The moderating role of time perspective profiles in the association of workaholism, work engagement and perfectionism among Japanese employees

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-05-2022-0079
• Published date: 29 November 2022
• Date: 29 November 2022
• Pages: 57-74
• Subject Matter: Health & social care,Healthcare management,HR & organizational behaviour,Human resource policy,Employee welfare
• Author: Armaghan Eslami,Atsuko Kanai,Miyuki Matsumoto

The moderating role of time

perspective profiles in the

association of workaholism, work

engagement and perfectionism

among Japanese employees

Armaghan Eslami and Atsuko Kanai

Graduate School of Education and Human Development, Nagoya University,

Nagoya, Japan, and

Miyuki Matsumoto

Center for the Studies of Higher Education, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan

Abstract

Purpose –First, this study aimed to investigate the association of time perspective (TP) profiles with work

engagement and workaholism. Second, it tested TP profiles as the moderator of perfectionism with work

engagement and workaholism relationship.

Design/methodology/approach –The sample of this study comprised 148 Japanese employees, and

snowball sampling was used for data collection. The authors found the TP profiles in the first step using cluster

analysis with five TP dimensions. Next, the authors tested workaholism and work engagement in three

clusters. The two dimensions of perfectionistic strivings and perfectionistic concerns were extracted through

the exploratory factor analysis of Sakurai and Ohtani’s (1997) perfectionism measure. Further, their

relationship with workaholism and work engagement was tested in the TP profiles using multiple group

analysis in structural equation modeling (SEM).

Findings –Three TP profiles were found, which the authors named: Future (F), Hedonistic and Balanced.

There was a significant difference between the three groups. Notably, working compulsively was significantly

higher in the Future cluster in the three clusters. The moderator analysis results indicated that perfectionistic

concerns positively affected workaholism in the Future cluster but not for the Balanced cluster.

Originality/value –To the best of authors’knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the relationship

between perspective profiles, workaholism and work engagement. The relationship between these factors can

be a stepping stone for further research.

Keywords Time perspective, Workaholism, Work engagement, Perfectionistic strivings, Perfectionistic

concerns, Japanese employees

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Japan has one of the highest number of working hours among developed countries (Yamauchi

et al., 2017), which is associated with unfavorable outcomes, such as subjective unhealthiness

(Akutsu et al., 2022) and job burnout (Cheung et al., 2018). Extreme examples include Karoshi

(death due to overwork) and Karo-Jisatsu, or suicide due to overwork (Kanai et al., 2021); other

examples include work-life balance distortion and workaholism (Kanai, 2009). Workaholic,

this controversial term, first came into existence by Oates (1968). There are some arguments

on the true nature of workaholism. Although some researchers consider it an addiction

(Andreassen et al., 2018), some draw a clear line between workaholism and work addiction

(Griffiths et al., 2018). Furthermore, some researchers consider it as a syndrome (Killinger,

2006). However, there is some agreement regarding this concept. For example, workaholism

is not working excessively (WE) due to external reasons, such as economic difficulties, and a

bad marriage, among others (Clark et al., 2010;Schaufeli et al., 2009). Rather, it is an inner

Heavy work

investment and

time perspective

profiles

57

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 16 May 2022

Revised 7 August 2022

20 September 2022

24 October 2022

Accepted 24 October 2022

InternationalJournal of Workplace

Health Management

Vol. 16 No. 1, 2023

pp. 57-74

© Emerald Publishing Limited

1753-8351

DOI 10.1108/IJWHM-05-2022-0079

compulsive drive that leads workaholics to work excessively hard, think about work even

when they are not working or not being able to detach their mind from their work, and feeling

guilty while they are resting.

Recently, another point of agreement between researchers has been dismissing the idea of

positive workaholism and replacing it with work engagement. Moreover, in some cases, work

engagement is viewed as a contrast to workaholism or two opposite sides of heavy work

investment (Andreassen et al., 2018).

Work engagement has been defined as a “positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind

that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption”(Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 72). While

vigor (VI) is a feeling boosted by mental energy and flexibility, the tendency to putenergy and

force into one’s work, and showing endurance under challenging situations; dedication (DE),

is a feeling of importance, excitement, honor and joy; and, absorption (AB), is being absorbed

in one’s work to the extent of not noticing the passage of time and not being able to separate

oneself from work (Schaufeli et al., 2002). As the engaged worker’s motivation is autonomous,

not working or stopping the work is easy and not associated with negative emotions, while

workaholics whose motivations are more controlled forms, not working or stopping the work

is very difficult and usually associated with negative emotions such as guilt (T

oth-Kir

aly

et al., 2021).

The divide between these two close concepts has been indicated empirically in the works

of Taris et al. (2010) and Schaufeli et al. (2006). In these two papers, two factors for

workaholism –factor loading of WE and working compulsively (WC) and work engagement

–were on the three divided factors by the factor analysis. Mazzetti et al. (2018) took a step

further and used the perceptions of workers and their co-workers to indicate the difference

between workaholism and work engagement.

Several studies have been conducted to understand the possible antecedents for

workaholism. Many organizational and personal factors have been investigated in relation to

workaholism, such as perfectionism, conscientiousness, achievement motivation, self-

efficacy and organizational overwork climate (Mazzetti et al., 2014), obsessive-compulsive

traits and job demands (Mazzetti et al., 2020), extrinsic work motivation, workload,

interpersonal conflicts, role conflict at work (Morkevi

ci

ut_

eet al., 2021). Therefore, the

paramount role of characteristics as antecedents is undeniable.

One personality characteristic that has been suggested to be related to workaholism but

has never been tested in research is the time perspective (TP) (Zimbardo and Boyd, 2008). TP

is a personality trait related to an orientation toward time. TP explains how we view and

understand time. It has been suggested that TP can be considered a personality trait

(Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999;Boniwell and Zimbardo, 2004). Although it is subject to

transformation through time, it is a relatively stable trait resulting from individuals’mental

and cognitive frameworks or experiences and events. TP acts as a guide for people’s

behavior.

Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) developed the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI),

and through its development, five main dimensions of TP were established: Past Negative

(PN), a negative or aversive sense of the past; past positive (PP), a warm and sentimental view

of the past; present Hedonistic (PH), a risk-taking attitude toward life; Present Fatalistic (PF),

an attitude of helplessness and hopelessness toward life; and Future (F), a goal-orientated

view toward the future (Zimbardo and Boyd, 1999).

The notable point related to these TP dimensions is that ZTPI does not follow a one-

dimensional approach toward TP; that is, individuals do not only belong to one of the

mentioned dimensions, rather everyone has all these temporal orientations, but in varying

scores. As a result, everyone has a unique combination of scores on the five dimensions,

creating a unique TP profile for every person (Boyd and Zimbardo, 2005). Considering these

five dimensions of TP as a set, a border perspective can be obtained. Each dimension plays a

IJWHM

16,1

58