Running head: EMPLOYEE WORK BEHAVIOR 1 EMPLOYEE WORK BEHAVIOR 6 Capella University Course: Psy7868 Qual Design and analysis Unit 4 Assignment 1 Instructor: Rosanne Roberts February 10, 2020 Employee Work Behavior Psychologist have conducted numerous studies regarding employee work behavior. Such studies have been geared at assisting managers in shaping employee behaviors in ways that maximize their productivity. Employee behavior is shaped by attitudes, cultural norms and the quality of work interactions. Employee behavioral studies are consequential in understanding the underlying motivations of workers in a work environment. There is a direct correlation between employee and organization behavior. This partly explains why I selected the topic. Behavioral psychologists agree that the productivity of entity is premised on the staff behavior. Highly motivated employees tend to exhibit a positive behavior regarding the trajectory of an enterprise. However, psychologists generally disagree on ideal methods of inculcating positive behavior in a work setting. For instance, Abraham Maslow stipulates that business enterprises can positively shape the behavior of their employees by catering for their needs (Neher, 2017). Maslow argued that employees are mainly motivated to seek for job opportunities in order to satisfy necessities like food, security and shelter. An enterprise that adequately meets employee concerns in this arena will have motivated employees who exemplify positive work etiquette. The growing trend towards workaholism is another aspect of staff behavior that psychologists have been studying. Whereas personal attributes like a strive for greater achievement, perfectionism and motivation are responsible for the phenomenon, some studies have indicated otherwise (Andreassen & Pallesen, 2016). The tough economic environment has partially contributed to the trend. Employees are compelled to work overtime or undertake two jobs to make ends meet. This disputes the notion that workaholics are naturally born. Workaholism is an adaptive characteristic to a work environment. Workaholism is closely linked to excessive work patterns. The pattern can be attributed to the emergence of strict organization behaviors that emphasize on work quality and quantity (Kirrane, Breen & O'Connor, 2018). It is thereby common to find employees who work for long hours. This topic aligns with my psychology specialization in many aspects. First, it provides a rationale for effective exploitation of human effort. The study of employee psychology in the execution of duties is crucial in determining whether an organization has instituted humane policies that encourage employee productivity (Bakker et al., 2013). Employees should not be mechanically exploited like machines. Secondly, employee behavioral studies are vital in explaining why some organization succeed while others fail. The secret lies on how the human resource is applied. The c.

1. Running head: EMPLOYEE WORK BEHAVIOR 1
EMPLOYEE WORK BEHAVIOR 6
Capella University
Course: Psy7868 Qual Design and analysis
Unit 4 Assignment 1
Instructor: Rosanne Roberts
February 10, 2020
Employee Work Behavior
Psychologist have conducted numerous studies regarding
employee work behavior. Such studies have been geared at
assisting managers in shaping employee behaviors in ways that
maximize their productivity. Employee behavior is shaped by
attitudes, cultural norms and the quality of work interactions.
Employee behavioral studies are consequential in understanding
the underlying motivations of workers in a work environment.
There is a direct correlation between employee and organization
behavior. This partly explains why I selected the topic.
Behavioral psychologists agree that the productivity of
entity is premised on the staff behavior. Highly motivated
employees tend to exhibit a positive behavior regarding the
trajectory of an enterprise. However, psychologists generally
disagree on ideal methods of inculcating positive behavior in a
work setting. For instance, Abraham Maslow stipulates that

2. business enterprises can positively shape the behavior of their
employees by catering for their needs (Neher, 2017). Maslow
argued that employees are mainly motivated to seek for job
opportunities in order to satisfy necessities like food, security
and shelter. An enterprise that adequately meets employee
concerns in this arena will have motivated employees who
exemplify positive work etiquette. The growing trend towards
workaholism is another aspect of staff behavior that
psychologists have been studying. Whereas personal attributes
like a strive for greater achievement, perfectionism and
motivation are responsible for the phenomenon, some studies
have indicated otherwise (Andreassen & Pallesen, 2016). The
tough economic environment has partially contributed to the
trend. Employees are compelled to work overtime or undertake
two jobs to make ends meet. This disputes the notion that
workaholics are naturally born. Workaholism is an adaptive
characteristic to a work environment. Workaholism is closely
linked to excessive work patterns. The pattern can be attributed
to the emergence of strict organization behaviors that emphasize
on work quality and quantity (Kirrane, Breen & O'Connor,
2018). It is thereby common to find employees who work for
long hours.
This topic aligns with my psychology specialization in
many aspects. First, it provides a rationale for effective
exploitation of human effort. The study of employee psychology
in the execution of duties is crucial in determining whether an
organization has instituted humane policies that encourage
employee productivity (Bakker et al., 2013). Employees should
not be mechanically exploited like machines. Secondly,
employee behavioral studies are vital in explaining why some
organization succeed while others fail. The secret lies on how
the human resource is applied. The creativity and innovation of
the employees can not be sparked in an environment where
positive behavior is not inculcated (Mazzetti et al., 2016). I am
convinced that the inclusion of this topic in my specialization is
consequential in translating my theoretical aspects of

3. psychology into practicality. Psychology has often been
accused of laying out theoretical aspects that are unworkable in
real time. That trend will definitely change by the incorporation
of known aspects of employee behavior into productivity.
Qualitative investigation of this topic is vital due to the
following. First, it would provide multiple perspectives that are
vital in making personnel decisions. For instance, many
organizations have been championing the concept of
workaholism as it aligns with their profitability ambitions. What
has been missing on such calibrations is the impact on the
worker. Prolonged periods of working expose employees to
severe stress which is not good for their wellbeing
(Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). It is unfortunate that many
organizations routinely sacrifice the long-term wellbeing of
their employees for profitability. Secondly, the topic proves the
assertion that human behavior can be positively influenced.
Organizations should realize that simple complimentary actions
like rewards for exceptional performance are critical in
positively shaping employee behavior. Moreover, the
assumption that well-paid employees are a liability to a business
is wrong. Money gives employees reason to work hard.
This topic can not be adequately examined without
considering its research questions. They include. First, is
employee behavior a consequence of organizational policies?
This is absolutely true. Employees are bound to resist policies
that are detrimental to their welfare like pay cuts or unfavorable
working conditions. This ultimately causes demotivation and
poor employee behaviors. The reverse is true whenever
favorable policies that enhance employee welfare are
implemented. Secondly, is employee workaholism behavioral
trait natural or manufactured? No one is born with lazy genes
or inclinations (Mazzetti, Schaufeli & Guglielmi, 2014). Our
perception towards work is influenced by the environment.
Employees are bound to work hard whenever job specifications
demand so. The major distinguishing factor is on the adaptation.
Some will adapt or quit.

4. References
Andreassen, C. S., & Pallesen, S. (2016). Workaholism: An
addiction to work. The Neuropathology of Drug Addictions and
Substance Misuse.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Oerlemans, W., & Sonnentag, S.
(2013). Workaholism and daily Recovery: A day reconstruction
study of leisure activities. Journal of Organizational Behavior.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Toward a psychology of optimal
experience. Flow and the foundations of positive psychology
(pp. 209–226). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springe
Netherlands.
Kirrane, M., Breen, M., & O'Connor, C. (2018). A qualitative
investigation of the origins of excessive work behavior. John
Wiley & Sons.
Mazzetti, G., Schaufeli, W. B., & Guglielmi, D. (2014). Are
workaholics born or made? Relations of workaholic with person
characteristics and overwork climate. International Journal of
Stress Management.
Mazzetti, G., Schaufeli, W. B., Guglielmi, D., & Depolo, M.
(2016). Overwork climate scale: Psychometric properties and
relationships with working hard. Journal of Managerial
Psychology.
Neher, A. (2017). Examining Maslow's theory of motivation.
Journal of humanistic psychology, 31(3), 89-112.
Recovery: A day reconstruction study of leisure activities.
Journal of Organizational Behavior,
34(1), 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1796
Spurk, D., Hirschi, A., &Kauffeld, S. (2016). A new perspective
on the etiology of workaholism: The role of personal and
contextual career-related antecedents. Journal of Career
Assessment, 24(4), 747–764.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072715616127
Wayne, J. H., Casper, W. J., Matthews, R. A., & Allen, T. D.

5. (2013). Family-supportive organization Perceptions and
organizational commitment: The mediating role of work– family
conflict and enrichment and partner attitudes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 98, 606–622.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032491
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2018),
91, 235–260
© 2018 The British Psychological Society
www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
A qualitative investigation of the origins of
excessive work behaviour
Melrona Kirrane1* , Marianne Breen2 and Cli�odhna
O’Connor3
1Dublin City University Business School, Ireland
2Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
3University College Dublin, Ireland
Studies of workers who engage in excessive work behaviour
continue to attract the
attention of researchers. Most research in this field adheres to
quantitative methodolo-
gies aligned to the addiction or trait paradigms and largely
focuses on correlates and
consequences of such behaviour. However, within this

6. literature, empirically based
understandings of the factors that propel individuals to engage
in excessive work patterns
are sparse. Resting on socio-cultural theories of work, we adopt
a novel approach to this
field of enquiry and examine the genesis of excessive working
using a qualitative
methodology. We use discourse analysis to comparatively
explore data from a sample of
twenty-eight workers comprising excessive and non-excessive
workers. Our study
identified the roles of family of origin, educational experience,
and professional norms as
clear drivers of excessivework patterns. Data to support the
dominant addiction and trait
paradigms within this research domain were equivocal. Lifestyle
decision-making
differentiated the comparison group from the excessive workers.
We discuss our
findingswith reference to theories of workaholism and consider
their implications for the
evolution of this field.
Practitioner points

7. � Organizational culture can strongly influence the emergence
of excessive work patterns among
employees. Human resource professionals and organizational
leaders are in a position to intervene in
the development and support of work cultures that are
conducive to effective work patterns
� Employee selection and assessment procedures should be
sufficiently in-depth to gather relevant
information into the personal backgrounds of applicants
� Employee development initiatives should take account of
learned work orientations to ensure the
effectiveness of interventions.
The globalized post-industrial society is characterized by a 24-
hour economy (Granter,
McCann, & Boyle, 2015) and has led to the normalization of
intensive work (Worrall,
Mather & Cooper, 2016). As research suggests figures of 10 per
cent and more of the
working population engage in these lifestyles (Andreassen et
al., 2014; Sussman, Lisha, &
Griffiths, 2011), understanding the genesis of these types of
work practices is now an
important endeavour. Intensive working is commonly captured
by the term ‘worka-
holism’which initially arose to describe themindset of
individualsmost deeply involved in

8. *Correspondence should be addressed to Melrona Kirrane,
Dublin City University Business School, Collins Avenue,
Dublin 9,
Ireland (email: [email protected]).
DOI:10.1111/joop.12203
235
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4831-9411
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4831-9411
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4831-9411
work-focused lifestyles (Oates, 1971). Over the years, the
terminology used to describe
such practices has broadened to include work addiction
(Robinson, 1998) excessive
overwork (Andreassen, 2013), obsessive passion for work
(Vallerand, Paquet, Philippe, &
Charest, 2010), heavy work investment (Golden, 2014; Snir &
Harpaz, 2012), work
craving (Wojdylo, Baumann, & Karlsson, 2016), and work over-
involvement (Lehr, Koch,
& Hillert, 2010)1
Most studies of workaholism to date are quantitative
investigations of correlates and
consequences of workaholism. One of the strongest outcomes of
suchwork has been the

9. positioningof the rootof suchworkingpatterns squarelywithin the
individualworker (van
Wijhe, Schaufeli & Peeters, 2010). However, work patterns are
acknowledged to emerge
from an interactive process that occurs between the individual
and their environment
(Osipow, 1990). While theorists have signalled the important
role of socio-cultural
processes in understanding intensive work patterns (Mazzetti,
Schaufeli, & Guglielmi,
2014; Porter, 1996; Snir & Harpaz, 2006, 2012), field studies
within this domain remain
disappointingly limited (Sussman, 2012). In this study, we build
on socio-cultural theory
(SCT) which highlights dynamic and situation-specific elements
of the individual that
together lead to vocational outcomes (Bandura, 1999). Taking a
qualitative approach, we
explore theautobiographical accountsof
thegenesisofexcessiveworkingpatternsamong
a sample of excessive workers. We compare their accounts with
those of a comparison
group of non-excessive workers drawn from the same context.
In this way, we provide a
solid foundation for understanding the intense career pathways
of such workers.

10. Theoretical background to workaholism research
Research in the field of workaholism has been dominated by the
addiction model and the
trait theory approach (Sussman, 2012). The addiction model
considers the phenomenon
to be an irresistible inner drive to work excessively hard
(Andreassen & Pallesen, 2016),
and it is described as a progressive, compulsive, potentially
fatal disease (Porter, 1996;
Robinson, 1998). Despite the absence of evidence that excessive
working shares
psychophysiological characteristics of established definitions of
addiction (McMillan, O’
Marsh, & Brady, 2001; Porter, 1996) and its exclusion from the
DSM-5 (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013), many researchers continue to
draw on the addiction
model of workaholism as a conceptual framework for their work
(Andreassen, Griffiths,
Hetland, & Pallesen, 2012; Griffiths, 2011). Such studies
typicallymeasurework addiction
quantitatively, and although some recent promising additions
have been made
(Andreassen et al., 2012; Schaufeli, Shimazu, & Taris, 2009),

11. the most widely used
measure, the Work Addiction Risk Test (Robinson, Post, & J.
Khakee, 1992), is not
regarded as rigorous, rendering research based on it vulnerable
to criticisms (Andreassen
et al., 2012; Bowler, Patel, Bowler, & Methe, 2012; Flowers &
Robinson, 2002; Sussman,
2012).
A further theoretical paradigm deployed widely in this field is
the trait theory
approach. This perspective construes excessive working,
associated with traits such as
neuroticism, conscientiousness, narcissism, and perfectionism
(Andreassen et al., 2012;
Clark, Lelchook, & Taylor, 2010) as a manifestation of a ‘stable
individual difference
characteristic’ (Burke, 2004, p. 421) comprising the
psychological dimensions of high
1 For the sake of parsimony and consistency with previous
literature, the term ‘workaholism’ will be used in this article,
but should
not be taken to necessarily imply agreement with the addiction
model of these work patterns.
236 Melrona Kirrane et al.

12. work involvement, high drive, and low work enjoyment (Spence
& Robbins, 1992).
Although this model has been criticized for its lack of
conceptual rigour (Harpaz & Snir,
2003; Robinson, 2001; Scott, Moore, & Miceli, 1997),
considerable research continues to
rely on it as a platform for investigation (Burke, Matthiesen, &
Pallesen, 2006; Clark et al.,
2010). Unfortunately, resultant isolated correlations have not
led to the development of a
coherent theoretical framework (Harpaz& Snir, 2003;
Kanai,Wakabayashi, & Fling, 1996;
McMillan, Brady, O’Driscoll, & Marsh, 2002; Mudrack &
Naughton, 2001).
While these two theoretical perspectives have driven research
streams which have
provided information on the correlates and consequences of
intensive work practices
(Baruch, 2011; Giannini & Scabia, 2014; Ng, Sorensen, &
Feldman, 2007; Robinson, 2013;
Sussman, 2012), each shows distinct weaknesses and leaves the
question of the aetiology
of workaholism empirically unanswered (Quinones & Griffiths,
2015; Spurk, Hirschi, &
Kauffeld, 2016). Moreover, these approaches are characterized
by positioning worka-

13. holism entirely within the individual. Holding some promise of
greater refinement of the
genesis of excessive work patterns are studies that explore the
contribution of other
factors to this behaviour. These include unsatisfied needs
(Burke, 2004; van Beek, Taris, &
Schaufeli, 2011), cognitions (Graves, Ruderman, Ohlott &
Weber, 2012), social learning
(Burke, 2001), family dynamics (Chamberlin & Zhang, 2009;
Robinson, 2013), and
organizational culture and climate (Keller, Spurk, Baumeler,
&Hirschi, 2016; Johnstone&
Johnston, 2005; Mazzetti et al., 2014). In general, such
elements have been treated as
peripheral within the dominant research paradigms, and the
causal influence of some
have, at times, been explicitly denied (e.g., Robinson, 1998).
Although the importance of
these issues has been highlighted (McMillan, O Driscoll, &
Burke, 2003), they remain
underexplored in empirical work and their role in the
phenomenon of excessive work
patterns remains tentative (Andreassen, 2014; McMillan et al.,
2003; van Wijhe et al.,

14. 2010).
Socio-cultural factors and the construal of workaholism
Applying a socio-cultural perspective to understanding the
origin of workaholism
represents a rich starting point in research on excessive working
patterns. The socio-
cultural approach to understanding behaviour which recognizes
the role of norms,
customs, and values of the general population has demonstrated
that work norms,
attitudes, and practices are influenced bymultiple layers of
socio-cultural factors (Kanai &
Wakabayashi, 2004; Lantolf, 2000). At the broadest level is
national culture which has a
singular effect on howpeople construe themselves atwork
(Brewer&Chen, 2007; Gahan
& Abeysekera, 2009; Triandis, 1990). This effect is perhaps
best illustrated by the
phenomenon known as ‘karoshi’, a term coined by Sugisawa
andUehata (1998) to refer to
the particular Japanese phenomenon of death or permanent
disability caused by
cardiovascular problems, mediated by excessive work and
stress. In Japan, work is

15. regarded as an element of living in that one is supposed to live
in accordance with the
order of society (Ishiyama & Kitayama, 1994; Kanai
&Wakabayashi, 2004). Psycho-social
factors such as a social value system that exhorts perseverance
and the concept of
‘ganbaru’, which means to suffer in silence and to endure
difficulties, are regarded as
perpetuating the syndrome (Meek, 1999, 2004). Considering
these features of Japanese
cultural life fosters a deeper understanding and appreciation of
the phenomenon of
karoshi and underscores the impact of socio-cultural factors in
approaches to work.
A second element of the socio-cultural landscape that has a
significant impact onwork
behaviours is the familial context (Lawson, Crouter, & McHale,
2015; Piotrowski &
The origins of excessive work behaviour 237
Vodanovich, 2006; Robinson, 2000). The family of origin
influences work behaviours as
values, norms, and expectations for achievement are transferred
and internalized via

16. parent–child relations (Schaie & Willis, 1996). This process is
well explained by the
expectancy-value theory of achievement (Wigfield & Eccles,
2000). The family an
individual creates themselves as a socio-cultural feature also
significantly influences
workplace behaviour (Janoski&Wilson, 1995). Involvement
inmultiple roles causes ‘spill
over’ which effects behaviour and actions of individuals in both
contexts (Arnett, 2014;
Livingston, 2014; Wayne, Casper, Matthews, & Allen, 2013).
Educational systems are an integral feature of the socio-cultural
landscape and their
influence on workplace behaviours (Billett, 1998; Konkola,
Tuomi-Gr€ohn, Lambert, &
Ludvigsen, 2007), are emphasized in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)
ecologicalmodel of human
development. By introducing pupils to notions of achievement
and authority, coping and
time management skills, this social system provides the
intellectual and social skills that
children will use to perform roles within the adult world
(Haycock, Hart, & Irvin, 1991;
Tomlinson, 2013). In essence, school educates students on how
to become fully
functioning and productive members of society and fosters the
development of

17. appropriate work attitudes and habits deemed important for the
continued development
of the social world (Goodlad, 1984; Kourilsky & Walstad,
1998).
Finally, organizational norms of behaviour are a well-
established feature of the socio-
cultural environment (Rousseau, 2005; Schein, 1985; Schneider,
Ehrhart, &Macey, 2013).
Research has established the potent effects of such norms on
workplace behaviour
(Hogan &Coote, 2014; Lee & Yu, 2004), and organizations go
to great lengths in fostering
the development of performance-enhancing workplace cultures
(O’Reilly, Caldwell,
Chatman, & Doerr, 2014). Taking all these factors together, this
literature aptly
demonstrates that to fully understand the origin of excessive
work patterns, there is
value to be gained from immersing the study of such behaviour
within its socio-cultural
context.
Researching workaholism
According to the epistemology of social constructionism, human
knowledge does not

18. result from individuals’ direct perception of ‘brute reality’, but
rather is co-constructed in
social interaction and always mediated by language,
interpretations, and values (Berger &
Luckmann, 1996; Potter, 1996). As such, equally important as
what does cause the
behaviour patterns termed ‘workaholism’ is what people believe
causes it, because the
latter will guide how people manage their own career-related
behaviour. To date, this
remains unchartered territory in the empirical literature.
To research workaholism as a discursive construction rather
than the predetermined,
yet controversial ‘thing’ pursued in other studies, there is
valued to be had in exploring the
insights alternative methodologies may provide. Qualitative
methods are ideally suited to
tap the naturalistic, everyday language through which this form
of behaviour is
constructed in social interaction. Thus, we pose the following
question in an attempt
to address this vacuum:Howdo people account for the origin of
their working patterns?
Method

19. We position our study within the philosophical orientation of
social constructionism
(Neimeyer, 1993), emphasizing the subjective experiences of
actors’ ‘lifeworlds’
238 Melrona Kirrane et al.
(Husserl, 1969; Schutz, 1972). Paying close attention to the
language used, we apply
discourse analysis techniques to our data (Antaki, 1994; Billig,
1997; Harvey, Turnquist, &
Agostinelli, 1988), looking beyond the surface of the sentence
to identify the pragmatic
social functions that the utterance achieves (Silverman,
2001).We present the data in raw
form to accommodate an expansive interpretation of the
participants’ perspectives
(Johnson & Waterfield, 2004; Wimpenny & Gass, 2000).
Sampling
Two sampling techniques were used in this study. In the first
instance, we deployed a
theory-based sampling process, targeting a sample on the basis
of their potential
manifestation of our theoretical construct. For this purpose, we

20. concentrated on
members of Workaholics Anonymous (WA), which is a social
network specifically
targeted at self-selected workaholics.
The global WA headquarters (based in the United States) agreed
to email details about
the study to itsmembers, and a notice requesting participants for
the projectwas placed in
the WA monthly newsletter. To achieve generalizability
(Mason, 2010), we also used a
purposive sampling strategy which involves using prior research
and informed ‘hunches’
to identify the segments of the population likely to hold a
unique perspective on the
research topic and directly recruiting from these groups (Bauer
& Aarts, 2000). Certain
occupational fields, such as financial services, are known for
their demanding workloads
(European Foundation for the Improvement of Living
andWorkingConditions, [EFILWC],
2015). To recruit participants for our study, 110 companies
were contacted from the
database of an International Financial Services Centre. Human
resource specialists of 72
companies (65%) agreed to disseminate to their employees an

21. invitation from the
researchers to participate in a study on work patterns. Due to
this recruitment strategy, it
was impossible to calculate the response rate, as the number of
people who received our
invitation was unknown. However, our aimwas not to attain a
statistically representative
dataset but to provide an in-depth account of the range of ideas
present and examinewhat
underlies and justifies them (Gaskell, 2000; Patton, 2002).
Measure
Machlowitz’s (1980) measure of working patterns was
administered via email in the
invitation to participate in the study. The intent of this element
of the research process
was not to reify these individuals as ‘workaholics’, but to
purposively select people
who indicated that they exemplify characteristics of the
construct of ‘workaholism’.
There are 10 items in this measure; a sample item is ‘Do you
dread retirement?’
Deployed in a number of studies (Doerfler & Kammer, 1986;
Greenberg, 2002; Kilburg,
Nathan, & Thoreson, 1986), with items derived from empirical
work rather than a

22. priori theoretical assumptions, each behaviourally based item on
this measure has a
‘yes/no’ response option whereby ‘yes’ responses warrant one
point, and ‘no’
responses warrant zero points. A score above eight points is
deemed to represent
workaholic behaviour (Machlowitz, 1980). A total of 146 people
responded to the
questionnaire, 22 (15%) of whom were identified as
workaholics by meeting the cut-off
point established by Machlowitz (1980). This figure is within
the range of international
norms regarding the prevalence of workaholism (Doerfler &
Kammer, 1986; Freimuth,
Waddell, Stannard, Kelley, & Kipper, 2008; Sussman, 2012).
Respondents who agreed
and were available to be interviewed about their work patterns
formed this subsample
The origins of excessive work behaviour 239
of the study. In order to fully understand the particular
conceptions of the origins of
excessive working, a comparative sample was generated by
interviewing willing

23. respondents who did not meet the criteria for ‘workaholism’
according to Machlowitz
(1980). This afforded the opportunity for the research question
to be richly explored
and extensively examined according to the tenets of SCT. The
sum of the research
strategies deployed ensured ontological integration of the nature
of social life was
achieved (Guarino, 1997).
Sample
The sample ultimately consisted of twelveworkaholics, four
ofwhomwereWAmembers,
and sixteen comparison group members. This sample size is
acceptable for discourse
analytic studies and is well within the ranges identified by
Charmaz (2006), Bertaux
(1981), Morse (2000) and Mason (2010). Of the workaholic
sample, three were female
(two members of WA and one general population workaholics
[GPW]) and the sample
was aged between 32 and 57 years with an average age of 46
years. Ten of this sample
were married/partnered and job titles included management
consultant (5), investment

24. banker (3), IT consultant (2), journalist (1), and medical doctor
(1). Of the comparison
group, five were female and the average age was 47 years.
Eleven of this group were
married/partnered, three were divorced, and two were single.
Job titles included
management consultant (11), financial services/banking (3), and
IT consultant (2).
Procedure
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each
participant (See Appendix). The
interview beganwith appropriate ‘warm-up’ questions (Arksey
& Knight, 1999) and then
proceeded to explore participants’ conceptions on the evolution
of their working lives
with the question: ‘What do you think has influenced your work
pattern?’ The interview
schedule was employed flexibly to facilitate responsiveness to
discursive pathways
introduced by the participant (Gaskell, 2000) and to
accommodate issues pertinent to
participants (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013).
The researcher did not use the word ‘workaholic’ at any point in
the process, and the
neutrality criterion (Guba& Lincoln, 1982)wasmet by the

25. researcher being aware of, and
critical of vocalizations in the research process. Interviews took
place either in private
offices at the participants’workplaces or nearby convenient
spaces and lasted between60
and 90 min. As WA members were all based in the United
States, interviews were
conducted with them by telephone. Interviews were recorded
and transcribed verbatim
(O’Connell & Kowal, 1995; Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Each
hour of interview data took
approximately ten hours to transcribe.
Data analysis
The analysis followed the discursive action model (Edwards &
Potter, 1992), and the
interpretative strategywas informed by the threemajor
foundations of discourse analysis,
namely construction, function, and variability (Potter &
Wetherell, 1987). A battery of
discursive features was compiled to aid analysis (Edwards &
Potter, 1992; Gee, 1999;
Wetherell, Taylor, & Yates, 2001). Following Guest, Bunce, and
Johnson (2006), two
coders separately analysed the data from five interviews.
Coding patternswere compared

26. and a 96% code agreement rating was established (Armstrong,
Gosling, Weinman, &
240 Melrona Kirrane et al.
Marteau, 1997). A codebook was then developed using a
standard iterative process
(MacQueen, McLellan, Kay, & Milstein, 1998). Codes were
refined while reading the
remaining transcripts to accommodate emerging patterns and
finally inputted into the
Nvivo software program to facilitate analysis. The analysis met
the criteria of trustwor-
thiness (Bowen, 2009; Guba & Lincoln, 1982) by ensuring data
credibility, transferability,
dependability, and confirmability using the audit trail, coding
checks, and peer debriefing.
Trustworthinesswas further reinforced by ensuring all
interpretationswere supported by
raw data and accompanied by representative verbatim extracts
(Speer & Potter, 2000).
The criterion of soundness (Potter &Wetherell, 1987)was
satisfied by our presentation of
analysed texts and demonstration of routes to conclusions. This
documentation of

27. procedures enabled accountability to be examined and the
confirmability of claims to be
established (Parker, 2002). In addition, only plausible and
insightful analyses were
included (Phillips & Hardy, 2002) and it was ensured that all
arguments fitted together in
order to provide a coherent reading of the data (Wood&Kroger,
2000). The study thereby
fulfilled the warranting criteria for discourse analysis research
(Antaki, Billig, Edwards, &
Potter, 2003; Edwards, 2005).
Results
The data are presented according to the major rift in
workaholism literature,
focussing first on the role of internal/dispositional factors,
followed by data on the
significance of socio-cultural factors. Findings are displayed
according to subgroup
membership (Workaholics [WA members and general population
workaholics
{GPW}] and comparison group members (C)). The table below
presents a summary
of the findings (Table 1).
Workaholics

28. a) Internal/dispositional antecedents of excessive work patterns
Overview
Uniform explanations of the internal causes of excessive
working by workaholics were
absent from the data. Instead, accounts fell into three primary
categories: addiction,
personal choice, and the influence of personal characteristics.
WA members invoked
addiction as its primary cause, whereas personal agencywas the
strongest factor reported
in the data of GPW.
Detail
i Addiction: WA1 explained her working patterns as a
consequence of the hormone
adrenaline, which was defined as an addictive substance:
I am an adrenaline junkie, basically is what I am [WA1]
WA1 constructed a fundamental self-identity as an addict (or in
slang terms, ‘junkie’).
This construal of workaholism as an addiction positioned the
problem completely within
the self. The label of being an addict was applied without any
more detailed construals of

29. addictive behaviours, symptoms, or signs. Another WA member
spoke of his work
patterns using the register of addiction by explicitly comparing
work to drugs:
The origins of excessive work behaviour 241
I had what in the programme we call “my stash”. Some people
have a stash of drugs, I had a
stash of projects and activities that were never-ending [WA3]
ii Choice: On the other hand, GPW constructed their working
style as an active,
volitional choice, and regarded their chosen lifestyle in positive
terms. For example,
GPW3 stated:
I like being able to get up at six o’clock in themorning and
being able toput in a Fourteen-hour
day [GPW3]
For GPW2, working long hours was positioned as a strategic
move rather than an
addictive force. It was not a reward in itself but directed at
future benefits, which were
assembled in monetary terms.

30. I never sacrifice things and invest myself in something unless
there’s a pay off or
compensation for it somewhere down the road [GPW2]
iii Trait/disposition: Perfectionism was constructed as a driver
of behaviour among
workaholics although the emphasis attributed to it differed
between participants from
WA and those from the GPW subgroup. For instance, WA4
stated:
There’s this whole pattern I call “the three P’s”. It’s
perfectionism, which leads to paralysis
which leads to procrastination. So perfectionism drives a lot of
things. [WA4]
Assembling this chain reaction of events as a ‘pattern’
established it as a general law of
behaviour. This interviewee positioned himself in a powerless
stance in relation to
perfectionism,whichwas afforded agency by installing it as the
grammatical subject (e.g.,
‘perfectionism drives’). Perfectionism was also compiled as a
behavioural factor among
GPW.
However, it was discussed in less absolute terms:
I’m a bit of a perfectionist. Other people here say that I am one

31. but I don’t know if it is true.
Once I’m satisfied, and once it’s good enough for me, then I’ll
move on to the next thing. But
there’s a certain point at which too much perfection gets in your
way [GPW8]
This participant stated that others classified him as a
perfectionist but that he did not
fully identify with this characterization. He equated
perfectionism with an inefficient
Table 1. Summary of findings
Explanatory
mechanisms of
work behaviour Workaholics Comparison group
Internal factors 1. Addiction (WA)
2. Perfectionism (WA)
3. Personal choice (GPW)
4. Perfection strivings (GPW)
1. Personal maturation
2. Boundary management
3. Value-driven choice

32. Socio-cultural
factors
5. Stressful family of origin dynamics
6. Intenseeducational norms
7. Pervasive organizational norms
8. National culture
1. Proactive adjustment
2. Supportive family of origin
3. Created family
4. Constructive educational experience
5. Alternating work norms
242 Melrona Kirrane et al.
inability to ‘move on’. While he demanded high standards, he
claimed that his ability to
reach satisfaction with a completed task made him, at most, ‘a
bit of’ a perfectionist.
b) Socio-cultural attributions for work patterns
Overview

33. A rich body of socio-cultural data emerged pertaining to the
influence of family
background, educational history, organizational/work context,
and cultural context on
work behaviours. These elements speak strongly to the role of
environmental factors in
encouraging the development of certain work behaviours.
Detail
i Family background: No reference was made to the role of
created family in the
development of excessive work patterns – family of origin was
invoked instead. For
example:
So even from an early age I was working. My father was a holy
terror for work, work, work,
work. He’d kickme out of bed at seven o’clock on a
Saturdaymorning - thatwas theway Iwas
brought up. I would always have worked [GPW7]
This participant presentedhimself asworking demandinghours
fromanearly age. This
was positioned as not due to his own nature or personality, but
rather due to his father’s
influence. The participant presented himself as agentless in
determining the amount of

34. work he did as a child by employing verbs that situate him in a
passive position. Being
‘kicked out of bed’ established his father’s control over his
activity. His father’swork ethic
was couched in negative terms, and the home context was cast
as creating his lifelong
working behaviour through the extreme case formulation
‘Iwould always haveworked’.
An inevitability of the development of excessive behaviour
emerged in the data fromWA3:
Both my parents are nicotine and coffee addicts. I just grew up
in a very disturbed home. My
momhas got a lot of issues like anxiety andmy dad’s a littlemore
on the control side of things.
So between the two of them, it’s like I’m …
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2018),
91, 235–260
© 2018 The British Psychological Society
www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
A qualitative investigation of the origins of
excessive work behaviour
Melrona Kirrane

35. 1
* , Marianne Breen
2
and Cli�odhna O’Connor3
1
Dublin City University Business School, Ireland
2
Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
3
University College Dublin, Ireland
Studies of workers who engage in excessive work behaviour
continue to attract the
attention of researchers. Most research in this field adheres to
quantitative methodolo-
gies aligned to the addiction or trait paradigms and largely
focuses on correlates and
consequences of such behaviour. However, within this
literature, empirically based
understandings of the factors that propel individuals to engage
in excessive work patterns
are sparse. Resting on socio-cultural theories of work, we adopt
a novel approach to this
field of enquiry and examine the genesis of excessive working
using a qualitative

36. methodology. We use discourse analysis to comparatively
explore data from a sample of
twenty-eight workers comprising excessive and non-excessive
workers. Our study
identified the roles of family of origin, educational experience,
and professional norms as
clear drivers of excessive work patterns. Data to support the
dominant addiction and trait
paradigms within this research domain were equivocal. Lifestyle
decision-making
differentiated the comparison group from the excessive workers.
We discuss our
findings with reference to theories of workaholism and consider
their implications for the
evolution of this field.
Practitioner points
� Organizational culture can strongly influence the emergence
of excessive work patterns among
employees. Human resource professionals and organizational
leaders are in a position to intervene in
the development and support of work cultures that are
conducive to effective work patterns
� Employee selection and assessment procedures should be
sufficiently in-depth to gather relevant
information into the personal backgrounds of applicants

37. � Employee development initiatives should take account of
learned work orientations to ensure the
effectiveness of interventions.
The globalized post-industrial society is characterized by a 24-
hour economy (Granter,
McCann, & Boyle, 2015) and has led to the normalization of
intensive work (Worrall,
Mather & Cooper, 2016). As research suggests figures of 10 per
cent and more of the
working population engage in these lifestyles (Andreassen et
al., 2014; Sussman, Lisha, &
Griffiths, 2011), understanding the genesis of these types of
work practices is now an
important endeavour. Intensive working is commonly captured
by the term ‘worka-
holism’ which initially arose to describe the mindset of
individuals most deeply involved in
*Correspondence should be addressed to Melrona Kirrane,
Dublin City University Business School, Collins Avenue,
Dublin 9,
Ireland (email: [email protected]).
DOI:10.1111/joop.12203
235
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4831-9411
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4831-9411

38. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4831-9411
work-focused lifestyles (Oates, 1971). Over the years, the
terminology used to describe
such practices has broadened to include work addiction
(Robinson, 1998) excessive
overwork (Andreassen, 2013), obsessive passion for work
(Vallerand, Paquet, Philippe, &
Charest, 2010), heavy work investment (Golden, 2014; Snir &
Harpaz, 2012), work
craving (Wojdylo, Baumann, & Karlsson, 2016), and work over-
involvement (Lehr, Koch,
& Hillert, 2010)
1
Most studies of workaholism to date are quantitative
investigations of correlates and
consequences of workaholism. One of the strongest outcomes of
such work has been the
positioningoftherootofsuchworkingpatternssquarelywithintheind
ividualworker(van
Wijhe, Schaufeli & Peeters, 2010). However, work patterns are
acknowledged to emerge
from an interactive process that occurs between the individual
and their environment
(Osipow, 1990). While theorists have signalled the important

39. role of socio-cultural
processes in understanding intensive work patterns (Mazzetti,
Schaufeli, & Guglielmi,
2014; Porter, 1996; Snir & Harpaz, 2006, 2012), field studies
within this domain remain
disappointingly limited (Sussman, 2012). In this study, we build
on socio-cultural theory
(SCT) which highlights dynamic and situation-specific elements
of the individual that
together lead to vocational outcomes (Bandura, 1999). Taking a
qualitative approach, we
exploretheautobiographicalaccountsofthegenesisofexcessivewor
kingpatternsamong
a sample of excessive workers. We compare their accounts with
those of a comparison
group of non-excessive workers drawn from the same context.
In this way, we provide a
solid foundation for understanding the intense career pathways
of such workers.
Theoretical background to workaholism research
Research in the field of workaholism has been dominated by the
addiction model and the
trait theory approach (Sussman, 2012). The addiction model
considers the phenomenon
to be an irresistible inner drive to work excessively hard

40. (Andreassen & Pallesen, 2016),
and it is described as a progressive, compulsive, potentially
fatal disease (Porter, 1996;
Robinson, 1998). Despite the absence of evidence that excessive
working shares
psychophysiological characteristics of established definitions of
addiction (McMillan, O’
Marsh, & Brady, 2001; Porter, 1996) and its exclusion from the
DSM-5 (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013), many researchers continue to
draw on the addiction
model of workaholism as a conceptual framework for their work
(Andreassen, Griffiths,
Hetland, & Pallesen, 2012; Griffiths, 2011). Such studies
typically measure work addiction
quantitatively, and although some recent promising additions
have been made
(Andreassen et al., 2012; Schaufeli, Shimazu, & Taris, 2009),
the most widely used
measure, the Work Addiction Risk Test (Robinson, Post, & J.
Khakee, 1992), is not
regarded as rigorous, rendering research based on it vulnerable
to criticisms (Andreassen
et al., 2012; Bowler, Patel, Bowler, & Methe, 2012; Flowers &
Robinson, 2002; Sussman,

41. 2012).
A further theoretical paradigm deployed widely in this field is
the trait theory
approach. This perspective construes excessive working,
associated with traits such as
neuroticism, conscientiousness, narcissism, and perfectionism
(Andreassen et al., 2012;
Clark, Lelchook, & Taylor, 2010) as a manifestation of a ‘stable
individual difference
characteristic’ (Burke, 2004, p. 421) comprising the
psychological dimensions of high
1
For the sake of parsimony and consistency with previous
literature, the term ‘workaholism’ will be used in this article,
but should
not be taken to necessarily imply agreement with the addiction
model of these work patterns.
236 Melrona Kirrane et al.
work involvement, high drive, and low work enjoyment (Spence
& Robbins, 1992).
Although this model has been criticized for its lack of
conceptual rigour (Harpaz & Snir,
2003; Robinson, 2001; Scott, Moore, & Miceli, 1997),
considerable research continues to

42. rely on it as a platform for investigation (Burke, Matthiesen, &
Pallesen, 2006; Clark et al.,
2010). Unfortunately, resultant isolated correlations have not
led to the development of a
coherent theoretical framework (Harpaz & Snir, 2003; Kanai,
Wakabayashi, & Fling, 1996;
McMillan, Brady, O’Driscoll, & Marsh, 2002; Mudrack &
Naughton, 2001).
While these two theoretical perspectives have driven research
streams which have
provided information on the correlates and consequences of
intensive work practices
(Baruch, 2011; Giannini & Scabia, 2014; Ng, Sorensen, &
Feldman, 2007; Robinson, 2013;
Sussman, 2012), each shows distinct weaknesses and leaves the
question of the aetiology
of workaholism empirically unanswered (Quinones & Griffiths,
2015; Spurk, Hirschi, &
Kauffeld, 2016). Moreover, these approaches are characterized
by positioning worka-
holism entirely within the individual. Holding some promise of
greater refinement of the
genesis of excessive work patterns are studies that explore the
contribution of other
factors to this behaviour. These include unsatisfied needs

43. (Burke, 2004; van Beek, Taris, &
Schaufeli, 2011), cognitions (Graves, Ruderman, Ohlott &
Weber, 2012), social learning
(Burke, 2001), family dynamics (Chamberlin & Zhang, 2009;
Robinson, 2013), and
organizational culture and climate (Keller, Spurk, Baumeler, &
Hirschi, 2016; Johnstone &
Johnston, 2005; Mazzetti et al., 2014). In general, such
elements have been treated as
peripheral within the dominant research paradigms, and the
causal influence of some
have, at times, been explicitly denied (e.g., Robinson, 1998).
Although the importance of
these issues has been highlighted (McMillan, O Driscoll, &
Burke, 2003), they remain
underexplored in empirical work and their role in the
phenomenon of excessive work
patterns remains tentative (Andreassen, 2014; McMillan et al.,
2003; van Wijhe et al.,
2010).
Socio-cultural factors and the construal of workaholism
Applying a socio-cultural perspective to understanding the
origin of workaholism
represents a rich starting point in research on excessive working

44. patterns. The socio-
cultural approach to understanding behaviour which recognizes
the role of norms,
customs, and values of the general population has demonstrated
that work norms,
attitudes, and practices are influenced by multiple layers of
socio-cultural factors (Kanai &
Wakabayashi, 2004; Lantolf, 2000). At the broadest level is
national culture which has a
singular effect on how people construe themselves at work
(Brewer & Chen, 2007; Gahan
& Abeysekera, 2009; Triandis, 1990). This effect is perhaps
best illustrated by the
phenomenon known as ‘karoshi’, a term coined by Sugisawa and
Uehata (1998) to refer to
the particular Japanese phenomenon of death or permanent
disability caused by
cardiovascular problems, mediated by excessive work and
stress. In Japan, work is
regarded as an element of living in that one is supposed to live
in accordance with the
order of society (Ishiyama & Kitayama, 1994; Kanai &
Wakabayashi, 2004). Psycho-social
factors such as a social value system that exhorts perseverance
and the concept of

45. ‘ganbaru’, which means to suffer in silence and to endure
difficulties, are regarded as
perpetuating the syndrome (Meek, 1999, 2004). Considering
these features of Japanese
cultural life fosters a deeper understanding and appreciation of
the phenomenon of
karoshi and underscores the impact of socio-cultural factors in
approaches to work.
A second element of the socio-cultural landscape that has a
significant impact on work
behaviours is the familial context (Lawson, Crouter, & McHale,
2015; Piotrowski &
The origins of excessive work behaviour 237
Vodanovich, 2006; Robinson, 2000). The family of origin
influences work behaviours as
values, norms, and expectations for achievement are transferred
and internalized via
parent–child relations (Schaie & Willis, 1996). This process is
well explained by the
expectancy-value theory of achievement (Wigfield & Eccles,
2000). The family an
individual creates themselves as a socio-cultural feature also
significantly influences
workplace behaviour (Janoski & Wilson, 1995). Involvement in

46. multiple roles causes ‘spill
over’ which effects behaviour and actions of individuals in both
contexts (Arnett, 2014;
Livingston, 2014; Wayne, Casper, Matthews, & Allen, 2013).
Educational systems are an integral feature of the socio-cultural
landscape and their
influence on workplace behaviours (Billett, 1998; Konkola,
Tuomi-Gr€ohn, Lambert, &
Ludvigsen, 2007), are emphasized in Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)
ecological model of human
development. By introducing pupils to notions of achievement
and authority, coping and
time management skills, this social system provides the
intellectual and social skills that
children will use to perform roles within the adult world
(Haycock, Hart, & Irvin, 1991;
Tomlinson, 2013). In essence, school educates students on how
to become fully
functioning and productive members of society and fosters the
development of
appropriate work attitudes and habits deemed important for the
continued development
of the social world (Goodlad, 1984; Kourilsky & Walstad,
1998).
Finally, organizational norms of behaviour are a well-

47. established feature of the socio-
cultural environment (Rousseau, 2005; Schein, 1985; Schneider,
Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013).
Research has established the potent effects of such norms on
workplace behaviour
(Hogan & Coote, 2014; Lee & Yu, 2004), and organizations go
to great lengths in fostering
the development of performance-enhancing workplace cultures
(O’Reilly, Caldwell,
Chatman, & Doerr, 2014). Taking all these factors together, this
literature aptly
demonstrates that to fully understand the origin of excessive
work patterns, there is
value to be gained from immersing the study of such behaviour
within its socio-cultural
context.
Researching workaholism
According to the epistemology of social constructionism, human
knowledge does not
result from individuals’ direct perception of ‘brute reality’, but
rather is co-constructed in
social interaction and always mediated by language,
interpretations, and values (Berger &
Luckmann, 1996; Potter, 1996). As such, equally important as

48. what does cause the
behaviour patterns termed ‘workaholism’ is what people believe
causes it, because the
latter will guide how people manage their own career-related
behaviour. To date, this
remains unchartered territory in the empirical literature.
To research workaholism as a discursive construction rather
than the predetermined,
yet controversial ‘thing’ pursued in other studies, there is
valued to be had in exploring the
insights alternative methodologies may provide. Qualitative
methods are ideally suited to
tap the naturalistic, everyday language through which this form
of behaviour is
constructed in social interaction. Thus, we pose the following
question in an attempt
to address this vacuum: How do people account for the origin of
their working patterns?
Method
We position our study within the philosophical orientation of
social constructionism
(Neimeyer, 1993), emphasizing the subjective experiences of
actors’ ‘lifeworlds’
238 Melrona Kirrane et al.

49. (Husserl, 1969; Schutz, 1972). Paying close attention to the
language used, we apply
discourse analysis techniques to our data (Antaki, 1994; Billig,
1997; Harvey, Turnquist, &
Agostinelli, 1988), looking beyond the surface of the sentence
to identify the pragmatic
social functions that the utterance achieves (Silverman, 2001).
We present the data in raw
form to accommodate an expansive interpretation of the
participants’ perspectives
(Johnson & Waterfield, 2004; Wimpenny & Gass, 2000).
Sampling
Two sampling techniques were used in this study. In the first
instance, we deployed a
theory-based sampling process, targeting a sample on the basis
of their potential
manifestation of our theoretical construct. For this purpose, we
concentrated on
members of Workaholics Anonymous (WA), which is a social
network specifically
targeted at self-selected workaholics.
The global WA headquarters (based in the United States) agreed
to email details about

50. the study to its members, and a notice requesting participants
for the project was placed in
the WA monthly newsletter. To achieve generalizability
(Mason, 2010), we also used a
purposive sampling strategy which involves using prior research
and informed ‘hunches’
to identify the segments of the population likely to hold a
unique perspective on the
research topic and directly recruiting from these groups (Bauer
& Aarts, 2000). Certain
occupational fields, such as financial services, are known for
their demanding workloads
(European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions, [EFILWC],
2015). To recruit participants for our study, 110 companies
were contacted from the
database of an International Financial Services Centre. Human
resource specialists of 72
companies (65%) agreed to disseminate to their employees an
invitation from the
researchers to participate in a study on work patterns. Due to
this recruitment strategy, it
was impossible to calculate the response rate, as the number of
people who received our

51. invitation was unknown. However, our aim was not to attain a
statistically representative
dataset but to provide an in-depth account of the range of ideas
present and examine what
underlies and justifies them (Gaskell, 2000; Patton, 2002).
Measure
Machlowitz’s (1980) measure of working patterns was
administered via email in the
invitation to participate in the study. The intent of this element
of the research process
was not to reify these individuals as ‘workaholics’, but to
purposively select people
who indicated that they exemplify characteristics of the
construct of ‘workaholism’.
There are 10 items in this measure; a sample item is ‘Do you
dread retirement?’
Deployed in a number of studies (Doerfler & Kammer, 1986;
Greenberg, 2002; Kilburg,
Nathan, & Thoreson, 1986), with items derived from empirical
work rather than a
priori theoretical assumptions, each behaviourally based item on
this measure has a
‘yes/no’ response option whereby ‘yes’ responses warrant one
point, and ‘no’
responses warrant zero points. A score above eight points is

52. deemed to represent
workaholic behaviour (Machlowitz, 1980). A total of 146 people
responded to the
questionnaire, 22 (15%) of whom were identified as
workaholics by meeting the cut-off
point established by Machlowitz (1980). This figure is within
the range of international
norms regarding the prevalence of workaholism (Doerfler &
Kammer, 1986; Freimuth,
Waddell, Stannard, Kelley, & Kipper, 2008; Sussman, 2012).
Respondents who agreed
and were available to be interviewed about their work patterns
formed this subsample
The origins of excessive work behaviour 239
of the study. In order to fully understand the particular
conceptions of the origins of
excessive working, a comparative sample was generated by
interviewing willing
respondents who did not meet the criteria for ‘workaholism’
according to Machlowitz
(1980). This afforded the opportunity for the research question
to be richly explored
and extensively examined according to the tenets of SCT. The
sum of the research

53. strategies deployed ensured ontological integration of the nature
of social life was
achieved (Guarino, 1997).
Sample
The sample ultimately consisted of twelve workaholics, four of
whom were WA members,
and sixteen comparison group members. This sample size is
acceptable for discourse
analytic studies and is well within the ranges identified by
Charmaz (2006), Bertaux
(1981), Morse (2000) and Mason (2010). Of the workaholic
sample, three were female
(two members of WA and one general population workaholics
[GPW]) and the sample
was aged between 32 and 57 years with an average age of 46
years. Ten of this sample
were married/partnered and job titles included management
consultant (5), investment
banker (3), IT consultant (2), journalist (1), and medical doctor
(1). Of the comparison
group, five were female and the average age was 47 years.
Eleven of this group were
married/partnered, three were divorced, and two were single.
Job titles included

54. management consultant (11), financial services/banking (3), and
IT consultant (2).
Procedure
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with each
participant (See Appendix). The
interview began with appropriate ‘warm-up’ questions (Arksey
& Knight, 1999) and then
proceeded to explore participants’ conceptions on the evolution
of their working lives
with the question: ‘What do you think has influenced your work
pattern?’ The interview
schedule was employed flexibly to facilitate responsiveness to
discursive pathways
introduced by the participant (Gaskell, 2000) and to
accommodate issues pertinent to
participants (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013).
The researcher did not use the word ‘workaholic’ at any point in
the process, and the
neutrality criterion (Guba & Lincoln, 1982) was met by the
researcher being aware of, and
critical of vocalizations in the research process. Interviews took
place either in private
offices at the participants’ workplaces or nearby convenient
spaces and lasted between 60

55. and 90 min. As WA members were all based in the United
States, interviews were
conducted with them by telephone. Interviews were recorded
and transcribed verbatim
(O’Connell & Kowal, 1995; Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Each
hour of interview data took
approximately ten hours to transcribe.
Data analysis
The analysis followed the discursive action model (Edwards &
Potter, 1992), and the
interpretative strategy was informed by the three major
foundations of discourse analysis,
namely construction, function, and variability (Potter &
Wetherell, 1987). A battery of
discursive features was compiled to aid analysis (Edwards &
Potter, 1992; Gee, 1999;
Wetherell, Taylor, & Yates, 2001). Following Guest, Bunce, and
Johnson (2006), two
coders separately analysed the data from five interviews.
Coding patterns were compared
and a 96% code agreement rating was established (Armstrong,
Gosling, Weinman, &
240 Melrona Kirrane et al.

56. Marteau, 1997). A codebook was then developed using a
standard iterative process
(MacQueen, McLellan, Kay, & Milstein, 1998). Codes were
refined while reading the
remaining transcripts to accommodate emerging patterns and
finally inputted into the
Nvivo software program to facilitate analysis. The analysis met
the criteria of trustwor-
thiness (Bowen, 2009; Guba & Lincoln, 1982) by ensuring data
credibility, transferability,
dependability, and confirmability using the audit trail, coding
checks, and peer debriefing.
Trustworthiness was further reinforced by ensuring all
interpretations were supported by
raw data and accompanied by representative verbatim extracts
(Speer & Potter, 2000).
The criterion of soundness (Potter & Wetherell, 1987) was
satisfied by our presentation of
analysed texts and demonstration of routes to conclusions. This
documentation of
procedures enabled accountability to be examined and the
confirmability of claims to be
established (Parker, 2002). In addition, only plausible and
insightful analyses were
included (Phillips & Hardy, 2002) and it was ensured that all
arguments fitted together in

57. order to provide a coherent reading of the data (Wood &
Kroger, 2000). The study thereby
fulfilled the warranting criteria for discourse analysis research
(Antaki, Billig, Edwards, &
Potter, 2003; Edwards, 2005).
Results
The data are presented according to the major rift in
workaholism literature,
focussing first on the role of internal/dispositional factors,
followed by data on the
significance of socio-cultural factors. Findings are displayed
according to subgroup
membership (Workaholics [WA members and general population
workaholics
{GPW}] and comparison group members (C)). The table below
presents a summary
of the findings (Table 1).
Workaholics
a) Internal/dispositional antecedents of excessive work patterns
Overview
Uniform explanations of the internal causes of excessive
working by workaholics were

58. absent from the data. Instead, accounts fell into three primary
categories: addiction,
personal choice, and the influence of personal characteristics.
WA members invoked
addiction as its primary cause, whereas personal agency was the
strongest factor reported
in the data of GPW.
Detail
i Addiction: WA1 explained her working patterns as a
consequence of the hormone
adrenaline, which was defined as an addictive substance:
I am an adrenaline junkie, basically is what I am [WA1]
WA1 constructed a fundamental self-identity as an addict (or in
slang terms, ‘junkie’).
This construal of workaholism as an addiction positioned the
problem completely within
the self. The label of being an addict was applied without any
more detailed construals of
addictive behaviours, symptoms, or signs. Another WA member
spoke of his work
patterns using the register of addiction by explicitly comparing
work to drugs:
The origins of excessive work behaviour 241

59. I had what in the programme we call “my stash”. Some people
have a stash of drugs, I had a
stash of projects and activities that were never-ending [WA3]
ii Choice: On the other hand, GPW constructed their working
style as an active,
volitional choice, and regarded their chosen lifestyle in positive
terms. For example,
GPW3 stated:
I like being able to get up at six o’clock in the morning and
being able to put in a Fourteen-hour
day [GPW3]
For GPW2, working long hours was positioned as a strategic
move rather than an
addictive force. It was not a reward in itself but directed at
future benefits, which were
assembled in monetary terms.
I never sacrifice things and invest myself in something unless
there’s a pay off or
compensation for it somewhere down the road [GPW2]
iii Trait/disposition: Perfectionism was constructed as a driver
of behaviour among

60. workaholics although the emphasis attributed to it differed
between participants from
WA and those from the GPW subgroup. For instance, WA4
stated:
There’s this whole pattern I call “the three P’s”. It’s
perfectionism, which leads to paralysis
which leads to procrastination. So perfectionism drives a lot of
things. [WA4]
Assembling this chain reaction of events as a ‘pattern’
established it as a general law of
behaviour. This interviewee positioned himself in a powerless
stance in relation to
perfectionism, which was afforded agency by installing it as the
grammatical subject (e.g.,
‘perfectionism drives’). Perfectionism was also compiled as a
behavioural factor among
GPW.
However, it was discussed in less absolute terms:
I’m a bit of a perfectionist. Other people here say that I am one
but I don’t know if it is true.
Once I’m satisfied, and once it’s good enough for me, then I’ll
move on to the next thing. But
there’s a certain point at which too much perfection gets in your
way [GPW8]

61. This participant stated that others classified him as a
perfectionist but that he did not
fully identify with this characterization. He equated
perfectionism with an inefficient
Table 1. Summary of findings
Explanatory
mechanisms of
work behaviour Workaholics Comparison group
Internal factors 1. Addiction (WA)
2. Perfectionism (WA)
3. Personal choice (GPW)
4. Perfection strivings (GPW)
1. Personal maturation
2. Boundary management
3. Value-driven choice
Socio-cultural
factors
5. Stressful family of origin dynamics
6. Intenseeducational norms

62. 7. Pervasive organizational norms
8. National culture
1. Proactive adjustment
2. Supportive family of origin
3. Created family
4. Constructive educational experience
5. Alternating work norms
242 Melrona Kirrane et al.
inability to ‘move on’. While he demanded high standards, he
claimed that his ability to
reach satisfaction with a completed task made him, at most, ‘a
bit of’ a perfectionist.
b) Socio-cultural attributions for work patterns
Overview
A rich body of socio-cultural data emerged pertaining to the
influence of family
background, educational history, organizational/work context,
and cultural context on
work behaviours. These elements speak strongly to the role of
environmental factors in

63. encouraging the development of certain work behaviours.
Detail
i Family background: No reference was made to the role of
created family in the
development of excessive work patterns – family of origin was
invoked instead. For
example:
So even from an early age I was working. My father was a holy
terror for work, work, work,
work. He’d kick me out of bed at seven o’clock on a Saturday
morning - that was the way I was
brought up. I would always have worked [GPW7]
This participant presented himselfas working demanding hours
from an early age. This
was positioned as not due to his own nature or personality, but
rather due to his father’s
influence. The participant presented himself as agentless in
determining the amount of
work he did as a child by employing verbs that situate him in a
passive position. Being
‘kicked out of bed’ established his father’s control over his
activity. His father’s work ethic
was couched in negative terms, and the home context was cast

64. as creating his lifelong
working behaviour through the extreme case formulation ‘I
would always have worked’.
An inevitability of the development of excessive behaviour
emerged in the data from WA3:
Both my parents are nicotine and coffee addicts. I just grew up
in a very disturbed home. My
mom has got a lot of issues like anxiety and my dad’s a little
more on the control …