Workaholic behaviors: Do colleagues agree?

Brief Reports

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Workaholic Behaviors: Do Colleagues Agree? Ronald J. Burke York University Eddy S. W. Ng Trent University

Although workaholism has been hypothesized to have an effect on interpersonal relationships, few studies have obtained data from other individuals in a focal person’s network. The present exploratory study examined level of agreement in both workaholism components proposed by Spence and Robbins (1992; work involvement, feeling driven to work, work enjoyment) and hours worked per week between 62 women and men in professional and managerial jobs and a self-nominated coworker. Data were collected using anonymously completed questionnaires. There was considerable agreement between the two individuals on levels of the three workaholism components and hours worked per week. Keywords: workaholic behaviors, coworker agreement, managers

Although the popular press has paid considerable attention to workaholism (Fassel, 1990; Garfield, 1987; Kiechel, 1989a, 1989b; Killinger, 1991; Klaft & Kleiner, 1988; Machlowitz, 1980; Spruel, 1987; Waddell, 1993) very little research has been undertaken to further our understanding of it. Most writing has been anecdotal and clinical (Fassel, 1990; Killinger, 1991; Oates, 1971; Schaef & Fassel, 1988). Basic questions of definition have not been Ronald J. Burke, the Schulich School of Business, York University; Eddy S. W. Ng, Department of Business Administration, Trent University. This research was supported in part by the Schulich School of Business, York University; the Business Administration Program, Trent University; and the DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University. We thank the organization and our participants for their cooperation. Lisa Fiksenbaum assisted with data analysis. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ronald J. Burke, Department of Organizational Behavior, Schulich School of Business, York University, 4700 Keele Street, North York, ONT M3J 1P3, Canada. E-mail: [email protected] 312 International Journal of Stress Management 2007, Vol. 14, No. 3, 312–320

Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association 1072-5245/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1072-5245.14.3.312


Workaholic Behaviors

313

addressed and measurement concerns have been avoided (Scott, Moore, & Miceli, 1997). It should come as no surprise then that opinions, observations, and conclusions about workaholism are both varied and conflicting. Some writers view workaholism positively from an organizational perspective (Korn, Pratt, & Lambrou, 1987; Machlowitz, 1980; Sprankle & Ebel, 1987). Machlowitz (1980) conducted a qualitative interview study of 100 workaholics and found them to be very satisfied and productive. Others view workaholism negatively (Killinger, 1991; Oates, 1971; Schaef & Fassel, 1988). These writers equate workaholism with other addictions and depict workaholics as unhappy, obsessive, tragic figures who are not performing their jobs well and who create difficulties for their coworkers (Naughton, 1987; Oates, 1971; Porter, 1996). The former would advocate the encouragement of workaholism; the latter would discourage it. Some researchers have proposed the existence of different types of workaholic behavior patterns, each having potentially different antecedents and associations with job performance, work, and life outcomes (Naughton, 1987; Scott et al., 1997; Spence & Robbins, 1992). Naughton (1987) presents a typology of workaholism based on the dimensions of career commitment and obsession-compulsion. Job-involved workaholics (high work commitment, low obsession-compulsion) are hypothesized to perform well in demanding jobs and be highly job satisfied with low interest in nonwork activities. Research on workaholism has been hindered by the absence of acceptable definitions and measures (Scott et al., 1997). It is difficult to understand and research a phenomenon until one can define what it is. Mosier (1982) defined workaholism in terms of hours worked; workaholics were those who worked at least 50 hours per week. Cherrington (1980) sees workaholism as “an irrational commitment to excessive work. Workaholics are unable to take time off or to comfortably divert their interests” (p. 257). Machlowitz (1980) defines workaholics as people “who always devote more time and thoughts to their work than the situation demands. . .what sets workaholics apart from other workers is their attitude toward work, not the number of hours they work” (p. 11). Spence and Robbins (1992) identified three workaholism components based on an extensive review of the literature: work involvement, feeling driven to work, and work enjoyment. Work Addicts score high on work involvement and feeling driven to work and low on work enjoyment. Work Enthusiasts score high on work involvement and work enjoyment and low on feeling driven to work. Enthusiastic Addicts score high on all three components. They then offer a number of hypotheses as to how these three workaholic patterns might differ from each other. Thus, Work Addicts would be more perfectionistic, would experience greater stress, and would report


314

Burke and Ng

more physical health symptoms. The existence of different types of workaholic patterns might help reconcile conflicting observations and conclusions cited above. Some writers have developed measures of workaholism (Doerfler & Kammer, 1996; Engstrom & Juroe, 1979; Fassel, 1990; Killinger, 1991; Machlowitz, 1980; Robinson & Phillips, 1995; Spence & Robbins, 1992; Spruel, 1987), but with the exception of Robinson (1998) and Spence and Robbins (1992), the majority were not based on a clear definition of workaholism nor did not provide psychometric information on the measure and its validity. Despite these limitations, a compelling case could be made for devoting more research attention to workaholism. The concept has received considerable attention in the popular press. In addition, it is not clear whether workaholism has positive or negative organizational consequences (Killinger, 1991; Machlowitz, 1980). There is also debate on the association of workaholic behaviors with a variety of personal well-being indicators, such as psychological and physical health and self-esteem. Finally, different types of workaholic behavior patterns likely exist, each having unique antecedents and outcomes. The question of whether workaholism can or should be reduced had also been raised (Killinger, 1991; Porter, 1996; Seybold & Salomone, 1994). The present study builds on previous work as well as extends this work to new areas. A decision was made to use the definition of workaholism put forward by Spence and Robbins (1992) and their measures. Their definition was the first academic/research definition and their measure was described in enough detail to assess reliability and validity issues. Although an individual’s workaholic behaviors have been hypothesized to have an impact on the quality of their interpersonal relationships, we found only one study (McMillan, 2002) that collected data from both a focal person and others in his or her network. McMillan collected data from colleagues and from spouses/partners of focal individuals in two studies. In her first study, McMillan obtained data from 88 workers, 77 colleagues, and 40 partners. The workers in this study were selected to be high and low scoring workaholics on her revised version of the Spence and Robbins measure (14 items on two scales – Feeling Driven, Joy in Work). Colleagues completed the two workaholism scales and estimated hours worked per week. Partners completed perceptions of focal persons on the two workaholism scales, estimates of focal person’s time commitments, time spent thinking about work, hours worked, time spent communicating with significant others, and a measure of dyadic adjustment. She found that workers rated their Joy in Work higher than colleagues’ estimates and tended to rate Joy in Work higher than spouse/partners did. Workers rated their



315

levels of Feeling Driven to work higher than both colleagues and spouse/ partners as well. In her second study, data were collected from 55 workers, 52 colleagues, and 24 spouses/partners. Colleagues completed perceptions of the focal worker on the two workaholism scales (Feeling Driven, Joy in Work) and three single items: “Have you ever called your colleague a workaholic?,” “How much of a workaholic do you think they are?,” and “What number do you think your colleague would given themselves?” Partners completed these same questions. She reported no difference in the reports provided by workers, colleagues, and spouse/partners in these measures. Thus, although she hypothesized that workers would provide lower estimates of their workaholism (denial), no evidence was found to support this. This study using data from both workers and colleagues, explores the level of agreement between them on both specific workaholism components and overall or global assessments of workaholism levels conveyed by the term workaholic. This research should be considered exploratory given the relatively small sizes of the samples.

METHOD Procedure

Questionnaires were distributed to 170 HR professionals working for the same large financial services institution. These individuals were asked to identify a coworker who knew them well and ask this person to complete a brief questionnaire regarding the focal individual and return it to the focal person in a sealed envelope. The focal person then placed both questionnaires in another envelope and returned it to an internal contact person.

Respondents

The response rate was about 40%, comprising 62 matched pairs. Demographic characteristics of the focal person and the coworker are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The focal respondents were mostly female (82%), worked full-time (87%), were married (84%), had children (64%), typically had two children (57%), were between 36 and 50 years of age (66%), worked 41–50 hours per week (49%) were in middle management, had worked in their current jobs 3 years or less (76%) but had worked for the organization 16 years or more (58%), and earned between $51,000 and $70,000 in 2001 (50%).

316

Burke and Ng


Table 1. Demographic Characteristics – Focal Person Gender

N

%

Male Female Work status Full-time Part-time Marital status Single Married Length of marriage 5 or less 6–10 11–15 15–20 21 or more Organizational level Non-management Lower management Middle management Senior management Work breaks Yes No 2001 income $50,000 or less $51,000 – 60,000 $61,000 – 70,000 $71,000 – 80,000 $81,000 – 90,000 $91,000 – 100,000 $100,000 or more Age 35 or less 36–40 41–45 46–50 51 or older Parental status Children Childless Number of children 1 2 3 Hours worked 30 or less 31–40 41–50 51 or more Worked part-time Yes No

17 50

18.0 82.0

53 8

86.9 13.1

10 51

16.4 83.6

10 7 13 9 13

19.2 13.5 25.0 17.3 25.0

6

9.8

12

19.7

40

65.6

3

4.9

17 36

32.1 67.9

4 13 13 6 6 4 6

7.7 25.0 25.0 11.5 11.6 7.7 11.5

13 15 13 13 8

21.0 34.2 20.9 21.0 12.9

39 22

64.0 36.1

12 22 4

31.6 57.3 10.1

8 20 30 3

13.1 32.8 49.2 4.9

14 39

26.4 73.6


Table 1. (Continued) N

Gender


317

Organizational tenure 5 years or less 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26 or more Job tenure 1 year or less 2–3 4–5 6 or more

%

4 9 13 14 12 10

6.5 14.5 20.9 23.6 19.4 16.1

23 24 7 8

37.1 38.7 11.3 12.9

Coworkers were mostly female (89%), at similar organizational levels (50%), worked in the same department (90%), has close relationships with the focal person (87%), and knew the focal person more than most other coworkers (50%).

Measures

Personal and Work Situation Characteristics A number of personal and work situation characteristics were measured by a variety of single item measures (e.g., gender, age, organizational level, hours worked per week). Table 2. Colleague Demographics – Coworker Relative level Less senior Equal More senior Gender Male Female Degree of knowledge Less than most As well as most More than most Department Same Different Work relationship Very closely Somewhat close Not closely

N

%

8 31 23

12.9 50.0 37.1

7 55

11.3 88.7

4 27 31

6.5 43.5 50.0

56 6

96.3 9.7

25 29 8

40.3 46.8 12.9


318

Burke and Ng

Workaholism components. Spence and Robbins (1992), based on an intensive literature review, identified and developed measures of three workaholism components: Work Involvement, Feeling Driven to Work and Work Enjoyment. Their measures were used in this study. Work Involvement. Work Involvement (␣ ⫽ .67) had eight items (e.g., “I get bored and restless on vacations when I haven’t anything productive to do”). Feeling Driven to Work. Feeling Driven to Work (␣ ⫽ .80) had seven items (e.g., “I often feel that there’s something inside me that drives me to work hard”). Work Enjoyment. Work Enjoyment (␣ ⫽ .88) had 10 items (e.g., “My job is more like fun than work”).

Workaholism Ratings Focal respondents indicated whether anyone had ever called them a workaholic (yes/no), how much of a workaholic they thought they were (1 ⫽ completely not, 6 ⫽ completely workaholic), how much of a workaholic they thought their colleagues would endorse, and how much of a workaholic they thought their spouse/partner would endorse. Peers nominated by the respondent completed the three workaholism component scales as they believed each item described the focal person as well as estimating the number of hours the focal person worked.

RESULTS Workaholism Components

Table 3 shows the comparisons of self- and coworker assessments on the three Spence and Robbins workaholism components, and the correlations between self- and coworker ratings. First, there were no differences in mean ratings on the workaholism components. Second, the correlations between self-and coworker assessments were significantly different from zero (p ⬍ .05) in all three cases. In addition, self- and coworker ratings of hours worked per week were also nonsignificant. Finally, self-ratings of workaholism ratings were similar to perceived coworker ratings; both, however, were significantly lower (less workaholic) than perceived spouse ratings.


319


Table 3. Focal Persons and Co-worker Comparisons Comparison variables

X

SD

N

Correlations

Hours worked Estimate of co-worker Work involvement Self Co-worker Feeling driven Self Joy in work Self Co-worker

41.2 41.2

7.87 8.84

60 60

.71***

23.5 22.7

5.06 4.30

62 62

.26*

17.9

6.36

62

.36**

27.1 27.0 X* 3.3a 3.4b 3.7ab

6.09 6.49 SD 1.19 1.24 1.42

62 62 N 66 66 61

.53**

Self-rating Estimate of co-worker Estimate of spouse

.78*** .85***

Note. Means with same superscript are significantly different (p ⬍ .05). * p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

DISCUSSION

This exploratory study examined agreement between focal respondents and coworker assessments of workaholism components. Three workaholism components identified by Spence and Robbins (1992) were considered. The data (see Table 3) showed considerable agreement in both absolute and relative levels of all three (Work Involvement, Feeling Driven to Work, Work Enjoyment). In addition, similar levels of focal person and perceived coworker agreement on a one-item global assessment of workaholism was also observed. We conclude that coworker observations are accurate assessments of focal individuals own self-assessments. It is now important to extend future research to directly examine the relationship of workaholism components and interpersonal relationships. There is some evidence that workaholics report more conflict in their relationships (Porter, 2001; Robinson, 1998), but it is not yet known how others who came in contact with such individuals experience the relationship. For example, workaholics report less marital satisfaction and it has been proposed that workaholism is destructive to marriages (Oates, 1971; Robinson, 1998). However, Burke (2000) found no relationship between workaholism and actual divorce. A few limitations of the research should be noted. First, the sample was relatively small. Second, all data were collected using self-report questionnaires raising the possibility of response set biases. Third, all respondents were HR professionals limiting the generalizability of the findings to other professions. Fourth, the sample was predominantly female, again limiting the generalizability to predominantly male samples. Fifth, the sample worked on

320

Burke and Ng

average 41 hours per week; it is not clear the extent to which these findings would generalize to respondents working a greater number of hours per week.


REFERENCES Burke, R. J. (2000). Workaholism and divorce. Psychological Reports, 86, 219 –220. Cherrington, D. J. (1980). The work ethic. New York: American Management Association. Doerfler, M. C., & Kammer, P. P. (1996). Workaholism: Sex and sex role stereotyping among female professionals. Sex Roles, 14, 551–560. Engstrom, T. W., & Juroe, D. J. (1979). The work trap. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co. Fassel, D. (1990). Working ourselves to death: The high costs of workaholism, the rewards of recovery. San Francisco: Harper Collins. Garfield, C. A. (1987). Peak performers: The new heroes of American business. New York: William Morrow. Kiechel, W. (1989a, April). The workaholic generation, Fortune, 10, 50 – 62. Kiechel, W. (1989b, August). Workaholics anonymous. Fortune, 14, 117–118. Killinger, B. (1991). Workaholics: The respectable addicts. New York: Simon & Schuster. Klaft, R. P., & Kleiner, B. H. (1988). Understanding workaholics. Business, 33, 37– 40. Korn, E. R., Pratt, G. J., & Lambrou, P. T. (1987). Hyper-performances: The A. I. M. strategy for releasing your business potential. New York: Wiley. Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholics: Living with them, working with them. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. McMillan, L. H. W. (2002). Workaholism: How does it impact on people’s lives? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Mosier, S. K. (1982). Workaholics: An analysis of their stress, success and priorities. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Texas at Austin. Naughton, T. J. (1987). A conceptual view of workaholism and implications for career counseling and research. The Career Development Quarterly, 14, 180 –187. Oates, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction. New York: World. Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching the negative outcomes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 70 – 84. Porter, G. (2001, April). Workaholic tendencies and the high potential for stress among co-workers. International Journal of Stress Management, 8(2), 147–164. Robinson, B. E. (1998). Chained to the desk: A guidebook for workaholics, their partners and children and the clinicians who treat them. New York: NYU Press. Robinson, B. E., & Phillips, B. (1995). Measuring workaholism: Content validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test. Psychological Reports, 77, 657– 658. Schaef, A. W., & Fassel, D. (1988). The addictive organization. San Francisco: Harper Row. Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences of workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287–314. Seybold, K. C., & Salomone, P. R. (1994). Understanding workaholism: A view of causes and counseling approaches, Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 4 –9. Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160 –178. Sprankle, J. K., & Ebel, H. (1987). The workaholic syndrome. New York: Walker Publishing. Spruel, G. (1987). Work fever. Training and Development Journal, 41, 41– 45. Waddell, J. R. (1993). The grindstone. Supervision, 26, 11–13.