Work-Life Balance: The Good and the Bad of Boundary Management

Abstract

Work-life balance is an important issue in today's world and the different strategies used by people to manage their work and their personal life can have a great impact. Two studies were conducted (study 1: n = 117; study 2: n = 293) to examine how boundary segmentation preferences (studies 1 & 2) and boundary integration strategies (study 2) affect work-family conflict and enrichment. Results from structural equation modeling partly confirmed the hypothetical model in both studies. Study 1 showed that work-home segmentation preference negatively predicted work-family enrichment, while home-work segmentation preference negatively predicted family-work enrichment. Study 2 provided similar results, as it showed that work-home segmentation preference negatively predicted work-family enrichment. It also showed that work-home segmentation preference positively predicted work-family conflict and home-work segmentation preference positively predicted work-family enrichment, while work-life integration strategy positively predicted work-family conflict, family-work conflict, work-family enrichment and family-work enrichment. No significant relationship was found between life-work integration strategy and any of the dependent variables. Findings from these studies highlight the importance of using appropriate boundary management strategies in order to promote a better work-life balance. They also enhance current knowledge related to boundary management and work-life balance by examining relationships with work-family enrichment.

Work‐family spillover of satisfaction: The moderating role of domain boundary strength and identity salience

“…We looked at how boundary strength affects satisfaction spillover and found marginally significant support for the role of work boundary strength in limiting satisfaction spillover from family to work, but no support for the role of home boundary strength in limiting the spillover from work to family. This result contradicts the findings of a study by Leduc et al (2016), which showed that preference for integrating work into nonwork life is related to work‐to‐family enrichment, but that preference for integrating nonwork life into work is not related to family‐to‐work enrichment. The discrepancy between our findings and those of past studies reinforces the importance of relying on specific constructs associated with work and family to examine real spillover effects, rather than direct self‐reports of perceived positive spillover, as suggested by ten Brummelhuis and Bakker (2012).…”

“…The discrepancy between our findings and those of past studies reinforces the importance of relying on specific constructs associated with work and family to examine real spillover effects, rather than direct self‐reports of perceived positive spillover, as suggested by ten Brummelhuis and Bakker (2012). Additionally, we focused on actual boundary strength, rather than boundary strength preferences (as in Leduc et al, 2016) or environment‐dependent availability , because it is the enacted boundary strength that is most likely to influence work‐family spillover (Allen et al, 2014). The limiting role of work boundary strength goes beyond previous studies that mainly positioned boundary strength in terms of the positive consequences of segmenting work and personal life (Althammer et al, 2021).…”

“…Other cross‐sectional studies support the moderating role of boundary strength by considering direct self‐reports of positive spillover. For instance, a positive relationship was found between preference for home permeability and work‐to‐family enrichment (Daniel & Sonnentag, 2016; Leduc et al, 2016), while work permeability was positively linked to family‐to‐work positive affective spillover (Wright et al, 2015), but only with marginal statistical significance in another study (Leduc et al, 2016). Hyland and Prottas (2017) found, however, that work and home permeability were neither linked to work‐to‐home positive affective spillover nor to home‐to‐work positive affective spillover.…”

The association of work-related extended availability with recuperation, well-being, life domain balance and work: A meta-analysis

“…Another recommendation that has sometimes been made (e.g., Pauls et al, 2019) is to substitute WREA by a formal arrangement and compensate employees financially for their additional time in case they are needed to work during leisure time. However, evidence from on-call studies (e.g., Bamberg et al, 2012; Dettmers et al, 2016b; Lee et al, 2020) suggests that although a financial compensation for work during leisure time may be better in terms of fairness and appreciation, the effects on employee health do not seem to be less severe. On-call work is also associated with problems detaching from work (Dettmers et al, 2016b), reduced well-being (Bamberg et al, 2012; Lee et al, 2020) and sleep problems (Lee et al, 2020).…”

“…However, evidence from on-call studies (e.g., Bamberg et al, 2012; Dettmers et al, 2016b; Lee et al, 2020) suggests that although a financial compensation for work during leisure time may be better in terms of fairness and appreciation, the effects on employee health do not seem to be less severe. On-call work is also associated with problems detaching from work (Dettmers et al, 2016b), reduced well-being (Bamberg et al, 2012; Lee et al, 2020) and sleep problems (Lee et al, 2020).…”