In the current article, we build on research from vocational psychology, multicultural psychology, intersectionality, and the sociology of work to construct an empirically testable Psychology of Working Theory (PWT). Our central aim is to explain the work experiences of all individuals, but particularly people near or in poverty, people who face discrimination and marginalization in their lives, and people facing challenging work-based transitions for which contextual factors are often the primary drivers of the ability to secure decent work. The concept of decent work is defined and positioned as the central variable within the theory. A series of propositions is offered concerning (a) contextual predictors of securing decent work, (b) psychological and economic mediators and moderators of these relations, and (c) outcomes of securing decent work. Recommendations are suggested for researchers seeking to use the theory and practical implications are offered concerning counseling, advocacy, and public policy.

Decent work is positioned as the centerpiece of the recently developed Psychology of Working Theory (PWT; Duffy, Blustein, Diemer, & Autin, 2016). However, to date, no instrument exists which assesses all 5 components of decent work from a psychological perspective. In the current study, we developed the Decent Work Scale (DWS) and demonstrated several aspects of validity with 2 samples of working adults. In Study 1 (N = 275), a large pool of items were developed and exploratory factor analysis was conducted resulting in a final 15-item scale with 5 factors/subscales corresponding to the 5 components of decent work: (a) physically and interpersonally safe working conditions, (b) access to health care, (c) adequate compensation, (d) hours that allow for free time and rest, and (e) organizational values that complement family and social values. In Study 2 (N = 589), confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that a 5-factor, bifactor model offered the strongest and most parsimonious fit to the data. Configural, metric, and scalar invariance models were tested demonstrating that the structure of the instrument did not differ across gender, income, social class, and majority/minority racial/ethnic groups. Finally, the overall scale score and 5 subscale scores correlated in the expected directions with similar constructs supporting convergent and discriminant evidence of validity, and subscale scores evidenced predictive validity in the prediction of job satisfaction, work meaning, and withdrawal intentions. The development of this scale provides a useful tool for researchers and practitioners seeking to assess the attainment of decent work among employed adults. (PsycINFO Database Record

The present study examined the relation of career calling to life satisfaction among a diverse sample of 553 working adults, with a specific focus on the distinction between perceiving a calling (sensing a calling to a career) and living a calling (actualizing one's calling in one's current career). As hypothesized, the relation of perceiving a calling to life satisfaction was fully mediated by living a calling. On the basis of this finding, a structural equation model was tested to examine possible mediators between living a calling and life satisfaction. As hypothesized, the relation of living a calling to life satisfaction was partially mediated by job satisfaction and life meaning, and the link between living a calling and job satisfaction was mediated by work meaning and career commitment. Modifications of the model also revealed that the link of living a calling to life meaning was mediated by work meaning. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

This article advances the psychology of working theory by developing a parallel change‐based paradigm to guide interventions at the level of individuals (i.e., the psychology of working counseling) and systems (i.e., the psychology of working systemic intervention). The change paradigm presented in this article includes (a) a needs assessment encompassing survival, social connection/contribution, and self‐determination and (b) input on the mobilization of agentic action that includes critical reflection and action, proactive engagement, social support, and community engagement. The needs assessment and agentic action aspects of this approach can be used to foster change in individual counseling, advocacy, and systemic intervention. Case examples reflecting a systemic intervention and an individual counseling vignette are presented along with implications for research, such as explorations of the impact of these change models on client outcomes and systemic change efforts.

No abstract