job.424-1

Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 111–136 (2007)

Published online 24 November 2006 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.424
Dimensions, antecedents, and

consequences of workaholism: a
conceptual integration and extension
THOMAS W. H. NG1*, KELLY L. SORENSEN2
AND DANIEL C. FELDMAN3
1
School of Business and Economics, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong
2
Department of Psychology, The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, U.S.A.
3
Department of Management, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, Athens,
Georgia, USA
Summary While the concept of workaholism has received a good deal of attention in the popular press,
theoretical and empirical research have lagged behind. In part, the lack of a formal, agreed
upon definition of the construct and its dimensions has hampered research on this topic. The
purpose of this review is to offer a cohesive definition of workaholism, discuss its underlying
dimensions, and identify its key antecedents and consequences. Measurement issues, direc-
tions for future research, and implications for management practice are discussed as well.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
With the increase in weekly work hours over the past 2 decades (McMillan, Brady, O’Driscoll, &
Marsh, 2002), workaholism has emerged as a prominent topic in the practitioner literature (Fassel,
1990; Killinger, 1991; Robinson, 1998; Smith & Seymour, 2004). Our keyword search (using
‘workaholism’) of the last 20 years’ studies included in the Business Source Premier research database
located 131 articles on the issue. However, the amount of attention given to workaholism by academic
researchers has been significantly less. Of these 131 articles published on workaholism, only 40
appeared in academic journals and only 28 were empirical in nature (e.g., Burke & Matthiesen, 2004;
Ersoy-Kart, 2005; McMillan et al., 2002; Robinson, Carroll, & Flowers, 2001a). Because the extent of
workaholism continues to increase in America and worldwide (Schor, 1991; Sparks, Faragher, &
Cooper, 2001), a better scholarly understanding of the topic appears both necessary and timely.
The changing nature of careers in recent years (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996) further accentuates the
need to increase our understanding of workaholism. For instance, clear role expectations at work do not
exist anymore (Sullivan, 1999) and the boundaries between work and personal life are becoming more
blurred (Fletcher & Bailyn, 1996). In addition, with the advance of technology (e.g., internet and
* Correspondence to: Thomas W. H. Ng, School of Business and Economics, The University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam,
Hong Kong. E-mail: tng@business.hku.hk
Received 15 August 2005

Revised 24 April 2006
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 16 September 2006
112 T. W. H. NG ET AL.
telecommunication), more and more employees are able to work outside the traditional office and
outside traditional work hours (Cooper, 1998). These changes can induce more workaholism especially
in managerial employees, who now have both greater incentives and greater opportunities to invest
more heavily in work.
The central purpose of the current article is to provide an integration and extension of the conceptual
literature on workaholism. The paper has four specific goals. First, we attempt to clarify the definition
of the construct of workaholism. There is still no widely accepted definition of workaholism (Seybold
& Salomone, 1994) and the absence of such a definition may be a key reason why advancement of
empirical research on the topic has been rather slow (Scott, Moore, & Miceli, 1997). The second goal is
to discuss the antecedents of workaholism. Here we synthesize the diverse literature on dispositional
factors, socio-cultural factors, and behavioral reinforcements that contribute to workaholism. Our third
goal is to discuss consequences of workaholism. Previous research on workaholism has argued that
workaholism has both positive (Burke, 2001a) and negative consequences (Fassel, 1990). However,
only sporadic attempts have been made to integrate these divergent and sometimes inconsistent sets of
findings. Finally, in the discussion section, we outline some important research and practical issues
related to workaholism, including measurement challenges, how current work trends and
organizational culture affect workaholism, and managerial implications.
The Construct of Workaholism
Oates (1971, p. 1) is credited with the initial use of the term ‘workaholism’ to describe one’s ‘addiction
to work, the compulsion or the uncontrollable need to work incessantly.’ Therefore, workaholics can be
seen both positively and negatively. On one hand, workaholics are addicts who cannot control
themselves; on the other hand, they are particularly diligent and dedicated workers. A review of the
literature, however, indicates that a variety of other elements have been used to define workaholism
since the Oates research (e.g., see Scott et al., 1997, p. 291). Unfortunately, there appears to be no
consensus regarding which set of dimensions provides the most accurate and complete definition of
workaholism. Some of the more commonly used definitions of workaholism are discussed below in
chronological order.
Fassel (1990) defines workaholism as pathology. She suggests that ‘workaholism is a progressive,
fatal disease in which a person is addicted to the process of working’ (p. 2). She suggests that due to the
addiction, the person’s personal life becomes unmanageable in relation to work. This ‘fatal disease’
perspective, though, seems rather drastic (Thombs, 1994). While this definition can alert people to the
seriousness of workaholism and therefore invite attention to the topic, it can also promote denial from
workaholics themselves. Many victims may resist being classified as ‘diseased,’ especially if the
disease has a strong ‘mental health’ component.
Unlike Fassel’s (1990) emphasis on addiction and progression, Spence and Robbins’ (1992)
definition focuses more on the roots of workaholism. In fact, their definition is the one most often cited
in the literature (e.g., Bonebright, Clay, & Ankenmann, 2000; Burke, 2000a; Kanai, Wakabayashi, &
Fling, 1996). They suggest that workaholism consists of the dimensions of enjoyment of work, inner
drive to work, and work involvement. However, the factor structure of these three dimensions has not
been fully replicated in empirical studies (e.g., Kanai et al., 1996; McMillan et al., 2002). In addition, as
we discuss in more detail below, there is an important distinction to be drawn between enjoyment of
work and enjoyment of working. Overall, Spence and Robbins’ definition promotes a multi-
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 111–136 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/job
WORKAHOLISM 113
dimensional perspective of workaholism, even though there is still disagreement with regard to the
validity of the specific content dimensions they propose.
Porter’s (1996) definition similarly emphasizes the elements of internal drive and work involvement.
She suggests that workaholism is ‘excessive involvement with work evidenced by neglect in other areas
of life and based on internal motives of behavior maintenance rather than requirements of the job or
organization’ (p. 71). In a way, her definition is an improvement upon Spence and Robbins’ (1992)
because it more explicitly includes the core behavioral component (excessive working) into the
definition. Scott et al. (1997), too, define workaholism in a similar way. They define workaholics as
those who spend a great deal of time in work activities (even at the cost of sacrificing time for other
non-work activities), persistently think about work when they are not working, and work beyond
organizational requirements or economic needs. Thus, it can be seen that, as the literature has advanced
over the last few decades, at least two elements have emerged as core characteristics of workaholism:
an internal drive to work and time spent working at the expense of other important life roles. These
elements are also incorporated into the proposed definition of workaholism to be presented in this
paper.
Other researchers have attempted to integrate the literature by developing typologies of different
types of workaholics. Unfortunately, some of these typologies are largely atheoretical because the
processes by which they were generated are unspecified or unable to be replicated. For instance, some
researchers (Fassel, 1990; Oates, 1971; Rohrlich, 1981) argue that there are different types of
workaholics, but the underlying theoretical dimensions used to differentiate among types of
workaholics are neither transparent nor explicitly addressed. Some other typologies of workaholics do
have stronger theoretical rationales because the authors create the typologies based on elements of
workaholism suggested in the literature, such as work involvement and enjoyment (e.g., Naughton,
1987; Scott et al., 1997; Spence & Robbins, 1992). However, there is still little consistency across the
series of typologies proposed.
The Dimensions of Workaholism
Scott et al. (1997) used a rather inductive approach to derive a definition of workaholism. That is, first
they gathered the commonly suggested attributes of workaholics and then they proposed theoretical
dimensions to capture those attributes. Here, we use a more theory-driven and deductive approach.
Specifically, because workaholism is a form of addiction (Oates, 1971), we use theoretical work on
addictive behavior to guide us in identifying the core content dimensions of workaholism. Figure 1
depicts our theoretical framework.
The element of addiction has been central to our understanding of workaholism from the earliest
years of workaholism research (Oates, 1971; Seybold & Salomone, 1994). While the meaning of
addiction is far from consensual (Goodman, 1990), the research on addiction appears to place emphasis
on three overarching dimensions: affect, cognition, and behavior. In a handbook of addictive behaviors,
Smith and Seymour (2004) suggest that an addiction of any kind—including drug usage, drinking,
gambling, eating, working, and buying—often involves compulsion and loss of self-control
(cognition) and continued engagement (behavior) in spite of adverse consequences. On the other hand,
Orford (1985) conceptualizes addiction as excessive appetite, the satisfaction of which brings pleasure
and gratification (affect). Similarly, the American Psychological Association states that disorders of
impulse control involve ‘pleasure, gratification, or release at the time of committing the act’ (p. 321).
DOI: 10.1002/job
Antecedents Dimensions of Consequences

Workaholism
Dispositions
• Self-esteem (P1) Affect

• Achievement-related
traits (P2a) • Job satisfaction (P7a)
• Achievement-related Joy in working • Career satisfaction (P7b)
values (P2b) Guilt and anxiety
when not working
Cognition
• Poor mental health (P8a)
Socio-Cultural Experiences Obsession with working • Perfectionism (P8b)
• Stressful or dysfunctional • Distrust in coworkers
childhood/family (P8c)
experiences (P3a)
• Vicarious learning at
home (P3b) Behavior
• Vicarious learning at
work (P4a) Excessive work hours • Extrinsic career success
• Peer competition at work Mixing work and (P9a)
(P4b) personal life
• Self-efficacy in work • Poor social
greater than in non-work relationships (P9b)
activities (P5) • Poor physical health
(P9c)
Behavioral Reinforcements
• Tangible and intangible
rewards (P6a) Performance
• Winner-takes-all system
(P6b) • Short-run (P10a)
• Emphasis on input rather • Long-run (P10b)
than output (P6c)
• Organizational
environment (P6d)
Figure 1. The proposed theoretical model
Because addiction appears to involve these three core overarching dimensions—affect, cognition,
and behavior—the proposed definition of workaholism should also reflect these three dimensions.
Therefore, in this paper, workaholics are defined as those who enjoy the act of working, who are
obsessed with working, and who devote long hours and personal time to work. In short, workaholics are
those whose emotions, thoughts, and behaviors are strongly dominated by their work. We discuss each
of the three dimensions of workaholism in more detail below.
Affective dimension
Passion for working provides workaholics with the impetus to dedicate much of their time and energy
to their work and to persevere in spite of setbacks. Past research also acknowledges the important role
of positive affect in defining workaholism. For instance, Bonebright et al. (2000) attribute workaholism
to the ‘immense enjoyment’ derived from working. Similarly, Spence and Robbins (1992) assert that a
person’s enjoyment of work is a core dimension of workaholism. Cantarow (1979) suggests that
workaholics are those who seek passionate involvement and gratification from working. Finally, it has
been observed that hard-workers often use the word ‘fun’ to describe their work experiences (Kiechel,
1989; Machlowitz, 1980). Thus, it seems that workaholics typically find working pleasurable.
As mentioned earlier, Spence and Robbins (1992) suggest that some types of workaholics do not
enjoy the work they do. We agree with this possibility because it is often the act of working rather than
the nature of the work itself that workaholics enjoy. If a person, for whatever reason, becomes addicted
to working instead of other behaviors, then the intrinsic or extrinsic rewards which come from this
DOI: 10.1002/job
WORKAHOLISM 115
activity must bring the individual some level of satisfaction or gratification. Thus, unlike Spence and
Robbins’ suggestion that enjoyment of work is a dimension of workaholism, we emphasize that it is
enjoyment of working that is the more appropriate dimension. This distinction addresses one of the key
concerns raised about Spence and Robbins’ definition over the years (McMillan et al., 2002; Scott et al.,
1997).
Moreover, we suggest that the joy derived from working is not the only affective component
underlying workaholism. Specifically, we argue that workaholics often experience negative emotions
when they are not working. That is, workaholics find not working unpleasurable because their
happiness in life stems primarily from one source—working. For instance, Morris and Charney (1983)
suggest that workaholics experience anxiety and even depression when they are deprived of work.
While some non-workaholics may also experience these same negative emotions when they are
deprived of work, it is reasonable to expect that the frequency and intensity of these negative emotions
will be more strongly experienced by workaholics.
Taking into account the negative emotions that workaholics experience during non-work activities,
then, provides a more complete conceptualization of the affective dimension of workaholism. In
particular, guilt and anxiety appear to be the two core negative emotions that are commonly
experienced by workaholics when they are deprived of work. For instance, Spence and Robbins (1992)
measured workaholism using a scale with an item that states ‘I feel guilty when I take time off from
work.’ Anxiety is experienced because workaholics often are goal-oriented and competitive (Scott
et al., 1997), and therefore time spent on non-work activities may be viewed as a period during which
they are excluded from the ‘competition.’
Cognitive dimension
The cognitive dimension of workaholism reflects those intellectual processes that propel workaholics
to work excessively. We suggest that the core cognitive element characterizing workaholism is
an obsession with working (McMillan et al., 2002). Workaholics often are obsessed with work
activities, a strong preoccupation that they cannot suppress and control (Smith & Seymour, 2004).
This cognitive component is implicit or explicit in most definitions of workaholism suggested in the
literature. For instance, Scott et al. (1997) suggest that workaholism involves persistently thinking
about work when not working. Oates (1971) suggests that workaholism is the uncontrollable need to
work. Both Cherrington (1980) and Porter (1996) suggest that it is an irrational over-commitment to
work. Naughton (1987) and Spence and Robbins (1992) each suggest that workaholism involves an
inner urge or drive to work excessively. Thus, these writers all agree that workaholism is marked by an
obsession with working, even with the knowledge that excessive working is not necessary.
Behavioral dimension
The behavioral dimension of workaholism is actual excessive involvement in work. It should be noted
here that this behavioral dimension is not the same as the consequences of workaholism that will be
discussed in a later section. Rather, this behavioral component is part of the character of workaholism
itself. There are two sub-components that underlie this dimension of workaholism: working long hours
and excessive intrusion of work into personal life.
It is commonly accepted that workaholics are those who work for long hours (Machlowitz, 1980;
Oates, 1971; Porter, 1996). For instance, Mosier (1983) defines workaholism as working over 50 hours
a week. Bonebright et al. (2000) suggest that one of the major characteristics of workaholism is that a
DOI: 10.1002/job
great deal of time is spent in work activities. As McMillan et al. (2002) observe, two key research
articles in this area (Scott et al., 1997; Spence & Robbins, 1992) have emphasized long working hours
as the critical component of definition of workaholism. Thus, it appears reasonable that, in defining
workaholism, working long hours should be taken into consideration.
It is important to note, however, that the motives behind working long hours are often different
between workaholics and non-workaholics. For workaholics, working long hours is a manifestation of
the addiction. On the other hand, non-workaholics may work long hours because of organizational
requirements or out of financial necessity, but still strive to have important, outside-work interests
(Naughton, 1987).
McMillan et al. (2002) emphasize, though, that only using work hours to represent workaholism can be
misleading. Therefore, we suggest that the second critical component underlying the behavioral dimension
of workaholism is the extent to which work is allowed to entwine itself with personal life. This can mean
either that workaholics allow work to interfere with personal life or allow work to substitute for personal
life (e.g., escaping family). For instance, workaholics may engage in some level of work even when they
play, eat, or are on vacation (Machlowitz, 1980). Further, their hobbies can also be highly related to their
work (e.g., a financial planner may spend weekends golfing with important or prospective clients).
This second behavioral element (allowing work to mix with personal life) is also acknowledged by
some writers as important in defining workaholism. For instance, Cherrington (1980) suggests that
workaholics are unable to comfortably divert their time to non-work interests. Similarly, Bonebright
et al. (2000) assert that one of the major characteristics of workaholism is that social and recreational
activities are sacrificed in return for spending more time on work. We suggest that workaholics may
also choose recreational activities that complement or advance their work, further blurring divisions
between work and non-work life.
Summary
The current multi-dimensional definition of workaholism has two important advantages over the
definitions provided by other writers (e.g., Fassel, 1990; Oates, 1971; Spence & Robbins, 1992). First, it
captures the most critical elements that have been used to characterize workaholism in previous
research (including joy in working, obsession with working, excessive hours, and neglect of other parts
of life). Second, it is grounded in research on addiction that suggests that addiction involves three
overarching dimensions—affect, cognition, and behavior. Thus, we retain the notion of addiction in the
definition (Oates, 1971) and at the same time are able to articulate the more specific and detailed
content dimensions of this addiction for future researchers to use in their investigations. Using the
languages of latent models (Law, Wong, & Mobley, 1998), then, workaholism is the underlying factor
that creates affective, cognitive, and behavioral manifestations; these three dimensions are important
indicators of the underlying construct of workaholism. In the discussion section, we will return to this
issue with some suggestions for operationalizing this multi-dimensional definition of workaholism.
Antecedents of Workaholism
One of the most interesting questions in this area of research is why people go to the extreme and
become workaholics. Table 1 outlines the key empirical studies that have examined correlates of
workaholism.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 1. Key empirical studies examining workaholism in the last 20 years (arranged in chronological order)
Key correlates
Definition/operationalization of or findings
Study Objective of workaholism Study sample about workaholism
Spence and Robbins (1992) Examining dimensions Three dimensions 291 social workers Time commitment (þ)
and outcomes -Work involvement Perfectionism (þ)
of workaholism -Drive Non-delegation of
-Enjoyment of work responsibility (þ)
Cluster analysis to separate Job stress (þ)
workaholics from others Health complaints (þ)
Robinson and Post (1994) Examining the face Robinson’s (1989) 25-item 50 graduate students The WART appeared
validity of Work Addiction five-dimension WART to have face validity;
Risk Test (WART) students were largely
able to classify items
to the supposed dimensions

Robinson and Phillips (1995) Examining the content 35 items including 20 psychotherapists Subjects concluded that
validity of WART 25-WART items the 25 items were
content-valid
Kanai et al. (1996) Examining outcomes Spence and Robbins’ 962 Japanese Spence and Robbins’
of workaholism three dimensions businessmen scale was not upheld.
-Work involvement A two-dimension scale
-Drive (drive & work enjoyment)
-Enjoyment of work was subsequently used
Analyzing each dimension in the study
separately instead of Related to health
as a composite complaints (þ)
Robinson and Post (1997) Examining the relationship Robinson’s (1989) 25-item 107 self-identified Perceptions of family’s
between workaholism and five-dimension WART workaholics problem-solving ability (")
family functioning Workaholics were those Communication among
whose total scores were family members(")
at least one standard deviation Clearly established
above the mean family roles (")
Affective reactions to
family stimuli (")
Affective involvement
in family (")
WORKAHOLISM
General family
functioning (")
(Continues)
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 111–136 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
117
Table 1. (Continued)
118
Key correlates
Burke (1999) Examining gender Spence and Robbins’ 530 MBA graduates There is no gender
differences in workaholism three dimensions difference in workaholism
-Work involvement across all three dimensions
-Drive
-Enjoyment of work
T. W. H. NG ET AL.
Analyzing each dimension

separately instead of
as a composite
Robinson (1999) Examining the criterion- Robinson’s (1989) 363 undergraduate Anxiety (þ)
related validity of WART 25-item five-dimension WART students Type A behaviors (þ)
Workaholics were those
whose total scores were at least

one standard deviation
above the mean
Robinson and Carroll (1999) Assessing the reliability Children of Workaholics 207 undergraduate The screening test
and validity of the Screening Test students demonstrated
Children of Workaholics acceptable reliability
Screening Test and validity
Depression (þ)
Parentification (þ)
Bonebright et al. (2000) Examining outcomes Spence and Robbins’ 171 employees of a Work-life conflict (þ)
of workaholism three dimensions high technology Life satisfaction (effects
-Work involvement organization depended on types)
-Drive Purpose in life (effects
-Enjoyment of work depended on types)
Classification of people into
types of workaholics based
on their scores on each
dimension
Burke (2000a) Examining the relationship Spence and Robbins’ 530 MBA graduates No difference in
between workaholism three dimensions workaholism between married
and divorce -Work involvement and divorced respondents
-Drive
-Enjoyment of work
Analyzing each
dimension separately
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 111–136 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
instead of as a composite
(Continues)
Table 1. (Continued) Key correlates (Continues)
Burke (2000b) Examining the relationship Spence and Robbins’ 530 MBA graduates Beliefs of striving against others
between beliefs and fears three dimensions No moral principle
and workaholism -Work involvement Striving to prove oneself
-Drive (effects depended on types
-Enjoyment of work of workaholics)
Classification of people
into types of workaholics
based on their scores on
each dimension
Burke (2001a) Examining outcomes Spence and Robbins’ 530 MBA Job satisfaction (")
of workaholism three dimensions graduates Salary increase (þ)
-Work involvement Promotions (þ)
-Drive Career satisfaction (þ)
-Enjoyment of work Self-reported career

Analyzing each dimension prospect (þ)
separately instead of as Intention to quit (")
a composite The above relationships
were largely driven
by enjoyment of work
Burke (2001b) Examining the test–retest Spence and Robbins’ 67 managers Respondents’ scores
reliability of Spence three dimensions on the three components
and Robbins’ (1992) scale -Work involvement measured 12 weeks apart
-Drive were similar
-Enjoyment of work
separately instead of as a
composite
Peiperl and Jones (2001) Comparing the correlates Workaholics were defined 174 MBA students Workaholics were more
of workaholism as those who work too much satisfied with their
and overworking but feel that the rewards compensation and with
arising from their work their careers compared
are at least equitably distributed to overworkers
between themselves
and their employers
Subjects were classified as
workaholics versus overworkers
WORKAHOLISM
using mid-points as cutoff points

(Continues)
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 111–136 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
119
120
Key correlates
Robinson et al. (2001a) Comparing spouses of Robinson’s (1989) 326 members Spouses of workaholics
workaholics and those of 25-item five-dimension WART of American reported greater marital
non-workaholics in terms of Subjects were classified as Counseling Association estrangement, less
marital estrangement, positive workaholics and non-workaholics positive affect, and more
T. W. H. NG ET AL.
affect, and locus of control using cutoff points based external locus of control
on previous studies compared to spouses
of non-workaholics
Burke and Koksal (2002) Examining antecedents Spence and Robbins’ 60 Turkish managers Spence and Robbins’
and outcomes three dimensions and professionals scale was not upheld.
of workaholism -Work involvement A two-dimension scale
-Drive (drive & work enjoyment)

-Enjoyment of work was subsequently used
Analyzing each in the study
dimension separately Job involvement, time
instead of as a composite on the job, perfectionism,
job stress and satisfaction,
well-being, beliefs,
values, and fear
(effect sizes varied
across dimensions)
Burke, Richardsen, Examining the Spence and Robbins’ 87 Norwegian Spence and Robbins’
and Martinussen (2002) factor structure three dimensions managers proposed three-factor
and psychometric -Work involvement structure was supported,
properties of -Drive with acceptable reliability
Spence and Robbins’ -Enjoyment of work coefficients
(1992) scale
Flowers and Robinson Examining the structure Robinson’s (1989) 107 self-identified WART’s five dimensions
(2002) and validity of the WART 25-item five-dimension workaholics and were not supported. Instead,
WART 363 students a three-dimension scale
explained more covariance
The subsequent scale correctly
classified workaholics and
non-workaholics 89% of times
(Continues)
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 111–136 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
Key correlates
McMillan et al. (2002) Examining the validity Spence and Robbins’ 320 employees Spence and Robbins’ scale
of Spence and Robbins’ three dimensions from various was not upheld.
workaholism scale -Work involvement industries A two-dimension scale (drive &
-Drive work enjoyment) was
-Enjoyment of work subsequently used in the study
Analyzing each dimension Related to job satisfaction,
separately instead of as a motivation, job involvement,
composite and number of hours worked
(effect sizes varied between
dimensions)
Burke, Burgess, and Examining the relationship Spence and Robbins’ 658 Australian Workaholism was not
Oberklaid (2003) between workaholism three dimensions psychologists related to divorce
and divorce -Work involvement
-Drive
-Enjoyment of work
separately instead of as a

composite
Harpaz and Snir (2003) Examining correlates of Total weekly work hours while 1915 employees Work centrality (þ)
workaholism controlling for financial needs Economic orientation (þ)
Gender (men þ)
Managers and
professionals (þ)
Private sector (þ)
Burke (2004) Examining the relationship Spence and Robbins’ 145 undergraduate Self-esteem (")
between workaholism and three dimensions business students Motives for money
self-esteem and motive -Work involvement (not significant)
for money -Drive
-Enjoyment of work
types of workaholics
based on their scores
on each dimension
Burke and Matthiesen Examining antecedents Spence and Robbins’ 211 Norwegian Positive affect, negative
(2004) and outcomes of three dimensions journalists affect, exhaustion, cynicism
workaholism among -Work involvement (effects depended
journalists -Drive on types of workaholics)
-Enjoyment of work
WORKAHOLISM
Classification of people into types

of workaholics based on their
scores on each dimension
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 111–136 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
121
(Continues)
122
Key correlates
Kochanska, Friesenborg, Examining parents’ Clark’s (1993) 112 parents Mother’s workaholism
Lange, and Martel (2004) and infants’ temperament uni-dimensional SNAP and child predicted shared positive
as contributors to their (Schedule for Nonadaptive ambience with the child
emerging relationships and Adaptive Personality) and her responsiveness
T. W. H. NG ET AL.
scale of workaholism to the child

McMillan et al. (2004) Examining the effects McMillan et al.’s (2002) 105 employees Workaholism was not related
of workaholism on two-dimensional scale from a variety to lower satisfaction of personal
personal relationships -Drive of industries relationship
-Enjoyment of work
types of workaholics based

on their scores on each
dimension
Ersoy-Kart (2005) Examining the factor Spence and Robbins’ 175 working Spence and Robbins’
structure, reliability, three dimensions graduates scale was not upheld
and validity of a Turkish -Work involvement A two-dimension scale
version of the workaholism -Drive (drive & work
battery -Enjoyment of work enjoyment) was used
Related to Type-A trait (þ)
Johnstone and Johnson Examining the relationship McMillan et al.’s two 151 employees Work pressure
(2005) among organizational dimensions from the social Work involvement
climate, occupational type, -Drive service and Coworker cohesion
and workaholism -Enjoyment of work business sectors Supervisor support
Analyzing each dimension (effect sizes varied
separately instead between dimensions)
of as a cosmposite
Taris et al. (2005) (a) Developing a Dutch Robinson’s (1989) 25-item Study 1, N ¼ 356 The factor structure of the
version of WART five-dimension WART Study 2, N ¼ 232 Dutch version is similar to that
(b) Examining the tenability Study 3, N ¼ 199 of American version
of using only a subscale The use of the subscale,
to measure workaholism compulsive tendency, appeared
(c)Testing a process model to be a reasonable short-form
substitute of the 25-item full
version Perceived job demand
was a mediator in the
workaholism-stress relationship
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 111–136 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
WORKAHOLISM 123
Three theoretical perspectives in the literature on addiction, in particular, can help shed light on the
causes of workaholism. These three perspectives are drawn from the literatures on individual
dispositions, socio-cultural experiences, and behavioral reinforcements in the environment. These
three theoretical perspectives on workaholism together suggest that people become workaholics
because they possess certain personality traits (Scott et al., 1997), their social or cultural experiences
facilitate workaholism (Oates, 1971; Robinson & Post, 1995), and/or their workaholic behaviors are
reinforced repeatedly.
A dispositional perspective on workaholism
Dispositional traits can play a major role in generating addictions (Eysenck, 1997; Hirschman, 1992).
The underlying premise of this research perspective is that higher levels of certain traits promote
addiction. For instance, researchers found that those with anti-social personality were more likely to get
addicted to drugs and gambling (Pietrzak & Petry, 2005).
With respect to workaholism, we suggest that one of the most important dispositional influences is
self-esteem. Self-esteem is the extent to which one likes oneself and feels one is a person of worth
(Brockner, 1988). Most people are motivated to maintain a positive self-view (Dipboye, 1977). That is,
they endeavor to avoid situations that decrease their self-evaluation. Because addictive behavior is
believed to ‘provide a means to numb or avoid negative feelings tied to other activities or involvements’
(Porter, 1996, p. 73), those with low self-esteem are more likely to engage in addictive behaviors than
others (Robinson & Kelley, 1998) and thus be predisposed to become workaholics as well. Working to
excess allows workaholics to maintain control over an important part of their lives and therefore to
derive more pleasure from life in general (Robinson, 1996). In contrast, non-work related activities can
create fear for those with low self-esteem because such activities deprive them of a way to distance
themselves from failures and social rejections in other parts of their lives (Bednarn, Wells, & Peterson,
1991). Thus, we predict:
Proposition 1
Self-esteem is negatively related to workaholism.
Achievement-related personality traits (e.g., Type A personality, obsessive-compulsive personality,
and need for achievement) can also predispose individuals to become more addicted to working.
Specifically, these traits can promote workaholism because working long hours is likely to be seen as
the most reliable means in achieving important work goals.
For example, the Type A personality is characterized by ambition, impatience, and hostility
(Edwards & Baglioni, 1991; Savickas, 1990). Of particular relevance to workaholism is the fact that
one of the core dimensions of Type A personality is achievement striving (Bluen, Barling, & Burns,
1990). Similarly, those with obsessive-compulsive personalities also exhibit high levels of
perseverance and industriousness (Pollak, 1979). Finally, the trait of need for achievement also
directly reflects one’s drive to reach personally important goals (McClelland, 1975).
While personality is one of the primary antecedents of addictions, it should be noted that values
can also be important contributors to workaholism. A value is an internalized belief about how
one should behave (Ravlin, 1995). Values are partially genetically determined and partially
acquired through personal and socialization experiences (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998; Rokeach, 1973).
Values are structured hierarchically (Rokeach, 1973). That is, people prioritize values differently, and
values that are ranked higher are likely to have stronger effects on behavior. While values and
personality traits are often closely related empirically, they are theoretically distinct constructs
(Roccas, Sagiv, Shwartz, & Knafo, 2002).
DOI: 10.1002/job
Feldman (2002a) suggests that career behaviors are likely to be governed, in part, by values. In terms
of which values are likely to be held by workaholics, Schwartz’s (1992) typology of values provides
some insight. Specifically, those who highly value achievement and self-direction should be more
likely to become workaholics. According to Schwartz, the value of achievement reflects the desire to be
successful, capable, ambitious, and influential. The value of self-direction reflects an orientation toward
independence. These values appear to predispose individuals to become overly focused on their own
job and career attainments and therefore create a strong belief that working is one of the (or their most)
important life tasks. Consequently, we predict:
Proposition 2
Achievement-related traits (P2a) and achievement-related values (P2b) are positively related to
workaholism.
A socio-cultural perspective on workaholism
Another prominent perspective on addiction is the socio-cultural perspective, which suggests that
addiction is generally a product of the social and cultural experiences that individuals have in their
childhood, adolescence, and adulthood (Hirschman, 1992; Thombs, 1994). Furthermore, some
addictions (e.g., drinking or drug usage) can fulfill social functions of releasing the addict from normal
social obligations (e.g., attendance at family events). Indeed, by dedicating excessive time to work,
workaholics have what is generally considered to be a legitimate excuse to avoid participating in social
functions and activities. Berglas (2004) also suggests that one major reason why people become
workaholics is because they lack the capacity or willingness to have intimacy with others.
Socio-cultural experiences often arise within the family or in the workplace. On the family side,
a variety of negative experiences can precipitate workaholism. For instance, Matthews and
Halbrook (1990) suggest that individuals growing up in clinically dysfunctional families are likely to
seek out highly stressful or highly involving jobs because they have developed a tolerance for (and/or
an affinity for) chaos through their experiences with their families. Moreover, work can be seen as a
socially acceptable way of avoiding the family. Furthermore, addiction researchers suggest that overly
demanding or overly protective parental styles are also likely to predispose children to have problems
with addiction; children develop a sense of inadequacy when parents’ demands cannot be satisfactorily
met or when parents can no longer provide protection (Lawson, Peterson, & Lawson, 1983). To
compensate for this sense of inadequacy, individuals may feel a necessity to work diligently.
Further, vicarious learning by observation of others’ addictive behaviors (Bandura, 1986) can also
induce workaholism (Barnes, 1990). If individuals see that other members in the family (e.g., parents,
spouses, siblings, significant others) work excessively, they may have tendency to treat their own work
in the same manner because they are influenced by those important role models (Machlowitz, 1980).
For instance, Oates (1971) suggests that some female houseworkers who become workaholics have
taken their husbands’ work behaviors as their own role model and believe they need to do as much or
more than their husbands just to achieve the same level of recognition from their children or relatives.
In sum, having family members engaged in workaholic behaviors may predispose one to becoming a
workaholic, too.
Proposition 3
Stressful or dysfunctional childhood/family experiences (P3a) and vicarious learning of workaholism
at home (P3b) are positively related to workaholism.
DOI: 10.1002/job
WORKAHOLISM 125
Social experiences in organizations can also induce workaholism. For instance, the argument about
vicarious learning mentioned above also applies to the work context. That is, observing the workaholic
behaviors of supervisors, mentors, and other role models—such as excessive work hours and neglect of
personal life—can also induce imitative responses from other employees. Moreover, peers’ workaholic
behaviors can evoke workaholic behaviors in others because of the competitive atmosphere widespread
workaholism creates (Seybold & Salomone, 1994). For instance, in such a competitive, ‘arrive early, leave
late’ environment, employees’ work hours escalate even further simply so that employees can be noticed.
Thus, peer competition may increase hours worked and allocation of personal time to work as well.
Proposition 4
Vicarious learning at work (P4a) and peer competition (P4b) are positively related to workaholism.
Besides vicarious learning, there is another element in social learning theory (Bandura, 1986),
namely self-efficacy, that needs to be considered here. Self-efficacy refers to the extent to which
individuals are confident in exerting control over certain aspects of life. Those who believe that they do
not have control over their family, for instance, may be more likely to have addictions to drugs or
alcohol as a form of escape (Thombs, 1994). With regard to workaholism, it may be that those
individuals who have stronger self-efficacy in work activities than in non-work activities are more
likely to become workaholics. Because these individuals believe that they are better at dealing with
work than with non-work activities, they may devote as much time as they can to work activities and
thereby avoid non-work activities at which they are less skilled. Thus, we predict:
Proposition 5
When self-efficacy in the work activities is greater than self-efficacy in non-work activities, individuals
are more likely to experience workaholism.
Behavioral reinforcements of workaholism
Addiction is a conditioned response which becomes stronger over time with the increase in the
magnitude or frequency of reinforcements (McAuliffe & Gordon, 1980). Addiction to a certain
behavior (e.g., drug usage) starts when individuals need immediate gratification (Skinner, 1975); once
gratified, the same behavior is likely to be repeated. In terms of workaholism, research on addiction
would suggest that the initiation of workaholism is a result of positive reinforcement of workaholic
behaviors or the lack of punishment of such behaviors. Therefore, when employees realize that
workaholism is rewarded (e.g., salary raise, promotions, and verbal praise by significant others), they
are likely to further increase those behaviors in order to continue to receive rewards. For instance, in
discussing how workaholism develops in early upbringing, Machlowitz (1980) suggests that good
academic performance is often rewarded with encouragement whereas poor performance may be
‘punished’ by less parental love. Therefore children are motivated to work hard at school in return for
praise, setting a pattern that is replicated later in employment.
It should be noted that this reinforcement perspective on workaholism focuses more on workaholic
behaviors and less on the affective and cognitive dimensions of workaholism. However, it is likely that
reinforcement of workaholic behaviors can eventually spill over to the affective and cognitive dimensions
as well. For instance, after working excessively for a long period of time, individuals should get used to the
rhythm of working long hours and therefore start feeling guilty or anxious about not working.
In organizational settings, workaholic behaviors can be positively reinforced by a number of factors.
For instance, if an organization implements a ‘winner-takes-all’ or ‘star’ reward system, employees are
DOI: 10.1002/job
more likely to exert great effort because only the best winners are rewarded. Hodson (2004) observed
that high-paid jobs often are preferred to low-paid jobs not only because of the pay differential, but also
because of the amount of social status associated with them. Therefore, workaholism is generated
particularly among employees who are in pursuit of these highly paid, high-status positions. Also, if
employees believe that rewards are allocated more on the basis of input (e.g., attendance, working
overtime, or during weekends) than output, they may increase their workaholic behaviors as well.
Finally, providing employees with aesthetically attractive offices, comfortable office furniture, the
latest technology, and excellent company-level perks (such as on-site gyms, restaurants, swimming
pools, free massages at work, and generous expense accounts) can also induce individuals to stay
longer in the workplace than is required or necessary (Feldman, 2002b; Lewicki, 1981). These different
organizational policies and practices, then, all positively reinforce workaholic behaviors.
Proposition 6
Tangible and intangible rewards for excessive work (P6a), ‘winner-takes-all’ reward systems (P6b),
organizational emphasis on work input rather than work output (P6c), and highly engaging work
environments (P6d) are positively related to workaholism.
Summary
In general, little attention has been given to identifying those individuals who are likely to be or become
workaholics. We suggest that workaholism is largely derived from three sources: dispositional traits (e.g.,
self-esteem, achievement-related values, Type-A personality, compulsive-obsessive personality, and need
for achievement), socio-cultural experiences (e.g., stressful family, vicarious learning, and peer
competition), and behavioral reinforcements (e.g., rewards and punishments in organizations). These
different sources of influences are likely to collectively influence whether one becomes a workaholic.
Consequences of Workaholism
Most of the research on the consequences of workaholism has focused on its negative side (e.g.,
Killinger, 1991; Schwartz, 1992). Burke (2001a) observes that ‘[t]hese writers . . . depict workaholics
as unhappy, obsessive, tragic figures who were not performing their jobs well and were creating
difficulties for their coworkers’ (p. 2340). Not surprisingly, some have suggested that workaholism is a
clinical problem that requires professional assistance (e.g., Bonebright et al., 2000; Naughton, 1987;
Robinson, 1998). Other writers are more sanguine about workaholism, suggesting that it might
sometimes be beneficial for individuals or organizations (e.g., Burke, 2001a; Machlowitz, 1980). We
posit that one approach to understanding whether workaholism is positive or negative for individuals
and organizations is to differentiate short-term consequences from long-term consequences. We
discuss this temporal differentiation after introducing the outcomes we examine in this paper below.
Job and career satisfaction
Previous research suggests that workaholism may be positively related to job and career satisfaction
(Machlowitz, 1980; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005). In particular, those who find working
pleasurable and feel guilty or anxious in non-work activities would logically feel more satisfied at work
DOI: 10.1002/job
WORKAHOLISM 127
(job satisfaction) and in their work careers (career satisfaction). For instance, Burke (2001a) found that
enjoyment of work, one of the important dimensions of workaholism identified by Spence and Robbins
(1992), was significantly and positively related to career satisfaction. Therefore, even though we
acknowledge that some workaholics do not enjoy the nature of their work as much as the act of working
itself, we still expect that, in general, workaholism will be positively related to job attitudes.
Proposition 7
Workaholism is positively related to job (P7a) and career satisfaction (P7b).
Mental health, perfectionism, and distrust
Workaholism can also produce some negative cognition-related outcomes, such as poorer mental
health, perfectionism, and distrust of coworkers. Specifically, workaholism may be associated with
poorer mental health because of workaholics’ obsession with their jobs, leading them to perseverate in
thoughts about work even when they are off the job. Because workaholics do not have sufficient time
and opportunity (e.g., leisure activities) to recover from their excessive work effort, they may become
emotionally or cognitively exhausted over time (Taris, Schaufeli, & Verhoeven, 2005). Furthermore,
long work hours can mean greater exposure to work-related stress, particularly when workaholics have
high performance standards. Researchers have also noted the negative effects on mental health when
work roles overly dominate other life roles (Greenhaus, 1988; Wallace, 1997).
Besides mental health, other possible cognition-related outcomes associated with workaholism are a
tendency towards perfectionism and lack of trust of colleagues. Spence and Robbins (1992) found that the
three dimensions of workaholism they proposed were related to perfectionism and non-delegation of work
to colleagues. Because workaholics are heavily concerned with their work, they have unreasonably high
performance standards and, therefore, find it difficult to trust their colleagues to perform up to their
standards (Porter, 1996). Unfortunately, the drive for perfectionism can also lead to more negative
perceptions of one’s own abilities and performance, further promoting the workaholic’s tendency to
increase his/her own work input. As noted earlier, workaholic behaviors can also create a very competitive
atmosphere (Porter, 1996; Spruell, 1987), thereby further straining relationships with coworkers.
Proposition 8
Workaholism is related to poorer mental health (P8a), greater perfectionism (P8b), and increased
distrust in coworkers (P8c).
Career success, social relationships, and physical health
There are several other outcomes of interest here that can result from workaholism. First, in terms of
career success, those who work longer hours have been found to have greater extrinsic career success
including salary and promotions (Ng et al., 2005) because long work hours represent a human capital
investment that is often rewarded in the labor market (Becker, 1964). Another reason for this proposed
relationship is that senior managers tend to ‘sponsor’ those who demonstrate diligence. Corroborating
this assertion, Burke (2001a) found that workaholism positively predicted promotions.
However, the potentially greater career success (in terms of pay and promotions) is not without cost.
There are two types of costs to consider here: poorer social relationships outside of work and poorer
physical health. Workaholism can result in poorer social relationships outside of work because
individuals only have limited resources of time and energy. Excessive devotion of time and energy to
DOI: 10.1002/job
work logically reduces the time and energy available for developing and maintaining social
relationships outside of work. For instance, Robinson, Flowers, and Carroll (2001b) found that
workaholism was associated with more marital problems. Bonebright et al. (2000) found that
workaholics also had greater work–family conflict. Machlowitz (1980) suggests that being workaholic
is not compatible with being intimate with others.
The second cost associated with workaholism is poor physical health. Workaholics may experience
poorer physical health than non-workaholics because of their lack of leisure and exercise. This lack of
leisure and exercise can negatively impact health directly (by increasing blood pressure and cholesterol)
or indirectly (by contributing to lower resistance to infections, increased smoking, decreased sleep, and
weight gain, etc.). For instance, workaholics have been found to report more health complaints than
non-workaholics (Kanai et al., 1996) and a recent meta-analysis demonstrates that working long hours is
associated with more physical illnesses (Sparks, Cooper, Fried, & Shirom, 1997). Thus, we predict:
Proposition 9
Workaholism is positively related to extrinsic career success (P9a), social relationship problems (P9b),
and physical health problems (P9c).
The role of time
The relationship between workaholism and job performance is unclear. On one hand, workaholics can
be joyful and energized workers. They also devote more hours to work than others and, as a result, their
job performance may be better than that of non-workaholics in the short-term. On the other hand,
workaholics may have poorer mental and physical health and social relationships, which can reduce
work effectiveness over the long-term. Past research provides little insight into how workaholism
affects job performance or how the effects differ over time.
Putting the outcomes of workaholism in a temporal perspective, we would expect that workaholism
will have more negative consequences in the long run than in the short run. Specifically, job and career
satisfaction can fluctuate quite quickly across job settings and work contexts, and thus increases in
workaholic behavior might have short-term positive consequences for employees themselves.
However, over longer periods of time, sustained perfectionism, distrust in others, and poor mental and
physical health can interfere with both the proper functioning of the workaholics themselves and the
quality of teamwork, communication, and morale in their work groups. Therefore, we predict that:
Proposition 10a
Employee workaholism is positively associated with job satisfaction, career satisfaction, and job
performance in the short run.
Proposition 10b
Employee workaholism is associated with poor employee health (both mental and physical),
perfectionism, poor social relationship problems at work, and poor job performance in the long run.
Discussion
In this paper, we have outlined a definition of workaholism, the major antecedents of workaholism, and
its most prominent outcomes. In this section, we discuss several additional issues, including
DOI: 10.1002/job
WORKAHOLISM 129
measurement challenges, the roles of work trends and organizational culture in affecting workaholism,
and managerial implications.
Measurement challenges
There are at least two challenges in classifying respondents as workaholics with a multi-dimensional
definition of workaholism. The first challenge is concerned with specifying the inter-relationships
among the three dimensions. Namely, do individuals have to be high on all three dimensions in order to
be classified as workaholics? What if an individual scores high on two dimensions but low on the third
one? Because we maintain that all three dimensions are needed to characterize workaholics, individuals
should arguably be high on all three dimensions in order to be classified as workaholics. In practice, this
should not pose a measurement problem because the three dimensions are likely to be positively
related. For example, those who love the act of working (affective) are also likely to dedicate excessive
hours to work (behavioral) because working provides enjoyment. Those who have an obsession with
working (cognitive) should be those who feel guilty about not working (affective). Similarly, those who
feel guilty and anxious about not working (affective) are more likely to intermingle work and pleasure
to alleviate that guilt and anxiety (behavioral).
Furthermore, some indirect empirical evidence supports the assertion that the affective, cognitive,
and behavioral dimensions of workaholism are likely to be positively related. For instance, Burke and
Koksal (2002) found that joy in work (affect) was significantly and positively related to work
involvement (behavior) (0.56). Spence and Robbins (1992) found that internal drive to work
(cognition) was significantly and positively related to time commitment (behavior) (0.46). Further,
Kanai et al. (1996) found that joy in work (affect) was significantly and positively related to internal
drive to work (cognition) (0.70).
Therefore, we expect that individuals are unlikely to be very high on certain dimension(s) but very
low on others. At present, we do not differentiate sub-types of workaholics based on combinations of
scores on the three dimensions because there is not a sufficient empirical base to do so at this time.
Consequently, in this paper, our emphasis is solely on differentiating between workaholics and
non-workaholics. Subtypes of workaholics should be investigated once this field of study generates
more extensive, reliable, and valid empirical research.
The second measurement challenge concerns the issue of ‘cutoff points.’ Namely, if all the three
dimensions are needed to characterize workaholics, then how high do individuals have to be on each of
the three dimensions to be classified as workaholics? Some researchers have classified those whose
total scores across all the dimensions of workaholism are in the top third or one standard deviation
above mean as workaholics and those in the bottom third or one standard deviation below mean as
non-workaholics (Haymon, 1992; Robinson & Post, 1997). Some others determine cutoffs based on
previous studies that have used the same workaholism scale (e.g., Robinson et al., 2001a) or a
combination of multiple criteria (e.g., McMillan, O’Driscoll, & Brady, 2004).
While we do not object to these different approaches, we believe that different cutoff points might be
needed in different occupations and industries. For instance, in professional industries such as law and
accounting firms where workaholic behaviors are likely to be cultivated, a higher cutoff may have to be
set because the base rate of work hours is so high. In industries where workaholic behaviors are rarely
seen (e.g., clerical staff), a lower cutoff could be used to differentiate workaholics from
non-workaholics. Thus, because the extent of workaholism can vary widely across job settings,
more judgment calls will be needed on the part of researchers to determine the appropriate cutoff points
(e.g., see McMillan et al., 2004).
DOI: 10.1002/job
Alternatively, when cutoff scores cannot be determined for whatever reason, researchers can
consider treating workaholism as a continuous variable (e.g., Robinson, 1989; Taris et al., 2005). This
approach has the advantage of not miscategorizing marginal cases of workaholics whose
‘workaholism’ scores are only slightly within or outside of cutoffs. The drawback of this approach,
though, is that researchers or clinicians do not have a separate group of workaholics for comparative
analyses with non-workaholics.
Finally, it is important to note here that two research designs are potentially beneficial in this field of
research. First, longitudinal research can shed light on the possibility of reverse causation in
relationships between workaholism and other variables. For example, does workaholism lead to job and
career satisfaction or do job and career satisfaction lead to workaholism, or both? Similarly, does
marital conflict lead to workaholism or does workaholism result in marital conflict, or both in some sort
of spiral effect? The second research design choice is the use of others’ ratings of workaholism.
Inasmuch as workaholics’ behaviors can greatly affect their spouses, children, friends, coworkers,
supervisors, and among others, the use of ratings of workaholism from these sources should allow us to
further understand and compare the extent to which workaholism benefits or harms the different sets of
stakeholders in individuals’ lives.
Work trends and workaholism
In order to increase our understanding of workaholism, researchers also need to devote more attention
to examine the career context in which workaholism is embedded. For instance, it has been suggested
that careers are increasingly becoming boundaryless (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996). In boundaryless
careers, people’s work experiences are not limited to just one or two organizations. Instead, careers
span across multiple organizations and employment settings. Furthermore, individuals are expected to
take more responsibility for their own career development (Sullivan, Carden, & Martin, 1998). Career
self-management, thus, starts to become the norm (King, 2004).
These recent changes in the nature of careers can have both positive and negative effects on
workaholics. On one hand, some of the characteristics of boundaryless careers appear to provide fertile
ground in which workaholism can grow. For instance, the strong emphasis on personal control and
learning on the jobs in recent years (Sullivan, 1999) is in line with workaholics’ desire to maintain
control at work and active involvement with their jobs (Scott et al., 1997). Also, the unclear boundaries
among multiple life roles (Fletcher & Bailyn, 1996), such as between spouse and work helpmate, are
also consistent with workaholics’ intermixing of work and personal life (Bonebright et al., 2000). In
some ways, then, workaholics may actually feel more comfortable in a career environment that is
increasingly boundaryless and flexible.
In contrast, other work trends can have a more negative impact on workaholism. For example,
another recent change in the career landscape is that there is a strong emphasis on the development of
multiple networks and peer learning relationships (Sullivan, 1999). However, as noted earlier,
workaholics often have more problems with their relationships with coworkers and thus may be at
disadvantage compared to non-workaholics in making friends and mentoring activities. In this area as
well as in others previously discussed, work context is a critical variable in explaining the various
results of prior empirical research on workaholism.
Organizational culture and workaholism
While we do not discuss macro-level factors (e.g., economic conditions and societal trends) in detail
here, their influence should be considered more fully in future research. One of the most critical of these
DOI: 10.1002/job
WORKAHOLISM 131
to examine is organizational culture, or the shared values, beliefs, and norms among organizational
members (Schein, 1990). As noted earlier (e.g., in the example of law firms), some organizations and
industries have cultures that, to a certain extent, induce and sustain workaholism (Harpaz & Snir, 2003;
Wallace, 1997). Conversely, if the organizational culture does not reinforce excessive working or
competitiveness (e.g., the classic production facility with ‘rate-busting’ norms), workaholism will be
frowned upon or actively discouraged. Indeed, some organizations (like SAS) require employees to
leave by a given time each night to promote work–family balance (O’Connor, 2005).
Another culture-related issue is the difference between masculine and feminine organizational
cultures (see Detert, Schroeder, and Mauriel, 2000, for a review of dimensionality of organizational
culture). In a masculine culture, organizational members perform their jobs in a ‘masculine’ fashion
(Newman & Nollen, 1996): competitive, power-hungry, task-oriented, and fearful of failure. Because
these characteristics are compatible with workaholism (Scott et al., 1997), we might expect
workaholism to be especially prevalent in masculine organizational cultures. In contrast, in feminine
cultures, organization members perform their jobs in more ‘feminine’ ways, such as displaying
modesty and showing concern for relationships (Newman and Nollen). The above characteristics of a
feminine organizational culture are obviously not compatible with the competitive atmosphere created
by workaholics (Spruell, 1987) and will be less welcome there.
Organizational culture does not only cultivate workaholism, but also moderate the relationships
between workaholism and important work outcomes such as job performance. Given that masculine
organizational cultures appear more suitable for workaholics than feminine cultures, workaholics
should have better job performance when the organizational culture is masculine rather than feminine.
Workaholics in a masculine culture may not feel constrained working excessively because striving for
better performance is the norm. On the other hand, workaholics in a feminine organizational culture
may not feel reinforced for their behaviors because they will be seen more as deviants than as positive
role models. Overall, then, the influence of macro-level factors like organizational culture on
workaholism deserves greater attention.
Managerial implications
This paper also highlights some important management issues related to workaholism. First, managers
should seek a level of engagement from employees that enhances productivity but is not so extreme as
to have negative consequences for either the individual or the organization (e.g., in terms of burnout,
turnover, stress-related illnesses, and healthcare costs). Seeking to increase productivity by simply
encouraging excessive work behaviors from employees can end up hurting, rather than helping,
organizational performance—particularly in team-oriented environments where trust and collabor-
ation are needed.
The second implication is especially relevant to managers. Workaholism is a problem particularly
endemic to managers themselves because their work expectations are often not clear and the reward
system for their work is often ambiguous (Feldman, 2002b). If, in fact, workaholism can spread by
vicarious learning and role modeling of supervisors and mentors as we reasoned earlier, then efforts to
curb workaholism have to come top–down as well as bottom–up.
Third and finally, technology plays a double-edged sword in shaping workaholic behavior. On one
hand, advancement in communication technology can reduce workaholic behavior because it allows
employees to more easily integrate work demands and personal life demands by giving individuals
greater flexibility in work time and work place. In addition, the ability to work from more places and
spaces can also alleviate individuals’ concern about not working sufficient hours.
DOI: 10.1002/job
At the same time, though, the flexibility derived from advanced technology can actually promote
more workaholic behavior (Porter, 2001; Sullivan, 1999) because the boundaries among work and other
life roles become more easily permeable. For instance, Ammons and Markham (2004) observed that
those who work at home were more susceptible to addiction to work. Further, technology can also
provide a constant stimulus to evoke addictive behavior at work. In fact, researchers are increasingly
concerned with addiction to using computers or the internet (Young, 2004), both of which have become
important means through which people perform their work activities today. How technology impacts
workaholism, then, warrants much greater attention from managers as well.
Conclusion
Organizational researchers have largely neglected the construct of workaholism. In part, this has been
due to a lack of consensus on a definition for the construct. In this article, we offer a more succinct yet
comprehensive definition of workaholism. Moreover, our definition and correlates are largely grounded
in theories of addiction. These important steps allow for a fuller understanding of the antecedents of
workaholism in the future. They also encourage a richer understanding of the consequences of
workaholism—both positive and negative, not only in the short term, but also in the long run. These
efforts are timely and important given that workaholism is growing in the United States and worldwide.
Author biographies
Thomas Ng received his Ph.D. form the University of Georgia and is currently an Assistant Professor at
the University of Hong Kong. His research interests include job mobility, career success, organizational
and occupational commitment, and personality at work.
Kelly Sorensen is currently a doctoral candidate at the University of Georgia. Her research interests
include organizational justice, measurement equivalence and invariance, training and development,
and personality.
Daniel Feldman (Ph.D., Yale University) is the Synovus Chair of Servant Leadership and Associate
Dean for Research at the University of Georgia, Terry College of Business. His research interests
include career indecision, career embeddedness, underemployment, and early retirement incentives.
References
Ammons, S. K., & Markham, W. T. (2004). Working at home: Experiences of skilled white collar workers.
Sociological Forum, 24, 191–238.
Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). The boundaryless career as a new employment principle. In M. B.
Arthur, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career (pp. 3–20). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
DOI: 10.1002/job
WORKAHOLISM 133
Barnes, G. M. (1990). Impact of the family on adolescent drinking patterns. In R. L. Collins, K. E. Leonard, B. A.
Miller, & J. S. Searles (Eds.), Alcohol and the family: Research and clinical perspectives. New York: Guilford
Press.
Becker, G. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Bednarn, R. L., Wells, M. G., & Peterson, S. R. (1991). Self-esteem: Paradoxes and innovations in clinical theory
and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Berglas, S. (2004). Treating workaholism. In R. H. Coombs (Ed.), Handbook of addictive disorders (pp. 383–407).
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Bluen, S. D., Barling, J. & Burns, W. (1990). Predicting sales performance, job satisfaction, and depression by
using the achievement strivings and impatience-irritability dimensions of Type A behavior. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 212–216.
Bonebright, C. A., Clay, D. L., & Ankenmann, R. D. (2000). The relationship of workaholism with work-life
conflict, life satisfaction, and purpose in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 469–477.
Brockner, J. (1988). Self-esteem at work: Research, theory, and practice. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Burke, R. J. (1999). Workaholism in organizations: Gender differences. Sex Roles, 41, 333–345.
Burke, R. J. (2000a). Workaholism and divorce. Psychological Reports, 86, 219–220.
Burke, R. J. (2000b). Workaholism in organizations: The role of personal beliefs and fears. Anxiety, Stress, and
Coping, 13, 53–64.
Burke, R. J. (2001a). Workaholism components, job satisfaction, and career progress. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 31, 2339–2356.
Burke, R. J. (2001b). Spence and Robbins’ measures of workaholism components: Test-retest stability. Psycho-
logical Reports, 88, 882–888.
Burke, R. J. (2004). Workaholism, self-esteem, and motives for money. Psychological Reports, 94, 457–463.
Burke, R. J., Burgess, Z., & Oberklaid, F. (2003). Workaholism and divorce among Australian psychologists.
Psychological Reports, 93, 91–92.
Burke, R. J., & Koksal, H. (2002). Workaholism among a sample of Turkish managers and professionals: An
exploratory study. Psychological Reports, 91, 60–68.
Burke, R. J., & Matthiesen, S. (2004). Workaholism among Norwegian journalists: Antecedents and consequences.
Stress and Health, 20, 301–308.
Burke, R. J., Richardsen, A. M., & Martinussen, M. (2002). Psychometric properties of Spence and Robbins’
measures of workaholism components. Psychological Reports, 92, 1098–1104.
Cantarow, E. (1979). Women workaholics. Mother Jones, 6, 56.
Cherrington, D. J. (1980). The work ethic. New York: AMACOM, American Management Association.
Clark, L. A. (1993). SNAP: Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Cooper, G. L. (1998). Controversy and contentions: The changing nature of work. Community, Work, & Family, 1,
313–317.
Detert, J. R., Schroeder, R. G., & Mauriel, J. J. (2000). A framework for linking culture and improvement initiatives
in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 25, 850–863.
Dipboye, R. L. (1977). A critical review of Korman’s self-consistency theory of work motivation and occupation
choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 18, 108–126.
Edwards, J. R. & Baglioni, A. J. (1991). Relationship between Type A behavior pattern and mental and physical
symptoms: A comparison of global and component measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 276–290.
Ersoy-Kart, M. (2005). Reliability and validity of the Workaholism Battery (WORK-BAT): Turkish form. Social
Behavior and Personality, 33, 609–618.
Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Addiction, personality, and motivation. Human Psychopharmacology, 12, 79–87.
Fassel, D. (1990). Working ourselves to death: The high costs of workaholism, the rewards of recovery. San
Francisco: Harper Collins.
Feldman, D. C. (Ed.). (2002a). Stability in the midst of change: A developmental perspective on the study of
careers. In Work careers: A developmental perspective (pp. 3–26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Feldman, D. C. (2002b). Managers’ propensity to work longer hours: A multilevel analysis. Human Resource
Management Review, 12, 339–357.
Fletcher, J. K. & Bailyn, L. (1996). Challenging the last boundary: Reconnecting work and family. In M. B. Arthur,
& D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career (pp. 256–267). New York: Oxford University Press.
Flowers, C. P., & Robinson, B. (2002). A structural and discriminant analysis of the Work Addiction Risk Test.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 517–526.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Goodman, A. (1990). Addiction: Definition and implications. British Journal of Addiction, 85, 1403–1408.
Greenhaus, J. H. (1988). The intersection of work and family roles: Individual, interpersonal, and organizational
issues. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3, 23–44.
Harpaz, I., & Snir, R. (2003). Workaholism: Its definition and nature. Human Relations, 56, 291–319.
Haymon, S. (1992). The relationship of work addiction and depression, anxiety, and anger in college males.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Florida State University.
Hirschman, E. C. (1992). The consciousness of addiction: Toward a general theory of compulsive consumption.
Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 155–179.
Hodson, R. (2004). Work life and social fulfillment: Does social affiliation at work reflect a carrot or a stick? Social
Science Quarterly, 85, 221–239.
Johnstone, A., & Johnson, L. (2005). The relationship between organizational climate, occupational type and
workaholism. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34, 181–188.
Kanai, A., Wakabayashi, M., & Fling, S. (1996). Workaholism among employees in Japanese corporations: An
examination based on the Japanese version of the workaholism scales. Japanese Psychological Research, 38,
192–203.
Kiechel, W. (1989). The workaholic generation. Fortune, 119, 50–62.
Killinger, B. (1991). Workaholics: The respectable addicts. New York: Simon & Schuster.
King, Z. (2004). Career self-management: Its nature, causes and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65,
112–133.
Kochanska, G., Friesenborg, A. E., Lange, L. A., & Martel, M. M. (2004). Parents’ personality and infants’
temperament as contributors to their relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 744–759.
Law, K. S., Wong, C., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of
Management Review, 23, 741–755.
Lawson, G., Peterson, J. S., & Lawson, A. (1983). Alcoholism and the family: A guide to treatment and prevention.
Rockville, MD: Aspen.
Lewicki, R. J. (1981). Organizational seduction: Building commitment to organizations. Organization dynamics,
10, 5–22.
Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholics: Living with them, working with them. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Matthews, B., & Halbrook, M. (1990). Adult children of alcoholics: Implications for career development. Journal
of Career Development, 16, 261–268.
McAuliffe, W. E., & Gordon, R. A. (1980). Reinforcement and the combination of effects: Summary of a theory of
opiate addiction. In D. J. Lettieri, M. Sayers, & H. Wallenstein-Pearson (Eds.), Theories on drug abuse: Selected
contemporary perspectives (DHHS Publication No. ADM 84-967) Washington, DC: US Government Printing
Office.
McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Halstead.
McMillan, L. H. W., Brady, E. C., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Marsh, N. V. (2002). A multifaceted validation study of
Spence and Robbins’(1992) workaholism battery. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75,
357–368.
McMillan, L. H. W., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Brady, E. C. (2004). The impact of workaholism on personal
relationships. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 32, 171–186.
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research.
Journal of Management, 24, 351–389.
Morris, S., & Charney, N. (1983). Workaholism: Thank god it’s Monday. Psychology Today, 17, 88.
Mosier, S. K. (1983). Workaholics: An analysis of their stress, success, and priorities. Unpublished master thesis.
University of Texas at Austin.
Naughton, T. J. (1987). A conceptual view of workaholism and implications for career counseling and research.
Career Development Quarterly, 35, 180–187.
Newman, K. L., & Nollen, S. D. (1996). Culture and congruence: The fit between management practices and
national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 4, 753–779.
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career
success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367–408.
O’Connor, M. A. (2005). Corporate social responsibility for work/family balance. St. John’s Law Review, 79,
1193–1211.
Oates, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic. New York: World.
Orford, J. (1985). Excessive appetites: A psychological view of addictions. New York: Wiley.
Peiperl, M., & Jones, B. (2001). Workaholics and overworkers: Productivity or pathology? Group and Organ-
ization Management, 26, 369–393.
DOI: 10.1002/job
WORKAHOLISM 135
Pietrzak, R. H., & Petry, N. M. (2005). Antisocial personality disorder is associated with increased severity of
gambling, medical, drug and psychiatric problems among treatment-seeking pathological gamblers. Addiction,
100, 1183–1193.
Pollak, J. M. (1979). Obsessive-compulsive personality: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 225–241.
Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching the negative outcomes of
excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 70–84.
Porter, G. (2001). Workaholic tendencies and the high potential for stress among co-workers. International Journal
of Stress Management, 8, 147–164.
Ravlin, E. C. (1995). Values. In N. Nicholson (Ed.), The Blackwell encyclopaedic dictionary of organizational
behavior (pp. 598–599). Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishers.
Robinson, B. E. (1989). Work addiction. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.
Robinson, B. E. (1996). The psychosocial and familial dimensions of work addiction: Preliminary perspectives and
hypotheses. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 447–452.
Robinson, B. E. (1998). Chained to the desk: A guidebook for workaholic, their partners and children and
clinicians who treat them. New York: NYU Press.
Robinson, B. E. (1999). The Work Addiction Risk Test: Development of a tentative measure of workaholism.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 199–210.
Robinson, B. E., & Carroll, J. J. (1999). Assessing the offspring of workaholic parents: The children of workaholics
screening test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 1127–1134.
Robinson, B. E., Carroll, J. J., & Flowers, C. (2001a). Marital estrangement, positive affect, and locus of control
among spouses of workaholics and spouses of nonworkaholics: A national study. The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 29, 397–410.
Robinson, B. E., Flowers, C., & Carroll, J. J. (2001b). Work stress and marriage: A theoretical model examining the
relationships between workaholism and marital cohesion. International Journal of Stress Management, 8,
165–175.
Robinson, B. E., & Kelley, L. (1998). Adult children of workaholics: Self-concept, anxiety, depression, and locus
of control. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 223–238.
Robinson, B. E., & Phillips, B. (1995). Measuring workaholism: Content validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test.
Psychological Reports, 77, 657–658.
Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1994). Validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78,
337–338.
Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1995). Work addiction as a function of family of origin and its influence on current
family functioning. The Family Journal, 3, 200–206.
Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1997). Risk of addiction to work and family functioning. Psychological Reports, 81,
91–95.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, H., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The big five personality factors and personal values.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 789–801.
Rohrlich, J. B. (1981). The dynamics of work addiction. The Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 18,
147–156.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Savickas, M. L. (1990). Work and adjustment. In D. Wedding (Ed.), Behavior and medicine (pp. 149–161). St.
Louis, MO: Mosby.
Schein, E. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45, 109–119.
Schor, J. B. (1991). The overworked American. New York: Basic Books.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests
in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25 pp. 1–24).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Micell, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences of
workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287–314.
Seybold, K. C., & Salomone, P. R. (1994). Understanding workaholism: A review of causes and counseling
approaches. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 4–9.
Skinner, B. F. (1975). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Bantam.
Smith, D. E., & Seymour, R. B. (2004). The nature of addiction. In R. H. Coombs (Ed.), Handbook of addictive
disorders: A practical guide to diagnosis and treatment (pp. 3–30). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sparks, K., Cooper, G. L., Fried, Y., & Shirom, A. (1997). The effects of hours of work on health: A meta-analytical
review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 391–408.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Sparks, K., Faragher, B., & Cooper, G. L. (2001). Well-being and occupational health in the 21st century
workplace. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 489–509.
Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 58, 160–178.
Spruell, G. (1987). Work fever. Training and Development Journal, 41, 41–45.
Sullivan, S. E. (1999). The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 25,
457–484.
Sullivan, S. E., Carden, W. A., & Martin, D. F. (1998). Careers in the next millennium: Directions for future
research. Human Resource Management Review, 8, 165–185.
Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Verhoeven, L. C. (2005). Workaholism in the Netherlands: Measurement and
implications for job strain and work-nonwork conflict. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 37–60.
Thombs, D. L. (1994). Introduction to addictive behaviors. New York: The Guilford Press.
Wallace, J. E. (1997). It’s about time: A study of hours worked and work spillover among law firm lawyers. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 50, 227–248.
Young, K. S. (2004). Internet addiction: A new clinical phenomenon and its consequences. American Behavioral
Scientist, 48, 402–415.
DOI: 10.1002/job

job.424-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

job.424-1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

job.424-1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 111–136 (2007)

Dimensions, antecedents, and

Received 15 August 2005

The Construct of Workaholism

The Dimensions of Workaholism

Antecedents Dimensions of Consequences

• Self-esteem (P1) Affect

Figure 1. The proposed theoretical model

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 111–136 (2007)

Analyzing each dimension

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 111–136 (2007)

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

using mid-points as cutoff points

J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 111–136 (2007)

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 111–136 (2007)

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Classification of people into types

J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 111–136 (2007)

scale of workaholism to the child

Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 111–136 (2007)

A dispositional perspective on workaholism

A socio-cultural perspective on workaholism

Behavioral reinforcements of workaholism

Job and career satisfaction

Mental health, perfectionism, and distrust

Career success, social relationships, and physical health

The role of time

Work trends and workaholism

Organizational culture and workaholism

You might also like