impact of workaholism mgr-11!2!241

The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 11: 241–263, 2008Copyright © The Society of Psychologists in ManagementISSN 1088-7156 print / 1550-3461 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10887150802371781

HPMJ1088-71561550-3461The Psychologist-Manager Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, August 2008: pp. 1–42The Psychologist-Manager Journal

The Impact of Workaholism on Work-Family Conflict, Job Satisfaction,

and Perception of Leisure Activities

The Impact of WorkaholismBrady, Vodanovich, and Rotunda

Becca R. Brady, Stephen J. Vodanovich, and Robert RotundaUniversity of West Florida

Data were collected from university employees (N = 129) and Society for HumanResource Management (SHRM) members (N = 103) to assess the impact of worka-holism on work-family conflict, job satisfaction, and perceptions of leisure time. Theresults, using two different measures of workaholism (Workaholism Battery, WorkAddiction Risk Test), indicated that greater scores on the Workaholic Risk Test weresignificantly related to greater work-family conflict and less gratification with leisure(or nonwork) time. In terms of the Workaholism Battery, high Drive scores were alsofound to relate to more work-family conflict. However, Work Enjoyment scores wereassociated with less work-family conflict, as well as greater scores indicative of satis-faction with the job and the work itself. The need to examine various facets of worka-holism and implications for organizational interventions are discussed.

The goal of the present study was to examine the relationship between workaholismand several outcomes: (1) work-life conflict, (2) job satisfaction, and (3) enjoymentof leisure time. The impetus for such an investigation is provided by evidence thatemployees in the United States are spending an increasing amount of time at work.For instance, Austin (2000) has stated that the number of hours worked per week forU.S. employees rose from 43 to 47 hours during the past decade. Moreover, it hasbeen reported that employees in professional jobs work anywhere from 50 to 80hours in a typical workweek (e.g., Brenton & Largent, 1996). Finally, Reiss (2002)reported that employees in the United States work an average of 1,979 hours a year.

Correspondence should be sent to Stephen J. Vodanovich, Department of Psychology, Bldg.#41, University of West Florida, 11000 University Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514. E-mail:stevevodanovich.uwf.edu

242 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA

Some have indicated that technological advances may be contributing to theescalation of time spent on work-related activities. Erase-Blunt (2001) reportedthat 60% of office workers admitted that while vacationing they take alongmobile technology, 33% check voice mail daily, and more than half of theserespondents telephoned their office at least once daily. Reiss (2002) noted that20% of U.S. workers go to their jobs when they are ill, injured, or have a medicalappointment. Further, it has been suggested that organizations may play a role inencouraging this trend. As Burke (2001a) has stated, “Organizations are increas-ingly making use of technology that reinforces workaholic behaviors” (p. 639).

Definitions of Workaholism

It should be noted that there is a lack of consensus regarding the meaning of“workaholism,” and this has clouded much of the discourse and research findingsin the area. Consistent with the figures reported above, some definitions havefocused on the amount of time spent at work. For instance, Mosier (1983)defined workaholics as individuals who work at least 50 hours per week. How-ever, there is general agreement that conceptualizing workaholism by focusingsolely on time spent at work is inadequate. As Peiperl and Jones (2001) have cau-tioned “seeking to define workaholism by counting the number of hours that aperson works is both misleading and incomplete” (p. 373).

Machlowitz (1980) stressed that workaholics are best conceptualized by theirattitude toward work, and not by the number of hours spent at work. She alsooffered a characterization of workaholism that considered situational requirements.According to Machlowitz, workaholics are people who “always devote more timeand thoughts to their work than the situation demands” (1980, p.11). Similarly,Scott, Moore, and Miceli (1997) described workaholism as the amount of discre-tionary time spent in work activities, thinking about work when not working, andworking beyond organizational requirements. Porter (1996), in making a distinc-tion between the tendency to work hard and workaholism, depicted workaholics asstriving to maintain a high level of involvement in work that exceeds the require-ments for successful task accomplishment. Spence and Robbins (1992) argued thata workaholic is “highly work involved, feels compelled or driven to work becauseof inner pressures, and is low in [his or her] enjoyment of work” (p. 162).

Other definitions have concentrated on the numerous nonwork consequences thataccompany workaholism. These approaches can be considered to reflect an addic-tion model of the construct and embody the negative connotation often associatedwith the term “workaholism.” For example, Oats (1971) defined a workaholic as “aperson whose need for work has become so excessive that it creates a noticeable dis-turbance or interference with his [or her] bodily health, personal happiness, andinterpersonal relations, and with his smooth social functioning” (p. 4). This concep-tualization was echoed by Minirth et al. (1981) who described workaholics as

THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 243

individuals whose dependence on work activities reveals noticeable disturbances inother aspects of their lives such as personal feelings and intimacy. Along these lines,Porter (1996) and Robinson (1989) conceptualized workaholics as those whoneglect extra-work areas (e.g., family, friends, personal health). Moreover, Klaft andKleiner (1988) suggested that workaholics are addicted to the work itself and not tothe rewards of work. Congruent with these approaches to workaholism is theresearch of Robinson (1989) who posited that “the overabundance of work takesprecedence over everyone and everything else in the lives of workaholics” (p. 42).Furthermore, Robinson (2000) depicted the characteristics of workaholism as beingsimilar to that of alcoholism by noting that, "Work addiction is an addiction in thesame way that alcoholism is an addiction. Progressive in nature, it is an unconsciousattempt to resolve unmet psychological needs that have roots in the family of originand can lead to unmanageable life, family disintegration, serious health problems,and even death” (p. 34). The common attributes between workaholism and alcohol-ism (e.g., withdrawal symptoms, identity issues, rigidity) have also been discussedby Porter (1996). Finally, Harpaz and Snir (2003) proposed a definition of workaho-lism that emphasizes behavioral and cognitive aspects of the construct. The authorsconclude that workaholics regularly devote substantial time working and thinkingabout work on an ongoing basis. An important aspect of their definition is that work-aholic behaviors are internally based and are not driven by external needs or organi-zational requirements (e.g., salary, need for overtime).

Typologies of Workaholism

Spence and Robbins (1992) identified three basic dimensions/measures of wor-kaholism which are referred to as the “workaholic triad.” These dimensions arelabeled as: (1) work involvement, (2) drive (e.g., strongly motivated to work),and (3) work enjoyment. Within this framework, workaholics were defined asbeing high in work involvement and drive, and low in work enjoyment. Addi-tional combinations of scores proposed by Spence and Robbins (1992) includethe following worker clusters: relaxed workers, work enthusiasts, unengagedworkers, enthusiastic workaholics, and disenchanted workers. A different typol-ogy was proposed by Naughton (1987). He identified four types of workaholicswhich include: (1) job-involved workaholics, (2) compulsive workaholics,(3) nonworkaholics, and (4) compulsive nonworkaholics. Scott et al. (1997)proposed another set of workaholic types which are labeled as: (1) compulsive-dependent, (2) perfectionist-obsessive, and (3) achievement-oriented.

Correlates of Workaholism

Somewhat surprisingly, the amount of empirical research on the correlates ofworkaholism is rather limited. Indeed, much of the literature is theoretical or


anecdotal in nature (e.g., Fassel, 1990; Klaft & Kleiner, 1988; Machlowitz, 1980;Schaef & Fassel, 1998; Scott et al., 1997). Furthermore, it is important to notethat research findings in this area have been impacted by the number and type ofworkaholism dimensions assessed, as well as by the measures of the constructthat were employed.

There is general agreement that family members and friends are adverselyaffected by the behavior of workaholics. Bartolome (1983) discussed theestranged nature of families of workaholics, and others have commented on themarital difficulties that are often experienced by such individuals (e.g., Klaft &Kleiner, 1988; Spruell, 1987). It has been proposed that the suffering experiencedby children and spouses of workaholics is comparable to the distress felt byspouses and offspring of alcoholics (Fassel, 1990; Robinson, 1998a, 2000;Schaef & Fassel, 1998). L’Abate and L’Abate (1981) have suggested that wivesof male workaholics often abandon their own goals while supporting theirhusbands’ desires.

It has also been noted that workaholics have difficulty with intimate relation-ships and have virtually no time for outside interpersonal relations (Killinger,1991; Minirth et al., 1981; Porter, 1996; Robinson, 1998a; Spruell, 1987). Scottet al. (1997) commented that workaholics are commonly isolated from familyand friends. As these authors observed, workaholics “spend a great deal of timein work activities when given the discretion to do so, which results in their givingup important social, family or recreational activities because of work” (p. 292).

Work-Life Conflict

Empirical research has generally concluded that workaholism adversely impactsrelationships and can lead to increased work-family conflict (WFC). The issue ofwork-life conflict (or imbalance) has received substantial attention in recentyears (e.g., Frone, 2003; Hammer, Bauer, & Grandey, 2003; Hammer et al.,2002; Lambert et al., 2006). One reason for this interest is the widely acceptedbelief that events (both positive and negative) occurring within work and non-work spheres affect one another (e.g., MacEwen & Barling, 1994), although theinterference of work with nonwork activities appears to be more common (e.g.,Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Of particular interest to researchers has been theimpact of WFC on various negative outcomes. For instance, studies have foundWFC to be significantly related to indicators of psychological distress (e.g.,Marks, 1998) and self-reports of diminished physical health (Frone, Russell, &Barnes, 1996). Indeed, a 4-year longitudinal investigation (Frone, Russell, &Cooper, 1997) found WFC to be significantly associated with depressed mood,lower physical health, and heavy alcohol consumption.

Given the above findings, organizations have developed programs (e.g., flexiblework schedules, alternative leave approaches) to assist with the complexities of


work-life balance (e.g., Frankel, 1998). However, the measurable positive value ofsuch efforts has been relatively small and rather inconsistent (see Frone, 2003).

Specifically related to workaholism, Snir and Harpaz (2004) reported thatindividuals who work significantly more hours per week have lower family cen-trality scores. Burke (2001) found that workaholics possessed significantly lowerscores on a measure of organizational values supportive of work-family balance.Bonebright, Clay, and Ankenmann (2000), based on responses from 503 employ-ees, found that both nonenthusiastic and enthusiastic workaholics possessedgreater work life conflict scores than nonworkaholics. Taris, Schaufeli, andVerhoeven (2005) found a significant relationship between workaholism scoresand nonwork conflict within a Dutch sample (N = 152) of employed communityvolunteers. Moreover, Robinson, Carroll, and Flowers (2001) reported thatfemale spouses of workaholics viewed their relationship as having more prob-lems and felt less positively towards their husbands. In one of the few studies thatexamined the impact of workaholism on children, it was shown that depressionscores were significantly higher among children with at least one workaholic par-ent (Carroll & Robinson, 2000). In a series of studies, workaholism (i.e., “addic-tion” to work) was found to be associated with low satisfaction with relationships(Burke, Oberklaid, & Burgess, 2004), friends, family, and community (Burke,1999a), and scores indicative of lower work-family balance (Burke, 2000a).

However, the negative association between workaholism and family/relation-ship difficulties has not always been found. Burke (2000b) reported that marriedand divorced managers had similar workaholism and workaholic behaviors. In amore direct assessment, McMillan, O’Driscoll, and Brady (2004) found thatworkaholic and nonworkaholic dyads expressed similar levels of relationship sat-isfaction. Consequently, one purpose of the current study was to assess the extentto which workaholism relates to nonwork conflict and relationship satisfaction.

Job Satisfaction

Robinson (1999) and Spence and Robbins (1992) have suggested that workaholicsare generally not content or happy employees, and that the potential negative out-comes of low job satisfaction in the workplace include: (1) poor job performance,(2) lack of teamwork, and (3) increased turnover. In contrast, the work ofMachlowitz (1980) and Scott et al. (1997) indicated that workaholics are typi-cally satisfied with their work. For instance, Machlowitz (1980) discussed thatworkaholics tend to be satisfied with work activities partly because job satisfac-tion is more important to them than satisfaction in nonwork relationships. Shesuggested that workaholics often enjoy their work, have satisfying lifestyles, andthat workaholism is not a disease but rather a love of work. A similar view wasoffered by Scott et al. (1997), who specified that workaholics are able to enjoyboth work activities and their unique way of life.


The literature on the association between workaholism and job satisfactionhas shown mixed results and often depends on the number and nature of worka-holism facets. For instance, Burke, Richardson, and Mortinussen (2004) foundthat individuals with high scores on the Work Enjoyment Scale possessed greaterscores on measures of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and jobinvolvement, as well as a lower intent to quit the company. McMillan et al.(2002) found job satisfaction, work involvement, and intrinsic job motivationscores to be significantly correlated with a revised version of Spence and Robbins’Work Enjoyment Scale. A revised version of the Drive scale was also found to besignificantly related to work involvement and intrinsic job motivation scores.Further, Snir and Harpaz (2004) reported that those high in occupational satisfac-tion worked significantly more hours per week than those with low occupationalsatisfaction scores. On the other hand, Burke et al. (2004) found work addicts tohave lower job and career satisfaction scores than those categorized as workenthusiasts and enthusiastic addicts. Consequently, another objective of thepresent research is to examine in more detail the relationship between workaholismand job satisfaction.

Perceptions of Leisure Time

According to Machlowitz (1980), work and leisure are synonymous toworkaholics. That is, work is how workaholics enjoy themselves. Otherresearchers have suggested that workaholics are never at leisure and are oftenunable to relax (Oats, 1971; Robinson, 1998b; Scott et al., 1997).Cherrington (1980) has depicted workaholics as being deficient at spendingtime at nonwork activities. He has stated that workaholics are “unable to taketime off or to comfortably divert their interests” (1980, p. 257). Indeed, someauthors have indicated that for workaholics, leisure time is perceived asunenjoyable or undesirable (e.g., Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990; Kiechel,1989). However, Burke et al. (2004) found no significant differences in non-work satisfaction between various types of workaholics (e.g., enthusiasticworkaholics, work addicts). Based on this literature, another purpose of thisresearch is to examine the relationship between workaholism and perceptionsof leisure time.

The following hypotheses are proposed.

Hypothesis 1: High workaholism scores will emerge as significant predictorsof greater work-family conflict.Hypothesis 2: Greater workaholism scores will significantly predict lowerscores on measures of job satisfaction.Hypothesis 3: High workaholism scores will be significant predictors ofgreater boredom with leisure and free-time.


METHOD

Participants

Participants in this study (N = 232) were comprised of 103 working profession-als who were members of various southeastern chapters of the Society for HumanResource Management (SHRM) and 129 faculty and staff members from a publicuniversity in the southeastern United States. The average age of the universitysample was 47.3 years (SD = 10.58) and 46% of the participants in this samplewere female. In the SHRM sample, the average age was 41.4 years (SD = 9.11)and 85% of the participants were female.

Procedure

Participants were contacted by e-mail and asked to complete a series of online question-naires which consisted of the Work Addiction Risk Test (WART), Workaholic Triad,Leisure Boredom Scale (LBS), Free Time Boredom Scale (FTB), Work-FamilyConflict Scale (WFC), Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS), Work Itself subscale ofthe Job Descriptive Index, Job In General scale (JIG), and demographic information(e.g., age, sex, race). E-mails were sent to both university and SHRM participants thatcontained a brief description of the study and included an electronic link to a consentform, which was then followed by the online questionnaires. Participation in both sam-ples was voluntary and all data were collected anonymously. No incentives were givenfor participation in the study. Data from the questionnaires were returned electronically.

Instruments

Several measures of workaholism have been developed (e.g., Fassel, 1990;Killinger, 1991; Machlowitz, 1980). However, only the Workaholism Battery(Work-Bat; Spence & Robbins, 1992) and the Work Addiction Risk Test(WART; Robinson, 1999) have been systematically used in the literature andshown to possess desirable psychometric properties. The primary distinctionbetween the two instruments is that the Work-Bat consists of three separatescales whose scores are combined to yield an array of workaholic and workertypes, whereas the WART was constructed to yield a single, overall score toidentify individuals with workaholic tendencies. Both instruments were used inthe current study to allow increased confidence in the results obtained.

Workaholism Battery/Workaholic Triad

The scale created by Spence and Robbins (1992) is the most widely utilizedmeasure of workaholism in the literature (e.g., Aziz & Zickar, 2006). Based on


previous theoretical writings and observations, Spence and Robbins (1992)developed items to capture the unique characteristics of workaholics. Specifi-cally, they constructed three separate scales to measure workaholism: (1) workinvolvement, (2) drive, and (3) work enjoyment, which have been referred to asthe Workaholism Battery or Workaholic Triad (Burke, 1999a; 1999b; Ersoy-Kart,2005). Their initial research (Spence & Robbins, 1992) found empirical supportfor the existence of these three scales. In general, subsequent studies have foundsupport for the Spence and Robbins typology (e.g., Burke, 1999a; Burke, 1999b;Burke, 2001b), although the viability of the work involvement scale has beenquestioned by some researchers (Ersoy-Kart, 2005; McMillan et al., 2002).

The Work Involvement scale consists of eight items and assesses one’s self-reported tendency to become overly involved at work (e.g., “I get bored and rest-less on vacations when I haven’t anything productive to do”). The Drive Scale isdesigned to measure the extent to which individuals feel driven to work and con-sists of seven items such as “I feel obligated to work hard, even when it’s notenjoyable.” Finally, the Work Enjoyment Scale assesses how much individualsenjoy work on a regular basis and is comprised of 10 items (e.g., “I lose track oftime when I am engaged on a project”). All three scales are arranged on a five-point Likert-type scale with anchors ranging from 1 (“Not Very True of Me”) to5 (“Very True of Me”).

Categories of workaholism are derived on the basis of either high or lowscores on the Work Involvement, Drive, and Work Enjoyment scales. Workaholicsare identified by high scores (above the sample mean) on the Work Involvementand Drive Scales and a low score (below the sample mean) on the Work Enjoy-ment Scale.

Internal consistencies for the Work Involvement, Drive, and Work Enjoymentscales have ranged from .67 to .88 (Burke, 1999a; 1999b) and .67 to .86 (Spence &Robbins, 1992). In the present study, the reliabilities for the Work InvolvementScale, the Drive Scale, and the Work Enjoyment Scale were found to be .65, .81,and .89, respectively, for the university sample, and .60, .76, and .88, respec-tively, for the SHRM sample. The reliabilities for the entire sample were .62, .80,and .89, respectively.

The Work Addiction Risk Test is a self-report measure used to screen forworkaholic tendencies (Robinson, 1999; Robinson & Phillips, 1995). The scaleconsists of 25 items (e.g., “I stay busy and keep many irons in the fire,” “I overlycommit myself by biting off more than I can chew”) arranged on a four-pointLikert-type scale A rating of 1 indicates that the item is “never true” and a ratingof 4 indicates that the item is “always true.” In the current study, a five-pointLikert-type scale was employed to increase the sensitivity of measurement, withpossible scores ranging from 25 to 100. Scores falling one standard deviation(SD) below the mean indicate a low risk for work addiction; scores falling oneSD above the mean designate a participant as a medium risk for work addition;


and scores greater than one SD above the mean show a high risk for work addic-tion tendencies.

Robinson (1999) reported Cronbach’s alpha for the WART to be .88. Thetest-retest reliability over a two-week period was reported to be .83 (Robinson,Post, & Khakee, 1992). In addition, Robinson and Post (1995) reported the split-half reliability of the WART to be .85. In the current study, the internal consis-tency for the WART was found to be .87 for the university sample and .86 for theSHRM sample (.86 for the entire sample combined).

Relatively recent research has indicated that the WART may assess multipledimensions of workaholism. Flowers and Robinson (2002) performed a factoranalysis on the WART in which five factors emerged that accounted for 52% ofthe variance in scores. A subsequent discriminant function analysis yielded threefactors that best represented the underlying factor structure of the WART. Thesefactors were labeled as: (1) compulsive tendencies, (2) control, (3) impairedcommunication/self-absorption.

Job Descriptive Index-Work Itself Scale (JDI-WI)

The JDI-WI is one of the five scales that comprise the Job Descriptive Index(Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), which is one of the most frequently used mea-sures of job satisfaction (DeMeuse, 1986; Muchinsky, 1987; O’Connor, Peters, &Gordon, 1978; Yeager, 1981). The Work Itself scale consists of 18 items, each ofwhich has three potential responses (“yes,” “no,” “not sure”). Internal consis-tency for the Work Itself scale was found to be .78 (Ironson et al., 1989). In thepresent study, the coefficient alpha for the Work Itself subscale was .68 for theuniversity sample, .80 for the SHRM sample, and .78 for the entire sample.

Job in General

The Job in General scale (JIG) was developed by Ironson et al. (1989) in order toassess global job satisfaction. The JIG is intended to accompany the facetsubscales of the JDI. The scale consists of 18 adjectives (e.g., “fascinating,”“routine”) and includes the same response options (“yes,” “no,” “not sure”) as theWork Itself subscale. The internal consistency of the JIG has been reported as .91and above, based on thousands of participants (Ironson et al., 1989). In thepresent study, the overall reliability of the JIG was .90 (university sample = .86;SHRM sample = .92).

Leisure Boredom Scale

The Leisure Boredom Scale (LBS; Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990) is a 16-item,five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) designed


to assess an individual’s proneness to experience leisure boredom (e.g., “For me,leisure time just drags on”). Higher scores on the LBS are indicative of higherboredom with one’s leisure time. Across three samples, the internal consistenciesof the LBS were found to range from .85 to .88 (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990).In the present study, the reliability of the LBS within the combined sample was.90 (university sample = .91; SHRM sample = .87).

The LBS has been correlated with a variety of other constructs. For instance,evidence for the construct validity of the LBS has been provided by significant,negative correlations between the LBS and intrinsic leisure motivation (r = −.67),leisure satisfaction scale (r = −.22), a single-item leisure satisfaction measure (r =−.44), leisure ethic (r = −.38), leisure participation (r = −.32), and single-itemindicators of satisfaction with mental (r = −.17) and physical health (r = −.23;see Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990).

Free Time Boredom

The Free Time Boredom (FTB) scale was developed by Ragheb and Merydith(2001) to investigate the experience of boredom during free time. The FTB Scaleconsists of 33 items arranged on a five-point Likert-type scale on which a ratingof 1 indicates that the respondent strongly disagrees with the statement and arating of 5 represents strong agreement. Each item begins with the statement“During my free time” (e.g., “During my free time I feel that my surroundingsare dull and blah”). The coefficient alpha for the FTB scale was found to be .92(Ragheb & Merydith, 2001).

The FTB scale is comprised of four subscales. The Lack of MeaningfulInvolvement subscale consists of 12 items (e.g., “During my free time it seemslike I am wasting my time”). The Lack of Mental Involvement subscale consistsof nine items such as “During my free time I am satisfied with or interested inwhat I do.” The third subscale, Slowness of Time in free time, consists of sevenitems (e.g., “During my free time I am pleased with its amount”). Finally, theLack of Physical Involvement subscale consists of five items (e.g., “During myfree time I am physically energetic”). The internal consistencies for the Lack ofMeaning, Lack of Mental Involvement, Slowness of Time, and Lack of PhysicalInvolvement subscales were found to be .91, .85, .78, and .80, respectively(Ragheb & Merydith, 2001). In the present study, only the total FTB score wasemployed and a reliability of .88 for the combined sample was found (universitysample = .88, SHRM sample = .89).

Ragheb and Merydith (2001) indicated that FTB scores were significantlycorrelated (r = .36) with the Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS; Farmer &Sundberg, 1986). In addition, the relationship between the BPS and the Lack ofMeaningful Involvement subscale of the FTB scale was found to be significant(r = .40).


Work-Family Conflict Scale

The Work-Family Conflict Scale (WFCS) is an 18-item scale developed byCarlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000) in order to measure work-family con-flict such as the tension that occurs when role pressures from work and familydomains are somewhat incompatible (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). The Work-Family Conflict Scale is presented in a five-point Likert-type format withanchors ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The scaletaps six dimensions of work-family conflict. The dimensions include threeforms of work-family conflict (time, strain, and behavior) and two directions(work interference with family and family interference with work) on eachform. For example, the Work-Family Conflict Scale consists of itemsdesigned to measure time-based work interferences with family (WIF; e.g.,“My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like”) anditems designed to measure behavior-based family interferences with work(FIW; e.g., “The behaviors that work for me at home do not seem to be effec-tive at work”).

Internal consistency for each dimension was found to be .87 for time-basedWIF, .79 for time-based FIW, .85 for strain-based WIF, .87 for strain-based FIW,.78 for behavior-based WIF, and .85 for behavior-based FIW (Carlson et al.,2000). In the present research, only scores for the combined Work-Family Con-flict Scale (i.e., a general measure of work-family conflict) were used. Internalconsistencies for the entire sample, the university sample, and the SHRM samplewere all .91.

Relationship Assessment Scale

The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) is a seven-item scale (e.g., “How welldoes your partner meet your needs”) used to measure satisfaction in closerelationships (Hendrick, 1998). It is applicable to many types of relationships,including but not limited to traditional marriages. Scores on the RAS items rangefrom 1 (indicating low satisfaction) to 5 (indicating high satisfaction). Hendrick(1998) found the internal consistency of the RAS to be .86. In addition, thetest-retest reliability of the RAS, across a six- to seven-week period, was reportedto be .85 (Hendrick, Dicke, & Hendrick, 1998). In the present study, thereliability of the RAS was determined to be .93 (university sample = .95; SHRMsample = .92).

The RAS has been found to be significantly related to an array of variablesincluding marital satisfaction (Hendrick et al., 1998) and a measure of dyadicadjustment and marital quality (Hendrick, 1998). Scores on the RAS have alsobeen found to accurately identify individuals who were in a relatinship (couples)versus those not in a relationship (Spanier, 1976).


RESULTS

Correlation coefficients were computed among all scales used in the study (seeTable 1). Preliminary analyses (two-way ANOVAs) were performed to test forsex differences within each sample (university versus SHRM) on all scalesemployed in the study. The results indicated that no sex differences existedbetween scores on any of the scales, including the workaholism measures.Additional analyses (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine differencesbetween the two samples on the scales employed in the study. These analysesindicated that participants in the university sample had significantly higherscores than SHRM members on the Work Enjoyment subscale, the JIG, and

TABLE 1Correlations Among WART, Workaholic Triad (WI, D, WE), JDI, JIG, RAS, WFCS, LBS,

and FTB Scores for the University and SHRM Samples

Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

University (n = 129)1. WART – .41** .65** .08 −.16 −.17 .04 .43** .37** .37**2. WI – .49** .25** .06 −.05 −.03 .16 .32** .31**3. D – .20* −.20* −.14 −.08 .42** .16 .25*4. WE – .53** .59** .13 −.12 −.13 −.24*5. JDI-WI – .62** .25** −.39** −.25** −.38**6. JIG – .09 −.23* −.09 −.24*7. RAS – −.31** −.19* −.34**8. WFCS – .42** .51**9. LBS – .84**

10. FTB –

SHRM (n = 103)1. WART – .32** .60** .22* −.15 .05 −.21 .47** .12 .26**2. WI – .45** .45** .18 .11 −.05 .15 .19 .29**3. D – .17 −.13 .01 −.16 .45** .17 .24*4. WE – .55** .49** −.05 −.04 .15 −.045. JDI-WI – .69** −.01 −.35** −.19 −.216. JIG – −.09 −.27** .01 −.057. RAS – −.37** −.42** −.46**8. WFCS – .22* .31**9. LBS – .71**

10. FTB –

Note. WART = Work Addiction Risk Test; WI = Work Involvement; D = Drive; WE = WorkEnjoyment; JDI-WI = Job Descriptive Index-Work Itself; JIG = Job in General; RAS = RelationshipAssessment Scale; WFCS = Work-Family Conflict Scale; LBS = Leisure Boredom Scale; FTB =Free Time Boredom.*p < .05 **p < .01.


JDI. Scores on the Drive subscale of the Workaholic Triad were significantlylower among those in the university sample. Given these differences, subse-quent analyses were conducted separately within the university and SHRMsamples.

A series of regression analyses was computed within each sample to examinethe impact of WART scores and Workaholic Triad scores on relationshipconflict, job satisfaction, and nonwork (leisure/free time) boredom scores. Allindependent variables were entered simultaneously as a block in the regressionanalyses.

Work-Family Conflict

Regression analyses indicated that WART scores, Work Enjoyment subscalescores, and Drive subscale scores were all significant predictors of WFCS scoresfor both samples (Table 2). In the university sample, Work Enjoyment (t = −2.63;p < .01) and Drive subscale scores (t = 2.37; p < .05) were the best predictors ofWFCS scores, followed by WART scores (t = 2.36; p < .05). Overall, these threefactors accounted for approximately 27% of the variance (R = .52) in the univer-sity sample. In the SHRM sample, significant predictors of WFCS scoresincluded WART scores (t = 3.27, p < .01), Drive subscale scores (t = 2.43;p < .05), and Work Enjoyment subscale scores (t = −2.08; p < .05), respectively.These variables accounted for 31% of the variance in the SHRM sample(R = .56). Regression analyses computed within both samples indicated thatscores on the workaholism measures (WART, Work Involvement, Drive, andWork Enjoyment) were not significant predictors of relationship satisfaction(RAS) scores.

TABLE 2The Effect of WART and Workaholic Triad (WI, D, WE)

Scores on Work-Family Conflict Scores for the University and SHRM Samples

Sample

University SHRM

Scales Beta t Beta t

WART .27 2.36* .37 3.27**WI −.07 −.61 −.02 −.13D .28 2.37* .271 2.43*WE −.24 −2.63** −.19 −2.08*

Note. WART = Work Addiction Risk Test; WI = Work Involve-ment; D = Drive; WE = Work Enjoyment.

*p < .05 **p < .01.


Job Satisfaction

Within the university sample, scores on the Work Enjoyment (t = 8.81; p < .001)and Drive (t = −3.65; p < .001) subscales were found to be significant predictorsof JIG scores (see Table 3). Overall, scores on the Work Enjoyment and Drivesubscales accounted for approximately 45% of the variance in JIG scores (R = .67).Scores on the Work Enjoyment subscale were found to be a significant predictorof JIG scores for the SHRM sample (t = 5.18; p < .001), accounting for approxi-mately 24% of the variance in JIG scores.

Both the Work Enjoyment (t = 7.28; p < .001) and Drive (t = −4.11; p < .001)subscale scores were significant predictors of the JDI Work Itself scores for theuniversity sample (see Table 4), accounting for approximately 38% of thevariance (R = .61). Within the SHRM sample, scores on the Work Enjoymentsubscale (t = 7.55; p < .001) and scores on the WART (t = −.3.46; p < .001) werefound to be significant predictors of JDI-WI scores. These variables accountedfor approximately 41% of the variance in Work Itself scores (R = .64). Scores onthe Work Involvement subscale of the Workaholic Triad did not significantlypredict JIG scores or JDI Work Itself scores for either sample.

Leisure and Free Time Boredom

Workaholism scores were also found to be significant predictors of LBS and theFTB scores. In the university sample, WART scores emerged as significant pre-dictors of LBS scores (t = 3.75; p < .001), accounting for approximately 12% of

TABLE 3The Effect of WART and Workaholic Triad (WI, D, WE) Scores on the Job in General Scores for the University

and SHRM Samples

Sample

University SHRM


WART −.07 −.69 −.03 −.31WI −.16 −1.88 −.11 −1.03D −.28 −3.65** −.07 −.73WE .67 8.81** .49 5.18**

Note. WART = Work Addiction Risk Test; WI = WorkInvolvement; D = Drive; WE = Work Enjoyment.

**p < .001.


the variance (R = .35). However, in the SHRM sample, none of the workaholismscores was found to be a significant predictor of scores on the LBS. In the univer-sity sample, WART scores (t = 2.34; p < .05), Work Enjoyment subscale scores(t = −2.71; p < .01), and Work Involvement subscale scores (t = 2.34; p < .05)were significant predictors of scores on the FTB scale. The three factors com-bined accounted for approximately 22% of the variance in FTB scores. In theSHRM sample, only scores on the WART (t = 2.39; p < .05) emerged as a signif-icant predictor of scores on the FTB scale (see Table 5). Scores on the WARTaccounted for approximately 6% of the variance in this criterion.


Scores on the Work Itself Scale of the JDI for the University and SHRM Samples

Sample

University SHRM


WART .00 .04 −.30 −3.46**WI .11 1.18 .04 .38D −.34 −4.11** −.09 −.85WE .61 7.28** .64 7.55**


**p < .001.


Scores on Free Time Boredom Scores for the University and SHRM Samples

Sample

University SHRM


WART .25 2.34* .25 2.39*WI .27 2.34 * .12 1.03D −.08 −.62 .13 .93WE −.26 −2.71** −.12 −1.12


*p < .05 **p < .01.


DISCUSSION

The results indicate that workaholism scores are significant predictors of work-family conflict, with the direction of the relationship being dependent on the typeof workaholism assessed. That is, high scores on the WART and Drive scaleswere significant predictors of greater WFCS scores in both samples. On the otherhand, high Work Enjoyment scores were significantly related to lower levels offamily conflict.

A similar pattern of results, albeit less consistent, is evident on the associationbetween workaholism and job satisfaction. For instance, high Drive scores weresignificantly related to lower Job in General and Work Itself scores in the univer-sity sample. High WART scores were significantly predictive of lower WorkItself scores in the SHRM sample. In both samples, high scores on the WorkEnjoyment (WE) scale were significantly associated with greater satisfaction(i.e., JIG and JDI Work Itself scores). The association of high WE scores andgreater job satisfaction is consistent with past research (e.g., Burke et al., 2004;McMillan et. al., 2002).

The current findings also support the hypothesis that workaholics are gener-ally less likely to enjoy their leisure time, especially with regard to scores on theWART. That is, in the SHRM sample, high WART scores were significantlyassociated with greater leisure boredom, and elevated WART scores were signif-icant predictors of greater Free Time Boredom (FTB) levels in both samples.Greater Work Enjoyment scores were significantly related to low FTB scores inthe university sample only.

This evidence implies that workaholics are less likely to enjoy leisure activi-ties and are unable to benefit from relaxation and involvement in nonwork activi-ties. This is understandable given that workaholics spend the majority of theirwaking hours involved in work-related activities and thoughts (Machlowitz,1980; Porter, 1996; Scott et al., 1997). The implications of these results areemphasized by evidence suggesting that leisure satisfaction contributes to theoverall quality of life (Ragheb & Griffith, 1982; Riddick, 1986; Russell, 1987).As Speller (1989) stated, those with positive mental health are characterized bybeing “able to gain satisfaction from a variety of sources” (p. 11). These prelimi-nary findings warrant additional research to determine how the lack of interest inleisure and free time activities may affect the behavior and health of workaholics.

One limitation of this research is the use of self-report data. That is, the datawere collected from the perspective of workaholics. A concern in this regard isthat workaholics may not be sensitive to the actual problems that they (andothers) experience. Consequently, it would be beneficial to obtain data beyondthose produced by actual employees (e.g., from peers). Such a study was recentlyperformed by Burke and Ng (2007) and the authors found significant agreementin Work-Bat scores between workaholic employees and their coworkers. Also,


research has found that workaholism scores generated by employees and theiracquaintances (i.e., family members, friends, coworkers) were similar (Aziz &Zickar, 2006). Also, somewhat surprisingly, workaholism was not found to berelated to scores on the Relationship Assessment Scale in either sample. This isin stark contrast to the significant correlations found in the present study betweenworkaholism scores and those on the work-family conflict scale. Although RASand WFC scores were significantly correlated in the university and SHRM sam-ples of the present study (−.31 and −.38, respectively), they assess differentaspects of nonwork harmony. Our results suggest the detrimental impact ofworkaholism may be specific to work and nonwork conflict, and perhaps do notgeneralize to other aspects of relationship satisfaction.

An advantage of the present study was the use of two different employee sam-ples, thereby increasing the generalizability of the findings. Such an approach isvaluable given that past research on workaholism has often used participants(e.g., students) with relatively limited work experience (Robinson, 1995, 1996,1999; Robinson & Post, 1995; Robinson, Post, & Khakee, 1992). Our investiga-tion is also strengthened by the emergence of an overlapping (but not exact)pattern of results obtained with the use of two separate, psychometrically soundmeasures of workaholism, which assess related but different aspects of the con-struct (see generally moderate correlations between the WART and Work-Batsubscale scores in Table 1). Researchers wishing to measure specific workaho-lism types would be advised to administer the Workaholism Battery, while thoseinterested in a global assessment would likely find the WART preferable.Although the WART may possess subscales (Flowers & Robinson, 2002), thisresearch is preliminary and needs to be confirmed by future research.

Collectively, the present results support the benefits of assessing multiplefacets of workaholism. In particular, the findings emphasize the need to con-sider the affective, cognitive, and/or behavioral reactions to the investment oftime at work. This point is shown by the relatively advantageous outcomesassociated with high work enjoyment (WE) scores (less work-family conflict,greater job satisfaction) as compared to the detrimental relationships found tobe associated with Drive and WART scores (greater conflict, more leisureboredom).

Indeed, the results regarding the Work Enjoyment scale are partially reflectiveof the lack of agreement on the definition of workaholism. As noted earlier, someresearchers do not fully ascribe to the negative connotations of workaholism.Related to the present context, it has been argued that it is improper to conceptu-alize all workaholics as having low enjoyment of their work (e.g., Korn et al,1987; Machlowitz, 1980). It is also worthwhile to note that Spence and Robbins(1992) identified a “positive” workaholic type (“enthusiastic workaholic”) that iscomprised of high scores on all three of their scales (i.e., Work Involvement, Drive,Work Enjoyment). Obviously, such disagreement and apparent inconsistencies in


the definition of workaholism must be resolved in order to adequately developand test hypotheses on the various correlates of workaholism.

Organization Role and Implications

Given these findings, organizational interventions aimed at decreasing the nega-tive consequences of workaholism may be warranted (e.g., Vodanovich &Piotrowski, 2006). This seems particularly relevant because researchers havesuggested that companies may actually encourage workaholic behaviors and thatorganizations themselves may be classified as “workaholic” (Fassel, 1990;Schaef & Fassel, 1998; Spruell, 1987). For many employees, the culture andincentive systems within companies promote the working of longer hours toachieve success (e.g., Burke, 2001; Spruell, 1987). Arnott (2000) coined the term“corporate cults“ to indicate how organizations can foster overwhelming dedica-tion and allegiance to work. The role that the climate of an organization can haveon the expansion of workaholism was discussed by Johnstone and Johnston(2005). They stated that “if an organizational climate encourages and rewardsworkaholic behaviors, then workaholics are likely to develop and flourish” (p.182). Indeed, Spruell contends that “unfortunately, workaholism is the mostrewarded addiction in our culture” (p. 44). It would be beneficial for futureresearch to examine the contributions of organizational structure and practices onworkaholic behaviors.

Fassel and Schaef (1989) stressed that it is important for organizations to tryto identify employees who exhibit signs of workaholic behaviors. The need forsuch a process is emphasized by literature which suggests that workaholicemployees can have a detrimental impact on organizations. One common out-come is that workaholics experience greater job stress and more health-relatedproblems (e.g., Burke, 2000c; Burke et al., 2004; Kanai & Wakabayashi, 2001;Spence & Robbins, 1992). Thus, the long-term consequences for organizations(and individuals) may be increased costs for health care and lost productivity dueto illness.

Workaholics have also been described as being critical, inefficient, unable todelegate, and/or difficult to work with (e.g., Machlowitz, 1980; Spence & Robbins,1992). Spruell (1997) portrayed workaholics as competitive and as having apotentially negative impact on the motivation levels of coworkers. Another char-acteristic ascribed to workaholics is a propensity to control the work of others(e.g., Mudrack, 2004; Mudrack & Naughton, 2001). It has been suggested thatworkaholics who are in managerial positions may pose the greatest problemspartly by establishing unrealistic performance standards, which in turn can fosteranger among workers, interpersonal conflict, and low employee morale (e.g.,Klaft & Kleiner, 1988; Spruell, 1987). Finally, one of the primary findings ofJohnstone and Johnston (2005) was that the detrimental effects of workaholism


can occur if organizational pressures to work long hours are not accompanied byadequate managerial support, and the relationships between coworkers arestrained.

Others have emphasized the crucial role that supervisors and managers canplay in helping employees with workaholic tendencies (e.g., Bartolome & Evans,1980; Haas, 1991). Such efforts can include managerial assistance in establishingwork priorities, delegating tasks, setting specific times for breaks and leavingwork, and referring workaholic employees to employee assistance programs.Consistent with the latter point, formal counseling has been advocated for worka-holics, especially if the workaholic tendencies can be linked with Type A person-ality and/or obsessive-compulsive traits (Mudrack, 2004; Naughton, 1987). AsNaughton (1987) has stated, one goal of therapy with workaholics who possesscompulsive tendencies is “to reduce the extent to which their behavior is dys-functional to themselves and to the organizations employing them” (p. 185).Indeed, Schaef and Fassel (1998) developed a 12-step process designed to reduceworkaholic behaviors on an individual and organizational level. Also, counselingfor workaholics that involves family members has been proposed (e.g., Burke,2000a) because family support is considered crucial for the success of therapeuticinterventions (e.g., Bartolome, 1983; Minirth et al., 1981). Finally, the use oftraining programs (including self-help formats) has also been suggested to assistworkaholics in developing varied interests and to engage in nonwork activities(Franzmeier, 1988; Klaft & Kleiner, 1988; Korn, Pratt, & Lambrou, 1987;Naughton, 1987; Seybold & Salomone, 1994). Although the above suggestionsmay be effective, it is critical that organizations take the potential negativeimpact of workaholic employees seriously in order to choose and initiate appro-priate intervention strategies.

REFERENCES

Arnott, D. (2000). Corporate cults: The insidious lure of the all-consuming organization. New York:American Management Association.

Austin, J. (2000). Workaholism: The symptoms, the causes, the cure. Potential At Work. RetrievedSeptember 19, 2001, from www.potentialatwork.com/articles/workaholism.html

Aziz, S., & Zickar M. J. (2006). A cluster analysis investigation of workaholism as a syndrome.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 52–62.

Bartolome, F. (1983). The work alibi: When it’s harder to go home. Harvard Business Review, 61,66–74.

Bartolome, F., & Evans, P. A. (1980). Must success cost so much? Harvard Business Review, 58,137–148.

Bonebright, C. A., Clay, D. L., & Ankenmann, R. D. (2000). The relationship of workaholismwith work-life conflict, satisfaction, and purpose in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47,469–477.

Brenton, D., & Largent, C. (1996). The paradigm conspiracy. Center City, MN:


Hazelden. Burke, R. J. (1999a). Workaholism and extra-work satisfaction. International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis, 7, 352–364.

Burke, R. J. (1999b). Workaholism in organizations: Gender differences. Sex Roles, 41, 333–345.Burke, R. J. (2000a). Workaholism among women managers: Personal and workplace correlates.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 520–530.Burke, R. J. (2000b). Workaholism and divorce. Psychological Reports, 86, 219–220.Burke, R. J. (2000c). Workaholism in organizations: Psychological and physical well-being conse-

quences. Stress Medicine, 16, 11–16.Burke, R. A. (2001a). Workaholism in organizations: The role of organizational values. Personnel

Review, 30, 637–645.Burke, R. A. (2001b). Spence and Robbins’ measures of workaholism components: Test-retest stabil-

ity. Psychological Reports, 88, 882–888.Burke, R. A., & Ng, E. S. W. (2007). Workaholic behaviors: Do colleagues agree? International

Journal of Stress Management, 14, 312–320.Burke, R. A., Oberklaid, F., & Burgess, Z. (2004). Workaholism among Australian women psycholo-

gists: Antecedents and consequences. Women in Management Review, 5, 252–259.Burke, R. A., Richardson, A. M., & Mortinussen, M. (2004). Workaholism among Norwegian

managers. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 459–470.Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a

multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249–276.Carroll, J. J., &. Robinson, B. E. (2000). Depression and parentification among adults as related to

parental workaholism and alcoholism. Family journal: Counseling and therapy for couples andfamilies, 8, 360–367.

Cherrington, D. J. (1980). The work ethic. New York: American Management Association.DeMeuse, K. P. (1986). A compendium of frequently used measures in industrial/organizational

psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 23, 53–59.Erase-Blunt, M. (2001). The busman’s holiday. HR Magazine, 46, 76–80.Ersoy-Kart, M. (2005). Reliability and validity of the Workaholism Battery (Work-Bat): Turkish

form. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 609–617.Farmer, R., & Sundberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom proneness: The development and correlates of a new

scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 4–17.Fassel, D. (1990). Working ourselves to death: The high cost of workaholism, the rewards of recovery.

San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers.Fassel, D., & Schaef, A. W. (1989). The high cost of workaholism. Business and Health, 21, 38–42.Flowers, C., & Robinson, B. E. (2002). A structural and discriminant analysis of the Work Addiction

Risk Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 517–526.Frankel, M. (1998). Creating the family friendly workplace: Barriers and solutions. In S. Klarreich

(Ed.), Handbook of organizational health psychology: Programs to make the workplace healthier(pp. 79–100). Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press.

Franzmeier, A. (1988). To your health. Nation’s Business, 76, 73.Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick and L. E. Tetrick, (Eds.) Handbook of Occu-

pational Health Psychology (pp. 143–162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Barnes, G. M. (1996). Work-family conflict, gender, and health-related

outcomes: A study of employed parents in two community samples. Journal of OccupationalHealth Psychology, 1, 57–69.

Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. J. (1997). Relation of work-family conflict to healthoutcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and Orga-nizational Psychology, 70, 325–336.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles.Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.


Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Family, work, work—family spillover and problem drinkingduring midlife. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 62, 336–348.

Haas, R. (1991). Strategies to cope with a cultural phenomenon—workaholism. Supervisory Manage-ment, 36, 4.

Hammer, L. B., Bauer, T. N., & Grandey, A. (2003). Effects of spouses’ and own work-familyconflict on withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 419–436.

Hammer, L. B., Colton, C. L., Caubet, S. L., & Brockwood, K. J. (2002). The unbalanced life: Workand family conflict. In J. C. Thomas and M. Hersen (Eds.). Handbook of mental health in the work-place (pp. 83–101). London: Sage.

Harpaz, I., & Snir, R. (2003). Workaholism: Its definition and nature. Human Relations, 56, 291–319.Hendrick, S. S. (1998). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 50, 93–98.Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The Relationship Assessment Scale. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 137–142.Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a

job in general scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 74, 193–200.

Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Weissinger, E. (1990). Perceptions of boredom in leisure: Conceptualization,reliability, and validity of the Leisure Boredom Scale. Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 1–17.

Johnstone, A., & Johnston, L. (2005). The relationship between organization climate, organizationaltype and workaholism. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34, 181–188.

Kanai, A., & Wakabayashi, M. (2001). Workaholism among Japanese blue-collar employees.International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 129–145.

Kiechel, W. (1989, April 10). The workaholic generation. Fortune, 50–62.Killinger, B. (1991). Workaholics: The respectable addicts. New York: Simon & Schuster.Klaft, R. P., & Kleiner, B. H. (1988). Understanding workaholics. Business, 38, 37–40.Korn, E. R., Pratt, G. J., & Lambrou, P. T. (1987). Hyper-performance: The A.I.M. strategy for

releasing your business potential. New York: John Wiley & Sons.L’Abate, L., & L’Abate, B. L. (1981). Marriage: The dream and the reality. Family Relations, 30,

131–136.Lambert, C., Kass, S. J., Piotrowski, C., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2006). Impact factors on work-family

balance: Initial support for border theory. Organization Development Journal, 24(3), 87–98.MacEwen, K. E., & Barling, J. (1994). Daily consequences of work interference with family and fam-

ily interference with work. Work and Stress, 13, 59–73.Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholics: Living with them, working with them. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.Marks, N. F. (1998). Does it hurt to care? Caregiving, work-family-conflict, and midlife well-being.

Journal of Marriage & the Family, 60, 951–966.McMillan, L. H. W., Brady, E. C., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Marsh, N. V. (2002). A multifaceted valida-

tion study of Spence and Robbins (1992) workaholism battery. Journal of Occupational and Orga-nizational Psychology, 75, 357–368.

McMillan, L. H. W., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Brady, E. C. (2004). The impact of workaholism on per-sonal relationships. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 32, 171–186.

Minirth, F., Meier, P., Wichern, F., Brewer, B., & Skipper, S. (1981). The workaholic and his family:An inside look. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Muchinsky, P. M. (1987). Psychology applied to work. Chicago: Dorsey Press.Mudrack, P. E. (2004). Job involvement, obsessive-compulsive personality traits, and workaholic

behavioral tendencies. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 490–508.Mudrack, P. E., & Naughton, T. J. (2001). The assessment of workaholism as behavioral tendencies: Scale

development and preliminary empirical testing. International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 93–111.


Naughton, T. J. (1987). A conceptual review of workaholism and implications for career counselingand research. The Career Development Quarterly, 35, 180–187.

Oats, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction. New York: WorldPublishing.

O’Connor, E. J., Peters, L. H., & Gordon, S. M. (1978). The measurement of job satisfaction: Currentpractices and future considerations. Journal of Management, 4, 17–26.

Peiperl, M., & Jones, B. (2001). Workaholics and overworkers: Productivity or pathology? Groupand Organization Management, 26, 369–393.

Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching the negativeoutcomes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 70–84.

Ragheb, M. G., & Griffith, C. A. (1982). The contribution of leisure participation and leisure satisfac-tion to life satisfaction of older persons. Journal of Leisure Research, 14, 295–306.

Ragheb, M. G., & Merydith, S. P. (2001). Development and validation of a multidimensional scalemeasuring free time boredom. Leisure Studies, 20, 41–59.

Reiss, M. (2002). American karoshi. New Internationalist, 343, 1–3. Retrieved March 18, 2002, fromFindArticles.com database.

Riddick, C. C. (1986). Leisure satisfaction precursors. Journal of Leisure Research, 18, 259–256.Robinson, B. E. (1989). Work addiction. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.Robinson, B. E. (1995). Measuring workaholism: Content validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test.

Psychological Reports, 77, 657–658.Robinson, B. E. (1996). Concurrent validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test as a measure of worka-

holism. Psychological Reports, 79, 1313–1314.Robinson, B. E. (1998a). The workaholic family: A clinical perspective. The American Journal of

Family Therapy, 26, 65–75.Robinson, B. E. (1998b). Chained to a desk: A guidebook for workaholics, their parents, and

children, and the clinicians who treat them. New York: New York University Press.Robinson, B. E. (1999). The Work Addiction Risk Test: Development of a tentative measure of

workaholism. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 199–210.Robinson, B. E. (2000). A typology of workaholics with implications for counselors. Journal of

Addictions and Offender Counseling, 21, 34–48.Robinson, B. E., Carroll, J. J., & Flowers, C . (2001). Marital estrangement, positive affect and locus

of control among spouses of workaholics and spouses of nonworkaholics: A national study.American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 397–410.

Robinson, B. E., & Phillips, B. (1995). Measuring workaholism: Content validity of the Work Addic-tion Risk Test. Psychological Reports, 77, 657–658.

Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1995). Spit-half reliability of the Work Addiction Risk Test: Develop-ment of a measure of workaholism. Psychological Reports, 76, 1226.

Robinson, B. E., Post, P., & Khakee, J. F. (1992). Test-test reliability of the Work Addiction RiskTest. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 926.

Russell, R. V. (1987). The relative contribution of recreation satisfaction and activity participation tothe life satisfaction of retirees. Journal of Leisure Research, 19, 273–283.

Schaef, K. S., & Fassel, D. (1998). The addictive organization. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers.Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences

of workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287–314.Seybold, K. C., & Salomone, P. R. (1994). Understanding workaholism: A review of causes and

counseling approaches. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 4–9.Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and

retirement. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.Snir, R., & Harpaz, I. (2004). Attitudinal and demographic antecedents of workaholism. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, 17, 520–536.


Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriageand similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 15–28.

Speller, J. L. (1989). Executives in crisis: Recognizing and managing the alcoholic, drug-addicted, ormentally ill executive. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminaryresults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160–178.

Spruell, G. (1987). Work fever. Training and Development Journal, 41, 41–45.Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Verhoeven, L. C. (2005). Workaholism in the Netherlands:

Measurement and implications for job strain and work-non-work conflict. Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review, 54, 37–60.

Vodanovich, S. J., & Piotrowski, C. (2006). Workaholism: A critical but neglected factor in O.D.Organization Development Journal, 24(2), 55–60.

Yeager, S. G. (1981). Dimensionality of the Job Descriptive Index. Academy of ManagementJournal, 24, 205–212.

impact of workaholism mgr-11!2!241

Documents