Motivational drivers of heavy work investment: intercultural comparison between USA and Egypt

• Date: 03 November 2023
• Pages: 379-395
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-10-2022-0169
• Published date: 03 November 2023
• Subject Matter: Health & social care,Healthcare management,HR & organizational behaviour,Human resource policy,Employee welfare
• Author: Lydia Garas,Shahnaz Aziz,Karl Wuensch,Brian Waterwall

Motivational drivers of heavy

work investment: intercultural

comparison between

USA and Egypt

Lydia Garas, Shahnaz Aziz, Karl Wuensch and Brian Waterwall

East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose is to identify the underlying motives of heavy work investment (HWI) types (i.e.

workaholism and workengagement) based on self-determination theory, while controlling for job demands and

resources. The role of four cultural differences (i.e. individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and

masculinity) in moderating the motivational correlated relationships is also explored using data retrieved from

two distinct cultures (i.e. the USA and Egypt).

Design/methodology/approach –Full-time employees (N 5595) in the USA and Egypt were surveyed.

Multiple regression analyses were used to test the associations between the two HWI types and four types of

motivation (i.e. intrinsic, extrinsic, introjected and identified motivations). Furthermore, moderation analyses

were conducted to explore potential effects of four cultural dimensions (i.e. individualism, power distance,

uncertainty avoidance and masculinity) on the motivationalcorrelated relationships.

Findings –Workaholism positively relates to the controlled types of motivation (i.e. extrinsic and introjected

regulation), while work engagement positively relates to the autonomous ones (i.e. intrinsic and identified

regulation) and negatively associates with extrinsic motivation. Moreover, cultural masculinity moderated the

relationship between work engagement and extrinsic motivation, as well as the association between

workaholism and extrinsic motivation.

Practical implications –A clear differentiation of motivation behind both types of HWI is required by

occupational health practitioners to design interventions that stimulate employee engagement rather than fuel

workaholism. Multinational organizations could also benefit from understanding the interaction between

cultural dimensions, motives and HWI, thereby planning more effective work engagement strategies among

different cultures.

Originality/value –This is the first study to investigate the motivational correlates of HWI types across two

contrasting cultures.

Keywords Culture, Heavy work investment, Motivation, Workaholism, Work engagement

Paper type Research paper

Flexible hours and work-from-home policies make it easier for employees to work from

anywhere, but harder to disconnect from work, thereby obscuring the boundaries between

personaland professional realms.It is timely to investigate motivational constituents of heavy

work investment (HWI; Snir and Harpaz, 2012) to clarify this construct and to illuminate

applications for the occupational health field. HWI is the framework developed by Snir and

Harpaz (2009,2012,2015) to differentiate between workaholismand work engagement. While

supervisorsmay commendworkaholicsand engaged employeesfor spendingconsiderabletime

and effort at work, workaholism involves an internal compulsion and is the negative type of

HWIthat generatesharmful outcomesfor individuals(e.g. work–lifeimb alance; Azizand Zickar,

2006 and work stress; Clark et al., 2016) and organizations(e.g. absenteeism;Falcoet al., 2013 and

increased healthcare costs; Matsudaira et al., 2013). Conversely, work engagement includes

passion and work enjoymentand is the positive type ofHWI that yields individualwell-being

and higher organizational performance (Clark et al., 2016;Snir and Harpaz, 2009).

Current HWI literature has focused more on its outcomes rather than underlying motives

(Tabak et al., 2021;Taris et al., 2014;van Beek et al., 2012). Furthermore, only three empirical

Motivational

drivers of

heavy work

investment

379

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1753-8351.htm

Received 14 December 2022

Revised 14 April 2023

11 September 2023

Accepted 13 October 2023

InternationalJournal of Workplace

Health Management

Vol. 16 No. 5/6, 2023

pp. 379-395

© Emerald Publishing Limited

1753-8351

DOI 10.1108/IJWHM-10-2022-0169

studies (based on European samples) have investigated motivational correlates of HWI based

on self-determination theory (SDT; Taris et al., 2020;van Beek et al., 2011;van Beek et al.,

2012). A comprehensive differentiation between the motives behind each HWI subtype (i.e.

workaholism and work engagement) could help organizations adopt interventions that

promote work engagement rather than fueling workaholism and yielding its negative

outcomes (Taris and Schaufeli, 2010, p. 51). This research can help occupational health

practitioners design corporate interventions satisfying the right motivation and promote

work engagement rather than erroneously ignite workaholism. Such interventions may alter

the organization’s strategies for learn ing and development, employee selection an d

organizational design (Schaufeli and Salanova, 2010).

Moreover, the influence of culture on the HWI framework cannot be explained due to the

lack of heterogeneous samples in the current literature. To address this lacuna, potential

moderating influences of four cultural dimensions (i.e. individualism, power distance,

uncertainty avoidance and masculinity, Hofstede and Bond, 1988;Hofstede and Minkov,

2010) on HWI framework were examined using data obtained from two contrasting cultures,

namely, the USA and Egypt. We chose both countries as previous research was conducted on

European samples only and did not show consistency among the motivational make-up of

both constructs. Thus, we extended the extant research to important geographical regions.

Moreover, estimated by Hofstede’s (2001) Cultural Compass tool, the American and Egyptian

culture have significant differences from each other whereby, according to Hofstede (2001),

US culture showed higher levels of individualism and masculinity, as well as lower levels of

uncertainty avoidance and power distance, compared to Egypt. Hence, examining the data

across these two countries can help us to better understand the effects of culture differences

on the motives driving both workaholic and engaged employees.

In the pages that follow, we provide a literature review on workaholism and work

engagement. Next, we detail the theoretical foundations used to develop the hypotheses. We

then describe the procedures used to collect and analyze the data, followed by the results. The

final section discusses the limitations and contributions of this study including practical

implications for organizations, as well as suggestions for future research.

Literature review

Workaholism

Coined by Oates (1971),workaholism is characterized by an inner compulsion and

uncontrollable need to continually work. More recently, Clark et al. (2016) meta-analysis

provided an integrated definition for workaholism as “an addiction to work that involves

feeling compelled or driven to work because of internal pressures, having persistent and

frequent thoughts about work when not working, and working beyond what is reasonably

expected (as established by the requirements of the job or basic economic needs) despite

potential negative consequences”(p. 1840). Thus, workaholism is operationalized as the

compulsive need to work excessively hard. It is associated with negative individual outcomes

such as job dissatisfaction, work stress, burnout, work–life imbalance, health complaints,

marital disaffection, poor mental health and general life dissatisfaction (Aziz and Zickar,

2006;Clark et al., 2016;Engelbrecht et al., 2019;Shimazu and Schaufeli, 2009;Schaufeli et al.,

2008). Workaholism also negatively correlates with organizational citizenship behaviors

(Aziz et al., 2020) and positively correlates with a competitive work environment (Keller et al.,

2016), job demands and role conflict (Schaufeli et al., 2009).

Work engagement

Schaufeli et al. (2002) defined work engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of

mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption”(p. 74). It is the result of a

IJWHM

16,5/6

380