Work-Life Flexibility Policies From a Boundary Control and Implementation Perspective: A Review and Research Framework

Abstract

Although management research on work-life flexibility policies has occurred for over 40 years, it is underdeveloped with inconsistent results. We argue that this is due to theorizing that—but not measuring whether—policy use increases boundary control; a fragmented literature examining a range of policies (either individually or bundled) without comprehensive integration; and an under-examination of policy implementation effectiveness. Drawing on boundary theory, we inductively review 338 studies to organize the work–life flexibility policy literature around a boundary control and implementation framework. Our framework derives a taxonomy of types of boundary control, identifies implementation stages, considers the importance of policy bundling, and incorporates multi-level (individual, group, organizational, societal) and multi-domain (family, work) dynamics. Our review shows that the current literature often assesses the availability of single policies and individual outcomes; but under-assesses boundary control, extent of use, bundling, implementation, and multi-level outcomes. Our results provide a springboard for future research and practice by offering new insights for understanding work–life flexibility policies, encouraging scholars to: (1) recognize the crucial role of different types of employee boundary control (spatial, size, temporal, permeability, continuity) as an inherent element of policy experiences that must be measured rather than merely assumed; (2) examine how work–life flexibility policy implementation involves four implementation stages—availability, access experiences (including enablers and barriers), use, and outcomes—with multiple stakeholders (e.g., individual employees, supervisors, coworkers, family) and contextual factors (i.e., societal forces); and (3) innovate ways to examine emergent policy issues such as equality, home implementation, and hybrid forms.

Inter‐domain role transitions and work‐family life balance: The mediating effect of integration and segmentation preferences

“…In other words, it was found that the work domain segmentation preference and work domain integration preference do not exert any mediating effect between work-to-family role transitions and work-family balance. These results contradict the findings of Kossek et al (2005) and Matthews et al (2010), who found a positive and significant relationship between work-to-family role transitions and work-family life conflict (or, otherwise stated, a negative relationship between work-to-family role transitions and work-family life balance). The work-family life conflict refers to the absence of balance between work and family life, that is, as the conflict increases, the balance between these roles decreases (Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007).…”

“…Given that an individual's role transition strategy is determined by both individual differences and the work context (Kossek et al, 2005), several researchers have examined how an individual's work and personal life characteristics increase or limit their ability to activate their preferred strategies in role transitions (e.g., Ashforth et al, 2000;Kreiner, 2006;Rothbard et al, 2005, cited by Methot & LePine, 2016.…”

Making Flexibility More I-Deal: Advancing Work-Life Equality Collectively

“…For example, Liao et al (2016) found in their meta-analysis that access to different quantitative measures of i-deals such as content (flexibility, task or career) tend to be correlated. Similarly, different forms of flexibility often occur together (Kossek, Perrigino, & Lautsch, 2021) and can be leveraged for synergies. For example, employees who work from home may also be able to alter their working hours.…”

Advancing work–life supportive contexts for the “haves” and “have nots”: Integrating supervisor training with work–life flexibility to impact exhaustion or engagement

“…Work–life flexibility—the ability to manage where (boundaries) and when (schedules) one works—is considered “a valued resource that provides employees with the control and autonomy needed to adapt to simultaneous work and family demands” (p. 349; Allen et al, 2013; Kossek, Perrigino, & Lautsch, 2023). Despite the recognition of the importance of work–life flexibility for employee well‐being and engagement, there are key dilemmas that plague the successful implementation of flexible work arrangements within organizations.…”

“…Drawing from research on work–life flexibility and job demands‐resources (JDR) theory (Bakker et al, 2023), we conceptualize access to work–life flexibility as a resource that enables one to more effectively manage demands in both work and home roles (Allen et al, 2013; Kossek, Perrigino, & Lautsch, 2023), which in turn should promote employee well‐being (i.e., reduce burnout, enhance engagement). Yet, we suggest that these linkages are contingent upon a work–life supportive context (Allen, 2001; de Sivatte & Guadamillas, 2013), which is induced by training supervisors in the use and support of work–life flexibility.…”