Workaholism vs. Work Engagement: the Two Different Predictors of Future Well-being and Performance

Akihito Shimazu, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, Kimika Kamiyama, Norito Kawakami

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

84 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigated the distinctiveness of two types of heavy work investment (i.e., workaholism and work engagement) by examining their 2-year longitudinal relationships with employee well-being and job performance. Based on a previous cross-sectional study by Shimazu and Schaufeli (Ind Health 47:495–502, 2009) and a shorter term longitudinal study by Shimazu et al. (Ind Health 50:316–21, 2012; measurement interval = 7 months), we predicted that workaholism predicts long-term future unwell-being (i.e., high ill-health and low life satisfaction) and poor job performance, whereas work engagement predicts future well-being (i.e., low ill-health and high life satisfaction) and superior job performance. Method: A two-wave survey was conducted among employees from one Japanese company, and valid data from 1,196 employees was analyzed using structural equation modeling. T1–T2 changes in ill-health, life satisfaction, and job performance were measured as residual scores, which were included in the structural equation model. Results: Workaholism and work engagement were weakly and positively related to each other. In addition, and as expected, workaholism was related to an increase in ill-health and to a decrease in life satisfaction. In contrast, and also as expected, work engagement was related to increases in both life satisfaction and job performance and to a decrease in ill-health. Conclusion: Although workaholism and work engagement are weakly positively related, they constitute two different concepts. More specifically, workaholism has negative consequences across an extended period of 2 years, whereas work engagement has positive consequences in terms of well-being and performance. Hence, workaholism should be prevented and work engagement should be stimulated.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)18-23
Number of pages6
JournalInternational Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Volume22
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015 Feb 1
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Health
Structural Models
Longitudinal Studies
Cross-Sectional Studies
Work Performance

Keywords

  • Hard work investment
  • Job performance
  • Physical complaints
  • Psychological distress
  • Work engagement
  • Workaholism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Applied Psychology

Cite this

Workaholism vs. Work Engagement : the Two Different Predictors of Future Well-being and Performance. / Shimazu, Akihito; Schaufeli, Wilmar B.; Kamiyama, Kimika; Kawakami, Norito.

In: International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 1, 01.02.2015, p. 18-23.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Shimazu, Akihito ; Schaufeli, Wilmar B. ; Kamiyama, Kimika ; Kawakami, Norito. / Workaholism vs. Work Engagement : the Two Different Predictors of Future Well-being and Performance. In: International Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2015 ; Vol. 22, No. 1. pp. 18-23.
@article{3b4f3ada866c4fc8a2f7de784f01a935,
title = "Workaholism vs. Work Engagement: the Two Different Predictors of Future Well-being and Performance",
abstract = "Purpose: This study investigated the distinctiveness of two types of heavy work investment (i.e., workaholism and work engagement) by examining their 2-year longitudinal relationships with employee well-being and job performance. Based on a previous cross-sectional study by Shimazu and Schaufeli (Ind Health 47:495–502, 2009) and a shorter term longitudinal study by Shimazu et al. (Ind Health 50:316–21, 2012; measurement interval = 7 months), we predicted that workaholism predicts long-term future unwell-being (i.e., high ill-health and low life satisfaction) and poor job performance, whereas work engagement predicts future well-being (i.e., low ill-health and high life satisfaction) and superior job performance. Method: A two-wave survey was conducted among employees from one Japanese company, and valid data from 1,196 employees was analyzed using structural equation modeling. T1–T2 changes in ill-health, life satisfaction, and job performance were measured as residual scores, which were included in the structural equation model. Results: Workaholism and work engagement were weakly and positively related to each other. In addition, and as expected, workaholism was related to an increase in ill-health and to a decrease in life satisfaction. In contrast, and also as expected, work engagement was related to increases in both life satisfaction and job performance and to a decrease in ill-health. Conclusion: Although workaholism and work engagement are weakly positively related, they constitute two different concepts. More specifically, workaholism has negative consequences across an extended period of 2 years, whereas work engagement has positive consequences in terms of well-being and performance. Hence, workaholism should be prevented and work engagement should be stimulated.",
keywords = "Hard work investment, Job performance, Physical complaints, Psychological distress, Work engagement, Workaholism",
author = "Akihito Shimazu and Schaufeli, {Wilmar B.} and Kimika Kamiyama and Norito Kawakami",
year = "2015",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s12529-014-9410-x",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "18--23",
journal = "International Journal of Behavioral Medicine",
issn = "1070-5503",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Workaholism vs. Work Engagement

T2 - the Two Different Predictors of Future Well-being and Performance

AU - Shimazu, Akihito

AU - Schaufeli, Wilmar B.

AU - Kamiyama, Kimika

AU - Kawakami, Norito

PY - 2015/2/1

Y1 - 2015/2/1

N2 - Purpose: This study investigated the distinctiveness of two types of heavy work investment (i.e., workaholism and work engagement) by examining their 2-year longitudinal relationships with employee well-being and job performance. Based on a previous cross-sectional study by Shimazu and Schaufeli (Ind Health 47:495–502, 2009) and a shorter term longitudinal study by Shimazu et al. (Ind Health 50:316–21, 2012; measurement interval = 7 months), we predicted that workaholism predicts long-term future unwell-being (i.e., high ill-health and low life satisfaction) and poor job performance, whereas work engagement predicts future well-being (i.e., low ill-health and high life satisfaction) and superior job performance. Method: A two-wave survey was conducted among employees from one Japanese company, and valid data from 1,196 employees was analyzed using structural equation modeling. T1–T2 changes in ill-health, life satisfaction, and job performance were measured as residual scores, which were included in the structural equation model. Results: Workaholism and work engagement were weakly and positively related to each other. In addition, and as expected, workaholism was related to an increase in ill-health and to a decrease in life satisfaction. In contrast, and also as expected, work engagement was related to increases in both life satisfaction and job performance and to a decrease in ill-health. Conclusion: Although workaholism and work engagement are weakly positively related, they constitute two different concepts. More specifically, workaholism has negative consequences across an extended period of 2 years, whereas work engagement has positive consequences in terms of well-being and performance. Hence, workaholism should be prevented and work engagement should be stimulated.

AB - Purpose: This study investigated the distinctiveness of two types of heavy work investment (i.e., workaholism and work engagement) by examining their 2-year longitudinal relationships with employee well-being and job performance. Based on a previous cross-sectional study by Shimazu and Schaufeli (Ind Health 47:495–502, 2009) and a shorter term longitudinal study by Shimazu et al. (Ind Health 50:316–21, 2012; measurement interval = 7 months), we predicted that workaholism predicts long-term future unwell-being (i.e., high ill-health and low life satisfaction) and poor job performance, whereas work engagement predicts future well-being (i.e., low ill-health and high life satisfaction) and superior job performance. Method: A two-wave survey was conducted among employees from one Japanese company, and valid data from 1,196 employees was analyzed using structural equation modeling. T1–T2 changes in ill-health, life satisfaction, and job performance were measured as residual scores, which were included in the structural equation model. Results: Workaholism and work engagement were weakly and positively related to each other. In addition, and as expected, workaholism was related to an increase in ill-health and to a decrease in life satisfaction. In contrast, and also as expected, work engagement was related to increases in both life satisfaction and job performance and to a decrease in ill-health. Conclusion: Although workaholism and work engagement are weakly positively related, they constitute two different concepts. More specifically, workaholism has negative consequences across an extended period of 2 years, whereas work engagement has positive consequences in terms of well-being and performance. Hence, workaholism should be prevented and work engagement should be stimulated.

KW - Hard work investment

KW - Job performance

KW - Physical complaints

KW - Psychological distress

KW - Work engagement

KW - Workaholism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84897322941&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84897322941&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s12529-014-9410-x

DO - 10.1007/s12529-014-9410-x

M3 - Article

C2 - 24696043

AN - SCOPUS:84897322941

VL - 22

SP - 18

EP - 23

JO - International Journal of Behavioral Medicine

JF - International Journal of Behavioral Medicine

SN - 1070-5503

IS - 1

ER -