Abstract
Drawing on Ryan and Deci’s Self-Determination Theory, this study examines longitudinally how need satisfaction at work affects four forms of intrinsic and extrinsic work motivation and two types of heavy work investment (workaholism and work engagement). Using two-wave data from 314 Dutch employees, structural equation modeling supported our expectations that high need satisfaction was longitudinally associated with low levels of external and introjected regulation, and high levels of identified regulation and intrinsic motivation. Interestingly, none of these forms of regulation predicted later levels of work engagement and workaholism. Rather, high levels of work engagement predicted later high levels of intrinsic motivation and identified regulation, and high levels of workaholism predicted later low levels of intrinsic motivation and high levels of introjected regulation. Although this study did not support the expected longitudinal effects of motivation on the two types of heavy work investment examined in this study, it (a) underlined the important role of need satisfaction for motivation, (b) challenged previous ideas on the effects of motivation on workaholism and work engagement, and (c) revealed the different motivational correlates of work engagement and workaholism.
Highlights
A large body of research has addressed the conceptualization, antecedents, consequences and outcomes of workaholism and work engagement (Quinones and Griffiths, 2015; Knight et al, 2017; for overviews)
By systematically comparing various models for the longitudinal associations between heavy work investment, need satisfaction and work motivation we aim to extend our understanding of the nature of heavy work investment: what drives workaholics and engaged workers? Second, we test the assumption that motivation mediates the associations between various types of need satisfaction on the one hand and work engagement and workaholism on the other
The analyses in the first step revealed that the reciprocal model (M1reciprocal) fitted the data well, χ2(N = 314, df = 49) = 126.54, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) = 0.95, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.96, Normed Fit Index (NFI) = 0.94, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) = 0.93, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.071, and significantly better than the stability model (M1stability), χ2(N = 314, df = 8) = 27.96, p < 0.01, and the reversed causality model (M1reversedcausality), χ2(N = 314, df = 4) = 21.94, p < 0.01
Summary
A large body of research has addressed the conceptualization, antecedents, consequences and outcomes of workaholism and work engagement (Quinones and Griffiths, 2015; Knight et al, 2017; for overviews). The differences between these two forms of heavy work investment have frequently been studied (Harpaz and Snir, 2015; Shimazu et al, 2015a). Drawing on Deci and Ryan (2000) self-determination theory (SDT), Van Beek et al (2012) showed that (a) workaholic employees work hard in order to preserve and enhance feelings of self-worth and self-esteem, and because they personally value the associated outcomes, and (b) engaged employees work hard because they tend to experience their work activities as interesting, enjoyable, and satisfying
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
