0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
21 visualizzazioni23 pagine
Study examines impact of workaholism on work-family conflict, job satisfaction, and perception of leisure time. Greater scores on Workaholic Risk Test significantly related to greater workfamily conflict, study finds. Impetus for investigation provided by evidence that employees in u.s. Spend increasing amount of time at work.
Study examines impact of workaholism on work-family conflict, job satisfaction, and perception of leisure time. Greater scores on Workaholic Risk Test significantly related to greater workfamily conflict, study finds. Impetus for investigation provided by evidence that employees in u.s. Spend increasing amount of time at work.
Study examines impact of workaholism on work-family conflict, job satisfaction, and perception of leisure time. Greater scores on Workaholic Risk Test significantly related to greater workfamily conflict, study finds. Impetus for investigation provided by evidence that employees in u.s. Spend increasing amount of time at work.
The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 11: 241263, 2008
Copyright The Society of Psychologists in Management
ISSN 1088-7156 print / 1550-3461 online DOI: 10.1080/10887150802371781 HPMJ 1088-7156 1550-3461 The Psychologist-Manager Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, August 2008: pp. 142 The Psychologist-Manager Journal The Impact of Workaholism on Work-Family Conflict, Job Satisfaction, and Perception of Leisure Activities The Impact of Workaholism Brady, Vodanovich, and Rotunda Becca R. Brady, Stephen J. Vodanovich, and Robert Rotunda University of West Florida Data were collected from university employees (N = 129) and Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) members (N = 103) to assess the impact of worka- holism on work-family conflict, job satisfaction, and perceptions of leisure time. The results, using two different measures of workaholism (Workaholism Battery, Work Addiction Risk Test), indicated that greater scores on the Workaholic Risk Test were significantly related to greater work-family conflict and less gratification with leisure (or nonwork) time. In terms of the Workaholism Battery, high Drive scores were also found to relate to more work-family conflict. However, Work Enjoyment scores were associated with less work-family conflict, as well as greater scores indicative of satis- faction with the job and the work itself. The need to examine various facets of worka- holism and implications for organizational interventions are discussed. The goal of the present study was to examine the relationship between workaholism and several outcomes: (1) work-life conflict, (2) job satisfaction, and (3) enjoyment of leisure time. The impetus for such an investigation is provided by evidence that employees in the United States are spending an increasing amount of time at work. For instance, Austin (2000) has stated that the number of hours worked per week for U.S. employees rose from 43 to 47 hours during the past decade. Moreover, it has been reported that employees in professional jobs work anywhere from 50 to 80 hours in a typical workweek (e.g., Brenton & Largent, 1996). Finally, Reiss (2002) reported that employees in the United States work an average of 1,979 hours a year. Correspondence should be sent to Stephen J. Vodanovich, Department of Psychology, Bldg. #41, University of West Florida, 11000 University Parkway, Pensacola, FL 32514. E-mail: stevevodanovich.uwf.edu 242 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA Some have indicated that technological advances may be contributing to the escalation of time spent on work-related activities. Erase-Blunt (2001) reported that 60% of office workers admitted that while vacationing they take along mobile technology, 33% check voice mail daily, and more than half of these respondents telephoned their office at least once daily. Reiss (2002) noted that 20% of U.S. workers go to their jobs when they are ill, injured, or have a medical appointment. Further, it has been suggested that organizations may play a role in encouraging this trend. As Burke (2001a) has stated, Organizations are increas- ingly making use of technology that reinforces workaholic behaviors (p. 639). Definitions of Workaholism It should be noted that there is a lack of consensus regarding the meaning of workaholism, and this has clouded much of the discourse and research findings in the area. Consistent with the figures reported above, some definitions have focused on the amount of time spent at work. For instance, Mosier (1983) defined workaholics as individuals who work at least 50 hours per week. How- ever, there is general agreement that conceptualizing workaholism by focusing solely on time spent at work is inadequate. As Peiperl and Jones (2001) have cau- tioned seeking to define workaholism by counting the number of hours that a person works is both misleading and incomplete (p. 373). Machlowitz (1980) stressed that workaholics are best conceptualized by their attitude toward work, and not by the number of hours spent at work. She also offered a characterization of workaholism that considered situational requirements. According to Machlowitz, workaholics are people who always devote more time and thoughts to their work than the situation demands (1980, p.11). Similarly, Scott, Moore, and Miceli (1997) described workaholism as the amount of discre- tionary time spent in work activities, thinking about work when not working, and working beyond organizational requirements. Porter (1996), in making a distinc- tion between the tendency to work hard and workaholism, depicted workaholics as striving to maintain a high level of involvement in work that exceeds the require- ments for successful task accomplishment. Spence and Robbins (1992) argued that a workaholic is highly work involved, feels compelled or driven to work because of inner pressures, and is low in [his or her] enjoyment of work (p. 162). Other definitions have concentrated on the numerous nonwork consequences that accompany workaholism. These approaches can be considered to reflect an addic- tion model of the construct and embody the negative connotation often associated with the term workaholism. For example, Oats (1971) defined a workaholic as a person whose need for work has become so excessive that it creates a noticeable dis- turbance or interference with his [or her] bodily health, personal happiness, and interpersonal relations, and with his smooth social functioning (p. 4). This concep- tualization was echoed by Minirth et al. (1981) who described workaholics as THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 243 individuals whose dependence on work activities reveals noticeable disturbances in other aspects of their lives such as personal feelings and intimacy. Along these lines, Porter (1996) and Robinson (1989) conceptualized workaholics as those who neglect extra-work areas (e.g., family, friends, personal health). Moreover, Klaft and Kleiner (1988) suggested that workaholics are addicted to the work itself and not to the rewards of work. Congruent with these approaches to workaholism is the research of Robinson (1989) who posited that the overabundance of work takes precedence over everyone and everything else in the lives of workaholics (p. 42). Furthermore, Robinson (2000) depicted the characteristics of workaholism as being similar to that of alcoholism by noting that, "Work addiction is an addiction in the same way that alcoholism is an addiction. Progressive in nature, it is an unconscious attempt to resolve unmet psychological needs that have roots in the family of origin and can lead to unmanageable life, family disintegration, serious health problems, and even death (p. 34). The common attributes between workaholism and alcohol- ism (e.g., withdrawal symptoms, identity issues, rigidity) have also been discussed by Porter (1996). Finally, Harpaz and Snir (2003) proposed a definition of workaho- lism that emphasizes behavioral and cognitive aspects of the construct. The authors conclude that workaholics regularly devote substantial time working and thinking about work on an ongoing basis. An important aspect of their definition is that work- aholic behaviors are internally based and are not driven by external needs or organi- zational requirements (e.g., salary, need for overtime). Typologies of Workaholism Spence and Robbins (1992) identified three basic dimensions/measures of wor- kaholism which are referred to as the workaholic triad. These dimensions are labeled as: (1) work involvement, (2) drive (e.g., strongly motivated to work), and (3) work enjoyment. Within this framework, workaholics were defined as being high in work involvement and drive, and low in work enjoyment. Addi- tional combinations of scores proposed by Spence and Robbins (1992) include the following worker clusters: relaxed workers, work enthusiasts, unengaged workers, enthusiastic workaholics, and disenchanted workers. A different typol- ogy was proposed by Naughton (1987). He identified four types of workaholics which include: (1) job-involved workaholics, (2) compulsive workaholics, (3) nonworkaholics, and (4) compulsive nonworkaholics. Scott et al. (1997) proposed another set of workaholic types which are labeled as: (1) compulsive- dependent, (2) perfectionist-obsessive, and (3) achievement-oriented. Correlates of Workaholism Somewhat surprisingly, the amount of empirical research on the correlates of workaholism is rather limited. Indeed, much of the literature is theoretical or 244 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA anecdotal in nature (e.g., Fassel, 1990; Klaft & Kleiner, 1988; Machlowitz, 1980; Schaef & Fassel, 1998; Scott et al., 1997). Furthermore, it is important to note that research findings in this area have been impacted by the number and type of workaholism dimensions assessed, as well as by the measures of the construct that were employed. There is general agreement that family members and friends are adversely affected by the behavior of workaholics. Bartolome (1983) discussed the estranged nature of families of workaholics, and others have commented on the marital difficulties that are often experienced by such individuals (e.g., Klaft & Kleiner, 1988; Spruell, 1987). It has been proposed that the suffering experienced by children and spouses of workaholics is comparable to the distress felt by spouses and offspring of alcoholics (Fassel, 1990; Robinson, 1998a, 2000; Schaef & Fassel, 1998). LAbate and LAbate (1981) have suggested that wives of male workaholics often abandon their own goals while supporting their husbands desires. It has also been noted that workaholics have difficulty with intimate relation- ships and have virtually no time for outside interpersonal relations (Killinger, 1991; Minirth et al., 1981; Porter, 1996; Robinson, 1998a; Spruell, 1987). Scott et al. (1997) commented that workaholics are commonly isolated from family and friends. As these authors observed, workaholics spend a great deal of time in work activities when given the discretion to do so, which results in their giving up important social, family or recreational activities because of work (p. 292). Work-Life Conflict Empirical research has generally concluded that workaholism adversely impacts relationships and can lead to increased work-family conflict (WFC). The issue of work-life conflict (or imbalance) has received substantial attention in recent years (e.g., Frone, 2003; Hammer, Bauer, & Grandey, 2003; Hammer et al., 2002; Lambert et al., 2006). One reason for this interest is the widely accepted belief that events (both positive and negative) occurring within work and non- work spheres affect one another (e.g., MacEwen & Barling, 1994), although the interference of work with nonwork activities appears to be more common (e.g., Grzywacz & Marks, 2000). Of particular interest to researchers has been the impact of WFC on various negative outcomes. For instance, studies have found WFC to be significantly related to indicators of psychological distress (e.g., Marks, 1998) and self-reports of diminished physical health (Frone, Russell, & Barnes, 1996). Indeed, a 4-year longitudinal investigation (Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1997) found WFC to be significantly associated with depressed mood, lower physical health, and heavy alcohol consumption. Given the above findings, organizations have developed programs (e.g., flexible work schedules, alternative leave approaches) to assist with the complexities of THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 245 work-life balance (e.g., Frankel, 1998). However, the measurable positive value of such efforts has been relatively small and rather inconsistent (see Frone, 2003). Specifically related to workaholism, Snir and Harpaz (2004) reported that individuals who work significantly more hours per week have lower family cen- trality scores. Burke (2001) found that workaholics possessed significantly lower scores on a measure of organizational values supportive of work-family balance. Bonebright, Clay, and Ankenmann (2000), based on responses from 503 employ- ees, found that both nonenthusiastic and enthusiastic workaholics possessed greater work life conflict scores than nonworkaholics. Taris, Schaufeli, and Verhoeven (2005) found a significant relationship between workaholism scores and nonwork conflict within a Dutch sample (N = 152) of employed community volunteers. Moreover, Robinson, Carroll, and Flowers (2001) reported that female spouses of workaholics viewed their relationship as having more prob- lems and felt less positively towards their husbands. In one of the few studies that examined the impact of workaholism on children, it was shown that depression scores were significantly higher among children with at least one workaholic par- ent (Carroll & Robinson, 2000). In a series of studies, workaholism (i.e., addic- tion to work) was found to be associated with low satisfaction with relationships (Burke, Oberklaid, & Burgess, 2004), friends, family, and community (Burke, 1999a), and scores indicative of lower work-family balance (Burke, 2000a). However, the negative association between workaholism and family/relation- ship difficulties has not always been found. Burke (2000b) reported that married and divorced managers had similar workaholism and workaholic behaviors. In a more direct assessment, McMillan, ODriscoll, and Brady (2004) found that workaholic and nonworkaholic dyads expressed similar levels of relationship sat- isfaction. Consequently, one purpose of the current study was to assess the extent to which workaholism relates to nonwork conflict and relationship satisfaction. Job Satisfaction Robinson (1999) and Spence and Robbins (1992) have suggested that workaholics are generally not content or happy employees, and that the potential negative out- comes of low job satisfaction in the workplace include: (1) poor job performance, (2) lack of teamwork, and (3) increased turnover. In contrast, the work of Machlowitz (1980) and Scott et al. (1997) indicated that workaholics are typi- cally satisfied with their work. For instance, Machlowitz (1980) discussed that workaholics tend to be satisfied with work activities partly because job satisfac- tion is more important to them than satisfaction in nonwork relationships. She suggested that workaholics often enjoy their work, have satisfying lifestyles, and that workaholism is not a disease but rather a love of work. A similar view was offered by Scott et al. (1997), who specified that workaholics are able to enjoy both work activities and their unique way of life. 246 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA The literature on the association between workaholism and job satisfaction has shown mixed results and often depends on the number and nature of worka- holism facets. For instance, Burke, Richardson, and Mortinussen (2004) found that individuals with high scores on the Work Enjoyment Scale possessed greater scores on measures of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and job involvement, as well as a lower intent to quit the company. McMillan et al. (2002) found job satisfaction, work involvement, and intrinsic job motivation scores to be significantly correlated with a revised version of Spence and Robbins Work Enjoyment Scale. A revised version of the Drive scale was also found to be significantly related to work involvement and intrinsic job motivation scores. Further, Snir and Harpaz (2004) reported that those high in occupational satisfac- tion worked significantly more hours per week than those with low occupational satisfaction scores. On the other hand, Burke et al. (2004) found work addicts to have lower job and career satisfaction scores than those categorized as work enthusiasts and enthusiastic addicts. Consequently, another objective of the present research is to examine in more detail the relationship between workaholism and job satisfaction. Perceptions of Leisure Time According to Machlowitz (1980), work and leisure are synonymous to workaholics. That is, work is how workaholics enjoy themselves. Other researchers have suggested that workaholics are never at leisure and are often unable to relax (Oats, 1971; Robinson, 1998b; Scott et al., 1997). Cherrington (1980) has depicted workaholics as being deficient at spending time at nonwork activities. He has stated that workaholics are unable to take time off or to comfortably divert their interests (1980, p. 257). Indeed, some authors have indicated that for workaholics, leisure time is perceived as unenjoyable or undesirable (e.g., Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990; Kiechel, 1989). However, Burke et al. (2004) found no significant differences in non- work satisfaction between various types of workaholics (e.g., enthusiastic workaholics, work addicts). Based on this literature, another purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between workaholism and perceptions of leisure time. The following hypotheses are proposed. Hypothesis 1: High workaholism scores will emerge as significant predictors of greater work-family conflict. Hypothesis 2: Greater workaholism scores will significantly predict lower scores on measures of job satisfaction. Hypothesis 3: High workaholism scores will be significant predictors of greater boredom with leisure and free-time. THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 247 METHOD Participants Participants in this study (N = 232) were comprised of 103 working profession- als who were members of various southeastern chapters of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and 129 faculty and staff members from a public university in the southeastern United States. The average age of the university sample was 47.3 years (SD = 10.58) and 46% of the participants in this sample were female. In the SHRM sample, the average age was 41.4 years (SD = 9.11) and 85% of the participants were female. Procedure Participants were contacted by e-mail and asked to complete a series of online question- naires which consisted of the Work Addiction Risk Test (WART), Workaholic Triad, Leisure Boredom Scale (LBS), Free Time Boredom Scale (FTB), Work-Family Conflict Scale (WFC), Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS), Work Itself subscale of the Job Descriptive Index, Job In General scale (JIG), and demographic information (e.g., age, sex, race). E-mails were sent to both university and SHRM participants that contained a brief description of the study and included an electronic link to a consent form, which was then followed by the online questionnaires. Participation in both sam- ples was voluntary and all data were collected anonymously. No incentives were given for participation in the study. Data from the questionnaires were returned electronically. Instruments Several measures of workaholism have been developed (e.g., Fassel, 1990; Killinger, 1991; Machlowitz, 1980). However, only the Workaholism Battery (Work-Bat; Spence & Robbins, 1992) and the Work Addiction Risk Test (WART; Robinson, 1999) have been systematically used in the literature and shown to possess desirable psychometric properties. The primary distinction between the two instruments is that the Work-Bat consists of three separate scales whose scores are combined to yield an array of workaholic and worker types, whereas the WART was constructed to yield a single, overall score to identify individuals with workaholic tendencies. Both instruments were used in the current study to allow increased confidence in the results obtained. Workaholism Battery/Workaholic Triad The scale created by Spence and Robbins (1992) is the most widely utilized measure of workaholism in the literature (e.g., Aziz & Zickar, 2006). Based on 248 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA previous theoretical writings and observations, Spence and Robbins (1992) developed items to capture the unique characteristics of workaholics. Specifi- cally, they constructed three separate scales to measure workaholism: (1) work involvement, (2) drive, and (3) work enjoyment, which have been referred to as the Workaholism Battery or Workaholic Triad (Burke, 1999a; 1999b; Ersoy-Kart, 2005). Their initial research (Spence & Robbins, 1992) found empirical support for the existence of these three scales. In general, subsequent studies have found support for the Spence and Robbins typology (e.g., Burke, 1999a; Burke, 1999b; Burke, 2001b), although the viability of the work involvement scale has been questioned by some researchers (Ersoy-Kart, 2005; McMillan et al., 2002). The Work Involvement scale consists of eight items and assesses ones self- reported tendency to become overly involved at work (e.g., I get bored and rest- less on vacations when I havent anything productive to do). The Drive Scale is designed to measure the extent to which individuals feel driven to work and con- sists of seven items such as I feel obligated to work hard, even when its not enjoyable. Finally, the Work Enjoyment Scale assesses how much individuals enjoy work on a regular basis and is comprised of 10 items (e.g., I lose track of time when I am engaged on a project). All three scales are arranged on a five- point Likert-type scale with anchors ranging from 1 (Not Very True of Me) to 5 (Very True of Me). Categories of workaholism are derived on the basis of either high or low scores on the Work Involvement, Drive, and Work Enjoyment scales. Workaholics are identified by high scores (above the sample mean) on the Work Involvement and Drive Scales and a low score (below the sample mean) on the Work Enjoy- ment Scale. Internal consistencies for the Work Involvement, Drive, and Work Enjoyment scales have ranged from .67 to .88 (Burke, 1999a; 1999b) and .67 to .86 (Spence & Robbins, 1992). In the present study, the reliabilities for the Work Involvement Scale, the Drive Scale, and the Work Enjoyment Scale were found to be .65, .81, and .89, respectively, for the university sample, and .60, .76, and .88, respec- tively, for the SHRM sample. The reliabilities for the entire sample were .62, .80, and .89, respectively. The Work Addiction Risk Test is a self-report measure used to screen for workaholic tendencies (Robinson, 1999; Robinson & Phillips, 1995). The scale consists of 25 items (e.g., I stay busy and keep many irons in the fire, I overly commit myself by biting off more than I can chew) arranged on a four-point Likert-type scale A rating of 1 indicates that the item is never true and a rating of 4 indicates that the item is always true. In the current study, a five-point Likert-type scale was employed to increase the sensitivity of measurement, with possible scores ranging from 25 to 100. Scores falling one standard deviation (SD) below the mean indicate a low risk for work addiction; scores falling one SD above the mean designate a participant as a medium risk for work addition; THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 249 and scores greater than one SD above the mean show a high risk for work addic- tion tendencies. Robinson (1999) reported Cronbachs alpha for the WART to be .88. The test-retest reliability over a two-week period was reported to be .83 (Robinson, Post, & Khakee, 1992). In addition, Robinson and Post (1995) reported the split- half reliability of the WART to be .85. In the current study, the internal consis- tency for the WART was found to be .87 for the university sample and .86 for the SHRM sample (.86 for the entire sample combined). Relatively recent research has indicated that the WART may assess multiple dimensions of workaholism. Flowers and Robinson (2002) performed a factor analysis on the WART in which five factors emerged that accounted for 52% of the variance in scores. A subsequent discriminant function analysis yielded three factors that best represented the underlying factor structure of the WART. These factors were labeled as: (1) compulsive tendencies, (2) control, (3) impaired communication/self-absorption. Job Descriptive Index-Work Itself Scale (JDI-WI) The JDI-WI is one of the five scales that comprise the Job Descriptive Index (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969), which is one of the most frequently used mea- sures of job satisfaction (DeMeuse, 1986; Muchinsky, 1987; OConnor, Peters, & Gordon, 1978; Yeager, 1981). The Work Itself scale consists of 18 items, each of which has three potential responses (yes, no, not sure). Internal consis- tency for the Work Itself scale was found to be .78 (Ironson et al., 1989). In the present study, the coefficient alpha for the Work Itself subscale was .68 for the university sample, .80 for the SHRM sample, and .78 for the entire sample. Job in General The Job in General scale (JIG) was developed by Ironson et al. (1989) in order to assess global job satisfaction. The JIG is intended to accompany the facet subscales of the JDI. The scale consists of 18 adjectives (e.g., fascinating, routine) and includes the same response options (yes, no, not sure) as the Work Itself subscale. The internal consistency of the JIG has been reported as .91 and above, based on thousands of participants (Ironson et al., 1989). In the present study, the overall reliability of the JIG was .90 (university sample = .86; SHRM sample = .92). Leisure Boredom Scale The Leisure Boredom Scale (LBS; Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990) is a 16-item, five-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) designed 250 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA to assess an individuals proneness to experience leisure boredom (e.g., For me, leisure time just drags on). Higher scores on the LBS are indicative of higher boredom with ones leisure time. Across three samples, the internal consistencies of the LBS were found to range from .85 to .88 (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990). In the present study, the reliability of the LBS within the combined sample was .90 (university sample = .91; SHRM sample = .87). The LBS has been correlated with a variety of other constructs. For instance, evidence for the construct validity of the LBS has been provided by significant, negative correlations between the LBS and intrinsic leisure motivation (r = .67), leisure satisfaction scale (r = .22), a single-item leisure satisfaction measure (r = .44), leisure ethic (r = .38), leisure participation (r = .32), and single-item indicators of satisfaction with mental (r = .17) and physical health (r = .23; see Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990). Free Time Boredom The Free Time Boredom (FTB) scale was developed by Ragheb and Merydith (2001) to investigate the experience of boredom during free time. The FTB Scale consists of 33 items arranged on a five-point Likert-type scale on which a rating of 1 indicates that the respondent strongly disagrees with the statement and a rating of 5 represents strong agreement. Each item begins with the statement During my free time (e.g., During my free time I feel that my surroundings are dull and blah). The coefficient alpha for the FTB scale was found to be .92 (Ragheb & Merydith, 2001). The FTB scale is comprised of four subscales. The Lack of Meaningful Involvement subscale consists of 12 items (e.g., During my free time it seems like I am wasting my time). The Lack of Mental Involvement subscale consists of nine items such as During my free time I am satisfied with or interested in what I do. The third subscale, Slowness of Time in free time, consists of seven items (e.g., During my free time I am pleased with its amount). Finally, the Lack of Physical Involvement subscale consists of five items (e.g., During my free time I am physically energetic). The internal consistencies for the Lack of Meaning, Lack of Mental Involvement, Slowness of Time, and Lack of Physical Involvement subscales were found to be .91, .85, .78, and .80, respectively (Ragheb & Merydith, 2001). In the present study, only the total FTB score was employed and a reliability of .88 for the combined sample was found (university sample = .88, SHRM sample = .89). Ragheb and Merydith (2001) indicated that FTB scores were significantly correlated (r = .36) with the Boredom Proneness Scale (BPS; Farmer & Sundberg, 1986). In addition, the relationship between the BPS and the Lack of Meaningful Involvement subscale of the FTB scale was found to be significant (r = .40). THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 251 Work-Family Conflict Scale The Work-Family Conflict Scale (WFCS) is an 18-item scale developed by Carlson, Kacmar, and Williams (2000) in order to measure work-family con- flict such as the tension that occurs when role pressures from work and family domains are somewhat incompatible (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). The Work- Family Conflict Scale is presented in a five-point Likert-type format with anchors ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The scale taps six dimensions of work-family conflict. The dimensions include three forms of work-family conflict (time, strain, and behavior) and two directions (work interference with family and family interference with work) on each form. For example, the Work-Family Conflict Scale consists of items designed to measure time-based work interferences with family (WIF; e.g., My work keeps me from my family activities more than I would like) and items designed to measure behavior-based family interferences with work (FIW; e.g., The behaviors that work for me at home do not seem to be effec- tive at work). Internal consistency for each dimension was found to be .87 for time-based WIF, .79 for time-based FIW, .85 for strain-based WIF, .87 for strain-based FIW, .78 for behavior-based WIF, and .85 for behavior-based FIW (Carlson et al., 2000). In the present research, only scores for the combined Work-Family Con- flict Scale (i.e., a general measure of work-family conflict) were used. Internal consistencies for the entire sample, the university sample, and the SHRM sample were all .91. Relationship Assessment Scale The Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) is a seven-item scale (e.g., How well does your partner meet your needs) used to measure satisfaction in close relationships (Hendrick, 1998). It is applicable to many types of relationships, including but not limited to traditional marriages. Scores on the RAS items range from 1 (indicating low satisfaction) to 5 (indicating high satisfaction). Hendrick (1998) found the internal consistency of the RAS to be .86. In addition, the test-retest reliability of the RAS, across a six- to seven-week period, was reported to be .85 (Hendrick, Dicke, & Hendrick, 1998). In the present study, the reliability of the RAS was determined to be .93 (university sample = .95; SHRM sample = .92). The RAS has been found to be significantly related to an array of variables including marital satisfaction (Hendrick et al., 1998) and a measure of dyadic adjustment and marital quality (Hendrick, 1998). Scores on the RAS have also been found to accurately identify individuals who were in a relatinship (couples) versus those not in a relationship (Spanier, 1976). 252 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA RESULTS Correlation coefficients were computed among all scales used in the study (see Table 1). Preliminary analyses (two-way ANOVAs) were performed to test for sex differences within each sample (university versus SHRM) on all scales employed in the study. The results indicated that no sex differences existed between scores on any of the scales, including the workaholism measures. Additional analyses (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine differences between the two samples on the scales employed in the study. These analyses indicated that participants in the university sample had significantly higher scores than SHRM members on the Work Enjoyment subscale, the JIG, and TABLE 1 Correlations Among WART, Workaholic Triad (WI, D, WE), JDI, JIG, RAS, WFCS, LBS, and FTB Scores for the University and SHRM Samples Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 University (n = 129) 1. WART .41** .65** .08 .16 .17 .04 .43** .37** .37** 2. WI .49** .25** .06 .05 .03 .16 .32** .31** 3. D .20* .20* .14 .08 .42** .16 .25* 4. WE .53** .59** .13 .12 .13 .24* 5. JDI-WI .62** .25** .39** .25** .38** 6. JIG .09 .23* .09 .24* 7. RAS .31** .19* .34** 8. WFCS .42** .51** 9. LBS .84** 10. FTB SHRM (n = 103) 1. WART .32** .60** .22* .15 .05 .21 .47** .12 .26** 2. WI .45** .45** .18 .11 .05 .15 .19 .29** 3. D .17 .13 .01 .16 .45** .17 .24* 4. WE .55** .49** .05 .04 .15 .04 5. JDI-WI .69** .01 .35** .19 .21 6. JIG .09 .27** .01 .05 7. RAS .37** .42** .46** 8. WFCS .22* .31** 9. LBS .71** 10. FTB Note. WART = Work Addiction Risk Test; WI = Work Involvement; D = Drive; WE = Work Enjoyment; JDI-WI = Job Descriptive Index-Work Itself; JIG = Job in General; RAS = Relationship Assessment Scale; WFCS = Work-Family Conflict Scale; LBS = Leisure Boredom Scale; FTB = Free Time Boredom. *p < .05 **p < .01. THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 253 JDI. Scores on the Drive subscale of the Workaholic Triad were significantly lower among those in the university sample. Given these differences, subse- quent analyses were conducted separately within the university and SHRM samples. A series of regression analyses was computed within each sample to examine the impact of WART scores and Workaholic Triad scores on relationship conflict, job satisfaction, and nonwork (leisure/free time) boredom scores. All independent variables were entered simultaneously as a block in the regression analyses. Work-Family Conflict Regression analyses indicated that WART scores, Work Enjoyment subscale scores, and Drive subscale scores were all significant predictors of WFCS scores for both samples (Table 2). In the university sample, Work Enjoyment (t = 2.63; p < .01) and Drive subscale scores (t = 2.37; p < .05) were the best predictors of WFCS scores, followed by WART scores (t = 2.36; p < .05). Overall, these three factors accounted for approximately 27% of the variance (R = .52) in the univer- sity sample. In the SHRM sample, significant predictors of WFCS scores included WART scores (t = 3.27, p < .01), Drive subscale scores (t = 2.43; p < .05), and Work Enjoyment subscale scores (t = 2.08; p < .05), respectively. These variables accounted for 31% of the variance in the SHRM sample (R = .56). Regression analyses computed within both samples indicated that scores on the workaholism measures (WART, Work Involvement, Drive, and Work Enjoyment) were not significant predictors of relationship satisfaction (RAS) scores. TABLE 2 The Effect of WART and Workaholic Triad (WI, D, WE) Scores on Work-Family Conflict Scores for the University and SHRM Samples Sample University SHRM Scales Beta t Beta t WART .27 2.36* .37 3.27** WI .07 .61 .02 .13 D .28 2.37* .271 2.43* WE .24 2.63** .19 2.08* Note. WART = Work Addiction Risk Test; WI = Work Involve- ment; D = Drive; WE = Work Enjoyment. *p < .05 **p < .01. 254 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA Job Satisfaction Within the university sample, scores on the Work Enjoyment (t = 8.81; p < .001) and Drive (t = 3.65; p < .001) subscales were found to be significant predictors of JIG scores (see Table 3). Overall, scores on the Work Enjoyment and Drive subscales accounted for approximately 45% of the variance in JIG scores (R = .67). Scores on the Work Enjoyment subscale were found to be a significant predictor of JIG scores for the SHRM sample (t = 5.18; p < .001), accounting for approxi- mately 24% of the variance in JIG scores. Both the Work Enjoyment (t = 7.28; p < .001) and Drive (t = 4.11; p < .001) subscale scores were significant predictors of the JDI Work Itself scores for the university sample (see Table 4), accounting for approximately 38% of the variance (R = .61). Within the SHRM sample, scores on the Work Enjoyment subscale (t = 7.55; p < .001) and scores on the WART (t = .3.46; p < .001) were found to be significant predictors of JDI-WI scores. These variables accounted for approximately 41% of the variance in Work Itself scores (R = .64). Scores on the Work Involvement subscale of the Workaholic Triad did not significantly predict JIG scores or JDI Work Itself scores for either sample. Leisure and Free Time Boredom Workaholism scores were also found to be significant predictors of LBS and the FTB scores. In the university sample, WART scores emerged as significant pre- dictors of LBS scores (t = 3.75; p < .001), accounting for approximately 12% of TABLE 3 The Effect of WART and Workaholic Triad (WI, D, WE) Scores on the Job in General Scores for the University and SHRM Samples Sample University SHRM Scales Beta t Beta t WART .07 .69 .03 .31 WI .16 1.88 .11 1.03 D .28 3.65** .07 .73 WE .67 8.81** .49 5.18** Note. WART = Work Addiction Risk Test; WI = Work Involvement; D = Drive; WE = Work Enjoyment. **p < .001. THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 255 the variance (R = .35). However, in the SHRM sample, none of the workaholism scores was found to be a significant predictor of scores on the LBS. In the univer- sity sample, WART scores (t = 2.34; p < .05), Work Enjoyment subscale scores (t = 2.71; p < .01), and Work Involvement subscale scores (t = 2.34; p < .05) were significant predictors of scores on the FTB scale. The three factors com- bined accounted for approximately 22% of the variance in FTB scores. In the SHRM sample, only scores on the WART (t = 2.39; p < .05) emerged as a signif- icant predictor of scores on the FTB scale (see Table 5). Scores on the WART accounted for approximately 6% of the variance in this criterion. TABLE 4 The Effect of WART and Workaholic Triad (WI, D, WE) Scores on the Work Itself Scale of the JDI for the University and SHRM Samples Sample University SHRM Scales Beta t Beta t WART .00 .04 .30 3.46** WI .11 1.18 .04 .38 D .34 4.11** .09 .85 WE .61 7.28** .64 7.55** Note. WART = Work Addiction Risk Test; WI = Work Involvement; D = Drive; WE = Work Enjoyment. **p < .001. TABLE 5 The Effect of WART and Workaholic Triad (WI, D, WE) Scores on Free Time Boredom Scores for the University and SHRM Samples Sample University SHRM Scales Beta t Beta t WART .25 2.34* .25 2.39* WI .27 2.34 * .12 1.03 D .08 .62 .13 .93 WE .26 2.71** .12 1.12 Note. WART = Work Addiction Risk Test; WI = Work Involvement; D = Drive; WE = Work Enjoyment. *p < .05 **p < .01. 256 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA DISCUSSION The results indicate that workaholism scores are significant predictors of work- family conflict, with the direction of the relationship being dependent on the type of workaholism assessed. That is, high scores on the WART and Drive scales were significant predictors of greater WFCS scores in both samples. On the other hand, high Work Enjoyment scores were significantly related to lower levels of family conflict. A similar pattern of results, albeit less consistent, is evident on the association between workaholism and job satisfaction. For instance, high Drive scores were significantly related to lower Job in General and Work Itself scores in the univer- sity sample. High WART scores were significantly predictive of lower Work Itself scores in the SHRM sample. In both samples, high scores on the Work Enjoyment (WE) scale were significantly associated with greater satisfaction (i.e., JIG and JDI Work Itself scores). The association of high WE scores and greater job satisfaction is consistent with past research (e.g., Burke et al., 2004; McMillan et. al., 2002). The current findings also support the hypothesis that workaholics are gener- ally less likely to enjoy their leisure time, especially with regard to scores on the WART. That is, in the SHRM sample, high WART scores were significantly associated with greater leisure boredom, and elevated WART scores were signif- icant predictors of greater Free Time Boredom (FTB) levels in both samples. Greater Work Enjoyment scores were significantly related to low FTB scores in the university sample only. This evidence implies that workaholics are less likely to enjoy leisure activi- ties and are unable to benefit from relaxation and involvement in nonwork activi- ties. This is understandable given that workaholics spend the majority of their waking hours involved in work-related activities and thoughts (Machlowitz, 1980; Porter, 1996; Scott et al., 1997). The implications of these results are emphasized by evidence suggesting that leisure satisfaction contributes to the overall quality of life (Ragheb & Griffith, 1982; Riddick, 1986; Russell, 1987). As Speller (1989) stated, those with positive mental health are characterized by being able to gain satisfaction from a variety of sources (p. 11). These prelimi- nary findings warrant additional research to determine how the lack of interest in leisure and free time activities may affect the behavior and health of workaholics. One limitation of this research is the use of self-report data. That is, the data were collected from the perspective of workaholics. A concern in this regard is that workaholics may not be sensitive to the actual problems that they (and others) experience. Consequently, it would be beneficial to obtain data beyond those produced by actual employees (e.g., from peers). Such a study was recently performed by Burke and Ng (2007) and the authors found significant agreement in Work-Bat scores between workaholic employees and their coworkers. Also, THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 257 research has found that workaholism scores generated by employees and their acquaintances (i.e., family members, friends, coworkers) were similar (Aziz & Zickar, 2006). Also, somewhat surprisingly, workaholism was not found to be related to scores on the Relationship Assessment Scale in either sample. This is in stark contrast to the significant correlations found in the present study between workaholism scores and those on the work-family conflict scale. Although RAS and WFC scores were significantly correlated in the university and SHRM sam- ples of the present study (.31 and .38, respectively), they assess different aspects of nonwork harmony. Our results suggest the detrimental impact of workaholism may be specific to work and nonwork conflict, and perhaps do not generalize to other aspects of relationship satisfaction. An advantage of the present study was the use of two different employee sam- ples, thereby increasing the generalizability of the findings. Such an approach is valuable given that past research on workaholism has often used participants (e.g., students) with relatively limited work experience (Robinson, 1995, 1996, 1999; Robinson & Post, 1995; Robinson, Post, & Khakee, 1992). Our investiga- tion is also strengthened by the emergence of an overlapping (but not exact) pattern of results obtained with the use of two separate, psychometrically sound measures of workaholism, which assess related but different aspects of the con- struct (see generally moderate correlations between the WART and Work-Bat subscale scores in Table 1). Researchers wishing to measure specific workaho- lism types would be advised to administer the Workaholism Battery, while those interested in a global assessment would likely find the WART preferable. Although the WART may possess subscales (Flowers & Robinson, 2002), this research is preliminary and needs to be confirmed by future research. Collectively, the present results support the benefits of assessing multiple facets of workaholism. In particular, the findings emphasize the need to con- sider the affective, cognitive, and/or behavioral reactions to the investment of time at work. This point is shown by the relatively advantageous outcomes associated with high work enjoyment (WE) scores (less work-family conflict, greater job satisfaction) as compared to the detrimental relationships found to be associated with Drive and WART scores (greater conflict, more leisure boredom). Indeed, the results regarding the Work Enjoyment scale are partially reflective of the lack of agreement on the definition of workaholism. As noted earlier, some researchers do not fully ascribe to the negative connotations of workaholism. Related to the present context, it has been argued that it is improper to conceptu- alize all workaholics as having low enjoyment of their work (e.g., Korn et al, 1987; Machlowitz, 1980). It is also worthwhile to note that Spence and Robbins (1992) identified a positive workaholic type (enthusiastic workaholic) that is comprised of high scores on all three of their scales (i.e., Work Involvement, Drive, Work Enjoyment). Obviously, such disagreement and apparent inconsistencies in 258 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA the definition of workaholism must be resolved in order to adequately develop and test hypotheses on the various correlates of workaholism. Organization Role and Implications Given these findings, organizational interventions aimed at decreasing the nega- tive consequences of workaholism may be warranted (e.g., Vodanovich & Piotrowski, 2006). This seems particularly relevant because researchers have suggested that companies may actually encourage workaholic behaviors and that organizations themselves may be classified as workaholic (Fassel, 1990; Schaef & Fassel, 1998; Spruell, 1987). For many employees, the culture and incentive systems within companies promote the working of longer hours to achieve success (e.g., Burke, 2001; Spruell, 1987). Arnott (2000) coined the term corporate cults to indicate how organizations can foster overwhelming dedica- tion and allegiance to work. The role that the climate of an organization can have on the expansion of workaholism was discussed by Johnstone and Johnston (2005). They stated that if an organizational climate encourages and rewards workaholic behaviors, then workaholics are likely to develop and flourish (p. 182). Indeed, Spruell contends that unfortunately, workaholism is the most rewarded addiction in our culture (p. 44). It would be beneficial for future research to examine the contributions of organizational structure and practices on workaholic behaviors. Fassel and Schaef (1989) stressed that it is important for organizations to try to identify employees who exhibit signs of workaholic behaviors. The need for such a process is emphasized by literature which suggests that workaholic employees can have a detrimental impact on organizations. One common out- come is that workaholics experience greater job stress and more health-related problems (e.g., Burke, 2000c; Burke et al., 2004; Kanai & Wakabayashi, 2001; Spence & Robbins, 1992). Thus, the long-term consequences for organizations (and individuals) may be increased costs for health care and lost productivity due to illness. Workaholics have also been described as being critical, inefficient, unable to delegate, and/or difficult to work with (e.g., Machlowitz, 1980; Spence & Robbins, 1992). Spruell (1997) portrayed workaholics as competitive and as having a potentially negative impact on the motivation levels of coworkers. Another char- acteristic ascribed to workaholics is a propensity to control the work of others (e.g., Mudrack, 2004; Mudrack & Naughton, 2001). It has been suggested that workaholics who are in managerial positions may pose the greatest problems partly by establishing unrealistic performance standards, which in turn can foster anger among workers, interpersonal conflict, and low employee morale (e.g., Klaft & Kleiner, 1988; Spruell, 1987). Finally, one of the primary findings of Johnstone and Johnston (2005) was that the detrimental effects of workaholism THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 259 can occur if organizational pressures to work long hours are not accompanied by adequate managerial support, and the relationships between coworkers are strained. Others have emphasized the crucial role that supervisors and managers can play in helping employees with workaholic tendencies (e.g., Bartolome & Evans, 1980; Haas, 1991). Such efforts can include managerial assistance in establishing work priorities, delegating tasks, setting specific times for breaks and leaving work, and referring workaholic employees to employee assistance programs. Consistent with the latter point, formal counseling has been advocated for worka- holics, especially if the workaholic tendencies can be linked with Type A person- ality and/or obsessive-compulsive traits (Mudrack, 2004; Naughton, 1987). As Naughton (1987) has stated, one goal of therapy with workaholics who possess compulsive tendencies is to reduce the extent to which their behavior is dys- functional to themselves and to the organizations employing them (p. 185). Indeed, Schaef and Fassel (1998) developed a 12-step process designed to reduce workaholic behaviors on an individual and organizational level. Also, counseling for workaholics that involves family members has been proposed (e.g., Burke, 2000a) because family support is considered crucial for the success of therapeutic interventions (e.g., Bartolome, 1983; Minirth et al., 1981). Finally, the use of training programs (including self-help formats) has also been suggested to assist workaholics in developing varied interests and to engage in nonwork activities (Franzmeier, 1988; Klaft & Kleiner, 1988; Korn, Pratt, & Lambrou, 1987; Naughton, 1987; Seybold & Salomone, 1994). Although the above suggestions may be effective, it is critical that organizations take the potential negative impact of workaholic employees seriously in order to choose and initiate appro- priate intervention strategies. REFERENCES Arnott, D. (2000). Corporate cults: The insidious lure of the all-consuming organization. New York: American Management Association. Austin, J. (2000). Workaholism: The symptoms, the causes, the cure. Potential At Work. Retrieved September 19, 2001, from www.potentialatwork.com/articles/workaholism.html Aziz, S., & Zickar M. J. (2006). A cluster analysis investigation of workaholism as a syndrome. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 5262. Bartolome, F. (1983). The work alibi: When its harder to go home. Harvard Business Review, 61, 6674. Bartolome, F., & Evans, P. A. (1980). Must success cost so much? Harvard Business Review, 58, 137148. Bonebright, C. A., Clay, D. L., & Ankenmann, R. D. (2000). The relationship of workaholism with work-life conflict, satisfaction, and purpose in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 469477. Brenton, D., & Largent, C. (1996). The paradigm conspiracy. Center City, MN: 260 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA Hazelden. Burke, R. J. (1999a). Workaholism and extra-work satisfaction. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 7, 352364. Burke, R. J. (1999b). Workaholism in organizations: Gender differences. Sex Roles, 41, 333345. Burke, R. J. (2000a). Workaholism among women managers: Personal and workplace correlates. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15, 520530. Burke, R. J. (2000b). Workaholism and divorce. Psychological Reports, 86, 219220. Burke, R. J. (2000c). Workaholism in organizations: Psychological and physical well-being conse- quences. Stress Medicine, 16, 1116. Burke, R. A. (2001a). Workaholism in organizations: The role of organizational values. Personnel Review, 30, 637645. Burke, R. A. (2001b). Spence and Robbins measures of workaholism components: Test-retest stabil- ity. Psychological Reports, 88, 882888. Burke, R. A., & Ng, E. S. W. (2007). Workaholic behaviors: Do colleagues agree? International Journal of Stress Management, 14, 312320. Burke, R. A., Oberklaid, F., & Burgess, Z. (2004). Workaholism among Australian women psycholo- gists: Antecedents and consequences. Women in Management Review, 5, 252259. Burke, R. A., Richardson, A. M., & Mortinussen, M. (2004). Workaholism among Norwegian managers. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 459470. Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 249276. Carroll, J. J., &. Robinson, B. E. (2000). Depression and parentification among adults as related to parental workaholism and alcoholism. Family journal: Counseling and therapy for couples and families, 8, 360367. Cherrington, D. J. (1980). The work ethic. New York: American Management Association. DeMeuse, K. P. (1986). A compendium of frequently used measures in industrial/organizational psychology. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 23, 5359. Erase-Blunt, M. (2001). The busmans holiday. HR Magazine, 46, 7680. Ersoy-Kart, M. (2005). Reliability and validity of the Workaholism Battery (Work-Bat): Turkish form. Social Behavior and Personality, 33, 609617. Farmer, R., & Sundberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom proneness: The development and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 417. Fassel, D. (1990). Working ourselves to death: The high cost of workaholism, the rewards of recovery. San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers. Fassel, D., & Schaef, A. W. (1989). The high cost of workaholism. Business and Health, 21, 3842. Flowers, C., & Robinson, B. E. (2002). A structural and discriminant analysis of the Work Addiction Risk Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 517526. Frankel, M. (1998). Creating the family friendly workplace: Barriers and solutions. In S. Klarreich (Ed.), Handbook of organizational health psychology: Programs to make the workplace healthier (pp. 79100). Madison, CT: Psychosocial Press. Franzmeier, A. (1988). To your health. Nations Business, 76, 73. Frone, M. R. (2003). Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick and L. E. Tetrick, (Eds.) Handbook of Occu- pational Health Psychology (pp. 143162). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Barnes, G. M. (1996). Work-family conflict, gender, and health-related outcomes: A study of employed parents in two community samples. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 5769. Frone, M. R., Russell, M., & Cooper, M. J. (1997). Relation of work-family conflict to health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and Orga- nizational Psychology, 70, 325336. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 7688. THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 261 Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Family, work, workfamily spillover and problem drinking during midlife. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 62, 336348. Haas, R. (1991). Strategies to cope with a cultural phenomenonworkaholism. Supervisory Manage- ment, 36, 4. Hammer, L. B., Bauer, T. N., & Grandey, A. (2003). Effects of spouses and own work-family conflict on withdrawal behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17, 419436. Hammer, L. B., Colton, C. L., Caubet, S. L., & Brockwood, K. J. (2002). The unbalanced life: Work and family conflict. In J. C. Thomas and M. Hersen (Eds.). Handbook of mental health in the work- place (pp. 83101). London: Sage. Harpaz, I., & Snir, R. (2003). Workaholism: Its definition and nature. Human Relations, 56, 291319. Hendrick, S. S. (1998). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 9398. Hendrick, S. S., Dicke, A., & Hendrick, C. (1998). The Relationship Assessment Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 137142. Ironson, G. H., Smith, P. C., Brannick, M. T., Gibson, W. M., & Paul, K. B. (1989). Construction of a job in general scale: A comparison of global, composite, and specific measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 193200. Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Weissinger, E. (1990). Perceptions of boredom in leisure: Conceptualization, reliability, and validity of the Leisure Boredom Scale. Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 117. Johnstone, A., & Johnston, L. (2005). The relationship between organization climate, organizational type and workaholism. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34, 181188. Kanai, A., & Wakabayashi, M. (2001). Workaholism among Japanese blue-collar employees. International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 129145. Kiechel, W. (1989, April 10). The workaholic generation. Fortune, 5062. Killinger, B. (1991). Workaholics: The respectable addicts. New York: Simon & Schuster. Klaft, R. P., & Kleiner, B. H. (1988). Understanding workaholics. Business, 38, 3740. Korn, E. R., Pratt, G. J., & Lambrou, P. T. (1987). Hyper-performance: The A.I.M. strategy for releasing your business potential. New York: John Wiley & Sons. LAbate, L., & LAbate, B. L. (1981). Marriage: The dream and the reality. Family Relations, 30, 131136. Lambert, C., Kass, S. J., Piotrowski, C., & Vodanovich, S. J. (2006). Impact factors on work-family balance: Initial support for border theory. Organization Development Journal, 24(3), 8798. MacEwen, K. E., & Barling, J. (1994). Daily consequences of work interference with family and fam- ily interference with work. Work and Stress, 13, 5973. Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholics: Living with them, working with them. Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley. Marks, N. F. (1998). Does it hurt to care? Caregiving, work-family-conflict, and midlife well-being. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 60, 951966. McMillan, L. H. W., Brady, E. C., ODriscoll, M. P., & Marsh, N. V. (2002). A multifaceted valida- tion study of Spence and Robbins (1992) workaholism battery. Journal of Occupational and Orga- nizational Psychology, 75, 357368. McMillan, L. H. W., ODriscoll, M. P., & Brady, E. C. (2004). The impact of workaholism on per- sonal relationships. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 32, 171186. Minirth, F., Meier, P., Wichern, F., Brewer, B., & Skipper, S. (1981). The workaholic and his family: An inside look. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. Muchinsky, P. M. (1987). Psychology applied to work. Chicago: Dorsey Press. Mudrack, P. E. (2004). Job involvement, obsessive-compulsive personality traits, and workaholic behavioral tendencies. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 490508. Mudrack, P. E., & Naughton, T. J. (2001). The assessment of workaholism as behavioral tendencies: Scale development and preliminary empirical testing. International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 93111. 262 BRADY, VODANOVICH, AND ROTUNDA Naughton, T. J. (1987). A conceptual review of workaholism and implications for career counseling and research. The Career Development Quarterly, 35, 180187. Oats, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction. New York: World Publishing. OConnor, E. J., Peters, L. H., & Gordon, S. M. (1978). The measurement of job satisfaction: Current practices and future considerations. Journal of Management, 4, 1726. Peiperl, M., & Jones, B. (2001). Workaholics and overworkers: Productivity or pathology? Group and Organization Management, 26, 369393. Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching the negative outcomes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1, 7084. Ragheb, M. G., & Griffith, C. A. (1982). The contribution of leisure participation and leisure satisfac- tion to life satisfaction of older persons. Journal of Leisure Research, 14, 295306. Ragheb, M. G., & Merydith, S. P. (2001). Development and validation of a multidimensional scale measuring free time boredom. Leisure Studies, 20, 4159. Reiss, M. (2002). American karoshi. New Internationalist, 343, 13. Retrieved March 18, 2002, from FindArticles.com database. Riddick, C. C. (1986). Leisure satisfaction precursors. Journal of Leisure Research, 18, 259256. Robinson, B. E. (1989). Work addiction. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications. Robinson, B. E. (1995). Measuring workaholism: Content validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test. Psychological Reports, 77, 657658. Robinson, B. E. (1996). Concurrent validity of the Work Addiction Risk Test as a measure of worka- holism. Psychological Reports, 79, 13131314. Robinson, B. E. (1998a). The workaholic family: A clinical perspective. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 26, 6575. Robinson, B. E. (1998b). Chained to a desk: A guidebook for workaholics, their parents, and children, and the clinicians who treat them. New York: New York University Press. Robinson, B. E. (1999). The Work Addiction Risk Test: Development of a tentative measure of workaholism. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 199210. Robinson, B. E. (2000). A typology of workaholics with implications for counselors. Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling, 21, 3448. Robinson, B. E., Carroll, J. J., & Flowers, C . (2001). Marital estrangement, positive affect and locus of control among spouses of workaholics and spouses of nonworkaholics: A national study. American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, 397410. Robinson, B. E., & Phillips, B. (1995). Measuring workaholism: Content validity of the Work Addic- tion Risk Test. Psychological Reports, 77, 657658. Robinson, B. E., & Post, P. (1995). Spit-half reliability of the Work Addiction Risk Test: Develop- ment of a measure of workaholism. Psychological Reports, 76, 1226. Robinson, B. E., Post, P., & Khakee, J. F. (1992). Test-test reliability of the Work Addiction Risk Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 926. Russell, R. V. (1987). The relative contribution of recreation satisfaction and activity participation to the life satisfaction of retirees. Journal of Leisure Research, 19, 273283. Schaef, K. S., & Fassel, D. (1998). The addictive organization. San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers. Scott, K. S., Moore, K. S., & Miceli, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences of workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287314. Seybold, K. C., & Salomone, P. R. (1994). Understanding workaholism: A review of causes and counseling approaches. Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 49. Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and retirement. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally. Snir, R., & Harpaz, I. (2004). Attitudinal and demographic antecedents of workaholism. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 520536. THE IMPACT OF WORKAHOLISM 263 Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 1528. Speller, J. L. (1989). Executives in crisis: Recognizing and managing the alcoholic, drug-addicted, or mentally ill executive. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160178. Spruell, G. (1987). Work fever. Training and Development Journal, 41, 4145. Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Verhoeven, L. C. (2005). Workaholism in the Netherlands: Measurement and implications for job strain and work-non-work conflict. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54, 3760. Vodanovich, S. J., & Piotrowski, C. (2006). Workaholism: A critical but neglected factor in O.D. Organization Development Journal, 24(2), 5560. Yeager, S. G. (1981). Dimensionality of the Job Descriptive Index. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 205212.