IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/woemps/v36y2022i5p841-857.html

Families under Pressure: The Costs of Vocational Calling, and What Can Be Done about Them

Author

Listed:
  • Stephanos Anastasiadis

    (Polizeiakademie Niedersachsen, Germany)

  • Anica Zeyen

    (Royal Holloway, University of London, UK)

Abstract

This conceptual article extends the literature on the disadvantages of calling. The article makes four main contributions. First, it argues that some of the burden of calling is shouldered not by called individuals or their employers, but rather by close family members. Second, it argues that calling influences work–life ideology, limiting a called person’s ability to exercise choice and self-manage their work–life boundary. Third, it introduces the novel notion of the sacrifice-reliant organisation, which relies on calling to achieve organisational goals. Fourth, the article argues normatively that organisations with called members have an enhanced duty of care towards families of its members that is commensurate with the extent to which they rely on calling to achieve their goals. Using ethics of care, it also develops guidelines on the extent and components of such an enhanced duty of care.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephanos Anastasiadis & Anica Zeyen, 2022. "Families under Pressure: The Costs of Vocational Calling, and What Can Be Done about Them," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 36(5), pages 841-857, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:36:y:2022:i:5:p:841-857
    DOI: 10.1177/0950017020980986
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0950017020980986
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0950017020980986?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marci D Cottingham & Jamie J Chapman & Rebecca J Erickson, 2020. "The Constant Caregiver: Work–family Spillover among Men and Women in Nursing," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 34(2), pages 281-298, April.
    2. Albrecht, Gloria H., 2003. "How Friendly are Family Friendly Policies?," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 177-192, April.
    3. Burton, Brian K. & Dunn, Craig P., 1996. "Feminist Ethics as Moral Grounding for Stakeholder Theory 1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 133-147, April.
    4. Kossek, Ellen Ernst & Baltes, Boris B. & Matthews, Russell A., 2011. "How Work–Family Research Can Finally Have an Impact in Organizations," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(3), pages 352-369, September.
    5. Laurie Cohen & Joanne Duberley & Pete Smith, 2019. "Losing the Faith: Public Sector Work and the Erosion of Career Calling," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 33(2), pages 326-335, April.
    6. Wicks, Andrew C. & Gilbert, Daniel R. & Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "A Feminist Reinterpretation of The Stakeholder Concept," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 475-497, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Wolfgang Bichler‐Riedl & Stefan Gold, 2025. "Implications of Deep Meaningfulness for Sustainability: Reimagining the Literature on Vocational Calling," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(5), pages 7591-7602, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Heidi Weltzien Hoivik & Domènec Melé, 2009. "Can an SME Become a Global Corporate Citizen? Evidence from a Case Study," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 88(3), pages 551-563, September.
    2. Kate Grosser & Jeremy Moon, 2019. "CSR and Feminist Organization Studies: Towards an Integrated Theorization for the Analysis of Gender Issues," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 321-342, March.
    3. Wee Chan Au & Siân Stephens, 2023. "I Am Not Just a Nurse: The Need for a Boundaried Ethic of Care in the Context of Prolific Relationality," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 186(3), pages 493-510, September.
    4. Cedric Dawkins, 2014. "The Principle of Good Faith: Toward Substantive Stakeholder Engagement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 283-295, May.
    5. Yafet Yosafet Wilben Rissy, 2021. "The stakeholder model: its relevance, concept, and application in the Indonesian banking sector," Journal of Banking Regulation, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(3), pages 219-231, September.
    6. Vladislav Valentinov & Robert Chia, 2022. "Stakeholder theory: A process‐ontological perspective," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 762-776, July.
    7. Roya Derakhshan, 2022. "Building Projects on the Local Communities’ Planet: Studying Organizations’ Care-Giving Approaches," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 175(4), pages 721-740, February.
    8. Hensher, D. A. & Brewer, A. M., 2001. "Developing a freight strategy: the use of a collaborative learning process to secure stakeholder input," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, January.
    9. Teresa Heath & Lisa O’Malley & Matthew Heath & Vicky Story, 2016. "Caring and Conflicted: Mothers’ Ethical Judgments about Consumption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 237-250, June.
    10. Vladislav Valentinov & Steffen Roth, 2024. "Stakeholder theory: Exploring systems‐theoretic and process‐philosophic connections," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 301-315, March.
    11. Lori Verstegen Ryan, 2017. "Sex Differences Through a Neuroscience Lens: Implications for Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 144(4), pages 771-782, September.
    12. Silke Machold & Pervaiz Ahmed & Stuart Farquhar, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Ethics: A Feminist Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 665-678, September.
    13. repec:eme:srjpps:v:6:y:2010:i:2:p:381-392 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Lara Bianchi & Robert Caruana & Alysha Kate Shivji, 2025. "Engaging Marginalized Stakeholders: Towards a Dialogical Theorization of Effective Corporate-Rightsholder Remedy," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 201(3), pages 605-619, October.
    15. Grace H. Fan & Zoe A. Cunliffe, 2024. "Transforming Relationships and Empowering Communities: The Role of Care Ethics in Solving Grand Challenges," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 191(2), pages 285-303, May.
    16. Domènec Melé, 2014. "“Human Quality Treatment”: Five Organizational Levels," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 120(4), pages 457-471, April.
    17. David Weitzner & Yuval Deutsch, 2023. "Harm Reduction, Solidarity, and Social Mobility as Target Functions: A Rortian Approach to Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 186(3), pages 479-492, September.
    18. Dillard, Jesse & Reynolds, MaryAnn, 2011. "Re-stor(y)ing social change," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 492-499.
    19. Samantha Miles, 2012. "Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 285-298, July.
    20. Mollie Painter & Mar Pérezts & Ghislain Deslandes, 2021. "Understanding the human in stakeholder theory : a phenomenological approach to affect-based learning," Post-Print hal-03188192, HAL.
    21. Muel Kaptein, 2022. "The Moral Duty to Love One’s Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(2), pages 813-827, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:woemps:v:36:y:2022:i:5:p:841-857. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.britsoc.co.uk/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.