Health correlates of workaholism: An in depth exploration

Introduction: In recent years there has been increasing attention to the phenomenon of workaholism (e.g. Porter, 2001) – initially defined as the compulsion or the uncontrollable need to work incessantly (Oates, 1968). One of the reasons for this interest is the fact that the world of work has changed profoundly and continues to change rapidly (Näswall, Hellgren, & Sverke, 2008), with workers being asked to adapt to new kinds of demands. In this context, it is believed that the influence of personal characteristics on employee well-being will increase and will possibly overcome in importance that of situational (organizational) characteristics (Cunningham, De La Rosa, & Jex, 2008). Workaholism is one of such personal characteristics. Previous research on the health correlates of workaholism has revealed that the phenomenon is negatively related to a number of health outcomes such as burnout and psychosomatic complaints (e.g., Kubota, Shimazu, Kawakami, Takahashi, Nakata, et al., 2010). However, most research on workaholism to date has been based exclusively on selfreported data and/or has used cross sectional research designs. In the present study we seek to strengthen previous findings by using self- and observer-reported data, objective data, and a longitudinal research design. Method: We conducted two different studies. Study one (N = 50; 37.5% females), for which data collection is still open, has focused on professionals and employees at the managerial level of different organizations. We have collected self-reported data on workaholism, as well as self- and observer-reported data on job related affective well being. Furthermore, participant’s blood pressure was also measured. Study two (N=234; 86.5% females) was a one-year, self-reported, follow-up study conducted on employees (i.e. medical doctors, nurses, and administrative staff) of a National Health Care Service agency. In Study two we have assessed workaholism at both waves, together with common psychosocial risks (i.e. job demand and role stressors) and generic stress symptoms. In both studies, we have used widely-known, well validated psychometric tools, with workaholism being assessed by means of the Dutch Work Addiction Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2008). The analyses of Study one mainly consisted of correlations between workaholism, on the one hand, and self - and observer-reported job-related affective well being and blood pressure on the other. In Study two a cross-lagged full panel design was used to test for whether workaholism affected generic stress symptoms one year later, over and above the effect of gender and psychosocial risks which were prevalent in the investigated work context. Main results: In Study one preliminary analyses showed that workaholism correlated negatively with self -reported job-related affective well being, r = -.35. The correlation was very similar when the criterion measure was observer-reported (i.e. usually the partner of the study participant), r = -.31. A more fined-grained look at the components of job-related affective well being showed that workaholism correlated positively with high arousal (e.g. anger) and low arousal (e.g. pessimism) job-related negative affect (r = .27, and r = .44, respectively); it correlated negatively with low arousal (e.g. satisfaction) job-related positive affect (r = -.33); and it didn’t correlate with high arousal (e.g. enthusiasm) jobrelated positive affect (r = .02). The same pattern of correlations emerged when observerreported job-related affective well-being was used as a criterion variable. Partial correlation (controlling for gender and age) between workaholism and systolic blood pressure was r = .31. Results of Study two revealed that workaholism and gender (0=males; 1 = females) had a significant longitudinal positive impact on generic stress symptoms (with workaholism explaining 2.5% additional variance), while the effect of common psychosocial risks on the same criterion was not significant. Implications and conclusion: Results of our two studies corroborate and extend results of previous research on workaholism (e.g. Kubota et al., 2010) by using multisource, objective and longitudinal data. Workaholism emerges as an individual vulnerability factor with adverse effect on psychological and physical health. These results call for the development of strategies to limit workaholic behaviour in organizations. It has been suggested (Schaufeli et al., 2009) that this might be done by training supervisors to pay attention to the work habits of their subordinates, and to encourage them to maintain a balanced life. It has also been suggested (Schaufeli et al., 2009) that workaholics could be referred to an occupational physician for personal counselling. Of course, this entails workaholics must be understood as individuals with psychological and behavioural problems, which is not always the case. Thus, at present, there is a need to disseminate adequate knowledge on the potential personal and organizational costs of workaholism.