Personality Traits and Workaholism

SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2009, 37(5), 645-660 © Society for Personality Research (Inc.) DOI 10.2224/sbp.2009.37.5.645

Personality traits and Personal and organizational inducements: antecedents of Workaholism

Ying-Wen Liang

China University of Technology, Hsinchu County, Taiwan, ROC Chen-Ming Chu

Chung Yuan Christian University, Chung Li City, Taiwan, ROC Personality has been shown to be a valid predictor of behavior in work settings, but few studies have tested the causality of relationships between personality and workaholism. Extending the propositions of Ng, Sorenson, and Feldman (2007), in this article personality traits were treated as multidimensional and causal relationships were proposed between personality traits and workaholism. We also investigated the interactions among antecedents of workaholism using the definition of Ng et al. as the construct of workaholism, and deduced its antecedents from dimensions that underlie workaholism. Our model identified the following antecedents as being potentially linked to workaholism: personality traits, personal inducements, and organizational inducements. Obsessive compulsion, achievement orientation, perfectionism, and conscientiousness are key personality traits leading to workaholism. Intrinsic work values and vicarious learning in the family are two components of personal inducements, while putting work ahead of family commitments, peer competition, and vicarious learning at the workplace constitute three organizational inducements. Keywords: workaholism, personality traits, personal inducements, organizational inducements.

Associate Professor Ying-Wen Liang, PhD, formerly of the Department of Leisure and Recreation Management, China University of Technology, Hsinchu County, Taiwan, ROC, now at the Graduate Institute of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Jinwen University of Science and Technology, Taipei County, Taiwan, ROC; Professor Chen-Ming Chu, Department of Business Administration, Chung Yuan Christian University, Chung Li City, Taiwan, ROC. Appreciation is due to anonymous reviewers. Please address correspondence cor respondence and reprint requests to: Ying-Wen Ying-Wen Liang, Graduate Institute of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Jinwen University of Science and Technology, 5F-1, No. 72, Section 1, Xing-Long Road, Wen-Shan District, Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC. Phone: +886-2-29316448; Email: sti[email protected]t.nt

646

ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM

The changing nature of work in recent years, including the blurring of boundaries between work and personal life, has increased the need to understand workaholism (Ng, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2007). For example, the pervasion of the Internet is allowing more employees to work outside the traditional office and outside traditional working hours, changes that encourage workaholism. Whilst workaholism has received a great deal of attention in the popular press, theoretical and empirical studies have lagged behind due to the absence of a widely accepted definition of workaholism (Ng et al., 2007). Is workaholism beneficial or harmful to organizations and their members? Some organizations view workaholism positively. If workaholics are dedicated employees who are passionate about and enamored of work (Machlowitz, 1980), then organizational leaders would want to hire, develop and retain them. In contrast, others view workaholism negatively. If workaholics are obsessive, unable to relax, and self-centered, then they might perform poorly and create conflicts with coworkers. This suggests that employers should avoid hiring workaholics or design workplaces that prevent − rather than encourage − workaholism. Moreover, employers should develop an organizational culture that encourages and rewards work-family balance (Lambert, Kass, Piotrowski, & Vodanovich, 2006). The ability to either encourage or prevent workaholism relies on having a full understanding of the antecedents of workaholism. Therefore, one of the most important issues in this area of research is identifying why people become workaholics. Some researchers have investigated the antecedents of workaholism, but two questions remain to be answered clearly. Firstly, although personality has been shown to be a valid predictor that influences behavior in work settings, Mudrack (2004) has completed the only empirical study that tested causal relationships between obsessive-compulsive personality and workaholism. Ng et al. (2007) proposed that achievement-related traits are a primary contributor to workaholism. However, after examining the research of Ng et al., the authors consider the concept of achievement-related traits to be too ambiguous. A unidimensional construct provides only superficial meaning and can produce erroneous results, whereas multidimensional measures might complicate interpretation. Moreover, multidimensional measures provide more information than unidimensional scales and offer more insight into managerial implications. Therefore, in this article personality traits are considered as multidimensional and causal relationships between personality traits and workaholism are proposed. Secondly, the interactions among antecedents of workaholism have seldom been reported. Accordingly, investigating the interaction effect of these antecedents was the other focus of this research.


Definitions

anD

Dimensions

of

647

Workaholism

Workaholism is a complicated and multifaceted phenomenon comprising several subconcepts. The first definition of workaholism in the academic literature was proposed by Spence and Robbins (1992), who claimed that “the common element in discussions of workaholism is that the affected individual is highly committed to work, devoting a good deal of time to it” (p. 161). They suggested that workaholism has three distinctive characteristics: work involvement (WI), which they related to long working hours; drive (D), an addictive drive to work under internal pressure; and a lack of enjoyment when working (WE). Based on an extensive literature review of workaholism, Scott, Moore, and Miceli (1997) described three characteristics of workaholism: spending discretionary time working, thinking about work when not at work, and working beyond the employer and economic requirements. Snir and Zohar (2000) defined workaholism as frequent and considerable allocation of time to workrelated activities and thoughts that is not based on external necessities. Buelens and Poelmans (2004) proposed that workaholism has three basic dimensions: overcommitment to work, compulsive work addiction, and work enjoyment. Ng et al. (2007) proposed a cohesive definition of workaholism reflecting affect, cognition, and behavior. They defined workaholics as those who enjoy the act of working, who are obsessed with working, and who devote long hours and personal time to work . There are two subcomponents that underlie the affective dimension of workaholism: joy in working and guilt and anxiety when not working. The cognitive dimension of workaholism is an obsession with working, and it reflects a strong preoccupation that workaholics cannot suppress and control. Finally, two subcomponents of the behavioral dimension are excessive work hours and mixing work and personal life. In the view of the authors the definition of Ng et al. (2007) has two significant advantages over the definitions provided by other authors that could lead to it becoming a widely accepted definition of workaholism. Firstly, it captures the most critical elements that have been used to characterize workaholism in previous research. Secondly, it is based on research suggesting that addiction involves three overarching dimensions: affect, cognition and behavior. Thus, their definition is used here as the construct of workaholism and deduce its antecedents from the dimensions that underlie workaholism. anteceDents

of

Workaholism

Some antecedents of workaholism have been examined previously, such as personal demographic characteristics (Burke & Matthiesen, 2004; Harpaz & Snir, 2003; Snir & Harpaz, 2004), beliefs and fears (Burke & Koksal, 2002; Burke, Oberklaid, & Burgess, 2004), personality traits (Mudrack, 2004; Ng et al., 2007),

648


that workaholism is largely derived from three sources: dispositional traits (e.g., self-esteem, achievement-related values, Type A personality, obsessivecompulsive personality, and need for achievement), sociocultural experiences (e.g., stressful family life, vicarious learning, and peer competition), and behavioral reinforcements (e.g., rewards and punishments in organizations). These factors are likely to influence collectively whether or not one becomes a workaholic. Some researchers suggest that organizational factors play a role in the development and maintenance of workaholism (Harpaz & Snir, 2003). Organizational factors include work situation characteristics (Burke & Matthiesen, 2004; Harpaz & Snir, 2003), values that support a work-personal life imbalance (Burke, 2001; Burke & Koksal, 2002). Some workplaces within a particular industry have a reputation for employees who work and play hard. There are certain organizational cultures in which long hours and “sacrifices” are widely considered to be required for success and advancement. According to Burke, Burgess, and Oberklaid (2003), both individual characteristics and organizational factors are the wellsprings of workaholism. Based on three perspectives in the literature on addiction, Ng et al. (2007) suggested that people become workaholics because they possess a certain personality, because their social or cultural experiences facilitate workaholism, and/or because their workaholic behaviors are reinforced repeatedly. Table 1 key stuDies examining

or

ProPosing anteceDents

in the

of

Workaholism

last 20 years

Author(s)

Antecedents

Burke (2001)

Orgniztion vus: encouraging workpersonal life balance ( ***); supporting workpersonal life imbalance ( ***).

Burke and Koksal (2002)

1. Orgniztion vus: encouraging workpersonal life balance ( ***); supporting workpersonal life imbalance ( **). 2. bifs nd frs: competing with others, lacking principles, prove yourself ( **).

Harpaz and Snir (2003)

1. Dmogrphic vris: gender ( ***); marriage (**). 2. Sitution vris: occupation type ( *): employment sector ( **). 3. attitudin vris: work centrality ( ***); economic orientation ( **).

Burke and Matthiesen (2004)

1. Prson chrctristics: gender ( *). 2. Work sitution chrctristics: income ( *).


649

Table 1 continued Author(s)

Antecedents

Burke, Oberklaid, and Burgess (2004)

1. Work sitution chrctristics: organizational level ( *); income ( *). 2. bifs nd frs: striving against others; lacking principles; prove yourself ( **).

Mudrack (2004)

Jo invovmnt nd osssiv-compusiv prsonity trits: job involvement x obstinacy (+); job involvement x superego (+).

Snir and Harpaz (2004)

1. attitudin ntcdnts: occupational satisfaction (+); defining an activity as work “if you do it at a certain time” (-); family centrality (-); leisure centrality (-). 2. Dmogrphic ntcdnts: employment type (*); religiosity (-).

Johnstone and Johnston (2005)

1. antcdnts of driv: work pressure (+). 2. antcdnts of work njoymnt: work pressure (-); work involvement (+); coworker cohesion (+); supervisor support (+).

Ng, Sorensen, and Feldman (2007)

1. Disposition trits: self-esteem (-); achievement-related traits (+); achievementrelated values (+). 2. Sociocutur xprincs: stressful family or dysfunctional childhood/family experiences (+); vicarious learning at home (+); vicarious learning at work (+); peer competition at work (+); self-efficacy in work greater than in nonwork activities (+). 3. bhvior rinforcmnts: tangible and intangible rewards (+); winner-takes-all system (+); organizational emphasis on input rather than output (+); organizational environment (+).

Notes: 1. *** (significant, p < 0.001); ** (significant, p < 0.01); * (significant, p < 0.05). 2. All studies were empirical except that by Ng et al. (2007). 3. + denotes a positive correlation; - denotes a negative correlation.

Table 1 outlines the key studies that have examined or proposed antecedents of workaholism. Integrating the factors of individuals and organizations and ignoring cultural differences, in this paper three major antecedents of workaholism are proposed: personality traits, personal inducements, and organizational inducements. The framework is depicted in Figure 1. Firstly, personality traits refer to cognitive and behavioral patterns that are stable over

650


time and across situations (Cattell, 1965) and which are the core elements driving individuals towards workaholism; workaholics would not exist without them. For instance, workers possessing achievement-oriented traits have a positive orientation toward their work that helps to enhance their work enjoyment and increase their working hours, thereby leading to more workaholism. Secondly, the force that draws an individual toward becoming a workaholic is personal inducements; the personal and family-related factors influencing the desire of an individual to work. Personal inducements are catalyzing elements that help mold workaholics. For example, responsible workers have a greater desire to perform well in their work, which can cause them to become obsessed by work and to allow their work to interfere with their personal life, leading to workaholism. Finally, organizational inducements are the drivers that push an individual on and help accelerate workaholism; organizational environments that encourage or force employees to work hard. For example, organizations promoting work as prioritized before having a family will urge their employees to work for excessive hours and feel driven to work, which leads to more workaholism.

Personality traits

Core element

Workaholism

Pushing driver

Pulling force

Personal inducements

Organizational inducements

Figur 1: Antecedents of workaholism.

ProPositions Personality traits

anD

Workaholism

People exhibit long-term dispositional traits that influence their affect,


651

has been shown to be a valid predictor of work involvement (Elloy & Terpening, 1992), total hours worked (Bozionelos, 2004) and work-related outcomes (Love & DeArmond, 2007). Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, and de Chermont (2003) found that a positive personality disposition increases the extent to which employees are committed to their organization. Erdheim, Wang, and Zickar (2006) suggested including organizational commitment as a construct related to personality. It is generally accepted that organizational commitment is positively correlated with being obsessed about working and excessive intrusion of work into personal life. Since personality traits can play a major role in generating addictions (Eysenck, 1997), greater dominance of certain traits promote addiction and can make people become workaholics (Ng et al., 2007; Scott et al., 1997). Accordingly, we made the following proposition: P1: Personality traits significantly influence workaholism. Ng et al. (2007) proposed that achievement-related traits (e.g., Type A personality, obsessive-compulsive personality, and need for achievement) can predispose individuals to become more addicted to working. Characteristics such as obsessive-compulsive personality, achievement-oriented traits and perfectionism are generally cited in this context, but the argument in the present study is that conscientiousness should also be considered since the Big Five personality traits are acknowledged in organizational behavior research as being important. Obsessive-compulsive personality is characterized by a “preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and mental and interpersonal control, at the expense of flexibility, openness and efficiency” (American Psychiatric Association, 1994, p. 669). Many authors have proposed that workaholics are mentally engaged in, or obsessed with, work even when they are not working (Machlowitz, 1980; Scott et al., 1997). They recognize that work is excessive but are unable to reduce or control it. A high number of hours per week of job involvement coupled with high scores on a measure of obsessive-compulsive personality traits might produce individuals who are workaholics (Mudrack, 2004). Accordingly, the following proposition was established: P1a: Greater obsessive-compulsion leads to a greater degree of workaholism. Achievement-oriented traits represent the intersection of the defining features of desire for upward mobility, achievement motivation and type A personality (Scott et al., 1997). These traits can promote workaholism because working long hours is likely be considered the most reliable means of achieving important work goals (Ng et al., 2007). For instance, type A personality is characterized by ambition, impatience and hostility (Edwards & Baglioni, 1991), and has actually been linked directly to workaholism (Ersoy-Kart, 2005). Achievement-oriented workers spend a great deal of discretionary time on work activities, constantly

652


Accordingly, the following proposition was made: P1b: Greater achievement-orientation leads to a greater degree of workaholism. Perfectionism is “an extreme or excessive striving for perfection, as in one’s work” (Merriam-Webster, 1988, p. 873). According to Scott et al. (1997), for perfectionists, “work and productivity are prized to the exclusion of leisure activities and friends” (American Psychiatric Association, 1994, p. 669). This characteristic is positively correlated with workaholism (Spence & Robbins, 1992) and can be ascribed to workaholics in general. Slaney and Johnson (1992) indicated that perfectionists have high personal standards and are orderly. Perfectionists are usually dependable and reliable, and they can be counted on to maintain exceptionally high standards for all work. They follow instructions, require little supervision, and their behavior is predictable. People who have certain personality traits – such as being rigid and perfectionistic or born achievers – are more likely to become workaholics (Goodman, 2006). Accordingly, the following proposition was made: P1c: Greater perfectionism will lead to a greater degree of workaholism. The Big Five or five-factor model of personality represents a taxonomy that efficiently and comprehensively describes human personality; there is strong empirical evidence of its validity (O’Connor, 2002). The Big Five model consists of the following traits: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness. Because of its wide acceptance and proved validity, the Big Five model has been utilized extensively in organizational and other areas of applied research. Conscientiousness represents the responsibility facet of personality traits and is associated with industriousness, perseverance, and sense of duty (Bozionelos, 2004). Highly conscientious individuals are (positively) regarded by others as orderly, responsible, and dependable. They avoid trouble and achieve high levels of success through purposeful planning and persistence. Meta-analyses suggest that conscientiousness is the most potent and consistent correlate of job performance across all job types (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Bozionelos, 2004). Fogarty et al. (1999) found that conscientiousness was positively correlated with job satisfaction. Accordingly, the following proposition was made: P1d: Greater conscientiousness leads to a greater degree of workaholism. Personal inDucements

anD

Workaholism

Values are neither situation specific nor function specific; rather, they reflect general, abstract notions alluding to thought and action, and act as guiding principles in one’s life (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). Work values are evaluative standards relating to work or the work environment that individuals use to discern what is right, or assess the importance of preferences. It has become


653

of their employees, since they influence work commitment and effectiveness, achievement and creativity (Ali & Al-Kazemi, 2005), motivation and performance (Hoy & Miskel, 1991), and job satisfaction (Brown, 2002). Intrinsic work values reflect the desire to use initiative in and to gain responsibility, challenge and interest from a job, while extrinsic work values identify more material priorities, notably generous holidays and desirable working hours and pay. Job satisfaction is a function of the perceived intrinsic values offered in the work situation (Martin & Goodell, 1991), and intrinsic values concerning work are connected to commitment (Putti, Aryee, & Liang, 1989). Those with a greater degree of adherence to intrinsic work values should be more likely to become workaholics, because this reflects a desire to be achievement-oriented, ambitious, and influential. Another product of social and cultural experiences is vicarious learning at home. This involves the observation of the addictive behaviors of others, one of the products of which may be to induce workaholism. Therefore, having family members (e.g., parents, spouses or siblings) who are workaholics could predispose an individual to becoming a workaholic. According to Ng et al. (2007), if individuals see that other members in the family work excessively, they might have a tendency to treat their own work in the same way because they are influenced by those important models. The above two factors stem from the sociocultural experiences related to interactions during childhood, adolescence and adulthood. They are personal inducements that drive workers to become workaholics. Accordingly, the following propositions were established: P2: Personal inducements significantly influence workaholism. P2a: A greater degree of adherence to intrinsic work values leads to a greater degree of workaholism. P2b: The greater the amount of vicarious learning in the family the greater the degree of workaholism. organizational inDucements

anD

Workaholism

Organizations often encourage workaholic behaviors in order to improve the performance of employees. Workaholic behaviors are often reinforced at work (e.g., positive performance evaluations) and in the individual’s personal life (e.g., high income) (Piotrowski & Vodanovich, 2006). Staff members who work long hours are perceived to be dedicated and committed, and capable of competing with peers for rewards, recognition, and career-development opportunities. According to Burke (2001), “Organizational downsizings and restructurings have created more work for fewer staff, as well as the crisis conditions conducive to workaholism. As organizations strive to become more entrepreneurial, support

654


(p. 639). Burke (2001) and Burke and Koksal (2002) examined the relationship between workaholism and perceived organizational values that promote an imbalance between work and personal life. The results showed that organizational values that are positive with regard to workaholism are significantly higher than those of nonworkaholism. Social and cultural experiences occur both within the family and in the workplace. Sociocultural experiences in organizations can also induce workaholism. Competition from peers can evoke workaholic behavior in others due to the competitive atmosphere that widespread workaholism creates (Ng et al., 2007). According to Ng et al., “in such a competitive, arrive early, leave late environment, employees’ work hours escalate even further simply so that employees can be noticed” (p. 125). Likewise, vicarious learning at the workplace can also induce workaholism. That is, “observing the workaholic behaviors of supervisors, mentors or other role models – such as excessive work hours and neglect of personal life – can induce imitative responses from other employees” (Ng et al., 2007, p. 125). These three factors are organizational inducements that drive workers to become workaholics. Accordingly, the following propositions were made: P3: Organizational inducements significantly influence workaholism. P3a: More, and more active encouragement of work prior to family leads to a greater degree of workaholism. P3b: A greater degree of peer competition leads to a greater degree of workaholism. P3c: A greater degree of vicarious learning at the workplace leads to a greater degree of workaholism. moDerating effects

A moderator is a variable that affects the direction and/or strength of the relationship between an independent or predictor variable and a dependent or criterion variable. The moderator function of a third variable divides a particular independent variable into subgroups that establish its domains of maximal effectiveness on a given dependent variable. Moderators and predictors operate at the same level as causal variables that are antecedent or exogenous to certain criterion effects. When an individual possesses workaholic traits and has more personal inducements, the interaction of workaholic traits and personal inducements will increase the degree of workaholism. When individuals receive more personal inducements from their families or workplaces, they become more competitive and their workaholic traits are aroused more easily. Thus, compared to employees with the same workaholic traits, those who have more personal inducements could have more workaholic traits, which will lead to a greater


655

are less likely to exhibit a high degree of workaholism, even if they have more workaholic traits. This is because an individual’s workaholism is conditioned not only by his/her workaholic traits, but also by the social context in which that person interacts. Likewise, two dimensions of personal inducements also play moderating roles between workaholic traits and workaholism. Accordingly, the following propositions were established: P4: The positive relationship between workaholic personality traits and workaholism is stronger when there are more personal inducements. P4a: The positive relationship between workaholic personality traits and workaholism is stronger when there is greater adherence to intrinsic work values. P4b: The positive relationship between workaholic personality traits and workaholism is stronger when there is more vicarious learning in the family.

Prson inducmnts Intrinsic work values Vicarious learning in the family

P2

P2a, P2b

Workhoism P4

P4a, P4b

affct (Joy in working) (Guilt and anxiety when not working)

Prsonity trits Obsessive compulsion Achievement orientation Perfectionism Conscientiousness

P5

P1 P1a, P1b, P1c, P1d

P5a, P5b, P5c

Cognition (Obsession with working) bhvior (Excessive work hours) (Mixing work and personal life)

Orgniztion inducmnts Encourage putting work before family Peer competition Vicarious learning at the workplace

Figur 2: Framework of propositions.

P3

P3a, P3b, P3c

656


Organizational inducements also exert a moderating effect on the relationship between workaholic traits and workaholism. The argument about personal inducements mentioned above also applies to the work context. That is, compared to employees with a similar degree of workaholic traits, those who are subjected to more organizational inducements might develop more workaholic traits, which would lead to a greater degree of workaholism. Likewise, three dimensions of organizational inducements also moderate the relationship between workaholic traits and workaholism. Accordingly, the following propositions were made: P5: The positive relationship between workaholic personality traits and workaholism is stronger when there are more organizational inducements. P5a: The positive relationship between workaholic personality traits and workaholism is stronger when there is a higher level of encouraging to work prior to family. P5b: The positive relationship between workaholic personality traits and workaholism is stronger when there is a higher level of peer competition. P5c: The positive relationship between workaholic personality traits and workaholism is stronger when there is a higher level of vicarious learning at workplace. In summary, neglecting macrolevel factors such as cultural differences and economic conditions, in this article it has been suggested that workaholism is derived from three factors: personality traits, personal inducements, and organizational inducements. Furthermore, both personal inducements and organizational inducements exert moderating effects on the relationships between workaholic traits and workaholism. The proposition framework is depicted in Figure 2. discussion

It has been proposed in this article that the following three antecedents lead to workaholism: personality traits, personal inducements, and organizational inducements. As Scott et al. (1997) stated “…such patterns may be more characteristic of the person than of the situation” (p. 308). It is reasonable to expect that dispositional traits influence an individual’s cognitive and behavioral patterns in a work setting. The first novel contribution in this article is the identification and detailed description of the relationships among personality traits and workaholism. The second novel contribution is to propose the interaction effects among antecedents of workaholism. Obsessive compulsion, achievement orientation, perfectionism, and conscientiousness are key personality traits that encourage individuals to work, enhancing the level of working enjoyment, and even mixing work and personal life, hence leading to workaholism. Personality


657

traits are typically relative stable and enduring, whereas intrinsic work values result from a long-term contextual cultivation of education in family, school and society. It is the view of the authors that the personality of the individual and the environmental conditions collectively determine workaholic behavior. Some organizational environments induce and sustain workaholism (Harpaz & Snir, 2003). For example, employees in an organization with a masculine culture will perform their jobs in a masculine fashion, being competitive, power-hungry, taskoriented and fearful of failure (Ng et al., 2007). In such cultures there is a greater frequency and prevalence of the attitude of encouraging work prior to family and peer competition, and the employees might experience fewer constraints on excessive work habits, because striving for better performance is the norm. Therefore, organizational inducements are behavioral reinforcements of workaholism. According to Attraction-Selection-Attrition (ASA) theory, different types of organizations attract, select and retain different types of people. “Over time, the process of self-selection, employer recruitment-selection, socialization, and reward system would seem to build toward a situation in which workaholics can play out their tendencies more easily in some organizations than in others” (Snir & Harpaz, 2004, p. 522). Individuals who have worked in organizations with workaholic environments or workaholic managers can learn workaholic behaviors and continue to exhibit them after leaving the organization. The correct alignment of personal and organizational values is vital to harmony. A good P-E (person-environment) fit is broadly defined as the compatibility between an individual and a work environment that occurs when their characteristics are well matched. Some individuals choose to work for organizations that exhibit similar traits and values: “easy-going individuals prefer to work in a more relaxed workplace, while individuals preferring the experience of an overwhelming amount of work select more demanding work places” (Burke, 2001, p. 642). The ASA model also suggests that both attraction and selection will help screen out people who do not have a good P-E fit. Extending the concept of P-E fit, a better fit of the work values between individuals and organizations is likely to induce stronger behavior patterns of workaholism. This reasoning supports the assumptions that values crucially affect the person-culture fit. future research

Future researchers should collect data to test the model proposed here. In this section, several issues are discussed, including possible methodologies and the challenges of exploring these propositions.

658


methoDological means

of

testing ProPositions

To test the propositions in this article, the first step is to develop a scale that is based on the definition of workaholism as proposed by Ng et al. (2007). The next step is to collect data and perform statistical analyses. To avoid the homogeneity problem, samples should be collected from several industries. The means, standard deviations and correlations among studied variables should be calculated, and the presence of multicollinearity among three independent variables should be checked. Before testing a causality model, a confirmatory factor analysis should be conducted to determine measurement reliability and validity. Finally, either hierarchical regression equations or structural equation modeling could be used to test the causal relationships of the proposed model. challenges

of

testing ProPositions

A key measurement challenge with a multidimensional definition of workaholism is determining the interrelationships among the three dimensions. There is some empirical evidence that these three dimensions of workaholism are positively correlated. For instance, joy in work (affect) was found to be significantly and positively related to internal drive and work (cognition) (Kanai, Wakabayashi, & Fling, 1996), and working excessive hours was found to be positively related to work (behavior) (Burke & Koksal, 2002). In practice, those who enjoy working (affect) are likely to dedicate excessive hours to work (behavior) because working provides them with enjoyment. Similarly, those who have an obsession with working (cognition) would also feel guilty about not working (affect). Accordingly, it can be expected that workaholics would have very high scores on certain dimensions but very low scores on others. There is consensus among researchers that common method variance is a potential problem in psychological and behavioral research. Future work could control for this by using a single-common-method-factor approach as has been frequently reported in the literature. Applying this method would allow researchers to separate the measurement of predictor and criterion variables to guarantee response anonymity. To test the model proposed in this article, workaholism should be measured based on the assessment of target respondents, but should include the responses of their peers for the antecedents of personality traits, encouraging putting work before family commitments and peer competition. This methodology can avoid common method bias. references Ali, A. J., & Al-Kazemi, A. (2005). The Kuwaiti manager: Work values and orientations. Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 63-73. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders


659

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26. Bozionelos, N. (2004). The Big Five of personality and work involvement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(1/2), 69-81. Brown, D. (2002). The role of work and cultural values in occupational choice, satisfaction, and success: A theoretical statement. Journal of Counseling and Development , 80, 48-55. Buelens, M., & Poelmans, S. A. Y. (2004). Enriching the Spence and Robbins’ typology of workaholism: Demographic, motivational and organizational correlates. Journal of Organizational Change Management , 17(5), 440-458. Burke, R. J. (2001). Workaholism in organizations: The role of organizational values. Personnel Review, 30(6), 637-645. Burke, R. J., Burgess, Z., & Oberklaid, F. (2003). Predictors of workaholic behaviors among Australian psychologists. Career Development International, 8(6), 301-308. Burke, R. J., & Koksal, H. (2002). Workaholism among a sample of Turkish managers and professionals: An exploratory study. Psychological Reports, 91, 60-68. Burke, R. J., & Matthiesen, S. (2004). Workaholism among Norwegian journalists: Antecedents and consequences. Stress and Health, 20, 301-308. Burke, R. J., Oberklaid, F., & Burgess, Z. (2004). Workaholism among Australian women psychologists: Antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Management , 21(3), 263-277. Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Baltimore, MD: Penguin. Edwards, J. R., & Baglioni, A. J. (1991). Relationship between Type A behavior pattern and mental and physical symptoms: A comparison of global and component measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 276-290. Elloy, D. F., & Terpening, W. D. (1992). An empirical distinction between job involvement and work involvement: Some additional evidence. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 24, 465-478. Erdheim, J., Wang, M., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). Linking the Big Five personality constructs to organizational commitment. Personality and Individual Differences, 41(5), 959-970. Ersoy-Kart, M. (2005). Reliability and validity of the Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT): Turkish form. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 33(6), 609-618. Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Addiction, personality, and motivation. Human Psychopharmacology, 12, 79-87. Fogarty, G. J., Machin M. A., Albion M. J., Sutherland L. F., Lalor G. I., & Revvit, S. (1999). Predicting occupational strain and job satisfaction: The role of stress, coping, personality, and affectivity variables. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 54(3), 429-452. Goodman, B. (2006). A field guide to the workaholic. Psychology Today, 39(3), 40-41. Harpaz, I., & Snir, R. (2003). Workaholism: Its definition and nature. Human Relations, 56(3), 291319. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. J. (1991). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. New York: McGraw Hill. Johnstone, A., & Johnston, L. (2005). The relationship between organizational climate, occupational type and workaholism. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34, 181-188. Kanai, A., Wakabayashi, M., & Fling, S. (1996). Workaholism among employees in Japanese corporations: An examination based on the Japanese version of the Workaholism Scales. Japanese Psychological Research, 38(4), 192-203. Lambert, C. H., 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), 64-75.

660


Love, K. G., & DeArmond, S. (2007). The validity of assessment center ratings and 16PF personality trait scores in police sergeant promotions: A case of incremental validity. Public Personnel Management , 36(1), 21-32. Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholics: Living with them, working with them. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Martin, C. L., & Goodell, P. W. (1991). Historical, descriptive and strategic perspective on the construct of product commitment. European Journal of Marketing, 17(5), 53-60. Merriam-Webster’s ninth new collegiate dictionary. (1988). Springfield, MA: G & C MerriamWebster. Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1998). Five reasons why the “Big Five” article has been frequently cited. Personnel Psychology, 51(4), 849-857. Mudrack, P. E. (2004). Job involvement, obsessive-compulsive personality traits, and workaholic behavioral tendencies. Journal of Organizational Change Management , 17(5), 490-508. Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2007). Dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of workaholism: A conceptual integration and extension. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 28(1), 111-136. O’Connor, B. P. (2002). A quantitative review of the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model in relation to popular personality inventories. Assessment , 9, 188-203. Piotrowski, C., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2006). The interface between workaholism and work-family conflict: A review and conceptual framework. Organization Development Journal, 24(4), 84-92. Putti, J. M., Aryee, S., & Liang, T. K. (1989). Work values and organizational commitment: A study in the Asian context. Human Relations, 42(3), 275-288. Schwartz, S., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550-562. Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences of workaholism. Human Relations, 50(3), 287-314. Slaney, R. B., & Johnson, D. P. (1992). The almost perfect scale. Unpublished manuscript, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment , 58(1), 160-178. Snir, R., & Harpaz, I. (2004). Attitudinal and demographic antecedents of workaholism. Journal of Organizational Change Management , 17(5), 520-536. Snir, R., & Zohar, D. (2000). Workaholism: Work-addiction or workphilia? Paper presented at the International Conference on Psychology - Psychology after the year 2000, University of Haifa, Israel. Thoresen, C. J. W., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 914-945.

Personality Traits and Workaholism

Recommend Documents