A comparison of individuals with unanswered callings to those with no calling at all

• Compared three calling groups on important life-, health- and job-related outcomes.
• Living a calling is linked to better life and job-related outcomes.
• It is better to have no calling than to have a calling that is not met.
• Those with unmet callings had the poorest health perceptions.
• A calling is beneficial only if met as compared to the no calling group.

The purpose of this research was to compare the life-, job-, and health-related experiences of those who perceive an unanswered occupational calling to those who (1) are living a calling and (2) perceive no calling at all. Surveys containing measures of callings, work engagement, job involvement, career commitment, life and job satisfaction, turnover intentions, physical health and emotional well-being were administered to 378 American academics. As expected, academics with an answered occupational calling tended to report better job attitudes and domain-specific satisfaction and less withdrawal intentions than those who reported an unanswered occupational calling or no calling at all. Furthermore, those who did not have a calling to a particular vocation reported better life-, job-, and health-related outcomes than those experiencing an unanswered calling. Surprisingly, only those academics experiencing an unmet calling reported significantly poorer physical and psychological health as compared to the other two calling groups. These results are consistent with the self-determination theory, which predicts that those who are able to satisfy their basic psychological needs reap benefits in terms of psychological growth, optimal functioning, and wellbeing. The study contributes to the literature on callings by showing that having a calling is a benefit only if it is met, but can be a detriment when it is not as compared to having no calling at all.