The terms ‘workaholic’ and ‘workaholism’ are commonly used in everyday language, yet there is relatively little empirical research on the topic. In this article, the concept of excessive work as a potential addiction is examined along with the problem of defining what lies at the core of being addicted to work. Using criteria adapted from other behavioural addictions, it is argued that excessive work can in some circumstances viewed as a genuine addiction that shares many similarities to other more traditional addictions.
The term ‘workaholism’ has been around since the publication of Oates’ 1971 book Confessions of a Workaholic and has passed into the public mainstream (Griffiths, 2005a). Despite four decades of research into workaholism, Taris et al. (2008) contend that no single definition or conceptualisation of this phenomenon has emerged. Much that has been written about workaholism has been anecdotal and/or clinical in nature (e.g. Fassel, 1992; Killinger, 1992; Wilson-Schaef & Fassel, 1988). Furthermore, much of the work in the area has used operational definitions that do not conceptualise workaholism as an addiction or, if they do, the criteria used are somewhat dissimilar to the criteria used when examining other behavioural addictions.
In this article the definitions and criteria used by researchers in the field of workaholism are briefly overviewed and I argue that few researchers to date have really focused on workaholism as ‘addiction to work’. I will suggest a different set of criteria for workaholism, based on my research into other behavioural addictions, including to gambling (e.g. Griffiths, 2002, 2006; 2007), exercise (e.g. Allegre et al., 2006; Griffiths, 1997; Griffiths et al., 2005), video games (e.g. Griffiths, 2002; Griffiths & Hunt, 1998; Griffiths & Meredith, 2009), the internet (Niemz et al., 2005; Widyanto & Griffiths, 2006), and sex (Griffiths, 2001, 2004). Although all addictive behaviours have idiosyncratic differences,...