Communication Studies

Vol. 57, No. 1, January 2006, pp. 25–46

Framing the Work of Art: Spirituality

and Career Discourse in the Nonprofit
Arts Sector
Jennifer Mize Smith, Colleen Arendt, Jennifer Bezek
Lahman, Gina N. Settle, & Ashley Duff

Based on qualitative data from participant interviews, this study explores how nonprofit
arts managers construct the notion of career, and more specifically, how they frame the
nature of their work and career choices. Findings revealed that participants employed a
spiritual framework of calling, service, sacrifice, and personal rewards to socially
construct, understand, and legitimate their nonprofit careers. These framing devices
provided the language for participants to make sense of their career decisions and
to define their career successes in terms of their own values instead of traditional
measures of extrinsic rewards. As contemporary workers place increasing importance
on meaningful work, spiritually centered discourse has implications for career theory
and organizational practices in both for-profit and nonprofit sectors.

Keywords: Arts; Calling; Career; Discourse; Framing; Nonprofit; Protean; Spirituality

Members of American culture generally value prestige, material comfort, conveni-

ence, accumulation, and ownership (Stewart & Cash, 2006). Many employees believe

Jennifer Mize Smith (M.P.A., University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill) is a doctoral candidate in the Department
of Communication at Purdue University. She specializes in organizational communication as it relates to nonprofit
organizations, workplace fundraising, and the social construction of philanthropy. Colleen Arendt (B.A., St.
Norbert College) is a master’s student in the Department of Communication at Purdue University. Her research
interests include emotion labor and military careers. Jennifer Bezek Lahman (M.A., Purdue University) is pursuing
a career at Lightspeed Research where she provides study feasibility and pricing for consumer research. Gina N.
Settle (B.A., Huntington College) is the Outreach Coordinator for the College of Engineering and a part-time
graduate student in the Department of Communication at Purdue University. Ashley C. Duff (B.A., Cedarville
University) is a master’s student in the Department of Communication at Purdue University with interests in
emotional labor, occupational identities, and careers. The authors are grateful to the editors, Patrice M. Buzzanell
and Lynn M. Harter, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions. Correspondence to: J. Mize
Smith, Department of Communication, Purdue University, Beering Hall, 100 North University Street, West
Lafayette, IN 47907-2098, U.S.A. Tel: (270) 799-9119; E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) # 2006 Central States Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/10510970500481672
26 J. Mize Smith et al.
that these can be earned through a successful career and therefore seek to climb the
‘‘corporate ladder.’’ Traditional career literature has reflected this notion by defining
career as ‘‘a time-bound sequence of corporate positions with increasing compen-
sation, status, and privilege’’ (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 209; see also Arthur, Hall, & Lawr-
ence, 1989; Arthur, Inkson, & Pringle, 1999). However, the for-profit career markers
of status and success often do not suit nonprofit careers characterized by low pay,
long hours, and limited career advancement (Illinois Arts, 2002).1 This study explores
how nonprofit practitioners construct and communicate their careers in light of tra-
ditional and contemporary career theory and, consequently, offers insight into
understanding employees’ increasing desire to craft more meaningful work.
Today’s nonprofit sector includes a whole host of organizations, from hospitals
and schools to churches and theaters, from social service providers and civil rights
initiatives to environmental advocacy and neighborhood development associations
(Salamon, 2002). As a result, nonprofit organizations offer numerous career oppor-
tunities. Previous research has illuminated potential nonprofit professions (Lewis &
Milano, 1987), career opportunities (Pick, 1980), and gender effects on career
advancement (Herron et al., 1998), as well as nonprofit managers’ work experiences
(Peters & Wolfred, 2001), job demands and rewards (Kaplan, 1990), and salary chal-
lenges (Manzo, 2004). Despite attempts to highlight various aspects of nonprofit
careers, extant research has rarely focused on the relationship between nonprofit
careers and traditional career models generally based on for-profit work (see Onyx
& Maclean, 1996). Moreover, few researchers have adopted a communicative per-
spective to foreground employee discourse when exploring nonprofit careers.
For most nonprofit organizations, what Salamon (2002) describes as a ‘‘persistent
fiscal squeeze’’ (p. 12) prevents offering tangible rewards comparable to their for-
profit counterparts (Gunn, 2004). Nonprofit employees are typically characterized
as overworked and underpaid (Manzo, 2004), earning an average of 11% less than
for-profit workers (Magee, 2004). Subsequently, those attracted to nonprofit work
are more likely to be inspired by a purpose or calling than by earning potential (Lewis
& Milano, 1987). The arts sector has been particularly challenged by dramatic cuts to
the National Endowment for the Arts (Indiana Arts, 2005; Wyszomirski, 2002), and
as Wyszomirski (2002) explains, private support has not surfaced to replace the
security once provided by government funding. Funding challenges for the arts are
expected to persist, particularly in the wake of September 11th, and now Hurricane
Katrina, in which philanthropy ‘‘has sought to readjust to new demands’’ (Wyszo-
mirski, 2002, p. 191). Although disasters often give rise to increased support and
appreciation for human service agencies providing basic needs, they may adversely
impact resources for arts providers. Community benefits afforded by arts and culture
organizations are less tangible, less measurable, and less immediate. Consequently,
arts organizations are among the least funded by private philanthropy (Hodgkinson,
2002). In addition, they are struggling to cultivate audiences and donors in an
increasingly diverse American population and competitive entertainment market
(Wyszomirski, 2002). Thus, nonprofit arts practitioners are challenged not only in
terms of receiving extrinsic rewards, but also in legitimating the services they provide.
 Framing the Work of Art 27

The purpose of this article is to explore how nonprofit practitioners in arts orga-
nizations construct the notion of career, and more specifically, how they frame their
work experiences and career choices. Although most nonprofit organizations share
common characteristics such as inadequate funding and commitment to service,
the nonprofit arts sector has profuse resource and market challenges. As Gowler
and Legge (1989) explained, ‘‘the rhetorical construction of careers is not only determ-
ined by our social environments, but also creates and legitimates them’’ (p. 437, italics in
original). As such, the nonprofit arts environment is a particularly fertile context in
which to examine the social construction of alternative career discourses. Because the
careers of nontraditional workforce members typically do not fit into the dominant
discourse, their discursive practices are likely to offer new ways of conceiving career.
Findings reveal that participants discursively communicate their nonprofit work
experiences by employing a metaphor similar to contemporary conceptualizations
of spirituality. Theoretically, this study extends career theory by illuminating how
spiritual language used to make sense of nonprofit careers can contribute to con-
structing an alternative career discourse. Pragmatically, the exploration of spirituality
and career can aid organizations of all types in crafting, and individuals in finding,
more meaningful work. In short, the goal of this study is to provide a better under-
standing of the relationship between spirituality and career by looking at a nontradi-
tional work context where alternative career models are most likely to be constructed.

Literature Review
This article proceeds with an overview of relevant literature, beginning with the his-
torical development of the nonprofit sector, followed by a review of extant research
on career theory, career and spirituality, and framing processes.

The Nonprofit Sector

Nonprofit organizations are historically rooted in spirituality and Christian ideals.
Long before formalized philanthropy, Americans took care of those in need. With
the support of tax dollars, local churches provided education, libraries, and social ser-
vices (Gross, 2003; Hammack, 2002; McGarvie, 2003). Following the adoption of the
U.S. Constitution and consequently the separation of church and state, churches no
longer received tax funding and relinquished many of their public service roles
(McGarvie, 2003). As a result, independent nonprofit organizations and voluntary
associations emerged to fill the void in services that churches left behind.
Approximately 1.2 million nonprofit organizations in America now comprise the
third sector, that is, neither private nor public, but the ‘‘third element in the mixed
economy’’ (Gunn, 2004, p. 1). As the fastest growing sector in today’s economy
(Gunn, 2004), nonprofit organizations employ nearly 11 million paid workers or
more than 7% of America’s workforce and utilize the equivalent of another 5.7 million
people as nonpaid volunteers (Salamon, 2002).
28 J. Mize Smith et al.
Nonprofit organizations make undeniable contributions to their communities
(Gunn, 2004; Lewis & Milano, 1987; Salamon, 2002). Among these are arts and cul-
ture providers including theatres, museums, historical societies, musical organiza-
tions, and others. They not only ‘‘inspire us, sooth us, provoke us, involve us, and
connect us . . . but they also create jobs’’ (Americans for the Arts, 2002, p. 2) and offer
unique career opportunities. Nearly 1.14 million workers are employed by the 24,000
nonprofit arts organizations in the United States (Wyszomirski, 2002). This repre-
sents .78% of the workforce, a significant number when compared to accountants
(.67%), lawyers (.47%), and physicians (.41%) (Americans for the Arts, 2002). Indi-
ana alone has more than 49,000 people working in 7,443 arts-related businesses
across the state (Indiana Arts, 2005). Thus, the financial struggles faced by nonprofit
arts organizations impact a considerable workforce, leaving numerous employees
asking themselves how long they are willing to sacrifice personal income (Kreidler,
1996). Given that these individuals remain committed to work that lies in direct con-
trast to traditional careers focused on external success, understanding their motiva-
tions may provide insight into how careers are constructed not only by nonprofit arts
managers but also by those in all sectors who seek meaningful work.

Career Ideology and Discourse

The conceptualization of career as hierarchical advancement is deeply embedded in
Western culture and has been described as bureaucratic, traditional, corpocratic, or
managerial (Gowler & Legge, 1989). In addition to linearity, traditional careers were
viewed as ‘‘social contracts’’ (Buzzanell, 2000, p. 209) where employee loyalty was
rewarded with lifelong job security. Traditional careers also entailed employment
in only one or two firms; specific organizational skills that were not necessarily trans-
ferable; successes deemed by pay, promotion, and status; organizational responsibility
for one’s career; and formal training (Sullivan, 1999).
In the last decade, traditional career discourse began shifting. Substantial downsiz-
ing in some of America’s most stable corporations left groups such as the baby boom-
ers with unmet employment expectations (D. Hall, 2002). Subsequently, they sought
to conceptualize career in different ways. In short, the demise of the traditional,
hierarchical career (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Holbeche, 1995; R.H. Waterman,
Waterman, & Collard, 1994) created the need for a new career discourse, one that
centralizes individual agency and reflects employees’ needs to engage in more mean-
ingful work experiences.
Contrary to traditional careers, the emerging ‘‘protean’’ career is characterized by
numerous and varied career experiences (Arthur et al., 1999), personal career choices
(D. Hall & Moss, 1998), transferable skills, psychological benefits, and continuous learn-
ing (Sullivan, 1999). D. Hall and Moss (1998) describe the protean career as a ‘‘search for
self-fulfillment’’ in which ‘‘the criterion of success is internal (psychological success), not
external’’ (p. 25). Career success has traditionally been measured by performance out-
comes such as promotions and salary (Buzzanell & Goldzwig, 1991), that is, those things
that are ‘‘observable, measurable, and verifiable’’ (Heslin, 2005, p. 114). In contrast,
 Framing the Work of Art 29

protean career success is measured by feeling pride and personal accomplishment (D.
Hall & Moss, 1998) and job or career satisfaction (Heslin, 2005; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen,
& Barrick, 1999). Consequently, employees are more likely to be successful if their per-
sonal identity is reflected in the company’s mission and culture (Arthur et al., 1999;
see also DeFillippi & Arthur, 1994; Eby, Butts, & Lockwood, 2003).
‘‘The shifting career discourse,’’ Ciulla (2000) explains, is about ‘‘choosing how we
want to live and work’’ (p. xvi). Continued employment is no longer a function of
loyalty, but of the position meeting the employee’s individual needs and enhancing
personal growth opportunities. This increasing focus on the employee has been asso-
ciated with increased job involvement and job satisfaction (Stroh, Brett, & Reilly,
1994), as well as greater professional freedom, learning and development opportu-
nities, and life balance (Cohen & Mallon, 1999).
The protean career strives to integrate work and life values, exemplifying what
Herb Shepard called the ‘‘path with a heart’’ or using one’s talents in a way that
‘‘being paid in pursuit of one’s work feels not like compensation, but like a gift’’
(D. Hall & Moss, 1998, p. 30). As D. Hall (2004) explains, one way of being protean
is to pursue a career with the intensity of a calling. As early as 1958, Weber (1958)
described a calling as an obligation toward a professional activity and a ‘‘devotion
to a higher ideal’’ (Goldman, 1988, p. 110). More recently, D. Hall characterized
work as a calling when the individual perceives it as a calling and when the work
serves the community.2
D. Hall and Chandler (2005) contend that a calling involves having a protean
career orientation and ‘‘having a strong sense of purpose’’ (p. 162). In other words,
a career calling embraces protean characteristics such as agency and self-fulfillment,
but it also encompasses a larger purpose than the self. Notions of protean and calling
within career discourse open a space for theorizing about nonprofit work. In turn,
nonprofit careers, having long exemplified protean attributes, may have much to
contribute to theorizing about contemporary for-profit careers where ‘‘unrelenting
change, complexity, and global competitiveness’’ (Buzzanell et al., 1997, p. 286) have
rendered traditional career models no longer viable.

Career and Spirituality

In recent years, the notion of calling has moved toward a broader secular view of inner
direction that would contribute to a better world (D. Hall & Chandler, 2005; Lips-
Wiersma, 2002). However, the widely accepted idea that one is in the world to do a
certain kind of work retains a spiritual connotation (Dawson, 2005; Fox, 1994; D. Hall,
2002). After observing the abundance of spiritual titles in bookstores, scholarly writ-
ings, and curricula, D. Hall (2002) attributes the resurgence of interest in a spiritual
career to people’s increasing motivation ‘‘to seek the ultimate purpose of their life
and work’’ (p. 53). Studies have observed the impact of spirituality on career choices
of college students (Dalton, 2001; Scott, 2005), career transitions (Lips-Wiersma,
2002), and organizational culture (Sass, 2000; Wagner-Marsh & Conley, 1999; Witmer,
2001). Spirituality is further linked to careers as it becomes increasingly prominent in
30 J. Mize Smith et al.
leadership literature (e.g., Delbecq, 1999; Hicks, 2002; Steingard, 2005), offering what
some posit as a more inclusive yet distinct theory of motivation-based leadership (Fry,
2003). However, only a few scholars have addressed how spirituality impacts career
sensemaking and coherence (see Lips-Wiersma, 2002; Neal, 2000).
Krone (2001) contends that organizational communication scholars must further
examine the role of spirituality in work and specifically an individual’s resolve and
capacity to make ‘‘work good’’ (p. 25), that is, provide necessary and useful products
and services, use one’s talents and gifts, and work cooperatively with others. Engaging
in good work is spiritually meaningful, Krone argues, because it connects us to
‘‘unseen forces much larger than our individual needs and desires’’ (p. 25). Conse-
quently, invoking spiritually centered work gives organizational members the ability
to reframe an issue in new and creative ways (Krone, 2001).

Spiritual framing
Framing is ‘‘a way to manage meaning’’ (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996, p. 21) that enables
one to construct and understand reality both for one’s self and for others. Typical
frames define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgments, and suggest rem-
edies (Entman, 1993). Frames are found in text and ‘‘are manifested by the presence
or absence of certain keywords, stock phrases, stereotyped images, sources of infor-
mation, and sentences, that provide thematically reinforcing clusters of facts or judg-
ments’’ (Entman, 1993, p. 52). For example, Meisenbach (2004) explored how higher
education fundraisers use frames to discursively construct various meanings of work
and negotiate positive occupational identities.
Goffman (1974) explains that individuals organize frames to varying degrees, from
having ‘‘a system of entities, postulates, and rules’’ (p. 21) to having ‘‘no apparent articu-
lated shape, providing only a lore of understanding, an approach, a perspective’’ (p. 21).
While most frames typify the latter, lesser structure of organization, each framework
enables one to understand, define, and classify infinite perceptions (Fairhurst & Sarr,
1996; Goffman, 1974). A person is likely to be unaware of and unable to describe a frame-
work, but ‘‘these handicaps,’’ says Goffman, ‘‘are no bar to his easily and fully applying
it’’ (p. 21). In other words, the act of framing is often an unconscious process but is, at the
same time, formed and enacted with purpose (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996).
A metaphor, such as spirituality, is a framing tool (Fairhurst & Sarr, 1996) that
enables one to invoke a particular way of seeing work, to construct a new meaning
of career, and to make alternative meanings invisible. A variety of metaphors have
been used to frame career and career processes (e.g., Gati & Houminer, 1998; Gati,
Houminer, & Fassa, 1997; Inkson, 2004; Inkson & Amundson, 2002). Spiritual fra-
meworks have been explored in a number of realms such as racism, overeating,
and debilitating injuries (see Allen, 2000; Martin, 2002; McColl et al., 2000) but have
received less attention in relation to work and organizational life. Notable exceptions
include Ashmos and Duchon’s (2000) identification of three characteristics of
workplace spirituality: community, meaning at work, and inner life, as well as
Pokora’s (2001) delineation of four categories of spirituality in organizations: linking,
path, incorporeal, and totalizing spirituality. Additionally, Bloch and Richmond
 Framing the Work of Art 31

(1998) present seven connectors between spirituality and work: change, balance,
energy, community, calling, harmony, and unity. While these studies begin to explore
spirituality in the workplace, the increasing trend toward protean careers embodying
the search for more meaningful work calls for further examination of the ways in
which individuals employ a spiritual metaphor as a framing tool to increase their
own and others’ understanding of their careers.
Buzzanell (2000) suggests the lack of scholarly work concerning spirituality and
careers may be partly because the two seem contradictory to one another. Spirituality,
she explains, is based upon finding personal and communal meaning, rooted in the
ideal and idealistic and manifested in good works and community relationship. In
contrast, career is the public arena of employment, often centered in materiality, per-
sonal achievement, competition, and success. She concludes, ‘‘In short, the ways of
knowing, being, valuing, experiencing space and time, and relating to self and others
differ in career and spirituality. Yet, both constructs center on who we are and want
to be individually and organizationally’’ (p. 56). Buzzanell argues that it is therefore
important to reframe career because ‘‘the spirituality-centered career can transform
the communicative processes in our workplace as well as address our ongoing need
for meaning’’ (p. 63). Whether spirituality or some other term is used to define work
is of little concern. According to Buzzanell (2001), ‘‘the spiritual is a root process
underlying what we do’’ and offers a unique understanding of career ‘‘if we focus less
on the external trappings of career and more on the inner and community-enhancing
processes’’ (p. 63) derived through work.

Summary and Research Question

While much has been written about protean careers, extant research has not investigated
the fundamental ways in which nonprofit careers may both benefit from and contribute
to this new career discourse. Nonprofit arts organizations provide a nuanced context for
exploring alternative career conceptualizations among employees whose work is not
reflected in traditional career discourse. Because the ‘‘inner and community-enhancing
processes’’ of work described by Buzzanell (2001) are inherent to nonprofit work, the
nonprofit sector may be of particular interest when addressing issues of motivation
and measuring success under the new career contract. This study positions discursive
framing as means by which nonprofit arts practitioners construct and make sense of
their work experiences. Therefore, the following research question is posed:
RQ1: How do nonprofit employees in arts organizations discursively construct
their careers?

Method
Participants and Context
This study was conducted in a Midwestern county with a population of nearly
155,000 people (Access Indiana, 2003). The county’s nonprofit sector employs
32 J. Mize Smith et al.
approximately 5,765 people or 7.7% of the area’s workforce (Gronbjerg & Park,
2003). The 15 research participants, seven men and eight women, held management
positions in seven different nonprofit arts organizations including a civic theatre, per-
forming arts center, historical association, arts federation, symphony orchestra, and
two museums. Participants held the positions of executive director, assistant director,
curator, youth director, music director, programming director, event manager, and
director of development. They came to these positions from a variety of occupations,
from blue-collar employment in construction to white-collar management in large
corporations, as well as from previous jobs in other nonprofit organizations. Employ-
ment tenure in their current positions ranged from 3 months to 11 years.

Procedures
Data gathering
The study was conducted by a research team of five members.3 Researchers employed
purposeful, criterion sampling to select participants who met ‘‘some predetermined
criterion of importance’’ (Patton, 2002, p. 238). Participants had to be full-time,
exempt, management-level employees of nonprofit arts organizations located within
the county under study.4 A member of the research team who was previously
employed in the community’s arts sector contacted former colleagues by phone
and electronic mail to request participation. In-depth interviews were conducted dur-
ing regular work hours at participants’ workplaces. At the beginning of each inter-
view, participants signed consent forms consistent with Institutional Review Board
(IRB) approval.
Researchers utilized a semistructured interview protocol using open-ended ques-
tions and appropriate probes, allowing for both the participant and the interviewer
to develop the conversation. The protocol consisted of two main parts: (a) work
experiences and work motivation; and (b) their own and others’ perceptions of non-
profit careers. Although all five researchers participated in at least one interview, the
majority of interviews were conducted by two members of the research team to
enhance consistency in interviewing techniques. Data collection spanned a period
of 6 weeks, and all interviews were audiotaped with participants’ permission. Inter-
views ranged in length from 25 to 60 minutes and totaled 8 hours. Data were tran-
scribed verbatim, resulting in 57 single-spaced pages, and then reviewed for accuracy.
Participant names were given pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality.

Data analysis
Data were analyzed using grounded theory as outlined by Strauss and Corbin (1998),
allowing substantive themes or frameworks to materialize from the respondents
rather than from predetermined objectives. The grounded theory process involves
coding data multiple times, beginning with basic description of concepts and induc-
tive categorization. Therefore, at least three researchers openly coded each transcript.
Researchers then met multiple times to discuss the data and share coding results.
 Framing the Work of Art 33

After comparing categories and repeatedly returning to the data for support of
recurring themes, researchers reached consensus on concepts and definitions. Twelve
categories initially emerged based upon their strength and salience to the research
question. After assessing similarities and differences, some categories (e.g., purpose
and mission) were collapsed, while other categories (e.g., staff and training) were
excluded due to lack of frequency across interviews. The data then were reexamined
using a constant comparative method, working back and forth between the data and
the emerging themes to ensure the assertions being foregrounded provided the best
possible interpretation of the data.

Results and Interpretations

Based on prior knowledge of the nonprofit environment, researchers expected part-
icipants to be motivated by something other than extrinsic rewards since these are
often lacking in nonprofit professions. What emerged in participant discourse was
more than a discussion of intrinsic benefits. Rather, participants exemplified Buzza-
nell’s (2000) notion of the ‘‘spirituality-centered career.’’ The nonprofit arts practi-
tioners invoke a spiritual schema to construct a desirable image of themselves and
their work that depicts who they are personally and professionally. This schema, or
‘‘abstract knowledge structure’’ (Buzzanell & Burrell, 1997, p. 112) gives meaning
and is used to frame arguments and make decisions. Framing their nonprofit careers
in spiritual terms of calling, service, sacrifice, and personal rewards enabled parti-
cipants to make sense of and legitimate their nonprofit career choices, even when
those choices are contrary to traditional career conceptualizations. In short, their dis-
cursive practices illuminate the ways in which participants both are attracted to non-
profit arts work and are motivated to stay, despite the personal and organizational
struggles they encounter.

Calling
When asked about what they do and why they do it, a majority of participants talked
about their strong beliefs in the missions they pursue and expressed feeling a calling
to a higher purpose. Although participants do not explicitly use the word ‘‘calling,’’
Goffman (1974) contended that one’s inability to name a frame does not deter the
use of it. Thoughts and feelings suggesting they are drawn to this work for reasons
greater than self surfaced in much of their discourse. For example, Peter explained,
‘‘I kind of had this feeling that this is where I was supposed to be, what I should
be doing.’’ In essence, Peter did not choose nonprofit work; it chose him, and he
is fulfilling his obligation to what he ‘‘should’’ be doing with his life. Amy, a music
conductor, disclosed similar feelings, explaining, ‘‘I could never conceive of doing
anything else. It wouldn’t occur to me, wouldn’t appeal to me. It’s like saying,
‘Why do you breathe?’ It’s a part of who I am.’’ For Amy, her everyday work is both
a source and an expression of her identity, as natural as the unconscious process of
physically breathing.
34 J. Mize Smith et al.
Even in the mundane details of their jobs, some participants are ever mindful of a
bigger purpose and are driven by the need to fulfill the calling that guided their career
choices. For instance, Sharon embodied this need as she explained, ‘‘I think I have the
feeling that I’m not quite done . . . and this constant wish to keep going, to keep see-
ing what’s the next level.’’ When justifying her continued work in the nonprofit sec-
tor, Melissa concluded, ‘‘I don’t think that you could really work for a not-for-profit
company if you didn’t really care . . . you’d be in the corporate world.’’
Because participants intensely care about and believe in what they do, Melissa and
others do not simply perform a job; they invest themselves. Although organizational
missions varied, their personal missions were bound by a common theme—their
work is both a responsibility to others and to themselves. Purpose was dictated by
neither job descriptions nor rewards, but rather transcended specific organizations
and reflected participants’ unique sense of knowing themselves and resolving to do
something meaningful in life. Brenda summarized the general view of our parti-
cipants when she reflected:
One of the reasons I like to work for not-for-profits is because it’s philanthropic. I
chose a position that is dear to me. You don’t receive a salary for, you know, what
you should be receiving. Basically, anyone in a not-for-profit does it because of the
‘‘reason why.’’
In short, for many of the participants, pursuing the ‘‘reason why’’ is an enactment
of their identity that both creates and recreates who they are. The altruistic work they
do and the meaning they attribute to it gives them a sense of purpose. As Keith simply
stated, ‘‘It’s something we all sort of believe in’’—a belief that drives and sustains their
career choices despite the oft-inherent struggles that characterize nonprofit work.

Service
Spiritual work focuses on community (Bloch & Richmond, 1998; Buzzanell, 2001),
and such service is epitomized by the nonprofit sector. Whereas calling was defined
as one’s personal obligation to a higher ideal, service is the way in which calling is
enacted, that is, by placing the needs and interests of others above one’s own. Twelve
of the participants identified service as a crucial element in their work, and many
described service to the community as the reason for the existence of nonprofit orga-
nizations. For example, Leroy described the museum where he works as a ‘‘for-service
organization’’ as he explained:
The not-for-profit world is all about providing and finding money to be able to do
it. . . . I tell people we’re in the business of performing a service, and the museum,
we do perform a service . . . . We’re about the people.
Several participants expressed finding enjoyment in the way their service impacts
people. Sharon shared her excitement, remarking, ‘‘The most fulfilling thing is when
somebody calls and we’re able to connect them to what they need to be connected to.
I still get that thrill every day. Honestly,’’ she continued, ‘‘it’s still what turns me on
about this place . . . and when I get a thank you back, it still gives me chills.’’ Sharon
readily expressed her ‘‘passion . . . for serving the community, making people’s lives
 Framing the Work of Art 35

easier, better.’’ Likewise, Leroy expressed a strong belief in his museum work, saying,
‘‘I’m a scholar, and I believe in learning and teaching and reaching out to people,
especially young people, and interpreting artwork for people to enjoy.’’
For people like Kim, the consequences of their service motivate them to keep
working hard. ‘‘I know I’m touching lives with what I’m doing,’’ she said, ‘‘even
though I felt 18 different defeats earlier in the week, those times really keep me moti-
vated. Knowing that if no one’s fighting for it, it’s definitely not going to happen.’’
Danny echoed the general feeling of the participants when he said, ‘‘In a 501(c)(3)
or not-for-profit, you’re not just in it for yourself or for your board; you’re in it
for the community.’’
Participants explicitly expressed a need and desire to serve others, that is, to enact
what Krone (2001) deems as ‘‘good work.’’ Be it providing a needed telephone num-
ber or cultivating a lifelong appreciation of art, using one’s talents and gifts coopera-
tively with and for others is spiritually meaningful (Krone, 2001). These participants
expressed a need and desire to positively impact lives of individuals, as well as to
contribute to the collective community.

Sacrifice
While service is primarily about giving, it is also about giving up. Placing the needs of
others before one’s own often requires foregoing something else, perhaps time, pres-
tige, or money. Hence, it is not surprising that 13 participants evoked a discourse of
sacrifice, most often in terms of giving up other opportunities affording greater
financial compensation. For instance, Melissa expounded upon the income discrep-
ancy as compared to her for-profit counterparts. ‘‘I work probably five times as much
here [as my corporate job] and get paid half,’’ she said, ‘‘but I wouldn’t trade it for
the world.’’ She continued, ‘‘It demands a lot of your time, and most of the time you
don’t get compensated.’’ Mark confirmed that ‘‘Frequently people who work in non-
profits are called upon to do more work than someone in the profit sector area.’’
Other participants echoed views about lagging nonprofit pay. Jim admitted, ‘‘I’m
making maybe half of what I would be making in construction.’’ Similarly, Peter and
Allison talked of the significant pay cuts they took upon accepting their nonprofit
arts positions. Brenda, however, viewed her personal sacrifice with more optimism
saying, ‘‘You’re not going to make a whole lot of money. The not-for-profits are try-
ing to come around a little bit though,’’ and then noted, ‘‘They have a lot more ben-
efits and the salary is better than it used to be. But it’s still way behind, really, any
other company.’’
Peter made sense of his personal sacrifice by negotiating the tension between
making money and enjoying work. He explained:
I think a lot of people who work in nonprofits don’t make a lot of money and that’s
pretty much a given. You don’t go into a job like that with the understanding that
you’re going to become rich. I think a lot of people who are in it depend on
another source of income, a spouse or some other source, to make a living wage.
And you know, there are tradeoffs with all of that. I have to decide what I want. Do I
36 J. Mize Smith et al.
want to enjoy what I’m doing, or do I want to make a lot of money? I wish there could
be a point at which they would meet, but nonprofits are always struggling for money.
These exemplars demonstrate participants’ ongoing willingness to forgo the
potentially larger salaries that could be earned in the for-profit sector. They recog-
nized other career choices may afford more affluent lifestyles, yet they have chosen
to sacrifice monetary gains to pursue nonprofit careers. While they have accepted
the pay disparity, they still need to discursively negotiate this tension. By pitting
money against enjoyment, Peter and others frame their work in a way that redefines
their career choice as understandable and even desirable.

Personal rewards
While participants spoke of the compensation they have given up, many were quick
to reframe their work in terms of the personal benefits they receive. All 15 parti-
cipants reflected upon the intrinsic rewards that anchor their commitment to their
nonprofit career choices. Comparing her current benefits to those of her past corpor-
ate job, Melissa explained, ‘‘Here they give me a lot of creative freedom, and they put
a lot of responsibility on my shoulders, and they have a lot of faith in me. It’s a much
more rewarding job.’’
Laurie also thrives from having creative opportunities as well as variety in her
responsibilities. After recounting numerous diverse accomplishments in her non-
profit work, she concluded, ‘‘There’s no other career in the world where you can
get that.’’ Similarly, Leroy expressed his personal satisfaction upon completing a pro-
ject. ‘‘Although it’s never over,’’ he said, ‘‘you have moments where something is
accomplished and you can feel proud.’’ For Ken, just knowing the ‘‘things you are
doing affect the community in a positive way’’ makes the job rewarding, and Peter
finds satisfaction in ‘‘the sense that I’m doing something worthwhile.’’
Others acknowledged their appreciation for the people with whom they work.
Mark contended, ‘‘It is incredibly rewarding because you get to interact with, no mat-
ter what type of nonprofit it is, you get to interact with different kinds of people.’’
Leroy talked more specifically about interactions with staff and museum colleagues.
He expressed receiving gratification from the ‘‘camaraderie’’ of co-workers ‘‘working
toward the same ends.’’
Career satisfaction also stemmed from their ongoing learning experiences during
work activities. Peter exemplified this intrinsic benefit, stating, ‘‘One of the best things
about my work is that I get to learn something new everyday. I get to learn something I
didn’t know the day before.’’ Kim also discussed how much her work expands her
knowledge and described it as ‘‘the best experience I’ve come across so far.’’ Likewise,
Brenda described her career as ‘‘so rewarding . . . just being involved in a not-
for-profit, you learn so much about yourself and the organizations and especially this
community.’’ Learning is a benefit to most of the arts practitioners, as well as a
welcomed challenge that attracts them to nonprofit work. For example, when Danny
wanted to put his for-profit skills to work in a nonprofit, he discovered that ‘‘it was a
challenge’’ and ‘‘a new entity to learn,’’ but he soon found ‘‘it fit like a glove.’’
 Framing the Work of Art 37

Others’ choices to enter nonprofit work were not so deliberate, but the challenge
motivates them to stay. When asked why she chose nonprofit work, Kim noted, ‘‘I
stumbled into it, but I chose it for a career because it is a constant challenge and
there’s never any boredom.’’ Danny agreed, saying, ‘‘It challenges you, there is noth-
ing that’s the same every day.’’ The participants could have opted to be discouraged
by these challenges, but rather they chose to embrace them as learning experiences
from which they derived personal fulfillment.
Other rewards such as fun and flexibility were also evident, illustrating each per-
son’s unique sense of satisfaction attributed to work. These rewards provide intrinsic
satisfaction and more than offset the lack of monetary benefits (DiMaggio, 1987).
These participants are not unlike other nonprofit arts practitioners who, when rank-
ing sources of job satisfaction, tend to rank salary and benefits as least important
(Illinois Arts, 2002). Perhaps Ken summarized it best when he said, ‘‘A career
shouldn’t just be about maybe making money but enriching your life in a way that
you wouldn’t get otherwise.’’

Discussion
In this study, empirical evidence suggests that participants invoked a spiritual frame-
work to socially construct, understand, and legitimize their nonprofit careers. Indivi-
duals have a need for consistency in identity and self-conception (Ring & Van de Ven,
1989). Because the benefits derived from nonprofit work are often incompatible with
the master narrative of success, nonprofit practitioners may find themselves struggling
to justify their career choices, particularly to friends and family members. Conse-
quently, nonprofit employees must find the language to define themselves and their
careers based upon their own values, as opposed to the taken-for-granted definitions
imposed by American culture. Spiritually centered discourse not only enhances their
own understanding of work but also provides a contextualized discourse to legitimate
their work to others. It may appear that a need for justification from others lies in con-
tradiction to their personal calling to service. However, ‘‘individuals’ self-concepts and
personal identities are formed and modified in part by how they believe others view
the organization for which they work’’ (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991, p. 548), making
it important for others to understand why they engage in the work they do.
McDonald (1999) suggested that ‘‘spirituality is the latest corporate buzzword’’ (p.
46), and the trend appears to be on the rise, evidenced by the increasing popular
literature hitting the bookshelves, business and spirituality conferences being held,
and Web-sites dedicated to spiritual topics (Rigoglioso, 1999). Corporate managers
are now recognizing spirituality as a way to attract and maintain talented employees
who seek deeper meaning in their work. According to Harvard Business School
senior lecturer, William (‘‘Scotty’’) McLennan, Jr., ‘‘People are starting to realize that
if they’re going to spend a good part of their lives in the office, they’d like that time to
be spiritually as well as materially rewarding’’ (Rigoglioso, 1999, p. 1).
While spirituality may have been ‘‘the last corporate taboo’’ (McDonald, 1999,
p. 46), the spiritual frames found in this study indicate the great extent to which
38 J. Mize Smith et al.
spirituality is embedded in the nonprofit workplace. Given the nonprofit sector’s
historical development, it is not surprising that its spiritual roots are reflected in
the discourse of those attracted to nonprofit work.
In the calling frame, participants reflected upon a personal need to perform mean-
ingful work and to contribute to something of greater importance than themselves.
Their views about nonprofit work resonate with Goldman’s (1988) contention that
‘‘the calling is not just an approach to work; it is an entry point for the most profound
issues that they raise about themselves and about self, person, and identity in general’’
(p. 109). They construct their careers to reflect how they see and want others to see
their personal and professional selves. In the service frame, participants expressed
how they enact their calling to fulfill a sense of purpose and need to contribute to
the greater community. In their pursuit of higher ideals, they perform a service and
find pleasure, excitement, and satisfaction in even the mundane details of work when
they impact and empower others. While participants were drawn to nonprofit work in
the arts, their career choices have not come without costs. Using the frame of sacrifice,
they acknowledged the personal gains, specifically monetary, they willingly give up for
nonprofit arts careers. After all, compensation for Indiana nonprofit employees trails
for-profit workers by 19% and government employees by 18% (Gronbjerg & Park,
2003). When pursuing less lucrative careers against a cultural backdrop imposing
the importance of status and wealth, nonprofit practitioners may find themselves
needing to explain and justify their career decisions. This may be particularly true
for those working in the arts subsector where their contributions to the community
are perhaps less understood and less valued than either corporate work or other non-
profit work such as social services. In the face of personal sacrifices, however, parti-
cipants continued to repeatedly focus on what Manzo (2004) has termed ‘‘psychic
income’’ (p. 66). In the final frame of personal rewards, participants shared the impor-
tance of the intangibles—things like personal satisfaction, freedom and creativity,
good coworkers, challenging work, and continuous learning opportunities. Framing
their careers in terms of what is gained enables participants to highlight what is most
important to them while making invisible that which is lost, that is, the traditional
career markers of money and status often used to depict career success.
In sum, these spiritual frames suggest many similarities between nonprofit
arts careers and the ‘‘new’’ protean career. For many, the protean career is a
contemporary strategy for finding more meaningful work. In contrast, nonprofit
practitioners have exemplified the primary tenets of the protean career for decades,
not strategically but naturally. Understanding how nonprofit arts practitioners dis-
cursively construct their careers offers unique insight to developing career theory
and improving work experiences.

Limitations
While the sample size was limited numerically, substantive richness and repetition
emerged in the data that provided greater confidence in the interpretations and
insights to be gleaned from participants’ discourse. The racial diversity among
 Framing the Work of Art 39

participants was also limited, a reflection of the limited diversity also characteristic of
the larger region within which the participants live and work. However, participants
greatly varied in their educational and work backgrounds, providing greater opport-
unity for differences in participant experiences, interpretations, and frames of refer-
ence from which they constructed their responses.
Moreover, the county under study was also relatively small. While it may not
be representative of all geographic areas, its limited size aided researchers in col-
lecting data from some of the most prominent arts organizations in the local
community. While other types of nonprofit organizations make equally important
contributions, this study explores only one subset of nonprofit professionals. The
narrow focus allowed researchers to foreground the voices of a particular group
and to gain unique insight into the intricacies of participants’ work experiences
in the nonprofit arts sector. Additionally, the sample was limited to arts managers
to provide some similarity across participant occupations. However, future studies
exploring careers of other types of nonprofit employees, such as clerical and part-
time workers, would make for interesting comparisons to the findings presented
in this study.

Theoretical Implications
Although this study focuses on nonprofit arts managers, it also exemplifies an
increasing trend in many organizational settings, that is, the expression of career
in spiritual terms. This analysis suggests that spiritual framing may be useful for both
nonprofit practitioners whose career choices are often misunderstood and for-profit
workers who are increasingly searching for self-fulfilling work. Although meaningful
work has become increasingly associated with the protean career and new career
theory (Arthur et al., 1999; Ciulla, 2000; D. Hall & Moss, 1998; Sullivan, 1999), it
has long been rooted in nonprofit work and is perhaps the most defining character-
istic of those who embrace careers in the nonprofit sector (DiMaggio, 1987; Lewis &
Milano, 1987). Therefore, career theory may inform and be informed by those
engaged in nonprofit work. Future studies exploring if and how spiritual framing
is used among other nonprofit and for-profit occupations would provide a greater
understanding of the potential parallels between emerging protean careers and non-
profit careers.
As one reviewer pointed out, business and nonprofit sectors have long been look-
ing to each other for lessons in efficiency, finance, and customer service. Perhaps
spirituality and its relationship to work is the latest point of convergence between
the two sectors. On the other hand, spirituality discourses may be co-opted by cor-
porate imperatives (see Nadesan, 1999). If researchers take care to pay attention to
the different ethics underlying spiritual discourse, perhaps there could be synergistic
results for both the nonprofit and for-profit sectors. In short, a spiritual framework
provides an alternative language in which to dismantle traditional career models,
rethink the purpose of work, and redefine measurements of success in ways that
are more encompassing of careers across the sectors.
40 J. Mize Smith et al.
Pragmatic Implications
Given how participants positively framed their work because and in spite of individ-
ual and organizational challenges, this study reveals several practical implications.
First, because nonprofit careers are incongruent with traditional career conceptions,
they offer insight into the unintended consequences that may arise from the current
shift toward a protean career. For example, the lack of linear career progression has
often left nonprofit employees without a clear career path (Illinois Arts, 2002). In
seeking nonprofit work, participants in this study have taken responsibility for craft-
ing their own meaningful work experiences. While this is characteristic of the new,
protean career, organizations can share the responsibility of ‘‘matching people to jobs
that allow their deeply embedded life interests’’ (Butler & Waldroop, 1999, p. 146).
Organizations can take an active role in helping employees to sculpt a career that
meets their personal and professional needs by placing more emphasis on succession
planning, personal development, and preparation for strategic job changes. This may
be a challenge for for-profit organizations as they find that the process of engaging
and developing employees to require more time and resources than simply doling
out pay raises and promotions. It also may be challenging for many nonprofit orga-
nizations whose small, flat hierarchies do not accommodate traditional, upward
advancement (Illinois Arts, 2002). Consequently, nonprofits will need to offer per-
sonal growth opportunities through variety in work projects, responsibility levels,
and geographic locations. Even if they choose to grow their careers in other organiza-
tions, these and other data indicate that many nonprofit employees will pursue other
nonprofit positions (see Illinois Arts, 2002), thereby enabling individuals to construct
fulfilling careers of service and creating a better workforce from which the whole
nonprofit sector can benefit. In short, the ability for all types of organizations to cre-
ate a fulfilling work environment will be critical for meeting employees’ increasing
needs to find meaning and purpose in work.
Second, these findings are particularly important to career counselors offering
guidance to both students entering the workforce (Tang, 2003) and workers
evaluating their career options (Amundson, Borgen, Jordan, & Erlebach, 2004).
Because American culture has inculcated the importance of extrinsic benefits of work,
the viability and legitimacy of a rewarding nonprofit career are more likely to be
overlooked. The increasing size and scope of the nonprofit sector (Salamon, 2002)
afford numerous career opportunities in a variety of areas such as recreation, edu-
cation, art, and entertainment. Career counselors well versed in nonprofit careers
can match individuals with opportunities for meaningful work (Herr, 2001), as well
as discount any misconceptions about nonprofit work and its potential to meet
employment needs and interests.
Third, results suggest that nonprofit employees work under continuous individual
and organizational pressures stemming from a lack of financial resources. The finan-
cial difficulties faced by each nonprofit organization and the nonprofit sector as a
whole may never subside, providing all the more reason why nonprofit employers
must address the daily strains and stresses placed on workers. While participants
 Framing the Work of Art 41

contended that calling, service, and personal rewards are more important than what
they sacrifice, nonprofit organizations should not neglect the emotional, mental, and
financial toll that often comes with nonprofit work. One recommendation would be
to establish mentor programs and support networks in which new employees could
receive emotional support for how to cope with the various demands that it brings
(see Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; de Janasz, Sullivan, & Whiting, 2003;
Illinois Arts, 2002). Facilitating opportunities for nonprofit workers to receive formal
and informal support from one another has the potential to benefit both organization
and individuals by increasing employee satisfaction and creating a more attractive
work environment.

Conclusion
This article examined how career is communicatively constructed by nonprofit arts
practitioners in a Midwestern community. The participants represented not only a
unique subset of a community but also voices that are not typically heard in career
literature. In contrast to popular conceptions of career success based on linear
advancement and extrinsic rewards, it appears that participants embody the charac-
teristics more closely associated with what is now called the ‘‘new’’ protean career.
While contemporary employees increasingly seek continuous learning, professional
commitment, and meaningful work (D. Hall, 2002), participants in this study have
long been driven by these values when making career choices.
The results of this study suggest that these art practitioners discursively define
their careers through an overarching metaphor of spirituality and four discursive
frames that enable them to make sense of and legitimate their career choices, which
are not always valued by American culture. We encourage further research exploring
spirituality metaphors, along with alternative discursive constructs of nonprofit
careers, and their usefulness toward rethinking how careers are constructed and
communicated.

Notes
[1] Hammack (2002) defined nonprofit entities as formal, private organizations that are self-
governing, and voluntarily supported. The mission of nonprofit organizations is to serve
a public benefit rather than seek a profit. P. Hall (1987) explicates the three purposes of non-
profit organizations as the association of individuals:
(1) to perform public tasks that have been delegated to them by the state; (2) to perform
public tasks for which there is a demand that neither the state nor for-profit organizations
are willing to fulfill; or (3) to influence the direction of policy in the state, the for-profit sec-
tor, or other nonprofit organizations. (p. 3)
[2] More specifically, D. Hall (2004) delineates five characteristics of work as a calling: (a) when
individuals see their work as a calling; (b) when work serves a community (not just self and
family); (c) when career decisions involve discernment to know the right direction; (d) when
work involves the quintessential self or ‘‘genius;’’ and (e) when work uses one’s gifts for the
common good.
42 J. Mize Smith et al.
[3] Among the five researchers, one has direct experience as a nonprofit employee in the com-
munity under study. Of her 15 years working in the nonprofit sector, she spent two years as
an employee of the community’s historical association, one of the organizations represented
by participants in this study. During her employment, she developed working relationships
with several other arts organizations. Though no longer formally affiliated with the arts sec-
tor, this researcher maintains contact with many of her former colleagues and continues to
support local arts programs. A second researcher has 7 years experience in nonprofit man-
agement in a different locale. The other three researchers have served in volunteer and lead-
ership positions in a variety of other nonprofit organizations in both this community and
others.
[4] Exempt employees are defined as those receiving a salary rather than an hourly wage.

References
Access Indiana. (2003). Summary of Tippecanoe County highlights. Retrieved April 19, 2005, from
http://www.in.gov/dwd/inews/docs/tippecanoe/highlights narrative.htm
Allen II, L. D. (2000). Promise keepers and racism: Frame resonance as an indicator of organiza-
tional vitality. Sociology of Religion, 61, 55–72.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with
mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127–136.
Americans for the Arts. (2002). Arts and economic prosperity: The economic impact of nonprofit arts
organizations and their audiences. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from http:==ww3.artsusa.org=pdf=
information resources=economic impact=ecsumrpt.pdf
Amundson, N. E., Borgen, W. A., Jordan, S., & Erlebach, A. C. (2004). Survivors of downsizing:
Helpful and hindering experiences. The Career Development Quarterly, 52, 256–271.
Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Generating new directions in career theory:
The case for a transdisciplinary approach. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence
(Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 7–25). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Arthur, M. B., Inkson, K., & Pringle, J. K. (1999). The new careers: Individual action and economic
change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (Eds.). (1996). The boundaryless career: New employment principle
for a new organizational era. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ashmos, D. P., & Duchon, D. (2000). Spirituality at work: A conceptualization and measure.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 9, 134–145.
Bloch, D. P., & Richmond, L. J. (1998). SoulWork: Finding the work you love, loving the work you
have. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Butler, T., & Waldroop, J. (1999). Job sculpting: The art of retaining your best people. Harvard
Business Review, 77(5), 144–152.
Buzzanell, P. M. (2000). The promise and practice of the new career and social contract: Illusions
exposed and suggestions for reform. In P. M. Buzzanell (Ed.), Rethinking organizational and
managerial communication from feminist perspectives (pp. 209–235). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Buzzanell, P. M. (2001). Spirituality-centered career theory and practice. In A. Rodriguez (Ed.),
Essays on communication & spirituality: Contributions to a new discourse on communication
(pp. 47–71). Lanham, MD: University Press.
Buzzanell, P. M., & Burrell, N. A. (1997). Family and workplace conflict: Examining metaphorical
conflict schemas and expressions across context and sex. Human Communication Research,
24, 109–146.
Buzzanell, P. M., Ellingson, L., Silvio, C., Pasch, V., Dale, B., Mauro, G., et al. (1997). Leadership
processes in alternative organizations: Invitational and dramaturgical leadership. Communi-
cation Studies, 48, 285–310.
 Framing the Work of Art 43

Buzzanell, P. M., & Goldzwig, S. R. (1991). Linear and nonlinear career models: Metaphors, para-
digms, and ideologies. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 466–505.
Ciulla, J. B. (2000). The working life: The promise and betrayal of modern work. New York: Crown
Publishing.
Cohen, L., & Mallon, M. (1999). The transition from organizational employment to portfolio work-
ing: Perceptions of ‘‘boundarylessness.’’ Work, Employment, & Society, 13, 329–352.
Dalton, J. C. (2001). Career and calling: Finding a place for the spirit in work and community. New
Directions for Student Services, 95, 17–25.
Dawson, J. (2005). A history of vocation: Tracing a keyword of work, meaning, and moral purpose.
Adult Education Quarterly, 55, 220–231.
DeFillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A competency-based perspective.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 307–324.
de Janasz, S. C., Sullivan, S. E., & Whiting, V. (2003). Mentor networks and career success: Lessons
for turbulent times. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 78–91.
Delbecq, A. L. (1999). Christian spirituality and contemporary business leadership. Journal of Orga-
nizational Change Management, 12, 345–349.
DiMaggio, P. (1987). Managers of the arts: Careers and opinions of senior administrators of U.S. art
museums, symphony orchestras, resident theaters, and local arts agencies. Washington, DC:
Seven Locks Press.
Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in orga-
nizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517–554.
Eby, L. T., Butts, M., & Lockwood, A. (2003). Predictors of success in the era of the boundaryless
career. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 689–708.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communi-
cation, 43, 51–58.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fox, M. (1994). The reinvention of work. New York: HarperCollins.
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 693–727.
Gati, I., & Houminer, D. (1998). Career compromises: Framings and their implications. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 45, 505–514.
Gati, I., Houminer, D., & Fassa, N. (1997). Framings of career compromises: How career counselors
can help. The Career Development Quarterly, 45, 390–399.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of the experience. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Goldman, H. (1988). Max Weber and Thomas Mann: Calling and the shaping of the self. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Gowler, D., & Legge, K. (1989). Rhetoric in bureaucratic careers: Managing the meaning of man-
agement success. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), The handbook of career
theory (pp. 437–453). Cambridg, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Gronbjerg, K. A., & Park, H. M. (2003). Indiana nonprofits: Scope and community dimensions. (Non-
profit Employee Series Rep. No. 1). Bloomington: Indiana University School of Public and
Environmental Affairs.
Gross, R. A. (2003). Giving in America: From charity to philanthropy. In L. J. Friedman & M. D.
McGarvie (Eds.), Charity, philanthropy, and civility in American history (pp. 29–48). Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gunn, C. (2004). Third-sector development: Making up on the market. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Hall, D. T. (2002). Careers in and out of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
65, 1–13.
44 J. Mize Smith et al.
Hall, D. T., & Chandler, D. E. (2005). Psychological success: When the career is a calling. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 155–176.
Hall, D. T., & Moss, J. E. (1998). The new protean career contract: Helping organizations and
employees adapt. Organizational Dynamics, 26, 22–37.
Hall, P. D. (1987). A historical overview of the private nonprofit sector. In W. W. Powell (Ed.), The
nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 3–26). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hammack, D. C. (2002). Nonprofit organizations in American history. American Behavioral Scien-
tist, 45, 1638–1674.
Herr, E. L. (2001). Career development and its practice: A historical perspective. The Career Devel-
opment Quarterly, 49, 196–211.
Herron, D. G., Hubbard, T. S., Kirner, A. E., Newcomb, L., Reiser-Memmer, M., Robertson II,
M. E., et al. (1998). The effect of gender on the career advancement of arts managers. Journal
of Arts Management, Law & Society, 28(1), 27–41.
Heslin, P. A. (2005). Conceptualizing and evaluating career success. Journal of Organizational Beha-
vior, 26, 113–136.
Hicks, D. A. (2002). Spiritual and religious diversity in the workplace: Implications for leadership.
Leadership Quarterly, 13, 379–396.
Hodgkinson, V. A. (with Nelson, K. E. & Sivak, E. D., Jr.). (2002). Individual giving and volunteer-
ing. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America (pp. 387–420). Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press.
Holbeche, L. (1995). Peering into the future of careers. People Management, 31, 26–31.
Illinois Arts Alliance=Foundation. (2002, January). Succession: Arts Leadership for the 21th Century.
Chicago: Author. Retrieved April 4, 2005, from http:==www.artsalliance.org=l research.shtml
Indiana Arts Commission. (2005). 1965–2005: Celebrating 40 years of connecting people to the arts.
Indianapolis, IN: Author.
Inkson, K. (2004). Images of career: Nine key metaphors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65,
96–111.
Inkson, K., & Amundson, N. E. (2002). Career metaphors and their application in theory and coun-
seling practice. Journal of Employment Counseling, 39, 98–108.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits,
general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52,
621–652.
Kaplan, M. L. (1990). Labor of love: The joys and stresses of nonprofit management. Nonprofit
World, 8(3), 26–28.
Kreidler, J. (1996). Leverage lost: The nonprofit arts in the post-Ford era. Journal of Arts Manage-
ment, Law & Society, 26, 79–100.
Krone, K. (2001). Reframing organizational communication theory and research through spiritu-
ality. In A. Rodriguez (Ed.), Essays on communication & spirituality: Contributions to a
new discourse on communication (pp. 21–35). Lanham, MD: University Press.
Lewis, W., & Milano, C. (1987). Profitable careers in nonprofit. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lips-Wiersma, M. (2002). The influence of spiritual ‘‘meaning-making’’ on career behavior. Journal
of Management Development, 21, 497–520.
Magee, J. (2004). A fair wage: Nonprofit workers earn the same as their for-profit counterparts.
Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2(1), 11.
Manzo, P. (2004). The real salary scandal: It isn’t that some nonprofit CEOs make big bucks. It’s
that most nonprofit employees are paid too little. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2(3), 65.
Martin, D. D. (2002). From appearance tales to oppression tales: Frame alignment and organiza-
tional identity. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 31, 158–206.
McColl, M. A., Bickenback, J., Johnston, J., Nishihama, S., Schumaker, M., Smith, K., et al. (2000).
Spiritual issues associated with traumatic-onset disability. Disability and Rehabilitation, 22,
555–564.
 Framing the Work of Art 45

McDonald, M. (1999, May 3). Shush. The guy in the cubicle is meditating. U.S. News & World
Report, 126, 46.
McGarvie, M. D. (2003). The Dartmouth College case and the legal design of civil society. In L. J.
Friedman & M. D. McGarvie (Eds.), Charity, philanthropy, and civility in American history
(pp. 91–106). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Meisenbach, R. J. (2004). Framing fund raising: A poststructuralist analysis of higher education
fund raisers’ work and identities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(11), 4048A. (UMI
No. 3154694)
Nadesan, M. H. (1999). The discourses of corporate spiritualism and evangelical capitalism. Man-
agement Communication Quarterly, 13, 3–42.
Neal, J. (2000). Work as service to the divine. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 1316–1333.
Onyx, J., & Maclean, M. (1996). Careers in the third sector. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 6,
331–345.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peters, J., & Wolfred, T. (2001). Daring to Lead: Nonprofit executive directors and their work experi-
ence. San Francisco: Compass Point Nonprofit Services.
Pick, J. (1980). Arts administration. New York: E. & F. N. Spon.
Pokora, R. M. (2001). Implications of conceptualizations of spirituality for organizational com-
munication. In A. Rodriguez (Ed.), Essays on communication and spirituality (pp. 131–
135). Lanham, MD: University Press.
Rigoglioso, M. (October 12, 1999). Spirit at work: The search for deeper meaning in the workplace.
Harvard Business School Working Knowledge. Retrieved March 20, 2005, from http:==hbswork-
knowledge.hbs.edu
Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1989). Formal and informal dimensions of transactions. In A. H.
Van de Ven, H. L. Angle, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation:
The minnesota studies (pp. 171–192). New York: Ballinger.
Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002). The state of nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Insti-
tution Press.
Sass, J. S. (2000). Characterizing organizational spirituality: An organizational communication
cultural approach. Communication Studies, 51, 195–217.
Scott, J. A. (2005, April). Calling as counter-narrative: Disrupting entrepreneurial discourses in career
theory and practice. Paper presented at the Central States Communication Association annual
conference, Kansas City, MO.
Steingard, D. S. (2005). Spiritually-informed management theory: Toward profound possibilities
for inquiry and transformation. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 227–241.
Stewart, C., & Cash, Jr., W. (2006). Interviewing principles and practices (11th ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for devel-
oping grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stroh, L. K., Brett, J. M., & Reilly, A. H. (1994). A decade of change: Managers’ attachment to their
organizations and their jobs. Human Resource Management, 33, 531–548.
Sullivan, S. E. (1999). The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of
Management, 25, 457–484.
Tang, M. (2003). Career counseling in the future: Constructing, collaborating, and advocating. The
Career Development Quarterly, 52, 61–69.
Wagner-Marsh, F., & Conley, J. (1999). The fourth wave: The spiritually-based firm. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 12, 292–301.
Waterman, R. H., Waterman, J. A., & Collard, B. A. (1994). Towards the career resilient workforce.
Harvard Business Review, 72, 87–95.
Weber, M. (1958). Science as vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. W. Mills (Eds.), Max Weber: Essays in
sociology (pp. 129–156). New York: Oxford University Press.
46 J. Mize Smith et al.
Witmer, D. F. (2001). The co-construction of self and organization: Evoking organizational spiri-
tuality. In A. Rodriguez (Ed.), Essays on communication & spirituality: Contributions to a new
discourse on communication (pp. 1–19). Lanham, MD: University Press.
Wyszomirski, M. J. (2002). Arts and culture. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America
(pp. 187–218). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.