Understanding the dark and bright sides of heavy work investment: Psychological studies on workaholism and work engagement

Abstract

This thesis focused on two different types of heavy work investment: workaholism and work engagement. Its principal aim was to explore why workaholic and engaged employees work hard. The motivational origins were addressed from three different perspectives: (1) a trait-based perspective, based on Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory and Regulatory Focus Theory, (2) a developmental perspective, drawing on Attachment Theory, and (3) a situational-based perspective, using Self-Determination Theory. Its second aim was to examine how workaholism and work engagement relate to four possible outcomes: burnout, turnover intention, job satisfaction, and performance. This thesis extends our knowledge on workaholism and work engagement in several respects. First, it lifts a corner of the veil on the origins of workaholism and work engagement. Workaholism was related to BIS-activation and work engagement was related to BAS-activation, suggesting that workaholism and work engagement may have biological origins. Furthermore, workaholism was primarily associated with having a prevention focus and insecure attachment, whereas work engagement was primarily associated with having a promotion focus and secure attachment. Therefore, both types of heavy work investment may be rooted in childhood and early socialization too. In addition, there were indications that a dynamic relation between the different types of motivation, as described in Self-Determination Theory, and the two types of heavy work investment exists, suggesting that the social (work) environment may play a role in the development of workaholism and work engagement as well. Second, this thesis supports the idea that workaholism is a “bad” type of heavy work investment and work engagement is a “good” type of heavy work investment. Workaholism was associated with a high burnout level, an intention to quit one's job, job dissatisfaction, and poor performance, whereas work engagement was associated with a low burnout level, no intention to quit one's job, job satisfaction, and good performance. With these findings the present thesis also reduces the lack of clarity that exists regarding workaholic employees’ performance. Third, the present thesis revealed the existence of a group of employees who are simultaneously workaholic and work engaged, called engaged workaholics. This means that, in fact, three different types of hard working employees can be distinguished: workaholic employees, engaged employees, and engaged workaholics. Since workaholic employees and engaged employees work equally hard and engaged workaholics work even harder, measuring workaholism exclusively in terms of number of working hours seems to be inappropriate and may lead to confusing research findings. Fourth, this thesis showed that workaholism and work engagement have motivational potential. Workaholism seems to predispose employees to engage into self-protective behavior, whereas work engagement seems to predispose employees to pursue self-concordant goals. Hence, workaholism and work engagement seem to be complex phenomena. In conclusion, the present thesis demonstrated that two types of heavy work investment can be distinguished, a “bad” (workaholism) and a “good” (work engagement) one, each with a unique motivational make-up and pattern of outcomes. With these findings, the present thesis contributed to the unraveling of the dark and bright sides of heavy work investment.