TL;DR
Meta-analyses of over 100,000 workers reveal a shocking paradox: the psychological mechanism that makes you great at your job is the same one that can wreck your mental health and devastate you during job loss—here’s how to find the sweet spot.
Introduction
Here’s the tension that keeps researchers up at night: the same psychological mechanism that makes you great at your job might also destroy you when you lose it.
Meta-analyses show that identifying with your work predicts higher performance, more engagement, and greater meaning [1]. But there’s a catch. That same identification correlates with workaholism, burnout, and a psychological collapse when your role disappears [2]. It’s not a clean trade-off. It’s a calibration problem.
The question isn’t whether you should care about your work. It’s how much you should let it become who you are. And the answer, frustratingly, is neither zero nor everything. The research points toward something more nuanced: moderate engagement during work hours, strong psychological detachment during non-work time, and identity diversification across multiple life domains [3].
Let’s dig into what seven major meta-analyses and decades of longitudinal research actually reveal.
How psychological theory explains why we fuse our identities with work
Four major theoretical frameworks explain why your job can become inseparable from your sense of self.
Social Identity Theory, developed by Tajfel and Turner in the late 1970s and 80s, argues that we derive self-esteem from group memberships [4]. Your organization becomes a social category. You start thinking in terms of „us versus them.“ You commit to organizational goals because they’re your goals. Prestigious employers generate stronger identification because they boost self-esteem. Organizational failures threaten personal self-worth because the boundary between you and the company has blurred.
Ashforth and Mael formalized this into organizational identification in 1989, defining it as „the perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization“ [5]. This isn’t job satisfaction. It’s not commitment. It’s a cognitive self-categorization. When you talk about the company, you say „we“ instead of „they.“ Riketta’s 2005 meta-analysis of 96 studies confirmed these are distinct constructs [6]. Identification answers „Who am I?“ while commitment answers „How do I feel?“
Identity Theory, built by Stryker and Burke from symbolic interactionism, focuses on role-based identities arranged in a salience hierarchy [7]. The more relationships you have tied to your occupational role, the more salient that identity becomes. It climbs the hierarchy. It starts guiding more of your behavior. Burke’s Identity Control Theory adds that you seek verification that others recognize your identity. When your self-perception doesn’t match the feedback you get at work, you experience distress.
Then there’s Identity Fusion Theory, developed by Swann and colleagues around 2009-2012 [8]. This describes an extreme form of work-self merger. It’s not just identifying with the group. It’s a visceral sense of oneness where personal agency channels into pro-group action. Fused individuals view colleagues as family. The scary part: once strongly fused, people tend to stay fused. Cross-cultural studies across 11 countries found fusion predicted willingness to fight and die for one’s group with correlations between .32 and .61.
Pratt’s identity work framework adds a dynamic lens [9]. His six-year qualitative study of medical residents found that professional identity isn’t fixed. It’s constantly under construction. Residents experienced „work-identity integrity violations“ when what they did didn’t match who they thought they were. These violations triggered cycles of identity customization, where people actively add, retain, or subtract identity elements in response to work experiences.
The architecture matters because it reveals the mechanisms. Work doesn’t accidentally become part of your identity. It hijacks psychological systems designed to build self-esteem, create social belonging, and maintain self-consistency.
The documented benefits of strong work identification
The case for identifying with your work is strong. Meta-analytic evidence consistently shows positive outcomes across multiple domains.
Lee, Park, and Koo’s 2015 meta-analysis in Psychological Bulletin analyzed over 7,000 participants and found organizational identification significantly associated with in-role performance, extra-role performance, job involvement, job satisfaction, and affective commitment [10]. The study used structural equation modeling to demonstrate that identification has a direct effect on behavior beyond its effects through attitudes. Riketta’s earlier meta-analysis confirmed small-to-moderate positive relationships with task performance and reduced turnover intentions [6].
Work engagement serves as a key mechanism. Karanika-Murray and colleagues found in a study of three UK organizations that organizational identification leads to higher work engagement, which fully mediates the relationship with job satisfaction [11]. Engaged employees bring vigor, dedication, and absorption. They have energy. They’re effective. They’re resilient to job demands.
Organizational citizenship behaviors show reliable associations with identification. Sidorenkov and colleagues‘ 2022 meta-analysis of 149 correlations found organizational identification is the most commonly studied correlate of OCBs [12]. These are the discretionary behaviors that aren’t formally required but benefit the organization. Helping a colleague. Staying late to finish a project. Defending the company’s reputation. People who identify with their work do more of this stuff.
The calling orientation research adds another dimension. Wrzesniewski’s foundational work established that people relate to work through three orientations: Job (focus on financial rewards), Career (focus on advancement and prestige), and Calling (focus on fulfilling, socially useful work integral to identity) [13]. Her 1997 study produced a remarkable finding: within homogeneous groups like college administrative assistants, workers distributed roughly equally across all three orientations. Orientation isn’t determined by occupation. It’s determined by individual perspective.
Those with calling orientations reported the highest job and life satisfaction. Duffy and colleagues‘ Work as Calling Theory distinguishes between perceiving a calling (about 50% of American workers) and living a calling [14]. Living a calling, actually enacting it through work, correlates more strongly with positive outcomes than merely perceiving one. Park and colleagues found among salespeople that living a calling significantly correlated with total commissions and number of policies sold [15]. Concrete performance benefits.
The benefits are real. Identification predicts engagement, performance, meaning, and behaviors that help organizations succeed. If the story ended here, the advice would be simple: identify strongly with your work.
But the story doesn’t end here.
The documented risks of over-identification with work
The same mechanisms that generate engagement also create vulnerability. A growing literature documents curvilinear relationships, dark-side outcomes, and exploitation risks.
Avanzi and colleagues‘ 2012 study in Work & Stress provides critical evidence of non-linear effects [2]. They studied 195 Italian law court clerks and 140 Italian teachers and found workaholism initially decreases with growing organizational identification. But when identification becomes too strong, workaholism increases. The mechanism: highly identified employees feel the organization is their own. They develop an internal obligation to work harder. Workaholism then mediates the relationship between over-identification and reduced well-being.
This curvilinear pattern suggests an optimal level exists. Shimazu and colleagues found an inverted U-shaped relationship between psychological detachment and work engagement among 2,234 Japanese employees [16]. Both low and high detachment associated with lower engagement. Moderate detachment associated with highest engagement. There’s a sweet spot.
Christina Maslach’s research establishes burnout as a three-dimensional syndrome: exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy [17]. While burnout isn’t caused solely by identification, over-identification creates conditions for burnout through difficulty with psychological detachment.
Sonnentag’s extensive recovery research demonstrates the mechanism [3]. Her 2012 review found high job involvement negatively related to psychological detachment during non-work time, with correlations ranging from -.21 to -.37. A one-year longitudinal study with 309 human service employees found lack of psychological detachment predicted increased emotional exhaustion one year later. The recovery paradox: employees need recovery most when they’re least able to achieve it. High workload reduces detachment, yet high workload creates the greatest need for recovery.
Perhaps the most troubling consequence is unethical pro-organizational behavior. Umphress and colleagues found across two field studies that organizational identification is positively related to UPB, with positive reciprocity beliefs strengthening this relationship [18]. Strongly identified employees anticipating future organizational reward are more likely to release exaggerated information, lie to stakeholders, destroy documents, or engage in bribery „for the company.“
The contagion research is equally concerning. Miao and colleagues found in a multi-wave study that leaders‘ UPB predicts employees‘ UPB, with leader identification strengthening this contagion effect [19]. Transformational leadership may unintentionally encourage subordinates to commit higher levels of UPB by heightening their organizational identification.
When you identify too strongly, you don’t just work harder. You burn out faster. You blur ethical lines. You sacrifice well-being for an organization that may not sacrifice anything for you.
What happens when work identity is threatened or lost
The psychological stakes of work identification become starkly apparent when that identity is threatened through job loss, layoffs, or retirement.
Petriglieri’s 2011 framework defines identity threat as „experiences appraised as indicating potential harm to the value, meanings, or enactment of an identity“ [20]. Work-related threats can undermine self-worth, self-distinctiveness, self-continuity, and control over self-definitions. The response options determine adaptation trajectories: identity protection (refusing to change) versus identity restructuring (revising self-definitions).
Van Eersel and colleagues documented job loss-related complicated grief with symptoms mirroring bereavement [21]. Difficulties accepting changed reality. Yearning for the lost job. Preoccupation with memories. Identity disruption. Bitterness. Problems moving forward. Their research found one in five people experience lower quality of life up to five years after dismissal. Risk factors include belief in an unjust world, low self-esteem, avoidant coping, and high attachment to former work situation.
Paul and Moser’s 2009 meta-analysis established that unemployment significantly impairs mental health, with elevated depression, anxiety, and psychological distress [22]. A Finnish register-based study of 2.72 million individuals found unemployment associated with a 0.51 percentage-point increase in probability of poor mental health even after controlling for stable individual characteristics [23]. CDC analysis found unemployed emerging adults have three times greater odds of reporting depression compared to employed peers [24].
The scarring effects persist long after reemployment. Mossakowski found unemployment duration across young adulthood predicted higher depressive symptoms later in life [25]. Strandh and colleagues‘ Swedish cohort study found unemployment in young adulthood associated with increased depressive symptoms, nervous symptoms, and sleeping problems at age 42 [26].
Carusone and colleagues experimentally demonstrated that person-at-risk threats (being fired for performance) produce significantly worse outcomes than job-at-risk threats (layoffs eliminating the position) [27]. Person-at-risk conditions produced significantly higher negative affect, lower organization-based self-esteem, and poorer social exchange with supervisors. The theoretical explanation: individual self takes precedence over collective self. Personal identity threats are more damaging than threats to collective identity.
For highly work-identified individuals, losing a job isn’t merely losing income. It’s losing a central component of self. The psychological devastation can last years.
The case for psychological detachment and lower identification
A substantial body of research suggests that psychological detachment from work, the ability to mentally disengage during non-work time, predicts well-being outcomes independent of high job identification.
Wendsche and Lohmann-Haislah’s 2017 meta-analysis synthesized 86 publications, 91 independent samples, and 38,124 employees [28]. Psychological detachment showed medium-sized correlations with reduced exhaustion (r = -.36), increased life satisfaction (r = +.34), general well-being (r = +.30), and improved sleep quality (r = +.30). State fatigue showed the strongest negative correlation (r = -.42).
Bennett, Bakker, and Field’s 2018 meta-analysis of 54 samples and 26,592 participants found psychological detachment has the strongest negative relationship with fatigue compared to other recovery experiences like relaxation, mastery, or control over leisure time [29]. The message is consistent: mentally leaving work behind during non-work hours protects well-being.
However, detachment isn’t cost-free for career outcomes. The same Wendsche and Lohmann-Haislah meta-analysis found detachment negatively correlated with contextual performance (r = -.12) and creativity (r = -.10) [28]. Workers who think about work during non-work time show higher discretionary effort. There’s a genuine trade-off: what protects well-being may come at a modest career cost.
McKee-Ryan and colleagues‘ meta-analysis found that employment commitment (work centrality to identity) moderated unemployment’s psychological impact [30]. Higher pre-unemployment work centrality predicted greater distress during unemployment, but also predicted faster reemployment. Lower identification may protect against the devastation of job loss while potentially slowing career advancement.
The contemporary „quiet quitting“ phenomenon represents one extreme of low identification. Employees constrain effort to contractual terms without going above and beyond. Gallup’s 2024 data estimates approximately 50% of the U.S. workforce are quiet quitters, with global engagement at just 21% [31]. Research on the Quiet Quitting Scale found four out of five quiet quitters are burnt out, and quiet quitting significantly correlates with work-related burnout (positive) and job satisfaction (negative) [32].
Systematic review findings suggest teams with high quiet quitting show 37% fewer knowledge-sharing instances and reduced innovation. Yet from a Job Demands-Resources perspective, quiet quitting may represent an adaptive self-regulatory response, a threshold mechanism protecting psychological health when demands exceed resources. The phenomenon may be simultaneously harmful to organizations and protective for individuals caught in unsustainable work environments.
The double-edged sword of experiencing work as a calling
Bunderson and Thompson’s 2009 study of zookeepers from 157 different zoos established the „double-edged sword“ metaphor that now dominates calling research [33]. Their qualitative and survey work found the calling orientation was both binding and ennobling.
Zookeepers with calling orientations showed strong identification with their work and found broader meaning and significance in caring for animals. Across diverse samples, calling orientation predicts higher job satisfaction, life satisfaction, career commitment, and meaning. Park and colleagues‘ salesforce study found calling predicted actual sales performance [15]. Wrzesniewski’s original research found calling-oriented administrative assistants reported higher satisfaction than career or job-oriented peers doing identical work [13].
But the dark side emerged clearly. Zookeepers with callings were more likely to see work as moral duty. More likely to sacrifice pay, personal time, and comfort for work. They held their organizations to higher standards, increasing frustration. Critically, they faced greater exploitation risk. Employers took advantage of their intrinsic motivation by not providing incentives and assigning more difficult tasks.
Subsequent research has confirmed these patterns. Keller and colleagues found perceiving a calling correlated with more working hours and weakly but significantly with workaholism [34]. Vinje and Mittelmark found perceiving a calling associated with higher burnout among nurses [35]. Creed and colleagues‘ study of 355 junior doctors found perceiving a calling positively linked with burnout [36]. The calling orientation creates conditions for both exceptional meaning and exceptional sacrifice.
The Work as Calling Theory emphasizes that perceiving a calling is insufficient. Living a calling, actually enacting it through work, drives outcomes [14]. Gazica and Spector found living a calling buffers the relationship between burnout/exploitation and job satisfaction [37]. Critically, those with unanswered callings, perceiving but unable to live their calling, reported worse outcomes than those with no calling at all. The implication: encouraging people to find their calling without providing conditions to live it may harm rather than help.
Access to opportunity determines who can live their calling. Duffy and colleagues found those with graduate/professional degrees significantly more likely to live their calling, unemployed adults perceive callings at the same rate as employed adults but are significantly less likely to live them, and work volition (perceived ability to make occupational choices) strongly correlates with living one’s calling [14]. The relationship between calling orientation and positive outcomes is conditional on having resources and opportunities to enact that calling.
How culture, profession, and individual differences shape outcomes
The relationship between work identification and outcomes is not uniform. Moderating factors determine when identification helps versus hurts.
Lee, Park, and Koo’s meta-analysis found effects of organizational identification on outcomes are moderated by national culture [10]. Effects are stronger in collectivistic cultures than individualistic cultures. In societies where group membership carries greater psychological significance, identification with work organizations produces larger performance and attitude effects.
Hattrup and colleagues found positive relationships between collectivism and work centrality across Ecuador, Germany, India, Mexico, and the United States [38]. Japan demonstrates very high work centrality. England and Germany show relatively low work centrality. Elizur and colleagues‘ seven-country longitudinal study found young workers from collectivist cultures begin careers with higher work centrality [39]. The practical implication: identification-building strategies must adapt to cultural context.
Medicine has been called „the very embodiment of the concept of professional identity“ [40]. Physicians‘ occupational identities are among the strongest documented. A 2022 scoping review across 160 studies in 17 health professions found career stage significantly affects professional identity, workplace hierarchies shape identity construction, and between-profession power hierarchies exist with medicine at top [41].
In contrast, research on lawyers reveals professional role distancing. Bliss’s Harvard research found corporate-track law students show substantial bifurcation between personal roles and peripheral lawyer role [42]. They tend not to view „being a lawyer“ as central to identity. Government/public interest lawyers show highly integrated professional identities. The same profession can generate vastly different identity patterns based on practice context.
A meta-analytic finding with important implications: Lee, Zablah, and Noble’s 2023 meta-analysis found job meaningfulness (autonomy, skill variety, task significance) weakens the organizational identification-performance relationship [43]. When work is intrinsically meaningful, identification adds less incremental value. This suggests identification matters most in jobs lacking intrinsic meaning and may explain why some professions generate stronger identification effects than others.
Arshad and colleagues found organizational identification significantly boosts employee engagement, particularly among female employees [44]. However, Morgenroth and colleagues found women experience lower work-life balance than men, explained by lower fit with leaders in their field leading to lower identity compatibility between work and non-work identities [45].
Individual differences including extraversion, collectivist orientation, self-esteem, and perfectionism moderate identification processes and outcomes. High neuroticism, perfectionism, and low self-esteem increase risk of negative outcomes from calling orientations and over-identification.
Toward optimal work identity: the research-based answer
The accumulated evidence points toward a nuanced conclusion. The question is not whether to identify with work, but how much and in what way.
The inverted U-shaped relationship between detachment and engagement found by Shimazu, the demonstration that workaholism increases beyond optimal identification levels by Avanzi, and Sonnentag’s recovery research converge on a consistent message [16][2][3]. Moderate engagement during work hours combined with strong psychological detachment during non-work time appears to maximize both well-being and sustainable performance.
The recovery paradox, needing recovery most when least able to achieve it, suggests organizational and individual interventions must actively protect recovery time rather than assuming it will happen naturally. Hahn and colleagues demonstrated that recovery is a trainable skill, opening intervention possibilities [46].
Research on job loss consistently shows that concentrated identity in work creates vulnerability. Those with identity sources beyond work, relationships, hobbies, community roles, non-work achievements, show greater resilience to job loss and faster psychological recovery. The practical recommendation: cultivate multiple valued identities rather than relying on work as primary self-definition source.
The calling research demonstrates that encouraging people to find meaning in work without providing conditions to enact that meaning may backfire. Unanswered callings produce worse outcomes than no calling [14][37]. Organizations and individuals should focus not just on identifying meaningful work but on creating access, opportunity, and working conditions that allow callings to be lived.
Wrzesniewski and Dutton’s job crafting framework suggests employees need not passively accept work-identity relationships [47]. Job crafting, changing task boundaries, relationship quality, or cognitive framing of work, enables identity construction independent of formal job design. Berg, Grant, and Johnson found employees unable to live callings through current work could use task emphasizing, job expanding, and role reframing to increase meaning and enjoyment [48]. Wang and colleagues found approach-oriented job crafting transforms identity threats into increased job engagement and performance [49].
Conclusion
The research on work identity reveals no simple answer to whether people should identify with their jobs. Both high and low identification carry documented benefits and risks.
High identification predicts engagement, performance, meaning, and organizational citizenship but also workaholism, burnout, unethical behavior, and devastating psychological consequences upon job loss. Low identification and psychological detachment protect well-being and resilience but may reduce discretionary performance, creativity, and career advancement.
The evidence converges on calibration rather than maximization. The goal is not maximum identification but optimal identification: enough engagement to find meaning and perform well, combined with enough psychological distance to recover, maintain non-work identities, and remain resilient to career disruptions. This calibration must account for cultural context, profession type, individual differences, and career stage.
Three actionable insights emerge for individuals. First, diversify identity investments across multiple domains rather than concentrating self-concept in work alone. Second, develop and protect psychological detachment skills. The ability to mentally leave work during non-work time predicts well-being even among highly engaged workers. Third, recognize that calling orientations require conditions to enact them. Pursuing meaningful work without opportunity to live that meaning creates unanswered calling distress.
For organizations, the research suggests that cultivating identification has diminishing and eventually negative returns. The curvilinear relationship documented by Avanzi means over-identification harms both employee well-being and, through burnout and turnover, organizational effectiveness [2]. Organizations benefit from enabling recovery, respecting boundaries, and recognizing that employees with lives outside work may be more sustainably productive than those whose identities depend entirely on organizational membership.
The psychology of work identity isn’t a binary choice. It’s a calibration challenge that requires continuous adjustment throughout your career.
References
[1] Lee, E. S., Park, T. Y., & Koo, B. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 1049-1080.
[2] Avanzi, L., van Dick, R., Fraccaroli, F., & Sarchielli, G. (2012). The downside of organizational identification: Relations between identification, workaholism and well-being. Work & Stress, 26(3), 289-307.
[3] Sonnentag, S. (2012). Psychological detachment from work during leisure time: The benefits of mentally disengaging from work. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 114-118.
[4] Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979, 1986). Social Identity Theory.
[5] Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.
[6] Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(2), 358-384.
[7] Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. Identity Theory (symbolic interactionism).
[8] Swann, W. B., et al. (2009, 2012). Identity Fusion Theory.
[9] Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235-262.
[10] Lee, E. S., Park, T. Y., & Koo, B. (2015). Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 1049-1080.
[11] Karanika-Murray, M., Duncan, N., Pontes, H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Organizational identification, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(8), 1019-1033.
[12] Sidorenkov, A. V., Borokhovski, E. F., & Vorontsov, D. V. (2023). Associations of employees‘ identification and citizenship behavior in organization: A systematic review and a meta-analysis. Management Review Quarterly, 73, 695-729.
[13] Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P., & Schwartz, B. (1997). Jobs, careers, and callings: People’s relations to their work. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(1), 21-33.
[14] Duffy, R. D., Dik, B. J., Douglass, R. P., England, J. W., & Velez, B. L. (2018). Work as a calling: A theoretical model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(4), 423-439.
[15] Park, J., et al. (2016). Living a calling and sales performance study.
[16] Shimazu, A., et al. (2016). Psychological detachment from work during non-work time: Linear or curvilinear relations with mental health and work engagement? Industrial Health, 54(3), 245-252.
[17] Maslach, C. Burnout research: exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy.
[18] Umphress, E. E., Bingham, J. B., & Mitchell, M. S. (2010). Unethical behavior in the name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identification and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 769-780.
[19] Miao, Q., et al. (2018). The contagion of unethical pro-organizational behavior: From leaders to followers. Frontiers in Psychology.
[20] Petriglieri, J. L. (2011). Under threat: Responses to and the consequences of threats to individuals‘ identities. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 641-662.
[21] Van Eersel, J. H. W., Taris, T. W., & Boelen, P. A. (2022). Job loss-related complicated grief symptoms: A cognitive-behavioral framework. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13:933995.
[22] Paul, K. I., & Moser, K. (2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 264-282.
[23] Current unemployment, unemployment history, and mental health: A fixed-effects model approach. Finnish register-based study (2.72 million individuals aged 30-60).
[25] Mossakowski, K. N. (2009). The influence of past unemployment duration on symptoms of depression among young women and men in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 99(10), 1826-1832.
[26] Brydsten, A., Hammarström, A., Strandh, M., & Johansson, K. (2015). Youth unemployment and functional somatic symptoms in adulthood: Results from the Northern Swedish cohort. European Journal of Public Health, 25(5), 796-800.
[27] Carusone, N., Pittman, R., & Shoss, M. (2021). Sometimes it’s personal: Differential outcomes of person vs. job at risk threats to job security. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health, 18(14), 7379.
[28] Wendsche, J., & Lohmann-Haislah, A. (2017). A meta-analysis on antecedents and outcomes of detachment from work. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 2072.
[29] Bennett, A. A., Bakker, A. B., & Field, J. G. (2018). Recovery from work-related effort: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 262-275.
[30] McKee-Ryan, F., Song, Z., Wanberg, C. R., & Kinicki, A. J. (2005). Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 53-76.
[31] Gallup (2024). State of the Global Workplace Report.
[32] Galanis, P., et al. (2024). The quiet quitting scale: Development and initial validation.
[33] Bunderson, J. S., & Thompson, J. A. (2009). The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 32-57.
[34] Keller, A. C., Spurk, D., Baumeler, F., & Hirschi, A. (2016). Competitive climate and workaholism: Negative sides of future orientation and calling. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 122-126.
[35] Vinje, H. F., & Mittelmark, M. B. (2007). Job engagement’s paradoxical role in nurse burnout. Nursing & Health Sciences, 9(2), 107-111.
[36] Creed, P. A., et al. Study of 355 junior doctors: calling and burnout.
[37] Gazica, M. W., & Spector, P. E. (2015). A comparison of individuals with unanswered callings to those with no calling at all. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 1-10.
[38] Hattrup, K., Ghorpade, J., & Lackritz, J. R. (2007). Work group collectivism and the centrality of work: A multinational investigation. Cross-Cultural Research, 41(3), 236-260.
[39] Elizur, D., et al. A cross-cultural longitudinal analysis of the meaning of work and the socialization process of career starters.
[40] Professional identity formation in medicine.
[41] Professional identity research in the health professions: A scoping review. 2022 scoping review across 160 studies in 17 health professions.
[42] Bliss, J. Professional identity formation research at Harvard Law School.
[43] Lee, N. Y., Zablah, A. R., & Noble, S. M. (2023). A meta-analytic investigation of the organizational identification – Job performance relationship in the frontlines. Journal of Retailing, 99(3), 370-384.
[44] Arshad, M., Dost, M. K. B., & Qasim, N. (2023). Enhancing employee work engagement through organizational identification, gender and leader social dominance orientation. Gender in Management, 38(8), 1014-1028.
[45] Morgenroth, T., Ryan, M. K., Rink, F., & Begeny, C. (2021). The (in)compatibility of identities: Understanding gender differences in work–life conflict through the fit with leaders. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(2), 448-469.
[46] Hahn, V. C., Binnewies, C., Sonnentag, S., & Mojza, E. J. (2011). Learning how to recover from job stress: Effects of a recovery training program on recovery, recovery-related self-efficacy, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(2), 202-216.
[47] Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179-201.
[48] Berg, J. M., Grant, A. M., & Johnson, V. (2010). When callings are calling: Crafting work and leisure in pursuit of unanswered occupational callings. Organization Science, 21(5), 973-994.
[49] Wang, H., et al. (2024). Accentuating the positive: How and when occupational identity threat leads to job crafting and positive outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.