Boundaries Must Always Be Openly Negotiated if Family Members Are Going to Accept Them.

J Vocat Behav. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 Jan 22.

Published in final edited course as:

PMCID: PMC4303250

NIHMSID: NIHMS653421

Work-family boundary strategies: Stability and alignment betwixt preferred and enacted boundaries

Samantha K. Ammons

Department of Folklore & Anthropology, University of Nebraska-Omaha, 6001 Dodge Street, Omaha NE 68182, U.s.a., ude.ahamonu@snommas (402) 554-3358 (phone); (402) 554-3786 (fax)

Abstruse

Are individuals bounding work and family the mode they would similar? Much of the work-family boundary literature focuses on whether employees are segmenting or integrating piece of work with family, but does not explore the boundaries workers would like to accept, nor does it examine the fit between desired and enacted boundaries, or appraise purlieus stability. In this study, 23 respondents employed at a large Fortune 500 company were interviewed about their work-family boundaries before and later their teams underwent a cultural change initiative that sought to loosen workplace norms and let employees more than autonomy to decide when and where they performed their job tasks. Four distinct boundary strategies emerged from the data, with men and parents of young children having better alignment between preferred and enacted boundaries than women and those without these caregiving duties. Implications for boundary theory and inquiry are discussed.

Keywords: Boundary management, Boundary Theory, Work and family, Work-family unit interface

Introduction

Over the final several decades in the United States, work and family domains have undergone significant change. Split spheres ideology that was put firmly in identify during the Industrial revolution (Gutman 1988), where employment took place outside the home, and home was a "safe haven" from the demands of piece of work, has been eroding at a fast pace. Globalization, declines in manufacturing and rise service sector employment, growth of nonstandard schedules, and technological developments (such every bit cell phones, wireless cyberspace, and laptops) have made it easier for work to intrude on family and abode life. Likewise, women, especially mothers of immature children, are in the labor market place in increasing numbers (Cohany & Sok, 2007), and while men are gradually doing more, women still do the majority of childcare and homemaking tasks (Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer & Robinson, 2000). Equally such, work and abode domains can get increasingly blurred.

Investigating how work, family unit, and personal life ^ane come together is a thriving area of study. Scholars commonly examine how work and family realms conflict or enhance one another, or whether or not individuals feel balanced between their multiple roles (see Bellavia & Frone, 2005; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Although useful for understanding how individuals feel virtually their work-family intersection, these concepts do not reveal how people translate the expectations and responsibilities in each domain. For example, when assessing conflict or spillover, scholars assume that any intrusion from one domain to another is grounds for potential issues. All the same, individuals may not concur on what constitutes an intrusion or could feel that some intrusions are more problematic than others: the same gear up of objective work-family demands and responsibilities may be viewed differently and result in dissimilar appraisals. To empathise how individuals subjectively perceive family, work and personal domains, the boundary piece of work or "boundary management" literature fits best. According to this scholarship, individuals set boundaries between work and habitation that fall along a continuum ranging from segmentation (where work and family are kept firmly segregated) to integration (where work and family unit are entirely blended) (Nippert-Eng, 1996). While there is a growing body of research that fleshes out the purlieus strategies or styles that individuals have (Bulger, Mathews & Hoffman, 2007; Kossek & Lautsch, 2008; Kossek, Ruderman & Hannum, 2012), less is known nigh the degree of alignment between preferred boundaries and actual boundaries, and whether or not boundaries are stable over time. This written report begins to address these gaps. Specifically, I utilize data from ii teams of workers employed within a large Fortune 500 company that was undergoing an internal cultural change initiative. I tracked the work-family boundaries that workers desired and created before and later on the change in workplace norms, whether or not desired and actual boundaries aligned, and if boundaries and boundary fit altered when workplace norms inverse.

Literature Review

Nippert-Eng's (1996) Dwelling and Work: Negotiating Boundaries in Everyday Life is considered a foundational conceptual work in understanding how work and life are cognitively bounded using external and internal markers. She found that work-family boundaries come up in iv different forms (cognitive, concrete, temporal, and behavioral) that combine to create "personal realm configurations" (6) that tin can be arranged along the partition to integration continuum (Nippert-Eng 1996). In its purest form division is the consummate physical, behavioral, mental and temporal separation of habitation and piece of work roles (i.e. never the ii shall meet), such that home and work are not simply physically split simply all objects, people, and thoughts associated with i domain do not deport over into another. At the opposite end of the continuum is integration, which is the consummate blurring of domicile and work roles and domains. While it is theoretically possible for individuals to fall at either farthermost stop of the continuum, in authenticity most men and women fall someone in-between due to structural constraints and expectations associated with each domain (Nippert-Eng 1996: six). Although purlieus theorists argue that boundaries are constantly being formed and shaped by respodents and their social environment (Ashforth, Kreiner & Fugate, 2000; Nippert-Eng, 1996), there is some evidence that work-family unit boundaries are relatively durable and not subject to much change. In their longitudinal study of Canadian employees, Hecht and Allen (2009) found that enacted boundaries were relatively stable at 2 time points measured over the form of a yr.

Recently, scholars take begun to theoretically and empirically unpack the continuum, with many different labels attached to the configurations in the heart are a mix of sectionalisation and integration (Bulger, et al, 2007; Kossek & Lautsch, 2008; Kossek, et al., 2012). Much similar the work-family unit conflict literature, where it is common to assess directionality (Bellavia & Frone, 2005), boundary scholars take grown increasingly sensitivity to whether or not individuals integrate or segment from work-to-family and family unit-to-work (Ashforth et al., 2000; Kossek & Lautsch, 2008; Kossek, et al., 2012).

Boundary scholars (Ashforth et al., 2000; Kossek, Lautsch & Eaton, 2005; Kreiner, 2006; Kossek, Noe & DeMarr, 1999; Nippert-Eng 1996) are likewise conscientious to conceptually distinguish betwixt desired and bodily boundaries. While cerebral, physical, behavioral and temporal elements meld together to incorporate both forms of boundaries, "enacted boundaries" are the actual demarcations that individuals create or have between cadre life domains, while "boundary preferences" are the boundaries they desire. However, little empirical attention has been devoted to separating preferences from enactments. ⁱⁱ Some researchers (Kossek et al., 2005; Kossek & Lautsch, 2008) debate for an intertwined approach where preferred boundaries class an integral component of enacted boundaries. Ammons (2008) urges a slightly different perspective, and proposes that boundary preferences and enactments are distinct and inter-related concepts and that it is their intersection, alignment, or "boundary fit" that drives outcomes such equally work-family unit conflict and work-family unit rest.

As social constructions, boundaries are shaped by individual needs and desires, only they occur within a constantly changing social club and are shaped past cultural and institutional arrangements and practices (Mills, 1959; Moen & Chermack, 2005). Thus, they may or may non be consciously created by individuals. Structural conditions and norms present in the home and workplace influence both enacted and preferred boundaries by offer possibilities, constraints and/or resource; as such, these conditions can either enhance or exacerbate perceptions of boundary alignment. Besides, when surrounding influences are altered, it can crusade individuals to reassess piece of work-family boundaries and boundary possibilities. As Nippert-Eng (1996) wrote: "Changes invoke new, modified understandings of what home and work mean. They may likewise modify the available means in which we bear out these understandings" (p. 15).

A boundary fit approach diverges from the growing torso of purlieus research which adopts a person-environs fit perspective and examines alignment between private boundary preferences and the boundaries supported in the external environment or workplace context (see Effigy ane). In the person-environment approach, scholars find that when bachelor environmental atmospheric condition, or workplace policies and practices, align with boundary preferences, it results in "boundary congruence" (Kreiner, 2009) which bolsters mental wellness (Edwards & Rothbard, 1999), reduces work-family conflict (Chen, Powell & Greenhaus, 2009) and results in higher levels of task satisfaction and commitment (Rothbard, Phillips & Dumas, 2005).

Purlieus Fit versus Boundary Congruence

Boundary work remains a promising and relatively unchartered expanse of report. In that location are several theoretical works that examine purlieus preferences, enactments, ecology weather, and how they are intertwined (Kossek et al., 2005; Kossek & Lautsch, 2012) merely few empirical pieces examination these models. Also lacking, are studies that examine the stability of boundary preferences and enactments (for exception, see Hecht & Allen, 2009). What is thriving are studies that examine outcomes associated with boundaries (Bulger et al, 2007; Chen, et al., 2009; Kossek et al., 2012; Kreiner, 2006; Park, Fritz & Jex, 2011; Rothbard et al., 2005). However, additional work remains to exist done in each of these areas.

This paper adds two contributions to the boundary work literature. First, it treats boundary preferences and purlieus enactments every bit distinct concepts and assesses boundary fit. 2d, it evaluates the durability of boundaries when the norms around a cadre domain, work, are contradistinct, and individuals are given more control over their work-related boundaries. Studying the longitudinal stability of enacted and preferred boundaries in a time of flux allows us to meet how stable boundaries are, and provides insight into how like shooting fish in a barrel information technology is to change them. My results indicate that boundary piece of work scholars should continue to movement beyond discussions of whether or not an private is a "segmenter" an "integrator" and should instead focus on what patterns of boundary work hateful in the context of respondents' lives. I constitute that some individuals craft boundaries to protect family, others create boundaries to privilege employment, and that only a few had fluidity between work and family or personal realms. Preferences were also distinct from enactments. And, while boundaries may appear stable, they were always works in progress, and some individuals had less fluctuation than others. Men and respondents with immature children living in the household had the most stable boundaries and the all-time boundary fit.

Method

To empathise work-family boundary strategies and their stability, longitudinal data were gathered from 2 teams of workers (Northward=23) employed at the Midwestern headquarters of a large Fortune 500 visitor chosen Streamline (pseudonym). At this location, a unique organizational initiative was unfolding internally that was well-suited to investigating work-family boundaries. The "focus on results for an constructive (piece of work) environment" or "FREE" initiative (likewise a pseudonym) was a voluntary program adult in-house that encouraged employees to work "whenever, wherever, as long as their work got done." The information reported here comes from the Flexible Piece of work and Well-beingness Project, which is a multi-method study of how FREE influences the work-family interface, turnover and wellness outcomes of Streamline workers.

Between November 2005 and August 2006, 23 individuals from 2 teams were observed for nine months every bit they were shifting to a Complimentary piece of work environment. Interviews lasted one to two hours and were conducted before Complimentary and ii-three months afterward the workers had transitioned. The interview textile used for this study references questions about workers' family, hobbies, job demands, preferred and enacted boundaries, and the salience of work, and personal/family life. Photographs of work cubicles and home work spaces were likewise gathered and respondents were asked to explain the photographic content during the second interview.

All respondents were white and either professionals or white neckband workers, and near had college degrees. 8 respondents had supervisory responsibilities. At that place were roughly equal numbers of men and women, but historic period and life phase varied (nine respondents were unmarried; eight were married with at least one child nether age vi, and six were married or cohabiting and had either no children, school-aged children, or grown children living outside their habitation). No respondents were divorced or unmarried parents, and no one openly identified as LGBT.

To understand respondents preferred and enacted boundaries, I used a grounded theoretical approach (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). I entered interview transcripts into Atlas.ti (a qualitative computer software program) and read all documents several times. Since all interviews were semi-structured, I open coded them using a mixture of line-by-line, in-vivo, and structured coding techniques. ³ Next, I used axial coding to help me discern relationships between and amidst the conceptual categories that had emerged during initial coding. This phase of coding led me to consider directionality of boundaries and the purpose of certain purlieus configurations. At each stage of the coding, I used a constant comparative procedure to discern what strategies were occurring among respondents, and how boundary elements were intersecting within a respondent at a detail fourth dimension period and betwixt time points. Through this process, reoccurring categories emerged and were woven together to generate the findings.

Results

Most respondents' enacted and preferred boundaries cruel between the polar ends of partitioning and integration. Their physical, temporal, cognitive, and behavioral boundaries revealed a hodgepodge of partition and integration, however, no respondent bounded or desired to bound piece of work from life in the aforementioned exact manner. The binary terms "integrator" and "segmenter" were ill-fitting labels that did non help me sort out nuances in the vast middle of the continuum. Instead, cognitive frameworks for managing work and life rose to importance, every bit did directionality. This lead to a shift away from who segments, who integrates, how much of each they do, and how much of each they would like to do, and instead focused the analysis on the purpose and meaning of boundaries. What emerged were 4 ideal types which represent ways of thinking about the work-life intersection and reflect partitioning and integration tendencies, directionality, and the reason for this strategy (see Table 1): 1) protecting family, ii) above and beyond, 3) enhancing family, and iv) holistic. Although some strategies were more widely desired and enacted than others and there were demarcations by gender and parental status, there were surprisingly few misalignments between preferred and enacted boundaries at either time indicate.

Table 1

Purlieus Strategies

		Family-to-Work Integration
		Yes	No
Piece of work-to-Family Integration	Yes	Holistic	Above & Beyond
	No	Heighten Family unit	Protect family unit

A "protecting family unit" strategy keeps piece of work and family domains separated, and is located closest to the segmentation end of the continuum (Nippert-Eng, 1996). The 2d and third work-family boundary strategies fall in the eye of the continuum. "Above and beyond" allows work in life domains simply keeps family/personal contained, while an "enhance family" strategy lets family unit/personal into the work domain but keeps work contained. Lastly, a "holistic" boundary strategy has fluid work and life domains and few, if any, boundaries separating them. This would exist closest to integration. Subsequently briefly discussing each boundary strategy, I discuss stability and alignments between preferred and enacted boundaries.

Never the Two Shall Meet : Protecting Family

The most prevalent boundary strategy was "protecting family," with 14 respondents enacting this strategy and fifteen desiring it. This strategy comes closest to "sectionalization:" respondents largely kept work and family apart. It was well-nigh commonly plant amongst single respondents. Respondents with the protecting family unit boundary strategy either as valued their family/personal lives and job but felt they were incompatible to some extent (requiring different presentation of self, role demands, or that domains were fundamentally at odds in terms of time or location), or they valued their personal and abode life more than than work and did non feel comfortable bringing it (in the form of items, thoughts, or actions) into the office.

As with the other strategies, there was within-category variation, but overall protecting family entailed working at the office, taking few personal breaks, and leaving all work-related thoughts and items firmly within the premises of the company at the end of each workday and workweek. By approaching their work in this way, they did not dwell on work after hours or physically take it dwelling house with them. As Denise explained, "I like to exist hither and do my work and when I leave I feel like I can get out it here and non have it hang over my head all the time."

Above and Beyond

The second nearly common strategy was integrating work into family unit/personal with picayune to no integration of life into the piece of work domain. I termed this boundary strategy "to a higher place and beyond." Twelve respondents enacted above and beyond at some point, and eight desired these boundaries. All had diverse work demands; in that location were some supervisors, directly reports, workers with daily and weekly deadlines to meet, every bit well equally project-based workers. It was how respondents reacted to these demands and thought about their work though, that prepare them apart from other respondents. Above and beyond manifested in ii means, eager and reluctant.

Eager Higher up and Beyonders

Respondents with an eager above and beyond boundary style were heavily invested in work, thoroughly enjoyed it and did not resent or take mixed feelings that it crept into their personal life. But, they had very petty integration of personal or family into their workdays. The respondents that pursued or wished to pursue this strategy come closest to what Williams (2000) terms "the platonic worker" (c.f. Bailyn, 1993). They either had few family or personal responsibilities, or if they did so other people in their lives attend to them (such as spouses, pregnant others, or other family members). And, they prioritized piece of work ahead of all other involvements, putting in long workdays and workweeks. In alignment with gendered ideal worker expectations, more than men than women either pursued or desired this purlieus strategy.

The passion eager above and beyonders had for their work drove their temporal, physical, cognitive and behavioral boundaries. All worked long days with few breaks, physically took piece of work dwelling house nights and weekends, and continued to think near piece of work long after the official workday and workweek had concluded. They thought they were the aforementioned person at work and at home, but varied on how much of their personal life they typically shared with coworkers, how much they socialized after hours with coworkers, and in cubicle personalization.

Eager to a higher place and beyonders were and then focused on work that they tended to forget nearly other personal commitments, personal needs or that life existed outside of work. When asked if they thought about family or personal matters during the workday or if they fit in personal errands or tasks, I received the following illustrative replies from Oliver, Darren, and Belinda (all were married with young children):

I've never been late on bills before, but now I'k tardily on bills because I don't get to things similar that. You know, I'k merely then focused on this job. (Oliver).

Um, for the most role I am very much work focused. And then, I accept the personal tendency to probably go more lost in it. I tin can lose track of the outside world in general through a workweek, which probably isn't the best thing to say just that'south what happens.... The best manner of describing it is I have very little agreement of what'south happening in the world aside from what's happening within our specific business and our vendors. So, I can tell you [mentions names of specific vendors] or whatnot, merely if you ask me what'due south happening like politically or whatnot, I don't know. I may grab the sports stuff if I have fourth dimension and then I try to keep runway on the Television set shows that I'one thousand interested in, only if you lot actually, talk nigh the connection with what's really going on in the earth, it's just not in that location. (Darren).

Honestly, I need to effigy out... I've never been and then late earlier. I need to effigy out when I'm going to get to Target to go my kids something for their Easter handbasket. It's bad... I should probably break more, but I just don't like getting out of that rhythm. (Belinda).

While the nature of their job encouraged this level of embeddedness (they had workdays filled with meetings, customers in different time zones, and urgent business situations that sometimes needed resolution outside standard hours), eager above and beyonders recognized that although the job prompted them to be readily available and piece of work around the clock, they knew that if they wanted to they could work differently. As Darren explained to me:

Um, I definitely practice insert the chore into my life a little chip more than... other people may want to, or consider healthy. So, it's just a kind of more of a personal thing. But, I don't recall information technology'due south anything that the chore necessarily, absolutely requires.

Respondents are aware that there is a cost they incur and that they might not exist able to sustain this strategy for very long. Some discussed the cost it exacted on themselves, telling me that they wished they took more fourth dimension for themselves and worked out more. Others related the strain it put on their family relationships. No eager in a higher place and beyonder respondent wanted to piece of work that way indefinitely.

Reluctantly Going Above and Beyond

In contrast to those who eagerly sought to integrate work into their family/personal lives,reluctant higher up and beyonders were clashing, resentful and/or wary about integrating. One set of traits often shared past this grouping was mastery over their jobs, a want for more challenging work, and concern nearly chore stability. Going "above and beyond" a little had its benefits. By "sticking around" the office or working additional hours at home, these respondents had the outward appearance of being "ideal" employees and information technology made them stand out from their coworkers, gave them greater recognition that could lead to a promotion and safeguarded them from fears that they would be permit-go if a round of layoffs rippled through the company.

Dissimilar eager above and beyonders, those with this purlieus strategy regarded work as a default option. Five respondents had this boundary strategy at some point during the study, but but two respondents preferred this strategy. All were married/partnered, or spent a swell deal of time with other family members and wished they could spend more time with them, but were unable to due to scheduling conflicts or altitude. To fill up some of the downtime in their evenings and weekends, respondents worked. Dwight and Dale (each married with no children) are great examples of this strategy. Dwight'south married woman worked every Sabbatum and often returned habitation late in the evening, leaving him home alone for several hours. When asked if he e'er took work home, he replied "No, not really. Maybe I'll check email merely because I'll be bored at home and I'll be like 'yes, I'll check some e-mail!'" Also, Dale linked his reluctance to have fourth dimension off to his undemanding family unit and personal life. When I asked him why he preferred this, he told me:

Might as well come up to work (laughs). With people that have kids, I'g sure it'd exist a totally dissimilar answer. You know, they'd exist able to spend time with their kids on those days off. But, for u.s.a., everyone we know is at work. So, I can have a twenty-four hour period off, but... if I don't have anything to practise at home or whatever projects or annihilation similar that...Might as well come to piece of work.

With reluctant above and beyonders, it was clear that they adored their loved ones and wished they could spend more time with them. Since they could non, they opted instead to spend their time around close coworkers and reluctantly stayed later, worked additional hours, did not use vacation time, or thought nearly work more than they otherwise would take.

Enhancing Family

Other respondents had the reverse boundary pattern of in a higher place and beyonders. They kept piece of work from infringing into their personal lives, and integrated family/personal into their workday. By plumbing equipment in errands and other "depression value" routine family or personal tasks during the workday, they had more fourth dimension, and ameliorate quality time, for rewarding tasks and loved ones. The enhancing family strategy was prevalent amongst women with young children, with four respondents enacting it and 4 desiring information technology. All had demanding home or personal lives and viewed work as less important than loved ones or hobbies. As 1 respondent told me "I'm a very dedicated worker, but my family comes first" (Amber, married with young children).

At that place was a slight variation in how women used the particular boundary strategy. Bister, Emily and Denise often worked from home several days a week. During these days, they fit in personal and family activities, and floated betwixt work-related tasks and family/personal tasks. The remaining days, they came into Streamline to work, were very focused on their job, and did not integrate family/personal much at all. Gail, past contrast, did the vast majority of her work at Streamline Monday through Friday and adhered to more than traditional showtime and end times. She integrated personal errands and tasks throughout her workdays at the company (going to the hair salon, running to Target to buy a birthday cake, getting a manicure, ownership tickets or otherwise arranging weekend family unit outings, etc.), and often thought about her family unit while she was working. For her, work was a way to take "Gail time." When I asked her ideal work schedule would be, she told me:

I like this [my current manner] because I practice like being in the office and because that's my time away from the kids. And I can go a LOT of work done but it'due south my social time. And, now [with FREE] it's my free time. I tin can really feel like I can take care of myself. I can balance everything.

Integrating family was critical to Gail considering she had very little time when she arrived abode:

We don't go home until like 6:xxx to 7:00pm. So, it is dinner, [my children] play or take baths and I try and get them to bed. So, that's pretty much ix:30 to 10pm and and then I'm tired and I'yard lucky if I launder my face (laughs). And, I've got a dog. I accept to feed her, and the bird. So, I've got to feed her and give her fourth dimension. Yeah, so in that location's no time to practice anything else.

Occasionally, Gail besides worked from home. On these days, she would fit in piece of work while attending to her children's needs, much like Amber.

Whether they worked at abode or at the visitor, all of the respondents with this strategy found ways to integrate family and personal into the standard workday and they said that this fabricated a huge difference in their lives. The danger of enhancing family is that it blatantly conflicts with the ideal worker norm (Williams, 2000; Bailyn 1993). All of the women were witting of this, and tried very hard to brand sure their coworkers knew they were doing their jobs well.

Holistic Boundaries

In the holistic strategy, work and life domains are experienced every bit one synergistic whole in terms of thoughts, utilize of space, behavior and use of time. Amidst respondents, this was the rarest boundary strategies. Two respondents desired it, and only 1 respondent, Juliet (single with no children), had holistic enacted boundaries. Respondents who desired or enacted this strategy had obligations that were more inside their control. They had active personal lives, just non extensive family unit responsibilities (single with no children). And, they likewise had a strong want to advance at piece of work and wanted to move upward into positions that they found intrinsically rewarding. Holistic respondents sought to pb a balanced life where piece of work and family unit constantly intermingled, merely were also advisedly orchestrated then that they did non conflict.

While there was definite structure to Juliet'due south workday, there was also a great deal of fluidity. She talked with family and friends during the day, took breaks, fit in piece of work-outs at the visitor gym, and had some leeway in deciding when to start and end her workday at the office. She also brought family and friends to the part to visit occasionally, and took work home in the evenings and on weekends. Whether or not she actually did the work was left for her to decide. She integrated life into her time at the company, and felt it is but off-white that work was integrated into her personal time. In her interactions with coworkers, Juliet was very open and often talked about her personal life with others. When asked if she felt like two people at abode and work, she replied: "I'one thousand pretty confronting that.... I think that you should but be yourself and authentic." Juliet'due south strategy of having work and family unit/personal inter-mingle was readily apparent in her physical boundaries. Her cubical at Streamline had personal objects scattered amongst work-related items ⁴ and her tendency to blend physical boundaries was also credible in her at-home work locations which varied between her patio, dining room table, living room couch, and the small home office surface area located in the basement near her washer and dryer.

In some ways, the holistic strategy of managing work and family boundaries is a highly desired state for both employers and employees. The respondent who exhibited this strategy was invested in her job and carried piece of work home with her (either physically or in her thoughts) at the stop of the day and workweek. Her time spent "working" was potentially never-ending merely since her personal life was intermingled, she attended to information technology throughout the twenty-four hours every bit well, and did not feel that her piece of work was monopolizing her time.

Boundary Stability & Alignment between Preferred and Enacted Boundaries

Prior to Gratuitous, squeezing in family or personal activities during the day was discouraged and workers were oft recognized and praised for working long hours (meet Kelly, Ammons, Chermack & Moen, 2010); thus, sectionalization or work-to-family integration were favored at Streamline. When respondents were given more than control to decide when and where to practice their piece of work though, all purlieus strategies became acceptable as long every bit workers got their job done. Once nether Free, only i respondent'due south boundaries did not modify at all. But, instead of large scale shifts, what often occurred were subtle changes among one or more boundary components, particularly temporal and physical boundaries.

In that location was remarkable stability in purlieus preferences and enactments during the study. Most respondents had a good boundary fit at either time point (see Tabular array ii). Less than half either desired or made a purlieus strategy change. However, some groups exhibited more stability than others. Women and those without young children in their household were each more probable to make a purlieus strategy change or desire to make a switch than were men or respondents with young children living in the household. At time one, women had worse boundary fit than men, as did those without young children, but the fit of both groups improved at time 2. Preferences were not very stable from time 1 to time 2 (thirty% had a change) and neither were enacted boundaries (35% made a switch); just, men had more stable preferences and enacted boundaries than women, as did those with immature children. Thus, loosening the normative boundaries effectually work did not lead to change across the board.

Table 2

Boundary Stability and Fit by Gender and Parental Condition

	Desired or Made a Modify	Time one Purlieus Fit	Time two Purlieus Fit	Preferred Purlieus Stability	Enacted Purlieus Stability
All respondents (Due north=23)	ix (39%)	twenty (87%)	21 (91%)	16 (seventy%)	15 (65%)
Men (n=12)	3 (25%)	xi (92%)	xi (92%)	9 (75%)	x (83%)
Women (n=xi)	6 (55%)	9 (82%)	x (91%)	7 (54%)	five (45%)
No young children in household (due north=fifteen)	8 (53%)	12 (lxxx%)	13 (87%)	9 (60%)	8 (53%)
Young children in household (n=8)	1 (13%)	viii (100%)	8 (100%)	7 (88%)	7 (88%)

Moreover, the nature and timing of boundary changes was quite messy. When normative constraints in the workplace were eased, four respondents bounded piece of work from encroaching on family unit/personal life, simply they still kept family out of work; ii integrated family unit/personal into work simply continued to segment work away; and three wanted and/or allowed work to encroach simply still kept family out of the work realm.

Too, the timing of boundary changes was too not straightforward. Of the ix respondents who made a change, only ii corrected a poor boundary fit at time i and were able to realize their preferences. Lucy and Charity were both reluctant to a higher place and beyonders but wished to have less encroachment of work into their personal lives. Under FREE, they both adopted a protect family strategy. For the residue of those who changed, Gratuitous led to unexpected new strategies. 2 respondents had a skillful purlieus fit at time 1, simply by time ii the new workplace norms acquired their enacted boundaries to morph into something they did not desire, or they began to question their purlieus preferences under Gratuitous simply had not taken steps to enact their new desires. Thus, Costless really lead to boundary misalignments. For example, Carl had a preferred an eager to a higher place and beyonder strategy at time 1, but at fourth dimension 2 desired to have a protect family strategy. Others (northward=four) had alignment between their preferred and enacted strategies at time 1 and fourth dimension 2, just forth the way they completely switched boundary styles. For case, Denise both desired and had a protect family strategy at time 1, but at fourth dimension 2 she altered her desired and enacted boundaries to enhance family. Perhaps the all-time example though, of how convoluted boundary change tin can be was Doug. At time 1, he had a protect family unit strategy and desired to be holistic. By the end of the study he was an eager to a higher place and beyonder and was happy with that strategy.

Although less than one-half of the sample altered their boundary strategies, at that place were slight fluctuations in preferred and enacted purlieus components from respondent to respondent during the form of the report. While they were non large or pregnant enough to warrant a new boundary classification, these modifications indicate that boundaries were always a work in progress. Before FREE, respondents had already had some command over their behavioral boundaries (e.one thousand. they decided how much of their personal lives they shared with coworkers and whether or non they wanted to be the aforementioned person at home equally they were at piece of work) ^v , so I found picayune to no change among my respondents along this dimension. Instead, alterations in boundaries ordinarily happened either temporally and/or physically, and these changes cascaded and affected cognitive boundaries equally well.

The nearly mutual component change was temporal. Roughly half of the respondents regularly altered when they started and/or ended their workday, and an boosted three respondents did and so occasionally. ⁶ Nonetheless, physical boundaries besides frequently changed. One third of the respondents regularly worked from dwelling a full or fractional day at least once every other calendar week, while another quaternary worked from home on an inconsistent ground. ⁷ And, since the workday was no longer rigidly jump by cultural norms that dictated where and when people should piece of work and so many respondents made temporal and/or concrete changes, the cognitive markers and cues that signaled where work began and ended had to be reconsidered or revised. At time 2, all respondents either said that they had become more than focused when they were working at Streamline, or that they had always been focused. For iii respondents, this cognitive modify was unsettling and they institute themselves home more on piece of work-related matters long after their workday officially concluded. But, 2 respondents too reported that under Complimentary they were able to demark work-related thoughts improve; they preferred cognitive segmentation and were able to create cognitive boundaries that better suited them.

By the end of the study, almost all respondents had gradually incorporated family/personal into workday to some degree, whether information technology was leaving piece of work "early on" on occasion, working from home, or fitting in working out or a personal errand during the standard workday. Ron (married with immature children) is a skilful analogy of respondents who fabricated a temporal change to their work and family unit boundaries but maintained the same overall strategy for managing piece of work and family/personal.

In the following passage, Ron speaks well-nigh the temporal modify he made to his work routine. At the outset of the study, he had an enacted boundary strategy of protecting family. He regularly worked from 8 to five:xxx-6pm Monday through Friday and he wanted to have a couple afternoons off during the week to practice personal activities/hobbies (golf), and make-upward the hours on the weekend at dwelling house. During our second interview, he left work "early" some afternoons but not every week. Although his temporal boundaries had not shifted as much equally he desired, the change Ron fabricated was of import to his family and fabricated him feel amend adjusted at work:

I used to come up home at 6pm and my kids would go to bed at 8pm. So, I'd have ii hours, you know? It'south and so much better. Information technology's just made information technology better.

[Interviewer] And y'all have time for yourself at present?

Yeah well, the affair is that (pause) my wife she (pause) you know, I (exhales air), raising kids is a difficult chore. And, when I walk in the door she is fix to laissez passer the baton or she wants me to help out right away, which of course anyone would. So, what I practice... I don't tell her when I'm leaving work early, so [it's] my time. When I need time to myself, I'll go out work at like 2. I'll normally go to a guitar shop and just selection up an acoustic and just hang out for an hr or get shopping for an hour and the things is that I don't... I don't call my wife and tell her what I'm doing that. I merely do that and then I come home and I say "Hey, I went guitar shopping this afternoon." And, she'll unremarkably go "(R sucks in his breath) so, that's where yous've been for the final ii hours!" But she's totally fine with that too. I mean, I normally get home 4:thirty or five o'clock which is earlier than when I used to come home at 6. So, she's happy. I'm happy because, the chore here [in this section] is Actually demanding. And so, I have a HUGE demand at work, and and then of course I accept ii kids in diapers and of course, they are demanding, you know? Then, information technology'due south hard to notice time for yourself and I need to take that 'cause I'g kind of an ambiovert. And then, similar I'chiliad extroverted and introverted at times. And then, I get energy out of other people but I need a break. And, I need my own time to recharge a piddling flake.

When asked at time 2 if he would make whatsoever additional changes to his boundaries, he said that ideally he would similar to regularly exit work early every Tuesday and schedule (and keep) tee times. Otherwise, he would continue to keep coming into work Monday through Friday at 8ish and go out when he felt like he had reached a stopping point for the day.

Several told me that they saw themselves making large changes once their family or work demands contradistinct (especially in one case they started families). Hank (unmarried with no children) and Dwight (married with no children) are two such examples. When I asked Hank if he worked at abode, he told me no:

[But] that might change, you lot know, as I go higher in the organization, you know? And, I have a picayune chip more responsibilities and stuff like that, which I wouldn't mind. Just at the same point in time, I like getting here and getting my stuff done. After work is done, piece of work is done. Either workout, [and] be active, or I simply watch Television or read.

Dwight thought he might change his piece of work-family unit boundaries and priorities if his household grew to include a domestic dog. He envisioned working from dwelling more so that he could railroad train the puppy. Until then, he remained a reluctant above and beyonder and came into work Monday through Fri.

Since this study simply examined how (and whether) normative changes in the work domain, lead to changes in piece of work-family boundaries, information technology makes sense that I found testify of limited alterations, specially amongst those with family responsibilities. They were still constrained past family unit members' schedules and routines. Although a few respondents added some additional family unit responsibilities during the class of the study (more extensive eldercare responsibilities, another babe, or had a boyfriend move in) most respondents were still bound to the same family unit norms and obligations at the starting time and stop of the written report. If work and family normative constraints had been altered, larger changes might take occurred. But, nevertheless, there is good reason to believe that the small and wearisome changes respondents fabricated during my observations might snowball over fourth dimension and issue in larger changes. At the cease of data collection, respondents in this written report had been working nether Costless atmospheric condition for less than six months. Many described how difficult information technology had been for them to change their routines. Overcoming the inertia of their quondam boundary routines was challenging. Once the process of altering boundaries had begun though, most were keen to slowly incorporate boosted changes. Over time, more boundary changes may occur.

Discussion

This written report examined the work-family boundaries of 23 respondents employed at the headquarters of a large Fortune 500 company. At this site, a cultural change initiative was commencement that loosened the norms surrounding when and where work could be done. This inquiry contributes to boundary literature by empirically separating preferred boundaries from enacted boundaries and examines how aligned and stable these boundaries are when respondents are given more control over their work-related boundaries. I institute that while enacted and preferred boundaries constantly shifted, the broad strategies that individuals employed were relatively durable. Although all respondents were encouraged to work differently under Free, small changes were mutual simply only a few fundamentally changed their boundary strategy.

More specifically, this written report adds to our understanding of the boundaries workers accept and desire, and the importance of directionality when assessing partitioning and integration tendencies. While engineering science and New Economy may encourage greater integration of work into the family unit/personal domain, scholars should not assume that all workers regard this type of integration as problematic or idyllic. Much similar pebbles, individual boundaries are diverse and unique.

I found four broad types of strategies, some of which were more prevalent than others. Although the tendency to desire or enact a strategy that kept work from encroaching on other domains was common amongst the respondents at either time indicate, this may reflect the nature of the work that these respondents did: they all had white-collar jobs at the corporate headquarters of a big Fortune 500 company with stores in all US time zone. Their jobs were deadline and meeting heavy, fast-paced, and came with excellent benefits and pay, opportunities for advancement. Moreover, the corporate setting offered many civilities that could entice Streamline workers to never leave the edifice (such every bit an on-site gym, daycare, pharmacy, dry cleaning drop-off, and cafeteria). Many, but not all, respondents felt the need to guard against work, and did so by keeping it firmly on visitor property during standard business hours.

In several ways, the four strategies presented in this paper and the approach of examining enacted versus preferred boundaries compliments Kossek and Lautsch's (2008) study of piece of work-family purlieus strategies. They found that individuals with high boundary control were able to enact the boundaries they desired, while those with low command were forced into a boundary arrangement that they felt did non suit them (Kossek & Lautsch, 2008). Thus, both studies argue for a closer examination of how enactments and preferences come together. While there is some disagreement over specific types of work-family purlieus strategies, ⁸ some of my findings do support Kossek and Lautsch's (2008) research. For case, respondents who were reluctant higher up and beyonders had low control over their family boundaries (they were not able to be around their family members or friends, or engage in hobbies as much equally they wanted) and they frequently had a poor work-family unit purlieus fit. Similarly, when all respondents at time ii were given greater control over their work boundaries under FREE, overall boundary fit improved. Thus, this study adds to the growing body of research that examines the office of contextual factors in boundary piece of work.

A second contribution of the written report is that it urges scholars who are interested in the relationship between boundaries and the work-family intersection to consider a boundary fit approach rather than a person-environs approach (see Kreiner, 2009; Rothbard, et al., 2005). Instead of focusing on the degree of congruence between ecology conditions and purlieus preferences, researchers could investigate how environmental weather undergird preferences and enactments, the alignment between these boundary forms, and whether or not misalignments between boundary enactments effect the work-family intersection. Boundary fit may direct or indirectly influence outcomes such equally work-family conflict, piece of work-family unit balance, and may yield greater insight into turnover intentions, work satisfaction, as well as mental and physical health. Although scholars are already pursing links between boundaries and these outcomes (Bulger et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2009; Kossek, et al., 2012; Kreiner, 2006; Park et al., 2011; Rothbard et al., 2005), they have full-bodied solely on enacted boundaries, conflated purlieus preferences and enactments, or examined alignment between workplace context and preferences: the degree of fit betwixt desired and bodily boundaries may yield more explanatory power.

Third, this study enriches our knowledge of purlieus durability and change. When exposed to FREE, all respondents fabricated some changes to their enacted and preferred boundaries simply these change were often small and did result in a boundary strategy shift. Moreover, when dramatic alter did occur, few deliberately sought it out. Instead, alterations to boundaries were unexpected, incremental, and sometimes fifty-fifty resulted in poorer boundary fits. So, why did almost not shift strategies when the environmental atmospheric condition changed? 1 possibility is that respondents were happy with their electric current and desired boundaries and fifty-fifty though the norms in the workplace were altered, they did not experience the urge to brand a purlieus strategy change. Another, more probable possibility is that Gratis was non perceived similarly across respondents. A report of FREE grooming sessions establish that Costless challenged ideal worker norms, and men were more hesitant nigh deviating from this fashion of working than were women (Kelly et al., 2010). Thus, in the short term, loosening the norms effectually where and when work can exist washed does not affect all equally. Boundary changes may speed up as workers abound more comfortable in a FREE environs, but without an accompanying cultural change in family norms, individuals with heavy family demands will withal express the desired and enacted boundaries of some individuals. Nevertheless, the findings show that boundaries are not durable structures and that individuals practise non regard them as such.

Care must exist taken when generalizing these findings, withal, which are bound to a detail context and group of workers. The information presented in this paper speak to the enacted and preferred work-family boundaries of white-collar workers in a corporate setting who underwent a specific cultural change initiative. Organizations adopting an initiative similar to FREE may observe that employees brand small, rather than drastic changes to their work-family unit boundaries and that many of the workers make unanticipated purlieus alterations. But, they may likewise encounter other results due to differing organizational and occupational contexts.

Although the findings from this report improve our understanding of the nature and changeability of work-family unit boundaries, much piece of work remains to be done. Standing to empirically split up boundary preferences from boundary enactments and whether or non they fit are fruitful areas of study for scholars. Scholarship is also needed that explores how boundary fit ties to piece of work-family conflict and enrichment perceptions, and how particular environmental weather may encourage individuals to adopt and prefer specific boundary configurations.

Acknowledgments

Office of Funding Source

This research was conducted as office of the Work, Family and Health Network (www.WorkFamilyHealthNetwork.org), funded by a cooperative agreement through the National Institute of Child Health and Man Development (Grant # U01HD051217, U01HD051218, U01HD051256, U01HD051276), National Establish on Aging (Grant # U01AG027669), Office of Behavioral and Science Sciences Inquiry, and National Institute for Occupational Rubber and Wellness (Grant # U010H008788). Additional back up was provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (#2002-6-8). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the author and do non necessarily represent the official views of these institutes and offices. Special acknowledgement goes to Extramural Staff Science Collaborator, Rosalind Berkowitz King, Ph.D. and Lynne Casper, Ph.D. for design of the original Workplace, Family, Wellness and Well-Beingness Network Initiative. I wish to express my gratitude to the employer and employees who participated in this enquiry and made this publication possible, and to my advisors, Erin 50. Kelly and Phyllis Moen, who provided moral support and guidance forth the style.

Footnotes

¹Throughout the newspaper, family unit and personal life are used interchangeably to describe the non-piece of work domain.

^twoIn their discussion of boundary transitions, Ashforth and colleagues (2000) care for desired boundaries as an underlying assumption, and while Nippert-Eng (1996) does extensively discuss the social constraints of work and family that inhibit personal discretion and narrow the range of purlieus options, she does not enquire her interviewees what boundaries they would ideally like to accept. In their recent work, Kossek et al (2005) do differentiate between desired and actual boundaries but do not conjecture about their interconnectedness, or empirically investigate purlieus preferences. More recently, Kossek and Lautsch (2007) meld enacted and preferred boundaries together and do not treat each as separate entities.

³For example, respondents were asked "what kinds of things do you unremarkably think about when you lot are at domicile?" I coded this question and response equally "cerebral boundaries" but I also constitute instances of it every bit I coded line-past-line. Other codes were emergent, such as "personality," "values" and "SBO" (strength based organizational trait).

^ivFor case, there was a monthly calendar of a country she wants to visit that was given to her by her mother, a framed photo of her and her all-time friend taken at their favorite holiday spot, photographs of her pets, a bootleg pottery dish that she recently made, and a rolled up yoga mat in the corner. Alongside these objects were the company's fiscal calendar, several recognition certificates and certificates of completed trainings, a row of binders filled with work materials, file folders, and the statement of company'due south strategic goals for the twelvemonth.

⁵When I asked respondent if they felt like two different people when they were at home and at work, nearly said that they were not the same, just a few said that they were more individual or subdued at work and did non share their personal lives much with their coworkers, simply they were unremarkably very open with people. Ii respondents idea their behavior was markedly different though. One cursed all the time at home and could not practice that at work because of the corporate office culture. The other was said he felt more than disciplinarian at home because of his fatherhood responsibilities.

^{half dozen}Other small temporal changes included cutting back on weekend work, or taking a weeklong vacation without checking their email.

⁷2 respondents underwent subtle transitions too. One respondent changed her at-dwelling house work location from her kitchen counter to a designated part nook once FREE took effect, while another respondent occasionally worked in a meeting room at Streamline rather than at her cubical.

⁸Kossek and Lautsch (2008) found 3 wide boundary strategies: ane) "integrators," who completely integrated work and family unit domains, two) "separators," who completely separated work and family unit domains, and three) "volleyers," who switched dorsum and forth betwixt an integration and segmentation strategy over the class of a week, calendar month, season or year. Each strategies was further divided into those with loftier boundary control who are happy ("fusion lovers," "firsters," and "quality timers") and those with low purlieus control who are unhappy ("reactors," "captives," and "job warriors"). Thus, Kossek and Lautsch (2008) discuss an overarching boundary strategy that I practise non (volleyers), but I include directional nuances in sectionalization and integration from piece of work-to-family and/or family-to-work which does not appear in their work, and I divide preferences from enactments.

Bibliography

• Ammons SK. Doctoral Dissertation. Academy of Minnesota; Minneapolis, MN.: 2008. Boundaries at work: A study of piece of work-family boundary stability inside a big organization. [Google Scholar]
• Ashforth B, Kreiner G, Fugate M. All in a day'southward piece of work: Boundaries and micro office transitions. University of Direction Review. 2000;25:472–491. [Google Scholar]
• Bailyn L. Breaking the mold: Women, men, and fourth dimension in the new corporate world. Free Press; New York: 1993. [Google Scholar]
• Bellavia GM, Frone MR. Work-family conflict. In: Barling J, Kelloway K, Frone'south MR, editors. Handbook of work stress. Sage; Thousand Oaks: 2005. pp. 113–147. [Google Scholar]
• Bianchi SM, Milkie MA, Sayer LC, Robinson JP. Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces. 2000;79:191–228. [Google Scholar]
• Bulger CA, Mathews RA, Hoffman ME. Work and personal life boundary direction: Boundary strength, work/personal life balance, and the segmentation-integration continuum. Periodical of Occupational Health Psychology. 2007;12:365–375. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Chen Z, Powell GN, Greenhaus JH. Piece of work-to-family disharmonize, positive spillover, and boundary management: A person-environment fit arroyo. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2009;74:82–93. [Google Scholar]
• Cohany SR, Sok East. Trends in labor force participation of married mothers of infants. Monthly Labor Review. 2007;130:9–sixteen. [Google Scholar]
• Edwards J, Rothbard N. Work and family stress and well-being: An examination of person-surround fit in the work and family domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Determination Processes. 1999;77:85–129. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative enquiry. Aldine de Gruyter; New York: 1967. [Google Scholar]
• Greenhaus JH, Powell GN. When work and family are allies: A theory of work- family enrichment. Academy of Direction Review. 2006;31:72–92. [Google Scholar]
• Gutman RE. Work, Civilisation and Order in America. In: Pahl's RE, editor. On work: Historical, comparative and theoretical approaches. Blackwell; New York: 1988. pp. 125–127. [Google Scholar]
• Hecht TD, Allen NJ. A longitudinal examination of the work-nonwork purlieus forcefulness construct. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2009;30:839–862. [Google Scholar]
• Kelly EL, Ammons SK, Chermack K, Moen P. Gendered challenge, gendered response: Against the ideal worker norm in a white neckband system. Gender & Lodge. 2010;24:281–303. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Kossek EE, Lautsch BA. CEO of me: Creating a life that works in the flexible job age. Pearson; Upper Saddle River, NJ: 2008. [Google Scholar]
• Kossek EE, Lautsch BA. Piece of work-family boundary management styles in organizations: A cantankerous-level model. Organizational Psychology Review. 2012;2:152–171. [Google Scholar]
• Kossek EE, Noe RA, DeMarr BJ. Work-family role synthesis: Individual and organizational determinants. The International Journal of Conflict Direction. 1999;10:102–129. [Google Scholar]
• Kossek EE, Ruderman MN, Braddy PW, Hannum KM. Work-nonwork boundary management profiles: A person-centered arroyo. Journal of Vocational Beliefs. 2012;81:112–128. [Google Scholar]
• Kossek EE, Lautsch B, Eaton Due south. Family flexibility theory: Implications of flexibility type, command, and boundary management for work-family effectiveness. In: Kossek EE, Lambert's S, editors. Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural and private perspectives. Erlbaum; London: 2005. pp. 243–262. [Google Scholar]
• Kreiner GE. Consequences of work-dwelling division or integration: A person- surroundings fit perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2006;27:485–507. [Google Scholar]
• Mills CW. The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press; New York: 1959. [Google Scholar]
• Moen P, Chermack K. Gender disparities in health: Strategic choice, careers, and cycles of control." The Gerontologist. 2005;60:99–108. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Nippert-Eng C. Dwelling and work: Negotiating boundaries in everyday life. University of Chicago Press; Chicago: 1996. [Google Scholar]
• Park Y, Fritz C, Jex SM. Relationships betwixt work-home sectionalization and psychological detachment from piece of work: The role of communication engineering utilize at home. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2011;sixteen:457–467. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rothbard NP, Phillips KW, Dumas TL. Managing multiple roles: Work-family policies and individual'due south desires for division. Organization Science. 2005;sixteen:243–258. [Google Scholar]
• Williams J. Unbending gender: Why work and family conflict and what to do about it. University Press; Oxford: 2000. [Google Scholar]

stammsquished.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4303250/

Share this post