SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2009, 37(5), 645-660 © Society for Personality Research (Inc.) DOI 10.
Personality traits and Personal and organizational inducements: antecedents of Workaholism
Ying-Wen Liang China University of Technology, Hsinchu County, Taiwan, ROC Chen-Ming Chu Chung Yuan Christian University, Chung Li City, Taiwan, ROC
Personality has been shown to be a valid predictor of behavior in work settings, but few studies have tested the causality of relationships between personality and workaholism. Extending the propositions of Ng, Sorenson, and Feldman (2007), in this article personality traits were treated as multidimensional and causal relationships were proposed between personality traits and workaholism. We also investigated the interactions among antecedents of workaholism using the definition of Ng et al. as the construct of workaholism, and deduced its antecedents from dimensions that underlie workaholism. Our model identified the following antecedents as being potentially linked to workaholism: personality traits, personal inducements, and organizational inducements. Obsessive compulsion, achievement orientation, perfectionism, and conscientiousness are key personality traits leading to workaholism. Intrinsic work values and vicarious learning in the family are two components of personal inducements, while putting work ahead of family commitments, peer competition, and vicarious learning at the workplace constitute three organizational inducements. Keywords: workaholism, personality traits, personal inducements, organizational inducements.
Associate Professor Ying-Wen Liang, PhD, formerly of the Department of Leisure and Recreation Management, China University of Technology, Hsinchu County, Taiwan, ROC, now at the Graduate Institute of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Jinwen University of Science and Technology, Taipei County, Taiwan, ROC; Professor Chen-Ming Chu, Department of Business Administration, Chung Yuan Christian University, Chung Li City, Taiwan, ROC. Appreciation is due to anonymous reviewers. Please address correspondence and reprint requests to: Ying-Wen Liang, Graduate Institute of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Jinwen University of Science and Technology, 5F-1, No. 72, Section 1, Xing-Long Road, Wen-Shan District, Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC. Phone: +886-2-29316448; Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
then organizational leaders would want to hire. However. Sorensen. in this article personality traits are considered as multidimensional and causal relationships between personality traits and workaholism are proposed. others view workaholism negatively. (2007) proposed that achievement-related traits are a primary contributor to workaholism.646
ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM
The changing nature of work in recent years. one of the most important issues in this area of research is identifying why people become workaholics. changes that encourage workaholism. although personality has been shown to be a valid predictor that influences behavior in work settings.
. has increased the need to understand workaholism (Ng. Firstly. investigating the interaction effect of these antecedents was the other focus of this research. theoretical and empirical studies have lagged behind due to the absence of a widely accepted definition of workaholism (Ng et al. including the blurring of boundaries between work and personal life. Is workaholism beneficial or harmful to organizations and their members? Some organizations view workaholism positively. The ability to either encourage or prevent workaholism relies on having a full understanding of the antecedents of workaholism. & Feldman. In contrast. 1980). Whilst workaholism has received a great deal of attention in the popular press. Secondly.. Moreover. & Vodanovich. then they might perform poorly and create conflicts with coworkers. 2007). 2006).. Piotrowski. This suggests that employers should avoid hiring workaholics or design workplaces that prevent − rather than encourage − workaholism. For example. after examining the research of Ng et al. 2007). If workaholics are obsessive. and self-centered. Ng et al. Kass. If workaholics are dedicated employees who are passionate about and enamored of work (Machlowitz. Therefore. whereas multidimensional measures might complicate interpretation. but two questions remain to be answered clearly. Some researchers have investigated the antecedents of workaholism. Therefore. the interactions among antecedents of workaholism have seldom been reported. employers should develop an organizational culture that encourages and rewards work-family balance (Lambert. A unidimensional construct provides only superficial meaning and can produce erroneous results. unable to relax. Accordingly. the authors consider the concept of achievement-related traits to be too ambiguous. the pervasion of the Internet is allowing more employees to work outside the traditional office and outside traditional working hours. multidimensional measures provide more information than unidimensional scales and offer more insight into managerial implications. develop and retain them. Mudrack (2004) has completed the only empirical study that tested causal relationships between obsessive-compulsive personality and workaholism. Moreover.
2007). and it reflects a strong preoccupation that workaholics cannot suppress and control. and behavior. an addictive drive to work under internal pressure. Ng et al. In the view of the authors the definition of Ng et al. suggest
. Ng et al. Scott. personality traits (Mudrack. who claimed that “the common element in discussions of workaholism is that the affected individual is highly committed to work. Finally. it captures the most critical elements that have been used to characterize workaholism in previous research. Secondly. thinking about work when not at work. (2007) has two significant advantages over the definitions provided by other authors that could lead to it becoming a widely accepted definition of workaholism.. The first definition of workaholism in the academic literature was proposed by Spence and Robbins (1992). Snir and Zohar (2000) defined workaholism as frequent and considerable allocation of time to workrelated activities and thoughts that is not based on external necessities. There are two subcomponents that underlie the affective dimension of workaholism: joy in working and guilt and anxiety when not working. Burke. Snir & Harpaz). and working beyond the employer and economic requirements. compulsive work addiction. cognition and behavior. which they related to long working hours. and Miceli (1997) described three characteristics of workaholism: spending discretionary time working. their definition is used here as the construct of workaholism and deduce its antecedents from the dimensions that underlie workaholism.ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM
Definitions anD Dimensions of Workaholism Workaholism is a complicated and multifaceted phenomenon comprising several subconcepts. cognition. 2004). anteceDents of Workaholism Some antecedents of workaholism have been examined previously. who are obsessed with working. beliefs and fears (Burke & Koksal. Oberklaid. it is based on research suggesting that addiction involves three overarching dimensions: affect. and who devote long hours and personal time to work. Thus. such as personal demographic characteristics (Burke & Matthiesen. They defined workaholics as those who enjoy the act of working. 2004. They suggested that workaholism has three distinctive characteristics: work involvement (WI). 2004. two subcomponents of the behavioral dimension are excessive work hours and mixing work and personal life. devoting a good deal of time to it” (p. Harpaz & Snir. 2004). and work enjoyment. 2003. Firstly. Based on an extensive literature review of workaholism. Moore. and a lack of enjoyment when working (WE). 2002. Snir & Harpaz. The cognitive dimension of workaholism is an obsession with working. Buelens and Poelmans (2004) proposed that workaholism has three basic dimensions: overcommitment to work. 161). (2007) proposed a cohesive definition of workaholism reflecting affect. Ng et al. drive (D). & Burgess. and attitudinal antecedents (Harpaz & Snir.
Demographic variables: gender (***). supporting workpersonal life imbalance (***). because their social or cultural experiences facilitate workaholism. 2. sociocultural experiences (e. and peer competition). 1. and/or because their workaholic behaviors are reinforced repeatedly.
Burke and Koksal (2002)
Harpaz and Snir (2003)
Burke and Matthiesen (2004)
Table 1 key stuDies examining or ProPosing anteceDents of Workaholism in the last 20 years Author(s) Burke (2001) Antecedents Organizational values: encouraging workpersonal life balance (***).648
ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM
that workaholism is largely derived from three sources: dispositional traits (e. attitudinal variables: work centrality (***). Personal characteristics: gender (*). and Oberklaid (2003). Based on three perspectives in the literature on addiction. 3. beliefs and fears: competing with others.g. both individual characteristics and organizational factors are the wellsprings of workaholism. Burke & Koksal. There are certain organizational cultures in which long hours and “sacrifices” are widely considered to be required for success and advancement. values that support a work-personal life imbalance (Burke. 2003). and behavioral reinforcements (e. Ng et al. 2004. self-esteem. Organizational factors include work situation characteristics (Burke & Matthiesen. 2001. 1. (2007) suggested that people become workaholics because they possess a certain personality. Harpaz & Snir. achievement-related values. Situational variables: occupation type (*): employment sector (**). stressful family life. 2002). 2. Organizational values: encouraging workpersonal life balance (***). Work situation characteristics: income (*). 2003). Some researchers suggest that organizational factors play a role in the development and maintenance of workaholism (Harpaz & Snir. rewards and punishments in organizations). economic orientation (**). lacking principles. prove yourself (**).. vicarious learning. Type A personality. supporting workpersonal life imbalance (**).g. and need for achievement).g.. 1. Some workplaces within a particular industry have a reputation for employees who work and play hard. obsessivecompulsive personality. marriage (**). 2.. These factors are likely to influence collectively whether or not one becomes a workaholic. According to Burke.
Sociocultural experiences: stressful family or dysfunctional childhood/family experiences (+). and Feldman (2007)
Notes: 1. family centrality (-). ** (significant. antecedents of drive: work pressure (+). antecedents of work enjoyment: work pressure (-). job involvement x superego (+). Demographic antecedents: employment type (*). *** (significant. achievementrelated values (+).
Snir and Harpaz (2004)
Johnstone and Johnston (2005)
Table 1 outlines the key studies that have examined or proposed antecedents of workaholism. beliefs and fears: striving against others. leisure centrality (-). + denotes a positive correlation. and organizational inducements. . supervisor support (+). 2. 2.ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM Table 1 continued Author(s) Burke. (2007). religiosity (-). Oberklaid. self-efficacy in work greater than in nonwork activities (+). Work situation characteristics: organizational level (*). Sorensen.001).01). The framework is depicted in Figure 1. work involvement (+). prove yourself (**). Integrating the factors of individuals and organizations and ignoring cultural differences.05). income (*). * (significant. peer competition at work (+). attitudinal antecedents: occupational satisfaction (+). personal inducements. personality traits refer to cognitive and behavioral patterns that are stable over
. lacking principles. coworker cohesion (+). All studies were empirical except that by Ng et al. and Burgess (2004) Antecedents
1. achievement-related traits (+). defining an activity as work “if you do it at a certain time” (-). behavioral reinforcements: tangible and intangible rewards (+). 3.denotes a negative correlation. 3. p < 0. 2. winner-takes-all system (+). Firstly. 1. 1. organizational environment (+). 1. vicarious learning at home (+). p < 0. vicarious learning at work (+). organizational emphasis on input rather than output (+). in this paper three major antecedents of workaholism are proposed: personality traits. p < 0. Job involvement and obsessive-compulsive personality traits: job involvement x obstinacy (+). 2. Dispositional traits: self-esteem (-).
Finally. leading to workaholism. organizations promoting work as prioritized before having a family will urge their employees to work for excessive hours and feel driven to work. For instance.
Workaholism Pushing driver Organizational inducements Pulling force Personal inducements
Figure 1: Antecedents of workaholism. 1965) and which are the core elements driving individuals towards workaholism. 1998). organizational environments that encourage or force employees to work hard. thereby leading to more workaholism. Secondly. the personal and family-related factors influencing the desire of an individual to work. organizational inducements are the drivers that push an individual on and help accelerate workaholism.
ProPositions Personality traits anD Workaholism People exhibit long-term dispositional traits that influence their affect. For example. Personal inducements are catalyzing elements that help mold workaholics. For example. the force that draws an individual toward becoming a workaholic is personal inducements. cognition and behavior in work settings (Mount & Barrick. which leads to more workaholism.650
ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM
time and across situations (Cattell. Personality
. workers possessing achievement-oriented traits have a positive orientation toward their work that helps to enhance their work enjoyment and increase their working hours. workaholics would not exist without them. which can cause them to become obsessed by work and to allow their work to interfere with their personal life. responsible workers have a greater desire to perform well in their work.
1997). Thoresen. and mental and interpersonal control. Many authors have proposed that workaholics are mentally engaged in. (2007) proposed that achievement-related traits (e. 1997). For instance. Scott et al. Wang.. Erdheim. obsessive-compulsive personality. 1997). and de Chermont (2003) found that a positive personality disposition increases the extent to which employees are committed to their organization. openness and efficiency” (American Psychiatric Association. They recognize that work is excessive but are unable to reduce or control it. 2004). Characteristics such as obsessive-compulsive personality. 1980. 1997). constantly think about work. and has actually been linked directly to workaholism (Ersoy-Kart. type A personality is characterized by ambition. and Zickar (2006) suggested including organizational commitment as a construct related to personality. A high number of hours per week of job involvement coupled with high scores on a measure of obsessive-compulsive personality traits might produce individuals who are workaholics (Mudrack. p. Type A personality.. and need for achievement) can predispose individuals to become more addicted to working. work even when they are not working (Machlowitz. These traits can promote workaholism because working long hours is likely be considered the most reliable means of achieving important work goals (Ng et al. total hours worked (Bozionelos.g.. Scott et al. 1991). Achievement-oriented traits represent the intersection of the defining features of desire for upward mobility. Obsessive-compulsive personality is characterized by a “preoccupation with orderliness. 1994.. and work beyond employer and economic requirements... achievement-oriented traits and perfectionism are generally cited in this context. but the argument in the present study is that conscientiousness should also be considered since the Big Five personality traits are acknowledged in organizational behavior research as being important. Kaplan. we made the following proposition: P1: Personality traits significantly influence workaholism. at the expense of flexibility.ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM
has been shown to be a valid predictor of work involvement (Elloy & Terpening. 2004) and work-related outcomes (Love & DeArmond. 1992). impatience and hostility (Edwards & Baglioni. greater dominance of certain traits promote addiction and can make people become workaholics (Ng et al. 2007. 2005). Since personality traits can play a major role in generating addictions (Eysenck. perfectionism. 2007). 669). the following proposition was established: P1a: Greater obsessive-compulsion leads to a greater degree of workaholism. It is generally accepted that organizational commitment is positively correlated with being obsessed about working and excessive intrusion of work into personal life. Ng et al. or obsessed with. Accordingly.
. Warren. Achievement-oriented workers spend a great deal of discretionary time on work activities. 2007). Barsky. achievement motivation and type A personality (Scott et al. Accordingly.
Perfectionism is “an extreme or excessive striving for perfection. 1992) and can be ascribed to workaholics in general. p. and sense of duty (Bozionelos. 1988. “work and productivity are prized to the exclusion of leisure activities and friends” (American Psychiatric Association. This characteristic is positively correlated with workaholism (Spence & Robbins. or assess the importance of preferences. extraversion. they reflect general. responsible. Accordingly. People who have certain personality traits – such as being rigid and perfectionistic or born achievers – are more likely to become workaholics (Goodman. Highly conscientious individuals are (positively) regarded by others as orderly. Personal inDucements anD Workaholism Values are neither situation specific nor function specific. openness. Meta-analyses suggest that conscientiousness is the most potent and consistent correlate of job performance across all job types (Barrick & Mount. and act as guiding principles in one’s life (Schwartz & Bilsky. the following proposition was made: P1b: Greater achievement-orientation leads to a greater degree of workaholism. for perfectionists. According to Scott et al. Accordingly. They follow instructions. 2006). the Big Five model has been utilized extensively in organizational and other areas of applied research. 1987). 873). 2002). Conscientiousness represents the responsibility facet of personality traits and is associated with industriousness. as in one’s work” (Merriam-Webster. The Big Five or five-factor model of personality represents a taxonomy that efficiently and comprehensively describes human personality. 1991. the following proposition was made: P1d: Greater conscientiousness leads to a greater degree of workaholism. and dependable. require little supervision. Work values are evaluative standards relating to work or the work environment that individuals use to discern what is right. It has become imperative for organizations to have a thorough understanding of the work values
. and their behavior is predictable. 2004). agreeableness and conscientiousness. 669). Bozionelos. perseverance. Slaney and Johnson (1992) indicated that perfectionists have high personal standards and are orderly. 1994.652
ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM
Accordingly. Perfectionists are usually dependable and reliable. (1999) found that conscientiousness was positively correlated with job satisfaction. 2004). there is strong empirical evidence of its validity (O’Connor. abstract notions alluding to thought and action. the following proposition was made: P1c: Greater perfectionism will lead to a greater degree of workaholism. p. They avoid trouble and achieve high levels of success through purposeful planning and persistence. rather. Fogarty et al. and they can be counted on to maintain exceptionally high standards for all work. Because of its wide acceptance and proved validity. The Big Five model consists of the following traits: neuroticism. (1997).
and influential. organizational inDucements anD Workaholism Organizations often encourage workaholic behaviors in order to improve the performance of employees. Those with a greater degree of adherence to intrinsic work values should be more likely to become workaholics. achievement and creativity (Ali & Al-Kazemi.g. adolescence and adulthood. “Organizational downsizings and restructurings have created more work for fewer staff. Organizations rarely discourage such behaviors…”
. According to Burke (2001). Workaholic behaviors are often reinforced at work (e. they might have a tendency to treat their own work in the same way because they are influenced by those important models. The above two factors stem from the sociocultural experiences related to interactions during childhood. parents.g. 1991). support for workaholism is fostered. They are personal inducements that drive workers to become workaholics. 1991). (2007). and intrinsic values concerning work are connected to commitment (Putti. having family members (e. notably generous holidays and desirable working hours and pay. recognition. Job satisfaction is a function of the perceived intrinsic values offered in the work situation (Martin & Goodell..ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM
of their employees. Aryee. 2002). spouses or siblings) who are workaholics could predispose an individual to becoming a workaholic. Staff members who work long hours are perceived to be dedicated and committed. and career-development opportunities. as well as the crisis conditions conducive to workaholism. & Liang. 2006). ambitious. As organizations strive to become more entrepreneurial. This involves the observation of the addictive behaviors of others. 1989). Accordingly. Therefore. since they influence work commitment and effectiveness. challenge and interest from a job. 2005). and capable of competing with peers for rewards. and job satisfaction (Brown. P2a: A greater degree of adherence to intrinsic work values leads to a greater degree of workaholism.. According to Ng et al. because this reflects a desire to be achievement-oriented. P2b: The greater the amount of vicarious learning in the family the greater the degree of workaholism. Another product of social and cultural experiences is vicarious learning at home. high income) (Piotrowski & Vodanovich. positive performance evaluations) and in the individual’s personal life (e. Intrinsic work values reflect the desire to use initiative in and to gain responsibility. the following propositions were established: P2: Personal inducements significantly influence workaholism. motivation and performance (Hoy & Miskel. one of the products of which may be to induce workaholism. while extrinsic work values identify more material priorities.. if individuals see that other members in the family work excessively.g.
That is. When individuals receive more personal inducements from their families or workplaces. arrive early. mentors or other role models – such as excessive work hours and neglect of personal life – can induce imitative responses from other employees” (Ng et al. moDerating effects A moderator is a variable that affects the direction and/or strength of the relationship between an independent or predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable.. 2007). Moderators and predictors operate at the same level as causal variables that are antecedent or exogenous to certain criterion effects.654
ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM
(p. 125). Competition from peers can evoke workaholic behavior in others due to the competitive atmosphere that widespread workaholism creates (Ng et al. When an individual possesses workaholic traits and has more personal inducements. and more active encouragement of work prior to family leads to a greater degree of workaholism. vicarious learning at the workplace can also induce workaholism. “observing the workaholic behaviors of supervisors. employees’ work hours escalate even further simply so that employees can be noticed” (p. Likewise. leave late environment. which will lead to a greater degree of workaholism. Thus. These three factors are organizational inducements that drive workers to become workaholics. compared to employees with the same workaholic traits... P3b: A greater degree of peer competition leads to a greater degree of workaholism. “in such a competitive. the interaction of workaholic traits and personal inducements will increase the degree of workaholism. 639). the following propositions were made: P3: Organizational inducements significantly influence workaholism. Burke (2001) and Burke and Koksal (2002) examined the relationship between workaholism and perceived organizational values that promote an imbalance between work and personal life. Accordingly. According to Ng et al. P3c: A greater degree of vicarious learning at the workplace leads to a greater degree of workaholism. The results showed that organizational values that are positive with regard to workaholism are significantly higher than those of nonworkaholism. 2007. they become more competitive and their workaholic traits are aroused more easily. those with fewer personal inducements
. Sociocultural experiences in organizations can also induce workaholism. Social and cultural experiences occur both within the family and in the workplace. Conversely. p. The moderator function of a third variable divides a particular independent variable into subgroups that establish its domains of maximal effectiveness on a given dependent variable. P3a: More. 125). those who have more personal inducements could have more workaholic traits.
P4a: The positive relationship between workaholic personality traits and workaholism is stronger when there is greater adherence to intrinsic work values. two dimensions of personal inducements also play moderating roles between workaholic traits and workaholism. but also by the social context in which that person interacts.
Personal inducements Intrinsic work values Vicarious learning in the family
P2a. even if they have more workaholic traits. P5b. P1b. the following propositions were established: P4: The positive relationship between workaholic personality traits and workaholism is stronger when there are more personal inducements. Accordingly.
P3a. P1c. P3b. P1d
affect (Joy in working) (Guilt and anxiety when not working) Cognition (Obsession with working) behavior (Excessive work hours) (Mixing work and personal life)
P5a.ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM
are less likely to exhibit a high degree of workaholism. P2b
P4 P4a. Likewise. P4b
Personality traits Obsessive compulsion Achievement orientation Perfectionism Conscientiousness
P1 P1a. This is because an individual’s workaholism is conditioned not only by his/her workaholic traits. P4b: The positive relationship between workaholic personality traits and workaholism is stronger when there is more vicarious learning in the family. P3c
Organizational inducements Encourage putting work before family Peer competition Vicarious learning at the workplace Figure 2: Framework of propositions.
three dimensions of organizational inducements also moderate the relationship between workaholic traits and workaholism. The argument about personal inducements mentioned above also applies to the work context. in this article it has been suggested that workaholism is derived from three factors: personality traits. Accordingly. P5c: The positive relationship between workaholic personality traits and workaholism is stronger when there is a higher level of vicarious learning at workplace. and organizational inducements. achievement orientation. (1997) stated “…such patterns may be more characteristic of the person than of the situation” (p. and even mixing work and personal life. which would lead to a greater degree of workaholism. Likewise. personal inducements. perfectionism. Personality
. and conscientiousness are key personality traits that encourage individuals to work. That is. Furthermore. neglecting macrolevel factors such as cultural differences and economic conditions. 308).656
ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM
Organizational inducements also exert a moderating effect on the relationship between workaholic traits and workaholism. Obsessive compulsion. and organizational inducements. those who are subjected to more organizational inducements might develop more workaholic traits. The proposition framework is depicted in Figure 2. the following propositions were made: P5: The positive relationship between workaholic personality traits and workaholism is stronger when there are more organizational inducements. compared to employees with a similar degree of workaholic traits. personal inducements. enhancing the level of working enjoyment. It is reasonable to expect that dispositional traits influence an individual’s cognitive and behavioral patterns in a work setting. hence leading to workaholism. In summary. As Scott et al. P5a: The positive relationship between workaholic personality traits and workaholism is stronger when there is a higher level of encouraging to work prior to family. P5b: The positive relationship between workaholic personality traits and workaholism is stronger when there is a higher level of peer competition. The second novel contribution is to propose the interaction effects among antecedents of workaholism. discussion It has been proposed in this article that the following three antecedents lead to workaholism: personality traits. both personal inducements and organizational inducements exert moderating effects on the relationships between workaholic traits and workaholism. The first novel contribution in this article is the identification and detailed description of the relationships among personality traits and workaholism.
employer recruitment-selection. power-hungry. Therefore. and reward system would seem to build toward a situation in which workaholics can play out their tendencies more easily in some organizations than in others” (Snir & Harpaz.
. Individuals who have worked in organizations with workaholic environments or workaholic managers can learn workaholic behaviors and continue to exhibit them after leaving the organization. the process of self-selection. 2001. 2003).. future research Future researchers should collect data to test the model proposed here. In such cultures there is a greater frequency and prevalence of the attitude of encouraging work prior to family and peer competition. p. school and society. The ASA model also suggests that both attraction and selection will help screen out people who do not have a good P-E fit. socialization. Extending the concept of P-E fit. because striving for better performance is the norm. 642). This reasoning supports the assumptions that values crucially affect the person-culture fit. including possible methodologies and the challenges of exploring these propositions. In this section. Some individuals choose to work for organizations that exhibit similar traits and values: “easy-going individuals prefer to work in a more relaxed workplace. being competitive. select and retain different types of people. several issues are discussed. p. a better fit of the work values between individuals and organizations is likely to induce stronger behavior patterns of workaholism. It is the view of the authors that the personality of the individual and the environmental conditions collectively determine workaholic behavior. taskoriented and fearful of failure (Ng et al. For example. while individuals preferring the experience of an overwhelming amount of work select more demanding work places” (Burke. organizational inducements are behavioral reinforcements of workaholism. Some organizational environments induce and sustain workaholism (Harpaz & Snir. The correct alignment of personal and organizational values is vital to harmony. 2004. “Over time.ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM
traits are typically relative stable and enduring. and the employees might experience fewer constraints on excessive work habits. According to Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) theory. 522). different types of organizations attract. 2007). employees in an organization with a masculine culture will perform their jobs in a masculine fashion. A good P-E (person-environment) fit is broadly defined as the compatibility between an individual and a work environment that occurs when their characteristics are well matched. whereas intrinsic work values result from a long-term contextual cultivation of education in family.
. (2005). joy in work (affect) was found to be significantly and positively related to internal drive and work (cognition) (Kanai. There is consensus among researchers that common method variance is a potential problem in psychological and behavioral research. a confirmatory factor analysis should be conducted to determine measurement reliability and validity. Similarly. & Fling. encouraging putting work before family commitments and peer competition. For instance. samples should be collected from several industries. Wakabayashi. The Kuwaiti manager: Work values and orientations. references
Ali. and the presence of multicollinearity among three independent variables should be checked. In practice. those who enjoy working (affect) are likely to dedicate excessive hours to work (behavior) because working provides them with enjoyment. 60. challenges of testing ProPositions A key measurement challenge with a multidimensional definition of workaholism is determining the interrelationships among the three dimensions.658
ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM
methoDological means of testing ProPositions To test the propositions in this article. There is some empirical evidence that these three dimensions of workaholism are positively correlated. A. DC: Author. those who have an obsession with working (cognition) would also feel guilty about not working (affect). Accordingly. 2002).. (2007). To avoid the homogeneity problem. The means. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV. but should include the responses of their peers for the antecedents of personality traits. either hierarchical regression equations or structural equation modeling could be used to test the causal relationships of the proposed model. Finally. the first step is to develop a scale that is based on the definition of workaholism as proposed by Ng et al.). Before testing a causality model. it can be expected that workaholics would have very high scores on certain dimensions but very low scores on others. workaholism should be measured based on the assessment of target respondents. The next step is to collect data and perform statistical analyses. Washington. 1996). 63-73. Journal of Business Ethics. Future work could control for this by using a single-common-method-factor approach as has been frequently reported in the literature. This methodology can avoid common method bias. standard deviations and correlations among studied variables should be calculated. To test the model proposed in this article. Applying this method would allow researchers to separate the measurement of predictor and criterion variables to guarantee response anonymity. J. and working excessive hours was found to be positively related to work (behavior) (Burke & Koksal. & Al-Kazemi. 4th ed. A. American Psychiatric Association.
Educational administration: Theory. 263-277. 12. Workaholism among Australian women psychologists: Antecedents and consequences. (1992). 79-87. A.. personality. Journal of Organizational Change Management. Z. R. Harpaz.. New York: McGraw Hill.. (1999). and affectivity variables. MD: Penguin. Burke. M. N. M. C. W. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Workaholism in organizations: The role of organizational values. The role of work and cultural values in occupational choice. J. 54(3). Wang. (2005). Organization Development Journal. A. 24. F.. (2005). and practice. 291319.. occupational type and workaholism.. (2003). 637-645.. Journal of Vocational Behavior. F.. Burke. J. S. An empirical distinction between job involvement and work involvement: Some additional evidence. Workaholism: Its definition and nature. J. 76. (1997). Eysenck. S. R. Burke. R. The Big Five of personality and work involvement. Japanese Psychological Research. (2006).. Oberklaid. J.. Sutherland L. 91. & Johnston. Johnstone. (1965). satisfaction. Linking the Big Five personality constructs to organizational commitment. Relationship between Type A behavior pattern and mental and physical symptoms: A comparison of global and component measures. (2004). (1996). F. 1-26. (1991). 20. 48-55. 465-478. J. The relationship between organizational climate. 38(4). 40-41. M. S. S. S. J. R. Lalor G. Fogarty. Workaholism among employees in Japanese corporations: An examination based on the Japanese version of the Workaholism Scales. F. & Baglioni. (2006). S. R. 41(5). Stress and Health.. D. & Mount. 44. Human Psychopharmacology.. R. B. 429-452. Erdheim. Cattell.. 24(3). & Miskel.. C. & Fling. J. Predicting occupational strain and job satisfaction: The role of stress. Workaholism among a sample of Turkish managers and professionals: An exploratory study. 56(3). Personnel Review. (2006). Psychological Reports. 609-618. Ersoy-Kart. 64-75. Personnel Psychology. J. G. 8(6). Brown. personality. Y. J. coping. & Poelmans. (1991). Burke.. Psychology Today. 440-458. M. 959-970.ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM
Barrick. A field guide to the workaholic. International Journal of Management. W... I. Kanai. M.. 276-290. H. The scientific analysis of personality. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. & Revvit. K. 80. A. R. Career Development International. Burke. & Burgess. 30(6). Wakabayashi.. (2001).. (1991).. M. & Snir. Enriching the Spence and Robbins’ typology of workaholism: Demographic. 21(3). Elloy. R. and success: A theoretical statement. J. J. Personality and Individual Differences. 60-68. 17(5). J. Baltimore.. Burgess. research. D. Addiction. J. & Zickar. (2002). Impact factors on work-family balance: Initial support for border theory. Journal of Applied Psychology. J. 33(6). (2002). Goodman. 34. H. R. (2004). Edwards. motivational and organizational correlates. J. Human Relations. Journal of Counseling and Development. C. 181-188. 301-308. & Koksal.
. M. Hoy. 69-81. & Terpening. Lambert. Bozionelos. 192-203. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal.. D. H. Machin M. A. B. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. & Matthiesen. New Zealand Journal of Psychology. (2004). & Oberklaid. Piotrowski.. Buelens. Reliability and validity of the Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT): Turkish form. L. K. and motivation. Predictors of workaholic behaviors among Australian psychologists. 39(3). (2004). (2003). Z. Workaholism among Norwegian journalists: Antecedents and consequences. Albion M. A. 301-308.. 19(1/2). I. & Vodanovich. Kass.
Spence. The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin. 849-857. (2003). 51(4). 58(1). Personnel Psychology. 84-92. MA: G & C MerriamWebster. Historical. J. P. P.660
ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM
Love. A. working with them. O’Connor. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Martin. (1997). T.. (1989). MA: AddisonWesley. K. & Vodanovich. Ng.. (2004). (1992). University of Haifa. and preliminary results. Moore. K. 24(4).. M. & Liang. D. Human Relations. & DeArmond. 21-32. & de Chermont. Five reasons why the “Big Five” article has been frequently cited. G. 111-136... antecedents. 160-178.. S. T. Job involvement. Unpublished manuscript. (1988). descriptive and strategic perspective on the construct of product commitment. J. & Johnson. Work values and organizational commitment: A study in the Asian context.. (2006). R. European Journal of Marketing. 36(1). Springfield. 17(5). A quantitative review of the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model in relation to popular personality inventories. W. obsessive-compulsive personality traits. (1987). C.. 129. University Park. & Zohar. B. Putti.
.. D. L. (1991). Slaney. (1980).. Israel. M. 42(3).. P. The interface between workaholism and work-family conflict: A review and conceptual framework. J. Warren. P. R. Journal of Personality Assessment. P. Mount. S. C. H. (2007).. A. R.. P. C. (2002). L. M. Mudrack. Workaholism: Work-addiction or workphilia? Paper presented at the International Conference on Psychology . K. Organization Development Journal.. Kaplan. C. W. 17(5). K. 287-314. 53(3).. & Harpaz. Reading. The almost perfect scale. S. Attitudinal and demographic antecedents of workaholism. Sorensen. 53-60. 28(1). Snir. R. and workaholic behavioral tendencies. Public Personnel Management.. Machlowitz. & Robbins. 914-945. (1992). Assessment. 275-288. D. Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. & Feldman. Snir.. and consequences of workaholism: A conceptual integration and extension. W. 490-508. J. 550-562. W. 188-203. (2004). R. E.. Piotrowski. I. Pennsylvania State University. Workaholics: Living with them. (1998). (2007). 9. C. Schwartz. An exploration of the meaning and consequences of workaholism. Aryee. Merriam-Webster’s ninth new collegiate dictionary. The validity of assessment center ratings and 16PF personality trait scores in police sergeant promotions: A case of incremental validity. K. B. Pennsylvania. Scott. (2000). K. Journal of Organizational Change Management. & Bilsky. S. T.. S. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50(3). Workaholism: Definition. & Miceli. M. S. M. & Goodell. Barsky. K. 17(5). Human Relations. Dimensions. Thoresen. 520-536.Psychology after the year 2000. A. S. S. & Barrick. measurement. Journal of Organizational Change Management.