Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article presents a theoretical analysis of the signs of workaholism as a behavioral addiction in the context of occupational psychology and organizational psychology. It examines the criteria for differentiating the signs of workaholism from work engagement and professional perfectionism, as well as the psychological and organizational factors that contribute to the entrenchment of addictive work behavior patterns. It also examines how corporate culture and unspoken norms of overemployment mask maladaptive forms of work activity. Particular attention is paid to comorbid disorders and social consequences, which have long remained outside the focus of organizational diagnostics. The role of leadership style and incentive systems in provoking or preventing addictive work behavior is discussed. The possibilities of early detection of workaholism signs in conditions where overtime work is socially approved and perceived as a norm of professional loyalty are also considered. This study is a theoretical review with elements of systematization and typology. The methodological framework is based on concepts of behavioral addictions, occupational psychology, and organizational psychology. For the first time, this review proposes an integrative four-profile typology of individuals with signs of workaholism (compulsive worker, achievement-obsessed worker, affectively dependent worker, and work-identified worker). Differences between the types were identified in their underlying mechanisms, productivity, and problem awareness. A shift from an individualized psychocorrectional approach to organizational interventions that take into account corporate workload standards was justified.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mariya Aleksandrovna Yablokova (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: