balancing borders and bridges: negotiating the work-home interface

BALANCING BORDERS AND BRIDGES: NEGOTIATING THEWORK-HOME INTERFACE VIA BOUNDARY WORK TACTICS

GLEN E. KREINERThe Pennsylvania State University

ELAINE C. HOLLENSBEUniversity of Cincinnati

MATHEW L. SHEEPIllinois State University

We investigated how people manage boundaries to negotiate the demands betweenwork and home life. We discovered and classified four types of boundary work tactics(behavioral, temporal, physical, and communicative) that individuals utilized to helpcreate their ideal level and style of work-home segmentation or integration. We alsofound important differences between the generalized state of work-home conflict and“boundary violations,” which we define as behaviors, events, or episodes that eitherbreach or neglect the desired work-home boundary. We present a model based on twoqualitative studies that demonstrates how boundary work tactics reduce the negativeeffects of work-home challenges.

“Balance” between work and home lives is amuch sought after but rarely claimed state of being.Work-family researchers have successfully encour-aged organizations, families, and individuals torecognize the importance of tending to their needsfor balance. Over 30 years ago, Kanter (1977) spokeof the “myth of separate worlds” and called atten-tion to the reality that work and home are inexora-bly linked. Yet, she argued, organizations are oftenstructured in such a way that their leadership for-gets or ignores employees’ outside lives. Althoughorganizational leaders and managers generally tendmore to employees’ nonwork needs than they didwhen Kanter wrote her landmark work, struggles tobalance work and home demands are still common-

place in the modern organization (Kossek & Lam-bert, 2005; Poelmans, 2005a). Clearly, more isknown now about the interaction between workand home, yet significant knowledge gaps remain.Also, “the workplace” is no longer necessarily adiscrete physical location, a circumstance suggest-ing a need for understanding more complex work-home interactions. Today, technology has broughtprofound changes to the ways people work, withboundaryless organizations, virtual workspaces,and the potential for constant wireless connectionto one’s work.

What do scholars know so far about the interac-tion between work and home? Much of the atten-tion in this field over the past few decades hasfocused on documenting the clashes between workand home demands, with “work-family conflict”being a key operationalization of this tension. Over180 academic articles have been published onwork-family conflict using diverse samples fromover a dozen countries (MacDermid, 2005). Work-family conflict has been linked with such undesir-able outcomes as stress, turnover, absenteeism,burnout, and dissatisfaction with job, family, andlife (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Kreiner, 2006;Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002; Rice, Frone, &McFarlin, 1992). Recent work (e.g., Kreiner, 2006)has used the term “work-home conflict” (as op-posed to “work-family conflict”) to cast a wider netand include a broader array of individuals and lifecircumstances, and we adopt this later terminologyas well. We define work-home conflict as a subset

We express our gratitude to Blake Ashforth, Bill Crad-dock, Gay Jennings, and our colleagues at the Universityof Cincinnati and Penn State for their insights on thisproject. We are also indebted to AMJ editor Sara Rynesand our anonymous reviewers for their developmentalfeedback throughout the review process. We also thankour research participants, whose graciousness and gen-erosity with their time provided the bedrock for ourfindings. An earlier version of this work received the BestConference Paper Award from the AOM OrganizationalBehavior Division in 2006, and portions were presentedat the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrialand Organizational Psychology; we appreciate the feed-back received from our audience members at those pre-sentations. This project was funded in part by TheCREDO Institute, Inc.

� Academy of Management Journal2009, Vol. 52, No. 4, 704–730.

704

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s expresswritten permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only.

of role conflict (Van Sell, Brief, & Schuler, 1981)and as a generalized state of tension that resultsfrom incompatible expectations and challenges as-sociated with work and home.

We agree with previous researchers that studyingthis conflict is important. Yet researching this out-come alone can take the field only so far towardunderstanding achieving balance. As Stroh noted,“While we now better understand the problemssurrounding work-life integration, we are far fromproviding the necessary solutions to create a senseof work-life equilibrium” (2005: xvii). Hence, wemust better understand how organizations and in-dividuals adapt to and manage these conflicts.However, to date, research looking for solutions hasfocused more on the organizational level ratherthan the individual level, with an emphasis onstudying human resource policies (such as flex-time, family-friendly benefits, etc.) and other mac-rolevel variables (Stebbins, 2001). This researchhas been disappointing, showing very mixed re-sults and often a limited impact of policies onemployees’ lives (Kossek & Lambert, 2005). Recentwork has therefore begun to refocus attention onindividual-level processes; flexibility enactmenttheory (Kossek, Lautsch, & Eaton, 2005) and deci-sion process theory (Poelmans, 2005b) exemplifythis research trend. However, research on the work-home interface at the individual level tends to ex-amine stable and/or difficult-to-change variables,such as personality and demographic differences(see Byron [2005] and Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bor-deaux, and Brinley [2005] for reviews). A clearweakness of most of the approaches that study con-flict is that they do not offer actionable knowledgeor guidance to either the individuals or the manag-ers seeking to improve work-home balance or ame-liorate stress. Actionable knowledge allows indi-viduals “to make informed choices about practicalproblems and to implement solutions to them ef-fectively” (Cummings & Jones, 2003: 2). Clearly,individuals play a crucial role in affecting work-home outcomes; they are not mere automatons re-acting helplessly to the pressures around them.Hence, we sought to (1) better understand the chal-lenges associated with balancing work and homeand (2) explore what steps individuals take to im-prove their work-home balance, even amid less-than-ideal working conditions.

WORK AND HOME INTERFACE

With these broad goals in mind, we first re-searched numerous conceptualizations and theo-retical lenses regarding work-home balance. As it isbeyond the scope of this article to review them all,

we refer the reader to some recent, thorough com-pendia and literature reviews (e.g., Eby, Casper,Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; Frone, 2003;Kossek & Lambert, 2005; Parasuraman & Green-haus, 2002; Poelmans, 2005a.) Given our concernwith unearthing actionable advice, we then de-cided to follow the stream of research that framesthe work-home interface as a “socially constructed”boundary between the life domains of work andhome. This approach offered considerable promise,as it identifies tactics individuals can utilize; itprovides actionable knowledge that can empowerindividuals by acknowledging the control theyhave over how they experience, interpret, andshape the world (Clark, 2000; Nippert-Eng, 1996).The social construction approach contrasts starklywith other work-home theories and approachesthat treat the individual as a passive reactor toenvironmental conditions. Instead, with the socialconstruction approach, the individual is an activeagent in the “co-construction” of boundaries in ne-gotiated interaction with others. One’s work-homeboundary, its features, and its ascribed meaningsare crafted as an ongoing, “situated” accomplish-ment, meaning they are negotiated and transformedthrough social interactions and practices amongvarious actors over time. Within the social con-struction tradition is a particularly useful lens forstudying work-home relations: boundary theory.

Boundary Theory

Boundary theory focuses on the ways in whichpeople create, maintain, or change boundaries inorder to simplify and classify the world aroundthem (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000). Boundarytheory has been applied in diverse contexts—in-cluding art, architecture, psychology, political sci-ence, organization theory, and anthropology—andhas been used successfully to answer a wide varietyof research questions, including those dealing withrole transitions (Ashforth et al., 2000); the healthi-ness of interpersonal relationships (Katherine,1991); and the interface between individual andorganizational identity (Kreiner, Hollensbe, &Sheep, 2006). In general, boundaries delimit theperimeter and scope of a given domain (e.g., a role,a country, a home, a workplace). Boundaries can beconstructed along a continuum from “thin” (weak)to “thick” (strong). Thin/weak boundaries are “per-meable” (open to influence) and “integrating”(prone to merging aspects of categories), whereasthick/strong boundaries are “impermeable” (closedto influence) and “segmenting” (prone to dividingaspects of categories) (Ashforth et al., 2000; Hart-mann, 1991).

2009 705Kreiner, Hollensbe, and Sheep

In her landmark study on work-home relations,Nippert-Eng (1996) outlined how boundary theorycan provide a lens for understanding the interfacebetween work and home. She used work and homeas examples of domains that can be treated as inte-grated or segmented to varying degrees. Sinceboundaries are co-constructed accomplishments,how individuals perceive their work-home bound-ary vis-a-vis others’ perceptions of those bound-aries can be critically important. In addition toindividuals framing boundaries differently, collec-tives can develop shared norms about the perme-ability of given domains (Kreiner et al., 2006). Forexample, families and workplaces vary in the de-gree to which they treat the work-home boundaryas permeable or impermeable. Specific ways inwhich workplaces manifest their values regardingwork-home boundaries are through programs andpolicies that allow employees to negotiate theseboundaries more fluidly (Rothbard, Phillips, & Du-mas, 2005). So-called family-friendly programs andbenefits are of growing interest and importance inhuman resource management, and the available datashow an expansion of these practices over the pastseveral years, despite mixed results as to whetherthey improve work-home balance (Kossek & Lambert,2005; Osterman, 1995).

Once boundaries are socially shared, they canbecome institutionalized to the point that they arevery difficult to change or erase (Zerubavel, 1991).Further, work and home cultures can create strongexpectations about rules, attitudes, and behaviorsthat are often quite different from one another (Clark,2000). When these cultures are perceived as contrast-ing, their members (“cultural members”) tend to con-struct a psychological boundary that exacerbates tran-sitions between them (Ashforth et al., 2000). Theinteraction, strife, and negotiation at this boundarythen become useful phenomena to examine. Wesought to examine these boundary conflicts and todocument ways that individuals manage the work-home boundary successfully, in response to conflict-ing demands in the workplace and at home.

Incongruence between Individualand Environment

What might be at the heart of these boundaryconflicts? We suggest that person-environment(P-E) fit (or “congruence”) theory provides an ex-cellent framework for understanding boundaryconflicts because it sets the stage for viewingboundaries as sites of ongoing negotiation. Exam-ining congruence and incongruence helps one tounderstand the interaction between an individual’spreferences and his or her interpretations of the

environment. Much as Bouchikhi (1998) proposed,structural phenomena such as boundaries are boththe medium and outcome of interacting social pro-cesses between an individual and his or her envi-ronment (cf. Giddens, 1984). According to person-environment fit theory, congruence betweenindividual and situational variables yields gener-ally positive outcomes, such as satisfaction, andincongruence produces negative ones, such asstrain and conflict (Kulka, 1979).

Although work to date has advanced understand-ing of important criteria for improving work-homebalance, two other important areas remain unex-plored. First, what are the dimensions of incongru-ence for work-home boundaries? That is, with whatand whom can a person experience incongruencein regard to work-home boundaries? Previous workhas measured work-family congruence only at ahighly abstract level, asking general questionsabout fit preferences in regard to the workplace ingeneral instead of drilling down to various dimen-sions. A greater level of specificity would have im-portant implications for both research (e.g., a moredetailed and nuanced view of the congruence pro-cesses) and practice (e.g., helping individuals targetthe sources of problems). Hence, we desired to un-cover these components or aspects of incongruence.

The second unexplored area we wished to under-stand better involves the effects of work-home in-congruence. That is, how will incongruence in-crease conflict and reduce satisfaction? Althoughthe link between incongruence and conflict hasbeen established, little is known of the explanatorymechanisms linking the two. Previous research hasfocused on conflict, but we sought to explore addi-tional potential consequences of incongruence. Inother words, what important elements of the incon-gruence-conflict link might have gone heretoforeunrecognized, and how would understanding themshed light on work-family relations and potentiallyimprove outcomes? Our desire to address these twounexplored areas led us to our first two researchquestions:

Research Question 1. What are the dimensionsof work-home boundary incongruence?

Research Question 2a. What are the conse-quences of work-home boundary incongruencebeyond work-home conflict?

Research Question 2b. How do these conse-quences interrelate?

Boundary Work

Within the broader boundary theory arena, Nip-pert-Eng (1996) coined the term “boundary work”

706 AugustAcademy of Management Journal

to describe how individuals engage in the effort ofconstructing, dismantling, and maintaining thework-home border. This personal boundary workoccurs “within greater or lesser margins of discre-tionary territory, which are set by the people andsituations of work and home” (Nippert-Eng, 1996:152). Through her qualitative study of laboratoryworkers, Nippert-Eng documented the nature of in-dividuals’ boundary work and identified ways thatpeople segment or integrate their work and homelives. For example, she found that some individu-als, labeled “segmenters,” kept separate calendarsfor work and home activities and/or kept two dif-ferent key rings, one for each domain. These indi-viduals would rarely (if ever) bring elements of onedomain into the other. In contrast, “integrators”would put work and home activities on the samecalendar, have one set of keys for work and home,invite work friends home for dinner, keep familypictures on their desks at work, and so forth. Recentquantitative work has documented this variance inindividual preferences toward segmentation or in-tegration (Kreiner, 2006; Rothbard et al., 2005). Inthis study, we sought to extend these findings byuncovering, documenting, and classifying specificboundary work tactics. Further, we built on Kossek,Noe, and DeMarr’s (1999) admonition to examineboundary management strategies as part of work-home role synthesis. With this aim, we also fol-lowed recent calls to “focus more on ‘how’ and lesson ‘how much’” when studying work-home rela-tions (MacDermid, 2005: 36). In sum, we were in-terested in better understanding both the problemat hand and how individuals successfully navi-gated the work-home boundary. Our final researchquestions, then, were:

Research Question 3. What boundary work tac-tics do individuals employ to ameliorate thenegative consequences of work-home boundaryincongruence?

Research Question 4. What discernible patternsin these tactics can be observed and used tocreate a boundary work framework?

METHODS

This work is based on two qualitative studies.Qualitative research allows for more detailed ac-counts of the processes and nuances under inves-tigation. Few of the extant studies on work-familyrelations have used qualitative methods—approxi-mately 10 percent, according to Eby et al. (2005)—and recent research has called for the use of morequalitative and mixed methods to study the work-home interface (Neal, Hammer, & Morgan, 2006).

Sample

To better observe the process of boundary workand its nuances, we studied a population that facesongoing and particularly challenging boundarywork: Episcopal parish priests. Most Episcopalpriests are classified as “parish priests,” meaningthey work directly with a congregation of churchmembers. Because of the intense demands theiroccupation makes on their time, Episcopal priests,like clergy of many other faiths, represent a ratherextreme case of difficult work-home demands. Ex-treme cases are often tremendously helpful forbuilding or elaborating theory since their dynamicstend to be highly visible, bringing into sharper fo-cus the processes that can exist in other contexts(Eisenhardt, 1989; Pettigrew, 1990; Pratt, Rock-mann, & Kaufmann, 2006). As Yin (1989: 21) noted,the goal in studying extreme cases is to “expandand generalize theories (analytic generalization)and not to enumerate frequencies (statistical gener-alization)” (1989: 21). Our sample also has moretypical characteristics, promoting transferability offindings. For example, the vast majority of Episco-pal priests are married and live what many wouldconsider to be “traditional” family lives; hence,they experience many of the same work-home de-mands as the incumbents of most occupations. Par-ish priests also engage in many prototypical man-agerial activities, such as budgeting, hiring, firing,conducting meetings with stakeholders, and man-aging paid and volunteer staff. Further, the priestswe studied reported many similarities betweentheir work and that of other demanding occupa-tions (e.g., physician, lawyer, business owner), in-cluding the occupations they held prior tothe priesthood.

One of the members of our research team hadseveral years of previous research experience withEpiscopal clergy, providing us deep knowledgeabout the population as a starting point for ourproject. We also read numerous books and articleson the lives and careers of priests and clergy ofseveral denominations to further sensitize us to thepopulation we were studying. In addition, duringthe time of the research, all members of the re-search team attended and engaged in participantobservation at various conference and training ses-sions for Episcopal clergy, including leadershipmeetings, wellness conferences, and worship ser-vices (though none of the members of the researchteam is an Episcopalian). This background contextand ongoing inquiry, coupled with the two studiesdescribed below, yielded a multimethod approachto the project that helps to assuage the weaknesses


that can derive from relying exclusively on onesource of data (Alvesson, 2003).

Study 1

Study 1 was a preliminary study that spurred thedesign of Study 2 by offering insights into the pop-ulation and the work-home issues its membersfaced. For Study 1, we analyzed written responsesto open-ended questions obtained from 220 Epis-copal priests. These responses were collected aspart of a training program for the priests; questionsfor our study (dealing with the challenges and op-portunities of work-home balance) were includedin training evaluation materials. (The training wasnot related to work-home balance.) Each of theauthors read through all of the written responsesfrom the 220 respondents. We each independentlycoded these responses, using a coding scheme thatemerged over time, and placed portions of text (e.g.,a phrase, sentence, or paragraph) into broad codes.In some cases, these broad codes mirrored conceptsstudied in the organizational literature (e.g.,“stress,” “support,” and “role conflicts”), but inmany cases, codes matched the lexicon of thepriests (e.g., “problem parishioners,” “glass house,”and “being present”).

Our primary goal with Study 1 was to sensitizeus to work-family issues faced by the priest popu-lation in order to design Study 2 more thoroughly.The broad coding system we used allowed us tofind the major themes regarding work-life balancethat were important to respondents. From the anal-ysis of the written responses in Study 1, our knowl-edge of the population, and consideration of possi-ble divisions that we thought could best help usaddress our research questions, we determined twodimensions that appeared important in affectingrespondents’ attempts to negotiate work-homeboundaries: (1) tenure in the priesthood and (2)proximity of the home to church. Following theo-retical sampling methodology (Corbin & Strauss,2008), we were guided in this stratification (Study2) by our first wave of data (Study 1). Thus, thesample was stratified on the two dimensions to“maximize opportunities to discover variationsamong concepts” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998: 202). Tostudy tenure, which is one way to consider theeffects of time and temporal components on behav-ior and attitudes (McGrath, 1988), we created threeclassifications: 1–5 years, 6–19 years, and 20 yearsor more. In Study 1, many priests reported learningto appreciate boundaries more the longer they werein the priesthood. For example, one priest reportedbecoming “more intentional” over time aboutwork-home balance, and another noted learning

things “I wish I had learned years ago” about sep-arating work and home.

For proximity of home to church, we created twocategories: “on site,” for individuals living adjacentto or near the church (e.g., in a church-owned rec-tory), and “off site,” for individuals living at leasthalf a mile from the church in their own home.Boundary and privacy issues for priests living in arectory (which is generally adjacent to the churchor within a half mile of it) are often problematic(Hill, Darling, & Raimondi, 2003). This stratifica-tion allowed us to study a subpopulation thathighly intertwines the physical location of homeand work. Interestingly, this work arrangement isbecoming more popular, given a dramatic recentincrease in telecommuting, home-based busi-nesses, etc., a phenomenon that suggests furtherapplications for our work.

Responses from Study 1 also provided us with aninitial foundation for several themes to pursuemore closely in Study 2. Many of the questions inStudy 2’s protocol were derived from the interest-ing issues that arose during our analysis of Study 1responses. For example, in response to a Study 1question (“What does well-being mean to you?”),several priests mentioned “balance” or “bound-aries.” One priest noted he sought “a kind of bal-ance . . . the opportunity to be productive, to play. . . and for there to be a balance between my workand my profession and my relationship with myfamily, especially my spouse,” and another re-sponded, “I separate and have established bound-aries, . . . dress differently, live by day timer, re-view how many hours a week I work, do not bringwork home.” Therefore, in Study 2 we made bal-ance and boundaries a major theme of the ques-tions, asking priests about how they balanced de-mands and managed boundaries. Similarly, we codedthe following Study 1 text as “problem parishioners”:“When parishioners make really pissy remarks . . . Ihave to be quiet and listen. . . . And then, I go homeand say ‘Do you know what that JERK said to me?!’”From passages such as this, we were sensitized to therole that other people play in helping or hurting thework-home boundary and thus made that part of ourprotocol in Study 2.

Study 2

For Study 2, we conducted hour-long telephoneconversations with 60 Episcopal priests. Thepriests were randomly selected within the follow-ing parameters: 20 priests in each tenure group and30 priests in each home location group, creating atwo by three matrix with 10 priests in each cell.Forty percent of the priests in our sample were


women. Priests were distributed over U.S. loca-tions including urban, rural, and suburban commu-nities. Each author conducted one-third (20) of theinterviews and interviewed priests in each tenuregroup and location group. Interviews were semi-structured; we consistently asked approximately 15questions dealing with work-home balance and ca-reer background (in order to have a common base ofdata from all interviews), but each interviewer wasfree to pursue interesting comments and themes inmore detail (allowing for greater depth and individ-uality in each interview). Questions asked appearin the Appendix. Each interview was tape recordedand professionally transcribed verbatim. Tran-scripts had an average length of 20 single-spacedpages and totaled 1,175 pages from all 60interviews.

We used grounded theory techniques (Glaser &Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) in our anal-ysis. As Strauss and Corbin noted, grounded theoryand other qualitative methods “can be used to un-cover and understand what lies behind any phe-nomenon about which little is yet known. It can beused to gain novel and fresh slants on things aboutwhich quite a bit is already known” (1990: 19).Thus, we sought to expand what is known aboutthe work-home interface as well as to uncover newinsights into areas where research had largely beensilent. We began by creating an interview protocolthat was derived from the insights gained duringour previous research experience with the priestculture, the themes analyzed from Study 1, as wellas sensitivity to gaps in extant literature. Havingconducted a preliminary study, we did not assumea tabula rasa but used our previous learning toguide and build our protocol (Glaser & Strauss,1967). Essentially, we relied on an “orienting the-oretical perspective” to inform our understandingof the complex social reality of the clergy and work-home issues we were studying; as Locke pointedout, in grounded theory, an orienting theoreticalperspective “guides researchers in what theyshould pay attention to but does not focus researchso narrowly as to exclude data whose importancemay not be recognized at the outset of a project”(2002: 20). Therefore, although we approached oursetting with an orienting theoretical perspectiveand sensitizing research questions, we remainedopen to what our respondents were telling us, iter-atively adjusted our interpretations, and addedemergent codes as we analyzed their responses.This type of grounded theory approach, which“recognizes the mutual creation of knowledge bythe viewer and the viewed” (Charmaz, 2000: 510),has been used successfully in past research (e.g.,

Ashforth, Kreiner, Clark, & Fugate, 2007; Prattet al., 2006).

To analyze each interview, we used a two-stepcoding system, first deriving codes inductivelyfrom the interviews and ultimately agreeing uponthem. With coding, each word, sentence, para-graph, and passage is considered as a viable unit oftext—all or any of which can be coded. Codes areshort-hand terms (such as “planning,” “technol-ogy,” and “violations” in our study) that are used tocategorize units of texts. Upon creating a new code,to document its meaning and parameters we placedit into an emerging dictionary that built and took onstructure throughout the coding process. In the firststep, two of the three authors (the person who hadconducted the interview and one other author) readand independently coded each transcript. Eachcoder read the entire transcript, marking up words,sentences, paragraphs, and passages according tothe codes in the developing dictionary as well ascreating new codes to fit the emerging data. Multi-ple codes were placed on the same block of textwhen multiple phenomena were observed.

In the second step, we analyzed transcripts injoint coding meetings, wherein the independentcodes were compared and the final codes to be usedon each transcript were determined. Three scenar-ios could occur for any given text block: (1) bothcoders marked a certain code on the text; (2) onlyone coder marked a certain code on the text; (3) nocodes were placed on the text. In the second situ-ation, the individual who did not code the text witha certain code would reread the passage. If theindividual agreed, then the passage was markedaccordingly. If the person disagreed, a discussionabout the meaning of the text would ensue. Thenoncoding author served as a “judge” whenever thecoders wanted a third set of eyes to examine a textin order to aid in the final code assignment; in thesecases, the judge would read the passage in question(and often larger blocks of texts for context) andoffer an opinion on the appropriate codes. Thisdiscussion often produced rich opportunities fortheory building, as the disagreements would spurdialogue about the underlying issues facing the in-terviewees. Minor discrepancies (such as slightlyshorter or longer passages coded) were resolvedbetween the two coders; the role of judge alternatedat each joint coding session. The NVivo 2.0 soft-ware program was used to enter all codes, facilitatecoding links, perform text searches, and find in-stances and intersections of codes during analysis.

The coding dictionary evolved (e.g., new codeswere added; some codes were changed) throughoutthe data analysis process on the basis of iterativecomparisons between the newly analyzed and pre-


viously coded data (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), as wellas ongoing discussions among the research teammembers. As we analyzed new transcripts, wemerged a few codes that were found to overlapconceptually, and we subdivided others when wesaw distinctive patterns emerging. The nature ofthis coding process made traditional interrater re-liability tests impractical because new codesemerged and others were removed throughout theprocess; a full dictionary was not determined apriori. Yet our coding process ensured that multi-ple perspectives were offered on each transcript,which helped alleviate bias in the analysis. Aftercoding 52 interviews, we found no new codes toadd to the dictionary, indicating some evidence for“theoretical saturation,” the point at which “subse-quent data incidents that are examined provide nonew information” (Locke, 2001: 53). To move fromthe dictionary codes to the final categories (e.g., themultiple types of work-home boundary incongru-ence, the various categories of boundary work strat-egies, etc.) and the model presented here, duringdata analysis we engaged in ongoing comparisonsof emerging ideas from the data to identify themeswhile remaining mindful of how and what our datamight contribute to extant theory and vice versa,using each to inform interpretation of the other.

Although interrater reliability checking was notpossible, given the emergent nature of codes duringthe primary coding phase, we did engage in a sec-ondary coding process after theoretical saturationwas reached to test the fidelity of our final catego-ries. That is, we used secondary coding to deter-mine whether “the emergent categories fit the data”(Butterfield, Trevino, & Ball, 1996: 1484). Follow-ing Butterfield et al. (1996), we gave two doctoralstudents who were unfamiliar with the study adictionary of categories that had emerged in thestudy, along with passages of text from a represen-tative sample (43 percent) of our transcripts inwhich each of the categories was represented. Theywere instructed to write by each text passage thecategory (from the dictionary) they believed bestrepresented the passage. We calculated the overallpercentage of agreement between the two coderswas .96, well above the minimal .70 threshold sug-gested (Cohen, 1960).

FINDINGS

In this section, we provide details about severalaspects of our findings, including boundary incon-gruence, the consequences of boundary incongru-ence, and the boundary work tactics that individu-als employ in response. We now present a briefsynopsis of our grounded model of work-home

boundary work, followed by the specific findingsrelated to major aspects of the model. In the model,which is presented in Figure 1, and in this Findingssection, we illustrate that (1) individual prefer-ences for work-home segmentation or integrationcombine with environmental influences (such aswork and home climates and other individual pref-erences) to create various dimensions of work-home boundary (in)congruence; (2) work-homeboundary incongruence leads to boundary viola-tions (episodes of breaching the preferred work-home boundary) and work-home conflict; (3)boundary violations also lead to work-home con-flict; and (4) individuals invoke boundary worktactics to reduce and manage incongruence, viola-tions, and conflict.

Work-Home Boundary Incongruence

Our first research question addresses potentialdimensions of work-home boundary incongruence.In this section, we demonstrate how individuals’preferences for work-home boundaries interactwith environmental influences to create variousdimensions of (in)congruence.

Individual’s work-home boundary preferencesand environmental influences. As mentioned, in-dividuals vary in their preferences for segmentingor integrating aspects of work and home (Edwards& Rothbard, 1999; Kreiner, 2006; Nippert-Eng,1996). “Segmenters” prefer to keep the two do-mains as separate as possible, creating and main-taining a boundary or “mental fence” (Zerubavel,1991); “integrators,” on the other hand, prefer tocombine elements of both domains, essentially re-moving boundaries between the two and blendingfacets of each. Of course, most individuals are not“pure types”—rather, their position on the contin-uum bounded by complete integration and com-plete segmentation depends on the particular cir-cumstances and individuals involved. An examplefrom our data of each preference follows:

[Integration preference] I feel like my life is my life.It doesn’t have compartments. It’s not separate. I’mclear about what my boundaries are, but . . . they arepretty permeable. My husband is very understand-ing that work is work. It’s not all that scheduled andpredictable. (priest 9-F)1

1 Identifying numbers (1–60) are used for each inter-viewee. Gender is denoted by “M” for “male” and “F” for“female.” Priests 1–20 are short-tenured; 21–40 are me-dium-tenured; and 41–60 are long-tenured. Priests 1–10,21–30, and 41–50 are on site (living in their church’s


[Segmenting preference] I kidded you when I saidthat we have a moat with alligators in it around therectory. But there is a certain sense that there is apsychological moat there. . . . I think because I’vebeen doing this long enough I know how to careabout people, but not let them run all over me. Ihave a good sense of boundaries. I always have.(priest 43-M)

Not only do individuals differ in their preferencefor integration or segmentation—there is also vari-ation in the degree to which workplaces, homes,and the individuals who populate them foster ei-ther an ideal or antagonistic environment for seg-mentation or integration (Kreiner, 2006; Nippert-Eng, 1996). Not all environmental influences help tocreate what the individuals perceive as the “right”level or type of segmentation (Edwards & Rothbard,1999; Rothbard et al., 2005). Hence, the combinationof individual preferences and environmental influ-ences will either match or not, a state we call work-home boundary (in)congruence.

Dimensions of work-home boundary (in)con-gruence. We define work-home boundary (in)con-gruence as a relatively stable state reflecting the

degree of mismatch between what an individualdesires regarding work-home segmentation/inte-gration and what the individual perceives he or sheis afforded by various aspects of the environment(e.g., other individuals or groups). We found fivedimensions of (in)congruence: family member, su-pervisor/superior, subordinates/staff, customers/clients, and occupation.

Person-family member congruence refers to thedegree of match between an individual’s boundarypreferences and boundaries as co-constructed byothers in the individual’s home domain. The levelof congruence or incongruence on this dimensioncould derive from relationships with children,spouses, partners, elderly parents, or others resid-ing in the home domain. Consider the followingexample, illustrating incongruence with children:

You know my kids call sometimes, but they arereally supposed to call their dad because he is moreflexible, and he can leave work if they need to bepicked up or something. . . . Sometimes I remind mykids it’s like being a lifeguard. You can talk to thelifeguard when they are not in the chair, but if thelifeguard is in the chair, you really can’t talk tothem. So sometimes I am just like, this is not a goodtime for what you want to talk to me about, andthere will be time to talk about it later. (priest 11-F)

rectory), and 11–20, 31–40, and 51–60 are off site (livingaway from the church).

FIGURE 1A Model of Work-Home Boundary Work

Work-HomeConflict

Boundary Work Tactics

• Behaviora l• Temp oral • Physical • Communicative Work-Home

Boundary (In)Congruence

Dimensions •Family members •Superiors •Subordinates •Clients•Occupation

P3

Work-Home Boundary Violations

• Intrusion • Distance

P4c

P1b

P1a, P2

P4a

P4b

Generalized Behavior/Event/Episode States

Individual’s Work-Home

Boundary Preferences

Environmental Work-Home

Boundary Influences

GeneralizedState


Person-superior congruence refers to the level ofcongruence between the boundary preferences ofan individual and the boundaries as co-constructedby his or her superior(s). As examples, some priestshad superiors (e.g., head rectors or bishops) who,because of their own inclinations toward integra-tion of work and home domains, expected thepriests working for them to do things that violatedthe priest’s work-home boundary preferences, suchas place his or her home phone number in theweekly bulletin; have his or her spouse attend allchurch and social functions; be available for ap-pointments even on days off; and rearrange his orher schedule at the whim of parishioners. Onepriest (13-M) noted of his superior, “He doesn’trespect [my] boundaries. . . . He doesn’t buy intoit. . . . He sees that as a sign of laziness more thananything.”

Conversely, some individuals were faced withsuperiors who preferred more segmentation of per-sonal and professional aspects of life. A womanwho, tellingly, disclosed to the interviewer that shehad been nursing her baby during our phone inter-view shared this vignette:

Right now, I’m carrying a baby with me everywhere.I went to a meeting at the bishop’s office yesterdaywith my three-month-old. On the one hand, I kind offelt unprofessional in doing that, but on the otherhand, I thought, well, if I can’t do this in the church,then there is something wrong with the church—just feeling a little self-conscious about having bothof those roles at the same time. I guess right nowbecause my baby is so young, I’m nursing him all thetime—literally nursing him in the bishop’s office orin my meetings with my rector, whatever. My rector,he’s older; he’s close to retirement. He’s not alwayscomfortable with that. He kind of like turns his headaway. He’s like, “Oh, excuse me.” I’m like, “No, it’sokay. You don’t have to. I’m not really showing anyskin here.” (5-F)

Person-subordinate congruence is found to thedegree that subordinates are able to help constructthe desired level of segmentation or integration be-tween work and home. One example of incongru-ence was given by a priest (42-M) who told us, “Myadministrative assistant . . . is always buzzing meabout this, that and the other thing . . . that he couldwrite up and wait until I get back to the office. . . .He’s the one most likely to interrupt me or annoyme at home.” Conversely, others reported that staffmembers were excellent “screens” or “firewalls”between the priest and others (such as needy pa-rishioners), thus helping to preserve boundaries asdesired.

Person-client congruence refers to the level ofcongruence between the preferences of an individ-

ual and those of whatever clientele is part of thatindividual’s occupation. A priest’s “customers” orclientele are parishioners, and several of our inter-viewees told stories of parishioners expecting thepriest to be available constantly (even during vaca-tions) for all situations, whether emergencies ornot. One respondent noted, “There have been timeswhen people have said, ‘You really should be avail-able 24/7. I don’t understand why you are not.’ Ijust say, ‘The idea is to have a life that includes ajob rather than a job that is your life.’ It’s part ofpolicing the boundaries” (priest 48-M). Conversely,at other times stakeholders requested more segmen-tation than a priest desired. Priest 21-F told us thather church vestry had recently informed her thather “two-year-old was not welcome in church,that she was disruptive. . . . She’s the only kid un-der seven [in the parish].”2 The consequence of thishighly segmenting action by the vestry was that thepriest could no longer bring her child to her ownsermons; either her husband or a babysitter had totend the child. She noted, “It hit so many levelsthat it has been reverberating in the marriage.”

Of course, not all stories were of incongruence.Several interviewees noted that finding a congrega-tion whose members shared their desired level ofboundary segmentation was a welcome relief. Onepriest told us this story of when she was interview-ing for the job of rector at a new parish:

When I was interviewing, my two-year-old gotdeathly ill with croup and had to be hospitalizeddown here. I just ended the interview. I just said,“Good-bye, I’m now a mom.” I thought that was theend of my career in this parish because I just sodefinitely said, “I can’t talk to you anymore. I reallyhave to see what is happening with my daughter.”They were really wonderful. They were very eagerto make it work. When I would say to them, after wegot down here, “I thought that you would never callme after that, that it was sort of the exhibition ofyour worst fears about calling a woman with smallchildren.” They said, “No, it was really clear to usthat you had your priorities in order.” (priest 38-F)

Person-occupation congruence, or occupationalfit is, of course, an established construct in organ-izational behavior. Desirable outcomes, such as sat-isfaction, have been linked to the correspondencebetween individual preferences about an occupa-tion and the degree to which aspects of those pref-erences are manifest in the occupation (Converse,

2 Vestries, the governing bodies of parishes, hold con-siderable power regarding operational and financial de-cisions; vestry meetings often involve heated debates andare described as often taxing.


Oswald, Gillespie, Field, & Bizot, 2004). As aremany occupations, particularly professional ones,the priesthood is replete with role expectations anddemands that others in the profession place uponincumbents. These demands can be congruent orincongruent to varying degrees with the individu-als’ preferences for work-home segmentation. Ourinterviewees consistently noted that the priesthoodas an occupation makes work-home demands thatare greater than the average, which often createswork-home boundary incongruence. As one priest(28-M) noted, “The priesthood is unique becauseyou stand up in front of an altar and in front of Godon two separate occasions, and you promise you’llput this thing first in your life: one is when youare married and one is when you are ordained.”Hence individuals can find greater or lesser de-grees of work-home segmentation fit from varyingoccupations.

Consequences of Work-HomeBoundary Incongruence

With our second research question, we sought tounderstand the consequences of work-home bound-ary incongruence and the relationship among theseconsequences. In this section, we discuss two suchconsequences: boundary violations and work-homeconflict.

Work-home boundary violations. In psychol-ogy, the term “boundary violation” historically hasreferred to inappropriate behavior in such contextsas the psychiatrist-patient relationship (e.g., a psy-chologist having sexual relations with a client).However, the notion of boundary violation hasmore recently been used in the boundary theoryliterature to also refer to instances in which aboundary is not treated in the way an individualprefers. For example, Katherine (1991) and Kreineret al. (2006) distinguished between “intrusion” and“distance” violations. Intrusion violations consistof one’s boundaries being breached, whereas dis-tance violations result from creating too much dis-tance between entities (e.g., people, domains). Wefound a similar pattern of boundary violations inour sample, but with specific regard to the work-home boundary. That is, we found clear differencesbetween the generalized, ongoing state of work-home conflict and stories from interviewees ofevents or episodes that violated the work-homeboundary in some particular way. We therefore in-troduce the term work-home boundary violationand define it as an individual’s perception that abehavior, event, or episode either breaches or ne-glects an important facet of the desired work-homeboundary.

As implied in our definition, we found that theseviolations could be manifest in two ways. The first,and perhaps more obvious, is “intrusion,” whichoccurs when the individual desires segmentationbut the violation forces an integration (Hill, Dar-ling, & Raimondi, 2003). This kind of violation“punctures” the boundary, although usually tem-porarily. Examples from our data include phonecalls or visits to a priest’s home that were eitherunwanted or made at inappropriate times; ques-tions that were overly personal or probed toodeeply into the priest’s family life; brief periodsthat temporarily placed extraordinary demands onthe individual (such as Holy Week); job relocationsthat forced drastic changes in family life; and idio-syncratic but extreme expectations about availabil-ity for work. Boundary violations also occur whenan individual is simply unable to prevent un-wanted spillover from one domain to another. Thiscan take many forms, including negative emotionsand physical exhaustion. Essentially, the “intru-sion” boundary violation creates more integrationthan is desired. The following quote from an assis-tant rector demonstrates how the rector (his super-visor) violated the priest’s desired work-homeboundary:

There was a day where [the rector] wanted to meetwith the new director of Christian education andtalk about this fall. She came in and I wasn’t going tocome in because I was on vacation. I didn’t tell himthat I was going to be here [in town during a vaca-tion]. I just wanted him to think that I was away.Then he said something that made me just slip, Iguess, and say, “Well, oh yeah, I will be here”; andhe went, “You are going to be in town? Well thenyou can come in.” Then he said, “You never tell mewhen you are going to be in town if you are going tobe in town because I will call you and have you dosomething even when you are off.” He does that.(priest 13-M)

The second kind of violation, which we label“distance,” occurs when an individual desires in-tegration, but segmentation is forced. Clergy mem-bers are particularly susceptible to this phenome-non, given that they are “put on this pedestal ofinvincibility . . . [that] also leaves them feelinglonely and isolated” (Hill, Darling, & Raimondi,2003: 157). One priest told us, “I’ve seen this . . .over and over again when I was single in my lastparish. I remember the first Sunday, they had a nicereception for me after the service and everything.Then everybody went home and had lunch. It neveroccurred to them that this is a single person; shedoesn’t have anybody to have lunch with; weshould invite her to lunch. I was talking with afriend of mine. . . . He said, ‘Well, you have to tell


them. They won’t know.’” In this instance the vio-lation involved parishioners creating too much“space” between the work and home domains forthe priest.

Work-home conflict. Recall that work-home con-flict is a generalized state and a subset of role con-flict that results from the incompatibilities betweenrole expectations and the consequences of suchincompatibilities. While work-home conflict is anexisting construct, we found two interesting nu-ances in our data: occupational demands and cy-clical intensity. Many of our interviewees pointedto particular structural components of the priest-hood as placing unusually high demands on indi-viduals. These demands are not unlike those expe-rienced by many other individuals who see theirjobs as callings. As one interviewee (priest 28-M)noted, “I also feel that tension between work andfamily. Probably anybody who has figured out whattheir real calling in life is has experienced a similartension.” In addition, the experience of work-homeconflict often followed cycles of intensity, withmore conflict being experienced during certain pe-riods of the year, such as Easter or Christmas.

Our data also clearly suggest a linkage betweenwork-home boundary incongruence and work-home conflict. For example, one priest told us howit was difficult living in church-owned housingbecause, inevitably, there would be discrepanciesbetween family and parish expectations. She com-mented that because the church paid for the utilitybills, she and her husband would constantly worry:“Is the heat turned up too high or is the air condi-tioning on too long?” She also noted, “This churchreally loves its property and flowers and cares forits property just lovingly and beautifully. Neithermy husband nor I are gardeners or good peoplewith flowers. I’ve lived in fear of killing every bushon the property—them burning me at the stake afterI leave because I’ve destroyed their [place]” (priest14-F). Here, the incongruence between the priestand the parishioners is associated with a more gen-eralized state of ongoing tension or conflict.

The preceding discussion leads us to the follow-ing two propositions:

Proposition 1. As incongruence increases, (a)boundary violations increase and (b) work-home conflict increases.

Proposition 2. Incongruence is related to viola-tions in such a way that (a) when incongruencereflects an individual desiring greater segmen-tation, intrusion violations are perceived moreoften than distance violations, whereas (b)when incongruence reflects an individual de-siring greater integration, distance violations

are perceived more often than intrusionviolations.

Linking boundary violations to work-home con-flict. We argue that boundary violations and work-home conflict are not independent, but rather, thatan increase in boundary violations can lead to in-creased work-home conflict. Violations of the pre-ferred level of segmentation can serve as repeated,poignant reminders of a generalized state of con-flict, rubbing salt on the proverbial wound. Hence,the salience of the conflict increases with repeatedviolations. In the following example of this linkage,the continuing threat of interruption while on va-cation is increased with, and the conflict mademore salient by, actual calls back to reality:

It’s funny for vacations, every vacation time that I’vegone away for so far this year, I’ve gotten called backfor a funeral. Like, I’m supposed to leave for vaca-tion tomorrow. Somebody died earlier this week, soI leave tomorrow and then I’ll drive back tomorrownight, do a funeral on Saturday and then go back onvacation. This summer has been vacations inter-rupted. I return from vacation; I’ve got a weddingthat weekend—the weekend that I return. So it’s likeI’m boxed in on both sides. I can’t help the sched-uling. It’s been actually that way for each of thethree different weeks that we have gone away onvacation—called back for a funeral and then comeback to a wedding. It’s hard. (priest 16-M)

The following example illustrates how the effectsof a particular event (a vestry meeting) go far be-yond the event itself and into a longer-lasting state:

Respondent: Sometimes when I come home fromvestry meetings, I will be so depressed. Please, yousaid this was all confidential.

Interviewer: It surely is. Definitely.

Respondent: I’ll be so depressed. I’ll come home. I’llhave a glass of wine. I’ll get in bed and my wife willbe begging me to make love to her and I’ll just tellher, “No way. It is just not in the cards tonight. I’mnot able. I’m just too upset about what is happeningin the church.”

Interviewer: So there is some seepage or overflowfrom it?

Respondent: Oh, absolutely. (priest 12-M)

We believe that the teasing apart of violationsfrom conflict represents an important and fruitfulfinding, as it allows researchers to examine theconflict (general state) and the violations (specificevents) separately and thereby understand thework-home balance process more fully. This couldtranslate to a higher level of specificity in work-home research as well as more precise recommen-


dations. It is also important to note that not allboundary violations are created equal. We found awide range of both the intensity and the reportedfrequency of violations. For example, a phone callfrom a spouse or child while at work was typicallyframed as a minor violation with minimal impacton work-home conflict, whereas more severe viola-tions (e.g., a drunk parishioner in the priest’s livingroom) were more likely to affect the generalizedstate of conflict. Similarly, our interviewees variedin their descriptions of the frequency of violations,with increased frequency setting the stage for stron-ger conflict. Hence, we propose:

Proposition 3. Boundary violations influencethe relationship between incongruence andwork-home conflict in such a way that work-home conflict increases as (a) the frequency ofviolations increases and/or the (b) intensity ofviolations increases.

Boundary Work Tactics

Are the negative effects of work-home boundaryincongruence cast in stone? Are individuals merelypassive recipients of the less-than-ideal conditionsof incongruence? We suspected not. However, pre-vious research on fit and work-family relations hastaken a rather dire view of the effects of incongru-ence, with its focus on reduced satisfaction andincreased stress and conflict (e.g., Edwards & Roth-bard, 1999; Kreiner, 2006). Hence, as mentioned inour third research question, we sought to discoverhow individuals could respond to incongruence inpositive ways. We therefore asked interviewees todescribe what they did in response to work-homeproblems and challenges, and to provide examplesof any specific tactics that they found useful inameliorating the effects of these conflicts. Wefound that individuals enacted a wide variety ofboundary work tactics in response to incongruence,boundary violations, and conflict. These tactics arethe various “work-family decisions” (Greenhaus &Powell, 2006b) that individuals make to recalibratethe work-home boundary negotiation. Our datasuggest an interesting reciprocal relationship be-tween the challenges of work-home boundaries andthe tactics employed—namely, that the challengescued the need for the tactics, and that enactment ofthese tactics successfully reduced the challenges.

Through our grounded theory process, we docu-mented several distinct tactics. For our fourth re-search question, we sought to identify patterns oftactics to create a boundary work framework. Fourbroad tactic types emerged in our data: behavioral,temporal, physical, and communicative. Table 1

describes these four types and gives examples fromthe data. We found evidence of these types for thefull range of work-home boundary challenges.

Behavioral Tactics

Our interviewees engaged in social practices(which we have identified as behavioral tactics)to decrease work-home boundary incongruence,boundary violations, and work-home conflict. Thesebehavioral tactics underscored the negotiated andconstructed character of the work-home boundaryand included using other people, leveraging tech-nology, invoking triage, and allowing differentialpermeability. Each of these tactics is outlinedbelow.

Using other people. In addition to focusing onthe individual him-/herself, previous research hasargued that scholars must also examine how otherpeople affect an individual’s work-home boundarynegotiation. Specifically, Clark (2000) highlightedthe role of “border-keepers”—the other individualswho either help or hinder an employee’s attemptsat work-home balance, such as spouses, children,coworkers, and supervisors. Our interviewees fre-quently mentioned people in their lives whohelped them perform work-home boundary work.Recall that one priest (52-M) described staff mem-bers, who could answer phones, intercept in-officevisitors, and so forth, as a “firewall” against un-wanted intrusions. Another priest (23-M) told hisparish administrator not to call him on his day off“unless something is on fire or someone is bleedingfrom the temples.”

It’s important to note here that the “other people”being used are often the very people who comprisea portion of the work-home boundary environmen-tal influences. We therefore make an important dis-tinction: the tactic of using other people necessarilyconstitutes an active, conscious choice to somehowutilize the resource of another individual. As op-posed to earlier discussions of boundary influ-ences, which depict other people more passively,as merely available, this tactic illustrates how indi-viduals actually engage and use others strategi-cally.

Leveraging technology. Recent technologicaladvances have translated into new ways for thework and home domains to interact and into bothchallenges and opportunities for work-home bal-ance. On the one hand, being constantly availableto both work and family through technology canbreed work-home conflict and boundary violations(Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007); on the otherhand, technology can facilitate desired integrationand work-home balance (Valcour & Hunter, 2005).


TABLE 1Work-Home Boundary Work Tactics

Name Description Example Situations and Quotes

Behavioral tacticsUsing other people Utilizing the skills and

availability of otherindividuals who can helpwith the work-homeboundary (e.g., staff membersscreen calls)

“My wife is very good. She answers the phone and helps me to discernwhether or not it is an emergency. If it’s not, she takes a message; ifit’s my day off, for example. My church administrator, who takes allthe calls at the church, is very good about helping me keep myboundaries up. There are also three clergy on staff here so we are ableto share emergencies that come up. That is a great help.”

Leveragingtechnology

Using technology to facilitateboundary work (e.g.,voicemail, caller ID, e-mail)

“Well, I’ll tell you one thing that has really transformed our ability tokeep things separate and coordinated is a Palm Pilot. That’s muchbetter than a calendar. . . . That has really helped us.”

“Caller ID is a big help with the phone calls.”

Invoking triage Prioritizing seemingly urgentand important work andhome demands (e.g., pastoralemergency and childcareemergency)

“I try and sort out between what I have to do, and what I should do, andwhat I want to do. It is kind of a triage. You know, you have to dowhat you have to do. Then sometimes what you have to do is whatyou want to do, but not necessarily. Then eventually you can workdown to the stuff that you want to do. . . . Like tomorrow, my kids arein this big swim meet. I would love to be there for the swim meet. Iwas supposed to have a volunteer job at it. But, a long-time member ofour parish died, and we are going to have an enormous funeral with500 people. . . . So, there is just no question. . . . I wish I could be atthe swim meet, but I can’t. On the other hand, if it was an optionalsort of ‘Can you come in and do this on a Saturday?’ You know Iwould say, ‘You know, I have this big swim meet to go to. I’ll come in,in the afternoon.’”

Allowing differentialpermeability

Choosing which specific aspectsof work-home life will or willnot be permeable

“I try to leave the work, the emotional and spiritual side of the work,if at all possible, at the church. So the politics and all that, I try notto bring that home. The actual physical stuff of letters and sermonsand correspondence and newsletters and all that stuff, the office isjust too busy of a place to be creative and concentrate. So, I tend todo a lot of the creative work at the house, rather than in theoffice. . . . I try to build an emotional wall to not bring the baggageof the church or too much of it . . . but the actual physical workpart [is different].”

Temporal tacticsControlling work

timeManipulations of one’s regular

or sporadic plans (e.g.,banking time from home orwork domain to be used later,blocking off segments of time,deciding when to do variousaspects of work)

“The biggest thing was to try to have some flexibility about takingadvantage of being able to be home in the middle of the day, forperiods of time when there was nothing special going on in the churchbuilding. Then trading that for times when I was obligated to be in thechurch building that maybe didn’t fit in the pattern that I had keptbefore, of pretty much nine-to-five availability.”

“We always return phone calls, of course. We always respond, but it’snot always when the people want. When people need, yes. There is abig difference between what a person wants and what they actuallyneed.”

Finding respite Removing oneself from work-home demands for asignificant amount of time(e.g., vacations, getaways,retreats)

“I find that increasingly on my day off, I like to get out of town just tochange the optics. Home is a way that, even with policing theboundaries, the experience of home can sort of become contaminatedwith the spillover from work. I find that just on a regular basis it isgood to get away and go someplace else. When I get up in the morningand raise the shades in the bedroom, I’m looking across the parking lotat my office. I’d rather be looking at [a] river or something. Yeah, thereis some contamination there.”

“When I am away at my cabin, I am away and the boundary is there.”


Our study confirms this notion and provides sev-eral specific ways that this facilitation can occur iftechnology is actively managed. One priest told us,for example, that he takes his cell phone on vaca-tion in order to be accessible to parishioners (anintegration approach) but has his wife answer thephone to ascertain whether the call is importantenough to take (a segmentation approach, which

also shows “using other people,” the previouslymentioned tactic).

Several others in our sample mentioned using“caller ID” to screen calls during nonwork hoursand giving out their cell phone numbers to only aselect few. One respondent chose to have an an-swering machine (as opposed to voice mail) so thathe could listen to each message while it was being

TABLE 1Continued

Name Description Example Situations and Quotes

Physical tacticsAdapting physical

boundariesErecting or dismantling physical

borders or barriers betweenwork and home domains

This respondent made building a fence between the church and therectory a formal part of her contract upon moving to a new parish: “Iwanted to have a place that is private. To do that, the fence that theyare going to put up will be a white stockade fence, six feet tall, but thelast foot is going to be a lattice top so that there is privacy and somekind of open place at the top. I imagine that we will have some reallybeautiful gardens. I’m going to buy an arbor that has gates andlatticework to grow roses on. It may sound kind of silly, but I reallywanted the transition between home and work and back again to be apoint of kind of health and beauty. In my imagination, I have climbingroses over the arbor and in the wintertime we will put Christmaslights on it. I really want it to be clear that there is a boundary, butthat the passage back and forth is good. I have thought a lot about it.”

Manipulatingphysical space

Creating or reducing a physicaldistance or “no man’s land”between the work and homedomains

Long-term example: “You know when we moved to [this town] . . . ,there was a house for sale right next door to the church. Weintentionally chose not to [buy it]. . . . We intentionally chose to putsome distance between us and the church. That’s been a good thing.It’s kind of an oasis, too. It’s out in the country and so it’s kind of avery natural boundary. People don’t trek out there. . . . So there is aphysical, it feels like a physical barrier, boundary between us and thetown and us and church.”

Short-term example: “About three weeks ago I had a huge wedding. Therehearsal ran three hours. . . . It was such a complicated wedding. Itwas like everything but the kitchen sink, plus the kitchen sink. Thewedding itself was very long, too. So, one thing I did after thewedding was over, I not only went home, but I said let’s go out todinner. Like, let’s literally get out of here. I didn’t think anybodywould come back for any reason, but if they did, I didn’t want to bearound.”

Managing physicalartifacts

Using tangible items such ascalendars, keys, photos, andmail to separate or blendaspects of each domain

“Sometimes the mailman leaves a bundle of mail in our post box for theoffice and I just dump it off in the office so it doesn’t come home. Weare vigilant about working in whatever way we can to prevent muchcross-contamination between home and work.”

Communicative tacticsSetting expectations Managing expectations in

advance of a work-homeboundary violation (e.g.,stating preferences to parishor family ahead of time)

“Thursdays are sacred time. Everybody in this church knows it. I amabsolutely not available unless you have just been run over by an 18-wheeler. If you are headed to the emergency room, you call me, I’ll bethere, but don’t you call me if you want to know whether somethingought to be in the bulletin or not. Everybody knows it. I’ve never hadto be mean about it. I’ve just been real clear.”

Confronting violators Telling violator(s) of work-homeboundaries either during orafter a boundary violation(e.g., telling a parishioner tostop calling at home forfrivolous reasons)

“Your problem parishioner, you learn to deal with that, and put yourarms around that. For some people you’ve got to set boundaries. Youneed to say, ‘Well, you need to make an appointment and come andsee me. At the appointment we will talk about that.’”


left and pick up the phone if it was importantand/or urgent enough. This was a noteworthy hy-brid of segmenting and integrating: the priestwanted to integrate enough to be able to meet pa-rishioners’ needs but also wanted to segmentenough to keep nonemergencies out of the home.Asking parishioners and staff members to use e-mail instead of telephone calls gave several priestsmore flexibility as to when requests could be met.Some interviewees created multiple e-mail accounts,one for personal use, the other for parishioners to use.One respondent noted his Palm Pilot had a profoundeffect on his work-home integration, saying it “hasreally transformed our ability to keep things separateand coordinated.” He went on to say:

That’s much better than a calendar. We just got thatsix months ago. That has really helped us. One ofthe things that I do is I schedule in time for my wifeon my calendar. There are times that she and I knowwe will have together. We work very hard at that.My days off, I try to keep as my days off. One of themain things is that I really try to be attentive to myscheduling. I make plenty of time for my priestwork, but I also put in a lot of time for my wife. Irespect those times.

Interviewer: You do all your scheduling on that onePalm Pilot?

Respondent: I do. (priest 8-M)

Invoking triage. Part of modern living, and aninherent part of the work-home struggle, is notmerely balancing multiple demands, but manag-ing multiple simultaneous demands (Hochschild,1997). These conflicts can be known in advance(such as having an important personal event sched-uled at the same time as an important work event)or can emerge suddenly. Many occupations (thepriesthood certainly included) contain elements ofurgency, as deadlines must be met, clients must besatisfied, or emergencies must be dealt with. Simi-larly, demands from the home domain are oftenurgent and important, such as children or elderlyparents becoming ill, or cars breaking down. Indi-viduals must therefore choose which domain (workor home) will receive attention when both domainsare salient and pressing. The limited empiricalwork in this area has demonstrated that individualsare able to prioritize work-family demands by “in-tentional allocation decisions” (Edwards & Roth-bard, 2000), and that role pressure, role salience,and role support each factor into a person’s mentalcalculus (Greenhaus & Powell, 2003; Hill, Darling,& Raimondi, 2003). We uncovered a strategy fordealing with such conflicts that we termed “invok-ing triage.”

Like medical triage, work-home triage involves

making quick but efficient diagnoses of which cri-sis or problem is the most important and/or themost likely to be fixed, then acting accordingly.Our term for this tactic derived from the followingrespondent’s comments:

I try and sort out between what I have to do, andwhat I should do, and what I want to do. It is kind ofa triage. You know, you have to do what you have todo. Then sometimes what you have to do is whatyou want to do, but not necessarily. Then eventuallyyou can work down to the stuff that you want to do.That comes down to, like tomorrow my kids are inthis big swim meet. I would love to be there for theswim meet. I was supposed to have a volunteer jobat it. But, a long-time member of our parish died,and we are going to have an enormous funeral with500 people, and the rector is on vacation. So, there isjust no question. . . . It’s ongoing triage. . . . Youknow, it’s a situation-by-situation thing, who getsthe most attention. (priest 11-F)

Part of the efficacy of the triage tactic is having abasic priority set established before the crisis. Sev-eral of our interviewees offered hierarchies or peck-ing orders for their priorities in life that they usedas guidelines in making on-the-spot decisionsabout where to spend their time and energy. Forexample, one priest told us:

Family has always been important. From the outsetof my ministry when I would interview with par-ishes, I would always inform them up front that mypriorities were God, family and church, in that or-der. So, I would try to set the expectation that some-times family is going to be more important than theparish. It is interesting that every parish I have goneinto, it’s always been the expectation that clergy willdrop everything for a parish need or demand. That’sbeen a tough stream to fight against. . . . I wouldhave to fight for family time and family priorities,first. I coached, for years, my daughter in soccer. Itried to make all my son’s concerts and his activitiesand when he was playing sports. Sometimes thatmeant that I wasn’t always available for somethingin the parish. (priest 27-M)

Allowing differential permeability. Any givenborder can be treated in different ways by differentpeople. For example, different individuals in thesame home domain (e.g., a husband and wife) canvary in the permeability they invoke for that do-main, creating “asymmetrically permeable bound-aries” (Pleck, 1977). Previous research has demon-strated differences in the direction of permeability(e.g., allowing permeability from home to work, butnot vice versa) (Hill, Darling, & Raimondi, 2003;Speakman & Marchington, 2004). Kossek et al.noted that future work-home research should “ex-amine the implications of integrating on some parts


of the boundary but not others” (2005: 257). Ourdata reveal an important step in this direction. Spe-cifically, we documented ways that individuals canboth segment and integrate their work and homedomains. This is an important step, because previ-ous research has primarily examined very generaltendencies toward integrating or segmenting, ratherthan exploring the nuances bound to exist withinindividuals (Kreiner, 2006). We call this phenom-enon “allowing differential permeability” becauseindividuals discriminate about precisely what willor will not pass through the work-home boundary,as well as which direction (work-to-home or home-to-work) passage is allowed.

One area in which this was most evident was thatthe priests tended to be careful to choose in whataspects of the ministry they involved their spousesand family. For example, many of our intervieweessaid they do not use family stories or vignettes intheir sermons, yet their family members are deeplyinvolved in the work of the church. The difference?In the former case (the priest bringing in familyexamples to the sermon), involvement of familyviolates family members’ volition or privacy,whereas in the latter case, family members choosetheir involvement. (Interestingly, other priests,however, specifically mentioned how they con-sciously chose to use those family stories in theirsermons, and cited doing so as a benefit of integrat-ing home with work.) Another example occurringfrequently in our data deals with the aforemen-tioned “pastoral emergencies,” those crises needinga priest’s immediate attention (such as a death orserious accident). These emergencies were oftencast as acceptable exceptions to otherwise strongsegmentation norms, making them a kind of trumpcard to typical boundary management tactics. Inter-estingly, the aforementioned tactic of invoking tri-age can be used in tandem with differential perme-ability; it is often during such crisis modes thatindividuals make finer-grained distinctions aboutwhat can and what cannot puncture the work-homeboundary. At the heart of differential permeabilityis that the individual is consciously choosingwhich aspects of work and home to integrate, andwhich to segment, and then acting accordingly.

In the example below, a respondent discusseshow he decides to enact differential permeabilityand follows up that decision with a behavioralresponse. We also found examples of intervieweesconsciously choosing to create boundary perme-ability distinctions among emotional, spiritual, andphysical aspects of their work.

We don’t just open the door [at home] for anybodythat decides they want to show up. Does that make

sense? . . . That sounds rather exclusive. It’s reallynot. As with any priest, there are some pastoralcircumstances and people that are quite needy andrequire a lot of care. They don’t have access to myfamily or to my house. We made the boundaries,draw the boundaries pretty clear when it comes tothat. At the same time, we sponsor a newcomers’party at our house once a quarter because we wantpeople to know that we are accessible. So we try todo both things. (priest 40-M)

The elaboration of processes behind this tactic isparticularly important for theory building in thework-home research area. Previous research too of-ten has oversimplified the way individuals managethe work-home boundary as either segmenting orintegrating. Yet we found ample evidence thatmany individuals are not only capable of, but pre-fer, a mixture of both. This finding suggests thatfuture research should continue to tease out differ-ences in the dimensions or criteria people use todecide what aspects of life to integrate or segment.

Temporal Tactics

Today’s society makes temporal challenges partic-ularly salient for the modern worker, including clergy(Hill, Darling, & Raimondi, 2003; Hochschild, 1997).Technological and competitive trends, changes in thenature of professional work, increasing workloads,and shifting expectations about how time is spent allaffect work-home balance and its pursuit (Milliken &Dunn-Jensen, 2005). Individuals can make strategicchoices about the temporal issues surrounding work,such as when and how much time to devote to it(Moen & Sweet, 2003). Our grounded theory ap-proach yielded multiple boundary work strategiesthat dealt with time and how individuals manipulateit. We categorized these into two broad tactics thatreflect both short- and long-term strategies collec-tively: controlling work time and finding respite.

Controlling work time. Like many other profes-sions, the priesthood is replete with demands onjob incumbents’ time. Managing this time, there-fore, becomes crucial to professional success andpersonal satisfaction. We documented several waysthat priests controlled their work time and how thatreduced boundary violations and/or work-homeconflict. One approach involved manipulatingone’s schedule to maximize time with family. Thisoften meant creating and utilizing “blocks” of timethat met both work and home schedules’ demands.One version of this manipulation was enacted forfairly regular scheduling, and another dealt withspecial occasions or sporadic but important events.For example:


The biggest thing was to try to have some flexibilityabout taking advantage of being able to be home inthe middle of the day, for periods of time when therewas nothing special going on in the church building.Then trading that for times when I was obligated tobe in the church building that maybe didn’t fit in thepattern that I had kept before, of pretty much nine-to-five availability. That had been given attention inthe past, because of course, there were lots ofevening and weekend church duties that didn’t fitinto the nine-to-five, and made my spouse mad.Now there is a way that I can give on that where Istill have those evening and weekend duties, but I’malso much more accessible and available for shortperiods of time during the day when there’s nothingparticular going on at church. Again, I’m learning todo a very new thing here, but so far to the extent thatI’ve tried to do that, it’s worked well. (priest 28-M)

Another common tactic involved “banking” timefrom one domain to be used later. For example, if arespondent had to work on a night normally re-served for family, he or she would bank that timeand take it out of work time later. This created atemporal equilibrium so that one domain did notsuffer (over the long term) at the expense of theother. Flextime programs in many organizationalcontexts can facilitate this tactic. Another way thatpriests controlled their temporal boundaries was inbeing firm about certain days or hours that theywould not work. One noted (priest 14-F), “I’m clearabout my boundaries at work in terms of when it ismy day off. I prefer not to be called, unless it is anabsolute emergency and no one else can bereached.” Our interviewees also mentioned choos-ing when to perform work tasks, a choice that wasviewed as empowering and particularly importantin an occupation that is often viewed as “on call24/7.”

Finding respite. Taking breaks from work, alongwith other recovery mechanisms, can have positivebenefits for work engagement and overall well-be-ing (Sonnentag, 2003). Our data showed that thesebreaks could ameliorate work-home conflict as wellas create a reprieve from the opportunities forboundary violations. A temporal boundary worktactic we documented dealt specifically with thepriests’ need to remove themselves from the workdomain for significant amounts of time. In our sam-ple, the time needed varied from as little as one ortwo days to sabbaticals of one year. Though at first,one day might not seem like a significant amount oftime, for many of the priests we spoke with, carvingout one or two full days seemed to them a difficulttask, and one that they sometimes congratulatedthemselves for achieving. This was particularly ev-ident as later-career priests reflected on their earlycareers, noting they had often felt guilty for taking

time off from their ministry. Consider the followingexample of a seemingly simple recommendationfrom a long-tenured priest:

Interviewer: What would you recommend to a brandnew priest about balancing work and family?

Respondent: Well, I guess the way I deal with it iswhen I’m beginning to feel like I’m not up to date onmy personal life, whether it’s taking care of my yardor taking care of my finances or spending time withmy wife or something, then you need to just stopand say, “I just need to find two days where I can getcaught up.” In other words, just pay as much atten-tion to your own stuff as you do to everybody else’s.I can tell when I’ve gone too many days in a row andtoo many evening meetings and all of a sudden Ilook at my desk at home and I haven’t filed anythingor my wife and I haven’t gone out or anything. I justknow that I have to just say, “No, I’m going to dosomething different for the next two days, if I can.”I think that works for me. It’s like an alarm goes offand I say, “No, I’ve worked for the Lord enough. I’mgoing to work for me for two days.” (priest 51-M)

To use this temporal tactic successfully, thepriests had to leave the city where they lived. A dayoff or a meaningful vacation was impossible unlessa certain physical distance was established. Later,we will discuss the tactic of creating physical spacebetween home and work, which is also often usedwith the finding respite tactic. However, physicaldistance is not required for respite, nor is it a guar-antee for respite. For example, even though somepriests pursued a finding respite strategy, work re-sponsibilities continued to tug at them, as this storydemonstrates:

One of the struggles I have had is, what do I do [forthe funeral] if I’m away and someone dies? I’m onvacation. Should I come back? Should I have bound-aries? Last summer this woman . . . kept saying, “I’mgoing to die when you’re away. I just know it.”

And I said “Oh, no, you’re not.” And sure enough—she did.

You know, I didn’t come back, and I had arrangedfor another priest to do [the funeral]. People haven’tcomplained, but inside I wonder a little bit if Ishould have come back. It’s interesting talking topeople. They’ll say, “Well, I don’t think you shouldcome back,” and then they’ll say, “but I would wantyou to come back.” (priest 16-M)

One way to accomplish respite involves the in-dividual leaving both the work and home domains.Unlike most other tactics, it removes the individualfrom both domains rather than from just one or theother. Yet, in most instances of this tactic, familymembers were present as part of the respite, con-sequently bringing some of the demands of the


home domain along. For those with highly inte-grated lives (in our sample, this was often thepriests who lived on site in a rectory), truly leavingnecessarily meant leaving both domains, as thiscomment illustrates:

I find that increasingly on my day off, I like to getout of town just to change the optics. Home is a waythat, even with policing the boundaries, the experi-ence of home can sort of become contaminated withthe spillover from work. I find that just on a regularbasis it is good to get away and go someplace else.When I get up in the morning and raise the shades inthe bedroom, I’m looking across the parking lot atmy office. I’d rather be looking at the Potomac Riveror something. Yeah, there is some contaminationthere. (priest 49-M)

Physical Tactics

The physical and anthropological characteristicsof the work-home interface have shifted manytimes throughout history (Richardson, 2006). Overa century ago, “the workplace” was typically one’shome or farm; the industrial revolution shifted thelocation of much work away from home to factoriesand offices. In the current cultural climate, manyhave returned to the working-at-home model (e.g.,telecommuters, entrepreneurs), while others stillkeep workplace and home as separate physical en-tities. Physical boundaries might be a wall, a com-mute distance, a window, a door, or a line. Yet,despite the tangible or “real” feel of physicalboundaries and objects, our data suggest that theycan be manipulated both literally and metaphori-cally, which is consistent with our social construc-tion lens. We documented three primary ways thiscan be done: by adapting physical boundaries, ma-nipulating physical space, and managing physicalartifacts.

Adapting physical boundaries. Physical bound-aries, which involve the where of the work-homeinterface, were often built or used to create a sepa-ration of work and home, or dismantled to createintegration between work and home. Some priestswho lived next to their churches created physicalbarriers between rectory (home) and church (work).One priest who was about to move into a homeadjoining the church building described how shewas building a high fence and gate with a gardenbetween the church and the house. She wanted towalk through a “physical barrier” as she went toand from work. In her words:

Part of the great thing is going to be being so close,but part of the hard thing is going to be so close, too.So, I wanted to have a place that is private. To dothat, the fence that they are going to put up will be

a white stockade fence, six feet tall, but the last footis going to be a lattice top so that there is privacy andsome kind of open place at the top. I imagine that wewill have some really beautiful gardens. I’m going tobuy an arbor that has gates and latticework to growroses on. It may sound kind of silly, but I reallywanted the transition between home and work andback again to be a point of kind of health and beauty.In my imagination, I have climbing roses over thearbor and in the wintertime we will put Christmaslights on it. I really want it to be clear that there is aboundary, but that the passage back and forth isgood. (priest 20-F)

Interestingly, this example once again shows thecomplexity of the integration-segmentation contin-uum: she wanted elements of both integration andsegmentation to be physically manifested in thefence, and she invoked a boundary work tactic toimprove the congruence between her preferencesand environment. Further, it illustrates the powerof the social construction approach to understand-ing the work-home interface by showing how themeaning of this physical artifact as a work-homeboundary is not inherent in the object, but is in-stead a product of the priest’s perceptions aboutand intentions for it. Otherwise, it is merely awooden artifact with flowers growing on it.

In another example of physical boundaries, onepriest described the awkwardness he felt in livingnext to the church:

The weird thing is that I’m in the back of the rectorythat is adjacent to the parking lot and someonecomes by the church, let’s say just coming by to picksomething and drop something. There is that awk-wardness. Do they stop? Do they wave to me? Dothey stop in and chat? Do I feel it incumbent on meto say, “Hi, how are you?” That whole social ill ease.(priest 30-M).

In direct response to this dilemma, the priest had afence built between the church and the rectory. Henoted,

[Now] you can go out the back door and sit in theback and not see the church. That’s nice. . . . I justfelt like having privacy. My teenager daughter wantsto sit outside with her friends in their bathingsuits. . . . With the fence, you don’t have to deal withit. I hear a car go by, but I don’t have to see who it is.

Note the multifunctionality of this tactic, as thebuilding of a fence helped reduce all three work-home boundary challenges: incongruence was re-duced by bringing personal preferences more inline with the environment, and the potential forboundary violations as well as the generalized dis-comfort associated with work-home conflict werereduced.


Although these examples illustrate the creationof physical boundaries, several other intervieweesin our study described ways that they tried to re-duce the impact of physical boundaries betweenwork and home. Typically, these priests desiredgreater integration of their work and home lives,and they dismantled or lessened physical bound-aries to achieve that goal. For example, severalinterviewees spoke of inviting parishioners to theirhomes for socials, dinners, meetings, and parties inorder to blur the boundary between their homesand the church building.

Manipulating physical space. In addition to ma-nipulating the actual physical boundaries betweenwork and home, individuals can manipulate thespace between these domains as well. Those desir-ing greater segmentation increased the space be-tween work and home, whereas those desiringgreater integration decreased the space. One note-worthy bifurcation that we observed in these data isthat this tactic can be used as part of long-termplanning or as a short-term response to an imme-diate problem. The following example demon-strates the former, as a priest creates a physicaldistance between the work and home domains bychoosing to live farther away from the churchbuilding. (This is a dilemma for some parishpriests, as occasionally, parishes give priests thechoice of living in church-owned property or intheir own home.) In his words:

You know when we moved [here], there was a housefor sale right next door to the church. We intention-ally chose not to [buy it]. . . . We intentionally choseto put some distance between us and the church.That’s been a good thing. It’s kind of an oasis, too.It’s out in the country and so it’s kind of a verynatural boundary. People don’t trek out there. Eventhough it is six miles, people think that is in the nextcounty because you have to go out into the country.So there is a physical, it feels like a physical barrier,boundary between us and the town and us andchurch. It really, yeah, is a natural barrier, but ithasn’t proved to be a problem. It’s not far enoughaway that if somebody is at the emergency room, it’sstill just 12 minutes to the emergency room. It hasn’timpeded the ministry. It’s been a nice thing. (priest40-M)

Managing physical artifacts. Artifacts—thephysical representations of cultures—are ubiqui-tous in organizational life (Rafaeli & Pratt, 2006).Artifacts are visually salient, typically tangiblemarkers that serve as cues about a culture, a do-main, or an identity (Elsbach, 2004). Artifacts canbe found in, and come to symbolize, both work andhome domains. In her original study on boundarywork, Nippert-Eng (1996) found that individuals

use physical artifacts (often subconsciously) asways to negotiate the work-home border. Thepower of the artifacts as cues or signals is shown inthis example: “My children are young so I willoften take off at 3:00 p.m. to go to ballet or soccer orbaseball or whatever and then come back and workin the evening. Even my two-year-old knows whenI put on a collar that I’m going to a meeting” (priest21-F).

We found specific examples of many types ofartifacts being used instrumentally, which was con-sistent with previous observational work on artifactuse (Nippert-Eng, 1996). For example, some peopleput all events on one calendar, and others hadseparate calendars for home and work. Some indi-viduals used one key ring for all doors and func-tions; others used separate key rings for work andhome. Postal mail was also a physical artifact thatsome of our interviewees consciously managed,such as by (dis)allowing work-related mail to cometo the home. One priest (49-M) who lived adjacentto his church explained how he dealt with having ashared mailbox that received both personal andwork mail: “Sometimes the mailman leaves a bun-dle of mail in our post box for the office and I justdump it off in the office so it doesn’t come home.We are vigilant about working in whatever way wecan to prevent much cross-contamination betweenhome and work.”

Communicative Tactics

The final of our four boundary work tactic clas-sifications consists of communicative strategies,which include setting expectations and confrontingviolators.

Setting expectations. The majority of the priestswe interviewed found managing expectations to bea helpful technique in balancing work-home de-mands. One priest (53-M) commented that parish-ioners are “looking for a clue from us as to what isappropriate and what is not” and therefore he had“chosen, and very intentionally, to communicate asense of boundary.” Communicating expectationstypically meant outlining preferences regarding thework-home boundary to important stakeholderssuch as spouse, children, staff members, parishio-ners, and vestry. This tactic could involve nuancedsignals, or direct conversations or church bulletinannouncements, and it involved communicationbefore a violation of the work-home boundary hadoccurred (in contrast to our next code, “confrontingviolators”). The following example illustrates theimportance of sending clear boundary messages aswell as the linkage between tactic usage and re-duced boundary violations:


The most important thing, I think, is from the verybeginning when you are in a congregation to sendthe right messages to people. . . . If you establishboundaries quick, like up front, and if you sendmessages that you want to be truly present to peo-ple, but you do not need to be needed, then theydon’t. There is an ethos or a culture that gets quicklyestablished about where you stand with respect tothe whole community and where the boundaries lie.(priest 35-M)

Several priests discussed including work-homeboundary issues as part of their negotiation processin getting their jobs. That is, they made known theirexpectations about work-home balance to potentialchurch members and leaders prior to being hired.Sometimes this was through informal conversa-tions, and at other times it involved formal com-munications or even inclusion in an employmentcontract. Generally, the process involved negotia-tion about particular expectations, regarding thework-home interface (e.g., the number of hours tobe worked each week, the flexibility of thosehours). This give-and-take process illustrates howboundaries are co-constructed: the work-homepreferences of both the individual and salient oth-ers are implicated in the process of boundary con-struction and maintenance. One respondent sharedthis story, which deals with a prearrival letter hesent to parishioners in his new parish; it demon-strates the tactic’s efficacy in reducing conflict:

The biggest thing was that a letter went out to all theparishioners saying that this was a very new situa-tion in this church rectory, because a priest wascoming who had a family that included young kids,and that their expectations and hopes about thespace was that it would be more private than maybehad been the case with past priests who had livedhere. One way that we could be made to feel espe-cially welcome was to respect that privacy. Theletter was written by the senior warden and checkedover with us before it was sent, but we gave thegreen light. I know that a couple people felt of-fended that that kind of boundary was being drawneven before we had arrived, but I think so far it’sreally served us well. I think people have been veryrespectful. (priest 28-M)

Confronting violators. In contrast to the previ-ous tactic of communicating expectations, the tac-tic of confronting violators occurs after a problemhas occurred with work-home boundaries. Theseproblems can take the form of boundary violations,as described above, or ongoing tensions. This tacticis used to try to correct what an individual per-ceives as other people’s disregard for an appropri-ate boundary. Priest 15-M illustrated the intentionof this tactic in noting that the idea is “to commu-

nicate with them and try to train them that theyneed to work around our schedules here, not nec-essarily expect that we drop everything.” The di-rectness of such confrontations varied consider-ably. The following two examples both deal withparishioners calling priests at home. On the morecompassionate end of the continuum, one priestsaid, “Your problem parishioner, you learn to dealwith that, and put your arms around that. For somepeople you’ve got to set boundaries. You need tosay, ‘Well, you need to make an appointment andcome and see me. At the appointment we will talkabout that’” (priest 54-M) Conversely, one respon-dent spoke of people who would (at first) call himmultiple times a day at his home:

What I used to say to someone after the second callwas, “Look, I’ve already talked to you twice today. Ineed to go out now. I have some other appoint-ments. I don’t want you to call me again today. Ifyou have a problem, I’d be happy to talk to you laterin the week.” I try to be a little bit considerate oftheir feelings, but at the same time letting themknow, you can’t pick up the phone every two hoursand give me a call. Especially when there is nothinggoing on and they just want to talk to somebody.(priest 52-M)

Several priests noted that a key part of confront-ing violators was helping them see that their prob-lem was not urgent—sometimes even sarcastically.Priest 43-M noted his response to a parishionerwho came to his home at night: “I try to say, ‘Oh,how long have you had this problem? Okay, you’vebeen drinking for 20 years. Well, how about if wetalk tomorrow morning?’”

Beyond the more obvious violations, such as pa-rishioners or staff calling on a priest’s day off orshowing up at the priest’s home at inappropriatetimes, our interviewees reported that they were some-times faced with having to explain why seeminglyinnocuous instances were actually work-home viola-tions in their eyes. For example, one priest noted:

When I first came here many people saw me walkingmy dog or taking walks and several parishionersasked if they could walk with me. Initially, I foundthat some people were hurt when I said, “No.” I hadto do a lot of kind of explaining about the impor-tance of time away for me. . . . It was both physicalexercise as well as a time for me with God, beingalone and outside. It took a lot of education andsometimes hurt feelings and some clear kind of com-munication about boundaries for me. I think it ispretty well understood, now. Most people under-stand that and accept it. (priest 14-F)

Note how the efficacy of this tactic is revealed inthe quote: after her intervening and explaining, peo-


ple understood her preferences and accepted them. Inthis example, the priest interpreted the parishioners’requests to walk with her during her private time as aboundary violation; she framed that private time asbounded and wanted to preserve the boundary.Clearly, not all individuals would frame this episodeas a boundary violation, which illustrates the subjec-tive nature of boundary work.

The Role of Boundary Work Tactics

The preceding sections illustrate the power anddiversity of boundary work tactics. We have seenevidence from these stories and vignettes that theboundary work tactics are clearly multifunctional.In our classification scheme, we divided the tacticsinto four meaningful types. These types were de-rived from our analysis, which involved discussionamong the research members, comparing and con-trasting the details of the tactics, and comparing thetactics with material in the existing literature(Eisenhardt, 1989). We also urge caution about not“overinterpreting” our typology as absolute (theonly way these tactics could be categorized) or final(an exhaustive list of possible tactics). In reality,and as would be expected, the four types exhibitsome conceptual overlap.

How, then, might we predict the impact of theinterplay among the tactics? As several vignettes inthe preceding sections have demonstrated, wefound evidence that the tactics are often comple-mentary. That is, we suggest that the tactics rein-force each other, creating a multipronged approachto negotiating the work-home boundary. In addi-tion, one behavior can cue multiple tactics. Forexample, multiple interviewees told us that theyhad consciously chosen to live far away from work,which typifies the physical tactic of manipulatingphysical space, yet it also aids in finding respite (atemporal tactic) by providing a longer commute towork. These overlaps create, in essence, multifunc-tional boundary tactics. We believe the interplaybetween tactics is synergistic, in that it amplifiesthe overall utility or benefit of the strategies used tothe individuals. To articulate, then, the role thatthese tactics play in the boundary work model, wesuggest the following propositions:

Proposition 4. Use of boundary work tactics de-creases (a) boundary incongruence, (b) boundaryviolations, and (c) work-home conflict.

Proposition 5. The implementation of multipleboundary work tactics (within and betweencategories) has a synergistic effect: the reduc-tion of incongruence, violations, and conflict ismagnified.

DISCUSSION

Although previous research on the conflict be-tween work and home has been fruitful, this liter-ature has lacked a cohesive approach to under-standing how individuals experience and attemptto ameliorate the conflict. Rather, previous workhas tended to focus on rather static or stable indi-vidual differences or situational factors. We there-fore began with research questions seeking to ex-plore various dimensions of work-home boundaryincongruence, the consequences of this incongru-ence, how individuals can negotiate the work-home boundary to their liking, and how boundarytactics might be categorized effectively. Ourgrounded theory approach to addressing thesequestions yielded a classification scheme of bound-ary work tactics as well as a conceptual model ofboundary work, and it has provided a foundationupon which to develop a more comprehensive the-ory and research stream on boundary work. In thefirst portion of the model, we show how an indi-vidual’s work-home boundary preferences combinewith environmental influences to create five di-mensions of work-home boundary incongruence.We then illustrate how incongruence in one ormore of the dimensions can lead to boundary vio-lations (Propositions 1a, 2) and work-home conflict(Proposition 1b) and how boundary violations canincrease work-home conflict (Proposition 3). Fi-nally, we show how individuals can invoke bound-ary work tactics to ameliorate the negative effects ofwork-home boundary incongruence, boundary vio-lations, and work-home conflict (Propositions 4and 5).

Implications for Theory

Our study contributes a more holistic and com-prehensive picture of work-home boundary workthat integrates antecedents, tactics, and pertinentoutcomes. We now discuss why and how this isimportant. First, we view the construct of work-home boundary violations as particularly promis-ing. As noted, the vast majority of research inves-tigating the problems of the work-home interfacehas been focused on the construct of work-familyconflict. Whereas work-family conflict is a general-ized and fairly consistent state, we introduce anddefine boundary violations as episodes or eventsthat violate an individual’s work-home boundarypreferences. We believe it can prove quite useful toseparate specific events from the generalized state,as it creates opportunities for exploring the differ-ential roles of each construct in work-home rela-tions and has the potential to account for additional


variance in the work-home balance relationship. Asan example of how such a distinction can prove tobe vitally important for future research, we draw acomparison to affective events theory, which hasbeen one of the most influential theories in theemotions research area, stimulating research on jobsatisfaction (Weiss, Nicholas, & Daus, 1999), ag-gression (Glomb, Steel, & Arvey, 2002), emotionaldissonance (Abraham, 1999), and other emotion-related topics. Indeed, as Ashkanasy, Zerbe, andHartel noted, affective events theory is “revolution-izing our view of behavior in organizations” be-cause it has “alerted researcher and managers aliketo the importance of emotional states in organiza-tional settings” (2002: 7) as distinct yet related toaffective events. According to affective events the-ory, individuals experience generalized emotionstates, yet daily hassles and uplifts (affectiveevents) punctuate and are proximal causes of theiremotional states over time (Weiss & Cropanzano,1996). The accumulation of a succession of positiveor negative affective events leads to positive ornegative affective states in employees that, in turn,presage attitudinal states and behaviors (Ashka-nasy, Hartel, & Daus, 2002). In our model, boundaryviolations and work-home conflict are analogous toaffective events and emotional state, respectively.From a social construction view, over time the so-cial processes of successive violation events (nego-tiations between violators and the violated either tomaintain or challenge a boundary) are what con-struct the state that is then classified and describedas “conflict.” Hence, work-home boundary events,layer upon layer, can strongly influence the state ofconflict, and we believe they should be studied intheir own right. Separation of a punctuated event(boundary violation) from a generalized state(work-family conflict) could lead to reframing andexpansion of more focused questions in work-fam-ily research, as it has in the area of emotion.

Second, we have identified several specificboundary work tactics, filling an important gap inthe literature. Nippert-Eng’s (1996) work laid excel-lent groundwork for the notion of boundary work,yet relatively little was known about what specifictactics individuals could use. Through our study,we have expanded understanding of work-homeboundary management by finding a fuller array ofoptions available to individuals. This expansionprovides actionable knowledge that individuals,managers, and family members can use to makeinformed choices about the very practical and per-vasive problem of boundary work. Third, becauseof this increased understanding of the diversity ofboundary work tactics, we can now more fully ap-preciate and further explore (in this and other con-

texts) the ability of individuals to ameliorate theirwork-home conflicts. Previous research has fo-cused so much on organization-level influences orfairly stable or unchangeable individual differencesthat the role of an individual’s own actions in shap-ing his or her work-life balance has often beenneglected (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998). Identifying andfilling this gap is particularly important—both con-ceptually and practically—because informal meansof work-home facilitation have been demonstratedto explain a greater share of variance in importantemployee outcomes than formal mechanisms do(Behson, 2005). Our work, therefore, provides a keyinsight into how individuals can adapt to andshape their work and home experiences.

Fourth, we have gone well beyond previous workthat conceptualizes and operationalizes work-home congruence very generally by identifying par-ticular dimensions within the work, home, and oc-cupational domains in which incongruence occurs.This finer specification adds richness and depth tothe previously very broadly defined category ofantecedents to work-home conflict. The importantimplication of our contribution is that it allowsresearchers to pinpoint particular problem areasand examine both the dysfunctions and positivepotential of the work-home interface with greaterprecision. Again, this specificity also provides ac-tionable knowledge to individuals as they diagnosetheir own work-family balance or that of others(e.g., teammates, subordinates).

Implications for Practice

Clearly, engaging in any occupation requiresmanaging work-home demands to varying degrees.More fully understanding the nature of these de-mands and the tactics for managing them has manypractical applications. First, we believe the tacticspresented here are relevant to employees in manycontexts. Applications can be made to occupationalsituations that share difficult work-home boundarynegotiation (such as home businesses, telecommut-ing, and even jobs involving heavy travel) as well asto other more typical work-home boundary chal-lenges (such as those confronting individuals inany occupation who might want to find ways tointegrate or segment their work and home domainsmore effectively). Second, our findings suggest thatboundary work tactics represent actionable knowl-edge that can be taught to others for more success-ful self-management. We have laid out a set oftactics that individuals can use and that manage-ment can facilitate and integrate in wellness train-ing to improve people’s lives. Indeed, the EpiscopalChurch—an international organization comprised


of over two million members—has incorporatedour research into presentations and curriculum onwork-home balance given at wellness conferencesand workshops for multiple constituencies.

Although it might be tempting to consider work-home tensions as a negative only for individuals,significant negative consequences for workplacescan also be considered (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000;Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 2002). Similarly, multi-ple positive outcomes of successfully managing thework-home interface have been documented, suchas increased creativity and commitment (Madjar,Oldham, & Pratt, 2002; Pratt & Rosa, 2003). Prevent-ing the negative outcomes while fostering the pos-itive ones is an important goal for managers, andour study provides new ideas about how these im-portant tasks can be accomplished. In sum, an un-derstanding of boundary work tactics may moveindividuals and organizations closer to success-fully negotiating the elusive but often-sought “bal-ance” between work and home.

Future Research

What next? In addition to the implications men-tioned above, we offer here four more specific sug-gestions for future work. The first involves individ-ual and group differences that affect boundarywork. Although we stratified the sample in ourresearch design for Study 2, the broad themes andclassification of boundary work tactics provedmore intriguing than focusing on subgroup differ-ences in the sample. Future research, however,could more closely examine various individual andgroup differences that affect boundary work. In par-ticular, we envision that individuals’ occupationaland job tenure, gender, race/ethnicity, and work-home demography (e.g., married or not, children athome, distance from home to work) would be ofkey interest. Similarly, future research might inves-tigate potential cross-cultural differences in work-home boundary challenges and tactics used.

As mentioned, to varying degrees, all occupa-tions face work-home demands. Our research hasdocumented these pressures and responses withina particularly problematic occupation. Hence, asecond suggestion for future research is that it ex-amine less challenging occupations as a point ofcomparison with our findings (Eisenhardt, 1989).Similarly, although our respondents tended towarddesiring more segmentation, future research couldpurposefully sample those groups who wouldlikely tend toward desiring more integration. In-deed, research with additional samples could un-cover even more nuanced boundary work tacticsthan our sample revealed. Important differences

have been found in various work arrangements,such as working at home versus virtual workversus the traditional office (Hill, Ferris, & Mar-tinson, 2003), and future researchers could exam-ine how boundary work tactics might operatedifferently depending on the particular type ofwork arrangement.

Third, our study stimulates additional researchquestions regarding the interplay of tactics andhow tactics might change over time. Regarding theinterplay among tactics, we suspect that when tac-tics are geared directly toward reducing work-homeboundary incongruence (as opposed to violationsor conflict), they will be the most effective overall,because they reduce the root problem that is thedriving force behind the model and the precursor toboundary violations and conflict. Focusing theirenergy here likely gives people “more bang for theirbuck.” Similarly, future research could examinehow tactics change over time. Our data were cross-sectional; thus, any documentation of tacticalchanges was necessarily retrospective, but highlysuggestive of interesting change dynamics. For ex-ample, our interviewees reported instances of cy-clical intensity in work-home conflict, and futureresearchers might investigate patterns in cyclesover time. The process of adaptation over timecould yield important information that is usefulboth to academic and practitioner audiences. Asone interviewee (priest 31–F) put it, while contrast-ing an earlier phase of her professional life with thecurrent one, “For the first ten years of my ministry,I was single . . . so, all of my friends were from thechurch. I really did work all the time. I didn’t havemuch of a separation.” Another avenue for poten-tial research stemming from our model would be tolink the boundary work tactics we have identifiedwith (1) specific types of incongruence and (2) var-ious outcomes. That is, our qualitative researchdesign lends itself to developing exploratory mod-els, but other research designs (such as a survey orexperience sampling) could empirically link thestrategies we documented with each of the dimen-sions of work-home incongruence (family mem-bers, subordinates, etc.) as well as with criticaloutcomes such as reduced stress, reduced work-home conflict, and increased satisfaction with life,job, or family.

Fourth, though our focus has been on work-homeconflict, we also anticipate that researchers wouldget a significant payoff by examining the role ofwork-family enrichment in our model. Some recentattention has turned to the potentially positive ef-fects of intertwining work and home (e.g., Green-haus & Powell, 2006a; Rothbard, 2001; Voydanoff,2001; Wayne, Grzywacz, Carlson, & Kacmar, 2007),


and we see the exploration of the ways this wouldunfold as holding potential for better understand-ing our model. We did find evidence of work-homeenrichment in our study; however, we deemed thedata to be insufficient to fully weave them into ourcomprehensive model. Instances in our data rangedfrom very simple, tactical ways that one domainenriched the other (e.g., by drawing upon meaning-ful family experiences for sermons) to deeper orlonger-term influences (e.g., becoming a differentkind of person because of the priesthood or familyroles, which then had a positive impact on theother domain). We suggest that future research drilldown further in this direction, examining howwork-home boundary congruence might lead towork-home enrichment and facilitation.

REFERENCES

Abraham, R. 1999. Emotional dissonance in organiza-tions: Conceptualizing the roles of self-esteem andjob-induced tension. Leadership and OrganizationDevelopment Journal, 20: 18–25.

Alvesson, M. 2003. Beyond Neopositivists, romanticsand localists: A reflexive approach to interviews inorganizational research. Academy of ManagementReview, 28: 13–33.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., Clark, M. A., & Fugate, M.2007. Normalizing dirty work: Managerial tactics forcountering occupational taint. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 50: 149–174.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. 2000. All ina day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions.Academy of Management Review, 25: 472–491.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Hartel, C. E. J., & Daus, C. S. 2002.Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in organi-zational behavior research. Journal of Management,28: 307–338.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Zerbe, W. J., & Hartel, C. E. J. 2002.Managing emotions in the workplace. Armonk,NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Behson, S. J. 2005. The relative contribution of formaland informal organizational work-family support.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66: 487–500.

Boswell, W. R., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. 2007. The use ofcommunication technologies after hours: The roleof work attitudes and work-life conflict. Journal ofManagement, 33: 592–610.

Bouchikhi, H. 1998. Living with and building on com-plexity: A constructivist perspective on organiza-tions. Organization, 5: 217–232.

Butterfield, K. D., Trevino, L. K., & Ball, G. A. 1996.Punishment from the manager’s perspective: Agrounded investigation and inductive model. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 39: 1479–1512.

Byron, K. 2005. A meta-analytic review of work-familyconflict and its antecedents. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 67: 169–198.

Charmaz, K. 2000. Grounded theory: Objectivist and con-structivist methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.):509–535. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clark, S. C. 2000. Work/family border theory: A newtheory of work/family balance. Human Relations,53: 747–770.

Converse, P. D., Oswald, F. L., Gillespie, M. A., Field,K. A., & Bizot, E. B. 2004. Matching individuals tooccupations using abilities and the O*NET. Person-nel Psychology, 57: 451–487.

Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominalscales. Educational and Psychological Measure-ment, 20: 37–46.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. 2008. Basics of qualitative re-search (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cummings, T. G., & Jones, Y. 2003. Conference theme:Creating actionable knowledge. (Academy of Man-agement call for submissions).

Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., &Brinley, A. 2005. Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the literature.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66: 124–197.

Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 1999. Work and familystress and well-being: An examination of person-environment fit in the work and family domains.Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 77: 85–129.

Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 2000. Mechanismslinking work and family: Clarifying the relationshipbetween work and family constructs. Academy ofManagement Review, 25: 178–199.

Eisenhardt, K. 1989. Building theories from case re-search. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532–550.

Elsbach, K. D. 2004. Interpreting workplace identities:The role of office decor. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 25: 99–128.

Frone, M. E. 2003. Work-family balance. In J. C. Quick &L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupationalhealth psychology: 143–162. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outlineof the theory of structuration. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery ofgrounded theory: Strategies for qualitative re-search. Chicago: Aldine-Athestor.

Glomb, T. M., Steel, P. D. G., & Arvey, R. D. 2002. Officesneers, snipes, and stab wounds: Antecedents, con-sequences and implications of workplace violenceand aggression. In R. G. Lord, R. J. Klimoski, & R.


Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Under-standing the structure and role of emotions in or-ganizational behavior: 227–259. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. 2003. When work andfamily collide: Deciding between competing role de-mands. Organizational Behavior and Human De-cision Processes, 90: 291–303.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. 2006a. When work andfamily are allies: A theory of work-family enrich-ment. Academy of Management Review, 31: 72–92.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. 2006b. Decision mak-ing at the work-family interface: Toward a classi-fication of work-family decisions. Paper presentedat the 66th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Man-agement, Atlanta.

Hartmann, E. 1991. Boundaries in the mind: A newpsychology of personality. New York: Basic Books.

Hill, E. W., Darling, C. A., & Raimondi, N. M. 2003.Understanding boundary-related stress in clergyfamilies. Marriage & Family Review, 35: 147–166.

Hill, J. E., Ferris, M., & Martinson, V. 2003. Does it matterwhere you work? A comparison of how three workvenues (traditional office, virtual office, and homeoffice) influence aspects of work and personal/fam-ily life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63: 220–241.

Hochschild, A. R. 1997. The time bind: When workbecomes home and home becomes work. NewYork: Metropolitan Books.

Kanter, R. M. 1977. Work and family in the UnitedStates: A critical review and agenda for researchand policy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Katherine, A. 1991. Boundaries: Where you end and Ibegin. New York: MJF Books.

Kossek, E. E., & Lambert, S. J. (Eds.). 2005. Work and lifeintegration: Organizational, cultural, and individ-ual perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. 2005. Flexi-bility enactment theory: Implications of flexibilitytype, control, and boundary management for work-family effectiveness. In E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert(Eds.), Work and life integration: Organizational,cultural, and individual perspectives: 243–262.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Kossek, E. E., Noe, R. A., & DeMarr, B. J. 1999. Work-family role synthesis: Individual and organizationaldeterminants. International Journal of ConflictManagement, 10: 102–129.

Kossek, E. E., & Ozeki, C. 1998. Work-family conflict,policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: Areview and directions for organizational behavior-human resources research. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 83: 139–149.

Kreiner, G. E. 2006. Consequences of work-home seg-mentation or integration: A person-environment fit

perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior,27: 485–507.

Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E. C., & Sheep, M. L. 2006. Onthe edge of identity: Boundary dynamics at the in-terface of individual and organizational identities.Human Relations, 59: 1315–1341.

Kulka, R. A. 1979. Interaction as person-environment fit.In R. A. Kahle (Ed.), New directions for methodol-ogy of behavioral science: 55–72. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Locke, K. 2001. Grounded theory in management re-search. London: Sage.

Locke, K. 2002. The grounded theory approach to quali-tative research. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.),Measuring and analyzing behavior in organiza-tions: 17–43. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

MacDermid, S. M. 2005. (Re)Considering conflict betweenwork and family. In E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert (Eds.),Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural,and individual perspectives: 19–40. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. 2002. There’s noplace like home? The contributions of work andnonwork creativity support to employees’ creativeperformance. Academy of Management Journal,45: 757–767.

McGrath, J. E. 1988. The social psychology of time.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Milliken, F. J., & Dunn-Jensen, L. M. 2005. The changingtime demands of managerial and professional work:Implications for managing the work-life boundary.In E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and lifeintegration: Organizational, cultural, and individ-ual perspectives: 43–59. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Moen, P., & Sweet, S. 2003. Time clocks: Work-hourstrategies. In P. Moen (Ed.), It’s about time: Couplesand careers: 17–34. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress.

Neal, M. B., Hammer, L. B., & Morgan, D. L. 2006. Usingmixed methods in research related to work and fam-ily. In M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E. E. Kossek, & S. Sweet(Eds.), The work and family handbook: Multi-dis-ciplinary perspectives, methods, and approaches:587–606. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nippert-Eng, C. E. 1996. Home and work: Negotiatingboundaries through everyday life. Chicago: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

Osterman, P. 1995. Work/family programs and theemployment relationship. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 40: 681–700.

Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. 2002. Toward reduc-ing some critical gaps in work-family research. Hu-man Resource Management Review, 12: 299–312.

Pettigrew, A. 1990. Longitudinal field research onchange: Theory and practice. Organizational Sci-ence, 1: 267–292.


Pleck, J. H. 1977. The work-family role system. SocialProblems, 24: 417–427.

Poelmans, S. A. Y. (Ed.). 2005a. Work and family: Aninternational research perspective. Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Poelmans, S. A. Y. 2005b. The decision process theory ofwork and family. In E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert(Eds.), Work and life integration: Organizational,cultural, and individual perspectives: 263–286.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. 2006.Constructing professional identity: The role of workand identity learning cycles in the customization ofidentity among medical residents. Academy ofManagement Journal, 49: 235–262.

Pratt, M. G., & Rosa, J. A. 2003. Transforming work-family conflict into commitment in network market-ing organizations. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 46: 395–418.

Rafaeli, A., & Pratt, M. G. (Eds.). 2006. Artifacts andorganizations: Beyond mere symbolism. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

Rice, R. W., Frone, M. R., & McFarlin, D. B. 1992. Work-nonwork conflict and the perceived quality of life.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13: 155–168.

Richardson, P. 2006. The anthropology of the workplaceand the family. In M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E. E. Kossek, &S. Sweet (Eds.), The work and family handbook:Multi-disciplinary perspectives, methods, and ap-proaches: 165–188. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rothbard, N. P. 2001. Enriching or depleting: The dy-namics of engagement in work and family roles.Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 655–684.

Rothbard, N. P., Phillips, K. W., & Dumas, T. L. 2005.Managing multiple roles: Work-family policies andindividuals’ desires for segmentation. OrganizationScience, 16: 243–258.

Sonnentag, S. 2003. Recovery, work engagement, andproactive behavior: A new look at the interface be-tween nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 88: 518.

Speakman, S., & Marchington, M. 2004. The boundedworkplace: Defense, development, and domestica-tion strategies amongst male shiftworkers. IndustrialRelations Journal, 35: 122–138.

Stebbins, L. F. 2001. Work and family in America: Areference handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO,Inc.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of qualitative re-search: Grounded theory procedures and tech-niques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of qualitative re-search: Techniques and procedures for developinggrounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Stroh, L. K. 2005. Forward. In E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert(Eds.), Work and life integration: Organizational,cultural, and individual perspectives: xvii–xviii.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Valcour, P. M., & Hunter, L. W. 2005. Technology, organ-izations, and work-life integration. In E. E. Kossek &S. J. Lambert (Eds.), Work and life integration: Or-ganizational, cultural, and individual perspec-tives: 61–84. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Van Sell, M., Brief, A., & Schuler, R. 1981. Role conflictand role ambiguity: Integration of the literature anddirections for future research. Human Relations, 34:43–71.

Voydanoff, P. 2001. Incorporating community into workand family research: A review of basic relationships.Human Relations, 54: 1609–1637.

Wayne, J. H., Grzywacz, J. G., Carlson, D. S., & Kacmar,K. M. 2007. Work-family facilitation: A theoreticalexplanation and model of primary antecedents andconsequences. Human Resource Management Re-view, 17: 63–76.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. 1996. Affective eventstheory: A theoretical discussion of the structure,causes and consequences of affective experiences atwork. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Re-search in organizational behavior, vol. 18: 1–74.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. S. 1999. Anexamination of the joint effects of affective experi-ences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and affectiveexperiences over time. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 78: 1–24.

Yin, R. 1989. Case study research. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Zerubavel, E. 1991. The fine line: Making distinctions ineveryday life. New York: Free Press.

APPENDIX

Questions from the Interview Protocola

1. We’d like to know a bit about your background.a. How long have you been ordained a priest?b. What did you do before the priesthood? What led

you to become a priest?2. We’d like to know a bit about your current home and

work life.a. Do you have children? Do they live at home?

a Interviews were semistructured. These represent ques-tions asked of most interviewees. However, interviewersalso asked a variety of impromptu questions that derivedfrom respondents’ answers to questions, thus allowing usto probe more fully into interesting and emerging lines ofinquiry.


b. Do you have paid staff helping? How many? Whatabout volunteers?

c. Where do you live in relation to the church? Howfar away? Is it a church-owned rectory or yourown home?

d. What is the size of your parish? How long haveyou been there? Is the church in a rural/subur-ban/urban locale?

3. What things in your life do you find you need towork especially hard on to balance? How do youbalance them?

4. Some people like to separate their work and homelives while others prefer to integrate them. Howwould you describe yourself in that regard?

5. Do you ever do parish work at home? Does yourfamily life ever enter into your parish work? Arethere particular things you actively try to keep sep-arate? . . . integrate?

6. Do you have frequent interruptions (a) when athome; (b) while at work? Is it a problem? Do youhave tactics or strategies for dealing with that?

7. Does your proximity to the church building evermake a difference in the way you feel about yourwork or family life? Does the closeness/distance evercreate a conflict? . . . with family members, parishio-ners or yourself ? How so?

8. Do the demands of work ever take away from yourhome life? Do the demands of home ever take awayfrom your work life?

9. Are there certain people who either respect yourwork-home boundary or don’t? Have there beentimes when others did not respect the boundary youwere trying to keep? How did/do you deal with that?

10. Do your family members have certain expectationsplaced on them because of their relation to you?What effect does that have on your home life? Worklife? Do you ever feel compelled to manage others’expectations of your family? Do you have certainexpectations of your family?

11. Have you found that there are certain things you cando to maintain the work-home boundary to yourliking?

12. Do you have friends within the parish? Outside thechurch? What proportion of your friends/acquain-tances come from outside the church or parish?

13. Have your attitudes about work-home balancechanged over time? (From what to what?) If so, whatkinds of things prompted that change?

14. What would you recommend to a brand new priestregarding balancing work and home?

15. Are there any other issues that you’ve thought ofduring our interview that you think might be impor-tant for me to know about regarding the topics we’vediscussed today?

Glen E. Kreiner ([email protected]) is an assistantprofessor of management and organization in the SmealCollege of Business at The Pennsylvania State Univer-sity. Glen received his Ph.D. from Arizona State Univer-sity. His research primarily focuses on the interactionbetween individual and organizational/occupationalprocesses, especially through the lenses of social identi-fication, work-home boundary management, role transi-tions, identity threats, identity growth, person-environ-ment fit, and emotion management. His research isconducted in a variety of contexts, including with stig-matized occupations, family businesspeople, contingent/temporary workers, and people in religious vocations.

Elaine C. Hollensbe ([email protected]) is an as-sociate professor of management in the College of Busi-ness at the University of Cincinnati. She received herPh.D. in organizational behavior from the University ofKansas. Her research examines how individuals balanceself and social boundaries, and the interface betweenindividuals and human resource practices. Specific re-search interests include identity and identification, emo-tion regulation and management, self-efficacy in well-ness and training contexts, and motivational aspects ofcompensation.

Mathew L. Sheep ([email protected]) is an assistant pro-fessor in the College of Business at Illinois State Univer-sity. He received his Ph.D. in management from the Uni-versity of Cincinnati. His research interests center onways in which individuals construct their social world,for what purposes, and with what consequences. Areas ofresearch include identity and identification, individualand organizational creativity, positive organizationalscholarship, workplace spirituality, business ethics, anddiscourse analytic approaches to organization.


balancing borders and bridges: negotiating the work-home interface

Documents