User:MGMT90018 2015S2 Workaholic/sandbox

This sandbox is only for assignment purpose. Please refer to the established Workaholic page in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workaholic

Definition
A workaholic was first defined by Oates (1971) as “a person whose need for work has become so excessive that it creates a noticeable disturbance or interference with his [or her] bodily health, personal happiness, and interpersonal relations, and with his smooth social functioning”(p. 4). This definition focuses on the potential non-work effects related to workaholism. This approach can be described as a reflection of the addiction model as it implies the negative aspects that are associated with workaholism. This conceptualization was adopted by Minirth et al. (1981), who defined workaholics as individuals whose engagement in work activities proved to have significant negative influence in their personal lifes and relationships. Similarly, Robinson (1989) and Porter (1996) described workaholics as those who disregard nonworking aspects in their life (e.g., personal relationships and health issues). Moreover, Klaft and Kleiner (1988) stressed that workaholics are not addicted to the rewards of work but addicted to the work itself. In line with these conceptualizations is the finding of Robinson (1989) who alleged that “the overabundance of work takes precedence over everyone and everything else in the lives of workaholics”(p. 42). In addition, Robinson (2000) described similarities between a workaholic and an alcoholic by stating that "Work addiction is an addiction in the same way that alcoholism is an addiction". He also progressively noted that it is "an unconscious attempt to resolve unmet psychological needs that have roots in the family of origin and can lead to unmanageable life, family disintegration, serious health problems, and even death” (p. 5). Porter (1996) also covered the mutual features between workaholism and alcoholism (e.g., rigidity, identity issues, withdrawal symptoms). He suggested that workaholics are constantly exceeding the level of work involvement that is necessary to complete a task successfully. This differentiates between a hard working person and a workaholic.

Some researchers such as Mosier (1983) defined workaholics in a more simplistic way only if people who work more than 50 hours a week. However, this definition has been considered as inadequate since the working hour has been extended in recent years, on average, (non-workaholic) management-level worker devotes at least 50 hours per week to work.

Other researchers take the attitude of workaholics towards work into account. Similar to Porter (1996), Machlowitz (1980) conceptualized workaholics as individuals who "always devote more time and thoughts to their work than the situation demands” (1980, p.11). She also suggested to consider situational requirements when characterizing workaholics. Likewise, Scott, Moore, and Miceli (1997) posited that workaholics spend extra time in thinking about work during personal time, engaging in work-related activities, and working long hours without being required. Furthermore, Spence and Robbins (1992) depicted workaholics as “highly work involved, feels compelled or driven to work because of inner pressures, and is low in [his or her] enjoyment of work” (p. 162).

Most contemporary definitions emphasize from a behavioural and cognitive perspective. For instance, Harpaz and Snir (2003) concluded that workaholics tend to spend a large portion of their time working or thinking about their work. They also argued that workaholism is internally determined and not caused by extrinsic motivations such as the need for overtime, salary and bonuses. Furthermore, both Ng et al. (2007) and Griffiths (2011) described workaholism as a consistent and substantial investment at work. Due to their extreme work dedication and devotion, workaholics may work overtime beyond organizational requirement.

Types of Workaholic
There are several different typologies have been proposed, and each type focuses on different aspects of workaholism such as work performance, levels of job enjoyment and impact on personal health.

Naughton (1987) proposed a classification of workaholics grounded in two measurements: degree of work engagement and levels of addiction, and identified four types of workaholics, including: (1) job-involved workaholics, (2) compulsive workaholics, (3) nonworkaholics, and (4) compulsive nonworkaholics.

Based on 'workaholic triad' which includes work involvement, internal drive to work and work enjoyment, Spence and Robbins (1992) identified three types of workaholic: (1) Work Addicts are people have high work involvement and strong drive to work but low in work enjoyment; (2) Work Enthusiasts are high both in work involvement and work enjoyment but low in internal drive to work; and (3) Enthusiastic Addicts are high in all three dimensions.

Scott, Moore and Miceli (1997) came up with another three types of workaholic, classified as: (1) the compulsive-dependent, (2) the perfectionists, and (3) the achievement-oriented.

Schaufeli, Taris and Bakker (2008) used two criteria, namely working excessively and working compulsively, to classify workaholics. Based on high or low on the two criteria, four types of workers were derived: (1) Workaholics, (2) Hard Workers, (3) Compulsive Workers, and (4) Relaxed Workers.

The Robinson (2013) also identified four types of workaholics: (1) the bulimic who prone to be perfectionism or not at all; (2) the relentless who feel driven to work and are not able to stop working; (3) the savouring who pay extraordinary attention to details; and (4) the attention-deficit who like taking over a large amount of tasks at the beginning but will quickly give up and looking for another new tasks.

Symptoms
Workaholics: Thank God It's Monday! (Permalink 2009) The symptoms of a workaholic include a behavioural dimension (working excessively) and a cognitive dimension (working compulsively).

According to the research conducted by Scott, Moore, and Miceli (1997), the symptoms of a workaholic consist of three specific factors: (1) investing large amount of time in working; (2) constantly thinking about thinking about work after working hour; and (3) spontaneous working without external requirements. Ng, Sorensen, and Feldman (2007) underpinned Scott et al.(1997)'s view by describing workaholics as those who love working, are addicted to work, and invest substantial personal time into work.

The symptoms of a workaholic can be similar to overwork, which includes working excessively, working at home, and working without day off.

Taken together, the symptoms of workaholic can include:

a) devote discretionary time and efforts into work because of an internal drive;

b) become stressed if prohibited from working;

c) prioritise work over hobbies, leisure activities, and exercise; and

d) have health problems caused by working too much.

Measurements
The two most arguably and widely used empirical approaches to workaholism are The Workaholism Battery and The Work Addiction Risk Test.

The Workaholism Battery (WorkBat)
Spence and Robbins (1992) 's research contained of three underlying and independent components:


 * Work Involvement [WI]: the attitude of psychological involvement at work
 * Work Driveness [D]: the inner feeling and pressure to work
 * Work Enjoyment [E]: the degree of satisfaction and happiness at work

The authors conceptualised workaholic as a person who has high work involvement and driven to work due to inner pressures, and low on work enjoyment. A total of 291 social workers, randomly selected from a National Association of Social Workers database, participated in the self-report questionnaire. Participants were later separated into six clusters with a unique combination of the components(Refer to table 1). As special noted, Spence and Robbins (1992) differentiated (1) Work Enthusiasts and (2)Workaholics into two groups such that both groups obtained a high score in work involvement but the former had low driveness and high enjoyment.

Table 1 (Spence and Robbins, 1992)

Findings Criticism
 * Workaholics were found to be higher in job stress level and perfectionism among other profile groups.
 * Workaholics reported more physically health problems than other groups.

Scott et al. (1997) criticised the measure of work involvement lacked of reliability and validity. They argued that workaholism was a behaviour pattern while work involvement was an attitude component, thus a person who was high in work involvement did not necessarily engaging in workaholic behaviour. They agreed there was some relationship but not as strong as predicted by Spence and Robbins. Other concern was that the survey was only undertaken by a homogeneous group of social workers, researchers argued that the sample selection was not well-representative of the population.

Work Addiction Risk Test (WART)
Another influential study was developed by an American researcher, Bryan Robinson in 1989. His definition of addictive working patterns was constructed by employing an addiction paradigm, and the symptoms of work addition were in relation of work-specific behaviours. The WART consisted of four facets with a total of 25-items inventory ,


 * Compulsive tendency [COMPUL]
 * Self-worth [SELFW]
 * Control-to-perfectionism [CONT]
 * Impaired Communication/Self Absorption [IMPAIR]

Respondents were asked to rate items on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (never) to 4 (always) to describe their work patterns. The higher the total score (out of a possible 100), the more likely to be considered as a workaholic(Table 2). Robinson (2014) believed the effect of work addition was not only on work addicts, but also negatively affected to those who worked and lived with work addicts, such as spouse and working partners.

The East Carolina University provided an online documentation for any person who is interested to take the WART.

Table 2

Criticism

The research had been critiqued for validity problem. Other researchers such as Burke (2000), and Schaufeli, and Verhoeven (2005) argued that some of the items in the components were overlapped (i.e. compulsive tendency, control and Impaired Communication), and believed that only compulsive tendency attribute was sufficient enough to determine work addicts.

Workaholism Analysis Questionnaire (WAQ)
A more emerging research on workaholic behaviours had been developed by Aziz, Uhrich, Wuensch and Swords in 2013. The Workaholism Analysis Questionnaire (WAQ) provides a more comprehensive assessment in identifying workaholism with the components relevant to work-life conflict, symptoms of workaholism, and work addition. The authors conceptualised workaholism as an addiction that will lead to negative events in life. Workaholics always feel inner pressures to work and have no leisure time for personal activities that results in work-life imbalance. A heterogeneous group of respondents were asked to take both WAQ and WART questionnaire, in order to compare the marked differences in validity and reliability of the new measure. Participants (N=188) came from various organisational backgrounds and professional fields, and with a wide range of demographic profiles. The sample population was more reliable compared to WART, making the result more generalizable to a larger population with different organisational settings. The survey consisted of 29-items based on a 5-points Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5), and a higher score indicates higher potential risk of workaholism.

Implications


 * Compelling work drive was the key factor to workaholism because it was mostly induced to poor physical and psychological health.
 * Achievement-oriented workaholics feared losing of what they had already developed in their work compared to other employees. Those who were also low in self-esteem were more likely to believe they had fewer options in their work.
 * Workaholism positively correlated with obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (OCPD), leading to negative consequences including higher job stress, lower job satisfaction, and performance level.

Prevalence
Andreassen mentions that there is little specific data regarding the number and the characteristics of people affected by workaholism. Therefore, estimates of the prevalence of workaholics vary. Possible explanations for this are for one, that there is no consensus about a clear definition of workaholism. Second, the methods used for measurement of workaholism and the interpretation of the results are not harmonized. Third, the majority of research samples in this field is not representative.

In 1980 it was estimated that 5% of the US population were workaholics. However, some other studies have shown significantly higher numbers. Doerfler and Kammer (1986) stated that 23% of a sample consisting of physicians, lawyers and psychiatrists/ therapists working in the US were workaholics. In 1992, a study of Spence and Robbins evaluated that in a sample of professors of social work working in the US, 8% of men and 13% of women were considered as workaholics. In 1996, a Japanese study found that about 21% of their sample were workaholic. The sample of this study consisted predominantly of Japanese managers.

Some studies estimate that the percentage of workaholics among college educated persons are within a range of approximately 8% to 17.5% whereas certain demographics such as female attorneys, physicians, and psychologists/therapists reach numbers up to 23%- 25 %.

A study published in 2010 shows that the self-identified workaholism might concern one third of a working population.

In 2011 a study cited that roughly 10% of the U.S. population are workaholics. In 2013, a survey conducted with Norwegian employees estimated a number of 8.3% suffering from workaholism. Furthermore, no correlation between workaholism and the marital status could be found in this study.

Workaholism seems especially widespread among management-level employees in particular sectors such as agriculture, construction, communication, consultancy and commercial trade.

Some authors stated that workaholism is more prevalent among females than males. However, there is also a study showing no evidence for differences of gender, age or race regarding the prevalence of workaholism.

Causes
There are several factors that may contribute to develop workaholism.

Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (OCPD)
OCPD appears to be a key dispositional trait of workaholism. It originates from the need to overcontrol ones environment. There is an empirically supported connection between OCPD and workaholism. A 2010 study found that Spence and Robbin’s three dimension workaholism triad has been able to predict obsessive compulsive behaviour. Naughton(1987) considers workaholism as OCPD expressed at the workplace.

Type A Personality
Type A personalities are sensitive to external rewards and achievement oriented. Furthermore, they can be characterized as hard driving, competitive and impatient. There is an overlap regarding these characteristics between a Type A personality trait and workaholism. Type A personality children and adult workaholics show significant similarities in their behaviour. Therefore Steinberg (1985) suggested that Type A personality patterns in children’s behaviour may be antecedents to the development of workaholism in an adult stage. Research has supported this theory by stating that people with a high risk of workaholism are more likely to score higher on a Type A self-report.

The Big Five Personality Traits: Openness, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, Extraversion
Research has been conducted to examine the relationship between the Big Five Personality Traits and workaholism. High scores particularly in neuroticism seem to have a strong relationship to workaholism and therefore can be seen as an antecedent. Personality traits contribute to develop workaholism. Higher levels of neuroticism are related to higher levels of workaholism. Work results or rewards from work environment might lead to greater self-esteem lacked in individuals with high scores in neuroticism. Emotionally less stable individuals tend to spend more time working than emotionally stable persons. Individuals with higher scores of neuroticism may experience a greater need to boost their self-esteem and/or to control their environment. A greater dedication to work may satisfy those two needs. Conscientiousness paired with perfectionism can also be an antecedent for workaholism.

Cognitive Antecedents
Three beliefs, all based on fear, have been identified to explain the development of workaholism.
 * People feel the urge to prove themselves through admirable accomplishments
 * Belief that no universal moral principle exists
 * People must outperform others in order to reach their set goals because desired resources are limited

These extreme beliefs can result in strongly competitive and ruthless behaviour, which is prevalent in workaholism, and Type A personality. The relation between these fears/beliefs has been supported by several, cross-cultural studies conducted in Australia , Turkey and Canada.

Biological Antecedents
Biological factors may contribute to the development of workaholism. Some authors have theorized the medical addiction of workaholics to their own adrenaline. In his 1996 study Robinson reports that workaholics:”… get adrenaline highs from their work binges and experience hangovers as they come down…” (p. 447). Those highs can be followed by severe withdrawal symptoms such as anxiety, sleeplessness and headaches when the workaholic person is not at work. However, McMillan (2001) mentions that this theory has been verified by clinical observations only and that it has not been empirically tested.

Organizational Culture
Employees who scored higher on a workaholism scale were working for organizations that showed less support for their employee’s work-life balance. An organizational culture that is likely to promote workaholism is described as cold, impersonal, close relationships are minimalized or discouraged and employees are highly pressured. Supervisors and their style of leadership seem to be important as well. The less encouraging and supportive supervisors act the more likely employees are tend to develop workaholism. Especially if supervisors do not encourage employees to take advantage of an existing policy to prevent such things as work overload. A lack of feedback and not sufficient or no coaching are also mentioned as promotive factors towards the development of workaholism. Another characteristic of a workaholic culture at the workplace is a competitive environment encouraged and created by certain reward systems. An example is an annual bonus for top performers only. Especially if the term “performance” is mainly measured by the time spent in office. Incentive systems of this kind lead to an increasing number of inefficiently performed working hours and stress.

Environmental Antecedents
According to Robinson (1996) workaholism in adulthood can originate from an upbringing in a dysfunctional family surrounding. Further research conducted in 2007 shows two types of families that occurred to be most likely to produce a workaholic. On the one hand the “perfect families” on the other one the “chaotic families”. In the families which appear to be perfect children experience strict rules and schedules set up by their parents combined with high expectations. From a child’s point of view, the attention of a parent is strongly linked with achievements. The better a child’s performance the higher the parent’s expectations will grow. This leads to compulsive behaviour. The children are willing to fulfil those expectations in order to get more attention.

Children in chaotic families are sometimes pushed into an adult’s role, which includes many responsibilities. As a result, children may be unable to cope with the situation, they feel like they are loosing control. In order to gain back the control they may strive to control everything and they start overcompensating. It is likely that these patterns will later be transferred to the workplace.

Technology
In 2001 Fraser stated that workaholic behaviour may be facilitated by the use of modern communication technology. Research in this field conducted with a sample of 213 professionals shows that 83% used a mobile device in order to check their emails for after work. 66% of the surveyed professionals brought a work related mobile device on vacation. In addition, Porter and Kakabadse (2006) found that supervisors admit that modern information communication technology can be linked to the increase of their working hours. Furthermore, this leads to the executive's expectations that their employees work more hours as well.

Consequences
Workaholism has been studied at both an individual level and the organisational level but findings and conclusions about its consequences are varied and conflicting. Some researchers judge positively about workaholism in terms of personal career success, job satisfaction and organizational performance. However more researchers view it negatively from perspectives such as job performance, interpersonal relationship and general health.

Positive consequences
At the individual level, workaholism can be associated with high salary and better career prospects. By investigating a sample of MBA graduates, Burke found out that workaholism positively correlated with salary increase and self-reported career prospects. Similar results were achieved by Ng et al. in 2005. However, outcomes such as salary increases and promotions may not directly be related to workaholics. Apart from this, Ng, Sorensen, and Feldman found a weak but positive relationship between time spent in work and job satisfaction and argued that workaholics may be linked with higher job satisfaction. Ng, Sorensen & Feldman replicated this finding by giving evidence that workaholics are more likely to feel enjoyment and pleasure from work than non-workaholics. Moreover, some researches believe workaholics share some conceptual similarities with terms such as work engagement and work involvement, which may also share their positive outcomes such as increased workplace productivity.

At the organisational level, workaholics sometimes correlated with higher work productivity and therefore help the company achieve better performance. From a qualitative interview study that interviewed 100 workaholics, Machlowitz found out that workaholics are more productive and satisfied than others. Burker & Matthiesen’ study replicated this result and further stated that there was a weak but positive relationship among workaholics and organisational commitment. In a more recent study done by Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen in 2008, 854 middle managers and executives from a telecom organisation in the Netherlands were required to complete a survey. Results showed that there was a weak but positive relationship with workaholics and work outcome.

Negative consequences
However, more researchers discourage workaholics and see it as an undesirable attitude in workplace.

From an organisational point of view, in terms of job performance, Porter concluded that although workaholics work much more harder than others, they are unable to achieve good work performance. This is partially explained that the drive force for workaholics is regarded as internal. That is, workaholics appear highly involved into work motivated by ‘keep doing it’ but not ‘do better’. From an individual perspective, workaholics experience difficulties with interpersonal relationships. Researchers also found that workaholics tend to make job tasks extremely long and complexed with no necessaries. Moreover, some researchers showed that workaholics may bring other negative results to the organisation such as higher staff turnover and higher staff training cost.

At the individual level, research has shown that workaholics seem to ‘neglect in other areas of life’ (p. 71), such as private relations and social relations. In 2000, Bonebrignt, Clay, and Ankenmannn pointed out that workaholics do not have spare time to build and/or maintain personal relationships. From Burker's study, workaholics rated lower relationship satisfaction than non-workaholics. In addition, researchers found out that people who identified their spouses as workaholics scored higher on measure of marital estrangement but much lower on measure of positive feelings towards their spouses compared with people who identified with their spouses as non-workaholics. Arguably, workaholism not only impairs family relationships but also affects relationships with co-workers. Gorgievski et al argued workaholics may suffer from perfectionism, inflexibility and rigidity which may create conflicts with their co-workers. Porter argued workaholics may be especially problematic if the individual fulfils a manager role, for example, a manger with workaholics tendencies may set impossible standards for their workers and less likely to give positive feedback.

Researches also has shown that workaholism can lead to adverse health consequences (both mental and physical) because they are unable to refresh after excessive time spend on job. Porter (1996) argued that workaholic is highly likely to lead to mental health problems. By using a quantitative method, Schaufeli et, al. (2008) replicated this idea and found that workaholics are positively related to stress-related psychological issues such as depression, strain and distress. Two studies have investigated the relationship between workaholics and sleep issues. Kubota, Shimazu, Kawakami,Takahashi et al. (2010) found that workaholics reported much higher on sleep problems and difficulties waking up. In the other study done by Andreassen, Hetland, Molde and Pallesen in 2011, a similar result was achieved and they further concluded that workaholism is associated with insomnia. More over, researchers demonstrated that longer working hours can have a detrimental effect on physical problems. For example, Chamaberlin and Zhang (2009) undertook a study with a sample of undergraduates and graduate students, they found that students who reported higher on workaholism also scored higher on physical health complaints. Recent research from Britt, Asebedo and Blue in 2013 suggested that there was a relationship between reduced physical well-being and workaholism. In particular, workaholics are more likely to suffer high blood pressure, weight gain, heart attack and diabetes than non-workaholics.

Treatments at individual level
Workaholism is not always being treated as a problem but it is an acceptable practice in some cultures. A workaholic is therefore more likely to deny the problem and easily rationalise its behaviour to grant legitimacy. Meanwhile, workaholics do not deliberately have high motivation to change their lifestyles and work habits in view of their highly satisfaction with their current work patterns. But researches revealed some effective treatment options that might help for a work addict.

Seek for professional consultation
Seybold and Salomone (1994) suggested that change for workaholics may be possible if they are open to professional help and desired to change the patterns of behaviour. Psychological treatments provided by a professional mental health practitioner may be useful for those workaholics who have demonstrated significant obsessive-compulsive traits. For others who experience a lesser impact in their life may seek for a group counselling, Seybold and Salomone (1994) believed that getting support and rapport from other workaholics is helpful to develop a greater effort and motivation to establish new short-term and long-term goals.

Burwell & Chen (2002) discussed the use of REBT in counselling workaholics and demonstrated the technique can be used effectively in helping workaholics in the areas of cognitive, emotional, and behavioural biases. The examples below have been modified for the topic of workaholic, the original content is from Burwell & Chen (2002).
 * Rational emotive behaviour therapy (REBT)

(1)	Cognitive reframing

The purpose is to guide workaholics in developing new rational beliefs that make them feel happier and giving up the thought of perfectionism. An example is, “To reduce some time in work does not mean I am lazy. If I allocate my time wisely, I will likely finish my work on time with an acceptable quality.”

(2)	Emotive intervention

The objective is to breakout the irrational beliefs through the effective use of emotional techniques. It is helping them to accept self whatever any consequences, and attack shame on performing an event that seems disapproving from others. An example is, “Even if the outcome is not as great as expected, but I have learnt so much from the project that will help me to work more effectively in the next one.”

(3)	Behavioural modification

This is a behavioural technique where asking workaholics by behaving as opposed to their own belief. Some of the examples are assigning tasks to others at work rather than doing all the work by oneself, and setting a self-boundary to avoid overworking even if the work has not been done yet.

Develop hobbies
Researchers such as Morse and Weiss (1955), Oates (1971) , Klaft and Kleiner (1988) believed that workaholics should develop hobbies other than work, building up interests of activities that can provide similar pleasant feeling to what they experience during work. According to Franzmeier (1988), the type of hobbies should be different to the work setting. If one’s work is most likely sedentary, it is encouraging they should try to develop interests with physically active nature, such as playing sport, hiking and jogging for relaxation, stress relieving, and exploring new things outside of the work setting. In the view of Salmela-Aro & Nurmi (2004), an organisational member who had a personal goal associated with hobby was the most healthy group in the work environment with the highest work efficiency and less likely for burnout.

Family support and involvement
Getting support and encouragement from family for remediation of workaholic behaviour plays a significant role. Researcher such as Bartlome (1983) believed that a workaholic would find it enjoyable when dedicating more time for family (if the cause of workaholic is not due to family issue). If family at the same time begins to encourage workaholics for non-work related activities, they are more willing to make changes in their work habit and lifestyle. Family counselling would be another option for family members to get professional assistance and understanding of the workaholic’s causes and effects for work addiction from various perspectives.

Treatments at organizational level
The definitions, causes, and consequences of workaholism are both varied and conflicting. Oates (1971) and other researchers (Naughton, 1987 ; Schaef & Fassel, 1988 ; Killinger, 1991 ; Porter, 1996 ) viewed workaholism from a negative perspective in organizational settings, while Machlowitz (1980) and some researchers (Korn, Pratt & Lambrou, 1987 ; Sprankle & Ebel, 1987 ) found out workaholics are satisfied with their current work patterns and feeling productive at workplace.

Nevertheless, the present study suggests that workaholism is most likely to emerge when an individual with certain types of personal characteristics (such as Type A personality) working at a specific organizational environment. Attempting to change a person' personal traits is relatively difficult, it might be more practical and effective for organizations to change its organizational climate in discouraging or preventing workaholism. Quick et al.(1997) proposed a framework of preventive stress management and suggested that interventions at organizational level can include: (1) primary prevention strategies: involving modification of work demands and work-related stress; (2) secondary strategies: aiming to change the beliefs of individuals in responding to the workload and working environment; and (3) tertiary strategies: aiming to reduce individuals' stress level at organisation.

At the primary level, organizational climate plays an important role in effective intervention to discourage workaholism, especially senior management will have higher power to influence the organizational climate as a whole. First of all, management needs to identify potential problems or impediments in the workplace. Secondly, managers and executives need to act as role models to interpret organizational goals, shape the prevailing climate and address the explicit and implicit attitudes that employees are showing toward work hours (the value placed on quantity versus quality), job involvement and reward distribution. According to Holland (2008), encouraging positive feedback for individual's work evaluation can reduce the risk of workaholism. Meanwhile, organisations should not reward individuals' productivity by measuring their time spent on work, but a better way is to create an organisational climate where emphasizing employees to perform at the acceptable quality while creating a balanced life.

Secondary interventions can be implemented in conjunction with the primary intervention to improve both the individual's and the organization's response to stresses and ongoing changes in the workplace. Organizations have the various roles and responsibilities to meet the need of available group or individual stress management and skill training programs, to provide social and leisure opportunities to promote balanced working environment; and to encourage social support and team building.

There is also growing interest in introducing mindfulness-based interventions (MBT) in workplace settings. The clinical case study presented by Shonin, Gordon & Griffiths (2014) demonstrated the effectiveness of an 8-week meditation awareness treatment on job performance and psychologically distress. Gordon, Shonin, Zangeneh & Griffiths (2014) summarised the key strengths of MBT (or other related mindfulness techniques) are (1) cost-effectiveness, (2) non-invasive to the organisation and employee, (3) suitable for employees from a culturally diverse background, (4) significant improvements in mental health and on-the-job performances.