The impact of work engagement and workaholism on well-being

Career Development InternationalThe impact of work engagement and workaholism on well-being: The role of work-related social supportGaëtane Caesens Florence Stinglhamber Gaylord Luypaert

Article information:To cite this document:Gaëtane Caesens Florence Stinglhamber Gaylord Luypaert , (2014),"The impact of work engagement andworkaholism on well-being", Career Development International, Vol. 19 Iss 7 pp. 813 - 835Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-09-2013-0114

Downloaded on: 20 November 2014, At: 08:59 (PT)References: this document contains references to 82 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 156 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Won-Moo Hur, Tae-Won Moon, Su-Jin Han, (2014),"The role of chronological age and work experience onemotional labor: The mediating effect of emotional intelligence", Career Development International, Vol. 19Iss 7 pp. 734-754 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-12-2013-0162Bert Schreurs, Hetty van Emmerik, Nele De Cuyper, Tahira Probst, Machteld van den Heuvel, EvaDemerouti, (2014),"Religiousness in times of job insecurity: job demand or resource?", Career DevelopmentInternational, Vol. 19 Iss 7 pp. 755-778 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-08-2014-0114Ying Chen, Ray Friedman, Tony Simons, (2014),"The gendered trickle-down effect: How mid-levelmanagers’ satisfaction with senior managers’ supervision affects line employee’s turnover intentions",Career Development International, Vol. 19 Iss 7 pp. 836-856 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CDI-02-2014-0031

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 512739 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The impact of work engagementand workaholism on well-beingThe role of work-related social support

Gaëtane Caesens, Florence Stinglhamber and Gaylord LuypaertInstitute of Psychological Sciences, Université catholique de Louvain,

Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

AbstractPurpose – The purpose of this paper are twofold. First, the authors examined the effects of two typesof working hard (i.e. work engagement, workaholism) on employees’ well-being (i.e. job satisfaction,perceived stress, and sleep problems). Second, the authors tested the extent to which both typesof working hard mediate the relationship between three types of work-related social support(i.e. perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support, and perceived coworker support)and employees’ well-being.Design/methodology/approach – An online questionnaire was administered to 343 PhD students.Findings – Results revealed that work engagement mediates the relationships between perceivedorganizational support and job satisfaction and perceived stress. Perceived organizational support hasalso a direct positive impact on job satisfaction and a direct negative impact on perceived stress andsleep problems. Furthermore, work engagement mediates the influence of perceived supervisorsupport on job satisfaction and perceived stress. Finally, workaholism was found to mediate therelationships between perceived coworker support, and job satisfaction, perceived stress, and sleepproblems.Practical implications – The findings suggest that managers should promote practices in order tofoster work engagement and prevent workaholism. In line with this, the findings indicated that themost powerful source of support that fosters work engagement is perceived supervisor support.Organizations should, therefore, train their supervisors to be supportive in their role of directing,evaluating and coaching subordinates or encourage supervisors to have regular meetings with theirsubordinates. Additionally, the results showed that perceived coworker support is the only source ofwork-related social support that has a negative influence on workaholism. Managers should fostercoworker support, for instance by encouraging informal mentoring among employees in order to builda strong social network.Originality/value – Because scholars argued that each type of work-related social support mighthave different consequences and might vary in terms of strength of associations with their outcomes,the study aimed to examine the concomitant effects of three forms of work-related social support ontwo types of working hard which, in turn, influence employees’ well-being.Keywords Work engagement, Perceived support, Well-being, WorkaholismPaper type Research paper

“Work life has undergone tremendous changes within the last 100 years” (Frese, 2008,p. 397). The increase of work complexity, global competition and the dissolution of theunity of work in time and space linked to rapid innovation lead to employees dealingwith a work environment that is more and more demanding (Frese, 2008). Additionally,the advancement in technology allows employees to use cellphones or laptops withhigh-speed data connections at any place, making it possible for them to work at anytime (e.g. van Beek et al., 2012). Overall, these changes together with technologydevelopment might encourage employees to work harder and during longer hours(e.g. van Wijhe et al., 2011).

Career Development InternationalVol. 19 No. 7, 2014

pp. 813-835© Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1362-0436DOI 10.1108/CDI-09-2013-0114

Received 12 September 2013Revised 27 February 2014

27 May 20142 September 20148 September 2014

Accepted 8 September 2014

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm

The impactof work

engagement andworkaholism

In the scientific literature, two different types of working hard have beendistinguished; i.e. an intrinsically negative form named workaholism and anintrinsically positive form named work engagement (e.g. Schaufeli et al., 2008b).A large body of research has shown that work engagement is positively related to variouswork outcomes and indicators of employees’ well-being, whereas workaholism generallydisplays negative relationships with the same variables (e.g. Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004;Taris et al., 2010). More recently, some research has begun to investigate the concomitanteffects of these two types of working hard on these outcomes (e.g. Del Líbano et al., 2012;Schaufeli et al., 2008b). In line with this perspective, the first aim of our research is toanalyze the relationships of work engagement and workaholism altogether with differentindicators of well-being (i.e. job satisfaction, perceived stress and sleep problems).Specifically, we expected that workaholism will be related to low well-being, as indicatedby lower levels of job satisfaction and higher levels of sleep problems and perceivedstress, whereas work engagement will be associated positively with high well-being(i.e. higher levels of job satisfaction, lower levels of perceived stress and sleep problems).

Second, the present study examined the influence of perceived organizational support,perceived supervisor support and perceived coworker support on these relationships.If prior work has indicated that the organization, supervisor, and coworkers representvaluable sources of support that have a positive influence on employees’ well-being(Ng and Sorensen, 2008), a rather unexplored issue is how these three types of work-related social support might have a concomitant impact on the two forms of workinghard, which, in turn, will influence employees’ well-being. Yet, according to Ng andSorensen (2008), “it may be unwarranted for researchers to assume the effectsof perceptions of different sources of support on employees are similar” (p. 259). On thecontrary, these authors stressed the importance of this issue to scholars andrecommended to consider this matter by examining the specific effect of each source ofsocial support and thus including more than one source of work-related social supportin their studies. In line with this suggestion, we aimed to investigate whether the effectsof three different types of work-related social support on employees’ well-being aremediated by work engagement and workaholism.

In doing so, our research will contribute to the work engagement and workaholismliterature in examining a more comprehensive model including both antecedentsand consequences of these two constructs. Additionally, the present study also helps toidentify which source of support is the most effective to increase employees’ well-beingthrough the two different types of working hard. Addressing this issue may provide abetter understanding of the specific effect of each type of work-related social support,which might help lead to theory development (Whetten, 1989). Furthermore, at thepractical level, identifying differences in their effects is of utmost importance as it willhelp practitioners to implement more appropriate interventions in order to enhanceemployees’ well-being.

Workaholism and work engagementNowadays, there is still debate regarding the definition of workaholism. However,in our research, we refer to Schaufeli et al. (2009a) who define workaholism as “thetendency to work excessively hard and being obsessed with work, which manifestsitself in working compulsively” (p. 322). We decided to adopt this definition because itcomprises the two characteristics of workaholism (i.e. working excessively and havingan obsessive inner drive) that scholars identified as key and recurrent elements in the

CDI19,7

various definitions of this construct (e.g. Guglielmi et al., 2012; McMillan and O’Driscoll,2006). Typical workaholic employees spend a great amount of their time working(van Beek et al., 2011). They experience a strong and incontrollable inner drive, need, orcompulsion to work hard which is not due to external factors such as financial factorsand career perspectives (Schaufeli et al., 2006). More precisely, building on theself-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985), van Beek et al. (2012) showed thatworkaholic employees are driven by an introjected regulation (i.e. a form of extrinsicmotivation). Introjected regulation is described as “a product of an internalizationprocess in which individuals rigidly adopt external standards of self-worth and socialapproval without fully identifying with them” (van Beek et al., 2012, p. 33). Recently,based on Higgins’s regulatory focus theory (RFT; Higgins, 1997), van Beek et al. (2014)also demonstrated that workaholic employees have higher levels of prevention focus,meaning that they are sensitive to the absence or presence of negative outcomesand use avoidance strategies. Taken together, these results support the idea thatworkaholic employees work hard to avoid negative feelings such as guilt, shame,irritability, and anxiety or to increase feelings of pride (e.g. van Beek et al., 2012, 2014).

Workaholic employees by definition work hard and during long and excessivehours (van Beek et al., 2011). Furthermore, these employees are unable to disengagefrom their work and think about it continually, even when they are not working(van Beek et al., 2011). Consequently, they have less opportunity to recover from theirwork, such as by relaxing, and therefore might have a higher tendency to depletetheir resources (Van Wijhe et al., 2014). In line with this view, prior empirical studieshave shown that workaholism is related to negative outcomes for employees, suchas lower job satisfaction (e.g. Del Líbano et al., 2012; van Beek et al., 2014), lower lifesatisfaction (Bonebright et al., 2000), and poorer social relationships outside their work(Schaufeli et al., 2008b). Workaholic employees have also been found to be less happy(Schaufeli et al., 2009b), to suffer more from health complaints, and to report lowerlevels of self-perceived health (e.g. Schaufeli et al., 2006), and higher levels of exhaustion(e.g. Taris et al., 2005) and sleep problems (e.g. Kubota et al., 2010, 2012).

Conversely, an enthusiastic involvement in the job, called work engagement, mightalso explain the employees’ propensity to work hard. Work engagement is defined as“a positive and fulfilling work-related state that is characterized by vigor, dedicationand absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002a, p. 72). Among these three dimensions, vigorconsists of high levels of energy, mental resilience while working, and persistence whenfacing difficulties (Schaufeli et al., 2002a). Dedication refers to being involved in one’swork and experiencing a sense of significance, inspiration, pride, and challenge at work(Schaufeli et al., 2002a). Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated andengrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes fast and people have difficulties todetach from their job (Schaufeli et al., 2002a). Work engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002a)has been shown to be driven by intrinsic work motivation. Work engaged employeesthus consider their work as interesting, enjoyable, and satisfying (van Beek et al., 2012).Recently, based on RFT theory (Higgins, 1997), work engagement has also beenpositively related to having a promotion focus (van Beek et al., 2014), meaning thatwork engaged employees are sensitive to the absence or presence of positive outcomes.This finding also indicates that work engaged employees use approach strategies andtherefore are likely to use an approach that “matches to their work goals that representtheir hopes, wishes, and aspirations” (van Beek et al., 2014, p. 56). In sum, engagedemployees have a sense of energetic connection with their work, are happily engrossedin their job, and do not feel guilty when they are not working (Schaufeli et al., 2008b).

The impactof work

In line with this perspective, several studies have indicated that work engagement isassociated with various positive outcomes for both organizations and employees.For example, engaged employees have been shown to be more satisfied with their job(e.g. Del Líbano et al., 2012; van Beek et al., 2014), to demonstrate more personalinitiative (Sonnentag, 2003), to have less intention to quit the organization (Schaufeliand Bakker, 2004; van Beek et al., 2014), and to perform better than non-engagedemployees (e.g. Salanova et al., 2005). Work engagement was found to be related tohigher life satisfaction and a better mental and physical health (Schaufeli and Salanova,2007; Schaufeli et al., 2008b). Furthermore, results of prior studies showed that workengagement is negatively associated with various indicators of low well-being suchas suffering from psychosomatic symptoms (e.g. headaches, cardiovascular problems;Koyuncu et al., 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2008b), exhaustion from work (e.g. Koyuncu et al.,2006), and sleep problems (Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006).

Thus, in short, work engagement and workaholism characterize two different formsof psychological states and have various associations with different work attitudes andindicators of well-being. While the former is related to positive outcomes, the latter isgenerally associated with negative ones. In line with these previous empirical findingsand arguments, we posited that:

H1. Work engagement is positively related to (a) job satisfaction and negativelyrelated to (b) perceived stress and (c) sleep problems.

H2. Workaholism is negatively related to (a) job satisfaction and positively relatedto (b) perceived stress and (c) sleep problems.

Social supportAccording to the job demands-resources model ( JD-R) (Demerouti et al., 2001; Schaufeliand Bakker, 2004), two different types of work conditions, namely job demands and jobresources, influence employees’ well-being via a dual process, i.e. a health impairmentprocess (linking job demands to negative outcomes through burnout) and a motivationalprocess (linking job resources to positive outcomes through work engagement).Job demands refer to physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the jobthat require sustained physical and/or psychological effort (e.g. time pressure, emotionaldemands, physical demands). Job resources are defined as the physical, psychological,social or organizational aspects of the job that reduce job demands, are functional forachieving work goals or stimulate personal growth, learning and development (e.g.supportive work environment, supervisor support, coworker support and feedback;Demerouti et al., 2001). More precisely, the JD-R model describes a positive motivationalprocess in which job resources such as social support are able to enhance workengagement which, in turn, has positive consequences for employees and organizations.

In line with this perspective, Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) have suggested that socialsupport is able to drive an intrinsic motivational process by satisfying employees’needs for autonomy and need to belong, as well as an extrinsic motivational process byincreasing the probability to reach work goals. Supervisor and coworker support, forinstance, might be able to have an intrinsic motivation role by fulfilling employees’need to belong (Xanthopoulou et al., 2008). Furthermore, coworker support might createamong employees the conviction that they will receive help from their colleagues whenneeded, which might increase their confidence that they will achieve their work goals

CDI19,7

(Xanthopoulou et al., 2008). In doing so, coworker support might also play an extrinsicmotivation role.

Empirical studies that have commonly investigated the positive influence of socialsupport on work engagement have precisely focused on supervisor and coworkersupport (e.g. Korunka et al., 2009). Accordingly, work engagement has been found to bepositively predicted by both perceived supervisor support (e.g. Gillet et al., 2013) andperceived coworker support (e.g. Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Xanthopoulou et al., 2008)in several studies. In contrast, the influence of perceived organizational support,defined as employees’ global beliefs that the organization cares about their well-beingand values their contributions (Eisenberger et al., 1986), has been less investigated.Yet, numerous studies have demonstrated the positive influence of perceivedorganizational support on employees’ well-being. Perceived organizational support hasfor example been shown to increase employees’ job satisfaction and to reduce theirstress (e.g. Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002).Furthermore, perceived organizational support has been positively associated withwork engagement in some prior studies (e.g. Caesens and Stinglhamber, 2014; Kinnunenet al., 2008; Sulea et al., 2012). Given this empirical evidence, it seems reasonable to suggestthat perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support, and perceivedcoworker support are able to positively influence work engagement. However, to the bestof our knowledge, no study has examined the positive effects of these three forms ofsupport altogether on work engagement.

On the other hand, a very scarce literature has examined the relationship betweensocial support and the negative type of working hard, i.e. workaholism. In this literature,it appeared that social support as a general resource is negatively linked to workaholism(Schaufeli et al., 2008a). The conservation of resources theory (COR; Hobfoll, 1985, 2002)helps to better understand how work-related social support may be negatively related toworkaholism. A central tenet of the COR theory is that people “with greater resources areless vulnerable to resource loss and more capable of resource gain” (Hakanen and Roodt,2010, p. 89). In line with this principle, social support might both help employees to copewith stressful events such as juggling multiple roles (Nicklin and McNall, 2013), andprevent them from resource depletion (Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2013). Therefore, as anenergizing resource for employees, social support might help them cope with theirtendency to work hard. In line with this view, previous authors have suggested thatsupervisor support and coworker cohesion are related to lower levels of compulsion towork ( Johnstone and Johnston, 2005). In the same vein, Taris et al. (2010) have also arguedthat providing supervisors with effective training might help to raise employees’awareness of the meaning, aim, and relevance of their work. This might therefore help toreduce employees’ compulsion to work hard (Taris et al., 2010). Furthermore, according tothe literature on perceived organizational support (Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011),high levels of perceived organizational support indicate that the organization cares aboutemployees’ well-being and is willing to extend itself to provide help for employees whenthey need it (George et al., 1993). Therefore, it seems that supportive organizations mightbe more prone to offer assistance program to workaholic employees. It is also reasonableto think that organizations who highly consider their human capital would bemore inclined to implement individual-level interventions in order to help workaholicemployees (Taris et al., 2010).

In short, while the organization (e.g. Eisenberger et al., 1986), supervisor (e.g.Eisenberger et al., 2002), and coworkers (e.g. Bishop et al., 2000) have been shown torepresent valuable sources of support, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study

The impactof work

has included these three foci of support at once in order to investigate their specificimpact either on work engagement or on workaholism. Nevertheless, Ng and Sorensen(2008) have stressed, in their meta-analysis, that the effects on employees of differentsources of social support (e.g. perceived organizational support, perceived supervisorsupport, and perceived coworker support) are very dissimilar. For instance, theseauthors have shown that perceived supervisor support is more strongly related toseveral work-related outcomes (i.e. job satisfaction, affective commitment and turnoverintentions) than perceived colleague support. According to Ng and Sorensen (2008),each source of social support has not necessarily the same consequences and differsin terms of strength of associations with its outcomes. Therefore, these authorsrecommended that researchers carefully examine the effects of each source of supportin their studies. In line with these recommendations and our theoretical modelpresented in Figure 1, our study aims to explore the impact of perceived organizationalsupport, perceived supervisor support, and perceived coworker support on bothwork engagement and workaholism which, in turn, will influence various indicatorsof well-being (i.e. job satisfaction, perceived stress and sleep problems). Based on Ngand Sorensen’s (2008) recommendations and previous empirical findings, we positedthe following hypotheses:

H3. Work engagement mediates the relationships between work-related socialsupport and (a) job satisfaction, (b) perceived stress, and (c) sleep problems.

H4. Workaholism mediates the relationships between work-related social supportand (a) job satisfaction, (b) perceived stress, and (c) sleep problems.

MethodSample and procedureA total of 425 PhD students of a Belgian University responded to an onlinequestionnaire related to well-being at work (a response rate of approximately 21.25percent). Due to missing data, only 343 of these 425 questionnaires were usable andthus maintained in the final sample. The external link to the online questionnaire wassent in an e-mail describing the aim of the questionnaire, and PhD students wereassured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses. This specificpopulation seemed particularly relevant to assess the two forms of working hard,i.e. work engagement and workaholism. Indeed, PhD student work is characterizedby long work hours per week and extended concentrating and cognitive efforts.Furthermore, this population seems to be exposed to multiple demands resulting fromtheir job such as research, academic coursework, competition and institutional

Social Support at Work

– Perceived Organizational Support

– Perceived Supervisor Support

– Perceived Coworker Support

Work Engagement

Workaholism

Well-Being

Job Satisfaction

Perceived Stress

Sleep ProblemsFigure 1.Conceptual model

CDI19,7

demands (e.g. Myers et al., 2012). Of this sample, 42.86 percent were males and 57.14percent were females. In average, participants were 28.27 years of age (SD¼ 4.43),had been employed by the university for 3.02 years (SD¼ 2.07) and had been workingwith their advisor for 3.30 years (SD¼ 2.20).

MeasuresBecause our participants spoke French, scales used in the questionnaire weretranslated from English to French using the translation-back-translation procedurerecommended by Brislin (1980). However, when available we used validated Frenchversions of the scales.

Work-related social support. Perceived organizational support was measured using ashort four-item version of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support (SPOS)(Eisenberger et al., 1986). These four items covered well the two fundamental aspects ofperceived organizational support, namely “valorization of employees’ contributions”and “being concerned about employees’ well-being”. According to Rhoades andEisenberger (2002), because of the high internal consistencies, and the unidimensionalityof the SPOS, using a short version is not problematic. A sample item is: “[Name of theorganization/university] really cares about my well-being”. Perceived supervisor supportwas measured using an adapted version of the SPOS (four items) inspired in the samemanner of Rhoades et al. (2001) and Eisenberger et al. (2002), replacing the word“organization” with the term “advisor”. A sample item is “Even if I did the best jobpossible, my advisor would fail to notice” (reverse item). Prior empirical researchindicated good psychometric properties of this perceived supervisor support scale (e.g.Rhoades et al., 2001). Perceived coworker support was operationalized using an adaptedversion of the SPOS in four items inspired in the same manner of Bishop et al. (2000) andLadd and Henry (2000). A sample item is “My coworkers show very little concern for me”(reverse item). Prior studies using this perceived coworker support scale showed goodpsychometric properties (e.g. Ladd and Henry, 2000). Participants responded to a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”).

Work engagement. We used the short version of the “Utrecht Work EngagementScale” in nine items (UWES) (Schaufeli et al., 2002a) to assess work engagement.The scale includes three dimensions: vigor (three items; e.g. “At my work, I feelbursting of energy”), dedication (three items; e.g. “I am enthusiastic about my job”), andabsorption (three items; e.g. “I feel happy when I am working intensely”). The responsescale ranged from 1 (“Never”) to 7 (“Always”).

Workaholism. We measured workaholism using the validated ten-item short version(Del Líbano et al., 2010) of the “Dutch Work Addiction Scale” (DUWAS; Schaufeli et al.,2006) which includes the two dimensions of the construct, i.e. working excessively andworking compulsively. Sample items are: “I find myself continuing work after myco-workers have called it quits” (working excessively; five items) and “I often feel thatthere’s something inside me that drives me to work hard” (working compulsively; fiveitems). The response scale ranged from 1 (“Never”) to 4 (“Always”).

Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction was measured with four items from Eisenbergeret al. (1997). A sample item is: “All in all, I am very satisfied with my current job”.The response scale ranged from 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”).

Perceived stress. We measured perceived stress with four items from the PerceivedStress Scale (PSS) (Cohen et al., 1983). A sample item is: “In the last month, how often

The impactof work

have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them?”.The response scale ranged from 1 (“Never”) to 5 (“Very often”).

Sleep problems. We measured sleep problems with four items from the “Jenkins SleepQuality Index” ( JSQ) ( Jenkins et al., 1988) assessing the most common sleep problems(i.e. difficulties falling asleep, waking up during the night, waking up and havingdifficulties falling asleep again, and waking up tired). The response scale, indicatinghow often the stated condition occurred during an average month, ranged from 1 (“Notat all”) to 6 (“22 to 31 days/month”). A sample item is: “I have had difficulties to fallasleep”.

Control variables. Gender, age, tenure in the university and tenure with the advisorwere measured.

ResultsDiscriminant validityIn order to evaluate the distinctiveness of the eight concepts included in our study(i.e. perceived organizational support, perceived supervisor support, perceived coworkersupport, work engagement, workaholism, job satisfaction, perceived stress, and sleepproblems), we conducted confirmatory factor analyses using Mplus 6.12 (Muthén andMuthén, 1998-2011). Based on the fact that we used the same items to measure eachtype of work related social support (i.e. perceived organizational support, perceivedsupervisor support and perceived coworker support), we allowed the error covariancesof these content-equivalent items to correlate freely. Additionally, due to a considerablecontent overlap among some items included either in the work engagement scale or theworkaholism one, we allowed the error covariances of some of the paired items tocorrelate freely, as it has been previously done in the validation studies of these scales(Del Líbano et al., 2010; Schaufeli et al., 2002b). Based on the χ2 difference test (Bentlerand Bonett, 1980), results of the CFA indicated that the hypothesized measurementmodel fitted the data well and was superior to all more constrained models. Indeed, asdisplayed in Table I, the hypothesized model had a better fit than the alternativemeasurement models. Because our data were self-reported, we also conducted theHarman single-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) by constraining all items to loadon a single factor model. Results indicated that the fit of the one-factor model wasvery poor. Furthermore, in line with Podsakoff et al.’s (2003) and Richardson et al.’s(2009) recommendations, we also tested a model wherein the items loaded bothon their respective hypothesized latent constructs and on a common method factor.The results of this additional analysis indicated that the average variance explained bythe common method factor was 10.89 percent. This value is less than half of the amountof method variance (25 percent) that Williams et al. (1989) refer to for self-reportedstudies.

Furthermore, all items in the hypothesized eight-factor model display acceptableloadings. Indeed, items loaded on their respective factors with loadings rangingfrom 0.58 to 0.87 for perceived organizational support, from 0.67 to 0.93 for perceivedsupervisor support, from 0.67 to 0.92 for perceived coworker support, from 0.50to 0.87 for work engagement, from 0.47 to 0.69 for workaholism, from 0.84 to 0.94for job satisfaction, from 0.69 to 0.78 for perceived stress, and from 0.55 to 0.87 forsleep problems. Based on all of this evidence, the eight variables of our model weretreated as separate constructs in our subsequent analyses in order to test ourhypotheses.

CDI19,7

(Δdf)

CFIRMSE

1.Eight-fa

1,417.37

–0.08

2.Seven-factor

model(W

EandWA¼1factor)

2,092.52

675.15

(7)***

3.Seven-fa

model(POSandPC

S¼1factor)

1,858.65

441.28

(7)***

4.Seven-factor

model(POSandPS

S¼1factor)

1,807.79

390.42

(7)***

5.Seven-factor

model(PCS

S¼1factor)

2,138.77

721.40

(7)***

6.Seven-factor

model(POSandWE¼1factor)

1,922.70

505.33

(7)***

7.Seven-factor

model(POSandWA¼1factor)

1,961.58

544.21

(7)***

8.Seven-factor

model(W

EandJS¼1factor)

1,980.22

562.85

(7)***

9.Seven-factor

model(W

EandST

R¼1factor)

1,866.19

448.82

(7)***

10.Seven-factor

model(W

EandSL

P¼1factor)

1,922.17

504.80

(7)***

11.Seven-factor

model(W

AandST

R¼1factor)

1,811.88

394.51

(7)***

12.Seven-factor

model(W

AandSL

P¼1factor)

1,762.96

345.59

(7)***

13.Six-factor

model(POS,

PSSandPC

S¼1factor)

2,486.10

1,068.73

(13)***

14.Six-factor

model(JS

,STRandSL

P¼1factor)

2,202.08

784.71

(13)***

15.Six-factor

model(W

EandWA¼1factor;P

OSandPS

S¼1factor)

2,480.60

1,063.23

(13)***

16.Five-fa

model(W

EandWA¼1factor;JS,

STRandSL

P¼1factor)

2,847.23

1,429.86

(18)***

model(POS,PS

SandPC

S¼1factor;W

EandWA¼1factor;SLP

R¼1factor)3,445.94

2,028.57

(22)***

18.Three-fa

model(POS,PS

S¼1factor;W

EandJS

¼1factor;W

R¼1factor)3,671.95

2,254.58

(25)***

19.One

factor

4,991.85

3,574.48

(28)***

:n¼343.

WE,workengagement;WA,workaholism;PO

S,perceivedorganizatio

nalsupp

ort;PC

S,perceivedcoworkersupp

ort;PS

S,perceived

supervisor

ort;JS,job

satisfaction;ST

R,perceived

stress;SLP

,sleep

problems;SR

MR,stand

ardizedrootmeansquare

residu

al;CFI,com

parativ

index;

A,rootmeansquare

errorof

approxim

ation;

o0.001

Table I.Confirmatory factor

analyses fit indices formeasurement models

The impactof work

Relationships among variablesMeans, standard deviations, internal reliabilities, and correlations among our variablesare displayed in Table II. All Cronbach’s α’s were above the 0.70 criterion establishedby Nunnally (1978).

Test of hypothesesFollowing Becker’s (2005) recommendations, we only statistically controlled for socio-demographic variables with a significant correlation with the dependent variables inour model (i.e. mediators and outcomes). Therefore, we introduced organizationaltenure and tenure with the supervisor as additional exogenous variables predictingworkaholism and job satisfaction, respectively. Furthermore, tenure with the supervisorand gender were controlled for perceived stress and gender was controlled for sleepproblems. It is even more important to control for these variables given that past researchalso indicated that they have an impact on our dependent variables. More precisely,tenure in the organization has been found to be negatively associated with workaholism(Taris et al., 2005) and job satisfaction (Duffy et al., 1998). Scholars also suggested that isimportant to control for tenure with the supervisor knowing that possible temporal effectsmight explain the influence of the relationship with the supervisor on outcomes (e.g.Wang et al., 2013). Finally, prior research indicated that woman generally report higherlevels of stress (e.g. Gyllensten and Palmer, 2005) and sleep problems than men (e.g.Ohayon, 1996). Therefore, as recommended by Spector and Brannick (2011), we includedthese control variables in the subsequent analyses, based on reasonable theoretical orempirical evidence that these socio-demographic variables are linked to variablesincluded in our research model. Using Mplus 6.12 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998-2011), weconducted SEM analyses in order to test our hypotheses. Because of the differentresponse scales, all items responses were standardized prior to these analyses. Then, wecompared the fit of our hypothesized model with nine alternative models. Table IIIdisplays the fit indices of all these models. As shown in this table, results indicated thatthe hypothesized model has a good fit to the data, as indicated by a χ2(950)¼ 1730.55,a CFI of 0.90, a SRMR of 0.10 and a RMSEA of 0.05. However, based on the χ2 differencetest (Bentler and Bonett, 1980), some χ2 changes were significant, and revealed that thealternative model 4, which adds paths between perceived organizational support andjob satisfaction, between perceived stress and sleep problems, and between perceivedsupervisor support and job satisfaction, was superior to the hypothesized model and thealternative models 1, 2 and 3 (for more details, see Table III). Therefore, this alternativemodel 4 was retained as the best fitting model (χ2(946)¼ 1658.43, RMSEA¼ 0.05,SRMR¼ 0.09 and CFI¼ 0.91). Standardized parameter estimates of this alternativemodel 4 are presented in Figure 2. For the sakeof clarity, the effects of the controlvariables are detailed in the text. Organizational tenure was related to job satisfaction(γ¼−0.12, po0.05) but not to workaholism (γ¼ 0.14, ns). Tenure with the supervisorwas related to job satisfaction (γ¼ 0.10, po0.05) but not to workaholism and perceivedstress (γ¼−0.05, ns; γ¼ 0.01, ns). Gender has a significant impact on perceived stress andsleep problems (γ¼−0.10, po0.05; γ¼−0.14, po0.01, respectively), indicating that menperceive less stress and suffer less from sleep problems than women.

Controlling for these variables, results indicated that work engagement is positivelyassociated with job satisfaction (β¼ 0.54, po0.001) and negatively with perceivedstress (β¼−0.29, po0.001), but not with sleep problems (β¼−0.11, ns), supportingH1(a) and H1(b). In the opposite, results indicated that workaholism is negatively

CDI19,7

Variable

1.Gender

––

3.Organizational

re3.02

0.46***

4.Tenurewith

advisor

0.43***

0.80***

−0.10

−0.25***

−0.27***

(0.82)

6.Perceived

supervisor

−0.01

−0.08

−0.29***

−0.30***

0.46***

(0.90)

7.Perceivedcoworker

−0.02

−0.18**

−0.12*

−0.13*

0.30***

0.32***

(0.89)

8.Workengagement

−0.08

−0.05

0.26***

0.32***

(0.89)

9.Workaholism

−0.03

0.15**

−0.20***

−0.17**

−0.19**

0.19***

(0.83)

10.Job

satisfaction

−0.09

−0.24***

−0.17**

0.49***

0.56***

0.30***

0.61***

−0.21***

(0.93)

erceived

stress

−0.14**

−0.33***

−0.23***

−0.19**

−0.28***

0.33***

−0.39***

(0.82)

problems

−0.20***

−0.01

−0.27***

−0.24***

−0.18**

−0.11*

0.38***

−0.29***

0.42***

(0.80)

:n¼343.Cronbach’sα’sareprovided

inparentheseson

thediagonal.G

enderw

ascoded0¼maleand1¼female.Organizationaltenureandtenu

rewith

advisorarepresentedin

years.PO

S,perceivedorganizatio

nalsup

port;*po

0.05;**p

o0.01;***po

Table II.Descriptive statisticsand intercorrelations

among variables

The impactof work

AΔχ2

(Δdf)

Modelcomparison

othesized

1,730.55

32.57(1)***

othesizedvs

alternative1

Alternative1(hyp

othesized+

addedbetw

SandJS)

1,697.98

Alternative1vs

alternative2

Alternative2(alternative1+

addedbetw

SandST

1,690.91

Alternative2vs

alternative3

addedbetw

SandSL

1,683.73

25.30(1)***

Alternative3vs

alternative4

addedbetw

SandJS)

1,658.43

––

addedbetw

SandST

1,657.39

Alternative4vs

alternative5

addedbetw

SandSL

1,656.23

Alternative4vs

alternative6

addedbetw

SandJS)

1,657.37

Alternative4vs

alternative7

addedbetw

SandST

1,658.64

Alternative4vs

alternative2

addedbetw

SandSL

1,656.21

Alternative4vs

alternative9

:n¼343.

perceivedorganizatio

nalsupp

ort;PS

S,perceivedsupervisor

ort;PC

S,perceivedcoworkersupp

ort;JS,jobsatisfaction;

perceivedstress;S

sleepproblems;SR

MR,stand

ardizedroot

meansquare

residu

FI,com

parativ

index;

A,rootmeansquare

errorof

approxim

ation;

0.01;***po

Table III.Study 1: fit indicesfor structuralmodels

CDI19,7

related to job satisfaction (β¼−0.19, po0.001), and positively related to perceivedstress (β¼ 0.36, po0.001), and sleep problems (β¼ 0.37, po0.001), providing supportfor H2(a), H2(b) and H2(c). Furthermore, perceived organizational support is positivelyrelated to work engagement (γ¼ 0.13, po0.05) but is not related to workaholism(γ¼−0.10, ns). However, perceived organizational support has direct effects on jobsatisfaction (γ¼ 0.19, po0.001), perceived stress (γ¼−0.21, po0.01) and sleepproblems (γ¼−0.17, po0.01). Perceived supervisor support is also positively linked towork engagement (γ¼ 0.35, po0.001) but not to workaholism (γ¼−0.05, ns) and hasa direct positive impact on job satisfaction (γ¼ 0.25, po0.001). Additionally, resultsindicated that perceived coworker support is negatively related to workaholism(γ¼−0.15, po0.05), but not to work engagement (γ¼ 0.01, ns).

A bootstrapping analysis was performed on the final model (alternative 4; Preacherand Hayes, 2004) in order to test the unstandardized indirect effects. The results of thisanalysis indicated that the indirect effects of perceived organizational support on jobsatisfaction and perceived stress through work engagement are significant (indirecteffect¼ 0.07; BCa 95 percent CI¼ [0.006; 0.140] and indirect effect¼−0.03; BCa 95percent CI¼ [−0.078; −0.005], respectively), supporting H3(a) and H3(b). Furthermore,the indirect effects of perceived supervisor support on job satisfaction and perceivedstress through work engagement are also significant (indirect effect¼ 0.17; BCa 95percent CI¼ [0.111; 0.237] and indirect effect¼−0.09; BCa 95 percent CI¼ [−0.137;−0.049], respectively), supporting H3(a) and H3(b). Finally, results showed that theindirect effects of perceived coworker support on job satisfaction, perceived stress, andsleep problems through workaholism are significant (indirect effect¼ 0.03; BCa 95percent CI¼ [0.001; 0.066]; indirect effect¼−0.04; BCa 95 percent CI¼ [−0.105; −0.003]and indirect effect¼−0.04; BCa 95 precent CI¼ [−0.098; −0.002], respectively),providing support for H4(a), H4(b) and H4(c).

DiscussionThe purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between workaholism andwork engagement with various indicators of well-being (i.e. job satisfaction, perceived

–0.10

0.35***

–0.05

0.01–0.15*

0.54***

–0.29***

–0.11

–0.19***0.36***

0.37***

0.19*** 0.25***

–0.21**

–0.17**

Work Engagement

Workaholism

JobSatisfaction

PerceivedStress

SleepProblems

Notes: Only structural relationships are shown. POS, perceived organizational support; PSS,perceived supervisor support; PCS = perceived coworker support. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01;***p < 0.001

Figure 2.Completely standardizedpath coefficients for the

alternative model 4

The impactof work

stress, and sleep problems). Furthermore, the study was designed to explore thepotential influence of various sources of support (perceived organizational support,perceived supervisor support, and perceived coworker support) on these relationships.To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that tests the joint influence of workengagement and workaholism on perceived stress and sleep problems. Furthermore,this is the first research that investigates the effects of three different forms ofwork-related social support on work engagement and workaholism, which in turninfluence employee’ well-being.

Our findings indicated that associations of workaholism and work engagement withindicators of well-being are opposite. More precisely, workaholism relates to negativeindicators of well-being (i.e. lower levels of job satisfaction and higher levels of stressand sleep problems), whereas work engagement is associated with positive outcomes(i.e. higher levels of job satisfaction and lower levels of perceived stress). Our resultscorroborate prior research which found that workaholism is related to lower levels ofjob satisfaction (e.g. Del Libano et al., 2012), more health complaints (e.g. Schaufeli et al.,2006), and higher levels of sleep problems (e.g. Kubota et al., 2010). Furthermore,our findings are in line with prior studies which showed that work engagement ispositively associated with higher levels of job satisfaction (e.g. van Beek et al., 2014)and a better mental and physical health (e.g. Schaufeli et al., 2008b). Interestingly,our results indicated no significant impact of work engagement on sleep problems.Nevertheless, our findings replicate the significant negative correlation found byHallberg and Schaufeli (2006) between work engagement and sleep disturbances, butfail to demonstrate that work engagement actually reduces sleep problems. This absenceof result can be explained in several ways. Contrary to Hallberg and Schaufeli’s (2006)study, our research considered the effect of workaholism and work engagementaltogether on sleep problems so that workaholism can account for the majority of thevariance of sleep problems. Furthermore, we measured sleep problems with another scalethan Hallberg and Schaufeli (2006).

Concerning the question of which source of support influences work engagementand workaholism to eventually predict well-being, our results indicated that perceivedorganizational support, perceived supervisor support, and perceived coworker supportare empirically distinct constructs that have different effects on work engagement andworkaholism. More precisely, our results showed that work engagement partiallymediated the relationship between perceived organizational support and both jobsatisfaction and perceived stress. Perceived organizational support has indeed a directpositive impact on job satisfaction and a direct negative impact on perceived stress andsleep problems. Work engagement was also found to mediate the influence of perceivedsupervisor support on job satisfaction (partially) and perceived stress (totally). Finally,workaholism was found to fully mediate the relationship between perceived coworkersupport and job satisfaction, perceived stress, and sleep problems.

In short, our results indicated that perceived organizational support and perceivedsupervisor support are able to foster work engagement whereas perceivedcoworker support is negatively associated with workaholism. To be more precise,perceived supervisor support has a higher impact on work engagement than perceivedorganizational support (Δχ2(1)¼ 3.14, po0.10). Overall, these findings thus providedevidence for Ng and Sorensen’s (2008) recommendations suggesting that differentsources of social support have different effects and vary in terms of strength of theassociations with employees’ outcomes. Furthermore, our results are in line withthe multi-foci perspective in the social exchange literature (Cropanzano et al., 2004;

CDI19,7

Lavelle et al., 2007) which suggest that people can develop multiple relationships atwork and have distinct social exchange relationships with diverse organizationalentities, such as the organization as a whole, and with specific entities within theorganization such as supervisors, coworkers, or work groups (Cropanzano et al., 2004;Lavelle et al., 2007). In this multi-foci view, employees’ proximity and high frequencyof interaction with local organizational representatives and constituencies providean advantage over more encompassing organizational units, including the entireorganization, for developing strong exchange relationships (e.g. Becker, 1992; Muellerand Lawler, 1999). Accordingly, studies based on this multi-foci perspective ofsocial exchange showed, for instance, that more proximal social exchange targets(i.e. supervisors or team) are stronger predictors of employees’ performance than moredistal targets (e.g. the organization; Lavelle et al., 2007). According to Mueller and Lawler(1999), this phenomenon can be explained by the fact that more proximal targets providedemployees with a more important sense of control over their work. Our results aretherefore consistent with these studies, in showing that more proximal units of socialsupport (i.e. supervisor support and coworker support) have stronger associationswith work engagement for the former (i.e. supervisor support) and workaholism for thelatter (i.e. coworker support) than a more distal unit, i.e. organizational support.

By doing so, we extend previous knowledge in showing which source of supportis the most effective to influence each of these two forms of working hard. Moreprecisely, the finding that perceived supervisor support contributes more stronglyto work engagement than other sources of work-related social support is consistentwith suggestions made by previous authors that high frequency of interaction withsupervisors helps to create strong relationships with these entities (e.g. Becker, 1992).Supervisors also play a serious role in employees’ everyday work life (Liden et al., 1997)and are a critical resource in their daily work. Furthermore, our findings also indicatethat perceived coworker support is the only work-related source of support presentin our study to be able to reduce employees’ workaholism. Perceived support fromcoworkers might be able to help workaholic employees to detach from their job, forinstance by inciting them to engage in off-job activities (e.g. sports), by distracting themfrom their work, or by boosting their social life outside their work. Finally, contraryto past research (e.g. Gillet et al., 2013), our results showed that perceived coworkersupport does not predict work engagement. This divergence of results may be dueto the fact that, in the current study, we took into account and controlled for the effectsof the three sources of work-related social support altogether on work engagement andworkaholism. Therefore, perceived supervisor support and, in a lesser extent, perceivedorganizational support account for the majority of variance in work engagement.Supporting this view, this particular finding is consistent with some prior studies (e.g.Othman and Nasurdin, 2013) that found that coworker support was not related to workengagement when the influence of supervisor support was taken into account.

Limitations and perspectives for future researchDespite its contributions, several limitations of this research should be mentioned.First, the cross-sectional design of the study prevents us from making any inference ofcausality among the variables included in our model. For instance, our results indicatedthat perceived coworker support is negatively related to workaholism. However, wecannot exclude the possibility that workaholic employees might perceive less supportfrom their coworkers than non-workaholic employees. Therefore, longitudinal research

The impactof work

with repeated measures is needed in order to investigate causal relationships withmore acuity.

Second, the data were exclusively based on self-reported measurements, whichexposed our study to the common method variance effect. Nevertheless, our study wasprimarily intended to assess employees’ perceptions at work and we therefore neededto measure self-perception of these constructs. As recommended by Podsakoff et al.(2003), we assured respondents of the anonymity of their responses in order to reducethis common method bias. Even with these precautions, we cannot totally exclude thepossibility that common method bias may have influenced our results. Therefore,as indicated above, we also conducted the Harman’s one-factor test (Podsakoff et al.,2003) in our sample and the results showed a very poor fit of a one-factor model.Furthermore, as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003), we also tested a modelwherein the items loaded both on their respective hypothesized latent constructs andon a common method factor. The results indicated that the average variance explainedin the items by the common method factor was only 10.89 percent. This evidenceconsiderably reduces our concerns regarding this potential threat.

Third, the results of this study are specific to a PhD student population and basedon a very homogenous sample. In order to increase the generability of our findings,future research should thus replicate these results among various organizational andindustrial settings.

Fourth, given this specificity of our sample, it would have been very interesting toexamine the influence of other sources of social support in the University on employees’well-being. In particular, future research should consider the influence of sourcesof support which are comprised between the organizational and the supervisor level,i.e. the perceived support from the faculty or from the research department.

Fifth, we examined the effects of three forms of work-related social support onemployees’ well-being, through work engagement and workaholism, without includingany job demands in our research model. However, prior studies have reporteda strong positive relationship between employees’ workaholism and job demands(e.g. Schaufeli et al., 2008b). Indeed, workaholic employees’ tend to create theirown job demands (Guglielmi et al., 2012), such as making their work morecomplicated by accepting new tasks (e.g. Machlowitz, 1980). In line with this, Tariset al. (2005) found that the positive relationship between workaholism and employees’exhaustion is partially mediated by job demands (i.e. work overload). In a similarvein, Schaufeli et al. (2009b) showed that role conflict was a mediator of therelationships between workaholism and employees’ well-being (i.e. burnout, jobsatisfaction, happiness, and perceived health). Furthermore, other scholars haveargued based on the COR theory that job resources might become more salient inorder to influence employees’ work engagement when employees face high levelsof job demands (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007). In line with this view, Hakanen et al.(2005) found that when resources at work were high (i.e. positive contacts withpatients, peer contacts, variability in professional skills), these resources were able toattenuate the negative effects of job demands on work engagement. Given theseempirical studies, we think that future research should replicate our study by takinginto account the influence of job demands in the investigated relationships. Basedon the evidence above, job demands might be hypothesized as interacting with socialsupport in predicting work engagement, whereas they might also be consideredas a mediator in the relationships between workaholism and well-being (i.e. jobsatisfaction, perceived stress, and sleep problems). Future research should thus

CDI19,7

examine the precise role played by job demands in the theoretical model thatwe tested.

Future research should also envisage the possibility that work-related social supportmight have a dark side in certain cases. In line with this idea, Beehr et al. (2010)suggested the possibility that social interactions in the workplace such as supervisoror colleague support might be harmful for employees’ psychological and physicalhealth under certain circumstances. Results of their study showed, for instance, thatsocial interactions with the supervisor or with colleagues might increase rather thanreduce employees’ strains when these interactions serve to underline how stressfulthe situation is. Therefore, it might be possible that the positive influence of perceivedsupervisor support or perceived coworker support on employees’ well-being foundin this study is canceled or reversed under specific circumstances or for specificindividuals (e.g. when employees are not in demand of social support). Future researchis therefore needed to address this specific and interesting issue.

Finally, because we were interested in the relative impact of each source ofwork-related social support, we examined the influence of perceived organizationalsupport, perceived supervisor support and perceived coworker support independentlyof their influence on each other. However, we should also note that authors haveunderlined that these three sources of work-related support are important entities inthe work environment and that “perceptions of support given by any one of thesesources is likely to influence perceptions of support given by the others” (Ng andSorensen, 2008, p. 262). In line with this view, a large body of research has, for instance,reported a positive relationship between perceived supervisor support and perceivedorganizational support (e.g. Eisenberger et al., 2002; Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002;Rhoades et al., 2001). Therefore, future research may, for instance, investigate whetherperceived supervisor support influences perceived organizational support which, inturn, impacts work engagement.

Practical implicationsAlthough the current findings rely on a sample of PhD students who represent aspecific and peculiar category of workers, this study has valuable potential practicalimplications for managers and practitioners because it provides new understandingconcerning the consequences of work engagement and workaholism on employees’well-being. Because work engagement is associated with positive indicators ofwell-being (increased job satisfaction and reduced perceived stress), whereasworkaholism is linked to negative ones (reduced job satisfaction, increased perceivedstress and sleep problems), managers should promote practices in order to foster workengagement and prevent workaholism. In line with this point of view, our findingsindicated that the most powerful source of support to foster work engagement isperceived supervisor support. Therefore, managers should encourage supervisors tobe supportive. More precisely, they should inspire supervisors to be more active in thissupportive role (Newman et al., 2012). Perceived supervisor support can also be fosteredby encouraging supervisors to have regular meetings with their subordinates (Newmanet al., 2012) or by training them to be supportive in their role of directing, evaluatingand coaching their subordinates (Eisenberger and Stinglhamber, 2011). Anotherpossible way to foster supervisor support is by promoting a two-way communicationthat helps to create a climate of trust between employees and supervisors (Ng andSorensen, 2008). If supervisors are present for their subordinates when needed and help

The impactof work

them both instrumentally and emotionally, it might also increase levels of perceivedsupervisor support (Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2013). Furthermore, our resultsindicated that perceived organizational support enhances work engagement, albeit to alesser extent than perceived supervisor support. Perceived organizational support alsoincreases job satisfaction and decreases perceived stress and sleep problems. Practically,perceived organizational support can be promoted, for instance, by maintaining openchannels of communication, by providing useful resources for employees when they arein need in order to help them to do their job adequately, or by providing job securitythrough the fixed aim of avoiding layoff as much as possible (Eisenberger andStinglhamber, 2011). In addition, previous studies indicated that perceived organizationalsupport can be fostered by providing effective training for employees, by enhancingemployees’ autonomy to fulfill their job responsibilities and by increasing proceduralfairness regarding rewards and positive job conditions (Eisenberger and Stinglhamber,2011). Finally, our results showed that perceived coworker support has a negativeinfluence on workaholism. Therefore, managers should enhance support amongcoworkers in order to reduce workaholism. For example, managers can encourageinformal mentoring among employees in order to build a strong social network ororganize social events outside of work where employees will be invited to freely interactwith coworkers (Newman et al., 2012). Managers can also help to create an organizationalculture where interactions between colleagues from different departments or units are acommon practice (Newman et al., 2012).

ReferencesBakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: state of the art”,

Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.

Becker, T.E. (1992), “Foci and bases of commitment: are they distinctions worth making?”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 232-244.

Becker, T.E. (2005), “Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizationalresearch: a qualitative analysis with recommendations”, Organizational Research Methods,Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 274-289.

Beehr, T.A., Bowling, N.A. and Bennett, M.M. (2010), “Occupational stress and failures of socialsupport: when helping hurts”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1,pp. 45-59.

Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis ofcovariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.

Bishop, J.W., Scott, K.D. and Burroughs, S.M. (2000), “Support, commitment, and employeeoutcomes in a team environment”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1113-1132.

Bonebright, C.A., Clay, D.L. and Ankenmann, R.D. (2000), “The relationship of workaholism withwork-life conflict, life satisfaction, and purpose in life”, Journal of Counseling Psychology,Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 469-477.

Brislin, R.W. (1980), “Translation and content analysis of oral and written material”, in Triandis, H.C.and Berry, J.W. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA,pp. 398-444.

Caesens, G. and Stinglhamber, F. (2014), “The relationship between perceived organizationalsupport and work engagement: the role of self-efficacy and its outcomes”, European Reviewof Applied Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 5, pp. 259-267.

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T. and Mermelstein, R. (1983), “A global measure of perceived stress”,Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 385-396.

CDI19,7

Cropanzano, R., Chrobot-Mason, D., Rupp, D.E. and Prehar, C. (2004), “Accounting for corporateinjustice”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 107-133.

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior,Plenum, New York, NY.

Del Líbano, M., Llorens, S., Salanova, M. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2010), “Validity of a briefworkaholism scale”, Psicothema, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 143-150.

Del Líbano, M., Llorens, S., Salanova, M. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2012), “About the dark and brightsides of self-efficacy: workaholism and work engagement”, The Spanish Journal ofPsychology, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 688-701.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The job demands-resources model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 499-512.

Duffy, M.K., Ganster, D.C. and Shaw, J.D. (1998), “Positive affectivity and negative outcomes: therole of tenure and job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 950-959.

Eisenberger, R. and Stinglhamber, F. (2011), Perceived Organizational Support: FosteringEnthusiastic and Productive Employees, APA Books, Washington, DC.

Eisenberger, R., Cummings, J., Armeli, S. and Lynch, P.D. (1997), “Perceived organizationalsupport, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 82 No. 5, pp. 812-820.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizationalsupport”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 500-507.

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I.L. and Rhoades, L. (2002),“Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support andemployee retention”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 565-573.

Frese, M. (2008), “The changing nature of work”, in Chmiel, N. (Ed), An Introduction to Work andOrganizational Psychology, Blackwell publishing, Oxford, pp. 397-414.

George, J.M., Reed, T.F., Ballard, K.A., Colin, J. and Fielding, J. (1993), “Contact with aids patientsas a source of work-related distress: effects of organizational and social support”, Academyof Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 157-171.

Gillet, N., Huart, I., Colombat, P. and Fouquereau, E. (2013), “Perceived organizational support,motivation, and engagement among police officers”, Professional Psychology: Research andPractice, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 46-55.

Guglielmi, D., Simbula, S., Schaufeli, W.B. and Depolo, M. (2012), “Self-efficacy and workaholismas initiators of the job demands-resources model”, The Career Development International,Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 375-389.

Gyllensten, K. and Palmer, S. (2005), “The role of gender in workplace stress: a critical literaturereview”, Health Education Journal, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 271-288.

Hakanen, J.J., Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2005), “How dentists cope with their job demandsand stay engaged: the moderating role of job resources”, European Journal of Oral Sciences,Vol. 113 No. 6, pp. 479-87.

Hakanen, J.J. and Roodt, G. (2010), “Using the job demands-resources model to predictengagement: analysing a conceptual model”, in Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds), WorkEngagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, New York,NY, pp. 85-101.

Hallberg, U. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), “Same but different: can work engagement be discriminatedfrom job involvement and organizational commitment?”, European Journal of Psychology,Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 119-127.

The impactof work

Higgins, E.T. (1997), “Beyond pleasure and pain”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 12,pp. 1280-1300.

Hobfoll, S.E. (1985), “The limitations of social support in the stress process”, in Sarason, I.G. andSarason, B.R. (Eds), Social Support: Theory, Research and Applications, Martinus Nijhoff,Boston, MA, pp. 391-414.

Hobfoll, S.E. (2002), “Social and psychological resources and adaptation”, Review of GeneralPsychology, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 307-324.

Jenkins, C.D., Stanton, B.A., Niemcryk, S.J. and Rose, R.M. (1988), “A scale for the estimation ofsleep problems in clinical research”, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 313-321.

Johnstone, A. and Johnston, L. (2005), “The relationship between organizational climate, occupationaltype and workaholism”, New Zealand Journal of Psychology, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 181-188.

Kinnunen, U., Feldt, T. and Makikangas, A. (2008), “Testing the effort-reward imbalance modelamong finnish managers: the role of perceived organizational support”, Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 114-127.

Korunka, C., Kubicek, B., Schaufeli, W. and Hoonakker, P.L.T. (2009), “Burnout and workengagement: do age, gender, or occupation level matter: testing the robustness of the jobdemands-resources model”, Positive Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 243-255.

Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J. and Fiksenbaum, L. (2006), “Work engagement among womenmanagers and professionals in a Turkish bank: potential antecedents and consequences”,Equal Opportunities International, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 299-310.

Kubota, K., Shimazu, A., Kawakami, N. and Takahashi, M. (2012), “Workaholism and sleepquality among Japanese employees: a prospective cohort study”, International Journal ofBehavioral Medicine, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-11.

Kubota, K., Shimazu, A., Kawakami, N., Takahashi, M., Nakata, A. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2010),“Association between workaholism and sleep problems among hospital nurses”, IndustrialHealth, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 864-871.

Ladd, D. and Henry, R.A. (2000), “Helping coworkers and helping the organization: the role ofsupport perceptions, exchange ideology, and conscientiousness”, Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, Vol. 30 No. 10, pp. 2028-2049.

Lavelle, J.J., Rupp, D.E. and Brockner, J. (2007), “Taking a multifoci approach to the study ofjustice, social exchange, and citizenship behavior: the target similarity model”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 841-866.

Liden, R.C., Sparrowe, R.T. and Wayne, S.J. (1997), “Leader-member exchange theory: the pastand potential for the future”, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and HumanResources Management, Vol. 15, JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 47-19.

Machlowitz, M. (1980), Workaholics: Living with Them, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.

McMillan, L. and O’Driscoll, M.P. (2006), “Exploring new frontiers to generate an integrateddefinition of workaholism”, in Burke, R.J. (Ed), Research Companion to Working Time andWork Addiction, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 89-107.

Mueller, C.W. and Lawler, E.J. (1999), “Commitment to nested organizational units: somebasic principles and preliminary findings”, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 62 No. 4,pp. 325-346.

Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2011), Mplus User’s Guide, 6th ed., Los Angeles, CA.

Myers, S.B., Sweeney, A.C., Popick, V., Wesley, K., Bordfeld, A. and Fingerhut, R. (2012), “Self-care practices and perceived stress levels among psychology graduate students”, Trainingand Education in Professional Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 55-66.

CDI19,7

Newman, A., Thanacoody, R. and Hui, W. (2012), “The effects of perceived organizationalsupport, perceived supervisor support and intra-organizational network resources onturnover intentions: a study of Chinese employees in multinational enterprises”, PersonnelReview, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 56-72.

Ng, T.W.H. and Sorensen, K.L. (2008), “Toward a further understanding of the relationshipsbetween perceptions of support and work attitudes: a meta-analysis”, Group & OrganizationManagement, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 243-268.

Nicklin, J.M. and McNall, L.A. (2013), “Work-family enrichment, support, and satisfaction: a testof mediation”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 1,pp. 67-77.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Ohayon, M. (1996), “Epidemiological study on insomnia in the general population”, Sleep, Vol. 19

No. 3, pp. 7-15.Othman, N. and Nasurdin, A.M. (2013), “Social support and work engagement: a study of

Malaysian nurses”, Journal of Nursing Management, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 1083-1090.Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in

behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journalof Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.

Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects insimple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, Vol. 36No. 4, pp.717-731.

Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), “Perceived organizational support: a review of theliterature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), “Affective commitment to the organization: thecontribution of perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86No. 5, pp. 825-836.

Richardson, H.A., Simmering, M.J. and Sturman, M.C. (2009), “A tale of three perspectivesexamining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common methodvariance”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 762-800.

Salanova, M., Agut, S. and Peiró, J.M. (2005), “Linking organizational resources and workengagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of serviceclimate”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, pp. 1217-1227.

Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources and their relationship withburnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 293-315.

Schaufeli, W.B. and Salanova, M. (2007), “Work engagement: an emerging psychological conceptand its implications for organizations”, in Gilliland, S.W., Steiner, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P.(Eds), Research in Social Issues in Management: Managing Social and Ethical Issues inOrganizations, Information Age Publishers, Greenwich, CT, pp. 135-177.

Schaufeli, W.B., Shimazu, A. and Taris, T.W. (2009a), “Being driven to work excessively hard: theevaluation of a two-factor measure of workaholism in the Netherlands and Japan”, Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 320-348.

Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T. and Bakker, A.B. (2006), “Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde: on the differencesbetween work engagement and workaholism”, in Burke, R.J. (Ed), Research Companion toWorking Time and Work Addiction, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 193-217.

Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and Bakker, A.B. (2008a), “It takes two to tango. workaholismis working excessively and working compulsively”, in Burke, R.J. and Cooper, C.L. (Eds),The Long Work Hours Culture. Causes, Consequences and Choices, Emerald, Bingley,pp. 203-226.

The impactof work

Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and van Rhenen, W. (2008b), “Workaholism, burnout, and workengagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being?”, AppliedPsychology: An International Review, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 173-203.

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., Van der Hijden, H. and Prins, J.T. (2009b), “Workaholism, burnoutand well-being among junior doctors: the mediating role of role conflict”, Work & Stress,Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 155-172.

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A. (2002a), “The measurement ofburnout and engagement: a confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of HappinessStudies, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.

Schaufeli, W.B., Martínez, I.M., Marques Pinto, A., Salanova, M. and Bakker, A.B. (2002b),“Burnout and engagement in university students: a cross-national study”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 464-481.

Somech, A. and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013), “Organizational citizenship behaviour and employee’sstrain: examining the buffering effects of leader support and participation in decisionmaking”, European Journal ofWork and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 138-149.

Sonnentag, S. (2003), “Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look atthe interface between nonwork and work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3,pp. 518-528.

Spector, P.E. and Brannick, M.T. (2011), “Methodological urban legends: the misuse of statisticalcontrol variables”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 287-305.

Sulea, C., Virga, D., Maricutoiu, L.P., Schaufeli, W., Dumitru, C.Z. and Sava, F.A. (2012), “Workengagement as mediator between job characteristics and positive and negative extra-rolebehaviors”, The Career Development International, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 188-207.

Taris, T.W., Schaufeli, W.B. and Verhoeven, L.C. (2005), “Workaholism in the Netherlands:measurement and implications for job strain and work-nonwork conflict”, AppliedPsychology: An International Review, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 37-60.

Taris, T.W., Schaufeli, W.B., Shimazu, A. and Leiter, M.P. (2010), “The push and pull of work: thedifferences between workaholism and work engagement”, in Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P.(Eds), Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, PsychologyPress, New York, NY, pp. 39-53.

van Beek, I., Taris, T.W. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2011), “Workaholic and work engaged employees:dead ringers or worlds apart?”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 3,pp. 468-482.

van Beek, I., Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and Schreurs, B.H.J. (2012), “For fun, love, ormoney: what drives workaholic, engaged, and burned out employees at work?”, AppliedPsychology: An International Review, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 30-55.

van Beek, I., Taris, T.W., Schaufeli, W.B. and Brenninkmeijer, V. (2014), “Heavy work investment:its motivational make-up and outcomes”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 1,pp. 46-62.

Van Wijhe, C., Peeters, M.C.W. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2014), “Enough is enough! cognitiveantecedents of workaholism and its aftermath”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 53No. 1, pp. 157-177.

van Wijhe, C., Peeters, M.C.V., Schaufeli, W.B. and van den Hout, M. (2011), “Understandingworkaholism and work engagement: the role of mood and stop rules”, The CareerDevelopment International, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 254-270.

Wang, P., Walumbwa, F.O., Wang, H. and Aryee, S. (2013), “Unraveling the relationship betweenfamily-supportive supervisor and employee performance”, Group & OrganizationManagement, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 258-287.

CDI19,7

Whetten, D.A. (1989), “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 490-495.

Williams, L.J., Cote, J.A. and Buckley, M.R. (1989), “Lack of method variance in self-reportedaffect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact?”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74No. 3, pp. 462-468.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2008), “Workingin the sky: a diary study on work engagement among flight attendants”, Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 345-356.

About the authorsGaëtane Caesens is a PhD Student in Industrial and Organizational Psychology at thePsychological Sciences Research Institute (IPSY) of the Université catholique de Louvain(Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium). Her research interests focus on perceived organizational support,work engagement, and well-being. Gaëtane Caesens is the corresponding author and can becontacted at: gaetane.caesens@uclouvain.be

Florence Stinglhamber is an Associate Professor of Organizational Psychology and HumanResource Management in the Psychology Department at the Université catholique de Louvain(Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium). Her research interests include perceived organizational support,employees’ identification and commitment in the workplace, perceived justice and trust, andemployer branding. She is the (co-)author of a number of scientific articles and the co-authorof the APA book titled “Perceived organizational support: Fostering enthusiastic and productiveemployees”.

Gaylord Luypaert is a PhD Student in Social Psychology at the Psychological SciencesResearch Institute (IPSY) of the Université catholique de Louvain. He holds an MSc Organisationaland Social psychology from the Université catholique de Louvain. His main research interests arebehavioral economics and morality of everyday behavior.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

The impactof work

The impact of work engagement and workaholism on well-being

Documents

Occupational engagement, doing, being, becoming

Sustaining Employee Engagement & Performance - Why Well-being Matters

Thriving Campuses: Driving Employee and Student Well-Being and Engagement€¦ · Thriving Campuses: Driving Employee and Student Well-Being and Engagement Brandon Busteed Executive

Workaholism Fact An

Workaholism and work–family conflict among university

Civic Engagement, Intersectionality & Well-Being in Higher ... · Civic Engagement, Intersectionality & Well-Being in Higher Education: The Vital Role of Social-Emotional Learning

Workaholism, presenteeism, work–family conflicts and

Work Craving: A Conceptualization and Measurement · workaholism (Van Beek, Taris, & Schaufeli, 2011), mean-ing that engaged workaholism can be diagnosed in work-ers. In our opinion,

Running Head: Workaholism Profiles · Workaholism Profiles 1 Oates (1971) defined workaholism as “the compulsion or the uncontrollable need to work incessantly” (p. 1). Machlowitz

The Economics of Workaholism: We Should Not Have Worked on ...ftp.iza.org/dp1680.pdf · workaholism, while only 17 percent self-reported this among adults who worked fewer than 20

Occupational engagement. Doing, being, becoming and belonging

215608307 Workaholism Ul

Workaholism y conflicto trabajo-familia: causas y ... finales/ Archivos/tfg_erix... · Workaholism y conflicto trabajo-familia: causas y repercusiones sobre el trabajador y su entorno

Workaholism Its Defivnition and Nature

Sustaining Engagement - Insights in Well-Being Improvement

Differential Effects of Workaholism and Work Engagement on ...Workaholism is an addiction to work, characterized by obsessive attitude towards job, whereas work engagement concerns

Workaholism y conflicto trabajo-familia: causas y

Impact of Workaholism Mgr-11!2!241

Strategies to enhance employee well-being and engagement

Occupational Engagement, Doing, Being, Becoming and Belonging