Sex Roles, Vol. 41, Nos.

5/6, 1999
Workaholism in Organizations: Gender Differences
1
Ronald J. Burke
York University
Although the concept of workaholism in organizations has received consider-
able attention, our understanding of it based on research evidence is limited.
This results from the absence of both suitable denitions and measures of
the concept. This study, using measures developed by Spence and Robbins
(1992), examines gender differences in a predominantly white managerial
samplein three workaholism components and workaholic job behaviors
among managers and professionals. Although females and males were found
to differ on many personal and situational demographic characters, they
were similar on the three workaholism components: work involvement, feel-
ing driven to work, and work enjoyment. Females reported higher levels of
particular workaholic job behaviors (e.g., perfectionism, job stress) likely to
be associated with lower levels of satisfaction and well-being.
Although conside rable attention has been devoted to the concept of
``workaholism (Fassel, 1990; Gareld, 1987; Kiechel, 1989a, b; Killinge r,
1991; Klaft & Kleiner, 1988; Machlowitz, 1980; Waddell, 1993) , very
little research has been undertaken to further our unde rstanding of it.
Most writing has been anecdotal and clinical (Fassel, 1990; Killinge r,
1991; Oates, 1971; Schae f & Fassel; 1988) . Basic questions of denition
have not been addressed and measurement concerns have been avoide d
(Scott, Moore , & Miceli, 1997) .
It should come as no surprise, then, that opinions, observations,
and conclusions about workaholis m are both varie d and conicting. Some
writers view workaholism positive ly from an organizational perspective
(Korn, Pratt, & Lambrou, 1987; Machlowitz, 1980; Sprankle & Ebel,
1
This research was supported in part by York University. I thank Jane t Spence for making
her measures available. Grae me Macde rmid assisted with data collection and analysis.
333
0360-0025/99/0900-0333$ 16.00/0 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation
334 Burke
1987) . Machlowitz (1980) conducte d a qualitative interview study of 100
workaholics and found them to be very satised and productive . Others
view workaholism negative ly (Killinge r, 1991; Schae f & Fassel, 1988;
Oates, 1971) . These writers equate workaholis m with other addictions
and depict workaholics as unhappy, obsessive, tragic gures who were
not performing their jobs well and were creating difculty for their co-
workers (Naughton, 1987; Oates, 1971; Porter, 1996) . The former would
advocate the encourage ment of workaholism; the latter would discour-
age it.
Some researchers have propose d the existence of different types of
workaholic behavior patterns, each having potentially different anteced-
ents and associations with job performance , work and life outcome s.
(Naughton, 1987; Scott et al., 1997; Spence & Robbins, 1992) . Naughton
(1987) presents a typology of workaholism based on the dimensions of
career commitment and obsession-compulsion. Job-involve d workaholic s
(high work commitment, low obsession-compulsion) are hypothe sized to
perform well in demanding jobs and be highly job satised, with low
interest in nonwork activitie s. Compulsive workaholic s (high work com-
mitment, high obsession-compulsion) are hypothe sized to be potentially
poor performers (staff proble ms resulting from impatie nce and ritualize d
work habits) . Nonworkahol ics (low work commitment and obsession-
compulsion) spend more time in other than work commitments. Compul-
sive nonworkaholics (low work commitment, high obsession-compulsion)
compulsive ly spend time in nonwork activitie s.
Scott et al. ( 1997) propose three types of workaholic behavior
patterns: compulsive -dependent, a compulsion or dependence on work;
perfectionist-obsessive compulsive ; and achie vement-orie nted, strong
achie vement characte ristics. They sugge st that compulsive -dependent
workaholism will be positive ly related to levels of anxie ty, stress, and
physical and psychological problems and negatively related to job perfor-
mance and job and life satisfaction. Perfectionist workaholis m will be
positive ly related to levels of stress, physical and psychological proble ms,
hostile interpersonal relationships, low job satisfaction and performance ,
and voluntary turnover and absenteeism. Finally, achie vement-orie nted
workaholism will be positive ly related to physical and psychological
health, job and life satisfaction, job performance , low voluntary turnove r,
and prosocial behaviors.
Spence and Robbins (1992) propose three workaholic patterns based
on their ``workaholic triad notion. The workaholic triad consists of
three concepts: work involve ment, feeling drive n to work and work
enjoyme nt. Workaholic s score high on work involve ment and feeling
drive n to work and low on work enjoyment. Work enthusiasts score
Workah olism in Organizati ons: Gender Difference s 335
high on work involve ment and work enjoyme nt and low on feeling
drive n to work. Enthusiastic workaholic s score high on all three compo-
nents. They then offer a number of hypothe ses as to how these three
workaholic patterns might differ from each other. Thus, workaholics
would be more perfectionistic, experience greater stress, and report more
physical health symptoms. The existence of different types of workaholic
patterns might help reconcile conicting observations and conclusions
cited above .
Research on workaholis m has been hinde red by the absence of
acceptable denitions and measures ( Scott et al., 1997) . It is difcult to
understand and research a phenomenon until one can dene what it is.
Mosie r (1983) dened workaholism in terms of hours worked; workaholics
were those who worked at least 50 hr per week. Cherrington ( 1980)
sees workaholism as ``an irrational commitment to excessive work.
Workaholics are unable to take time off or to comfortably dive rt their
interests (p. 257) . Machlowitz ( 1980, p. 11) denes workaholics as
people ``who always devote more time and thoughts to their work than
the situation demands. . . what sets workaholic s apart from other workers
is their attitude toward work, not the number of hours they work.
Scott et al. (1997) used a three-step process to develop what they
term ``a reasonable denition of the construct. First, they collected
characteristics attribute d to workaholics in the practical and clinical
literature. Second, they looke d for conceptual similaritie s among these
characteristics. Finally, they differentiated the workaholic concept from
similar constructs (e.g., job involve ment) to reduce redundancy. They
identied three elements in workaholic behavior patterns using this
process: discretionary time spent in work activitie s, thinking about work
when not working, and working beyond organizationa l require ments.
Spence and Robbins (1992, p. 62) dene the workaholic as a person
who ``is highly work involve d, feels compelled or drive n to work because
of inne r pressures, and is low in enjoyment at work.
Some writers have developed measures of workaholis m (Engstrom &
Juroe, 1979; Fassel, 1990; Killinge r, 1991; Machlowitz, 1980; Spence &
Robbins, 1992; Spruel, 1987; Robinson & Phillips, 1995; Robinson, 1996;
Doerer & Kammer, 1986) , but with the exception of Spence and
Robbins (1992) , the majority were not based on a clear denition of
workaholism and did not provide psychometric information on the
measure and its validity. In spite of these limitations, a compelling case
could be made for devoting more research attention to workaholism.
The concept has received considerable attention in the popular
press. There have been sugge stions that workaholism may be increasing
in North America (Schor, 1991; Fassel, 1990) . In addition, it is not clear
336 Burke
whether workaholis m has positive or negative organizational consequences
(Machlowitz, 1980; Killinge r, 1991) . There is also debate on the association
of workaholic behaviors with a variety of personal well-be ing indicators
such as psychological and physical health and self-esteem. In addition,
different types of workaholic behavior patterns likely exist, each having
unique antecedents and outcomes. Finally, the question of whether
workaholism can, or should be, reduced has also been raised (Porter,
1996; Killinge r, 1991; Seybold & Salomone , 1994) .
This inve stigation examines gender differences in workaholism and
workaholism-related variable s. Three other studie s have addre ssed this
question. Spence and Robbins (1992) compare d men and women social
workers in acade mic positions on their workaholism triad (work involve -
ment, feeling drive n to work, work enjoyme nt), behavioral correlates
(e.g., perfectionism, nondelegation) , and health complaints. In this sample,
women scored signicantly higher than men on Feeling Driven to Work,
Work Enjoyme nt, Job Stress, Job Involve ment, and Time Commitment
scales; no differences were found on Work Involve ment, Perfectionism,
and Nonde legation scales. Women also reported more health complaints.
Spence and Elder (unpublishe d manuscript) reported comparisons
of men and women MBA graduate s on these measures along with
measures of job satisfaction and psychologic al well-be ing. Few differences
were found. Men did score signicantly highe r than women on Job
Involve ment. There were also similar, though not identical relationships
among the measures for both genders. The three workaholism triad
measures were signicantly correlated for men; the Feeling Driven to
Work and Work Enjoyment scales were uncorre lated for women.
Doerer and Kammer (1986) examine d the relationships of levels
of workaholism with both gender and sex role orientation (masculine ,
feminine, androgynous ). They colle cted data from attorneys, physicians,
and psychologist s. Workaholis m was measured by the 10 characte ristics
propose d by Machlowitz (1980) . They reported that 23% of their respon-
dents were workaholics, consiste nt across the two genders and three
professional groups. Interestingly, a majority of single workaholic s was
female, and female workaholics reported more masculine and androgy-
nous characteristics than feminine characte ristics.
The present study, part of a large r research program on workaholic
behavior, builds on previous work as well as extending this work to
new areas. A decision was made to use the denition of workaholism
put forward by Spence and Robbins (1992) and their measures. Their
denition was the rst acade mic/research denition and their measure
was described in enough detail to assess reliability and validity issues,
unlike most of the others (Machlowitz, 1980; Killinge r, 1991) .
Workah olism in Organizati ons: Gender Difference s 337
METHOD
Procedure
Mail questionnaire s were sent to about 1000 male and 1000 female
MBA graduate s of a single unive rsity in Canada in late 1996. Names were
randomly selected from a listing of graduate s from 1970 to 1994. Responses
were received from 591 individuals, a response rate of about 35%, when
questionnaire s that were returned because responde nts had moved were
exclude d. The sample became 530 when individuals who indicate d that
they were no longe r working full-time were exclude d.
Respondents
Table I presents personal demographic characteristics of the mostly
white sample ( N 5 530) . A fairly wide range of response was present on
most items. Ages ranged from unde r 35 to over 50, with about half falling
between 36 and 45. Almost 80% were married and 70% had children. MBA
degrees were obtaine d over a range of years, most ( almost 60%) before
1985. About 40% of responde nts had also achieved one or more professional
designations in addition to their MBAs (CA, CFA, etc.). Almost one-third
worked 4650 hr per week. About half had personal incomes between
$50,000 and $100,000. Three quarte rs had been with their present employe rs
10 years or less and in their present jobs 5 years or less. Employing organiza-
tions range d in size from 1 to 85,000, with one-third of respondents working
in companie s with fewer than 100 employe es.
Measures
Workaholism Triad. Spence and Robbins (1992) derive workaholism
types on the basis of either high or low scores on three scales: Work
Involve ment, Feeling Driven to Work, and Work Enjoyment. Their scales
were used in this study.
The Work Involve ment Scale (5 .67) has eight items (e.g., I get
bored and restless on vacations when I havent anything productive to do) .
The Feeling Driven to Work Scale (5 .80) has seven items (e.g., I
often feel that theres something inside me that drive s me to work hard) .
The Work Enjoyment Scale (5 .88) has 10 items ( e.g., My job is
more like fun than work) .
These scales are combined as shown in Table II to produce six work-
338 Burke
Table I. Demographic Characteristics
N % N %
Age Martial status
35 and under 91 17.2 Single 71 13.4
3640 139 26.2 Divorce d/widowed 44 8.3
4145 138 26.2 Married 415 78.3
4650 102 19.3
Over 50 58 11.1
Years married
15 47 11.3
Children 610 103 24.7
Yes 370 70.3 1115 84 20.4
No 156 29.7 1620 92 22.0
21 or more 89 21.6
Number of children
1 81 21.8 Year MBA
2 184 49.6 1980 and before 142 27.2
3 80 21.6 1981 1985 158 30.0
4 18 4.9 1986 1990 188 35.8
5 7 1.9 1991 and later 36 7.0
6 1 .3
Hours worked
Professional designations 35 or less 18 3.4
Yes 206 39.0 3640 58 11.3
No 322 61.0 4145 85 16.2
4650 198 30.1
Level of manage ment 5155 76 14.4
Nonmanage ment 62 11.9 5660 90 17.4
Lower manageme nt 37 7.1 60 or more 38 7.2
Middle manageme nt 197 37.9
Senior manageme nt 234 43.1 1995 income
50,000 or less 55 11.3
50,000 100,000 294 60.2
1996 Income 100,000 150,000 80 16.5
50,000 or less 50 10.3 150,000 200,000 23 4.8
50,000 100,000 263 53.6 Over 200,000 35 7.2
100,000 150,000 104 21.1
150,000 200,000 29 5.9
Over 200,000 45 8.1
Years present position Organization size
5 or less 350 76.3 100 or less 152 30.0
610 79 17.2 1001000 138 27.4
11 or more 30 6.5 1000 10,000 126 25.0
Over 10,000 89 17.6
Had employment gaps
Yes 147 27.9
No 380 72.1 Ever worked part-time
Yes 82 15.6
Years present employe r No 443 84.4
5 or less 179 36.4
610 158 31.9
1115 62 12.5
16 or more 95 19.2
Workah olism in Organizati ons: Gender Difference s 339
Table II. Workaholism Types
Workaholism Work Fee ling Work
Type Involveme nt Drive n Enjoyment
Work enthusiasts Hi Lo Hi
Workaholics Hi Hi Lo
Enthusiastic workaholics Hi Hi Hi
Unengaged workers Lo Lo Lo
Relaxed workers Lo Lo Hi
Disenchanted workers Lo Hi Lo
aholism types: work enthusiasts (WEs), workaholic s ( Ws), enthusiastic
workaholics (EWs) , unengage d workers (UWs), relaxe d workers (RWs),
and disenchanted workers (DWs).
Workaholism Behaviors. Seven measures representing potential behav-
ioral manife stations of workaholism types were include d, as follows.
Job involvement (5 .81) was measured by an eight item ( e.g., I am
deeply committed to my job) scale develope d by Spence and Robbins
(1992) .
Time to job ( 5 .82) was assessed by seven items (e.g., I devote more
time to my work than most people) developed by Spence and Robbins
(1992) .
Job stress (5. 89) was measured by nine items (e.g., Sometimes I
feel like my work is going to overwhelm me) develope d by Spence and
Robbins (1992) .
Perfectionism ( 5 .90) was measured by eight items (e.g., I cant let
go of proje cts until Im sure they are exactly right) developed by Spence
and Robbins (1992) .
Difculty delegating (5 .87) was assessed by seven items ( e.g., I feel
that if you want something done correctly you should do it yourse lf) also
develope d by Spence and Robbins (1992) .
Extra hours worked (5.68) was measured by six items. Responde nts
indicate d how frequently they did each item (e.g., go to work early) .
Hours worked was assessed by a single item. Respondents indicate d
the numbe r of hours they worked in a typical week.
RESULTS
Prevalence of Workaholic Types
Table III shows the numbe r and percentage of female and male respon-
dents falling into each of the six workaholism types. Ninety-six respondents
340 Burke
Table III. Prevalence of Workaholism Type s
Females Males
Workaholism
Types N % N %
Work enthusiasts 20 10.5 41 17.6
Workaholics 32 16.8 37 15.9
Enthusiastic workaholics 34 17.9 46 19.7
Unengage d workers 43 22.6 52 22.3
Relaxed workers 24 12.6 27 11.6
Disenchanted workers 37 19.5 30 12.9
Total 190 233
(18%) did not fall into any of the six types. There were no signicant
gender differences in these data. Women and men fell into each of the six
workaholism types to a similar degree.
Demographic Differences
It is important to rst examine gender differences on personal and
situational characte ristics before conside ring gender differences on the
workaholism measures to put the latter into a larger context. Table IV
shows the female male comparisons based on T tests on a number of
demographic and situational factors. Females and males were similar on a
minority of the items: organizational level, organizational size, and the
proportion having worked part-time at some point in their careers.
However, there were conside rably more statistically signicant female
male differences on the following demographic items: males were olde r,
more like ly to be married, to be in longe r marriages, more likely to have
childre n and to have more children, had completed their MBA degrees
earlie r, were less like ly to have gaps in their careers, earned higher incomes
in 1995 and 1996, and had been in their present jobs and with their present
employe rs a longer period of time. It should be noted that many of these
demographic characteristics were themselves signicantly correlated and
the sample sizes of both female and males were large.
Workaholism Measure Differences
Table V presents the female male comparisons using T tests on the
three workaholism compone nts as well as on the seven job behavior valida-
tion measures. Signicant differences were present on 6 of the 10 measures.
Females were less work involve d, devoted less time to their jobs, worked
Workah olism in Organizati ons: Gender Difference s 341
T
a
b
l
e
I
V
.
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
F
e
m
a
l
e
s
M
a
l
e
s
D
e
m
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
X
S
D
N
X
S
D
N
p
A
g
e
4
0
.
6
6
.
4
0
2
5
1
4
3
.
6
6
.
6
7
2
7
7
.
0
0
1
M
a
r
i
t
a
l
s
t
a
t
u
s
1
.
7
.
4
6
2
5
1
1
.
9
.
3
4
2
7
7
.
0
0
1
Y
e
a
r
s
m
a
r
r
i
e
d
1
2
.
5
7
.
1
8
1
7
3
1
6
.
2
8
.
0
6
2
4
2
.
0
0
1
C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
1
.
4
.
5
0
2
4
9
1
.
2
.
3
7
2
7
5
.
0
0
1
N
u
m
b
e
r
c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
2
.
0
.
9
9
1
4
0
2
.
2
.
8
4
2
3
0
.
0
5
Y
e
a
r
M
B
A
8
5
.
4
4
.
0
3
2
5
0
8
1
.
9
5
.
9
4
2
7
4
.
0
0
1
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
.
l
e
v
e
l
3
.
1
.
9
5
2
4
4
3
.
2
1
.
0
1
2
7
4
N
S
W
o
r
k
e
d
P
T
1
.
8
.
3
8
2
4
6
1
.
9
.
3
4
2
7
7
N
S
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
g
a
p
s
1
.
7
.
4
7
2
4
8
1
.
8
.
4
3
2
7
7
.
0
5
I
n
c
o
m
e

9
6
1
0
5
,
1
5
6
.
0
9
8
,
5
2
5
.
4
8
2
3
3
1
3
3
,
4
4
1
.
5
1
3
1
,
0
8
9
.
8
8
2
5
8
.
0
1
I
n
c
o
m
e

9
5
9
,
7
3
2
2
.
0
1
0
9
,
8
6
4
.
6
5
2
3
0
1
2
2
,
1
8
9
.
4
1
0
9
,
1
0
1
.
1
9
2
5
4
.
0
5
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
7
.
6
5
.
6
3
2
3
5
1
0
.
4
7
.
8
8
2
5
9
.
0
0
1
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
j
o
b
3
.
4
3
.
1
1
2
1
5
4
.
5
4
.
1
7
2
4
4
.
0
1
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
.
s
i
z
e
8
,
1
7
7
.
4
1
6
,
2
1
0
.
2
5
2
4
0
6
,
3
8
9
.
2
1
3
,
9
4
8
.
2
7
2
6
5
N
S
342 Burke
Table V. Workaholism Measures
Females Males
X SD N X SD N p
Workaholism triad
Work involvement 21.6 4.71 245 20.5 4.89 274 .05
Feeling driven 18.5 5.54 249 19.1 5.64 274 NS
Work enjoyment 25.4 7.15 249 24.6 6.99 273 NS
Validation measures
Job involvement 19.1 5.63 246 18.5 5.28 273 NS
Perfectionism 20.2 6.65 250 22.3 6.80 268 .001
Job stress 23.1 7.70 248 25.3 7.36 274 .01
Nondelegation 26.7 5.41 251 27.0 5.27 276 NS
Time to job 23.4 6.05 245 21.9 6.07 273 .01
Hours worked 50.0 9.01 246 51.9 8.00 277 .05
Extra hours worked 13.6 3.23 244 14.3 3.40 276 .05
fewer hours, and worked fewer extra hours but reported greater job stress
and greater perfectionism than males. Females and males reported similar
levels of work enjoyment, feeling drive n to work, job involve ment, and
difcultie s in delegating.
These analyse s were repeated introducing four control variable s: age,
year MBA was received, marital status, and number of childre n. The intro-
duction of these control variable s reduced the numbe r of signicant female
male differences. Females and males were similar on the three workaholism
components and on job involve ment, perfectionism, and nonde legation.
Females, however, still reported signicantly highe r levels of job stress ( p ,
.05) and signicantly lower time devoted to job, hours worked per week,
and extra hours worked ( all p , .05) .
DISCUSSION
This inve stigation examine d gender differences in workaholism and
workaholic job behaviors among a sample of managers and professionals.
The respondents, as a group, were relatively well establishe d and successful
in their careers, based on objective indicators such as salary, organizationa l
level, and education, all having MBA degrees.
There were predictable and signicant demographic and situational
differences between female and male respondents. Females were younge r,
less likely to be married, less like ly to have childre n, had received their
MBAs more recently, earned lower incomes, and had been in their present
jobs and with their present employe rs for shorter periods of time.
Females and males were generally similar on the workaholism triad
Workah olism in Organizati ons: Gender Difference s 343
measures (Table s III and V). These ndings were consiste nt with those
reported by Spence and her colleague s (Spence & Robbins, 1992; Elder &
Spence, undate d manuscript).
Female male differences on measures used to validate workaholism
components were varied. Females reported greater job stress; females and
males reported similar levels of perfectionism, job involve ment, and nondel-
egation; and females devoted less time to job, worked fewer hours per
week, and fewer extra hours per week.
The fact that females worked fewer hours likely reects their typically
greater time commitment to home and family responsibilitie s, what
Hochschild (1989) terms ``second shift work. Females reporting greater
levels of job stress may reect both work overload and greater work
family conict.
Although females and males were similar on the three workaholism
components, females reported highe r levels of particular job behaviors (job
stress) like ly to be associate d with adve rse work and well-be ing conse-
quences (Spence & Robbins, 1992; Scott et al., 1997) .
It is important that these ndings be conside red preliminary in nature .
Few studies have used the Spence and Robbins (1992) measures to date.
In addition, these studie s ( four in total) have used different samples (manag-
ers and professionals, unive rsity-base d social work professors). The general-
izability of these ndings must be veried in other samples. It is also
important to conside r the absolute levels of scores on the workaholism
components and workaholic job behaviors as well. The availability of such
normative information would make it possible to determine whether work-
aholic proles vary in different occupational samples. The three studies
that used the same measure of workaholism components showed women
and men scoring similarly on each. These ndings, along with those reported
by Doerer and Kammer (1986) based on a different measure, indicate
that professional and manage rial women and men typically exhibit similar
levels of workaholism.
The ways in which workaholism compone nts are enacted in the work-
place may be different for women and men however. In addition, the
antecedents and consequences of workaholic components, while perhaps
more similar than different between women and men, may nevertheless
produce different relationships in selected cases. Future research is neces-
sary to examine this possibility.
Strengths and Limitations of this Study
This study had the advantage of a large sample of professional and
manage rial women and men who completed a measure of workaholism
344 Burke
that has been shown to have desirable psychome tric prope rties. In addition,
this measure yields three workaholism proles, consiste nt with the notion
that different types of workaholic s exist. Finally, the study include d mea-
sures of workaholic job behaviors which permitted gender comparisons on
these as well as workaholism components.
The study was limited in that all measures came from responde nt
self-reports. In addition, responde nts, though diverse in terms of personal
demographic and work situation characte ristics, were limited to profession-
als and manage rs.
Future Research
As this is one of a few studies that have used the Spence and Robbins
(1992) measures of workaholism, additional work is needed to replicate
previously reported ndings. It is also important to include measures that
consider nonwork experiences in workaholism studie s, as well as indicators
of psychological well-be ing. Future research should also include some obje c-
tive indicators of workaholic behaviors as well as perceptions of both work
colle ague s and family members. Finally, it seems fruitful to consider both
personal and work setting antecedents of both levels and types of work-
aholism.
REFERENCES
Cherrington, D. J. (1980) . The work ethic. New York: American Manage ment Association.
Doerer, M. C., & Kamme r, P. P. (1986) . Workaholism; Sex and sex role stereotyping among
female professionals. Sex Roles, 14, 551560.
Elder, E. D. & Spence, J. T. Unpublished manuscript. Austin: Department of Psychology,
University of Texas.
Engstrom, T. W., & Juroe, D. J. (1979) . The work trap. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell.
Fasse l, D. (1990) . Working ourselves to death: The high costs of workaholism, the rewards of
recovery. San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins.
Gareld, C. A. (1987) . Peak performers: The new heroes of American business. New York:
William Morrow.
Hochschild, A. (1989) . The secon d shift. New York: Avon Books.
Kieche l, W. (1989a) . The workaholic generation. Fortune, April 10, 5062.
Kieche l, W. (1989b) . Workaholics anonymous. Fortune, August 14, 117118.
Killinger, B. (1991) . Workaho lics: The respectable addicts. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Klaft, R. P., & Kleiner, B. H. (1988) . Understanding workaholics. Business, 33, 3740.
Korn, E. R., Pratt, G. J., & Lambrou, P. T. (1987) . Hyper-performance: The A.I.M. strategy
for releasing your business potential. New York: John Wiley.
Machlowitz, M. (1980) . Workaholics: Living with them, working with them. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Mosier, S. K. (1982) . Workaholics: An analysis of their stress, success and priorities, Unpublished
maste r thesis. Austin: University of Texas at Austin.
Workah olism in Organizati ons: Gender Difference s 345
Naughton, T. J. (1987) . A conceptual view of workaholism and implications for caree r counsel-
ing and research. Career Development Quarterly, 6, 180187.
Oates, W. (1971) . Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction. New York:
World.
Porter, G. (1996) . Organizational impact of workaholism: Sugge stions for researching the
negative outcomes of exce ssive work. Journ al of Occup ational Health Psycho logy, 1,
7084.
Robinson, B. E. (1996) . The psychosoci al and familial dimensions of work addiction: Prelimi-
nary perspectives and hypotheses. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 447452.
Robinson, B. E., & Phillips, B. (1995) . Measuring workaholism: Content validity of the Work
Addiction Risk Test. Psycho logical Reports, 77, 657658.
Schaef, A. W., & Fassel, D. (1988) . The addictive organiz ation. San Francisco, CA: Harpe r Row.
Schor, J. B. (1991) . The overworked American. New York: Basic Books.
Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997) . An exploration of the meaning and
consequences of workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287314.
Seybold, K. C., & Salomone, P. R. (1994). Understanding workaholism: A view of causes
and counseling approache s. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 49.
Spence, J. T. & Robbins, A. S. (1992) . Workaholism: Denition, measurement, and preliminary
results. Journal of Personali ty Assessment, 58, 160178.
Sprankle, J. K., & Ebel, H. (1987) . The workaholic syndrome. New York: Walker.
Spruel, G. (1987) . Work fever. Training and Development Journal, 41, 4145.
Waddell, J. R. (1993) . The grindstone. Supervision, 26, 1113.