Abstract Background Economic reality and centrality of work have led to employees investing much time and effort in work. However, The number of hours spent at work may not be the only explanation, and other characteristics, such as type of work, employees’ personality, economic status, motivations, etc., need to be considered. The Heavy Work Investment model (Snir & Harpaz, 2012) considers these variables and classifies employees into four types of investors. This study examines the physical and mental health consequences of each HWI group. Methods Participants (N = 962) were workers who came to a medical center for annual medical screenings. About 70% were males, and the average age was 50.13 years (SD = 9.53). They divided into 5 groups: Typical full-time workers (N = 208, 29.2%), ‘Needy’ (N = 111, 15.6%), ‘Employer directed’ (N = 111, 15.6%), ‘Workaholic’ (N = 192, 26.9%) and ‘Work devoted’ (N = 91, 12.7%). The personal data was cross-referenced with the respondents’ health data. Differences for categorical variables were examined with Chi-square analyses. Results ‘Employer-directed’ employees, more than ‘work-devoted’ employees, perceived their health status as preventing them from performing mild activities. ‘Employer-directed’ and ‘needy’ employees, more than ‘work-devoted’ employees, perceived their health status as interfering with their social activities and their pain as interfering with their regular activities. ‘Workaholic’ employees suffered from more diseases than ‘work-devoted’ employees, and they were found to be 3.70 times more likely to be at a high risk of cardiovascular disease than typical full-time workers. Conclusions It is possible to anticipate types of health damage according to occupation type and develop occupation-adjusted health promotion programs. It is necessary to base labor laws on protecting employees’ health, particularly regarding time and workload’ outside of work’ in both hours (additional or flexible) and location (hybrid work). Key messages • Inspire organizations to be aware of potential injuries caused by HWI and promote the creation of intervention programs, potentially significantly improving employees’ health and well-being. • Evidence for the necessary laws that protect employees’ health, particularly regarding time and workload ‘outside of work’ in both hours (additional or flexible) and location (hybrid work).
Read full abstract