View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Silver Lining of Workaholism: Its Impact on Employees' Creativity and Presenteeism Explained

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Silver Lining of Workaholism: Its Impact on Employees' Creativity and Presenteeism Explained
Language: English
Authors: Saima Naseer (ORCID 0000-0001-9498-2380), Dave Bouckenooghe, Shadab Qazi, Fauzia Sy
Source: Journal of Creative Behavior. 2024 58(4):636-656.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Employees, Creativity, Addictive Behavior, Individual Development, Foreign Countries, Work Life Expectancy, Productivity
Geographic Terms: Pakistan
DOI: 10.1002/jocb.1507
ISSN: 0022-0175
2162-6057
Abstract: In this inquiry, we highlight that there is a silver lining to workaholism, relying on identity control theory as an explanatory framework. A parallel mediation model established that workaholism fosters employees' creativity but also triggers presenteeism through the mechanisms of thriving and flourishing. The model also shows that a proactive personality is a critical boundary condition that moderates the workaholism-thriving and workaholism-flourishing relationship. Two-source multi-wave temporally segregated data (n = 305) from the service sector in Islamabad (i.e., Pakistan) were used as a research design. Overall, this study contributes to the workaholism literature by unveiling two new pivotal mechanisms that depict a more balanced perspective to the dominant negative view of workaholics being obsessive-compulsive addicts.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1454913
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG1EIllH2qxHjfxpQ9hENdtAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOTOpPvXPSKjwo92FgIBEICBm9u58a2P4n7-dz2pAn3QHxHj7wDeoxILdbgc_Gw2k5WwAbv0AIYOzaqKcXfmL-oeCutz3ctFNRSdUghEk0hKqUHR7InL87cOe4LXHojGs4fELuN3GluAG-sZN7V1P0hwNjZ6Cz4sCRA5GnLvBY2ZuDwHCFmQbm7H17XU3ruM9ax2CJQDHETtL966ijyq8puNWWSaxla4H4Dvwkps
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0181847415;3u701dec.24;2024Dec27.02:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181847415-1">The Silver Lining of Workaholism: Its Impact on Employees' Creativity and Presenteeism Explained </title> <p>In this inquiry, we highlight that there is a silver lining to workaholism, relying on identity control theory as an explanatory framework. A parallel mediation model established that workaholism fosters employees' creativity but also triggers presenteeism through the mechanisms of thriving and flourishing. The model also shows that a proactive personality is a critical boundary condition that moderates the workaholism‐thriving and workaholism‐flourishing relationship. Two‐source multi‐wave temporally segregated data (n = 305) from the service sector in Islamabad (i.e., Pakistan) were used as a research design. Overall, this study contributes to the workaholism literature by unveiling two new pivotal mechanisms that depict a more balanced perspective to the dominant negative view of workaholics being obsessive‐compulsive addicts.</p> <p>Keywords: workaholism; thriving; flourishing; presenteeism; creativity; proactive personality</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>In the workplace, how individuals perceive themselves and their perception of who they think they are in the work role directly affects their work‐related behaviors (Charness & Chen, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref1">25</reflink>]; Farmer, Tierney, & Kung‐McIntyre, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref2">38</reflink>]). Mainstream management literature has covered many aspects of how people make sense of their work role and how it impacts their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. This study emphasizes workaholism, an essential concept that has attracted significant attention in management research (Andersen, Djugum, Sjåstad, & Pallesen, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]; Clark, Michel, Zhdanova, Pui, & Baltes, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref4">29</reflink>]; Kim, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref5">61</reflink>]). Workaholism, defined as an individual's propensity to work compulsively and excessively hard (Atroszko, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref6">8</reflink>]; Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref7">92</reflink>]; Schaufeli, Bakker, Van der Heijden, & Prins, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref8">94</reflink>]; Schaufeli, Shimazu, & Taris, [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref9">95</reflink>]; Spence & Robbins, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref10">106</reflink>]), has sparked controversy in recent years.</p> <p>The term "workaholism" has been entrenched in our lexicon for over 50 years, yet this duration has not led to a consensus on its conceptualization and definition (Baruch, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref11">14</reflink>]; Taris & de Jonge, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref12">113</reflink>]). Initially, Oates ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref13">82</reflink>]) pioneered the scientific study of workaholism, framing it as a compulsive and uncontrollable need to work incessantly, a perspective that predominantly cast it in a negative light. This view has been echoed by many, positioning workaholism as a destructive behavioral phenomenon with numerous studies highlighting its detrimental impact on individual's mental, physical health, and social lives (e.g., Burke & MacDermid, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref14">24</reflink>]; Schaufeli, Bakker, et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref15">94</reflink>]; Taris & De Jonge, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref16">113</reflink>]). Such perspectives have shaped most of the discourse around workaholism (Taris & De Jonge, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref17">113</reflink>]), typically associating it with adverse outcomes like burnout and reduced social functioning (Balducci, Avanzi, & Fraccaroli, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref18">13</reflink>]; Cheung, Tang, Lim, & Koh, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref19">28</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, not all scholars have aligned with this negative psychological perspective. For example, Machlowitz ([<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref20">71</reflink>]) portrayed workaholism as an extreme form of work involvement, characterizing workaholics as intense, energetic, competitive, and driven, with a preference for work over leisure and an insatiable appetite for their work activities. Similarly, Spence and Robbins ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref21">106</reflink>]) provided a more nuanced description of workaholism, identifying it as a complex phenomenon with three dimensions: work involvement (a high level of engagement with work), enjoyment (the degree of pleasure or satisfaction derived from work), and drive (an intense motivation and compulsion to work). We align with this more comprehensive description, as it acknowledges the positive aspects of workaholism beyond the narrow, pathologically negative view.</p> <p>In this context, some recent studies (e.g., Balducci et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref22">12</reflink>]) challenge the pessimistic view by suggesting that workaholism does not lead to negative job performance, indicating a potential for positive outcomes (see Cheng & Gu, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref23">27</reflink>]). Recently, Lee, Lee, and Lee ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref24">66</reflink>]), in a systematic review and meta‐analysis of work engagement and workaholism, concluded that the past literature has viewed workaholism in a consistently negative light. In contrast, work engagement has been defined favorably, making these two constructs dichotomous. The authors highlighted the need for future researchers to look beyond the prevalent rigid view of workaholism as harmful and extend the limited research that has investigated the potentially favorable outcomes of workaholism (Baruch, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>]; Keller, Spurk, Baumeler, & Hirschi, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref26">58</reflink>]; Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref27">66</reflink>]; Snir & Zohar, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref28">104</reflink>]). These aspects highlight the potential for positive contributions to organizational productivity and innovation.</p> <p>Despite these insights, a gap exists in understanding how workaholism translates into positive work outcomes. This smaller body of literature, including contributions from Baruch ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref29">14</reflink>]) and Peiperl and Jones ([<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref30">86</reflink>]), recognizes that workaholics can be high performers, yet it often falls short of elucidating the mechanisms through which such work engagement leads to beneficial results (Buelens & Poelmans, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref31">16</reflink>]; Cheng & Gu, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref32">27</reflink>]; Ng, Sorensen, & Feldman, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref33">80</reflink>]; Snir & Harpaz, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref34">103</reflink>]). This oversight reflects a research landscape biased toward exploring the negative psychological mechanisms behind workaholism, frequently overlooking its potential advantages (Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref35">66</reflink>]). Our study seeks to address this imbalance by acknowledging the well‐documented adverse effects of workaholism and exploring its capacity to be channeled into positive organizational outcomes. By broadening the perspective on workaholism to include its potential for enhancing productivity and fostering innovation, we aim to contribute to a more balanced understanding of this complex phenomenon. This approach aligns with a broader discourse that considers both workaholism's destructive and constructive potentials, aiming to elucidate the underlying mechanisms through which workaholism can manifest as a factor driving limited yet positive outcomes within the workplace.</p> <p>Building on this stream of research that views workaholics as high performers, this study aims to explore the favorable side of workaholism by examining its unique consequences on employee creativity. Although employee creativity is not traditionally included in standard performance evaluations, which often focus on productivity, efficiency, and adherence to processes, it holds significant value for organizational growth and adaptability (Aldabbas, Pinnington, & Lahrech, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref36">2</reflink>]; Chen, Liu, Tang, & Hogan, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref37">26</reflink>]; He, Zhou, Zhao, Jiang, & Wu, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref38">50</reflink>]; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref39">100</reflink>]). Over the years, empirical evidence, reviews, and meta‐analyses have revealed creativity to be an intricate phenomenon activated by a complex interplay of personal, situational, and affective employee experiences (Jeong, Gong, & Zhong, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref40">55</reflink>]; Park, Choi, & Wu, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref41">84</reflink>]; Van Knippenberg & Hirst, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref42">119</reflink>]). Recent insights suggest that the intense work habits associated with workaholism might inadvertently foster an environment conducive to creative performance (Cheng & Gu, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref43">27</reflink>]). For instance, workaholics' high levels of engagement and persistence can lead to deep dives into complex problems, potentially resulting in innovative solutions and creative breakthroughs (Bakker, Demerouti, & Sanz‐Vergel, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref44">9</reflink>]). This perspective aligns with findings that suggest while workaholism often has negative connotations, under the right circumstances, the drive and energy it encompasses can be channeled into productive and creative outcomes (Cheung & Gu, 2022; Ng et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref45">80</reflink>]).</p> <p>As noted earlier, we adopt a balanced perspective, acknowledging that while workaholism can lead to creativity, it poses both short‐term and long‐term risks to employees and organizations. One significant risk is the potential for long‐term burnout and related health issues, which are well‐documented negative consequences of workaholism (Aronsson, Gustafsson, & Dallner, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref46">7</reflink>]; Schaufeli, Taris, & Van Rhenen, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref47">96</reflink>]; Taris, Schaufeli, & Shimazu, [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref48">114</reflink>]). Additionally, presenteeism—a behavior where employees, despite being unwell, continue to work—is often seen as a form of dedication and is sometimes even welcomed by employers (Collins & Cartwright, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref49">30</reflink>]). Johns ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref50">56</reflink>]) suggested that presenteeism might reflect higher organizational citizenship behaviors, contributing to a more motivated and engaged workforce. However, Miraglia and Johns ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref51">76</reflink>]) argue that more research is needed to determine when and for whom attending work while sick is justifiable. The onset of COVID‐19 has heightened awareness of presenteeism's detrimental effects on coworkers and overall organizational performance (Ishimaru et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref52">52</reflink>]; Taylor, Butts, Cole, & Pounds, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref53">115</reflink>]). Nevertheless, for workaholics, presenteeism may still be considered a norm. Despite its complex implications, the intersection of presenteeism and workaholism remains largely unexplored, representing a critical gap in the existing literature. Therefore, by examining creativity and presenteeism, our study acknowledges the dual nature of workaholic tendencies, which can contribute to and detract from organizational and individual well‐being. We seek a balanced perspective that neither glorifies workaholism nor dismisses its potential benefits. By channeling workaholics' intense energy and commitment into meaningful contributions, as evidenced by creativity, we highlight the beneficial aspects of workaholism. At the same time, by analyzing workaholism's effects on increased presenteeism, we uncover the complex and paradoxical nature of workaholism. This dual focus contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of workaholism and underscores the importance of finding ways to manage and potentially redirect workaholic tendencies. This approach aims to harness their benefits while mitigating their risks.</p> <p>Further, we acknowledge that workaholics exhibit a high level of drive and engagement and derive greater satisfaction from their work than from leisure activities (Snir & Harpaz, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref54">103</reflink>]; Spence & Robbins, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref55">106</reflink>]). In adopting this perspective, we shift from viewing workaholism solely through a pathological lens to exploring its potential to induce hedonistic pleasure and a sense of eudaimonia (Baruch, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref56">14</reflink>]; Malinowska & Tokarz, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref57">72</reflink>]). This shift enables understanding how workaholism can direct energy into positive behavioral outcomes. Consequently, our research focuses on 'thriving' and 'flourishing'—two pivotal but distinct constructs in positive organizational psychology. Thriving and flourishing are attained when workaholics strive to align their work behaviors with their internalized self‐views. Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, Dutton, Sonenshein, and Grant ([<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref58">107</reflink>]) defined thriving as an individual's inner state where they demonstrate a sense of vitality and continuous learning at work. In their integrative multilevel review, Goh et al. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref59">44</reflink>]) identified several antecedents of thriving at an individual, collective, and organizational level, such as individual task focus, exploration, and work demands. More recently, Ni, Zeng, and Zhou ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref60">81</reflink>]) advocated and found support for thriving to be a potential predictor of workaholism; given their study was cross‐sectional, reverse causation effects might be at play, contemplating the opposite effect to be true. Based on identity control theory and recent evidence, thriving results from workaholics' drive to attain mastery and success, reinforcing their identity as high performers. Flourishing encompasses positive emotions, life satisfaction, and meaningful engagement (Diener et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref61">36</reflink>]). Past research corroborates advancement in one's career as an essential predictor of flourishing (Rautenbach & Rothmann, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref62">90</reflink>]). Recently, Kim and Beehr ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref63">60</reflink>]) found that a high workload, since it is appraised more as a challenge than a hindrance stressor, will cause positive spillover by increasing one's self‐esteem and meaningfulness to induce flourishing. We believe flourishing supports and verifies the workaholic's identity by providing emotional and psychological rewards affirming their deep work investment. By utilizing Identity Control Theory (Burke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref64">17</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref65">18</reflink>]; Swann, Griffin, Predmore, & Gaines, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref66">112</reflink>]), our study explores how workaholics' identities compel them to work excessively and guide them toward behaviors that can activate thriving and flourishing. This nuanced application of Identity Control Theory expands our understanding of workaholism's potential benefits and establishes a clear linkage between workaholic tendencies and their contribution to potentially positive organizational outcomes.</p> <p>Also, the study of workaholism has been driven strongly by a dispositional perspective identifying several personality traits that trigger workaholic behaviors. For example, Type A personality, extraversion, conscientiousness, self‐efficacy, need for achievement, and perfectionism are all traits that are more likely to trigger workaholism (Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref67">29</reflink>]; Del Líbano, Llorens, Salanova, & Schaufeli, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref68">33</reflink>]; Jackson, Fung, Moore, & Jackson, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref69">53</reflink>]). This trait‐based research has been conducted primarily in the context of explaining who is most likely to become a workaholic, yet there is also equal merit in studying individual variability in workaholism that would indicate when and for whom workaholism might reveal positive outcomes (Bakker & Sanz‐Vergel, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref70">10</reflink>]; Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref71">29</reflink>]; Snir & Zohar, [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref72">104</reflink>]). More specifically, the proactive personality trait, here defined as an individual's tendency to search for opportunities, take initiative, take charge, and persist unless changes occur (Bateman & Crant, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref73">15</reflink>]; Crant, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref74">31</reflink>]), is one such key variable that enables us to understand the conditions under which workaholics might demonstrate positive outcomes.</p> <p>To conclude, our study makes several significant contributions to the literature on workaholism, starting by leveraging identity control theory (ICT) as a foundational theoretical framework (Burke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref75">17</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref76">18</reflink>]; Swann et al., [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref77">112</reflink>]). This approach addresses a notable gap in previous research, which often needs a robust theoretical underpinning when exploring how workaholic behaviors translate into various outcomes (Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref78">29</reflink>]). By integrating ICT, we aim to elucidate both the positive and negative consequences of workaholism, providing a more comprehensive understanding of this complex phenomenon (Baruch, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref79">14</reflink>]; Cheung & Gu, 2022; Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref80">66</reflink>]). Also, our research introduces the constructs of thriving and flourishing as mediating mechanisms that elucidate how workaholism can translate simultaneously into beneficial (i.e., creativity) and detrimental behaviors (i.e., presenteeism) (Bakker & Sanz‐Vergel, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref81">10</reflink>]). These positive psychology states are critical for explaining how workaholism translates in beneficial outcomes, offering a balanced view against the typically negative portrayal of workaholic behaviors (see Taris & De Jonge, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref82">113</reflink>]). Further, we consider the role of individual differences in how workaholism affects employees, proposing that proactive individuals are likely to experience more pronounced benefits of thriving and flourishing due to their workaholic behaviors. This hypothesis is supported by the tenets of ICT, which suggest that personal resources such as self‐esteem and competence play vital roles in helping individuals verify their identities (Burke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref83">17</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref84">18</reflink>]). Therefore, our study employs a moderated mediation model to explore how the effects of workaholism on creativity and presenteeism are contingent upon an individual's level of proactivity (see Figure 1). In summary, our study aims to advance the academic discourse by investigating the dual nature of workaholism. By highlighting how ICT can articulate the complex interplay between workaholic behaviors and their diverse outcomes, we challenge the prevailing negative narrative of workaholism as an addiction or overwork and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of workaholism.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01dec24/jocb1507-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb1507-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Research model. The above figure shows a temporally segregated moderated mediation model in which thriving and flourishing mediate the relationships between workaholism and outcomes (creativity and presenteeism behaviors) at high levels of proactive personality." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181847415-4">THEORY AND HYPOTHESES</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181847415-5">IDENTITY CONTROL THEORY AS AN OVERARCHING FRAMEWORK</hd> <p>Identity Control Theory (ICT) provides a robust framework for understanding the dynamic interplay between individuals' identities and behaviors. At its core, ICT posits that individuals possess self‐concepts or identities that they strive to maintain through their interactions with the social world (Burke & Stets, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref85">21</reflink>]). Identity refers to a system that helps an individual describe and classify themselves in terms of a group (i.e., male), work role (i.e., CEO), or personality traits (such as being hardworking) (Stryker, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref86">110</reflink>]). The identity control theory (ICT; Burke & Stets, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref87">22</reflink>]), states that individuals tend to confirm their identities through identity verification. This verification procedure works through a control process that encompasses a reciprocal loop with four parts: (a) the identity standard, which refers to how people view themselves in a particular role/identity (b) an input which means how individuals perceive that others view them (c) a comparator which tends to compare the input/reflected self‐appraisal that they receive from others regarding themselves with their identity standard/self‐view (d) and an outcome or behavior based on their comparison (Burke & Stets, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref88">22</reflink>]). Identity verification happens when an individual's identity standards or self‐appraisal match how others view them (i.e., input). Because of identity congruence (between inputs and identity standards) individuals feel a sense of positive energy and behavioral consistency (Burke & Cast, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref89">19</reflink>]). ICT offers an excellent overarching framework to establish the relationships between the core variables in this inquiry. How workaholics' make sense of and verify their work‐related identities will eventually influence their behaviors and outcomes in the workplace. Workaholics often have strong identity standards for their work roles, characterized by high commitment, diligence, and productivity (Buelens & Poelmans, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref90">16</reflink>]; Ng et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref91">80</reflink>]). By striving to verify their work identities as highly dedicated workers, workaholics may channel their efforts into creative outputs or continue working despite illness, thus creating congruence between their identity standard and others' views through these behaviors (Burke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref92">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>This theoretical grounding provides a clear rationale for why workaholics might engage in such behaviors, offering a nuanced understanding of the psychological mechanisms at play. Further, an individual's emotions occur as an outcome of the identity verification process whereby consistency in an individual's identity standard and input will cause them to experience favorable emotions, whereas a mismatch in the identity standard and input will trigger negative emotions (Burke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref93">17</reflink>]; Burke & Stets, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref94">22</reflink>]). We believe that as workaholics' identity standards reflect an inner desire to work harder, thus engrossing themselves in multiple projects (Burke, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref95">23</reflink>]; Ng et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref96">80</reflink>]; Spence & Robbins, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref97">106</reflink>]) will corroborate their identity standards and others view generating positive emotions of thriving and flourishing. Thus, ICT enriches our analysis of workaholism and clarifies the pathways through which identity perceptions can lead to complex work behaviors. Moreover, our study also posits a dispositional factor of proactive personality, which posits that workaholics who are proactive not only work harder but constantly champion new ideas and will be more able to verify their identities (as others will view a person bringing new ideas as hardworking and dedicated causing consistency in their identity standard and input) thus leading to thriving and flourishing compared to workaholics who are low on proactivity. Hence, ICT is also instrumental in explaining when workaholics will thrive and flourish clarifying for whom workaholism might be beneficial.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-6">WORKAHOLISM AND IMPACT ON CREATIVITY AND PRESENTEEISM</hd> <p>Drawing from ICT theory, we posit that given that workaholics view themselves as highly competitive, are addicted to work, and derive passion and enjoyment from their work (Friedman & Lobel, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref98">42</reflink>]), they are more likely to verify this identity standard by contributing novel and new ideas at the workplace as expressed by higher creativity levels. Past research has already corroborated that the more salient an individual's identity, the higher the chances that an individual's behavior will be in congruence with that identity (Stryker, [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref99">110</reflink>]). Since workaholics view their work roles as more pronounced in terms of identity salience, even more than their family roles (Schaufeli et al., [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref100">96</reflink>]; Scott, Moore, & Miceli, [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref101">98</reflink>]), we suggest that by engaging in creative behaviors, they are more likely to affirm this identity standard. As workaholics desire higher autonomy and achievement and consistently think about their work (Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref102">29</reflink>]), they are more likely to come up with creative ideas as this will help them establish and maintain congruence between their identity standard (self‐view) and identity inputs (others view of them) thus verifying their identity.</p> <p>Further, workaholics are driven by an uncontrollable need for work, perfectionism, and a tendency to over‐commit their tasks (McMillan, O'Driscoll, Marsh, & Brady, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref103">75</reflink>]; Ng et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref104">80</reflink>]; Porter, [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref105">88</reflink>]). This identity standard goes hand in hand with presenteeism, as such behavior helps validate their self‐concept in alignment with others' perceptions. Research indicates that workaholism correlates positively with career success, marked by higher salaries and promotions (Ng et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref106">80</reflink>]). Workaholics often set high‐performance standards and immerse themselves in multiple projects (Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref107">92</reflink>]; Spence & Robbins, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref108">106</reflink>]), likely leading them to exhibit higher presenteeism to uphold these standards. Further studies have demonstrated that workaholics tend to engage in presenteeism driven by compulsive need to work and difficulty disengaging from work activities, even when physically or mentally unwell (Andreassen, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref109">6</reflink>]; Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref110">29</reflink>]). This inclination is exacerbated by their tendency to equate self‐worth with work output, compelling them to maintain productivity despite adverse health conditions (Johns, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref111">56</reflink>]; Miraglia & Johns, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref112">76</reflink>]). Therefore, the relationship between workaholism and presenteeism is rooted in workaholics' intrinsic motivations and characteristic behaviors. Thus, we hypothesize the following:</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-7">1 Hypothesis</hd> <p>Workaholism is positively related to employees (a) creativity and (b) presenteeism.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-8">THRIVING AS A MEDIATOR</hd> <p>Thriving has received growing attention in positive organizational behavior literature (Paterson, Luthans, & Jeung, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref113">85</reflink>]). It consists of two factors: (a) an individual's feeling of being energized (i.e., vitality) and (b) an individual's ability to improve and get better at what they do continually (i.e., learning) (Porath, Spreitzer, Gibson, & Garnett, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref114">87</reflink>]). Because workaholics are motivated to work compulsively and show high involvement in their work (Spence & Robbins, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref115">106</reflink>]), this identity is verified by putting more effort into their work and working more hours than their coworkers, increasing their mastery and learning. As workaholics can be "happy hard workers" who exhibit high drive and energy (Buelens & Poelmans, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref116">16</reflink>]), we argue that by fully engrossing themselves in work, they can thrive more, which would validate their set identity meanings. Furthermore, meta‐analytical evidence has revealed a significant positive relationship between employees thriving with creativity and innovative performance (Kleine, Rudolph, & Zacher, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref117">63</reflink>]). Since workaholics' view working as a pleasurable and enjoyable activity compared to non‐work activities (Ng et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref118">80</reflink>]), they are more likely to thrive at work, leading them to demonstrate increased creativity as these behaviors would aid in their identity verification process. Additionally, since workaholics love working, the affective experience of a "high" or "rush" gained from working can lead to thriving (Sussman, [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref119">111</reflink>]), which eventually paves the way for the generation of new ideas and solutions at work in the form of higher creativity.</p> <p>The relationship between workaholism and presenteeism, mediated by thriving, presents a complex interplay. Past research studying the motivational reasons for presenteeism has found approach motivation, which refers to employees who put in greater effort due to being dedicated or enjoying their work, as one of the primary causes of presenteeism (Lu, Cooper, & Lin, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref120">68</reflink>]; Lu, Lin, & Cooper, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref121">69</reflink>]). Since workaholics' commitment to work is not merely a habit but a significant part of their self‐identity, this duty to their work promotes presenteeism via activating thriving. As workaholics invest more time and effort into their work, experiencing high vitality and continual learning, they inevitably confirm and strengthen their work‐centric identities. This process of self‐identity verification through work leads them to experience a heightened thriving state. Although thriving is generally seen as beneficial, in the case of workaholics, it can have the unintended consequence of increasing presenteeism. This occurs because the positive aspects of thriving, such as increased energy and mastery, may make workaholics more inclined to continue working despite physical or psychological ailments. They may perceive their ability to keep working as demonstrating their resilience and commitment, core aspects of their identity as diligent workers (Ng et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref122">80</reflink>]; Van Beek, Hu, Schaufeli, Taris, & Schreurs, [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref123">117</reflink>]). Therefore, even when it would be prudent to rest and recover, the enhanced sense of thriving might push them to maintain or even increase their presence at work, exacerbating the presenteeism cycle. In sum, while thriving typically promotes positive outcomes, in the context of workaholism, it serves as a mediator that fosters both beneficial (i.e., creativity) and detrimental outcomes (i.e., presenteeism), reflecting the complex ways in which positive psychological states can influence work behaviors in unexpected ways. Based on the above, we hypothesize:</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-9">2 Hypothesis</hd> <p>Thriving mediates the relationship of workaholism on (a) creativity and (b) presenteeism.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-10">FLOURISHING AS A MEDIATOR</hd> <p>A second key mechanism through which workaholism is instrumental in increasing creative work and presenteeism entails flourishing. Since workaholics have an innate need to work more and their achievements help reinforce the "feel‐good" factor (Baruch, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref124">14</reflink>]), we believe that such individuals would be able to achieve greater interest in their activities, fostering the well‐being evident by flourishing. As alluded to earlier, an individual's consequent emotions are the outcome of the identity verification process (Burke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref125">17</reflink>]; Burke & Stets, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref126">22</reflink>]). Consistent with this view, workaholics tend to see themselves as achievement‐oriented and pre‐occupied with work (Ng et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref127">80</reflink>]; Scott et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref128">98</reflink>]). Hence, by working harder and longer they can portray and maintain consistency between self meanings to others and their identity standards, which fosters positive feelings and functioning inherent to flourishing. Since workaholics see themselves as highly passionate and obsessively involved in work (Snir & Harpaz, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref129">103</reflink>]), they may take up multiple projects and new challenges, which helps them to achieve their passions. By consciously investing more time in their work, workaholics can confirm their identity as they create an impression congruent to their fundamental held identity beliefs, garnering increased levels of flourishing at work. In addition to an increased interest in the study of the antecedents of flourishing (Schotanus‐Dijkstra et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref130">97</reflink>]), research that explores the effects of flourishing on positive work outcomes has also gained growing attention (Bakker & Schaufeli, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref131">11</reflink>]; Demerouti, Bakker, & Gevers, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref132">34</reflink>]; Redelinghuys, Rothmann, & Botha, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref133">91</reflink>]; Rothmann, Redelinghuys, & Botha, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref134">93</reflink>]). Overall, we believe that by expending considerable thought, time, and effort into work, workaholics will be able to maintain congruence in their self and other identity perceptions that will result in flourishing, which further causes a broadening of their thought processes, a condition pivotal to stimulating creative thinking (Demerouti et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref135">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Also, we propose that flourishing mediates the relationship between workaholism and presenteeism. Flourishing, characterized by high levels of well‐being and a robust sense of achievement, does not mitigate the negative impacts of presenteeism but rather explains a potential increase in presenteeism among workaholics. Individuals who are flourishing may still experience the detrimental effects of workaholism, such as the compulsion to work despite illness, due to their high levels of engagement and commitment. In this context, flourishing might unintentionally encourage workaholics to continue working when they are unwell, as their enhanced resilience and positive emotional states could lead them to underestimate the severity of their illnesses or to prioritize work over health (Fredrickson, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref136">40</reflink>]; Keyes, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref137">59</reflink>]). This phenomenon suggests that while flourishing contributes positively to many aspects of an individual's life, in the case of workaholics, it might facilitate an increased likelihood of presenteeism. Therefore, flourishing is a mediator that triggers presenteeism among those with workaholic tendencies, reflecting a complex interplay where positive personal resources inadvertently sustain a potentially harmful work behavior (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref138">35</reflink>]; Sonnentag & Fritz, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref139">105</reflink>]). Based on the above observations we hypothesize:</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-11">3 Hypothesis</hd> <p>Flourishing mediates the relationship of workaholism on (a) creativity and (b) presenteeism.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-12">THE MODERATING ROLE OF PROACTIVE PERSONALITY</hd> <p>An individual's proactive personality is an essential boundary condition determining how strongly workaholism impacts thriving and flourishing. Individuals with highly proactive personalities are likelier to change their environment to achieve their goals. In contrast, employees with a low proactive personality passively wait for information and opportunities to reach them (Crant, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref140">31</reflink>]). Workaholics with a proactive personality are more likely to confirm their identity self‐views by putting continuous effort and resources into identifying new ideas to improve work processes. These resources are anything individuals possess and utilize to verify their identity (Freese & Burke, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref141">41</reflink>]; Stets & Serpe, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref142">109</reflink>]). Personal resources or beliefs and values of the self that facilitate the identity verification process are of particular interest because the more one possesses and uses these resources, the more likely one's identity will be upheld in the environment (Stets & Cast, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref143">108</reflink>]).</p> <p>Individuals exhibiting workaholic behaviors invest substantial time and energy into transforming their ideas into reality, fostering a sense of vitality and learning, associated with thriving. Research has demonstrated that intense engagement in work‐related identity verification enhances self‐esteem, happiness, and mastery (Burke & Stets, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref144">21</reflink>]). People with a proactive personality typically adopt a learning orientation, actively seeking growth opportunities (Li, Fay, Frese, Harms, & Gao, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref145">67</reflink>]). In contrast, those with lower levels of proactivity show less energy and motivation toward learning (Truxillo, McCune, Bertolino, & Fraccaroli, [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref146">116</reflink>]). Engaged workaholics are highly self‐absorbed in their work, are motivated by intrinsic and autonomous motivation, spend most of the time working, and are less likely to feel burnout compared to non‐engaged workaholics (Van Beek, Taris, & Schaufeli, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref147">118</reflink>]). With their love for working along with a proactive personality, workaholics possess the capacity to discover and work on new ideas (Crant, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref148">31</reflink>]). This enables them to utilize their work dedication as well as proactiveness to thrive at work, which substantiates their identities. Thus, we argue that combining workaholic tendencies and high proactivity enables individuals to better recognize and exploit new opportunities (Bateman & Crant, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref149">15</reflink>]; Crant, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref150">31</reflink>]). This dual engagement validates their work‐related identities and enhances their learning and energy at work. Hence, a proactive personality moderates the relationship between workaholism and thriving.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-13">4a Hypothesis</hd> <p>Proactive personality moderates the relationship between workaholism and thriving such that this positive relationship is stronger in the case of a highly proactive personality.</p> <p>Further, highly proactive workaholics constantly seek new and better ways to do their work (Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref151">99</reflink>]); hence, dedicating long hours at work would reinforce their identity standards, thus increasing flourishing. Since highly proactive individuals actively influence the workplace to achieve their goals even in adverse situations (Crant, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref152">31</reflink>]), such individuals, in combination with workaholism tendencies due to their resources, will be able to turn the odds in their favor, thus affirming their identity, which would foster feelings of greater flourishing. In contrast, workaholics who possess a low proactive personality would be pressurizing themselves to work longer but at the same time would lack the ability to change things in their environment. As a result, a clear discrepancy would arise between workaholics' internalized identity meanings and others' views of themselves (as reflected by low initiative taking), leading to reduced levels of flourishing. Similarly, low proactive persons are passive recipients who lack the drive to change their environment and would rather endure current circumstances even if they are unfavorable (Bateman & Crant, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref153">15</reflink>]). Hence, low proactive individuals, who are also workaholics, will work continuously but cannot make a meaningful difference or control the environment, reflecting a lack of identity verification that will generate negative feelings (i.e., low flourishing). Past research has already corroborated that identity discrepancy is a stressor that can lead to negative emotions (Burke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref154">17</reflink>]; Burke & Harrod, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref155">20</reflink>]; Burke & Stets, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref156">22</reflink>]). Based on these observations, we hypothesize:</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-14">4b Hypothesis</hd> <p>Proactive personality moderates the relationship between workaholism and flourishing such that this positive relationship is stronger in the case of a highly proactive personality.</p> <p>Based on the above argumentation, it is also plausible that proactive personality conditionally influences the strength of the indirect relationship between workaholism and outcomes (i.e., creativity and presenteeism) through thriving and flourishing, highlighting a pattern of moderated mediation. In this context, we hypothesize the following:</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-15">5 Hypothesis</hd> <p>Proactive personality moderates the positive indirect effects of workaholism on (a) creativity and (b) presenteeism such that the indirect effects through thriving are stronger in the case of a high proactive personality.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-16">6 Hypothesis</hd> <p>Proactive personality moderates the positive indirect effects of workaholism on (a) creativity and (b) presenteeism such that the indirect effects through flourishing are stronger in the case of a high proactive personality.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-17">METHODS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181847415-18">SAMPLE AND DATA COLLECTION</hd> <p>We utilized a three‐wave research design by temporally separating the measurement of the study's antecedent and moderator (T1: workaholism and proactive personality), mediators (T2: thriving, T3: Flourishing), and outcomes (T3: presenteeism and creativity). Data were collected through self‐reports, except for creativity, which was assessed by coworkers. Coworkers are a reliable and valuable source for determining employee behaviors such as creativity and job performance (Naseer, Raja, Syed, Donia, & Darr, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref157">78</reflink>]; Raja & Johns, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref158">89</reflink>]).</p> <p>A temporally segregated field survey was carried out from employee‐peer dyads working in various organizations in the service sector in Pakistan. Specifically, data were obtained from nine organizations, including three telecom sector companies, two financial institutions, and four education sector organizations, of which three were higher education universities. A cover letter explaining the objective and scope of the study and ensuring anonymity of participation was shared with potential respondents before they consented to the study. For the peer selection criteria, we requested the HR department of each organization to provide us with a list of employees who had been working in the company for a sufficient time (i.e., 6 months or more). Then, we requested each focal respondent to identify a colleague they had known for at least 6 months. To ensure the transparency of peer reporting and avoid biased responses from peers, the research team handled the questionnaire distribution, collection, and matching of employee and peer responses. We ensured that the respondents and their peers did not have access to each other's responses by asking them to return the self‐reported and peer‐reported survey to the research team members. Also, we checked that one person only evaluated up to two colleagues on creativity to avoid problems of data nesting.</p> <p>In our study, 500 questionnaires were initially distributed, with 428 responses received at time 1, achieving an 85.6% response rate. Three weeks later, at time 2, participants completed the second part of the questionnaire assessing thriving, with 388 returning their forms, reflecting a 77.6% response rate. Another 3 weeks passed before the third part of the questionnaire was distributed at time 3, focusing on flourishing and presenteeism. A three‐week time lag between each data collection wave was intentional, serving dual purposes. First, it established a clear temporal sequence among the variables, crucial for testing our mediation models and demonstrating that changes in the independent and mediator variables preceded changes in the outcome variables, namely creativity, and presenteeism. Second, this interval helped mitigate potential learning and memory effects that could skew results, striking a balance between reducing bias and maintaining a meaningful sequence among the key variables under investigation.</p> <p>Furthermore, at time 3, the participants' peers were asked to assess the creativity of their colleagues. Peer ratings were chosen to evaluate employee creativity due to their ability to reduce biases inherent in self‐reports and supervisor evaluations. Peers, working closely on shared tasks, are better positioned to observe subtle creative behaviors that supervisors might overlook, thanks to their direct involvement in daily activities. This proximity enables a more detailed and context‐specific understanding of an employee's creative contributions. Furthermore, peer evaluations are less likely to be influenced by non‐performance‐related factors such as personal rapport, providing a more objective and fairer assessment of creativity compared to supervisor ratings (Harris & Schaubroeck, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref159">49</reflink>]; Klapper, Piezunka, & Dahlander, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref160">62</reflink>]; Latham & Wexley, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref161">64</reflink>]; Lawler, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref162">65</reflink>]; Ng & Feldman, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref163">79</reflink>]). After discarding the questionnaires for which the peer‐rated part could not be obtained, we obtained a final sample of 305 responses, resulting in an overall response rate of 61%.</p> <p>Most participants were from the education sector (69.8%), whereas 18.7% worked in the telecom sector and 11.5% worked in the banking sector. Most respondents are women (58% versus 42% men). Most participants held a master's degree (92.5%) and had middle‐level management (39.3%). Furthermore, the organizational tenure of the respondents ranged between 6 months and 27 years (SD = 4.46), and the total work experience ranged between 6 months and 38 years (SD = 6.34).</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-19">MEASURES</hd> <p>The survey was administered in English because it is the official language of all corporate sector correspondences and is the medium of instruction in higher education in Pakistan. Furthermore, previous studies in Pakistan have used questionnaires in English for data collection without facing any construct validity or reliability issues (Abbas, Raja, Darr, & Bouckenooghe, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref164">1</reflink>]; Naseer et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref165">78</reflink>]). All of the measures used a seven‐point Likert response anchor format ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, except for presenteeism and creativity, which were measured on a response format ranging from 1 = Never to 7 = Always and 1 = Not at all to 7 = Extremely.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-20">Workaholism</hd> <p>Robinson ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref166">92</reflink>]) developed a 25‐item scale called the WART (Work Addiction Risk Test) to measure workaholism. A sample item of the WART is "I stay busy and keep many irons in the fire." The Cronbach alpha reliability for the scale was very good,.93.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-21">Proactive personality</hd> <p>A 10‐item self‐reported scale developed by Seibert et al. ([<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref167">99</reflink>]) was used to measure proactive personality. A sample item is "I am constantly on the lookout for new ways to improve my life." The Cronbach's alpha reliability for this scale was good.79.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-22">Thriving</hd> <p>A 10‐item scale by Porath et al. ([<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref168">87</reflink>]) was used to measure thriving. Sample items of this scale include "I find myself learning often" and "I have energy and spirit." Two items of this scale had poor loadings, which were removed from all subsequent analyses. The Cronbach alpha reliability for this scale was.85.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-23">Flourishing</hd> <p>An 8‐item scale developed by Diener et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref169">36</reflink>]) was utilized to measure flourishing. A sample item is "I am a good person and lead a good life." The Cronbach alpha reliability for this scale was.87.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-24">Presenteeism</hd> <p>Presenteeism was assessed by measuring how frequently an employee depicted this behavior at a specific time. We collected data on presenteeism behaviors using self‐reports from employees, who were asked to recall how often they had exhibited presenteeism behaviors for the past 6 months. In this context, Lu, Cooper, and Lin ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref170">68</reflink>]) developed a two‐item scale to measure presenteeism. The scale items are "Although you feel sick, you still force yourself to go to work" and "Although you have physical symptoms such as headache or backache, you still force yourself to go to work." The Cronbach alpha reliability for this scale was.70.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-25">Creativity</hd> <p>A 3‐item peer‐reported scale developed by Oldham and Cumming ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref171">83</reflink>]) was used to measure creativity. A sample item of this scale are "(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref172">1</reflink>) How creative is this person's work?" Creativity refers to the extent to which the employee develops ideas, methods, or products that are original and useful to the organization. Cronbach's alpha reliability for this scale was.81.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-26">RESULTS</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181847415-27">CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS</hd> <p>Confirmatory factor analyses were performed to establish the discriminant validity of the constructs measured from the same source at the same time. Following Anderson and Gerbing ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref173">5</reflink>]), we conducted a one‐on‐one confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by pairing a two‐factor model with the respective single‐factor model. Our findings indicated that the two‐factor model of workaholism and proactive personality (χ<sups>2</sups> = 771.09, df = 411, χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 1.87, CFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.09) had a better fit than the single‐factor model (χ<sups>2</sups> = 1106.75, df = 415, χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 2.67, CFI = 0.82, IFI = 0.82, TLI = 0.80, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.11). Similarly, the two‐factor model comprising flourishing and presenteeism had a better fit (χ<sups>2</sups> = 69.49, df = 32, χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 2.17, CFI = 0.97, IFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.03) than the single‐factor model, where all the items of both variables were loaded onto a single latent variable (χ<sups>2</sups> = 208.19, df = 35, χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 5.94, CFI = 0.85, IFI = 0.85, TLI = 0.81, RMSEA = 0.13, SRMR = 0.06). Furthermore, we ran and found support for the full measurement model comprising of our six study variables (i.e., workaholism, proactive personality, thriving, flourishing, and creativity) to demonstrate adequate fit to the data (χ<sups>2</sups> = 1905.19, df = 1231, χ<sups>2</sups>/df = 1.54, CFI = 0.91, IFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.08).</p> <p>Our analyses demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity for the constructs used in our study. An important finding was that all the study correlations were below the.70 threshold confirming the discriminant validity of the variables (Fornell & Larcker, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref174">39</reflink>]). The highest correlation in our study was between the mediating variables thriving and flourishing, at.55. This notable correlation is expected given their integral roles in our model, yet our tests confirm their distinctiveness. All items demonstrated factor loadings above 0.45 on their respective variables. The average variance extracted (AVE) for all constructs exceeded 0.45, and the composite reliability (CR) was found to be over 0.70, thus affirming the convergent validity of our scales (Fornell & Larcker, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref175">39</reflink>]). For discriminant validity, the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values for each construct was greater than the absolute correlations between constructs, supporting their separateness. Lastly, the hetero trait monotrait (HTMT) values were determined and the all the values for each HTMT ratio were lower than the 0.85 acceptable limit (Hair, Risher, Sarstedt, & Ringle, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref176">47</reflink>]). These findings establish the convergent and discriminant validity of our study variables.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-28">HYPOTHESIS TESTING</hd> <p>Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha reliabilities, and bivariate correlations of the main variables of this study. We collected data on employee's organizations, sectors, organization types (i.e., if they were government, semi‐government, or private sector), gender, age, marital status, department, designation, educational qualifications, area of specialization, present working experience with the company and total working experience. The information on all these demographic variables was collected from employees at time 1. We performed a one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to see if any differences were caused by demographic variables across our study's dependent variables. The results of ANOVA suggested differences across organizations, organization types, and sectors. Posthoc analysis revealed that organization, type, and sector yielded significant differences. Hence, we controlled for the effects of these variables in our regression model. All three variables were recoded into dummy‐coded variables (i.e., organization:org1 = 0 and all other values = 0; sector: education sector (i.e., coded 1) and all other values (i.e., coded 0); organization types: private = 1 and all other values (i.e., coded 0)).</p> <p>1 Table Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities for Key Study Variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="left">Mean</th><th align="left">SD</th><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">5</th><th align="left">6</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1. Workaholism (Time 1)</td><td align="char" char=".">5.23</td><td align="char" char=".">.99</td><td align="char" char=".">(.93)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Proactive Personality (Time 2)</td><td align="char" char=".">6.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.49</td><td align="char" char=".">.45<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">(.79)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Thriving (Time 2)</td><td align="char" char=".">5.85</td><td align="char" char=".">.71</td><td align="char" char=".">.26<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">(.85)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Flourishing (Time 3)</td><td align="char" char=".">5.99</td><td align="char" char=".">.70</td><td align="char" char=".">.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.29<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.55<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">(.87)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Presenteeism (Time 3)</td><td align="char" char=".">5.94</td><td align="char" char=".">.77</td><td align="char" char=".">.24<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.32<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.43<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">(.70)</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6. Creativity (Peer‐reported)</td><td align="char" char=".">6.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.82</td><td align="char" char=".">.33<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.28<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.31<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.38<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.31<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td><td align="char" char=".">(.81)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. <emph>n</emph> = 305. Control variables are organization, sector, and organization type. Dummy‐coded variables were created to control for the effects of one organization (i.e., Org1 = 1, all other values = 0), sector (i.e., sector1 = 1, all other values = 0) and organization type (i.e., orgtype3 = 1, all other values = 0). Cronbach's alpha reliabilities are given in parentheses.</p> <ulist> <item>2 ** <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> <item>3 *** <emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> </ulist> <p>We tested our study's hypotheses using path analysis in Mplus (Muthen & Muthen, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref177">77</reflink>]). We ran three path models. Firstly, a parallel mediation path analysis model incorporates the effects of thriving and flourishing in the relationship between workaholism and outcomes (presenteeism and creativity). In the second model, we tested for the moderation effects. In the third model, we checked the complete moderated mediation path analytical model. For moderation analysis, we mean‐centered our predictor and moderator variables and plotted significant interaction plots based on simple slope tests for +1 SD and −1 SD above and below the mean for all significant interactions. Table 2 displays the results based on our parallel mediated regression analysis. Our results indicated that workaholism was significantly and positively related to creativity (<emph>β</emph> = .14, SE = 0.05, <emph>p</emph> < .05) but not for presenteeism (<emph>β</emph> = .06, SE = 0.05, <emph>p</emph> = n.s). Hence, H1a was supported whereas H1b was rejected. In line with H2a, the formal two‐tailed significance test demonstrated that workaholism had a significant and positive indirect effect via thriving on employee creativity (indirect effect = 0.02, SE = 0.03) but not presenteeism (indirect effect = 0.01, SE = 0.01) with bootstrap 95% confidence interval (CI) containing non‐zero values for creativity [0.01, 0.05] but not for presenteeism [−0.00, 0.03]. Hence, H2a was supported whereas H2b was rejected. Consistent with H3, the findings of our two‐tailed significance test revealed that workaholism had a significant and positive indirect effect via flourishing on employee creativity (indirect effect = 0.04, SE = 0.01) and presenteeism (indirect effect = 0.07, SE = .02) with bootstrap 95% confidence interval (CI) containing non‐zero values for creativity [0.02, 0.08] and presenteeism [0.03, 0.11]. Thus, our study's findings offered support to H3.</p> <p>2 Table Mediated Regression Analysis Using MPlus</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Thriving, <italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left">Flourishing, <italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left">Presenteeism, <italic>B</italic> (SE)</th><th align="left">Creativity, <italic>B</italic> (SE)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Org1</td><td align="left">.06 (.07)</td><td align="left">.08 (.06)</td><td align="left">.06 (.06)</td><td align="left">.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /> (.06)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Sect1</td><td align="left">.07 (.06)</td><td align="left">.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /> (.05)</td><td align="left">.06 (.06)</td><td align="left">.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /> (.06)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">OrgT3</td><td align="left">.11 (.05)</td><td align="left">.08 (.06)</td><td align="left">.08 (.06)</td><td align="left">.03 (.05)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Workaholism</td><td align="left">.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /> (.05)</td><td align="left">.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /> (.05)</td><td align="left">.06 (.05)</td><td align="left">.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /> (.05)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Thriving</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.06 (.06)</td><td align="left">.12<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /> (.06)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flourishing</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">.33<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /> (.06)</td><td align="left">.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /> (.06)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">R<sup>2</sup></td><td align="left">.08<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">.12<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="left">.24<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="left">.25<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Bootstrap results for indirect effect</th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Effect</th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left">LL95% CI</th><th align="left">UL95% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Outcome: Presenteeism</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total indirect effect</td><td align="char" char=".">.08<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.12</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Specific indirect effect</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Workaholism➔Thriving➔Presenteeism</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">−.00</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Workaholism➔Flourishing➔Presenteeism</td><td align="char" char=".">.07<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="char" char=".">.11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Outcome: Creativity</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total Indirect effect</td><td align="char" char=".">.07<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Specific indirect effect</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Workaholism➔Thriving➔Creativity</td><td align="char" char=".">.02<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Workaholism➔Flourishing➔Creativity</td><td align="char" char=".">.04<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note</emph>. <emph>N</emph> = 305. B = standardized estimates, SE = standard error, control variables are Org1 = organization, Sec1 = sector, and OrgT3 = organization type. Bootstrap sample size = 10000. LL = Lower Limit, CI = Confidence Interval, UL = Upper Limit.</item> <item>5 * <emph>p</emph> < .05.</item> <item>6 ** <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> <item>7 *** <emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> </ulist> <p>The results of moderated regression analysis are shown in Table 3. Supporting Hypothesis 4a, our interaction term was significant for thriving (<emph>β</emph> = .10, <emph>p</emph> < .001). Furthermore, we plotted the interaction plot for the mean ± 1 SD (see Figure 2). Figure 2 demonstrates that the positive relationship between workaholism and thriving was more pronounced (and positive) in the case of a high proactive personality (<emph>β</emph> = .24, <emph>t</emph> = 4.87, <emph>p</emph> < .001) but was weaker when the proactive personality was low (<emph>β</emph> = .05, <emph>t</emph> = 2.09, <emph>p</emph> < .10). Thus, H4a was supported. Likewise, our interaction term was significant for flourishing (<emph>β</emph> = .13, <emph>p</emph> < .05). Moreover, Figure 3 showed that the positive relationship between workaholism and flourishing was more pronounced (and positive) in the case of a high proactive personality (<emph>β</emph> = .22, <emph>t</emph> = 4.32, <emph>p</emph> < .001) but was weaker when the proactive personality was low (<emph>β</emph> = .05, <emph>t</emph> = 2.45, <emph>p</emph> < .05). Hence, we found support for H4b.</p> <p>3 Table Moderated Regression Analysis Results Using Mlpus</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Predictors</th><th align="left">Dependent Variables</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Thriving</th><th align="left">Flourishing</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Estimate</th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left">LLCI, ULCI</th><th align="left">Estimate</th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left">LLCI, ULCI</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Workaholism (Wrk)</td><td align="left">.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">[.05,.20]</td><td align="left">.18<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">[.05,.20]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Proactive personality (PP)</td><td align="left">.10<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn9" /></td><td align="left">.04</td><td align="left">[.02,.17]</td><td align="left">.18<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="left">.06</td><td align="left">[.06,.20]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Wrk × PP</td><td align="left">.10<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="left">.03</td><td align="left">[.04,.15]</td><td align="left">.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn9" /></td><td align="left">.05</td><td align="left">[.02,.13]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">R<sup>2</sup></td><td align="left">.11<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="left">.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Conditional direct effect of X on Y at different moderator values (slope test results)</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Moderator</th><th align="left">Thriving</th><th align="left">Flourishing</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Proactive Personality</th><th align="left">Effect</th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left">LLCI, ULCI</th><th align="left">Effect</th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left">LLCI, ULCI</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">PP −1 SD</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td><td align="left">[−.05,.12]</td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td><td align="left">[−.04,.13]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PP mean</td><td align="char" char=".">.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td><td align="left">[.05,.20]</td><td align="char" char=".">.12<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="left">[.05,.20]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PP +1 SD</td><td align="char" char=".">.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.07</td><td align="left">[.12,.32]</td><td align="char" char=".">.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /></td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td><td align="left">[.10,.30]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>8 <emph>Note</emph>. <emph>N</emph> = 305. Control variable organization, sector, and organization type. LL = Lower Limit, CI = Confidence Interval, UL = Upper Limit.</item> <item>9 * <emph>p</emph> < .05.</item> <item>10 ** <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> <item>11 *** <emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> </ulist> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01dec24/jocb1507-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb1507-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Interaction effects of workaholism and proactive personality on thriving.Note. n = 305; PP = Proactive Personality; Slope for High PP (β = .24, t = 4.87, p < .001). Slope for Low PP (β = .05, t = 2.09, p < .10)." /> </p> <p></p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01dec24/jocb1507-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb1507-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Interaction effects of workaholism and proactive personality on flourishing.Note. n = 305; PP = Proactive Personality; Slope for High PP (β = .22, t = 4.32, p < .001). Slope for Low PP (β = .05, t = 2.45, p < .05)." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Finally, Table 4 shows the findings based on our moderated mediation analyses. We tested for the conditional indirect effects of workaholism on outcomes (creativity and presenteeism) at three different values of proactive personality, i.e., one SD above the mean, at the mean, and one SD below the mean. Our findings indicate that the moderated mediation effects (based on moderator values of +1SD) were positive stronger and did not contain zero. Bootstrap confident intervals corroborated these findings. The mediation effects of workaholism on creativity [0.01, 0.03] via thriving were stronger for individuals with high proactive personality and insignificant for low proactive personality. The moderated mediation effects of thriving between workaholism and presenteeism at proactive personality were insignificant [−0.01, 0.02]. This supported our H5 (a) but rejected H5 (b). The indirect effects of workaholism on creativity [0.01, 0.04] and presenteeism [0.01, 0.06] via flourishing were stronger and more significant for individuals with high proactive personalities, whereas insignificant for those with low proactive personalities. Hence, H6 (a and b) was supported. The index of moderated mediation corroborated the findings for H5a and H6 (a and b) (see Table 4).</p> <p>4 Table Moderated Mediated Regression Analysis Using MPlus</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">Thriving</th><th align="left">Flourishing</th><th align="left">Presenteeism</th><th align="left">Creativity</th></tr><tr><th align="left">B (SE)</th><th align="left">B (SE)</th><th align="left">B (SE)</th><th align="left">B (SE)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Independent variable</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Workaholism (Wrk)</td><td align="left">.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /> (.06)</td><td align="left">.24<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /> (.06)</td><td align="left">.07 (.05)</td><td align="left">.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /> (.05)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Moderator</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Proactive Personality (PP)</td><td align="left">.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /> (.06)</td><td align="left">.18<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /> (.06)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Interaction effect</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Wrk × PP</td><td align="left">.18<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn14" /> (.05)</td><td align="left">.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn14" /> (.05)</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Mediators</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Thriving</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">.06 (.06)</td><td align="left">.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /> (.06)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Flourishing</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left">.33<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /> (.06)</td><td align="left">.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn14" /> (.06)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">R<sup>2</sup></td><td align="left">.10<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn14" /></td><td align="left">.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="left">.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="left">.24<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Moderator (PP)</th><th align="left">Dependent variables</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Presenteeism</th><th align="left">Creativity</th></tr><tr><th align="left">B (SE)</th><th align="left">LLCI, ULCI</th><th align="left">B (SE)</th><th align="left">LLCI, ULCI</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Conditional indirect effects via Thriving</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PP −1 SD</td><td align="left">.00 (.00)</td><td align="left">[−.00,.01]</td><td align="left">.01 (.01)</td><td align="left">[−.01,.02]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PP Mean</td><td align="left">.01 (.01)</td><td align="left">[−.01,.02]</td><td align="left">.02 (.01)</td><td align="left">[.00,.04]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PP +1 SD</td><td align="left">.02 (.02)</td><td align="left">[−.01,.05]</td><td align="left">.04<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /> (.02)</td><td align="left">[.01,.07]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Index of moderated mediation</td><td align="left">.01 (.01)</td><td align="left">[−.01,.02]</td><td align="left">.02<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /> (.01)</td><td align="left">[.01,.03]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Conditional indirect effects via flourishing</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PP −1 SD</td><td align="left">.03 (.01)</td><td align="left">[−.00,.06]</td><td align="left">.02 (.01)</td><td align="left">[−.00,.04]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PP Mean</td><td align="left">.06<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn14" /> (.01)</td><td align="left">[.03,.09]</td><td align="left">.04<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /> (.01)</td><td align="left">[.01,.06]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PP +1 SD</td><td align="left">.10<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /> (.03)</td><td align="left">[.05,.14]</td><td align="left">.06<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn14" /> (.02)</td><td align="left">[.03,.10]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Index of moderated mediation</td><td align="left">.03<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /> (.01)</td><td align="left">[.01,.06]</td><td align="left">.02<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /> (.01)</td><td align="left">[.01,.04]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>12 <emph>Note</emph>. <emph>N</emph> = 305. B = Standardized estimates, SE = Standard Error, Control variables are Org1, Sec1 and OrgT3. LL = Lower Limit, CI = Confidence Interval, UL = Upper Limit.</item> <item>13 * <emph>p</emph> < .05.</item> <item>14 ** <emph>p</emph> < .01.</item> <item>15 *** <emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0181847415-31">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>This study explored the silver lining of workaholism, an area traditionally overshadowed by its negative connotations within occupational health literature (e.g., Baruch, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref178">14</reflink>]; Kim, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref179">61</reflink>]; Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref180">66</reflink>]). By integrating identity control theory (ICT), we've demonstrated that workaholism can have dual outcomes—enhancing employee creativity and increasing presenteeism—through the psychological mechanisms of thriving and flourishing. Incorporating the nuanced debate surrounding workaholism and work addiction, enriches our discussion (Gillet, Morin, Fernet, Huyghebaert‐Zouaghi, & Austin, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref181">43</reflink>]; Griffiths, Demetrovics, & Atroszko, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref182">46</reflink>]; Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref183">66</reflink>]). It's imperative to understand that workaholism should not be simplistically equated with work addiction. This distinction is crucial to acknowledge its multifaceted nature, not as a justification for workaholism. Acknowledging this complexity helps to build a stronger case for why the field can benefit from more nuanced studies that explore both the detrimental outcomes of workaholism, such as exhaustion and compulsion, and its potential positive aspects.</p> <p>Our findings reveal that workaholism fosters a unique type of engagement that drives creativity, aligning with the research that has viewed workaholics as not merely over‐committed but also as potential innovators within their organizations (Balducci et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref184">12</reflink>]; Baruch, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref185">14</reflink>]; Cheng & Gu, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref186">27</reflink>]; Keller et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref187">58</reflink>]; Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref188">66</reflink>]). Furthermore, mediated by flourishing, the association between workaholism and presenteeism underscores a complex interplay where positive psychological states can paradoxically lead to behaviors often seen as detrimental, such as working while sick. This complements and extends previous findings by Ng et al. ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref189">80</reflink>]), which suggested that workaholism could lead to higher job involvement but at a potential personal cost.</p> <p>This balanced approach aligns with a broader understanding of human behavior in psychology, recognizing that traits and behaviors can have both adaptive and maladaptive aspects depending on the context, intensity, and individual differences. To illustrate our point, we draw on the chocoholism metaphor (Baruch, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref190">14</reflink>]; Jaffe, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref191">54</reflink>]), akin to how chocolate consumption can lead to both positive and negative health outcomes based on various factors (e.g., quantity, frequency, type of chocolate), workaholism too can exhibit a dual nature. The key lies in understanding and navigating these behaviors in a way that promotes positive outcomes while minimizing harm to individuals and their surroundings. This approach acknowledges that for some, work can indeed be a source of profound satisfaction and fulfillment, sometimes more so than leisure or family time (Snir & Harpaz, [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref192">103</reflink>]). However, we also understand that workaholism, particularly when it veers into the realm of addiction or obsessive‐compulsive behavior (Smith & Seymour, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref193">102</reflink>]), can have detrimental effects on personal health, family and social relationships, and overall well‐being (Schaufeli, Bakker, et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref194">94</reflink>]; Taris & De Jonge, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref195">113</reflink>]). The challenge lies in finding a balance that allows individuals to pursue their work with passion and dedication without crossing into the negative consequences associated with work addiction.</p> <p>Critically, our research contributes to the theoretical landscape by affirming the moderating role of proactive personality in how workaholism impacts thriving and flourishing. This supports Bateman and Crant's ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref196">15</reflink>]) and Crant ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref197">31</reflink>]) work on proactive personality and enriches our understanding by linking these personality traits with specific work‐related outcomes in the context of workaholism. Such insights are vital for developing more nuanced occupational health strategies that recognize the dualistic nature of workaholism.</p> <p>In general, with this study, we contribute to a body of research advocating a balanced view of workaholism, moving beyond the simplistic notion of it solely as an addiction (Baruch, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref198">14</reflink>]; Buelens & Poelmans, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref199">16</reflink>]; Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref200">66</reflink>]; McMillan et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref201">75</reflink>]). Specifically, our findings suggest that the identity verification of workaholics plays a crucial role in fostering creativity and presenteeism. By applying the principles of Identity Control Theory (ICT) (Burke, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref202">17</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref203">18</reflink>]; Burke & Cast, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref204">19</reflink>]; Burke & Stets, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref205">21</reflink>]), we offer a unique perspective that counters the traditional negative view of workaholism, revealing the underlying identity‐based motives that can make workaholism beneficial. In brief, ICT provides a robust framework for understanding how workaholism can lead to beneficial and detrimental outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-32">PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS</hd> <p>The practical implications of our research recommend a suite of strategic interventions aimed at leveraging potential positive aspects of workaholism while mitigating its drawbacks. Incorporating the practice of offering paid vacations or sabbaticals into organizational strategies is substantiated by positive psychology research, highlighting that taking breaks from work reduces stress and prevents burnout, enhancing employee well‐being (De Bloom, Syrek, Kühnel, & Vahle‐Hinz, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref206">32</reflink>]; Westman & Eden, [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref207">120</reflink>]). Such breaks are especially crucial for employees with workaholic tendencies, as they provide essential recuperation time that boosts creativity and innovation when they return to work (Westman & Eden, [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref208">120</reflink>]). This aligns with our findings that a state of flourishing mediates the relationship between workaholism and positive work outcomes, suggesting that well‐being interventions like vacations can aid workaholics in channeling their energy positively and enhancing their overall performance.</p> <p>Furthermore, organizing work‐related meetings in informal settings such as clubs or restaurants can foster creativity and provide a psychologically safe space for innovation (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref209">3</reflink>]; Edmondson, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref210">37</reflink>]). This approach caters to workaholics' dedication and promotes learning and vitality, indirectly supporting employee thriving and leveraging the positive aspects of workaholism. Similarly, creating an environment supportive of job crafting can help channel workaholics' dedication toward positive outcomes, enhancing job satisfaction and organizational innovation (Hakanen, Peeters, & Schaufeli, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref211">48</reflink>]). Organizations can foster a culture of autonomy and innovation by empowering employees to align their work with their strengths and interests, mitigating potential negatives like burnout (Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref212">29</reflink>]) and transforming workaholism from a possible addiction to a source of positive energy and engagement.</p> <p>Lastly, to capitalize on workaholics' innovative potential while avoiding presenteeism's pitfalls, organizations should prioritize outcomes over hours worked and implement flexible policies that allow for sufficient breaks and recharge time (Maslach & Leiter, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref213">73</reflink>]). Leader training to address excessive work habits, wellness programs for stress management, and transparent communication can all contribute to a workplace environment that sustains creativity and prevents the negative impacts of presenteeism on health, thereby ensuring that the intense drive of workaholics is utilized constructively (Grawitch, Trares, & Kohler, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref214">45</reflink>]; Skakon, Nielsen, Borg, & Guzman, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref215">101</reflink>]). These strategic implementations can align individual drive with organizational goals, creating a thriving workforce that effectively leverages the benefits of workaholism.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-33">LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH AVENUES</hd> <p>Despite these important contributions, our study is not free of limitations. Our study did not find support for the indirect effects of thriving in the workaholism and presenteeism relationship only. This further attests to the silver lining of workaholism, showing that though employees' workaholic tendencies help them to thrive by learning and demonstrating energy, this does not push them to show up for work despite their illness. Despite this insignificant finding, the rest of our path analytical model findings corroborate that thriving is indeed an underlying motive through which workaholics are more creative, and this indirect effect is dependent upon workaholics who have highly proactive personalities. In addition, the results of flourishing consistently accepted for both the outcomes across all our analyses emphasize the complex nature of workaholism, which builds on to the nascent stream of research that calls for adopting a more balanced view of workaholism (Baruch, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref216">14</reflink>]; Cheung & Gu, 2022; Lee et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref217">66</reflink>]). However, future researchers could examine if thriving is why workaholics are prompted to be present at work despite being sick.</p> <p>Though the present research collected time‐lagged data at three different time waves, we cannot classify it as a longitudinal research design. Hence, future research or follow‐up studies should measure all key variables from this study repeatedly at all three time waves to account for changes over time. Apart from this, workaholism and proactive personality were measured from the same source at the same time, thus potentially accounting for method bias. The strong support for the CFA findings and our significant moderation effects mitigate the concern for common method bias. Furthermore, the drop‐out respondents and non‐response bias might concern our study's findings. However, it might not seriously threaten our results, as studies have suggested that it is more challenging to detect moderation if method bias is present (Lubinski & Humphreys, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref218">70</reflink>]; McClelland & Judd, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref219">74</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our study demonstrated the significance of workaholism in generating two critical employee behaviors (i.e., creativity and presenteeism). However, there is a need to analyze whether workaholism is instrumental in enhancing other employee attitudes and behaviors such as job performance, organizational commitment, OCBs, and career success. In addition, research should analyze alternative dynamics to explain the effects of workaholism. For instance, future research could expand on the identity‐based explanations of workaholism based on ICT theory by examining organizational identification as a mediator in workaholism and positive outcomes. Also, future studies could explore other relevant dispositional factors (i.e., self‐efficacy or work centrality) and situational factors (i.e., perceived coworker expectations and a learning climate) as potential boundary conditions that shape the magnitude of the positive effects of workaholism on thriving and flourishing. This line of research clarifies further when and for whom the positive impact of workaholism becomes evident.</p> <p>The intersection of workaholism and employee creativity presents a complex landscape for exploration, particularly when considering the nuances of different types of creativity. Our study, grounded in the peer‐reported scale developed by Oldham and Cumming ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref220">83</reflink>]), captures creativity as the ability to develop original and useful ideas, methods, or products within an organizational setting (Oldham & Cumming, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref221">83</reflink>]). This operationalization of creativity, however, does not differentiate among the varied forms of creativity classified by Kaufman and Beghetto ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref222">57</reflink>]) — such as Little‐C, which relates to everyday problem‐solving; mini‐C, reflecting personally meaningful creativity; and pro‐C, denoting expert‐level creativity, in contrast to Big‐C creativity associated with significant, groundbreaking innovations. While detailed adaptive creativity, or the micro‐improvements within existing projects, might be bolstered in workaholic environments, the transformative potential seen in significant creative breakthroughs could be stifled when mental and physical breaks are not taken. This delineation opens a compelling avenue for future research to investigate what type of creativity is usually triggered through workaholic work habits.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-34">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>This study elucidates the dual sides of workaholism, showcasing how it can enhance employee creativity but simultaneously trigger presenteeism through the mechanisms of thriving and flourishing. By illustrating the dual effects of workaholism, this research contributes to a balanced academic discourse and practical management. We hope this study paves the way for future research to explore and expand on these findings, encouraging a deeper understanding of how workaholic behaviors can be harnessed positively within organizational settings.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-35">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>Current Research did not include formal financial funding and/or support. The author(s) declared that preparation of this manuscript was not supported by any external funding and is mere effort of the authors included.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-36">CONFLICT OF INTEREST</hd> <p>The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Moreover, the submitted work was not carried out in the presence of any personal, professional, or financial relationships that could potentially be construed as a conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-37">STUDY PARTICIPATION</hd> <p>Participation in the survey was voluntary and the participants were allowed to withdraw any time from the study. Moreover, respondents were explained about the details of the project, and it was assured to them that their responses will be kept in strict anonymity and will be reported as aggregate results.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-38">ETHICS COMMITTEE APPROVAL</hd> <p>The International Islamic University Research Ethics Board reviewed the above named research study and considered the procedures, as described by the applicant, to conform to the University's ethical standards and IIUI guidelines. Clearance granted on 21/09/2017.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-39">GEOLOCATION INFORMATION</hd> <p>The data related to the study were collected from Pakistan which belongs to South East Asia.</p> <hd id="AN0181847415-40">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data that pertains to this study will be available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.</p> <ref id="AN0181847415-41"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref164" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The gender and tenure of our respondents were not controlled for in our analysis. ANOVAs showed that these variables didn't have a statistically significant impact on our study's dependent variables. Also, recent meta‐analyses have demonstrated the minimal influence of gender and tenure on creative performance (Hora et al., [51]; Ng & Feldman, [79]).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0181847415-42"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abbas, M., Raja, U., Darr, W., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2014). Combined effects of perceived politics and psychological capital on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and performance. Journal of Management, 40 (7), 1813 – 1830.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref36" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Aldabbas, H., Pinnington, A., & Lahrech, A. (2023). The influence of perceived organizational support on employee creativity: The mediating role of work engagement. Current Psychology, 42 (8), 6501 – 6515.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref209" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Amabile, T.M., Barsade, S.G., Mueller, J.S., & Staw, B.M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50 (3), 367 – 403.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Andersen, F.B., Djugum, M.E.T., Sjåstad, V.S., & Pallesen, S. (2023). The prevalence of workaholism: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1252373.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref173" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two‐step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411 – 423.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref109" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Andreassen, C.S. (2014). Workaholism: An overview and current status of the research. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3 (1), 1 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref46" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Aronsson, G., Gustafsson, K., & Dallner, M. (2000). Sick but yet at work: An empirical study of sickness presenteeism. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54 (7), 502 – 509.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref6" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Atroszko, P.A. (2024). Work addiction and workaholism are synonymous: An analysis of the sources of confusion (a commentary on Morkevičiūtė and Endriulaitienė). International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 1 – 8 ; doi: 10.1007/s11469-024-01243-x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref44" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., & Sanz‐Vergel, A.I. (2014). Burnout and work engagement: The JD–R approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1 (1), 389 – 411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bakker, A.B., & Sanz‐Vergel, A.I. (2013). Weekly work engagement and flourishing: The role of hindrance and challenge job demands. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83 (3), 397 – 409.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bakker, A.B., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29 (2), 147 – 154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Balducci, C., Alessandri, G., Zaniboni, S., Avanzi, L., Borgogni, L., & Fraccaroli, F. (2021). The impact of workaholism on day‐level workload and emotional exhaustion and on longer‐term job performance. Work and Stress, 35 (1), 6 – 26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Balducci, C., Avanzi, L., & Fraccaroli, F. (2018). The individual "costs" of workaholism: An analysis based on multisource and prospective data. Journal of Management, 44 (7), 2961 – 2986.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baruch, Y. (2011). The positive well‐being aspects of workaholism in cross‐cultural perspective: The chocoholism metaphor. Career Development International, 16 (6), 572 – 591.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bateman, T.S., & Crant, J.M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14 (2), 103 – 118.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buelens, M., & Poelmans, S.A.Y. (2004). Enriching the Spence and Robbins' typology of workaholism: Demographic, motivational and organizational correlates. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17 (5), 440 – 458.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke, P.J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56, 836 – 849.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke, P.J. (1996). Social identities and psychosocial stress. In Psychosocial stress: perspectives on structure, theory, life course, and methods (pp. 141 – 174). Orlando, FL : Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke, P.J., & Cast, A. (1997). Stability and Change in the Gender Identities of Newly Married Couples. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 277 – 290.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke, P.J., & Harrod, M.M. (2005). Too much of a good thing? Social Psychology Quarterly, 68 (4), 359 – 374.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke, P.J., & Stets, J.E. (1999). Trust and Commitment through Self‐Verification. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62, 347 – 360.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke, P.J., & Stets, J.E. (2009). Identity theory. New York : Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke, R.J. (2000). Workaholism in organizations: Psychological and physical well‐being consequences. Stress Medicine, 16 (1), 11 – 16.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke, R.J., & MacDermid, G. (1999). Are workaholics job satisfied and successful in their careers? Career Development International, 4 (5), 277 – 282.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charness, G., & Chen, Y. (2020). Social identity, group behavior, and teams. Annual Review of Economics, 12, 691 – 713.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, Y., Liu, D., Tang, G., & Hogan, T.M. (2021). Workplace events and employee creativity: A multistudy field investigation. Personnel Psychology, 74 (2), 211 – 236.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheng, B., & Gu, J. (2022). The test based on meta‐analysis on "does workaholism prefer task performance or contextual performance?". Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 860687.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung, F., Tang, C.S., Lim, M.S.M., & Koh, J.M. (2018). Workaholism on job burnout: A comparison between American and Chinese employees. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2546.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, M.A., Michel, J.S., Zhdanova, L., Pui, S.Y., & Baltes, B.B. (2016). All work and no play? A meta‐analytic examination of the correlates and outcomes of workaholism. Journal of Management, 42 (7), 1836 – 1873.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collins, A., & Cartwright, S. (2012). Why come into work ill? Individual and organizational factors underlying presenteeism. Employee Relations, 34 (4), 429 – 442.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crant, J.M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26 (3), 435 – 462.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Bloom, J., Syrek, C.J., Kühnel, J., & Vahle‐Hinz, T. (2022). Unlimited paid time off policies: Unlocking the best and unleashing the beast. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 812187.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Del Líbano, M., Llorens, S., Salanova, M., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2012). About the dark and bright sides of self‐efficacy: Workaholism and work engagement. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15 (2), 688 – 701.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., & Gevers, J.M. (2015). Job crafting and extra‐role behavior: The role of work engagement and flourishing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 87 – 96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The job demands‐resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (3), 499 – 512.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Tov, W., Kim‐Prieto, C., Choi, D.W., Oishi, S., & Biswas‐Diener, R. (2010). New well‐being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97 (2), 143 – 156.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (2), 350 – 383.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farmer, S.M., Tierney, P., & Kung‐McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46 (5), 618 – 630.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39 – 50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredrickson, B.L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden‐and‐build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56 (3), 218 – 226.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freese, L., & Burke, P.J. (1994). Persons, identities, and social interaction. Advances in Group Processes, 11, 1 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friedman, S.D., & Lobel, S. (2003). The happy workaholic: A role model for employees. Academy of Management Perspectives, 17 (3), 87 – 98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gillet, N., Morin, A.J., Fernet, C., Huyghebaert‐Zouaghi, T., & Austin, S. (2023). Nature, predictors, and outcomes of workers' longitudinal workaholism profiles. Group and Organization Management ; doi: 10.1177/10596011231189587.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goh, Z., Eva, N., Kiazad, K., Jack, G.A., De Cieri, H., & Spreitzer, G.M. (2022). An integrative multilevel review of thriving at work: Assessing progress and promise. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43 (2), 197 – 213.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grawitch, M.J., Trares, S., & Kohler, J.M. (2007). Healthy workplace practices and employee outcomes. International Journal of Stress Management, 14 (3), 275 – 293.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffiths, M.D., Demetrovics, Z., & Atroszko, P.A. (2018). Ten myths about work addiction. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 7 (4), 845 – 857.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C.M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS‐SEM. European Business Review, 31 (1), 2 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hakanen, J.J., Peeters, M.C., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2018). Different types of employee well‐being across time and their relationships with job crafting. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23 (2), 289 – 301.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, M.M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta‐analysis of self‐supervisor, self‐peer, and peer‐supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43 – 62.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> He, P., Zhou, Q., Zhao, H., Jiang, C., & Wu, Y.J. (2020). Compulsory citizenship behavior and employee creativity: Creative self‐efficacy as a mediator and negative affect as a moderator. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1640.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hora, S., Badura, K. L., Lemoine, G. J., & Grijalva, E. (2022). A meta‐analytic examination of the gender difference in creative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107 (11), 1926 – 1950.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ishimaru, T., Tsuno, K., Hori, A., Okawara, M., Yasuda, Y., Fujino, Y., & Tabuchi, T. (2021). Disrupted care during the COVID‐19 state of emergency and productivity loss attributed to presenteeism in workers: A nationwide cross‐sectional study. BMJ Open, 11 (12), e050068.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, S.S., Fung, M.C., Moore, M.A.C., & Jackson, C.J. (2016). Personality and workaholism. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 114 – 120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaffe, J.H. (1984). Drug addiction and drug abuse. In G.A. Spiller & A.R. Liss (Eds.), The methylxanthine beverages and foods: Chemistry, consumption and health effect (pp. 149 – 178). New York, NY : Pergamon Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeong, I., Gong, Y., & Zhong, B. (2023). Does an employee‐experienced crisis help or hinder creativity? An integration of threat‐rigidity and implicit theories. Journal of Management, 49 (4), 1394 – 1429.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johns, G. (2010). Presenteeism in the workplace: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31 (4), 519 – 542.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, J.C., & Beghetto, R.A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four‐c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13 (1), 1 – 12.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keller, A.C., Spurk, D., Baumeler, F., & Hirschi, A. (2016). Competitive climate and workaholism: Negative sides of future orientation and calling. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 122 – 126.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keyes, C.L. (2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A complementary strategy for improving national mental health. American Psychologist, 62 (2), 95 – 108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, M., & Beehr, T.A. (2020). Thriving on demand: Challenging work results in employee flourishing through appraisals and resources. International Journal of Stress Management, 27 (2), 111 – 125.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, S. (2019). Workaholism, motivation, and addiction in the workplace: A critical review and implications for HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 18 (3), 325 – 348.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klapper, H., Piezunka, H., & Dahlander, L. (2024). Peer evaluations: Evaluating and being evaluated. Organization Science, 35 (4), 1363 – 1387.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kleine, A.K., Rudolph, C.W., & Zacher, H. (2019). Thriving at work: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40 (9–10), 973 – 999.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Latham, G.P., & Wexley, K.N. (1982). Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. Reading, MA : Addison‐Wesley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawler, E.E. (1967). The multitrait–multirater approach to measuring managerial job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 369 – 381.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, Y., Lee, J.Y., & Lee, J. (2022). The relationship between work engagement and workaholism: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. European Journal of Training and Development, 46 (9), 996 – 1028.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, W.D., Fay, D., Frese, M., Harms, P.D., & Gao, X.Y. (2014). Reciprocal relationship between proactive personality and work characteristics: A latent change score approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99 (5), 948 – 965.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lu, L., Cooper, C.L., & Lin, H.Y. (2013). A cross‐cultural examination of presenteeism and supervisory support. Career Development International, 18 (5), 440 – 456.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lu, L., Lin, H.Y., & Cooper, C.L. (2013). Unhealthy and present: Motives and consequences of the act of presenteeism among Taiwanese employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18 (4), 406 – 416.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lubinski, D., & Humphreys, L.G. (1990). Assessing spurious "moderator effects": Illustrated substantively with the hypothesized ("synergistic") relation between spatial and mathematical ability. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (3), 385 – 393.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Machlowitz, M. (1980). Workaholics; Living with them, working with them. Reading, MA : Addison‐Wesley Publishing Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Malinowska, D., & Tokarz, A. (2021). Workaholism components in relation to life and work values. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19, 529 – 545.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maslach, C., & Leiter, M.P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15 (2), 103 – 111.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McClelland, G.H., & Judd, C.M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114 (2), 376 – 390.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMillan, L.H., O'Driscoll, M.P., Marsh, N.V., & Brady, E.C. (2001). Understanding workaholism: Data synthesis, theoretical critique, and future design strategies. International Journal of Stress Management, 8 (2), 69 – 91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miraglia, M., & Johns, G. (2016). Going to work ill: A meta‐analysis of the correlates of presenteeism and a dual‐path model. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21 (3), 261 – 283.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muthen, L.K., & Muthen, B.O. (2012). Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles : Muthen and Muthen.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Naseer, S., Raja, U., Syed, F., Donia, M.B., & Darr, W. (2016). Perils of being close to a bad leader in a bad environment: Exploring the combined effects of despotic leadership, leader‐member exchange, and perceived organizational politics on behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 27 (1), 14 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng, T.W., & Feldman, D.C. (2012). Evaluating six common stereotypes about older workers with meta‐analytical data. Personnel Psychology, 65 (4), 821 – 858.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ng, T.W.H., Sorensen, K.L., & Feldman, D.C. (2007). Dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of workaholism: A conceptual integration and extension. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 111 – 136.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ni, X., Zeng, Z., & Zhou, J. (2023). The effect of thriving at work on work‐family conflict: The mediating role of workaholism. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1136470.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oates, W. (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction. New York : World.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oldham, G.R., & Cumming, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705 – 750.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, I.J., Choi, J.N., & Wu, K. (2022). Affect stability and employee creativity: The roles of work‐related positive affect and knowledge sharing. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31 (3), 331 – 340.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paterson, T.A., Luthans, F., & Jeung, W. (2014). Thriving at work: Impact of psychological capital and supervisor support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35 (3), 434 – 446.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peiperl, M., & Jones, B. (2001). Workaholics and overworkers: Productivity or pathology? Group and Organization Management, 26 (3), 369 – 393.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porath, C., Spreitzer, G., Gibson, C., & Garnett, F.G. (2012). Thriving at work: Toward its measurement, construct validation and theoretical refinement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33 (2), 250 – 275.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porter, G. (1996). Organizational impact of workaholism: Suggestions for researching the negative outcomes of excessive work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1 (1), 70 – 84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raja, U., & Johns, G. (2010). The joint effects of personality and job scope on in‐role performance, citizenship behaviors, and creativity. Human Relations, 63 (7), 981 – 1005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rautenbach, C., & Rothmann, S. (2017). Antecedents of flourishing at work in a fast‐moving consumer goods company. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 27 (3), 227 – 234.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Redelinghuys, K., Rothmann, S., & Botha, E. (2019). Flourishing‐at‐work: The role of positive organizational practices. Psychological Reports, 122 (2), 609 – 631.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, B.E. (1999). The work addiction risk test: Development of a tentative measure of workaholism. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88 (1), 199 – 210.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rothmann, S., Redelinghuys, K., & Botha, E. (2019). Workplace flourishing: Measurement, antecedents, and outcomes. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 45 (1), 1 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., Van der Heijden, F.M., & Prins, J.T. (2009). Workaholism, burnout, and well‐being among junior doctors: The mediating role of role conflict. Work and Stress, 23 (2), 155 – 172.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schaufeli, W.B., Shimazu, A., & Taris, T.W. (2009). Being driven to work excessively hard: The evaluation of a two‐factor measure of workaholism in The Netherlands and Japan. Cross‐Cultural Research, 43 (4), 320 – 348.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W., & Van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well‐being. Journal of Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57 (2), 173 – 203.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schotanus‐Dijkstra, M., Pieterse, M.E., Drossaert, C.H., Westerhof, G.J., De Graaf, R., Ten Have, M., ... & Bohlmeijer, E.T. (2016). What factors are associated with flourishing? Results from a large representative national sample. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17 (4), 1351 – 1370.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, K.S., Moore, K.S., & Miceli, M.P. (1997). An exploration of the meaning and consequences of workaholism. Human Relations, 50, 287 – 314.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seibert, S.E., Crant, J.M., & Kraimer, M.L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84 (3), 416 – 427.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G.R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30 (6), 933 – 958.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skakon, J., Nielsen, K., Borg, V., & Guzman, J. (2010). Are leaders' well‐being, behaviours and style associated with the affective well‐being of their employees? A systematic review of three decades of research. Work and Stress, 24 (2), 107 – 139.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, D.E., & Seymour, R.B. (2004). The nature of addiction. In R.H. Coombs (Ed.), Handbook of addictive disorders: A practical guide to diagnosis and treatment (pp. 3 – 30). Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley and Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snir, R., & Harpaz, I. (2012). Beyond workaholism: Towards a general model of heavy work investment. Human Resource Management Review, 22 (3), 232 – 243.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snir, R., & Zohar, D. (2008). Workaholism as discretionary time investment at work: An experience‐sampling study. Applied Psychology, 57 (1), 109 – 127.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2007). The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12 (3), 204 – 221.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spence, J.T., & Robbins, A.S. (1992). Workaholism: Definition, measurement, and preliminary results. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58, 160 – 178.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant, A.M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work. Organization Science, 16 (5), 537 – 549.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stets, J.E., & Cast, A.D. (2007). Resources and identity verification from an identity theory perspective. Sociological Perspectives, 50 (4), 517 – 543.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stets, J.E., & Serpe, R.T. (2013). Identity theory. In Handbook of social psychology (pp. 31 – 60). Dordrecht : Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park : Cumming.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sussman, S. (2012). Workaholism: A review. Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy, 6 (1), 4120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swann, W.B., Griffin, J.J., Predmore, S.C., & Gaines, B. (1987). The cognitive‐affective crossfire: When self‐consistency confronts self‐enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (5), 881 – 889.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taris, T.W., & de Jonge, J. (2024). Workaholism: Taking stock and looking forward. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11, 113 – 138.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taris, T.W., Schaufeli, W.B., & Shimazu, A. (2010). The push and pull of work: The difference between workaholism and work engagement. In A.B. Bakker & M.P. Leiter (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 39 – 53). Hove : Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, S.G., Butts, M.M., Cole, M.S., & Pounds, T. (2021). Are you sick? Understanding the effects of coworker presenteeism on workplace mistreatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106 (9), 1299 – 1313.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Truxillo, D.M., McCune, E.A., Bertolino, M., & Fraccaroli, F. (2012). Perceptions of older versus younger workers include big five facets, proactive personality, cognitive ability, and job performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42 (11), 2607 – 2639.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Beek, I., Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W., & Schreurs, B.H. (2012). For fun, love, or money: What drives workaholic, engaged, and burned‐out employees at work? Applied Psychology, 61 (1), 30 – 55.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Beek, I., Taris, T.W., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2011). Workaholic and work engaged employees: Dead ringers or worlds apart? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16 (4), 468 – 482.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Knippenberg, D., & Hirst, G. (2020). A motivational lens model of person× situation interactions in employee creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105 (10), 1129 – 1144.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Westman, M., & Eden, D. (1997). Effects of a respite from work on burnout: vacation relief and fade‐out. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (4), 516 – 527.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Saima Naseer; Dave Bouckenooghe; Shadab Qazi and Fauzia Syed</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref163"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref174"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref176"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref177"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref182"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref191"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref193"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref206"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref207"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref210"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref211"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref213"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref214"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref215"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref218"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl109" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref219"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl110" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref222"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1454913
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Silver Lining of Workaholism: Its Impact on Employees' Creativity and Presenteeism Explained
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Saima+Naseer%22">Saima Naseer</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9498-2380">0000-0001-9498-2380</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dave+Bouckenooghe%22">Dave Bouckenooghe</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shadab+Qazi%22">Shadab Qazi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fauzia+Sy%22">Fauzia Sy</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Creative+Behavior%22"><i>Journal of Creative Behavior</i></searchLink>. 2024 58(4):636-656.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employees%22">Employees</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Addictive+Behavior%22">Addictive Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Development%22">Individual Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Work+Life+Expectancy%22">Work Life Expectancy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Productivity%22">Productivity</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pakistan%22">Pakistan</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/jocb.1507
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-0175<br />2162-6057
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In this inquiry, we highlight that there is a silver lining to workaholism, relying on identity control theory as an explanatory framework. A parallel mediation model established that workaholism fosters employees' creativity but also triggers presenteeism through the mechanisms of thriving and flourishing. The model also shows that a proactive personality is a critical boundary condition that moderates the workaholism-thriving and workaholism-flourishing relationship. Two-source multi-wave temporally segregated data (n = 305) from the service sector in Islamabad (i.e., Pakistan) were used as a research design. Overall, this study contributes to the workaholism literature by unveiling two new pivotal mechanisms that depict a more balanced perspective to the dominant negative view of workaholics being obsessive-compulsive addicts.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1454913
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1454913
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/jocb.1507
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 636
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Employees
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Addictive Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individual Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Work Life Expectancy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Productivity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pakistan
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Silver Lining of Workaholism: Its Impact on Employees' Creativity and Presenteeism Explained
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Saima Naseer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dave Bouckenooghe
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shadab Qazi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fauzia Sy
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-0175
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2162-6057
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 58
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Creative Behavior
              Type: main
ResultId 1