Sie sind auf Seite 1von 18

The Psychological Record, 2011, 61, 269286

Exploring the Relationship Between Workaholism


Facets and Personality Traits: A Replication in
American Workers
Shahnaz Aziz and Casie L. Tronzo
East Carolina University

In this study, we further explored whether any of the dimensions in


the five-factor model of personality (i.e., openness to experience, con-
scientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) were re-
lated to facets of workaholism (i.e., work involvement, work drive, and
work enjoyment) in a sample of American workers in various occu-
pational settings. Results showed that personality factors explained a
significant amount of the variance for each workaholism facet, above
and beyond personal demographics. Conscientiousness and agreeable-
ness were positively related to work involvement, while conscientious-
ness and openness to experience were positively related to work drive.
Agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience were
positively related to work enjoyment, while neuroticism was negatively
related to work enjoyment. By identifying personality factors related to
workaholism, employers can better predict workaholic tendencies dur-
ing recruitment and selection.
Key words: personality, workaholism, work involvement, work drive, work
enjoyment

The working world today is not what it was 40 years ago. Especially in
Western cultures, individuals today are generally staying at work later, work-
ing longer workweeks, and bringing their work home (Garson, 2005). Schor
(1991) indicated that since 1970, there has been a steady incline in the aver-
age amount of time Americans spend working. According to a study by the
International Labor Organization in 2001, workers in the United States put in a
total of 1,978 hours of work per year, an increase of 36 hours as compared to
1990 (Garson, 2005). Schor believes that the increase in hours is a result of the
labor demands that society has placed upon workers. Consistent with Schors
findings, George (1997) added that, given the fear of unemployment and the
opportunity for promotions and raises, it comes as no surprise that individu-
als are putting more hours into work. In fact, organizations typically embrace
the characteristics of stereotypical workaholics; however, life outside of work
can be negatively affected by workaholism (Garson, 2005; Gini, 1998).

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Dr. Shahnaz Aziz, Department of
Psychology, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858-4353. E-mail: azizs@ecu.edu
270 Aziz and Tronzo

As a result of this surge in work hours among individuals, the phenome-


non of workaholism began to surface almost 40 years ago. Workaholics spend
a great deal of time thinking about and engaging in work, but they do not
really enjoy working, thereby leading to problems in their relationships with
family, friends, and coworkers. Because of this worklife imbalance, they can
experience a great deal of stress and health problems. Additionally, worka-
holics are perfectionists and find it difficult to delegate tasks, although
they tend to be fairly productive. Workaholism, a term used to describe in-
dividuals who are addicted to work, can lead to such detrimental outcomes
as burnout, fatigue, stress, and physical or mental health problems (Burke,
2000a; Porter, 1996). Therefore, even though we still cannot clearly define
everything that constitutes workaholism, we do know that it consistently
produces negative behaviors and health consequences, thus qualifying it as
a syndrome. The term syndrome indicates that a set of key components is
considered to characterize the workaholic (Aziz & Zickar, 2006). Hence, in
this article, we take the negative view of workaholism.
There is no doubt that external reinforcers (e.g., salary increases, promo-
tions) and societal demands have an influence on workers, but there also
lies the possibility that workaholism is part of an individuals personality.
Previous findings indicate that some personality factors (e.g., extraversion
and conscientiousness) can contribute to ones work culture (Bakker, van
der Zee, Lewig, & Dollard, 2006; Burke, Matthiesen, & Pallesen, 2006; Judge,
Heller, & Mount, 2002; Mount, Ilies, & Johnson, 2006). In fact, Burke etal.
(2006) stated, Workaholism may in fact be a lower order trait that is related
in a hierarchical way to higher order personality factors. There is some sup-
port for the utility of trait and personality theories in explaining workahol-
ism (p. 1225).
Therefore, the current study stems from a study conducted by Burke
etal. (2006) and further examined the relationship between workaholism
facets (work involvement, work drive, and work enjoyment) and the five-
factor model of personality (i.e., openness to experience, conscientiousness,
extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism). Moreover, the current study
also addressed the limitations noted in the Burke etal. (2006) study.
Schafer (2001) encouraged replicating studies, using the same methods
as were used in the original studies, in the collection of field (e.g., organiza-
tional) data. Replicating studies can allow for better interpretations of ap-
plied research, in that doing so removes variation because of methodology
and, if the results differ, implies that the original results might have been an
error. Consistent results across studies provides a stronger foundation for
observed relationships compared to findings obtained within a single study
alone, because of the fact that replicated results are considered to be more
generalizable and can lead to stronger inferences in other contexts (Schafer,
2001). Given that replications are usually independent, they can often be
integrated quantitatively using meta-analysis (Schafer, 2001). For these rea-
sons, the use of replications is particularly appealing to investigators whose
research paradigms are limited to field environments (e.g., organizations).

Workaholism
Oates first coined the term workaholism in 1971 and compared it to
alcoholism (Spence & Robbins, 1992). Just as alcoholics are addicted to a
Workaholism and Personality 271

substance, workaholics are addicted to work. Oates (1971) described worka-


holism as a strong dependence on work that has negative ramifications
(Spence & Robbins, 1992). Since that time, workaholism has become part of
popular culture, and more research is being done to explore the causes and
consequences of this important construct.
Currently, there is not an agreed-upon definition of workaholism. Some
researchers view it in terms of actual hours worked, while others see it as an
attitude toward work (Burke, 2000b; Spence & Robbins, 1992). For example,
Porter (1996) defined workaholism as having an internal motivation to be
overly involved in work, while ignoring other areas of life. Similarly, in an
editorial by Griffiths (2005), workaholism was described as an addiction
that must meet the following criteria: salience, mood modification, toler-
ance, withdrawal symptoms, conflict, and relapse. Workaholism has also
been referred to as an excessive need that creates an escape from reality
(Garson, 2005). According to Garson, Workaholics Anonymous suggests that
work addiction is characterized by such criteria as becoming easily excit-
able over work; working during time off, including during meals; not being
able to delegate work; and working beyond the scope of the job description.
Ng, Sorensen, and Feldman (2007) defined workaholism in terms of three
dimensions: affective (enjoy the act of working), cognitive (obsessed with
working), and behavioral (working long hours). Despite the many definitions
for workaholism, Spence and Robbins (1992) identified some common ele-
ments, and it is these components that we utilized in the current study.
Spence and Robbins (1992) Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT) is the most
widely used self-report assessment of workaholism (Porter, 1996). They de-
scribe workaholism in terms of high scores on measures of work involve-
ment and work drive and low scores on work enjoyment. Work involvement
is the extent to which an individual productively uses his or her time (both
in and out of the workplace) and is committed to work. Work drive refers to
an individuals inner motivation to work. Work enjoyment reflects the degree
of enjoyment a person derives from his or her work.
Spence and Robbins (1992) measure has been frequently used in psy-
chological research to examine the relationship between workaholism com-
ponents (i.e., work involvement, work drive, work enjoyment) and personal-
ity factors (Burke etal., 2006), workplace deviance (Galperin & Burke, 2006),
and organizational climate (Johnstone & Johnston, 2005), among many other
areas. In addition, Aziz and Zickar (2006) used their components to define
workaholism as a syndrome.
The psychometric properties of the WorkBat have demonstrated accept-
able levels of internal consistency reliability and show factor structures
that support their three facets (Burke, Richardsen, & Martinussen, 2002).
Moreover, a study by Buelens and Poelmans (2004) found the validity of
the Spence and Robbins typology to be similar to past studies in terms of
basic dimensions and worker types. Despite the WorkBats prevalence in
workaholism research, it has been criticized not only for being tested on a
homogeneous population of 291 social workers, but also because the work
involvement facet has consistently been found to be a misfit in the model
(Andreassen, Ursin, & Eriksen, 2007; Ersoy-Kart, 2005; McMillan, Brady,
ODriscoll, & Marsh, 2002). Given the widespread use of and statistical sup-
port for Spence and Robbins measure, however, it is the one we used in the
current study to assess workaholism.
272 Aziz and Tronzo

Personality
Burke etal. (2006) examined the relationship between personality
factors and the workaholism components created by Spence and Robbins
(1992), from which the current study is derived. Given that this domain of
research is the basis for the current study, it is necessary to further define
the personality factors.
The five domains of personality include openness to experience, conscien-
tiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (e.g., Costa & McCrae,
1992; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990; Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick,
1999; Mount & Barrick, 1998). Much research has been done to show that most
personality traits can be categorized into these five domains (e.g., Digman,
1990; Goldberg, 1990; Judge etal., 2002). For example, when 479 English trait
adjectives were clustered and analyzed, it was found that they could be di-
vided among these five personality dimensions (Goldberg, 1990). Additionally,
the traits of these five personality dimensions can be generalized to other
languages and, therefore, across cultures (Goldberg, 1990). Given its wide-
spread popularity and generalizability, as well as the fact that it was used in
the Burke etal. (2006) study, Costa and McCraes (1992) five-factor model of
personality was utilized in the current study to assess personality.
Previous research has examined the relationship between the five do-
mains of personality and various work-related constructs that might be con-
sidered as elements of workaholism (Bakker etal., 2006; Hochwlder, 2006;
Mount etal., 2006; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). For example, Judge etal.
(2002) found neuroticism and openness to experience to be negatively cor-
related with job satisfaction, and agreeableness, extraversion, and consci-
entiousness to be positively correlated with job satisfaction. Additionally,
Barrick and Mount (1991) found conscientiousness to be a consistent and
valid predictor of job performance across occupations. Furthermore, neu-
roticism and extraversion appear to be predictors of burnout (Bakker etal.,
2006; Hochwlder, 2006). With the exception of Burke etal. (2006), however,
no studies to date have explored the relationship between the five-factor
model of personality traits and the construct of workaholism itself.

Current Study
The current study stems from a study conducted by Burke etal. (2006)
in which the relationship between workaholism components (work involve-
ment, work drive, work enjoyment) and the five-factor model of personality,
as defined by Judge etal. (1999), was examined. Burke etal. (2006) collected
data from nursing home employees in Norway using questionnaires. Findings
from their study are outlined in the following paragraphs. They noted, how-
ever, some study limitations that we hoped to address in the current study.
First, some of their measures had levels of reliability that fell below the gener-
ally accepted value of .70. For example, the work involvement measure was
found to have a Cronbachs alpha of .46. Additionally, the Cronbachs alphas
for openness to experience and agreeableness were .62 and .65, respectively.
Second, it is not clear the degree to which the findings of the Burke etal.
study are generalizable to other occupational groups in other countries.
The first limitation was addressed by comparing the internal consistency
reliabilities of the workaholism facets and the five-factor model of personality
found in the Burke etal. (2006) study with the ones obtained in the current
Workaholism and Personality 273

study, which employed a sample of U.S. employees. Moreover, the current study
addressed their second limitation and went beyond the existing literature by
examining the relationship between personality factors and workaholism fac-
ets among American workers employed in various occupational settings (e.g.,
business, education, fine arts, law, health, manufacturing, sales). Therefore, the
findings of the current study are more generalizable, in that participants were
recruited from a wide variety of organizations in the United States.
In the Burke etal. (2006) study, the workaholism components were corre-
lated with the five-factor model of personality. They found that extraversion
was positively related to work involvement and work enjoyment. Work drive
was negatively associated with openness to experience, whereas neuroti-
cism and conscientiousness were positively related to work drive, with neu-
roticism showing the strongest relationship to any workaholism component
(Burke etal., 2006). Additionally, they found that personal demographics
(e.g., marital status, age, gender, number of children) showed no relationship
to the workaholism facets. Personality factors as a whole were significantly
related to all three workaholism facets, with extraversion related more so to
work involvement and enjoyment, and neuroticism, openness, and conscien-
tiousness related to work drive (Burke etal., 2006).

Hypothesis 1: Openness to Experience and Workaholism


A person who is open to new experiences is more likely to be intelligent
and curious and thus more involved in work and more likely to enjoy learn-
ing new experiences (Barrick & Mount, 1991). In the Burke etal. (2006) study,
openness to experience was negatively related to work drive. It could be that
an individual who is open to new experiences is ready to try new things,
which may indicate that his or her work drive on existing projects is not
high. Also, being intelligent and curious does not necessarily mean that one
has the inner motivation to work.
Hypothesis 1: Openness to experience will be positively related
to work involvement and work enjoyment and negatively related
to work drive.

Hypothesis 2: Conscientiousness and Workaholism


Conscientiousness is linked with being achievement oriented, de-
pendable, and orderly (Judge etal., 1999). In addition, it is consistently
found to be a strong predictor of job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991).
Furthermore, if an individual is performing well at his or her job, it is likely
that person will be satisfied. For these reasons, a positive relation is ex-
pected between conscientiousness and the workaholism facets.
Hypothesis 2: Conscientiousness will be positively related to all
three workaholism components.

Hypothesis 3: Extraversion and Workaholism


Based on previous research, extraverts have been found to be more out-
going and active, as well as more ambitious, than nonworkaholics (Judge
etal., 1999); therefore, a positive relationship is expected between extraver-
sion and both work enjoyment and work drive. Furthermore, extraversion
274 Aziz and Tronzo

will be positively related to work involvement, given that extraverts are char-
acterized as being opportunistic and optimistic (Goldberg, 1990). Extraverts
are also predisposed to experience more positive emotions, which is likely to
generalize to higher levels of job satisfaction (Judge etal., 2002).
Hypothesis 3: Extraversion will be positively related to all three
workaholism components.

Hypothesis 4: Agreeableness and Workaholism


Agreeable individuals are generally caring and cheerful and therefore
tend to be more cooperative individuals (Judge etal., 1999). Highly agreeable
individuals tend to be happy when others are happy, thereby making it pos-
sible that they may be driven to take on more work, even if it is more than
they can handle. Additionally, by helping people out, it is likely that highly
agreeable individuals will enjoy their work more and be more involved in the
task in order to complete it.
Hypothesis 4: Agreeableness will be positively related to all three
workaholism components.

Hypothesis 5: Neuroticism and Workaholism


Previous findings indicate that highly neurotic individuals put them-
selves in situations that foster negative affect, and they are found to have
lower job satisfaction than others (Judge etal., 2002). If a highly neurotic
individual indicates lower job satisfaction, it is likely that individual will not
be highly engaged in work. Also, individuals who exhibit high neuroticism
are insecure and not very confident, which, in turn, could lead to lower work
involvement. Additionally, high neuroticism is linked with independence
and individualism (Goldberg, 1990), which, in turn, may lead to a high inter-
nal work drive.
Hypothesis 5: Neuroticism will be positively related to work drive
and negatively related to work involvement and work enjoyment.

Method

Participants
Participants consisted of a sample of 202 individuals employed in a
wide variety of occupations (e.g., business, education, health). Specifically,
300 surveys were sent out electronically to study participants. Of those 300
surveys, 202 individuals responded, resulting in a 67% response rate, which
is fairly high in this field of research. No incentive was provided for survey
completion. Among the initial 202 respondents, nine of them neglected to
answer at least two or more of the survey items; therefore, those surveys
were removed from the study. The remaining participants data (N = 193)
were used for the statistical analyses.
The results of frequency analyses found that 40% of the participants
were men and 60% were women. Age was assessed in terms of groups,
whereby 25% of the participants were under the age of 25, 40% were between
Workaholism and Personality 275

25 and 35 years, 19% were between 36 and 45 years, and 16% were over
the age of 45. In addition, 37% of the respondents were married, 63% were
single, and 38% had one or more children. The majority of the participants
were Caucasian (91%), while 4% were African American, 2% were Asian or
Pacific Islander, 2% were Latino or Mexican, and 1% were Native American.
Furthermore, organizational tenure was measured in terms of groups,
whereby 21% of the participants had been in their current positions for less
than 1 year, 23% for 12 years, 21% for 35 years, 11% for 69 years, 11% for
1015 years, and 13% for over 15 years. The average number of hours worked
per week was assessed in terms of groups, whereby 3% of the participants
worked under 20 hours, 33% worked 2040 hours, 44% worked 4150 hours,
15% worked 5160 hours, 3% worked 6170 hours, and 2% worked over 70
hours. The distribution of participants across occupations was as follows:
23% were in business, 17% were in sales, 14% were in education, 9% were in
law/government, 8% were in a technical field, 7% were in research, 2% were
in fine arts, and 1% were in manufacturing. Note that 19% of the participants
did not answer the question pertaining to occupation.

Procedure
Participants were administered a self-report questionnaire to assess demo-
graphic information, workaholism components, and personality factors. The
questionnaire was administered online through an Internet-based survey via
a link that was sent through electronic mail that allowed participants to ac-
cess the questionnaire. Participants were recruited by two of the research team
members through contact persons who were associated with professional orga-
nizations and currently employed in the field. Follow-up emails were sent out
two weeks after the initial message was distributed. Confidentiality was main-
tained throughout the study and respondents were assured that study partici-
pation was completely voluntary. Survey completion indicated consent, and it
took approximately 20 minutes to complete the survey.

Measures
Workaholism components. Spence and Robbinss (1992) 25-item measure
was used to measure work involvement, work drive, and work enjoyment. A
sample work involvement item is I spend my free time on projects and other
activities. A sample work drive item is I often feel that theres something
inside me that drives me to work hard. A sample work enjoyment item is
Most of the time my work is very pleasurable. The following Cronbachs
alphas were obtained: .71 for work involvement, .84 for work drive, and .90
for work enjoyment.
Personality factors. Goldberg etal.s (2006) 50-item International
Personality Item Pool (IPIP) representation of Costa and McCraes (1992) re-
vised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R), the most widely used five-factor
questionnaire, was used to measure personality factors. Each factor con-
sisted of 10 questions. Sample items for each personality factor follow. For
agreeableness, a sample item is Accept people as they are. A sample item
reflective of conscientiousness is Pay attention to details. For extraversion,
a sample item is Am skilled in handling social situations. For neuroticism,
a sample item is Panic easily. A sample item reflective of openness to ex-
perience is Enjoy hearing new ideas. The following Cronbachs alphas were
Table 1 276
Correlations and Descriptive Statistics (N = 193)
Number
Work Work Work Agree Conscien Openness to Marital of
involvement drive enjoyment ableness tiousness Extraversion Neuroticism experience Gender Age Race status children
Work .71
involvement
Work drive .43** .84
Work enjoyment .35** .30** .90
Agreeableness .23** .08 .19* .76
Conscientiousness .47** .36** .35** .37** .85
Extraversion .03 .09 .04 .15 .17* .85
Neuroticism .05 .02 .12* .40* .24* .36** .83
Openness to .07 .19* .20* .15 .09 .31** .18* .73
experience
Gender .04 .08 .06 .21** .15 .07 .24** .14 --
Age .23** .03 .15 .17* .09 .20 .09 .14 .06 --
Aziz and Tronzo

Race .01 .01 .08 .01 .00 .08 .06 .04 .01 .06 --
Marital status .32** .02 .19* .13 .15 .17* .03 .18* .06 .68** .06 --
Number of children .25** .06 .12 .08 .07 .18* .09 .31* .13 .53** .03 .63** --
Score range 840 735 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 1050 12 14 15 13 14
Study range 1238 935 1250 2549 2050 1650 1042 2050 12 14 15 13 14
M 24.19 24.18 31.49 37.67 38.06 36.14 24.48 37.68 1.60 2.27 1.08 1.48 1.79
SD 5.21 6.07 7.64 5.43 6.07 6.69 6.95 6.05 .49 1.01 .28 .50 1.14
Note. Entries on the main diagonal are Cronbachs alphas.
*p < .05. **p < .001.
Workaholism and Personality 277

obtained: .76 for agreeableness, .85 for conscientiousness, .85 for extraver-
sion, .83 for neuroticism, and .73 for openness.

Results
Intercorrelations and descriptive statistics are presented in Table1.
In sum, positive correlations were found among all three of Spence and
Robbins (1992) workaholism facets. In addition, work involvement had a
significantly positive correlation with agreeableness and conscientiousness.
Furthermore, work drive was significantly positively correlated with consci-
entiousness and openness to experience. Significantly positive correlations
were also found between work enjoyment and agreeableness, conscientious-
ness, and openness to experience. Finally, a significantly negative correla-
tion existed between work enjoyment and neuroticism.
Multiple regression analyses were used to test the hypotheses, but the
correlations also (partially) supported the hypotheses. In other words, mul-
tiple regression analysis was used as a correlational analysis, with the added
benefit of examining relationships between the workaholism facets and per-
sonality factors while controlling for other factors. As shown in Table2, de-
mographics accounted for 10% of the variance in work involvement. Moreover,
23% of the variance in work involvement was explained by the personality
factors, above and beyond the demographics, F(10, 180) = 7.063, p < .000.
Although not reported here in the tables, it is of note that when occupation
was included as a control variable in the regression analyses, it was not signif-
icantly related to any of the workaholism components. Therefore, the results
were not in any way skewed by the predominance of one or more occupations.
The partial effect of gender was negatively related to work involvement
when the personality factors were entered into the model. After adjusting
for the model, the mean traits for men (25.20) were significantly higher than
those for women (23.53), F(10, 180) = 4.117, p < .05, 2 = .06. Also, as expected,
conscientiousness was positively related to work involvement, thereby par-
tially supporting Hypothesis 2. The zero-order correlation showed that
agreeableness was significantly correlated with work involvement, thereby
partially supporting Hypothesis 4; however, the effects of agreeableness
were insignificant when entered into the regression model.
Additionally, demographics accounted for 1% of the variance in work drive
(see Table2). Moreover, personality factors accounted for 16% of the variance
in work drive, above and beyond the demographics, F(10, 180) = 3.021, p < .01.
Conscientiousness was significantly positively related to work drive, which
partially supports Hypothesis 2. Openness to experience was significantly
positively related to work drive, thereby partially refuting Hypothesis 1.
In addition, demographics accounted for 5% of the variance in work
enjoyment (see Table2). Moreover, personality factors accounted for 15% of
the variance in work enjoyment, above and beyond the demographics, F(10,
180) = 3.673, p < .000. As expected, conscientiousness was significantly posi-
tively related to work enjoyment, thereby partially supporting Hypothesis2.
Additionally, Hypothesis 1 was partially supported, in that openness to ex-
perience was significantly positively related to work enjoyment. In the zero-
order correlations, agreeableness was significantly positively related to work
enjoyment, which partially supports Hypothesis 4; however, when added
into the regression model, the variance of agreeableness was insignificant.
278 Aziz and Tronzo

As shown in Table1, neuroticism was significantly negatively related to work


enjoyment, which partially confirms Hypothesis 5; however, when neuroti-
cism was put into the regression model, the effects became insignificant.
Table 2
Hierarchical Regression Analyses With Work Involvement, Work Drive, and
Work Enjoyment as the Criteria (N = 193)
Work involvement
Step Variable R
1 Gender .01
Age .00
Race .00
Marital status .27*
Number of children .07
.10**
2 Gender .16*
Age .00
Race .01
Marital status .17
Number of children .14
Agreeableness .12
Conscientiousness .45**
Extraversion .05
Neuroticism .17
Openness to experience .15 .23**
Total R2
.33**
Work drive
Step Variable R
1 Gender .08
Age .03
Race .02
Marital status .05
Number of children .06
.01
2 Gender .03
Age .01
Race .01
Marital status .03
Number of children .02
Agreeableness .03
Conscientiousness .39**
Extraversion .01
Neuroticism .15
Openness to experience .19* .16**
(Continues) Total R2 .17**
Workaholism and Personality 279

Table 2 (Continued)
Hierarchical Regression Analyses With Work Involvement, Work Drive, and
Work Enjoyment as the Criteria (N = 193)
Work enjoyment
Step Variable R
1 Gender .08
Age .04
Race .09
Marital status .16
Number of children .00
.05
2 Gender .07
Age .00
Race .08
Marital status .13
Number of children .05
Agreeableness .01
Conscientiousness .28**
Extraversion .10
Neuroticism .17
Openness to experience .20* .15**
Total R2 .20**
Note. R for the personal demographics is equal to the initial R, whereas R
for the personality factors is the increment in R after adding it to the personal
demographics.
*p < .05. **p < .001.

Discussion
The current study replicated the Burke etal. (2006) study and further
explored the idea that personality traits are associated with workaholism
components. Overall, results of both the current study and the Burke etal.
study imply that workaholism can be explained as a personality trait. Such
studies serve as the foundation to further investigate the association be-
tween personality and workaholism. In fact, Burke etal. (2006) emphasized
the importance that future studies replicate their reported findings.
The current study contributes to the existing body of knowledge in sev-
eral ways. First, the Burke etal. (2006) study used a sample of nursing home
employees from the same company in Norway. Nursing is typically viewed
as a stressful job, especially given the fact that most nursing home residents
have serious health issues and life expectancies of fewer than three years.
The current study, however, went beyond the existing literature by including
employees from a variety of industries in the United States. Thus, our find-
ings are more generalizable, in that participants were recruited from a wide
variety of organizations. Second, in the current study, the internal consistency
reliabilities of the five-factor model of personality were all higher than those
obtained by Burke etal. (2006). Perhaps this is because Burke etal. translated
all of the scales to Norwegian. Essentially, acceptable levels of internal consis-
tency reliability were found in the American sample; however, lower levels of
280 Aziz and Tronzo

reliability were retrieved in the Norwegian sample. Hence, it is possible that


the items that comprise the five-factor model (developed in the United States)
might be interpreted differently in such countries as Norway.
Another noteworthy observation lies in the differences in some of the
demographics between the American sample and the sample of nursing
home employees in Norway. For example, the Burke etal. (2006) sample was
primarily female (89%), whereas the current study sample consisted of 60%
women and 40% men. Additionally, 68% of the participants in the Burke etal.
study were married and 74% had children, whereas 37% were married and
38% had children in the current study sample.

Personality and Work Involvement


Consistent with the hypothesis, results of the regression analysis indi-
cated that conscientiousness was significantly related to work involvement.
Additionally, results of the correlation confirmed that agreeable individuals
were more involved in work. However, when added into the regression model
with the other traits, agreeableness was no longer significantly related to
work involvement.
On the other hand, the idea that extraverted individuals are more likely
to be involved in their work was refuted by the results. This finding was also
inconsistent with the Burke etal. (2006) study, where extraversion was the
only significant personality trait related to work involvement. This inconsis-
tency could be because of the nature of the work from the previous study.
The Burke etal. study used participants employed in a nursing home, where
they are constantly interacting with patients and thus exhibiting higher lev-
els of extraversion as part of their job. The current study recruited individu-
als from various industries where some of the occupations are more solitary
(e.g., research, manufacturing), thereby having introverts exhibiting a higher
level of involvement. Additionally, given that extraverts are typically more
social and have more friends, perhaps they are socializing with other co-
workers, which could be a distraction and lead to low work involvement.
Also contrary with the hypothesis, results showed that neurotic individ-
uals were significantly more involved in their work, instead of less involved.
Neurotic individuals are unlikely to cope with anxiety and pressure; there-
fore, pressure to engage in work and complete it could be the driving force
for such individuals to be involved in their work.
Results also indicated that openness to experience was not significantly
related to work involvement, which is partially inconsistent with the hypoth-
esis. Individuals who are open to new experiences are more curious, which
could explain why those individuals are more interested and involved in new
experiences and not as interested in work.

Personality and Work Drive


Consistent with the findings of Burke etal. (2006), results from the cur-
rent study confirmed that conscientiousness was positively related to work
drive. Conscientious individuals are typically achievement oriented, and con-
scientiousness has been found to be a strong predictor of job performance.
Contrary to expectations and to the Burke etal. (2006) study, results
showed that openness to experience actually leads to higher work drive.
Workaholism and Personality 281

This anomaly may again be attributed to the nature of the work. Where in
the previous study the environment was a nursing home, the current study
included a wide variety of occupations. Open individuals have been found
to be more imaginative; therefore, some occupations may require thinking
outside the box and encourage imaginative thinking (e.g., sales/marketing,
fine arts) that would initiate work drive.
The results also did not support the hypothesis that agreeableness
would be linked with higher work drive. Research has found that agreeable
individuals are more likely to be cooperative and nonargumentative, and
thus will be more likely to engage in work that they do not necessarily want
to do in order to avoid conflict.
Additionally, contrary to the hypothesis, extraversion was not found to
be significantly linked with work drive. Again, this could be attributed to the
fact that extraverts might be more focused on socializing with their cowork-
ers or driven in more social aspects of their life and thus are not motivated
to complete their work.
Furthermore, the results did not show that neuroticism was significantly
related to work drive, which does not support the hypothesis or the previ-
ous study findings. In the previous study, participants were all in a high-
stress environment (i.e., nursing home) and perhaps working maintained
that stress level. This could be why individuals neuroticism significantly
related to work drive. On the other hand, in the current study, work drive
of individuals in different work environments (e.g., sales, real estate) is not
significantly affected by levels of neuroticism because any additional dis-
tress or instability could be detrimental to the job and may result in a lack
of work motivation.

Personality and Work Enjoyment


Results supported the hypothesis that individuals exhibiting openness
to experience enjoy their work more than others. Open individuals are more
excited to take on new adventures and may include work projects in those
adventures. Additionally, results confirmed that conscientious individuals
show more work enjoyment. Given that conscientiousness is linked with job
performance, it is likely that work enjoyment is a result of high performance.
Results of the correlation were consistent with the hypothesis, in that
neurotic individuals were less likely to experience work enjoyment. Based on
earlier research, neurotic individuals have lower job satisfaction than their
more emotionally stable counterparts. It is important to note that, when
entered into the regression model, neuroticism no longer had a significant
relationship with work enjoyment.
The hypothesis that agreeable individuals would exhibit higher levels of
work enjoyment was also partially supported by the zero-order correlations.
Generally, agreeable individuals are happier and more helpful; therefore, it
is no surprise that they would enjoy their work more than their nonagree-
able counterparts. The effect of agreeableness, however, was insignificant
when entered into the regression model.
The current findings did not support the hypothesis that extraversion
would lead to work enjoyment and were also inconsistent with Burke etal.
(2006). This could be dependent on the nature of the work. If a highly extra-
verted individual is currently employed in an autonomous setting that does
282 Aziz and Tronzo

not foster sociability (e.g., research lab, manufacturing plant), then that indi-
vidual may not enjoy working at all, or at least may not enjoy working in that
particular setting.

Limitations and Future Research


Although the current study addressed some of the drawbacks of the
Burke etal. (2006) study, there are still some limitations that should be
noted. It may be beneficial for future research to examine work charac-
teristics, specifically job profession, in order to explore the relationships
between personality traits and workaholism. It may be that certain per-
sonality types are linked to particular professions; perhaps there are oc-
cupations that are naturally consistent with workaholic individuals (e.g.,
surgeons, lawyers; Ng etal., 2007). It may be the case that there are person-
ality trends within such occupations that could be used to further examine
workaholism.
Although the differences are appreciated, some of the findings were
significantly different from those of the Burke etal. (2006) study, which
could partially be the result of cross-cultural differences. For example, ex-
traversion may have been significantly related with work involvement in
the Burke etal. study because employees in Norway are more extraverted.
The current study used a relatively small, idiosyncratic sample of workers
from various industries across the United States; therefore, the results are
only relevant to the U.S. workforce. Future research could include partici-
pants from the same occupations but across countries to see if any person-
ality differences exist.
Reliance on self-report measures is another limitation. Individuals usu-
ally have inaccurate opinions of themselves, which may produce erroneous
results (Spector, 1994). Self-report data are invaluable as a way to gather in-
formation on how people perceive themselves; however, a more accurate pic-
ture can be attained by collecting data from coworkers, supervisors, peers,
and close friends and family members (Aziz & Zickar, 2006).
Given that perceptions of psychological constructs lie in the eye of the
beholder, the hypotheses were most appropriately assessed by asking em-
ployees to indicate their own attitudes. Moreover, because of the self-report
nature of the study, causal inferences were not made. Future studies should
use longitudinal research to enhance our understanding of the relationship
between workaholism and personality.

Practical Implications
Workaholism has been linked with various behaviors that can be det-
rimental to ones health and work life. For example, previous research has
shown that workaholism is related to burnout, fatigue, and neglect (Burke,
2000b; Garson, 2005; Gini, 1998; Johnstone & Johnston, 2005; Spence &
Robbins, 1992). Workaholism has also been linked with organizational devi-
ant behavior (Galperin & Burke, 2006). With regard to the five-factor model
of personality, it may bode well for interviewers to hire those individuals
who display personality factors that have positive effects on the organiza-
tion (e.g., conscientiousness is positively related to facets of workaholism). It
is of note, however, that the use of personality tests in the selection process
Workaholism and Personality 283

also has its limitations. For instance, social desirability might be an issue, in
that respondents might fake their responses (i.e., lie) in order to please the
interviewer and present themselves in a more positive light.
It is also equally important to look for potential hires who exhibit per-
sonality factors that are harmful to the organization. For example, future
studies might find neuroticism to be related to workaholism (Bakker etal.,
2006; Hochwlder, 2006). By identifying personality factors that are related
to workaholism, employers may be able to better predict workaholic ten-
dencies among potential employees during both recruitment and selection,
which in turn could be helpful in the decision-making process (Barrick &
Mount, 1991; Tett etal., 1991). For example, for those employers who perceive
workaholism to be an undesirable behavior in the workplace, one implication
could be that they should not hire individuals with personality traits that
are related to facets of workaholism. However, it is also possible that it is a
combination of the situation and the disposition that creates workaholism,
thereby opening the door to future questions on how to use workaholism to
the tipping point and how to identify that tipping point.

References
Andreassen, C. S., Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2007). The relationship
between strong motivation to work, workaholism, and health.
Psychology & Health, 22, 615629.
Aziz, S., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). A cluster analysis investigation of workaholism
as a syndrome. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 5262.
Bakker, A. B., van der Zee, K. I., Lewig, K. A., & Dollard, M. F. (2006). The
relationship between the big five personality factors and burnout: A study
among volunteer counselors. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 3150.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions
and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 126.
Buelens, M., & Poelmans, S. A. Y. (2004). Enriching the Spence and
Robbins typology of workaholism: Demographical, motivational and
organizational correlates. Journal of Organizational Change Management,
17, 440458.
Burke, R. J. (2000a). Workaholism and extra-work satisfactions. The
International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 7, 352364.
Burke, R. J. (2000b). Workaholism in organizations: Concepts, results and
future research directions. International Journal of Management Review,
2, 116.
Burke, R. J., Matthiesen, S. B., & Pallesen, S. (2006). Personality correlates
of workaholism. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 12231233.
Burke, R., Richardsen, A., & Martinussen, M . (2002). Psychometric
properties of Spence and Robbins measures of workaholism
components. Psychological Reports, 91, 10981104.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in
clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological
Assessment, 4, 513.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor
model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417440.
Ersoy-Kart, M. (2005). Reliability and validity of the workaholism battery
(Work-BAT): Turkish form. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 609618.
284 Aziz and Tronzo

Galperin, B. L., & Burke, R. J. (2006). Uncovering the relationship between


workaholism and workplace destructive and constructive deviance: An
exploratory study. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
17, 331347.
Garson, B. (2005). Work addiction in the age of information technology: An
analysis. IIMB Management Review, 1521.
George, D. (1997). Working longer hours: Pressure from the boss or
pressure from the marketers? Review of Social Economy, 55, 3365.
Gini, A. (1998). Working ourselves to death: Workaholism, stress, and
fatigue. Business and Society Review, 100, 4556.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The big-five
factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216
1229.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C.,
Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality
Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures.
Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 8496.
Griffiths, M. (2005). Workaholism is still a useful construct. Addiction
Research and Theory, 13, 97100.
Hochwlder, J. (2006). An empirical exploration of the effect of personality
on general and job-related mental ill health. Social Behavior and
Personality, 34, 10511070.
Johnstone, A., & Johnston, L. (2005). The relationship between
organizational climate, occupational type, and workaholism. New
Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34, 181188.
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of
personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 530541.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The
big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success
across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621652.
McMillan, L. H. W., Brady, E. C., ODriscoll, M. P., & Marsh, N. (2002).
A multifaceted validation study of Spence and Robbins (1992)
workaholism battery. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 75, 357368.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1998). Five reasons why the Big Five
article has been frequently cited. Personnel Psychology, 51, 849857.
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship of personality traits
and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating effects of job
satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 59, 591622.
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, 111136.
Oates, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction.
New York: World.
Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for
researching the negative outcomes of excessive work. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 7084.
Schafer, W. D. (2001). Replication: A design principle for field research.
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(15).
Workaholism and Personality 285

Schor, J. B. (1991). The overworked American: The unexpected decline of


leisure. New York: Basic Books.
Spector, P. E . (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A
comment on the use of a controversial method. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 15, 385392.
Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement,
and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160178.
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as
predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel
Psychology, 44, 703742.
286

The Psychological Record (ISSN 0033-2933) is a nonprofit journal of


psychology appearing quarterly. Subscriptions are available on a calendar
year basis (January through December) and it is published by Southern
Illinois University Carbondale. The Psychological Record is primarily
for the publication of experimental or theoretical papers in many areas
of psychology. The journal was founded by renowned interbehaviorist
J.R. Kantor, with one of the most influential American psychologists,
B.F. Skinner, serving as the experimental department editor at the journal's
inception.

doEs yoUr liBrary sUBscriBE to


thE psychological rEcord?
IF NOT, THEN COPy THIS FORM FOR yOUR REFERENCE LIBRARIAN.
To be filled out by employee or faculty member
I would like to request that our library purchase a 2011 subscription to
The Psychological Record (ISSN 0033-2933)

Name Department

Signature

To be filled out by the reference librariran


The Psychological Record (ISSN 0033-2933) Volume 60 (2010):
$160 (USA) $170 (International)

Institution Name

Address

City State Zip Country

Payment: Check (in US currency) made payable to: The Psychological Record

VISA MasterCard Credit Card #:

Expires:

Mail to:
Security Code
The Psychological Record
Rehabilitation Institute
Rehn Hall - Mail Code 4609 Signature:
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
1025 Lincoln Drive
Carbondale IL 62901

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen