Managing Changeability: Workaholism versus Work-holism
Brenda J. Zimmerman, York University

19-94

SCHULICH SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
York University
4700 Keele Street
Toronto, Ontario
M3J 1P3

June 1994

These models are based on a research project conducted with Bryan Hayday and Janet Brown.

Introduction

In the past few years management writings, sensitive to both the theoretical and empirical realities, have become increasingly concerned with organizational change as opposed to stability (Vaill, 1989), processes rather than structures (Mackenzie, 1989) and the complexity of organizational arrangements (Doz and Prahalad, 1991). The growing requirement to study complex dynamic phenomena requires new metaphors and new theories.

In the past few years management writings, sensitive to both the theoretical and empirical realities, have become increasingly concerned with organizational change as opposed to stability (Vaill, 1989), processes rather than structures (Mackenzie, 1989) and the complexity of organizational arrangements (Doz and Prahalad, 1991). The growing requirement to study complex dynamic phenomena requires new metaphors and new theories.

We were particularly interested in the concepts and processes of managing change-ability versus managing change. Managing change addresses the issue of moving an organization or a system from point A to point B in the most effective and efficient manner. It assumes that one can predict where point B will be or should be in the future. Managing change-ability implies creating the conditions or environment in the organization or system so that it has the innate capacity to change. There are instances in every organization, where the future is not just unknown but inherently unknowable. In these cases, the skills required to thrive, shift from managing change to managing change-ability. Managing change-ability implies that change is a constant - not a state to get through before the next stable equilibrium. If change is assumed to be a constant, then a critical management skill is pattern recognition - an ability to be ultra-sensitive to the evolving patterns unfolding in an organization and its context. The study is based on an assumption that organizations need to become more adept at managing changeability given the unpredictability of future outcomes in the economic, social and political arenas.

We looked to recent work on chaos theory and complex systems thinking to provide us with a lens to understand change-ability and unpredictability. However, as we examined the transcripts we found a recurring theme of work addiction or workaholism. Therefore we reviewed literature on workaholism and developed a framework which merges the insights from addiction, complex systems and the data. The conceptual framework is labelled "workaholism versus work-holism".

The literature on addictive organizations provided us with a reference point from which to examine the tension we observed between workaholism and what we call work-holism. Concepts such as perfectionism, external referencing and dualism were reflected to greater and lesser degrees in almost all of the interviews. These themes became increasingly important to us as we recognized the potential role these thoughts or values may rate in defining organizational culture and tolerance for change and uncertainty.

The insights which emerged from the data suggest that workaholism, at an individual or an organizational level, inhibits change-ability in the long run. Work-holism, a term we coined to reflect the self-referent quality in some of the transcripts, is seen to facilitate a tolerance for change and uncertainty.

Chaos Theory, Complex Adaptive Systems and Fractals

In this section, we will provide a brief overview of the science fields of chaos and complex systems. The key attributes will then be linked back to organizations. In effect, the question posed by this section is "how can these sciences inform our understanding of organizational change processes?"

The science of complexity, chaos theory, and fractals are proving to be valuable for scientists in many fields in understanding adaptive systems. Its application to the social sciences and organizational processes is growing fast (Drazin & Sandelands, 1992; Gersick, 1991; Goerner, 1994; Goldstein, 1998; Kagono, 1985; Leifer, 1989; Nonaka, 1988a&b; Smith & Gemmill, 1991; Stacey, 1991, 1992, 1993; Wheatley, 1992; Zimmerman, 1991, 1993a, 1993b; Zimmerman and Hurst, 1993).

These sciences provide us with a means of examining and understanding the dynamic tensions which both result from and contribute to changeability in organizations, including the primary tension between stability and innovation. Managing change-ability is derived from complexity theory. Complex systems have many points of interaction between their components. In effect, there are infinite ways to create connections due to the large number of points of interaction. Therefore the number of outcomes from a complex system is theoretically infinite. Complex systems (for example – weather systems) are therefore inherently unpredictable beyond a short time frame. The future outcomes are unknowable. Paradoxically complex adaptive systems are created by patterns that repeat. It is the patterns of interaction that become the driving force.

We are using the concept of complex systems as a metaphor for organizations. In both cases, there are (1) many points of interaction, (2) many (perhaps infinite) potential outcomes from the interactions and (3) yet patterns which repeat in the organizational context.

Fractals, the geometric outcomes of complex systems, are complex intricate patterns. We see fractals in nature – i.e., clouds, coastlines, leaves. Some of the determining attributes of fractals are: (1) self-similarity or "whole in the parts"; (2) micro-macro complexity; and (3) constant change but order.

Self-similarity is demonstrated by showing that every piece of the fractal bears a resemblance to the whole. A cauliflower is an example of this. If one breaks off a piece of the cauliflower, the piece is in the same form as the whole. The part is a miniature cauliflower.

Micro-macro complexity builds on the whole in the parts concept. As one zooms in on a fractal, the complexity is not decreased. A coastline from a distance has jagged, irregular and complex boundaries. If we take a close look at a portion of the coastline, it too is jagged, irregular and complex. We could continue this process of zooming in indefinitely and never lose the jagged, irregular and complex features. The boundaries are permeable and yet seem to have an infinite length.

Constant change but order is a critical attribute of fractals. There is an unreconciled tension between the positive feedback loops which push the process to change and the negative feedback loops which try to maintain the patterns. Prigogine (1984) refers to this as "order through fluctuation". The order is not in the structures which are inherently unstable but in the processes or the patterns which create the structures.

With complex adaptive systems and fractals as a lens to view organizations, we used this study to uncover some of the underlying self-similar patterns in the organizations. One of the implications of this lens is the belief that patterns are repeating at all levels in the organization which are creating the order and also the change-ability. We chose a research method which reflected our lens of self-similarity. The research method which best suited this lens is ethnographic interviews. This is described in more detail in the methodology section.

The Framework: Workaholism versus Work-holism

The framework which emerged from the data is called workaholism (an addiction) versus work-holism (a healthy state). It reveals the realities of both organizations in terms of the meaning of work. It also explores our assessment of work attitudes to inhibit or facilitate change and learning in the organizations.

There is an apparent simplicity and naiveté in focusing on workaholism as unhealthy and counterproductive given today's competitive environment. Yet the patterns in the data were strong enough that we felt compelled to create a conceptual framework through which to examine these patterns. A recurring theme in the interviews was "workaholism" and the need for managers and executives to be workaholics to survive and advance their careers in the organizations. We believe that the framework in this paper shows how workaholism and its paradoxical counterpart work-holism influence leadership, management and independent functioning in the workplace.

Our research suggested that the issue of work addiction was more complex than merely working long hours. Using the interview data, we found a pattern which became coherent as we compared it to the literature on chaos theory and addiction. The distinction we have made is between workaholism and work-holism. In the healthy state of work-holism, work is viewed as an extension of self-identity. We will describe the differences between workaholism and work-holism more fully below.

Workaholism – The Literature

In the 1960s, there were forecasts of increased leisure hours as technology increasingly influenced our workplaces. The forecasts were far from accurate and the norm of longer working hours in the 1990s is widely accepted as a necessary condition for economic survival. The question remains as to whether working longer hours necessarily leads to workaholism, an addiction.

Addiction has been defined as maladaptive behaviour or "any activity which diminishes the person's ability to deal with other things in the environment" (Haas, 1989: 14). The inability to be sensitive and responsive to the environment is a critical concern for long-run organizational effectiveness. Schaef and Fassel (1988) say that any process can be used addictively. They argue that the function of the addiction is to reduce awareness, to numb oneself so that there is no energy left to be aware of other aspects of life or the environment.

Unlike other addictive substances or behaviours, work is a necessary part of normal living. According to Machlowitz (1980:7) "what distinguishes workaholism from other addictions is that workaholism is sometimes considered a virtue, while others, such as alcoholism and drug addiction, are invariable considered vices."

It becomes more difficult to discern when working hard has moved from health to unhealthy. Boronson (1976) distinguishes between workaholics and work lovers. Both may work hard, but work lovers are not emotionally dependent on work to provide all source of satisfaction. They see their work as a means to contribute to themselves and to society. Cherrington (1980) sees the difference between workaholics and hard workers as the level of need. The hard worker may put in excessively long hours on a short term basis but does not need this to be the norm. The workaholic has an uncontrollable need to work incessantly. Siegal (1974) argues that workaholics will suffer from withdrawal symptoms when they are deprived of work. They have lost their ability to understand life outside of a work context. Doty (1984) proposes a typology of hard workers as either those with high levels of work commitment or workaholics. The individuals with a high level of work commitment have healthy attitudes about work and themselves. They are "challenged, stimulated and satisfied with work" (1984:19). Workaholics have unhealthy attitudes and hence do not achieve satisfaction with work or themselves. Workaholics cannot be identified by the number of hours worked.

Work addiction is both an individual and system level problem in two ways. First, the system can create conditions for individual workaholism to thrive. Schaef and Fassel (1988) suggest that organizations and society can derive some short run benefit from creating conditions where individuals are "numb" and unaware of the environment. They are more likely to keep busy and not raise issues of long run concerns. Second, the organization itself may exhibit characteristics as a system which are addictive.

In this context, a system is "an entity that comprises both content (ideas, roles, and definitions) and processes (ways of doing things), and that is complete in itself... a system is made up of parts, and the system is larger than the sum of the parts" (Schaef and Fassel, 1988:60). The system implicitly has a paradigm by which it operates. Closed systems will not take in information which is inconsistent with the dominant paradigm. Open systems have permeable boundaries and espouse flexibility and paradigm changes as a meta-paradigm. Systems explicitly and subtly reward people for behaviour consistent with the paradigm. Hence a closed system will discourage new information and will be less aware of changes in their internal and external environments.

Schaef and Fassel (1988) list some of the major characteristics of addiction as self-centredness, denial, perfectionism, external referencing, and dualism. Robinson (1989) adds a few more characteristics: over seriousness, overacting to uncontrollables, ignore conflict and fear of failure. In addition to these attributes from the literature, we have added temporal blindness – an inability to recognize patterns over time. "Work addicts live in the future because of their underdeveloped ability to live in the present (Robinson, 1989: 52). The following list of attributes of workaholism are seen at both an individual and an organizational or system level.

1. Self-centredness.
   Self-centredness is a critical attribute because getting the "fix" dominates all other aspects of life. The fix is achieved by losing one's self in work. The needs to satisfy this addiction become the centre of the universe for addicts.


2. Denial.
   A common dictionary definition of denial is the refusal to recognize reality. Denial exists in organization when individuals block or resist hearing information or interpretations which could reveal new but unsettling aspects of reality (particularly an issue in change management). At an organizational level, denial can be seen as secrets (both power secrets and access secrets) or censorship of material – the undiscussed or undiscussable aspects of the work and the workplace. Denial is a key characteristic of a closed system.


3. Perfectionism.
   Striving for unattainable perfectionism is an obsession with addicts. Unlike striving for a high-quality product or service, addicts believe there is a perfect product, output or form of organizing. Mistakes are invalid because they deny perfection and therefore mistakes are not used as a source of data or learning.


4. External referencing.
   The sense of self is externally defined and derived from others' perceptions. This leads to a lack of boundaries and no way of distinguishing self from others' definitions of self. This is counterproductive to an environment which promotes self-organizing work teams and task forces.


5. Dualism.
   Dualistic thinking is the source of most of the characteristics of the addictive system. Choices become either-or rather than both-and. It creates a false sense of simplicity from complex realities. Individually the two choices are unpalatable and the addict switches between the two choices without any integration or linking between them. Robinson (1989) points out that this switch often manifests itself as super-responsibility in certain areas of life and super-irresponsibility in others.


6. Over seriousness.
   Taking oneself too seriously can lead to a feeling of isolation and inability to connect with others. If one is too serious about oneself, then it is hard to trust other. Delegation is avoided and over scheduling of time becomes prevalent (Oates, 1971).


7. Over reacting to uncontrollables.
   Addicts tend to over react to changes over which they have no control. Workaholics have a need to control outcomes and hence are uncomfortable with unpredictability and ambiguity. "Trying to eliminate the unexpected and the changeable, they over-plan and over-organize their lives through work so that conditions are predictable, consistent and thus controllable. They cannot be spontaneous or flexible because the fear of losing control is too great" (Robinson, 1989:42).


8. Ignore conflict.
   Conflict is either avoided or created by not addressed. They cannot cope with conflict directly because it addresses differences and requires a heightened level of awareness of self and others.


9. Fear of failure.
   Linked to the fear of losing control is the fear of failure. This fear drives the workaholic more than the desire for success. The fear of failure influences the choices made by the workaholic.


10. Temporal Blindness.
    Addicts are unaware of their environments, others and even themselves. This blinds them not only to the current situation but also to how today's events are related to history and future. They cannot recognize the patterns that are created and being created. Their need for a fix is a very short-run focus which leaves them unaware of the broader context of actions.

Work-holism: The alternative

In analyzing the transcripts we came to distinguish between workaholism or work addiction and work-holism (a healthy state). In the healthy state of work-holism, work is viewed as an extension of self rather than the driving force. We have depicted the difference between workaholism and work-holism on the following page. The diagram incorporates many, but not all, of the differences between workaholism and work-holism.

Figure 1:


In the diagram, we have shown a lack of boundaries as faded lines and highly permeable boundaries as dotted lines.

Self may be an individual, an organization or another system. Communities are the common connections with others. For an individual, communities include their place of employment, their families, the neighbourhoods in which they live, and their pursuits or leisure activities. For an organization, communities include other organizations in the industry, their suppliers and customers or clients and the geographic areas in which they operate. Work is the effort or exertion directed to produce or accomplish something.

The circle on the left – workaholism – depicts three of the key characteristics of addiction: self-centredness, external referencing and denial. The transcripts also show evidence of perfectionism and dualistic thinking.

The workaholic individual or system is self-centred. But in the process, the self-identity is eroded – it is subsumed by the work or other addictions. Self is externally determined or externally referenced in that it is defined by work. Therefore self-identity is vulnerable to being diminished or eroded by an external force. We have shown the boundary between self and work as faded to depict this lack of separation. Because there are no boundaries, the definition of self can shrink due to the force of the impinging concentric forces of work and communities. This diminished self-identity results in a loss of a strong and stable reference point for decisions and actions, i.e., with a diminished sense of self, one's value base and perspective is also diminished or eroded.

The boundary between work and communities is impermeable in the workaholic system – it is "the great divide". The employee acts as if s/he were two people, with different values and attitudes on either side of the great divide. We have used this to represent denial; a lack of information flows between work and the rest of one's life or connections.

The circle on the right – work-holism – depicts a sense of self which is not defined by one's activities and behaviours. In this case, the frame of reference extends beyond one's relationship to work and includes one's relationships to others in the larger communities. Paradoxically, workholism is community centred, rather than self-centred, because of the clarity or strength of self. The individual's (or organization's) identity is distinct from the work one performs. The boundary between work and self is clear. The identity of self is not externally imposed. The "self" is not defined by work. Work and other activities are seen as extensions of self. It is self-identity which grounds the actions or frames the picture.

In the work-holistic system, the boundary between work and communities is permeable. Information and interpretations from work influence the communities. Similarly information and interpretations from the communities in which one interacts shape and influence one's perceptions of work. One's role in communities and one's work are seen as connected and interacting systems.

We have described the model at the individual level of analysis. However, the model is equally appropriate at an organization or system level. The chart below summarizes the key characteristics of an addictive organization (or individual) and work-holism.

Addictive Organizations	Work-holism
Self-centred	Other centred
Denial	Acceptance
Perfectionist	Learns from mistakes
External referencing	Self-referent
Dualism	Both-and
Over seriousness	Realistic
Inability to deal with uncontrollables	Accepts ambiguity
Ignore conflict	Embraces tensions
Fear of failure	Celebrates success
Temporally blind	Recognizes time

Discussion and Conclusions

The data revealed patterns that replicated throughout the organizations. The pattern of workaholism as both an individual trait and an organizational culture is evident. Also present, though to a lesser degree in the data, is the pattern labelled as workholism.

The power of workaholism was a dominant force in both organizations. Given the characteristics of workaholism, this does not bode well for these organizations' capacity for change-ability. This addictive behaviour can inhibit the pattern recognition skills needed to adapt in a dynamically changing environment. When an organization's executives model and exert patterns of influence based on workaholic characteristics, the organizational culture is susceptible to the following:

• an internal organizational focus to the exclusion of significant community (marketplace) variables and trends;
• an obsession with "perfection" which shifts the orientation away from an individual's capacity and expectation to learn from mistakes;
• limiting the organization's focus to simple either-or choices at a time when the world is increasingly full of both-and environments and scenarios; and
• a tenuous grasp of marketplace, community, timing and change, because of a tendency to deny ambiguity, conflict, time and failure – all of which is compounded by a drive for external validation.

However, there were signs of work-holism as well which suggested a competing pattern in these organizations. Both organizations were creating conditions for work-holism to flourish in some parts of the organization. Their proponents were eloquent in understanding both the damage to the organization by its addictive traits and the productivity benefits to the organization, the individuals, and to the broader community from a more holistic perspective. They painted a picture of discretionary energy that had the potential to grow if it was nurtured. This was not another means of "getting more from less resources" but tapping the natural strengths of the employees in building on their gifts, talents, life experience and context. In essence, the discretionary energy is released by finding connections between "self" and work rather than requiring self to fit to work. This intentional exploration supports the organization's capacity to manage change-ability and explore innovation, with all the opportunity, ambiguity, and constant flux that this orientation represents.

Evidence of complexity, chaos theory and fractals is limited in addictive organizations. Self-similarity in a work-holistic environment could be argued by some as creating organizational conditions of inefficient redundancy – certainly this seems to be a view implicitly revealed in the command-and-control orientation of the workaholic organization. Rather, self-similarity in a work-holistic organization means that the part contains the direction and shape of the whole. This work-holistic part of the organization is then able to integrate broad strategic vision in its full range of immediate decision-making requirements, opportunities, and community contacts.

Constant change but order, a critical attribute of fractals, is anathem to the workaholic organization’s drive for "perfection" and its inability to deal with uncontrollables. The workaholic organization will actively resist complexity. By contrast, as one zooms in on a fractal, the complexity is not decreased – micro-macro complexity abounds. The workaholic organization will feed a culture of "indispensable" parts, rather than promoting the fractal-like conditions where the whole can be in each of the parts. In the addictive state, indispensability of any one part is a threat to the life of the organization, since it represents an orientation towards individual dependency, and therein lie specific vulnerabilities and limits. Conversely, the work-holistic organization promotes each of the characteristics of complex systems – (1) many points of interaction, (2) many potential outcomes from the interactions, and (3) patterns which repeat in the organizational context.