European Journal of Personality

Eur. J. Pers. 24: 3–17 (2010)

Published online 28 August 2009 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/per.737

The Relationship Between ‘Workaholism’, Basic Needs

Satisfaction at Work and Personality

CECILIE SCHOU ANDREASSEN1,2*, JØRN HETLAND1 and STÅLE PALLESEN1

1
The Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Norway
2
The Bergen Clinics Foundation, Norway

Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine correlates of ‘workaholism’ components (Work
Involvement, Drive, Enjoyment of Work). A cross-occupational sample of 661 Norwegian
employees in six different organizations completed a web-based survey measuring
‘workaholism’, basic needs satisfaction at work and personality. Needs satisfaction at
work was positively related to Enjoyment of Work, and negatively to Drive. Conscientious-
ness was positively related to all ‘workaholism’ components; Extraversion and Openness
to Work Involvement and Enjoyment of Work; and Neuroticism to Drive. Negative relations
were found between Neuroticism and Enjoyment of Work, and Agreeableness and Drive.
Although the associations were rather weak, the findings give reason to differentiate
between enthusiastic and non-enthusiastic ‘workaholic’ characteristics, which were
consistent with predictions taken from central theories on ‘workaholism’. Copyright
# 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: ‘workaholism’; Big Five; basic needs satisfaction at work; self-determina-
tion theory

INTRODUCTION

As a concept, ‘workaholism’ stems from ‘alcoholism’, and was first introduced into the
psychological literature as ‘addiction to work, the compulsion or uncontrollable need to
work incessantly’ (Oates, 1971, p. 1). Since then, the term has become widely known and
used (Andreassen, Ursin, & Eriksen, 2007). However, four decades later, there is still
debate about the concept of ‘workaholism’ and little empirical knowledge has been
amassed (Andreassen et al., 2007; Ng, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2007). Although various
definitions of ‘workaholism’ have been proposed, it seems that the definition of Scott et al.
is the most promising, defining a ‘workaholic’ as a person who (1) spends a considerable
amount of time on work-related activities, producing negative consequences for social,

*Correspondence to: Cecilie Schou Andreassen, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Christies gt 12,
NO-5015 Bergen, Norway. E-mail: cecilie.andreassen@psych.uib.no

Received 3 November 2008

Revised 27 June 2009
Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 27 June 2009
4 C. S. Andreassen et al.

family and other activities (Porter, 1996; Robinson, 1998); (2) continues to focus on work
even if not at work (Ng et al., 2007) and (3) works beyond organizational or financial
expectations, needs or demands (Scott, Moore, & Miceli, 1997). Recent empirical work has
recognized the importance of differentiating between types of ‘workaholics’, thus closing
the gap between conflicting conclusions about ‘workaholism’ (Andreassen et al., 2007;
Scott et al., 1997).
One central, empirically supported distinction is drawn between enthusiastic and non-
enthusiastic ‘workaholics’ (Andreassen et al., 2007). Spence and Robbins (1992) identified
these two types of ‘workaholism’ patterns on the basis of their self-report scale
(WorkBAT), which reflects three ‘workaholism’ components also referred to as the
‘workaholism’ triad: Work Involvement (e.g. spends free time on projects and other
constructive activities), Drive (e.g. feels obligated to work even when it is not enjoyable)
and Enjoyment of Work (e.g. does more work than is expected, strictly for the fun of it).
Although the validity of the sub-dimensions has recently been questioned (Andreassen
et al., 2007; McMillan, Brady, O’Driscoll, & Marsh, 2002; Ng et al., 2007), they are still the
most frequently used and recognized sub-dimensions in research on ‘workaholism’.
‘Enthusiastic workaholics’ are highly involved with work, driven by an internal pressure to
work and find great pleasure in working. ‘Non-enthusiastic workaholics’ are also highly
involved in work-related activities and are driven to work, but seem not to derive enjoyment
from doing so.
In recent years, there has been increased focus on the antecedents of ‘workaholism’
(Burke, Matthiesen, & Pallesen, 2006; Ng et al., 2007). In general, ‘workaholism’ is
considered to be a relatively stable individual characteristic (Burke et al., 2006). Current
explanations emphasize individual dispositional, socio-cultural and reinforcing ante-
cedents ranging from learning and personality factors to more or less subconscious motives
in line with psychodynamic approaches (McMillan, O’Driscoll, & Burke, 2003; Ng et al.,
2007). Some studies have reported a link between ‘workaholism’ and intrinsic and
extrinsic job motivation (Burke & Matthiesen, 2004; McMillan et al., 2002). However,
previous studies have not investigated the underlying basic motivations that are associated
with ‘workaholism’. According to self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000),
‘an understanding of human motivation requires a consideration of innate psychological
needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness’ (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 227).
‘Autonomy’ reflects the need to actively determine own behaviour and experience mastery
at work based on such self-determined behaviour without the interference of others.
‘Competence’ reflects the need for efficient use of energy and effectiveness at work, and to
experience having work tasks well in hand. ‘Relatedness’ reflects the need to have
meaningful relations with significant others. According to the theory, these three motives
are basic motivations for human behaviour driving people to satisfy basic needs, both
related and unrelated to work (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The ‘workaholic’ behavioural pattern
could be understood in terms of satisfying the basic needs. For example, when feeling
incompetent at work, the ‘workaholic’ may work excessively in order to feel more
competent, especially if this motive is given high priority by the specific individual (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). In general, people spend a large part of their lives at work. Even if the
fundamental needs are satisfied in other domains, this does not make up for thwarted needs
at work. The internal pressure or obsession (e.g. Drive) with work could therefore be
related to unsatisfied basic needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness at work (Kets
de Vries, 2005). In other words, the drive or compulsion can be thought of as an attempt to
satisfy basic unmet psychological needs. However, according to this theory, needs

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 3–17 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 ‘Workaholism’ 5

satisfaction is necessary for enjoyment of work (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Deci & Ryan,
2000), and Enjoyment of Work should thus be expected to be positively related to high
satisfaction of needs.
‘Workaholism’ is considered by some authors to reflect one or several higher order
personality traits (Burke et al., 2006; McMillan et al., 2002; Ng et al., 2007). Theorists
generally assume that traits are relatively firmly established, differ between individuals and
affect behaviour. Trait theory suggests that basic personality traits have a genetic basis and
are further developed early in life and may make a person into a ‘workaholic’ in adult
working life. To the best of our knowledge, only one previous study has investigated how
the dimensions of the Five Factor Model of personality (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992)
correlate with ‘workaholism’ (Burke et al., 2006). The generic FFM of personality
comprises ‘Neuroticism’ (e.g. insecure, vulnerable to stress), ‘Extraversion’ (e.g. positive,
energetic, sociable), ‘Openness to experience’ (e.g. open to new ideas and change),
‘Agreeableness’ (e.g. friendly, cooperative) and ‘Conscientiousness’ (e.g. self-disciplined,
orderly). Burke et al.’s study using WorkBAT reported that high scores for Drive were
strongly and positively related to Neuroticism, whereas Work Involvement and Enjoyment
of Work were positively related to Extraversion. In addition to being highly energetic and
sociable, extraverts are found to be experience- and achievement seeking, with high levels
of positive emotions (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This trait has also previously positively been
linked to job satisfaction (Burke et al., 2006). When relating this trait to ‘workaholism’
components, it seems reasonable to expect it to show a positive relationship with both
Enjoyment of Work and Work Involvement, as demonstrated in the study by Burke et al.
(2006). Furthermore, Neuroticism, also referred to as emotional instability, comprises the
tendency to feel overpowered by, frustrated and pessimistic about the outcome in a wide
range of situations—accompanied by negative emotions such as anxiety, worrying,
depression etc. (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Thus, the internal pressure, worrying and
frequent thinking about work (e.g. Drive) may reflect an underlying neurotic trait.
Continued thinking about or the act of working may relieve unpleasant feelings otherwise
experienced when not working (feeling of anxiety or guilt, e.g. Drive). Since Enjoyment of
Work previously has been linked to positive affect and Drive to negative affect (Burke &
Matthiesen, 2004), it is conceivable to expect that these components of ‘workaholism’ will
show opposite relationships to Neuroticism. It should be mentioned, however, that Burke
et al. (2006) reported a non-significant correlation between Enjoyment of Work and
Neuroticism in their study of ‘workaholism’ and personality correlates.
Furthermore, it has been postulated that ‘workaholism’ is positively related to
Conscientiousness (Clark, Livesley, Schroeder, & Irish, 1996), a trait that has previously
been empirically linked to intrinsic and extrinsic career success (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen,
& Barrick, 1999). This trait is closely linked to what is considered to be ‘good work
morale’ and ‘work ethics’, and is often highly valued and rewarded by employers in
Western society, and it should therefore be central to all our measured aspects of
‘workaholism’. A recent large meta-analysis of Americans and Europeans found that
Conscientiousness was more strongly related to job performance than were the other Big
Five traits (Salgado, 2003).
Although different potential antecedents of ‘workaholism’ have been suggested,
empirical support for these notions is sparse. This study therefore investigates the
relationship between basic needs satisfaction at work and personality traits in accordance
with the FFM of personality. Specifically, we addressed the following hypotheses:
(1) Basic needs satisfaction at work and ‘workaholism’ subscales will correlate

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 3–17 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
6 C. S. Andreassen et al.

significantly in the following way—Enjoyment of Work will be positively related to high

levels of satisfied needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness, whereas Drive will
show the reverse relationships with scores for the three basic work needs. (2) Personality
traits based on the FFM of personality and ‘workaholism’ components will correlate
significantly in the following way—Conscientiousness will be positively related to all
three ‘workaholism’ components. Extraversion will be positively related to Work
Involvement and Enjoyment of Work. Neuroticism will be positively related to Drive, and
negatively to Enjoyment of Work. Openness and Agreeableness are expected to be
unrelated to the ‘workaholism’ components.

METHOD

Sample
Internet-based questionnaires were administrated to 1300 Norwegian cross-occupational
employees. A total of 661 answered, yielding a response rate of 51%. The sample
comprised leaders of a major pharmaceutical company (n ¼ 127), employees of a regional
healthcare sector company (n ¼ 96), a national TV station (n ¼ 172), two different HR-
sector consultancy companies (n ¼ 80) and employees from two university faculties
(n ¼ 186). The sample consisted of 360 (54%) females and 301 (46%) males, whose ages
ranged from 16 to 72 years (M ¼ 42.6, SD ¼ 10.5). The majority of the respondents were
married or living with a partner (67%), were living with children (53%) and had education
at university level (87%). The period of service in the companies ranged from new
employees to employees who had tenure longer than 20 years. Most of the employees
worked full time (88%) and had worked in the organizations for between 0 and 10 years
(86%); 35% worked less than 40 hours per week, 28% between 41 and 45 hours, 19%
between 46 and 50 hours, and 18% worked more than 51 hours per week; 351 employees
(53%) were leaders or had leadership responsibilities.

Instruments
Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT)
‘Workaholism’ was measured by the 25-item WorkBAT (Spence & Robbins, 1992). The
Norwegian version was based on a standardized translation-back-translation procedure.
The items were answered on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (‘Strongly agree’) to
5 (‘Strongly disagree’). The questionnaire was originally intended to measure three
dimensions of ‘workaholism’: ‘Work Involvement’ (eight items), reflecting the need to
spend time efficiently both at work and when off work, blurred boundaries between work
and private life and the inability to relax. ‘Drive’ (seven items) reflects internal motivation
for work and the frequency of thinking about work. ‘Enjoyment of Work’ (ten items)
assesses satisfaction from work. A confirmatory factor analysis, using a generalized least
squares, maximum likelihood discrepancy function was carried out on the 25-item scale.
The analysis was limited to the investigation of the original three components. Our data had
poor fit with the original three-factor solution (RMSEA ¼ .071, CFI ¼ .81). When we
progressively deleted items with loadings below .50 (items 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 16, 19, 20
and 24) for their ascribed factor we obtained a new three-factor solution with a good fit
(RMSEA ¼ .055, CFI ¼ .96) consisting of a total of 14 items with factor loadings ranging

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 3–17 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 ‘Workaholism’ 7

from .52 to .87. The subscales Work Involvement, Drive and Enjoyment of Work had three
(originally items 13, 15 and 21), four (originally items 14, 18, 22 and 25) and seven items
(originally items 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 17 and 23), respectively (see Appendix). The three factors
correlated in the range of .04–.21, with the strongest correlation being between Work
Involvement and Drive. Given the factor analytic results and the fact that data from
previous research seem rather weak, especially in terms of reliability, subsequent analyses
therefore focuses on the shortened 14-item version of the WorkBAT. Thus, when WorkBAT
subscales hereafter are mentioned, they refer to the shortened versions of the original
WorkBAT subscales. To enable researchers to compare findings, however, data based both
on the original WorkBAT subscales as well as the shortened versions derived from CFAs in
this study are reported in all tables.

Basic Needs Satisfaction at Work (BNSW)

Basic needs satisfaction at work was measured using a Norwegian version of the BNSW
scale (Deci, Ryan, Gagné, Leone, Usunov, & Kornazheva, 2001). The translation was
based on a standardized translation-back-translation procedure. The BNSW scale consists
of 21 items answered on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (‘Not at all true’) to 7 (‘Very
true’). The questionnaire measures fulfillment of three basic needs at work: ‘Competence’,
reflecting the need to feel efficient and have the work tasks well in hand; ‘Autonomy’,
reflecting the need for variation and diversity in work tasks, and to experience self-
determination at work; ‘Relatedness’, covering the need to have meaningful relations with
and feel appreciated by significant others. In sum, these three dimensions measure intrinsic
motivations driving people to satisfy basic needs at work.

NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)

Personality was measured using the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992), which consists of
60 items answered on a five-point scale ranging from 0 (‘Strongly disagree’) to 4 (‘Strongly
agree’). The questionnaire measures five basic factors of personality referred to as the Big
Five: ‘Neuroticism’ reflects a tendency to experience negative emotions, vulnerability to
stress and insecurity. ‘Extraversion’ covers positive energy and emotions, and
outgoingness. ‘Openness to experience’ reflects the tendency to curiosity, adventurousness
and being open to new ideas and change. ‘Agreeableness’ is related to conciliatory, affable
and cooperative tendencies. ‘Conscientiousness’ reflects being structured, self-disciplined
and reliable.

Sector/professional positions were categorized as either healthcare sector, TV-station

sector, pharmaceutical sector, human resources sector or university sector. The sample was
also divided into two professional groups by position: Leaders and followers.

Procedure
Data were collected in a web-based survey that was carried out during fall 2007/spring
2008. Before initiating the study, meetings were arranged at which the leaders of invited
organizations were informed about the study. Information was given in advance to
participants about the aims and objectives of the study (by the CEO’s of the organizations
by electronic mail). A total of 1300 invitations were sent, containing information about the
survey and informed consent. The employees decided whether, where and when they
wanted to answer the questions, and they were informed that they would be invited to a

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 3–17 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
8 C. S. Andreassen et al.

follow-up survey within 18 months. The regional Ethics and Research committee approved
the study protocol. Respondents were assured anonymity.

Statistics
All statistics were conducted using the SPSS 16.0 statistical package for Windows and
AMOS 7.00. Confirmatory factor analysis, using a generalized least squares, maximum
likelihood discrepancy function, was performed to examine the fit between data and the
original three-factor model of the WorkBAT (see Instruments section), resulting in a
shortened, and improved version in line with the original model. All results based on both
the shortened and the original WorkBAT subscales are reported to increase the possibility
to compare findings. CFAs of the other scales involved in this study were not performed due
to the fact that their psychometric properties are well known. Calculations were conducted
of descriptive statistics (internal consistencies, means, standard deviations, percentage,
frequencies and inter-correlations) for each variable of interest. Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficients were calculated in order to investigate the relationships between
relevant scales in the present study. In order to assess in more detail the relationship
between basic needs satisfaction at work, personality and the three ‘workaholism’
components, three hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed in which the
sum scores of the three ‘workaholism’ components comprised the dependent variables.
Relevant background variables were entered as independent variables in the first two steps
of all regressions in order to control for possible confounding relationships. Independent
variables were entered into the equation into four steps. Individual demographic variables
(gender, age) were entered at Step 1. Considering the fact that ‘workaholism’ is viewed to
be a stable individual characteristic, it should be independent of situational factors such as
organizational type, sector or level of performance. Therefore, work situation variables
(position, sector) were entered at Step 2. Since spending excessive time on work at the
expense of other activities is included in most definitions of ‘workaholism’ (Ng et al.,
2007), work hours were not included in the regressions, since it may be viewed as an
alternative manifestation rather than prediction of ‘workaholism’. The Big Five personality
factors were entered at Step 3, prior to the basic psychological needs for autonomy,
competence and relatedness which were entered at Step 4. This was done due to the fact
that the measure of the basic psychological needs pertained specifically to the work
domain, whereas the Big Five factors are assumed to have a more general and overall
impact on thoughts and behaviour. Finally, prior to conducting the regression analyses
checks for normality, multicollinearity, linearity and homoscedasticity were conducted. No
violations of assumptions were found.

RESULTS

Reliability
All subscales were tested for internal consistency using Cronbach’s a (see Table 1). The
shortened Work Involvement subscale had a rather low a (.57). However, it should be noted
that this subscale only consisted of three items, and a high Cronbach’s a could thus not be
expected.

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 3–17 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Table 1. Correlations and descriptive statistics (N ¼ 661)
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1. F-Work Involv —
2. F-Drive .30"" —
3. F-Enjoyment .14"" .03 —
4. S-Work Involv .72"" .26"" .09" —
5. S-Drive .31"" .91"" .07 .24"" —
6. S-Enjoyment .14"" .01 .97"" .08" .05 —

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

7. Autonomy #.08" #.33"" .35"" #.07 #.28"" .36"" —
8. Competence #.04 #.20"" .42"" #.01 #.14"" .42"" .63"" —
9. Relatedness #.11"" #.13"" .23"" #.06 #.09" .23"" .53"" .60"" —
10. Neuroticism .09" .34"" #.20"" .00 .26"" #.20"" #.44"" #.44"" #.32"" —
11. Extraversion .05 #.02 .26"" .18"" .02 .25"" .22"" .36"" .37"" #.48"" —
12. Openness .08" #.05 .16"" .12"" #.02 .13"" .05 .06 #.03 .01 .04 —
13. Agreeableness #.09" #.13"" .01 #.02 #.12"" .01 .18"" .18"" .30"" #.26"" .25"" .08" —
14. Conscientiousness .07 .11"" .15"" .14"" .15"" .15"" .16"" .33"" .17"" #.34"" .33"" #.14"" .22"" —
M 23.12 21.82 33.89 10.73 12.32 22.46 5.23 5.58 5.55 46.48 50.49 48.64 54.40 54.18
SD 4.82 5.84 6.37 2.41 3.82 5.03 0.80 0.83 0.84 8.64 9.17 9.02 9.14 8.92
Range 10–39 7–35 12–50 3–15 4–20 7–35 2.29–7 2.50–7 1.75–7 25–78 20–72 23–71 24–80 27–76
a .63 .82 .77 .57 .83 .85 .68 .67 .81 .86 .81 .73 .69 .80
Items 8 7 10 3 4 7 7 6 8 12 12 12 12 12

Note. F, full WorkBAT subscale; S, shortened WorkBAT subscale.

"
p < .05; ""p < .01.
‘Workaholism’
9

Eur. J. Pers. 24: 3–17 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/per
10 C. S. Andreassen et al.

Correlations
There were significant correlations between all three shortened versions of the
‘workaholism’ components and the basic work needs and personality traits, with the
strongest correlation being between Enjoyment of Work and need for competence (r ¼ .42)
(see Table 1). All three basic needs at work were positively correlated with Enjoyment of
Work, and negatively correlated with Drive. Conscientiousness was positively correlated
with all ‘workaholism’ components. Extraversion and Openness to experience were
positively correlated with Work Involvement and Enjoyment of Work. Neuroticism was
positively correlated with Drive, but negatively with Enjoyment of Work. Finally,
Agreeableness was negatively correlated with Drive.

Regression analyses with shortened versions of ‘workaholism’ components as

dependent variables
Work involvement
At step 4 for Work Involvement, all Big Five factors, but Agreeableness were significant
variables, explaining 10% of the total variance. Individuals who scored higher on these
personality traits indicated higher levels of Work Involvement. Extraversion was the
strongest contributory variable in the model, whereas the basic needs variables made no
contributions to the variance of scores for Work Involvement.

Drive
For Drive, the need for autonomy, Neuroticism, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness
were the significant motivational and personality variables at step 4, explaining 16% of the
total variance. Individuals who scored higher on Neuroticism and Conscientiousness, and
lower on Agreeableness and autonomy, indicated higher levels for Drive. With the
exception of Agreeableness, these factors made equal and fairly strong contributions to the
variance of scores for Drive.

Enjoyment of work
For Enjoyment of Work, the need for autonomy and need for competence, Extraversion and
Agreeableness were the significant motivational and personality variables at step 4,
explaining 22% of the total variance. Individuals who scored higher on satisfied needs for
competence, autonomy and Extraversion, and lower on Agreeableness, indicated higher
levels for Enjoyment of Work. Autonomy and competence were the most relevant
contributory variables in the model, explaining 13% of the total variance.

DISCUSSION

The present study adds to our understanding of ‘workaholic’ motivational and personality
correlates by incorporating new measures and by broadening the theoretical framework.
In general, the shortened versions of ‘workaholism’ components were significantly
correlated with basic needs satisfaction at work and personality traits, as expected.
Hierarchical multiple regressions showed that basic needs satisfaction at work and
personality traits explained between 10 and 22% of the variance in the three ‘workaholism’

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 3–17 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 Table 2. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses based on both the full and shortened versions of WorkBAT subscales (N ¼ 661)
Work Involvement Drive Enjoyment of Work

Full scale Short scale Full scale Short scale Full scale Short scale

Variable b R2/DR2 b R2/DR2 b R2/DR2 b R2/DR2 b R2/DR2 b R2/DR2

Step 1 .017"" .006 .032""" .042""" .019"" .026"""

Age .10"" .06 #.18""" #.21""" .07 .07
Gendera #.08 .05 .01 #.04 #.11"" #.14"""
Step 2 .060/.043""" .026/.022" .081/.049""" .084/.042""" .055/.036""" .065/.040"""
""" """ " "
Age .08 .04 #.20 #.22 .09 .09
Gender #.06 .08 .06 .01 #.06 #.09"

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Positionb .07 .11" .18""" .16""" .02 .01
Sectorc
Pharmacy #.18""" #.16"" #.12" #.13"" #.06 #.04
TV #.20""" #.10" #.00 .03 .10" .11"
HR #.18""" #.07 .01 .03 .08 .10"
Healthcare #.13"" #.10" #.15""" #.12"" #.11" #.11"
Step 3 .129/.068""" .118/.090""" .251/.169""" .203/.118""" .157/.102""" .155/.090"""
""" " """ """ " "
Age .13 .10 #.12 #.16 .10 .09
Gender #.07 .08" .07 #.00 #.08 #.11""
Position .04 .06 .18""" .15""" #.04 #.05
Sector
Pharmacy #.18""" #.15"" #.12"" #.13"" #.05 #.04
TV #.27""" #.18""" #.04 #.02 .04 .05
HR #.22""" #.12"" .03 .03 .02 .03
Healthcare #.13"" #.11" #.12"" #.10" #.14""" #.15"""
Neuroticism .20""" .18""" .45""" .34""" #.11" #.11"
Extraversion .21""" .27""" .11" .09 .20""" .18"""
Openness .05 .12"" #.01 .01 .14""" .10""
Agreeableness
‘Workaholism’

#.12"" #.08" #.10"" #.12"" #.10" #.10"

Conscientiousness .17""" .16""" .21""" .24""" .12"" .12""
(Continues)
11

Eur. J. Pers. 24: 3–17 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/per
 Table 2. (Continued)
12

Work Involvement Drive Enjoyment of Work

Full scale Short scale Full scale Short scale Full scale Short scale

Variable b R2/DR2 b R2/DR2 b R2/DR2 b R2/DR2 b R2/DR2 b R2/DR2

Step 4 .137/.008 .131/.013" .298/.047""" .242/.039""" .278/.121""" .283/.128"""

Age .14""" .11"" #.09" #.14""" .05 .04
Gender #.07 .08 .04 #.03 #.04 #.07"
Position .05 .09 .21""" .18""" #.11" #.11""
C. S. Andreassen et al.

Sector
Pharmacy #.18""" #.14"" #.13"" #.14"" #.06 #.05
TV .02 .03

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

#.26""" #.16""" #.05 #.03
HR #.22""" #.12"" .03 .02 #.01 .01
Healthcare #.13"" #.11" #.11"" #.10" #.16""" #.17"""
Neuroticism .16""" .13"" .35""" .25""" .04 .04
Extraversion .21""" .29""" .11" .08 .16""" .15"""
Openness .05 .12"" .00 .02 .11"" .07
Agreeableness #.10" #.06 #.09" #.12"" #.11"" #.10""
Conscientiousness .17""" .16""" .23""" .25""" .05 .06
Autonomy #.09 #.09 #.25""" #.24""" .18""" .20"""
Competence .01 #.03 #.05 #.03 .32""" .32"""
Relatedness #.04 #.04 .06 .07 #.07 #.08
a
b
Gender (1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female).

c
Position (1 ¼ follower, 2 ¼ leader/leadership responsibility).
University sector represents the reference group.
"
p < .05; ""p < .01; """p < .001.

Eur. J. Pers. 24: 3–17 (2010)

DOI: 10.1002/per
 ‘Workaholism’ 13

components. In the following, the specific findings for each ‘workaholism’ component,
Work Involvement, Drive and Enjoyment of Work, will be discussed in that order.
Firstly, we hypothesized that Work Involvement would correlate positively with
Extraversion and Conscientiousness, which was confirmed by our results, thus replicating
findings obtained in previous studies (Burke et al., 2006; Clark et al., 1996). Work
Involvement includes aspects of being highly energized and ambitious, which corresponds
to the traits of Extraversion and Conscientiousness. Furthermore, Work Involvement
reflects being engaged in new and interesting projects, which may correspond to the
trait of Openness to experience, thus explaining the unexpected significant correlation
between the two variables. When testing hypotheses, regression analyses also
unexpectedly showed that Work Involvement was related to Neuroticism (positively)
and Agreeableness (negatively), suggesting that the meaning of the regression results was
not obvious.
Secondly, we argued that Drive would correlate positively with unsatisfied basic
psychological work needs. The results of the study supported this argument. Individuals
who reported a low degree of autonomy scored high on Drive (b ¼ #.24, p < .001). Their
internal pressure to work may be motivated by an attempt to solve unmet needs for self-
determination (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In addition, Drive was negatively linked to the need
for competence and relatedness, although not when relevant background variables were
controlled for. It may seem conceivable that individuals with high reports on Drive work
obsessively in an attempt to close the gap between the actual competence of the individual
and the job they are set to do (e.g. person-job fit theory, French, Caplan, & Van Harrison,
1982), or as a result of poor organizational climate and leadership (Schaufeli, Taris, & van
Rhenen, 2008). High Drive may also be energized by own high expectations and self-
imposed unrealistic goals for what is considered to be competence, autonomy and
relatedness (Kets de Vries, 2005). Failing to reach these goals may produce feelings of poor
coping and incompetence, and thereby inspire ‘workaholics’ to set another unrealistic set
of goals in an attempt to meet high internal standards of needs satisfaction (Deci & Ryan,
2000; Kets de Vries, 2005).
Furthermore, we assumed that Drive would be linked to high scores for the personality
traits of Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. These assumptions were supported by the
results of our study, replicating findings obtained in previous research (Burke et al., 2006;
Clark et al., 1996). Burke et al. (2006) reported a strong relationship between Neuroticism
and Drive (b ¼ .50, p < .001) among Norwegian health workers. Drawing upon these
findings, one can speculate that excessive work and work endurance, without experiencing
joy from doing so, rely on stable and underlying neurotic traits of insecurities, fear of
failure, fear of success and strict work ethics (Kets de Vries, 2005), which correspond with
high scores for Neuroticism and Conscientiousness. Unexpectedly, the results also showed
that Drive was negatively related to Agreeableness.
Finally, we hypothesized that Enjoyment of Work would correlate positively with
satisfaction of the basic needs. The results provided evidence for this hypothesis. These
findings are in line with previous studies on work engagement and job satisfaction
(Schaufeli et al., 2008). When controlling for relevant background variables, the need for
relatedness failed to explain variance in Enjoyment of Work. Satisfaction of basic needs are
central to achieve good and optimal work experiences (Deci & Ryan, 2000). If the work
domain represents an arena for satisfaction of basic psychological needs, this positive work
experience may make people lose the concept of time and place, and even forget to eat
when they are focused on the work tasks (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Deci & Ryan, 2000),

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 3–17 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
14 C. S. Andreassen et al.

driving people to put more time and energy into work in order to relive such optimal and
rewarding work experiences. Deci and Ryan (2000) argue that ‘People will tend to pursue
goals, domains and relationships that allow or support their need satisfaction. To the extent
that they are successful in finding such opportunities, they will experience positive
psychological outcomes.’ (p. 230).
In addition, we argued that high scores for Enjoyment of Work would correlate
positively with the personality traits of Extraversion and Conscientiousness, and negatively
with Neuroticism. This was confirmed by the results of our study, partly replicating results
from previous research (Burke et al., 2006; Clark et al., 1996). However, the results also
showed that Enjoyment of Work was positively related to Openness. Furthermore, at odds
with the zero-order correlation results, the regression analyses revealed a negative beta
weight for Agreeableness in predicting Enjoyment of Work. Burke et al. (2006) reported a
similar finding for Extraversion. It has been argued that enthusiastic ‘workaholism’ is
associated with achievement-seeking, and positive and constructive self-enhancement
strategies (Scott et al., 1997). The workplace is a potentially perfect arena in which to
expose oneself to or be exposed to stimulating challenges (e.g. Extraversion). It thereby
offers the possibility of desirable achievements and, even better, also achievements in
relation to others. Such stimulating conditions seem to be related to work engagement
(Schaufeli et al., 2008; Siegrist, 1996). These positive experiences inspire workers to
become involved in new and enjoyable work tasks, creating an upward and positive gain
spiral (Schaufeli et al., 2008).
Taken together, the results of the present study indicate that the ‘workaholism’
components may be related to basic work needs and personality traits, supporting previous
postulations (Burke et al., 2006; Clark et al., 1996). The Big Five trait of Conscientiousness
was positively correlated with all ‘workaholism’ components, as expected, indicating that
being self-disciplined, reliable and orderly is central to all aspects of ‘workaholism’. One
important and interesting finding that should be noted is that both Drive and Enjoyment of
Work are related to the degree to which basic work needs are satisfied. It has been
postulated that needs satisfaction (e.g. work motivation, work engagement, satisfaction)
can be facilitated by organizational interventions (e.g. transformational leadership)
(Hetland & Sandal, 2003). This suggests that positive ‘workaholism’ features (e.g.
Enjoyment of Work) can probably be facilitated. Previous research has shown that the
‘workaholism’ components may be related to both good and poor outcomes, indicating that
Enjoyment of Work co-varies with good health and work-life balance (Andreassen et al.,
2007; Bonebright, Clay, & Ankenmann, 2000).
Some authors theoretically frame the structure, process, growth and development of
‘workaholism’ in addiction theory, others in cognitive theory, yet others in family-system
theory or learning theory (Burke et al., 2006; McMillan et al., 2003). To date, however,
research on ‘workaholism’ seems to have largely been based on a variety of ad hoc
paradigms lacking a sound theoretical basis (McMillan et al., 2003; Ng et al., 2007).
Although these and other relevant theories represent different explanations of
‘workaholism’, they should not be considered mutually exclusive. ‘Workaholism’ is
most probably formed by a variety of factors. Recently, Ng et al. (2007) combined parts
from several of these theories establishing a model of ‘workaholism’. Ng et al.’s basic
proposition is that ‘workaholism’ is the combined result of dispositional traits (e.g. needs,
traits, values), socio-cultural experiences (e.g. social learning, cultural emphasis on
competence and competition) and behavioural reinforcements (e.g. organizational reward
systems). The empirical data from this and previous research (Burke et al., 2006) have

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 3–17 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 ‘Workaholism’ 15

found support for the FFM of personality and SDT of human motivation in relation to
‘workaholism’ components.
Although the present study broadens our understanding of the ‘workaholic’ concept, it is
still not without limitations. Firstly, this study has provided evidence that constitutes
grounds for questioning the psychometric properties of the WorkBAT in its original form.
The Work Involvement subscale seems to be the psychometrically most problematic one, a
finding which is in line with previous studies (Andreassen et al., 2007; McMillan et al.,
2002), whereas the Drive and Enjoyment of Work subscales seem more robust. Whether
the problem with the Work Involvement subscale is inherent in the scale itself, as opposed
to being related to differences in translations, adaptations or samples, is hard to conclude
on. To date, no cross-cultural validation studies between the Norwegian version and the
original WorkBAT version exist, meaning we do not know how well the item statistics from
the two versions match. Consequently, further efforts are recommended to investigate the
structure of WorkBAT and other ‘workaholism’ instruments, as well as continuing efforts
to search for empirical correlates that will provide evidence for the scales and the
‘workaholism’ concept in general. Secondly, it should be noted that we could not draw any
conclusions about casuality in the present study as our design was cross-sectional. Due to
the relatively low response rate, we cannot be certain whether conclusions from this sample
account for the entire population of respondents. We have no information about non-
respondents and data may have been distorted by self-selection bias. The non-respondents
may include employees with ‘workaholic’ features, who, because of the nature of their
work behaviour, did ironically not regard participation in the survey as real ‘work’, and
therefore refused to participate. Thus, self-selection bias may have distorted the results in
direction of weaker relations between study variables. Future studies employing
experimental or longitudinal designs are warranted. We relied on single-source self-
report data, and potential effects from common method variance can thus have influenced
our results (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Future research should also
be broadened to include data from co-workers or supervisors, or organizational records, in
order to further assess the relationships between ‘workaholism’ and individual differences
in needs and personality. Personality may influence different important aspects of
organizational life. In this study, personality traits and basic needs satisfaction at work
seem to be related to work motivation and incentives (e.g. Work Involvement, Drive,
Enjoyment of Work).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the employees and management of the organizations for their collab-
oration. They also thank Trude Remme and Arne Magnus Morken for technical assistance.

REFERENCES

Andreassen, C. S., Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2007). The relationship between strong motivation to
work, ‘‘workaholism’’, and health. Psychology and Health, 22, 615–629.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of
performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 34, 2045–2068.

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 3–17 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
16 C. S. Andreassen et al.

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.
Burke, R. J., & Matthiesen, S. B. (2004). Correlates of flow at work among Norwegian journalists.
Journal of Transnational Management, 10, 49–58.
Burke, R. J., Matthiesen, S. B., & Pallesen, S. (2006). Personality correlates of workaholism.
Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1223–1233.
Clark, L. A., Livesley, W. J., Schroeder, M. L., & Irish, S. L. (1996). Convergence of two systems for
assessing specific traits of personality disorder. Psychological Assessment, 8, 294–303.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO-PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FI: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Finding flow. The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New
York: Basic Books.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits: human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need
satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc
country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930–942.
French, J. R. P., Caplan, R. D., & Van Harrison, R. (1982). The mechanisms of job stress and strain.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Hetland, H., & Sandal, G. M. (2003). Transformational leadership in Norway: Outcomes and
personality correlates. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12, 147–170.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personality traits,
general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652.
Kets de Vries, M. F. K. (2005). The dangers of feeling like a fake. Harvard Business Review, 83, 108–
116.
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 Organ-
izational Psychology, 75, 357–368.
McMillan, L. H. W., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Burke, R. J. (2003). Workaholism: A review of theory,
research, and future directions. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of
industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 167–189). New York: Wiley.
Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2007). Dimensions, antecedents, and consequences
of workaholism: A conceptual integration and extension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28,
111–136.
Oates, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic. New York: World.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching the negative
outcomes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 70–84.
Robinson, B. E. (1998). Chained to the desk. New York: New York University Press.
Salgado, J. F. (2003). Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality measures.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 323–346.
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work
engagement: Three of a kind or three kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology, 57,
173–203.
Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences
of workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287–314.
Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occu-
pational Health Psychology, 1, 27–41.
Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary
results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160–178.

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 3–17 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per
 ‘Workaholism’ 17

APPENDIX

Appendix A1. Original WorkBAT subscales and subscales used in present study
WorkBAT

Item Item content 25-item 14-item

Work Involvement
1a When I have free time I like to relax and do nothing serious Deletedb
6a I like to relax and enjoy myself as often as possible Deletedb
8a I really look forward to the weekend—all fun, no work Deletedb
12 Wasting time is as bad as wasting money Deletedb
13 I spend my free time on projects and other activities
15 I like to use my time constructively, both on and off the job
21 Between my job and other activities I’m involved in I don’t have
much free time
24 I get bored and restless on vacations when I haven’t anything Deletedb
productive to do
Drive
3 I feel guilty when I take time off work Deletedb
5 I often wish I weren’t so committed to my work Deletedb
14 I feel obliged to work hard even when it’s not enjoyable
18 It’s important to me to work hard, even when I don’t enjoy what I’m doing
20 I often find myself thinking about work, even when I want to Deletedb
get away from it for a while
22 I often feel there is something inside me that drives me to work hard
25 I seem to have an inner compulsion to work hard
Enjoyment of Work
2 I like my work more than most people do
4 My job is more like fun than work
7 My job is so interesting that it often doesn’t seem like work
9 I do more work than is expected of me strictly for the fun of it
10 Most of the time my work is very pleasurable
11aI seldom find anything to enjoy about my work Deletedb
16 I lose track of time when I’m involved on a project Deletedb
17 Sometimes when I get up in the morning I can hardly wait to
get to work
19 When I get involved in an interesting project it’s hard to describe Deletedb
how exhilarated I feel
23 Sometimes I enjoy my work so much I have a hard time stopping
a
Items were reversed scored.
b
Original items deleted in present study due to poor psychometric properties.

Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 24: 3–17 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/per