Work from home: understanding boundary management profiles using boundary-fit perspective

Abstract

Purpose The recent COVID-19 pandemic has (triggered) lots of interest in work from home (WFH) practices. Many organizations in India are changing their work practices and adopting new models of getting the work done. The purpose of the study to look at the boundary-fit perspective (Ammons (2013) and two factors, namely, individual preferences (boundary control, family identity, work identity and technology stress) and environmental factors (job control, supervisor support and organizational policies). These dimensions are used and considered to create various clusters for employees working from home. Design/methodology/approach K-mean clustering was used to do the cluster analysis. Statistical package for social sciences 23 was used to explore different clusters based on a pattern of characteristics unique to that cluster, but each cluster differed from other clusters. Further analysis of variance test was conducted to see how these clusters differ across three chosen outcomes, namely, work-family conflict, boundary management tactics used and positive family-to-work spillover effect. The post hoc test also provided insights on how each cluster differs from others on these outcomes. Findings The results indicated four distinct clusters named boundary-fit family guardians, work warriors, boundary-fit fusion lovers and dividers consistent (with previous) research. These clusters also differ across at least two major outcomes like boundary management tactics and positive spillover. The high control cluster profiles like Cluster 3 (boundary-fit fusion lovers) and Cluster 4 (dividers) showed low technostress and higher use of boundary management tactics. Cluster 3 (boundary-fit fusion lovers) and Cluster 1 (boundary-fit family guardians) having high environmental influencers also showed higher positive family-to-work spillover. Research limitations/implications Because this study is very specific to the Indian context, a broad generalization requires further exploration in other cultural contexts. The absence of this exploration is one of the limitations of this study. On the culture continuum, countries may vary from being individualistic on one extreme to being collectivistic on the other extreme. Interaction of these two cultural extremities with the individual and the environmental dimension, as espoused in this research, can be examined further in a different cultural setting. Originality/value This study has extended the work of Ammons (2013) and added external influencers as a dimension to the individual preferences given by (Kossek 2016), and created the cluster for employees in the Indian context. This study has demonstrated the importance of reduced technostress, and the use of boundary management tactics (temporal and behavioral) leads to positive family-to-work spillover. It has also emphasized the relevance of organization policies and supervisor support for better outcomes in WFH.

The work-family interface and the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review

“…One of the lockdown’s consequences was the involuntary integration of work, family, and other systems ( Andrade and Fernandes, 2021 ; Niu et al, 2021 ), mainly by the absence of spatial and temporal boundaries ( Otonkorpi-Lehtoranta et al, 2021 ). Thus, individuals had to use strategies to manage the boundary loss ( Wang et al, 2020 ; Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004 ; Chenji and Raghavendra, 2021 ; Kashive et al, 2021 ; Otonkorpi-Lehtoranta et al, 2021 ).…”

“… Kashive et al (2021) , with the goal to cross the boundary fit-perspective ( Ammons, 2013 ) with individual preferences and environmental variables, found four clusters that allow for a better understanding of remote workers during COVID-19. Interestingly, Kashive et al (2021) clusters were in line with Kossek et al (2012) , Ammons (2013) , and Kossek (2016) pre-COVID-19 clusters. The four clusters were boundary-fit family guardians, work warriors, boundary-fit fusion lovers, and dividers ( Kashive et al, 2021 ).…”

“…The four clusters were boundary-fit family guardians, work warriors, boundary-fit fusion lovers, and dividers ( Kashive et al, 2021 ). Depending on the profiles, the control over work-family boundaries was perceived differently ( Kashive et al, 2021 ). Hence, boundary-fit guardians and work warriors perceived low control over work-family boundaries, while boundary-fit fusion lovers and dividers perceived high control over work-family boundaries ( Kashive et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Thus, individuals had to find ways to detach work from family ( Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004 ). Boundary-fit fusion lovers applied boundary management tactics more easily than the other three clusters (dividers, boundary-fit family guardians, and work warriors) ( Kashive et al, 2021 ). Likewise, four types of segmentation strategies were applied: temporal (most used one) ( Kashive et al, 2021 ; Rai et al, 2021 ; Soubelet-Fagoaga et al, 2021 ), physical ( Kashive et al, 2021 ; Rai et al, 2021 ), behavioural ( Kashive et al, 2021 ; Rai et al, 2021 ), and communicative (less used one) ( Kashive et al, 2021 ; Rai et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Among the clusters found by Kashive et al (2021) , boundary-fit family guardians and boundary fit-fusion lovers were the most permeable to supervisor support, organisation policies, and perceived control over when, how, and where their work will be done ( Kashive et al, 2021 ).…”