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 and reprint requests to: 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:
stliang@ms4.hinet.net

645
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.
 ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM 647
Definitions and Dimensions of 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 work-
related 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),
and attitudinal antecedents (Harpaz & Snir; Snir & Harpaz). Ng et al. suggest
648 ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM

that workaholism is largely derived from three sources: dispositional traits

(e.g., self-esteem, achievement-related values, Type A personality, obsessive-
compulsive 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 of Workaholism
in the Last 20 Years

Author(s) Antecedents

Burke (2001) Organizational values: encouraging work-

personal life balance (***); supporting work-
personal life imbalance (***).

Burke and Koksal (2002) 1. Organizational values: encouraging work-

personal life balance (***); supporting work-
personal life imbalance (**).
2. Beliefs and fears: competing with others,
lacking principles, prove yourself (**).

Harpaz and Snir (2003) 1. Demographic variables: gender (***);

marriage (**).
2. Situational variables: occupation type (*):
employment sector (**).
3. Attitudinal variables: work centrality (***);
economic orientation (**).
Burke and Matthiesen (2004) 1. Personal characteristics: gender (*).
2. Work situation characteristics: income (*).
 ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM 649
Table 1 continued

Author(s) Antecedents

Burke, Oberklaid, and Burgess (2004) 1. Work situation characteristics:

organizational level (*); income (*).
2. Beliefs and fears: striving against others;
lacking principles; prove yourself (**).

Mudrack (2004) Job involvement and obsessive-compulsive

personality traits: job involvement x
obstinacy (+); job involvement x superego (+).

Snir and Harpaz (2004) 1. Attitudinal antecedents: occupational

satisfaction (+); defining an activity as work
“if you do it at a certain time” (-); family
centrality (-); leisure centrality (-).
2. Demographic antecedents: employment
type (*); religiosity (-).

Johnstone and Johnston (2005) 1. Antecedents of drive: work pressure (+).

2. Antecedents of work enjoyment: work
pressure (-); work involvement (+); coworker
cohesion (+); supervisor support (+).

Ng, Sorensen, and Feldman (2007) 1. Dispositional traits: self-esteem (-);

achievement-related traits (+); achievement-
related values (+).
2. Sociocultural experiences: 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 non-
work activities (+).
3. Behavioral reinforcements: 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 ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM

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

Organizational Personal
inducements inducements

Figure 1: Antecedents of workaholism.

Propositions

Personality Traits and Workaholism

People exhibit long-term dispositional traits that influence their affect,
cognition and behavior in work settings (Mount & Barrick, 1998). Personality
 ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM 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
think about work, and work beyond employer and economic requirements.
652 ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM

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
imperative for organizations to have a thorough understanding of the work values
 ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM 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
for workaholism is fostered. Organizations rarely discourage such behaviors…”
654 ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM

(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
degree of workaholism. Conversely, those with fewer personal inducements
 ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM 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.

Personal inducements

Intrinsic work values

Vicarious learning in the
family
P2 P2a, P2b

Workaholism
P4 P4a, P4b
Affect
(Joy in working)
(Guilt and anxiety when not
Personality traits
working)
Obsessive compulsion P1 Cognition
Achievement orientation P1a, P1b, P1c, P1d (Obsession with working)
Perfectionism
Conscientiousness
Behavior
(Excessive work hours)
(Mixing work and personal
P5 P5a, P5b, P5c life)

P3 P3a, P3b, P3c

Organizational inducements

Encourage putting work before

family
Peer competition
Vicarious learning at the workplace

Figure 2: Framework of propositions.

656 ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM

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
 ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM 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, task-
oriented 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 charac-
teristics 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 ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM

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
(DSM-IV; 4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
 ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM 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), 291-
319.
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 ANTECEDENTS OF WORKAHOLISM

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: Addison-
Wesley.
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 Merriam-
Webster.
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.