Work-Life Boundaries and Well-Being: Does Work-to-Life Integration Impair Well-Being through Lack of Recovery?

Abstract

Against the backdrop of increasingly blurred boundaries between work and nonwork, the purpose of this study was to investigate the implications of employees' work-to-life boundary enactment for well-being. Using border/boundary theory (as reported by Ashforth, Kreiner, Fugate (Academy of Management Review 25(3):472-491, 2000) and Clark (Human Relations 54(6):747-770, 2000)) and the effort-recovery model (as reported by Meijman Mulder (Handbook of work and organizational psychology vol. 2 55-53, 1998)), we developed a research model that links work-to-life integration enactment to exhaustion and impaired work-life balance via lack of recovery activities (as reported by Sonnentag, Journal of Applied Psychology 88(3):518-528, 2003). The model was tested using structural equation modeling. Our sample consisted of N = 1916 employees who were recruited via an online panel service. Results showed that employees who scored high on work-to-life integration enactment reported less recovery activities and in turn were more exhausted and experienced less work-life balance. Our study contributes to the existing literature on boundary management by investigating the well-being implications of work-tolife boundary enactment and by suggesting and testing recovery as an underlying mechanism. In doing so, we link boundary enactment with existing theory of the work-life interface. Based on our review of existent research on boundary management and well-being, we disentangle previous contradictory findings. Understanding of the well-being implications of boundary enactment and underlying mechanisms can help human resource professionals and practitioners to devise and implement organizational policies and interventions that enable employees to develop boundary management strategies that are sustainable in that they do not impair employees' well-being.

Workplace telepressure and work–life balance outcomes: The role of work recovery experiences

“…For example, in a daily diary design examining a group of construction workers over 21 consecutive weeks, work–life evaluations related to conflict and enrichment were significantly predicted by recovery opportunities across time (Lingard, Francis, & Turner, ). Another study also found that recovery activities also predicted overall satisfaction with work–life balance (Wepfer, Allen, Brauchli, Jenny, & Bauer, ). There is also some evidence that workplace telepressure may infringe on opportunities employees have to recover, and those who report higher levels of workplace telepressure also report less psychological detachment from work (i.e., mental distance from work‐related thoughts; Barber & Santuzzi, ; Santuzzi & Barber, ).…”

“…Another study also found that recovery activities also predicted overall satisfaction with work-life balance (Wepfer, Allen, Brauchli, Jenny, & Bauer, 2018). There is also some evidence that workplace telepressure may infringe on opportunities employees have to recover, and those who report higher levels of workplace telepressure also report less psychological detachment from work (i.e., mental distance from workrelated thoughts; Barber & Santuzzi, 2015;Santuzzi & Barber, 2018).…”

Understanding Employee Motivation for Work-to-Nonwork Integration Behavior: a Reasoned Action Approach

“…A growing research body has dealt with potential implications of increased work-to-nonwork integration for employee health and well-being, yet findings remain inconclusive (Allen, Cho, & Meier, 2014;Rothbard & Ollier-Malaterre, 2016): While work-to-nonwork integration allows for positive spillover and enrichment (e.g., Powell & Greenhaus, 2010), work-to-nonwork integration also facilitates negative spillover and conflict (e.g., Hecht & Allen, 2009;Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy, & Hannum, 2012;Powell & Greenhaus, 2010;Wepfer, Allen, Brauchli, Jenny, & Bauer, 2018).…”

Дискурс Баланса Жизни И Труда В Академии

“…Происходит радикализация теории границ: размывание разделения сфер труда и личной жизни ведет не только к конфликту, но и к посягательству академии на частную жизнь, подавлению личных интересов «эксплуататорской академи ческой средой» [Hampson et al, 2014]. Более подробно раскрываются условия функционирования границ, восприятие которых может меняться в зависимости от направления: от работы к неработе и от неработы к работе [Wepfer et al, 2018].В рамках второго поколения исследований теория границ дополняется теорией ролевых конфликтов [Hampson, 2018;Beigi et al, 2016], обогащения [NealeMcFall et al, 2018], гендерных различий [Toffoletti, Starr, 2016;Smidt et al, 2017], технологизации и инновационности [Wepfer et al, 2018;. Также активно развивается интерсекциональный подход при изучении баланса жизни и труда в академии [Haskins et al, 2016;Beigi et al, 2016].…”

“…В условиях сжатого академического времени баланс жизни и труда освещается с позиции охраны личного времени [Albright, Petrulis, 2007]. Дискурс баланса жизни и труда в академиях сводится к функционированию семьи [Hawkins et al, 2014;Hermann et al, 2014;Beigi et al, 2016;McCutcheon, Morrison, 2016] и индивидуальному благополучию [Perrakis, Martinez, 2012;Levin et al, 2017;Young et al, 2017;Wepfer et al, 2018], а также первостепенно лежит в области женского индивидуального карьерного выбора [Mavriplis et al, 2010;Hermann et al, 2014;Beddoes, Pawley, 2014;Waljee et al, 2015;Rohde et al, 2016;Baader et al, 2017], который не всегда оказывается личным и сопрягается с социальными ожиданиями, приоритетом карьеры партнера [Beddoes, Pawley, 2014]. Лимитирование амбици озности женщин подкрепляется конструкцией укорененных условий, построенных на системе социокультурных стереотипов (на женщину возлагается ответственность за благополучие семьи), тогда как для мужчин действует иной конструкт -выбор, независимая расстановка приоритетов [Smidt et al, 2017].…”