Sloan Network Encyclopedia Entry
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
*This Encyclopedia Entry was part of the former Sloan Work and Family Research Network which is no longer in operation. Sloan Network Encyclopedia Entry Workaholism (short version) (2005) Author: Gayle Porter, Rutgers University- School of Business Date: April 2005 Basic Concepts & Definitions · Workaholism is a condition of working to excess. This tendency may coincide with, but does not stem from, demanding conditions in the workplace. · There is lack of consensus among researchers as to what conditions constitute workaholism and the theories that should be incorporated into explanation and further exploration of the phenomenon. · Most pertinent to work-family studies is the research suggesting that workaholics (those who engage in workaholism) are pursuing work in a way that is detrimental to other life interests, particularly family relationships. · The term work addiction is often used as synonymous with workaholism, indicating an internal drive that has dysfunctional implications like any other addiction. This entry emphasizes the term workaholism as representing an addictive pattern. Importance of Topic to Work-Family Studies Workaholism is the drive to work to the exclusion of all other potential sources of life satisfaction. Family, friends, community involvement, and even personal health are all secondary to work. To the extent that time with family is considered important, increasing hours at work is, in itself, a potential problem. However, there is no set formula for an appropriate number of hours with family, and other activities may also counterbalance the effects. Therefore, it may be even more important to consider that allowing work to become the sole source of satisfaction also means less psychological or emotional involvement with family. In practical terms, a common difficulty in dealing with workaholism is the extent to which society supports the idea that, because hard work is good, more hard work must be even better. When families are struggling with the negative outcomes of workaholism, there is little or no support for their efforts to influence the individual away from excessive work involvement. State of the Body of Knowledge On the one hand, many organizations have implemented programs promoting more balanced lives while, on the other hand, competitive pressure and technology-enhanced work contact seem to push employees toward even more attention to work. Definition of the Workaholism Construct The term workaholism first appeared in an article by Oates in 1968. His original essay drew a parallel to alcoholism (drinking to excess) and the term was intended to represent a similar compulsion for working to a detrimental extreme. Marilyn Machlowitz (1980) further popularized the term workaholic, when she profiled individuals who worked long hours even when they could have chosen not to. Her results acknowledged a category of workaholics who were very happy and productive in what they did, as long as the conditions were right - specifically, that their jobs were a good fit AND their families were accommodating. Among organizational researchers, some continue to conceptualize workaholism in the tradition of Machlowitz, using the term for anyone who works long hours, with variations in the outcome and, accordingly, whether or not it is a problem (e.g., Scott, Moore & Miceli, 1993; Friedman & Lobel, 2003). Other researchers have chosen to emphasize Oates’ original meaning of the word. Clinicians and researchers primarily concerned with individual and family dynamics tend more often to approach the issue as one of work addiction. When considering workaholism within the dysfunctional pattern of addiction, there are numerous implications for organizational functioning, in addition to the difficulties in family and personal life (Porter, 1996, 2001a). These problems include a range of interpersonal difficulties - untrustworthiness, lack of ability to delegate or share control, perfectionist standards that supply endless work - all contributing to general stress in the workplace. Although working long hours fits the popular notion of a workaholic, several studies have found that number of hours worked does not relate definitively to the measures of workaholism that include inner compulsion or feeling driven to work (Burke, 1999a; McMillan, Brady, O’Driscoll 7 March 2002; Taris, Schaufeli & Verhoeven, 2005). Overall, measuring hours worked is not the essence of the construct definition debate. The contrast is simply that it’s applied differently by researchers adopting each perspective - one group starting with long hours and looking for variation in consequences; the other starting with an overall relationship to work, within which long hours may be a symptom. Measurement of Workaholism One established measure of workaholism is the Work Addiction Risk Test (WART). This 25 item survey was developed by Bryan Robinson and various colleagues who have confirmed validity and reliability (Robinson, 1996; Robinson & Phillips, 1995; Robinson & Post, 1994, 1995) and more recently specifying five underlying dimensions of (1) compulsive tendencies, (2) control, (3) impaired communications/self- absorption, (4) inability to delegate, and (5) self-worth (Flowers & Robinson, 2002). This measure has shown more consistent validity for measuring the intended construct than any others. Spence and Robbins (1992) measured, and examined in matrix format, combinations of high work involvement and whether people were driven to work a lot or did so from joy in the work itself. Those working for the joy of it were classified as work enthusiasts, while those with high involvement based on feeling driven to work were call workaholics. This combined measure (high involvement, low joy, high driven) is the one most often utilized by organizational researchers attempting to empirically identify workaholism. Recently Mudrack and Naughton (2001) proposed new measures based on an individual’s tendencies to both take on non-required work and to attempt to control the work of others. It remains to be seen whether this will be adopted by other researchers. To date, most empirical work has applied and/or expanded on the measures introduced by Robinson or Spence and Robbins. In analysis of the meaning of work, Harpaz and Snir (2000) defined workaholism as the total weekly work hours (including overtime), while controlling for financial need. They considered their study unbiased by not assuming hours worked were either a positive or negative. They concluded with the suggestion that future work move away from the controversial terminology of workaholism, favoring a replacement term, such as “work-directed behavior and cognition” (p 314). Taris and colleagues (2005) build a strong case for use of the Compulsive Tendencies (CT) subscale as adequately representative of workaholism. The 9 item subscale may help researchers begin to more fully explore the relationship between excess work tendencies and other variables of interest. Finding the Workaholics - Convergence of Interest but Not of Results Across these various definitions and measurement choices, researchers continue to explore whether workaholism is more prevalent in certain demographic or professional groups. · Comparing joy in work (from Spence & Robbins) to perfectionism (as an indicator of compulsive work habits), Porter (2001a) found no significant differences by race or gender. · Using the WART and CT subscale, Taris et al (2005) also found no differences by gender. · Hodson (2004) proposes that gender effects sometimes result from the nature of the jobs occupied by men and woman. His social interaction measure did not vary by gender after controlling for job and organizational characteristics. · Harpaz and Snir found more men to be workaholics than women, (contradicting Burke’s 1999 study as their chosen point of comparison). They explained this as men staying at the office more hours because women working outside the home still carried responsibility for most of the home tasks. · Both Porter (2001a) and Taris et al (2005) found that their respective operationalization of workaholism was negatively related to age - less workaholism among older workers. · Hodson’s (2004) analysis of organizational ethnographies, suggests that people at higher organizational levels - typically correlated with age - experience more social fulfillment on the job. His interpretation related to workaholism is that this may cause people to prefer work to home until they gradually “emotionally relocate their lives from home to work.” (Hodson, 2004, p. 223). There has always been some recognition that people may be drawn to the workplace due to an attraction to the work activities or be pushed to the workplace as an escape from a less satisfying situation in the home. What is distinctly lacking in the research is any longitudinal study to determine whether aging is related to any actual change in individual workaholic tendencies. Studies often include attention to specific professionals, such as attorneys (e.g., Doerfler & Kammer, 1986; Hibbs, 2001), who seem particularly susceptible to forming workaholic habits. It is generally difficult to separate the individual drive from the external demands. Within a profession known to have high demands on employees’ time - or similarly high ranking jobs within an organization - it remains difficult to show that the individual, and not the job, is the driving force. Workaholism is put forth as an individual characteristic, suggesting you could find these tendencies in