Home-Office-Boundaries

The advantage of creating bespoke boundary-blurring strategies

by ResearchWork-Home Boundary Blurring
'From Work to Life and Back Again: Examining the Digitally-Mediated Work/Life Practices of a Group of Knowledge Workers'.

Extracts and summary of the research by: Luigina Ciolfi & Eleanor Lockley (2018)

Key quotes from the research:

  • ‘[those in] knowledge-intensive roles devise strategies for handling work and non-work in light of a set of interconnected forces’ 
  • ‘Boundary dissolving and work-life blurring, and not just boundary setting and ‘balancing’, are essential resources within [boundary management] strategies’
  • ‘Boundary sculpting pertains not only to work pervading personal spheres of life, but also the opposite, and that establishing, softening and dissolving boundaries are practised to handle situations when the personal seeps into professional life’
  • ‘Establishing, softening and dissolving boundaries are practised to handle situations when the personal seeps into professional life’ 

Summary of the research:

The boundaries that we set, dissolve, blur and manage between work, home and play are how office workers juggle and deal with, the changing demands of both professional and personal tasks. Every worker has a boundary strategy that is unique to them and entirely dependent on personal preferences, individual circumstances, working styles, the expectations of others and specific work culture.

Home and hobbies can be time and labour-intensive, and require as much professional management as paid work. Home life can be as intrusive of work as work can be of home life. Boundaries that are set in one direction are independent to the boundaries set in the reverse direction.

The setting of boundaries is not limited to geographic location, time of day, technology ownership or application used, but can also include mindset, identities, ambitions, social practices and cognitive practices.

There is a continuum of boundary-setting strategies from ‘segmentation’ to ‘integration’ of work and home life. Everyone has a different interpretation of what the words and resulting actions mean to them.

Boundary strategies can either be a resource or a constraint. They can change and be adapted depending on life stage and lifestyle adjustments. Although a life stage is not a precursor that dictates the type of strategy we implement e.g. working parents can either be strong segmenters, or strong integrators as can single people, young or more mature workers.

Those whose work is closely tied to their core life passions view additional reading and work-type tasks as professional development or self-improvement. In contrast, others (a portion of whom may regard work as a means to an end) view having to engage in work-related tasks during personal time as eating into their recovery time or as unpaid work and time away from their family or hobbies.

Digital technology is a mediator of both boundary setting and blurring.

For some, being able to check emails and messages after hours can be a ‘lifeline’ to manage their workload – giving them a sense of control or to ‘signal availability’ when away from the office.

For others, access to emails outside of working hours is an interference. They use various tactics to fence off work from private time. These can range from:

  • technology-based solutions – such as leaving laptops and mobiles in a car boot overnight or setting out-of-office messages – to
  • person-based solutions – such as informing others of availability patterns and when to expect a response.

Reflection on the research:

The researchers specifically qualify that they ‘do not buy into the myth of the mobile worker who can seamlessly handle demands through flexible work arrangements and ubiquitous technology’ and ‘self-regulation is a crucial component for knowledge-intensive flexible work’. This is an important consideration in the remote and hybrid work environment. Although many take on a remote/hybrid or flexible working pattern, the expectation can be that it is as easy to maintain focus and productivity in the same way as being in the office does. Spending time with others in a similar activity is a key motivator to keep going and needs less self-regulation than sitting alone in a quiet space. Remote/hybrid and flexible workers will need different strategies and develop purposeful working patterns and tools/strategies to keep them motivated and focused away from the office.

What also seems to come through in this research is the notion that the setting and dissolving of boundaries between work and home life is something that workers need to proactively sculpt, manage and adjust according to life circumstances and demands.

The researchers also view ‘boundary sculpting [to] relate to spaces/locations (being at the office, or travelling, or at home), time (times of the day or days of the week), tasks (certain tasks are acted upon, others are not) or social circles/other people’. The creation of work-home-play boundaries is not limited to just whether or not we are looking at our work emails and messages during non-work time, but rather that both active and passive engagement in work during private time is a form of boundary setting.

Read the original article here

If you are unable to access the web page, you can read a PDF of the article here.

Return to the main Research Page

Some acronyms used in the research document: 

  • CSCW: Computer-Supported Cooperative Work
  • HCI: Human-Computer Interaction
Related Articles
Stolen Focus Article Header

Stolen Focus – Johann Hari

by AttentionBook Reviews

Johann Hari’s book is a summary of three years of research and interviewing specialists in a number of academic areas. The mission of his book is to investigate how technology is changing our ability to focus and pay attention.

Over the course of three years Johann Hari interviews a number of ‘experts’ in various disciplines, in an attempt to understand why and how our attention and focus have been ‘stolen’. 

The book provides extensive insights into what is happening to our attention and focus and worth a read if you want to gain some understanding of how technology is changing our brain structures and how we interact with the world around us.

His book begins with the trigger for why he started down the path of investigating why and how our focus has been stolen by technology. 

The research, and content of his book, investigate both sides of the coin, namely factors that have impacted our ability to resist the onslaught of technology and how tech giants are using technology to manipulate and use our attention for their own ends. 

Although he does often suggest that his interviewees are e.g. ‘arguably the world’s leading expert’ or ‘one of the leading experts in the world’, it is important to note that there are a number of experts in each of these academic and scientific areas who may be just as knowledgeable than those he has interviewed. 

The insights from the experts that Johann Hari brings into the public domain do give us a much clearer understanding of how technology is changing the way we work, play and live. The warnings are useful to note and consider when making decisions around technology use. The solutions he suggests, however, seem a little simplistic and do not seem to address the underlying issues e.g. locking your phone in a safe with a timer seems more like a ‘bandaid solution’ than a potential tool that can be used to change overall behaviour.  

Below are a number of interviews and talks that Johann Hari has given about his book ‘Stolen Focus’. A large portion of what he talks about in his book are covered in these interviews. 

In a blog post earlier this year, a review was done of his book based on a Guardian article write-up. The blog focussed on attention, rather than focus. You can read a bit more about this in the blog post.

You can find out more about his book Stolen Focus including some additional notes and snippets to his interviews on the Stolen Focus website. 

About Johann Hari:

Johann Hari is a journalist and author. You can read more about him on his official website. 

His book Stolen Focus is one of four that he has authored. 

Book Review Related Articles
Sociology Review 2019 WFB Mgt

Differing forms of work-family boundary management

by ResearchWork-Home Boundary Blurring
'Technology, Work, and Family: Digital Cultural Capital and Boundary Management'.

Extracts and a summary of research by: Ariane Ollier-Malaterre, Jerry A. Jacobs, and Nancy P. Rothbard (2019) – (based in Canada and the USA) who set out to develop a framework for how technology, work and family intersect, especially regarding how tech is changing the boundaries between work, home and play. Although this is a 2019 Annual Review of Sociology, conducted prior to the shift towards greater degrees of hybrid work, the principles of the theories remain unchanged.

Key quotes from the research:

  • ‘…boundaries between work and family are permeable … events from one domain affect the other… it is the permeability of these boundaries that makes boundary management such a key skill, enabling people to balance work and family life.’
  • ‘… technologies directly influence how people experience work and family life by further increasing the porousness of the temporal, spatial and relational boundaries between work and family roles and identities. This porousness in turn makes the management of connectivity, online self-preservation, and privacy more challenging and calls for more elaborate technology management.’
  • ‘technology management: work performed to gain control over technology and its associated social norms in order to align one’s use of technology and one’s values and goals.’ 

Summary of the research: 

The boundaries that we create between work and home can be compared to a ‘mental fence’ that divides two differing life roles. Like any physical geographic boundary, this fence can have varying degrees of permeability and cross-over-ability.

However, we only have a small amount of control over this mental fence that we create. Company norms, team expectations, or our own internal mental processes may scupper our ability to manage these mental fences. 

Boundary Types

There are not just 1, but rather 3 types of boundary fences that we need to consider: temporal, spatial and relational. 

  • Temporal boundaries are time-based and exist whether we work in a flexible or a more structured role. Conducting work outside of the times we have set aside for work each day is an example of the blurring of this boundary. There is some debate as to the impacts versus payoffs of a constant state of connectivity with work via technology (mainly through mobile phones). The downsides including overwork, productivity levels and work-family conflict are weighed up against the upsides such as greater ambition and work involvement.
  • Spatial boundaries are our ability to separate the places where we engage in work and home activities. With better connectivity and the ability to work from home, these boundaries have become a lot more porous. Even carrying a mobile phone with you after work hours, that instantly connects you to work email, is an example of expanding work into nonwork time and infringing on both temporal and spatial boundaries.
  • Relational boundaries refer to a person’s choice of whether to build friendships with work colleagues or keep these relationships strictly professional. This includes linking up with work people on social media sites – depending on the level of personal or professional self that is revealed on each platform. 

The increasing porousness of each of these boundaries requires greater levels of awareness, motivation and active management to navigate and curate multiple identities and life roles.

This constant management of online identities is referred to as ‘digital cultural capital’, which requires technical skill and is both time and effort-intensive. It also requires awareness of the impact of self-information disclosure on both personal relationships and professional reputation. 

Connectivity Decisions

The first challenge in managing digital cultural capital is connectivity decisions. Although some groups have little control over their connectivity decisions – often due to company cultural norms and expectations – most people have some control over their digital connectivity, which allows them to feel some element of digital control (rather than being controlled by their devices).

Some of the strategies that are used to manage connectivity are: keeping the phone out of easy reach or sight, managing notifications per app, decisions on how to be notified and when to check, and respond to, notifications. Some people leave work phones at work, in the boot of their car or turn them off when arriving home.

Online Self-preservation

The second challenge is online self-preservation management – i.e. monitoring how one appears in cyberspace – and includes both what is posted about yourself as well as what others post about you (with or without your permission). It requires constant surveillance and work to present a unified online presence, and has the potential to be perilous.

Whatever the online strategy used to manage an online profile, it requires everyday awareness, effort, skill and decision-making to consider the online content audience, as well as personal and professional impact.

Privacy Management

The third challenge is around privacy management. Technology amplifies the placement and blurring of boundaries between private and social life. There is debate amongst academics and lawyers as to whether online content is private or public and many questions are arising around privacy, visibility and surveillance.

Efforts by individuals to safeguard their personal information is a form of technology management and also require extensive energy and effort. 

Connectivity Management

Perspectives on connectivity vary across social groups.

Higher-income bracket individuals tend to limit their connectivity. They also attempt to transfer their digital cultural capital values and perspectives onto their children – encouraging a more active social life offline and spending time discussing digital deviant behaviour such as cyberbullying, risky behaviour such as compromising photo disclosure, and the need to switch off.

They tend to spend more time monitoring their children’s media use, helping them develop good digital habits and working on their privacy settings.

Read the original article here

If you are unable to access the web page, you can read a PDF of the article here.

Return to the main Research Page
Related Articles
Locus of Control and CyberSecurity

What role does job control play in adherence to Cyber Security?

by Cyber SecurityResearch
'Exploring the Role of Work Identity and Work Locus of Control in Information Security Awareness'.

Extracts and summary of the research by: Dr Lee Hadlington, Dr Masa Popovac, Prof. Helge Janicke, Dr Iryna Yevseyeva, Dr Kevin Jones (2019)

In her summary of the work, Dr Popovac describes the research as exploring ‘the adherence to organisational information security and the role of work-related and individual factors such as individuals’ perceived control within the workplace, their commitment to current work identity, and the extent to which they are reconsidering commitment to work.’

Key quotes from the research:

  • ‘Cyber security is not just about technology. Almost all successful cyber attaches have a contributing human factor’ (a direct extract from the UK National Cybersecurity Strategy 2016-2021 p. 38)
  • ‘for the most part, technology cannot be the only solution to issues related to organisational cybersecurity…employee[s] (the human factor), can present a paradoxical element into the fight’
  • ‘On the one hand, employees can be a critical asset in the fight against cybersecurity breaches, and can act to deny malicious attempts to access sensitive company data. On the other hand, employees can be the ‘weakest link’…in the cybersecurity system; they are not logical, prone to misunderstanding and confusion, act on impulse and want to get their jobs done’

Summary of the research: 

This research focuses on what factors, outside of personality type, play into employee engagement in cyber security engagement in the workplace. The main aim of the research was to understand:

  • to what extent the ability to control job function has in the taking of responsibility for cyber security
  • if the identification with the workplace plays any role in improving cyber security amongst workers

The researchers point out that:

  • there is a difference between knowledge of the company’s information security policies and the ability of the employee to understand them.
  • there is also a potential gap in how individual attitudes and behaviour aligns with these policies. 

Previous research done in the area of cyber security has found that those more likely to be cyber-security conscious were: 

In contrast, those who engage in cyberloafing (engaging in non-work tech use during working hours) or have higher levels of internet addiction were less likely to be cyber-security conscious. The assumption was that these workers believed the higher levels of company security mitigated online risk when accessing specific materials and activities. Another assumption is that those who have little regard for the company they work for, or who feel they have limited control over their job, are also more likely to have a lower interest in adhering to internet security protocols.

Employees who have a higher internal locus of control are more likely to have lower stress levels, feel more in control of their work and have greater job satisfaction. Those who are higher in external locus of control feel they have little control over work, higher levels of stress and lower job/company commitment – therefore more likely to engage in counter-productive work behaviours, often to rekindle a sense of self-control over their work or potentially as an active attempt to harm the company.  

Those who feel less committed to their work may be less prone or may not see the value in engaging in cyber security behaviour.

The findings of the research are: 

  • Those with a higher internal locus of control are more likely to see their actions as a way to protect both themselves and the company from cyber attacks
  • Workers with a higher external locus of control perceive themselves to have a minimal amount of control over their work and workplace, assumed that both they and the company were vulnerable to attacks whatever action they did or didn’t take, so saw little value in following processes relating to information security.  
  • Those who have a strong work identity, and experience a sense of belonging in their workplace, are more adherent to cyber security policies
  • In contrast, those with a lower level of work identity and/or looking for a new role are less compliant. 
  • Being older and being female were also found to be more likely to engage in higher levels of information security compliance – confirming previous research. 
  • Those who have a clear understanding of the formal company rules around information security are more likely to follow them. 

Definitions: 

Locus of control: ‘an individual’s expectancy related to how rewards or aspects of life outcomes are controlled on the basis of the actions of the individual (internally) or as a result of forces outside the control of the individual (externality)’.

Organisational commitment: ‘the level of attachment an employee has with their workplace’.

Work identity: ‘the strength of an individual’s identification with their work, and not directly their workplace or organisation’.

Read the original article here

This is not an open-source document and will need purchasing to read the full original article.

Return to the main Research Page
Related Articles
9. Breaking up with social media

Breaking up with social media

by Digital PlaySocial Media

In a recent Telegraph article, the claim was made that ‘many are choosing to walk away altogether’ from social media. Breaking away from social platforms being compared directly to the all-consuming nature of a relationship. 

Individuals, celebrities, sports personalities and even businesses (such as Lush) seem to be ditching social media and finding alternative ways to engage with others. Some, such as Cal Newport (associate professor of computer science at Georgetown University), has famously never set up a social media account and still achieved substantial recognition. He is a strong advocate of a less distracted lifestyle – both for home and work. You can read more about his philosophy and work here. 

Anecdotally, we know that social media can be a time-waster and can keep us for a lot longer than we originally intended. In his book ‘Hooked’, Nir Eyal takes us through how social media tech giants design apps and social media to keep us hooked, and how they make their money.

We also know that our attention and focus are being undermined through social media scrolling. We all enjoy being entertained and TikTok videos and being nosy about what others are up to is a great distraction from other, more difficult, activities. Johann Hari, in his book ‘Stolen Focus’, highlights how our attention and focus have been undermined by some technology use. 

But, what are the advantages of using Social Media? We do need to maintain a balanced perspective of these platforms while understanding the lurking ‘dangers’ they may lure us into. Like any other potentially addictive substance or activity, technology and the apps that they support are not in and of themselves bad. It’s what we do with them and how we use them that determines their overall impact on our daily lives.

Some of the advantages of social media are:

  • It helps us be connected with others who are geographically disconnected from us
  • Conversations and connections can be seamless between offline and online engagement
  • Scrolling through our own feed reminds us of the good things in our lives – friends, family, days/nights out, holidays, pets, etc – which has shown to boost our overall mood and self-esteem
  • For some, experimenting with different personal styles and outlooks can help to shape an individual identity without too much social retribution
  • For some, finding others with similar interests and hobbies can be a great way to build their skills and knowledge – especially when it is quite specialist
  • For those who aren’t able to leave their homes, it can become a connection to the outside world

Viewing social media in the same way we engage with anything else that may have potential addictive qualities may be a bit more of a helpful approach to social media use. 

For some, social media can become very addictive, for others it’s a great tool to build friendships or a business, for others it’s become a real burden.

If you are struggling with ways to unshackle yourself from social media use. There are a few things you can do:

  • Keep social media scrolling to set times each day & set an alarm to alert you to when you need to stop
  • Try switching off your phone and leaving it in a draw or bag for an evening and/or one day a week
  • You could try putting your wifi on a timer, so it switches off at a specific time each night
  • Remove social media apps entirely from your phone
  • You could always just completely delete the social media profiles that you find are either too distracting or not being used. 

Whatever you decide to do with your social media profiles, do it intentionally. Just accepting whatever the tech giants hand over to you is for their benefit, rather than yours. 

‘If you don’t pay for the product, you are the product’. 

If you are unable to access the original Telegraph article, for reference, you can view a PDF of that article here. 

Related Articles
changing expectations

Changing social engagements and expectations

by Cultural & Society Norms

Most people get a little frustrated when someone checks their phone in the middle of a conversation. But, most of us do it… on a regular basis.

It never used to be socially acceptable to pick something up and start reading it while talking to another. Not many people would pick up a newspaper or a book and start reading it in the middle of a conversation. Yet, we regularly do this with our mobile. It’s become normal.

As a society, we’ve slipped seamlessly into some previously unacceptable social habits with our tech and media usage – especially when others are present. As individuals, workers, families and as a culture, we need to address, challenge and reshift these norms to ones that are more focussed on those physically present with us, rather than those virtually present in another part of the world. 

The interesting phenomenon we are now facing hinges on how much less time we spend building and maintaining the stronger and deeper relationships we have with physical others (which tend to be more enduring and grounding), in contrast to the time spent and reliance we are placing on the shallower and more shifting nature of online relationships. That is not to say there is no value in online relationships, but rather that our cognitive and emotional ‘presence’ has dramatically shifted over the past two decades without us really taking stock of what that means individually and collectively.  

We are doing both ourselves and others a disservice by not being fully present with others. 

A few hints and tips for work: 

  • Don’t take your phone with you into a meeting – unless you are waiting for a call, there is rarely anything so important that it can’t wait until the meeting is finished
  • Keep your phone out of sight while working – having your phone in view while working increases the chance of you randomly checking your phone for messages and notifications, causing you unnecessary distractions and attention shifts

A few hints and tips for home: 

  • Switch your work phone off when you get home
  • Don’t load work emails and work-related apps onto your personal phone
  • Set yourself hours in the day when you can say, ‘I’m no longer working’ – try to stick to it 
  • Keep your phone in your bag or pocket while out with a friend – better yet, leave it at home
  • Negotiate with your family a set of ‘house rules’ and limitations on what and when tech is used in the home
  • Education yourself and your family on why sleep is such a necessary part of current and future mental wellness (Matthew Walkers book on ‘Why We Sleep’ is a good start)
  • Try switching off all technology at least 1-2 hours before bed – giving your brain time to ‘de-escalate’ from the whirlwind that work and life can create.
  • If you can, use separate devices for home and work tasks – giving your brain the cues that you are ‘transitioning’ out of work and into home life and visa versa.

Your psychology and automated processing systems need a daily and weekly rhythm that allows you to regulate your physical, emotional and cognitive energy levels. 

A few hints and tips for managers: 

  • Negotiate digital working practices with your staff and teams.
  • Let people manage their own digital engagement levels after working hours, but make it clear that there is no expectation around communication response times after working hours
  • Set a precedent that if one person sends an email or message to a project platform after work hours, it doesn’t mean that everyone is expected to also do so.
Related Articles
Working after hours

Contact with work after hours is linked to family conflict, distress and sleep issues

by Individual Differences and ImpactResearch
'Are communications about work outside regular working hours associated with work-to-family conflict, psychological distress and sleep problems?'
Extracts and summary of the research by: Scott Schieman and Marisa C. Young (2013)

Key quotes from the research:

  • ‘…work contact is associated with higher levels of work-to-family conflict, distress and sleep problems.’
  • ‘…simultaneous exposure to high pressure and contact [with work after hours] heightens arousal that , in turn, poses a greater threat to one’s sense of equilibrium, energy, and mental or physical resources that either one does on its own.’
  • ‘…job pressure might exacerbate the impact of work contact…[in] that both pressure and contact – as different but interrelated demands – draw on the same limited volitional resource…’

Summary of the research: 

Those who are in constant contact with work in private time are more likely to experience conflict with the family by reducing the level of finite time and energy workers have outside of work. Increased work engagement also increases psychological stress and exacerbates sleep issues.

 There are some caveats to this: 

  • Workers who have the ability to manage their workload, such as job control (i.e. flexibility as to when they get the work done) and autonomy (i.e. when and how they get their job done) are less impacted by work contact after hours
  • Those who have more challenging roles that are require the learning of new things, include creative elements, span a variety of different tasks and get to use their skills and abilities are less likely to experience family conflict, be stressed and have sleep issues 
  • In contrast, those whose roles are overwhelming and/or highly pressured intensifies the work contact after hours and exacerbates family contact and sleep problems. 

Having a highly pressurised job or one that is overwhelming is more likely to lead to greater levels of work contact after hours, which reduces the amount of time spent with others. Even that time with family is spent in a state of stress which also reduces the amount of recovery sleep received. 

Having a more rewarding role, that allows a worker the ability to work around other life commitments, and provides a level of personal growth and feeling valued is more likely to lead to lower levels of stress and better sleep, even if the worker has regular contact with work during private hours. 

Read the original article here

If you are unable to access the web page, you can read a PDF of the article here.

Return to the main Research Page
Related Articles
permission to be bored

Give yourself permission to be bored

by Digital Brain

Prior to the introduction of the Blackberry and Smartphone, when we stood in queues, waited for a friend at a cafe or travelled on a train, we’d spend time thinking, contemplating, reading, reflecting, planning…. MRI scans on people given tasks to complete and then given nothing to do, showed that there is a middle section of the brain that lights up when we are ‘bored’, when our brain isn’t engaged in activities like social media scrolling, gaming, reading news, doing work, analysing data, etc. *

This part of the brain is generally what is used when we are engaged in self-reflection. This is when we get to process emotions, the events of the day, the social engagements we’ve had, how these have affected us, how we’ve dealt with things, and how we intend to deal with them in the future. If we do not allow our brands this ‘wandering time’, we are unlikely to engage in these self-reflection practices. 

What is fundamental about self-reflection, is that it is an essential ingredient in helping to reduce anxiety levels. 

Another element around technology use during down-time, is that the all to familiar left – right analogy of how our brain works isn’t quite how creative thinking and analytical reasoning works. MRI imaging has shown that distinct areas of our brain (on both the right and the left side) light up when we are thinking creatively and a different areas of our brain (on both the right and the left side) light up when we are thinking analytically. 

The interesting bit here is that the creative and analytical parts of our brain do not ‘light up’ at the same time. This means that as long as we are thinking analytically (or distracting ourselves with tasks or entertainment), the creative parts of our brain are dormant. 

This is why we often get creative ideas when we are in the shower, just as we are falling asleep or just waking up – there is nothing else distracting our brain, so the analytical parts turn off, giving the creative parts the ability to switch on. 

Why is this important? When we spend all our down-time distracting ourselves by staring at a screen, we are actively engaging the analytical parts of our brain. We are effectively silencing any creative or self-reflective thinking time. Being able to see things in new ways is an essential part of business innovation and personal change.

Without that, we tend spiral into stagnation. We copy others through lack of innovation. We produce the same results as everyone else – based on the same data and same analytics. We reduce our ability to be innovative. 

So, what can we do about it? We need to actively give ourselves time  in our day without phones, without technology, without distractions and just ‘be’. Give your brain room to slow down, to stretch, to explore. Give yourself the opportunity to be self-reflective, to be creative. 

A few things you can try: 

  • Try to leave your phone behind when you go out on your own. 
  • Leave your phone in another room for the day. 
  • Don’t use your technology as a constant stream of entertainment and distraction. 
  • Give yourself a few hours before going to bed without any technology – have a pen and paper handy to write down any tasks, ideas of things to remember when they come into your head. 
  • Try to not look at your phone first thing when you wake up – give yourself at least half and hour before switching on any technology to process what you need to do for the day. 

* If you want to know more about this you can read more about Ruth Lanius’s work on the ‘default state network (DSN)’ that Bressel Van Der Kolk refers to in his book ‘The Body Keeps the Score’ (see from page 106 of the Physical Book or Chapter 6 within the Audible Book). 

Related Articles
Every increasing Boundary Blurring

The ever-increasing blurring of the boundary between work and home

by Work-Home Boundary Blurring

Prior to the introduction of the Blackberry at the turn of the century, generally for many, when we left the office, our work for the day was done. We spent limited time thinking about work and focussed on doing things we found enjoyable.

The Blackberry dramatically changed that. 

Initially, having a mobile email device massively improved productivity levels and meant we could be perceived by others as responsive, dedicated and engaged employees.

Then, rapid response times quickly escalated into a workplace norm. Those who didn’t answer an email within a few hours would include a form of apology for the response delay. Little actions like these, intended as a form of placation, indirectly stated to the reader that the sender had response time expectations much shorter than what they had taken to reply. 

The escalating perceived need to respond quickly to emails, messages and texts means that apps need to be left open throughout the day and kept an eye on throughout the evening. Not responding quickly can be perceived as showcasing a lack of commitment. For those desiring to switch off completely from work after hours, there is a potential fear of being left out or left behind, especially when many in the team are engaged in the ongoing conversation. 

Since the turn of the century, the psychological expectations around being an ‘effective worker’ have permanently shifted. Quicker responsive communication is now equated to higher perceived levels of productivity and efficiency as a worker. 

So, we’re at work and we work, and we’re at home and we work. We never really switch off. 

Research shows that those who operate like this are more likely to have:

  • Greater family and partner/spouse conflict.
  • Higher levels of stress and anxiety
  • Physical health issues (due to being constantly hyper-vigilant with lower quality and quantity of sleep)
  • Higher levels of cognitive exhaustion
  • Lower levels of overall productivity

We know that creating a strong physical and mental boundary between work life and home life is critical for cognitive and physical recovery from the demands of knowledge work. But, most people don’t have a strategy for separating out the two life realms, unless they make a cognitive effort to do so. 

And having a ‘strong boundary’ means knowing what type of work-life balance you prefer (or need) and making conscious choices around how to do that. For some, not checking work emails after 7pm or before 8am is what they need. For others, having the option of taking time out during the day from work, but allocating a few hours in the early morning or evening works best. It is about being clear with yourself and others about how you prefer to separate out, or integrate, your home and work life. It also means allowing yourself time to physically and mentally recover from the work you do. 

There is much being reported in the media (especially since March 2020) about work-life balance. But, every person has a different nuanced ideal of what that looks like for them. e.g. 

  • For one person, being able to decide their own working hours to get their work done is key
  • For another person, having chunks of work time that can be juggled around their home commitments works best in managing multiple responsibilities
  • For another, having a 6-8 hours stretch of work that allows them to shut off completely from work at a certain point in the day and not pick it up again until the following morning is the only way they can mentally and physically recover

We’re all different and work best with a level of flexibility and job control in order to get work done and maintain our own version of work-life balance. 

Our individual, bespoke needs and ability to segment or integrate our work and home life are important in reducing overall stress, anxiety and burnout. 

Most importantly, the key in this is actually developing an individual strategy, to manage and separate out the two life realms. For managers, it’s about recognising that others in the team may have a very different interpretation of what a good work-life balance is and finding ways to optimise it.

Related Articles
Generational Differences

Are there generational differences in expectations of work technology use after hours?

by Individual Differences and ImpactResearch
'Technological Tethering, Digital Natives, and Challenges in the Work-Family Interface'.
Extracts and summary of the research by: Andrew D. Nevin and Scott Schieman (2020)

Key quotes from the research:

  • ‘…mobile technologies have facilitated the extension of traditional working hours, reflective of workers being “technologically tethered” to their jobs while at home so that they are more accessible than ever to their employers … constant connectivity has become normalised in today’s society and ingrained in organizational cultures by fostering unrealistic expectations of worker availability, which has contributed to current norms of excessive job contact, multitasking, and working overtime’.
  • ‘…the modern worker represents one who is technologically tethered, that is, restricted by traditional separations of physical work and home environments while being digitally available for job contact and monitoring at all times … through technology, fast-paced work demands are “no longer bound by time and space” and have begun to transcend fixed work schedules … often workers cannot choose to disconnect from their devices, which reduces their autonomy and ability to cope with work stress’.
  • ‘…widespread expectations have emerged about the ability of digital natives to better manage technology-based tasks in the workplace and to handle increasing communication demands via work extending technologies.’

Summary of the research: 

‘Digital Natives’, i.e. those who have grown up using technology on a daily basis, are thought to be better more digitally intelligent and have superior digital skills than older ‘Digital Immigrant’ workers. 

This stereotype has been popularised by the media, who showcase them as needing constant stimulation, being more tech-savvy and more likely to use tech to learn and communicate with others. This has led to the perception that they are more likely to adapt to workplace tech demands, better at multi-tasking and more likely to seek out tech-centric roles.

However, the analysis of this research concluded that there was no difference in the generations in terms of their ability to cope with workplace technology use after hours.

Structural ageism assumes that older workers are less able to adapt to newer technologies, however, this study refutes that sentiment and suggests this assumption instead leads to discriminatory experiences amongst digital immigrants and can lead to reduced productivity. 

The study showcases that neither digital natives nor digital immigrants are able to cope with their workplace tech-tethering, which is synonymous with the modern workplace. 

Digital Natives are not better at balancing their various life roles and are as likely to either cope or struggle with role multitasking and constant workplace connectivity. 

The study did confirm previous findings that women are more likely to experience higher levels of role conflict through after-hours work tech use.

It also confirmed that those in higher status roles were more likely to subscribe to the ‘ideal worker’ norms that encourage overwork, increase work hours and workplace technology use after hours. These workers need both a more individualised and a more active commitment to work-life balance strategies. 

Read the original article here

This is not an open-source document and will need purchasing to read the full original article.

Return to the main Research Page
Related Articles