This article was downloaded by: [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] Publisher: Routledge
Transcription
This article was downloaded by: [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] Publisher: Routledge
This article was downloaded by: [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] On: 19 January 2013, At: 11:06 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/pewo20 Workaholism and work–family spillover in a crossoccupational sample Cecilie Schou Andreassen a a b a , Jørn Hetland & Ståle Pallesen a Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway b The Bergen Clinics Foundation, Bergen, Norway Version of record first published: 03 Jan 2012. To cite this article: Cecilie Schou Andreassen , Jørn Hetland & Ståle Pallesen (2013): Workaholism and work–family spillover in a cross-occupational sample, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22:1, 78-87 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.626201 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2013 Vol. 22, No. 1, 78–87, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.626201 Workaholism and work–family spillover in a cross-occupational sample Cecilie Schou Andreassen1,2, Jørn Hetland1, and Sta˚le Pallesen1 1 Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013 2 Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway The Bergen Clinics Foundation, Bergen, Norway This study examined the relationship between three components of workaholism (work involvement, drive, enjoyment of work) and work–family spillover. A cross-occupational sample consisting of 661 Norwegian employees from six different organizations responded to a Web-based questionnaire measuring workaholism and work–family spillover. A short and revised version of the WorkBAT showed that work involvement was positively related to both positive family-to-work spillover and to negative work-to-family spillover. Drive was positively related to both negative workto-family and negative family-to-work spillover, and negatively related to positive work-to-family spillover. Enjoyment of work was positively associated with positive work-to-family and positive family-to-work spillover. Workaholism is clearly related to spillover. The findings imply that interventions for workers scoring high on work involvement and drive should be emphasized as these dimensions were associated with negative spillover. More research on this area is warranted. Keywords: Workaholism; WorkBAT; Work–family interface. In the wake of globalization, new technology, and blurred boundaries between work and other life domains, some authors have suggested that we are witnessing an increase in workaholism (Fassel, 1990; Machlowitz, 1980; Schor, 1991). Consequently, concerns have been raised about the impact of working long hours and excessive work. In line with these concerns, previous studies have linked workaholism to life satisfaction (Bonebright, Clay, & Ankenmann, 2000; McMillan, Brady, O’Driscoll, & Marsh, 2002; Schaufeli, Taris, & van Rhenen, 2008), perceived health (Shimazu & Schaufeli, 2009), subjective health complaints (Andreassen, Hetland, Molde, & Pallesen, 2011), burnout (Andreassen, Ursin, & Eriksen, 2007), and sleep (Kubota et al., 2010). Although some studies have investigated the relationship between workaholism and work–family conflicts, none of these has systematically investigated the relationship between different features of workaholism and different dimensions of work–family spillover (Aziz, Adkins, Walker, & Wuensch, 2010; Bakker, Demerouti, & Burke, 2009; Bonebright et al., 2000; Robinson, Flowers, & Carroll, 2001; Taris, Schaufeli, & Verhoeven, 2005). With the present study, we aim to be the first to report systematically on the multidimensional relationships between workaholism and work–family spillover. In terms of definitions and operationalizations, Spence and Robbins (1992) define workaholism by identifying three independent dimensions or components: work involvement (reflecting much time spent on work and blurred boundaries between work and private life), drive (an obsessive compulsion to work) and enjoyment of work (reporting negative and/or positive feelings about work). Based on these dimensions, Spence and Robbins categorized two types of workaholics: ‘‘enthusiastic’’, who are characterized by high levels of work involvement, driven by an internal pressure to work, and who find great fulfilment and pleasure in work; and ‘‘nonenthusiastic’’, who Correspondence should be addressed to Cecilie Schou Andreassen, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Christiesgate 12, N-5015 Bergen, Norway. E-mail: [email protected] The authors would like to thank the employees and management of the organizations for their collaboration. We would also like to thank Trude Remme and Arne Magnus Morken for their technical assistance. Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013 WORKAHOLISM AND WORK–FAMILY SPILLOVER are also highly involved in work-related activities and are driven to work, but who don’t seem to derive enjoyment from doing so. Lately, some authors argue that positive workaholism has strong parallels to work engagement (Schaufeli, Shimazu, & Taris, 2009). However, this view might be somewhat misleading as highly work-engaged employees lack the typical compulsive drive that is characteristic of any addiction, including an addiction to work (Taris, Schaufeli, & Shimazu, 2010). Workaholics seem to experience a compulsive drive, regardless of whether they like or dislike working. Hence, this characteristic seems to separate workaholism from other related constructs, such as work engagement (Shimazu & Schaufeli, 2009), passion towards work (Vallerand, Paquet, Philippe, & Charest, 2010), organizational commitment (Angle & Perry, 1981), and the like. Both previous (Bonebright et al., 2000; Burke, 2000; McMillan et al., 2002) and recent (Andreassen, Hetland, & Pallesen, 2010; Andreassen et al., 2007; Snir & Zohar, 2008) research suggests that enjoyment of work is typically linked to career satisfaction, work engagement, experience of purpose in life, positive affect, as well as emotional and physical well-being. Drive, on the other hand, has in previous research been linked with negative affects and with poor health (Andreassen et al., 2011; McMillan & O’Driscoll, 2004). Work involvement has also been linked with adverse outcomes, although to a less consistent degree than drive (Andreassen et al., 2011; McMillan & O’Driscoll, 2004). Hence, workaholism can entail both benefits and disadvantages (Andreassen et al., 2007; Ng, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2007). Workaholism is related to high productivity, but may, on the other side of the coin, be destructive for the family (Bonebright et al., 2000; Robinson, 1998; Taris et al., 2005). Extensive involvement in work, chronic stress, and time pressure have been highlighted as factors that may be relevant predictors of work–family spillover (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Robinson, 1998). ‘‘Work–family conflicts’’ are regarded as interrole conflicts in which the role pressures from the work and family spheres are perceived as incompatible (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985, p. 77), and are linked to a range of negative physiological, behavioural, and psychological outcomes (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kinnunen, Feldt, Geurts, & Pulkkinen, 2006; Robinson, 1998). Recently, Russo and Waters (2006) suggested that ‘‘one potential antecedent of work–family conflict may be workaholism’’ (p. 421). This suggestion is in line with previous studies showing a positive correlation between time spent at work and work–family conflict. It has further been suggested that work–family conflict may also be related to dispositional (e.g., Type A) and environmental antecedents (e.g., organizational policies incompatible with work–life 79 balance) (Fu & Shaffer, 2001). So far, very few studies have been conducted that examine the relationship between workaholism and work–family conflict. All of these conclude that workaholics report a higher degree of work–family conflict than nonworkaholics (Bonebright et al., 2000; Robinson et al., 2001; Russo & Waters, 2006; Taris et al., 2005). Work–family conflict can be regarded as a negative aspect of what is known as ‘‘spillover’’. In contemporary literature, spillover is defined as the transfer of mood, energy and skills from one sphere to another (Grosswald, 2003). It is assumed that spillover can be positive as well as negative (e.g., work–family facilitation and work– family conflict) (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000) and that spillover can operate in both directions (e.g., work-tofamily and family-to-work) (Grzywacz & Marks, 2000; Kinnunen et al., 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2008; Zedeck, 1992). It is presumed, however, that the work domain has more of an influence on family life than family life has on work (Burke & Greenglass, 1987; Leiter & Durup, 1996); as a result, several studies on the topic of spillover have focused on work–family conflict (see Frone, Yardley, & Markel, 1997; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Voydanoff, 1988). Spillover may be particularly relevant in developed countries, as these seem to have high proportions of dual-earner couples (Melinda & Jacobs, 2008). Authors have also pointed to emerging working life trends such as new online technology, new and more absorbing/stimulating knowledge work, as well as downsizing and reorganization as factors which may blur the boundaries between family and work (Humbert & Lewis, 2008), making the topic of workaholism and spillover urgently relevant. Although different potential work–family spillover correlates of workaholism have been suggested, empirical support for the majority of these notions is sparse. Very few empirical studies have investigated the associations between workaholism and different work–family spillover effects. So far, no study has investigated the relationship between different workaholism dimensions and all aspects of work–family spillover (positive and negative spillover from workto-family and from family-to-work, respectively). In one study, it was found that job demands were positively related to work–family conflict (Shimazu, Bakker, & Demerouti, 2009). In line with this finding, Bakker et al. (2009) reported a positive association between scores on the Work Compulsion subscale of the Work Addiction Risk Test (Robinson, 1999) and a measure of work–family conflict. Russo and Waters (2006) found that the WorkBAT Drive subscale of the Workaholism Battery (Spence & Robbins, 1992) was significantly related to work–family conflict (r ¼ .46), whereas WorkBAT Enjoyment of Work was unrelated to work–family conflict. These authors also suggested significant relations between worker Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013 80 ANDREASSEN, HETLAND, PALLESEN type and work–family conflict (Russo & Waters, 2006). Still, very few empirical studies have investigated the associations between the different ‘‘workaholism’’ features and different spillover parameters. There are, to date, not enough data to create normative standards for WorkBAT scores. Against this background, in the present article we will emphasize the different ‘‘workaholic’’ features (reflected by continuous scores) rather than ‘‘workaholic types’’ (categories). Furthermore, the use of continuous scores rather than the use of categories takes advantage of the whole range of variance of the variables in questions. The present study aims to extend our understanding of potential spillover effects and relations to ‘‘workaholism’’ by examining how its different dimensions are related to all four aspects of the work–family spillover. Although not in line with all the specific findings referred to earlier, previous findings have generally indicated that enjoyment of work is linked with positive outcomes and drive is linked with negative outcomes, whereas work involvement is related to adverse outcomes; however, these relations are often small and unreliable (Andreassen et al., 2011). Against this background, our hypotheses are as follows: 1(a) Work involvement will be positively related to negative spillover and (b) negatively related to positive spillover. 2(a) Drive will be positively related to negative spillover and (b) negatively related to positive spillover. 3(a) Enjoyment of work will be negatively related to negative spillover and (b) positively related to positive spillover, METHOD Sample Internet-based questionnaires were administered to 1300 Norwegian cross-occupational employees. A total of 661 respondents answered, yielding a response rate of 51%. The sample was comprised of managers of a major national pharmaceutical company (n ¼ 127), employees of a regional healthcare sector company (n ¼ 96), a national television (TV) station (n ¼ 172), two different human resource (HR) consultancy companies (n ¼ 80), and employees from two university faculties (n ¼ 186). The response rate per company ranged from 39% (university) to 68% (TV). The sample consisted of 360 (54%) females and 301 (46%) males, whose ages ranged from 16 to 72 years (M ¼ 42.6, SD ¼ 10.5). The majority of the respondents were married or living with a partner (67%), were living with children (53%), and were educated at the university level (87%). The period of service in the companies ranged from new employees to employees who had tenure longer than 20 years. Most of the employees worked full time (88%) and had worked in the organizations for between 0 and 10 years (86%); 35% worked less than 40 hours per week (37.5 hours per week is the national average for hours worked in typical Norwegian working samples having full-time positions), 28% between 41 and 45 hours, 19% between 46 and 50 hours, and 18% worked more than 51 hours per week; 351 employees (53%) were managers or had management responsibilities. Instruments Workaholism Battery (WorkBAT). By conducting explorative structural equation modelling (SEM), we previously (Andreassen et al., 2010) found support for a revised and shorter 14-item Norwegian version of WorkBAT (Spence & Robbins, 1992), which we used to measure ‘‘workaholism’’. The SEM results came from the same dataset as used here. The Norwegian version was based on a standardized translation-back-translation procedure. All items were answered on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (‘‘strongly agree’’) to 5 (‘‘strongly disagree’’). The questionnaire measures three dimensions of ‘‘workaholism’’: (1) ‘‘Work involvement’’ (e.g., ‘‘I spend my free time on projects and other activities’’) (three items), reflecting the need to spend time efficiently both at work and when off work, blurred boundaries between work and private life, as well as the inability to relax. The corrected item-total correlations for this subscale ranged from .36 to .40. (2) ‘‘Drive’’ (e.g., ‘‘I seem to have an inner compulsion to work hard’’) (four items) reflects internal pressure/ motivation for work and the frequency of thinking about work. The corrected item-total correlations for this subscale ranged from .57 to .73. (3) ‘‘Enjoyment of work’’ (e.g., ‘‘Sometimes I enjoy my work so much I have a hard time stopping’’) (seven items) assesses satisfaction from work. The corrected item-total correlations for this subscale ranged from .51 to .69. Work–Family Interface Scale (WFIS). Spillover between work and family life was measured by the WFIS (Kinnunen et al., 2006). The Norwegian adaptation was based on a standardized translationback-translation procedure. The scale consists of 14 items which cover different aspects of the interaction between work and family. All items are answered on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (‘‘never’’) to 5 (‘‘very often’’). The scale measures four potential spillover effects: ‘‘negative spillover from family to work’’ (e.g., ‘‘your home life interferes with your responsibilities at work, such as getting to work on time, accomplishing daily tasks or working overtime’’) (four items), ‘‘negative spillover from work to family’’ (e.g., ‘‘your job produces strain that makes WORKAHOLISM AND WORK–FAMILY SPILLOVER it difficult to fulfil your family duties’’) (four items), ‘‘positive spillover from family to work’’ (e.g., ‘‘after spending time with your spouse/family, you go to work in a good mood, positively affecting the atmosphere at work’’) (three items), and finally, ‘‘positive spillover from work to family’’ (e.g., ‘‘You manage your time at home more efficiently as a result of the way you do your job’’) (three items). Overall, the negative spillover items are either time or strain based, whereas the positive spillover items reflect positive mood, skills, or behaviour. components in the regression analyses. Since spending excessive time on work at the expense of other activities is included in most definitions of workaholism (Ng et al., 2007), work hours were not included in the regressions, since it may be viewed as an alternative measure rather than a correlate of workaholism. The three workaholism components were all entered at Step 3. Finally, prior to conducting the regression analyses, checks for normality, multicollinearity, linearity, and homoscedasticity were conducted. No violations of assumptions were found. Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013 Procedure Data were collected in a Web-based survey that was carried out during autumn 2007/spring 2008. Before initiating the study, meetings were arranged at which the leaders of invited organizations were informed about the investigation. Information was given in advance to all potential respondents about the aims and objectives of the study (by the CEOs of the organizations by electronic mail). A total of 1300 invitations were sent, containing information about the survey and informed consent. The Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics, Health Region West, Norway, approved the study protocol. Statistics Data analyses were conducted using the SPSS 16.0 statistical package for Windows. Descriptive statistics (internal consistencies, means, standard deviations, percentage frequencies, and intercorrelations) for each subscale of interest were calculated. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were calculated in order to investigate the relationships between relevant subscales in the present study. Finally, in order to assess in more detail the relationships between the three workaholism components and the four work–family spillover effects, a series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed. Relevant background variables were entered in the first two steps of all regressions in order to control for possible confounding relationships. Independent variables were entered into the equation in three steps. Individual demographic variables (age, gender, marital status, living with children) were entered at Step 1. These variables were included as previous studies have shown spillover to be related to age (Lundberg, Mardberg, & Frankenhaeuser, 1994), gender (Wharton & Blair-Loy, 2006), marital status (Delgado & Canabal, 2006), as well as to the presence of children in the household (Grzywacz, Almeida, & McDonald, 2002). In order to prevent inflated relationships between workaholism and spillover, we entered the work-related variables (professional position, employee sector) at Step 2, before the workaholism 81 RESULTS Internal consistency and reliability Cronbach’s alpha values for all scales are presented in Table 1. The work involvement subscale (a ¼ .57), and the two subscales measuring positive spillover (as ¼ .68 and .72) had rather low alphas. It should be noted that the work involvement subscale in its original form has also proven to have low reliability across studies, and therefore should be used with caution. Correlations There were significant correlations between the workaholism components and the scales measuring work–family spillover (see Table 1). Work involvement correlated positively with negative work-tofamily spillover, and with both negative and positive family-to-work spillover. Drive correlated positively with negative work-to-family and negative family-towork spillover, and showed an inverse relationship with positive work-to-family spillover. Enjoyment of work correlated positively with both positive and negative work-to-family spillover, and positively with positive spillover from family to work. Regression analyses Table 2 shows the results of the hierarchical multiple regression analyses examining the relationships between the three workaholism components and the four spillover effects. Family-to-work spillover and demographic variables. Females reported less negative family-towork spillover and more positive family-to-work spillover than males. Respondents living with children reported more negative family-to-work spillover than respondents living without children at home. However, respondents living with children also reported higher positive family-to-work spillover than respondents living without children at home. When it comes to the work sector, the overall findings 82 ANDREASSEN, HETLAND, PALLESEN TABLE 1 Significant correlations and descriptive statistics (N ¼ 661) Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .24** .08* .23** .03 .11** .10* .05 .05 .05 .06 .07 10.73 2.41 3–15 .57 3 .05 .32** 7.10** .12** .03 7.20** 7.02 .07 7.04 .08* 12.32 3.82 4–20 .83 4 .09* .35** .00 .20** .08* 7.15** 7.10* .00 .03 22.46 5.03 7–35 .85 7 7.11** .45** .09* 7.09* 7.05 7.10* .20** .14** 9.82 3.25 4–20 .93 4 7.08 .53** .10** .05 7.15** .05 .09* 7.34 2.74 3–15 .68 3 .14** .01 7.15** 7.12** .40** .08 10.96 2.26 4–20 .87 4 — .05 .07 7.17** .16** .12** 9.29 2.06 3–15 .72 3 7.11** 7.18** .02 .19** 42.59 10.50 16–72 9 10 11 .12** 7.07 7.08* 7.30** 7.20** .14** Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013 a 1. Work involvement 2. Drivea 3. Enjoyment of worka 4. Negative W-F spillover 5. Positive W-F spillover 6. Negative F-W spillover 7. Positive F-W spillover 8. Age 9. Genderb 10. Marital statusc 11. Childrend 12. Positione M SD Range a Items 1 a Shortened WorkBAT subscale; bGender (1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female); cMarital status (1 ¼ partner, 2 ¼ no partner); dLiving with children (1 ¼ no, 2 ¼ yes); ePosition (1 ¼ follower, 2 ¼ leader/leadership responsibility). *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01. suggest a higher level of both negative and positive spillover in the TV sector (which comprised the reference group) compared to many of the other sectors. However, respondents from the university sector reported more negative family-to-work spillover than respondents from the TV sector. explained a total of 14% of the variance. Drive (negatively) and enjoyment of work (positively) were significantly related to positive work-to-family spillover. Enjoyment of work made the strongest contribution to the variance. Family-to-work spillover and workaholism. For negative family-to-work spillover, the workaholism components explained about 2% of the variance. Drive was the only component that was significantly and positively related to negative family-to-work spillover. For positive family-to-work spillover, the workaholism components explained a total of 5% of the variance. Work involvement and enjoyment of work were significantly and positively related to positive family-to-work spillover. Enjoyment of work was the strongest contributory variable. DISCUSSION Work-to-family spillover and demographic variables. Respondents living with children reported more negative work-to-family spillover than respondents living without children at home. When it comes to the work sector, the respondents from the HR sector reported more positive work-tofamily spillover than respondents from the TV sector. Work-to-family spillover and workaholism. For negative work-to-family spillover, the workaholism components explained 10% of the variance. Both work involvement and drive were significantly and positively related to negative work-to-family spillover. Drive was the strongest contributory variable in the model. Finally, for positive work-tofamily spillover, the workaholism components Summation of the main findings The present study is the first that investigates the relationship between workaholism and all aspects of work–family spillover. Work involvement was positively related to both positive family-to-work spillover and to negative work-to-family spillover. Enjoyment of work was positively related to both positive family-to-work-spillover and to positive work-to family spillover. Drive was positively related to negative family-to-work spillover and to negative work-to-family spillover, and showed an inverse relationship with positive work-to-family spillover. Our findings are basically in line with previous findings showing that enjoyment of work is linked with positive outcomes and drive is linked with negative outcomes, whereas work involvement shows inconsistent/weak relationships with different outcomes (Andreassen et al., 2011). Spillover and demographic variables Before we discuss the findings concerning the specific hypotheses, some comments regarding other variables which were significantly related to spillover are warranted. In the final step of the regression analysis, females reported less negative family-to-work 70.01 70.13*** 0.01 0.39*** 70.01 70.09* 70.02 0.39*** 0.03 70.03 70.07 70.10* 0.12** 0.01 70.09* 70.03 0.39*** 0.01 70.02 70.07 70.09* 0.11* .05 .11** 7.03 0.00 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.01 70.00 70.14 70.04 0.63 0.06 70.07 70.18 70.22 0.21 0.00 70.15 70.05 0.63 0.02 70.04 70.18 70.20 0.21 0.02 0.02 70.01 b 0.00 0.06 0.07 0.06 SE B 70.00 70.21 70.16 0.63 B .23/.02** .21/.04*** .17*** R/DR 70.01 0.04 70.01 70.26 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.16 70.13 0.17 0.08 70.08 0.04 70.10 70.28 0.00 0.14 70.14 0.17 0.10 0.00 0.14 70.21 0.18 B 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 SE B 70.01 0.02 70.01 70.16*** .08* .01 .19*** 0.03 0.11** 70.08* 0.12** 0.06 70.04 0.02 70.05 70.18*** 0.04 0.10* 70.09* 0.12** 0.07 0.03 0.10* 70.14*** 0.12** b .05*** R/DR .13/.05*** . .08/.03*** Positive F-W spillover 70.03 70.30 70.91 70.37 0.08 0.07 0.01 70.00 0.04 70.05 0.39 0.06 70.17 70.29 71.04 70.36 70.01 0.06 70.01 0.40 0.19 70.01 70.10 70.12 0.41 B 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.00 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.00 0.08 0.09 0.04 SE B 70.01 70.09* 70.30*** 70.15** 0.17*** 0.24*** 0.03 70.03 0.02 70.02 0.18*** 0.03 70.06 70.09* 70.34*** 70.15** 70.08* 0.03 70.00 0.18*** 0.09* 70.11** 70.05 70.05 0.19*** b .06*** R/DR .26/.10*** .15/.10*** Negative W-F spillover 0.18 0.22 0.27 70.17 0.01 70.02 0.05 0.00 0.10 70.09 0.01 0.04 0.10 0.23 0.14 70.22 0.01 0.06 70.14s 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.11 70.21 0.02 B 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.27 0.00 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 SE B 0.10* 0.10* 0.13** 70.11** 0.04 70.10** 0.37*** 0.03 0.07 70.06 0.01 0.02 0.06 0.10* 0.07 70.14** 0.08* 0.04 70.09* 0.00 0.02 0.09* 0.08* 70.14*** 0.01 b Positive W-F spillover .22/.14*** .08/.05*** .03*** R/DR a Gender (1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female); bMarital status (1 ¼ partner, 2 ¼ no partner); cLiving with children (1 ¼ no, 2 ¼ yes); dPosition (1 ¼ follower, 2 ¼ leader/leadership responsibility); eThe TV sector represents the reference group; fShortened WorkBAT subscale. *p 5 .05, **p 5 .01, ***p 5 .001. Step 1 Age Gendera Maritalb Childrenc Step 2 Age Gender Marital Children Positiond Sectore Pharmacy HR Healthcare University Step 3 Age Gender Marital Children Position Sector Pharmacy HR Healthcare University Work involvementf Drivef Enjoymentf Variable Negative F-W spillover TABLE 2 Hierarchical multiple regression analyses examining effects of ‘‘workaholism’’ components on work-to-family and family-to-work spillover (N ¼ 661) Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013 WORKAHOLISM AND WORK–FAMILY SPILLOVER 83 Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013 84 ANDREASSEN, HETLAND, PALLESEN spillover than males. This finding runs counter to a previous study reporting a higher level of negative family-to-work spillover in females than males, reflecting that women more than men made adjustments to their work for the sake of family (Keene & Reynolds, 2005). We cannot provide any definite explanation for our contradictory finding, but it might reflect rather recently occurring changes in the male sex-role, implying increased expectations concerning domestic contributions (Berridge, Penn, & Ganjali, 2009). Females reported more positive family-to-work spillover than males, probably because females are more involved in parenting and housework, hence raising the possibility for positive spillover from the family to the work domain (Perrone, Wright, & Jackson, 2009). Respondents living with children reported more negative spillover (both work-to-family and familyto-work) than respondents living without children at home. This may imply that having children may interfere with responsibilities at work and vice versa (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999; Kelly & Voydanoff, 1985). However, respondents living with children reported higher positive family-to-work spillover than respondents living without children at home. This is in line with the notion that children may leave space for experiencing positive spillover effects, as suggested by other studies (Frone, Russel, & Cooper, 1992; Fujimoto, Kotani, & Suzuki, 2008). These seemingly contradictory findings suggest that children intensify the spillover effects, both positive and negative, between work and family. When it comes to the work sector, the overall findings suggest a higher level of both negative and positive spillover in the TV sector (which comprised the reference group) compared to many of the other sectors. However, respondents from the university sector reported more negative family-to-work spillover, and respondents from the HR sector reported more positive work-tofamily spillover, than respondents from the TV sector. Spillover and workaholism When it comes to the relationship between workaholism and spillover, we hypothesized that work involvement would be positively related to negative spillover and negatively related to positive spillover. The regression analyses showed that work involvement was positively associated with positive spillover effects from family to work and positively related to negative work-to-family spillover. Work involvement was unrelated to both negative spillover from family to work and to positive spillover from work to family. The finding that work involvement was positively related to negative work-to-family spillover was in line with Hypothesis 1a and is also consistent with previous studies, where involvement in work was found to be related to work-life conflict (Bonebright et al., 2000; Rain, Lane, & Steiner, 1991). However, the finding that work involvement was positively related to positive family-to-work spillover was contrary to Hypothesis 1b. We have no clear explanation for this finding. Overall, Hypothesis 1a was partly confirmed, but 1b was, by and large, not confirmed. The results are, to some extent, in line with studies finding primarily weak relationships between work involvement and other constructs (Andreassen et al., 2011). The findings concerning work involvement should be interpreted with caution due to the rather poor psychometric properties of the subscale measuring this dimension. This may also explain the weak/inconsistent findings. Second, we assumed that drive would be negatively related to positive spillover and positively related to negative spillover. Hypothesis 2a was confirmed, whereas Hypothesis 2b was only partly confirmed as drive was negatively associated with positive work-to-family spillover but unrelated to positive family-to-work spillover. Overall, the results suggest that drive is particularly negative for the work-to-family interface, which is understandable as drive reflects an obsessive attitude and behaviour towards work (Andreassen et al., 2010) and is parallel to previous studies (Kanai, Wakabayashi, & Fling, 1996; McMillan & O’Driscoll, 2004). Finally, we hypothesized that enjoyment of work would be positively related to positive spillover (Hypothesis 3b) and negatively related to negative spillover (Hypothesis 3a). Thus, Hypothesis 3b was confirmed, whereas Hypothesis 3a was not confirmed. The results indicate that people with high scores on enjoyment of work transfer positive feelings from one arena to another, but that transfer of negative feelings from one arena to another seems to be unrelated to enjoyment of work. Drawing upon our data, it seems that enjoyment of work covaries with positive spillover, whereas drive is related to negative spillover. The general assumption that the work domain has more of an influence on family life than family life has on work (Burke & Greenglass, 1987; Leiter & Durup, 1996) was supported by our data. However, research and the thinking about the relationships between workaholism and spillover are still in their infancy. More studies on the relationship between workaholism and spillover are therefore obviously needed. Theoretical and practical implications The findings of this study may be of practical interest to clinicians, business consultants, and human resource management, as well as to employees and Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013 WORKAHOLISM AND WORK–FAMILY SPILLOVER employers. The WorkBAT seems to have some limitations in terms of its psychometric properties, particularly the work involvement subscale. Future studies with this scale should preferably use latent scores in order to reduce the error variance of its measurement. Revision of the scale by, for example, the deletion of poor items and/or adding better ones is another example of how one could address the psychometric problems with the work involvement subscale. The underlying conceptualization of workaholism reflected by WorkBAT could also be questioned due to the fact that the different subdimensions often show opposite relationships with different constructs (Andreassen et al., 2011). In line with this finding, it has been argued that the work involvement and the enjoyment of work subscales are simply not relevant. From a behavioural perspective, it has been argued that work involvement as an attitude does not adequately represent workaholism. Likewise, work enjoyment, either high or low, seems not to be a defining aspect of workaholism, as there may be workaholics who like their jobs and others who do not (Mudrack, 2006). Thus, development of new instruments designed to operationalize workaholism in a more parsimonious way seems therefore warranted in future research. Study limitations Some cautionary comments should be made about our findings. Some of the scales had rather low internal consistency, which may have weakened the strength of the relationships investigated in the present study. This pertains in particular to the work involvement subscale, which has shown rather poor psychometric properties in several previous studies (Burke, 2000; Kanai et al., 1996; McMillan et al., 2002). We have no information about the nonrespondents, and data may have been distorted by selfselection bias. Due to the fact that the sample was highly educated (87% had a university degree) and 54% were managers, the variance of the different variables may be restricted, hence making it difficult to find significant associations between the workaholism components and the other constructs. In addition, the results from this highly selected sample may be difficult to generalize to other samples with other worker characteristics. It should be noted that we could not draw any conclusions about causality in the present study as our design was cross-sectional. Thus, the current research design gives no indication of the sequence of events—whether spillover causes workaholism, whether workaholism causes spillover, or whether the relationship between these constructs may be better explained by yet unidentified third variables. 85 Longitudinal data, collateral reports, and objective behavioural data are difficult to obtain, but they would thus be an advantage in terms of elucidating the ‘‘true’’ relationships between work and family domains. Moreover, many other individual and organizational variables, in addition to those reported in this study, certainly play an important role in these matters. Furthermore, we relied on singlesource self-report data, and potential effects from common method variance can thus have influenced our results (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Hence, negative items may correlate with negative items, and positive with positive items, perhaps reflecting personality dimensions such as negative affectivity and social desirability (Spector, 2006). Recommendations for future research Future research should investigate the relationship between workaholism and spillover by the use of longitudinal designs, making it possible to reveal some possible causal relationships between these constructs. Longitudinal designs would also be valuable, investigating how adding children to a family may affect spillover. The field seems to be in need of effective treatments for counteracting, at least, the negative aspects of workaholism and some suggestions concerning possible interventions have been made (Burwell & Chen, 2008). Still, no wellcontrolled treatment study for workaholism has so far been published and future research should therefore address this topic. REFERENCES Andreassen, C. S., Hetland, J., Molde, H., & Pallesen, S. (2011). ‘‘Workaholism’’ and potential outcomes in well-being and health in a cross-occupational sample. Stress and Health, 27, e209–e214. Andreassen, C. S., Hetland, J., & Pallesen, S. (2010). The relationship between ‘‘workaholism’’, basic needs satisfaction at work, and personality. European Journal of Personality, 24, 3–17. Andreassen, C. S., Ursin, H., & Eriksen, H. R. (2007). The relationship between strong motivation to work, ‘‘workaholism’’, and health. Psychology and Health, 22, 615–629. Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment to organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 1–14. Aziz, S., Adkins, C. T., Walker, A. G., & Wuensch, K. L. (2010). Workaholism and work-life imbalance: Does cultural origin influence the relationship? International Journal of Psychology, 45, 72–79. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Burke, R. (2009). Workaholism and relationship quality: A spillover-crossover perspective. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 23–33. Berridge, D., Penn, R., & Ganjali, M. (2009). Changing attitudes to gender roles. A longitudinal analysis of ordinal response data from the British Household Panel Study. International Sociology, 24, 346–367. Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013 86 ANDREASSEN, HETLAND, PALLESEN Bonebright, C. A., Clay, D. L., & Ankenmann, R. D. (2000). The relationship of workaholism with work-life conflict, life satisfaction, and purpose in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 469–477. Burke, R. J. (2000). Workaholism in organizations: Psychological and physical well-being consequences. Stress Medicine, 16, 11– 16. Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (1987). Work and family. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 273–320). New York, NY: Wiley. Burke, R. J., Matthiesen, S. B., & Pallesen, S. (2006). Personality correlates of workaholism. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1223–1233. Burwell, R., & Chen, C. P. (2008). Positive psychology and worklife balance: A new approach in treating workaholism. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The long work hours culture: Causes, consequences and choices (pp. 295–313). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Delgado, E. A., & Canabal, M. E. (2006). Factors associated with negative spillover from job to home among Latinos in the United States. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 27, 92–112. Fassel, D. (1990). Working ourselves to death: The high cost of workaholism, the rewards of recovery. San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins Publishers. Frone, M. R., Russel, M., & Cooper, M. L. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of work–family conflict: Testing a model of the work–family interface. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 65– 78. Frone, M. R., Yardley, J. K., & Markel, K. (1997). Relation of work–family conflict to health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 325–336. Fu, C. K., & Shaffer, M. A. (2001). The tug of work and family: Direct and indirect domain specific determinants of work– family conflict. Personnel Review, 30, 502–522. Fujimoto, T., Kotani, S., & Suzuki, R. (2008). Work–family conflict of nurses in Japan. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 17, 3286–3295. Grandey, A. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). The conservation of resources model applied to work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 350–370. Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88. Grosswald, B. (2003). Shift work and negative work-to-family spillover. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 30, 31–58. Grzywacz, J. G., Almeida, D. M., & McDonald, D. A. (2002). Work–family spillover and daily reports of work and family stress in the adult labor force. Family Relations, 51, 28–36. Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 111–126. Humbert, A. L., & Lewis, S. (2008). ‘‘I have no life other than work’’—Long working hours, blurred boundaries and family life: The case of Irish entrepreneurs. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The long work hours culture: Causes, consequences and choices (pp. 159–181). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Kanai, A., Wakabayashi, M., & Fling, S. (1996). Workaholism among employees in Japanese corporations: An examination based on the Japanese version of the workaholism scales. Japanese Psychological Research, 38, 192–203. Keene, J. R., & Reynolds, J. R. (2005). The job costs of family demands: Gender differences in negative family-to-work spillover. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 275–299. Kelly, R. F., & Voydanoff, P. (1985). Work/family role strain among employed parents. Family Relations, 34, 367–374. Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T., Geurts, S., & Pulkkinen, L. (2006). Types of work–family interface: Well-being correlates of negative and positive spillover between work and family. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 47, 149–162. Kubota, K., Shimazu, A., Kawakami, N., Takahashi, M., Nakata, A., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2010). Association between workaholism and sleep problems among hospital nurses. Industrial Health, 48, 864–871. Leiter, M. P., & Durup, M. J. (1996). Work, home and in-between: A longitudinal study of spillover. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 29–47. Lundberg, U., Mardberg, B., & Frankenhaeuser, M. (1994). The total workload of male and female with white collar workers as related to age, occupational level, and number of children. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 35, 316– 327. Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholics: Living with them, working with them. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. McMillan, L. H. W., Brady, E. C., O’Driscoll, M. P., & Marsh, N. V. (2002). A multifaceted validation study of Spence and Robbins (1992) Workaholism Battery. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 357– 368. McMillan, L. H. W., & O’Driscoll, M.P. (2004). Workaholism and health: Implications for organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17, 509–519. Melinda, C., & Jacobs, J. A. (2008). Working time for married couples in 28 countries. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The long work hours culture: Causes, consequences and choices (pp. 137–157). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Mudrack, P. E. (2006). Understanding workaholism: The case for behavioral tendencies. In R. J. Burke (Ed.), Research companion to working time and work addiction (pp. 108–128). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2007). Dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of workaholism: A conceptual integration and extension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 111–136. Perrone, K. M., Wright, S. L., & Jackson, Z. V. (2009). Traditional and nontraditional gender roles and work–family interface for men and women. Journal of Career Development, 36, 8–24. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. Rain, J. S., Lane, I. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1991). A current look at the job satisfaction/life satisfaction relationship: Review and future considerations. Human Relations, 44, 287–307. Robinson, B. E. (1998). Chained to the desk: A guidebook for workaholics, their partners and children and the clinicians who treat them. New York, NN: New York University Press. Robinson, B. E. (1999). Spouses of workaholics: Clinical implications for psychotherapy. Psychotherapy, 35, 260– 268. Robinson, B. E., Flowers, C., & Carroll, J. (2001). Work stress and marriage: A theoretical model examining the relationship between workaholism and marital cohesion. International Journal of Stress Management, 8, 165–175. Russo, J. A., & Waters, L. E. (2006). Workaholic worker type differences in work–family conflict: The moderating role of supervisor support and flexible work scheduling. Career Development International, 11, 418–439. Schaufeli, W. B., Shimazu, A., & Taris, T. W. (2009). Being driven to work excessively hard. The evaluation of a two-factor measure of workaholism in the Netherlands and Japan. CrossCultural Research, 43, 320–348. Downloaded by [Universitetsbiblioteket i Bergen] at 11:06 19 January 2013 WORKAHOLISM AND WORK–FAMILY SPILLOVER Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 173–203. Schor, J. B. (1991). The overworked American. New York, NY: Basic Books. Shimazu, A., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2009). How job demands affect an intimate partner: A test of the spillovercrossover model in Japan. Journal of Occupational Health, 51, 239–248. Shimazu, A., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2009). Is workaholism good or bad for employee well-being? The distinctiveness of workaholism and work engagement among Japanese employees. Industrial Health, 47, 495–502. Snir, R., & Zohar, D. (2008). Workaholism as discretionary time investment at work: An experience-sampling study. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 109– 127. Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9, 221–232. Spence, J. T., & Robbins, A. S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160–178. 87 Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Shimazu, A. (2010). The push and pull of work: The difference between workaholism and work engagement. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 39–53). Hove, UK: Psychological Press. Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Verhoeven, L. C. (2005). Workaholism in The Netherlands: Measurement and implications for job strain and work-nonwork conflict. Applied Psychology, 54, 37–60. Vallerand, R. J., Paquet, Y., Philippe, F. L., & Charest, J. (2010). On the role of passion for work in burnout: A process model. Journal of Personality, 78, 289–312. Voydanoff, P. (1988). Work role characteristics, family structure demands, and work/family conflict. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 749–761. Wharton, A. S., & Blair-Loy, M. (2006). Long work hours and family life: A cross-national study of employees’ concerns. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 415–436. Zedeck, S. (Ed.). (1992). Work, families, and organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Original manuscript received August 2010 Revised manuscript received July 2011 First published online January 2012