Meaningful fulfilment: battling burnout with purpose and resilience in the workplace

Meaningful work has been described as fulfilling, significant, purposeful and worthwhile (Thompson & Bunderson, 2019). It carries a positive valence that is eudemonic rather than hedonic (Steger et al., 2012). This type of work has been reported to positively impact work attitudes and behaviours, including higher job satisfaction (Al-Hakim et al., 2022), higher organisational citizenship behaviours (Tan et al., 2019) and lower absenteeism and turnover intentions (Allan et al., 2020), all of which directly impact workers’ productivity.

However, previous studies found inconsistent results regarding the impact of meaningful work on work outcomes. For example, Lease et al. (2019) reported that although meaningful work does function as a buffer to reduce the impact of perceived stress on depression, this impact was much stronger for those who have a lower level of meaningful work. Moreover, Allan et al. (2020) found that those with a high level of meaningful work are more likely to experience negative effects, stress and depression. This suggests that a high level of meaningful work does not guarantee better well-being. The inability to fully use one’s capability or express one’s full potential impacts well-being, especially when engaged in highly meaningful work. Hence, meaningful work may function as a double-edged sword, positively or negatively impacting desirable outcomes. Thus, researchers of meaningful work have called for more empirical studies to deepen the understanding of the various pathways that may impact meaningful work and work outcomes (You et al., 2021).

Intertwined with meaningful work is another concept called calling. Calling originates from the Christian faith but has since been accepted in the field of organisational behaviour. Simply put, a calling is a beckoning that leads an individual to perform certain work with consuming passion, with the aim of contributing to the greater good (Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011). The Work as Calling Theory (WCT), proposed by Duffy et al. (2018), hypothesised that a calling could be an antecedent of work meaningfulness. Previous research indicates that living out one’s calling, rather than merely perceiving it, impacts work outcomes (Duffy & Autin, 2013).

The public sector is an ideal setting for studying calling and meaningful work, as employees are often driven by intrinsic motivation and a sense of service (Johanim et al., 2019). The spirit of serving the nation is prevalent in Malaysian public administration, as reflected in government slogans such as Berkhidmat untuk Negara (Serving the Nation) and Saya yang menjalankan amanah (I am fulfilling my responsibility). These values align with calling, which emphasise dedication, passion and contribution to the greater good (Dobrow & Tosti-Kharas, 2011). However, despite these intrinsic motivators, public sector employees in Malaysia face increasing burnout due to high workloads, bureaucratic constraints and declining job satisfaction (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam, 2022). Research suggests that employees in service-oriented professions may experience both positive and negative effects of meaningful work, as high expectations can lead to stress and emotional exhaustion (Allan et al., 2020). Given this unique cultural and institutional setting, this study investigates how calling and meaningful work interact with resilience to influence burnout in Malaysia’s public sector. For policymakers seeking to improve employee well-being, job retention and productivity, understanding these dynamics is critical.

Although meaningful work and calling have received increasing attention in recent decades, most research has been conducted in the West, and there is a lack of studies in Asia. This study fills this gap by examining how cultural and institutional factors shape calling and meaningful work in the Malaysian public sector, which is characterised by high power distances and collectivist values. Moreover, previous research often neglects contextual factors such as culture when studying meaningful work (Rothmann et al., 2019). This study contributes to the literature by integrating the WCT with the job demands–resources (JD–R) model, positioning calling and resilience as additional job resources that may influence burnout. Furthermore, public-sector employees in Malaysia, who are typically driven by intrinsic motivation and a public service ethos, may particularly benefit from meaningful work and calling. The results of this study provide essential implications for HR policymakers, suggesting appropriate interventions to enhance meaningful work and mitigate burnout among Malaysia’s public sector employees.

According to the JD–R model, workplace factors can be divided into job demands and resources. Job demand leads to strain and burnout, while job resources promote motivation and well-being (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). It has often been assumed that job resources such as meaningful work and calling buffer burnout by promoting engagement and resilience, among other things (Kim & Beehr, 2018). However, the JD–R model appears to account only for the negative outcomes associated with these resources. When responsibility for a meaningful role is overwhelming, it can cause workaholism, stress and emotional exhaustion (Oelberger, 2019). This indicates that the JD–R model is insufficient to explain the multifaceted roles of calling and meaningful work in workplace well-being, which calls for a broader theoretical lens.

The WCT builds on the JD–R model by elucidating the motivating effects of intrinsic motivation and a sense of purpose on work behaviour (Duffy et al., 2018). WCT argues that when people perceive their work as a calling, they experience greater meaningfulness, job satisfaction and engagement. On the other hand, WCT also reveals a “dark side” people with a deep sense of calling may become too dedicated, and this might result in emotional exhaustion and burnout (Ehrhardt & Ensher, 2021). However, WCT also acknowledges the detrimental effects, so it is pivotal that both models are further integrated to enhance our understanding of how meaningful work and calling relate to burnout across various work contexts.

Thus, this study adds resilience as a moderating mechanism and presents an expanded JD–R and WCT model. Resilience, which is defined as an individual’s recuperative capacity and ability to draw on resources effectively (Luthans, 2002), is assumed to enhance those that function as buffers (Podsakoff et al., 2012). This assumption has guided previous investigations; however, this study calls this assumption into question, suggesting that resilience might mitigate an employee’s dependence on calling and meaningful work as buffers against burnout, because highly resilient employees might have other coping resources available (Hezel et al., 2022). Integrating JD–R, WCT and resilience, this study offers a multifaceted view of burnout to extend JD–R theory by acknowledging the role of psychological capital as a buffer against workplace stress and in determining the success of job resources in mitigating it.

Public sector employees are often driven by public service motivation, which resonates with the principles of meaningful work – helping to create a prosperous society and reconnecting with a sense of duty (Woo & Kim, 2024). Private sector employees, who might be motivated primarily by extrinsic rewards, are a stark contrast to public sector employees who achieve gratification from the intrinsic value of their assignments (Muhammad Zafran & Abu Bakar, 2021). Previous studies have shown that public service motivation is positively correlated with job satisfaction, engagement and organisational commitment, thereby reducing intentions to leave the job (Stanley et al., 2021). Despite these positive aspects, professions centred on public service, including medical professionals, social workers and law enforcement officials, are often associated with increased stress, emotional exhaustion and burnout, raising concerns about whether calling and meaningful work can be sustained in high-demand settings.

In the Malaysian public sector, the work as calling literature resonates with deeply embedded cultural and religious beliefs (Smith, 2003). Most Malaysian public sector employees grew up with collectivist values, which emphasise social responsibility and taking responsibility for oneself and the community (Parlimen Malaysia, 2022). Moreover, Islamic work values highlight the act of work as a service, which may affect public servants’ perception of the essence of their duty. Although this intrinsic motivation can contribute to job satisfaction and commitment, it can also heighten stress and emotional burnout, especially in bureaucratic settings with heavy workloads and administrative burdens (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam, 2022). Furthermore, this study emphasises the importance of exploring the interplay between calling and meaningful work and burnout, especially in high-power distance and collectivist cultures in which employees might feel compelled to tolerate high-stress and demanding conditions for the sake of the common good.

In addition, the motivational drivers of public sector employees differ from those in the private sector, so calling, meaningful work and resilience must be analysed in context (Asseburg et al., 2018). For service-driven employees, calling can be both protective and an additional stressor, contingent upon organisational support, work-life balance and coping mechanisms (Thompson & Christensen, 2018). In Malaysia’s public sector, where specific institutional and cultural norms exist, how calling and meaningful work interact with resilience is salient for the development of policy interventions that promote employee well-being, engagement and retention.

Calling is rooted in Christianity, which is more prevalent in the Western world, while most of Malaysia’s population is of the Muslim faith. Therefore, the concept of calling is relatively new in Southeast Asia and Malaysia. Nonetheless, calling may still be essential in the context of meaningful work within Malaysia, given that the idea of work as an act of worship is ingrained in the Muslim faith (Sidek et al., 2018). This aligns with the notion that a divine external source could direct and provide purpose to an individual’s ability to perform their work. Moreover, previous scholars have noted that the impact of calling is most evident when individuals can live out their calling (Duffy et al., 2013).

Thus, this study will measure the extent to which individuals live out their calling. According to the WCT, scholars proposed that when individuals can live out their calling, it can enhance their well-being. Several studies have reported that calling correlates negatively with burnout (Khan et al., 2021). In addition, other studies have reported that those with a calling are less likely to experience cynicism (Mauno et al., 2022) and emotional exhaustion (Hong et al., 2023), both of which have been described as facets of burnout (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Furthermore, calling can act as a personal resource (Terry & Cigularov, 2021) that individuals can use to meet job demands, thereby preventing burnout. Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed:

Meaningful work is defined as purposeful, significant, other-oriented and eudaemonic (Michaelson, 2019). In contrast, calling focuses on fulfilling purpose, which provides meaning (Steger et al., 2010). Thus, the experience of calling is contingent on meaningfulness. When an individual believes their work is more than a job or career, they have elevated it to the status of a calling (Bellah et al., 1985). Those who view their work as a calling find significant meaning in it, which provides a sense of purpose and a personal mission (Elangovan et al., 2010). They consider finding their calling the pinnacle of subjective career success (Dobrow, 2004). Hence, believing that one’s work is a calling imbues a tremendous sense of meaning.

As described by Dik and Duffy (2009), those with a calling are motivated by a transcendent summons to participate in roles with a sense of purpose or meaningfulness and hold other-oriented values and goals. According to this definition, a calling only exists when work has purpose or meaning for the individual. Dobrow and Tosti-Kharas (2011) described calling as a consuming and meaningful experience, confirming that calling and meaningfulness coexist within individuals. Considering the evidence from the previous literature, the following hypothesis is proposed:

The WCT posits that calling mediated by meaningful work can lead to both positive and negative work outcomes. Studies support meaningful work as a buffer to burnout (Schnell & Hoffmann, 2020) that can increase work engagement, an antipode of burnout (Lips-Wiersma & Wright, 2012). Kim and Beehr (2018) reported that while empowering leadership reduces emotional exhaustion (a facet of burnout), meaningful work acts as the mediator in reducing emotional exhaustion. In addition, meaningful work has been reported to mediate the relationship between job crafting and work engagement, supporting its role as a mediator for well-being outcomes such as burnout or engagement. Based on previous literature and WCT prepositions, it is likely that meaningful work acts as a mediator between living out a calling and burnout. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

According to Luthans (2002), resilience enables individuals to bounce back from difficulties and may even help them become better versions of themselves. Studies among public sector employees in China (Hao et al., 2015) and social workers in India (Stanley et al., 2021) reported that resilience negatively moderates the impact of work stress on burnout. While resilience shares similarities with other psychological capital, such as hope, optimism and self-efficacy, it is demonstrated primarily in response to disruptive events (Luthans et al., 2006). This attribute helps individuals sustain their desire to live out their calling, especially when the work environment is not conducive. Previous studies have shown that hardship itself can evoke a stronger sense of calling (Zhu et al., 2021).

In addition, Hezel et al. (2022) reported that resilient people tend to have positive perceptions even in negative situations, thus protecting their well-being. Hence, coupled with a sense of calling, resilience may propel individuals to continue living out their calling without jeopardising their well-being. Since those living out their calling find their work to be a significant source of meaning and purpose, this relationship could be reinforced when individuals also possess resilience. Resilience may act as a character strength that helps individuals to keep living out their calling, especially during challenging situations. This persistence keeps individuals engaged in work they perceive as meaningful. Based on this argument, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Based on the discussion above, the research model for this study is presented in Figure 1 as follows:

Purposive sampling was used for data collection. To ensure reliable responses, three screening criteria were used to assess individual qualifications for participation in this study. These criteria were being (i) 18 years and above, (ii) serving in Malaysia’s public sector for at least a year and (iii) serving in the public sector in Greater Kuala Lumpur. Greater Kuala Lumpur refers to the geographical area that includes Kuala Lumpur (the capital city of Malaysia) and neighbouring municipalities, as stipulated in the Economic Transformation Program to transform Klang Valley and its adjacent districts into a vibrant, competitive and liveable city. This sample is chosen because all ministry headquarters reside within Greater Kuala Lumpur. To ensure representation of public sector employees across various occupations and job grades, data was collected through surveys. Using G*Power v.3.1, a sample size of 700 was deemed adequate to achieve a 95% level of statistical power in detecting a medium effect size (f² = 0.15).

A total of 755 respondents participated in the study. Of 755 respondents, 55 were excluded due to outliers, straight-lining, not meeting sampling criteria and missing data. The final sample consists of 500 (71%) females and 200 (29%) males. Most of the respondents are Malay (73.7%), followed by Chinese (16.4%), Indian (4.1%) and others (5.7%). The Islamic faith is professed by most respondents (75.9%), while other main religions include Buddhism (11.7%) and Christianity (6.9%). Most of the respondents are married (77.4%). About 59.3% of respondents are from the Millennial generation (ages between 27 and 42 years old), followed by 34.3% who reported to be from Generation X (ages between 43 and 58 years old), while the remainder are Boomers and Generation Z. Corresponding to the age groups, the majority (27.3%) have served the government between 16 and 20 years, followed by 22.0% who have served between 11 and 15 years.

All the measures are adapted from previous studies. For calling, the Living One’s Calling Scale (Duffy et al., 2012) was adapted to assess the number of individuals living out their calling at work (e.g., “I have regular opportunities to live out my calling”). To assess the degree of meaningful work perceived by respondents, an adapted Work as Meaning Inventory (WAMI; Steger et al., 2012) was used (e.g., “I have found a meaningful career”). In terms of burnout measurement, the adapted short version of the Shirom–Melamed Burnout Measure (SMBM-6) (Sundström et al., 2023) and the pictorial burnout measure (Matches measure; Muir et al., 2023) were used. To assess resilience, the Brief Resilience Scale (Smith et al., 2008) was adapted in this study. “I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times” is an example of a scale item. All scales were measured using a seven-point Likert scale, with 1 representing strongly disagree and 7 representing strongly agree. We presented the scales in both English and Malay in the questionnaire to enhance the respondents’ comprehension. The original scales are in English; therefore, the back-translation technique was used to ensure they are functionally and conceptually equivalent for usage in Malaysia (Kim & Lim, 1999).

To reduce common method bias (CMB), this study followed the suggestion of Podsakoff et al. (2012), employing procedural remedies. Confidentiality and anonymity assurances were provided to reduce social desirability bias, while clear, neutral instructions ensured participants understood the questions without being influenced by response tendencies. Proximal separation was ensured by mixing items across constructs, and reverse-coded items were also added to minimise response patterns. Moreover, a pre-test and pilot study were conducted to eliminate ambiguity and unclear wording in the questionnaire. To promote independent responses for each construct, psychological separation techniques (i.e., transition statements) were applied between sections.

Next, we assessed CMB statistically by using full collinearity variance inflation factor (VIF) tests and marker variable analysis, as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2012) and Lindell and Whitney (2001). The VIF values for all constructs ranged from 1.348 to 2.123, well below the critical threshold of 3.3, indicating no serious collinearity issues. To additionally validate this issue, a marker variable was included, as it is theoretically unrelated to the study concepts and has established validity and reliability (Miller & Simmering, 2022). Following Lindell and Whitney (2001), the average correlation between the marker variable and all study variables in Table 1 was found to be insignificant, confirming that the marker variable had no substantial influence on the study variables. Moreover, path coefficients remained stable, with minimal variations (−0.001–0.001), and R² values changed only marginally (−0.002–0), reinforcing the conclusion that CMB is not a significant issue in this research.

The research model was tested using a two-step approach. Firstly, the validity and reliability of the instruments were assessed through the measurement model, following the guidelines of Hair et al. (2019). Following that, the hypotheses were tested using the structural model. The measurement model’s assessment included internal consistency, reliability tests and both convergent and discriminant validity tests. As stated in Table 2, the Cronbach’s alpha for all constructs was above 0.8 (0.912–0.946), while all CR values were above 0.7 (0.914–0.947). Therefore, the results indicate that the measurement model has acceptable reliability. As stated in Table 2, the measurement model has acceptable convergent validity because all factor loadings were above 0.5 (0.752–0.925) and all AVE were above 0.5 (0.694–0.803) (Hair et al., 2019; Lacap et al., 2021).

Discriminant validity measures the ability to distinguish among different constructs. Following the suggestion of Henseler et al. (2015), the heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) criterion was employed to assess discriminant validity. The HTMT values provided in Table 3 were all less than or equal to 0.85, indicating that respondents recognised the distinctiveness of each construct. In addition, discriminant validity was further verified using the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The results in Table 4 indicated that the square root of the AVE for each construct was greater than its correlations with other constructs, fortifying the validity of the measurement model. Cumulatively, these results provide evidence supporting the discriminant validity of the constructs, suggesting that each variable is conceptually different.

Several evaluation criteria were employed to evaluate the structural model, including the collinearity test (VIF), path coefficients (t-values, p-values), coefficient of determination (R²) and effect size (f²), as presented in Table 5. All VIF values were below 3.3, confirming that the structural model does not suffer from collinearity issues (Kock & Lynn, 2012). To determine the significance of all path coefficients, the bootstrapping method was employed, using 5,000 sub-samples. It was found that living a calling negatively correlates with burnout (β = −0.103, p < 0.05), thereby supporting H1. Living a calling is positively correlated with meaningful work (β = 0.543, p < 0.001), supporting H2.

The coefficient of determination (R²) was used to assess the model’s predictive accuracy, indicating the proportion of variance in the endogenous construct, burnout, explained by the exogenous constructs (calling, meaningful work and resilience). The R² value for meaningful work was 0.510, indicating that 51% of its variance is explained by to living a calling and resilience. According to Cohen (1988), this represents substantial predictive accuracy. In addition, the model explains 26.3% of the variance in burnout (R²= 0.263), suggesting that living a calling has a stronger impact on predicting meaningful work than on predicting burnout. The effect size for this relationship is large (Cohen, 1992), with an f² value of 0.511. To test the mediation hypothesis, the procedures recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008) were followed, using bootstrapping to estimate the indirect effect. When the confidence interval does not include zero, the mediation effect is considered statistically significant. As shown in Table 6, Calling → Meaningful work → Burnout (β = −0.181, p < 0.001) was significant. The positive β value and the confidence intervals, bias-corrected at the 95% level, did not include zero, confirming the significance of the findings. Therefore, H3 was supported.

The findings reveal that resilience moderates the relationship between living a calling and burnout (β = −0.066, p > 0.05) as well as the relationship between calling and meaningful work (β = −0.114, p > 0.001). Therefore, H4 and H5 were supported. The summary of the moderation results is presented in Table 6. In addition, slope analysis, as suggested by Dawson (2014), was used to further explain the moderating effect. As shown in Figure 2, the line representing high resilience has a much steeper gradient, indicating that at a higher level of resilience, the impact of calling on burnout is weaker than at a lower level. However, at lower resilience, the line is flatter, suggesting that lower resilience decreases the impact of living a calling and causes more burnout. In conclusion, the impact of living a calling on burnout is negatively weakened when resilience is higher.

In Figure 3, the steeper slope of the low resilience line indicates a more pronounced effect of living a calling on meaningful work when resilience is low. Conversely, at higher levels of resilience, living a calling has a weaker positive effect when resilience is high. The data suggest that the degree to which the effects of meaningful work are contingent upon an individual’s level of resilience. Therefore, contrary to our hypotheses, resilience does not augment the impact of living a calling towards meaningful work but reduces the effect of such impact when individuals experience high resilience.

The predictive relevance of the measurement model was evaluated using the Q² prediction measure, which indicated moderate to high predictive validity for most variables. The consistently positive Q² predicts values across variables, confirming the model’s predictive relevance, with partial least squares outperforming the Linear Model for Meaningful work variables while showing comparable performance for Burnout variables as presented in Table 7. The model demonstrates low predictive power for burnout (BO), as only three out of seven indicators showed smaller prediction errors (RMSE) for partial least squares (PLS) compared to LM. In contrast, the model exhibits high predictive power for meaningful work (MW), with all nine indicators reporting lower prediction errors (RMSE) for PLS compared to LM. These results highlight the stronger predictive relevance of meaningful work as a key construct, emphasising its role as a personal resource that better predicts outcomes than burnout.

The study investigated a model encompassing the interplay among living out a calling, meaningful work, burnout and resilience among public sector employees in Malaysia, revealing several significant associations. It confirmed that a strong sense of calling negatively correlates with burnout, echoing Sharma et al. (2022) and Zhou (2022). These studies collectively suggest that a calling can mitigate factors contributing to burnout, such as cynicism and work fatigue. Despite some literature suggesting a link between calling and negative work outcomes (Ehrhardt & Ensher, 2021), our findings indicate that for public sector employees, a calling acts as a buffer against burnout. Furthermore, the WCT theory suggests that calling can have both positive and negative effects on individuals, exhibiting a dual nature. When individuals can live out their calling without spiralling into workaholism and overwork, they are motivated to continue giving out their best at work without jeopardising their well-being.

Furthermore, the study found a positive correlation between living out a calling and experiencing meaningful work. This relationship is particularly evident among public sector employees, who often enter the field with high public service motivation – a predisposition to motives rooted in public institutions and organisations (Perry & Wise, 1990). These individuals are attracted to the public sector for distinct rational, norm-based and affective motives such as participating in policy formulation, advocating for special groups, a desire to serve the greater good, and a sense of duty and patriotism unique to the public service. This intrinsic motivation aligns closely with meaningful work, which is characterised by significance, purpose and contributions to the greater good (Steger et al., 2012). Therefore, public sector employees may be more prone to seek meaningful work due to their predisposition. Consequently, when they perceived their service as a part of their calling, it further heightened their sense of the work’s significance.

The study also suggests that meaningful work mediates the relationship between living out a calling and burnout. Individuals move along the motivational pathway described by JD–R, which uses job resources to lead to desirable outcomes such as engagement, commitment and flourishing. Together, calling and meaningful work serve as personal resources that individuals can draw on to perform their work. These job resources allow individuals to move along the motivational pathway, protecting them from burnout. As public sector employees’ well-being has been reported to be more affected by intrinsic than extrinsic motivation (Johanim et al., 2019), the impact of these resources is likely to be greater in this sample. Meng et al. (2023) confirmed this, positing that meaningful work, when conceptualised as a personal resource, could mitigate burnout among frontline court staff in China by mitigating the negative impact of hindrance stressors but not challenge stressors.

In addition, resilience was found to moderate the relationships between living out a calling, burnout and meaningful work. However, contrary to the hypotheses that allude to the possibility of resiliency to augment the impact of living out a calling towards burnout, this study found that resilience reduces the impact of living a calling on burnout, suggesting that those with higher resilience may have other resources that could help them face adversity without succumbing to burnout. This aligns with the nature of resilience, which is characterised by the ability to bounce back when encountering setbacks and to harness resources to face challenges. Therefore, when faced with challenges, resilient individuals are likely to seek other resources, such as cooperation from colleagues or support from supervisors, to overcome difficulties. Meanwhile, the study suggests that those with lower resilience are likely to rely more on their sense of living out their calling to avoid burnout.

Resilience also moderates the relationship between calling and meaningful work. Similarly, resilience allows individuals to use other resources to sustain their calling, especially when faced with setbacks and challenges, thereby reducing their dependence on a sense of living out their calling in order to create meaningful work. Although adversity can lead to a stronger sense of calling (Lemke, 2021) and sustaining a calling necessitates sacrifice and resilience (Cinque et al., 2021), it seems that resilience helps individuals experience meaningful work, reducing their reliance on calling to derive meaningful work. Thus, this study concurs that resilience is an important psychological capital in the pursuit of meaningful work without succumbing to burnout.

Nonetheless, contrary to the hypotheses, resilience reduces the impact of calling on meaningful work. In a high-power distance and collectivist society such as Malaysia (Hofstede Insights, 2023), resilience could be used as an adaptive mechanism rather than a personal resource in helping individuals to navigate tough working situations. This could diminish the impact of calling on meaningful work and eventually the impact of meaningful work on burnout. In fact, in the public sector, where hierarchy is the norm, cohesiveness and greater good are often valued more than individual achievement, employees may rely on resilience and support from communities to achieve positive work outcomes without altering their perspective on their work.

This research significantly contributes to the theoretical understanding of job resources and employee well-being, particularly in Malaysia’s public sector context. It expands the JD–R model by introducing calling and meaningful work as job resources. However, resilience, which is expected to accentuate job resources, did not function as such, as cultural identity could play a role in how individuals use resilience without impacting their perception of work itself. As a new theory, the study provides empirical evidence to support the WCT. Furthermore, this study introduces resilience as a moderator that reduces reliance on living out a calling towards meaningful work and burnout. This moderating effect of resilience could explain why calling and meaningful work produce inconsistent results based on work outcomes. Nonetheless, the study shows that calling and meaningful work are vital job resources that enhance well-being and reduce burnout, affirming the relevance of these theories in understanding the roots and effects of meaningful work.

Importantly, the research demonstrates the applicability of the concept of calling within a Muslim context, thus broadening the universal scope of the WCT. It also connects calling to public service motivation, suggesting that calling is a key motivator for public sector employees, whose pursuit of the common good often outweighs their personal interests. In addition, this study may serve as a basis for public sector policymaking, emphasising the intrinsic motivational factors, such as calling and meaningful work, in producing desirable work outcomes. Echoing scholars such as Thompson and Christensen (2018), this study is one of the few empirical studies to investigate calling, which potentially yields richer insights for both calling research and public administration scholarship in general. This study is among the few empirical studies that were conducted on a large sample of public sector employees in Malaysia, focusing on a non-Western public sector setting (Duffy et al., 2018), where cultural dimensions vastly differ, offering insights into organisational dynamics across diverse cultural contexts.

The findings emphasise the importance of aligning employees with their calling to enhance meaningful work. Managers should facilitate job crafting, allowing employees to reshape their work to align with their personal values and interests. This requires granting employees autonomy, which is essential for effective job crafting. These practices align with calls for the empowerment and appreciation of the role of behavioural science in the future of public sector human resource management (Battaglio, 2020). In addition, managers should underscore the societal impact of individual roles, helping employees see how their work contributes to the greater good and nudging them toward the desired work outcomes. This is crucial in a performance-orientated culture where the deeper significance of work might be overlooked. Therefore, reflection sessions at work can be instrumental, enabling employees to connect past experiences with their present roles and appreciate the personal significance of their work.

Furthermore, the study indicates the significant role of resilience in meaningful work. Contrary to the hypotheses, resilience does not augment the impact of calling on meaningful work, nor does it further reduce the negative impact of living out one’s calling on burnout; individuals with resilience are likely to derive meaningful work from other sources and use other resources to avoid burnout. Therefore, resilience training programmes for public sector employees could be a strategic move to assist individuals in accessing additional resources beyond personal resources, such as calling and meaningful work. Such programmes can enhance employees’ ability to adapt and flourish amid workplace challenges.

This study also supports one of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which calls for a concerted effort to ensure decent work and economic growth (SDG 8) that emphasises sustaining economic growth through providing decent work, in which meaningful work has been identified as a crucial mediator to experiencing decent work for individuals (Russo et al., 2024).

The study makes notable contributions, yet it is not without limitations. The cross-sectional nature of the research precludes establishing causality among the constructs. Future research could benefit from a longitudinal approach, allowing temporal measurements to substantiate the findings of this study. Moreover, the sample’s geographic limitation to the Greater Kuala Lumpur area may not capture the diversity of public sector employees across Malaysia, even though we include public sector employees from all levels in this study. In addition, the reliance on self-reported data from a single source raises the possibility of common method bias. To mitigate this, future research should employ multisource data collection methods.

The study’s variable-centred approach presumes uniformity within the population, which may overlook distinct subgroups that interact with the variables of interest differently. A person-centred technique, such as latent profile analysis, could reveal nuanced relationships between constructs that a variable-centred analysis might miss. Furthermore, this study did not consider other potential factors, such as personal attributes, work design, leadership styles and organisational culture, that might influence well-being. Future research should expand the model to include these variables to comprehensively examine their effects on well-being.

To conclude, this study offers fresh insights into the dynamics of calling, meaningful work and well-being, uniquely incorporating resilience into its model – a notable departure from prior research. Focused on Malaysia’s public sector, it confirms all proposed relationships, underscoring the protective role of calling against burnout and the positive influence of resilience. This research fills a gap by examining the role of calling in a predominantly Muslim context with distinct cultural attributes, highlighting its significance in mitigating negative work outcomes. The findings are critical for HR practitioners and guide future research on employee well-being, especially considering the unique challenges and motivations of public sector work, particularly in the context of achieving sustainable economic growth with employment that provides decent work for the prosperity of humanity.

The authors acknowledge that AI-powered tools, including ChatGPT, Grammarly and QuillBot, were utilised solely for proofreading and language editing purposes. These tools were employed to enhance grammar, clarity, and overall writing style. No AI tools were used to generate, analyse or interpret research data, and all intellectual and scientific content remains the original work of the authors.

1) The authors would like to thank the Government of Malaysia for sponsoring this study. In addition, the authors wish to express our gratitude to all respondents for their participation. 2) Participation in the study was voluntary, and verbal informed consent was obtained from all respondents before data collection. 3) Respondents’ identities remained anonymous and were not personally identifiable. All collected information was kept confidential and used solely for academic research purposes. 4) Respondents were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time without facing any negative consequences. If requested during data collection, their data would be excluded from the analysis.

The data are available upon reasonable request. Further enquiries may be directed to the main/corresponding author.