Work–family boundary management styles in organizations

Abstract

We develop a cross-level model and typology of work-family (W-F) boundary management styles in organizations. A boundary management style is the general approach an individual uses to demarcate boundaries and attend to work and family roles. We argue that variation in W-F boundary management styles (integrator, separator, alternating) is a function of individual boundary-crossing preferences (flexibility, permeability, symmetry, direction); the centrality and configuration of work-family role identities; as well as the organizational work-family climate for customization. The model assumes that an individual's perceived control to enact a boundary style that aligns with boundary-crossing preferences and identities has direct effects on individual perceptions of work-family conflict and also moderates the level of work-family conflict of boundary management styles experienced across organizational contexts. We offer propositions relevant to future research and practice.

Role identity salience and boundary permeability preferences: An examination of enactment and protection effects

“…Our focus on preferences is consistent with Matthews et al' (2010) suggestion to relate role identity saliences to boundary flexibility preferences, as well as the growing recognition of the importance of distinguishing boundary permeability behavior (the focus of most boundary research) and boundary permeability preferences (Kossek & Lautsch, 2012;Kreiner, 2006). Our findings suggest that there are stronger relationships between role identity salience of one role and boundary permeability preferences for another role (β = 0.46, β = 0.49, β = 0.34) than prior studies reported between role identity salience and boundary permeability behaviors, which ranged from β = 0.12 to β = 0.34 (Hecht & Allen, 2009).…”

“…Building on prior theory and research on boundary management, we found that (1) individuals prefer to erect permeable boundaries around roles so they can enact a highly salient role in these other roles, (2) individuals prefer to erect impermeable boundaries around highly salient roles so they can protect these roles from intrusions of other roles, and (3) the enactment effect is stronger than the protection effect. By focusing on boundary permeability preference, we both respond to calls to discriminate between preferences and behaviors when studying role boundaries (Kossek & Lautsch, 2012;Kreiner, 2006), as well as examine preference as the more proximal outcome of role identity salience (Powell & Greenhaus, 2010). Examining relationships between role identity salience and boundary permeability preferences in the context of three roles enabled us to demonstrate the generalizability of the relationships beyond the domains of work and home.…”

“…Our findings suggest that there are stronger relationships between role identity salience of one role and boundary permeability preferences for another role (β = 0.46, β = 0.49, β = 0.34) than prior studies reported between role identity salience and boundary permeability behaviors, which ranged from β = 0.12 to β = 0.34 (Hecht & Allen, 2009). We suggest that role identity salience is more strongly related to permeability preference than behavior because preference is a more proximal outcome of identity salience than permeability behavior (Powell & Greenhaus, 2010), and a variety of environmental forces such as workplace norms (e.g., 24/7 accessibility), rewards, and punishments (Ashforth et al, 2000;Kossek & Lautsch, 2012) may weaken the relationship between permeability preferences and permeability behavior. Future research should test a more comprehensive model in which role identity salience relates to permeability preference and ultimately permeability behavior, examining situational factors that moderate the relationship between permeability preferences and behavior.…”

Work–Family Boundary Management Profiles in Two Finnish Samples: A Person-oriented Approach

“…These consist of: (1) individuals who show high ability and willingness to be flexible with work and family domain boundaries and let them be permeable; (2) those who show high ability to be flexible with both boundaries, but are unwilling for them to be permeable; (3) those who show the average level of most of the boundary strength measures; and (4) individuals who report both high ability and willingness to be flexible with the work domain boundary, but not the family domain boundary. Likewise, Kossek and Lautsch (2012) suggested that there are three work-family boundary management styles that originate from individual boundary-crossing preferences (e.g., flexibility): (a) separators who distinguished work and family roles; (b) integrators who combined work and family roles; and, (c) alternating individuals who had clear periods of distinct integration and distinct separation. In a qualitative study, Ammons (2013) also found four different configurations based on preferred and actual boundaries that employees have: 1) individuals who kept work and family domains separate; 2) those who integrated work into family (eagerly or reluctantly), but with little to no integration of family into the work domain; 3) those who integrated family into work, but kept work from intruding into their personal lives; and 4) those who experienced work and family as one synergistic whole in terms of thoughts, behavior, and use of time and space.…”

The Articulation of Different Life Domains among Female Senior Managers and Their Subjective Well-Being: Focusing on Meaning Constructions in Everyday

“…Autonomy and flexibility are two features characterizing senior management positions, which have proved to reinforce this mechanism. Also, the significant progress of technology contributes to permeability across life domains with the use of smartphones, computers, tablets, etc., especially among populations who have a privileged access to these supports, such as those who work in senior management positions (Kossek & Lautsch, 2012). However, these women are led to set boundaries to preserve themselves from professional or family demands.…”