Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Workaholism and healthImplications for organizations
Lynley HW McMillan and Michael P OrsquoDriscollDepartment of Psychology University of Waikato Hamilton New Zealand
Keywords Workaholism Psychological tests Equality
Abstract It is generally believed that workaholics tend to deny the existence of fatigue and pushthemselves beyond reason before physical complaints stop them working and lead them to seek helpHowever while self-neglect is believed to be a hallmark of workaholism empirical data are bothscant and contradictory This study explores whether workaholics experience poorer health statusthan other (non-workaholic) employees Two groups of respondents (46 workaholics 42non-workaholics) completed the workaholism battery-revised and the rand SF-36 at twomeasurement points across six months While workaholics reported slightly poorer socialfunctioning role functioning and more frequent pain they reported similar vitality general healthand psychological health to non-workaholics Importantly differences between groups were smalland failed to reach statistical significance Given the substantial body of data supporting the SF-36and the present six-month replication it appears that workaholism may be less toxic to personalhealth and well-being than at first thought Implications for organisational and human resourcemanagement including equal employment opportunities for workaholics are discussed
Workaholism involves a personal reluctance to disengage from work and a tendency towork or think about work anytime anywhere (McMillan et al 2003) The construct istypically measured by self-report questionnaire the most commonly used of which arethe workaholism battery (WorkBAT Spence and Robbins 1992) and the WART(Robinson and Post 1994) Workaholics typically have difficulty in switching offthink about work up to six more frequently after hours talk about work morefrequently more achievement oriented and more task-focused than non-workaholics(McMillan 2002)
Workaholism has particular relevance to the field of management andorganizational behavior Currently human resource strategists are confronted withconflicting information over the organisational value of workaholism This appears tohave arisen because empirical data support both encouragement and discouragementof the behavior (Machlowitz 1980 Scott et al 1997) Importantly the potential impacton corporate profitability and productivity and public health cannot be ignored asworkaholism has been documented as contributing to coronary heart disease jobrelated stress burnout and secondary addictions such as alcoholism (Robinson 1998)Given the apparent magnitude of the problems presented by workaholism the presentresearch was designed to provide evidence for the impact of workaholism onemployeesrsquo physical mental social and emotional well-being
While the majority of research indicates that workaholic behavior relates closely tolevels of personal well-being the findings are contradictory For instance workaholismis purported to interfere with bodily health by inducing stress physical andpsychological problems (Oates 1968 Scott et al 1997) Conversely workaholism is
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
wwwemeraldinsightcomresearchregister wwwemeraldinsightcom0953-4814htm
This paper is based on doctoral research conducted by the first author which was supported bya Foundation for Research Science and Technology Bright Futures Scholarship
Workaholismand health
509
Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement
Vol 17 No 5 2004pp 509-519
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0953-4814
DOI 10110809534810410554515
also proposed to occur in some of the healthiest people (Fassel 1992) In general theconsequences of workaholism have been the focus of much conjecture but limitedscientific investigation However the impact of workaholism is believed to extend topersonal well-being stress and health complaints Research on this construct is brieflysummarised below in the context of the three workaholism sub-components(enjoyment drive and work involvement the last of which remains under disputedue to validity concerns McMillan et al 2002)
Well-being appears to relate differently to the individual components ofworkaholism In a study of Canadian managers (Burke 1999a b 2000b) driverelated positively to psychosomatic symptoms and job stress but negatively to lifestylebehavior and emotional well-being In contrast enjoyment related positively to lifestylebehavior and emotional well-being and negatively to psychosomatic symptoms andjob stress Perhaps unsurprisingly different types of workaholics experienceddiffering levels of well-being In a more complex analysis of the same data set Burke(1999c) found that the three workaholism components consistently accounted forsignificant increments in explained variance in psychological well-being Howeverenjoyment and drive appeared to have the most influence with enjoyment fosteringsatisfaction and well-being and drive contributing to negative affect
Stress levels also appear to relate unpredictably with workaholism depending onwhich workaholism component is measured and which measure is used Spence andRobbins (1992) research with social workers and Elderrsquos (1991) research with MBAgraduates both found high positive correlations between drive and stress Therelationship was slightly weaker however in two more recent samples (Kanai et al1996 Perez Prada 1996) Enjoyment currently holds an indeterminate relationshipwith stress one study reported a negative relationship (Spence and Robbins 1992)another has completely contradicted this (Perez-Prada 1996) and two further studieshave reported that the relationship did not approach statistical significance (Elder1991 Kanai et al 1996) Attempts to explain these contradictions in terms ofdemographics (such as gender occupation ethnicity) do not reveal a consistent patternHowever stress has related positively and significantly to the work involvementdimension in virtually all populations in which it has been measured (Elder 1991Perez-Prada 1996 Spence and Robbins 1992) Robinson (1996a) also reported amoderate positive correlation between anxiety and workaholism
A physician seeing workaholics in general practise noted that workaholics tend todeny the existence of fatigue and push themselves beyond reason before physicalcomplaints stop them working long hours and lead them to seek help (Rhoads 1977)Robinson (1996b) endorsed this suggesting that self-neglect was a hallmark ofworkaholism and reiterated previous contentions that workaholics are susceptible tochronic fatigue mental fatigue and anxiety (Bartolome 1983 Killinger 1991)However data regarding the relationship between health complaints and workaholismare contradictory varying from sample to sample and from country to country Forinstance health complaints appear to be consistently and positively related to driveacross all of the samples and all the countries studied with correlations ranging from023 (Burke 1999a) to 038 (Spence and Robbins 1992) Thus workaholics particularlyhigh in drive seem to suffer increased health problems However data on therelationship between health complaints and enjoyment are less clear In the NorthAmerican samples health complaints were more evident in those with low
JOCM175
510
work-enjoyment (Burke 1999a 2000b Spence and Robbins 1992) but in a Japanesesample the relationship did not approach significance (Kanai et al 1996) Workinvolvement appears to have an unclear relationship with health complaints In onestudy (Spence and Robbins 1992) male social workers with high work involvementalso reported low health complaints but females reported moderate levels Clearlythese data are contradictory and given the small number of studies could beattributable to cultural differences or measurement error
In summary it is difficult to ascertain whether workaholism causes healthproblems whether health problems precipitate an underlying tendency towardworkaholism or whether health and workaholism are linked through a thirdmoderating variable such as personality Given the small number of studies that havefocused on health issues extant results could be attributable to a multitude of factorsNevertheless it appears that health status should differentiate workaholics from otherworkers The present research therefore tested the following four groups ofhypotheses
A Psychological healthIn comparison to non-workaholics
H1 Workaholics report poorer mental health
H2 Workaholics report poorer emotional health
H3 Workaholics report poorer social health
B Physical healthIn comparison to non-workaholics
H4 Workaholics report poorer physical health
H5 Workaholics report poorer general vitality
H6 Workaholics report more physical discomfort
C General healthIn comparison to non-workaholics
H7 Workaholics report poorer general health status
H8 Workaholics report more work-specific problems
D Health trendsIn comparison to non-workaholics
H9 Workaholics report poorer health trends over time
MethodSampleFive organisations in New Zealand (an industrial manufacturer communicationscompany financial services company hospital and food manufacturer) distributed1000 questionnaires to employees Of the 421 employees who responded 100 were thenpurposively selected on the basis of having extreme workaholism scores and invited to
Workaholismand health
511
participate in the present study Respondentsrsquo scores on the workaholismbattery-revised (WorkBAT-R McMillan et al 2002) were used to rank workaholismlevels (This measure has two scales enjoyment-R and drive-R and is outlined in moredetail below) Respondents who had incomplete data worked shift-work or less than30 h per week were excluded from the sample leaving a pool of 292 workers whoseenjoyment and drive scores were ranked and divided into two contrasting (extreme)groups Given that some extreme scores were obtained for workaholics selection ofthis group was non-problematic However for the non-workaholic group scores wereless extreme Therefore rather than using straight percentile-splits the followingcriterion for group membership using cut-off scores was developed
Workaholics (extreme high scores) Workers who met both of the following criteriaethn frac14 50THORN were approached to participate
(1) their score on at least one of their WorkBAT-R Enjoyment-R or Drive-R scaleswas more than 50 (ie an extreme score) and
(2) their score on the remaining WorkBAT-R scale was greater than the mean scorefor all workers who initially responded (enjoyment-R 44 drive-R 48)
Thus the mean Enjoyment-R score for the group was 572 and the mean drive-R scorefor the group was 594 Totally 46 workaholics (94 per cent of those sampled) returnedusable data at the first measurement point Of these 28 (61 per cent) returned data atthe second measurement point six months later
Non-workaholics (extreme low scores) Workers who met the following criteria wereapproached to participate
their score on at least one of their WorkBAT-R scales was less than 35 (ie belowthe midpoint) and
their score on the remaining WorkBAT-R scale was less than the mean scoremean score for all workers who initially responded (ie enjoyment-R 44drive-R 48)
However these criteria yielded only 27 workers and in order to expand thenon-workaholic group size the criteria were extended to include
workers whose scores were below the group mean on either enjoyment-R(ie 44) or drive-R (ie 48)
This yielded a pool of 61 workers 50 of whom were approached to participate Themean enjoyment-R score for the group was 325 and the mean drive-R score forthe group was 382 In total 42 non-workaholics returned usable data (86 per cent) atthe first measurement point Of these 28 (67 per cent) returned data at the secondmeasurement point six months later
Therefore totally 88 employees returned questionnaires at time 1 and 56 at time 2The composition of the contrasted groups was evenly matched for demographicvariables such as gender (n frac14 46 male 42 female) ethnicity and education (47 per centheld post-college education) but not closely matched in terms of age and income ashoped Workaholics were on average seven years older (M frac14 375 range frac14 23-62SD frac14 118) than non-workaholics (M frac14 305 range frac14 19-58 SD frac14 90) Thisdifference was statistically significant (U frac14 6195 z frac14 289 p frac14 000) Workaholicsalso had significantly greater proportions of people earning more than $70000 perannum (non-workaholics frac14 2 per cent u frac14 579 z frac14 297 p frac14 000) However while
JOCM175
512
more workaholics held managerialprofessional roles (workaholics frac14 46 per centnon-workaholics frac14 17 per cent) and lived in relationships (workaholics frac14 72 per centnon-workaholics frac14 54 per cent these differences did not attain significance at thep 001 level z frac14 259 p frac14 001 z frac14 237 p frac14 002 respectively) Similarly thegroups had relatively well matched post-school education (U frac14 7775 z frac14 157p frac14 012) gender mix (workaholic frac14 50 per cent female non-workaholic frac14 45 per centfemale U frac14 9200 z frac14 038 p frac14 070) and hours worked (workaholic frac14 395non-workaholics frac14 373 U frac14 6380 z frac14 259 p frac14 001) The similarities betweengroups were replicated at time 2 (n frac14 24 male 31 female) where the mean agedifference between the two groups persisted (workaholics frac14 395 yearsnon-workaholics frac14 3218 U frac14 2510 z frac14 231 p frac14 002) although the groups werebetter matched in terms of income (U frac14 266 z frac14 189 p frac14 006)
MeasuresRespondents were presented with a self-report questionnaire which included questionson workaholism health status and demographics
Workaholism The WorkBAT-R is a 14 item self-report questionnaire with aseven-point Likert (disagreeagree) response scale (McMillan et al 2002) The measurecomprises two scales enjoyment-R and drive-R
Enjoyment-R The Enjoyment-R scale contained seven items which typicallyreferred to enjoying work so much it was difficult to stop Responses were summed andreversed so that high scores reflected high levels of enjoyment The scale yielded an avalue of 090 split half reliability of 090 and average inter-item correlation of 059 Themean score was slightly above the midpoint of 40 on the scale (M frac14 442 SD frac14 136)although the scores were normally distributed (skew frac14 2042 w frac14 096 p frac14 002)(Note that the present study used a threshold of p 001 for accepting significance asoutlined in the procedure section) Whilst the theoretical range of scores was 1-7 theactual range was 114-671 At time 2 the scale had a higher a value (092) split halfreliability (094) and average inter-item correlation (063) The mean score at time 2 wasslightly higher (M frac14 458 SD frac14 137) although scores remained normally distributed(skew frac14 2047 w frac14 096 p frac14 007)
Drive-R The Drive-R scale contained seven items which typically referred to feelingobliged to work hard and thinking about work even when wanting to get away from itResponses were summed and reversed so that high scores reflected high levels of driveThe scale yielded an a internal consistency value of 075 split half reliability of 077and an average inter-item correlation of 034 The mean score was slightly above themidpoint of 40 on the scale (M frac14 491 SD frac14 106) although the scores were normallydistributed (skew frac14 2037 w frac14 096 p frac14 001) Although the theoretical range ofscores was 1-7 the actual range was 229-657 At time 2 the scale had a higher alphavalue (082) split half reliability (079) and average inter-item correlation of 042 Themean score was also similar (M frac14 492 SD frac14 118) and the scores remained normallydistributed (skew frac14 2058 w frac14 094 p frac14 001)
Health status Participantsrsquo health status was measured using the Rand ShortForm-36 (SF-36) a multifaceted 36-item measure that assesses generic healthdifficulties using numerical rating scales (both Likert and yesno format) where severalitems are reverse scored to maintain reliability (McDowell and Newell 1996) Themeasure is well validated for its ability to differentiate between function and
Workaholismand health
513
dysfunction distress and well-being and objective and subjective symptoms of illness(Ware and Gandek 1998) The scale is self-administered and yields two summarymeasures the mental and the physical health components scale plus eight subscalescores (physical emotional role and social functioning vitality general health bodilypain and health transitions) Both components have been demonstrated to havepredictive validity (utilisation of health care services clinical course of depression jobloss within 12 months and survival rates over a five-year period) strong reliability andhigh internal consistency (Ware and Gandek 1998)
The mental health components scale measured general mental wellness across 14items that were summed and averaged to provide a summary score ranging between 0and 100 Low scores indicated frequent mental distress social dysfunction andemotional problems and high scores indicated positive affect social competence andemotional health In addition to screening for psychiatric disorders the scale has aparticularly accurate sensitivity for depressive disorder (Ware and Gandek 1998)Typical items included feeling calm feeling happy and expecting health to remain athigh levels Raw scores were summed and overall mean scores were calculated The acoefficient was 086 at time 1 and 089 at time 2
The physical health components scale measured current physical health across 21items that were summed and averaged to provide a summary score ranging between 0and 100 Low scores indicate poorer self-care frequent tiredness and severe pain andhigh scores indicate high energy levels well-being and general good health Typicalitems referred to having a lot of energy and being free from pain Raw scores weresummed and overall mean scores were calculated The a coefficient was 090 at time 1and 091 at time 2
The final item in the SF-36 asked respondents to rate their health now compared to12 months previously This item was used to examine perceived changes in healthstatus
Demographics In addition to the above measures six simple demographic itemswere asked to ascertain age gender income level highest qualification relationshipstatus and hours worked per week
ProcedureEmployees were given written questionnaires at group meetings in each workplaceand the questionnaires were collected during the following week This process wasrepeated with the same questionnaires and participants six months later (time 2) afterwhich they were de-briefed on the preliminary findings in groups To reduce thelikelihood of type 1 errors and spurious false positives the significance level for allcorrelations was set at 001 The Mann Whitney test was used to compare workaholicsand non-workaholics as the SF-36 had a non-parametric distribution and U is the mostpowerful non-parametric alternative to the t-test for independent samples (Statistica1995)
ResultsThe present sample was considerably healthier than the general population inNew Zealand The combined-groups mean score on the mental health components scalewas 7269 (SD frac14 1570 range frac14 275-943) which was considerably higher than that ofthe New Zealand population (512 Johnstone et al 1998) Scores were negativelyskewed (skew frac14 2093 w frac14 090 p frac14 000) At time 2 the mean score was 7444 and
JOCM175
514
the negative skew remained (skew frac14 2138 w frac14 086 p frac14 000) The mean score forthe physical health components scale was 8566 (range frac14 169-100 SD frac14 1468)compared to the general New Zealand population mean of only 501 (Johnstone et al1998) Scores were negatively skewed (skew frac14 2209 w frac14 077 p frac14 000) At time 2the mean score was 8442 and the negative skew remained (skew frac14 2161 w frac14 080p frac14 000)
Overall none of the hypotheses were supported by the data In fact the dataindicated in many instances that workaholics health levels were equal to or in placesbetter than non-workaholicsrsquo health These results are summarised in conceptualformat in Table I Data from the second measurement point are summarised in Table IIAs shown in these tables while none of the results attained statistical significancethere was a trend for workaholics to report consistently poor work role functioningpain and social health scores and consistently similar levels of vitality general healthmental health composite physical health and composite mental health
Psychological healthOverall workaholics tend to have similar mental health levels (all differences wereless than 5 per cent) to non-workaholics but consistently poor social health
Better outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent higherscores than non-workaholics)
Poorer outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent lower scoresthan non-workaholics)
Similar outcomes (workaholicsand non-workaholics reportedscores less than 5 per centdifferent)
Pain (780 835) Mental health (711 738)Sociala (831 878) Vitalitya (633 625)Emotional (725 786) General health (751 758)Physical (896 930) Composite physical (838 871)Work role functioning (832 881) Composite mental (711 738)
Transitions (598 571)
Notes The first score provided in every set of brackets refers to workaholics the second tonon-workaholics aDenotes a consistent trend across both measurement points (six-months apart)
Table IComparison betweenhealth outcomes for
workaholics andnon-workaholicsrsquo on theSF-36 measure at time 1
Better outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent higherscores than non-workaholics)
Poorer outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent lower scoresthan non-workaholics)
Similar outcomes (workaholicsand non-workaholics reportedscores less than 5 per centdifferent)
Emotional (860 798) Pain (719 788) Mental health (738 745)Social (786 884) Vitality (632 627)Transitions (589 652) General health (798 802)Work role functioning (777 866) Physical (900 885)
Composite physical (835 852)Composite mental (738 745)
Note The first score provided in every set of brackets refers to workaholics the second tonon-workaholics
Table IIComparison betweenhealth outcomes for
workaholics andnon-workaholicsrsquo on theSF-36 measure at time 2
Workaholismand health
515
Specifically none of the hypotheses regarding psychological health were supportedAt time one workaholics at time 1 ethM frac14 7107THORN had similar mental health tonon-workaholics ethM frac14 7384THORN similar composite mental health (M frac14 7107 7384respectively) slightly poor emotional health (M frac14 7246 7857) and slightly poorsocial health (M frac14 8315 8780) However as the p-values for each of the U-tests werewell in excess of the 001 threshold ( p frac14 058 058 043 27 respectively) none of thedifferences were statistically significant As outlined in Table II these trends wererepeated at time 2 with all p-values remaining 015
Physical healthIn general the two groups reported similar physical health and while workaholicsreported 5 per cent higher pain and role-work influence none of the hypotheses weresupported At time 1 workaholics reported slightly poor physical health ethM frac14 8956THORNthan non-workhalics (9298) poor composite physical health (M frac14 8380 8706)similar energy levels (M frac14 6326 6250) and slightly less freedom from pain thannon-workaholics (M frac14 7799 8351) The p-values for the corresponding U-tests werewell in excess of the 001 threshold ( p frac14 064 068 076 46 respectively) and thereforenone of the differences were statistically significant As outlined in Table II thesetrends were repeated at time 2 with all p-values remaining 020
General healthThe two groups reported similar levels of general health and none of the hypothesesregarding general health were supported At time 1 workaholics reported almostidentical general health status (M frac14 7511 7583) but more interference in their workas a result of their health than non-workaholics (M frac14 8315 8810) Correspondingp-values for the U-tests were 089 and 0 57 These trends were replicated at time 2where both p-values were in excess of 054
Health trends over timeThe groups reported similar health transitions and therefore the hypothesis concerninghealth trends over time was not supported At time 1 workaholics actually reportedgreater increases in health over the past 12 months than non-workaholics (M frac14 59785714) although this difference was not significant (U frac14 9060 z frac14 2050 p frac14 062)This tendency reversed at time 2 where workaholics ethM frac14 5893THORN reported fewerimprovements than non-workaholics ethM frac14 6518THORN although the difference still failedto reach statistical significance (U frac14 3635 z frac14 2123 p frac14 064)
In summary workaholics reported similar health outcomes to non-workaholicsacross 11 indices at two separate measurement points six months apart Where thescores differed it was generally by less than five per cent and in all casesnon-significant
DiscussionThe present finding that workaholics appear to function relatively well without manynegative health outcomes supports those of Burke (1999a b 2000a b) SpecificallyBurke observed that high enjoyment workaholics had fewer psychosomatic symptomsand more favourable physical well-being than many other workers In fact his dataindicated that (enthusiastic) workaholicsrsquo and non-workaholicsrsquo physical health scoreswere so similar that they all fell within one standard deviation of the mean
JOCM175
516
The present study used a different measure than Burke but obtained similarresults The SF-36 has substantial validation data from across more than 20 countriesis published in over 200 scientific journals (Ware and Gandek 1998) haswell-established predictive validity to health outcomes and is New Zealand normedThus contrary to some research suggesting that workaholics report higher levels ofstress both Burkersquos and the present data suggest that this does not necessarilytranslate into poor health outcomes Correspondingly it is pertinent to emphasise thatseveral of the reports concerning adverse health impacts and workaholism(cf Robinson 1989 1998) were based on anecdotal evidence from counsellingself-selected workaholics from therapy groups (workaholics anonymous) samples thatare certainly non-normative
However it is possible that the present samplersquos high levels of income amelioratedat least in part the impact of stress on participantsrsquo lives and thereby reduce theincidence of illness Arguably high levels of income permit more expansivehealth-promoting behaviors such as dietary choices comprehensive health care andbetter access to fitness amenities such as gyms and personal trainers Given that Burke(2000b) sample comprised MBA educated managers those data were also likely to beinfluenced in a similar manner It is also prudent to recall that the present sample wasalso comparatively very healthy which is perhaps not surprising given that theNew Zealand norms include the very elderly infirm and those unable to work dueto illness
It is important to draw attention to the possibility that perhaps low enjoyment inwork is the critical factor that leads to poor health outcomes as many studies reportingpoor health outcomes for workaholics conceptualised workaholism as comprising lowenjoyment Enjoyment is known to relate to health enhancing constructs such as jobsatisfaction (McMillan et al 2003) life satisfaction purpose in life and positiveteam-focused beliefs (Bonebright et al 2000 Burke 2000b) Conversely drive is knownto relate more strongly to harmful correlates such as impatience-irritability (whichrelates to poor cardiac health) and obsessive-compulsiveness (which relates to anxietyand stress McMillan 2002) On this basis it is feasible to hypothesise that drive maybe the toxic (ie harmful) element in workaholism while enjoyment may be a protectivefactor that buffers the influence of drive It is also feasible as Spence and Robbins(1992) proposed that it is a combination of high-drivelow-enjoyment that isproblematic rather than being high or low on either individual aspect
In interpreting the present data however it is important to avoid the tendency toequate statistical significance with psychological importance While workaholicsreported 5 per cent worse pain scores (not significantly different from non-workaholicsand within the 95 per cent confidence-limits range Ware and Gandek 1998) thedifference may be clinically significant in terms of long-term health outcomesMachlowitz (1978) found that workaholics had good health but expressed feelings offailure concerning their families so although the present difference in health may notbe statistically significant it may be personally meaningful Aside from culturalconsiderations (workaholism may be different in New Zealand than North Americawhere with the exception of Kanai et al (1996) the other samples were based) there areseveral potential explanations for these ldquono-harmrdquo findings It is feasible that becausewe studied workaholics who were high in enjoyment (ldquoenthusiastic workaholicsrdquoin Spence and Robbins (1992)) terminology) we also inadvertently studied
Workaholismand health
517
ldquopeak performersrdquo (well-balanced workers who are high in fulfilment Garfield 1986)Garfield described peak performers as people who have an intense commitment towork that is balanced by careful attention to physical and mental health Our datacertainly supported this and the notion of ldquointegrationrdquo proposed by Staines (1980)who suggested that peoplersquos jobs teach them social and organisational skills thatfacilitate involvement in non-work enabling them to excel in both worlds
In terms of applied usefulness the present data challenge the negative stereotype ofworkaholism It is not beyond the realms of possibility of course that ldquohealthyrdquoworkaholism is a culturally bound phenomenon specific to the New Zealand workforceHowever the data certainly support the notion that workaholics should not be typecastas unhappy work-slaves as they appear to enjoy comparable levels of health to othersIt would equally seem illogical to attribute poor physical and mental health toworkaholism as the present data suggest that they are more likely to co-occur bycoincidence rather than causation Thus the most immediate practical application is toequal employment practise as the data do not support the notion that workaholicsshould be differentially treated in the workplace We therefore propose that furtherresearch around the organisational value of workaholism and strategies on how tomaximize its benefits and tactics to minimise its costs is imperative
References
Bartolome F (1983) ldquoThe work alibi when itrsquos harder to go homerdquo Harvard Business ReviewVol 61 No 2 pp 67-74
Bonebright CA Clay DL and Ankenmann RD (2000) ldquoThe relationship of workaholism withwork-life conflict life satisfaction and purpose in liferdquo Journal of Counseling PsychologyVol 47 No 4 pp 469-77
Burke RJ (1999a) ldquoItrsquos not how hard you work but how you work hard evaluating workaholismcomponentsrdquo International Journal of Stress Management Vol 6 No 4 pp 225-39
Burke RJ (1999b) ldquoWorkaholism among women managers work and life satisfactions andpsychological well-beingrdquo Equal Opportunities International Vol 18 No 7 pp 25-35
Burke RJ (1999c) ldquoWorkaholism and extra-work satisfactionsrdquo International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis Vol 7 No 4 pp 352-64
Burke RJ (2000a) ldquoWorkaholism and divorcerdquo Psychological Reports Vol 86 No 1 pp 219-20
Burke RJ (2000b) ldquoWorkaholism in organizations psychological and physical well-beingconsequencesrdquo Stress Medicine Vol 16 pp 11-16
Elder ED (1991) ldquoAn empirical investigation of workaholism in the business settingrdquounpublished doctoral dissertation University of Texas Austin TX
Fassel D (1992) Working Ourselves to Death HarperCollins London
Garfield C (1986) Peak Performers The New Heroes of American Business William Morrowand Company New York NY
Johnstone K Cheung J Pool I Pharmalingam A and Hillcoat-Nalletamby A (1998)ldquoPopulation health measures principles and applications to New Zealand datardquounpublished technical series New Zealand
Kanai A Wakabayashi M and Fling S (1996) ldquoWorkaholism among employees in Japanesecorporations an examination based on the Japanese version of the workaholism scalesrdquoJapanese Psychological Research Vol 38 No 4 pp 192-203
JOCM175
518
Killinger B (1991) Workaholics The Respectable Addicts Simon amp Schuster New South WalesAustralia
Machlowitz MM (1978) ldquoDetermining the effects of workaholismrdquo unpublished doctoraldissertation Yale University New Haven CT
Machlowitz MM (1980) Workaholics Living with Them Working with Them Addison-WesleyReading MA
McDowell I and Newell C (1996) Measuring Health A Guide to Rating Scales andQuestionnaires Oxford University Press Oxford
McMillan LHW (2002) ldquoWorkaholism how does it impact on peoplesrsquo livesrdquo unpublisheddoctoral thesis University of Waikato Hamilton
McMillan LHW Brady EC OrsquoDriscoll MP and Marsh NV (2002) ldquoA multifacetedvalidation study of Spence and Robbinsrsquo (1992) workaholism batteryrdquo Journal ofOccupational and Organisational Psychology Vol 75 pp 357-68
McMillan LHW OrsquoDriscoll MP and Burke R (2003) ldquoWorkaholism a review of theoryresearch and future directionsrdquo International Review of Industrial and OrganisationalPsychology Wiley New York NY
Oates WE (1968) ldquoOn being a lsquoworkaholicrsquo (a serious jest)rdquo Pastoral Psychology Vol 19pp 16-20
Perez-Prada E (1996) ldquoPersonality at workrdquo unpublished doctoral dissertation St LouisUniversity St Louis MO
Rhoads JM (1977) ldquoOverworkrdquo Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA) Vol 237No 24 pp 2615-8
Robinson BE (1989) Work Addiction Hidden Legacies of Adult Children HealthCommunications FL
Robinson BE (1996a) ldquoConcurrent validity of the work addiction risk test as a measure ofworkaholismrdquo Psychological Reports Vol 79 pp 1313-4
Robinson BE (1996b) ldquoRelationship between work addiction and family functioning clinicalimplications for marriage and family therapistsrdquo Journal of Family Psychotherapy Vol 7No 3 pp 13-29
Robinson BE (1998) Chained to the Desk a Guidebook for Workaholics Their Partners andChildren and the Clinicians Who Treat Them New York University Press New York NY
Robinson BE and Post P (1994) ldquoValidity of the work addiction risk testrdquo Perceptual andMotor Skills Vol 78 pp 337-8
Scott KS Moore KS and Miceli MP (1997) ldquoAn exploration of the meaning and consequencesof workaholismrdquo Human Relations Vol 50 pp 287-314
Spence JT and Robbins AS (1992) ldquoWorkaholism definition measurement and preliminaryresultsrdquo Journal of Personality Assessment Vol 58 pp 160-78
Staines GL (1980) ldquoSpillover versus compensation a review of the literature on the relationshipbetween work and non-workrdquo Human Relations Vol 33 No 2 pp 111-29
Statistica (1995) STATISTICA for Windows [Computer Program Manual] StatSoft Inc TulsaOK available at wwwstatsoftinccom
Ware JE and Gandek B (1998) ldquoOverview of SF-36 Health Survey and the international qualityof life project assessment (IQOLA) projectrdquo Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Vol 51 No 11pp 903-12
Workaholismand health
519
also proposed to occur in some of the healthiest people (Fassel 1992) In general theconsequences of workaholism have been the focus of much conjecture but limitedscientific investigation However the impact of workaholism is believed to extend topersonal well-being stress and health complaints Research on this construct is brieflysummarised below in the context of the three workaholism sub-components(enjoyment drive and work involvement the last of which remains under disputedue to validity concerns McMillan et al 2002)
Well-being appears to relate differently to the individual components ofworkaholism In a study of Canadian managers (Burke 1999a b 2000b) driverelated positively to psychosomatic symptoms and job stress but negatively to lifestylebehavior and emotional well-being In contrast enjoyment related positively to lifestylebehavior and emotional well-being and negatively to psychosomatic symptoms andjob stress Perhaps unsurprisingly different types of workaholics experienceddiffering levels of well-being In a more complex analysis of the same data set Burke(1999c) found that the three workaholism components consistently accounted forsignificant increments in explained variance in psychological well-being Howeverenjoyment and drive appeared to have the most influence with enjoyment fosteringsatisfaction and well-being and drive contributing to negative affect
Stress levels also appear to relate unpredictably with workaholism depending onwhich workaholism component is measured and which measure is used Spence andRobbins (1992) research with social workers and Elderrsquos (1991) research with MBAgraduates both found high positive correlations between drive and stress Therelationship was slightly weaker however in two more recent samples (Kanai et al1996 Perez Prada 1996) Enjoyment currently holds an indeterminate relationshipwith stress one study reported a negative relationship (Spence and Robbins 1992)another has completely contradicted this (Perez-Prada 1996) and two further studieshave reported that the relationship did not approach statistical significance (Elder1991 Kanai et al 1996) Attempts to explain these contradictions in terms ofdemographics (such as gender occupation ethnicity) do not reveal a consistent patternHowever stress has related positively and significantly to the work involvementdimension in virtually all populations in which it has been measured (Elder 1991Perez-Prada 1996 Spence and Robbins 1992) Robinson (1996a) also reported amoderate positive correlation between anxiety and workaholism
A physician seeing workaholics in general practise noted that workaholics tend todeny the existence of fatigue and push themselves beyond reason before physicalcomplaints stop them working long hours and lead them to seek help (Rhoads 1977)Robinson (1996b) endorsed this suggesting that self-neglect was a hallmark ofworkaholism and reiterated previous contentions that workaholics are susceptible tochronic fatigue mental fatigue and anxiety (Bartolome 1983 Killinger 1991)However data regarding the relationship between health complaints and workaholismare contradictory varying from sample to sample and from country to country Forinstance health complaints appear to be consistently and positively related to driveacross all of the samples and all the countries studied with correlations ranging from023 (Burke 1999a) to 038 (Spence and Robbins 1992) Thus workaholics particularlyhigh in drive seem to suffer increased health problems However data on therelationship between health complaints and enjoyment are less clear In the NorthAmerican samples health complaints were more evident in those with low
JOCM175
510
work-enjoyment (Burke 1999a 2000b Spence and Robbins 1992) but in a Japanesesample the relationship did not approach significance (Kanai et al 1996) Workinvolvement appears to have an unclear relationship with health complaints In onestudy (Spence and Robbins 1992) male social workers with high work involvementalso reported low health complaints but females reported moderate levels Clearlythese data are contradictory and given the small number of studies could beattributable to cultural differences or measurement error
In summary it is difficult to ascertain whether workaholism causes healthproblems whether health problems precipitate an underlying tendency towardworkaholism or whether health and workaholism are linked through a thirdmoderating variable such as personality Given the small number of studies that havefocused on health issues extant results could be attributable to a multitude of factorsNevertheless it appears that health status should differentiate workaholics from otherworkers The present research therefore tested the following four groups ofhypotheses
A Psychological healthIn comparison to non-workaholics
H1 Workaholics report poorer mental health
H2 Workaholics report poorer emotional health
H3 Workaholics report poorer social health
B Physical healthIn comparison to non-workaholics
H4 Workaholics report poorer physical health
H5 Workaholics report poorer general vitality
H6 Workaholics report more physical discomfort
C General healthIn comparison to non-workaholics
H7 Workaholics report poorer general health status
H8 Workaholics report more work-specific problems
D Health trendsIn comparison to non-workaholics
H9 Workaholics report poorer health trends over time
MethodSampleFive organisations in New Zealand (an industrial manufacturer communicationscompany financial services company hospital and food manufacturer) distributed1000 questionnaires to employees Of the 421 employees who responded 100 were thenpurposively selected on the basis of having extreme workaholism scores and invited to
Workaholismand health
511
participate in the present study Respondentsrsquo scores on the workaholismbattery-revised (WorkBAT-R McMillan et al 2002) were used to rank workaholismlevels (This measure has two scales enjoyment-R and drive-R and is outlined in moredetail below) Respondents who had incomplete data worked shift-work or less than30 h per week were excluded from the sample leaving a pool of 292 workers whoseenjoyment and drive scores were ranked and divided into two contrasting (extreme)groups Given that some extreme scores were obtained for workaholics selection ofthis group was non-problematic However for the non-workaholic group scores wereless extreme Therefore rather than using straight percentile-splits the followingcriterion for group membership using cut-off scores was developed
Workaholics (extreme high scores) Workers who met both of the following criteriaethn frac14 50THORN were approached to participate
(1) their score on at least one of their WorkBAT-R Enjoyment-R or Drive-R scaleswas more than 50 (ie an extreme score) and
(2) their score on the remaining WorkBAT-R scale was greater than the mean scorefor all workers who initially responded (enjoyment-R 44 drive-R 48)
Thus the mean Enjoyment-R score for the group was 572 and the mean drive-R scorefor the group was 594 Totally 46 workaholics (94 per cent of those sampled) returnedusable data at the first measurement point Of these 28 (61 per cent) returned data atthe second measurement point six months later
Non-workaholics (extreme low scores) Workers who met the following criteria wereapproached to participate
their score on at least one of their WorkBAT-R scales was less than 35 (ie belowthe midpoint) and
their score on the remaining WorkBAT-R scale was less than the mean scoremean score for all workers who initially responded (ie enjoyment-R 44drive-R 48)
However these criteria yielded only 27 workers and in order to expand thenon-workaholic group size the criteria were extended to include
workers whose scores were below the group mean on either enjoyment-R(ie 44) or drive-R (ie 48)
This yielded a pool of 61 workers 50 of whom were approached to participate Themean enjoyment-R score for the group was 325 and the mean drive-R score forthe group was 382 In total 42 non-workaholics returned usable data (86 per cent) atthe first measurement point Of these 28 (67 per cent) returned data at the secondmeasurement point six months later
Therefore totally 88 employees returned questionnaires at time 1 and 56 at time 2The composition of the contrasted groups was evenly matched for demographicvariables such as gender (n frac14 46 male 42 female) ethnicity and education (47 per centheld post-college education) but not closely matched in terms of age and income ashoped Workaholics were on average seven years older (M frac14 375 range frac14 23-62SD frac14 118) than non-workaholics (M frac14 305 range frac14 19-58 SD frac14 90) Thisdifference was statistically significant (U frac14 6195 z frac14 289 p frac14 000) Workaholicsalso had significantly greater proportions of people earning more than $70000 perannum (non-workaholics frac14 2 per cent u frac14 579 z frac14 297 p frac14 000) However while
JOCM175
512
more workaholics held managerialprofessional roles (workaholics frac14 46 per centnon-workaholics frac14 17 per cent) and lived in relationships (workaholics frac14 72 per centnon-workaholics frac14 54 per cent these differences did not attain significance at thep 001 level z frac14 259 p frac14 001 z frac14 237 p frac14 002 respectively) Similarly thegroups had relatively well matched post-school education (U frac14 7775 z frac14 157p frac14 012) gender mix (workaholic frac14 50 per cent female non-workaholic frac14 45 per centfemale U frac14 9200 z frac14 038 p frac14 070) and hours worked (workaholic frac14 395non-workaholics frac14 373 U frac14 6380 z frac14 259 p frac14 001) The similarities betweengroups were replicated at time 2 (n frac14 24 male 31 female) where the mean agedifference between the two groups persisted (workaholics frac14 395 yearsnon-workaholics frac14 3218 U frac14 2510 z frac14 231 p frac14 002) although the groups werebetter matched in terms of income (U frac14 266 z frac14 189 p frac14 006)
MeasuresRespondents were presented with a self-report questionnaire which included questionson workaholism health status and demographics
Workaholism The WorkBAT-R is a 14 item self-report questionnaire with aseven-point Likert (disagreeagree) response scale (McMillan et al 2002) The measurecomprises two scales enjoyment-R and drive-R
Enjoyment-R The Enjoyment-R scale contained seven items which typicallyreferred to enjoying work so much it was difficult to stop Responses were summed andreversed so that high scores reflected high levels of enjoyment The scale yielded an avalue of 090 split half reliability of 090 and average inter-item correlation of 059 Themean score was slightly above the midpoint of 40 on the scale (M frac14 442 SD frac14 136)although the scores were normally distributed (skew frac14 2042 w frac14 096 p frac14 002)(Note that the present study used a threshold of p 001 for accepting significance asoutlined in the procedure section) Whilst the theoretical range of scores was 1-7 theactual range was 114-671 At time 2 the scale had a higher a value (092) split halfreliability (094) and average inter-item correlation (063) The mean score at time 2 wasslightly higher (M frac14 458 SD frac14 137) although scores remained normally distributed(skew frac14 2047 w frac14 096 p frac14 007)
Drive-R The Drive-R scale contained seven items which typically referred to feelingobliged to work hard and thinking about work even when wanting to get away from itResponses were summed and reversed so that high scores reflected high levels of driveThe scale yielded an a internal consistency value of 075 split half reliability of 077and an average inter-item correlation of 034 The mean score was slightly above themidpoint of 40 on the scale (M frac14 491 SD frac14 106) although the scores were normallydistributed (skew frac14 2037 w frac14 096 p frac14 001) Although the theoretical range ofscores was 1-7 the actual range was 229-657 At time 2 the scale had a higher alphavalue (082) split half reliability (079) and average inter-item correlation of 042 Themean score was also similar (M frac14 492 SD frac14 118) and the scores remained normallydistributed (skew frac14 2058 w frac14 094 p frac14 001)
Health status Participantsrsquo health status was measured using the Rand ShortForm-36 (SF-36) a multifaceted 36-item measure that assesses generic healthdifficulties using numerical rating scales (both Likert and yesno format) where severalitems are reverse scored to maintain reliability (McDowell and Newell 1996) Themeasure is well validated for its ability to differentiate between function and
Workaholismand health
513
dysfunction distress and well-being and objective and subjective symptoms of illness(Ware and Gandek 1998) The scale is self-administered and yields two summarymeasures the mental and the physical health components scale plus eight subscalescores (physical emotional role and social functioning vitality general health bodilypain and health transitions) Both components have been demonstrated to havepredictive validity (utilisation of health care services clinical course of depression jobloss within 12 months and survival rates over a five-year period) strong reliability andhigh internal consistency (Ware and Gandek 1998)
The mental health components scale measured general mental wellness across 14items that were summed and averaged to provide a summary score ranging between 0and 100 Low scores indicated frequent mental distress social dysfunction andemotional problems and high scores indicated positive affect social competence andemotional health In addition to screening for psychiatric disorders the scale has aparticularly accurate sensitivity for depressive disorder (Ware and Gandek 1998)Typical items included feeling calm feeling happy and expecting health to remain athigh levels Raw scores were summed and overall mean scores were calculated The acoefficient was 086 at time 1 and 089 at time 2
The physical health components scale measured current physical health across 21items that were summed and averaged to provide a summary score ranging between 0and 100 Low scores indicate poorer self-care frequent tiredness and severe pain andhigh scores indicate high energy levels well-being and general good health Typicalitems referred to having a lot of energy and being free from pain Raw scores weresummed and overall mean scores were calculated The a coefficient was 090 at time 1and 091 at time 2
The final item in the SF-36 asked respondents to rate their health now compared to12 months previously This item was used to examine perceived changes in healthstatus
Demographics In addition to the above measures six simple demographic itemswere asked to ascertain age gender income level highest qualification relationshipstatus and hours worked per week
ProcedureEmployees were given written questionnaires at group meetings in each workplaceand the questionnaires were collected during the following week This process wasrepeated with the same questionnaires and participants six months later (time 2) afterwhich they were de-briefed on the preliminary findings in groups To reduce thelikelihood of type 1 errors and spurious false positives the significance level for allcorrelations was set at 001 The Mann Whitney test was used to compare workaholicsand non-workaholics as the SF-36 had a non-parametric distribution and U is the mostpowerful non-parametric alternative to the t-test for independent samples (Statistica1995)
ResultsThe present sample was considerably healthier than the general population inNew Zealand The combined-groups mean score on the mental health components scalewas 7269 (SD frac14 1570 range frac14 275-943) which was considerably higher than that ofthe New Zealand population (512 Johnstone et al 1998) Scores were negativelyskewed (skew frac14 2093 w frac14 090 p frac14 000) At time 2 the mean score was 7444 and
JOCM175
514
the negative skew remained (skew frac14 2138 w frac14 086 p frac14 000) The mean score forthe physical health components scale was 8566 (range frac14 169-100 SD frac14 1468)compared to the general New Zealand population mean of only 501 (Johnstone et al1998) Scores were negatively skewed (skew frac14 2209 w frac14 077 p frac14 000) At time 2the mean score was 8442 and the negative skew remained (skew frac14 2161 w frac14 080p frac14 000)
Overall none of the hypotheses were supported by the data In fact the dataindicated in many instances that workaholics health levels were equal to or in placesbetter than non-workaholicsrsquo health These results are summarised in conceptualformat in Table I Data from the second measurement point are summarised in Table IIAs shown in these tables while none of the results attained statistical significancethere was a trend for workaholics to report consistently poor work role functioningpain and social health scores and consistently similar levels of vitality general healthmental health composite physical health and composite mental health
Psychological healthOverall workaholics tend to have similar mental health levels (all differences wereless than 5 per cent) to non-workaholics but consistently poor social health
Better outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent higherscores than non-workaholics)
Poorer outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent lower scoresthan non-workaholics)
Similar outcomes (workaholicsand non-workaholics reportedscores less than 5 per centdifferent)
Pain (780 835) Mental health (711 738)Sociala (831 878) Vitalitya (633 625)Emotional (725 786) General health (751 758)Physical (896 930) Composite physical (838 871)Work role functioning (832 881) Composite mental (711 738)
Transitions (598 571)
Notes The first score provided in every set of brackets refers to workaholics the second tonon-workaholics aDenotes a consistent trend across both measurement points (six-months apart)
Table IComparison betweenhealth outcomes for
workaholics andnon-workaholicsrsquo on theSF-36 measure at time 1
Better outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent higherscores than non-workaholics)
Poorer outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent lower scoresthan non-workaholics)
Similar outcomes (workaholicsand non-workaholics reportedscores less than 5 per centdifferent)
Emotional (860 798) Pain (719 788) Mental health (738 745)Social (786 884) Vitality (632 627)Transitions (589 652) General health (798 802)Work role functioning (777 866) Physical (900 885)
Composite physical (835 852)Composite mental (738 745)
Note The first score provided in every set of brackets refers to workaholics the second tonon-workaholics
Table IIComparison betweenhealth outcomes for
workaholics andnon-workaholicsrsquo on theSF-36 measure at time 2
Workaholismand health
515
Specifically none of the hypotheses regarding psychological health were supportedAt time one workaholics at time 1 ethM frac14 7107THORN had similar mental health tonon-workaholics ethM frac14 7384THORN similar composite mental health (M frac14 7107 7384respectively) slightly poor emotional health (M frac14 7246 7857) and slightly poorsocial health (M frac14 8315 8780) However as the p-values for each of the U-tests werewell in excess of the 001 threshold ( p frac14 058 058 043 27 respectively) none of thedifferences were statistically significant As outlined in Table II these trends wererepeated at time 2 with all p-values remaining 015
Physical healthIn general the two groups reported similar physical health and while workaholicsreported 5 per cent higher pain and role-work influence none of the hypotheses weresupported At time 1 workaholics reported slightly poor physical health ethM frac14 8956THORNthan non-workhalics (9298) poor composite physical health (M frac14 8380 8706)similar energy levels (M frac14 6326 6250) and slightly less freedom from pain thannon-workaholics (M frac14 7799 8351) The p-values for the corresponding U-tests werewell in excess of the 001 threshold ( p frac14 064 068 076 46 respectively) and thereforenone of the differences were statistically significant As outlined in Table II thesetrends were repeated at time 2 with all p-values remaining 020
General healthThe two groups reported similar levels of general health and none of the hypothesesregarding general health were supported At time 1 workaholics reported almostidentical general health status (M frac14 7511 7583) but more interference in their workas a result of their health than non-workaholics (M frac14 8315 8810) Correspondingp-values for the U-tests were 089 and 0 57 These trends were replicated at time 2where both p-values were in excess of 054
Health trends over timeThe groups reported similar health transitions and therefore the hypothesis concerninghealth trends over time was not supported At time 1 workaholics actually reportedgreater increases in health over the past 12 months than non-workaholics (M frac14 59785714) although this difference was not significant (U frac14 9060 z frac14 2050 p frac14 062)This tendency reversed at time 2 where workaholics ethM frac14 5893THORN reported fewerimprovements than non-workaholics ethM frac14 6518THORN although the difference still failedto reach statistical significance (U frac14 3635 z frac14 2123 p frac14 064)
In summary workaholics reported similar health outcomes to non-workaholicsacross 11 indices at two separate measurement points six months apart Where thescores differed it was generally by less than five per cent and in all casesnon-significant
DiscussionThe present finding that workaholics appear to function relatively well without manynegative health outcomes supports those of Burke (1999a b 2000a b) SpecificallyBurke observed that high enjoyment workaholics had fewer psychosomatic symptomsand more favourable physical well-being than many other workers In fact his dataindicated that (enthusiastic) workaholicsrsquo and non-workaholicsrsquo physical health scoreswere so similar that they all fell within one standard deviation of the mean
JOCM175
516
The present study used a different measure than Burke but obtained similarresults The SF-36 has substantial validation data from across more than 20 countriesis published in over 200 scientific journals (Ware and Gandek 1998) haswell-established predictive validity to health outcomes and is New Zealand normedThus contrary to some research suggesting that workaholics report higher levels ofstress both Burkersquos and the present data suggest that this does not necessarilytranslate into poor health outcomes Correspondingly it is pertinent to emphasise thatseveral of the reports concerning adverse health impacts and workaholism(cf Robinson 1989 1998) were based on anecdotal evidence from counsellingself-selected workaholics from therapy groups (workaholics anonymous) samples thatare certainly non-normative
However it is possible that the present samplersquos high levels of income amelioratedat least in part the impact of stress on participantsrsquo lives and thereby reduce theincidence of illness Arguably high levels of income permit more expansivehealth-promoting behaviors such as dietary choices comprehensive health care andbetter access to fitness amenities such as gyms and personal trainers Given that Burke(2000b) sample comprised MBA educated managers those data were also likely to beinfluenced in a similar manner It is also prudent to recall that the present sample wasalso comparatively very healthy which is perhaps not surprising given that theNew Zealand norms include the very elderly infirm and those unable to work dueto illness
It is important to draw attention to the possibility that perhaps low enjoyment inwork is the critical factor that leads to poor health outcomes as many studies reportingpoor health outcomes for workaholics conceptualised workaholism as comprising lowenjoyment Enjoyment is known to relate to health enhancing constructs such as jobsatisfaction (McMillan et al 2003) life satisfaction purpose in life and positiveteam-focused beliefs (Bonebright et al 2000 Burke 2000b) Conversely drive is knownto relate more strongly to harmful correlates such as impatience-irritability (whichrelates to poor cardiac health) and obsessive-compulsiveness (which relates to anxietyand stress McMillan 2002) On this basis it is feasible to hypothesise that drive maybe the toxic (ie harmful) element in workaholism while enjoyment may be a protectivefactor that buffers the influence of drive It is also feasible as Spence and Robbins(1992) proposed that it is a combination of high-drivelow-enjoyment that isproblematic rather than being high or low on either individual aspect
In interpreting the present data however it is important to avoid the tendency toequate statistical significance with psychological importance While workaholicsreported 5 per cent worse pain scores (not significantly different from non-workaholicsand within the 95 per cent confidence-limits range Ware and Gandek 1998) thedifference may be clinically significant in terms of long-term health outcomesMachlowitz (1978) found that workaholics had good health but expressed feelings offailure concerning their families so although the present difference in health may notbe statistically significant it may be personally meaningful Aside from culturalconsiderations (workaholism may be different in New Zealand than North Americawhere with the exception of Kanai et al (1996) the other samples were based) there areseveral potential explanations for these ldquono-harmrdquo findings It is feasible that becausewe studied workaholics who were high in enjoyment (ldquoenthusiastic workaholicsrdquoin Spence and Robbins (1992)) terminology) we also inadvertently studied
Workaholismand health
517
ldquopeak performersrdquo (well-balanced workers who are high in fulfilment Garfield 1986)Garfield described peak performers as people who have an intense commitment towork that is balanced by careful attention to physical and mental health Our datacertainly supported this and the notion of ldquointegrationrdquo proposed by Staines (1980)who suggested that peoplersquos jobs teach them social and organisational skills thatfacilitate involvement in non-work enabling them to excel in both worlds
In terms of applied usefulness the present data challenge the negative stereotype ofworkaholism It is not beyond the realms of possibility of course that ldquohealthyrdquoworkaholism is a culturally bound phenomenon specific to the New Zealand workforceHowever the data certainly support the notion that workaholics should not be typecastas unhappy work-slaves as they appear to enjoy comparable levels of health to othersIt would equally seem illogical to attribute poor physical and mental health toworkaholism as the present data suggest that they are more likely to co-occur bycoincidence rather than causation Thus the most immediate practical application is toequal employment practise as the data do not support the notion that workaholicsshould be differentially treated in the workplace We therefore propose that furtherresearch around the organisational value of workaholism and strategies on how tomaximize its benefits and tactics to minimise its costs is imperative
References
Bartolome F (1983) ldquoThe work alibi when itrsquos harder to go homerdquo Harvard Business ReviewVol 61 No 2 pp 67-74
Bonebright CA Clay DL and Ankenmann RD (2000) ldquoThe relationship of workaholism withwork-life conflict life satisfaction and purpose in liferdquo Journal of Counseling PsychologyVol 47 No 4 pp 469-77
Burke RJ (1999a) ldquoItrsquos not how hard you work but how you work hard evaluating workaholismcomponentsrdquo International Journal of Stress Management Vol 6 No 4 pp 225-39
Burke RJ (1999b) ldquoWorkaholism among women managers work and life satisfactions andpsychological well-beingrdquo Equal Opportunities International Vol 18 No 7 pp 25-35
Burke RJ (1999c) ldquoWorkaholism and extra-work satisfactionsrdquo International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis Vol 7 No 4 pp 352-64
Burke RJ (2000a) ldquoWorkaholism and divorcerdquo Psychological Reports Vol 86 No 1 pp 219-20
Burke RJ (2000b) ldquoWorkaholism in organizations psychological and physical well-beingconsequencesrdquo Stress Medicine Vol 16 pp 11-16
Elder ED (1991) ldquoAn empirical investigation of workaholism in the business settingrdquounpublished doctoral dissertation University of Texas Austin TX
Fassel D (1992) Working Ourselves to Death HarperCollins London
Garfield C (1986) Peak Performers The New Heroes of American Business William Morrowand Company New York NY
Johnstone K Cheung J Pool I Pharmalingam A and Hillcoat-Nalletamby A (1998)ldquoPopulation health measures principles and applications to New Zealand datardquounpublished technical series New Zealand
Kanai A Wakabayashi M and Fling S (1996) ldquoWorkaholism among employees in Japanesecorporations an examination based on the Japanese version of the workaholism scalesrdquoJapanese Psychological Research Vol 38 No 4 pp 192-203
JOCM175
518
Killinger B (1991) Workaholics The Respectable Addicts Simon amp Schuster New South WalesAustralia
Machlowitz MM (1978) ldquoDetermining the effects of workaholismrdquo unpublished doctoraldissertation Yale University New Haven CT
Machlowitz MM (1980) Workaholics Living with Them Working with Them Addison-WesleyReading MA
McDowell I and Newell C (1996) Measuring Health A Guide to Rating Scales andQuestionnaires Oxford University Press Oxford
McMillan LHW (2002) ldquoWorkaholism how does it impact on peoplesrsquo livesrdquo unpublisheddoctoral thesis University of Waikato Hamilton
McMillan LHW Brady EC OrsquoDriscoll MP and Marsh NV (2002) ldquoA multifacetedvalidation study of Spence and Robbinsrsquo (1992) workaholism batteryrdquo Journal ofOccupational and Organisational Psychology Vol 75 pp 357-68
McMillan LHW OrsquoDriscoll MP and Burke R (2003) ldquoWorkaholism a review of theoryresearch and future directionsrdquo International Review of Industrial and OrganisationalPsychology Wiley New York NY
Oates WE (1968) ldquoOn being a lsquoworkaholicrsquo (a serious jest)rdquo Pastoral Psychology Vol 19pp 16-20
Perez-Prada E (1996) ldquoPersonality at workrdquo unpublished doctoral dissertation St LouisUniversity St Louis MO
Rhoads JM (1977) ldquoOverworkrdquo Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA) Vol 237No 24 pp 2615-8
Robinson BE (1989) Work Addiction Hidden Legacies of Adult Children HealthCommunications FL
Robinson BE (1996a) ldquoConcurrent validity of the work addiction risk test as a measure ofworkaholismrdquo Psychological Reports Vol 79 pp 1313-4
Robinson BE (1996b) ldquoRelationship between work addiction and family functioning clinicalimplications for marriage and family therapistsrdquo Journal of Family Psychotherapy Vol 7No 3 pp 13-29
Robinson BE (1998) Chained to the Desk a Guidebook for Workaholics Their Partners andChildren and the Clinicians Who Treat Them New York University Press New York NY
Robinson BE and Post P (1994) ldquoValidity of the work addiction risk testrdquo Perceptual andMotor Skills Vol 78 pp 337-8
Scott KS Moore KS and Miceli MP (1997) ldquoAn exploration of the meaning and consequencesof workaholismrdquo Human Relations Vol 50 pp 287-314
Spence JT and Robbins AS (1992) ldquoWorkaholism definition measurement and preliminaryresultsrdquo Journal of Personality Assessment Vol 58 pp 160-78
Staines GL (1980) ldquoSpillover versus compensation a review of the literature on the relationshipbetween work and non-workrdquo Human Relations Vol 33 No 2 pp 111-29
Statistica (1995) STATISTICA for Windows [Computer Program Manual] StatSoft Inc TulsaOK available at wwwstatsoftinccom
Ware JE and Gandek B (1998) ldquoOverview of SF-36 Health Survey and the international qualityof life project assessment (IQOLA) projectrdquo Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Vol 51 No 11pp 903-12
Workaholismand health
519
work-enjoyment (Burke 1999a 2000b Spence and Robbins 1992) but in a Japanesesample the relationship did not approach significance (Kanai et al 1996) Workinvolvement appears to have an unclear relationship with health complaints In onestudy (Spence and Robbins 1992) male social workers with high work involvementalso reported low health complaints but females reported moderate levels Clearlythese data are contradictory and given the small number of studies could beattributable to cultural differences or measurement error
In summary it is difficult to ascertain whether workaholism causes healthproblems whether health problems precipitate an underlying tendency towardworkaholism or whether health and workaholism are linked through a thirdmoderating variable such as personality Given the small number of studies that havefocused on health issues extant results could be attributable to a multitude of factorsNevertheless it appears that health status should differentiate workaholics from otherworkers The present research therefore tested the following four groups ofhypotheses
A Psychological healthIn comparison to non-workaholics
H1 Workaholics report poorer mental health
H2 Workaholics report poorer emotional health
H3 Workaholics report poorer social health
B Physical healthIn comparison to non-workaholics
H4 Workaholics report poorer physical health
H5 Workaholics report poorer general vitality
H6 Workaholics report more physical discomfort
C General healthIn comparison to non-workaholics
H7 Workaholics report poorer general health status
H8 Workaholics report more work-specific problems
D Health trendsIn comparison to non-workaholics
H9 Workaholics report poorer health trends over time
MethodSampleFive organisations in New Zealand (an industrial manufacturer communicationscompany financial services company hospital and food manufacturer) distributed1000 questionnaires to employees Of the 421 employees who responded 100 were thenpurposively selected on the basis of having extreme workaholism scores and invited to
Workaholismand health
511
participate in the present study Respondentsrsquo scores on the workaholismbattery-revised (WorkBAT-R McMillan et al 2002) were used to rank workaholismlevels (This measure has two scales enjoyment-R and drive-R and is outlined in moredetail below) Respondents who had incomplete data worked shift-work or less than30 h per week were excluded from the sample leaving a pool of 292 workers whoseenjoyment and drive scores were ranked and divided into two contrasting (extreme)groups Given that some extreme scores were obtained for workaholics selection ofthis group was non-problematic However for the non-workaholic group scores wereless extreme Therefore rather than using straight percentile-splits the followingcriterion for group membership using cut-off scores was developed
Workaholics (extreme high scores) Workers who met both of the following criteriaethn frac14 50THORN were approached to participate
(1) their score on at least one of their WorkBAT-R Enjoyment-R or Drive-R scaleswas more than 50 (ie an extreme score) and
(2) their score on the remaining WorkBAT-R scale was greater than the mean scorefor all workers who initially responded (enjoyment-R 44 drive-R 48)
Thus the mean Enjoyment-R score for the group was 572 and the mean drive-R scorefor the group was 594 Totally 46 workaholics (94 per cent of those sampled) returnedusable data at the first measurement point Of these 28 (61 per cent) returned data atthe second measurement point six months later
Non-workaholics (extreme low scores) Workers who met the following criteria wereapproached to participate
their score on at least one of their WorkBAT-R scales was less than 35 (ie belowthe midpoint) and
their score on the remaining WorkBAT-R scale was less than the mean scoremean score for all workers who initially responded (ie enjoyment-R 44drive-R 48)
However these criteria yielded only 27 workers and in order to expand thenon-workaholic group size the criteria were extended to include
workers whose scores were below the group mean on either enjoyment-R(ie 44) or drive-R (ie 48)
This yielded a pool of 61 workers 50 of whom were approached to participate Themean enjoyment-R score for the group was 325 and the mean drive-R score forthe group was 382 In total 42 non-workaholics returned usable data (86 per cent) atthe first measurement point Of these 28 (67 per cent) returned data at the secondmeasurement point six months later
Therefore totally 88 employees returned questionnaires at time 1 and 56 at time 2The composition of the contrasted groups was evenly matched for demographicvariables such as gender (n frac14 46 male 42 female) ethnicity and education (47 per centheld post-college education) but not closely matched in terms of age and income ashoped Workaholics were on average seven years older (M frac14 375 range frac14 23-62SD frac14 118) than non-workaholics (M frac14 305 range frac14 19-58 SD frac14 90) Thisdifference was statistically significant (U frac14 6195 z frac14 289 p frac14 000) Workaholicsalso had significantly greater proportions of people earning more than $70000 perannum (non-workaholics frac14 2 per cent u frac14 579 z frac14 297 p frac14 000) However while
JOCM175
512
more workaholics held managerialprofessional roles (workaholics frac14 46 per centnon-workaholics frac14 17 per cent) and lived in relationships (workaholics frac14 72 per centnon-workaholics frac14 54 per cent these differences did not attain significance at thep 001 level z frac14 259 p frac14 001 z frac14 237 p frac14 002 respectively) Similarly thegroups had relatively well matched post-school education (U frac14 7775 z frac14 157p frac14 012) gender mix (workaholic frac14 50 per cent female non-workaholic frac14 45 per centfemale U frac14 9200 z frac14 038 p frac14 070) and hours worked (workaholic frac14 395non-workaholics frac14 373 U frac14 6380 z frac14 259 p frac14 001) The similarities betweengroups were replicated at time 2 (n frac14 24 male 31 female) where the mean agedifference between the two groups persisted (workaholics frac14 395 yearsnon-workaholics frac14 3218 U frac14 2510 z frac14 231 p frac14 002) although the groups werebetter matched in terms of income (U frac14 266 z frac14 189 p frac14 006)
MeasuresRespondents were presented with a self-report questionnaire which included questionson workaholism health status and demographics
Workaholism The WorkBAT-R is a 14 item self-report questionnaire with aseven-point Likert (disagreeagree) response scale (McMillan et al 2002) The measurecomprises two scales enjoyment-R and drive-R
Enjoyment-R The Enjoyment-R scale contained seven items which typicallyreferred to enjoying work so much it was difficult to stop Responses were summed andreversed so that high scores reflected high levels of enjoyment The scale yielded an avalue of 090 split half reliability of 090 and average inter-item correlation of 059 Themean score was slightly above the midpoint of 40 on the scale (M frac14 442 SD frac14 136)although the scores were normally distributed (skew frac14 2042 w frac14 096 p frac14 002)(Note that the present study used a threshold of p 001 for accepting significance asoutlined in the procedure section) Whilst the theoretical range of scores was 1-7 theactual range was 114-671 At time 2 the scale had a higher a value (092) split halfreliability (094) and average inter-item correlation (063) The mean score at time 2 wasslightly higher (M frac14 458 SD frac14 137) although scores remained normally distributed(skew frac14 2047 w frac14 096 p frac14 007)
Drive-R The Drive-R scale contained seven items which typically referred to feelingobliged to work hard and thinking about work even when wanting to get away from itResponses were summed and reversed so that high scores reflected high levels of driveThe scale yielded an a internal consistency value of 075 split half reliability of 077and an average inter-item correlation of 034 The mean score was slightly above themidpoint of 40 on the scale (M frac14 491 SD frac14 106) although the scores were normallydistributed (skew frac14 2037 w frac14 096 p frac14 001) Although the theoretical range ofscores was 1-7 the actual range was 229-657 At time 2 the scale had a higher alphavalue (082) split half reliability (079) and average inter-item correlation of 042 Themean score was also similar (M frac14 492 SD frac14 118) and the scores remained normallydistributed (skew frac14 2058 w frac14 094 p frac14 001)
Health status Participantsrsquo health status was measured using the Rand ShortForm-36 (SF-36) a multifaceted 36-item measure that assesses generic healthdifficulties using numerical rating scales (both Likert and yesno format) where severalitems are reverse scored to maintain reliability (McDowell and Newell 1996) Themeasure is well validated for its ability to differentiate between function and
Workaholismand health
513
dysfunction distress and well-being and objective and subjective symptoms of illness(Ware and Gandek 1998) The scale is self-administered and yields two summarymeasures the mental and the physical health components scale plus eight subscalescores (physical emotional role and social functioning vitality general health bodilypain and health transitions) Both components have been demonstrated to havepredictive validity (utilisation of health care services clinical course of depression jobloss within 12 months and survival rates over a five-year period) strong reliability andhigh internal consistency (Ware and Gandek 1998)
The mental health components scale measured general mental wellness across 14items that were summed and averaged to provide a summary score ranging between 0and 100 Low scores indicated frequent mental distress social dysfunction andemotional problems and high scores indicated positive affect social competence andemotional health In addition to screening for psychiatric disorders the scale has aparticularly accurate sensitivity for depressive disorder (Ware and Gandek 1998)Typical items included feeling calm feeling happy and expecting health to remain athigh levels Raw scores were summed and overall mean scores were calculated The acoefficient was 086 at time 1 and 089 at time 2
The physical health components scale measured current physical health across 21items that were summed and averaged to provide a summary score ranging between 0and 100 Low scores indicate poorer self-care frequent tiredness and severe pain andhigh scores indicate high energy levels well-being and general good health Typicalitems referred to having a lot of energy and being free from pain Raw scores weresummed and overall mean scores were calculated The a coefficient was 090 at time 1and 091 at time 2
The final item in the SF-36 asked respondents to rate their health now compared to12 months previously This item was used to examine perceived changes in healthstatus
Demographics In addition to the above measures six simple demographic itemswere asked to ascertain age gender income level highest qualification relationshipstatus and hours worked per week
ProcedureEmployees were given written questionnaires at group meetings in each workplaceand the questionnaires were collected during the following week This process wasrepeated with the same questionnaires and participants six months later (time 2) afterwhich they were de-briefed on the preliminary findings in groups To reduce thelikelihood of type 1 errors and spurious false positives the significance level for allcorrelations was set at 001 The Mann Whitney test was used to compare workaholicsand non-workaholics as the SF-36 had a non-parametric distribution and U is the mostpowerful non-parametric alternative to the t-test for independent samples (Statistica1995)
ResultsThe present sample was considerably healthier than the general population inNew Zealand The combined-groups mean score on the mental health components scalewas 7269 (SD frac14 1570 range frac14 275-943) which was considerably higher than that ofthe New Zealand population (512 Johnstone et al 1998) Scores were negativelyskewed (skew frac14 2093 w frac14 090 p frac14 000) At time 2 the mean score was 7444 and
JOCM175
514
the negative skew remained (skew frac14 2138 w frac14 086 p frac14 000) The mean score forthe physical health components scale was 8566 (range frac14 169-100 SD frac14 1468)compared to the general New Zealand population mean of only 501 (Johnstone et al1998) Scores were negatively skewed (skew frac14 2209 w frac14 077 p frac14 000) At time 2the mean score was 8442 and the negative skew remained (skew frac14 2161 w frac14 080p frac14 000)
Overall none of the hypotheses were supported by the data In fact the dataindicated in many instances that workaholics health levels were equal to or in placesbetter than non-workaholicsrsquo health These results are summarised in conceptualformat in Table I Data from the second measurement point are summarised in Table IIAs shown in these tables while none of the results attained statistical significancethere was a trend for workaholics to report consistently poor work role functioningpain and social health scores and consistently similar levels of vitality general healthmental health composite physical health and composite mental health
Psychological healthOverall workaholics tend to have similar mental health levels (all differences wereless than 5 per cent) to non-workaholics but consistently poor social health
Better outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent higherscores than non-workaholics)
Poorer outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent lower scoresthan non-workaholics)
Similar outcomes (workaholicsand non-workaholics reportedscores less than 5 per centdifferent)
Pain (780 835) Mental health (711 738)Sociala (831 878) Vitalitya (633 625)Emotional (725 786) General health (751 758)Physical (896 930) Composite physical (838 871)Work role functioning (832 881) Composite mental (711 738)
Transitions (598 571)
Notes The first score provided in every set of brackets refers to workaholics the second tonon-workaholics aDenotes a consistent trend across both measurement points (six-months apart)
Table IComparison betweenhealth outcomes for
workaholics andnon-workaholicsrsquo on theSF-36 measure at time 1
Better outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent higherscores than non-workaholics)
Poorer outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent lower scoresthan non-workaholics)
Similar outcomes (workaholicsand non-workaholics reportedscores less than 5 per centdifferent)
Emotional (860 798) Pain (719 788) Mental health (738 745)Social (786 884) Vitality (632 627)Transitions (589 652) General health (798 802)Work role functioning (777 866) Physical (900 885)
Composite physical (835 852)Composite mental (738 745)
Note The first score provided in every set of brackets refers to workaholics the second tonon-workaholics
Table IIComparison betweenhealth outcomes for
workaholics andnon-workaholicsrsquo on theSF-36 measure at time 2
Workaholismand health
515
Specifically none of the hypotheses regarding psychological health were supportedAt time one workaholics at time 1 ethM frac14 7107THORN had similar mental health tonon-workaholics ethM frac14 7384THORN similar composite mental health (M frac14 7107 7384respectively) slightly poor emotional health (M frac14 7246 7857) and slightly poorsocial health (M frac14 8315 8780) However as the p-values for each of the U-tests werewell in excess of the 001 threshold ( p frac14 058 058 043 27 respectively) none of thedifferences were statistically significant As outlined in Table II these trends wererepeated at time 2 with all p-values remaining 015
Physical healthIn general the two groups reported similar physical health and while workaholicsreported 5 per cent higher pain and role-work influence none of the hypotheses weresupported At time 1 workaholics reported slightly poor physical health ethM frac14 8956THORNthan non-workhalics (9298) poor composite physical health (M frac14 8380 8706)similar energy levels (M frac14 6326 6250) and slightly less freedom from pain thannon-workaholics (M frac14 7799 8351) The p-values for the corresponding U-tests werewell in excess of the 001 threshold ( p frac14 064 068 076 46 respectively) and thereforenone of the differences were statistically significant As outlined in Table II thesetrends were repeated at time 2 with all p-values remaining 020
General healthThe two groups reported similar levels of general health and none of the hypothesesregarding general health were supported At time 1 workaholics reported almostidentical general health status (M frac14 7511 7583) but more interference in their workas a result of their health than non-workaholics (M frac14 8315 8810) Correspondingp-values for the U-tests were 089 and 0 57 These trends were replicated at time 2where both p-values were in excess of 054
Health trends over timeThe groups reported similar health transitions and therefore the hypothesis concerninghealth trends over time was not supported At time 1 workaholics actually reportedgreater increases in health over the past 12 months than non-workaholics (M frac14 59785714) although this difference was not significant (U frac14 9060 z frac14 2050 p frac14 062)This tendency reversed at time 2 where workaholics ethM frac14 5893THORN reported fewerimprovements than non-workaholics ethM frac14 6518THORN although the difference still failedto reach statistical significance (U frac14 3635 z frac14 2123 p frac14 064)
In summary workaholics reported similar health outcomes to non-workaholicsacross 11 indices at two separate measurement points six months apart Where thescores differed it was generally by less than five per cent and in all casesnon-significant
DiscussionThe present finding that workaholics appear to function relatively well without manynegative health outcomes supports those of Burke (1999a b 2000a b) SpecificallyBurke observed that high enjoyment workaholics had fewer psychosomatic symptomsand more favourable physical well-being than many other workers In fact his dataindicated that (enthusiastic) workaholicsrsquo and non-workaholicsrsquo physical health scoreswere so similar that they all fell within one standard deviation of the mean
JOCM175
516
The present study used a different measure than Burke but obtained similarresults The SF-36 has substantial validation data from across more than 20 countriesis published in over 200 scientific journals (Ware and Gandek 1998) haswell-established predictive validity to health outcomes and is New Zealand normedThus contrary to some research suggesting that workaholics report higher levels ofstress both Burkersquos and the present data suggest that this does not necessarilytranslate into poor health outcomes Correspondingly it is pertinent to emphasise thatseveral of the reports concerning adverse health impacts and workaholism(cf Robinson 1989 1998) were based on anecdotal evidence from counsellingself-selected workaholics from therapy groups (workaholics anonymous) samples thatare certainly non-normative
However it is possible that the present samplersquos high levels of income amelioratedat least in part the impact of stress on participantsrsquo lives and thereby reduce theincidence of illness Arguably high levels of income permit more expansivehealth-promoting behaviors such as dietary choices comprehensive health care andbetter access to fitness amenities such as gyms and personal trainers Given that Burke(2000b) sample comprised MBA educated managers those data were also likely to beinfluenced in a similar manner It is also prudent to recall that the present sample wasalso comparatively very healthy which is perhaps not surprising given that theNew Zealand norms include the very elderly infirm and those unable to work dueto illness
It is important to draw attention to the possibility that perhaps low enjoyment inwork is the critical factor that leads to poor health outcomes as many studies reportingpoor health outcomes for workaholics conceptualised workaholism as comprising lowenjoyment Enjoyment is known to relate to health enhancing constructs such as jobsatisfaction (McMillan et al 2003) life satisfaction purpose in life and positiveteam-focused beliefs (Bonebright et al 2000 Burke 2000b) Conversely drive is knownto relate more strongly to harmful correlates such as impatience-irritability (whichrelates to poor cardiac health) and obsessive-compulsiveness (which relates to anxietyand stress McMillan 2002) On this basis it is feasible to hypothesise that drive maybe the toxic (ie harmful) element in workaholism while enjoyment may be a protectivefactor that buffers the influence of drive It is also feasible as Spence and Robbins(1992) proposed that it is a combination of high-drivelow-enjoyment that isproblematic rather than being high or low on either individual aspect
In interpreting the present data however it is important to avoid the tendency toequate statistical significance with psychological importance While workaholicsreported 5 per cent worse pain scores (not significantly different from non-workaholicsand within the 95 per cent confidence-limits range Ware and Gandek 1998) thedifference may be clinically significant in terms of long-term health outcomesMachlowitz (1978) found that workaholics had good health but expressed feelings offailure concerning their families so although the present difference in health may notbe statistically significant it may be personally meaningful Aside from culturalconsiderations (workaholism may be different in New Zealand than North Americawhere with the exception of Kanai et al (1996) the other samples were based) there areseveral potential explanations for these ldquono-harmrdquo findings It is feasible that becausewe studied workaholics who were high in enjoyment (ldquoenthusiastic workaholicsrdquoin Spence and Robbins (1992)) terminology) we also inadvertently studied
Workaholismand health
517
ldquopeak performersrdquo (well-balanced workers who are high in fulfilment Garfield 1986)Garfield described peak performers as people who have an intense commitment towork that is balanced by careful attention to physical and mental health Our datacertainly supported this and the notion of ldquointegrationrdquo proposed by Staines (1980)who suggested that peoplersquos jobs teach them social and organisational skills thatfacilitate involvement in non-work enabling them to excel in both worlds
In terms of applied usefulness the present data challenge the negative stereotype ofworkaholism It is not beyond the realms of possibility of course that ldquohealthyrdquoworkaholism is a culturally bound phenomenon specific to the New Zealand workforceHowever the data certainly support the notion that workaholics should not be typecastas unhappy work-slaves as they appear to enjoy comparable levels of health to othersIt would equally seem illogical to attribute poor physical and mental health toworkaholism as the present data suggest that they are more likely to co-occur bycoincidence rather than causation Thus the most immediate practical application is toequal employment practise as the data do not support the notion that workaholicsshould be differentially treated in the workplace We therefore propose that furtherresearch around the organisational value of workaholism and strategies on how tomaximize its benefits and tactics to minimise its costs is imperative
References
Bartolome F (1983) ldquoThe work alibi when itrsquos harder to go homerdquo Harvard Business ReviewVol 61 No 2 pp 67-74
Bonebright CA Clay DL and Ankenmann RD (2000) ldquoThe relationship of workaholism withwork-life conflict life satisfaction and purpose in liferdquo Journal of Counseling PsychologyVol 47 No 4 pp 469-77
Burke RJ (1999a) ldquoItrsquos not how hard you work but how you work hard evaluating workaholismcomponentsrdquo International Journal of Stress Management Vol 6 No 4 pp 225-39
Burke RJ (1999b) ldquoWorkaholism among women managers work and life satisfactions andpsychological well-beingrdquo Equal Opportunities International Vol 18 No 7 pp 25-35
Burke RJ (1999c) ldquoWorkaholism and extra-work satisfactionsrdquo International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis Vol 7 No 4 pp 352-64
Burke RJ (2000a) ldquoWorkaholism and divorcerdquo Psychological Reports Vol 86 No 1 pp 219-20
Burke RJ (2000b) ldquoWorkaholism in organizations psychological and physical well-beingconsequencesrdquo Stress Medicine Vol 16 pp 11-16
Elder ED (1991) ldquoAn empirical investigation of workaholism in the business settingrdquounpublished doctoral dissertation University of Texas Austin TX
Fassel D (1992) Working Ourselves to Death HarperCollins London
Garfield C (1986) Peak Performers The New Heroes of American Business William Morrowand Company New York NY
Johnstone K Cheung J Pool I Pharmalingam A and Hillcoat-Nalletamby A (1998)ldquoPopulation health measures principles and applications to New Zealand datardquounpublished technical series New Zealand
Kanai A Wakabayashi M and Fling S (1996) ldquoWorkaholism among employees in Japanesecorporations an examination based on the Japanese version of the workaholism scalesrdquoJapanese Psychological Research Vol 38 No 4 pp 192-203
JOCM175
518
Killinger B (1991) Workaholics The Respectable Addicts Simon amp Schuster New South WalesAustralia
Machlowitz MM (1978) ldquoDetermining the effects of workaholismrdquo unpublished doctoraldissertation Yale University New Haven CT
Machlowitz MM (1980) Workaholics Living with Them Working with Them Addison-WesleyReading MA
McDowell I and Newell C (1996) Measuring Health A Guide to Rating Scales andQuestionnaires Oxford University Press Oxford
McMillan LHW (2002) ldquoWorkaholism how does it impact on peoplesrsquo livesrdquo unpublisheddoctoral thesis University of Waikato Hamilton
McMillan LHW Brady EC OrsquoDriscoll MP and Marsh NV (2002) ldquoA multifacetedvalidation study of Spence and Robbinsrsquo (1992) workaholism batteryrdquo Journal ofOccupational and Organisational Psychology Vol 75 pp 357-68
McMillan LHW OrsquoDriscoll MP and Burke R (2003) ldquoWorkaholism a review of theoryresearch and future directionsrdquo International Review of Industrial and OrganisationalPsychology Wiley New York NY
Oates WE (1968) ldquoOn being a lsquoworkaholicrsquo (a serious jest)rdquo Pastoral Psychology Vol 19pp 16-20
Perez-Prada E (1996) ldquoPersonality at workrdquo unpublished doctoral dissertation St LouisUniversity St Louis MO
Rhoads JM (1977) ldquoOverworkrdquo Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA) Vol 237No 24 pp 2615-8
Robinson BE (1989) Work Addiction Hidden Legacies of Adult Children HealthCommunications FL
Robinson BE (1996a) ldquoConcurrent validity of the work addiction risk test as a measure ofworkaholismrdquo Psychological Reports Vol 79 pp 1313-4
Robinson BE (1996b) ldquoRelationship between work addiction and family functioning clinicalimplications for marriage and family therapistsrdquo Journal of Family Psychotherapy Vol 7No 3 pp 13-29
Robinson BE (1998) Chained to the Desk a Guidebook for Workaholics Their Partners andChildren and the Clinicians Who Treat Them New York University Press New York NY
Robinson BE and Post P (1994) ldquoValidity of the work addiction risk testrdquo Perceptual andMotor Skills Vol 78 pp 337-8
Scott KS Moore KS and Miceli MP (1997) ldquoAn exploration of the meaning and consequencesof workaholismrdquo Human Relations Vol 50 pp 287-314
Spence JT and Robbins AS (1992) ldquoWorkaholism definition measurement and preliminaryresultsrdquo Journal of Personality Assessment Vol 58 pp 160-78
Staines GL (1980) ldquoSpillover versus compensation a review of the literature on the relationshipbetween work and non-workrdquo Human Relations Vol 33 No 2 pp 111-29
Statistica (1995) STATISTICA for Windows [Computer Program Manual] StatSoft Inc TulsaOK available at wwwstatsoftinccom
Ware JE and Gandek B (1998) ldquoOverview of SF-36 Health Survey and the international qualityof life project assessment (IQOLA) projectrdquo Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Vol 51 No 11pp 903-12
Workaholismand health
519
participate in the present study Respondentsrsquo scores on the workaholismbattery-revised (WorkBAT-R McMillan et al 2002) were used to rank workaholismlevels (This measure has two scales enjoyment-R and drive-R and is outlined in moredetail below) Respondents who had incomplete data worked shift-work or less than30 h per week were excluded from the sample leaving a pool of 292 workers whoseenjoyment and drive scores were ranked and divided into two contrasting (extreme)groups Given that some extreme scores were obtained for workaholics selection ofthis group was non-problematic However for the non-workaholic group scores wereless extreme Therefore rather than using straight percentile-splits the followingcriterion for group membership using cut-off scores was developed
Workaholics (extreme high scores) Workers who met both of the following criteriaethn frac14 50THORN were approached to participate
(1) their score on at least one of their WorkBAT-R Enjoyment-R or Drive-R scaleswas more than 50 (ie an extreme score) and
(2) their score on the remaining WorkBAT-R scale was greater than the mean scorefor all workers who initially responded (enjoyment-R 44 drive-R 48)
Thus the mean Enjoyment-R score for the group was 572 and the mean drive-R scorefor the group was 594 Totally 46 workaholics (94 per cent of those sampled) returnedusable data at the first measurement point Of these 28 (61 per cent) returned data atthe second measurement point six months later
Non-workaholics (extreme low scores) Workers who met the following criteria wereapproached to participate
their score on at least one of their WorkBAT-R scales was less than 35 (ie belowthe midpoint) and
their score on the remaining WorkBAT-R scale was less than the mean scoremean score for all workers who initially responded (ie enjoyment-R 44drive-R 48)
However these criteria yielded only 27 workers and in order to expand thenon-workaholic group size the criteria were extended to include
workers whose scores were below the group mean on either enjoyment-R(ie 44) or drive-R (ie 48)
This yielded a pool of 61 workers 50 of whom were approached to participate Themean enjoyment-R score for the group was 325 and the mean drive-R score forthe group was 382 In total 42 non-workaholics returned usable data (86 per cent) atthe first measurement point Of these 28 (67 per cent) returned data at the secondmeasurement point six months later
Therefore totally 88 employees returned questionnaires at time 1 and 56 at time 2The composition of the contrasted groups was evenly matched for demographicvariables such as gender (n frac14 46 male 42 female) ethnicity and education (47 per centheld post-college education) but not closely matched in terms of age and income ashoped Workaholics were on average seven years older (M frac14 375 range frac14 23-62SD frac14 118) than non-workaholics (M frac14 305 range frac14 19-58 SD frac14 90) Thisdifference was statistically significant (U frac14 6195 z frac14 289 p frac14 000) Workaholicsalso had significantly greater proportions of people earning more than $70000 perannum (non-workaholics frac14 2 per cent u frac14 579 z frac14 297 p frac14 000) However while
JOCM175
512
more workaholics held managerialprofessional roles (workaholics frac14 46 per centnon-workaholics frac14 17 per cent) and lived in relationships (workaholics frac14 72 per centnon-workaholics frac14 54 per cent these differences did not attain significance at thep 001 level z frac14 259 p frac14 001 z frac14 237 p frac14 002 respectively) Similarly thegroups had relatively well matched post-school education (U frac14 7775 z frac14 157p frac14 012) gender mix (workaholic frac14 50 per cent female non-workaholic frac14 45 per centfemale U frac14 9200 z frac14 038 p frac14 070) and hours worked (workaholic frac14 395non-workaholics frac14 373 U frac14 6380 z frac14 259 p frac14 001) The similarities betweengroups were replicated at time 2 (n frac14 24 male 31 female) where the mean agedifference between the two groups persisted (workaholics frac14 395 yearsnon-workaholics frac14 3218 U frac14 2510 z frac14 231 p frac14 002) although the groups werebetter matched in terms of income (U frac14 266 z frac14 189 p frac14 006)
MeasuresRespondents were presented with a self-report questionnaire which included questionson workaholism health status and demographics
Workaholism The WorkBAT-R is a 14 item self-report questionnaire with aseven-point Likert (disagreeagree) response scale (McMillan et al 2002) The measurecomprises two scales enjoyment-R and drive-R
Enjoyment-R The Enjoyment-R scale contained seven items which typicallyreferred to enjoying work so much it was difficult to stop Responses were summed andreversed so that high scores reflected high levels of enjoyment The scale yielded an avalue of 090 split half reliability of 090 and average inter-item correlation of 059 Themean score was slightly above the midpoint of 40 on the scale (M frac14 442 SD frac14 136)although the scores were normally distributed (skew frac14 2042 w frac14 096 p frac14 002)(Note that the present study used a threshold of p 001 for accepting significance asoutlined in the procedure section) Whilst the theoretical range of scores was 1-7 theactual range was 114-671 At time 2 the scale had a higher a value (092) split halfreliability (094) and average inter-item correlation (063) The mean score at time 2 wasslightly higher (M frac14 458 SD frac14 137) although scores remained normally distributed(skew frac14 2047 w frac14 096 p frac14 007)
Drive-R The Drive-R scale contained seven items which typically referred to feelingobliged to work hard and thinking about work even when wanting to get away from itResponses were summed and reversed so that high scores reflected high levels of driveThe scale yielded an a internal consistency value of 075 split half reliability of 077and an average inter-item correlation of 034 The mean score was slightly above themidpoint of 40 on the scale (M frac14 491 SD frac14 106) although the scores were normallydistributed (skew frac14 2037 w frac14 096 p frac14 001) Although the theoretical range ofscores was 1-7 the actual range was 229-657 At time 2 the scale had a higher alphavalue (082) split half reliability (079) and average inter-item correlation of 042 Themean score was also similar (M frac14 492 SD frac14 118) and the scores remained normallydistributed (skew frac14 2058 w frac14 094 p frac14 001)
Health status Participantsrsquo health status was measured using the Rand ShortForm-36 (SF-36) a multifaceted 36-item measure that assesses generic healthdifficulties using numerical rating scales (both Likert and yesno format) where severalitems are reverse scored to maintain reliability (McDowell and Newell 1996) Themeasure is well validated for its ability to differentiate between function and
Workaholismand health
513
dysfunction distress and well-being and objective and subjective symptoms of illness(Ware and Gandek 1998) The scale is self-administered and yields two summarymeasures the mental and the physical health components scale plus eight subscalescores (physical emotional role and social functioning vitality general health bodilypain and health transitions) Both components have been demonstrated to havepredictive validity (utilisation of health care services clinical course of depression jobloss within 12 months and survival rates over a five-year period) strong reliability andhigh internal consistency (Ware and Gandek 1998)
The mental health components scale measured general mental wellness across 14items that were summed and averaged to provide a summary score ranging between 0and 100 Low scores indicated frequent mental distress social dysfunction andemotional problems and high scores indicated positive affect social competence andemotional health In addition to screening for psychiatric disorders the scale has aparticularly accurate sensitivity for depressive disorder (Ware and Gandek 1998)Typical items included feeling calm feeling happy and expecting health to remain athigh levels Raw scores were summed and overall mean scores were calculated The acoefficient was 086 at time 1 and 089 at time 2
The physical health components scale measured current physical health across 21items that were summed and averaged to provide a summary score ranging between 0and 100 Low scores indicate poorer self-care frequent tiredness and severe pain andhigh scores indicate high energy levels well-being and general good health Typicalitems referred to having a lot of energy and being free from pain Raw scores weresummed and overall mean scores were calculated The a coefficient was 090 at time 1and 091 at time 2
The final item in the SF-36 asked respondents to rate their health now compared to12 months previously This item was used to examine perceived changes in healthstatus
Demographics In addition to the above measures six simple demographic itemswere asked to ascertain age gender income level highest qualification relationshipstatus and hours worked per week
ProcedureEmployees were given written questionnaires at group meetings in each workplaceand the questionnaires were collected during the following week This process wasrepeated with the same questionnaires and participants six months later (time 2) afterwhich they were de-briefed on the preliminary findings in groups To reduce thelikelihood of type 1 errors and spurious false positives the significance level for allcorrelations was set at 001 The Mann Whitney test was used to compare workaholicsand non-workaholics as the SF-36 had a non-parametric distribution and U is the mostpowerful non-parametric alternative to the t-test for independent samples (Statistica1995)
ResultsThe present sample was considerably healthier than the general population inNew Zealand The combined-groups mean score on the mental health components scalewas 7269 (SD frac14 1570 range frac14 275-943) which was considerably higher than that ofthe New Zealand population (512 Johnstone et al 1998) Scores were negativelyskewed (skew frac14 2093 w frac14 090 p frac14 000) At time 2 the mean score was 7444 and
JOCM175
514
the negative skew remained (skew frac14 2138 w frac14 086 p frac14 000) The mean score forthe physical health components scale was 8566 (range frac14 169-100 SD frac14 1468)compared to the general New Zealand population mean of only 501 (Johnstone et al1998) Scores were negatively skewed (skew frac14 2209 w frac14 077 p frac14 000) At time 2the mean score was 8442 and the negative skew remained (skew frac14 2161 w frac14 080p frac14 000)
Overall none of the hypotheses were supported by the data In fact the dataindicated in many instances that workaholics health levels were equal to or in placesbetter than non-workaholicsrsquo health These results are summarised in conceptualformat in Table I Data from the second measurement point are summarised in Table IIAs shown in these tables while none of the results attained statistical significancethere was a trend for workaholics to report consistently poor work role functioningpain and social health scores and consistently similar levels of vitality general healthmental health composite physical health and composite mental health
Psychological healthOverall workaholics tend to have similar mental health levels (all differences wereless than 5 per cent) to non-workaholics but consistently poor social health
Better outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent higherscores than non-workaholics)
Poorer outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent lower scoresthan non-workaholics)
Similar outcomes (workaholicsand non-workaholics reportedscores less than 5 per centdifferent)
Pain (780 835) Mental health (711 738)Sociala (831 878) Vitalitya (633 625)Emotional (725 786) General health (751 758)Physical (896 930) Composite physical (838 871)Work role functioning (832 881) Composite mental (711 738)
Transitions (598 571)
Notes The first score provided in every set of brackets refers to workaholics the second tonon-workaholics aDenotes a consistent trend across both measurement points (six-months apart)
Table IComparison betweenhealth outcomes for
workaholics andnon-workaholicsrsquo on theSF-36 measure at time 1
Better outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent higherscores than non-workaholics)
Poorer outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent lower scoresthan non-workaholics)
Similar outcomes (workaholicsand non-workaholics reportedscores less than 5 per centdifferent)
Emotional (860 798) Pain (719 788) Mental health (738 745)Social (786 884) Vitality (632 627)Transitions (589 652) General health (798 802)Work role functioning (777 866) Physical (900 885)
Composite physical (835 852)Composite mental (738 745)
Note The first score provided in every set of brackets refers to workaholics the second tonon-workaholics
Table IIComparison betweenhealth outcomes for
workaholics andnon-workaholicsrsquo on theSF-36 measure at time 2
Workaholismand health
515
Specifically none of the hypotheses regarding psychological health were supportedAt time one workaholics at time 1 ethM frac14 7107THORN had similar mental health tonon-workaholics ethM frac14 7384THORN similar composite mental health (M frac14 7107 7384respectively) slightly poor emotional health (M frac14 7246 7857) and slightly poorsocial health (M frac14 8315 8780) However as the p-values for each of the U-tests werewell in excess of the 001 threshold ( p frac14 058 058 043 27 respectively) none of thedifferences were statistically significant As outlined in Table II these trends wererepeated at time 2 with all p-values remaining 015
Physical healthIn general the two groups reported similar physical health and while workaholicsreported 5 per cent higher pain and role-work influence none of the hypotheses weresupported At time 1 workaholics reported slightly poor physical health ethM frac14 8956THORNthan non-workhalics (9298) poor composite physical health (M frac14 8380 8706)similar energy levels (M frac14 6326 6250) and slightly less freedom from pain thannon-workaholics (M frac14 7799 8351) The p-values for the corresponding U-tests werewell in excess of the 001 threshold ( p frac14 064 068 076 46 respectively) and thereforenone of the differences were statistically significant As outlined in Table II thesetrends were repeated at time 2 with all p-values remaining 020
General healthThe two groups reported similar levels of general health and none of the hypothesesregarding general health were supported At time 1 workaholics reported almostidentical general health status (M frac14 7511 7583) but more interference in their workas a result of their health than non-workaholics (M frac14 8315 8810) Correspondingp-values for the U-tests were 089 and 0 57 These trends were replicated at time 2where both p-values were in excess of 054
Health trends over timeThe groups reported similar health transitions and therefore the hypothesis concerninghealth trends over time was not supported At time 1 workaholics actually reportedgreater increases in health over the past 12 months than non-workaholics (M frac14 59785714) although this difference was not significant (U frac14 9060 z frac14 2050 p frac14 062)This tendency reversed at time 2 where workaholics ethM frac14 5893THORN reported fewerimprovements than non-workaholics ethM frac14 6518THORN although the difference still failedto reach statistical significance (U frac14 3635 z frac14 2123 p frac14 064)
In summary workaholics reported similar health outcomes to non-workaholicsacross 11 indices at two separate measurement points six months apart Where thescores differed it was generally by less than five per cent and in all casesnon-significant
DiscussionThe present finding that workaholics appear to function relatively well without manynegative health outcomes supports those of Burke (1999a b 2000a b) SpecificallyBurke observed that high enjoyment workaholics had fewer psychosomatic symptomsand more favourable physical well-being than many other workers In fact his dataindicated that (enthusiastic) workaholicsrsquo and non-workaholicsrsquo physical health scoreswere so similar that they all fell within one standard deviation of the mean
JOCM175
516
The present study used a different measure than Burke but obtained similarresults The SF-36 has substantial validation data from across more than 20 countriesis published in over 200 scientific journals (Ware and Gandek 1998) haswell-established predictive validity to health outcomes and is New Zealand normedThus contrary to some research suggesting that workaholics report higher levels ofstress both Burkersquos and the present data suggest that this does not necessarilytranslate into poor health outcomes Correspondingly it is pertinent to emphasise thatseveral of the reports concerning adverse health impacts and workaholism(cf Robinson 1989 1998) were based on anecdotal evidence from counsellingself-selected workaholics from therapy groups (workaholics anonymous) samples thatare certainly non-normative
However it is possible that the present samplersquos high levels of income amelioratedat least in part the impact of stress on participantsrsquo lives and thereby reduce theincidence of illness Arguably high levels of income permit more expansivehealth-promoting behaviors such as dietary choices comprehensive health care andbetter access to fitness amenities such as gyms and personal trainers Given that Burke(2000b) sample comprised MBA educated managers those data were also likely to beinfluenced in a similar manner It is also prudent to recall that the present sample wasalso comparatively very healthy which is perhaps not surprising given that theNew Zealand norms include the very elderly infirm and those unable to work dueto illness
It is important to draw attention to the possibility that perhaps low enjoyment inwork is the critical factor that leads to poor health outcomes as many studies reportingpoor health outcomes for workaholics conceptualised workaholism as comprising lowenjoyment Enjoyment is known to relate to health enhancing constructs such as jobsatisfaction (McMillan et al 2003) life satisfaction purpose in life and positiveteam-focused beliefs (Bonebright et al 2000 Burke 2000b) Conversely drive is knownto relate more strongly to harmful correlates such as impatience-irritability (whichrelates to poor cardiac health) and obsessive-compulsiveness (which relates to anxietyand stress McMillan 2002) On this basis it is feasible to hypothesise that drive maybe the toxic (ie harmful) element in workaholism while enjoyment may be a protectivefactor that buffers the influence of drive It is also feasible as Spence and Robbins(1992) proposed that it is a combination of high-drivelow-enjoyment that isproblematic rather than being high or low on either individual aspect
In interpreting the present data however it is important to avoid the tendency toequate statistical significance with psychological importance While workaholicsreported 5 per cent worse pain scores (not significantly different from non-workaholicsand within the 95 per cent confidence-limits range Ware and Gandek 1998) thedifference may be clinically significant in terms of long-term health outcomesMachlowitz (1978) found that workaholics had good health but expressed feelings offailure concerning their families so although the present difference in health may notbe statistically significant it may be personally meaningful Aside from culturalconsiderations (workaholism may be different in New Zealand than North Americawhere with the exception of Kanai et al (1996) the other samples were based) there areseveral potential explanations for these ldquono-harmrdquo findings It is feasible that becausewe studied workaholics who were high in enjoyment (ldquoenthusiastic workaholicsrdquoin Spence and Robbins (1992)) terminology) we also inadvertently studied
Workaholismand health
517
ldquopeak performersrdquo (well-balanced workers who are high in fulfilment Garfield 1986)Garfield described peak performers as people who have an intense commitment towork that is balanced by careful attention to physical and mental health Our datacertainly supported this and the notion of ldquointegrationrdquo proposed by Staines (1980)who suggested that peoplersquos jobs teach them social and organisational skills thatfacilitate involvement in non-work enabling them to excel in both worlds
In terms of applied usefulness the present data challenge the negative stereotype ofworkaholism It is not beyond the realms of possibility of course that ldquohealthyrdquoworkaholism is a culturally bound phenomenon specific to the New Zealand workforceHowever the data certainly support the notion that workaholics should not be typecastas unhappy work-slaves as they appear to enjoy comparable levels of health to othersIt would equally seem illogical to attribute poor physical and mental health toworkaholism as the present data suggest that they are more likely to co-occur bycoincidence rather than causation Thus the most immediate practical application is toequal employment practise as the data do not support the notion that workaholicsshould be differentially treated in the workplace We therefore propose that furtherresearch around the organisational value of workaholism and strategies on how tomaximize its benefits and tactics to minimise its costs is imperative
References
Bartolome F (1983) ldquoThe work alibi when itrsquos harder to go homerdquo Harvard Business ReviewVol 61 No 2 pp 67-74
Bonebright CA Clay DL and Ankenmann RD (2000) ldquoThe relationship of workaholism withwork-life conflict life satisfaction and purpose in liferdquo Journal of Counseling PsychologyVol 47 No 4 pp 469-77
Burke RJ (1999a) ldquoItrsquos not how hard you work but how you work hard evaluating workaholismcomponentsrdquo International Journal of Stress Management Vol 6 No 4 pp 225-39
Burke RJ (1999b) ldquoWorkaholism among women managers work and life satisfactions andpsychological well-beingrdquo Equal Opportunities International Vol 18 No 7 pp 25-35
Burke RJ (1999c) ldquoWorkaholism and extra-work satisfactionsrdquo International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis Vol 7 No 4 pp 352-64
Burke RJ (2000a) ldquoWorkaholism and divorcerdquo Psychological Reports Vol 86 No 1 pp 219-20
Burke RJ (2000b) ldquoWorkaholism in organizations psychological and physical well-beingconsequencesrdquo Stress Medicine Vol 16 pp 11-16
Elder ED (1991) ldquoAn empirical investigation of workaholism in the business settingrdquounpublished doctoral dissertation University of Texas Austin TX
Fassel D (1992) Working Ourselves to Death HarperCollins London
Garfield C (1986) Peak Performers The New Heroes of American Business William Morrowand Company New York NY
Johnstone K Cheung J Pool I Pharmalingam A and Hillcoat-Nalletamby A (1998)ldquoPopulation health measures principles and applications to New Zealand datardquounpublished technical series New Zealand
Kanai A Wakabayashi M and Fling S (1996) ldquoWorkaholism among employees in Japanesecorporations an examination based on the Japanese version of the workaholism scalesrdquoJapanese Psychological Research Vol 38 No 4 pp 192-203
JOCM175
518
Killinger B (1991) Workaholics The Respectable Addicts Simon amp Schuster New South WalesAustralia
Machlowitz MM (1978) ldquoDetermining the effects of workaholismrdquo unpublished doctoraldissertation Yale University New Haven CT
Machlowitz MM (1980) Workaholics Living with Them Working with Them Addison-WesleyReading MA
McDowell I and Newell C (1996) Measuring Health A Guide to Rating Scales andQuestionnaires Oxford University Press Oxford
McMillan LHW (2002) ldquoWorkaholism how does it impact on peoplesrsquo livesrdquo unpublisheddoctoral thesis University of Waikato Hamilton
McMillan LHW Brady EC OrsquoDriscoll MP and Marsh NV (2002) ldquoA multifacetedvalidation study of Spence and Robbinsrsquo (1992) workaholism batteryrdquo Journal ofOccupational and Organisational Psychology Vol 75 pp 357-68
McMillan LHW OrsquoDriscoll MP and Burke R (2003) ldquoWorkaholism a review of theoryresearch and future directionsrdquo International Review of Industrial and OrganisationalPsychology Wiley New York NY
Oates WE (1968) ldquoOn being a lsquoworkaholicrsquo (a serious jest)rdquo Pastoral Psychology Vol 19pp 16-20
Perez-Prada E (1996) ldquoPersonality at workrdquo unpublished doctoral dissertation St LouisUniversity St Louis MO
Rhoads JM (1977) ldquoOverworkrdquo Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA) Vol 237No 24 pp 2615-8
Robinson BE (1989) Work Addiction Hidden Legacies of Adult Children HealthCommunications FL
Robinson BE (1996a) ldquoConcurrent validity of the work addiction risk test as a measure ofworkaholismrdquo Psychological Reports Vol 79 pp 1313-4
Robinson BE (1996b) ldquoRelationship between work addiction and family functioning clinicalimplications for marriage and family therapistsrdquo Journal of Family Psychotherapy Vol 7No 3 pp 13-29
Robinson BE (1998) Chained to the Desk a Guidebook for Workaholics Their Partners andChildren and the Clinicians Who Treat Them New York University Press New York NY
Robinson BE and Post P (1994) ldquoValidity of the work addiction risk testrdquo Perceptual andMotor Skills Vol 78 pp 337-8
Scott KS Moore KS and Miceli MP (1997) ldquoAn exploration of the meaning and consequencesof workaholismrdquo Human Relations Vol 50 pp 287-314
Spence JT and Robbins AS (1992) ldquoWorkaholism definition measurement and preliminaryresultsrdquo Journal of Personality Assessment Vol 58 pp 160-78
Staines GL (1980) ldquoSpillover versus compensation a review of the literature on the relationshipbetween work and non-workrdquo Human Relations Vol 33 No 2 pp 111-29
Statistica (1995) STATISTICA for Windows [Computer Program Manual] StatSoft Inc TulsaOK available at wwwstatsoftinccom
Ware JE and Gandek B (1998) ldquoOverview of SF-36 Health Survey and the international qualityof life project assessment (IQOLA) projectrdquo Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Vol 51 No 11pp 903-12
Workaholismand health
519
more workaholics held managerialprofessional roles (workaholics frac14 46 per centnon-workaholics frac14 17 per cent) and lived in relationships (workaholics frac14 72 per centnon-workaholics frac14 54 per cent these differences did not attain significance at thep 001 level z frac14 259 p frac14 001 z frac14 237 p frac14 002 respectively) Similarly thegroups had relatively well matched post-school education (U frac14 7775 z frac14 157p frac14 012) gender mix (workaholic frac14 50 per cent female non-workaholic frac14 45 per centfemale U frac14 9200 z frac14 038 p frac14 070) and hours worked (workaholic frac14 395non-workaholics frac14 373 U frac14 6380 z frac14 259 p frac14 001) The similarities betweengroups were replicated at time 2 (n frac14 24 male 31 female) where the mean agedifference between the two groups persisted (workaholics frac14 395 yearsnon-workaholics frac14 3218 U frac14 2510 z frac14 231 p frac14 002) although the groups werebetter matched in terms of income (U frac14 266 z frac14 189 p frac14 006)
MeasuresRespondents were presented with a self-report questionnaire which included questionson workaholism health status and demographics
Workaholism The WorkBAT-R is a 14 item self-report questionnaire with aseven-point Likert (disagreeagree) response scale (McMillan et al 2002) The measurecomprises two scales enjoyment-R and drive-R
Enjoyment-R The Enjoyment-R scale contained seven items which typicallyreferred to enjoying work so much it was difficult to stop Responses were summed andreversed so that high scores reflected high levels of enjoyment The scale yielded an avalue of 090 split half reliability of 090 and average inter-item correlation of 059 Themean score was slightly above the midpoint of 40 on the scale (M frac14 442 SD frac14 136)although the scores were normally distributed (skew frac14 2042 w frac14 096 p frac14 002)(Note that the present study used a threshold of p 001 for accepting significance asoutlined in the procedure section) Whilst the theoretical range of scores was 1-7 theactual range was 114-671 At time 2 the scale had a higher a value (092) split halfreliability (094) and average inter-item correlation (063) The mean score at time 2 wasslightly higher (M frac14 458 SD frac14 137) although scores remained normally distributed(skew frac14 2047 w frac14 096 p frac14 007)
Drive-R The Drive-R scale contained seven items which typically referred to feelingobliged to work hard and thinking about work even when wanting to get away from itResponses were summed and reversed so that high scores reflected high levels of driveThe scale yielded an a internal consistency value of 075 split half reliability of 077and an average inter-item correlation of 034 The mean score was slightly above themidpoint of 40 on the scale (M frac14 491 SD frac14 106) although the scores were normallydistributed (skew frac14 2037 w frac14 096 p frac14 001) Although the theoretical range ofscores was 1-7 the actual range was 229-657 At time 2 the scale had a higher alphavalue (082) split half reliability (079) and average inter-item correlation of 042 Themean score was also similar (M frac14 492 SD frac14 118) and the scores remained normallydistributed (skew frac14 2058 w frac14 094 p frac14 001)
Health status Participantsrsquo health status was measured using the Rand ShortForm-36 (SF-36) a multifaceted 36-item measure that assesses generic healthdifficulties using numerical rating scales (both Likert and yesno format) where severalitems are reverse scored to maintain reliability (McDowell and Newell 1996) Themeasure is well validated for its ability to differentiate between function and
Workaholismand health
513
dysfunction distress and well-being and objective and subjective symptoms of illness(Ware and Gandek 1998) The scale is self-administered and yields two summarymeasures the mental and the physical health components scale plus eight subscalescores (physical emotional role and social functioning vitality general health bodilypain and health transitions) Both components have been demonstrated to havepredictive validity (utilisation of health care services clinical course of depression jobloss within 12 months and survival rates over a five-year period) strong reliability andhigh internal consistency (Ware and Gandek 1998)
The mental health components scale measured general mental wellness across 14items that were summed and averaged to provide a summary score ranging between 0and 100 Low scores indicated frequent mental distress social dysfunction andemotional problems and high scores indicated positive affect social competence andemotional health In addition to screening for psychiatric disorders the scale has aparticularly accurate sensitivity for depressive disorder (Ware and Gandek 1998)Typical items included feeling calm feeling happy and expecting health to remain athigh levels Raw scores were summed and overall mean scores were calculated The acoefficient was 086 at time 1 and 089 at time 2
The physical health components scale measured current physical health across 21items that were summed and averaged to provide a summary score ranging between 0and 100 Low scores indicate poorer self-care frequent tiredness and severe pain andhigh scores indicate high energy levels well-being and general good health Typicalitems referred to having a lot of energy and being free from pain Raw scores weresummed and overall mean scores were calculated The a coefficient was 090 at time 1and 091 at time 2
The final item in the SF-36 asked respondents to rate their health now compared to12 months previously This item was used to examine perceived changes in healthstatus
Demographics In addition to the above measures six simple demographic itemswere asked to ascertain age gender income level highest qualification relationshipstatus and hours worked per week
ProcedureEmployees were given written questionnaires at group meetings in each workplaceand the questionnaires were collected during the following week This process wasrepeated with the same questionnaires and participants six months later (time 2) afterwhich they were de-briefed on the preliminary findings in groups To reduce thelikelihood of type 1 errors and spurious false positives the significance level for allcorrelations was set at 001 The Mann Whitney test was used to compare workaholicsand non-workaholics as the SF-36 had a non-parametric distribution and U is the mostpowerful non-parametric alternative to the t-test for independent samples (Statistica1995)
ResultsThe present sample was considerably healthier than the general population inNew Zealand The combined-groups mean score on the mental health components scalewas 7269 (SD frac14 1570 range frac14 275-943) which was considerably higher than that ofthe New Zealand population (512 Johnstone et al 1998) Scores were negativelyskewed (skew frac14 2093 w frac14 090 p frac14 000) At time 2 the mean score was 7444 and
JOCM175
514
the negative skew remained (skew frac14 2138 w frac14 086 p frac14 000) The mean score forthe physical health components scale was 8566 (range frac14 169-100 SD frac14 1468)compared to the general New Zealand population mean of only 501 (Johnstone et al1998) Scores were negatively skewed (skew frac14 2209 w frac14 077 p frac14 000) At time 2the mean score was 8442 and the negative skew remained (skew frac14 2161 w frac14 080p frac14 000)
Overall none of the hypotheses were supported by the data In fact the dataindicated in many instances that workaholics health levels were equal to or in placesbetter than non-workaholicsrsquo health These results are summarised in conceptualformat in Table I Data from the second measurement point are summarised in Table IIAs shown in these tables while none of the results attained statistical significancethere was a trend for workaholics to report consistently poor work role functioningpain and social health scores and consistently similar levels of vitality general healthmental health composite physical health and composite mental health
Psychological healthOverall workaholics tend to have similar mental health levels (all differences wereless than 5 per cent) to non-workaholics but consistently poor social health
Better outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent higherscores than non-workaholics)
Poorer outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent lower scoresthan non-workaholics)
Similar outcomes (workaholicsand non-workaholics reportedscores less than 5 per centdifferent)
Pain (780 835) Mental health (711 738)Sociala (831 878) Vitalitya (633 625)Emotional (725 786) General health (751 758)Physical (896 930) Composite physical (838 871)Work role functioning (832 881) Composite mental (711 738)
Transitions (598 571)
Notes The first score provided in every set of brackets refers to workaholics the second tonon-workaholics aDenotes a consistent trend across both measurement points (six-months apart)
Table IComparison betweenhealth outcomes for
workaholics andnon-workaholicsrsquo on theSF-36 measure at time 1
Better outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent higherscores than non-workaholics)
Poorer outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent lower scoresthan non-workaholics)
Similar outcomes (workaholicsand non-workaholics reportedscores less than 5 per centdifferent)
Emotional (860 798) Pain (719 788) Mental health (738 745)Social (786 884) Vitality (632 627)Transitions (589 652) General health (798 802)Work role functioning (777 866) Physical (900 885)
Composite physical (835 852)Composite mental (738 745)
Note The first score provided in every set of brackets refers to workaholics the second tonon-workaholics
Table IIComparison betweenhealth outcomes for
workaholics andnon-workaholicsrsquo on theSF-36 measure at time 2
Workaholismand health
515
Specifically none of the hypotheses regarding psychological health were supportedAt time one workaholics at time 1 ethM frac14 7107THORN had similar mental health tonon-workaholics ethM frac14 7384THORN similar composite mental health (M frac14 7107 7384respectively) slightly poor emotional health (M frac14 7246 7857) and slightly poorsocial health (M frac14 8315 8780) However as the p-values for each of the U-tests werewell in excess of the 001 threshold ( p frac14 058 058 043 27 respectively) none of thedifferences were statistically significant As outlined in Table II these trends wererepeated at time 2 with all p-values remaining 015
Physical healthIn general the two groups reported similar physical health and while workaholicsreported 5 per cent higher pain and role-work influence none of the hypotheses weresupported At time 1 workaholics reported slightly poor physical health ethM frac14 8956THORNthan non-workhalics (9298) poor composite physical health (M frac14 8380 8706)similar energy levels (M frac14 6326 6250) and slightly less freedom from pain thannon-workaholics (M frac14 7799 8351) The p-values for the corresponding U-tests werewell in excess of the 001 threshold ( p frac14 064 068 076 46 respectively) and thereforenone of the differences were statistically significant As outlined in Table II thesetrends were repeated at time 2 with all p-values remaining 020
General healthThe two groups reported similar levels of general health and none of the hypothesesregarding general health were supported At time 1 workaholics reported almostidentical general health status (M frac14 7511 7583) but more interference in their workas a result of their health than non-workaholics (M frac14 8315 8810) Correspondingp-values for the U-tests were 089 and 0 57 These trends were replicated at time 2where both p-values were in excess of 054
Health trends over timeThe groups reported similar health transitions and therefore the hypothesis concerninghealth trends over time was not supported At time 1 workaholics actually reportedgreater increases in health over the past 12 months than non-workaholics (M frac14 59785714) although this difference was not significant (U frac14 9060 z frac14 2050 p frac14 062)This tendency reversed at time 2 where workaholics ethM frac14 5893THORN reported fewerimprovements than non-workaholics ethM frac14 6518THORN although the difference still failedto reach statistical significance (U frac14 3635 z frac14 2123 p frac14 064)
In summary workaholics reported similar health outcomes to non-workaholicsacross 11 indices at two separate measurement points six months apart Where thescores differed it was generally by less than five per cent and in all casesnon-significant
DiscussionThe present finding that workaholics appear to function relatively well without manynegative health outcomes supports those of Burke (1999a b 2000a b) SpecificallyBurke observed that high enjoyment workaholics had fewer psychosomatic symptomsand more favourable physical well-being than many other workers In fact his dataindicated that (enthusiastic) workaholicsrsquo and non-workaholicsrsquo physical health scoreswere so similar that they all fell within one standard deviation of the mean
JOCM175
516
The present study used a different measure than Burke but obtained similarresults The SF-36 has substantial validation data from across more than 20 countriesis published in over 200 scientific journals (Ware and Gandek 1998) haswell-established predictive validity to health outcomes and is New Zealand normedThus contrary to some research suggesting that workaholics report higher levels ofstress both Burkersquos and the present data suggest that this does not necessarilytranslate into poor health outcomes Correspondingly it is pertinent to emphasise thatseveral of the reports concerning adverse health impacts and workaholism(cf Robinson 1989 1998) were based on anecdotal evidence from counsellingself-selected workaholics from therapy groups (workaholics anonymous) samples thatare certainly non-normative
However it is possible that the present samplersquos high levels of income amelioratedat least in part the impact of stress on participantsrsquo lives and thereby reduce theincidence of illness Arguably high levels of income permit more expansivehealth-promoting behaviors such as dietary choices comprehensive health care andbetter access to fitness amenities such as gyms and personal trainers Given that Burke(2000b) sample comprised MBA educated managers those data were also likely to beinfluenced in a similar manner It is also prudent to recall that the present sample wasalso comparatively very healthy which is perhaps not surprising given that theNew Zealand norms include the very elderly infirm and those unable to work dueto illness
It is important to draw attention to the possibility that perhaps low enjoyment inwork is the critical factor that leads to poor health outcomes as many studies reportingpoor health outcomes for workaholics conceptualised workaholism as comprising lowenjoyment Enjoyment is known to relate to health enhancing constructs such as jobsatisfaction (McMillan et al 2003) life satisfaction purpose in life and positiveteam-focused beliefs (Bonebright et al 2000 Burke 2000b) Conversely drive is knownto relate more strongly to harmful correlates such as impatience-irritability (whichrelates to poor cardiac health) and obsessive-compulsiveness (which relates to anxietyand stress McMillan 2002) On this basis it is feasible to hypothesise that drive maybe the toxic (ie harmful) element in workaholism while enjoyment may be a protectivefactor that buffers the influence of drive It is also feasible as Spence and Robbins(1992) proposed that it is a combination of high-drivelow-enjoyment that isproblematic rather than being high or low on either individual aspect
In interpreting the present data however it is important to avoid the tendency toequate statistical significance with psychological importance While workaholicsreported 5 per cent worse pain scores (not significantly different from non-workaholicsand within the 95 per cent confidence-limits range Ware and Gandek 1998) thedifference may be clinically significant in terms of long-term health outcomesMachlowitz (1978) found that workaholics had good health but expressed feelings offailure concerning their families so although the present difference in health may notbe statistically significant it may be personally meaningful Aside from culturalconsiderations (workaholism may be different in New Zealand than North Americawhere with the exception of Kanai et al (1996) the other samples were based) there areseveral potential explanations for these ldquono-harmrdquo findings It is feasible that becausewe studied workaholics who were high in enjoyment (ldquoenthusiastic workaholicsrdquoin Spence and Robbins (1992)) terminology) we also inadvertently studied
Workaholismand health
517
ldquopeak performersrdquo (well-balanced workers who are high in fulfilment Garfield 1986)Garfield described peak performers as people who have an intense commitment towork that is balanced by careful attention to physical and mental health Our datacertainly supported this and the notion of ldquointegrationrdquo proposed by Staines (1980)who suggested that peoplersquos jobs teach them social and organisational skills thatfacilitate involvement in non-work enabling them to excel in both worlds
In terms of applied usefulness the present data challenge the negative stereotype ofworkaholism It is not beyond the realms of possibility of course that ldquohealthyrdquoworkaholism is a culturally bound phenomenon specific to the New Zealand workforceHowever the data certainly support the notion that workaholics should not be typecastas unhappy work-slaves as they appear to enjoy comparable levels of health to othersIt would equally seem illogical to attribute poor physical and mental health toworkaholism as the present data suggest that they are more likely to co-occur bycoincidence rather than causation Thus the most immediate practical application is toequal employment practise as the data do not support the notion that workaholicsshould be differentially treated in the workplace We therefore propose that furtherresearch around the organisational value of workaholism and strategies on how tomaximize its benefits and tactics to minimise its costs is imperative
References
Bartolome F (1983) ldquoThe work alibi when itrsquos harder to go homerdquo Harvard Business ReviewVol 61 No 2 pp 67-74
Bonebright CA Clay DL and Ankenmann RD (2000) ldquoThe relationship of workaholism withwork-life conflict life satisfaction and purpose in liferdquo Journal of Counseling PsychologyVol 47 No 4 pp 469-77
Burke RJ (1999a) ldquoItrsquos not how hard you work but how you work hard evaluating workaholismcomponentsrdquo International Journal of Stress Management Vol 6 No 4 pp 225-39
Burke RJ (1999b) ldquoWorkaholism among women managers work and life satisfactions andpsychological well-beingrdquo Equal Opportunities International Vol 18 No 7 pp 25-35
Burke RJ (1999c) ldquoWorkaholism and extra-work satisfactionsrdquo International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis Vol 7 No 4 pp 352-64
Burke RJ (2000a) ldquoWorkaholism and divorcerdquo Psychological Reports Vol 86 No 1 pp 219-20
Burke RJ (2000b) ldquoWorkaholism in organizations psychological and physical well-beingconsequencesrdquo Stress Medicine Vol 16 pp 11-16
Elder ED (1991) ldquoAn empirical investigation of workaholism in the business settingrdquounpublished doctoral dissertation University of Texas Austin TX
Fassel D (1992) Working Ourselves to Death HarperCollins London
Garfield C (1986) Peak Performers The New Heroes of American Business William Morrowand Company New York NY
Johnstone K Cheung J Pool I Pharmalingam A and Hillcoat-Nalletamby A (1998)ldquoPopulation health measures principles and applications to New Zealand datardquounpublished technical series New Zealand
Kanai A Wakabayashi M and Fling S (1996) ldquoWorkaholism among employees in Japanesecorporations an examination based on the Japanese version of the workaholism scalesrdquoJapanese Psychological Research Vol 38 No 4 pp 192-203
JOCM175
518
Killinger B (1991) Workaholics The Respectable Addicts Simon amp Schuster New South WalesAustralia
Machlowitz MM (1978) ldquoDetermining the effects of workaholismrdquo unpublished doctoraldissertation Yale University New Haven CT
Machlowitz MM (1980) Workaholics Living with Them Working with Them Addison-WesleyReading MA
McDowell I and Newell C (1996) Measuring Health A Guide to Rating Scales andQuestionnaires Oxford University Press Oxford
McMillan LHW (2002) ldquoWorkaholism how does it impact on peoplesrsquo livesrdquo unpublisheddoctoral thesis University of Waikato Hamilton
McMillan LHW Brady EC OrsquoDriscoll MP and Marsh NV (2002) ldquoA multifacetedvalidation study of Spence and Robbinsrsquo (1992) workaholism batteryrdquo Journal ofOccupational and Organisational Psychology Vol 75 pp 357-68
McMillan LHW OrsquoDriscoll MP and Burke R (2003) ldquoWorkaholism a review of theoryresearch and future directionsrdquo International Review of Industrial and OrganisationalPsychology Wiley New York NY
Oates WE (1968) ldquoOn being a lsquoworkaholicrsquo (a serious jest)rdquo Pastoral Psychology Vol 19pp 16-20
Perez-Prada E (1996) ldquoPersonality at workrdquo unpublished doctoral dissertation St LouisUniversity St Louis MO
Rhoads JM (1977) ldquoOverworkrdquo Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA) Vol 237No 24 pp 2615-8
Robinson BE (1989) Work Addiction Hidden Legacies of Adult Children HealthCommunications FL
Robinson BE (1996a) ldquoConcurrent validity of the work addiction risk test as a measure ofworkaholismrdquo Psychological Reports Vol 79 pp 1313-4
Robinson BE (1996b) ldquoRelationship between work addiction and family functioning clinicalimplications for marriage and family therapistsrdquo Journal of Family Psychotherapy Vol 7No 3 pp 13-29
Robinson BE (1998) Chained to the Desk a Guidebook for Workaholics Their Partners andChildren and the Clinicians Who Treat Them New York University Press New York NY
Robinson BE and Post P (1994) ldquoValidity of the work addiction risk testrdquo Perceptual andMotor Skills Vol 78 pp 337-8
Scott KS Moore KS and Miceli MP (1997) ldquoAn exploration of the meaning and consequencesof workaholismrdquo Human Relations Vol 50 pp 287-314
Spence JT and Robbins AS (1992) ldquoWorkaholism definition measurement and preliminaryresultsrdquo Journal of Personality Assessment Vol 58 pp 160-78
Staines GL (1980) ldquoSpillover versus compensation a review of the literature on the relationshipbetween work and non-workrdquo Human Relations Vol 33 No 2 pp 111-29
Statistica (1995) STATISTICA for Windows [Computer Program Manual] StatSoft Inc TulsaOK available at wwwstatsoftinccom
Ware JE and Gandek B (1998) ldquoOverview of SF-36 Health Survey and the international qualityof life project assessment (IQOLA) projectrdquo Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Vol 51 No 11pp 903-12
Workaholismand health
519
dysfunction distress and well-being and objective and subjective symptoms of illness(Ware and Gandek 1998) The scale is self-administered and yields two summarymeasures the mental and the physical health components scale plus eight subscalescores (physical emotional role and social functioning vitality general health bodilypain and health transitions) Both components have been demonstrated to havepredictive validity (utilisation of health care services clinical course of depression jobloss within 12 months and survival rates over a five-year period) strong reliability andhigh internal consistency (Ware and Gandek 1998)
The mental health components scale measured general mental wellness across 14items that were summed and averaged to provide a summary score ranging between 0and 100 Low scores indicated frequent mental distress social dysfunction andemotional problems and high scores indicated positive affect social competence andemotional health In addition to screening for psychiatric disorders the scale has aparticularly accurate sensitivity for depressive disorder (Ware and Gandek 1998)Typical items included feeling calm feeling happy and expecting health to remain athigh levels Raw scores were summed and overall mean scores were calculated The acoefficient was 086 at time 1 and 089 at time 2
The physical health components scale measured current physical health across 21items that were summed and averaged to provide a summary score ranging between 0and 100 Low scores indicate poorer self-care frequent tiredness and severe pain andhigh scores indicate high energy levels well-being and general good health Typicalitems referred to having a lot of energy and being free from pain Raw scores weresummed and overall mean scores were calculated The a coefficient was 090 at time 1and 091 at time 2
The final item in the SF-36 asked respondents to rate their health now compared to12 months previously This item was used to examine perceived changes in healthstatus
Demographics In addition to the above measures six simple demographic itemswere asked to ascertain age gender income level highest qualification relationshipstatus and hours worked per week
ProcedureEmployees were given written questionnaires at group meetings in each workplaceand the questionnaires were collected during the following week This process wasrepeated with the same questionnaires and participants six months later (time 2) afterwhich they were de-briefed on the preliminary findings in groups To reduce thelikelihood of type 1 errors and spurious false positives the significance level for allcorrelations was set at 001 The Mann Whitney test was used to compare workaholicsand non-workaholics as the SF-36 had a non-parametric distribution and U is the mostpowerful non-parametric alternative to the t-test for independent samples (Statistica1995)
ResultsThe present sample was considerably healthier than the general population inNew Zealand The combined-groups mean score on the mental health components scalewas 7269 (SD frac14 1570 range frac14 275-943) which was considerably higher than that ofthe New Zealand population (512 Johnstone et al 1998) Scores were negativelyskewed (skew frac14 2093 w frac14 090 p frac14 000) At time 2 the mean score was 7444 and
JOCM175
514
the negative skew remained (skew frac14 2138 w frac14 086 p frac14 000) The mean score forthe physical health components scale was 8566 (range frac14 169-100 SD frac14 1468)compared to the general New Zealand population mean of only 501 (Johnstone et al1998) Scores were negatively skewed (skew frac14 2209 w frac14 077 p frac14 000) At time 2the mean score was 8442 and the negative skew remained (skew frac14 2161 w frac14 080p frac14 000)
Overall none of the hypotheses were supported by the data In fact the dataindicated in many instances that workaholics health levels were equal to or in placesbetter than non-workaholicsrsquo health These results are summarised in conceptualformat in Table I Data from the second measurement point are summarised in Table IIAs shown in these tables while none of the results attained statistical significancethere was a trend for workaholics to report consistently poor work role functioningpain and social health scores and consistently similar levels of vitality general healthmental health composite physical health and composite mental health
Psychological healthOverall workaholics tend to have similar mental health levels (all differences wereless than 5 per cent) to non-workaholics but consistently poor social health
Better outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent higherscores than non-workaholics)
Poorer outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent lower scoresthan non-workaholics)
Similar outcomes (workaholicsand non-workaholics reportedscores less than 5 per centdifferent)
Pain (780 835) Mental health (711 738)Sociala (831 878) Vitalitya (633 625)Emotional (725 786) General health (751 758)Physical (896 930) Composite physical (838 871)Work role functioning (832 881) Composite mental (711 738)
Transitions (598 571)
Notes The first score provided in every set of brackets refers to workaholics the second tonon-workaholics aDenotes a consistent trend across both measurement points (six-months apart)
Table IComparison betweenhealth outcomes for
workaholics andnon-workaholicsrsquo on theSF-36 measure at time 1
Better outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent higherscores than non-workaholics)
Poorer outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent lower scoresthan non-workaholics)
Similar outcomes (workaholicsand non-workaholics reportedscores less than 5 per centdifferent)
Emotional (860 798) Pain (719 788) Mental health (738 745)Social (786 884) Vitality (632 627)Transitions (589 652) General health (798 802)Work role functioning (777 866) Physical (900 885)
Composite physical (835 852)Composite mental (738 745)
Note The first score provided in every set of brackets refers to workaholics the second tonon-workaholics
Table IIComparison betweenhealth outcomes for
workaholics andnon-workaholicsrsquo on theSF-36 measure at time 2
Workaholismand health
515
Specifically none of the hypotheses regarding psychological health were supportedAt time one workaholics at time 1 ethM frac14 7107THORN had similar mental health tonon-workaholics ethM frac14 7384THORN similar composite mental health (M frac14 7107 7384respectively) slightly poor emotional health (M frac14 7246 7857) and slightly poorsocial health (M frac14 8315 8780) However as the p-values for each of the U-tests werewell in excess of the 001 threshold ( p frac14 058 058 043 27 respectively) none of thedifferences were statistically significant As outlined in Table II these trends wererepeated at time 2 with all p-values remaining 015
Physical healthIn general the two groups reported similar physical health and while workaholicsreported 5 per cent higher pain and role-work influence none of the hypotheses weresupported At time 1 workaholics reported slightly poor physical health ethM frac14 8956THORNthan non-workhalics (9298) poor composite physical health (M frac14 8380 8706)similar energy levels (M frac14 6326 6250) and slightly less freedom from pain thannon-workaholics (M frac14 7799 8351) The p-values for the corresponding U-tests werewell in excess of the 001 threshold ( p frac14 064 068 076 46 respectively) and thereforenone of the differences were statistically significant As outlined in Table II thesetrends were repeated at time 2 with all p-values remaining 020
General healthThe two groups reported similar levels of general health and none of the hypothesesregarding general health were supported At time 1 workaholics reported almostidentical general health status (M frac14 7511 7583) but more interference in their workas a result of their health than non-workaholics (M frac14 8315 8810) Correspondingp-values for the U-tests were 089 and 0 57 These trends were replicated at time 2where both p-values were in excess of 054
Health trends over timeThe groups reported similar health transitions and therefore the hypothesis concerninghealth trends over time was not supported At time 1 workaholics actually reportedgreater increases in health over the past 12 months than non-workaholics (M frac14 59785714) although this difference was not significant (U frac14 9060 z frac14 2050 p frac14 062)This tendency reversed at time 2 where workaholics ethM frac14 5893THORN reported fewerimprovements than non-workaholics ethM frac14 6518THORN although the difference still failedto reach statistical significance (U frac14 3635 z frac14 2123 p frac14 064)
In summary workaholics reported similar health outcomes to non-workaholicsacross 11 indices at two separate measurement points six months apart Where thescores differed it was generally by less than five per cent and in all casesnon-significant
DiscussionThe present finding that workaholics appear to function relatively well without manynegative health outcomes supports those of Burke (1999a b 2000a b) SpecificallyBurke observed that high enjoyment workaholics had fewer psychosomatic symptomsand more favourable physical well-being than many other workers In fact his dataindicated that (enthusiastic) workaholicsrsquo and non-workaholicsrsquo physical health scoreswere so similar that they all fell within one standard deviation of the mean
JOCM175
516
The present study used a different measure than Burke but obtained similarresults The SF-36 has substantial validation data from across more than 20 countriesis published in over 200 scientific journals (Ware and Gandek 1998) haswell-established predictive validity to health outcomes and is New Zealand normedThus contrary to some research suggesting that workaholics report higher levels ofstress both Burkersquos and the present data suggest that this does not necessarilytranslate into poor health outcomes Correspondingly it is pertinent to emphasise thatseveral of the reports concerning adverse health impacts and workaholism(cf Robinson 1989 1998) were based on anecdotal evidence from counsellingself-selected workaholics from therapy groups (workaholics anonymous) samples thatare certainly non-normative
However it is possible that the present samplersquos high levels of income amelioratedat least in part the impact of stress on participantsrsquo lives and thereby reduce theincidence of illness Arguably high levels of income permit more expansivehealth-promoting behaviors such as dietary choices comprehensive health care andbetter access to fitness amenities such as gyms and personal trainers Given that Burke(2000b) sample comprised MBA educated managers those data were also likely to beinfluenced in a similar manner It is also prudent to recall that the present sample wasalso comparatively very healthy which is perhaps not surprising given that theNew Zealand norms include the very elderly infirm and those unable to work dueto illness
It is important to draw attention to the possibility that perhaps low enjoyment inwork is the critical factor that leads to poor health outcomes as many studies reportingpoor health outcomes for workaholics conceptualised workaholism as comprising lowenjoyment Enjoyment is known to relate to health enhancing constructs such as jobsatisfaction (McMillan et al 2003) life satisfaction purpose in life and positiveteam-focused beliefs (Bonebright et al 2000 Burke 2000b) Conversely drive is knownto relate more strongly to harmful correlates such as impatience-irritability (whichrelates to poor cardiac health) and obsessive-compulsiveness (which relates to anxietyand stress McMillan 2002) On this basis it is feasible to hypothesise that drive maybe the toxic (ie harmful) element in workaholism while enjoyment may be a protectivefactor that buffers the influence of drive It is also feasible as Spence and Robbins(1992) proposed that it is a combination of high-drivelow-enjoyment that isproblematic rather than being high or low on either individual aspect
In interpreting the present data however it is important to avoid the tendency toequate statistical significance with psychological importance While workaholicsreported 5 per cent worse pain scores (not significantly different from non-workaholicsand within the 95 per cent confidence-limits range Ware and Gandek 1998) thedifference may be clinically significant in terms of long-term health outcomesMachlowitz (1978) found that workaholics had good health but expressed feelings offailure concerning their families so although the present difference in health may notbe statistically significant it may be personally meaningful Aside from culturalconsiderations (workaholism may be different in New Zealand than North Americawhere with the exception of Kanai et al (1996) the other samples were based) there areseveral potential explanations for these ldquono-harmrdquo findings It is feasible that becausewe studied workaholics who were high in enjoyment (ldquoenthusiastic workaholicsrdquoin Spence and Robbins (1992)) terminology) we also inadvertently studied
Workaholismand health
517
ldquopeak performersrdquo (well-balanced workers who are high in fulfilment Garfield 1986)Garfield described peak performers as people who have an intense commitment towork that is balanced by careful attention to physical and mental health Our datacertainly supported this and the notion of ldquointegrationrdquo proposed by Staines (1980)who suggested that peoplersquos jobs teach them social and organisational skills thatfacilitate involvement in non-work enabling them to excel in both worlds
In terms of applied usefulness the present data challenge the negative stereotype ofworkaholism It is not beyond the realms of possibility of course that ldquohealthyrdquoworkaholism is a culturally bound phenomenon specific to the New Zealand workforceHowever the data certainly support the notion that workaholics should not be typecastas unhappy work-slaves as they appear to enjoy comparable levels of health to othersIt would equally seem illogical to attribute poor physical and mental health toworkaholism as the present data suggest that they are more likely to co-occur bycoincidence rather than causation Thus the most immediate practical application is toequal employment practise as the data do not support the notion that workaholicsshould be differentially treated in the workplace We therefore propose that furtherresearch around the organisational value of workaholism and strategies on how tomaximize its benefits and tactics to minimise its costs is imperative
References
Bartolome F (1983) ldquoThe work alibi when itrsquos harder to go homerdquo Harvard Business ReviewVol 61 No 2 pp 67-74
Bonebright CA Clay DL and Ankenmann RD (2000) ldquoThe relationship of workaholism withwork-life conflict life satisfaction and purpose in liferdquo Journal of Counseling PsychologyVol 47 No 4 pp 469-77
Burke RJ (1999a) ldquoItrsquos not how hard you work but how you work hard evaluating workaholismcomponentsrdquo International Journal of Stress Management Vol 6 No 4 pp 225-39
Burke RJ (1999b) ldquoWorkaholism among women managers work and life satisfactions andpsychological well-beingrdquo Equal Opportunities International Vol 18 No 7 pp 25-35
Burke RJ (1999c) ldquoWorkaholism and extra-work satisfactionsrdquo International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis Vol 7 No 4 pp 352-64
Burke RJ (2000a) ldquoWorkaholism and divorcerdquo Psychological Reports Vol 86 No 1 pp 219-20
Burke RJ (2000b) ldquoWorkaholism in organizations psychological and physical well-beingconsequencesrdquo Stress Medicine Vol 16 pp 11-16
Elder ED (1991) ldquoAn empirical investigation of workaholism in the business settingrdquounpublished doctoral dissertation University of Texas Austin TX
Fassel D (1992) Working Ourselves to Death HarperCollins London
Garfield C (1986) Peak Performers The New Heroes of American Business William Morrowand Company New York NY
Johnstone K Cheung J Pool I Pharmalingam A and Hillcoat-Nalletamby A (1998)ldquoPopulation health measures principles and applications to New Zealand datardquounpublished technical series New Zealand
Kanai A Wakabayashi M and Fling S (1996) ldquoWorkaholism among employees in Japanesecorporations an examination based on the Japanese version of the workaholism scalesrdquoJapanese Psychological Research Vol 38 No 4 pp 192-203
JOCM175
518
Killinger B (1991) Workaholics The Respectable Addicts Simon amp Schuster New South WalesAustralia
Machlowitz MM (1978) ldquoDetermining the effects of workaholismrdquo unpublished doctoraldissertation Yale University New Haven CT
Machlowitz MM (1980) Workaholics Living with Them Working with Them Addison-WesleyReading MA
McDowell I and Newell C (1996) Measuring Health A Guide to Rating Scales andQuestionnaires Oxford University Press Oxford
McMillan LHW (2002) ldquoWorkaholism how does it impact on peoplesrsquo livesrdquo unpublisheddoctoral thesis University of Waikato Hamilton
McMillan LHW Brady EC OrsquoDriscoll MP and Marsh NV (2002) ldquoA multifacetedvalidation study of Spence and Robbinsrsquo (1992) workaholism batteryrdquo Journal ofOccupational and Organisational Psychology Vol 75 pp 357-68
McMillan LHW OrsquoDriscoll MP and Burke R (2003) ldquoWorkaholism a review of theoryresearch and future directionsrdquo International Review of Industrial and OrganisationalPsychology Wiley New York NY
Oates WE (1968) ldquoOn being a lsquoworkaholicrsquo (a serious jest)rdquo Pastoral Psychology Vol 19pp 16-20
Perez-Prada E (1996) ldquoPersonality at workrdquo unpublished doctoral dissertation St LouisUniversity St Louis MO
Rhoads JM (1977) ldquoOverworkrdquo Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA) Vol 237No 24 pp 2615-8
Robinson BE (1989) Work Addiction Hidden Legacies of Adult Children HealthCommunications FL
Robinson BE (1996a) ldquoConcurrent validity of the work addiction risk test as a measure ofworkaholismrdquo Psychological Reports Vol 79 pp 1313-4
Robinson BE (1996b) ldquoRelationship between work addiction and family functioning clinicalimplications for marriage and family therapistsrdquo Journal of Family Psychotherapy Vol 7No 3 pp 13-29
Robinson BE (1998) Chained to the Desk a Guidebook for Workaholics Their Partners andChildren and the Clinicians Who Treat Them New York University Press New York NY
Robinson BE and Post P (1994) ldquoValidity of the work addiction risk testrdquo Perceptual andMotor Skills Vol 78 pp 337-8
Scott KS Moore KS and Miceli MP (1997) ldquoAn exploration of the meaning and consequencesof workaholismrdquo Human Relations Vol 50 pp 287-314
Spence JT and Robbins AS (1992) ldquoWorkaholism definition measurement and preliminaryresultsrdquo Journal of Personality Assessment Vol 58 pp 160-78
Staines GL (1980) ldquoSpillover versus compensation a review of the literature on the relationshipbetween work and non-workrdquo Human Relations Vol 33 No 2 pp 111-29
Statistica (1995) STATISTICA for Windows [Computer Program Manual] StatSoft Inc TulsaOK available at wwwstatsoftinccom
Ware JE and Gandek B (1998) ldquoOverview of SF-36 Health Survey and the international qualityof life project assessment (IQOLA) projectrdquo Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Vol 51 No 11pp 903-12
Workaholismand health
519
the negative skew remained (skew frac14 2138 w frac14 086 p frac14 000) The mean score forthe physical health components scale was 8566 (range frac14 169-100 SD frac14 1468)compared to the general New Zealand population mean of only 501 (Johnstone et al1998) Scores were negatively skewed (skew frac14 2209 w frac14 077 p frac14 000) At time 2the mean score was 8442 and the negative skew remained (skew frac14 2161 w frac14 080p frac14 000)
Overall none of the hypotheses were supported by the data In fact the dataindicated in many instances that workaholics health levels were equal to or in placesbetter than non-workaholicsrsquo health These results are summarised in conceptualformat in Table I Data from the second measurement point are summarised in Table IIAs shown in these tables while none of the results attained statistical significancethere was a trend for workaholics to report consistently poor work role functioningpain and social health scores and consistently similar levels of vitality general healthmental health composite physical health and composite mental health
Psychological healthOverall workaholics tend to have similar mental health levels (all differences wereless than 5 per cent) to non-workaholics but consistently poor social health
Better outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent higherscores than non-workaholics)
Poorer outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent lower scoresthan non-workaholics)
Similar outcomes (workaholicsand non-workaholics reportedscores less than 5 per centdifferent)
Pain (780 835) Mental health (711 738)Sociala (831 878) Vitalitya (633 625)Emotional (725 786) General health (751 758)Physical (896 930) Composite physical (838 871)Work role functioning (832 881) Composite mental (711 738)
Transitions (598 571)
Notes The first score provided in every set of brackets refers to workaholics the second tonon-workaholics aDenotes a consistent trend across both measurement points (six-months apart)
Table IComparison betweenhealth outcomes for
workaholics andnon-workaholicsrsquo on theSF-36 measure at time 1
Better outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent higherscores than non-workaholics)
Poorer outcomes (workaholicsreported 5 per cent lower scoresthan non-workaholics)
Similar outcomes (workaholicsand non-workaholics reportedscores less than 5 per centdifferent)
Emotional (860 798) Pain (719 788) Mental health (738 745)Social (786 884) Vitality (632 627)Transitions (589 652) General health (798 802)Work role functioning (777 866) Physical (900 885)
Composite physical (835 852)Composite mental (738 745)
Note The first score provided in every set of brackets refers to workaholics the second tonon-workaholics
Table IIComparison betweenhealth outcomes for
workaholics andnon-workaholicsrsquo on theSF-36 measure at time 2
Workaholismand health
515
Specifically none of the hypotheses regarding psychological health were supportedAt time one workaholics at time 1 ethM frac14 7107THORN had similar mental health tonon-workaholics ethM frac14 7384THORN similar composite mental health (M frac14 7107 7384respectively) slightly poor emotional health (M frac14 7246 7857) and slightly poorsocial health (M frac14 8315 8780) However as the p-values for each of the U-tests werewell in excess of the 001 threshold ( p frac14 058 058 043 27 respectively) none of thedifferences were statistically significant As outlined in Table II these trends wererepeated at time 2 with all p-values remaining 015
Physical healthIn general the two groups reported similar physical health and while workaholicsreported 5 per cent higher pain and role-work influence none of the hypotheses weresupported At time 1 workaholics reported slightly poor physical health ethM frac14 8956THORNthan non-workhalics (9298) poor composite physical health (M frac14 8380 8706)similar energy levels (M frac14 6326 6250) and slightly less freedom from pain thannon-workaholics (M frac14 7799 8351) The p-values for the corresponding U-tests werewell in excess of the 001 threshold ( p frac14 064 068 076 46 respectively) and thereforenone of the differences were statistically significant As outlined in Table II thesetrends were repeated at time 2 with all p-values remaining 020
General healthThe two groups reported similar levels of general health and none of the hypothesesregarding general health were supported At time 1 workaholics reported almostidentical general health status (M frac14 7511 7583) but more interference in their workas a result of their health than non-workaholics (M frac14 8315 8810) Correspondingp-values for the U-tests were 089 and 0 57 These trends were replicated at time 2where both p-values were in excess of 054
Health trends over timeThe groups reported similar health transitions and therefore the hypothesis concerninghealth trends over time was not supported At time 1 workaholics actually reportedgreater increases in health over the past 12 months than non-workaholics (M frac14 59785714) although this difference was not significant (U frac14 9060 z frac14 2050 p frac14 062)This tendency reversed at time 2 where workaholics ethM frac14 5893THORN reported fewerimprovements than non-workaholics ethM frac14 6518THORN although the difference still failedto reach statistical significance (U frac14 3635 z frac14 2123 p frac14 064)
In summary workaholics reported similar health outcomes to non-workaholicsacross 11 indices at two separate measurement points six months apart Where thescores differed it was generally by less than five per cent and in all casesnon-significant
DiscussionThe present finding that workaholics appear to function relatively well without manynegative health outcomes supports those of Burke (1999a b 2000a b) SpecificallyBurke observed that high enjoyment workaholics had fewer psychosomatic symptomsand more favourable physical well-being than many other workers In fact his dataindicated that (enthusiastic) workaholicsrsquo and non-workaholicsrsquo physical health scoreswere so similar that they all fell within one standard deviation of the mean
JOCM175
516
The present study used a different measure than Burke but obtained similarresults The SF-36 has substantial validation data from across more than 20 countriesis published in over 200 scientific journals (Ware and Gandek 1998) haswell-established predictive validity to health outcomes and is New Zealand normedThus contrary to some research suggesting that workaholics report higher levels ofstress both Burkersquos and the present data suggest that this does not necessarilytranslate into poor health outcomes Correspondingly it is pertinent to emphasise thatseveral of the reports concerning adverse health impacts and workaholism(cf Robinson 1989 1998) were based on anecdotal evidence from counsellingself-selected workaholics from therapy groups (workaholics anonymous) samples thatare certainly non-normative
However it is possible that the present samplersquos high levels of income amelioratedat least in part the impact of stress on participantsrsquo lives and thereby reduce theincidence of illness Arguably high levels of income permit more expansivehealth-promoting behaviors such as dietary choices comprehensive health care andbetter access to fitness amenities such as gyms and personal trainers Given that Burke(2000b) sample comprised MBA educated managers those data were also likely to beinfluenced in a similar manner It is also prudent to recall that the present sample wasalso comparatively very healthy which is perhaps not surprising given that theNew Zealand norms include the very elderly infirm and those unable to work dueto illness
It is important to draw attention to the possibility that perhaps low enjoyment inwork is the critical factor that leads to poor health outcomes as many studies reportingpoor health outcomes for workaholics conceptualised workaholism as comprising lowenjoyment Enjoyment is known to relate to health enhancing constructs such as jobsatisfaction (McMillan et al 2003) life satisfaction purpose in life and positiveteam-focused beliefs (Bonebright et al 2000 Burke 2000b) Conversely drive is knownto relate more strongly to harmful correlates such as impatience-irritability (whichrelates to poor cardiac health) and obsessive-compulsiveness (which relates to anxietyand stress McMillan 2002) On this basis it is feasible to hypothesise that drive maybe the toxic (ie harmful) element in workaholism while enjoyment may be a protectivefactor that buffers the influence of drive It is also feasible as Spence and Robbins(1992) proposed that it is a combination of high-drivelow-enjoyment that isproblematic rather than being high or low on either individual aspect
In interpreting the present data however it is important to avoid the tendency toequate statistical significance with psychological importance While workaholicsreported 5 per cent worse pain scores (not significantly different from non-workaholicsand within the 95 per cent confidence-limits range Ware and Gandek 1998) thedifference may be clinically significant in terms of long-term health outcomesMachlowitz (1978) found that workaholics had good health but expressed feelings offailure concerning their families so although the present difference in health may notbe statistically significant it may be personally meaningful Aside from culturalconsiderations (workaholism may be different in New Zealand than North Americawhere with the exception of Kanai et al (1996) the other samples were based) there areseveral potential explanations for these ldquono-harmrdquo findings It is feasible that becausewe studied workaholics who were high in enjoyment (ldquoenthusiastic workaholicsrdquoin Spence and Robbins (1992)) terminology) we also inadvertently studied
Workaholismand health
517
ldquopeak performersrdquo (well-balanced workers who are high in fulfilment Garfield 1986)Garfield described peak performers as people who have an intense commitment towork that is balanced by careful attention to physical and mental health Our datacertainly supported this and the notion of ldquointegrationrdquo proposed by Staines (1980)who suggested that peoplersquos jobs teach them social and organisational skills thatfacilitate involvement in non-work enabling them to excel in both worlds
In terms of applied usefulness the present data challenge the negative stereotype ofworkaholism It is not beyond the realms of possibility of course that ldquohealthyrdquoworkaholism is a culturally bound phenomenon specific to the New Zealand workforceHowever the data certainly support the notion that workaholics should not be typecastas unhappy work-slaves as they appear to enjoy comparable levels of health to othersIt would equally seem illogical to attribute poor physical and mental health toworkaholism as the present data suggest that they are more likely to co-occur bycoincidence rather than causation Thus the most immediate practical application is toequal employment practise as the data do not support the notion that workaholicsshould be differentially treated in the workplace We therefore propose that furtherresearch around the organisational value of workaholism and strategies on how tomaximize its benefits and tactics to minimise its costs is imperative
References
Bartolome F (1983) ldquoThe work alibi when itrsquos harder to go homerdquo Harvard Business ReviewVol 61 No 2 pp 67-74
Bonebright CA Clay DL and Ankenmann RD (2000) ldquoThe relationship of workaholism withwork-life conflict life satisfaction and purpose in liferdquo Journal of Counseling PsychologyVol 47 No 4 pp 469-77
Burke RJ (1999a) ldquoItrsquos not how hard you work but how you work hard evaluating workaholismcomponentsrdquo International Journal of Stress Management Vol 6 No 4 pp 225-39
Burke RJ (1999b) ldquoWorkaholism among women managers work and life satisfactions andpsychological well-beingrdquo Equal Opportunities International Vol 18 No 7 pp 25-35
Burke RJ (1999c) ldquoWorkaholism and extra-work satisfactionsrdquo International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis Vol 7 No 4 pp 352-64
Burke RJ (2000a) ldquoWorkaholism and divorcerdquo Psychological Reports Vol 86 No 1 pp 219-20
Burke RJ (2000b) ldquoWorkaholism in organizations psychological and physical well-beingconsequencesrdquo Stress Medicine Vol 16 pp 11-16
Elder ED (1991) ldquoAn empirical investigation of workaholism in the business settingrdquounpublished doctoral dissertation University of Texas Austin TX
Fassel D (1992) Working Ourselves to Death HarperCollins London
Garfield C (1986) Peak Performers The New Heroes of American Business William Morrowand Company New York NY
Johnstone K Cheung J Pool I Pharmalingam A and Hillcoat-Nalletamby A (1998)ldquoPopulation health measures principles and applications to New Zealand datardquounpublished technical series New Zealand
Kanai A Wakabayashi M and Fling S (1996) ldquoWorkaholism among employees in Japanesecorporations an examination based on the Japanese version of the workaholism scalesrdquoJapanese Psychological Research Vol 38 No 4 pp 192-203
JOCM175
518
Killinger B (1991) Workaholics The Respectable Addicts Simon amp Schuster New South WalesAustralia
Machlowitz MM (1978) ldquoDetermining the effects of workaholismrdquo unpublished doctoraldissertation Yale University New Haven CT
Machlowitz MM (1980) Workaholics Living with Them Working with Them Addison-WesleyReading MA
McDowell I and Newell C (1996) Measuring Health A Guide to Rating Scales andQuestionnaires Oxford University Press Oxford
McMillan LHW (2002) ldquoWorkaholism how does it impact on peoplesrsquo livesrdquo unpublisheddoctoral thesis University of Waikato Hamilton
McMillan LHW Brady EC OrsquoDriscoll MP and Marsh NV (2002) ldquoA multifacetedvalidation study of Spence and Robbinsrsquo (1992) workaholism batteryrdquo Journal ofOccupational and Organisational Psychology Vol 75 pp 357-68
McMillan LHW OrsquoDriscoll MP and Burke R (2003) ldquoWorkaholism a review of theoryresearch and future directionsrdquo International Review of Industrial and OrganisationalPsychology Wiley New York NY
Oates WE (1968) ldquoOn being a lsquoworkaholicrsquo (a serious jest)rdquo Pastoral Psychology Vol 19pp 16-20
Perez-Prada E (1996) ldquoPersonality at workrdquo unpublished doctoral dissertation St LouisUniversity St Louis MO
Rhoads JM (1977) ldquoOverworkrdquo Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA) Vol 237No 24 pp 2615-8
Robinson BE (1989) Work Addiction Hidden Legacies of Adult Children HealthCommunications FL
Robinson BE (1996a) ldquoConcurrent validity of the work addiction risk test as a measure ofworkaholismrdquo Psychological Reports Vol 79 pp 1313-4
Robinson BE (1996b) ldquoRelationship between work addiction and family functioning clinicalimplications for marriage and family therapistsrdquo Journal of Family Psychotherapy Vol 7No 3 pp 13-29
Robinson BE (1998) Chained to the Desk a Guidebook for Workaholics Their Partners andChildren and the Clinicians Who Treat Them New York University Press New York NY
Robinson BE and Post P (1994) ldquoValidity of the work addiction risk testrdquo Perceptual andMotor Skills Vol 78 pp 337-8
Scott KS Moore KS and Miceli MP (1997) ldquoAn exploration of the meaning and consequencesof workaholismrdquo Human Relations Vol 50 pp 287-314
Spence JT and Robbins AS (1992) ldquoWorkaholism definition measurement and preliminaryresultsrdquo Journal of Personality Assessment Vol 58 pp 160-78
Staines GL (1980) ldquoSpillover versus compensation a review of the literature on the relationshipbetween work and non-workrdquo Human Relations Vol 33 No 2 pp 111-29
Statistica (1995) STATISTICA for Windows [Computer Program Manual] StatSoft Inc TulsaOK available at wwwstatsoftinccom
Ware JE and Gandek B (1998) ldquoOverview of SF-36 Health Survey and the international qualityof life project assessment (IQOLA) projectrdquo Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Vol 51 No 11pp 903-12
Workaholismand health
519
Specifically none of the hypotheses regarding psychological health were supportedAt time one workaholics at time 1 ethM frac14 7107THORN had similar mental health tonon-workaholics ethM frac14 7384THORN similar composite mental health (M frac14 7107 7384respectively) slightly poor emotional health (M frac14 7246 7857) and slightly poorsocial health (M frac14 8315 8780) However as the p-values for each of the U-tests werewell in excess of the 001 threshold ( p frac14 058 058 043 27 respectively) none of thedifferences were statistically significant As outlined in Table II these trends wererepeated at time 2 with all p-values remaining 015
Physical healthIn general the two groups reported similar physical health and while workaholicsreported 5 per cent higher pain and role-work influence none of the hypotheses weresupported At time 1 workaholics reported slightly poor physical health ethM frac14 8956THORNthan non-workhalics (9298) poor composite physical health (M frac14 8380 8706)similar energy levels (M frac14 6326 6250) and slightly less freedom from pain thannon-workaholics (M frac14 7799 8351) The p-values for the corresponding U-tests werewell in excess of the 001 threshold ( p frac14 064 068 076 46 respectively) and thereforenone of the differences were statistically significant As outlined in Table II thesetrends were repeated at time 2 with all p-values remaining 020
General healthThe two groups reported similar levels of general health and none of the hypothesesregarding general health were supported At time 1 workaholics reported almostidentical general health status (M frac14 7511 7583) but more interference in their workas a result of their health than non-workaholics (M frac14 8315 8810) Correspondingp-values for the U-tests were 089 and 0 57 These trends were replicated at time 2where both p-values were in excess of 054
Health trends over timeThe groups reported similar health transitions and therefore the hypothesis concerninghealth trends over time was not supported At time 1 workaholics actually reportedgreater increases in health over the past 12 months than non-workaholics (M frac14 59785714) although this difference was not significant (U frac14 9060 z frac14 2050 p frac14 062)This tendency reversed at time 2 where workaholics ethM frac14 5893THORN reported fewerimprovements than non-workaholics ethM frac14 6518THORN although the difference still failedto reach statistical significance (U frac14 3635 z frac14 2123 p frac14 064)
In summary workaholics reported similar health outcomes to non-workaholicsacross 11 indices at two separate measurement points six months apart Where thescores differed it was generally by less than five per cent and in all casesnon-significant
DiscussionThe present finding that workaholics appear to function relatively well without manynegative health outcomes supports those of Burke (1999a b 2000a b) SpecificallyBurke observed that high enjoyment workaholics had fewer psychosomatic symptomsand more favourable physical well-being than many other workers In fact his dataindicated that (enthusiastic) workaholicsrsquo and non-workaholicsrsquo physical health scoreswere so similar that they all fell within one standard deviation of the mean
JOCM175
516
The present study used a different measure than Burke but obtained similarresults The SF-36 has substantial validation data from across more than 20 countriesis published in over 200 scientific journals (Ware and Gandek 1998) haswell-established predictive validity to health outcomes and is New Zealand normedThus contrary to some research suggesting that workaholics report higher levels ofstress both Burkersquos and the present data suggest that this does not necessarilytranslate into poor health outcomes Correspondingly it is pertinent to emphasise thatseveral of the reports concerning adverse health impacts and workaholism(cf Robinson 1989 1998) were based on anecdotal evidence from counsellingself-selected workaholics from therapy groups (workaholics anonymous) samples thatare certainly non-normative
However it is possible that the present samplersquos high levels of income amelioratedat least in part the impact of stress on participantsrsquo lives and thereby reduce theincidence of illness Arguably high levels of income permit more expansivehealth-promoting behaviors such as dietary choices comprehensive health care andbetter access to fitness amenities such as gyms and personal trainers Given that Burke(2000b) sample comprised MBA educated managers those data were also likely to beinfluenced in a similar manner It is also prudent to recall that the present sample wasalso comparatively very healthy which is perhaps not surprising given that theNew Zealand norms include the very elderly infirm and those unable to work dueto illness
It is important to draw attention to the possibility that perhaps low enjoyment inwork is the critical factor that leads to poor health outcomes as many studies reportingpoor health outcomes for workaholics conceptualised workaholism as comprising lowenjoyment Enjoyment is known to relate to health enhancing constructs such as jobsatisfaction (McMillan et al 2003) life satisfaction purpose in life and positiveteam-focused beliefs (Bonebright et al 2000 Burke 2000b) Conversely drive is knownto relate more strongly to harmful correlates such as impatience-irritability (whichrelates to poor cardiac health) and obsessive-compulsiveness (which relates to anxietyand stress McMillan 2002) On this basis it is feasible to hypothesise that drive maybe the toxic (ie harmful) element in workaholism while enjoyment may be a protectivefactor that buffers the influence of drive It is also feasible as Spence and Robbins(1992) proposed that it is a combination of high-drivelow-enjoyment that isproblematic rather than being high or low on either individual aspect
In interpreting the present data however it is important to avoid the tendency toequate statistical significance with psychological importance While workaholicsreported 5 per cent worse pain scores (not significantly different from non-workaholicsand within the 95 per cent confidence-limits range Ware and Gandek 1998) thedifference may be clinically significant in terms of long-term health outcomesMachlowitz (1978) found that workaholics had good health but expressed feelings offailure concerning their families so although the present difference in health may notbe statistically significant it may be personally meaningful Aside from culturalconsiderations (workaholism may be different in New Zealand than North Americawhere with the exception of Kanai et al (1996) the other samples were based) there areseveral potential explanations for these ldquono-harmrdquo findings It is feasible that becausewe studied workaholics who were high in enjoyment (ldquoenthusiastic workaholicsrdquoin Spence and Robbins (1992)) terminology) we also inadvertently studied
Workaholismand health
517
ldquopeak performersrdquo (well-balanced workers who are high in fulfilment Garfield 1986)Garfield described peak performers as people who have an intense commitment towork that is balanced by careful attention to physical and mental health Our datacertainly supported this and the notion of ldquointegrationrdquo proposed by Staines (1980)who suggested that peoplersquos jobs teach them social and organisational skills thatfacilitate involvement in non-work enabling them to excel in both worlds
In terms of applied usefulness the present data challenge the negative stereotype ofworkaholism It is not beyond the realms of possibility of course that ldquohealthyrdquoworkaholism is a culturally bound phenomenon specific to the New Zealand workforceHowever the data certainly support the notion that workaholics should not be typecastas unhappy work-slaves as they appear to enjoy comparable levels of health to othersIt would equally seem illogical to attribute poor physical and mental health toworkaholism as the present data suggest that they are more likely to co-occur bycoincidence rather than causation Thus the most immediate practical application is toequal employment practise as the data do not support the notion that workaholicsshould be differentially treated in the workplace We therefore propose that furtherresearch around the organisational value of workaholism and strategies on how tomaximize its benefits and tactics to minimise its costs is imperative
References
Bartolome F (1983) ldquoThe work alibi when itrsquos harder to go homerdquo Harvard Business ReviewVol 61 No 2 pp 67-74
Bonebright CA Clay DL and Ankenmann RD (2000) ldquoThe relationship of workaholism withwork-life conflict life satisfaction and purpose in liferdquo Journal of Counseling PsychologyVol 47 No 4 pp 469-77
Burke RJ (1999a) ldquoItrsquos not how hard you work but how you work hard evaluating workaholismcomponentsrdquo International Journal of Stress Management Vol 6 No 4 pp 225-39
Burke RJ (1999b) ldquoWorkaholism among women managers work and life satisfactions andpsychological well-beingrdquo Equal Opportunities International Vol 18 No 7 pp 25-35
Burke RJ (1999c) ldquoWorkaholism and extra-work satisfactionsrdquo International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis Vol 7 No 4 pp 352-64
Burke RJ (2000a) ldquoWorkaholism and divorcerdquo Psychological Reports Vol 86 No 1 pp 219-20
Burke RJ (2000b) ldquoWorkaholism in organizations psychological and physical well-beingconsequencesrdquo Stress Medicine Vol 16 pp 11-16
Elder ED (1991) ldquoAn empirical investigation of workaholism in the business settingrdquounpublished doctoral dissertation University of Texas Austin TX
Fassel D (1992) Working Ourselves to Death HarperCollins London
Garfield C (1986) Peak Performers The New Heroes of American Business William Morrowand Company New York NY
Johnstone K Cheung J Pool I Pharmalingam A and Hillcoat-Nalletamby A (1998)ldquoPopulation health measures principles and applications to New Zealand datardquounpublished technical series New Zealand
Kanai A Wakabayashi M and Fling S (1996) ldquoWorkaholism among employees in Japanesecorporations an examination based on the Japanese version of the workaholism scalesrdquoJapanese Psychological Research Vol 38 No 4 pp 192-203
JOCM175
518
Killinger B (1991) Workaholics The Respectable Addicts Simon amp Schuster New South WalesAustralia
Machlowitz MM (1978) ldquoDetermining the effects of workaholismrdquo unpublished doctoraldissertation Yale University New Haven CT
Machlowitz MM (1980) Workaholics Living with Them Working with Them Addison-WesleyReading MA
McDowell I and Newell C (1996) Measuring Health A Guide to Rating Scales andQuestionnaires Oxford University Press Oxford
McMillan LHW (2002) ldquoWorkaholism how does it impact on peoplesrsquo livesrdquo unpublisheddoctoral thesis University of Waikato Hamilton
McMillan LHW Brady EC OrsquoDriscoll MP and Marsh NV (2002) ldquoA multifacetedvalidation study of Spence and Robbinsrsquo (1992) workaholism batteryrdquo Journal ofOccupational and Organisational Psychology Vol 75 pp 357-68
McMillan LHW OrsquoDriscoll MP and Burke R (2003) ldquoWorkaholism a review of theoryresearch and future directionsrdquo International Review of Industrial and OrganisationalPsychology Wiley New York NY
Oates WE (1968) ldquoOn being a lsquoworkaholicrsquo (a serious jest)rdquo Pastoral Psychology Vol 19pp 16-20
Perez-Prada E (1996) ldquoPersonality at workrdquo unpublished doctoral dissertation St LouisUniversity St Louis MO
Rhoads JM (1977) ldquoOverworkrdquo Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA) Vol 237No 24 pp 2615-8
Robinson BE (1989) Work Addiction Hidden Legacies of Adult Children HealthCommunications FL
Robinson BE (1996a) ldquoConcurrent validity of the work addiction risk test as a measure ofworkaholismrdquo Psychological Reports Vol 79 pp 1313-4
Robinson BE (1996b) ldquoRelationship between work addiction and family functioning clinicalimplications for marriage and family therapistsrdquo Journal of Family Psychotherapy Vol 7No 3 pp 13-29
Robinson BE (1998) Chained to the Desk a Guidebook for Workaholics Their Partners andChildren and the Clinicians Who Treat Them New York University Press New York NY
Robinson BE and Post P (1994) ldquoValidity of the work addiction risk testrdquo Perceptual andMotor Skills Vol 78 pp 337-8
Scott KS Moore KS and Miceli MP (1997) ldquoAn exploration of the meaning and consequencesof workaholismrdquo Human Relations Vol 50 pp 287-314
Spence JT and Robbins AS (1992) ldquoWorkaholism definition measurement and preliminaryresultsrdquo Journal of Personality Assessment Vol 58 pp 160-78
Staines GL (1980) ldquoSpillover versus compensation a review of the literature on the relationshipbetween work and non-workrdquo Human Relations Vol 33 No 2 pp 111-29
Statistica (1995) STATISTICA for Windows [Computer Program Manual] StatSoft Inc TulsaOK available at wwwstatsoftinccom
Ware JE and Gandek B (1998) ldquoOverview of SF-36 Health Survey and the international qualityof life project assessment (IQOLA) projectrdquo Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Vol 51 No 11pp 903-12
Workaholismand health
519
The present study used a different measure than Burke but obtained similarresults The SF-36 has substantial validation data from across more than 20 countriesis published in over 200 scientific journals (Ware and Gandek 1998) haswell-established predictive validity to health outcomes and is New Zealand normedThus contrary to some research suggesting that workaholics report higher levels ofstress both Burkersquos and the present data suggest that this does not necessarilytranslate into poor health outcomes Correspondingly it is pertinent to emphasise thatseveral of the reports concerning adverse health impacts and workaholism(cf Robinson 1989 1998) were based on anecdotal evidence from counsellingself-selected workaholics from therapy groups (workaholics anonymous) samples thatare certainly non-normative
However it is possible that the present samplersquos high levels of income amelioratedat least in part the impact of stress on participantsrsquo lives and thereby reduce theincidence of illness Arguably high levels of income permit more expansivehealth-promoting behaviors such as dietary choices comprehensive health care andbetter access to fitness amenities such as gyms and personal trainers Given that Burke(2000b) sample comprised MBA educated managers those data were also likely to beinfluenced in a similar manner It is also prudent to recall that the present sample wasalso comparatively very healthy which is perhaps not surprising given that theNew Zealand norms include the very elderly infirm and those unable to work dueto illness
It is important to draw attention to the possibility that perhaps low enjoyment inwork is the critical factor that leads to poor health outcomes as many studies reportingpoor health outcomes for workaholics conceptualised workaholism as comprising lowenjoyment Enjoyment is known to relate to health enhancing constructs such as jobsatisfaction (McMillan et al 2003) life satisfaction purpose in life and positiveteam-focused beliefs (Bonebright et al 2000 Burke 2000b) Conversely drive is knownto relate more strongly to harmful correlates such as impatience-irritability (whichrelates to poor cardiac health) and obsessive-compulsiveness (which relates to anxietyand stress McMillan 2002) On this basis it is feasible to hypothesise that drive maybe the toxic (ie harmful) element in workaholism while enjoyment may be a protectivefactor that buffers the influence of drive It is also feasible as Spence and Robbins(1992) proposed that it is a combination of high-drivelow-enjoyment that isproblematic rather than being high or low on either individual aspect
In interpreting the present data however it is important to avoid the tendency toequate statistical significance with psychological importance While workaholicsreported 5 per cent worse pain scores (not significantly different from non-workaholicsand within the 95 per cent confidence-limits range Ware and Gandek 1998) thedifference may be clinically significant in terms of long-term health outcomesMachlowitz (1978) found that workaholics had good health but expressed feelings offailure concerning their families so although the present difference in health may notbe statistically significant it may be personally meaningful Aside from culturalconsiderations (workaholism may be different in New Zealand than North Americawhere with the exception of Kanai et al (1996) the other samples were based) there areseveral potential explanations for these ldquono-harmrdquo findings It is feasible that becausewe studied workaholics who were high in enjoyment (ldquoenthusiastic workaholicsrdquoin Spence and Robbins (1992)) terminology) we also inadvertently studied
Workaholismand health
517
ldquopeak performersrdquo (well-balanced workers who are high in fulfilment Garfield 1986)Garfield described peak performers as people who have an intense commitment towork that is balanced by careful attention to physical and mental health Our datacertainly supported this and the notion of ldquointegrationrdquo proposed by Staines (1980)who suggested that peoplersquos jobs teach them social and organisational skills thatfacilitate involvement in non-work enabling them to excel in both worlds
In terms of applied usefulness the present data challenge the negative stereotype ofworkaholism It is not beyond the realms of possibility of course that ldquohealthyrdquoworkaholism is a culturally bound phenomenon specific to the New Zealand workforceHowever the data certainly support the notion that workaholics should not be typecastas unhappy work-slaves as they appear to enjoy comparable levels of health to othersIt would equally seem illogical to attribute poor physical and mental health toworkaholism as the present data suggest that they are more likely to co-occur bycoincidence rather than causation Thus the most immediate practical application is toequal employment practise as the data do not support the notion that workaholicsshould be differentially treated in the workplace We therefore propose that furtherresearch around the organisational value of workaholism and strategies on how tomaximize its benefits and tactics to minimise its costs is imperative
References
Bartolome F (1983) ldquoThe work alibi when itrsquos harder to go homerdquo Harvard Business ReviewVol 61 No 2 pp 67-74
Bonebright CA Clay DL and Ankenmann RD (2000) ldquoThe relationship of workaholism withwork-life conflict life satisfaction and purpose in liferdquo Journal of Counseling PsychologyVol 47 No 4 pp 469-77
Burke RJ (1999a) ldquoItrsquos not how hard you work but how you work hard evaluating workaholismcomponentsrdquo International Journal of Stress Management Vol 6 No 4 pp 225-39
Burke RJ (1999b) ldquoWorkaholism among women managers work and life satisfactions andpsychological well-beingrdquo Equal Opportunities International Vol 18 No 7 pp 25-35
Burke RJ (1999c) ldquoWorkaholism and extra-work satisfactionsrdquo International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis Vol 7 No 4 pp 352-64
Burke RJ (2000a) ldquoWorkaholism and divorcerdquo Psychological Reports Vol 86 No 1 pp 219-20
Burke RJ (2000b) ldquoWorkaholism in organizations psychological and physical well-beingconsequencesrdquo Stress Medicine Vol 16 pp 11-16
Elder ED (1991) ldquoAn empirical investigation of workaholism in the business settingrdquounpublished doctoral dissertation University of Texas Austin TX
Fassel D (1992) Working Ourselves to Death HarperCollins London
Garfield C (1986) Peak Performers The New Heroes of American Business William Morrowand Company New York NY
Johnstone K Cheung J Pool I Pharmalingam A and Hillcoat-Nalletamby A (1998)ldquoPopulation health measures principles and applications to New Zealand datardquounpublished technical series New Zealand
Kanai A Wakabayashi M and Fling S (1996) ldquoWorkaholism among employees in Japanesecorporations an examination based on the Japanese version of the workaholism scalesrdquoJapanese Psychological Research Vol 38 No 4 pp 192-203
JOCM175
518
Killinger B (1991) Workaholics The Respectable Addicts Simon amp Schuster New South WalesAustralia
Machlowitz MM (1978) ldquoDetermining the effects of workaholismrdquo unpublished doctoraldissertation Yale University New Haven CT
Machlowitz MM (1980) Workaholics Living with Them Working with Them Addison-WesleyReading MA
McDowell I and Newell C (1996) Measuring Health A Guide to Rating Scales andQuestionnaires Oxford University Press Oxford
McMillan LHW (2002) ldquoWorkaholism how does it impact on peoplesrsquo livesrdquo unpublisheddoctoral thesis University of Waikato Hamilton
McMillan LHW Brady EC OrsquoDriscoll MP and Marsh NV (2002) ldquoA multifacetedvalidation study of Spence and Robbinsrsquo (1992) workaholism batteryrdquo Journal ofOccupational and Organisational Psychology Vol 75 pp 357-68
McMillan LHW OrsquoDriscoll MP and Burke R (2003) ldquoWorkaholism a review of theoryresearch and future directionsrdquo International Review of Industrial and OrganisationalPsychology Wiley New York NY
Oates WE (1968) ldquoOn being a lsquoworkaholicrsquo (a serious jest)rdquo Pastoral Psychology Vol 19pp 16-20
Perez-Prada E (1996) ldquoPersonality at workrdquo unpublished doctoral dissertation St LouisUniversity St Louis MO
Rhoads JM (1977) ldquoOverworkrdquo Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA) Vol 237No 24 pp 2615-8
Robinson BE (1989) Work Addiction Hidden Legacies of Adult Children HealthCommunications FL
Robinson BE (1996a) ldquoConcurrent validity of the work addiction risk test as a measure ofworkaholismrdquo Psychological Reports Vol 79 pp 1313-4
Robinson BE (1996b) ldquoRelationship between work addiction and family functioning clinicalimplications for marriage and family therapistsrdquo Journal of Family Psychotherapy Vol 7No 3 pp 13-29
Robinson BE (1998) Chained to the Desk a Guidebook for Workaholics Their Partners andChildren and the Clinicians Who Treat Them New York University Press New York NY
Robinson BE and Post P (1994) ldquoValidity of the work addiction risk testrdquo Perceptual andMotor Skills Vol 78 pp 337-8
Scott KS Moore KS and Miceli MP (1997) ldquoAn exploration of the meaning and consequencesof workaholismrdquo Human Relations Vol 50 pp 287-314
Spence JT and Robbins AS (1992) ldquoWorkaholism definition measurement and preliminaryresultsrdquo Journal of Personality Assessment Vol 58 pp 160-78
Staines GL (1980) ldquoSpillover versus compensation a review of the literature on the relationshipbetween work and non-workrdquo Human Relations Vol 33 No 2 pp 111-29
Statistica (1995) STATISTICA for Windows [Computer Program Manual] StatSoft Inc TulsaOK available at wwwstatsoftinccom
Ware JE and Gandek B (1998) ldquoOverview of SF-36 Health Survey and the international qualityof life project assessment (IQOLA) projectrdquo Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Vol 51 No 11pp 903-12
Workaholismand health
519
ldquopeak performersrdquo (well-balanced workers who are high in fulfilment Garfield 1986)Garfield described peak performers as people who have an intense commitment towork that is balanced by careful attention to physical and mental health Our datacertainly supported this and the notion of ldquointegrationrdquo proposed by Staines (1980)who suggested that peoplersquos jobs teach them social and organisational skills thatfacilitate involvement in non-work enabling them to excel in both worlds
In terms of applied usefulness the present data challenge the negative stereotype ofworkaholism It is not beyond the realms of possibility of course that ldquohealthyrdquoworkaholism is a culturally bound phenomenon specific to the New Zealand workforceHowever the data certainly support the notion that workaholics should not be typecastas unhappy work-slaves as they appear to enjoy comparable levels of health to othersIt would equally seem illogical to attribute poor physical and mental health toworkaholism as the present data suggest that they are more likely to co-occur bycoincidence rather than causation Thus the most immediate practical application is toequal employment practise as the data do not support the notion that workaholicsshould be differentially treated in the workplace We therefore propose that furtherresearch around the organisational value of workaholism and strategies on how tomaximize its benefits and tactics to minimise its costs is imperative
References
Bartolome F (1983) ldquoThe work alibi when itrsquos harder to go homerdquo Harvard Business ReviewVol 61 No 2 pp 67-74
Bonebright CA Clay DL and Ankenmann RD (2000) ldquoThe relationship of workaholism withwork-life conflict life satisfaction and purpose in liferdquo Journal of Counseling PsychologyVol 47 No 4 pp 469-77
Burke RJ (1999a) ldquoItrsquos not how hard you work but how you work hard evaluating workaholismcomponentsrdquo International Journal of Stress Management Vol 6 No 4 pp 225-39
Burke RJ (1999b) ldquoWorkaholism among women managers work and life satisfactions andpsychological well-beingrdquo Equal Opportunities International Vol 18 No 7 pp 25-35
Burke RJ (1999c) ldquoWorkaholism and extra-work satisfactionsrdquo International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis Vol 7 No 4 pp 352-64
Burke RJ (2000a) ldquoWorkaholism and divorcerdquo Psychological Reports Vol 86 No 1 pp 219-20
Burke RJ (2000b) ldquoWorkaholism in organizations psychological and physical well-beingconsequencesrdquo Stress Medicine Vol 16 pp 11-16
Elder ED (1991) ldquoAn empirical investigation of workaholism in the business settingrdquounpublished doctoral dissertation University of Texas Austin TX
Fassel D (1992) Working Ourselves to Death HarperCollins London
Garfield C (1986) Peak Performers The New Heroes of American Business William Morrowand Company New York NY
Johnstone K Cheung J Pool I Pharmalingam A and Hillcoat-Nalletamby A (1998)ldquoPopulation health measures principles and applications to New Zealand datardquounpublished technical series New Zealand
Kanai A Wakabayashi M and Fling S (1996) ldquoWorkaholism among employees in Japanesecorporations an examination based on the Japanese version of the workaholism scalesrdquoJapanese Psychological Research Vol 38 No 4 pp 192-203
JOCM175
518
Killinger B (1991) Workaholics The Respectable Addicts Simon amp Schuster New South WalesAustralia
Machlowitz MM (1978) ldquoDetermining the effects of workaholismrdquo unpublished doctoraldissertation Yale University New Haven CT
Machlowitz MM (1980) Workaholics Living with Them Working with Them Addison-WesleyReading MA
McDowell I and Newell C (1996) Measuring Health A Guide to Rating Scales andQuestionnaires Oxford University Press Oxford
McMillan LHW (2002) ldquoWorkaholism how does it impact on peoplesrsquo livesrdquo unpublisheddoctoral thesis University of Waikato Hamilton
McMillan LHW Brady EC OrsquoDriscoll MP and Marsh NV (2002) ldquoA multifacetedvalidation study of Spence and Robbinsrsquo (1992) workaholism batteryrdquo Journal ofOccupational and Organisational Psychology Vol 75 pp 357-68
McMillan LHW OrsquoDriscoll MP and Burke R (2003) ldquoWorkaholism a review of theoryresearch and future directionsrdquo International Review of Industrial and OrganisationalPsychology Wiley New York NY
Oates WE (1968) ldquoOn being a lsquoworkaholicrsquo (a serious jest)rdquo Pastoral Psychology Vol 19pp 16-20
Perez-Prada E (1996) ldquoPersonality at workrdquo unpublished doctoral dissertation St LouisUniversity St Louis MO
Rhoads JM (1977) ldquoOverworkrdquo Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA) Vol 237No 24 pp 2615-8
Robinson BE (1989) Work Addiction Hidden Legacies of Adult Children HealthCommunications FL
Robinson BE (1996a) ldquoConcurrent validity of the work addiction risk test as a measure ofworkaholismrdquo Psychological Reports Vol 79 pp 1313-4
Robinson BE (1996b) ldquoRelationship between work addiction and family functioning clinicalimplications for marriage and family therapistsrdquo Journal of Family Psychotherapy Vol 7No 3 pp 13-29
Robinson BE (1998) Chained to the Desk a Guidebook for Workaholics Their Partners andChildren and the Clinicians Who Treat Them New York University Press New York NY
Robinson BE and Post P (1994) ldquoValidity of the work addiction risk testrdquo Perceptual andMotor Skills Vol 78 pp 337-8
Scott KS Moore KS and Miceli MP (1997) ldquoAn exploration of the meaning and consequencesof workaholismrdquo Human Relations Vol 50 pp 287-314
Spence JT and Robbins AS (1992) ldquoWorkaholism definition measurement and preliminaryresultsrdquo Journal of Personality Assessment Vol 58 pp 160-78
Staines GL (1980) ldquoSpillover versus compensation a review of the literature on the relationshipbetween work and non-workrdquo Human Relations Vol 33 No 2 pp 111-29
Statistica (1995) STATISTICA for Windows [Computer Program Manual] StatSoft Inc TulsaOK available at wwwstatsoftinccom
Ware JE and Gandek B (1998) ldquoOverview of SF-36 Health Survey and the international qualityof life project assessment (IQOLA) projectrdquo Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Vol 51 No 11pp 903-12
Workaholismand health
519
Killinger B (1991) Workaholics The Respectable Addicts Simon amp Schuster New South WalesAustralia
Machlowitz MM (1978) ldquoDetermining the effects of workaholismrdquo unpublished doctoraldissertation Yale University New Haven CT
Machlowitz MM (1980) Workaholics Living with Them Working with Them Addison-WesleyReading MA
McDowell I and Newell C (1996) Measuring Health A Guide to Rating Scales andQuestionnaires Oxford University Press Oxford
McMillan LHW (2002) ldquoWorkaholism how does it impact on peoplesrsquo livesrdquo unpublisheddoctoral thesis University of Waikato Hamilton
McMillan LHW Brady EC OrsquoDriscoll MP and Marsh NV (2002) ldquoA multifacetedvalidation study of Spence and Robbinsrsquo (1992) workaholism batteryrdquo Journal ofOccupational and Organisational Psychology Vol 75 pp 357-68
McMillan LHW OrsquoDriscoll MP and Burke R (2003) ldquoWorkaholism a review of theoryresearch and future directionsrdquo International Review of Industrial and OrganisationalPsychology Wiley New York NY
Oates WE (1968) ldquoOn being a lsquoworkaholicrsquo (a serious jest)rdquo Pastoral Psychology Vol 19pp 16-20
Perez-Prada E (1996) ldquoPersonality at workrdquo unpublished doctoral dissertation St LouisUniversity St Louis MO
Rhoads JM (1977) ldquoOverworkrdquo Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA) Vol 237No 24 pp 2615-8
Robinson BE (1989) Work Addiction Hidden Legacies of Adult Children HealthCommunications FL
Robinson BE (1996a) ldquoConcurrent validity of the work addiction risk test as a measure ofworkaholismrdquo Psychological Reports Vol 79 pp 1313-4
Robinson BE (1996b) ldquoRelationship between work addiction and family functioning clinicalimplications for marriage and family therapistsrdquo Journal of Family Psychotherapy Vol 7No 3 pp 13-29
Robinson BE (1998) Chained to the Desk a Guidebook for Workaholics Their Partners andChildren and the Clinicians Who Treat Them New York University Press New York NY
Robinson BE and Post P (1994) ldquoValidity of the work addiction risk testrdquo Perceptual andMotor Skills Vol 78 pp 337-8
Scott KS Moore KS and Miceli MP (1997) ldquoAn exploration of the meaning and consequencesof workaholismrdquo Human Relations Vol 50 pp 287-314
Spence JT and Robbins AS (1992) ldquoWorkaholism definition measurement and preliminaryresultsrdquo Journal of Personality Assessment Vol 58 pp 160-78
Staines GL (1980) ldquoSpillover versus compensation a review of the literature on the relationshipbetween work and non-workrdquo Human Relations Vol 33 No 2 pp 111-29
Statistica (1995) STATISTICA for Windows [Computer Program Manual] StatSoft Inc TulsaOK available at wwwstatsoftinccom
Ware JE and Gandek B (1998) ldquoOverview of SF-36 Health Survey and the international qualityof life project assessment (IQOLA) projectrdquo Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Vol 51 No 11pp 903-12
Workaholismand health
519
