Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Feb 22.
Published in final edited form as: Career Dev Q. 2023 Oct 17;71(4):315–329. doi: 10.1002/cdq.12336

Take a break! Leisure participation moderates the workaholism–work stress relationship

Shahnaz Aziz 1, Brittany Meier 1, Karl Wuensch 1, Christyn Dolbier 1
PMCID: PMC10883458  NIHMSID: NIHMS1966523  PMID: 38390370

Abstract

Our primary aim was to gain a better understanding of how leisure activities (i.e., physical activity, mindfulness, and vacation) may beneficially relate to workaholism and work stress. Secondary aims included exploring motivations for participating in the three types of leisure activities. The job demands-resources theory; conservation of resources theory; and detachment-recovery, autonomy, mastery, meaning, and affiliation model provided context for hypothesized relationships among the variables. Full-time employees in the United States (N = 367) were recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk community, and they completed an online survey. Leisure participation significantly moderated the relationship between workaholism and work stress (weakening it). The majority of motivations for mindfulness and vacation were related to mental/emotional health, with a more even split between mental/emotional health and physical health/appearance motivations for physical activities. Several policy and practice-based recommendations for prioritizing leisure engagement are provided.

Keywords: leisure activities, work stress, workaholism

INTRODUCTION

A growing body of research supports the mental, physical, and social health benefits of engagement in leisure activities (Fancourt et al., 2021). Leisure activities may not take priority for some employees such as workaholics, who expend more effort on work responsibilities than leisure (Kuykendall et al., 2020; Sonnentag et al., 2017), thus limiting chances to experience related benefits. Workaholism has commonly been related to high levels of work stress (e.g., Meier et al., 2021), and both are associated with additional negative outcomes that are detrimental to individuals and costly to organizations (Clark et al., 2016; Hassard et al., 2018). Work stress can be attenuated by leisure activities that aid in recovery processes (Sonnentag, 2018); however, workaholics leave themselves less nonwork time and are unlikely to engage in regular or effortful activities during nonwork time (Clark et al., 2016). Thus, individuals with workaholic tendencies may be those in the greatest need of engagement in leisure activities.

A greater understanding of the potentially beneficial relationships of leisure activities with workaholism and work stress would enable organizations to identify supportive resources and policies while increasing buy-in by incorporating employee values and preferences (Cunningham, 2019). For example, social cognitive career theory (SCCT; Lent et al., 1994) suggests that workers who partake in seemingly beneficial activities which they believe themselves to be good at will experience positive outcomes. These workers leverage their experiences to set realistic goals for further engagement and personal achievement. For instance, when individuals are confident in their abilities, they persist through challenges and develop skills to cope with such concerns (e.g., challenging tasks and tight deadlines; Lent et al., 2006). This could alleviate some work stress for workaholics.

Workaholism

Workaholism was first described as an irresistible urge to work that interferes with one’s nonwork life (Oates, 1971). This conceptualization led to more research resulting in numerous definitions. Through a meta-analysis, Clark et al. (2016) came to a consensus and defined workaholism as a compulsive need to work excessively hard and above the standards of one’s typical job. The prevalence of workaholism ranges from 10% to 25% in the United States (Robinson, 2014; Sussman et al., 2011). This compulsion involves preoccupation with work to the exclusion of other life domains, resulting in negative health consequences (Aziz et al., 2013; Sussman, 2012). Indeed, workaholism negatively relates to mental, physical, and social health (Aziz & Moyer, 2018; Clark et al., 2016; Hauk & Chodkjewicz, 2013). It is not surprising workaholism relates to poorer health, as workaholics work long hours, prefer work over leisure, impose excessive work demands, and have difficulty disengaging from work when not working, each of which hampers their ability to engage in recovery processes (Clark et al., 2016; Sonnentag, 2018). Additionally, Clark et al. (2016) suggested that any value of workaholism that may be gained in terms of performance or productivity is offset by the health consequences, which are harmful to employees and can be costly to organizations (Cunningham, 2019).

Work stress

As with workaholism, work stress is associated with negative health outcomes and associated costs to organizations. Work stress is a physiological and psychological response to inconsistencies between work demands and available resources (Ganster & Schaubroeck, 1991). The person–environment fit model asserts when personal (e.g., individual interests, abilities, and personality traits) and environmental (e.g., job demands, characteristics, and organizational culture) factors are misaligned, employees are likely to experience greater stress (Caplan et al., 1987). Studies document a high prevalence of work stress. For instance, 94% of a sample of workers in the United States and the United Kingdom reported feeling stress at work and almost a third indicated their stress level is high or unsustainably high (Wrike, 2018). Work stress relates to poor physical, mental, and social health (Fishta & Backé, 2015; Jerg-Bretzke et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2020). In addition, Goh et al. (2016) estimated annual US health expenditures associated with various workplace stressors such as high job demands ($48 billion), work–family conflict ($24 billion), and long hours ($13 billion).

Recovery is a key part of the stress process and helps explain how stress negatively affects health. Psychological and physiological responses to the perception of greater demands than resources (i.e., stress) take a toll when enacted repeatedly and over time without time to recover (McEwen, 1998). Recovery is the process of returning to pre-stressor physiological and psychological levels (home-ostasis) and translates to rest and recuperation occurring during nonwork time in the context of occupational health (Sonnentag, 2018). Given work stress is the norm and not the exception, it is important employees engage in recovery activities during nonwork time. Social and organizational support are important factors to facilitate recovery and leisure engagement (i.e., as per SCCT; Lent et al., 2006). With substantial concerns regarding associations of poor health with workaholism and work stress, it is worthwhile to explore potential means to reduce these effects, specifically engagement in leisure activities that may aid in recovery.

Leisure activities

Leisure participation is voluntary and occurs during nonwork time (Newman et al., 2014; Voss, 1967). Leisure activities span a broad range of pursuits (Knecht et al., 2016) and serve many purposes, such as disengagement from work and personal improvement (Newman et al., 2014; van Wijhe-van Iperen et al., 2010). We sought to obtain a greater understanding of potential beneficial relationships of leisure activities (mindfulness, physical activity, and vacation) with workaholism and work stress. Participation in these activities is linked to beneficial mental, physical, and/or social health (World Health Organization [WHO], 2006).

Mindfulness:

While there are varying definitions of mindfulness, it is commonly conceptualized as bringing one’s complete attention to experiences occurring in the present moment in a nonjudg-mental way (Bishop et al., 2004). This entails remaining present with one’s inner experience (bodily sensations, thoughts, and feelings), whether pleasant, neutral, or unpleasant, with an accepting stance. Doing so attenuates processes of reactivity that can lead to more suffering. Mindfulness is cultivated by engaging in mindfulness practices (e.g., mindfulness meditation, yoga, and tai chi). Interest in mindfulness interventions has been increasing due to accumulated evidence of their physical, mental, and social health benefits (e.g., Galante et al., 2021; Marino et al., 2021; Teoh et al., 2021). Workplace mindfulness interventions have been shown to reduce work stress, as well as emotional exhaustion, depression, and anxiety (Janssen et al., 2018). Mindfulness has been shown to weaken the relationship between workload and mental and physical symptoms of strain (Fisher et al., 2017) and between workaholism and negative affect (Aziz et al., 2021). In addition, a mindfulness-based intervention with workaholics demonstrated decreases in psychological distress, workaholism, and hours worked without a decline in job performance (Van Gordon et al., 2017).

Physical activity:

Physical activities involve expending energy by moving skeletal muscles, may be performed out of choice or necessity, and may vary in intensity (Caspersen et al., 1985). Physical activity spans a wide variety of activities, including those that may be categorized as sports, conditioning, household, occupational, or other activities. Exercise is a subcategory of physical activity that is typically structured, repetitive, and purposeful in improving or maintaining physical fitness. Physical activity is associated with better physical, mental, and social health (Shvedko et al., 2018; Warburton & Bredin, 2017; White et al., 2017), with workplace physical activity interventions showing physical health benefits and reduced work stress (Lachance et al., 2022; Reed et al., 2017). In addition, the positive relationship between physical activity and well-being has been shown to be stronger for those with high levels of workaholism compared to those with low levels of workaholism (Bakker et al., 2013).

Vacation:

Vacations are sustained periods, ranging from days to weeks, during which an employee elects to take time off from work (Etzion, 2003). Since different industries provide various opportunities for taking vacation time, it is appropriate to conceptualize vacations as lasting a minimum of 4 days, excluding naturally occurring breaks from work (e.g., holiday weekends; Pines & Aronson, 1988). Some jobs also require work over the weekends, so time off during the weekend is considered in vacation length. Vacations have physical, mental, and social health benefits (de Bloom et al., 2009; Lehto et al., 2009). These benefits fade over time after returning to work (de Bloom et al., 2009); however, they fade more slowly in those who engage in more recovery experiences (i.e., psychological detachment and relaxation) during vacation (Syrek at al., 2018). In addition, vacations seem to temporarily offset differences in rumination and affective well-being between workaholics and non-workaholics (de Bloom et al., 2014).

Current study

Our primary aim was to better understand how leisure activities may beneficially relate to workaholism and work stress. As mentioned previously, research supports positive relationships between workaholism and work stress, and negative relationships of workaholism and work stress with leisure participation. However, we did not uncover any research that has examined the moderating role leisure activities may play in the workaholism–work stress relationship. We proposed hypotheses based on previous research and three theories/models: job demands-resources (JD-R) theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014); conservation of resources theory (COR; Hobfoll, 1989); and detachment-recovery, autonomy, mastery, meaning, and affiliation (DRAMMA) model (Newman et al., 2014). Each of these theories conceptualizes the value of individual resources and how these can be obtained, maintained, and reinvested into work.

The JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014) proposes that available resources (e.g., supervisor support) can offset mentally and physically taxing aspects of one’s job (stressors). When job demands are high, workers must invest additional resources to avoid experiencing job strain (e.g., emotional exhaustion). According to the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989), individuals aim to protect their resources, and stress results when those resources are threatened or depleted. The DRAMMA model proposes that leisure activities relate to beneficial well-being as they satisfy psychological needs that enable employees to restore and enhance their resources expended during work time (Newman et al., 2014). The detachment-recovery need in particular is most salient to the focus of the current study. Engagement in leisure activity produces detachment from work, which is necessary for the recovery of resources depleted during work (Newman et al., 2014). A similar idea stems from the COR theory that resources to overcome work stress can be replenished while engaging in breaks from work (Hobfoll, 1989). Within this theoretical context, workaholism is problematic as workaholics offset job demands and their own elevated job-related expectations by investing many resources (e.g., time and attention), while simultaneously not affording themselves sufficient opportunities to replenish their resources by detaching from work via engagement in leisure activities. Thus, we hypothesized a positive relationship between workaholism and work stress, negative relationships of workaholism and work stress with participation in leisure activities, and that leisure activities would buffer the relationship between workaholism and work stress.

Furthermore, we sought to elucidate motives for participating in the specific leisure activities of mindfulness, physical activity, and vacation. This afforded us the ability to examine potential links with health-related motivations that may align with the psychological needs proposed in the DRAMMA model.

Notably, in addition to JD-R theory, COR theory, and DRAMMA model, we highlight two additional theories that are applicable to the current study constructs as they relate to career development. The first theory is Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, which focuses on the role of cognitive processes (personal factors) and the social environment in sculpting behavior, whereby self-efficacy (i.e., one’s belief in their ability to successfully achieve a task) is a primary component. The concept of reciprocal determinism may fit well here as it refers to the interactions between environment, cognition, and behavior. Environment (e.g., work demands and resources), cognition (e.g., workaholic thoughts/attitudes, goals of career advancement, and beliefs about leisure), and behavior (e.g., leisure participation and working for career advancement) all influence each other.

The second is Lent et al.’ SCCT (1994), which evolved, in part, from social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986). SCCT considers three factors that guide career development, namely, (1) self-efficacy—a person’s own belief that they are competent, (2) outcomes expectations—anticipated results of a given action, and (3) goals. Goals are performance-based (i.e., aimed at achieving certain success) or choice-based (i.e., personal plans or commitments). Individuals weigh self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations when making decisions and setting goals. With proper support (e.g., social, organizational, financial), goal-setting can benefit employees by encouraging ongoing interest in leisure (and work-related) activities and enhancing coping skills (i.e., to better manage workplace stressors; Lent et al., 2006). These could prove valuable to workaholic and stressed employees who stand to benefit from recovery opportunities and coping skill development.

METHODS

Participants

Participants were 367 full-time (i.e., work at least 40 h weekly) employees from a variety of US industries. Demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1. The majority were female, White, had at least a bachelor’s degree, were in mid/intermediate level job positions, and made less than $60,000 annually. About half were married, and more than half were parents. On average, participants worked more than 40 h weekly and were about 40 years old. Notably, a comparison of those who work 40 h per week (n = 166) with those who work more than 40 (n = 201) revealed workaholism and work stress were significantly higher in those who reported working more than 40 h per week, but the groups did not differ significantly in leisure participation. Statistical details are available upon request.

TABLE 1.

Descriptive statistics for demographic characteristics of participants.

Characteristic Description
Age (years) M = 39.87, SD = 10.48
Hours worked (total weekly; remote weekly) M = 45.13, SD = 6.89; M = 23.5 h, SD = 9.04
Gender 63% Female, 37% male
Race 83% White, 7% Black, 5% Asian/Pacific Islander
Marital status 50% Married/domestic partnership, 33% single/never married
Children 56% ≥1 Child
Education 43% Bachelor’s degree, 18% master’s degree, 20% high school/equivalent
Industry 16% Education/training, 10% health science, 9% finance, 7% manufacturing, 6% information technology
Organizational tenure (years) M = 7.68, SD = 6.59
Role tenure (years) M = 7.35, SD = 6.40
Career status 19% Entry-level, 65% mid/intermediate level, 15% senior level
Income (yearly) 60% Earned ≤$60,000; 12% earned ≥$100,000
Open in a new tab

Note: N = 367. Role tenure = number of years in current position.

Procedure

Upon approval by the university’s Institutional Review Board, a Qualtrics survey was offered to members of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) community. MTurk is a survey platform with a network of demographically and geographically diverse individuals. Participants self-selected this survey from a list of options for which they met eligibility criteria (i.e., US-based, full-time worker, completion of 100+ surveys, and 95%+ survey approval rating). An informed consent document described the confidential, anonymous, and voluntary nature of the study. After providing consent, they answered items related to leisure activities, workaholism, work stress, and demographics. The survey took about 10 min to complete. Participants who completed the survey and met screen-out qualifications were compensated with a small monetary reward ($0.20) distributed through MTurk. Of note, data were collected before the pandemic started; hence, factors surrounding the pandemic did not affect participants’ responses.

Measures

Workaholism:

The 29-item Workaholism Analysis Questionnaire (WAQ) measured workaholism unidimensionally (Aziz et al., 2013). Items are rated using a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A sample item is as follows: “I am unable to relax at home due to preoccupation at work.” Items are averaged for a total score, with higher values indicating greater workaholism. The WAQ demonstrated validity and reliability (α = 0.93) in a sample of US employees (Aziz et al., 2013) and was reliable in the current study (α = 0.92).

Work stress:

The eight-item Stress in General–Revised Scale (SIG-R) assessed general work stress (Yankelevich et al., 2012). Words or phrases associated with stress in relation to one’s job are rated using a three-point scale (“Yes,” “No,” or “Cannot Decide”). Aside from item 3, which is reverse-coded, all items are scored 3, 0, and 1.5, respectively. Items are averaged for a total score, with higher scores indicating greater work stress. A sample item is “demanding.” The SIG-R demonstrated validity and reliability (α = 0.85) in a sample of US employees (Yankelevich et al., 2012) and was reliable in the current study (α = 0.82).

Leisure activities and motivators:

The main reasons for participating in mindfulness activities, leisurely physical activities, and vacation were assessed with items developed for this study. Mindfulness, physical activity, and vacation were defined, and examples of mindfulness-based activities and physical activities were provided. Participants were asked to select types of mindfulness-based activities (i.e., mindfulness meditation, yoga, tai chi, qi gong, and “informal” mindfulness practices) and leisurely physical activities (i.e., exercise, sports, housework, and yardwork) they choose to engage in during their leisure (non-work) time. They were also asked to select the main reason for choosing to engage in those mindfulness and physical activities, as well as for taking vacation (i.e., physical health/appearance, mental/emotional health, socialization, and spirituality).

Leisure activity participation:

Participants were asked about the frequency with which they took vacation in the last year. Participation in leisurely activities during vacation was measured by asking about hours and the percentage of waking hours devoted to those activities during a typical day on their most recent vacation. Participation in mindfulness and leisurely physical activities was measured by asking about hours and the percentage of waking hours devoted to those activities during a typical week in the last month. Participation variables for each leisure activity were created by standardizing and averaging the hourly and percentage scores for participation in that activity. A composite leisure participation variable was created by averaging the participation variables for the three types of leisure activities.

Data analyses

Analyses were conducted using SPSS 27, except for the identification of slopes for the moderation analyses for which SAS 9.4 was used. A 0.05 criterion of statistical significance was employed for all tests. Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables were calculated. For moderation analyses, all variables were standardized to mean 0 and variance 1, prior to computing interaction terms and entering them in multiple regressions. To test the moderating influence of leisure activity participation on the workaholism–work stress relationship, an interaction term was created between workaholism and composite leisure participation.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics and correlations between workaholism, work stress, and participation in leisure activities are shown in Table 2. On average, participants indicated a low-to-moderate level of workaholism and a relatively high level of work stress. The most common mindfulness practices participants endorsed were “informal” practice (i.e., engaging mindfully in everyday life activities) (59.7%), mindfulness meditation (33.2%), and yoga (21.3%). Over half of the participants (52.1%) engaged in 34 min or more in mindfulness activity on a typical day. The most common types of physical activities participants endorsed were those done as housework (76.3%), exercise (65.7%), and yardwork (44.7%). About half of the participants (49.3%) engaged in 42 min or more in physical activities on a typical day. Most participants (80.4%) took at least one minimally 4-day vacation in the past year (19.6% did not take any vacation, 34.1% took one, 24.3% took two, and 22.0% took three or more). Over half of the participants (52.5%) engaged in leisurely/pleasurable activities for 6 h or more on a typical day during vacation. As hypothesized, workaholism and work stress were positively related, and workaholism and work stress were negatively related to composite leisure participation.

TABLE 2.

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations.

Variable WAQ SIG-R PApart MApart VLApart CompLP
SIG-R 0.419**
PApart −0.025 −0.140** –
MApart 0.065 −0.061 0.483** –
VLApart −0.204** −0.126* 0.164** 0.025 –
CompLP −0.154** −0.162** 0.533** 0.434** 0.878** –
Range 1.00–4.46 1.50–3.00 −0.96 to 4.17 −0.71 to 5.33 −1.29 to 2.45 −1.49 to 2.66
Mean 2.483 2.377 0.002 0.002 0.001 −0.000
SD 0.683 0.374 0.804 0.82 0.855 0.829
Open in a new tab

Note: N = 367. Means for PApart, MApart, and VLApart are based on standardizing and averaging hours per week or day and percentage of waking time values for each of these types of activities. Mean for CompLP is based on averaging PApart, MApart, and VLApart.

Abbreviations: WAQ, Workaholism Analysis Questionnaire; SIG-R, Stress in General—Revised; PApart, physical activity participation; MApart, mindfulness activity participation; VLApart, participation in leisurely activities during vacation; CompLP, composite leisure participation.

*

p < 0.05;

**

p < 0.01.

Multiple regression was employed to investigate the relationship between stress (outcome variable) and workaholism and composite leisure participation (predictors). The model included the interaction between workaholism and composite leisure participation. The model was statistically significant, R = 0.438, F(3, 357) = 3.923, p < 0.001. Workaholism had a significant unique relationship with stress, β = 0.402, p < 0.001, but the effect of composite leisure participation fell short of statistical significance, β = −0.088, p = 0.072. Composite leisure participation did significantly moderate the effect of workaholism, β = −0.095, p = 0.048. As leisure time increased, the association between workaholism and stress decreased (see Figure 1). The interaction was probed by evaluating the simple effects of workaholism at three levels of leisure participation (16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles). The simple effects were all significant (p < 0.001), with β = 0.505 at the 16th percentile, 0.412 at the 50th percentile, and 0.308 at the 84th percentile.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Leisure participation as a moderator between workaholism and work stress. Note: The solid line shows the relationship between workaholism and stress when leisure participation was 1.059 standard deviations below the mean. The dashed line shows the same relationship when leisure participation was 0.079 standard deviations below the mean, and the dotted line when leisure participation was 1.0164 standard deviations above the mean.

Frequencies for the main reasons for engaging in mindfulness, physical activity, and vacation revealed that mental/emotional health was commonly endorsed for each. For mindfulness, the majority of participants endorsed mental/emotional health (69.0%), followed by physical health/appearance (15.6%). For physical activities, about half endorsed physical health/appearance (46.0%), followed by mental/emotional health (43.9%). With regard to vacation, the majority identified mental/emotional health (60.7%), followed by socialization (22.8%).

DISCUSSION

In the current study, we sought to gain a better understanding of how three types of leisure activities (i.e., mindfulness, physical activity, and vacation) may beneficially relate to workaholism and work stress. Ever since Oates (1971) first conceptualized workaholism over 50 years ago, it has come to represent an obsessive need to work above the standards of one’s typical job (Clark et al., 2016). Not surprisingly, workaholism is related to greater work stress (Meier et al., 2021), and both relate to negative health and organizational outcomes (Clark et al., 2016; Hassard et al., 2018). Leisure activities aid in recovery processes that reduce work stress (Sonnentag, 2018). However, workaholics are unlikely to engage in leisurely activities (Clark et al., 2016) but stand to benefit from doing so. Our results highlight beneficial relationships of participation in leisure activities with workaholism and work stress. We also identified health-related motivations for each leisure activity to further support efforts by organizations to promote these activities.

As hypothesized and found in previous studies, workaholism was positively related to work stress (e.g., Meier et al., 2021), and both workaholism and work stress were negatively related to participation in leisure activities (e.g., Clark et al., 2016; Lachance et al., 2022). The JD-R theory, COR theory, and DRAMMA model provide potential explanations for these relationships. In applying the JD-R theory (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014) to the case of workaholism, workaholics may invest great personal resources to alleviate work stress created by the greater work-related demands they impose on themselves. This explanation also helps explain why workaholics choose work over participating in leisure activities. This idea is further supported by the COR theory which posits that lacking or anticipating a loss of resources can result in stress. For workaholics, depleting personal resources by engaging in leisure activity could therefore increase work stress. According to the DRAMMA model, leisure activity produces detachment from work, which is necessary for the recovery of resources expended on work (Newman et al., 2014). The COR theory adds to this notion by proposing that replenishing resources by taking breaks from work reduces work stress (Hobfoll, 1989).

The current study adds to existing research by examining the moderating influence of leisure activities on the workaholism–work stress relationship. We hypothesized that leisure activities would serve as a buffer in this relationship for which we found support. Participation in leisure activities weakened the relationship between workaholism and work stress. Even though workaholics are less likely to engage in leisure activities, this moderating influence demonstrates that when they do, it lessens their work stress. Conversely, when they do not, their work stress increases. In applying the DRAMMA model (Newman et al., 2014), we propose that leisure activity allows workaholics to detach and recover, potentially reducing work stress. Furthermore, workers are more likely to express interest in activities they believe themselves to be competent at and that will benefit them (Lent et al., 2006). One such benefit is enhanced coping skills, which are a valuable personal resource for stressed employees facing internal and external barriers (e.g., time pressure, guilt, and lack of peer support).

The current study also contributes to existing research by identifying the health- and coping-related motivators for participating in three types of leisure activities (i.e., mindfulness, physical activity, and vacation). As expected, mental health and physical health, and to a lesser extent social health, serve as motivators for engagement in these leisure activities, helping us to establish links between select activities and key health domains (WHO, 2006). Mental health and relaxation were by far the primary motivator for mindfulness participation, with physical health endorsed by some participants. This was similar for vacation, which was primarily motivated by mental health and relaxation, with some participants identifying socialization as the main motivator. For physical activity participation, the most common motivator was physical health and physical appearance, followed by mental health and relaxation. The DRAMMA model proposes that leisure activities help to satisfy psychological needs, and by doing so, employees are able to restore and enhance resources depleted by work (Newman et al., 2014). Being motivated to engage in leisure activities to enhance mental health, relaxation, and physical health seems most consistent with the psychological need for detachment and recovery from work. Participation in leisure activity for socialization aligns with the psychological need for affiliation. We cannot apply our findings to the psychological needs for autonomy, mastery, and meaning proposed in the DRAMMA model as these were not clearly reflected in the response options participants chose from when identifying the main purpose for engaging in each leisure activity.

Organizational and practical implications

In the 1970s, North American organizations adopted corporate wellness initiatives (Conrad, 1987). Today, these programs move beyond the originally intended purpose (i.e., cost reductions related to health insurance; Conrad, 1987) and may lessen the barriers to leisure participation (e.g., financial constraints) that individuals face by reassigning them to organizations—a recommendation noted by Kuykendall et al. (2020). While all employees may not interact with the programs or incentives offered (McGillivray, 2005), there is value to be gained from providing such opportunities. As shown, leisure participation was related to lower workaholism and work stress and can buffer the workaholism–work stress relationship. Thus, developing corporate cultures and wellness programming (e.g., incentives) that encourage participation in leisure activities can be beneficial. Answering Sonnentag’s (2018) call for clarity regarding how individual characteristics influence leisure participation, it seems workaholics may require external support, as they are often compulsive workers and may be unlikely to engage in beneficial leisure activities (Clark et al., 2016). For example, encouraging workaholics to take regular vacations (or staycations) may contribute to greater subjective well-being (Newman et al., 2014), attainment of resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014), and overall recovery outcomes (Sonnentag, 2018).

It is also important for organizations to recognize that participation in leisure activities can benefit employee health (Fancourt et al., 2021) and may be driven by mental, physical, and social health motivations, as shown in the current study. Thus, employers must model behaviors (e.g., take allotted breaks) and enact policies that encourage employees to engage in nonwork pursuits. For example, to limit time spent working while on vacation, organizations could mandate all company-owned devices be left in the workplace and restrict email access on personal devices. Alternatives for remote workers may require additional consideration. Such requirements may increase stress leading up to vacation but allow employees to experience the fullest benefits of vacation time. Once on vacation, they should engage in leisurely activities to detach and recover from work (Newman et al., 2014), while increasing resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014) and reducing stress upon return to work (de Bloom et al., 2014). Workaholics’ struggle to disconnect from work is perpetuated by many factors; thus, they can profit from having supervisors and colleagues who value and foster time spent away from work. In a similar vein, workaholism is only exacerbated by work environments that encourage working long and hard (Clark et al., 2016). This suggests that appropriately trained supervisors can be valuable social resources (e.g., foster nonwork pursuits) in the fight to reduce work-related stress and workaholic tendencies (Hächler et al., 2017; Kuykendall et al., 2020). To reduce workaholic tendencies, for example, managers can encourage such employees to set work priorities, delegate tasks, and schedule breaks (Brady et al., 2008).

Additional practices can be established to reduce the pressure placed on individuals who work over 40 h per week or select work over leisure (Sonnentag et al., 2017; Sonnentag, 2018). For example, company bonuses and scholarship funds could provide financial incentives not driven by working overtime. Flexible deadlines and shared work responsibilities could reduce the pressures of looming deadlines. These interventions may be especially important, as 44.1% of workers surveyed worked longer hours to meet deadlines and 42.8% reported a need for overtime pay. Thus, we assert contextual factors should be considered when developing wellness/incentive programs (Sonnentag et al., 2017) and enacting new policies given that an organization’s culture and/or climate may fuel and even reward workaholic tendencies (Brady et al., 2008).

Further, employees can learn specific techniques to aid in recovery efforts (e.g., relaxation; van Gordon et al., 2017; Sonnentag, 2018). Workshops centered on improving mental health may be worthwhile, as mental health was cited as a primary motive for both mindfulness and vacation, as well as a close secondary motive for physical activity. Employers could provide programs for free or at low costs to improve accessibility and encourage greater participation (Sonnentag, 2018). Health-driven trainings could provide employees valuable tools to manage stress while in and away from the workplace. Mental health-driven activities (e.g., company picnic and meditation) could foster overall well-being. Regular leisure programming like this could supplement employees’ less frequent vacation periods (Hächler et al., 2017; Sonnentag, 2018). Additionally, the lower time commitment required for supplemental activities may appeal to workaholics and those experiencing stress.

In the context of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory, career development interventions can target enhancing self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations, which will affect employees’ interests, goals, actions, and ultimately their accomplishments. Based on this framework and our study findings, offering employees opportunities (e.g., mentoring program) and experiences so they feel they are in control of their lives (i.e., self-empowered) and motivated to engage in leisure activities is critical to reduce work stress and workaholism and, eventually, greater well-being and increased career progress.

More broadly, SCCT (Lent et al., 1994) offers an accessible way for individuals across industries and organizations to improve wellness and leisure participation. Effortful and objective evaluation of personal abilities and perceived outcomes can help enhance feelings of self-confidence. Objective data may be helpful when setting choice goals (e.g., greater likelihood to partake in an activity one feels competent at). When applied to leisure activities, employees who engage in recovery activities they enjoy (or at least feel confident about) can gain social and emotional resources (e.g., expanding one’s social network and recovery options and developing personal coping skills; Lent et al., 2006). Thus, programs focused on objective self-appraisal and goal-setting could be organizational lifts with great physical and mental benefits for employees.

Study limitations and future directions

Some may view the use of Amazon’s MTurk platform as a limitation to obtain survey responses. However, participants act in effortful and attentive ways when completing tasks, regardless of how many surveys they have completed or the number of manipulation checks presented (Anson, 2018). While impostors may be present in any online-sourced participant pool, paying to request specific worker characteristics (i.e., age, hours worked per week, and location), communicating clearly with participants, and providing fair compensation can ensure data are valid and reliable (Sheehan, 2018). Overall, MTurk samples are affordable and reliable (Kees et al., 2017).

Self-report data might be inaccurate, as individuals may skew their responses. However, Conway and Lance (2010) did not find this to be a concern, citing the construct validity of self-report ratings and evidence refuting claims of inferiority relative to other methods. Gonyea (2005) further supported self-report data if questions are clear, easily understood relative to one’s own life, warrant thoughtful consideration, and offer appropriate response options. Such surveys are most useful when researchers are aware of survey design techniques and the context in which survey items will be presented. As such, using this method was appropriate for the current study.

Another limitation was the methodology used to assess leisure participation. Some existing research uses hours of time to assess one’s participation in leisure activities (e.g., Edwards et al., 2014). We believe measuring the percentage of waking hours one dedicates to leisure may enhance the validity and reliability of time-based measurements by introducing the constraint of time spent awake. As such, a composite measure combining hours and percentages of participation time was developed in the current study. This was deemed a novel way to assess individual participation time and posed questions for future research. However, we acknowledge that a limitation of this technique is that the leisure participation measures were homegrown; therefore, adequate reliability and validity information was limited.

The cross-sectional design of this study limited participants’ responses to a single point in time, negating the potential influence of situational factors. As some responses suggest, various life factors (e.g., external pressure to meet deadlines, need for additional pay) influence one to work more than 40 h per week. Additional data points could provide greater insight into the potential role external factors play in workaholism and allow researchers to consider links between workaholism and other variables. Notably, in the current study, there was no significant relationship between the reason stated for working more hours and workaholism, work stress, or hours worked (statistical details are available upon request). Identifying situational factors related to employees’ sustained need to work excessively and compulsively could help manage workaholic tendencies and stress.

Lastly, variables not included in the study, such as the specific nature of the work, might be related to workaholism, work stress, and the relationship between workaholism and work stress. Other variables, such as union membership and management level, may also influence the observed relationships and could be examined in future research. While union membership may be associated with a variety of worker characteristics, it is not related to those in our study through hours worked. Additionally, among our participants, 43.7% said that they worked overtime because they needed the extra pay. When these participants were compared with those who did not say they worked overtime because they needed the extra pay, there were no significant differences between the groups on hours worked, work stress, or workaholism. Statistical details are available upon request.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study supports and expands upon existing research in several ways. First, results support relationships between workaholism and greater work stress, workaholism and work stress with less leisure participation, and the buffering effect of leisure participation on the workaholism–work stress relationship. Additionally, we established that mental health and physical health, and to a lesser extent social health, are motivators for leisure activity engagement. We assert that by nature of being workaholics and the negative health outcomes associated with workaholism, workaholics are employees perhaps in the greatest need of (but least likely to engage in) leisure activities, and thus require organizational support to do so. By emphasizing the benefits of leisure participation, as well as adopting some of the recommendations provided here, employers can redesign wellness programs and enact policies that better serve compulsive and stressed employees.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported, in part, by NIH R15 DK128608-01A1 to Shahnaz Aziz.

Footnotes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

  1. Anson IG (2018). Taking the time? Explaining effortful participation among low-cost online survey participants. Research and Politics, 5(3), 205316801878548. 10.1177/2053168018785483. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aziz S, Bellows G, & Wuensch K (2021). The relationship between workaholism and negative affect: Mindfulness matters! International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19, 1605–1614. 10.1007/s11469-020-00249-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Aziz S, & Moyer F (2018). Workaholism and occupational health: A translational review. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 23(4), e12144. 10.1111/jabr.12144 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Aziz S, Uhrich B, Wuensch KL, & Swords B (2013). The Workaholism Analysis Questionnaire: Emphasizing work-life imbalance and addiction in the measurement of workaholism. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 14(2), 71–86. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2013-27861-001 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakker AB, & Demerouti E (2014). Job demands-resources theory. In Chen PY & Cooper CL (Eds.), Work and wellbeing (Vol. III, pp. 37–64). Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Oerlemans W, & Sonnentag S (2013). Workaholism and daily recovery: A day reconstruction study of leisure activities. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 87–107. 10.1002/job.1796 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bandura A, & National Inst of Mental Health. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bishop SR, Lau M, Shapiro S, Carlson L, Anderson ND, Carmody J, Segal ZV, Abbey S, Speca M, Velting D, & Devins G (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241. 10.1093/clipsy.bph077 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brady BR, Vodanovich SJ, & Rotunda R (2008). The impact of workaholism on work-family conflict, job satisfaction, and perception of leisure activities. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 11(2), 241–263. 10.1080/10887150802371781 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Caplan RD (1987). Person–environment fit theory and organizations: commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 248–267. [Google Scholar]
  11. Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, & Christenson GM (1985). Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: Definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Reports, 100(2), 126–131. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3920711/ [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Clark MA, Michel JS, Zhdanova L, Pui SY, & Baltes BB (2016). All work and no play? A meta-analytic examination of the correlates and outcomes of workaholism. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1836–1873. 10.1177/0149206314522301 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Conrad P (1987). Wellness in the workplace: Potentials and pitfalls of work-site health promotion. The Milbank Quarterly, 65(2), 255–275. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Conway JM, & Lance CE (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 325–334. 10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cunningham CJL (2019). A person and environment perspective on work-related stress and recovery management [Conference session]. NCIOP, Meredith College, Raleigh, NC, USA. [Google Scholar]
  16. de Bloom J, Kompier M, Geurts S, de Weerth C, Taris T, & Sonnentag S (2009). Do we recover from vacation? Meta-analysis of vacation effects on health and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health, 51(1), 13–25. 10.1539/joh.k8004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. de Bloom J, Radstaak M, & Geurts S (2014). Vacation effects on behaviour, cognition and emotions of compulsive and non-compulsive workers: Do obsessive workers go ‘cold turkey’? Stress and Health, 30(3), 232–243. 10.1002/smi.2600 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Edwards MB, Duerden MD, Lizzo RD, Campbell KS, & Kamper LM (2014). Youth time outside. Journal of Leisure Research, 46(5), 635–643. 10.1080/00222216.2014/11950346 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Etzion D (2003). Annual vacation: Duration of relief from job stressors and burnout. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 16(2), 213–226. 10.1080/10615806.2003.10382974 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Fancourt D, Aughterson H, Finn S, Walker E, & Steptoe A (2021). How leisure activities affect health: A narrative review and multi-level theoretical framework of mechanisms of action. The Lancet. Psychiatry, 8(4), 329–339. 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30384-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fisher DM, Kerr AJ, & Cunningham S (2017). Examining the moderating effect of mindfulness on the relationship between job stressors and strain outcomes. International Journal of Stress Management, 26(1), 78–88. 10.1037/str0000090 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fishta A, & Backé E-M (2015). Psychosocial stress at work and cardiovascular diseases: An overview of systematic reviews. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 88(8), 997–1014. 10.1007/s00420-015-1019-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Galante J, Friedrich C, Dawson AF, Modrego-Alarcón M, Gebbing P, Delgado-Suárez I, Gupta R, Dean L, Dalgleish T, White IR, & Jones PB (2021). Mindfulness-based programmes for mental health promotion in adults in nonclinical settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. PLoS Medicine, 18(1), e1003481. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003481 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ganster DC, & Schaubroeck J (1991). Work stress and employee health. Journal of Management, 17(2), 235–271. 10.1177/014920639101700202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Goh J, Pfeffer J, & Zenios SA (2016). The relationship between workplace stressors and mortality and health costs in the United States. Management Science, 62(2), 608–628. 10.1287/mnsc.2014.2115 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gonyea RM (2005). Self-reported data in institutional research: Review and recommendations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2005(127), 73–89. 10.1002/ir.156 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hächler P, Pereira D, & Achim E (2017). Recovery experiences during vacation and their association with job stressors and health. Psychological Writings, 10(1), 13–30. 10.5231/psy.writ.2017.1001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Hassard J, Teoh KRH, Visockaite G, Dewe P, & Cox T (2018). The cost of work-related stress to society: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(1), 1–17. 10.1037/ocp0000069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hauk M, & Chodkiewicz J (2013). The role of general and occupational stress in the relationship between workaholism and work-family/family-work conflicts. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 26(3), 383–393. 10.2478/s13382-013-0087-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hobfoll SE (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. The American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524. 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Janssen M, Heerkens Y, Kuijer W, van der Heijden B, & Engels J (2018). Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on employees’ mental health: A systematic review. PLoS One, 13(1), e0191332. 10.1371/journal.pone.0191332 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Jerg-Bretzke L, Limbrecht-Ecklundt K, Walter S, Spohrs J, & Beschoner P (2020). Correlations of the “work–family conflict” with occupational stress—A cross-sectional study among university employees. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 134. 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kees J, Berry C, Burton S, & Sheehan K (2017). An analysis of data quality: Professional panels, student subject pools, and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 141–155. 10.1080/00913367.2016.1269304 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kim S-Y, Shin Y-C, Oh K-S, Shin D-W, Lim W-J, Kim E-J, Cho SJ, & Jeon S-W (2020). The association of occupational stress and sleep duration with anxiety symptoms among healthy employees: A cohort study. Stress and Health, 36(5), 675–685. 10.1002/smi.2948 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Knecht M, Wiese BS, & Freund AM (2016). Going beyond work and family: A longitudinal study on the role of leisure in the work-life interplay. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(7), 1061–1077. 10.1002/job.2098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kuykendall L, Zhu Z, & Craig L (2020). How work constrains leisure: New ideas and directions for interdisciplinary research. Journal of Leisure Research, 51(5), 635–642. 10.1080/00222216.2020.1807841 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Lachance J-P, Corbière M, Hains-Monfette G, & Bernard P (2022). Clearing your mind of work-related stress through moderate-to-vigorous and leisure-time physical activity: What ‘dose’ it take? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17, 1583–1596. 10.1007/s11482-021-09974-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Lehto XY, Choi S, Lin Y-C, & MacDermid SM (2009). Vacation and family functioning. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 459–479. 10.1016/j.annals.2009.04.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Lent RW, Brown SD, & Hackett G (2006). Social cognitive career theory. In Greenhaus JH & Callanan GA (Eds.), Encyclopedia of career development. SAGE Publications, Inc, 750–754. 10.4135/9781412952675 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lent RW, Brown SD, & Hackett G (1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122. 10.1006/jvbe.1994.1027 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Marino F, Failla C, Carrozza C, Ciminata M, Chilà P, Minutoli R, Genovese S, Puglisi A, Arnao AA, Tartarisco G, Corpina F, Gangemi S, Ruta L, Cerasa A, Vagni D, & Pioggia G (2021). Mindfulness-based interventions for physical and psychological wellbeing in cardiovascular diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Sciences, 11(6), 727. 10.3390/brainsci11060727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. McEwen BS (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease. Allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 840, 33–44. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb09546.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. McGillivray D (2005). Governing working bodies through leisure. Leisure Sciences, 27(4), 315–330. 10.1080/01490400590962425 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Meier E, Aziz S, Wuensch K, & Dolbier C (2021). Work hard, play hard…or maybe not: A look at the relationships between workaholism, work-leisure conflict, and work stress. Journal of Leisure Research, 52(3), 330–346. 10.1080/00222216.2020.1778589 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Newman DB, Tay L, & Diener E (2014). Leisure and subjective well-being: A model of psychological mechanisms as mediating factors. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 555–578. 10.1007/s10902-013-9435-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Oates WE (1971). Confessions of a workaholic: The facts about work addiction. World.
  47. Pines A, & Aronson E (1988). Career burnout: Causes and cures. Free Press. [Google Scholar]
  48. Reed JL, Prince SA, Elliott CG, Mullen K-A, Tulloch HE, Hiremath S, Cotie LM, Pipe AL, & Reid RD (2017). Impact of workplace physical activity interventions on physical activity and cardiometabolic health among working-age women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation, 10(2), e003516. 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.003516 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Robinson BE (2014). Chained to the desk: A guidebook for workaholics, their partners and children, and the clinicians who treat them (3rd ed.). New York University Press. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sheehan KB (2018). Crowdsourcing research: Data collection with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 140–156. 10.1080/03637751.2017.1342043 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Shvedko A, Whittaker AC, Thompson JL, & Greig CA (2018). Physical activity interventions for treatment of social isolation, loneliness or low social support in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 34, 128–137. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2017.10.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Sonnentag S (2018). Job-stress recovery: Core findings, future research topics, and remaining challenges. Work Science Center Thinking Forward Report Series. Georgia Institute of Technology. [Google Scholar]
  53. Sonnentag S, Venz L, & Casper A (2017). Advances in recovery research: What have we learned? What should be done next? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 365–380. 10.1037/ocp0000079 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Sussman S (2012). Workaholism: A review. Journal of Addiction Research & Therapy, 6(1), 4120. 10.4172/2155-6105.S6-001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Sussman S, Lisha N, & Griffiths M (2011). Prevalence of the addictions: A problem of the majority or the minority? Evaluation & the Health Professions, 34(1), 3–56. 10.1177/0163278710380124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Syrek CJ, Weigelt O, Kühnel J, & de Bloom J (2018). All I want for Christmas is recovery—Changes in employee affective well-being before and after vacation. Work & Stress, 32(4), 313–333. 10.1080/02678373.2018.1427816 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Teoh SL, Letchumanan V, & Lee L-H (2021). Can mindfulness help to alleviate loneliness? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 633319. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. van Gordon W, Shonin E, Dunn TJ, Garcia-Campayo J, Demarzo MMP, & Griffiths MD (2017). Meditation awareness training for the treatment of workaholism: A controlled trial. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6(2), 212–220. 10.1556/2006.6.2017.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. van Wijhe-van Iperen CI, Schaufeli WB, & Peeters MCW (2010). Understanding and treating workaholism: Setting the stage for successful interventions. In Burke RJ & Cooper CL (Eds.), Risky business: Psychological, physical and financial costs of high risk behavior in organizations (pp. 107–134). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  60. Voss J (1967). The definition of leisure. Journal of Economic Issues, 1(1–2), 91–106. 10.1080/00213624.1967.11502742 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Warburton DER, & Bredin SSD (2017). Health benefits of physical activity: A systematic review of current systematic reviews. Current Opinion in Cardiology, 32(5), 541–556. 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000437 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. White RL, Babic MJ, Parker PD, Lubans DR, Astell-Burt T, & Lonsdale C (2017). Domain-specific physical activity and mental health: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(5), 653–666. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. World Health Organization. (2006). Constitution of the World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf
  64. Wrike. (2018). The stress epidemic: Employees are looking for a way out. https://www.wrike.com/library/ebooks/the-stress-epidemic-employees-are-looking-for-a-way-out/
  65. Yankelevich M, Broadfoot A, Gillespie JZ, Gillespie MA, & Guidroz A (2012). General job stress: A unidimensional measure and its non-linear relations with outcome variables. Stress and Health, 28(2), 137–148. 10.1002/smi.1413 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES