Content uploaded by Damiano Girardi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Damiano Girardi on Jan 14, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
201
WORKAHOLISM
AMONG MANAGEMENT AND WORKERS
IN AN ITALIAN COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE
LUCA KRAVINA
ALESSANDRA FALCO
DAMIANO GIRARDI
NICOLA A. DE CARLO
U
NIVERSITY OF
P
ADOVA
The Workaholism construct — still little explored within Italian organizational contexts — was
analyzed in a cooperative enterprise characterized by the workers’ great participation in the company
governance and profits. The possible combinations (high-low) of the two workaholism dimensions
(Work Excessively and Work Compulsively) confirmed, through cluster analysis, the presence of four
worker profiles: Workaholic, Non-workaholic, Hard Worker, and Compulsive Worker. The relations
between the workers’ different profiles, organizational variables, individual and demographic resources
were also assessed. Generally, workaholics have a more critical profile, compared to the other three
categories, on many of the variables examined, and in particular: workload, POS, organizational con-
flict (work-life, between groups, intra-role, and with superiors), psychological strain, burnout (emo-
tional exhaustion and disaffection), and negative affectivity. As far as organizational citizenship behav-
iors and self-efficacy are concerned, on the contrary, results are less critical.
Key words: Cooperative enterprise; Job stress; Management; Well-being; Workaholism.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to icola A. De Carlo, Dipartimento di Psicologia Appli-
cata, Università di Padova, Via Venezia 8, 35131 Padova (PD), Italy. E-mail: nicola.decarlo@unipd.it
I
NTRODUCTION
The term Workaholism describes the uncontrollable desire to work that characterizes
some people (Oates, 1971). Interest in such construct has progressively grown, as the steady in-
crease in publications devoted to the study of work addiction proves. Though it is not easy to
reach a consensus on its definition, Scott, Moore, and Miceli (1997) highlighted a common
ground between the different definitions and theoretical models of workaholism, identifying three
core traits: 1) the large amount of time devoted to work; 2) the difficulty to disengage from work
and the persistent thinking about it even when engaged in other activities; 3) the commitment
well beyond organizational demands and one’s own financial needs.
As Shimazu and Schaufeli (2009) pointed out, these three features can be traced back to
two components constituting the central nucleus of workaholism: a behavioral dimension
—
ex-
cessive work
—
and a cognitive dimension
—
compulsive work. Accordingly, Schaufeli, Taris,
and Bakker (2008, p .204) defined workaholism as “the tendency to work excessively hard in a
compulsive way.” Schaufeli, Bakker, van der Heijden, and Prins (2009a), moreover, identified
TPM Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010 – 201-216 –
© 2010 Cises
202
TPM Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010
201-216
© 2010 Cises
Kravina, L., Falco, A., Girardi, D.,
& De Carlo, N. A.
Workaholism in a cooperative enterprise
four possible profiles on the basis of the scores achieved on the two dimensions, Work Exces-
sively (WE) and Work Compulsively (WC), only one of which, though, can be properly defined
Workaholic. Comparing the four profiles, Workaholics (high WE, high WC) achieve signifi-
cantly more critical mean scores, on their perceptions, compared to Non-workaholics (low WE,
low WC), Hard Workers (high WE, low WC), and Compulsive Workers (low WE, high WC) on
the dimensions assessing workload, perceived organizational support, and individual disease in
terms of burnout and psychological strain.
The objective of this study was to examine workaholism in an Italian organization, con-
sidering that in our country few scholarly publications are found on such construct and its rela-
tions with organizational well-being/disease, demographic, and personality variables. On some of
these relations, as we will see, agreement exists in the international literature. On others, further
study is needed because the results appear to be contradictory, and on yet others, no empirical
evidence has been found to date. Our study makes a specific contribution on the subject.
Besides, to the best of our knowledge, no international investigations have been con-
ducted on organizations characterized by the workers’ great participation in the governance and
business profits. The present study, hence, also intended to consider how workaholism can be re-
lated to such a variable, that we may define “highly participatory organization,” given that many
of the respondents are partners of the cooperative enterprise in which they work and the others
are strongly involved in it.
Correlates of Workaholism
The previously presented definition described workaholism as a construct characterized
by two factors: excessive work and a strong inner drive to work.
In line with such definition, a positive relation emerged between the number of work
hours and workaholism (Aziz & Zickar, 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2008). Accordingly, the continu-
ous commitment to work as well as constant thinking about it, and the difficulty to relax lead
workaholic individuals to high levels of psychological and physiological strain and, in general, to
problems of individual health, as evidenced by numerous studies (Buelens & Poelmans, 2004;
McMillan, O’Driscoll, & Burke, 2003; Ng, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2007; Schaufeli et al., 2008;
Shimazu & Schaufeli, 2009; Spence & Robbins, 1992; Taris, Schaufeli, & Verhoeven, 2005).
Together with the number of work hours, it is important to also consider other aspects of work
overload such as cognitive, time, and problem-solving demands, greatly felt by workaholics (Ka-
nai & Wakabayashi, 2001; Kanai, Wakabayashi, & Fling, 1996; Schaufeli et al., 2009a). The link
between workload and workaholism could be influenced, in our study, by the presence of a high
number of workers-partners in the organization and by the other employees being particularly in-
volved in it, with the consequent tendency to take on more work engagements, because all the
workers perceive they are working in their own interest.
Another widely-studied relation is that between workaholism and work-life conflict.
Workaholic individuals score higher on conflicts between work and private life (Aziz & Cun-
ningham, 2008; Aziz & Zickar, 2006; Bakker, Demerouti, & Burke, 2009; Bonebright, Clay, &
Ankenmann, 2000; Dewilde, Dewettinck, & De Vos, 2007; Killinger, 1991; Robinson, 1989;
Robinson, Flowers, & Carrol, 2001; Spence & Robbins, 1992; Taris et al., 2005). The workaholic
203
TPM Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010
201-216
© 2010 Cises
Kravina, L., Falco, A., Girardi, D.,
& De Carlo, N. A.
Workaholism in a cooperative enterprise
person works a great number of hours and is driven by internal motivations rather than financial
needs or extrinsic motivations (Spence & Robbins 1992); he/she wastes a great deal of energies
and time at work and is not able to maintain social relations outside the work environment (Ng et
al., 2007).
A typical trait of workaholics’ is also their perfectionism at work, their high standards
of performance, their being unable to delegate their work and to create a sound competitiveness
(Clark, Lelchook, & Taylor, 2010; Kanai & Wakabayashi, 2001; Ng et al., 2007; Porter, 1996,
2001). These traits can also lead workers to establish poorer and conflictual relations with col-
leagues because of the lack of trust in their work group (Porter, 2001). Besides, workaholic
workers experience higher levels of role conflict; in particular, Kanai and Wakabayashi (2001)
found a positive relation between compulsive work and role conflict. Schaufeli, Bakker, van
der Heijden, and Prins (2009b) in a study on a group of medical residents, pointed out that role
conflict mediates the relation between workaholism and job demands, burnout, and well-being
indicators. We are not aware of any studies focusing on the conflict with superiors, which is
addressed in our research.
With reference to the relation between workaholism and burnout, many publications ac-
knowledged a positive relation between the constructs (Andreassen, Ursin, & Eriksen, 2007;
Burke, Richardsen, & Mortinussen, 2004; Schaufeli et al., 2009b; Taris et al., 2005). In particu-
lar, one of the dimensions of burnout, emotional exhaustion, has a stronger positive relation to
workaholism. Schaufeli et al. (2009a) suggested that such relation is compatible with the fact that
working hard and for long hours doesn’t allow the necessary recovery and, consequently, causes
exhaustion of the worker’s mental and physical energies.
Concerning turnover, few studies in the literature demonstrated a relation between
workaholism and intention to leave the organization (Burke, 2001). This author found a negative
relation between these two variables, in line with what Scott et al. (1997) maintained on the low
turnover level in two of the workaholic behavior patterns they identified — perfectionist and
achievement-oriented. In the organization we studied we considered it appropriate to verify turn-
over intentions, that were hypothesized as in general rather low.
As regards the relation between work satisfaction and workaholism, the results in the lit-
erature provide conflicting data deriving from the different theoretical models underlying worka-
holism; some authors highlighted a negative relation between workaholism and work satisfaction
(Aziz & Zickar, 2006), others, such as Machlowitz (1980), reported a positive relation between
workaholism and work satisfaction; others still, like Scott et al. (1997), noticed a positive or
negative relation based on the different behavioral patterns in which workaholics can be divided.
The negative relation between workaholism and work satisfaction can be accounted for through
the compulsive nature of workaholism.
Further, workaholism, seems to have a positive, though weak, relation with organiza-
tional commitment (Burke, 1999; Burke & Koskal, 2002; Burke et al., 2004).
A further variable that needs close examination is organizational citizenship. Schaufeli,
Taris, and Bakker (2006) identified a positive relation between workaholism and this extra-role
behavior, in accord with what was claimed by Scott et al. (1997) according to whom a peculiar
workaholic trait is to exceed organizational demands. Given that the literature has so far consid-
ered only the aspect of extra-role behaviors inherent in the organization in general, without dis-
204
TPM Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010
201-216
© 2010 Cises
Kravina, L., Falco, A., Girardi, D.,
& De Carlo, N. A.
Workaholism in a cooperative enterprise
tinguishing them from help behaviors toward specific people, in our study the theme of altruism
was also explored.
Just like many authors who consider workaholism as a stable individual variable
(McMillan et al., 2003; Robinson, 1998; Spence & Robbins 1992), Ng et al. (2007) hypothesized
that there is a higher chance of displaying workaholic behaviors when one’s perception of self-
efficacy relating to work is higher than that in other fields. Also, Burke and Matthiesen (2004)
found a positive relation between workaholism and negative affectivity. Such relation is ac-
counted for by relating overall negative emotions to the dimensions of cynicism, emotional ex-
haustion, and sense of inadequacy connected to the compulsive dimension (Burke & Matthiesen,
2004). We deemed it fitting to also include some individual variables in the study, because the
relation between workaholism and personal resources, such as negative affectivity, self-efficacy,
and resilience, have not been much investigated. Besides, such variables have been mainly stud-
ied using Spence and Robbins’ model (1992).
Finally, some demographic variables were analyzed to determine their effects on worka-
holism. The results reported in the literature are contradictory or don’t consider the effects of
such variables on the onset of workaholism. For instance, Harpaz and Snir (2003) noticed that
people working in the private sector, and in particular managers, are more prone to workaholic
behaviors. Besides, there seem to be gender differences, with men being more workaholic than
women; some studies, however (for instance, Burke, 1999; Burke et al., 2004), didn’t detect any
significant differences in this respect. Similarly, no significant differences were found in other
variables, among which age (Burke, 2001). In this study, we examined the role of the above-
mentioned demographic variables and also included others, such as being a partner or not in the
organization, and job seniority.
O
BJECTIVES
The present work aimed to test the following hypotheses.
1. To confirm the presence of four different worker profiles, as suggested by Schaufeli
et al. (2009a), considering the possible different combinations of the (high-low) scores on the two
dimensions — Work Excessively and Work Compulsively — that constitute workaholism (Hy-
pothesis 1).
2. To analyze the relation between the different profiles identified by cluster-analyses
and the workers’ demographic variables. In particular, we hypothesized the presence of more fre-
quent workaholic behaviors in partners of the cooperative enterprise, managers, and workers with
greater age and job seniority (Hypothesis 2).
3. To evaluate the relation between the different profiles and the variables correlated to
workaholism. Particularly, we expected that, compared to non-workaholics (or any other group
that might emerge from the previous cluster-analyses), workaholics would show more unfavor-
able scores on workload, job control, as well as different conflict dimensions, POS, psychological
strain and burnout, on negative affectivity and the various work satisfaction components. Con-
versely, less unfavorable scores should emerge on commitment, turnover intentions, organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors, resilience, and self-efficacy (Hypothesis 3).
205
TPM Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010
201-216
© 2010 Cises
Kravina, L., Falco, A., Girardi, D.,
& De Carlo, N. A.
Workaholism in a cooperative enterprise
M
ETHODS
Materials
All the members of the organization ( = 813) were administered the scales of the test for
the assessment of work-related stress risk in the organizational well-being perspective, Q
u
-Bo (De
Carlo, Falco, & Capozza, 2008), an instrument validated in the Italian context, made up of the
following scales, together with the (specifically adapted) DUWAS (Dutch Workaholism Scale;
(Schaufeli et al., 2006).
Antecedents of Organizational Disease/Well-being
Organizational Conflict (Rahim, 2001) was assessed through 24 items and divided into role
conflict (person-role conflict, work-life conflict, intra-role conflict) and organizational conflict
(conflict with superiors and colleagues). Perceived Organizational Support (Eisenberger, Hunting-
ton, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986) was measured through three items. Workload (Karasek et al.,
1998) was measured through 13 items and comprised three dimensions: cognitive load, time pres-
sure, and problem-solving. Job control (Karasek et al., 1998) was measured through six items.
The four above-mentioned constructs were rated on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree; 6 = strongly agree).
Consequences and Effects
Burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 2000) was measured through nine items on a 6-point scale (1
= very rarely; 6 = very frequently) and includes three dimensions: emotional exhaustion, profes-
sional inefficacy, and work disaffection. Psychological Strain (Leiter 1993) was measured
through nine items on a 6-point scale (1 = very rarely; 6 = very frequently) and divided into three
dimensions: emotional instability, disengagement, and leisure. Work Satisfaction (Griffin &
Bateman, 1986) was measured through 15 items on a 6-point scale (1 = very unsatisfied; 6 = very
satisfied) and divided into five dimensions: satisfaction with work, pay, relations, processes, and
growth. Turnover (Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, & Griffeth, 1992) was measured through
two items on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree). Altruism and Compli-
ance (Schnake, 1991) were measured on a 6-point scales (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly
agree). Organizational Commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991) was measured through nine items on
a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree) and divided into three dimensions: af-
fective, normative and continuance commitment.
Individual Resources
Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) was measured through three items. Resilience (Connor &
Davidson, 2003) was measured through four items. egative Affectivity (Fortunato & Stone-
Romero, 1999) was measured through eight items.
206
TPM Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010
201-216
© 2010 Cises
Kravina, L., Falco, A., Girardi, D.,
& De Carlo, N. A.
Workaholism in a cooperative enterprise
A 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree) was used for the three con-
structs.
Workaholism
Finally, for workaholism (Schaufeli et al., 2006), the DUWAS was adopted, adapting the
items to the Italian context, reducing them to 14 and using a 6-point scale as in the Q
u
-Bo (1 =
strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree). The resulting scale is composed of two dimensions: Work
Excessively (eight items) and Work Compulsively (six items).
Because, to the best of our knowledge, no scientific publications exist on the Italian vali-
dation of the DUWAS, the latter was submitted to confirmatory factor analysis, as described be-
low.
The Organizational Context
The present study was conducted on the 733 workers of an Italian cooperative industry,
who answered all the DUWAS items. The participants’ characteristics in terms of demographic
variables (gender, age, position held in the organization, job seniority, type of relation to the
company) are reported in Table 1.
T
ABLE
1
Participants’ characteristics
Valid % Missing
Gender 710 ‒ 23
Women 158 22.3
Men 552 77.7 ‒
Age 708 ‒ 25
Between 20 and 30 years 109 15.4
Between 31 and 45 years 376 53.1
Above 45 years 223 31.5
-
Position held in the organization 710 ‒ 23
Executive 52 7.3
Clerk 309 57.6
Workman 249 35.1
‒
Job seniority 712 ‒ 21
Below 10 years 296 41.6
Between 11 and 20 years 191 26.8
Above 20 years 225 31.6
‒
Relation to the cooperative enterprise 708 ‒ 25
Partner 240 33.9
Non-partner 468 66.1 ‒
207
TPM Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010
201-216
© 2010 Cises
Kravina, L., Falco, A., Girardi, D.,
& De Carlo, N. A.
Workaholism in a cooperative enterprise
R
ESULTS
Predictive Validity of the DUWAS
The evaluation of the metric properties of the scale was done by using confirmatory fac-
tor analysis (LISREL 8; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993).
In order to check the goodness of fit of the model, the following indices — besides χ
2
—
were applied (see Hu & Bentler, 1999):
‒ RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation); values equal or below .08 indicate a
good fit;
‒ CFI (Comparative Fit Index); values equal or greater than .95 indicate a good fit;
‒ SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual); values equal or lower .08 indicate a good
fit.
Indices used did not show a goof fit: χ
2
= 746.76, p < .001; RMSEA = .11; CFI = .90;
SRMR = .09.
We, thus, proceeded to eliminate items 6, 8, 10, and 14, because exploratory factor
analysis, conducted with principal components, suggested that such items pertained to a not
easily definable third factor. The metric properties of the 10-item scale were then assessed once
more.
The analysis of indices proved a good fit to data. Chi-square is significant but it must be
noted that χ
2
value strongly depends on the sample size. Moreover, confirmatory factor analysis
showed a high, but lower than 1 correlation between the Work Excessively and Work Compul-
sively dimensions, Φ
21
= .71, indicating that the two factors are distinct variables. Such results
agree with previous studies on workaholism two-factor structure, as described by the DUWAS,
analyzed in several work settings and countries (del Líbano et al., 2010; Schaufeli et al., 2006).
Loadings of the 10-item scale on the respective factor are shown in Table 2.
T
ABLE
2
10-item scale; WE = Work Excessively; WC = Work Compulsively
Item λ
1
I keep working even when my colleagues have already left. WE .55
2
I am always in a hurry and I feel I am fighting against the clock. WE .69
3
I devote much more time to work than to my friends and spare time activities. WE .70
4
I commit to my work excessively, beyond my abilities. WE .62
5
When working, I set deadlines for myself to keep myself under pressure. WE .38
7
I find myself doing several things at the same time, such as answering the phone
and taking notes during lunch. WE .54
9
Commitment to my work is an obligation for me, even when I don’t like what
I’m doing. WC .47
11
I feel I have an inner drive to work hard: a feeling that I must do it, like it or not. WC .69
12
I feel there is something in me driving me to work hard. WC .73
13
I cannot refrain from always working with great commitment. WC .67
χ
2
= 157.64, p < .001; RMSEA = .072; CFI = .97; SRMR = .044
208
TPM Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010
201-216
© 2010 Cises
Kravina, L., Falco, A., Girardi, D.,
& De Carlo, N. A.
Workaholism in a cooperative enterprise
Identification of Profiles
As previously mentioned, Schaufeli et al. (2009a) identified four different profiles based
on the combination of the scores on the Work Excessively and Work Compulsively dimensions.
To test their presence (Hypothesis 1), hierarchical and non-hierarchical cluster analysis was used.
In the first step, a hierarchical cluster analysis was performed using Ward’s method based
on squared Euclidean distances. The analysis of the dendrogram proved the soundness of the
four-cluster solution. In the second step, non-hierarchical (k-means) cluster analysis was per-
formed; findings are presented in Figure 1 (z scores).
-1.5000
-1.0000
-0.5000
0.0000
0.5000
1.0000
1.5000
Scores WE Scores WC
Means
F
IGURE
1
Representation of the four clusters, z scores.
These group differences are confirmed by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) with cluster
membership as independent variable. The ANOVA reveals a highly significant difference be-
tween clusters in levels of both Work Excessively and Work Compulsively. Each cluster differed
(p < .001), compared to the other three, on each of the two dependent variables: this finding con-
firmed the presence of four different profiles resulting from the high-low combinations of Work
Excessively and Work Compulsively dimensions.
In line with the labels originally assigned by Schaufeli et al. (2009a), and supported by
data we obtained, we can define the four individualized clusters as follows, thus confirming Hy-
pothesis 1.
on-workaholic: combination of low-low scores in the WE and WC dimensions, repre-
sented by the first cluster in Figure 1. Participants that can be defined non-workaholics are 158,
that is, 21.6% of the sample.
209
TPM Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010
201-216
© 2010 Cises
Kravina, L., Falco, A., Girardi, D.,
& De Carlo, N. A.
Workaholism in a cooperative enterprise
Workaholic: combination of high-high scores in the WE and WC dimensions, repre-
sented by the second cluster in Figure 1. Participants that can be labeled workaholics are 166,
corresponding to 22.6% of the sample.
Hard Worker: combination of high-low scores in the WE and WC dimensions, repre-
sented by the third cluster in Figure 1. Participants that can be defined Hard Workers are 25.1,
which equals 34.2% of the sample.
Compulsive Worker: combination of low-high scores in the WE and WC dimen-
sions, respectively, represented by the fourth cluster in Figure 1. Participants that can be
labeled Compulsive Workers are 158, that is, 21.6% of the sample.
Effects of Demographic Variables and Composition of the Four Profiles
Table 3 presents the composition of the four profiles according to the demographic fea-
tures: gender, age (between 20 and 30 years, between 31 and 45 years, above 45 years), position
held in the organization (executive/manager, clerk, workman), job seniority (below 10 years, be-
tween 11 and 20 years, above 20 years) and type of relation with the cooperative enterprise (part-
ner or non-partner). To find differences on such variables, the contingency tables and chi-square
were analyzed. Results of Table 3 show a significant difference on the “Role held in the organi-
zation” variable (p < .001): 42.3% of the 52 executives of the organization (n = 22) fall within the
workaholic profile, and 40.4% (n = 21) in the hard worker profile. The age variable was statisti-
cally significant as well (p < .03), with a slight prevalence of younger people in the compulsive
worker category. Therefore, in contrast with our hypothesis, being partner of the organization,
age, job seniority, and gender don’t favor workaholic behaviors. Hypothesis 2 was only partially
verified.
Differences between Groups
In order to test the presence of differences between groups, the analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted using membership in the four previously identified clusters as inde-
pendent variable and the different indicators of organizational well-being/disease, as well as of
some individual resources, as dependent variables. Table 4 presents means, comparisons between
groups, F-values, and η
2
of the variables with at least one significant difference between the four
profiles. For a more analytical interpretation, see the discussion section.
Workaholics presented more critical scores than the other three groups on many of the
variables examined. The workload (time pressure and problem-solving), work-life conflict,
some dimensions of psychological strain (emotional instability and leisure) and emotional ex-
haustion variables showed higher η
2
values (η
2
> .10). Besides, though having lower η
2
values
(η
2
< .10), workaholics displayed higher levels of intra-role conflict than the other three profiles,
of conflict between groups compared to non-workaholics, and of conflict with superiors com-
pared to non-workaholics and compulsive workers. Conversely, they showed higher levels of
job control in comparison to the other profiles. Also, workaholic individuals obtained higher
210
TPM Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010
201-216
© 2010 Cises
Kravina, L., Falco, A., Girardi, D.,
& De Carlo, N. A.
Workaholism in a cooperative enterprise
T
ABLE
3
Chi-square, number, and percentage for the four profiles divided by demographic variables
Total Non-
workaholic Workaholic Hard
Worker
Compulsive
Worker χ
2
% % % % % p
Gender 710 100 155 100 158 100 243 100 154 100
Female 158 22.3 29 18.7 35 22.2 54 22.2 40 26.0 = .501
Male 552 77.7 126 81.3 123 77.8 189 77.8 114 74.0
Age 708 100 155 100 158 100 241 100 154 100
Between 20
and 30 years 109 15.4 21 13.5 18 11.4 35 14.5 35 22.7 < .03
Between 31
and 45 years 376 53.1 84 54.2 91 57.6 118 49.0 83 53.9
Above 45 years 223 31.5 50 32.3 49 31.0 88 36.5 36 23.4
Position held 710 100 154 100 161 100 242 100 153 100
Executive/
Manager 52 7.3 3 1.9 22 13.7 21 8.7 6 3.9 < .001
Clerk 409 57.6 70 45.5 102 63.4 146 60.3 91 59.5
Workman 249 35.1 81 52.6 37 23.0 75 31.0 56 36.6
Job seniority 712 100 155 100 161 100 241 100 155 100
Below 10 years 296 41.6 55 35.5 70 43.5 96 39.8 75 48.4 = .114
Between 11
and 20 years 191 26.8 42 27.1 43 26.7 62 25.7 44 28.4
Above 20 years 225 31.6 58 37.4 48 29.8 83 34.4 36 23.2
Relation to the
cooperative
enterprise
708 100 152 100 160 100 240 100 156 100
Partner 240 33.9 51 33.6 60 37.5 81 33.7 48 30.8 = .655
Non-partner 468 66.1 101 66.4 100 62.5 159 66.3 108 69.2
scores on organizational citizenship components, with higher levels of compliance than all the
other profiles and of altruism compared to non-workaholics and hard workers. Finally, as for in-
dividual resources, workaholics displayed higher levels of negative affectivity than non-
workaholics as well as higher levels of self-efficacy than both non-workaholics and hard workers.
Non-workaholics, therefore, presented a better configuration in terms of well-being than
the other three profiles. In fact, they had the lowest levels on: two dimensions of workload (tem-
poral pressure and problem-solving) and some dimensions of organizational conflict (work-life,
between groups, and intra-role), especially when compared to hard working and workaholic indi-
viduals. Besides, non-workaholics also presented lower levels than workaholics on conflict with
superiors.
Workaholics and hard workers obtained more critical scores than the other groups on
emotional exhaustion and disengagement (psychological strain); besides, workaholics got more
critical scores than the other three groups on emotional instability (psychological strain); this last
T
ABLE
4
Mean scores for each cluster, as well as F-values, and η
2
Variable Non-workaholic
1
Workaholic
2
Hard Worker
3
Compulsive Worker
4
F-value η
2
Work Excessively 2.38
2,3,4
4.69
1,3,4
3.69
1,2,4
3.11
1,2,3
577.28*** .704
Work Compulsively 2.74
2,3,4
4.99
1,3,4
3.60
1,2,4
4.71
1,2,3
624.02*** .720
POS 3.48
2
3.12
1,4
3.41 3.47
2
3.98** .017
Cognitive Load 4.39
2
4.78
1,3
4.54
2
4.56 7.43*** .030
Time Pressure 3.33
2,3,4
4.66
1,3,4
4.02
1,2
3.79
1,2
54.50*** .186
Problem-solving 3.43
2,3,4
4.53
1,3,4
3.97
1,2
3.90
1,2
30.67*** .116
Job Control 4.10
2,3,4
4.75
1,3,4
4.40
1,2
4.35
1,2
20.39*** .079
Work-life Conflict 2.28
2,3
4.20
1,3,4
3.28
1,4
2.50
2,3
88.55*** .273
Conflict between
Groups 3.45
2,3
3.79
1
3.73
1
3.53 4.60** .021
Intra-role Conflict 2.38
2,3
3.12
1,3,4
2.79
1,2
2.64
2
14.69*** .059
Conflict with
Superiors 2.09
2
2.48
1,4
2.34
4
1.93
2,3
9.37*** .039
Work Satisfaction 4.04
4
4.27 4.12 4.34
1
3.78** .016
Disengagement 2.35
2,3
3.26
1,3,4
2.82
1,2,4
2.51
2,3
27.00*** .100
Emotional Instability 2.16
2,3
3.35
1,3,4
2.72
1,2
2,46
2
39.11*** .139
Leisure 5.05
2,3
4.15
1,3,4
4.60
1,2,4
5.02
2,3
34.29*** .124
Compliance 4.12
2,3
4.75
1,3,4
4.45
1,2
4.33
2
14.27*** .056
Altruism 4.80
2,4
5.10
1,3
4.83
2,4
5.09
1,3
7.19*** .030
Commitment
to Continuity 4.60 4.44
4
4.40
4
4.83
2,3
4.26** .018
Emotional Exhaustion 1.86
2,3
2.71
1,3,4
2.35
1,2,4
1.96
2,3
30.10*** .111
Disaffection 1.56 1.61 1.70
4
1.41
3
4.00** .017
Negative Affectivity 3.60
2,3
3.87
1
3.76
1
3.75 7.66*** .035
Resilience 4.55 4.75
3
4.52
2,4
4.76
3
5.81** .024
Self-efficacy 4.95
2,4
5.45
1,3
5.01
2,4
5.28
1,3
21.42*** .082
ote. Each group is identified in the first line of the table by a number. In the cells, superscripts indicate the groups between which a significant difference (at least p ≤ .05) exists. POS = Per-
ceived Organizational Support.
1
n = 158 (21.6%);
2
n = 166 (22.6%);
3
n = 251 (34.2%);
4
n = 158 (21.6%); **p < .01; ***p < .001.
TPM
Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010
201-2
16
© 2010 Cises
Kravina, L., Falco, A., Girardi, D.,
& De Carlo, N. A.
Workaholism in a cooperative enterprise
211
212
TPM Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010
201-216
© 2010 Cises
Kravina, L., Falco, A., Girardi, D.,
& De Carlo, N. A.
Workaholism in a cooperative enterprise
variable was also critical for hard worker but only compared to the non-workaholic and the
workaholic.
Finally, when comparing hard working and compulsive working participants, more simi-
larities than differences emerged. Among differences, compulsive workers had a lower level of
conflict between work and private life compared to hard working individuals, and higher scores
on the self-efficacy and resilience variables. Finally, it can be noted that hard workers and com-
pulsive workers generally displayed a more negative configuration compared to non-workaholics
and a more positive one compared to workaholics.
Hypothesis 3 was therefore partially supported: workaholics had more unfavorable scores
on workload, POS, conflict (work-life, between groups, intra-role, and with superiors), psycho-
logical strain, burnout (emotional exhaustion and disaffection), and more favorable scores on
self-efficacy and organizational citizenship behaviors.
D
ISCUSSION
The first aim of this investigation was to verify the existence of the four different profiles
highlighted by Schaufeli et al. (2009a) in the workers’ group we studied. Cluster analysis con-
firmed the presence of four profiles: Non-workaholics (low WE, low WC), Workaholics (high
WE, high WC), Hard Workers (high WE, low WC), and Compulsive Workers (low WE, high
WC). Such subdivision was also useful in categorizing the different perceptions of antecedents
and effects of organizational well-being/disease.
The second aim was to analyze the effect of demographic variables. Results showed that
the position held inside the organization is discriminating in terms of being workaholic or not,
and in particular that executives/managers are more prone to work addiction. This result is in line
with what Harpaz and Snir (2003) had already noted: there is a preponderance of workaholics in
professions requiring high levels of responsibility.
Being a partner in the organization (or not) doesn’t seem to influence the onset of work
addiction, even if literature suggests that the self-employed (who, however, cannot be considered
like partners) are in general a category at risk for workaholism. Gender, age, and job seniority are
not predictive of being workaholic or not. As regards gender, results agree with some studies (see
Burke, 1999) and differ from others (among which Harpaz & Snir, 2003).
The third aim was to verify the relation between the different profiles and organizational
variables. In general, in line with the results obtained by Schaufeli et al. (2009a), workaholic
workers have a worse profile than the other three categories on many of the variables examined.
In particular, they have higher mean scores on workload (both cognitive and problem-solving),
work-life conflict, and psychological strain (leisure and emotional instability). Such results agree
with the theoretical background: it is plain that high WE scores correspond to the worker’s ten-
dency to take on a great deal of work, driven by the compulsive dimension of work addiction.
Consequently, it doesn’t surprise that such overload may affect the relation between work and
private life favoring the onset of psychological strain and exhaustion. Such factors may explain
the higher disengagement in workaholics, whose compulsive urge could justify the continual
feelings of inadequacy in their work.
213
TPM Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010
201-216
© 2010 Cises
Kravina, L., Falco, A., Girardi, D.,
& De Carlo, N. A.
Workaholism in a cooperative enterprise
Non-workaholics have the least negative profile of the four. At the same time, hard
workers and compulsive workers show more similar than differing aspects in terms of conse-
quences of organizational well-being/disease: these results confirm, hence, those previously ob-
tained by Schaufeli et al. (2009a). Comparing the results of the two research studies, differences
emerge in some of the variables studied, together with some novelties due to the introduction of
new variables. In our group, workaholics have higher scores on vertical conflict dimensions (con-
flict with superiors) than on horizontal dimensions (conflict with colleagues) as, instead, noted by
Schaufeli et al. (2009a). Such result could be explained also considering the data on the job con-
trol variable (again opposite to Schaufeli et al.’s findings, 2009a) and on perceived organizational
support. Workaholics’ high levels of control, probably deriving from their being workers-
partners, correspond to lower levels of perceived organizational support. This group perceives
high levels of job control, but the emergence of vertical conflicts could generate low levels of
perceived organizational support, because the workers, though partners of the organization, are
bound by directives and hierarchies. Besides, lower scores on perceived organizational support
agree with the declared conflict between work and private life: POS, indeed, refers to perceived
organization support in both work and extra-work settings.
As for work satisfaction, no significant differences emerge between workaholic and non-
workaholic participants. This doesn’t surprise because workaholics’ compulsive tendency to
work excessively engages them in the continuous effort to improve their working performance,
and leaves them no more satisfied than non-workaholics.
The dimensions of organizational commitment are not discriminating between workahol-
ics and non-workaholics, either. Such result can be interpreted in the light of the peculiarity of the
organization, where high levels of participation favor a greater sense of belonging.
With reference to organizational citizenship, workaholics score higher than non-workaholics
in the two dimensions underlying such construct: compliance and altruism. Higher scores on com-
pliance can be accounted for considering that workaholics, in their drive to work excessively,
have the tendency to help the organization, taking on commitments and activities not required by
the organization itself. Besides, such result is in accord with Ng et al.’s (2007) assertion that
companies typically don’t discourage workaholic behaviors, but rather favor them. The explana-
tion of workaholics’ tendency to score higher on altruism, that is on helping behaviors toward
specific people (for instance colleagues and superiors), may appear more complex. A possible
explanation, calling for further examination, is that workaholics perform helping behaviors to-
ward specific people because they are essentially driven by the compulsive tendency to work ex-
cessively. In other words, such altruistic behaviors not being fully intentional are, hence, some-
how egoistic, because induced by the compulsive need to work excessively also taking on other
people’s work.
Finally, as regards individual resources, significant differences emerge between workahol-
ics and non-workaholics in the self-efficacy and negative affectivity variables. On the former,
workaholics score higher than non-workaholics: such difference can be explained by the worka-
holic worker’s trust in his/her abilities to achieve work goals thanks to his/her tendency to work
excessively. Workaholics also score higher on the negative affectivity construct: it could be hy-
pothesized that high scores on both WE and WC dimensions may lead these workers to negative
emotional states because of the evident and sustained investment of energies and resources, as well
as of the compulsive drive provoking a general sense of inadequacy toward their own activity.
214
TPM Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010
201-216
© 2010 Cises
Kravina, L., Falco, A., Girardi, D.,
& De Carlo, N. A.
Workaholism in a cooperative enterprise
Concerning the possible practical fallouts of the present study, it must be remembered
that workaholism is often strengthened and even encouraged by companies, especially within the
management, and this has overall negative effects for the management itself, the workers and, in
the end, for the whole organization. Both in the company at issue, and in business contexts in
general, it would hence be useful to promote a greater awareness on the possible disadvantageous
effects of workaholism. In fact, it may at first seem to increase productivity, but can instead, in
the long run, be particularly detrimental to the person and the organization. In this connection, it
is advisable that companies implement proper and sustainable incentive systems (nevertheless
necessary) on the performance of the management and workers of all grades.
A few limitations of the present study should be acknowledged, as well as its future de-
velopments. Given that the measures used in the present study are self-report type, the relations
observed between the variables could be favoured by the common method variance. In the future,
it would be useful to also use objective indicators, such as, for instance, the number of work
hours, overtime, or workers’ health as certified by the competent physician. Moreover, informa-
tion on the organization colleagues’ and stakeholders’ involvement would be valuable as well.
A further limitation is that all the workers examined belong to the same organization;
therefore further investigations on Italian workaholism in different work areas will be necessary.
At the same time, and this is a new element, the characteristics of the organization considered are
very peculiar, and the percentage of workaholics in it is rather high (22.6%), probably favoured
by such peculiarities. On these grounds as well, a future extension of the investigation to other
organizational contexts is desirable.
R
EFERENCES
Andreassen, C. S., Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2007). The relationship between strong motivation to work,
‘‘workaholism,’’ and health. Psychology & Health, 22, 625-629.
Aziz, S., & Cunningham, J. (2008). Workaholism, work stress, work-life imbalance: Exploring gender’s
role. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 23, 555-566.
Aziz, S., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). A cluster analysis investigation of workaholism as a syndrome. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 52-62.
Bakker, A. B, Demerouti, E., & Burke, R. J. (2009). Workaholism and relationship quality: A spillover-
crossover perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 23-33.
Bandura, A, (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bonebright, C. A., Clay, D. L., & Ankenmann, R. D. (2000). The relationship of workaholism with work-
life conflict, life satisfaction, and purpose in life. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 47, 469-477.
Buelens, M., & Poelmans, S. A. Y. (2004). Enriching the Spence and Robbins’ typology of workaholism.
Demographic, motivational and organizational correlates. Journal of Organizational Change Man-
agement, 17, 440-458.
Burke, R. J. (1999). Workaholism in organizations: Gender differences. Sex Roles, 41, 333-354.
Burke, R. J. (2001). Workaholism in organizations: The role of organizational values. Personnel Review,
30, 637-645.
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 journalist: Antecedents and conse-
quences. Stress and Health, 20, 301-308.
Burke, R. J., Richardsen, A. M., & Mortinussen, M. (2004). Workaholism among Norwegian managers:
Work and well-being outcomes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7, 459-470.
Clark, M. A., Lelchook, A. M., & Taylor, M. L. (2010). Beyond the Big Five: How narcissism, perfection-
ism, and dispositional affect relate to workaholism. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 786-
791.
Connor, K. M., & Davidson, J. R. T. (2003). Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson
Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depression and Anxiety, 18, 76-82.
215
TPM Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010
201-216
© 2010 Cises
Kravina, L., Falco, A., Girardi, D.,
& De Carlo, N. A.
Workaholism in a cooperative enterprise
De Carlo, N. A., Falco, A., & Capozza, D. (2008). Test di valutazione dello stress lavoro-correlato nella
prospettiva del benessere organizzativo, Q
u
-Bo [Test for the assessment of work-related stress risk
in the organizational well-being perpective, Q
u
-Bo]. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
del Líbano, M., Llorens, S., Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W. (2010). Validity of a brief workaholism scale.
Psicothema, 22, 143-150.
Dewilde, T., Dewettinck, K., & De Vos, A. (2007). When work becomes an addiction: An exploration of
individual and organizational antecedents of workaholism and the impact in employee outcomes.
Vlerick Leuven Gent Working Paper Series, 33, 1-22.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.
Fortunato, V. J., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1999). Taking the strain out of negative affectivity: Development
and initial validation of scores on a strain-free measure of negative affectivity. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 59, 77-97.
Griffin, R.W., & Bateman, T. S. (1986). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In C. L. Cooper
& I. Robertoson. (Eds.), International review of industrial and orgnaizational psychology (pp. 157-
188). New York: Wiley.
Harpaz, I., & Snir, R. (2003). Workaholism: Its definition and nature. Human Relations, 56, 291-319.
Hom, P., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussia, G. E., & Griffeth, R. W. (1992). A meta-analytical structural equa-
tions analysis of a model of employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 17, 890-909.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven-
tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command
language. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Kanai, A., & Wakabayashi, M. (2001). Workaholism among Japanese blue-collar employees. International
Journal of Stress Management, 8, 129-145.
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, 192-203.
Karasek, R. A., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998). The Job Con-
tent Questionnaire (JCQ). An instrument for internationally comparative assessments for interna-
tionally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. Journal Occupational Health
Psychology, 3, 322-355.
Killinger, B. (1991). Workaholics: The respectable addicts. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Leiter, M. P. (1993). Burnout as a developmental process: Consideration of models. In W. B. Schaufeli, C.
Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research
(pp. 237-250). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholic: Living with them, working with them. New York: Simon & Shuster.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2000). Burnout e organizzazione [Burnout and organization]. Trento, Italy:
Erickson.
McMillan, L. H. W., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Burke, R. J. (2003). Workaholism: A review of theory, research,
and future directions. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial
and organizational psychology (pp. 167-189). New York: Wiley.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three component conceptualization of organizational commitment.
Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.
Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, N. G., & Feldman, D. C. (2007). Dimensions, antecedents and consequences of
workaholism: A conceptual integration and extension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 111-
136.
Oates, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction. New York: World.
Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching the negative out-
comes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 70-84.
Porter, G. (2001). Workaholic tendencies and the high potential for stress among co-workers. International
Journal of Stress Management, 8, 147-164.
Rahim, M. A. (2001). Managing organizational conflict: Challenges for organization development and
change. In A M. Rahim, R. T. Golembiewski, & K. T. Mackenzie (Eds.), Current Topics in Man-
agement (pp. 356-387). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Science & Technology Books.
Robinson, B. E. (1989). Work addiction. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.
Robinson, B. E., Flowers, C., & Carroll, J. (2001). Work stress and marriage: A theoretical model examin-
ing the relationship between workaholism and marital cohesion. International Journal of Stress
Management, 8, 369-393.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., van der Heijden, F. M. M. A., & Prins, J. T. (2009a). Workaholism among
medical residents: It is the combination of working excessively and compulsively that counts. Inter-
national Journal of Stress Management, 16, 249-272.
216
TPM Vol. 17, No. 4, 2010
201-216
© 2010 Cises
Kravina, L., Falco, A., Girardi, D.,
& De Carlo, N. A.
Workaholism in a cooperative enterprise
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., van der Heijden, F. M. M. A., & Prins, J. T. (2009b). Workaholism, burn-
out and well-being among junior doctors: The mediating role of role conflict. Work & Stress, 23,
155-172.
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Bakker, A. B. (2006). Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide: On the differences be-
tween work engagement and workaholism. In R. Burke (Ed.), Research companion to working time
and work addiction (pp. 193-217). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Bakker, A. B. (2008). It takes two to tango: Workaholism is working ex-
cessively and working compulsively. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The long work hours
culture. Causes, consequences and choices (pp. 203-226). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Schnake, M. E. (1991). Organizational citizenship: A review, proposed model, and research agenda. Hu-
man Relations, 44, 735-759.
Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences of
workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287-314.
Shimazu, A., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Is workaholism good or bad for employee well-being? The
distinctiveness of workaholism and work engagement among Japanese employees. Industrial Health,
47, 495-502.
Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 58,160-178.
Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Verhoeven, L. C. (2005). Internal and external validation of the Dutch
Work Addiction Risk Test: Implications for jobs and non-work conflict. Applied Psychology: An In-
ternational Review, 54, 37-60.
