This seems like an appropriate follow-up to recent thoughts on the workaholic. Apparently, those who may lay claim to the workaholic label should reset their priorities, and focus on well-being.
At least, so suggests an article at PsyPost citing research that links workaholics to “reduced physical and mental well-being.”
Hello? Am I imagining a judgment in that statement, as in “if you’re a workaholic and your well-being is compromised, you’re doing it to yourself?”
Any impressions of judgment aside, is anyone actually surprised by these findings?
Surely not the single mother juggling two jobs and still not making ends meet. Does she count as a “workaholic,” or does the term only apply to a cadre of professionals who are presumed to work excessively due to a distorted set of personal priorities?
Torqued? Yeah, I’m torqued.
Workaholic Wilderness: Divorced Moms, Divorced Dads… All of Us
The Classic Workaholic of the 80s or even the 90s?
Gone, gone, gone – and as far as I’m concerned, better left forgotten.
Today’s real workaholics are the divorced moms who are struggling to do the best for their kids when the support checks cover only a fraction of family expenses, the divorced dads who are the financial backbone for two households, in part because their ex-wives can’t find work in this economy.
Today’s real workaholics are potentially all of us – regardless of age, regardless of marital status – just trying to hang on.
So why are we absolving our employers, our politicians, our economists, and our creaky conservative pundits of their role in our workaholic wilderness?
Shall we add the health insurance profiteers to the list? Big Food? Big Pharma? Big Banks?
“Data Driven”… Over a Cliff…
In “Well-Being is Not a Priority for Workaholics,” we may now rest comfortably in the knowledge that:
The link between workaholism and well-being has been assumed for years; however, there was a lack of research supporting the link until this study…
And?
What changes will this knowledge ignite? What policies so workers who are job scared no longer feel compelled to put in any extra effort demanded of them in order to hang onto their income a while longer, not to mention a few benefits?
Care to know more?
“We found workaholics — defined by those working more than 50 hours per week — were more likely to have reduced physical well-being, measured by skipped meals. Also, we found that workaholism was associated with reduced mental well-being as measured by a self-reported depression score.”
I’m depressed just reading that!
Hello? Can You Hear You Me Now?
What about those who don’t have an employment relationship – cobbling together whatever they can however they can – at 50 hours a week, 70 hours a week, 90 hours a week – with sleep and meals barely on the radar? Ah yes, the magic of the portfolio career…
How is this a matter of skewed priorities at the individual level? Where is the admission of the mammoth and complex systems that continue to grow the gap between the haves and the have nots?
Isn’t the bottom line an issue of distorted cultural values, and not an individual disregard for well-being?
Hey. I know. “Don’t shoot the messenger” – and that isn’t my intent. The study and conclusions referenced are presented within a narrow context and a certain group of workaholic individuals. I’m always glad to see research data prove out a hypothesis, but in this case, I’m miffed.
How could we not presume that working long hours under stress results in negative impacts to well-being? Is the assumption that workaholics can and should cut back?
Sure, we control our destinies and make our own luck – to some extent – just as we make reasoned choices with what we know, including concerning our health and well-being. And hey – maybe I’m oversensitive on this topic. What can I say?
Still, even the remotest implication that the workaholics of America en masse have simply to reassign priorities feels like a cheap shot and a bad call.
You May Also Enjoy:
I agree that equating 50h work weeks with being a workaholic is insulting to many people that have to live with uncertainty and part time employment options. It is simple math that less take-home money per hour requires more hours to make up the shortfall. The shift in the economy to convince people to work for free or next to nothing by calling it “interning” worries me for my kids’ sake and their entry into the economy. Reduced a la carte benefits, fixed time contracts so you can be let go without severance, and Dilbert-esque work conditions in cube farms will be the future of corporate employment; to quote a song, you don’t know what you’ve got ’til its gone.
Sounds like a very lame article. I like the way you highlight their “stunning” conclusions. As their next project, they are investigating whether abstinence lowers the pregnancy rate.
What an incredibly lame definition of a workaholic. 50 seems too low to me, and it needs a qualifier. Like an exempt employee with a net worth >X, and or someone who makes six figures, and works >60 hours a week, and has enough saved so they could go 6 months without earning any money.
Greg, I admit I was surprised to find this article in what I consider a good site. Lame, yes, I agree. And the qualifying factors that you include in your example would have gone far to adding credibility.
Sorry, but you have TOTALLY missed the forest for the trees.
Workaholics are like alcoholics. They are ADDICTED to work, and busy-ness. This study – and others like them – are not aimed at the women and men who MUST work XX number of hours to keep the roof over their heads and food in their kids mouths, but who would gladly cut back their work hours if only they could.
Workaholics are the people who take work home on the weekend, even when their bosses tell them not to. They are the ones who obsessively vacuum twice (or more) a day. They take PRIDE in always being super-busy, they BRAG about it, in a backhanded way, often by complaining about how nobody can do anything without their input. They are the people who MANUFACTURE work and busy-ness, because they become anxious and uneasy by having large chunks of unstructured time to rest, read, play, or simply BE.
We tend to feed into what is in many cases a sign of mental illness by glorifying work in this culture. If you neglected your child to play video games, you’d be censured, but if you neglect your child because you Have To Work 11 hours a day (even if, on closer examination, maybe you don’t have to work as much as you say/think you do), we give you a pat on the back.
I don’t believe I have missed the point, as in fact you nailed the definition of a workaholic, or certainly come closer than this study!
And that truly is my point. Excessive work hours in my opinion are the result of necessity (economic, business pressures, self-esteem issues) and also masks any number of personal problems including interpersonal, sexual, familial, etc.
I agree completely that we’ve become (and long have been) a culture that glorifies work as an acceptable ‘reason’ (excuse) to neglect other responsibilities.
But shame on us for lumping together the millions who ‘work over 50 hours/week’ as if they’re all the same, and for downplaying that stress destroys us.
As for our work-glorifying culture, I’d love to see us all be saner and healthier. Any ideas?
The Aug 23rd indexed.com cartoon is a related summary of part of your article, the timing couldn’t have been more perfect.
I’ll have to check it out, Batticus! Thanks!
I think there’s a distinct different between a workaholic and a survivalist. I think single parents or families that struggle financially fall into this category. In my mind, a workaholic is one who doesn’t NEED to work 50, 60, 80 hours a week, but may choose to do so out of a sense of misplaced priorities. Big difference. I agree with you that we live in a work-glorifying culture of more, More, MORE and tend to overlook the value of free time, vacations and (gasp!) occasional daydreaming.