This chapter focuses on two types of heavy work investment: work engagement and workaholism. A body of research has addressed the conceptualization and consequences of these concepts. M. Peiperl and B. Jones stated that workaholic employees are hard workers who fi nd their work enjoyable and get a lot out of it. Y. Baruch argued that not only is workaholism linked to high productivity, but also that workaholic employees may function as role models to other employees in competitive environments. The most infl uential scholars sharing this view have been Janet Spence and Ann Robbins, who proposed the so-calledworkaholic triad. Basically, they argue that workaholism should be conceived as a threedimensional concept, involving work involvement, drive, and work enjoyment. Interestingly, the description of the typical work enthusiast strongly resembles that of the work engaged employee.
This paper investigates - in a sample of 202 Spanish employees - the hypothesis that the impact of the exposure to technology on burnout is mediated by the appraisal of technology. In addition, the factorial validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MGI-GS) is studied. The hypothesized three-factor-model of the MBI-GS (i.e. exhaustion, cynicism and professional efficacy) was not replicated; instead a four-factor model (i.e. exhaustion, cynicism, selfconfidence and goal-attainment) fitted better to the data. Results from Structural Equation Modelling confirmed the hypothesis that the impact on burnout of the exposure to technology (in terms of time and frequency of use of computer aided technology) is mediated by the appraisal of technology. The higher the exposure, the more positive the appraisal and the lower the burnout levels (i.e. less cynicism, more selfconfidence and a greater sense of goal attainment). No such effect was demonstrated for exhaustion. Limitations of the study and future research directions are discussed.
Work engagement is assumed to be the positive antipode of burnout. Or, as Maslach and Leiter (1997, p. 34) put it: "Energy, involvement, and efficacythese are the direct opposites of the three dimensions of burnout." According to Maslach and Leiter, work engagement is assessed by the opposite pattern of scores on the three burnout dimensions. However, this way of operationalising burnout and engagement is questionable in view of the debate on the polarity of positive and negative affect (Diener, 1999). It could be argued that instead of being two opposite poles, burnout and engagement are independent yet negatively correlated states of mind. For instance, feeling emotionally drained from one's work "once a week" by no means excludes that in the same week one may feel bursting with energy. Thus, instead of perfectly complementary and mutually exclusive states, burnout and engagement should be seen as conceptually different states that, because of their antithetical nature, are supposed to be negatively related.