Workaholism, Health, and Self-Acceptance

Workaholism has received considerable attention in the popular literature over the past 2 decades, yet there is a dearth of empirical investigation on the topic. The lack of empirical research may be due to the lack of agreement on whether or not overwork is a problem. It has been suggested by some scholars that workaholism is heavily encouraged by organizations in today's society and is a socially accepted addiction (Fassel, 1990; Fassel & Schaef, 1991; McMillan & Northern, 1995). The term workaholism was first coined in 1971 by dates, who defined it as an addiction involving an uncontrollable need or compulsion to work continuously. Since then, workaholism has been defined and measured in several ways, with most researchers defining it as an addictive compulsion to work (Fassel, 1990; Haymon, 1992; Porter, 1996; B. E. Robinson & Kelley, 1998). Haymon described workaholics as individuals who are "powerless over their work" (p. 11) and who suffer from personal losses because of their "uncontrollable need to work" (p. 11). Workaholics have been compared with alcoholics in that these two groups share some of the same symptoms, such as reality distortion, need to control, denial, anxiety, depression, withdrawal, irritability, and relationship problems with friends and family members (Pietropinto, 1986; B. E. Robinson, 1989; Spruell, 1987). Spence and Robbins (1992) developed a battery of questionnaires to assess workaholism. They defined workaholism as high work involvement and drivenness (due to inner pressures) and low enjoyment of work. They also identified a second type of workaholic (i.e., the enthusiastic workaholic) who, like the regular workaholic, has high work involvement and drivenness; however, level of work enjoyment is high instead of low. In the current study, workaholism (work addiction) was defined based on B. E. Robinson's (1998a) definition: "an obsessive-compulsive disorder that manifests itself through self-imposed demands, and inability to regulate work habits, and an overindulgence in work to the exclusion of most other life activities" (p. 7). Researchers and theorists disagree on the potential harmful effects of workaholism and have discussed numerous potential consequences of workaholism in the literature. Ishiyama and Kitayama (1994) asserted that workaholics focus primarily on their "career self" (p. 170) for self-validation, while ignoring other important aspects of self (i.e., transpersonal self, transcultural-existential self, familial self, and physical self). They postulated that this limited focus of self-validation might result in physical symptoms, alienation from friends and family, lack of development of the authentic self, and an existential crisis. Difficulties may arise, particularly when the career self is threatened in some way (e.g., loss of job, retirement). Fassell (1990) suggested that workaholism may contribute to the "progressive numbing of America" (p. 123), whereby individuals become estranged from their essential self when they are consumed with the addictive busyness associated with work addiction. Overwork and workaholism may cause physical symptoms (e.g., ulcers, chest pain) and even death (Fassel, 1990; Ishiyama & Kitayama, 1994). The term Karoshi, coined in Tokyo by Tetsunojo Uehata in the 1980s, refers to death or permanent disability (e.g., heart disease, deadly asthmatic attacks, suicide) from overwork (Ishiyama & Kitayama, 1994). Research based on two qualitative studies indicated that workaholics may feel too busy to take care of their health needs (Machlowitz, 1978; Trueman, 1995). Machlowitz's (1978) results suggested that workaholics did not have major health problems, whereas Trueman found the opposite. Spence and Robbins (1992) found a higher number of health complaints among workaholics (i.e., individuals with high work involvement, with low work enjoyment, and who are highly driven from internal pressures) than in some other groups of workers (e. …