcative correlation with involvement (

−

0.313) and enjoyment (

−

0.528).

These results show that both career calling and career orientation seem to be associated

with the experience of workaholism, contrary to job orientation.

Before testing the research hypotheses, we sought to understand whether sociodemo-

graphic variables inﬂuenced the variables under study. This research began with the three

dimensions of work orientation.

A Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test was performed to compare career calling, career ori-

entation, and job orientation depending on the gender of the participants. It was found that

career calling (

U = 74,097.00

; W = 183,375.00; p= 0.842), career orientation (

U = 72,400.00

;

W = 1,816,778.00

;p= 0.459), and job orientation levels (

U = 77,896.50

;

W = 18,774.50

;

p= 0.311) are not affected by gender. There are no signiﬁcant differences.

Concerning education, the Kruskal–Wallis test was performed. It appears that level of

education did not inﬂuence participants’ calling levels (

χ2

(3) = 6.910, p= 0.075). On the

other hand, education levels inﬂuence career orientation levels (

χ2

(3) = 23.209, p< 0.001).

A post hoc test (Dunn’s test with Bonferroni correction) was performed, and the results

show that participants with a university level of education had signiﬁcantly higher levels

of career orientation (Z =

−

88.468; Pa = 0.000) than participants with a high school level

(Table 1). Job orientation levels also depend on education levels (

χ2

(3) = 17.730; p< 0.001).

Participants with a high school level of education had signiﬁcantly higher levels of job

orientation (Z = 70.392; Pa = 0.001) than participants with a university education (Table 2).

As for leadership positions, a Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test was performed. It was

found that leadership positions inﬂuence the manifest levels of the three dimensions of

work orientation. The levels of career calling (U = 49,479.50; W = 170,265.50; p< 0.001) and

career orientation (U = 55,214.00; W = 176,000.00; p< 0.001) were signiﬁcantly higher for

participants who occupy leadership positions. On the other hand, job orientation values (U

= 92,265.50; W = 213,051.50; p< 0.001) were signiﬁcantly lower for participants who occupy

leadership positions (Table 2).

Participants were divided into public, private, and social sectors. The Kruskal–Wallis

test was performed, and the post hoc test (Dunn’s test with Bonferroni correction) was run.

It was found that the values of career calling (

χ2

(2) = 2.134; p= 0.344) and job orientation

(

χ2

(2) = 2.844; p= 0.241) were not affected by the sector of activity. On the other side, career

orientation values (

χ2

(2) = 36.519; p< 0.001) depended on the activity sector. The career

orientation levels were signiﬁcantly higher for participants working in the private sector

than for participants working in the public sector (Z =

−

100.450; Pa = 0.001) or the social

sector (Z = 97.177; Pa = 0.001).

Regarding the type of activity (agriculture, ﬁshing, or livestock; commerce; and indus-

try and services), it was found that the values of career calling (

χ2

(3) = 2.256,

p= 0.521

career orientation (

χ2

(3) = 4.913,

p= 0.178

), and job orientation (

χ2

(3) = 7.136, p= 0.068)

were not inﬂuenced by this variable.

Concerning the enterprise dimension there are no signiﬁcant differences between

career calling (

χ2

(3) = 7.557; p= 0.063), career orientation (

χ2

(3) = 6.727; p= 0.081), and job

orientation (

χ2

(3) = 6.132; p= 0.079) levels. That is, the work orientation dimensions do

not depend on the enterprise dimensions.

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 13 of 27

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of work orientation dimensions by demographic variables.

Career Calling Job Orientation Career Orientation

Mean Standard

Deviation Mean Standard

Deviation

Gender Masculine 5.84 1.43 4.23 1.58 6.82 1.31

Feminine 5.79 1.58 4.28 1.48 6.72 1.50

Education

Primary school 6.37 2.12 5.11 0.50 6.39 0.86

Basic education 5.89 1.64 4.84 1.53 6.30 1.79

High school 5.55 1.66 4.65 1.71 6.38 1.49

University education

5.90 1.46 4.10 1.41 6.91 1.36

Leader Position Leader 6.34 1.33 3.78 1.34 7.11 1.32

Not Leader 5.50 1.55 4.55 1.55 6.55 1.45

Activity Sector

Public Sector 5.75 1.50 4.26 1.51 6.37 1.46

Private Sector 5.79 1.50 4.29 1.51 7.01 1.34

Social Sector 6.05 1.70 4.01 1.54 6.40 1.53

Activity Type

Agriculture, Fishing

and Livestock 5.59 1.47 3.73 1.30 5.99 1.50

Commerce 5.53 1.48 4.60 1.29 6.80 1.40

Industry 5.78 1.53 4.26 1.47 6.97 1.44

Services 5.85 1.53 4.23 1.54 6.75 1.42

Enterprise

Dimension

Micro Enterprise 6.25 1.62 3.86 1.38 7.02 1.34

Small Enterprise 5.72 1.55 4.37 1.63 6.64 1.41

Medium Enterprise 5.70 1.56 4.38 1.53 6.59 1.46

Big Enterprise 5.72 1.42 4.29 1.50 6.80 1.44

Finally, the bivariate correlation was tested for the relation between age and work

orientation dimensions. The Pearson correlation results are signiﬁcant only between age

and career calling (r = 0.127;

p< 0.01

) and between age and career orientation (r =

−

0.176;

p< 0.01). These correlations are weak but signiﬁcant.

The same analysis was repeated for the three dimensions of workaholism (drive,

enjoyment, and involvement). A Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test was performed to compare

drive, enjoyment, and involvement depending on the gender of the participants. It was

found that drive (U = 80,443.50; W = 189,721.50; p= 0.068) and enjoyment (U = 77,436.50;

W = 186,174.50

;p= 0.386) are not affected by gender, and there are no signiﬁcant differences

(Table 3). But there is a signiﬁcant difference in levels of involvement (U = 77,896.50;

W = 18,774.50

;

p= 0.311

): men have a signiﬁcantly higher level of involvement than women

(U = 62,691.00; W = 172,662.00; p< 0.001).

Concerning education, the Kruskal–Wallis test was performed. It appears that the

level of education did not inﬂuence participants’ drive (

χ2

(3) = 2.303, p= 0.512), enjoyment

(χ2(3) = 5.790, p= 0.122), or involvement levels (χ2(3) = 5.029, p= 0.170).

Regarding leadership positions, the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test was performed.

It was found that leadership positions inﬂuenced the manifested levels of enjoyment

(

U = 57,394.00

;

W = 178,180.00

;p< 0.001) and involvement (

U = 59,458.00

;

W = 180,244.00

;

p< 0.001). Participants with leadership positions had signiﬁcantly higher values of en-

joyment and involvement than those without leadership positions. The drive dimension

of workaholism was not affected by leadership positions (U = 66,009.00; W = 186,795.00;

p= 0.64).

The Kruskal–Wallis test was performed, and the post hoc test (Dunn’s test with

Bonferroni correction) was run to clarify the effect of the activity sector. Enjoyment levels

did not vary signiﬁcantly depending on the sector of activity (

χ2

(2) = 5.182; p= 0.075). But

the levels of drive (

χ2

(2) = 14.968; p< 0.001) and involvement (

χ2

(2) = 11.512; p= 0.003) did

vary depending on the sector of activity. Concerning drive, participants who worked in the

private sector had signiﬁcantly higher drive values than participants who worked in the

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 14 of 27

public sector (Z =

−

70.302; Pa = 0.000). Finally, regarding involvement, participants who

worked in the private sector had signiﬁcantly higher involvement values than participants

who worked in the public sector (Z = −70.302; Pa = 0.000).

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of work orientation dimensions by demographic variables.

Involvement Drive Enjoyment

Mean Standard

Deviation Mean Standard

Deviation

Gender Masculine 6.06 1.14 6.03 1.60 6.07 1.56

Feminine 5.77 1.16 6.25 1.68 6.16 1.69

Education

Primary school 6.00 1.01 4.14 3.64 6.20 0.42

Basic education 5.90 1.03 6.22 1.66 6.30 1.67

High school 5.73 1.20 6.03 1.77 5.92 1.57

University education

5.94 1.15 6.22 1.59 6.20 1.65

Leader Position Leader 6.10 1.12 6.30 1.66 6.50 1.58

Not Leader 5.77 1.17 6.08 1.64 5.91 1.64

Activity Sector

Public Sector 5.71 1.19 5.79 1.82 5.90 1.63

Private Sector 6.01 1.13 6.34 1.55 6.21 1.65

Social Sector 5.71 1.18 6.19 1.59 6.30 1.53

Activity Type

Agriculture, Fishing

and Livestock 6.00 1.10 6.07 122 6.49 1.36

Commerce 5.94 0.94 6.29 1.63 6.14 1.64

Industry 5.95 1.14 6.27 1.58 6.20 1.62

Services 5.88 1.19 6.13 1.67 6.10 1.64

Enterprise

Dimension

Micro Enterprise 6.04 1.12 6.00 1.60 6.46 1.72

Small Enterprise 5.65 1.14 6.28 1.63 6.04 1.69

Medium Enterprise 5.82 1.27 5.94 1.76 6.02 1.64

Big Enterprise 5.96 1.10 6.32 1.61 6.07 1.58

For the type of activity, the Kruskal–Wallis test was also performed, and it was found

that this sociodemographic variable did not inﬂuence the levels of drive (

χ2

(3) = 1.015;

p= 0.798), involvement (χ2(3) = 1.135; p= 0.769), or enjoyment (χ2(3) = 1.151; p= 0.765).

Later, we tested the enterprise size. The results of the Kruskal–Wallis test show that

the values of drive (

χ2

(3) = 6.916; p= 0.062), enjoyment (

χ2

(3) = 3.885; p= 0.274), and

involvement (χ2(3) = 6.834; p= 0.077) did not depend on the size of the enterprise.

Finally, the bivariate correlation was tested for the relation between age and worka-

holism dimensions. The Pearson correlation results are signiﬁcant only between age and

drive (r = −0.177; p< 0.01). This correlation is weak but signiﬁcant.

Once the descriptive analysis based on sociodemographic variables was completed, it

was important to understand the workaholism dynamic in work orientations. That is, it was

necessary to understand whether there were signiﬁcative differences in the workaholism

dimensions in people with different primary work orientations. According to the literature

(Pitacho et al. 2021;Fossen and Vredenburg 2014;Wrzesniewski et al. 1997), an individual’s

primary orientation is the one where the value of the dimension is greater. Based on the

scores obtained in each of the work orientation dimensions, three primary orientation

groups were created: a career calling group, career orientation group, and job orientation

group. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used (Table 4).

The results of the comparison test permit stating that there are signiﬁcant differences

between different work orientation for all dimensions of workaholism (Table 5).

To understand how workaholism dimensions vary according to primary work ori-

entation, a pair-to-pair comparison was performed by running Dunn’s test with Bonfer-

roni correction.

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 15 of 27

Table 4. Kruskal–Wallis test for work orientation.

χ2(Kw) Gl p-Value

Involvement 29.60 2 <0.001

Drive 19.90 2 <0.001

Enjoyment 155.60 2 <0.001

N = 743. Source: authors’ own elaboration based on survey output.

Table 5. The values of workaholism dimensions by work orientation type.

Variables Involvement Drive Enjoyment

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

1. Career Calling 5.98 1.21 5.95 1.59 6.98 1.41

2. Career Orientation 5.97 1.09 6.33 1.62 6.16 1.50

3. Job Orientation 5.26 1.28 5.56 1.82 4.28 1.35

Total 5.88 1.16 6.16 1.65 6.11 1.64

N = 743.

Work orientation dimensions were compared one by one for each workaholism di-

mension. Drive is the negative dimension of workaholism, and it is not experienced in

the same way by everyone (Table 6). It was found that people who see work as a career

(career orientation group) experience a higher level of compulsion. The values of drive in

the career orientation group are signiﬁcantly higher than the average of the others—the

career calling group and job orientation group. Between these two last groups, there are no

signiﬁcant differences.

Table 6.

Pair-to-pair comparison (Dunn’s test with Bonferroni correction)—Drive (according to

primary work orientation.

Sample 1–Sample 2 Test Statistic SD pPadj a

Job Orientation–Career Calling 47.908 29.178 0.101 0.302

Job Orientation–Career Orientation

102.008 25.462 <0.001 0.000

Career Calling–Career Orientation −54.100 20.023 0.007 0.021

Note: Asymptotic signiﬁcances are displayed (two-sided test). The signiﬁcance level is 0.050.

Signiﬁcance values

were adjusted by Bonferroni correction for various tests.

Regarding the involvement dimension (Table 7), it was found that the values of this

dimension in the job orientation group are signiﬁcantly lower than those of involvement in

the career calling and career orientation groups. Between the career calling and the career

orientation groups, there are no signiﬁcant differences in the manifestation of involvement,

which means that a person who has a calling or career orientation is equally engaged with

his or her work involvement.

Table 7. Pair-to-pair comparison (Dunn’s test with Bonferroni correction)—Involvement (according

to the primary work orientation).

Sample 1–Sample 2 Test Statistic SD pPadj a

Job Orientation–Career Orientation

135.134 25.451 <0.001 0.000

Job Orientation–Career Calling 137.760 29.166 <0.001 0.000

Career Orientation–Career Calling 2.626 20.015 0.896 1.000

Note: Asymptotic signiﬁcances are displayed (two-sided test). The signiﬁcance level is 0.050.

Signiﬁcance values

were adjusted by Bonferroni correction for various tests.

Finally, regarding enjoyment (Table 8), it was found that in the group of people who

see their work as a calling, the values of enjoyment are signiﬁcantly higher than the values

of enjoyment in the groups of people who see their work as a career or a job. The values of

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 16 of 27

enjoyment in the career orientation group are also signiﬁcantly higher than the enjoyment

values in the job orientation group.

Table 8.

Pair-to-pair comparison (Dunn’s test with Bonferroni correction)—Enjoyment (according to

the primary work orientation).

Sample 1–Sample 2 Test Statistic SD pPadj a

Job Orientation–Career Orientation

247.887 25.466 <0.001 0.000

Job Orientation–Career Calling 363.301 29.183 <0.001 0.000

Career Orientation—Career Calling

115.414 20.026 <0.001 0.000

Note: Asymptotic signiﬁcances are displayed (two-sided test). The signiﬁcance level is 0.050.

Signiﬁcance values

were adjusted by Bonferroni correction for various tests.

These results show that career calling is strongly associated with the two positive

dimensions of workaholism, involvement and enjoyment. On the other hand, career

orientation is strongly associated with the negative dimension of workaholism, drive.

In the next steps, we present the results referring to the tests of the research hypotheses.

The hypotheses were tested through linear regressions and through a mediation analysis

with Hayes’ PROCESS Macro 4.1.

As the hypotheses describe, we analyzed the mediation for each workaholism dimen-

sion. We started from the mediation model in the positive dimensions of workaholism

(involvement and enjoy).

First, the linear regression showed that career calling is a predictor of involvement

and enjoyment (Tables 9and 10).

Table 9. Linear regression (Enter method) for the effect of calling orientation on involvement.

Predictor

Variable

Criterion

Variable ZR2B t p-Value

Career Calling Involvement 90.528 * 0.103 0.245 * 9.515 * <0.001

N = 743. Note: * p< 0.001.

Table 10. Linear regression (Enter method) for the effect of calling orientation on enjoyment.

Predictor

Variable

Criterion

Variable ZR2B t p-Value

Career Calling Enjoyment 871.541 * 0.524 0.7795 * 29.522 * <0.001

N = 743. Note: * p< 0.001.

The linear regression showed that career calling positively affects involvement (

β= 0.245

;

t(792) = 9.515; p< 0.001). That is, the highest career calling explains the highest involvement

levels. An R

value of 0.103 was obtained, indicating that career calling explains 10.3% of

the variability of involvement. Career calling positively affects enjoyment, too (

= 0.779;

t(792) = 29.522; p< 0.001). And the R

value indicates that career calling explains 52.4% of

the variability of enjoyment. The relationship between career calling and involvement is

weak, but it demonstrates a trend that should be valued.

Subsequently, the simultaneous effect of career calling and career orientation on

involvement and enjoyment was tested using multiple linear regression (Tables 11 and 12).

The results show that career calling and career orientation, together, explain 12.2% of

involvement.

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 17 of 27

Table 11.

Multiple linear regression (stepwise method) for the effect of career calling and career

orientation on involvement.

Predictor

Variable

Criterion

Variable ZR2βtp-Value

Career Calling

Career Orientation

Involvement 90.528 * 0.122 0.172 *

0.138 *

5.600 *

4.219 *

<0.001

N = 743. Note: * p< 0.001.

Table 12.

Multiple linear regression (stepwise method) for the effect of career calling and career

orientation on enjoyment.

Predictor

Variable

Criterion

Variable ZR2βtp-Value

Career Calling

Career Orientation

Enjoyment 871.541 * 0.524 0.779 *

0.042 *

29.522 *

1.432 *

<0.001

0.153

N = 743. Note: * p< 0.001.

To test the mediation hypothesis, model 4 of the PROCESS Macro developed by Hayes

was carried out. The result shows that the total effect of this mediation model explains

12.2% of involvement variability, as obtained by multiple linear regression. The impact

of career calling on involvement (c’:

= 0.172; p= 000) is partially mediated by career

orientation (a*b = 0.072; p= 0.000; 95% CI = 0.0333 to 0.1126) (Figure 2). The presence of

career diminishes the effect of career calling on involvement. This means that individuals

with a hybrid work orientation who simultaneously manifest high levels of career calling,

and high levels of career orientation tend to experience lower levels of involvement than

individuals who only present high levels of calling, that is, a pure proﬁle.

Soc. Sci. 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 28

Figure 2. Mediation model in positive dimensions of workaholism—Involvement.

The same analysis was performed for the relationship with enjoyment.

The multiple linear regression results show that, although career orientation has a

significant correlation with the enjoyment dimension, career orientation has no predictive

value for the enjoyment dimension when combined with career calling. Career orientation

was excluded by the multiple linear regression model. Model 4 of the PROCESS Macro

confirms that career orientation does not mediate the relationship between career calling

and the enjoyment dimension (Figure 3). That is, the impact of calling on enjoyment (c’: β

= 0.754; p = 0.000) is not mediated by career orientation (a*b = 0.0253; p = 0.152; 95% CI =

−0.0099 to 0.0388). This means that the hybrid profile marked by high levels of career ori‐

entation and career calling tends not to differ from the pure career calling profile regard-

ing enjoyment values.

Figure 3. Mediation model in positive dimensions of workaholism—Enjoyment.

These results allow us to state that the H1 was corroborated; that is, career calling has

a positive impact on the positive dimensions of workaholism (involvement and enjoy-

ment). Additionally, career orientation mediates the relationship of career calling with at

least one of the positive workaholism dimensions. Career orientation does not mediate

the relationship between career calling and enjoyment but has a significant partial medi-

ator effect on the career calling and involvement relationship.

In what concerns H2, the results show that career calling has a positive and signifi-

cative effect on the drive dimension (β = 0.283; t(792) = 7.588; p < 0.001) (Table 13). That is,

the highest level of career calling can explain the highest levels of drive. An R2 value of

0.068 was obtained, indicating that career calling explains 6.8% of the variability of the

drive dimension of workaholism. This value is weak, but it is significant; so, it should not

be ignored. This result reveals that H2 was refuted. Career calling has a positive and sig-

nificant effect on the drive dimension.

Involvement

Calling

Career

(a): β = 0.525*

(b): β = 0.138*

(c): β = 0.245*

(c’): β = 0.172*

N = 743; * p = 0.000

Calling

(a): β = 0.525*

(b): β = 0.048

(c): β = 0.779*

(c’): β = 0.754*

N = 743; * p = 0.000

Enjoy

Career

Figure 2. Mediation model in positive dimensions of workaholism—Involvement.

The same analysis was performed for the relationship with enjoyment.

The multiple linear regression results show that, although career orientation has a

signiﬁcant correlation with the enjoyment dimension, career orientation has no predictive

value for the enjoyment dimension when combined with career calling. Career orientation

was excluded by the multiple linear regression model. Model 4 of the PROCESS Macro

conﬁrms that career orientation does not mediate the relationship between career calling

and the enjoyment dimension (Figure 3). That is, the impact of calling on enjoyment

(

c’: β= 0.754

;p= 0.000) is not mediated by career orientation (a*b = 0.0253; p= 0.152; 95%

CI =

−

0.0099 to 0.0388). This means that the hybrid proﬁle marked by high levels of

career orientation and career calling tends not to differ from the pure career calling proﬁle

regarding enjoyment values.

Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 564 18 of 27