The communicative constitution of calling: From individual possession to relational processes of meaningful work

Precarious employment, artificial intelligence (AI), and disengagement are eroding work’s role as a reliable source of meaning—namely, that one’s work is or should be one’s calling. Although psychological research typically frames calling as stable, beneficial, and individual; communication theory reveals it as collectively co-authored, relationally sustained, and thus inherently fragile and open to disruption. This tension raises the question of whether calling functions as a safeguard or becomes a source of added vulnerability when its promised meaning can no longer be maintained. Drawing on communicative practices and Communicative Constitution of Organization (CCO), we reposition calling as an emergent communicative process (rather than individual possession or ontological given) that takes shape through everyday talk, storytelling, and power-laden interactions. Purpose, therefore, is not possessed but continually constituted. This reconceptualization advances three shifts in the literature—from individual perception to collective co-authorship; from static ontology to emergent process; and from “having” to “doing” a calling. These shifts pivot theory toward process- and context-sensitive models; call for multi-level, longitudinal, and narrative methods to trace how everyday communication aggregates into institutional norms and identities; and reorient communicative practices toward cultivating spaces where diverse voices co-author adaptive callings through collective, ongoing sensemaking rather than imposed ideals of what constitutes meaningful work.