Abstract
Even though calling researchers have identified two major forms of calling, namely modern and neoclassical, existing studies do not agree on whether these two forms are consistent or different in their mechanisms and outcomes. This study aimed to investigate whether modern and neoclassical calling are both indirectly related to unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) through the mediating roles of psychological entitlement and moral duty. Additionally, this study also aimed to investigate whether psychological entitlement functions as a mediator greater in magnitude for modern calling, whereas moral duty functions as a mediator greater in magnitude for neoclassical calling. Results from 463 employees in South Korea from two time points at 1 month interval revealed that both modern and neoclassical calling were indirectly positively related to UPB through psychological entitlement and indirectly positively related to OCB through moral duty. There was insufficient evidence to support the notion that the mediators would be different in magnitude based on the form of calling. Thus, this study demonstrates the double-edged nature of calling in relation to OCB and UPB. Additionally, it suggests that the outcomes of employees' calling at work may depend more on the strength rather than the form of their calling. The implications and directions for future research are discussed.