Journal of Occupational Health Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association

2006, Vol. 11, No. 1, 52– 62 1076-8998/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.11.1.52

A Cluster Analysis Investigation of Workaholism as a Syndrome

Shahnaz Aziz Michael J. Zickar
East Carolina University Bowling Green State University

Workaholism has been conceptualized as a syndrome although there have been few tests that
explicitly consider its syndrome status. The authors analyzed a three-dimensional scale of
workaholism developed by Spence and Robbins (1992) using cluster analysis. The authors
identified three clusters of individuals, one of which corresponded to Spence and Robbins’s
profile of the workaholic (high work involvement, high drive to work, low work enjoyment).
Consistent with previously conjectured relations with workaholism, individuals in the workaholic
cluster were more likely to label themselves as workaholics, more likely to have acquaintances
label them as workaholics, and more likely to have lower life satisfaction and higher work–life
imbalance. The importance of considering workaholism as a syndrome and the implications for
effective interventions are discussed.

Keywords: workaholism; syndrome; cluster analysis; work–life balance; life satisfaction.

Workaholism is a popular term used to describe
individuals who are captivated by work. Ever since
Oates (1971) first coined the term workaholic to refer
to an individual whose increased need to work hin-
ders one or more life functions, it has become a
colloquial term used increasingly in the popular
press, on Web sites, and in the scientific literature
(e.g., Burke, 2001a; Bonebright, Clay, & Anken-
mann, 2000; Porter, 2001; Schor, 1991). The philos-
ophy of squeezing more of everything into a single
24-hr day has become an accepted way of life. In
fact, working excessive hours is often seen as a
prerequisite for success. As a result, it appears that
some individuals may find it extremely problematic
to release themselves from work, even when they are
given the opportunity to do so (Porter, 2001). Even
though the term workaholism has become common-
place, there has been little empirical research exam-
ining what it means when someone is referred to as a
workaholic. The extant research, though limited, sup-
ports the notion that workaholism is an important
construct that warrants further empirical research.
However, most of that research considers facets of
workaholism in isolation. This study tests worka-
Shahnaz Aziz, Department of Psychology, East Carolina
University; and Michael J. Zickar, Department of Psychol-
ogy, Bowling Green State University.
Portions of this manuscript were conducted as part of the
first author’s dissertation at Bowling Green State University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Shahnaz Aziz, Department of Psychology, East
Carolina University, 104 Rawl Building, Greenville, NC
27858-4353. E-mail: azizs@ecu.edu
holism as a multifaceted syndrome and examines its
correlates; by doing so, we hope to provide more
coherence to this important research area.
Definitional and Measurement-Related Issues
Although there are other instruments designed to
measure workaholism (e.g., Mudrack & Naughton,
2001; Robinson, 1998), Spence and Robbins’s (1992)
instrument is the most frequently used self-report
measure of workaholism (Burke, 2001b; Porter,
1996). Their scale consists of three factors that con-
stitute workaholism: excessive work involvement,
drive to work, and lack of work enjoyment. Work
involvement refers to the extent to which individuals
constructively use their time (both on and off the job)
and dedicate themselves to working productively.
Drive to work reflects the individual’s internal moti-
vation to work. Work enjoyment is the degree to
which individuals derive pleasure from work. Spence
and Robbins’s facets of workaholism are similar to
other conceptualizations of workaholism (e.g., Por-
ter, 1996; Scott, Moore, & Miceli, 1997; Snir &
Zohar, 2000). In addition to the facets of worka-
holism, Spence and Robbins identified six work-
related profiles (see Table 1). Although these profiles
have been proposed, there has been little systematic
attempt to identify these groups empirically in work-
ing samples.
Workaholism as a Syndrome
In the medical field, a syndrome is defined as a
“term applied to a group of symptoms occurring

52
 WORKAHOLISM AS A SYNDROME
Table 1
Spence and Robbins’s (1992) Classification of Worker Types
Work
Worker type involvement
Work enthusiast High
Workaholic High
Enthusiastic workaholic High
Unengaged worker Low
Relaxed worker Low
Disenchanted worker Low
regularly and thus constituting a disease to which
some particular name is given” (Macpherson, 2004,
p. 602). In addition, syndrome is used instead of
disease when “the full picture of a condition as a true
entity has not been yet defined” (italics added,
Haubrich, 1984, p. 236). The concept of a syndrome
has been used in psychological research to character-
ize burnout (Maslach, 1982), effects of physical
abuse in women (e.g., battered-women syndrome;
Kaser-Boyd, 2004), and posttraumatic stress (e.g.,
Burke & Mayer, 1985), among many other areas. In
burnout research, for example, Maslach (1982) char-
acterized burnout as a “syndrome of emotional ex-
haustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal ac-
complishment” (p. 3). Hence, people who experience
burnout feel these characteristics in tandem. Simi-
larly, Spence and Robbins (1992) present worka-
holism as a three-dimensional scale that implicitly
suggests that it is a syndrome. If workaholism is truly
a syndrome, each of the three components (i.e., high
work involvement, high work drive, and low work
enjoyment) would be necessary (though not suffi-
cient) conditions for someone to be classified as a
workaholic. Previous research has examined each of
the constituent elements of workaholism in isolation.
For example, studies have shown relationships be-
tween elements of the workaholism scales with other
variables (e.g., work enjoyment is negatively related
to intentions to quit; Burke, 2001c). These univariate
findings, however, fail to capture the syndrome na-
ture of workaholism. For instance, low work enjoy-
ment, by itself, does not signify that someone is a
workaholic. If workaholism is really a syndrome, it is
important to investigate the dimensions concurrently.
Current Study
The primary goal of our study was to test if work-
aholism was truly a syndrome with the three dimen-
sions proposed by Spence and Robbins (1992), fol-
53
Drive Work
to work enjoyment
Low High
High Low
High High
Low Low
Low High
High Low
lowed by subsequent validation of the purported
group of workaholics by comparing them to other
classes of individuals in terms of correlates of work-
aholism. Relations among workaholics and total
weekly work hours, job involvement, work stress, job
dissatisfaction, work–life imbalance, and life dissat-
isfaction were examined; these measures are likely to
be correlates of workaholism. A more narrow focus
on these variables helps verify past findings and
clarifies the relations among the current study con-
structs. Theory and empirical findings were used to
explain propositions regarding correlates that have
been suggested in the popular press (e.g., work stress)
and to develop new hypotheses regarding correlates
that lie outside the workplace (e.g., life satisfaction).
Multirater Approach
With self-report research, several studies have rec-
ommended collecting information from acquain-
tances and others who can verify it (e.g., Spector,
1994). Collecting data from other sources to supple-
ment the primary respondent may be especially im-
portant in workaholism research. Porter (1996) spec-
ulated that workaholics are often unaware that they
are completely immersed in their work. As a result,
they might be oblivious to the detrimental effects that
working long hours has on both their physical and
mental well-being. It is likely those people with
whom the workaholic spends most of his or her time
(i.e., family, friends, coworkers) who observe the
endless hours the workaholic devotes to work and the
harmful effects that occur as a result. Given that
workaholics may be in denial of their condition, a
multirater approach was applied to alleviate the pre-
cept-percept bias that might be present in organiza-
tional behavior literature (Spector, 1994).
Going beyond self-reports and considering the
viewpoints of others may provide for a more reliable
indicator of workaholism. In fact, Harpaz and Snir
54 AZIZ AND ZICKAR
(2003) suggested the inclusion of reports from fam-
ily, friends, and coworkers in future workaholism
research. Thus, in addition to self-reports, data from
family, friends, and coworkers were also gathered.
The group of family, friends, and coworkers is here-
after referred to as the “acquaintance” sample; par-
ticipants were asked to select only one acquaintance
of their choice.
Workaholism Syndrome
Though the literature cited has focused on inde-
pendent main effects of individual aspects of worka-
holism, some researchers (e.g., Flowers & Robinson,
2002; McMillan, Brady, O’Driscoll, & Marsh, 2002)
have found support for the idea that workaholism is
likely a multidimensional construct. To test our hy-
pothesis of whether workaholism is really a syn-
drome with the three dimensions proposed by Spence
and Robbins (1992), we conducted a cluster analysis
(Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984) to investigate
whether there was a cluster of individuals who fit the
purported pattern of workaholism as posited by
Spence and Robbins (1992; i.e., high work involve-
ment, high work drive, low work enjoyment). The
second phase of data analysis was to show that peo-
ple in that cluster were more likely to experience the
correlates of workaholism (e.g., higher hours, re-
duced job satisfaction, more work–life imbalance).
Hypothesis 1: We expected workaholism to be a
“syndrome” in that there will be a cluster that
fits the configuration of workaholics as proposed
by Spence and Robbins’s (1992) three dimen-
sions (i.e., high work involvement, high drive to
work, and low work enjoyment).
Moreover, to further validate that the cluster of
individuals high on work involvement, high on drive
to work, and low on work enjoyment is indeed com-
posed of workaholics, we compared the workaholism
cluster to the other clusters on constructs and vari-
ables that have been proposed as correlates of work-
aholism (e.g., hours worked, self- and acquaintance-
labels of workaholism, work–life imbalance). We
expected significant mean differences between each
of these outcomes with the workaholic cluster com-
pared to other clusters identified in the analysis. Spe-
cifically, we expected that workaholics would be
higher on self-labels of workaholism, hours worked,
job involvement, work stress, and work–life imbal-
ance and lower on job satisfaction and life satisfac-
tion compared to the other clusters.
Correlates of Workaholism
Job Involvement. Kanungo (1982) defined job
involvement as “a belief descriptive of the present
job that tends to be a function of how much the job
can satisfy one’s present needs” (p. 342). Job-in-
volved individuals actively engage in their job, con-
sider their job as a central life interest, consider job
performance as a key to their self-esteem, and view
job performance as consistent with their self-concept
(Pinder, 1998). Individuals who are high on job in-
volvement are intrinsically motivated, more satisfied,
happier with their organization, and less absent from
work (Pinder, 1998). Other researchers have found
that highly job-involved individuals are disinterested
in nonwork activities and are more likely to engage in
organizational citizenship behaviors (Mudrack &
Naughton, 2001).
Of note is the commonly held perspective that
workaholism is simply an extreme form of job in-
volvement (Scott et al., 1997). Although the two
constructs have been considered synonymous in the
practitioner literature, job involvement is clearly dis-
tinct from workaholism in several ways. Scott et al.
(1997) indicate that job involvement has an attitudi-
nal component regarding work, whereas worka-
holism refers to behavioral patterns and an overall
outlook on work. Moreover, high job involvement
does not necessarily relate to workaholism in that
people might be highly engaged in their jobs and
consider work as a key element in their lives but may
not be workaholics (e.g., they can leave at the end of
an 8-hr day and not think about work until returning
the next day; Harpaz & Snir, 2003). Hence, worka-
holism is not merely an extreme case of job involve-
ment in that other constituent components such as
high drive to work and low work enjoyment might
also be present in the workaholic.
Hypothesis 2a: Workaholics will be associated
with higher levels of job involvement.
Work Stress. Stanton, Balzer, Smith, Parra, and
Ironson (2001) applied the Lazarus and Folkman
(1984) model as a framework to better understand
previous attempts to measure work stress. Lazarus
and Folkman defined stress as “a particular relation-
ship between the person and the environment that is
appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or
her resources and endangering his or her well-being”
(p. 19). Given that we used Stanton et al.’s (2001)
Stress in General (SIG) scale to measure overall work
 WORKAHOLISM AS A SYNDROME
stress, our study follows their conceptualization
of stress.
Excessive time devoted to work is related to stress
(Porter, 2001). Compared to their nonworkaholic
counterparts, workaholics experience greater stress
(e.g., Burke, 2000a; Burke & MacDermid, 1999).
Additionally, Spence and Robbins (1992) found pos-
itive correlations between their work involvement
and drive to work facets and a measure of work
stress. One should note, however, that correlations
solely between hours worked and psychological
strain are quite modest (Sparks, Cooper, Fried, &
Shirom, 1997). Perhaps workaholics create stress and
pressure for themselves and tend to self-select them-
selves into more stressful and demanding occupa-
tions.
Hypothesis 2b: Workaholics will be associated
with greater levels of work stress.
Job Satisfaction. Job satisfaction has been de-
scribed as “an affective reaction” to the job or job
situation (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992). Research
on the relation between workaholism and job satis-
faction has been virtually nonexistent. Job dissatis-
faction is possible depending on the degree to which
workaholics can achieve work-related goals. If work-
aholics are unable to fulfill their work aspirations,
they may feel less satisfied with the job (Burke,
2000b; Scott et al., 1997). This perspective is also
supported by Schaef and Fassel (1988). They char-
acterize workaholism as an addiction or compulsion
that leads to reduced satisfaction; this may lie in the
fact that workaholics experience greater stress, which
in turn lowers satisfaction. Furthermore, Burke
(2000b) found a negative relation between worka-
holism and extrawork satisfactions (e.g., family,
friends, community). It appears that most of the re-
search that has been conducted regarding the relation
between workaholism and job satisfaction has re-
vealed a negative relation.
Hypothesis 2c: Workaholics will be associated
with higher levels of job dissatisfaction.
Work–Life Balance. Past research in the area of
work/nonwork conflict has mainly focused on “fam-
ily” as the prominent aspect of life in the nonwork
domain. However, by focusing solely on family, we
fail to consider aspects of nonwork life (e.g., house-
hold chores, personal hobbies) in addition to family
(Fisher, 2001). Therefore, Fisher sought to enhance
our understanding of the stress that results from
55
work/nonwork conflict by developing a broader con-
struct referred to as work–life balance. Though
work–life balance is related to work–family conflict,
it is a broader, all-encompassing concept.
Fisher (2001) defined work–life balance as an oc-
cupational stressor based on lost resources of time
(e.g., amount of time spent at work relative to time
spent in nonwork activities), energy (e.g., having
energy available to pursue nonwork activities after a
full day’s work), lack of goal accomplishment, and
role strain between work and personal life demands.
Employees are being required to do more work as
organizations downsize, merge, or undergo restruc-
turing. A trend of working longer hours emerges as a
result of such organizational changes (Danna & Grif-
fin, 1999; Bonebright et al., 2000), which in turn
hinders work–life balance. Seybold and Salomone
(1994) have also suggested that workaholics over-
commit to work as a means to escape their personal
lives, whereas hard workers neglect their personal
lives in an attempt to succeed at work. For the pur-
poses of the current study, work–life balance is
equated with the absence of work interference with
personal life (WIPL).
Hypothesis 2d. Workaholics will be associated
with greater levels of WIPL.
Life Satisfaction. Life satisfaction is the degree
to which individuals judge the overall quality of their
lives favorably (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin,
1985). It is reasonable to assume that workaholism
influences employee satisfaction that is external to
the job itself (i.e., life satisfaction). Stress, burnout,
and health complaints that result from workaholism
would not only have an effect on work-related out-
comes (e.g., job performance) but also have adverse
effects on things that lie outside the boundaries of
work, namely, life satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2e: Workaholics will be associated
with higher levels of life dissatisfaction.
Methods
Participants
Because white-collar professionals are typically associ-
ated with workaholism, professional employees (N ⫽ 174)
from various white-collar organizations (e.g., consulting
firms, oil companies, government agencies) located in Can-
ada (78%) and the United States (22%) served as the current
study sample. The Wilcoxon’s Matched Pairs test indicated
that Canadians and Americans were not significantly differ-
ent in terms of the study variables and demographics (e.g.,
56 AZIZ AND ZICKAR
age, gender, ethnicity); therefore, the Canadian and U.S.
samples were combined to conduct analyses.
The complete sample consisted of both males (56%) and
females (44%). Employees ranged in age from 23 to 70
years, with a mean age of 43. The majority (68%) of the
employees in this sample were Caucasian. Organizational
tenure ranged from less than one year to 15 years or more;
26% of the survey respondents had been with their current
organization for more than 15 years. Furthermore, approx-
imately a quarter (28%) of those surveyed had served be-
tween 3 and 4 years in their current position.
Procedure
Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants:
alumni, friends, and acquaintances who were affiliated with
professional organizations were contacted as sources for
data collection. In this sense, the white-collar organizations
that were selected for inclusion in the current study were
those in which familiar others served as contact people. In
general, the acquaintance rated the participant on such vari-
ables as job satisfaction and work–life balance, thereby
providing a “knowledgeable other” check of the participant.
For brevity purposes, not all scales were rated by acquain-
tances. When answering the questions, acquaintances were
asked to think about the individual who provided them with
the survey. This individual was referred to as the ratee. We
told acquaintances that we were interested in how they
believe this individual would respond to each question and
that we would link their survey responses to a survey that
was administered to the ratee. Acquaintances were assured
that an identification number would be used to anonymously
track both sets of survey responses. Out of the 385 paired
surveys (i.e., surveys sent to employees and their acquain-
tances) that were mailed out, 174 completed paired surveys
were returned and used in the study, yielding a response rate
of 45%.
Measures
Workaholism. Spence and Robbins’s (1992) measure
was used to assess work involvement, drive to work, and
work enjoyment. Each facet consists of its own set of items.
The scale measures items on a five-point Likert format
ranging from “very true of me” to “very untrue of me.” For
the employee sample, the following reliability coefficients
were obtained: 0.74 for work involvement, 0.81 for feeling
driven to work, and 0.90 for work enjoyment. Similarly, for
the acquaintance sample, the reliability coefficients were as
follows: 0.73 for work involvement, 0.78 for feeling driven
to work, and 0.88 for work enjoyment.
Job Involvement. Reeve and Smith’s (2001) 20-item
scale was used to measure job involvement. The response
format consists of four-point bipolar scales anchored by
“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” The current study
employee sample obtained an alpha of 0.80. Similarly, an
alpha of 0.81 was obtained for the acquaintance sample.
Work Stress. The 15-item SIG scale (Stanton et al.,
2001) was used to measure overall work stress. Responses
to each of the 16 items on the SIG measure were recoded as
“Y” for “yes,” “N” for “no,” and “?” for “cannot decide.”
Scoring for the SIG is as follows: “Y” ⫽ 3, “N” ⫽ 0, “?” ⫽
1.5 for the positively worded items and “Y” ⫽ 0, “N” ⫽ 3,
“?” ⫽ 1.5 for the negatively worded items. Higher scores
indicate higher levels of overall stress. The present study
obtained an overall alpha value of 0.86.
Job Satisfaction. The 18-item Job in General scale
(JIG; Ironson, Smith, Brannick, Gibson, & Paul, 1989) was
used to measure overall job satisfaction. The response scale
for the JIG scale is similar to the SIG: “Y” for “yes,” “N”
for “no,” and “?” for “cannot decide.” Scoring for the JIG is
as follows: “Y” ⫽ 3, “N” ⫽ 0, “?” ⫽ 1 for the positively
worded items and “Y” ⫽ 0, “N” ⫽ 3, “?” ⫽ 1 for the
negatively worded items. Higher scores indicate higher lev-
els of overall job satisfaction. The current study found a
reliability coefficient of 0.91 for the employee sample.
Similarly, an alpha of 0.85 was obtained for the acquain-
tance sample.
Work–Life Balance. Fisher’s (2001) 13-item WIPL
scale was used to measure work–life balance. Following
Fisher’s methods, respondents were asked to indicate the
frequency that they felt a particular way during the previous
3 months using a six-point scale. The current study obtained
a reliability coefficient of 0.89 for the WIPL scale. Simi-
larly, an alpha of 0.87 was obtained for the acquaintance
sample.
Life Satisfaction. Diener et al.’s (1985) five-item Satis-
faction with Life scale was used to assess overall life
satisfaction. The Diener et al. scale measures items on a
seven-point Likert format ranging from “strongly disagree”
to “strongly agree.” The current study obtained an alpha
value of 0.89.
In addition to the previously indicated measures, respon-
dents indicated the total number of hours per week they
worked on the job (including outside of work). Finally, our
study also employed a self-label measure of the employees’
ratings of themselves as workaholics. Participants were
asked, “On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being high, how much
do you consider yourself to be a workaholic?” Acquain-
tances were asked a similar question about the study
participant.
Results
Table 2 shows total employee and acquaintance
sample means and standard deviations for all vari-
ables. Overall, a comparison of the means of the
employee and the acquaintance reveals very similar
patterns. For example, the average workaholism rat-
ing was 6 on a 10-point scale for both samples. In
addition, both employees and acquaintances indi-
cated the average total weekly work hours to be 50
hours per week (including outside of work).
Pearson correlations and Cronbach alphas for all
employee and acquaintance variables appear in Ta-
bles 3 and 4, respectively. Alpha values ranged from
.73 to .91 and are consistent with those cited in
previous research. Although several significant cor-
relations are observed in the tables, to be succinct, we
highlight the fact that the pattern of correlations is
similar to bivariate relations that have been found in
 WORKAHOLISM AS A SYNDROME 57

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of All Variables for Employees and Acquaintances (N ⫽ 174)
Possible range Range of scores
of scores obtained M SD
Employee
Workaholism rating 1–10 1–10 5.89 2.21
Hours per week — 30–105 49.88 11.24
Job involvement 9–36 10–35 22.46 5.26
Work stress 0–48 0–48 24.12 12.32
Job satisfaction 0–54 0–54 43.54 10.32
Work interference with personal life 1–6 1.31–4.62 2.75 0.71
Life satisfaction 5–35 9–35 24.11 6.39
Work involvement 8–40 13–38 25.69 5.61
Drive to work 7–35 9–35 23.56 5.53
Work enjoyment 10–50 15–50 35.08 7.52
Acquaintance
Workaholism rating 1–10 1–10 5.90 2.18
Hours per week — 30–100 49.70 10.45
Job involvement 9–36 10–34 22.02 5.19
Job satisfaction 0–54 8–54 43.18 8.90
Work interference with personal life 1–6 1.23–4.38 2.81 0.70
Work involvement 8–40 13–39 25.58 5.72
Drive to work 7–35 8–34 23.70 5.27
Work enjoyment 10–50 11–49 33.14 7.21

other samples. Therefore, the data appear to be con-
sistent with previous research.
To assess interrater agreement, intraclass correla-
tions between the employee and the acquaintance
were calculated on all study variables (e.g., total
weekly work hours, job involvement, WIPL) (see
Table 5). Results indicated significant (p ⬍ .01)
intraclass correlations between the employee and the
acquaintance on all study variables (e.g., total weekly
work hours; r ⫽ .69, p ⬍ .01). In essence, the
acquaintances substantiated the responses provided
by the employees. Wilcoxon’s Matched Pairs tests
identified no mean differences between acquaintance
and employee respondents. Therefore, employees did
not tend to deny their behavior in comparison to
acquaintances and seemed to have a fairly accurate
view of themselves.
Hypothesis 1: Workaholism Syndrome
To test the syndrome hypothesis, scores for each of
Spence and Robbins’s (1992) three dimensions of

Table 3
Correlations Among All Employee Variables (N ⫽ 174)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Employee’s rating —
2. Hours per week 0.47** —
3. Job involvement 0.57** 0.36** 0.80
4. Work stress 0.38** 0.30** 0.24** 0.86
5. Job satisfaction 0.07 0.01 0.33** ⫺0.35** 0.91
6. WIPL 0.41** 0.38** 0.34** 0.67** ⫺0.26** 0.89
7. Life satisfaction ⫺0.29** ⫺0.09 ⫺0.31** ⫺0.38** 0.22* ⫺0.39** 0.90
8. Work involvement 0.49** 0.34** 0.62** 0.21* 0.04 0.38** ⫺0.23* 0.74
9. Drive to work 0.43** 0.25** 0.43** 0.47** ⫺0.22* 0.48** ⫺0.27** 0.65** 0.81
10. Work enjoyment 0.29** 0.20** 0.66** ⫺0.08 0.59** ⫺0.01 0.16 0.39** 0.18 0.90
11. Acquaintance’s rating — 0.48** 0.46** 0.28** 0.03 0.32** ⫺0.23** 0.36** 0.31** 0.24**
Note. Internal consistency reliabilities on diagonal are Cronbach’s alpha.
* p ⬍ 0.05. ** p ⬍ 0.01.
58 AZIZ AND ZICKAR

Table 4
Correlations Among All Acquaintance Variables (N ⫽ 174)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Acquaintance’s rating —
2. Hours per week 0.53** —
3. Job involvement 0.57** 0.44** 0.81
4. Job satisfaction 0.11 0.06 0.49** 0.85
5. WIPL 0.45** 0.33** 0.49** ⫺0.03 0.87
6. Work involvement 0.44** 0.21** 0.53** 0.11 0.43** 0.73
7. Drive to work 0.47** 0.19* 0.50** ⫺0.02 0.42** 0.42** 0.78
8. Work enjoyment 0.37** 0.33** 0.65** 0.61** 0.18* 0.44** 0.21* 0.88
Note. Internal consistency reliabilities on diagonal are Cronbach’s alpha.
* p ⬍ 0.05. ** p ⬍ 0.01.

workaholism (i.e., work involvement, drive to work, definition of workaholism, individuals falling into
work enjoyment) were first transformed (or standard- cluster 1 are referred to instead as positively engaged
ized) into z scores. Next, a K-means cluster analysis workers. In contrast, individuals who scored below
(Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984) was performed to the mean on all three dimensions were classified as
show there is a cluster that fits the configuration of unengaged workers (cluster 3). Cluster 2 fit the con-
workaholics as proposed by Spence and Robbins figuration of standard workaholics proposed by
(i.e., high work involvement, high drive to work, and Spence and Robbins, thereby supporting hypothesis
low work enjoyment). We analyzed two-cluster, 1. Table 6 shows the number of employees per cluster
three-cluster, and four-cluster solutions. The three- and the resulting means of the three workaholism
cluster solution was more interpretable, sensible, and dimensions. In sum, 40% (n ⫽ 69) of the sample
consistent with Spence and Robbins’s worker types. belonged to cluster 1, 23% (n ⫽ 39) to cluster 2, and,
For interpretability’s sake, scores above the mean finally, 37% (n ⫽ 64) to cluster 3.
(positive z scores) were classified as “high” scores
and those below the mean (negative z scores) as
“low” scores. Applying Spence and Robbins’s de- Hypothesis 2: Correlates of Workaholism
fined patterns of high and low scores on their three
facets (see Table 1), participants in each cluster were To further validate that the cluster indeed consists
classified into a particular worker type. For example, of workaholics, we compared that cluster with the
an individual who scored above the mean on all three other clusters to see if they were higher (or lower) on
dimensions was classified as an enthusiastic worka- variables that have been proposed to be associated
holic (cluster 1). Given that the term “enthusiastic with workaholism using one-way analyses of vari-
workaholic” is inconsistent with the current study ance. Both employee and acquaintance variables
were used in these analyses. Mean scores on all
measures for positively engaged workers, worka-
holics, and unengaged workers are shown in Table 6.
Table 5 Significant differences were found across all three
Intraclass Correlations (ICC) Between Employee clusters for each employee and acquaintance corre-
Variables with Acquaintance Variables (N ⫽ 174) late (see F tests in Table 7). We employed Tukey
follow-up tests for pairwise comparisons that cor-
Variable ICC rected for experiment-wise error rates. For succinct-
1. Workaholism rating 0.54** ness, only those comparisons that include the pur-
2. Hours per week 0.69** ported workaholic group are emphasized. We found
3. Job involvement 0.62** workaholics (cluster 2) to have significantly higher
4. Job satisfaction 0.40**
5. WIPL 0.60** self-labels of workaholism (M ⫽ 7.05), hours worked
6. Work involvement 0.51** per week (M ⫽ 52.90), job involvement (M ⫽ 23.92),
7. Drive to work 0.48** work stress (M ⫽ 29.38), work–life imbalance (M ⫽
8. Work enjoyment 0.49** 2.95), and life dissatisfaction (M ⫽ 20.87) than un-
** p ⬍ 0.01. engaged workers (cluster 3) and significantly less job
 WORKAHOLISM AS A SYNDROME 59

Table 6
Number of Employees per Cluster/Type, Percentage of the Sample, and Mean z Scores for Spence and
Robbins’s (1992) Dimensions
Work Drive Work
Cluster n (%) involvement to work enjoyment
1 (Positively engaged worker) 69 (40) 0.3183 0.0506 0.8381
2 (Workaholic) 39 (23) 0.8089 1.1068 ⫺0.3091
3 (Unengaged worker) 64 (37) ⫺0.8361 ⫺0.7290 ⫺0.7152

satisfaction (M ⫽ 38.69), work–life balance, and life
satisfaction than positively engaged workers (cluster
1). Likewise, acquaintance reports found workaholics
to have significantly higher acquaintance labels of
workaholism (M ⫽ 6.79), job involvement (M ⫽
22.95), and work–life imbalance (M ⫽ 2.92) than
unengaged workers. Overall, these results provide
support for hypotheses 2a through 2e.
Discussion
The current study extended previous research in
several important ways. First, workaholism was con-
ceptualized as a syndrome in that a set of key com-
ponents was considered to characterize the worka-
holic. Employees who experienced these characteristics
in conjunction with each other were more likely to be
workaholics than those who just experienced a subset
of the symptoms. In addition, because white-collar
professionals are typically associated with worka-
holism, the current study was composed of employ-
ees from various professions in white-collar organi-
zations; few studies have investigated workaholism
in organizational samples. Furthermore, in addition
to self-reports, our study also used reports from fam-
ily, friends, and coworkers. There was agreement on
the relative standing of individuals with respect to
workaholism, in that the acquaintance’s results sub-
stantiated the employee’s findings. This agreement
alleviates some of the standard concerns that have
been made about self-report.
Workaholism Relations
With a few exceptions, substantial support was
found for the individual relations among Spence and
Robbins’s (1992) triad of workaholism (i.e., work
involvement, drive to work, work enjoyment) with

Table 7
Means (and Standard Deviations) of Correlates for All Three Clusters of Worker Types
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
Correlate M SD M SD M SD F(2, 171)
Employee
Workaholism rating 6.28 (2.24)a 7.05 (1.69)a 4.80 (1.96)b 17.06***
Hours per week 51.51 (12.90)a 52.90 (10.70)a 46.33 (7.93)b 5.79**
Job involvement 24.46 (4.44)a 23.92 (5.03)a 19.22 (4.93)b 22.76***
Work stress 23.96 (12.27)a,b 29.38 (11.27)a 20.58 (11.93)b 6.61**
Job satisfaction 47.44 (6.08)a 38.69 (15.05)b 42.78 (8.74)b 10.57***
Work-life imbalance 2.58 (0.67)a 2.95 (0.69)b 2.37 (0.63)a,c 9.23***
Life satisfaction 24.93 (6.26)a 20.87 (7.26)b 25.41 (5.40)a,c 7.30***
Acquaintance
Workaholism rating 6.24 (2.05)a 6.79 (1.94)a 4.94 (2.16)b 11.35***
Hours per week 51.97 (11.22)a 50.92 (10.00)a,b 46.85 (9.00)b 4.37*
Job involvement 24.21 (4.98)a 22.95 (4.66)a 19.76 (5.07)b 13.55***
Job satisfaction 45.52 (8.06)a 41.79 (10.20)a,b 41.74 (8.74)b 3.73*
Work-life imbalance 2.70 (0.66)a 2.92 (0.72)a,b 2.42 (0.55)c 7.90***
Note. Means in the same row that have the same subscript are not significantly different at p ⬍ .05 in the Tukey honestly
significant difference comparison.
* p ⬍ 0.05. ** p ⬍ 0.01. *** p ⬍ 0.001.
60 AZIZ AND ZICKAR
most of the correlates of workaholism (e.g., total
weekly work hours, workaholism ratings, job in-
volvement). For the most part, the pattern of corre-
lations among the different variables reflects the find-
ings of other researchers.
The following results are based on replication of
past studies. In their study on workaholism, Burke
(2001c) found average total weekly hours to be 51
hours per week; in our study, both employees and
acquaintances indicated the mean total weekly work
hours to be 50 hours per week (including outside of
work). In addition, given the positive relations found
in the literature between job involvement and job
satisfaction (e.g., Furnham, Brewin, & O’Kelly,
1994; Morrow & Crum, 1998), Mudrack and Naugh-
ton (2001) expected (and found) positive relations
between work involvement and work enjoyment. Our
findings also showed significantly positive correla-
tions between work involvement and work enjoy-
ment. Furthermore, Bonebright et al. (2000) found
that workaholics were likely to work more hours per
week than their nonworkaholic counterparts; our
study revealed a positive correlation between total
weekly work hours and workaholism ratings.
Bivariate correlations between job satisfaction and
work involvement were not statistically significant
for both self and acquaintance reports. The absence
of a significant correlation between these two vari-
ables is not surprising given the mixed findings from
previous literature; the verdict with regard to the
workaholism–job satisfaction relation remains unre-
solved. In fact, Mudrack and Naughton (2001) did
not expect a strong directional relation between work-
aholism and job satisfaction. Additionally, the fact
that we did not find a clear relation between worka-
holism and job satisfaction mirrors the results of
Bonebright et al. (2000). Perhaps this is due to the
nature of the items that were used to assess overall
job satisfaction. The items that constitute the JIG
scale (e.g., ideal, better than most, makes me content)
are personal in nature, thereby creating a strong po-
tential for individual differences in overall job
satisfaction.
Though not surprising, another observation is the
slightly higher magnitude of correlation coefficients
for the employee’s self-label of workaholism com-
pared to the acquaintance rating. For example, the
correlation between self-label and job involvement
was 0.57 versus 0.46 for the acquaintance’s rating of
the employee as a workaholic. Two possible expla-
nations are offered. First, perhaps employees rated
themselves higher on workaholism because they
wanted to present themselves to others in a better
light (i.e., social desirability). This is not improbable
given that the positive connotation associated with
being a workaholic has become fairly prevalent in
our society. Second, individuals might be more aware
of and have better insights into their own behavior
(Spector, 1994).
Workaholism as a Syndrome
The current study helped to clarify some of the
confusion in the realm of workaholism by determin-
ing that the workaholic is portrayed by a set of
distinct characteristics. In this sense, workaholism
can be conceptualized as a multifaceted syndrome.
Considerable support was found for the notion of
workaholism as a syndrome in that each of Spence
and Robbins’s (1992) components (i.e., high work
involvement, high drive to work, low work enjoy-
ment) were necessary (though not sufficient) for an
individual to be classified as a workaholic. In fact, a
class of employees was found to match the pattern of
workaholics proposed by Spence and Robbins,
thereby substantiating that workaholism is truly a
syndrome.
Results provided strong evidence that the class of
employees was in fact composed of workaholics in that
the employees were more likely to experience the
correlates of workaholism (e.g., more acquaintance-
labeling, greater job involvement, reduced job satis-
faction). Our findings support those of past research-
ers, who, for example, found positive relations
between workaholism and job involvement (e.g.,
Mudrack & Naughton, 2001), and workaholism and
work stress (e.g., Burke, 2000a; Burke & MacDer-
mid, 1999). Results from our study also indicate that
workaholics experience more work–life imbalance
and less life satisfaction than nonworkaholics. To the
authors’ knowledge, this has not been previously
explored in empirical studies on workaholism. One
should also note that hours worked alone do not
indicate a workaholic. Many external reasons, such
as the need for money or organizational culture, may
account for the long work hours. Therefore, perhaps
workaholics are (in part) those individuals who are
intrinsically motivated to work long hours because of
an inability to disengage. In this way, workaholics
may be somewhat similar to Type A personality types
(see Seybold & Salomone, 1994, for more discussion
on the connection between Type A and workaholism).
To create effective intervention and treatment pro-
grams, it is imperative that the notion of workaholism
as a syndrome be taken into account by mental health
professionals and career counselors. A dimensional
 WORKAHOLISM AS A SYNDROME
focus enables practitioners and their clients to exam-
ine specific symptoms of workaholism instead of the
global construct (Burke, 2001c). For example, in
terms of work–life balance, Burke (2001d) notes that
it is imperative that “workplace values encourage
more balanced priorities and healthier lifestyles to
support those workaholics [who] want to change their
behaviors” (p. 643).
Limitations and Future Research
One of the main limitations of the study was that
current marital/relationship status, number of chil-
dren, and management level were unknown. Perhaps
stronger relations are attained between workaholism
and such variables as work stress and work–life im-
balance for managers who are married with children.
Based on several grounds, McMillan et al. (2002)
suggest that Spence and Robbins’s (1992) scale war-
rants further analysis. Once we acquire a thorough
understanding of what constitutes the workaholic,
future studies must focus on developing a valid,
reliable scale that identifies workaholics. In addition,
attempts should be made to further examine types of
workaholics in different occupations and the effects
various types have on organizations. Such research
may shed light on the conflicting conclusions that
exist in both the clinical and practitioner literature
pertaining to workaholism (e.g., Burke, 2001d). Fur-
thermore, the ability to generalize between cultures
and national origins was limited given that most
respondents were of Caucasian American decent.
Therefore, future studies should sample from differ-
ent populations to explore whether workaholism is a
universal concept. Finally, empirical research on
workaholism and gender has been scant; therefore,
future studies must investigate the importance of
gender roles in shaping workaholic behaviors. The
ability to distinguish gender differences will allow
for better predictions of workaholism in the work-
place; this will assist organizations in recognizing
workaholism and taking an appropriate plan of
action.
References
Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster
analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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(4), 469 – 477.
Burke, H. R., & Mayer, S. (1985). The MMPI and the
61
post-traumatic stress syndrome in Vietnam era veterans.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 152–156.
Burke, R. J. (2000a). Workaholism in organizations: Psy-
chological and physical well-being consequences. Stress
Medicine, 16, 11–16.
Burke, R. J. (2000b). Workaholism and extra-work satis-
factions. The International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 7(4), 352–364.
Burke, R. J. (2001a). Predictors of workaholism compo-
nents and behaviors. International Journal of Stress
Management, 8(2), 113–127.
Burke, R. J. (2001b). Spence and Robbins’ measures of
workaholism components: Test–retest stability. Psycho-
logical Reports, 88, 882– 888.
Burke, R. J. (2001c). Workaholism components, job satis-
faction, and career progress. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 31(11), 2339 –2356.
Burke, R. J. (2001d). Workaholism in organizations: The
role of organizational values. Personnel Review, 30(6),
637– 645.
Burke, R. J., & MacDermid, G. (1999). Are workaholics job
satisfied and successful in their careers? Career Devel-
opment International, 4(5), 277–282.
Cranny, C. J., Smith, P. C., & Stone, E. F. (Eds.). (1992).
Job satisfaction. New York: Lexington.
Dana, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well-being in
the workplace. Journal of Management, 25, 357–384.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S.
(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Fisher, G. G. (2001). Work/personal life balance: A con-
struct development study. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Bowling Green State University.
Flowers, C. P., & Robinson, B. (2002). A structural and
discriminant analysis of the work addiction risk test.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(3),
517–526.
Furnham, A., Brewin, C. R., & O’Kelly, H. (1994). Cogni-
tive style and attitudes to work. Human Relations, 47,
1509 –1521.
Harpaz, I., & Snir, R. (2003). Workaholism: Its definition
and nature. Human Relations, 56(3), 291–319.
Haubrich, W. S. (1984). Medical meanings: A glossary of
word origins. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson,
W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a job in
general scale: A comparison of global, composite and
specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,
1– 8.
Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work
involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67,
341–349.
Kaser-Boyd, N. (2004). Battered woman syndrome: Clini-
cal features, evaluation, and expert testimony. In B. J.
Cling (Ed.), Sexualized violence against women and chil-
dren: A psychology and law perspective (pp. 41–70).
New York: Guilford Press.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and
coping. New York: Springer.
Macpherson, G. (2004). Black’s medical dictionary. Lan-
ham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Maslach, C. (1982). Understanding burnout: Definitional
issues in analyzing a complex phenomenon. In W. S.
62 AZIZ AND ZICKAR
Paine (Ed.), Job stress and burnout (pp. 29 – 40). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
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. Jour-
nal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75,
357–368.
Morrow, P. C., & Crum, M. R. (1998). The effects of
perceived and objective safety risk on employee out-
comes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 300 –313.
Mudrack, P. E., & Naughton, T. J. (2001). The assessment
of workaholism as behavioral tendencies: Scale develop-
ment and preliminary empirical testing. International
Journal of Stress Management, 8(2), 93–111.
Oates, W. (1971). Confession of a workaholic. New York:
World.
Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational
behavior. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism:
Suggestions for researching the negative outcomes of
excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-
chology, 1(1), 70 – 84.
Porter, G. (2001). Workaholic tendencies and the high po-
tential for stress among co- workers. International Jour-
nal of Stress Management, 8(2), 147–164.
Reeve, C. L., & Smith, C. S. (2001). Refining Lodahl and
Kejner’s job involvement scale with a convergent evi-
dence approach: Applying multiple methods to multiple
samples. Organizational Research Methods, 4(2),
91–111.
Robinson, B. E. (1998). Chained to the desk: A guidebook
for workaholics, their partners and children, and the
clinicians who treat them. New York: New York Uni-
versity Press.
Schaef, A. W., & Fassel, D. (1988). The addictive organi-
zation. San Francisco: Harper Row.
Schor, J. B. (1991). The overworked American. New York:
Basic Books.
Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997). An
exploration of the meaning and consequences of worka-
holism. Human Relations, 50(3), 287–314.
Seybold, K. C., & Salomone, P. R. (1994). Understanding
workaholism: A review of causes and counseling ap-
proaches. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73,
410 – 418.
Snir, R., & Zohar, D. (2000). Workaholism: Work-addiction
or workphilia? Paper presented at the June Internal Con-
ference on Psychology: Psychology after the year 2000,
University of Haifa, Israel.
Sparks, K., Cooper, C., Fried, Y., & Shirom, A. (1997). The
effects of hours of work on health: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 70, 391– 408.
Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in
OB research: A comment on the use of a controversial
method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 385–392.
Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism:
Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Jour-
nal of Personality Assessment, 58(1), 160 –178.
Stanton, J. M., Balzer, W. K., Smith, P. C., Parra, L. F., &
Ironson, G. (2001). A general measure of work stress:
The stress in general (SIG) scale. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement, 61(5), 866 – 888.
Received December 16, 2004
Revision received May 5, 2005
Accepted June 16, 2005 y