In this research, the enterprise employees who did not indicate the phenomenon of overwork accounted for 24.7% (n = 259). Three-quarters of all others were in a state of overwork, with 30.4% (n = 318) of all enterprise staff belonging to the mild degree of overwork, 29.1% ( n = 305) the severe degree, and 15.8% (n = 165) in a heavy state of overwork.
The demographic information and the mean scores of the totals, SF, and WL are shown in Table 1. The average male overwork score was 3.79, indicating a more serious problem than the female score (3.18). Two independent samples T-tests, T-value = 4.37, between male enterprise staffs and female enterprise staffs indicated a significant difference (p < 0.001). Of all employees, 61% of those had an associate’s degree or below indicated a mild degree (or less) of overwork, but 46% of enterprise employees who have a bachelor’s degree or above indicated a severe (heavy) degree of overwork. The K-W test showed that a significant difference (p < 0.005)such that the higher educated, the more likely to be overworked; bachelor’s degree was the watershed; however, SF scores did not show a significant difference between education levels. Total scores and WL scores were significantly higher in those with the personal income of more than 8000 yuan/month, and personal expenses of more than 4000 yuan/month.
Table 1. Mean scores for the overwork and its subscales (n=1047)
Demographic characteristics
|
N (%)
|
overwork
|
Total
|
SF
|
WL
|
Gender
|
Male
|
404 (38.6)
|
3.79 (2.25)**
|
3.72 (0.45)
|
2.54 (1.02)**
|
Female
|
643 (61.4)
|
3.18 (2.17)
|
3.68 (0.47)
|
2.25 (1.00)
|
Age group
|
< 25
|
138 (13.2)
|
3.17 (2.24)
|
3.72 (0.49)
|
2.22 (1.07)
|
25-34
|
679 (64.8)
|
3.40 (2.19)
|
3.69 (0.46)
|
2.35 (1.01)
|
≥ 35
|
230 (22.0)
|
3.60 (2.29)
|
3.69 (0.46)
|
2.46 (1.03)
|
Education level
|
Associate’s degree or below
|
335 (32.0)
|
3.19 (2.21)
|
3.73 (0.44)
|
2.23 (1.04)
|
Bachelor’s degree
|
534 (51.0)
|
3.53 (2.23)
|
3.68 (0.47)
|
2.43 (1.01)
|
Bachelor’s degree above
|
178 (17.0)
|
3.50 (2.21)
|
3.69 (0.46)
|
2.40 (1.01)
|
Marital status
|
Single
|
460 (43.9)
|
3.37 (2.21)
|
3.72 (0.45)
|
2.32 (1.04)
|
Married
|
582 (55.6)
|
3.45 (2.23)
|
3.68 (0.47)
|
2.38 (1.01)
|
Divorced/ Widowed
|
5 (0.5)
|
3.80 (2.17)
|
3.60 (0.55)
|
2.60 (0.89)
|
Personal income
|
< 4000 yuan/month
|
266 (26.1)
|
3.29 (2.30)
|
3.71 (0.45)
|
2.29 (1.06)
|
4000-8000
|
522 (51.2)
|
3.31 (2.17)
|
3.66 (0.47)
|
2.32 (1.00)
|
Total: degree of overwork; SF: sense fatigue; WL: work load.
Values are means and standard deviations (in parentheses).
* p <0.05, **p <0.01when compared with the last group.
The correlation coefficients between the study variables and overwork are shown in Table 2. The scores for the two sub-scales of workaholism and four sub-scales of job demands related positively with labour, SF, and WL, whereas the scores for the five sub-scales of job resources correlated negatively with them. Work investment and drive as sub-scales of workaholism have a positive relationship with overwork, job demands, and job resources and their sub-scales, whereas work enjoyment presented as having a negative relationship to overwork and job demands and their sub-scales.
Table 2. Correlation between overwork, workaholism and others
|
overwork
|
SF
|
WL
|
WI
|
D
|
WE
|
overwork (OW)
|
|
0.300**
|
1.000**
|
0.307**
|
0.085**
|
-0.064*
|
sense fatigue (SF)
|
0.300**
|
|
0.301**
|
0.187**
|
0.062**
|
-0.127*
|
work load (WL)
|
1.000**
|
0.301**
|
|
0.305**
|
0.086**
|
-0.063*
|
workaholism (WA)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
work involvement (WI)
|
0.307**
|
0.187**
|
0.305**
|
|
0.433**
|
0.326**
|
drive (D)
|
0.085**
|
0.062*
|
0.086**
|
0.433**
|
|
0.480**
|
work enjoyment (WE)
|
-0.064*
|
-0.127**
|
-0.063*
|
0.326**
|
0.480**
|
|
job demands (JD)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
task demands (TD)
|
0.314**
|
0.160**
|
0.314**
|
0.311**
|
0.245**
|
-0.019
|
skills demands (SD)
|
0.056
|
-0.084**
|
0.055
|
0.224**
|
0.340**
|
0.450**
|
supervising work (SW)
|
0.225**
|
0.097**
|
0.224**
|
0.175**
|
0.141**
|
-0.046
|
psychological requirement (PR)
|
0.375**
|
0.192**
|
0.374**
|
0.271**
|
0.126**
|
-0.031
|
job resources (JR)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
leadership support (LS)
|
-0.083**
|
-0.184**
|
-0.083**
|
0.122**
|
0.279**
|
0.489**
|
colleague support (CS)
|
-0.099**
|
-0.203**
|
-0.099**
|
-0.005
|
0.227**
|
0.359**
|
facilities condition (FC)
|
-0.150**
|
-0.238**
|
-0.150**
|
0.076*
|
0.233**
|
0.484**
|
work control (WC)
|
-0.050
|
-0.167**
|
-0.050
|
0.108**
|
0.261**
|
0.495**
|
organizational justice (OJ)
|
-0.066*
|
-0.206**
|
-0.066*
|
0.154**
|
0.254**
|
0.486**
|
SF: sense fatigue; WL: work load; WI: work involvement; D: drive; WE: work enjoyment.
* p <0.05, **p <0.01
Potential predictors of the overwork are shown in Table 3. There was little difference in predictive factors for SF, WL, and overwork. Regarding the observed variables, task demands, psychological requirement, and colleague support were found to be significant predictors for SF, WL, and overall overwork (). While supervising work and facilities condition only affected WL and overwork (). Moreover, task demands, supervising work, and psychological requirements have significant positive effects on SF, WL, and overwork (); however, colleague support and facilities condition have significant negative effects on them (). Task demands and psychological requirements were the primary positive protective predictors for SF, WL, and overwork, while colleague support was the primary negatively protective predictors for them.
Table 3. Predictors of the overwork in enterprise staffs (n=1047)
Variable
|
Mean
(SD)
|
Overwork
|
Total
|
SF
|
WL
|
Estimate
(Beta)
|
t
|
Estimate
(Beta)
|
t
|
Estimate
(Beta)
|
t
|
job demands (JD)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
task demands (TD)
|
3.46
(0.47)
|
0.913
(0.192)
|
5.696**
|
0.110
(0.112)
|
3.11**
|
0.405
(0.185)
|
5.419**
|
skills demands (SD)
|
3.58
(0.78)
|
-0.027
(-0.010)
|
-0.252
|
-0.003
(-0.005)
|
-0.128
|
-0.013
(-0.010)
|
-0.250
|
supervising work (SW)
|
3.39
(0.59)
|
0.267
(0.071)
|
2.237*
|
0.025
(0.031)
|
0.934
|
0.119
(0.068)
|
2.136*
|
psychological requirement (PR)
|
3.21
(0.65)
|
0.916
(0.270)
|
8.453**
|
0.090
(0.128)
|
3.765**
|
0.412
(0.264)
|
8.165**
|
job resources (JR)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
leadership support (LS)
|
3.41
(0.84)
|
-0.118
(-0.045)
|
-1.054
|
-0.006
(0.012)
|
-0.263
|
-0.055
(-0.045)
|
-1.049
|
colleague support (CS)
|
3.76
(0.70)
|
-0.305
(-0.096)
|
-2.584**
|
-0.077
(-0.117)
|
-2.967**
|
-0.115
(-0.112)
|
-2.086*
|
facilities condition (FC)
|
3.41
(0.79)
|
-0.342
(-0.121)
|
-2.737**
|
-0.052
(-0.088)
|
-1.872
|
-0.146
(-0.112)
|
-2.506*
|
work control (WC)
|
3.31
(0.84)
|
0.008
(0.003)
|
0.084
|
-0.027
(-0.049)
|
-1.321
|
0.018
(0.014)
|
0.408
|
organizational justice (OJ)
|
3.21
(0.89)
|
0.131
(0.053)
|
1.268
|
-0.030
(-0.059)
|
-1.334
|
0.081
(0.071)
|
1.679
|
SF: sense fatigue; WL: work load.
*, **
Total: R2=0.216, adjust R2=0.209, Durbin Watson (DW) =2.076, F=31.705, Sig. =0.000.
SF: R2=0.113, adjust R2=0.105, Durbin Watson (DW) =2.015, F=14.687, Sig. =0.000.
WL: R2=0.195, adjust R2=0.188, Durbin Watson (DW) =2.067, F=27.835, Sig. =0.000.
Potential predictors of the three dimensions of workaholism are shown in Table 4. There were differences in predictive factors for WI, D and WE. As the observed variables task demands, skill demands, psychological requirement and organizational justice were found to be positively significant predictors for WI (), while colleague support opposite effect on WI (). Task demands, skills demands, work control and organizational justice also have a significant positive effect on D (). However, there were very different from WE, especially in the sub-scales of job demands. On the one hand, task demands and supervising work were negatively related to WE (), on the other hand, leadership support, work control and organizational justice were positively related to it (). Also task demands were the primary positively protective predictors for WI and D (), while as primary negatively protective predictors for WE ().
Table 4. Predictors of the three dimensions of workaholism in enterprise staffs (n=1047)
Variable
|
Workaholism
|
WI
|
|
D
|
|
WE
|
|
|
Estimate
(Beta)
|
t
|
Estimate
(Beta)
|
t
|
Estimate
(Beta)
|
t
|
job demands (JD)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
task demands (TD)
|
0.338
(0.236)
|
6.795**
|
0.243
(0.176)
|
5.040**
|
-0.095
(-0.060)
|
-2.009*
|
skills demands (SD)
|
0.067
(0.078)
|
1.996*
|
0.118
(0.143)
|
3.632**
|
0.186
(0.197)
|
5.861**
|
supervising work (SW)
|
0.018
(0.016)
|
0.483
|
0.013
(0.367)
|
0.367
|
-0.115
(-0.091)
|
-3.273**
|
psychological requirement (PR)
|
0.142
(0.139)
|
4.216**
|
0.008
(0.008)
|
0.235
|
-0.029
(-0.026)
|
-0.913
|
job resources (JR)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
leadership support (LS)
|
0.047
(0.059)
|
1.352
|
0.055
(0.072)
|
1.640
|
0.140
(0.159)
|
4.254**
|
colleague support (CS)
|
-0.186
(-0.193)
|
-5.077**
|
0.007
(0.008)
|
0.201
|
-0.002
(-0.002)
|
-0.071
|
facilities condition (FC)
|
-0.012
(-0.014)
|
-0.306
|
0.006
(0.007)
|
0.147
|
0.063
(0.067)
|
1.700
|
work control (WC)
|
0.029
(0.036)
|
1.009
|
0.076
(0.098)
|
2.722**
|
0.192
(0.217)
|
7.008**
|
organizational justice (OJ)
|
0.121
(0.161)
|
3.763**
|
0.063
(0.087)
|
2.030*
|
0.130
(0.157)
|
4.278**
|
WI: work involvement; D: drive; WE: work enjoyment.
*, **
WI: R2=0.167, adjust R2=0.160, Durbin Watson (DW) =1.914, F=23.149, Sig. =0.000.
D: R2=0.165, adjust R2=0.158, Durbin Watson (DW) =1.847, F=22.796, Sig. =0.000.
WE: R2=0.388, adjust R2=0.383, Durbin Watson (DW) =1.895, F=72.995, Sig. =0.000.
The SEM presented in Figure 1 indicated workaholism and job demands have direct positive effects on overwork, whereas job resources have a negative effect on overwork among Chinese enterprise staffs in this study. Moreover, job resources and job demands have also indirect effects on overwork. Table4 shows the estimates of direct, indirect and total effects of workaholism and overwork. Of all the total effects, job demands is the greatest (0.366), followed by job resources (-0.314), and workaholism (0.151). Moreover, job resources have significant inhibitory effects on overwork, while job demands has a promoting effect . According to the mediation effect of inspection, workaholism plays a significant intermediary role in this path. Scholars point out, regarding the calculation method of the intermediary effect, that, on the one hand, in the path of Job resources →overwork the mediation effect accounted for 15.0% of the total effect; on the other hand, in the path of Job demands →overwork it accounted for 12.6% [59-60]. Workaholism also has a significant effect on overwork, but the effect value is significantly lower than those for job demands and job resources.
Table 5. Direct effect, indirect effect and total effects on overwork
path
|
Standard error
|
t-value
|
Direct effect
|
Indirect effect
|
Total effect
|
Job resources →Workaholism
|
0.024
|
10.587***
|
0.311
|
——
|
0.311
|
Job demands →Workaholism
|
0.036
|
10.81***
|
0.305
|
——
|
0.305
|
Workaholism →Overwork
|
0.132
|
4.290***
|
0.151
|
——
|
0.151
|
Job resources →Overwork
|
0.110
|
1.058***
|
-0.361
|
0.047
|
-0.314
|
Job demands →Overwork
|
0.165
|
-9.774***
|
0.320
|
0.046
|
0.366
|
***
Figure 1. TSEM for overwork among enterprise staffs
SF: sense fatigue; WL: work load; WA: workaholism; WI: work involvement; D: drive; WE: work enjoyment; JR: job resources; LS: leader supply; CS: college supply; FC: facilities condition; WC: work control; OJ: organizational justice; JD: job demands; TD: task demands; SD: skill demands; SW: supervising work; PR: psychological requirement.