Psychological flexibility as a resource for preventing compulsive work and promoting well-being: a JD-R framework study

Angela Russo, Mohammed Mansouri, Giuseppe Santisi, Andrea Zammitti

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

ISSN: 1934-8835

Open Access. Article publication date: 9 December 2024

690

Abstract

Purpose

In today’s high-demand work environments, characterised by an expectation for individuals to possess resources to manage workloads effectively, workaholism poses a significant threat to employee well-being. This study aims to investigate the impact of work overload and psychological flexibility on compulsive work behaviours and well-being.

Design/methodology/approach

This study applies the Job Demands-Resources model and uses structural equation modelling to analyse data collected from 305 adult workers aged 19–65. Psychological flexibility and work overload are examined as antecedents of compulsive work behaviour, with flourishing and life satisfaction as outcomes.

Findings

The results indicate that compulsive work behaviour mediates the relationship between work overload and psychological flexibility on well-being outcomes. Psychological flexibility was found to be a crucial resource in reducing workaholic tendencies, leading to improved flourishing and life satisfaction.

Research limitations/implications

The implications for human resources include practical strategies and targeted interventions to help individuals navigate organisational demands, prevent compulsive work behaviours and improve overall well-being.

Originality/value

This study offers new insights into the role of psychological flexibility as a personal resource in reducing compulsive work tendencies and enhancing both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in high-demand work environments.

Keywords

Citation

Russo, A., Mansouri, M., Santisi, G. and Zammitti, A. (2025), "Psychological flexibility as a resource for preventing compulsive work and promoting well-being: a JD-R framework study", International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 33 No. 12, pp. 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2024-4834

Publisher

:

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024, Angela Russo, Mohammed Mansouri, Giuseppe Santisi and Andrea Zammitti.

License

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode


1. Introduction

In contemporary work settings, marked by rapid pace and challenges, workaholism has emerged as a significant concern due to its implications for individual and organisational health. Defined an excessive and compulsive dedication to work activities (), workaholism is a ubiquitous phenomenon with multiple precursors, dynamics and trajectories () that negatively affects mental and physical health, potentially leading to psychological distress and reduced job performance (; ) and reduced well-being and quality of working life (; ).

The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) framework offers a valuable perspective for understanding how job demands, such as work overload, and personal resources interact to influence employee outcomes (; ). On the one hand, job demands are defined as the physical, psychological, social or organisational aspects of the job that are associated with certain physiological and/or psychological efforts or costs (). Among work demands, in work overload individuals perceive having to deal with too many duties and tasks at work, exceeding their limits (, ). On the other hand, personal resources are physical, psychological or social aspects of self that can stimulate positive work outcomes (). Some examples of widely studied personal resources are emotional intelligence (; ), optimism, self-efficacy and resilience (; ). It is not the job demands themselves that reduce well-being, but rather the job demands that are coupled with limited resources to manage them (; ; ); this combination of low resources and high demands can lead to negative outcomes that in turn negatively influence well-being ().

Notably, psychological flexibility has been identified as a personal resource that mitigates the negative impacts of work stress, thus fostering well-being in work contexts (, ; ; ). High levels of psychological flexibility allow individuals to manage stress more effectively, mitigating the negative implications of work overload ().

This study is based on the JD-R model (), which offers avenues for future theory development, resulting in a better prediction of workers’ well-being (). Consistently with the literature (; ), the study conceptualises well-being as two primary dimensions: hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. On the one hand, hedonic well-being encompasses life satisfaction, pleasure, happiness and contentment (). On the other hand, eudaimonic well-being involves fulfilling one’s potential and engaging in meaningful activities () and spans from flourishing, a state of positive emotions and life functioning (; ), to languishing, a lack of mental health. Specifically, this study aims to explore the dynamic interaction between work overload demands, the resource of psychological flexibility and workaholism to understand how these factors influence workers’ well-being, defined as life satisfaction and flourishing.

2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses

2.1 Compulsive work and well-being

The term “workaholism” was first used to describe an uncontrollable work addiction (), characterised by working beyond typical hours (). The conceptualisation of workaholism remains debated in work and organisational psychology, regarding whether workaholics are perceived as driven individuals or individuals at risk of addiction, and whether workaholism is solely a result of putting in a considerable amount of effort or a combination of intense effort and intrinsic motivation to work hard (). An eminent model conceptualised workaholism as a syndrome in which excessive and compulsive working co-occur (), contributing to negative outcomes such as increased anxiety, burnout, work–life conflict and poor mental and physical well-being (e.g. ; ; ).

Compulsive working involves persistent thoughts and preoccupation with work activities even beyond regular working hours, whereas excessive working manifests in prolonged and intense work efforts (; ). Recently, suggested that these two facets of workaholism have differential antecedents and outcomes over time, emphasising the need to investigate both individual and organisational antecedents to understand how these distinct determinants interact to predict compulsive working. Furthermore, emphasised the distinction between working compulsively and merely working long hours concerning health outcomes. Foundational and recent studies suggest varying effects on mental health and work–life balance, highlighting an ongoing need to examine the compulsive component of workaholism (; ; ). Recent studies by and suggest that working compulsively undermines overall well-being and quality of work–life. Therefore, we hypothesise that

H1.

Working compulsively negatively predicts both flourishing (H1a) and life satisfaction (H1b).

2.2 Work overload, working compulsively and well-being

Work overload can be defined as perceiving a greater quantity or quality of work than the ability or resources to cope with it. identified that work overload can originate from both internal and external sources. Individuals voluntarily accept an increased workload, known as internal overload, while involuntarily imposing an additional workload leads to external overload.

According to the JD-R model, work overload can function as a job demand, influencing both negative and positive outcomes in individuals’ work experiences, depending on the context (). Job demands can be categorised into hindrance and challenge demands (): hindrance demands involve excessive or undesirable constraints that interfere with or inhibit the individual’s ability to achieve valued goals, while challenge demands require effort but have the potential to promote personal growth and achievement. The literature suggests that job demands can have different effects on worker outcomes, depending on whether they are perceived as hindering or challenging, and new research is needed to uncover the conditions under which job demands act as hindrances versus challenges ().

Several empirical studies have demonstrated a strong association between workload and the behavioural dimension of workaholism, specifically excessive working (; , ; ). However, there has been less exploration of the relationship between workload and the compulsive aspect of workaholism. Recently, stressed the importance of separately analysing the dimensions of workaholism due to the inconsistent effects on job antecedents and outcomes between working excessively and compulsively. This study wants to explore whether workload can be conceived as a challenging demand because it positively influences life satisfaction and flourishing, but if placed in the context of working compulsively, then it becomes a hindrance demand.

On the one hand, job demands, such as workload, are related to well-being outcomes such as flourishing () and life satisfaction () and also to feel that one’s life is satisfying and meaningful (). On the contrary, perceiving excessive workloads may lead to working compulsively (; ; ). Therefore, we hypothesise that:

H2.

Work overload positively predicts working compulsively (H2a), flourishing (H2b) and life satisfaction (H2c).

2.3 Psychological flexibility: a positive resource to prevent working compulsively and promote well-being

Psychological flexibility, defined as the ability to adaptively contact the present moment and act in accordance with one’s values (, ), plays a crucial role in managing work demands and emotional responses to work overload. Individuals with high psychological flexibility are more efficient in regulating their emotions and conserving resources that enable them to cope more effectively with work-related demands (). Psychological flexibility also encourages an open, non-judgmental approach to work challenges, viewing them as part of the normal workday, which aids in mitigating stress from work overload (). A substantial body of literature demonstrated that psychological flexibility improves well-being and quality of life at work (for a meta-analysis, see ). Psychological flexibility serves as a valuable personal resource, reducing stress and severe work-related outcomes (; ; ), promoting work-related well-being (; ) and specifically life satisfaction and flourishing (; ; ).

Framing these theories and findings within the framework of the JD-R () model, we conceptualise psychological flexibility as a personal resource that supports individuals’ well-being and effective functioning in the workplace while simultaneously helping to prevent the emergence of unfavourable conditions, such as compulsive work. In support of this, the scientific literature has widely suggested the positive effects of psychological flexibility on the obsessive-compulsive spectrum (; ; ; ), but no study to the authors’ knowledge has yet explored its relationship with the tendency to work compulsively. Therefore, we hypothesise that:

H3.

Psychological flexibility negatively predicts working compulsively (H3a) and positively predicts flourishing (H3b) and life satisfaction (H3c).

The relationships between the variables of the hypothesised model are reproduced in .

3. Materials and methods

3.1 Participants

Our study involved 305 adult workers, aged 19–65 years (M = 36.18, SD = 13.40), 56% of whom were female (for an in-depth description, see below). Participants were recruited through convenience sampling, using online platforms and social media channels to reach a diverse working population. Participants voluntarily and anonymously completed the online survey, providing informed consent regarding the research objectives and methods. They were aware that they could withdraw from the research at any time. The study was conducted between March 2023 and June 2023. The duration of data-gathering efforts was approximately 15 min to complete the survey. To ensure data quality, the survey was designed in a clear and concise manner, minimising the burden on respondents, and automatic checks were implemented to avoid incomplete submissions; specifically, if participants forgot to answer an item, the system would flag it before the final submission. Data was collected and processed by EU GDPR 679/2016 on the protection of sensitive and personal data.

The eligibility criteria employed in this investigation were as follows: individuals had to be of legal age (18 years old in Italy), below 66 years old (which aligns with Italy’s retirement age) and be engaged in employment (trainees and interns for at least six months were included). No protocols were excluded due to non-compliance with these criteria.

The minimum sample size for this study was determined a priori using Soper’s Software (2023) for Structural Equation Models. Assuming an acceptable alpha error of 0.05, aiming for 90% power, considering 5 latent variables and 28 observed variables, the minimum sample size was found to be 288, considering an effect size of 0.25.

The distribution of participants’ educational levels was as follows: 8.5% lower secondary school diploma, 51.1% high school diploma, 13.1% bachelor’s degree, 19.7% master’s degree and 7.5% postgraduate specialisation or doctoral degree. Regarding their employment status, 26.6% were employees in public institutions, 39% were employees in private companies, 17% were self-employed or freelancers, 4.3% were entrepreneurs, 3.3% were members of cooperatives and 9.9% were interns. Furthermore, concerning person–job fit, 18.4% reported having a job consistent with their interests, 23% a job consistent with their skills, 45.9% a job consistent with both interests and skills and the remaining 12.8% none of the above.

3.2 Measure

Personal information.

Participants provided personal information including age, gender and educational levels and employment status.

Work overload. The short work overload scale () includes three items that refer to quantitative demanding aspects of the job (e.g. time pressure and working hard). Items are scored on a five-point scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Sample item: “Do you have too much work to do?” In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.77.

Psychological flexibility. Psychological flexibility was measured using the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II; ; Italian validation ), composed of seven items measured in a seven-point Likert scale varying from 1 (never true) to 7 (always true). Items were inversely coded to produce one factor of psychological flexibility. The AAQ-II was chosen for this study as it is the most widely used measure of psychological flexibility in the empirical literature (). Sample item: “My painful experiences and memories make it difficult for me to live a life that I would value”. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89.

Compulsive working. The five items of the compulsive working component of the Dutch Workaholism Scale (, ; Italian ) were used to assess the propensity to workaholism and, in particular, the tendency to work compulsively, feeling compelled to work and experiencing difficulties in relaxing and detaching from work. Responses are given on a frequency scale ranging from 1 (never or almost never) to 4 (almost always or always). Sample item: “I feel obliged to work hard, even when it’s not enjoyable”. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.77.

Well-being. The Flourishing Scale (; ) assessed eudaimonic well-being, understood as socio-psychological prosperity characterised by positive relationships, feelings of competence and a sense of meaning and purpose in life. Participants responded on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample item: “I lead a purposeful and meaningful life”. In our study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.86.

The Satisfaction with Life Scale (; ) assessed the hedonic component of well-being, i.e. general life satisfaction through eight items on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample item: “I am satisfied with my life”. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the study sample was 0.88.

3.3 Data analysis

The preliminary analysis of the data was carried out using the SPSS 25 software. Descriptive analyses were conducted to assess the means and standard deviations of the variables, whereas Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was calculated to examine their relationships.

We used the lavaan package of RStudio software to perform structural equation modelling (SEM). The SEM approach, incorporating latent variables, was used. Predictor variables included work overload and psychological flexibility, with work compulsively of workaholism acting as a mediator, and flourishing and life satisfaction as outcome variables (refer to ). Parameter estimation was conducted using the Maximum Likelihood estimator.

The model’s assessment was based on several fit indices, including the ratio between the Chi-square statistic and the degree of freedom (χ2/df), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and the standardised root mean residual (SRMR). To evaluate the goodness of fit, the following cut-off criteria were used: χ2/df value below 3, RMSEA and SRMR values below 0.08 and a CFI and TLI exceeding 0.90 (; ; ; ).

To examine mediation effects, we implemented the bootstrap procedure, generating 1,000 bootstrap samples from the original data set through random sampling, following the approach recommended by . If the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (BC) for the mediation effect does not encompass zero, the indirect effect is deemed statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level.

4. Results

4.1 Preliminary analysis

The descriptive characteristics of the sample are found in . The distribution was normal as the Kurtosis and Skewness values were all between −1 and +1, hence parametric statistics were used. The correlation analysis showed small-to-medium associations between the variables involved in the mediation model; only the correlation between life satisfaction and flourishing was high (). Regarding the valence of the relationships, psychological flexibility was negatively correlated with working compulsively and positively correlated with both flourishing and life satisfaction. In contrast, working compulsively was positively correlated with work overload and negatively correlated with both flourishing and life satisfaction.

4.2 Structural equation modelling

The model analysis results show a good fit between the specified model and the observed data (χ2 = 681.283, df = 340, p < 0.001). Regarding the goodness-of-fit indices, the CFI is 0.915, the TLI is 0.905, the RMSEA is 0.057 (CI 0.051–0.064) and the SRMR is 0.056.

The direct effects of work overload on flourishing and life satisfaction were significant and positive (respectively, β = 0.36, p < 0.001; β = 0.35, p < 0.001); furthermore, work overload was positively associated with working compulsively (β = 0.52, p < 0.001), which in turn was negatively associated with flourishing and life satisfaction (respectively, β = −0.34, p < 0.01; β = −0.27, p < 0.01). The standardised indirect effect of work overload on flourishing via working compulsively was −0.18 (p < 0.01; bootstrap confidence interval has the lower limit of −0.521 and upper limit of −0.133). The standardised indirect effect of work overload on life satisfaction via working compulsively was −0.14 (p < 0.05; bootstrap confidence interval has a lower limit of −0.426 and an upper limit of −0.076).

The direct effects of psychological flexibility on flourishing and life satisfaction were significant and positive (respectively, β = 0.38, p < 0.001; β = 0.40, p < 0.001); furthermore, psychological flexibility was negatively associated with working compulsively (β = −0.32, p < 0.001). The standardised indirect effect of psychological flexibility on flourishing via working compulsively was 0.110 (p < 0.01; the bootstrap confidence interval has a lower limit of 0.046 and an upper limit of 0.189). The standardised indirect effect of psychological flexibility on life satisfaction via working compulsively was 0.085 (p < 0.05; bootstrap confidence interval has a lower limit of 0.029 and an upper limit of 0.152).

The standardised total effect for flourishing in the model was −0.070 (p < 0.05; bootstrap confidence interval has a lower limit of −0.365 and upper limit of −0.067); instead, the standardised total effect for life satisfaction in the model was −0.054 (p < 0.05; bootstrap confidence interval has a lower limit of −0.381 and an upper limit of −0.039).

5. Discussion

This study, using the JD-R model, investigated the impact of work overload and psychological flexibility on compulsive work behaviours and well-being. The focus on compulsive work behaviours is driven by recent research suggesting that workaholism consists of two distinct dimensions – working compulsively and working excessively – which have different antecedents and outcomes (). In addition, emphasised that resources from various life domains can buffer the effects of demands on occupational health and well-being. Because psychological flexibility has been shown to have a positive effect on obsessive-compulsive tendencies (; ; ; ) and well-being (; ; , ), we examined how it influences the compulsive component of workaholism and its subsequent effects on both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being.

In our study, direct effects reveal that working compulsively alone predicts unfavourable worker outcomes, such as low flourishing (H1a) and low life satisfaction (H1b). On the one hand, the results obtained in the total models of flourishing and life satisfaction suggest that, although psychological flexibility and workload may have individual positive effects on flourishing and life satisfaction, the presence of compulsive work behaviour may negatively affect overall well-being. As suggested by , it is necessary to further explore antecedents of workaholism and how personal factors (such as demographic and personality factors, e.g. perfectionism; ) and work-related factors (beyond high job demands, e.g. overwork culture; ) interact in predicting workaholism.

Regarding work overload (H2), the obtained results suggest that the positive relationship between workload and working compulsively (H2a) supports the theory that a high workload may lead to a greater propensity for compulsive work behaviour. This is consistent with the findings of previous research (e.g. , ; ), which found workload to be associated with workaholism.

Furthermore, the positive association between workload and flourishing (H2b), as well as the positive association with life satisfaction (H2c), reflects the JD-R theory, according to which job demands can enhance the impact of job resources on positive outcomes such as work engagement and work motivation (). Indeed, perceiving excessive workloads can lead people to feel that their lives are satisfying and meaningful (). However, when psychological resources are scarce, demands may be perceived as excessive. As argued by , job resources have the potential to influence perceptions and cognitions triggered by job demands, moderate responses following the appraisal process or mitigate the adverse health consequences of such responses.

Regarding psychological flexibility (H3), the positive relationship between psychological flexibility and well-being, represented by flourishing (H3b) and life satisfaction (H3c), is consistent with the theory of psychological flexibility (), which suggests that greater ability to adapt and regulate responses to stressful events is associated with better well-being outcomes. The findings of further support this notion by indicating a direct, positive effect of psychological flexibility on life satisfaction, underscoring its significance in promoting individual well-being.

Moreover, the negative relationship between psychological flexibility and working compulsively (H3a) indicates that those who are more capable of accepting and adapting to stressful work situations tend to engage in less compulsive work behaviour. This is in line with previous research that has highlighted the role of psychological flexibility in preventing obsessive-compulsive diseases (e.g. ; ; ) and mitigating the negative effects of work-related stressors among workers (e.g. ; ).

Overall, the analysis of the indirect effects of work overload and psychological flexibility through compulsive work on well-being highlights the mediating role of this behaviour in linking work conditions and personal resources to psychological well-being, supporting the JD-R model in the context of the compulsive component of workaholism.

The present study contributes to the body of knowledge suggesting that working compulsively is a function of both low levels of psychological flexibility and suboptimal work environments that foster work overload. In other words, workers with low levels of psychological flexibility who also experience work overload are less able to protect themselves from experiences of the compulsive component of workaholism. This is consistent with the study by , which shows that workload was positively associated with workaholism in managers. Furthermore, our results concur with , indicating that psychological flexibility serves as a buffer or boundary condition for the negative impact of work overload.

6. Limitations and implications for future studies and practice

In the future, it will be crucial to address the limitations of this study, particularly the imbalance between employees and self-employed workers in the sample. Conducting further research with more diverse and balanced samples, including a purposive sampling approach, could help explore the influence of different types of employment on the relationships observed. Moreover, our study was cross-sectional and conducted using self-report measures (subject to the well-known bias) in Italy. The flourishing scale, for example, is based on a Western view of flourishing (); therefore, future studies could test the applicability of this model in other cultural contexts. In addition, longitudinal designs will be crucial to suggest robust causal relationships and enhance the generalisability of findings regarding psychological flexibility’s functions as a protective factor against workaholism, especially in the context of work overload. Moreover, future studies can provide further insight into potential moderators or mediators of the relationship between work overload, psychological flexibility and workaholic tendencies.

In the broader societal context, our findings suggest a pressing need for the development of public health policy, educational guidelines and career counselling interventions based on the recognition that compulsive work behaviour, contrary to popular belief, does not enhance job performance () and can significantly compromise individuals’ quality of life. As implications for work and organisational psychology professionals and human resource managers, it might be useful to enhance the psychological flexibility of workers to prevent the emergence of workaholism conditions and promote workers’ well-being. When discussing the prevention of workaholism, three levels of prevention are typically referenced (): at the first level, workaholism can be avoided by fostering a protective organisational culture; the second level of prevention focuses on training and individual counselling to mitigate the negative consequences of workaholism; the third level combines cognitive and behavioural interventions aimed at supporting the professional and social reintegration of individuals affected by workaholism. Given that training in psychological flexibility should be considered as one element of programs designed to increase the quality of life and well-being in workers (e.g. ; ) and that acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) has been shown to be useful in reducing obsessive-compulsive symptoms through cognitive defusion (), the findings of this study suggest that psychological flexibility may also be effectively applied to prevent the compulsive component of workaholism.

To foster psychological flexibility, organisations could implement short interventions as part of their well-being strategies, such as structured group training programs or individual career counselling services based on ACT, particularly in high-stress sectors and among vulnerable employee populations. Notably, ACT-based career counselling delivered through five group sessions has been shown to effectively enhance psychological flexibility and support sustainable career development (): these sessions help individuals to clarify their values within the context of their work activities, practice perspective-taking and present-moment awareness, strengthen cognitive defusion and experiential acceptance skills and promote value-driven actions in the short, medium and long term. In addition, ACT training can be delivered in various work settings, including online (), to support remote workers in aligning their actions with personal values without becoming overwhelmed. Research highlights the effectiveness of brief, targeted programs; for example, three-month interventions have been shown to enhance psychological flexibility and mitigate negative impacts on well-being ().

7. Conclusions

Our study concludes that work overload and psychological flexibility significantly influence well-being, highlighting their roles in compulsive work behaviour, flourishing and life satisfaction. These findings contribute to a better understanding of workaholism within the Job Demands-Resources framework (; ). Summarising, we found that psychological flexibility can be considered a valuable resource in reducing the risk of developing the compulsive component of workaholism, especially when dealing with work overload. Namely, despite some work-related challenges, the personal resource of psychological flexibility can contribute to improving the overall experience of work-related well-being (e.g. ; , ), even in the context of work overload and working compulsively. Individuals with a greater ability to adapt and manage stress may compensate for the negative effects of working compulsively, as indicated by and , who advocate for interventions such as stress management training and the development of self-management skills for individuals exhibiting workaholism. Overall, promoting psychological flexibility is essential for preventing workaholism and enhancing well-being in today’s work environments.

Figures

Hypothesised model

Figure 1.

Hypothesised model

Mediation model

Figure 2.

Mediation model

Descriptive statistic and Pearson correlations

VariablesM (SD)Range12345
1. Work overload 3.56 (0.84) 1–5
2. Psychological flexibility 4.82 (1.45) 1–7 −0.11
3. Working compulsively 2.41 (0.79) 1–4 0.44** −0.33**
4. Flourishing 5.48 (0.97) 2.75–7 0.09 0.42** −0.23**
5. Life satisfaction 4.66 (1.36) 1–7 0.13* 0.41** −0.18** 0.71**
Notes:

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

Source: Authors’ own work

References

Akinwale, O.E., Kuye, O.L. and Akinwale, O.E. (2023), “Predictors of workaholism and quality of work-life among information technology (IT) professionals in Nigeria: a dynamite promoting brain-drain albatross”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, doi: 10.1108/IJOA-05-2023-3772.

Akhouri, D., Kumar, S. and Reyazuddin, M. (2023), “Acceptance and commitment therapy as an add-on treatment for the management of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder”, Industrial Psychiatry Journal, Vol. 32 No. Suppl 1, pp. S179-S185, doi: 10.4103/ipj.ipj_213_23.

Altaf, A. and Awan, M.A. (2011), “Moderating affect of workplace spirituality on the relationship of job overload and job satisfaction”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 93-99, doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0891-0.

Alwali, A. (2024), “Unpacking the role of transformational leadership and work engagement in the relationship between psychological capital and innovative work behavior”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 56 No. 4, doi: 10.1108/ICT-01-2024-0010.

Alwali, J. and Alwali, W. (2022), “The relationship between emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, and performance: a test of the mediating role of job satisfaction”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 928-952, doi: 10.1108/LODJ-10-2021-0486.

Archer, R., Lewis, R., Yarker, J., Zernerova, L. and Flaxman, P.E. (2024), “Increasing workforce psychological flexibility through organization-wide training: influence on stress resilience, job burnout, and performance”, Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, Vol. 33, p. 100799, doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2024.100799.

Andreassen, C.S., Bakker, A.B., Bjorvatn, B., Moen, B.E., Magerøy, N., Shimazu, A., Hetland, J. and Pallesen, S. (2017), “Working conditions and individual differences are weakly associated with workaholism: a 2-3-year prospective study of shift-working nurses”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 8, p. 2045, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02045.

Bakker, A.B. and de Vries, J.D. (2021), “Job demands–resources theory and self-regulation: new explanations and remedies for job burnout”, Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.1080/10615806.2020.1797695.

Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2017), “Job demands–resources theory: taking stock and looking forward”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, p. 273, doi: 10.1037/ocp0000056.

Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2018), “Multiple levels in job demands-resources theory: implications for employee well-being and performance”, in Diener, E., Oish S.I. and Tay L. (Eds), Handbook of Well-Being, DEF Publishers.

Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2024), “Job demands–resources theory: frequently asked questions”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 3, p. 188, doi: 10.1037/ocp0000376.

Bakker, A.B. and Sanz-Vergel, A.I. (2013), “Weekly work engagement and flourishing: the role of hindrance and challenge job demands”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 397-409, doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.06.008.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Euwema, M.C. (2005), “Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 170-180, doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Sanz-Vergel, A. (2023), “Job demands–resources theory: ten years later”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 25-53, doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-053933.

Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., Taris, T.W., Schaufeli, W.B. and Schreurs, P.J. (2003), “A multigroup analysis of the job demands-resources model in four home care organizations”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, doi: 10.1037/1072-5245.10.1.16.

Balducci, C., Avanzi, L., Consiglio, C., Fraccaroli, F. and Schaufeli, W. (2015), “A cross-national study on the psychometric quality of the Italian version of the Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS)”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000300.

Bannai, A. and Tamakoshi, A. (2014), “The association between long working hours and health: a systematic review of epidemiological evidence”, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 5-18, doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3388.

Biron, M. and Van Veldhoven, M. (2012), “Emotional labour in service work: psychological flexibility and emotion regulation”, Human Relations, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1259-1282, doi: 10.1177/0018726712447832.

Bond, F.W., Flaxman, P.E., van Veldhoven, M.J. and Biron, M. (2010), “The impact of psychological flexibility and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) on health and productivity at work”, in Houdmont, J. and S. Leka (Eds), Contemporary Occupational Health Psychology: Global Perspectives on Research and Practice, pp. 296-313, doi: 10.1002/9780470661550.ch15.

Bond, F.W., Hayes, S.C., Baer, R.A., Carpenter, K.M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H.K. and Zettle, R.D. (2011), “Preliminary psychometric properties of the acceptance and action questionnaire–II: a revised measure of psychological inflexibility and experiential avoidance”, Behavior Therapy, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 676-688, doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007.

Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. (1993), “Alternative ways of assessing model fit”, in Bollen, K.A. and Long J.S (Eds), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 136-162.

Clark, M.A., Michel, J.S., Zhdanova, L., Pui, S.Y. and Baltes, B.B. (2016), “All work and no play? A meta-analytic examination of the correlates and outcomes of workaholism”, Journal of Management, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 1836-1873, doi: 10.1177/0149206314522301.

Cornwell, J.F., Nakkawita, E., Franks, B. and Higgins, E.T. (2023), “Motivation and well-being across the lifespan: a cross-sectional examination”, The Journal of Positive Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 688-694, doi: 10.1080/17439760.2022.2093787.

Cossin, T., Thaon, I. and Lalanne, L. (2021), “Workaholism prevention in occupational medicine: a systematic review”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18 No. 13, p. 7109, doi: 10.3390/ijerph18137109.

Demerouti, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2023), “Job demands-resources theory in times of crises: new propositions”, Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 209-236, doi: 10.1177/20413866221135022.

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, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499.

Demirbağ, K.Ş. and Demirbağ, O. (2022), “Who said there is no place like home? Extending the link between quantitative job demands and life satisfaction: a moderated mediation model”, Personnel Review, Vol. 51 No. 8, pp. 1922-1947, doi: 10.1108/PR-01-2022-0048.

Di Fabio, A. and Gori, A. (2020), “Satisfaction with life scale among Italian workers: reliability, factor structure and validity through a big sample study”, Sustainability, Vol. 12 No. 14, p. 5860, doi: 10.3390/su12145860.

Diener, E.D., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J. and Griffin, S. (1985), “The satisfaction with life scale”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 71-75.

Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim-Prieto, C., Choi, D.W., Oishi, S. and Biswas-Diener, R. (2010), “New well-being measures: short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 143-156, doi: 10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y.

Flores, M.A. (2021), “The effects of an online-based acceptance and commitment training on employee burnout, psychological flexibility, and values-directed behavior”, Doctoral dissertation, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology.

Fowers, B.J., Novak, L.F., Kiknadze, N.C. and Calder, A.J. (2023), “Questioning contemporary universalist approaches to human flourishing”, Review of General Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 121-134, doi: 10.1177/10892680221138230.

Galanakis, M.D. and Tsitouri, E. (2022), “Positive psychology in the working environment. Job demands-resources theory, work engagement and burnout: a systematic literature review”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 13, p. 1022102, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1022102.

Garner, E.V. and Golijani-Moghaddam, N. (2021), “Relationship between psychological flexibility and work-related quality of life for healthcare professionals: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, Vol. 21, pp. 98-112, doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.06.007.

Girardi, D., Falco, A., De Carlo, A., Dal Corso, L. and Benevene, P. (2018), “Perfectionism and workaholism in managers: the moderating role of workload”, TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, Vol. 25 No 4, doi: 10.4473/TPM25.4.7.

Giuntoli, L., Ceccarini, F., Sica, C. and Caudek, C. (2017), “Validation of the Italian versions of the flourishing scale and of the scale of positive and negative experience”, Sage Open, Vol. 7 No. 1, doi: 10.1177/2158244016682293.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, (7th ed.). Pearson.

Hassell, J., Kuntz, J. and Wright, S. (2024), “Revisiting workaholism: lived experiences and new insights”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 32 No. 10, doi: 10.1108/IJOA-10-2023-4035.

Hayes, S.C., Luoma, J.B., Bond, F.W., Masuda, A. and Lillis, J. (2006), “Acceptance and commitment therapy: model, processes and outcomes”, Behaviour Research and Therapy, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 1-25, doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006.

Hayes, S.C., Villatte, M., Levin, M. and Hildebrandt, M. (2011), “Open, aware, and active: contextual approaches as an emerging trend in the behavioural and cognitive therapies”, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 141-168, doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032210-104449.

Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55, doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.

Huppert, F.A. and So, T.T. (2011), “Flourishing across Europe: application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 110 No. 3, pp. 837-861.

Huyghebaert, T., Fouquereau, E., Lahiani, F.-J., Beltou, N., Gimenes, G. and Gillet, N. (2018), “Examining the longitudinal effects of workload on ill-being through each dimension of workaholism”, International Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 144-162, doi: 10.1037/str0000055.

Junker, N.M., Theisges, L., Avanzi, L., van Dick, R. and Kaluza, A.J. (2024), “The link between workaholism and well‐being via self‐care and the moderating role of group identification”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 545-557, doi: 10.1002/ejsp.3031.

Keyes, C.L.M. (2007), “Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing”, American Psychologist, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 95-108, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.95.

Kopperud, K.H., Buch, R. and Skogen, C. (2021), “Work overload and leader–member exchange: the moderating role of psychological flexibility”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 173-184, doi: 10.1177/0306307020942905.

Lau, R.S. and Cheung, G.W. (2012), “Estimating and comparing specific mediation effects in complex latent variable models”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 3-16, doi: 10.1177/1094428110391673.

Lee, S.W., Choi, M. and Lee, S.J. (2023), “A randomized controlled trial of group-based acceptance and commitment therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder”, Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, Vol. 27, pp. 45-53, doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2022.11.009.

LePine, J.A., Podsakoff, N.P. and LePine, M.A. (2005), “A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor-hindrance stressor framework: an explanation for inconsistent relationships among stressors and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 764-775, doi: 10._5465/AMJ.2005.18803921.

Little, T.D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K. and Schoemann, A.M. (2013), “Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 285-300, doi: 10.1037/a0033266.

Lucas, J.J. and Moore, K.A. (2020), “Psychological flexibility: positive implications for mental health and life satisfaction”, Health Promotion International, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 312-320, doi: 10.1093/heapro/daz036.

Molino, M., Bakker, A.B. and Ghislieri, C. (2016), “The role of workaholism in the job demands-resources model”, Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 400-414, doi: 10.1080/10615806.2015.1070833.

Morkevičiūtė, M and Endriulaitienė, A. (2021), “Can remote work during Covid-19 pandemic strengthen the link between workload and workaholism?”, Socialiniai Tyrimai, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 98-109, doi: 10.15388/Soctyr.44.2.6.

Mosier, S.K. (1983), “Workaholics: an analysis of their stress, success, and priorities”, Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Texas at Austin.

Oates, W. (1971), “Confessions of a workaholic: the facts about work addiction”, World Publishing Co, New York.

Ong, C.W., Lee, E.B., Levin, M.E. and Twohig, M.P. (2019), “A review of AAQ variants and other context-specific measures of psychological flexibility”, Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, Vol. 12, pp. 329-346, doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2019.02.007.

Pennato, T., Berrocal, C., Bernini, O. and Rivas, T. (2013), “Italian version of the acceptance and action questionnaire-II (AAQ-II): dimensionality, reliability, convergent and criterion validity”, Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 552-563, doi: 10.1007/s10862-013-9355-4.

Philip, J. and Cherian, V. (2021), “Acceptance and commitment therapy in the treatment of Obsessive-Compulsive disorder: a systematic review”, Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders, Vol. 28, p. 100603, doi: 10.1016/j.jocrd.2020.100603.

Prudenzi, A., Graham, C.D., Rogerson, O. and O’Connor, D.B. (2023), “Mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: exploring the role of psychological flexibility and stress-related variables”, Psychology and Health, Vol. 38 No. 10, pp. 1378-1401, doi: 10.1080/08870446.2021.2020272.

Puolakanaho, A., Tolvanen, A., Kinnunen, S.M. and Lappalainen, R. (2020), “A psychological flexibility-based intervention for burnout: a randomized controlled trial”, Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, Vol. 15, pp. 52-67, doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2019.11.007.

Rosario-Hernández, E., Rovira-Millán, L.V., Rodríguez, B., Suarez, C., Sánchez, F., Arroyo, Y., … Martínez, N. (2024), “The effects of workaholism on psychological well-being: the mediating role of rumination”, Revista CISTEI, available at: www.cistei-edp.org

Russo, A., Zammitti, A., Santisi, G. and Magnano, P. (2024), “Psychometric properties and gender invariance of the work-related acceptance and action questionnaire (WAAQ) in the Italian context”, Journal of Health and Social Sciences, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 352-367, doi: 10.19204/2024/PSYC3.

Russo, A., Zammitti, A., Santisi, G. and Magnano, P. (2023), “The relationship between psychological flexibility and career adaptability as resources to promote well-being”, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 1-10, doi: 10.1080/03069885.2023.2212856.

Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2001), “On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 141-166, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141.

Ryff, C.D. and Singer, B. (2008), “Know thyself and become what you are: a eudaimonic approach to psychological well-being”, Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 13-39, doi: 10.1007/s10902-006-9019-0.

Schaufeli, W.B. (2016), “Heavy work investment, personality and organizational climate”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 1057-1073, doi: 10.1108/JMP-07-2015-0259.

Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. and Maslach, C. (2009a), “Burnout: 35 years of research and practice”, Career Development International, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 204-220, doi: 10.1108/13620430910966406.

Schaufeli, W.B., Shimazu, A. and Taris, T.W. (2009b), “Being driven to work excessively hard: the evaluation of a two-factor measure of workaholism in The Netherlands and Japan”, Cross-Cultural Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 320-348, doi: 10.1177/1069397109337239.

Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and van Rhenen, W. (2008), “Workaholism, burnout, and work engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being?”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 173-203, doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00285.x.

Seligman, M.E.P. (2011), Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-Being, Free Press, New York, NY.

Shimazu, A. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2009), “Is workaholism good or bad for employee well-being? The distinctiveness of workaholism and work engagement among Japanese employees”, Industrial Health, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 495-502, doi: 10.2486/indhealth.47.495.

Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W.B. and Taris, T.W. (2010), “How does workaholism affect worker health and performance? The mediating role of coping”, International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 154-160, doi: 10.1007/s12529-010-9077-x.

Spence, J.T. and Robbins, A.S. (1992), “Workaholism: definition, measurement, and preliminary results”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 160-178, doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5801_15.

Taris, T.W. and de Jonge, J. (2024), “Workaholism: taking stock and looking forward”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 113-138, doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-111821-035514.

Ten Brummelhuis, L. and Rothbard, N.P. (2018), “How being a workaholic differs from working long hours–and why that matters for your health”, Harvard Business Review, available at: https://hbr.org/2018/03/how-being-a-workaholic-differs-from-working-long-hours-and-why-that-matters-for-your-health

Twohig, M.P., Vilardaga, J.C.P., Levin, M.E. and Hayes, S.C. (2015), “Changes in psychological flexibility during acceptance and commitment therapy for obsessive compulsive disorder”, Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 196-202, doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2015.07.001.

Van Beek, I., Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and Schreurs, B.H. (2012), “For fun, love, or money: what drives workaholic, engaged, and burned‐out employees at work?”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 30-55, doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00454.x.

Xu, X., Peng, Y., Ma, J. and Jalil, D. (2023), “Does working hard really pay off? Testing the temporal ordering between workaholism and job performance”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 503-523, doi: 10.1111/joop.12441.

Yildirim, M., Dilekçi, Ü. and Manap, A. (2024), “Mediating roles of meaning in life and psychological flexibility in the relationships between occupational stress and job satisfaction, job performance, and psychological distress in teachers”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 15, p. 1349726, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1349726.

Further reading

Russo, A. and Zammitti, A. (2024), “Cultivating psychological flexibility to promote sustainable careers: a pilot study on the effectiveness of a training [coltivare la flessibilità psicologica per promuovere carriere sostenibili: uno studio pilota sull’efficacia di un training]”, [Congress Poster], 2nd CBT-Italy National Congress. Navigating between Processes, Italian Society of Cognitive Behavioural Psychology, Palermo.

Acknowledgements

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Ethics approvals: The study was approved by the Internal Ethic Review Board (IERB) of the Department of Educational Sciences, Section of Psychology, of the University of Catania, Italy (Prot. n° Ierb-Edunict-2022.10.14/2).

Data availability statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author [A.R.], upon reasonable request.

Disclosure statement: The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Corresponding author

Angela Russo is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: angela.russo18@unibo.it

About the authors

Angela Russo is a Research Fellow in Work and Organisational Psychology at the University of Bologna. She has conducted her PhD research at the University of Catania. She is a Lecturer in Work and Organisational Psychology at the University of Catania and Social Psychology at the Kore University of Enna and the University of Catania. She is a member of the European Association of Work and Organisational Psychology, the Italian Society for Vocational Guidance (SIO), the Italian Association of Psychology (AIP), the Working Group “Career counselling over the life span” of the Order of Psychologists of the Sicilian Region, Italy. She is specialising in cognitive-behavioural psychotherapy. Her research interests focus on developing measures and training programmes to enhance psychological resources that foster sustainable career paths and workers well-being.

Mohammed Mansouri is a PhD student at Djillali Liabes University of Sidi Bel Abbes, and an Assistant Lecturer in Work and Organizational Psychology and Educational Sciences at the University of Oran 2. He is a member and researcher of the Psychological and Educational Research Lab at the University of Sidi Bel Abbes, as well as a member of the Algerian Association of Ergonomics. His research interests focus on positive psychology practice at the workplace, improving the quality of working life in educational settings and developing emotional intelligence at work.

Giuseppe Santisi has a PhD in Organization Theory. He is a Full Professor of Work and Organisational Psychology at the University of Catania and an ordinary member of the AIP and the SIO. He is the President of the master degree course in psychology at the University of Catania and also the President of the Centre for Active and Participatory Inclusion and delegate of the Magnificent Rector for disability services and learning disabilities at the University of Catania. His research focuses on the interplay between organisational health and the psychology of entrepreneurship, with a particular emphasis on organisational climate, employability and the concept of meaningful (and/or decent) work.

Andrea Zammitti has a PhD in Work Psychology. He is a assistant professor in Social Psychology at the University of Catania and a coordinator of the Working Group “Career counselling over the life span” of the Order of Psychologists of the Sicilian Region, Italy. He is a member of the Management Committee of the SIO and a member of the AIP. He participates in several international projects funded by the European Union on career counselling issues. He was recently awarded the “Best Scientific Article Published in 2021” at the XXX National Congress of the Italian Psychological Association (Organizational Psychology section). His research interests focus on fostering the development of sustainable and inclusive social and organisational contexts.

Related articles