Workaholic, or Just Hard Worker?

Published 2006 in Career Development International. 11(5): 394-417.

Copyright 2006 Emerald

Evan J. Douglas
Brisbane Graduate School of Business, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia
[email protected]

and

Robyn J. Morris
Brisbane Graduate School of Business, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia
[email protected]

Autobiographical Notes:
Evan Douglas teaches entrepreneurship, new venture strategy, new venture resourcing,
and business planning in the Brisbane Graduate School of Business at Queensland
University of Technology, where he has been Head of School since July 1997. His
research interests include entrepreneurial attitudes and abilities, the self-employment
decision, work motivation, and issues relating to new venture funding and new venture
strategy.
Robyn Morris is a doctoral candidate in the Brisbane Graduate School of Business at
Queensland University of Technology. She teaches management and entrepreneurship,
previously at Edith Cowan University in Bunbury, Western Australia. Her research
concerns the determinants of work motivation and job satisfaction, and is at the
intersection of the entrepreneurship and work motivation literatures.

ABSTRACT

Methodology/Approach: There is a lack of theoretical development on the question

of why people work long hours and the nature of workaholism. This paper uses
the economists utility-maximization model to build a conceptual model of
voluntary work effort that explains the work effort decision of individuals. We
demonstrate a variety of reasons that induce a person to work excessively. The
paper advances our understanding of work motivation and workaholic behavior
and presents a series of researchable propositions for empirical testing.
Propositions: Individuals will work long hours when motivated to do so by the
satisfaction they derive separately and collectively from (a) income
(materialism); (b) leisure; (c) perquisites; and (d) work per se. It is argued that
only the person who is strongly motivated by the latter reason is properly called
a workaholic, and that the imposition of negative externalities on co-workers is a
separate issue that might also involve work enthusiasts.
Originality of the Paper: This paper discerns three subcategories of the work

enthusiast, which we call materialist, the low-leisure and the perkaholic hard
workers. We demonstrate that these work enthusiasts work long hours for
relatively high job satisfaction, while workaholics gain relatively low job
satisfaction. Inflicting negative externalities on fellow workers is argued to be a
separate issue any one of the hard workers might irk their fellow workers by
working too hard or by their individual mannerisms.

Keywords: workaholism, workaholic types, work effort, discretionary work effort, work
motivation

Workaholic, or Just Hard Worker?

INTRODUCTION

The hard working employee is often considered a valued organisational asset and
workaholics are widely perceived as the hardest workers of all. Workaholism is commonly used
to describe those people who work many hours and/or work very hard, contributing high levels of
discretionary work effort. Why people are motivated to work so hard and whether this workplace
behavior has positive or negative organisational outcomes has recently come under the research
microscope.

Since the term workaholic was coined by Oates (1971) over three decades
ago, workaholism has attracted considerable attention in the popular press and practitioner
circles. But empirical research and theory development to advance our understanding of its
nature, causes and consequences has received limited consideration (Burke et al.., 2004a,
McMillan et al.., 2002, Snir and Harpaz, 2004). Recent special issues on workaholism by the
International Journal of Stress Management (2001: 8(2)) and the Journal of Organizational
Change Management (2004: 17(5)) are indicative of the growing interest in workaholism in the
research community.

Workaholism research has been impeded by the deficiency of clear and consistent
concepts, good operational definitions and validated measures (Burke, 2001a, McMillan et al..,
2002, Scott et al.., 1997), although recent progress is being made (Buelens and Poelmans, 2004).
Despite this progress, several issues remain, including conflicting views on what constitutes
workaholism; differing workaholic typologies and consequent research inconsistencies; unreliable
correlation between the extent of workaholism and the number of hours worked, suggesting that
working hours inadequately captures the concept of workaholism; a limited number of variables

empirically tested as antecedents and consequences of workaholism; and conflicting research

findings on organizational consequences of workaholism (Bonebright et al.., 2000, Buelens and
Poelmans, 2004, Burke, 2000, McMillan et al.., 2002, McMillan et al.., 2003). The growing
interest in workaholism, its prevalence in the workplace, and conflicting opinions, observations
and conclusions about workaholism and its impact on organisations, on the workaholic, and on
the families, present a convincing case for directing more research effort towards investigating
this phenomenon.

In this paper we extend the existing literature on workaholism is two ways. Firstly we
present a conceptual model of work effort that employs economic tools of analysis to provide a
framework for analysing workaholic behavior patterns. In so doing we challenge the
appropriateness of classifying the work enthusiast as a workaholic type (as did Buelens and
Poelmans, 2004) and hypothesise three sub-types of work enthusiast. This analysis also represents
a contribution to the work motivation literature which investigates the motivators of discretionary
work effort (Morris and Douglas, 2004, 2005). Secondly, we provide a set of testable propositions
for future empirical research.

MAKING SENSE OF WORKAHOLISM

Defining Workaholism

Workaholism has been differentially defined and classified in the literature. Four
distinguishing aspects are whether: 1) it is defined behaviorally (Scott et al.., 1997, Robinson, 2000b)
or attitudinally (Spence and Robbins, 1992, Machlowitz, 1980); 2) it is considered to be an addiction (Killinger, 1991,
Oates, 1971, Robinson, 2000a); and 3) it is viewed positively (Cantarow, 1979, Machlowitz, 1980) or negatively (Oates,
1971, Robinson, 2000a, Seybold and Salomone, 1994), and 4) it is recognised as having different types with various
antecedents and outcomes (Buelens and Poelmans, 2004, McMillan et al.., 2002, Scott et al.., 1997, Spence and Robbins,
1992).

Oates (1971) views workaholism as an addiction, first defining a workaholic as a person

whose need for work has become so excessive that it creates noticeable disturbance or

interference with his bodily health, personal happiness, and interpersonal relationships, and with
his smooth social functioning. Spence & Robbins (1992) provided the first academic and

operational definition viewing workaholism as a set of attitudes. They define the

workaholic as a person who is highly work involved, feels compelled or driven to
work because of inner pressures, and is low in enjoyment of work compared to
others. On a similar theme, Machlowitz (1980) contends that what sets
workaholics apart is their attitude towards work, not the number of hours they
work. She argues that the workaholic is motivated by psychic income which
comes from responsibility, meaning, opportunity and recognition, not monetary
income (Seybold and Salomone, 1994).
In contrast, Scott et al. (1997) argue that workaholism is not an attitude but a

pattern of behavior with three critical elements viz: the person spends
considerable discretionary time in work activities, thinks about work when not at
work and works beyond organisational or economical requirements. Robinson
(2000a) proposes a rather stringent definition reflective of what he views as the
true workaholic. He defines workaholism as an obsessive-compulsive disorder
that manifests itself through self-imposed demands, an inability to regulate work
habits, and an overindulgence in work to the exclusion of most other life
activities (Robinson, 2000a).
Snir & Harpaz (2004) argue that a definition of workaholism must contain as
core elements a substantial behavioral and cognitive investment in work; the
investment in work must be stable and not a response to temporary situational
factors; it should make no a priori assumptions regarding the nature of the
consequences of workaholism, and it should take account of external necessities
that may foster workaholic behavior. They define workaholism as the individuals
steady and considerable allocation of time to work-related activities and thoughts,
which does not derive from external necessities (Snir & Zohar, 2000 as cited in
Snir & Harpaz, 2004). This parallels the operational definition posed by McMillan,
ODriscoll, Marsh and Brady (2001) that workaholism is a personal reluctance to
disengage from work evidenced by the tendency to work (or to think about work)
anytime and anywhere, which they developed to address the inability of recent
research to replicate the work involvement component of Spence & Robbins
workaholism triad (1992).
The common theme in all these views on workaholism is that it involves a high or
excessive input of work effort well beyond what is normally required by an organisation. This
central element of high investment of time in work and high work involvement is a core
dimension in Spence & Robbins measure of workaholism. It is common to all of their
workaholic sub-types. Following this point of communality, we build a model of workaholic
behavior based on the view of workaholism as a high investment of time in work.

Workaholic Behavior Patterns

It is generally recognised that the workaholism construct is complex and multidimensional. Several typologies have been developed (see Appendix 1 for an overview of some
well recognised typologies). Few of these however have been empirically tested and validated.
Some typologies relate to workaholics only (Robinson, 2000a, Scott et al.., 1997) while
others identify categories of workaholics and non-workaholics (Buelens and Poelmans,
2004, Naughton, 1987, Spence and Robbins, 1992). Robinson (2000a) argues that
workaholism manifests itself in various work styles and patterns and that many
classifications of workaholics present only one or two types that are truly workaholics
with the others being non-workaholics, which he argues confounds the research results
and adds to the contradictory outcomes and confusion.

Arguably one of the most well-recognised and widely used measures of workaholism is
the Spence & Robbins (1992) workaholic triad, which identifies work involvement, feeling
driven to work and work enjoyment as the defining dimensions. Amongst the strengths of the
Spence & Robbins typology are that, unlike most others, its underlying dimensions are
embedded in the academic literature and the psychometric properties and factor structure of the
measures have been empirically tested in various industry sectors and countries ( Buelens and
Poelmans, 2004, Kanai et al.., 1996, McMillan et al.., 2002, Spence and Robbins,
1992).

Work involvement is a generalised attitude of psychological involvement with work

(McMillan et al.., 2002). Scott et al. (1997) describe this as a normative belief about the
value of work in ones life and relate it to the Protestant Work Ethic, an intrinsic valuing
of work or a belief that work is inherently good or satisfying. Feeling driven is an inner
pressure to work maintained by internal fulfilment rather than external pressure and
converges with intrinsic job motivation (McMillan et al., 2002). We suggest that work
involvement and feeling driven means a person is motivated by work for its own sake

which means utility is derived from work effort per se. Work enjoyment is the level of
pleasure derived from work and correlates with job satisfaction (McMillan et al.., 2002).
Commensurate with Machlowitzs view of psychic income (1980), we argue that work
enjoyment means the psychic utility derived from the non-monetary working conditions
associated with the workplace.

Employing these defining dimensions, Spence & Robbins (1992) identify six sub-types
of workaholics and non-workaholics, viz: work addicts, enthusiastic workaholics, work
enthusiasts, disenchanted workers, relaxed workers and unengaged workers (see
Appendix 1). While Kanai et al. (1996) and McMillan et al. (2002) failed to replicate this
tripartite model using broader sample bases and rigorous analytical methods, they
found considerable consistency for a revised 2-factor model utilising only feeling driven
and work enjoyment. Buelens & Poelmans (2004) subsequently enriched the Spence &
Robbins typology by replicating the six workaholic sub-types and also identifying the
reluctant hard worker as an additional sub-type, and speculating that alienated
professionals might be a further sub-type.

In their original study Spence & Robbins (1992) do not seem to mean that the work
enthusiast should be included as a workaholic type. They state that the core purpose
of their study was to assess the concept of workaholism and they contrast this profile
with work enthusiasm. Several researchers however subsequently refer to Spence &
Robbins three workaholic types viz: workaholics (work addicts), enthusiastic
workaholics and the work enthusiast (Buelens and Poelmans, 2004, Burke, 1999a,
Burke, 1999b, Burke, 2001b, Burke et al., 2004a, Burke et al.., 2004b).

Scott et al. (1997) argue that people who work long hours are not necessarily
workaholics. We note that working long hours is a behavior, which is presumably driven

by particular attitudes, and there might be a multitude of attitudinal reasons to work long
hours, only some or which might be related to workaholism. People high in work
involvement and drivenness (attitudes) are predisposed to work long hours and so are
more prone to workaholism. Bonebright et al. (2000) and Robinson (2000a) support this
view and contend that the work enthusiast is a non-workaholic sub-type on the basis
that they are not compelled or driven to work hard. In our model of workaholic behavior
patterns we address this issue of the classification of the work enthusiast as a
workaholic sub-type.

The majority of workaholism research has focussed on describing rather than explaining
this phenomenon. As a result the antecedents of workaholism are least understood (McMillan et
al., 2003). Empirical works by Burke and colleagues examine the cognitive factors
(beliefs, fears and perceptions) of workaholism. Kanai and colleagues (2001; 2004)
examine the impact of a stressful work environment and economic recession on
workaholism, and Buelens & Poelmans (2004) investigate the effect of organisational
culture (work pressure and opportunities for personal growth) on workaholism. Work
addicts generally have more negative beliefs and fears and perceptions of work-life
imbalance, high organisational pressure to work hard, and low opportunities for
personal growth. Workaholism was also found to increase with worsening economic
conditions. Many writers address the consequences of workaholism with the focus
being primarily on the negatives such as work and life satisfactions, work and work-life
conflicts, psychological well-being and physical health, and work behaviors such as
perfectionism, non-delegation and job stress (Burke, 1999a; Burke, 1999b; Burke,
2004a; Burke, 2004b; Kanai, 1996; Spence and Robbins, 1992). Work addicts are more
likely to have more negative work and non-work outcomes than other workaholic types.

It appears from the literature that the work enthusiast and the enthusiastic workaholic
would be the most preferred type of worker from the employers point of view. Both sub-types
enjoy high job satisfaction and less of the negatives of high levels of work effort. The work
addict and the reluctant hard worker share a number of characteristics including low work
satisfactions, low perceived opportunities for growth, high perceptions of pressure to work by the
organisation, and a strong intent to leave the organisation. A key distinguishing factor is that the
reluctant hard worker does not feel driven to work (an internal force) but feels pressured by the
organisation to work hard (an external force).

Burke and colleagues (1999b, 2004a) report no significant differences between

work addicts, enthusiastic workaholics and work enthusiasts on hours worked and work
involvement. They conclude that feeling driven to work and having fun at work are the
two key elements that distinguish the workaholic types and describe them as attitudes
and behaviors people either bring to work or experience at work. We propose that
drivenness is something people bring to work (motivated to work for its own sake)
whereas work enjoyment is the something the person experiences at work (utility
derived from non-monetary working conditions associated with the workplace). This
perspective is consistent with Burkes contentions (1999b) when he suggests that
managers can increase the work enjoyment factor by intervening to create a more
positive workplace environment as proposed by Peters (1994) amongst others.

Scott et al. (1997) are critical of the Spence & Robbins typology on the grounds
that it is based on attitudes whereas workaholism is a behavioral phenomenon. In the
first instance, they argue that to be classified as a workaholic a person must 1) spend
considerable discretionary time in work activities; 2) think about work when not at work;
and 3) work beyond organisational or economic requirements. In their discussion of
working beyond organizational and economic requirements they discuss whether

organizational pressure leading to work effort beyond what is reasonably expected can
be considered to be workaholism. They argue that in workaholic organizations where
people are expected to work hard, people who are not predisposed to workaholic
behavior patterns have the option of a) meeting organizational standards; b) quitting; or
c) being terminated (presumably for not meeting minimum effort expectations). Thus,
anyone that chooses to meet the high work effort demands of the organization rather
than exploring the options of moving to another organization not requiring such
commitment, is appropriately considered workaholic. Having displayed these core
behaviors, the workaholic may fall into one of three workaholic types viz: compulsivedependent, perfectionist or achievement-oriented (see Appendix 1). While this typology
is well embedded in the literature, it has been neither adopted by other researchers nor
empirically tested. Despite the distinctions made by the authors, the compulsivedependent and perfectionist workaholics share many traits with the work addict, and the
achievement-oriented workaholic has much in common with the enthusiastic workaholic
and to a lesser degree the work enthusiast.

We argue that the differing perspectives on workaholism as proposed by Spence &

Robbins (1992) and Scott et al. (1997) are not entirely incompatible and present a model
of workaholic behavior patterns that we believe transcends the attitudinal-behavioral
debate. We argue that attitudes towards work and working conditions are manifested in
the level of work effort a person contributes in the workplace. We now turn to a
discussion of what motivates people to invest high levels of time at work, with a view to
extending our understanding of the antecedents of workaholism.

A MODEL OF WORK BEHAVIOR PATTERNS

Workaholism theory is still in its infancy. In their review of workaholism theory and
research, McMillan et al. (2003) synthesise the extant literature into five major paradigms,
namely addiction models, learning theory, trait theory, cognitive theory and family-systems
models. They conclude that on the basis of current empirically based knowledge of workaholism,
it appears that personal traits activated and maintained by environmental circumstances most
adequately explain this phenomenon. They argue that the trait and learning theories offer the most
promise for future research, and suggest that the cognitive paradigm has important implications
for intervention and offers a promising new development in advancing our understanding of
workaholism.

In this paper we will proceed to build an analytical model of the individuals work effort
decision, using economic tools of analysis, viz: the utility-maximizing model of human behavior.
This utility model of work behavior most readily falls under the cognitive paradigm (i.e. beliefs,
assumptions and thoughts that activate workaholic behaviors). We apply the utility model to
encompass not only utility derived from work but also utility derived from non-work activities.
We posit that the individuals choice concerning time spent working needs to be seen in the
context of the individuals opportunity cost of working, viz: the utility that might have been
gained had the time been spent at leisure.

The utility-maximizing model dramatically simplifies the analysis of work motivation, but
such simplification allows us to enunciate the model more concisely and to demonstrate the
separate impact of different attitudes that motivate (or de-motivate) people to undertake work
activity. We show that people engage in work for a variety of reasons, and that some people will
work long hours for one or a combination of those reasons. Some of these reasons are noble,
while others are more selfish, and it would therefore seem unreasonable to tar all of these
situations with the negative brush of workaholism. Accordingly we begin by breaking the nexus
of workaholism and long working hours we assert that while some who work long hours are

indeed workaholics, others are not a view also shared by others including Robinson (2000) and
Scott et al. (1997).

In simple terms, people work to satisfy their needs. These needs may be material or psychic.
For simplicity of exposition we categorize these needs into four broad groups, namely income,
leisure, perquisites, and an inherent psychic drive to work. In particular we simplify the concept
of leisure to equate with non-work time. We recognize that non-work time may be divided into a
variety of subcategories such as private time, family time, travelling time, social activities,
community activities, worship, sport, and so forth. But for expositional purposes here we simplify
and treat leisure time as the catch-all of non-work activities. Similarly, we aggregate a wide
variety of work motivators under the heading of perquisites. Perquisites are defined here to
include all tangible and intangible non-monetary benefits received at the workplace or as a result
of working at that workplace e.g. prestige associated with working for a particular firm or
organisation. Thus perks include the size of the workers office, quality of office furniture and
equipment, provision of a vehicle, parking place, and other tangible benefits, as well as psychic
benefits associated with effective managers, good leadership, social interaction with co-workers,
customers, suppliers, and so on. The psychic costs of irksome elements associated with work are
deducted from the psychic benefits of working, such that when we say perquisites we effectively
mean net perquisites. Accordingly, income is not regarded as a perquisite of work, but is desired
separately for its own sake, since income is the means by which one can purchase the great
variety of goods and services (sources of utility) that are desired but which are not available at
work. The utility-maximizing model helps us to find the combination of work and non-work time
that maximizes the individuals utility or overall satisfaction from the variety of sources of utility
that are associated with working and non-working time.

Following Machlowitz (1980) and extending her view of people gaining psychic income from
work, we argue that satisfying these needs allows the individual to derive psychic satisfaction, or

utility in the economists jargon, and we contend that the individual works to maximize this
utility. How much the individual works depends in part on his/her attitudes toward income,
leisure, perquisites and inherent psychic drive needs. These attitudes can in turn be interpreted as
the relationship between these things and the individuals utility. A person with a strong
preference for income, for example, will want to work more than a person with a weak preference
for income, other things being equal.

Why will a person have a strong preference for income? Income allows the individual to
purchase goods and services that satisfy many of lifes tangible and intangible needs. Thus,
income allows access to goods and services, the consumption of which allows the individual to
gain utility. Thus the need for income is driven by the individuals perceived need for goods and
services, which in turn is driven by the individuals attitude toward what we will call material
things (despite some of the items being intangible services). A person who aspires to a larger
house, a newer car, a flatter TV, exotic holidays, and so on, is more acquisitive and exhibits a
stronger attitude to materialism than one who is content to live simply and frugally.

An individuals need for leisure relates to the need for free time to consume the goods and
services purchased, or to spend the time relaxing or sleeping. This time might also be spent
pursuing affection and companionship, particularly as available in a family relationship.
Advocates of work-life balance argue that time spent away from work is critically important to
mental health, physical wellbeing, and the quality of life. The advice to seek a better work-life
balance is usually offered gratuitously to those who work long hours, and reflects the assumption
that working too long is always bad for you. But we note that for some individuals, with a low
need for leisure, staying away from work makes them less happy, not happier. Thus, a person
with a low preference for leisure (perhaps because of a perception of few leisure options or
interests) will have a low need for non-work activities and thus a low need for free time, so will
spend longer hours working than a person with a high preference for leisure.

Perquisites (perks) are the potentially very wide range of the tangible and intangible
benefits that can be derived from the workplace, working conditions, and the daily commute
between the home and the workplace. The workplace environment allows the individual to satisfy
intangible needs such as the need for power, recognition, and social interaction. We define perks
as the entire gamut of non-monetary costs and benefits associated with working that impact the
individuals utility function. They include appreciation of the quality of the physical work
environment, of co-workers and leadership, and the characteristics of the job itself. Many people
view decision-making autonomy as a perk, as is co-worker trust and a supportive social
atmosphere. Negative perks (which for convenience of exposition we will call irks) include
irksome situations, processes and people found in the workplace, or between home and the
workplace, and these negatively impact the individuals utility. For simplicity we shall henceforth
refer to perquisites as the balance of perks minus irks (or net perks).

Individual attitudes to perks may vary considerably. Some will be unimpressed by the
trappings of the office while others would die for them. Some seek positions of authority to
satisfy their need for power and influence, while others shun positions of autonomy and
leadership opportunities because these are perceived to include irksome responsibilities. Perkpreferring individuals will have a higher expressed need for perks in the workplace and,
accordingly, when these are available will spend more hours working than people with lesser
preference for perks, other things being equal.

Finally, the inherent psychic drive is an internal need that drives some people to work
longer hours. This defined in a negative sense i.e. people are motivated to work long hours to
avoid psychic disutility, such a might derive from guilt or an obsession. Note that although
working may be seen as a way to gain physical exercise, to maintain physical and mental health,
to meet new people and build social networks, and so on, these are included above as perks
associated with working. Here we are limiting our scope to the avoidance of disutility associated

with the simple fact of working. The need to work may arise from the recognition that not
working hard causes individuals to suffer negative feelings, like guilt, because they are not doing
what they are expected to do. Antecedents of this may relate to religious upbringing (e.g. the
protestant ethic) or to parental admonishments that without hard work one is unlikely to become
a success or to have a happy life. If so, these negative feelings cause disutility, and this disutility
is assuaged only by working harder. This motive for working long hours is the equivalent of
Spence & Robbins feeling driven component of workaholism that McMillan et al. (2002) found
to converge with intrinsic job satisfaction.

We have outlined four main categories of reasons for working, and for working longer hours,
and these are summarised in Chart 1. We shall now progressively incorporate these into a model
of work motivation that indicates the role that each of these separate influences has on the
individuals decision to supply more or less work effort.

(Take in Chart 1)

The Income-Leisure Trade-off

The labor-supply curve has long been used in economic analysis to show the individuals
trade-off between income and leisure (see, for example, Samuelson 1948:473). Individuals supply
work effort in return for income, since earned income buys them food, shelter and other things
that serve their needs. But they will not work all day and all night because they also value nonwork time (leisure) to actually satisfy their non-work needs such as eating and sleeping, enjoying
the things they have purchased, spending time with family members, participating in community
activities and so on. The balance of time allocated to work and non-work activities is commonly
called the work-life balance, and people have differing views of exactly where the balance lies.

To build the model we first assume that the individual gains utility only from work and
leisure, and does not receive utility from any perquisites associated with working, nor any utility
form the work itself. We later relax these assumptions to demonstrate that they too will induce the
individual to work long hours. In Figure 1 we show representative indifference curves for three
individuals showing their trade-off between income and leisure[1].

(Take in Figure 1)

Note that the indifference curves are different for each individual. In part (a) the individual
has a relatively high trade-off between income and leisure, reflecting a relatively strong
preference for leisure time (and activities) and a relatively weak preference for material goods
and services. It is the ratio of these preferences that determines the slope of the indifference curve
at a particular point. But note that the slope of each curve changes as we move our eye along the
curve each curve is convex to the origin, reflecting the assumption of diminishing returns to the
satisfaction one gains from additional units of both income and leisure. In part (b), the individual
displays a more balanced trade-off between income and leisure at any particular combination of
income and leisure, compared with the person in part (a). Finally, the person in part (c) has an
extremely low trade-off between income and leisure reflecting a relatively weak preference for
leisure time (and activities) and a relatively strong preference for material goods and services
this person is willing to give up only a very small amount of income to gain an additional
measure of leisure.

[1]

An indifference curve is a locus of combination (of things in this case income

and leisure) from which the individual expects to gain the same level of psychic
satisfaction, or utility. Higher indifference curves represent higher levels of utility,
and are therefore preferred to lower indifference curves by the utility-maximizing
individual. While individuals do not make utility calculations in their decision
making, they often act as if they do, and thus utility analysis is a useful tool for
predicting human behavior.

The diagonal line in each part of Figure 1 represents the income the individual might earn
from hours spent working. The slope of the income line represents the (wage) rate of income that
can be earned per hour by the individuals. Thus income earned is zero when the individual has
maximal leisure (168 hours per week) and is maximal when the individual (hypothetically) has
zero leisure and works 168 hours per week. To focus attention on the differences in their attitudes
to income and leisure, we assume all three people have the same abilities and hence the same
income line. Given the wage rate and their strength of preference for income (material goods) and
leisure (non-work activities), each individual selects the income-leisure combination that allows
attainment of the highest possible indifference curve. Thus in part (a) the individual chooses a
very large quantum of leisure (La hours) and works only Wa, reflecting his/her stronger preference
for leisure activities relative to material goods and services. The individual in part (b) exhibits a
better work-life balance with leisure time Lb exceeding working time Wb. Finally, the person in
part (c) has hardly any leisure (Lc) and works most of the week (Wc), reflecting his/her very
strong preference for material goods and services compared to his/her relatively weak preference
for leisure activities.

Are people who strongly prefer material things properly called workaholics? Perhaps they
want to build a home, or educate their children in high-quality schools, or build a retirement nestegg? Surely these materialistic motives do not deserve the stigmatic term workaholism.
Alternatively, the person in part (c) of Figure 1 might have a more or less normal preference for
material things, but have a very weak preference for leisure activities. Perhaps they are easily
bored, or perceive there to be few leisure options or opportunities of interest, or feel that enjoying
oneself at leisure is a terrible sin. In any case, it is certainly a value judgement to brand them as
workaholics for expressing their choice in favour of work and against leisure.

The Backward Bending Labor-Supply Curve

In Figure 1 we held the wage rate constant and demonstrated how individuals would
choose a work-leisure combination to maximize their utility. We now show how individuals
might change their work effort level if the wage rate changes at a higher wage rate we might
expect a higher level of work effort to be offered (Vroom, 1964). The labor-supply curve,
showing the work effort to be offered by an individual in response to different rates of
remuneration, is common in economic textbook analyses and has also been used in the analysis of
the entrepreneurs self-employment decision (Douglas & Shepherd, 2000).

In Figure 2 we show one individuals response to increasing wage rates. At the lowest
wage rate the individual chooses L1 hours of leisure and Y1 dollars of income to maximize utility
on indifference curve I1. When a somewhat higher wage rate is offered, the utility-maximizing
choice (on I2) is L2 hours of leisure and income level Y2. For a still higher wage rate, the utilitymaximizing choice (on I3) is L3 hours of leisure and income level Y3. Thus the individuals
supply of work hours has increased as the wage rate is increased. But now note that when an even
higher wage rate is offered, the individual maximizes utility (on I4) by choosing L4 leisure and Y4
income, and that L4>L3. That is, the individual has chosen greater leisure at the higher wage rate,
and has necessarily reduced the number of hours offered for work despite the higher wage rate.
This individual is demonstrating that at some relatively high wage rate he/she would prefer to
substitute in favour of leisure time and away from work time, despite the opportunity to earn even
higher income.

(Take in Figure 2)

In Figure 3 we show the result of this exercise completed for the three individuals introduced
in Figure 1, but this time focus on the relationship between income and work effort hours
supplied by each individual. Alternatively, these work-effort supply curves of each individual
could be derived as the loci of the individuals indifference curves (in income-work effort space)

and income lines from the origin representing different wage rates offered, similar to Douglas and
Shepherd (2000). These effort supply curves must bend backwards at the point where the
individual prefers to have more leisure (to enjoy the fruits of income) rather than more work
effort (to earn more income) in response to an increase in the wage rate offered.

(Take in Figure 3)

Morris and Douglas (2005) introduce the concept of maximal work effort, or the wall. This
is the limit of the individuals physical and mental capability, beyond which he/she would suffer
physical or mental breakdown. Accordingly, the dotted line in each part of Figure 3 represents
maximal work effort the limit of each individuals work capability. As we can see, the person in
part (a), who places a relatively high valuation on leisure (or a low valuation on income and
material things), offers minimal work effort at all wage rates and indeed reduces the amount
offered at higher wage rates, well short of the maximal work effort that might be offered. The
person in part (b) offers a moderate level of work effort at each income level but similarly
exhibits a backward bending supply curve after a particular level of wage rate, and does not come
very close to the maximal work effort possible. Finally, the person in part (c) offers a relatively
high level of effort at each wage rate, and approaches the maximal work effort capability at
relatively high income levels, reflecting his/her relatively strong preference for material goods
and/or his/her relatively weak preference for leisure activities.

And so we ask the same question is the person who more nearly approaches his/her
maximal work effort levels properly branded as a workaholic, or should we laud them for the job
they do? Surely employers would prefer such hard-working individuals, who at this stage of the
model inflict no negative effects on themselves or on others in the workplace.

The Work-Inducing Impact of Perquisites

Earlier we argued that the individual would derive utility from perquisites offered by the
employer, the job, the workplace, co-workers, proximity of workplace to home, and so on. At
least some part of these perks is within the control of the employer, who can vary the level of
perks offered to induce greater work effort. In effect the adjustment of perks will cause the
individuals work-effort supply curve to shift to the right each time perks are increased. In the
context of Figure 3, the reader can imagine the supply curves of all three individuals shifting
somewhat to the right as the employer adjusts perks upward. Following Morris & Douglas (2005)
we show in Figure 4 that for a particular employee, the supply curve of work effort will shift to
the right as perks are increased. The supply curves are labelled S0, S1, S2, and S3 and reflect
progressively higher levels of perks offered to the individual. The line traced out by E0, E1, E2,
and E3 shows the work effort supplied for progressively higher levels of perks with zero income,
as in the case of a volunteer (see Morris and Douglas, 2005). Note that all the supply curves are
truncated at the point where they would bend back, since no (profit-maximising) employer would
want to pay higher incomes or give higher perks for fewer hours of work time.[2]

(Take in Figure 4)

But note that it is the individuals responsiveness to perks that determines how much the
work effort supply curve will shift to the right. Some workers may be almost impervious to
additional perks, while others might be highly responsive to them. Some workers may crave the
power, recognition, acceptance, social interaction and other perks, and perceive that these are
positively associated with working longer hours. Thus their supply curves of effort might be quite
[2]

This model assumes for simplicity that the individual and the employer envision
a continuous relationship between work effort and income, both as a motivator
and as a reward. In reality of course there are observed or unobserved, and
intentional or unintentional, breaks in this relationship, typically accompanied by,
or due to, asymmetry of information. Such extensions of the model are outside
the scope of this paper but represent very interesting extensions for further
research.

responsive to additional perks associated with longer working hours. Some of these workers
might find their effort-supply curve shifts out to approach or even hit the wall of maximal
capability. As suggested in Chart 1, such persons might more properly be called perkaholics
rather than workaholics.

From the preceding discussion, it is evident that many people invest high levels of work
effort without necessarily being addicted or compelled to work due to an inner pressure or drive
and gain considerable enjoyment from working. We propose that this group of people who would
typically be represented within the work enthusiast category of Spence & Robbins workaholic
types, are in fact not a homogeneous group but can be further sub-divided on the basis of their
primary source of utility that motivates them to work so hard. Thus, we propose the following
propositions:

Proposition 1:

Work enthusiasts can be divided into three distinct sub-types; viz: the

material goal seeker, the low-leisure hard worker and the perkaholic.

1a. The material goal seeker work enthusiast is significantly higher in preference for
material goods and services (economic orientation) than other work enthusiasts.

1b.

The low-leisure hard worker work enthusiast is significantly lower in

leisure enjoyment than other work enthusiasts.

1c.

The perkaholic work enthusiast is significantly higher in appreciation of

perquisites obtainable in the workplace than are other work enthusiasts.

The Psychic Drive to Work

Finally we consider those who gain utility from work, per se. An implicit assumption of
the income-leisure trade-off and the backward-bending supply curve of work effort is that
employees are averse to work effort that is, work is physically and mentally tiring and gives
disutility to the employee. The indifference curves of a work-averse individual would be
positively-sloping in income-work effort space, as in part (c) of Figure 5. This individual would
want additional income to induce him/her to supply more work effort. If instead, workers gain
utility from work effort, they will have indifference curves in income-work effort space that are
negatively sloping and convex to the origin, as in part (a) of Figure 5. Morris and Douglas (2005)
argue that while workers may gain utility from work initially, at some level we should expect this
to switch to an aversion for higher levels of work, and thus the indifference curves will be
ellipses, as in part (b) of Figure 5.

(Take in Figure 5)

As can be seen in Figure 5, when we change the assumption from aversion to preference there
are significant changes to the work-effort supply curve. For the individual in part (a) who prefers
work effort throughout the range of effort levels, the supply curve of work effort is horizontal
until the maximal level of effort is reached, at which point the supply curve becomes vertical,
coextensive with the wall. Note that this individual achieves the relatively low indifference
curve I* without any income being offered. Any income offered by the employer would put this
employee on a higher indifference curve, but the employer might realise that this brings forth no
additional effort and would be inclined to offer the lowest income level acceptable to the
employee (probably equal to his/her opportunity income from an alternative employment
position).

In part (b) we show an individual who at first gains utility from work per se, but after
some point derives disutility from additional work effort. The utility surface for this individual is

like a hill, with the indifference curves being ellipses that trace out contour lines around that hill.
In this case we see that the individuals effort-supply curve approaches the wall but bends back
before it hits the wall. The initial preference for work effort has the effect of pushing the base of
the effort-supply curve out towards the wall, and the later aversion to work effort has the effect of
raising the supply curve away from the horizontal axis and then bending it back. But note that this
individual can reach relatively high indifference curves, depending on what the employer needs to
pay to secure his/her services. Finally in part (c) we see that the person who is averse to work
effort from the outset exhibits an effort supply curve that rises away from the origin and tends to
bend back well short of the wall. This person can also reach relatively high levels of utility,
depending on his/her opportunity wage rate.

Douglas and Shepherd (2000) argue that an employer might offer more than the opportunity
wage rate to retain a productive employee, when it is profit-maximising to do so. The wage rate
offered might exceed the employees opportunity wage rate because of scarcity of appropriately
skilled individuals, firm-specific skills of the employee (that are not valuable to other employers),
or due to the search, transactions, and training costs associated with finding, selecting and
incorporating a new employee into the work situation. In addition, the employer will offer
progressively higher bonus rates (profit shares) to induce additional work effort (and associated
output) to the point where profit is maximized (see Douglas and Shepherd, 2000). But as they
show, no employer will ever find it profit-maximising to induce the individual to offer work
effort to the point that the supply curve of effort bends back.

In the present context we can see that the profit-maximising firm will not need to offer the
work-preferring person any income or perks to induce the supply of work effort this person is
effectively a volunteer all the way out to the wall. This person might be offered the minimal
income (opportunity wage) or might even be offered a position with the organisation as a
volunteer worker. Consequently this person will receive relatively little additional utility from

income or perks, and thus might be expected to receive relatively low total utility (job
satisfaction), and thus fit the Spence and Robbins (1992) definition of the workaholic.

For the person who initially prefers work per se but after some work effort level is averse to
work, higher wage rates (and potentially higher bonus rates) may be offered to induce additional
work effort, but only up to the point that is profit-maximising for the employer. Since this workpreferring person is potentially already close to maximal level of work effort, relatively little
additional income or perks might be required to induce the profit-maximising work effort level,
and thus the total utility (job satisfaction) of this person might also be expected to be relatively
low, again fitting the Spence and Robbins (1992) definition of workaholic.

Finally, for the person who is averse to work effort from the outset, income and perks are
required to induce work effort and the employer will offer the levels of income and perks that
allow the employee to attain the highest level of utility consistent with the employers profitmaximisation. Since the effort-supply curve of the work-averse individual will be furthest from
the wall, (other things being equal) and since the employer will want to move the individual to the
profit-maximising level of work effort, this individual will be offered higher levels of income
and/or perks, and will thus attain a higher level of total utility (job satisfaction) other things being
equal. This individual would seem to fit the Spence and Robbins (1992) definition of the work
enthusiast.[3]

Bringing all the determinants of the effort supply curve together, we can see that individuals
may approach maximal work effort (the wall) for one or a combination of reasons. The

[3]

Note that we cannot make interpersonal comparisons of utility, since it is

impossible to measure one persons satisfaction relative to anothers. At most,
we can infer that, other things being equal (including preference for income,
leisure and perks) the workaholic will be offered less income and perks and thus
seems likely to derive less utility from those sources.

workaholic, who prefers work effort regardless of work effort level, will get there based on that
reason alone, whereas work enthusiasts will have their work effort curve effectively shifted out
towards the wall by one or a combination of three reasons, viz: a relatively strong preference for
income and material goods, a relatively weak preference for leisure activities, and/or a relatively
strong preference for perquisites associated with the workplace. In terms of the Spence and
Robbins trilogy, work addicts (High work involvement, High drivenness, and Low work
enjoyment, or HHL) must get very little utility from perquisites, since their level of work
enjoyment is low. Enthusiastic workaholics on the other hand, who are similar to work addicts in
that they are highly driven to work but oppositely gain high levels of work enjoyment (i.e. HHH),
must gain substantial utility from the perquisites associated with working. This leads us to the
following propositions.

Proposition 2: The enthusiastic workaholic gains significantly higher utility from the
perquisites associated with work than does the unenthusiastic workaholic (work
addict).

External Effects of Workaholics and Enthusiastic Workers

Porter (2001) contends that high investment of time in work can be accomplished in a
manner that contributes positively or negatively to the workplace environment. Following this
view, we argue that the impact of workaholics high level of work on others depends on how they
carry out this work and posit that different types of workaholics will have different spillover
effects on co-workers. Thus there may be good workaholics (who create positive externalities
for their co-workers and organisations) and bad workaholics (who create negative externalities
for co-workers and the organisation). Similarly, work enthusiasts might impact their work

environment positively or negatively. Many writers suggest that workaholism has negative
personal and organisational impacts, but there are many competing views that are largely
speculative and inconclusive. The research focus has been largely limited to the negative
consequences of workaholism and only a limited number of variables have been examined
empirically. Only one study (Porter, 2001) has considered the impact of workaholic behaviors on
co-workers, although this study has limitations and requires further validation.

Work addicts (Spence and Robbins, 1992) and similarly compulsive-dependent and
perfectionist workaholics (Scott, 1997) are negatively portrayed as being perfectionists,
controlling, low in delegation, rigid thinkers, inflexible and may deliberately engage in
unproductive work to stretch out tasks and experience more work conflict than other workers
(Burke, 2004; Kanai, 1996; Porter, 1996: Spence, 1992). In contrast, enthusiastic workaholics
(Spence and Robbins, 1992) and achievement-oriented workaholics (Scott et al., 1997) are
depicted as achievement striving, high on job performance, engage in pro-social (citizenship)
behaviors and are high on adaptability, creativity and innovativeness.

It follows that the long working hours of workaholics and work enthusiasts might be
found irksome by fellow workers, who might perceive that these hard workers are embarrassing
them and/or shifting the expectations of superiors towards a belief that it is normal to work
longer hours, and thus putting pressure on co-workers to raise their level of work effort. This
external pressure on co-workers might induce them to work longer hours, beyond what would be
utility-maximising in the absence of this external pressure. This seems to correlate with the
reluctant hard worker concept of Buelens & Poelmans (2004).

Conversely, the long working hours of workaholics and work enthusiasts might generate
perks for fellow workers. Their hard work might allow the firm to attain output targets or other
goals, and the kudos of senior management might flow to all employees. Or the hard work of

some may allow others to reduce their work effort levels, i.e. to shirk, which for a work-averse
person is a source of utility. Workaholics and work enthusiasts may well find their own work
behaviors irksome or perksome, that is, they may gain disutility or utility from their own work
behavior. On the one hand their hard work may lead to a deterioration of their health, and cause
guilty feelings about neglecting their families and communities. On the other hand their hard
work may allow them to gain power and control, or to escape from leisure activities which they
find irksome.

Workaholics that display perfectionist tendencies are likely to produce a stressed

workplace environment for others working for or with them. Porter (2001) contends that
unfulfilled workaholics have a tendency not to cooperate or communicate with their colleagues
and often set overly stringent standards. As behavioral manifestations of their need for power and
control to perhaps compensate for low self-esteem, workaholics may set unreasonable standards
and unrealistic deadlines, withhold information and shift standards on the work expected. This
creates considerable frustrations for co-workers, a source of irks for these employees. This may
well cause these workers to lower their own work efforts and reduce the overall efficiency and
productivity of the organisation. Porter found that perfectionism, especially if combined with no
joy in work (as is characteristic of work addicts) is associated with poorer co-worker
relationships.

In contrast, Porter suggests that people who work long hours because of a high level of
enjoyment in the work do not become caught up in the destructive work behavior patterns of the
work addict, thus they may set high standards but not ones that ensure failure and not to the
exclusion or victimisation of co-workers. Thus, people who work long hours and gain a high level
of enjoyment from the work can be expected to potentially have positive spillover effects on coworkers especially in team settings where these people may be viewed as role models to others
around them. This may result from the high but realistic performance standards set that encourage

higher work effort from others, citizenship behaviors that improve the effectives of the team, and
so forth. Accordingly, we propose that:

Proposition 3: The possession by hard working individuals of perfectionist tendencies and

achievement-orientation will be unrelated to their categorization as workaholic
(enthusiastic and unenthusiastic) or work enthusiast (materialist, low-leisure, and
perkaholic) subtypes.

Proposition 4: People working with a hard worker (workaholic or work enthusiast) that has
perfectionist tendencies will a) report a significantly higher level of co-worker irks and
b) contribute a lower level of work effort than people working with a hard worker who
does not exhibit perfectionist tendencies.

Proposition 5: People working with a hard worker (workaholic or work enthusiast) that has
an achievement-oriented style of workaholism will a) report a significantly lower level
of co-worker irks and b) contribute a higher level of work effort than people working
with a hard worker who does not have an achievement-oriented style of working.

Discussion and Directions for Further Research

In this paper we raised the question are all people who work a lot properly called
workaholics? Since it is a derogatory term, and we work hard, we hoped the answer was no. We
asked the question what motivates people to work hard? and hypothesize four main groups of
work motivators, which we might call drivenness (work orientation), materialism (economic
orientation), non-work orientation (leisure orientation) and preference for perquisites associated
with work (perquisite orientation). We progressively built a model of work effort behaviour

highlighting the impact of different motives for working on the work effort decision of
individuals and in so doing break the nexus of workaholism and long working hours. We argue
that some people work a lot because they have material goals thus they might more charitably
be called material goal seekers. Others work a lot because they find little enjoyment from
leisure activities they might better be called low leisure hard workers. Others work a lot
because they love the perks they are more reasonably called perkaholics than workaholics.
Finally we have those who love to work long hours for its own sake these might properly be
called workaholics. Accordingly, we develop a series of testable propositions that might allow
researchers to more effectively differentiate workaholics from work enthusiasts and the three
distinct subtypes of work enthusiasts from each other.

Much of the workaholic literature is concerned with the external effects of workaholics
how they negatively impact the productivity of other people and the culture of the organisation, if
not their own health and well-being. But conceptually the motive to work hard, and the internal
and external effects of hard work would seem to be separate phenomena. Little consideration has
been given however to the impact of workaholic behaviour on co-workers. Some hard workers
might augment their employers culture and productivity in a positive way, while others might
have negative impacts. And this might apply to work enthusiasts as well. This deserves further
consideration since if the work habits of hard workers impact detrimentally on others, this
presents a managerial problem. We present two plausible propositions relating to the external
(spillover) effects of workaholic behaviours that warrant empirical investigation in relation to the
impact of workaholism on co-workers.

This analysis has attempted to bridge the economic-cognitive realms of work motivation
theory to explain high levels of work involvement, and accordingly the limitations of the
rational-economic approach must be acknowledged. The utility-maximizing model provides a
tractable if overly simplistic model of what motivates human behavior. It assumes continuous

relationships between variables, such as income levels and work effort, which is simply not true
in many work places where information asymmetry and managerial slack allow workers to shirk
and their managers to ignore this shirking even if they notice it. Asymmetry of information will
induce workers to pursue satisfactory levels of observable work effort rather than to maximize
actual work effort. Imperfect monitoring means that higher levels of work effort might also go
unnoticed and unrewarded, or be ignored if noticed. In reality, of course, employees and
managers exhibit cognitive biases, utilize suboptimal decision heuristics rather than seek further
information, and behave in self-serving ways that may be contrary to the best interests of the firm
or indeed to themselves in the longer term.

But each of these complexities can be seen as potential extensions of the simple model
that bring the model closer to reality, and thus suggests interesting areas for further research. To
introduce and explain the relatively complex interaction of the factors that motivate workaholics
and work enthusiasts to work hard, a simple model was first necessary. It is even better that this
model is well-known outside of the economics discipline, since this aids the dissemination of the
message to other areas of social science. If this contribution to our knowledge on work motivation
and workaholism is accepted it can form the basis for further research work to incorporate the
realities of satisficing, cognitive biases, suboptimal decision heuristics, and so on,

Finally, one outstanding issue that Buelens & Poelmans (2004) identify with extant
research is the absence of a clear correlation between the extent of workaholism and the number
of working hours. Is this because the behavior being measured is a high level of investment in
work which in itself is multi-dimensional and so is not fully captured by measuring hours spent at
work, hours spent working away from work and even time spent thinking about work. McMillan
et al. (2002) suggest that workaholism is a distinct construct which cannot be singularly explained
in terms of just hours worked and recommend further research using a multiple-item criterion.

Hard work is identified in the work effort literature as having at least two components,
namely, time and intensity (Bowles et al.., 1984, Brown and Leigh, 1996, Douglas, 1989,
Douglas and Shepherd, 2000). Intensity may be defined in terms of the percentage of ones
physical and mental capability that one applies to the task at any point in time. Accordingly, a
given level of work effort could thus be achieved by short hours and high work intensity, or
alternatively by long hours and low work intensity. Where work effort is associated with output
this has implications for the cost of output if workers are paid only for their time involvement.
The intensity aspect of work needs to be further investigated as this may well have implications
for workaholism and work enthusiasm. We may find, for example, that some types of work
enthusiasts give high levels of intensity while others do not, and that workaholism is associated
with high work hours but not high work intensity, for example. We might expect there to be a
significant correlation between the extent of workaholism and work effort defined as the product
of time spent working and an index of work intensity. But we may find that work intensity is
relatively low for some kinds of work enthusiasts (e.g. low-leisure hard workers) and higher for
others (e.g. perkaholics). This should prove to be a fruitful area for further research.

REFERENCES

Bonebright, C. A., Clay, D. L. and Ankenmann, R. D. 2000, 'The Relationship of Workaholism

with Work-Life Conflict, Life Satisfaction, and Purpose in Life', Journal of Counseling
Psychology, Vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 469-477.
Bowles, S., Gordon, D. M. and Weisskopf, T. E. 1984, Beyond the Wasteland: A Democratic
Alternative to Economic Decline., Verso, London.
Brown, S. P. and Leigh, T. W. 1996, 'A New Look at Psychological Climate and Its Relationships
to Job Involvement, Effort, and Performance.' Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81,
no. 4, pp. 358-368.
Buelens, M. and Poelmans, S. A. Y. 2004, 'Enriching the Spence and Robbins' Typology of
Workaholism: Demographic, Motivational and Organizational Correlates', Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 440-458.

Burke, R. J. 1999a, 'Workaholism among Women Managers: Work and Life Satisfactions and
Psychological Well-Being', Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 25-35.
Burke, R. J. 1999b, 'Workaholism and Extra-Work Satisfactions', International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 352-364.
Burke, R. J. 2000, 'Workaholism in Organizations: Concepts, Results and Future Research
Directions', International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-16.
Burke, R. J. 2001a, 'Spence and Robbins' Measures of Workaholism Components: Test-Retest
Stability', Psychological Reports, Vol. 88, no. pp. 882-888.
Burke, R. J. 2001b, 'Workaholism in Organizations: The Role of Organizational Values',
Personnel Review, Vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 637-645.
Burke, R. J., Oberklaid, F. and Burgess, Z. 2004a, 'Workaholism among Australian Women
Psychologists: Antecedents and Consequences', International Journal of Management,
Vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 263-277.
Burke, R. J., Richardsen, A. M. and Martinussen, M. 2004b, 'Workaholism among Norwegian
Senior Managers: New Research Directions', International Journal of Management, Vol.
21, no. 4, pp. 415-426.
Cantarow, E. 1979, 'Women Workaholics', Mother Jones, Vol. 6, no. pp. 56.
Douglas, E. J. 1989, 'The Simple Analytics of the Principal-Agent Incentive Contract', Journal of
Economic Education, Vol. Winter, no. pp. 39-51.
Douglas, E. J. and Shepherd, D. A. 2000, 'Entrepreneurship as a Utility Maximizing Response',
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15, no. pp. 231-251.
Kanai, A., Wakabayashi, M. and Fling, S. 1996, 'Workaholism among Employees in Japanese
Corporations: An Examination Based on the Japanese Version of the Workaholism
Scales', Japanese Psychological Research, Vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 192-203.
Killinger, B. 1991, Workaholics: The Respectable Addicts, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Machlowitz, M. 1980, Workaholics: Living with Them, Working with Them, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
McMillan, L. H. W., Brady, E. C., O'Driscoll, M. P. and Marsh, N. V. 2002, 'A Multifaceted
Study of Spence and Robbins' (1992) Workaholism Battery', Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 75, no 3, pp. 357-368.
McMillan, L. H. W., O'Driscoll, M. P. and Burke, R. J. 2003, "Workaholism: A Review of
Theory, Research, and Future Directions", In International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 18 (Eds, Cooper, C. L. and Robertson, I. T.) John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd, New York, pp. 167-189.

McMillan, L. H. W., O'Driscoll, M. P., Marsh, N. V. and Brady, E. C. 2001, 'Understanding

Workaholism: Data Synthesis, Theoretical Critique and Future Design Strategies',
International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 69-91.
Morris, R. and Douglas, E. J. (2004) A New Approach to Work Motivation Theory: An
Economic Analysis, Proceedings, SEAANZ Conference Brisbane, QLD.
Morris, R. and Douglas, E. J. (2005) Motivating Employee Performance: Learning from
Entrepreneurship. Proceedings, Regional Entrepreneurship Research Exchange, Swinburne,
Melbourne, VIC.
Naughton, T. J. 1987, 'A Conceptual View of Workaholism and Implications for Career
Counseling and Research', Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 35, no. pp. 180-187.
Oates, W. 1971, Confessions of a Workaholic: The Facts About Work Addiction, World, New
York: NY.
Peters, T. 1994, The Pursuit of Wow!: Every Person's Guide to Topsy-Turvy Times, Vintage
Books, New York, NY.
Robinson, B. E. 2000a, 'A Typology of Workaholics with Implications for Counselors', Journal
of Addiction & Offender Counseling, Vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 34-48.
Robinson, B. E. 2000b, 'Workaholism: Bridging the Gap between Workplace, Sociocultural, and
Family Research', Journal of Employment Counselling, Vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 31-47.
Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S. and Miceli, M. P. 1997, 'An Exploration of the Meaning and
Consequences of Workaholism', Human Relations, Vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 287-314.
Seybold, K. C. and Salomone, P. R. 1994, 'Understanding Workaholism: A Review of Causes and
Counselling Approaches', Journal of Counselling & Development, Vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 4-9.
Snir, R. and Harpaz, I. 2004, 'Attitudinal and Demographic Antecedents of Workaholism',
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 520-536.
Spence, J. T. and Robbins, A. S. 1992, 'Workaholism: Definition, Measurement, and Preliminary
Results', Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 160-178.

APPENDIX 1: WORKAHOLIC TYPOLOGIES

Oates, 1971

Naughton, 1987

Fassel, 1990

Spence & Robbins, 1992

Scott, Moo

Defining dimensions:

Defining dimensions:

Defining dimensions:

Defining dimensions:

Defining dime

Not specified

Career commitment &

obsession-compulsion

Not specified

Workaholic triad work involvement, feeling

driven to work, enjoyment of work

1.

1. Job-involved workaholic

1.

3 elements di
in work activiti
when not at wo
organizational o
requirements
1.
Compuls
workaholi

Dyed-in-the-wool
workaholic
Perfectionist
Work of a high
standard
Abhors
incompetence

2.

Converted
workaholic
Sets limits on time
working
Guards free time
Avoids extra work
assignments &
overtime

3.

Situational
workaholic
Non-workaholic
personality
Works for job
security not prestige
or inner drive

High work commitment

Low obsessioncompulsion
Low interest in nonwork activities
Good performers in
demanding jobs
Highly job satisfied
2. Compulsive workaholic
High work commitment
High obsessioncompulsion
Potentially poor
performers
Work conflicts from
impatience & ritualised
work habits
3. Non-workaholic

Compulsive
worker

Stereotype
workaholic

Workaholic Types:
1.

2.

Binges rather than

works hard
continuously
3.

2.

5.

Power-oriented not
productivity-oriented

More time spent in nonwork activities

Escapist posing as a
workaholic
Stays as work rather
than going home

Closet worker

Works is an escape
from an unhappy
home life

High obsessioncompulsion
Compulsively spends

Low job
2.

Low drivenness
4.

Works secretly

Disenchanted worker

Needs to
controlling
behaviors

Low work involvement & work

enjoyment

Compulsive
avoidance of work

Preoccup
lists

Relaxed worker

Poor job p

High work enjoyment

Experienc
psycholog

Low work involvement & drivenness

6.

Unengaged worker

Work con

Low work involvement, drivenness &

work enjoyment
Extended by Buelens & Poelmans, 2004 to
include a new workaholic sub-type:
7.

Reluctant hard worker

Perfectio

Highly w
oriented to
leisure act

High drivenness

Work anorexic

4. Compulsive nonworkaholic
Low work commitment

Work enthusiast
High work involvement & work
enjoyment

Pseudo workaholic
Low obsessioncompulsion

Experien
withdrawa
Poor job

3.

5.

Fakes workaholism

Works ex
social or h

Non-workaholic Types:

Low work commitment

4.

Enthusiastic workaholic
High work involvement, drivenness &
work enjoyment

Hides or stashes
work

4.

Recognis
hard

Low work enjoyment

Binge worker

Compulsive

Symptom
compulsiv

High work involvement & drivenness

Compulsive
Driven to work
relentlessly

Work addict

Low job s
3.

Achievem

Strives f
success
moderat

time in non-work
activities

High work involvement

Stimulat

Low drivenness & work enjoyment

Delay gr
distant g

External pressures cause him/her to

work hard

Adaptab

Prefers to work less

High job

And speculated the existence of:

High job

8.

Prosocia

Alienated professionals
Internally driven
Happy but not committed
Occupation/profession committed but
not job committed

Chart 1: Attitudes that Lead to Long Work Hours

La 168

Lb

168

0 Lc

L
Y
(a)
Y
(b)
Y
(c)
Fig. 1: The Income-Leisure (Y/L) Trade-off, with Different Attitudes to Leisure
L
L
Wa

Wb

Wc

I4
I3

I2
I1
Y4
Y3

Y2
Y1
0

L3L4L2L1

168

168

L
Fig. 2: Leisure Choice with Differing Wage Rates
Highest wage rate offered

E
S
S
0

Emax

Emax

Y
(a)
Y
(b)
Y
Fig. 3: The Work-Effort (E) Supply Curve, with Different Attitudes to Leisure

S
E0
Net Perks (NP)
S3
S2
S1
E3
E2
E1
S0
Income (Y)
Work Effort (E)
Figure 4: The Impact of Net Perks on the Work-Effort Supply Curve
Y
S3
S2
0
Ewall
0
Ewall
0
Ewall
(a) Work Preference
(b) Preference & Aversion
(c) Work Aversion
Income
S1
Figure 5: The Impact of Work Preference on the Work-Effort Supply Curve
E
E
E
Y
Y
I*

Emax

(c)