Suchergebnisse

Purpose– The purpose of this paper is to apply a biopsychosocial model to develop an integrated typology of heavy work investment (HWI) behaviors.Design/methodology/approach– The paper follows an inductive approach to theory building in which we review relevant constructs, categorize those constructs, and outline the relationships among them.Findings– The paper provides a theoretically grounded typology of HWI that distinguishes three general types of HWI (workaholic HWI, situational HWI, and pseudo HWI) and nine corresponding HWI manifestations. It is suggested that various forms of HWI differ in nature according to the joint interplay of varying strengths of biological, psychological, and social influences. The paper also demonstrates how the typology can be applied to predict unique individual and organizational outcomes associated with each HWI sub-type.Research limitations/implications– The paper offers a unified strong foundation for developing HWI measures. It offers a direction for future research that will examine antecedents and outcomes of the nine sub-types. It provokes the examination of the "stability" of each HWI manifestation over time by including a temporal component into the biopsychosocial framework.Practical implications– This research will help practitioners differentiate among HWI manifestations to effectively sustain positive outcomes and proactively evade negative outcomes associated with HWI.Originality/value– To date, various manifestations of HWI and workaholism have been discussed in the literature with little unification across studies. In this paper, the authors respond to the call for a theoretically grounded approach that will provide unifying explanations to why and how HWI manifests.

Purpose
– Although the concept of workaholism has existed in the academic literature for decades, exploration of its measurements seems to lag behind. The purpose of this study is to present an investigation of the three most commonly used workaholism measures; the Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT), the Work Addiction Risk Test (WART) and the Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) in terms of their cross-validation, their temporal stability and their factor structure.


Design/methodology/approach
– The three measures were administered to 661 cross-occupational Norwegian workers. A total of 368 of these completed the same measures 24-30 months later.


Findings
– The cross-validation showed that the correlations between the scores of the different instruments were too low to conclude that they measure the same construct. The 24-30 month test-retest reliability coefficients for the measures revealed that the scores were quite stable over time. None of the previously suggested factor solutions for the three measures had a good fit with the data. Explorative factor analyses supported a four-factor solution for the WorkBAT and for the WART. A two-factor solution for the DUWAS was found.


Research limitations/implications
– All the data are based on self-report, which might bias the results.


Practical implications
– Different workaholism measures cannot be used interchangeably.


Originality/value
– This is the first study that cross-validates the three most used workaholism measures and which investigates the reliability of these instruments over a long-term period (24-30 months).

Purpose– The present research aimed to conceptually position passion for work as a predictor of HWI, as well as to assess the short and long-term influence of passion for work on workers' satisfaction, depression and turnover intentions. In addition, the paper tests whether the effects of passion for work were independent from those of work motivation.Design/methodology/approach– Hypotheses were tested in two field studies in work settings. The first study (n=2,393) was cross-sectional while the second study (n=335) used a prospective design.Findings– Harmonious passion was positively related to positive individual outcomes – higher work satisfaction, lower depression – and organizational outcomes – lower turnover intentions. Negative consequences – depression and turnover intentions – were positively related to obsessive passion. Furthermore, passion for work was found to be a distinct concept from work motivation as the above findings held even when controlling for work motivation.Research limitations/implications– Applications are limited to teachers. Only self-reported measures were used.Originality/value– The present research contributes significantly to the organizational and passion literature by showing that HWI may lead to either positive or negative outcomes depending on HWI's underlying motivational force, namely harmonious or obsessive passion. In addition, the present findings yield the first empirical evidence that passion and motivation are distinct but related concepts. In sum, findings from both studies provide valuable insights into the dynamics of passionate workers who are heavily invested in their work.

Purpose
– The purpose of this study is to examine how two different types of heavy work investment – work engagement and workaholism – are related to family satisfaction as reported by employees and their intimate partner.


Design/methodology/approach
– In total, 398 Japanese couples completed self-reported questionnaires including the model variables. One year later, participants reported again on their family satisfaction. Structural equation modelling analyses were used to test the hypotheses.


Findings
– As hypothesized, work engagement was positively related to work-family facilitation, which, in turn, predicted own and partner's family satisfaction, also one year later. In contrast, workaholism showed a positive relationship with work-family conflict, and had an indirect negative effect on own and partner's family satisfaction. The structural relationships between the variables from husbands to wives were similar to those from wives to husbands.


Research limitations/implications
– The use of a non-experimental design does not allow for definitive conclusions regarding causality.


Practical implications
– The findings contribute to the work-family interface literature by showing how experiences built up at work can have a positive or negative impact on one's partner's family satisfaction. The study highlights a growing need to promote work engagement and discourage workaholism within organizations since engagement has positive and workaholism has negative implications for employees' private life.


Originality/value
– This study clearly shows the differences between two important work experiences – work engagement and workaholism. Using the spillover-crossover model, the study sheds a new light on the process through which employee work engagement and workaholism influence one's partner at home.

Purpose
– The present study aims to investigate the motivational correlates of two types of heavy work investment: workaholism and work engagement. Building on Higgins's regulatory focus theory, the paper examines which work goals workaholic and engaged employees pursue and which strategies they use to achieve these goals. Furthermore, the paper examines how workaholism and work engagement relate to three different work outcomes: job satisfaction, turnover intention, and job performance.


Design/methodology/approach
– Data from a cross-sectional survey study among 680 Dutch employees in the banking industry were analysed using structural equation modeling.


Findings
– The analyses revealed that workaholism was primarily and positively associated with having a prevention focus, whereas work engagement was primarily and positively associated with having a promotion focus. Furthermore, workaholism was negatively related to job satisfaction and job performance, and positively related to turnover intention, whereas work engagement was positively associated with job satisfaction and job performance, and negatively associated with turnover intention. Both forms of heavy work investment almost fully mediated the associations between the regulatory foci and the three work outcomes.


Research limitations/implications
– The conclusions rely on self-report data, a relatively homogeneous sample, and a cross-sectional design. This may have biased our findings to some degree and does not allow inferring causal conclusions.


Practical implications
– The findings show that workaholic and engaged employees have different work goals and use different strategies to pursue these goals. Moreover, both forms of heavy work investment are oppositely related to work outcomes. Organizations may develop policies to reduce workaholism and to promote work engagement by influencing their employees' regulatory foci.


Originality/value
– The present study demonstrates that two types of heavy work investment can be distinguished, each with a unique motivational make-up and a unique pattern of work outcomes.