Content uploaded by Sharona Goldenberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sharona Goldenberg on Feb 20, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mimo20
Download by: [46.117.213.208] Date: 04 January 2018, At: 03:49
International Studies of Management & Organization
ISSN: 0020-8825 (Print) 1558-0911 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mimo20
Understanding the Relationship between
Overtime and Burnout
Edna Rabenu & Sharona Aharoni-Goldenberg
To cite this article: Edna Rabenu & Sharona Aharoni-Goldenberg (2017) Understanding the
Relationship between Overtime and Burnout, International Studies of Management & Organization,
47:4, 324-335, DOI: 10.1080/00208825.2017.1382269
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2017.1382269
Published online: 27 Nov 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 16
View related articles
View Crossmark data
International Studies of Management & Organization, 47: 324–335, 2017
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0020-8825 print/1558-0911 online
DOI: 10.1080/00208825.2017.1382269
Understanding the Relationship between
Overtime and Burnout
Edna Rabenu
1
and Sharona Aharoni-Goldenberg
2
1
Lecturer, School of Behavioral Sciences, Netanya Academic College, Netanya, Israel
2
Lecturer and an Editor in Chief of the Netanya Law Review, School of Law,
Netanya Academic College, Netanya, Israel
Abstract: This study examines the apparent inconsistent relationship between overtime and
burnout, and proposes a tentative model for conceptualizing it. We suggest that, in examining
the relationship between overtime and burnout, attention should be paid to the categorization
of working hours that includes work of up to 12 hours per day and work exceeding 12 hours
per day. The categorization assumes that workers in the latter category have fewer opportu-
nities for recovery and are, therefore, more prone to burnout. We postulate two moderators
that can shed light on the contradictory findings concerning the relationship between overtime
and burnout. First, we elaborate on the definition of the term “heavy work investment” and
emphasize the importance of distinguishing between the various levels of work investment
by workers who work long hours, namely, excessive work investment (EWI), moderate work
investment (MWI), and low work investment (LWI). Second, we analyze the importance of
autonomy, distinguishing between perceived and actual autonomy of the employees with
regard to their schedule. Propositions as well as theoretical and practical implications are
offered.
Keywords: Autonomy; burnout; heavy work investment; overtime
The present article addresses the inconsistent relationship found in various studies between
overtime and burnout, and proposes a model for conceptualizing the connection between these
variables. It postulates two resources as moderating factors that may account for the contradic-
tory findings. The two resources are levels of work investment and autonomy. The article
provides possible explanations for the inconsistent relationship between overtime and burnout,
stressing the importance of categorizing working hours, of actual employee autonomy over
schedules, and, especially, of the levels of work investment. The theoretical and practical
implications are described in the discussion section.
none defined
Address correspondence to Dr. Edna Rabenu, Lecturer, School of Behavioral Sciences, Netanya Academic College,
P.O. Box 120, Netanya 4223587, Israel. E-mail: edna.rabenu@gmail.com
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/mimo.
Downloaded by [46.117.213.208] at 03:49 04 January 2018
BURNOUT
Burnout is a progressive psychological response to chronic work stress (Maslach 1982). There
are several definitions of burnout. According to Maslach (1982; 2003), burnout is a multi-
dimensional construct that involves three distinct but related aspects as follows: (1) emotional
exhaustion; (2) depersonalization (negative or cynical attitudes about the organization and
service recipients); and (3) decline in personal accomplishment and in the perceived ability
to perform effectively. Shirom and Melamed (2006) added a physical dimension to burnout.
Burnout has negative implications for employee health (e.g., Melamed et al. 2006a, 2006b).
Burnout is also related to depression (Toker and Biron 2012). Burned-out employees may have
a negative influence on colleagues (crossover) (Bakker, Le Blanc, and Schaufeli 2005).
Burned-out managers may wear out the entire system they manage (Pines 2011).
OVERTIME
Overtime is the amount of time employee’s work beyond the normal working hours. The
definition of overtime varies from country to country. The Treaty of Versailles, 1919, defined
overtime as work lasting more than eight hours per day. The 2003/88/EC European Working
Time Directive, 1993, limits working hours to eight per day, including overtime, allowing many
exclusions.
Nine percent of E.U. employees, work more than 48 weekly hours on average (Åkerstedt
et al. 2004). Average working hours in the United States are even higher (Bridgestock
2014). According to Hewlett and Luce (2006), 35 percent of high-earning individuals work
more than 60 hours a week, and 10 percent work more than 80 hours a week.
Snir and Harpaz (2012) introduced the important concept of heavy work investment (HWI),
of which core dimensions are both working long hours and heavy effort. They pointed to three
possible predictors of HWI as follows: background variables, such as the level of education
level; external variables, such as basic financial needs; and employer demands; and internal
variables, such as an addiction to work and passion to work (Harpaz and Snir 2015).
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OVERTIME AND BURNOUT
Many studies have been conducted to determine the relationship between overtime and burnout,
but their results were inconsistent. Some of them found a positive relationship between long
working hours and burnout, while others found no significant relationship.
Generally, employees experience more burnout when they work more hours per week
(Schaufeli and Enzmann 1998). Martini, Arfken, and Balon (2006) found that the implemen-
tation of work hour limits appeared to reduce significantly the prevalence of burnout among
first year-residents. They suggested that this lower prevalence of burnout could be attributed
to the fact that they are new to the system and have not yet developed ways to cope with the
demands of a busy schedule. Similarly, Rupert, Hartman, and Miller (2013) found a significant
positive correlation between the number of hours worked in a typical week and the emotional
exhaustion dimension of burnout. Peterson et al. (2008) found that burned-out employees
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OVERTIME AND BURNOUT 325
Downloaded by [46.117.213.208] at 03:49 04 January 2018
reported a higher frequency of overtime than did the non-burned-out and disengaged workers.
They hypothesized that the burnout could be related to both high job demands and poor access
to job resources, but mainly to the latter.
Conversely, Richter et al. (2014) found that reduction in hospital physicians’ working time,
in itself, was not associated with a reduced risk of burnout. A study of hospital residents found
that work hours did not predict burnout (Hillhouse, Adler, and Walters 2000). Shirom, Nirel,
and Vinokur (2010) found no direct correlation between work hours of physicians and burnout;
work hours predicted global burnout only indirectly, through their effects on the perception of
workload. Atad (2015) noted that the lack of a significant relationship between daily working
hours and burnout may have to do with the fact that a relatively short time (one and a half
years) passed between the measurements, which was not enough to develop burnout. Likewise,
Schaufeli, Taris, and van Rhenen (2008) found no relationship between overtime and burnout.
They postulated that managers who score high on burnout are too tired to work hard and too
cynical to feel committed.
RESOURCES
The concept of resources may provide a possible explanation for the inconsistent relationship
between long working hours and burnout. According to the conservation of resource theory
(COR) resources are objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies valued by the
individual or means that serve to attain these objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or
energies (Hobfoll 1989). Halbesleben et al. (2014, 1338) define resources as “anything
perceived by the individual to help attain his or her goals.”
There are many examples of resources: socioeconomic status, self-esteem, and mastery
(Hobfoll 1989). Autonomy is considered to be a job resource (Bakker, Demerouti, and Verbeke
2004). Also, time away from work and recovery experiences are considered resources
(Halbesleben et al. 2014). Recovery is a process that allows individuals to replenish their
resources (Zijlstra and Sonnentag 2006). Recovery is, for example, rest, sleep or physical
activity during free time (Toker and Biron 2012). In the employment context, recovery is
internal when it occurs during short breaks from work and it is external on weekends and
vacations (Demerouti et al. 2009). After recovery, individuals feel capable of acting in order
to meet current and new demands (Zijlstra and Sonnentag 2006).
Stress occurs when resources are perceived to be threatened or lost, or when individuals are
unable to regain resources (Hobfoll 1989). Overtime is considered a work stressor (Cavanaugh
et al. 2000). Recovery occurs after strain, when the stressor is no longer present (Sonnentag and
Geurts 2009).
The job demands-resources (JD-R) model maintains that high job demands exhaust
employees’ resources and lead to burnout (Bakker and Demerouti 2007). If an individual
chronically loses resources and fails to employ other resources to offset the net loss, the
depletion of resources over time may lead to burnout (Crawford, LePine, and Rich 2010).
Resource loss is more salient than resource gain (Lee and Ashforth 1996). When energy is
not replenished on a daily basis through sleep, recovery from exhaustion, which is a core
symptom of burnout, may be hampered in the long term (Sonnenschein et al. 2008). Peterson
et al. (2008) suggested that access to relevant job resources may serve as a protection against the
326 E. RABENU AND S. AHARONI-GOLDENBERG
Downloaded by [46.117.213.208] at 03:49 04 January 2018
development of burnout. Low rewards from work (i.e., poor resources) serve as a moderator
between working long hours and burnout (Van Der Hulst and Geurts 2001).
We propose two resources as potential moderators, namely, levels of work investment and
autonomy, as a possible explanation for the inconsistent relation between overtime and burnout.
We first describe and analyze the independent variable of long working hours.
THE CATEGORIZATION OF WORKING HOURS
Studies found a strong correlation between work lasting more than eight hours a day and
workers’ ill health (see for, e.g., Dembe et al. 2007). Working overtime also has negative
psychological implications such as tension, depression, fatigue, confusion, and anger (Costa,
Sartori, and Åkerstedt 2006). Other studies show a strong connection between long working
hours and increased morbidity (Caruso et al. 2004).
Overtime has some positive effects as well. For example, Shamai, Harpaz and Snir (2012)
found that average life satisfaction was higher among employees working more than 50 hours
a week than among employees working 36–50 hours a week. The rationale is that employees
who spend more hours at work than common workers, presumably experience more flow than
the latter and, hence, are expected to report greater levels of positive affect (Shamai 2015).
However, workers higher in their work drive (workaholics) tend to exhibit lower levels of life
satisfaction than those having high work devotion (Harpaz and Snir 2016).
Overtime has a negative effect on productivity (Golden 2012). It decreases workplace safety
and increases the risk of occupational accidents and injuries (Johnson and Lipscomb 2006).
Overtime also leads to higher rates of absenteeism and staff turnover (Fagan et al. 2011).
The implications of overtime are especially negative with regard to work hours that exceed
12 hours per day. Employees who work more than 12 hours are more likely to suffer from
depression, chronic fatigue, nervousness, stress (Nagashima et al. 2007), and from cardiovascu-
lar attacks (Allen and Bunn 2007) than are their peers who work less. They present a higher
probability of illness and injury (Allen and Bunn 2007), and show a pattern of deteriorating
performance on psychophysiological tests (Caruso et al. 2004). The increased risk of accidents
at around 12 hours of work is twice that the risk at 8 hours of work per day (Wagstaff and
Sigstad Lie 2011). Research shows that lack of sleeping hours that is connected with working
more than 12 hours per day degrades employees’ performance and leads to memory impairment
(Dahlgren, Kecklund, and Åkerstedt 2006). Sleep deprivation has negative impact on cognitive
performance especially after 15 hours of wakefulness (Durmer and Dinges 2005).
The effect of long working hours is not linear, but rather exponential; the negative
implications increase significantly after the threshold of 12 daily hours is crossed. Hence a
working hours chart could be drafted according to which, working up to eight hours per
day is regular; work lasting more than eight hours, up to 12 hours per day is harmful;
and working more than 12 hours per day (which has extreme negative implications) is
exceedingly dangerous.
Working long hours is related, among others, to sleep deprivation, and poor recovery from
work (Caruso 2006). Söderström (2012) found that too little sleep (less than 6 hours per night)
is a main risk factor for clinical burnout. Working overtime implies that the duration of effort
investment is prolonged and the time left for recovery is shortened (Van Der Hulst and Geurts
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OVERTIME AND BURNOUT 327
Downloaded by [46.117.213.208] at 03:49 04 January 2018
2001). The significant differences between the implications of working hours lasting up to
12 hours and more may be explained in terms of resources. Very long working hours, lasting
more than 12 hours, deny the process of replenishing resources and recovery (especially sleep-
ing hours). In fact, Martini, Arfken, Churcill, and Balon (2004) found higher burnout prevalence
among employees working more than 80 hours per week.
Therefore, it seems that employees working long hours and getting little sleep and fewer
opportunities for recovery are more likely to burn out. Yet, it is left to explain the inconsistent
relationship between overtime and burnout. We suggest that the inconsistency may derive from
the longitude of the examined overtime and from the way “overtime” is defined. In fact, the
legal definition of “overtime” varies from state to state and the term “long working hours”
can be subjectively interpreted to mean different things. Further, the inconsistency may be also
attributed to the way overtime is usually measured: linearly rather than exponentially.
Hence, the evaluation of the independent variable (working hours) should espouse the
following categorization: regular work lasting up to eight hours per day; work up to 12 hours
per day; and work exceeding 12 hours per day. This categorization assumes that workers in the
latter group have fewer opportunities for recovery and are therefore more prone to burnout.
We hypothesize that workers, who regularly work more than 12 hours per day, are more
likely to be burned out than employees working up to 12 hours. Work lasting regularly over
12 hours a day should be regarded as an extreme stressor, having an exponential effect on
employees’ burnout than shorter work hours.
Proposition 1: Workers working more than 12 hours per day are more likely to suffer from
burnout than those working between 8–12 hours or less than 8 hours per day
because they do not have enough recovery time.
Having clarified the nature of the independent invariable, it is left to examine the suggested
two possible moderators: levels of work investment and autonomy.
Moderator 1: Levels of Work Investment
In recent years, the research concerning working hours has adopted a two-dimensional concept
of time and effort at work, known as HWI (Snir and Harpaz 2012). Snir and Harpaz (2013)
maintained that the assessment of workaholism based strictly on the time dimension is simplis-
tic because it disregards how one acts during working time. They pointed out that it is necessary
to consider also the intensity of work, that is, the effort employed by the worker or the amount
of physical or mental energy allocated to work. They concluded that the effort dimension of
HWI is no less important than the time dimension in trying to evaluate the performance of
an employee. The authors distinguished between subtypes of HWI based on the motives for
HWI (2013). Similarly, Astakhova and Hogue (2013, as cited in Harpaz and Snir 2015) ident-
ified three key types of heavy work investors: workaholic (W-HWIs), situational (S-HWIs), and
pseudo (P-HWIs). They argued that the behavior of S-HVIs relates mainly to opportunistic
work investment aimed at achieving bonuses or self-gratification, and that the P-HWIs are
employees who put on a facade of HWI.
According to Snir and Harpaz (2012, 234), heavy work investors must be high on both
dimensions (work hours and work effort) to be classified as such, because there are some
328 E. RABENU AND S. AHARONI-GOLDENBERG
Downloaded by [46.117.213.208] at 03:49 04 January 2018
indications that time and effort investments in work are positively correlated. They suggested
that both high frequency (time) and intensity (effort) are core dimensions of HWI, although they
acknowledged the possibility of contradictory conclusions: staying late in the office (while in
fact hardly working) just to impress the boss; or, by contrast, working intensively only for a
limited duration (e.g., at peak hours).
Elaborating on this model, we suggest a somewhat more complex classification of work
investment that identifies three types of workers who normally work long hours but vary in their
work effort. The proposed classification focuses on levels of work investment rather than on the
reasons for working overtime: the excessive work investors (EWIs) are employees who work
long hours and invest excessive work effort: they rarely get away from their work station or
take breaks, neglect to eat or drink, and seldom call their family members or friends. The
reasons for such a behavior can vary: workaholism, work devotion, or a heavy workload.
The low work investor (LWI) is someone who works long hours, but invests relatively low
levels of effort in work. The time the LWI spends at work may be devoted, for example, to
online shopping, computer games, or gossiping. This attitude can be attributed to the need
for the overtime pay, unwillingness to go home for personal reasons, or the need to impress
a long hours working boss. A moderate work investor (MWI) works long hours but balances
work demands with personal and physical needs. For example, the MWI takes breaks, spends
moderate time talking with colleagues, eats and drinks, and calls family members.
This categorization of works effort is strongly connected with recovery. The implication of
taking a rest is that workers are temporarily relieved of demands placed on them, which allows
them to replenish the resources they have used (Zijlstra and Sonnentag 2006). The higher the
effort the lower the recovery. Indeed, daily recovery is more vital than vacations (Demerouti
et al. 2009).
We postulate that there is a difference in the extent of burnout, depending on the levels of
work investment. An MWI and a LWI, who spend time on recovery during work, are less
burned out than an EWI.
Proposition 2: MWIs and LWIs are less likely to burn out than EWIs, who spend more resources
at work (effort) and gain fewer resources (breaks, social support).
Proposition 3: LWIs who work overtime because of organizational pressure are more frustrated
and therefore more likely to suffer from burnout than are MWIs who work
overtime because of a real necessity.
Proposition 4: MWIs are the least likely to burn out because they have a balanced attitude and
achieve internal recovery.
Moderator 2: Autonomy
Autonomy is considered to be a job resource (Bakker, Demerouti, and Verbeke 2004).
Therefore, it is important to analyze the extent of employees’ job autonomy. According to Deci
and Ryan (2002), autonomy refers to the psychological need to express one’s authentic self and
to experience that self as the source of actions. According to Hackman and Oldham (1975), job
autonomy reflects the extent to which a job allows discretion, freedom, and independence to
schedule work or allows employees to decide and select the methods used to execute their tasks.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OVERTIME AND BURNOUT 329
Downloaded by [46.117.213.208] at 03:49 04 January 2018
There is a difference between perceived and actual job autonomy. Perceived job autonomy
refers to the employees’ subjective feelings of being autonomous, and is the focus of most
research on the subject. Maslach (1982, 146) referred to people’s feelings of powerlessness
and of being trapped by others’ demands as lack of autonomy. Review of some of the question-
naires on the subject reveals that they often refer to employees’ autonomy in decision-making
and not in their control over schedules (see, for example, Brouze 2014; Park and Searcy 2012).
Autonomy is generally assessed by a self-reported measure that focuses on perceived job
autonomy (see, for example, Shirom, Nirel, and Vinokur 2006; 2010).
Actual job autonomy is measured in objective terms. At times workers misperceive
themselves as having high autonomy, but in practice they lack free choice in considerable
aspects of their work. Kunda (2009, 224) found that personal autonomy is generally associated
with high status, but that “though many members maintain a sense of freedom, they also
experience a pull that is not easy to combat, an escalating commitment to the corporation.”
He argued that organizational culture in high-tech corporations rarely allows autonomy, but
rather manipulates workers to misconceive themselves as autonomous.
In our view, actual job autonomy consists of three cumulative elements: first, the framework
of employees’ working time that is not supervised; second, the employees are authorized to
determine the pace of their work, so that their workload does not compel them to work over-
time. Often even senior employees are not autonomous regarding their working hours because
they are restricted by demanding occupational tasks (Aharoni-Goldenberg 2013); and third, the
employees have alternatives to working overtime. Raz (1986) claimed that a person must not
only be given a choice but an adequate range of choices. But usually employees, and even
managers, have little choice about working overtime, because of economic constraints,
organizational pressure, or workload.
OVERTIME, AUTONOMY, AND BURNOUT
The relationship between perceived autonomy and burnout has been extensively studied.
Maslach (1982) pointed out that individuals are at greater burnout risk when they feel
powerless. Research shows the positive relationship between perceived job autonomy and
burnout (Shirom, Nirel, and Vinokur 2010). We did not find research focusing on the
moderating effect of perceived autonomy in the relationship between overtime and burnout,
but we did find several studies that researched the moderating role of autonomy in the relation-
ship between job stressors and burnout (e.g., Bakker, Demerouti, and Verbeke 2004; Tai and
Liu 2007).
We assume that employees working long hours who perceive themselves as autonomous,
whether because of organizational manipulation, high salary, or high status, are relatively less
burned out than employees working long hours without such a perception. Conversely, employ-
ees who do not perceive themselves as autonomous may view overtime as a job requirement
that is being forced upon them and are more likely to burn out because they lack the resources
(autonomy) to manage this stressor.
Proposition 5: Perceived autonomy moderates the relationship between overtime and burnout,
so that the higher the perceived autonomy, the weaker the relationship between
overtime and burnout.
330 E. RABENU AND S. AHARONI-GOLDENBERG
Downloaded by [46.117.213.208] at 03:49 04 January 2018
Harpaz and Snir (2015) suggested that negative personal work outcomes, such as burnout,
are highest in workers who do not have control over their working hours. We hypothesize as
follows:
Proposition 6: Actual autonomy moderates the relationship between overtime and burnout, so
that the less actual autonomy a worker has over working hours, the stronger
the relationship is between overtime and burnout.
Furthermore, the relationship between perceived and actual autonomy may also play an
important role in moderating the relationship between overtime and burnout. If the two types
of autonomy are high (the employee has high perceived and actual autonomy), based on
Proposition 5, the level of burnout is likely to be low. Conversely, low perceived and actual
autonomy are likely to lead to the strongest relationship between overtime and burnout. For
example, if meetings are scheduled deliberately after normal working hours, the coercion to
work overtime is blatant rather than achieved by subtle manipulation, and overtime is
unwarranted. We expect coerced and unwarranted overtime to cause frustration and to raise
the likelihood of burnout. Indeed, “burnout is a form of chronic distress that results from a
highly stressful and frustrating work environment” (Schaufeli, Leiter, and Maslach 2009,
214). By contrast, when overtime work is subjectively perceived as important, as in the case
of overwork due to workload, economic need, and devotion, burnout is expected to be relatively
lower. Attention should also be paid to the levels of work investment: the higher the work
investment of the pointlessly present worker, the greater the burnout.
We argue that when regular working hours are extreme (12 hours per day or more),
employees usually have little actual autonomy over their working hours and are more suscep-
tible to burnout, even if they perceive themselves as autonomous. Such long working hours
allow minimal recovery, and they deplete many resources.
We assume that employees working long hours, who perceive it as a job demand forced upon
them, are more likely to burn out because they perceive themselves as lacking the resources
(autonomy) to manage this stressor.
Proposition 7: Perceived autonomy can moderate the relationship between overtime and
burnout up to a certain level of working hours (the threshold being usually
12 hours per day). Beyond this threshold, actual autonomy is low, and
therefore, it leads to a stronger relationship between overtime and burnout.
FIGURE 1 Research model.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OVERTIME AND BURNOUT 331
Downloaded by [46.117.213.208] at 03:49 04 January 2018
We propose a model (Figure 1) consisting of four main components: working hours, divided
into two categories, two possible moderators (levels of work investment and autonomy), and
burnout as the dependent variable.
DISCUSSION
Employees’ burnout is a worrisome phenomenon in modern life, with negative effects on
workers’ physical, psychological, and cognitive state, and on the entire workplace. In this
article, we provide possible explanations for the inconsistent relationship between overtime
and burnout, stressing the importance of categorizing working hours, of actual employee
autonomy over schedules, and, especially, of the levels of work investment.
In this article, we emphasize the exponential effect of overtime on health and productivity in
general and on burnout in particular. It categorizes working hours lasting between 8 and
12 hours per day as harmful, and working more than 12 hours per day as exceedingly danger-
ous. Further, we elaborate on Snir and Harpaz’s (2012) definition of the term “heavy work
investment” by referring to three types of workers who work long hours but vary in their work
effort: excessive, moderate, and low work investment (EWI, MWI, and LWI). We discuss the
gap between actual and perceived autonomy regarding the effect of working long hours on
burnout. We expect lack of actual autonomy, manifested in coerced and unwarranted overtime,
to cause frustration and to raise the likelihood of burnout.
Burnout may be related to long working hours, especially when work lasts more than
12 hours. Therefore, in order to prevent burnout, it is recommended to restrict overtime so
as to allow external recovery (sleeping hours). Employers should also facilitate internal recov-
ery (breaks). Further, employers tend to use inputs at work, such as number of working hours, as
a criterion for performance appraisal, especially when it is difficult or complicated to assess the
output (Tziner and Rabenu 2011). Overtime, however, does not necessarily represent good work
performance, as in the case of LWIs. Therefore, employers should attribute little weight to the
longitude of their employees’ working hours. Moreover, employees’ actual autonomy as to their
working hours can reduce burnout because it prevents frustration and pointless presentism.
If there is no genuine need for overtime, working hours should be restricted.
We recommend that future research on working hours should refer to the categorization of
working hours (up to 12 working hours and more than 12 working hours), to the amount
of work investment (low, medium, and excessive), and to internal and external recovery oppor-
tunities. Further, organizational, social, structural, and psychological characteristics of the
workplace (Pines 2011) should be explored as potential moderators between working hours
and burnout.
The correlation between working hours, heavy work investment, and burnout was flagged by
no other than Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law. Jethro warned Moses of the negative consequences
of overwork, pointing mainly to burnout: “You will surely wear yourself out, both you and these
people who are with you” (Exodus 18, 18). In this article, we addressed the same problems
based on empirical studies rather than intuitive analysis, but reached similar conclusions: long
working hours and excessive levels of work investment can result in burnout and negatively
affect employees and the workplace.
332 E. RABENU AND S. AHARONI-GOLDENBERG
Downloaded by [46.117.213.208] at 03:49 04 January 2018
REFERENCES
Aharoni-Goldenberg, S. 2013. “Unpaid Overtime – Implications and Proposals for Change.” Labor, Society and Law
13:219–66. (In Hebrew).
Åkerstedt, T., A. Knutsson, P. Westerholm, T. Theorell, L. Alfredsson, and G. Kecklund. 2004. “Mental Fatigue, Work
and Sleep.” Journal of Psychosomatic Research 57 (5):427–33.
Allen, H., and W. Bunn. 2007. “How Risky is Overtime, Really?” Harvard Business Review 85 (5):23.
Astakhova, M., and M. Hogue. 2013. “A Heavy Work Investment Typology: A Biopsychosocial Framework.” Journal
of Managerial Psychology 29 (1):81–99.
Atad, O. I. 2015. Job Demands and the Metabolic Syndrome: The Role of Negative Affective States and Occupational,
Personal and Behavioral Resources. Doctoral dissertation, Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University.
Bakker, A. B., and E. Demerouti. 2007. “The Job Demands-Resources Model: State of the Art.” Journal of Managerial
Psychology 22 (3):309–28.
Bakker, A. B., E. Demerouti, and W. Verbeke. 2004. “Using the Job Demands-Resources Model to Predict Burnout and
Performance.” Human Resource Management 43 (1):83–104.
Bakker, A. B., P. M. Le Blanc, and W. B. Schaufeli. 2005. “Burnout Contagion among Intensive Care Nurses.” Journal
of Advanced Nursing 51 (3):276–87.
Bridgestock, L. 2014. “Differences in Average Working Hours Around the World.” Web log post. Retrieved from
https://www.topuniversities.com/blog/differences-average-working-hours-around-world.
Brouze, K. L. 2014. Examining the Mediating and Moderating Role of Psychological Capital in the Job Demands-
Resources Model. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cape Tow.
Caruso, C. C. 2006. “Possible Broad Impacts of Long Work Hours.” Industrial Health 44 (4):531–36.
Caruso, C. C., E. M. Hitchcock, R. B. Dick, J. M. Russo, and J. M. Schmit. 2004. “Overtime and Extended Work Shifts:
Recent Findings on Illnesses, Injuries, and Health Behaviors.” www.humanics-es.com/overwork-workshifts-niosh.pdf.
Cavanaugh, M. A., W. R. Boswell, M. V. Roehling, and J. W. Boudreau. 2000. “An Empirical Examination of Self-
Reported Work Stress among US Managers.” Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (1):65–74.
Costa, G., S. Sartori, and T. Åkerstedt. 2006. “Influence of Flexibility and Variability of Working Hours on Health and
Well-Being.” Chronobiology International 23 (6):1125–37.
Crawford, E. R., J. A. LePine, and B. L. Rich. 2010. “Linking Job Demands and Resources to Employee Engagement
and Burnout: A Theoretical Extension and Meta-Analytic Test.” Journal of Applied Psychology 95 (5):834–48.
Dahlgren, A., G. Kecklund, and T. Åkerstedt. 2006. “Overtime Work and its Effects on Sleep, Sleepiness, Cortisol and
Blood Pressure in an Experimental Field Study.” Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health
32 (4):318–27.
Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. 2002. “Self-Determination Research: Reflections and Future Directions.”In Handbook of
Self-Determination Research, edited by E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryanpp, 431–41. Rochester: University of Rochester
Press.
Dembe, A. E., R. Delbos, J. B. Erickson, and S. M. Banks. 2007. “Association Between Employees’ Work Schedules
and the Vocational Consequences of Workplace Injuries.” Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 17 (4):641–51.
Demerouti, E., A. B. Bakker, S. A. E. Geurts, and T. W. Taris. 2009. “Daily Recovery from Work-Related Effort during
Non-Work Time.”In Current Perspectives on Job-Stress Recovery, Research in Occupational Stress and Well-
Being, edited by S. Sonnentag, L. P. Perrewé, and D. C. Ganster, Vol. 7., 85–123. Bingley: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Durmer, J. S., and D. F. Dinges. 2005. “Neurocognitive Consequences of Sleep Deprivation.” Seminars in Neurology
25 (1):117–29.
Fagan, C., C. Lyonette, M. Smith, and A. Saldaña-Tejeda. 2011. “The Influence of Working Time Arrangements on
Work-Life Integration or ‘Balance’: A Review of the International Evidence.” Geneva, Switzerland: International
Labor Organization (ILO) Conditions of Work and Employment Series 32.
Golden, L. 2012. “The Effects of Working Time on Productivity and Firm Performance, Research Synthesis Paper.”
Geneva, Switzerland: International Labor Organization (ILO) Conditions of Work and Employment Series 33.
Hackman, J. R., and G. R. Oldham. 1975. “Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey.” Journal of Applied Psychology
60 (2):159–170.
Halbesleben, J. R. B., J. P. Neveu, S. C. Paustian-Underdahl, and M. Westman. 2014. “Getting to the ‘'COR'': Under-
standing the Role of Resources in Conservation of Resources Theory.” Journal of Management 40 (5):1334–64.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OVERTIME AND BURNOUT 333
Downloaded by [46.117.213.208] at 03:49 04 January 2018
Harpaz, I., and R. Snir. 2015. Heavy Work Investment, Its Nature, Sources and Future Direction. Applied Psychology
Series. New York: Routledge.
Harpaz, I. and R. Snir. 2016. “Heavy-Work Investment and Its Impact on Well-Being and Health: Preliminary Results.”
The Study of Organizations and Human Resource Management Quarterly 1:6–24. [Hebrew].
Hewlett, S. A., and Luce, C. B. 2006. “Extreme Jobs: The Dangerous Allure of the 70-Hour Workweek.” Harvard
business review 84 (12):49–59.
Hillhouse, J. J., C. M. Adler, and D. N. Walters. 2000. “A Simple Model of Stress, Burnout and Symptomatology in
Medical Residents: A longitudinal Study.” Psychology, Health & Medicine 5 (1):63–73.
Hobfoll, S. E. 1989. “Conservation of Resources: A New Attempt at Conceptualizing Stress.” American Psychologist
44 (3):513–24.
Johnson, J. V., and J. Lipscomb. 2006. “Long Working Hours, Occupational Health and the Changing Nature of Work
Organization.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 49 (11):921–29.
Kunda, G. 2009. Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Lee, R. T., and B. E. Ashforth. 1996. “A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Correlates of the Three Dimensions of Job
Burnout.” Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (2):123–33.
Martini, S., Arfken, C. L., and R. Balon. 2006. “Comparison of Burnout among Medical Residents before and after the
Implementation of Work Hours Limits.” Academic Psychiatry 30 (4):352–55.
Martini, S., Arfken, C. L., Churchill, A., and R. Balon. 2004. “Burnout Comparison among Residents in Different
Medical Specialties.” Academic Psychiatry 28 (3):240–42.
Maslach, C. 1982. Burnout: The Cost of Caring. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
Maslach, C. 2003. “Job Burnout: New Directions in Research and Intervention.” Current Directions in Psychological
Science 12 (5):189–92.
Melamed, S., A. Shirom, S. Toker, and I. Shapira. 2006a. “Burnout and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Prospective Study
of Apparently Healthy Employed Persons.” Psychosomatic Medicine 68 (6):863–69.
Melamed, S., A. Shirom, S. Toker, S. Berliner, and I. Shapira. 2006b. “Burnout and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease:
Evidence, Possible Causal Paths, and Promising Research Directions.” Psychological Bulletin 132 (3):327–53.
Nagashima, S., Y. Suwazono, Y. Okubo, M. Uetani, E. Kobayashi, T. Kido, and K. Nogawa. 2007. “Working Hours
and Mental and Physical Fatigue in Japanese Workers.” Occupational Medicine 57 (6):449–52.
Park, R., and D. Searcy. 2012. “Job Autonomy as a Predictor of Mental Well-Being: The Moderating Role of Quality-
Competitive Environment.” Journal of Business and Psychology 27 (3):305–17.
Peterson, U., E. Demerouti, G. Bergström, M. Åsberg, and Å. Nygren. 2008. “Work Characteristics and Sickness
Absence in Burnout and Nonburnout Groups: A study of Swedish Health Care Workers.” International Journal
of Stress Management 15 (2):153–72.
Pines, A. M. 2011. Burnout at Work: Causes, Results and Coping Strategies. Ben Shemen: Modan Publishing.
[In Hebrew].
Raz, J. 1986. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarenton Press.
Richter, A., P. Kostova, X. Baur, and R. Wegner. 2014. “Less Work: More Burnout? A Comparison of Working
Conditions and the Risk of Burnout by German Physicians before and after the Implementation of the EU Working
Time Directive.” International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 87 (2):205–15.
Rupert, P. A., E. R. T. Hartman, and A. S. O. Miller. 2013. “Work Demands and Resources, Work–Family Conflict, and
Family Functioning among Practicing Psychologists.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 44 (5):283–89.
Schaufeli, W. B., M. P. Leiter, and C. Maslach. 2009. “Burnout: 35 Years of Research and Practice.” Career
Development International 14 (3):204–20.
Schaufeli, W. B., T. W. Taris, and W. Van Rhenen. 2008. “Workaholism, Burnout and Engagement: Three of a Kind or
Three Different Kinds of Employee Well-Being.” Applied Psychology: An International Review 57 (2):173–203.
Schaufeli, W., and D. Enzmann. 1998. The Burnout Companion to Study and Practice: A Critical Analysis. London:
Taylor & Francis.
Shamai, O. 2015. “The Relationship between Heavy Work Investment and Employees’ Happiness.” In Heavy Work
Investment: Its Nature, Sources, Outcomes, and Future Directions, edited by I. Harpaz and R. Snir, 204–22.
New York: Routledge.
Shamai O., I. Harpaz, and R. Snir. 2012. “Would You Be Happier if You Worked Harder? A Comparison of Life
Satisfaction in Workers’ Types.” Academy of Management Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 6–7 August.
334 E. RABENU AND S. AHARONI-GOLDENBERG
Downloaded by [46.117.213.208] at 03:49 04 January 2018
Shirom, A., and S. Melamed. 2006. “A Comparison of the Construct Validity of two Burnout Measures among two
Groups of Professionals.” International Journal of Stress Management 13 (2):176–200.
Shirom, A., N. Nirel, and A. D. Vinokur. 2010. “Work Hours and Caseload as Predictors of Physician Burnout: The
Mediating Effects by Perceived Workload and by Autonomy.” Applied Psychology 59 (4):539–65.
Shirom, A., N. Nirel, and A. D. Vinokur. 2006. “Overload, Autonomy, and Burnout as Predictors of Physicians’ Quality
of Care.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 11 (4):328–42.
Snir, R., and I. Harpaz. 2012. “Beyond Workaholism: Towards a General Model of Heavy Work Investment.” Human
Resource Management Review 22 (3):232–43.
Snir, R., and I. Harpaz. 2013. “The Challenge of Heavy Work Investment.”In Human Frailties: Wrong Turns on the
Road to Success, edited by R. Burke, S. Fox, and C. Cooper, 165–79. Farnham: Gower Publishing.
Söderström, M. 2012. “Burnout-A Matter of Impaired Recovery?” Doctoral Dissertation, Stockholm: Karolinska
Institute.
Sonnenschein, M., M. J. Sorbi, M. J. Verbraak, W. B. Schaufeli, C. J. M. Maas, and L. J. P. Doornen. 2008. “Influence
of Sleep on Symptom Improvement and Return to Work in Clinical Burnout.” Scandinavian Journal of Work,
Environment & Health 34 (1):23–32.
Sonnentag, S., and S. A. E. Geurts. 2009. “Methodological Issues in Recovery Research.”In Current Perspectives on
Job-Stress Recovery. Research in Occupational Stress and Well-being, edited by S. Sonnentag, L. P. Perrewé, and
D. C. Ganster, Vol. 7, 1–36. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Tai, W. T., and S. C. Liu. 2007. “An Investigation of the Influences of Job Autonomy and Neuroticism on Job Stressor-
Strain Relations.” Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal 35 (8):1007–20.
Toker, S., and M. Biron. 2012. “Job Burnout and Depression: Unraveling their Temporal Relationship and Considering
the Role of Physical Activity.” Journal of Applied Psychology 97 (3):699–10.
Tziner, A., and E. Rabenu. 2011. Performance Appraisal at Work: Evolution and Change. Raanana: Open University
[Hebrew].
Van Der Hulst, M., and S. Geurts. 2001. “Associations between Overtime and Psychological Health in High and Low
Reward Jobs.” Work and Stress 15 (3):227–40.
Wagstaff, A. S., and J. A. Sigstad Lie. 2011. “Shift and Night Work and Long Working Hours: A Systematic Review of
Safety Implications.” Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, & Health 37 (3):173–85.
Zijlstra, F. R. H., and S. Sonnentag. 2006. “After Work is Done: Psychological Perspectives on Recovery from Work.”
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 15 (2):129–38.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OVERTIME AND BURNOUT 335
Downloaded by [46.117.213.208] at 03:49 04 January 2018
