Workaholism,Motivation,and Addiction in the Workplace: A Critical Review and Implications for HRD

Abstract

Despite the wide use of the term workaholism, universally defined as an addiction to work, there is little consensus on this concept and how people become workaholics. This article critically reviews the workaholism literature to reframe the concept of workaholism and to provide implications for human resource development (HRD). Through a literature review, four perspectives were found based on assumptions about behavioral motivation. The motivation and addiction processes in workaholism are discussed, focusing on the theories and characteristics of the workplace. The gaps and omissions are identified in the reviewed research, and a workaholism framework is suggested that emphasizes contextual and behavioral inclusiveness. This review contributes to literature on workaholism by illuminating current divergent opinions on workaholism and guiding future research. The recommendations can also enhance the practical development of individuals and organizations that currently or potentially face excessive work issues.

Keywords

workaholism work addiction motivation work habit excessive working

Over the past few decades, scholars have dedicated a significant amount of time to understanding work involvement as a key factor affecting employee well-being. Since Russ-Eft’s (2001) call for research, human resource development (HRD) has discussed the outcomes of job involvement beyond performance and productivity with growing interest in human-oriented perspectives (Han, Chae, Han, & Yoon, 2017), such as work stress (Anthony-McMann, Ellinger, Astakhova, & Halbesleben, 2017), excessive work (Kirrane, Breen, & O’Connor, 2017), and employee well-being (Tonkin, Malinen, Näswall, & Kuntz, 2018). Although the concept of workaholism first appeared several decades ago (Oates, 1968, 1971), it is an emerging topic that has received increasing attention in organizational research and has great implications for HRD.

Workaholism generally refers to the tendency to overwork, and workaholics are driven by work addiction, an obsessive and compulsive work motivation (Andreassen, Hetland, & Pallesen, 2014; Schaufeli, Shimazu, & Taris, 2009). The volume of workaholic literature has grown rapidly. A search analysis on the Web of Science in early 2017 revealed that the number of publications has increased by approximately 250% in the past 5 years.

Despite active scholarly discourse and the wide use of the term in practice, there is little consensus on the concept of workaholism (Clark, Michel, Zhdanova, Pui, & Baltes, 2016; Snir & Zohar, 2008). From a negative perspective, researchers highlighted the poor engagement or little work enjoyment for workaholics due to an extreme inner drive to work (Spence & Robbins, 1992; Van Beek, Hu, Schaufeli, Taris, & Schreurs, 2012). Conversely, other researchers have argued that workaholic behaviors depend on individual, occupational, and cultural contexts, and thus it can foster positive outcomes for individuals and organizations (Baruch, 2011; McMillan, O’Driscoll, Marsh, & Brady, 2001). Although the divergent perspectives seem to result from different foci on workaholism, these perspectives may be ascribed to the lack of a theoretical understanding of the properties of workaholic behaviors (Andreassen, 2014). A large majority of the foundational studies that have produced current conceptual frameworks and scales of measurement have been grounded in long working hours or traditional addiction models (Griffiths, 2011; Snir & Zohar, 2008; Spence & Robbins, 1992). Although adopting frameworks from previous knowledge may be a convenient way to explain a new phenomenon, lacking a thorough examination can lead to misjudging the motivations and behaviors of workaholics.

The literature also lacks agreement on what causes workaholic behaviors and whether those who are called workaholics are really addicted to work (Andreassen, Griffiths, Hetland, & Pallesen, 2012; Clark et al., 2016; Griffiths, Demetrovics, & Atroszko, 2018). To help answer these questions, it is important to identify the concept of workaholism and the dynamic process of workaholic behaviors in the context of the workplace (Baruch, 2011). However, workaholic studies have assumed that workaholism is already a common or well-identified organizational phenomenon, so they have tended to focus on the impacts on individuals and organizations (Levy, 2015; Salanova, Del Líbano, Llorens, & Schaufeli, 2014; Shimazu, Demerouti, Bakker, Shimada, & Kawakami, 2011; Van Beek et al., 2012). Although a few psychological studies have dealt with the characteristics of workaholics (Burke, Matthiesen, & Pallesen, 2006; Mazzetti, Schaufeli, & Guglielmi, 2014; Andreassen, Ursin, & Eriksen, 2007), these studies have been based on general addiction and motivation models rather than specifically incorporating the traits and contexts of working.

A critical review of the current workaholic literature is required to uncover the limitations of workaholic research. Based on the review, the purpose of this study is to establish a framework of workaholism that helps HRD professionals properly understand and address excessive working issues. The research questions that guided this review are as follows:

Research Question 1: What are the perspectives of workaholic literature on the causes and results of work addiction?

Research Question 2: What are the gaps or omissions of the research?

Research Question 3: How can they be filled?

Research Question 4: What does the identified process and concept of workaholism imply for individual and organizational development?

A fuller understanding of how workaholism occurs is important to HRD scholars and practitioners for several reasons. First, although excessive working is generally unwelcome while work engagement is favored (Kirrane et al., 2017; Shuck & Wollard, 2010), workaholics are likely to exhibit engagement that is closely related to addiction (Barber & Santuzzi, 2015; Salanova et al., 2014). Thus, this study helps researchers rethink the concept of engagement and work motivation. Second, before helping workaholics, it is necessary to understand why they keep working obsessively and how addictive behaviors can be prevented and mitigated. This study provides a conceptual framework for HRD professionals to diagnose individuals and organizations, treat addictive working behaviors, and enhance employee well-being. Third, this study is the first attempt to incorporate workaholism into an HRD framework. The findings help us better understand excessive working behaviors and related dynamics that cause workaholism.

This article is organized into three sections. The first section introduces theoretical concepts on motivation and addiction to explain how individuals are addicted in the workplace. The following section includes a review of the workaholic literature, synthesis of the findings, and critical discussion. And then, implications for HRD theory, research, and practice are provided.

Theoretical Background

Self-feedback about a previous behavior plays an important role in the motivation process as beliefs and attitudes that are affected by the feedback may alter the intention of correcting a behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2011; Zigarmi, Galloway, & Roberts, 2018). When people frequently repeat a behavior, however, they are more likely to avoid a change and, instead, maintain the same behavior without cognitive regulation (Manstead, 2011). As workaholic behaviors are reinforced in the behavioral repetition process (Porter, 1996; Stoeber, Davis, & Townley, 2013), in this section, I review why people repeat negative behaviors and how habitual behaviors relate to addictions in the work setting from both a psychological and pathological perspective.

Development of Behavior Repetition

Human behaviors are often initiated and maintained without direct inducement or physical reinforcement. Intentions prompt behaviors and, after performing behaviors, intentional regulations can motivate individuals to reproduce their conduct based on future expectations and self-evaluations of the behaviors (Ajzen, 1991; Bandura, 1986). Motivation researchers suggest that the development of repeated behaviors results from complex cognitive and emotional processes (Bell, 1995; Kopetz, Lejuez, Wiers, & Kruglanski, 2013; Patrono, Gasbarri, Tomaz, & Nishijo, 2016). A positive experience with a past behavior, combined with the initial intention, typically induces individuals to engage in the same behavior (Bandura, 1986).

Habit research has also highlighted the human inclination to maintain physical and psychological easiness. According to Hull (1943), individuals tend to reduce any tension or discomfort created by a need for new behavior while desiring adjustment and efficiency. Individuals achieve behavioral easiness through repetition so the behavior of interest can be activated with less cognitive effort (Wood & Rünger, 2016). With high frequency, the behavior may develop into a habit that motivates autonomous actions even with only contextual cues (Jolley, Mizerski, & Olaru, 2006; Neal, Wood, Labrecque, & Lally, 2012). Thus, although intentions and previous experiences play a key role in motivation at the initial stage of learning and practice, when the behavior is consistently repeated, habitual automaticity (i.e., a new motivation) may take over the initial motivation (Manstead, 2011; Ouellette & Wood, 1998).

Not all repeated behaviors develop into habits, however. Individuals may either automatically engage in a previous behavior or deliberately choose a new behavior depending on their inherited, learned, or external conditions (Wood & Rünger, 2016). Researchers have discovered several factors that may affect deliberate actions so they can be transformed into habitual responses when the behaviors are repeated. These factors include the neural system (Yin & Knowlton, 2006), self-regulation (LaRose, Lin, & Eastin, 2003), task ability (Marchette, Bakker, & Shelton, 2011), environmental distraction (Foerde, Knowlton, & Poldrack, 2006), stress, including time pressure (Schwabe & Wolf, 2009), and the context of the behavior (Ouellette & Wood, 1998). When conditions are met, intended repetition of a behavior results in a habit that automatically responds to situational cues. Stopping or changing long-lasting habits is usually difficult and requires powerful internal or external motivations to alter the habitual conditions (Wood & Rünger, 2016).

Habitual Behaviors in the Workplace

Although some habits are performed independently and automatically (e.g., jiggling knees), many habitual behaviors in the workplace including workaholism interact with other internal and external motivations (Wood, Labreque, Lin, & Rünger, 2014). Regardless of the type and strength of those habits, regulation may be required, at least to some extent, to expose habitual cues, connect the pieces of the routine, and link the routines to social behaviors (Bamberg, Ajzen, & Schmidt, 2003; Wood & Rünger, 2016). Thus, a complex sequence of behaviors may involve both conscious motivation and habitual automaticity when the behavior is repetitive. For instance, individuals who tend to work long hours may automatically exhibit the same behavior such as sitting at a desk for a long time. However, through internal goals or external expectations, these individuals perhaps deliberately decide whether or not to come to work, how to perform the task, and when their work should be done. Thus, workplace behaviors that are frequently repeated but are complex need to be understood from a different perspective by examining the semiautomatic response pattern (Bamberg et al., 2003; Ouellette & Wood, 1998).

Similar to semiautomaticity, workaholic researchers have agreed that internal motivation plays a key role in habitual behaviors although amotivational and routine characteristics are still important (Rantanen et al., 2014; Stoeber et al., 2013). Employees may internalize work-related stimuli through reflection not only when they start the habit, but also in the process of the habit. However, the extent to which this process motivates employees varies by individual circumstances, such as dispositional traits, job contexts, social values, and culture (Bandura, 1986). The complexity of the internalization process implies that there are various types of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, some employees may habituate their work behavior due to repeated extrinsic motivation, whereas engaged employees may be obsessed because of the regularity of repeating a related behavior.

In the same vein, individual passion for work can be harmonizing (similar to engaged) or obsessive depending on the internalization of the activity (Vallerand, 2008; Vallerand et al., 2003; Zigarmi et al., 2018). Thus, workaholics who repeat excessive behaviors because of a strong desire and habituation may exhibit some level of controlled internalization that causes them to engage due to internal or external pressure (Stoeber et al., 2013; Vallerand, 2008; Van Beek et al., 2012).

Workaholism as a Behavioral Addiction

Workaholism mainly appears to be a behavioral addiction from a pathological perspective that defines a workaholic as a person addicted to work and who exhibits excessive habitual behaviors (Andreassen et al., 2012; Clark et al., 2016; Oates, 1971). The habitual traits of compulsiveness and obsessiveness play core roles in the determination of workaholic behaviors and distinguish workaholism from other similar terms, such as long work hours, passion for work, and work engagement. Addiction was traditionally regarded as a chronic craving for destructive external substances, such as drugs, alcohol, or nicotine (Karim & Chaudhri, 2012). However, the concept of addiction has recently been expanded to include the psychological process of excessive behaviors (Konkolÿ Thege, Woodin, Hodgins, & Williams, 2015).

Behavioral addiction has garnered increased attention not only from researchers but also in society as more excessive behaviors have increasingly been observed (Karim & Chaudhri, 2012). Gambling was first spotlighted in behavioral addiction research (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) followed by eating, sex, shopping, Internet, video games, exercise, and work (Griffiths, 2011; Konkolÿ Thege et al., 2015).

There is general consensus that both substance-related (chemical) and behavioral addictions share core characteristics (Alavi et al., 2012). Addicts have irresistible tendencies toward obsessive behaviors (Konkolÿ Thege et al., 2015; Marks, 1990). When the needs of addicts are not satisfied, they experience withdrawal symptoms that often force them into relapse (Griffiths, 2011). Personal traits of controlling behaviors are associated with addicts pursuing instant rewards despite their awareness of the adverse effects (Andreassen et al., 2013; Grant, Potenza, Weinstein, & Gorelick, 2010). In contrast, what apparently differs between these two types is the source of the addiction, either a substance or a behavioral routine; therefore, behavioral addictions without a biochemical effect result in a complicated psychological and contextual process (Alavi et al., 2012; Marks, 1990; Yau & Potenza, 2015).

Various types of behavioral addictions reveal a common process of being addicted (Grant et al., 2010; Yau & Potenza, 2015). According to Lemon (2002), behavioral addicts prioritize a particular routine (i.e., habit) that supersedes other behaviors because the psychological results of the regularity are crucial to them. This exceedingly compulsive behavior is to either maintain euphoria or escape from dysphoria. However, the dysphoria tends to prevail as the behavior keeps recurring due to an increased craving. Their obsession with the routine or devotion to the action appears to be behavioral addiction, which is similar to a habit or enthusiasm.

Summary

Workaholism is an excessive habitual behavior that exhibits obsessiveness and compulsiveness toward working. Habit research has shown that automaticity controls behaviors when habits have matured but the development, alteration, and termination of habits depend on the internal and external conditions of the repeated behaviors. Due to its complexity in general, repetitions of working may produce semiautomatic behaviors that involve both conscious motivation and habitual automaticity. Thus, workaholism should be understood as a behavioral addiction that is distinguished from traditional substance addictions. Understanding these individuals’ psychological processes and contexts of working is important for conceptualizing the causes of workaholism.

A Critical Review of Workaholic Literature

The purpose of this literature review is to establish a workaholism framework through a critical discussion of the current literature. In this section, I review the workaholic literature, synthesize the findings, highlight the limitations of workaholic research, and reconceptualize workaholism.

Search Process

Workaholic literature was systematically reviewed to identify how previous research has perceived the causes and results of work addictions. The literature search was conducted mainly using the Web of Science database, given its advantage of accessing journals that are highly cited, in general. To cover the limitation of using only journals in the social science citation index, the references of the articles were also checked.

The initial search from the database yielded 271 articles dated 2016 and before in the research areas of psychology and business using the following keywords: workaholism, workaholic, addiction, and obsessive passion. Then, the search was limited to the literature published in the past 25 years, from 1992 to 2016, as the workaholism research and conceptual debates began to proliferate after Spence and Robbins’s (1992) study. I briefly examined the title, abstract, and findings of the selected articles, focusing on whether they involved a concept of workaholism. Studies that simply dealt with working hours, job involvement, or general addiction were excluded, even though the term workaholic was included in the title or as a keyword. By checking the references of the literature, 28 articles that the search system failed to detect but that satisfied the search criteria were added to the review list. The final list of articles to review consisted of 64 studies.

Perspectives of Workaholic Research

The focal point of the analysis was causes of behavioral motivation revealing four perspectives: traditional, instrumental, positive, and combined. Table 1 describes the four perspectives of workaholism research and their causes, outcomes, and source examples.

Table 1.

Perspectives of Workaholism Research by Causes and Behaviors.

Perspective	Causes	Outcomes	Source examples
Traditional	A fully addicted state that avoids the dysphoria of not working	Feels compelled to work Does not enjoy working and devotes lots of time to work	Porter (2001), Salanova, Del Líbano, Llorens, and Schaufeli (2014), Spence and Robbins (1992)
Instrumental	Overwhelming inner drive from extrinsic motivation, personality traits	Preoccupation with nonrequired work activities May enjoy but is not engaged in work	Schaufeli, Shimazu, and Taris (2009), Stoeber, Davis, and Townley (2013), Van Beek, Hu, Schaufeli, Taris, and Schreurs (2012)
Positive	Strong passion for work driven by extrinsic or intrinsic motivation	Enthusiasm about work, rewards, or achievement Self-motivated based on their values and ethics	Baruch (2011), McMillan and O’Driscoll (2006), Friedman and Lobel (2003)
Combined	Uncontrollable favor for work driven by extrinsic or intrinsic motivation	Preoccupation or devotion to work: either enthusiastic (engaged) or unenthusiastic (traditional) workaholics	Andreassen, Griffiths, Hetland, and Pallesen (2012), Douglas and Morris (2006), Mazzetti, Schaufeli, and Guglielmi. (2014)

Traditional perspective

The distinctive identifier of this perspective is that workaholics do not enjoy their work but unreasonably continue their individual heavy work behavior, working hard, spending considerable time, and extending great effort (Birkeland & Buch, 2015; Levy, 2015; Spence & Robbins, 1992). Thus, they easily experience distress, dissatisfaction, and clashes with peers (Van Wijhe, Peeters, & Schaufeli, 2011). Their predominant and blind devotion to work directly leads to the neglect of nonwork activities (e.g., family responsibilities and health) and causes social conflict and feelings of guilt (Burke, Burgess, & Oberklaid, 2003; Porter, 2001). The main drive for workaholics may come from inner pressure in which they maintain their work behaviors because of internal controls and obsession (Levy, 2015; Porter, 1996).

The traditional perspective tends to theorize a workaholic’s state as fully addicted and assumes that workaholic motivations mainly come from the addiction itself without much consideration for why individuals repeat the excessive work behaviors (Birkeland & Buch, 2015; Levy, 2015). This perspective may be attributed to adopting a metaphor of substance addiction that usually has one obvious and absolute motive such as taking drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. However, the motivation mechanism of substance-based addictions may not fully apply to work addiction that involves the development of behaviors (Lemon, 2002; Vohs & Baumeister, 2008). To identify workaholics, studies with this perspective have typically used quantitative measures that were developed based on measures for substance addictions (Spence & Robbins, 1992). Given that work addiction is contextually very different from other addictions, it is questionable whether workaholic behaviors are reinforced simply by a desire to avoid negative feelings.

Instrumental perspective

Researchers who supported this perspective of workaholism have generally regarded workaholics as feeling joy when obsessive desires are satisfied, but they do not experience work engagement with positive willingness, enthusiasm, dedication, and achieving meaningful goals (Hakanen & Peeters, 2015; Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, 2008; Van Beek, Taris, Schaufeli, & Brenninkmeijer, 2013; Van den Broeck et al., 2011). In other words, even though both workaholics and engaged employees may work excessively with great self-motivation, workaholics work hard because of their craving for work reinforced by an uncontrollable internal drive, whereas engaged employees lack the compulsiveness. Research based on this instrumental perspective has mostly focused on two behavioral constructs: working excessively and working compulsively (Schaufeli et al., 2009).

Similar to the traditional perspective, instrumental workaholism assumes that workaholics strongly desire to satisfy their internal needs that come from pressure to work (Aziz & Zickar, 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2009). Workaholism is thought to be mainly affected by personality traits, such as perfectionism, self-efficacy, and neuroticism (De Carlo et al., 2014; Mudrack, 2004). The research has hypothesized that the behavior results of workaholism should be negative because of the excessive and uncontrollable involvement in work (Hakanen & Peeters, 2015; Stoeber et al., 2013; Van den Broeck et al., 2011). However, the instrumental perspective considers that work motivation through various extrinsic stimuli and drive plays a central role in workaholism. Thus, workaholics constantly feel that they need to work more regardless of their achievement because they are mainly interested in their own work but are indifferent to self-realization, in-group relationships, and organizational goals (Van Beek et al., 2012; Van Wijhe et al., 2011).

Positive perspective

This workaholism perspective focuses on the positive side of heavy work behaviors. Although workaholics spend most of their time working and thinking about work during leisure activities (McMillan et al., 2001), the determination of these behaviors is reinforced by their passion, enjoyment, and enthusiasm (Friedman & Lobel, 2003). The key assumption of this standpoint is that workaholism results from cognitive engagement in work, which continues to satisfy an individual’s desire for achievement and fulfillment (McMillan & O’Driscoll, 2006; Snir & Zohar, 2008). As heavy work results from personal choices that reflect individual values and ethics about work and life, workaholics willingly submit to the adverse consequences associated with their excessive working and they are satisfied with their decision (Baruch, 2011; Friedman & Lobel, 2003).

Based on this positive perspective, researchers assume that workaholism is not always detrimental but can be beneficial for individuals and organizations (Baruch, 2011). Similar to instrumental workaholism, this perspective involves various types of internal motivations that lead to workaholic behaviors, but mainly focuses on these intrinsic behaviors. Thus, workaholic employees’ work behaviors stem from their beliefs, values, and self-evaluations, and thus they are committed to their work with great enthusiasm and satisfaction. Criticism of this workaholic concept centers on its consideration of certain workaholic behaviors that are unlike the mainstream research (Clark et al., 2016). In addition, it is unclear how a workaholic differs from an ordinary passionate employee and how a passionate employee becomes a workaholic.

Combined perspective

Combined workaholism involves both instrumental and positive perspectives and helps identify various workaholic behaviors. Studies that espouse this perspective basically accept instrumental workaholism, arguing that workaholism results from an uncontrollable desire to work and is a separate concept from engagement with work (Van Beek, Taris, & Schaufeli, 2011). To address the limitations of the instrumental perspective that only considers workaholics’ extrinsic motivation, studies on combined workaholism also include the positive perspective (Barber & Santuzzi, 2015; Douglas & Morris, 2006). Accordingly, any motivation style (either extrinsic or intrinsic motivation) can be a part of a combined workaholism perspective. The combined perspective denies that there is a unified form; instead, it embraces two types of workaholics, so those who exhibit addictive behaviors may be reinforced by their particular work contexts (Andreassen, Hetland, & Pallesen, 2010; Van Beek et al., 2011). Hence, in several studies, enthusiastic (engaged) workaholics are distinguished from typical (unenthusiastic) workaholics although both behaviors indicate uncontrollable devotion to work (Van Beek et al., 2011; Van Wijhe, Peeters, Schaufeli, & Ouweneel, 2012). The outcome of workaholism can also be positive or negative depending on how employees are oriented to their style of work, the extent to which employees are engaged in their work, and their personal contexts (Rezvani, Bouju, Keriven-Dessomme, Moret, & Grall-Bronnec, 2014; Russo & Waters, 2006).

Combined workaholism may be a more realistic approach than the other three because it extends the boundaries of motivation types. However, there may be confusion over the criteria that distinguish enthusiastic workaholics from unenthusiastic workaholics or regular engaged employees. It may be a question of whether enthusiastic workaholics have as much compulsive drive as unenthusiastic workaholics. Thus, some researchers have used the terms, enthusiastic or positive workaholics, to describe engaged employees who work long hours for convenience even though those employees are not addicted to work (Schaufeli et al., 2009). Similar to the other three perspectives, research on this perspective has focused mainly on measuring workaholics’ traits and examining their relationships with the behavioral outcomes of individuals, organizations, and families (Mazzetti et al., 2014; Salanova et al., 2014; Van Beek et al., 2011; Van Wijhe et al., 2012).

These four perspectives have expanded the research on workaholism, including developing enriched research models and suggesting practical connections to individual and organizational development. However, several gaps in the literature confuse the concept of workaholism and thus may impede real-world applications. First, why individuals become workaholics has not taken a central position in the research. Instead, most literature has focused on diagnosing work addiction and examining the impacts of workaholic behaviors. Although it is generally assumed that workaholics experience uncontrollable internal pressures that motivate them to overwork (Andreassen, 2014; Clark et al., 2016; Schaufeli et al., 2009), very few studies have explained or proposed how the pressures and motivation occur and progress. Second, most literature, especially research that has adopted traditional or instrumental perspectives, adheres to principles of traditional addiction theories but does not give much attention to how work addiction differs from other addictions. Third, even when workaholism has been distinguished from other similar behaviors (e.g., engagement, long working hours), how they are different has not been clearly explained. Clarification of the concept will help researchers understand workaholic behaviors as well as help HRD practitioners provide appropriate interventions.

After a review of the literature, it is clear that each perspective depicts fragmented aspects of how workaholism occurs and develops. Therefore, these perspectives need to be combined into a comprehensive framework and then its gaps should be filled. The traditional perspective considers only a fully addicted state, the instrumental perspective that includes a habit-forming phase of workaholism focuses on extrinsic motivations, and positive workaholism that embraces intrinsic motivations is likely to occur in an early phase of addiction. The combined perspective is more balanced but is still limited in clarifying how work habits form and develop into workaholism. Hence, given the complexity of job activities and dynamics, in the following sections, I discuss addiction conditions in the workplace and their influences on the addiction process. Then, I propose a conceptual boundary of workaholism, highlighting similarities and differences compared with other heavy work behaviors.

Workaholic Conditions: Internal Pressures and Work Context

In the literature, there is overall agreement that workaholics experience an unreasonable and uncontrollable drive that leads to excessive working behaviors. This perspective follows Oates’s (1971) assumption that the compulsive trait of workaholics is similar to those of substance addicts. The description of the internal pressures, called the inner drive or compulsiveness, includes several characteristics: a habitual attachment to work (Porter, 2001), a preoccupied personality (Mudrack, 2004), a salient orientation toward work (Douglas & Morris, 2006), and a tendency toward work compulsion (Schaufeli et al., 2009). However, internal pressures that are generally regarded as a ritual behavior to lessen anxiety or negative emotion is a pattern or antecedent of addiction but cannot fully account for occurrences of workaholic behaviors (Burke, 1999; Karim & Chaudhri, 2012). Addicts typically experience internal pressures but not all people who have internal pressures are addicts. Rather, the focus should be on how constantly and predominantly internal pressures control the behavior of individuals. This concept is discussed in the following section on the motivation process. More importantly, the meaning of internal pressure is not clear in the context of work because the nature of work is seldom voluntary, unlike other addictions on which most workaholism models and research are based. Hence, in workaholism, addictive conditions should be clearly understood based on work settings.

Each behavioral addiction involves different contexts that can be distinguished from one another (Choi et al., 2014; Yau & Potenza, 2015). Recent scholarly findings that illustrate how online game addiction differs from gambling addiction (Haagsma, Pieterse, Peters, & King, 2013; Xu, Turel, & Yuan, 2012) imply that workaholism may also have a different motivation mechanism and addiction development from other addictions. Researchers have found that the main factors affecting online game addiction include not only mood regulations and escapism, but also social mechanisms and achievement (Haagsma et al., 2013; Hyun et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2012). The interactions and momentums of online game addiction seem to be complex, which may also be true for work behaviors. Thus, workaholism may involve various antecedents and unique mechanisms of motivation and addiction. Table 2 compares the contexts related to work addiction and other major addictions.

Table 2.

A Comparison of Behavioral Contexts Related to Major Addictions.

Behavior	Locus of action	Number of activities	Interaction	Initiation momentum	Incentive
Alcohol	Any	Few	Not necessary	Voluntary	Feeling by intake
Drugs	Any	Few	Not necessary	Voluntary	Feeling by intake
Gambling	Any	Some	Not necessary	Voluntary	Feeling during bets, rewards
Online games	Internet	Various	Preferred	Voluntary	Immersion, relationship, achievement
Work	Workplace	Various	Preferred	Obligatory	Various physical and psychological incentives

There may be peer interactions and activities in the workplace that are encouraged or required to achieve the goal of the job. Working is initiated reluctantly and often considered only a means of making money or satisfying individual/social expectations, whereas addictions are typically performed voluntarily and are socially noncompulsory. Work also entails a variety of incentives that can motivate employees to strengthen their working behavior. In addition to monetary rewards—extrinsic motivators—there are many internal motivators that are associated with employee work attitudes and behaviors that reflect internalization (Fried, Grant, Levi, Hadani, & Slowik, 2007; Hackman & Oldham, 1975). In most addictions, except workaholism, where addictive actions are undertaken voluntarily, internal pressure becomes a key trait that forces recursive behaviors. In contrast, when work is performed because of responsibility, organizational rules, and social values, it already has a compulsive nature even though there may be some deliberate characteristics. Thus, the internal pressure of workaholism may not be purely internal, but may be a combination of both internal and external forces.

In summary, the intricate and involuntary nature of regular work may lessen the effect of addiction even though work activities are favorable. In the workplace, various motivators may lead employees to repeat work behaviors while external regulators (e.g., job demands, expectations, and rules) as push factors may moderate the addiction effect. Roles outside of work and social values that require considerable nonwork duties may also lessen the addiction effect even when the job conditions promote workaholism.

Motivation Process of Workaholics

Research on workaholism needs to be centered on the motivation process of work. Many workaholic researchers have assumed that a personal attribute of being driven is the main cause of workaholism (Levy, 2015; Schaufeli et al., 2009; Shimazu et al., 2011; Van Beek et al., 2011; Van Wijhe et al., 2011) based on a metaphor of traditional substance addictions that have a simple and clear process of addiction (Oates, 1971; Spence & Robbins, 1992). However, working is not only involuntary and purposeful, but also involves several activities, duties, relationships, and rewards. The complexity of working affects the long-term repetitions of heavy working causing it to be semiautomatic. In this context, deliberation still works (Bamberg et al., 2003) even though the behavior becomes an excessive habit. Given the characteristics of working, the motivations related to heavy working may foster workaholism only when addictive conditions are met. Therefore, the motivation of being a workaholic may vary and may involve a variety of contextual factors.

In this regard, a multifaceted model of workaholic motivation that is maintained by the combined perspective seems realistic. As employees value motivating activities that are more dominant than other activities, they are very willing and have a great desire to keep doing the activities even though they are sacrificing resources designated for other activities (Porter, 2001; Van Beek et al., 2011). In this process, motivation types may vary by personal characteristics, preferences, job contexts, environment, and culture: from extrinsic to intrinsic. A drive for repetition may accelerate the motivation process and lead to habitual behaviors (Koob & Le Moal, 2008). Thus, workaholics are likely to have strong internal motivations for working. The outcome, the process, or the behavior of work may be the motivation for their heavy work. For example, some employees have a habit of overworking to escape from nonwork duties, whereas others may want to achieve a goal, and still others work for interest and enjoyment.

Opponent effect in repetition

Habits are the foundation of addictions and describe how repetitions grow into obsessive behavior (LaRose et al., 2003; Wood & Rünger, 2016). However, the concept of habitual automaticity may not be sufficient to explain why some habitual behaviors develop into an addiction that is excessively obsessive and compulsive. Although uncontrollable obsessiveness of habitual behaviors tends to relate to individual conditions, such as time pressure, limited willpower, and limited abilities (Wood, Labreque, Lin, & Rünger, 2014), it is still unclear how the lack of control over an addiction occurs. Hence, a group of researchers focused on emotional changes that affect motivations for behaviors in the habitual process (e.g., Koob & Le Moal, 2008; Solomon & Corbit, 1978; Vohs & Baumeister, 2008).

In the long-term repetition process of developing a habit, individuals tend to have favorable intentions but lose control of the behavior. Satisfaction from the behavior weakens because individuals take the actions of the behavior for granted (Jolley et al., 2006; Wood & Rünger, 2016). However, they miss the feeling of satisfaction and this aspiration is likely stronger as the habit continues (Vohs & Baumeister, 2008). This tendency can be explained by the opponent-process theory (Solomon & Corbit, 1978) in which strong reinforcement of a certain recurring behavior is ascribed mainly to the opponent effect (e.g., emptiness, longing), although direct satisfaction from the behavior also sometimes works.

According to Solomon and Corbit, individuals generally perform a behavior with a desire for stimulus (e.g., excitement, comfort, achievement), but as the repetition progresses, they experience less satisfaction but more craving. Because, in repetitions, the ultimate feeling of a behavior does not usually meet the expectation as individuals feel a stronger desire to engage in the behavior again. For example, a person who overworked wants to do it again to satisfy the desire to feel a sense of accomplishment. After repeatedly overworking, the person does not feel the same stimulus, but the desire to overwork increases because of the person’s craving, which is the gap in the feeling between the first impression and the current one. This opponent effect that occurs in every repeated stimulus becomes strengthened and leads to obsession when the stimulus is powerful and the behaviors for the stimulus continue for a long period of time (Koob & Le Moal, 2008; Solomon & Corbit, 1978).

Workaholism process and conditions

Based on addiction and motivation theories (Kopetz et al., 2013; Marks, 1990; Patrono et al., 2016; Solomon & Corbit, 1978; Wood & Rünger, 2016), workaholism may occur when individuals overwhelmingly desire to work, frequently repeat a work behavior, feel a necessity to keep performing the behavior, and continue the behavior over the long term. From the initial behaviors, workaholics experience a positive feeling, and as the repetition progresses, the satisfaction is dulled and the obsessiveness increases. The degree of the obsessiveness may depend on the strength of the initial satisfaction and the pace and length of the repetition (Koob & Le Moal, 2008; Solomon & Corbit, 1978). In Figure 1, I hypothesized the workaholism process by illustrating how a work behavior develops into workaholism.

Figure 1.

A model of workaholism process.

In the figure, positive experiences produce repetitions and motivations leading to a habitual behavior. Repeated behaviors that develop into habits may relate to various favored drives that include (a) strong personal desires, (b) a job setting that enables individuals to experience incentives, and (c) an organizational or social culture that encourages individuals to repeat the behavior. Inherited traits such as personality, willpower, and neural system can also lead to forming habits. In a workaholic state, the habitual behaviors produce little satisfaction but much obsessiveness. The extent to which habitual behaviors affect satisfaction or obsessiveness depends on the strength of the stimulus that results from the behaviors, the span of time of the behaviors, and the consistency of the behaviors. When a behavior is continually repeated in a short span of time, the level of drive affected by satisfaction decreases, whereas a drive affected by obsessiveness increases. Intensively repeated work behaviors will continue despite the negative byproducts (e.g., family conflict) if the behavioral outcome of obsessiveness is strong (Russo & Waters, 2006). In other words, obsessiveness that causes addiction can be marginal when the behavioral stimulus is weak, the behavior is repeated over a long time, or the types of the behaviors differ from each other.

Contextual factors should be considered in workaholism as organizational and social culture and environment play key roles in employee behaviors (Mazzetti et al., 2014). Employees’ regulation and motivation are determined by their personal characteristics or circumstantial milieus, such as dispositions, values, ethics, relationships, social roles, socioeconomic status, rules, and systems (De Carlo et al., 2014; Mudrack, 2004; Schaufeli et al., 2009; Taris, Van Beek, & Schaufeli, 2012). These factors can become strong so they can foster or moderate hard work and compulsive-obsessive behaviors. Through the addiction process, some behaviors may result in workaholic behaviors while others may expose temporary extreme behaviors, which look similar to workaholism but are not addictions. Therefore, workaholism may be clearly defined by controlling related antecedents, and descriptions of workaholic behaviors may differ by individual, organizational, and social contexts (Baruch, 2011).

Reframing Workaholism

It is important to note that workaholic behaviors should be distinguished from nonaddictive behaviors, such as moderate work habits or inevitable reactions by external push factors (Lemon, 2002), although these nonaddictive behaviors can develop and transform into workaholism (Wood & Rünger, 2016). First, substituting workaholic behaviors entails considerable resistance (Lemon, 2002; Schlimme, 2010). Workaholics do not stop working even when the demand for work ends because other activities do not make them feel better, whereas nonaddicted hardworking employees can quit when the demand or motivation ends. Second, in workaholism, the direct effects of habitual behaviors (e.g., satisfaction, enjoyment) gradually weaken, whereas the adverse effects (e.g., emptiness, longing) strengthen (Grant et al., 2010; Griffiths, 2011). Thus, habitual behaviors are maintained to avoid the negative feelings. Third, for workaholics, when the work ends, it may cause withdrawal symptoms, such as unhappiness, irritation, or depression (Andreassen et al., 2013; Karim & Chaudhri, 2012) because the automaticity of behavioral repetitions or the longing for the initial feeling forces them to keep working (Solomon & Corbit, 1978; Wood & Rünger, 2016). These negative feelings become a regulator or motivator of workaholic behaviors.

Based on these characteristics of workaholics, the concept of workaholism should be clearly distinguished from related terms. Daily practices of workaholism often go beyond work addiction to include nonaddictive behaviors. Thus, caution is needed in clarifying whether or not a behavior is related to workaholism because workaholism may be confused with broader concepts such as excessive working, work habits, work engagement, and work motivation. Workaholics work excessively because of strong motivation and any motivation, either extrinsic or intrinsic, can lead to repetition of a working behavior. Workaholic behaviors stem from strong work habits that drive individuals to consistently and obsessively overwork. Workaholics may or may not be engaged in their work but it depends on their individual, job, or organizational contexts.

Implications for HRD

Workaholism relates to not only employee attitudes and well-being but also to organizational socialization, climate, and performance (Clark et al., 2016; Snir & Harpaz, 2012), which are the main interests of HRD. In this section, I discuss the implication of the process and concept of workaholism for individual and organizational development.

Implications for Theories

This article reveals new knowledge about workaholism by exploring theories of addiction and motivation and by critically reviewing previous research. The findings suggest that workaholism relates to various motivators and regulators given the nature and roles of work. The motivation process of being a workaholic perhaps requires certain behavioral and contextual conditions that drive employees too hard. The concept of workaholism should not only include working excessively and highly motivated behaviors but should also include addictive traits (i.e., extreme habits). In this sense, engagement may not be the opposite of workaholism but should be an important factor or antecedent that leads to workaholism when addictive conditions are met.

Following Hargrove, Becker, and Hargrove (2015), I suggest that positive feelings and motivation about work can lead to either positive (e.g., commitment, engagement) or negative (e.g., burnout, withdrawal symptoms) outcomes. Although employee engagement has been regarded as a positive individual behavior that enhances job satisfaction, involvement, and performance, it also spills over to individual lives and well-being (Eldor, 2016; W. Kim et al., 2017), implying that positive outcomes can be converted into negative outcomes in certain contexts (Shuck, Collins, Rocco, & Diaz, 2016). When engaged individuals are exposed to job conditions that promote work addiction, such as frequent and consistent motivations, those individuals may exhibit workaholic behaviors that result in negative outcomes for the individual and organization (Clark et al., 2016).

Among the engagement literature in HRD, Anthony-McMann et al. (2017) found that only emotional engagement that is associated with satisfaction or positive feelings reduced burnout, whereas cognitive and physical engagement did not. This result implies that emotional engagement may be a good indicator to distinguish between workaholic and nonworkaholic engagement because addiction decreases behavioral satisfaction but increases obsessiveness. Due to the possibility of a relationship with workaholism, cognitive and physical engagement might not reveal a significant positive outcome. Excessive employee engagement may relate to work–life issues. Even when individuals feel happy with their heavy investment in work and the resulting achievement, role conflicts between work and life/family may cause distress because both domains of work and life are interrelated and mutually influenced by heavy work (McMillan, Morris, & Atchley, 2011). In this case, a positive work-to-life spillover of engagement may be limited due to the low satisfaction of workaholics.

Use of technology may also lead to negative effects on individual and organizational outcomes (S. Kim & Christensen, 2017). Technology that includes portable devices (e.g., laptops, tablets, and smartphones) and work systems that enable people to access work anywhere and at any time (e.g., email, the cloud, and collaborative software) can increase the frequency of work and encourage employees to keep focusing on working all day long. Thus, these engaged behaviors might accelerate habitual effects and eventually develop into workaholism.

Implications for Research

Despite the significant contributions to research and practice, previous workaholism studies have primarily focused on fragments of the workaholic phenomena and relied on traditional addiction models. Thus, our understanding of this concept is somewhat limited and unclear. Based on the findings and discussion in this study, recommendations for HRD research are offered.

Researchers may need to first clearly ascertain whether workaholism is an important issue for employees and organizations or just a fad that will disappear in a few years. It is obvious that workaholism is an emerging topic in organization research, but its legitimacy as an academic subject is still somewhat questionable. For example, American Psychiatric Association (2013) has not yet recognized workaholism as an addiction. After rigorously measuring the impact of workaholism, researchers can uncover the importance or usefulness of this phenomenon in research. If workaholism is rare, as assumed in this study, society still needs a way to determine who is working voluntarily versus compulsively. It may be necessary to develop a new definition and framework so the academy can identify individuals who are workaholics.

When using a concept of workaholism, HRD researchers should employ rigorous criteria of work addiction that involve the motivation, addiction process, and characteristics of work. By using theory-driven principles, researchers will accurately identify subjects, measure-related behaviors, and the impact of workaholism. Previously, workaholics were typically identified by an inner drive or general addiction criteria, but this study revealed that using these approaches has limitations and may cause confusion. Future research should examine the role of work motivation, the patterns of motivation that lead to addiction, the relationship with the nature of work, and the influence of individual, organizational, and social contexts.

Inductive approaches are needed to explore the motivation behind workaholic behaviors and the mind-set of various workaholics. Although workaholism frameworks have adopted traditional and other behavioral addiction models to explain key behaviors, our empirical understanding of workaholics is quite limited. Several questions remain: “What drives them to work hard?” “How do they become addicted to work?” and “How do they feel about their workaholic behaviors?” Thus, it is necessary for future researchers to conduct grounded theory studies that use qualitative methods and establish a theory by exploring behaviors of identified workaholics who satisfy the criteria of work addicts.

Quantitative researchers need to use caution when collecting samples. Most previous studies that have examined workaholism have not identified workaholics or they have limited their research subjects to workaholics but examined unspecified general employees. For instance, Schaufeli et al. (2009) measured workaholic behaviors in 10,905 employees from various industries and positions including both white- and blue-collar workers to validate a workaholism instrument. Van Beek et al. (2012) tested how workaholism relates to motivations and burnout using a sample of 760 nurses and physicians with average working hours of only 45.5 hr per week. In addition, in the majority of workaholic studies, heavy work behaviors (e.g., working hours and excessiveness of working) have been the focus instead of addiction (Mazzetti et al., 2014; Shimazu et al., 2011; Snir & Zohar, 2008). This would be like a study on alcoholics examining how alcoholism affects individuals and the society simply asking people in the sample how much/often they drink without checking whether or not the participants are addicted to alcohol. Although previous research contributed to the knowledge on workaholism by estimating the prevalence of the issue, the findings may be limited because of the possible inclusion of nonworkaholic behaviors.

When measuring workaholism, it is important to consider how work contexts affect addictions in the workplace. As traits that exhibit major addictions may not be clearly applied to work addictions, researchers need to carefully select items before measuring. For example, the drive of the Workaholism Battery (Spence & Robbins, 1992) and the compulsiveness of the Dutch Workaholism Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2009) may not come from individuals’ characteristics but from the nature of the job or organization. In the Bergen Work Addiction Scale, the item about spending more time than intended may be useful for general addictions but is not effective in measuring work addiction because working is typically involuntary and complex: unintended overwork could occur for anyone. A viable approach to diagnosing workaholic behaviors may be reflecting individual work conditions, such as the strength of desire for working behaviors that lead to excessive work, frequency of the working behaviors, circumstances that encourage the working behaviors, and the length of the experience. Future research may include developing robust diagnostic criteria for workaholism from validating data and exclusively using a sample of workaholics when investigating the effects of workaholism.

Implications for Practice

HRD practitioners should clearly distinguish workaholism from regular commitment, intensive working routines, or passion for work, so as not to discourage nonworkaholic employees while paying attention to workaholics. There may be nothing wrong with intensive working if the behavior does not cause deterioration of self, colleagues, the organization, or other domains of life. Although extreme or chronic intensive working is problematic for individuals and organizations (Adkins & Premeaux, 2012; Park, Yi, & Kim, 2010), nonaddictive behaviors are usually temporary, controllable, and easy to change compared with addictive behaviors. Even though workaholism does not seem negative, especially for the organization in some situations, workaholism is likely to eventually cause destructive results by harming individual health and work–life balance, interpersonal relationships, leadership, and the organizational culture (Burke et al., 2003; Clark et al., 2016; Porter, 1996; Shimazu et al., 2011). Hence, managers and HRD practitioners need to identify whether their excessive workers are serious addicts who produce negative effects on themselves and the organization.

Workaholics should not be role models in the workplace. Organizations should recognize that workaholism can be detrimental despite the possible short-term attractiveness or advantages for individuals and organizations (Griffiths, 2011). Thus, employees who show workaholic behaviors should be monitored even though they are satisfied with their current work setting and style. Then, the organization should identify why employees become addicted to work and how the addiction develops to prevent or eliminate the negative effects of workaholism on the workplace. There may be various motivators that initiate and promote workaholic behaviors, so managers and HRD practitioners need to check for and review these motivators and advise employees to be aware that addictive work can cause danger to themselves, their families, colleagues, and organization without careful treatment.

HRD practitioners are encouraged to regularly observe not only their employees’ behaviors, but also whether the work environment and system foster negative workaholic behaviors. Simply informing workaholics of their problematic behavior may also be a successful preventive strategy because many addicts do not recognize that they exhibit these behaviors (Konkolÿ Thege et al., 2015). Another practical approach to preventing work addiction is avoiding high-risk situations. As this study suggests, there are four task-/duty-related situations for workaholism: stimulus, recursiveness, frequency, and consistency. For example, organizations may consider providing fewer rewards and reactions that workaholics prefer, but be aware that workaholics may quit because they become dissatisfied with the new work environment of limiting rewards and reactions. Job rotation, enlargement, or sharing may be useful strategies to prevent workaholics from focusing on a certain activity that they are obsessive with or delaying the repetition of that activity. Attention switching, which is widely suggested for various behavioral addictions (Xu et al., 2012), offers other interesting work activities to distract a workaholic’s attention from engaging in a certain activity. As addicts typically exhibit obsessive behavior, it may be necessary to emphasize results such as individual attainment and organizational goals while devaluing the process of the work (Friedman & Lobel, 2003).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Sehoon Kim

Author Biography

Sehoon Kim is assistant professor of human resource development (HRD) at the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities. He has more than 10 years of field experience as an HRD professional in Korea and United States. His current research interests include employee well-being, training effectiveness, and national/international HRD.

References

Adkins

C. L.

Premeaux

S. F.

(2012). Spending time: The impact of hours worked on work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 380-389.

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Alavi

S. S.

Ferdosi

Jannatifard

Eslami

Alaghemandan

Setare

(2012). Behavioral addiction versus substance addiction: Correspondence of psychiatric and psychological views. International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 3, 290-294.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Andreassen

C. S.

(2014). Workaholism: An overview and current status of the research. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3, 1-11.

Andreassen

C. S.

Griffiths

M. D.

Gjertsen

S. R.

Krossbakken

Kvam

Pallesen

(2013). The relationships between behavioral addictions and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2, 90-99.

Andreassen

C. S.

Griffiths

M. D.

Hetland

Pallesen

(2012). Development of a work addiction scale. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53, 265-272.

Andreassen

C. S.

Hetland

Pallesen

(2010). The relationship between “workaholism,” basic needs satisfaction at work and personality. European Journal of Personality, 24, 3-17.

Andreassen

C. S.

Hetland

Pallesen

(2014). Psychometric assessment of workaholism measures. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 7-24.

10.

Andreassen

C. S.

Ursin

Eriksen

H. R.

(2007). The relationship between strong motivation to work, “workaholism”, and health. Psychology & Health, 22(5), 615-629.

11.

Anthony-McMann

P. E.

Ellinger

A. D.

Astakhova

Halbesleben

J. R. B.

(2017). Exploring different operationalizations of employee engagement and their relationships with workplace stress and burnout. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 28, 163-195.

12.

Aziz

Zickar

M. J.

(2006). A cluster analysis investigation of workaholism as a syndrome. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 52-62.

13.

Bamberg

Ajzen

Schmidt

(2003). Choice of travel mode in the theory of planned behavior: The roles of past behavior, habit, and reasoned action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 175-187.

14.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

15.

Barber

L. K.

Santuzzi

A. M.

(2015). Please respond ASAP: Workplace telepressure and employee recovery. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), 172-189.

16.

Baruch

(2011). The positive wellbeing aspects of workaholism in cross cultural perspective: The chocoholism metaphor. Career Development International, 16, 572-591.

17.

Bell

D. S.

(1995). The motivation of addiction. Acta Neurochirurgica, 132, 185-191.

18.

Birkeland

I. K.

Buch

(2015). The dualistic model of passion for work: Discriminate and predictive validity with work engagement and workaholism. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 392-408.

19.

Burke

R. J.

(1999). Workaholism in organizations: Gender differences. Sex Roles, 41, 333-345.

20.

Burke

R. J.

Burgess

Oberklaid

(2003). Predictors of workaholic behaviors among Australian psychologists. Career Development International, 8, 301-308.

21.

Burke

R. J.

Matthiesen

S. B.

Pallesen

(2006). Personality correlates of workaholism. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1223-1233.

22.

Choi

S.-W.

Kim

H. S.

Kim

G.-Y.

Jeon

Park

S. M.

Lee

J.-Y.

. . . Kim

D.-J.

(2014). Similarities and differences among internet gaming disorder, gambling disorder and alcohol use disorder. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3, 246-253.

23.

Clark

M. A.

Michel

J. S.

Zhdanova

Pui

S. Y.

Baltes

B. B.

(2016). All work and no play? A meta-analytic examination of the correlates and outcomes of workaholism. Journal of Management, 42, 1836-1873.

24.

De Carlo

N. A.

Falco

Pierro

Dugas

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T

. (2014). Regulatory mode orientations and well-being in an organizational setting: The differential mediating roles of workaholism and work engagement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 725-738.

25.

Douglas

E. J.

Morris

R. J.

(2006). Workaholic, or just hard worker? Career Development International, 11, 394-417.

26.

Eldor

(2016). Work engagement: Toward a general theoretical enriching model. Human Resource Development Review, 15, 317-339.

27.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

28.

Foerde

Knowlton

B. J.

Poldrack

R. A.

(2006). Modulation of competing memory systems by distraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103, 11778-11783.

29.

Fried

Grant

A. M.

Levi

A. S.

Hadani

Slowik

L. H.

(2007). Job design in temporal context: A career dynamics perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 911-927.

30.

Friedman

S. D.

Lobel

(2003). The happy workaholic: A role model for employees. Academy of Management Executive, 17(3), 87-98.

31.

Grant

J. E.

Potenza

M. N.

Weinstein

A. M.

Gorelick

D. A.

(2010). Introduction to behavioral addictions. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 36, 233-241.

32.

Griffiths

(2011). Workaholism. The Psychologist, 24, 740-745.

33.

Griffiths

Demetrovics

Atroszko

P. A.

(2018). Ten myths about work addiction. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7, 845-857.

34.

Haagsma

M. C.

Pieterse

M. E.

Peters

King

D. L.

(2013). How gaming may become a problem: A qualitative analysis of the role of gaming related experiences and cognitions in the development of problematic game behavior. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 11, 441-452.

35.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

(1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.

36.

Hakanen

Peeters

(2015). How do work engagement, workaholism, and the work-to-family interface affect each other? A 7-year follow-up study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 57, 601-609.

37.

Han

S.-H.

Chae

Han

S. J.

Yoon

S. W.

(2017). Conceptual organization and identity of HRD: Analyses of evolving definitions, influence, and connections. Human Resource Development Review, 16, 294-319.

38.

Hargrove

M. B.

Becker

W. S.

Hargrove

D. F.

(2015). The HRD eustress model: Generating positive stress with challenging work. Human Resource Development Review, 14, 279-298.

39.

Hull

C. L.

(1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

40.

Hyun

G. J.

Han

D. H.

Lee

Y. S.

Kang

K. D.

Yoo

S. K.

Chung

U. S.

Renshaw

P. F.

(2015). Risk factors associated with online game addiction: A hierarchical model. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 706-713.

41.

Jolley

Mizerski

Olaru

(2006). How habit and satisfaction affects player retention for online gambling. Journal of Business Research, 59(6), 770-777.

42.

Karim

Chaudhri

(2012). Behavioral addictions: An overview. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 44, 5-17.

43.

Kim

Christensen

A. L.

(2017). The dark and bright sides of personal use of technology at work: A job demands–resources model. Human Resource Development Review, 16, 425-447.

44.

Kim

Woo

Park

S. H.

Lim

S. Y.

(2017). The relationship between work engagement and organizational commitment: Proposing research agendas through a review of empirical literature. Human Resource Development Review, 16, 350-376.

45.

Kirrane

Breen

O’Connor

(2017). A qualitative study on the consequences of intensive working. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 28, 227-268.

46.

Konkolÿ Thege

Woodin

E. M.

Hodgins

D. C.

Williams

R. J

. (2015). Natural course of behavioral addictions: A 5-year longitudinal study. BMC Psychiatry, 15(1), Article 4.

47.

Koob

G. F.

Le Moal

(2008). Review. Neurobiological mechanisms for opponent motivational processes in addiction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 363, 3113-3123.

48.

Kopetz

C. E.

Lejuez

C. W.

Wiers

R. W.

Kruglanski

A. W.

(2013). Motivation and self-regulation in addiction: A call for convergence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 3-24.

49.

LaRose

Lin

C. A.

Eastin

M. S.

(2003). Unregulated internet usage: Addiction, habit, or deficient self-regulation? Media Psychology, 5, 225-253.

50.

Lemon

(2002). Can we call behaviours addictive? Clinical Psychologist, 6, 44-49.

51.

Levy

D. V.

(2015). Workaholism and marital satisfaction among female professionals. The Family Journal, 23, 330-335.

52.

Manstead

A. S. R.

(2011). The benefits of a critical stance: A reflection on past papers on the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 366-373.

53.

Marchette

S. A.

Bakker

Shelton

A. L.

(2011). Cognitive mappers to creatures of habit: Differential engagement of place and response learning mechanisms predicts human navigational behavior. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 15264-15268.

54.

Marks

(1990). Behavioural (non-chemical) addictions. British Journal of Addiction, 85, 1389-1394.

55.

Mazzetti

Schaufeli

W. B.

Guglielmi

(2014). Are workaholics born or made? Relations of workaholism with person characteristics and overwork climate. International Journal of Stress Management, 21, 227-254.

56.

McMillan

H. S.

Morris

M. L.

Atchley

E. K.

(2011). Constructs of the work/ life interface: A synthesis of the literature and introduction of the concept of work/life harmony. Human Resource Development Review, 10(1), 6-25.

57.

McMillan

L. H. W.

O’Driscoll

M. P.

(2006). Exploring new frontiers to generate an integrated definition of workaholism. In Burke

R. J.

(Ed.), New horizons in management: Research Companion to working time and work addiction (pp. 89-107). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

58.

McMillan

L. H. W.

O’Driscoll

M. P.

Marsh

N. V.

Brady

E. C.

(2001). Understanding workaholism: Data synthesis, theoretical critique, and future design strategies. International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 69-91.

59.

Mudrack

P. E.

(2004). Job involvement, obsessive-compulsive personality traits, and workaholic behavioral tendencies. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 490-508.

60.

Neal

D. T.

Wood

Labrecque

J. S.

Lally

(2012). How do habits guide behavior? Perceived and actual triggers of habits in daily life. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 492-498.

61.

Oates

W. E.

(1968). On being a “workaholic.” Pastoral Psychology, 19(8), 16-20.

62.

Oates

W. E.

(1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction. New York, NY: World Publishing.

63.

Ouellette

J. A.

Wood

(1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 54-74.

64.

Park

Kim

(2010). Weekly work hours and stress complaints of workers in Korea. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 53(11), 1135-1141.

65.

Patrono

Gasbarri

Tomaz

Nishijo

(2016). Transitionality in addiction: A “temporal continuum” hypotheses involving the aberrant motivation, the hedonic dysregulation, and the aberrant learning. Medical Hypotheses, 93, 62-70.

66.

Porter

(1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching the negative outcomes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 70-84.

67.

Porter

(2001). Workaholic tendencies and the high potential for stress among co-workers. International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 147-164.

68.

Rantanen

Feldt

Jhakanen

Kokko

Huhtala

Pulkkinen

Wilmar

(2014). Cross-national and longitudinal investigation of a short measure of workaholism. Industrial Health, 53(2), 113-123.

69.

Rezvani

Bouju

Keriven-Dessomme

Moret

Grall-Bronnec

(2014). Workaholism: Are physicians at risk? Occupational Medicine, 64, 410-416.

70.

Russ-Eft

(2001). Workload, stress, and human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 1-3.

71.

Russo

J. A.

Waters

L. E.

(2006). Workaholic worker type differences in work-family conflict. Career Development International, 11, 418-439.

72.

Ryan

Deci

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

73.

Salanova

Del Líbano

Llorens

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2014). Engaged, workaholic, burned-out or just 9-to-5? Toward a typology of employee well-being. Stress and Health, 30, 71-81.

74.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Shimazu

Taris

T. W.

(2009). Being driven to work excessively hard : The evaluation of a two-factor measure of workaholism in the Netherlands and Japan. Cross-Cultural Research, 43, 320-348.

75.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Taris

T. W.

Van Rhenen

(2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology, 57, 173-203.

76.

Schlimme

J. E.

(2010). Addiction and self-determination: A phenomenological approach. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 31, 49-62.

77.

Schwabe

Wolf

O. T.

(2009). Stress prompts habit behavior in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 7191-7198.

78.

Shimazu

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

Shimada

Kawakami

(2011). Workaholism and well-being among Japanese dual-earner couples: A spillover-crossover perspective. Social Science & Medicine, 73, 399-409.

79.

Shuck

Collins

J. C.

Rocco

T. S.

Diaz

(2016). Deconstructing the privilege and power of employee engagement. Human Resource Development Review, 15, 208-229.

80.

Shuck

Wollard

(2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89-110.

81.

Snir

Harpaz

(2012). Beyond workaholism: Towards a general model of heavy work investment. Human Resource Management Review, 22, 232-243.

82.

Snir

Zohar

(2008). Workaholism as discretionary time investment at work: An experience-sampling study. Applied Psychology, 57, 109-127.

83.

Solomon

R. L.

Corbit

J. D.

(1978). An opponent-process theory of motivation. The American Economic Review, 68(6), 12-24.

84.

Spence

J. T.

Robbins

A. S.

(1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160-178.

85.

Stoeber

Davis

C. R.

Townley

(2013). Perfectionism and workaholism in employees: The role of work motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 733-738.

86.

Taris

T. W.

Van Beek

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2012). Demographic and occupational correlates of workaholism. Psychological Reports, 110, 547-554.

87.

Tonkin

Malinen

Näswall

Kuntz

J. C.

(2018). Building employee resilience through wellbeing in organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29, 107-124.

88.

Vallerand

R. J.

(2008). On the psychology of passion: In search of what makes people’s lives most worth living. Canadian Psychology, 49, 1-13.

89.

Vallerand

R. J.

Blanchard

Mageau

G. A.

Koestner

Ratelle

Léonard

. . . Marsolais

(2003). On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 756-767.

90.

Van Beek

I. W.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Taris

T. W.

Schreurs

B. H. J

. (2012). For fun, love, or money: What drives workaholic, engaged, and burned-out employees at work? Applied Psychology, 61, 30-55.

91.

Van Beek

I. W.

Taris

T. W.

Schaufeli

W. B

. (2011). Workaholic and work engaged employees: Dead ringers or worlds apart? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 468-482.

92.

Van Beek

I. W.

Taris

T. B.

Schaufeli

Brenninkmeijer

. (2013). Heavy work investment: Its motivational make-up and outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29, 46-62.

93.

Van den Broeck

Schreurs

De Witte

Vansteenkiste

Germeys

Schaufeli

. (2011). Understanding workaholics’ motivations: A self-determination perspective. Applied Psychology, 60, 600-621.

94.

Van Wijhe

Peeters

Schaufeli

Ouweneel

. (2012). Rise and shine: Recovery experiences of workaholic and nonworkaholic employees. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 476-489.

95.

Van Wijhe

Peeters

M. C. W.

Schaufeli

W. B

. (2011). To stop or not to stop, that’s the question: About persistence and mood of workaholics and work engaged employees. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18, 361-372.

96.

Vohs

K. D.

Baumeister

R. R.

(2008). Can satisfaction reinforce wanting? A new theory about long-term changes in strength of motivation. In Shah

W. L.

Gardner

J. Y.

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 373-389). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

97.

Wood

Labrecque

J. S.

Lin

P. Y.

Rünger

(2014). Habits in dual process models. In Sherman

J. W.

Gawronski

Trope

(Eds.), Dual Process Theories of the Social Mind (pp. 371-385). New York: Guilford.

98.

Wood

Rünger

(2016). Psychology of habit. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 289-314.

99.

Turel

Yuan

(2012). Online game addiction among adolescents: Motivation and prevention factors. European Journal of Information Systems, 21, 321-340.

100.

Yau

H. C. Y.

Potenza

N. M.

(2015). Gambling disorder and other behavioral addictions: Recognition and treatment. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 23, 134-146.

101.

Yin

H. H.

Knowlton

B. J.

(2006). The role of the basal ganglia in habit formation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 464-476.

102.

Zigarmi

Galloway

F. J.

Roberts

T. P.

(2018). Work locus of control, motivational regulation, employee work passion, and work intentions: An empirical investigation of an appraisal model. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19, 231-256.