Antécédents cognitifs de l’activisme professionnel : schémas précoces inadaptés et profils d’activisme professionnel

Abstract

L’objectif de l’étude était d’identifier les schémas précoces inadaptés suractivés dans l’activisme professionnel (workaholism) en distinguant l’activisme enthousiaste (enthusiastic workaholism) de l’activisme non enthousiaste (no enthusiastic workaholism), selon la catégorisation de Spence et Robbins. Cent trente-cinq participants ont complété trois questionnaires évaluant : (1) les quinze schémas précoces inadaptés de Young (assujettissement, exigences élevées, manque d’autocontrôle, sacrifice de soi, etc.) ; (2) la triade workaholique de Spence et Robbins composée de l’implication au travail, la tendance compulsive à travailler et la satisfaction au travail et (3) les deux composantes de l’échelle Dutch Work Addiction Scale (travailler excessivement, travailler compulsivement). Nous avons comparé l’activation des schémas précoces inadaptés dans trois groupes (non-activisme, activisme enthousiaste et activisme non enthousiaste). Deux schémas précoces inadaptés (abus–méfiance, exigences élevées) sont significativement plus activés dans l’activisme que dans le non-activisme et le schéma manque d’autocontrôle est significativement plus activé dans l’activisme non enthousiaste que dans l’activisme enthousiaste. L’activation différentielle de schémas précoces inadaptés dans les deux formes d’activisme professionnel a des implications thérapeutiques cognitives qui sont discutées.

Introduction

This study explores the relationship between early maladaptive schemas identified by Young (2005) and workaholism according to Spence and Robbins (1992). These authors differentiate four non-workaholic employee profiles (satisfied, unengaged, disenchanted and relaxed professionals) and two workaholic profiles (enthusiasts and non enthusiasts). According to Spence and Robbins, the only true workaholics are non-enthusiastic workaholics whose satisfaction scores are low, contrary to enthusiastic workaholics who obtain high work enjoyment scores. However, these two workaholic profiles share high work involvement and a high drive to work. This research aims to compare the activation of schemas in different professional profiles (non-workaholics, enthusiastic workaholics, non enthusiastic workaholics) for the purpose of completing current data, which agrees on the implication of excellence and performance beliefs in workaholics without distinguishing the enthusiast profile from the non-enthusiast. This study postulates an overactivation of unrelenting standards in non-enthusiastic workaholics.

Method

Participants (n = 135) completed three questionnaires: (1) the French version of Young's early maladaptive schemas questionnaire containing 75 items evaluating fifteen schemas (emotional deprivation, abandonment, mistrust/abuse, social isolation, defectiveness, failure, dependency and incompetence, vulnerability to harm, enmeshment, subjugation, self-sacrifice, emotional inhibition, unrelenting standards, entitlement, insufficient self-control); (2) the French version of Spence and Robbins questionnaire (Workaholism Battery – WorkBAT) composed of 25 items evaluating compulsive drive to work (8 items) and job satisfaction (7 items) and (3) the French version of the Dutch Work Addiction Scale (DUWAS) composed of 10 items of which 5 items evaluate the excessive work dimension and 5 items focus on the compulsive work dimension. Only the scores on the excessive work sub-scale were used as the compulsive tendency to work was evaluated using items from WorkBat, five of which are contained in the compulsive work scale of the DUWAS, which has lower homogeneity than the WorkBat compulsive tendency to work sub-scale. In accordance with Spence and Robbins, the subjects were divided into three groups based on scores above or below the averages obtained in workaholism questionnaires during their French validation. Participants were separated into a group of 77 non-workaholics, a group of 31 enthusiastic workaholics and a group of non-enthusiast workaholics.

Results

The results show a differential activation: (1) of the unrelenting standards schema between the three groups (non-workaholics, enthusiastic workaholics, non-enthusiastic workaholics); (2) unrelenting standards and mistrust/abuse schemas between non-workaholics and workaholics; and (3) of the lack of self-control schema between enthusiastic workaholics and nonenthusiastic workaholics.

Discussion

The results confirm the implication of the mistrust/abuse and unrelenting standards schemas mentioned in the literature in workaholism. However, in the current study the hypothesis of an activation of higher EMS unrelenting standards in non-enthusiastic workaholism compared to enthusiastic workaholism is not validated. This result indicates that high performance demands do not generate a feeling of ill ease in professionals with a workaholic profile conforming to the observations of Taris et al., where excessive work is not predicative of workaholism although compulsive work is. In contrast, the results show that the lack of self-control schema is more active in non-enthusiast workaholics than in enthusiastic workaholics. The activation of beliefs linked to lack of self-control questions the implication of an overcompensation adaptation style to the schema which, according to Young consists of fighting apprehension by adopting behavior contrary to that of the schema or of seeking to control it.

Conclusion

The lack of self-control schema differentiates the two workaholic profiles, whilst the mistrust/abuse and unrelenting standards schemas differentiate workaholics from non-workaholics. Specific therapeutic responses must be offered to these different types of professional behavior. Cognitive-behavioral therapy offers a sufficiently diverse theoretical, methodological and therapeutic range to allow therapists to help patients to identify and modify dysfunctional professional behavior such as non enthusiastic workaholism.