Workfamily Border Theory

Work/Family Border Theory 2

Relationship between work and family 2

Work/Family Border Theory 5

The Development of Work/Family Border Theory 6

Literature. 6

Stories. 7

Central Concepts of Work/Family Border Theory 8

Domains. 9

Borders. 10

Border-keepers and other domain members. 16

The implication of Work/Family Border Theory 20

Organizational tools for attaining balance between work and family. 20

Individual tools for attaining balance between work and family. 22

Directions for research. 23

Criticism on Work/Family Border Theory 24

Extended Concepts of Work/Family Border Theory 27

Work/family border theory: the border-crosser domain. 27

Work/family border theory: the work domain. 27

Work/family border theory: the family domain. 29

Work/family border theory and leisure. 30

Work/family border theory and gender. 32

Current researches on Work/Family Border Theory 34

Bibliography 38

Work/Family Border Theory

Sue Cambell Clark, 2000

Work/Family Border Theory was put forward by Sue Cambell Clark in 2000. This theory suggests that people in daily life are border-crossers between realms of work place and family life. The theory explains how combination and subdivision of realms of work and family, border creation and controlling, involvement of border-crossers, and association between border-crossers and others at work place and home effect work/family balance.

Work and family systems, though different, are interconnected. According to earlier theories, the connection between work and family system is emotional and change on one side is effecting equally the second, side by side. But this theory suggests that the first hand relationship between work and family is human not emotional.Everyday people border crosses between two different worlds of work and family. These two worlds are shaped by the people, borders between the two worlds are molded by them and the relationship between border-crossers and the other members of their worlds are also determined by them. People influence and being influenced by their environment. This contradiction of influencing and being influenced by each other determines the balance between two worlds of work and family and hence making one of the most challenging concept to study the domains of work and family in general. Work/family border theory attempted to describe this multifaceted interface border-crossers and their work and family worlds, to envisage when conflict can occur between the worlds of work and family, and give a framework for attaining balance between these two interconnected worlds.

Relationship between work and family

Past 300 hundred years are marked with the industrial market and economic growth, these changing patterns segmented activities accompanying making income and concerning family members. Earlier to this industrial market and economic growth, large scale production was done by family members by themselves that was enough only for their own consumption. With the increasing industrialization and growth in economy, workplaces outside of the home began to created and flourished and these workplaces got the charge of production. This industrialization and economic growth separated the two worlds of work and family, both responsible for caring out different activities, at different times, with different type of people having diverse behaviors and emotions. All this contributed in making work place and family two different worlds with different ethos and work domains.

From the earlier times, men were supposed to be breadwinner and women were supposed to be homemaker and as work place and family were considered to be two separate and different worlds, thus early researchers treated work place and family as two different systems operating and functioning independently of each other. Researches carried out in 1970s on work place and family put forward the open-system approach. With the advent of this approach researchers began to take work place and family as two interconnected domains. One of the prominent examples of this approach is “spillover theory”. This theory put forward that irrespective of physical and temporal demarcations between work and family, both these domains influence each other i.e. emotions and behaviors happening at one sphere can be spillover to the other domain and vice versa. Another theory, “compensation theory” hypothesized that compensation relation exist between work place and family domain. According to this theory, if people experienced lack at any one domain of work place and family they try to compensate that lack in other domain (i.e. people who are less satisfied at their work place try to better perform in their family that can give them fulfillment, and vice versa). These theories put forward this notion that work and family life affect each other directly, thus these two domains of work place and family life cannot be separated from each other and lack of commitment at one domain directly influences the other domain.

Changes in society changes the responsibilities of individuals both at work place and family, and these changes lead to the further investigation of interdependencies between work and family life. These changes can be listed as follows:

a) increasing number of single parents as resulted from increasing number of divorces

b) increase in women labor force (it is said that women labor force is increased by 22 percent since 1983)

c) increased part-time job practices

d) changing patterns in family structure from joint family systems to nuclear family systems

e) less social support from families due to increasing mobility from the families towards the work places

f) increase in responsibilities at work place from workers

g) changes in father’s responsibilities at family from passive role to active role.

These changing trends of responsibilities at work place and family lifebecame a dominant area of interest in theoretical perspectives.

Spillover theory and compensation theory established that work place and family life are interconnected and inseparable entities. Although these theories put forward the main stream of ideas relating to work place and family life yet they were inadequate to fully explain the two domains from different perspectives, to predict when and how the imbalance between the two domains took place and to give the remedies and solutions if the imbalance occurs between work place and family life. For instance, spillover and compensation can happen to an individual at a time, thus leaving it very vague to explain and resolve why that individual favored one behavior over the other. Because of these flaws, most research related to work place and family life remain limited and incomprehensive not giving further directions in this area. The major drawback of spillover and compensation theories was of their narrowapplication. These theories focused only on emotional expressions and gave very little attention to the behavioral aspect between work place and family life. Furthermore these theories did not address the issues of type of relationship between employees, family members and work place members, and the ways how these relationships influence each other and how the individual can frame different activities and actions happening at both domains of work place nod family life to create a harmony and balance between the two interconnected and inseparable domains of work place and family life.

Later in 1980s and 1990s, researchers added further variables to examine interconnectivity of the two inseparable realms of work place and family life thus making this domain more complex. The main variables being studied in this area were employees’ helping attitude at work and its effect on its familial life and vice versa, individuals’ family structure i.e. supportive or inhibiting and its effects on individuals’ work life, individuals’ sense of responsibility of work at home and his work place. Sense of responsibility of work determines an individuals’ priority that he placed on the work place affairs or family affairs. Work place flexible policies and their effects on an employee’s family life were also being examined in that era.

Although all these variables further complicate the work-family domain to study, yet not any theoretical framework was put forward to explain how all these variables integrate and how the balance between work place and family life be achieved if any individual faces imbalance between his work place and family life. At that time a new theory was needed that can fully explain how complexities of work place and family life be studied and solved, why conflicts and imbalances occurs at work place and family life, how these imbalances be solved, employees required characteristics to create a balance between work place and family life. Furthermore, a theory was needed to provide a comprehensive and parsimonious theoretical framework to individuals and organizations to give facilities to acquire and promote balance and harmony between two domains of work place and family life.

Work/Family Border Theory

Work/family border theory is a latest theory in the area of work/family. This theory is put forward to meet the flaws and gaps of the previous theories presented in this area of work/family. This theory defines how individuals working in two domains i.e. work place and family manages to maintain a balance and harmony across the borders of these two inseparable domains. The main idea of this theory is that ‘work place’ and ‘family life’ are two different yet interconnected domains of life. After industrial revolution work and family emerged as two different concepts with different types of responsibilities and purposes. In this concern it can be said that work and family are like two different interconnected entities separated with marked borders between them having different languages, acceptable behaviors, different tasks to do and with different types of people accompanying. The transition from one entity to the other is different for every individual. For some people it may be very easy with very little difference in languages, behaviors, responsibilities and the accompanying social group while for other people it can be very difficult with huge differences in language, behaviors, responsibilities and accompanying social group. With this transition from one domain to the other i.e. from work to family and vice versa every individual bring certain changes in his attitude to meet the required challenges and responsibilities of the domain in which he is being transferred to. An individual can adjust the requirements of the two domains to create a balance and harmony between the two spheres of work and family. ‘Balance’ can be defined asa state of harmony good functioning both at work and family with very little role conflict.

The Development of Work/Family Border Theory

According to Clark, 2000 (the author of work/family border theory) after the literature review of existing literature regarding work/family, she decided to develop a new theory of work/family. Using qualitative research techniques, she interviewed individuals involved in work/family domains, she also created focus groups to find out the cause and solution to create balance between work and family domains. After her research analysis she concluded that people are highly proactive or enactive i.e. people do try to shape their transition from one border of work/family to another border of work/family to achieve a balance between the two borders and they did this by negotiating and communicating with their respective social group. People are not reactive i.e. people are not unresponsive to their transition from one border into the other border. With these findings Clark reexamined the literature to have a broad spectrum to study the work/family domain more thoroughly.

Literature.

Author examined the literature from different fields i.e. psychology, communication, education, business, family science, philosophy, women studies, and history. The author selected these diverse fields to make ensure to address all the complexities associated with work/family concept and to examine work/family concept from every possible dimension.

Clark uses the Kurt Lewin’s idea of ‘life space’ i.e. the psychological environment around every individual and within which every individual used to live, as a philosophical basis of her theory. According to this idea of ‘life space’ given by Kurt Lewin, every individual is being influenced by everything that comes across this psychological environment that he has created around him. Each person’s life space is patterned in a different way. Every individual has many different regions in his life with different level of permeability of one region into another. For example, a person may be a very secular and open minded in his worldly affairs in dealing with others that person can be a very conservative and strict in his familial affairs. Thus that person has two regions with very little permeability between the two regions of his worldly affairs and his familial life in his life. This idea of life space gave a psychological base for Clark to develop a work/family theory. This idea gives a notion that the different regions of our life are separate from one another and the degree of collaboration between the different domains of our life depends upon the strength of the border between these different domains. The more strong the border between the different domains of our lives, the more difficult it would be to cross the borders between one domains to another.

Lewin’s idea of ‘border’ was further studied by many other social scientists and another concept of ‘border-crossing’ was evolved. This idea of border-crossing from one domain of life into another domain of life is very less frequently used as a systematic term in research. Very little work is being done using border-crossing as a theoretical framework to study work and family life, the strength and permeability of the border between work and family life, and how individuals succeeds in crossing this border between work and family domains.

Stories.

Author also collected stories to study the cultural aspect of work and family and the communication between work and family. Stories are cultural manifestations of how people view themselves, others and the world around them. Stories also tell us how institutions created and changed over the span of time.

Related stories were collected from quantitative research methods i.e. from published sources and also employing qualitative research methods of in-depth interviews with 15 individuals involving in both the domains of work and family. Through these interviews stories were collected of the following types:

a) How individuals tried to create a balance between their work and family when they are faced with extreme disharmonious situations.

b) How individuals tried to maintain a balance between their work and family in their everyday circumstances.

Central Concepts of Work/Family Border Theory

Work/family border theory can be represented pictorially as follows:

[pic]

Above figure lists the important concepts of the theory and their features:

a) Work and home domains

b) Border between work and family

c) Border-crossers

d) Border-keepers

e) Other important domain members.

Domains.

Work and home domains are considered to be two different spheres i.e. worlds with different languages, behaviors, responsibilities and accompanying social groups. Industrial revolution brought about changes in domains of work and family. Work and family are associated with different cultures and tasks. Because responsibilities at work and family are carried out at different times and at different places.

Differences at work and home can be categorized as different in following ways: differences in valued ends and differences in valued means.Work gives a sense of accomplishment by providing sources of income, and home gives a sense of personal happiness and affection by providing means of intimate relationships. Greater emphasis on attaining work responsibilities creates a work environment not supportive in attaining affectionate familial environment for its employees and vice versa. Some institutions discourage too much emotional expressions of their employees in certain areas thus asks their employees to suppress their emotions while in work environment in order to attain a fully customer-oriented work environment. In such institutions being joyful and helpful is just to attain the work related tasks and responsibilities. If any individual’s home environment is contrasting to his work environment i.e. very friendly and emotionally expressing at home, it would be difficult for that individual to attain a harmony and balance between the two domains of work and family. Mostly ‘responsible’ and ‘capable’are required behaviors at work and ‘affectionate’ and ‘giving’ are required behaviors at home.

Environments at work places and family determine the required rules and behaviors at the respective domains. These environments and rules are created and shaped by individuals taking part in these domains. In many instances the environments differ at work and family.Individuals manage to create harmony and balance between the two domains of work and family with incorporation and collaboration between the two domains simultaneously. Often people integrate family and work to the extent that they feel very little difference in both of these domains regarding languages, cultures, responsibilities and social groups.

Incorporation is the most desirable approach to attain a balance between work and family, but it’s often difficult to attain a desirable state of incorporation between two domains of work and family. Some people make a division between two domains of work and family in their lives very effectively. The balance between work and family provides an individual a chance to attain a sense of accomplishment at work place along with a sense of affection and love at home simultaneously.

How do an individual incorporate or mark divisions between work and family, and the degree of incorporation and division between work and family required to attain a balance between work and family? These questions can be answered by examining the border between the two domains of work and family, the strength of border between the two domains, the way individuals use to attain and manage the balance between work and family.

Borders.

Borders are the line of division between different domains. This line separates one domain from the other thus specifying rules and behaviors appropriate in the respective domain. These borders take the following three forms:

I. Physical

II. Temporal

III. Psychological

Physical border defines the physical division between different domains such as walls of the work place and walls of the home. This border specifies the required behaviors at a certain domain. Temporal border defines the required time at a certain domain. This border tells us when to do task at a particular domain. Psychological border defines the required behaviors at a certain domain. This border tells the particular set of rules and regulations specific to a certain domain. Psychological border is specific to every individual and it is created by the individual himself yet guided by physical and temporal borders. Borders have the following qualities:

a. Permeability

b. Flexibility

c. Blending

d. Border strength

Permeability.

Permeability refers to the degree to which constituents of one domain may enter into another domain. For example an individual who has his office at his home. For him the physical border between his work and family would be very permeable easily allowing entrance of constituents of family domain into the constituents of work domain. Permeability can be perceived as positive as well as negative. Negative permeability did not allow any entrance from one domain into the other domain thus totally separating an individual from one domain from the other. Positive permeability would allow the individual to actively participate in both the domains at a time. Permeability could also be physical, temporal or psychological. Example of physical permeability is an office in a home, example of temporal permeability is flexible working hours and example of psychological permeability is transfer (spillover) of positive or negative emotions from work to family and vice versa.

Flexibility.

Flexibility refers to the extent of how much any one domain can be enlarged or can be contracted, depending on the requirements of domains. Flexibility could also be physical, temporal or psychological. Example of physical flexibility is if an individual is allowed to do work at any place, example of temporal flexibility is flexible working hours and example of psychological flexibility is if an individual is allowed to think about other domain while being in another domain.

Blending.

Blending refers to the degree to which constituents from one domain get merge into the constituents of other domain. If there is enough permeability and flexibility between the borders of the two domains, blending can easily be occurred. As a result of blending, the division between borders of two domains became less prominent thus creating a borderland that cannot easily be separated from one domain from other domain. Blending can also be physical, temporal or psychological. Example of physical blending is in family business where work and family affairs go side by side, and example of psychological blending is if a person uses his experiences at one domain into another domain.

Blending can be fatal if the two domains are entirely different or opposing. In this situation conflicts can arise and balancing between the two domains can be difficult to attain. If the two domains are comparable and supporting, blending can be helpful in incorporating between the two domains.

Border strength.

Border strength is determined by the permeability, flexibility and blending. Borders are considered to be strong if they are impermeable, inflexible and not allowing blending. Borders are considered to be weak if they are permeable, flexible and allowing blending. Literature supports weak border strength to be very functional and vice versa. Border strength can be determined as supportive or non supportive on the basis of differences between the two domains of work and family.

Differences between the two domains of work and family determine the ideal degree of border strength as expressed in the following postulates:

Postulate 1a: In similar domains, weak borders facilitate work/family balance.

Postulate 1b: In different domains, strong borders facilitate work/family balance.

Borders are strong if they can restrain the transfer of constituents of one domain into the other. Borders can also inhibit the transfer of constituents of one domain into the other while allowing the transfer of constituents of one domain into the other. Domains can be stronger or weaker depending upon the value or worth an individual places into that domain. If an individual is work-oriented, for him work would be the stronger domain. If an individual is family-oriented, for him family domain would be stronger domain. Borders will be stronger in the direction of the stronger domain and weaker in the direction of the weaker domain. If the individual’s interests go along with the interest of the domain, border strength will be supportive for the individual. But if the interests of the individual go against the interest of the domain, border strength will be inhibiting for the individual.

If the border strength is inhibiting for the individual, acquiring balance between two domains of work and family would be difficult as expressed in the following postulate:

Postulate 2: When the border is strong to inhibit the transfer from one domain but is weak to inhibit the transfer from the other domain, individuals will have:

a) greater work/family balance when they primarily identify with the strongly bordered domain

b) weaker work/family balance when they primarily identify with the weakly bordered domain

Border-crossers.

Border-crossers are individuals who cross the border between the two domains of work and family. The concepts of domain and border are significantly the artifact of border-crossers’ own perception. There are the certain attributes of the border-crossers. These attributes are the individual’s capability to make a change in the domain or the border in order to acquire their desired requirements.

Border-crossers are defined on the basis of their involvement in certain domain as central or marginal.

Central participants are:

a. Those individuals who internalized domain’s culture i.e. language, rules, regulations, and values attached to a certain domain.

b. Those individuals who performed well and show proficiency in his responsibilities.

c. Those individuals who have associations and interactions with the management of the domain.

d. Those individuals who clearly and fully know the required responsibilities of the domain.

Peripheral participants are:

a. Those individuals who disregard domain’s culture i.e. language, rules, regulations, and values attached to a certain domain.

b. Those individuals who did not performed well and did not show proficiency in his responsibilities.

c. Those individuals who did not have associations and interactions with the management of the domain.

d. Those individuals who did not know clearly and fully the required responsibilities of the domain.

There are two fundamental elements that determine an individual’s adjustment to work and home. These fundamental elements are as follows:

a. Influence

b. Identification

Influence.

Influence of an individual in any domain depends on his internalization with the domain’s culture i.e. language, rules, regulations, and values attached to a certain domain, his good performance and proficiency in his allotted responsibilities, and his associations and interactions with the management of the domain. The influence makes an individual a central participant and enabling him to have enough power, so that he can make changes to the domains and its borders. Literature has shown that individuals with greater influence and power i.e. they can make choices and changes of their own in their respective domain are more gratified and have balance between their work and family.

Identification.

Identification with domain’s tasks and responsibilities is the second element in making an individual a central participant and enabling him to have enough power, so that he can make changes to the domains and its borders. Individuals with greater identification of their domain’s tasks and responsibilities are in a better position to make choices and changes of their own in their respective domain. Literature has shown that individuals with lesser identification to their domains face conflicts that arises between their roles in their domains and thus balance between their domains are at stake. Identification can be attained if an individual finds meaning in his responsibilities and give values to the tasks attached with the domain.

If an individual fails to attain identification with his domain over the time, he may feel frustration and anxiety in identifying his role and position in that domain. With the passage of time, that individual may lose balance between his different roles in different domains and eventually falling prey to the extinction of his position in his respective domain.

Border-crossers fully identified with their roles and positions in their respective domains are wholly devoted to the responsibilities and tasks of their respective domains. They try to accomplish their tasks and responsibilities in a way that allows the border-crossers to surpass and to flourish. Balance between work and family cannot be achieved without complete identification with responsibilities and tasks associated with the respective domain of work and family.

If the border-crossers are central participants in their respective domains, they would have greater control over the borders of the domain as well as greater balance between the two domains of work and family as expressed in the following postulates:

Postulate 3: Border-crossers who are central participants in a domain (i.e. who have identification and influence) will have more control over the borders of that domain than those who are peripheral participants.

Postulate 4: Border-crossers who are central participants (i.e. who have identification and influence) in both domains will have greater work/family balance than border-crossers who are not central participants in both domains.

Border-keepers and other domain members.

Activities are carried out in conjunction with other members of the domain i.e. activities that are carried out in work place influence and also get influenced by the other people at the work place. Similarly activities that are carried out at home influence and also get influenced by the other people at the home. In this way the concepts of border and domain are created and managed with several people involving in it, hence making it an inter subjective action that involves many sets of people i.e. border-crossers, border-keepers, and other members of the domain. All these people negotiate among themselves and then decide the different constituents of the different domains and also identify the line of border between the different domains. Border-keepers are those members of the domain who are very dominant in deciding the different constituents of the different domains and also identifying the line of border between the different domains. Common border-keepers are managers at the work place and common border-keepers are spouses at the home. Other members of the domain may be significant in deciding the different constituents of the different domains and also identifying the line of border between the different domains, but they do not have influence over the border-crossers.

The function of border-keepers and other members of the domain are very significant in helping the border-crossers to manage the domains and the borders. According to the author, earlier research has identified specific border between different domains with people’s consent upon that borders. The author is against this notion of specific border between different domains. There is a wide spread disagreement between the specific borders, the permeability, flexibility and blending of borders and the constituents of the different domains. These disagreements regarding these concepts are the causes of work/family conflict.

Border-keepers such as supervisors and spouses have their own definitions of work and family. These definitions can be based on their experiences and their own priorities. These definitions if opposite to the definitions of border-crossers than the conflict arises between border-keepers and border-crossers not enabling the border-crossers to deal with these conflicts. Negotiation between border-keepers and border-crossers can be a useful way in attaining understating between border-keepers and border-crossers and also in helping to resolve the conflicts between border-keepers and border-crossers. If the border-keepers are sensible enough to understand the border-crosser’s responsibilities at the other domain, it would be accessible for border-crosser to attain a balance between the two domains of work and family very easily.

There are several qualities of domain members that help in building understating between the members of the domain and also in maintaining the negotiation and communication between the members of the domain. These qualities are as follows:

a. Other-domain awareness

b. Commitment to the border-crosser

c. Domain differences and communication

Other-domain awareness.

If the members of one domain are aware of the responsibilities associated with the other domain, balance between the two domains would be easily achievable. For example, if a supervisor is aware of the border-crosser’s responsibilities associated with his family, he would be called as having family-domain awareness. Similarly if a spouse is not fully aware of the border-crosser’s responsibilities associated with his work place, she would be called as not having work-domain awareness. Other domain awareness is achievable in situations where members of one domain co-cross with the members of the other domain. These situations are attainable in family businesses where members of family co-cross with the members of the work. Other domain awareness can also be achieved with the increasing negotiations and communications between the border-crossers and other members of the domain such as supposes and supervisors.

Commitment to the border-crosser.

Another quality of members of the domain is their commitment to the border-crosser. Commitment to the border-crosser can be viewed as caring the individual as a whole person not as a means of fulfilling the needs in a certain domain. Members of the domain must be very supportive and helpful in aiding the border-crosser to carry out his responsibilities in a very good way. Literature has proposed that with the increasing attitude of helping and supporting of the members of the domain, the effectiveness and the proficiency of the border-crosser also increases. Border-keepers i.e. managers at the work place play a very critical and crucial role in the well-being of the border-crosser, and the supportive attitude of the manager also helps in over-coming the work/family conflict if any arises. But this type of support from the managers is very rare. The main cause behind this attitude may be the traditional concept that the work life must be separated from the work life and employers should not get involved into one another’s family affairs. However, most of the workers are of the view that managers should be aware of employees’ family affairs so they can get support at any crucial time. In this regard it is suggested that managers should be trained in being supportive and helpful to their employees whenever employees needed.

Higher other-domain awareness and commitment to the border-crosser is directly related to the higher work/family balance as expressed in the following postulates:

Postulate 5: Border-crossers whose domain members have high other domain awareness will have higher work/family balance than border-crossers whose domain members have low other domain awareness.

Postulate 6: Border-crossers whose domain members show high commitment to them will have higher work/family balance than border-crossers whose domain members show low commitment to them.

Domain differences and communication.

The characteristics of the domain are also crucial in inhibiting or increasing communication between members of the domain along with the characteristics of the border-crosser and members of the domain. Communication between members of two domains is directly related to the degree of difference between the two domains. If the two domains are entirely different to each other either culturally or type of work, then it would be highly difficult to attain a level of communication between the members of two domains. Similarly if the two domains are not very different to each other either culturally or type of work, then it would not be difficult to attain a level of communication between the members of two domains. Communication between two domains i.e. communication of family affairs with the supervisor or communication of work affairs with the spouses can be very helpful in reducing the bridges between the two domains of work and family.

Differences between the domains and the communication between the border-crosser with their border-keepers are directly related to the balance between work and family as expressed in the following postulates:

Postulate 7: When work and family domains are very different, border-crossers will engage in less across-the-border communication than will border-crossers with similar domains.

Postulate 8: Frequent supportive communication between border-crossers and border-keepers about other-domain activities will moderate the ill effects of situations that would otherwise lead to imbalance.

Table 1: Main postulates of work/family border theory can be summarized in a table as follows:

Postulate 1a: In similar domains, weak borders facilitate work/family balance.

Postulate 1b: In different domains, strong borders facilitate work/family balance.

Postulate 2: When the border is strong to inhibit the transfer from one domain but is weak to inhibit the transfer from the other domain, individuals will have:

a) greater work/family balance when they primarily identify with the strongly bordered domain

b) weaker work/family balance when they primarily identify with the weakly bordered domain

Postulate 3: Border-crossers who are central participants in a domain (i.e. who have identification and influence) will have more control over the borders of that domain than those who are peripheral participants.

Postulate 4: Border-crossers who are central participants (i.e. who have identification and influence) in both domains will have greater work/family balance than border-crossers who are not central participants in both domains.

Postulate 5: Border-crossers whose domain members have high other domain awareness will have higher work/family balance than border-crossers whose domain members have low other domain awareness.

Postulate 6: Border-crossers whose domain members show high commitment to them will have higher work/family balance than border-crossers whose domain members show low commitment to them.

Postulate 7: When work and family domains are very different, border-crossers will engage in less across-the-border communication than will border-crossers with similar domains.

Postulate 8: Frequent supportive communication between border-crossers and border-keepers about other-domain activities will moderate the ill effects of situations that would otherwise lead to imbalance.

The implication of Work/Family Border Theory

Work/family border theory provides us a comprehensive theoretical framework to work in work/family area. Work/family border theory explains why conflicts occur between two domains of work and family, and gives a framework to attain balance between two domains of work and family for individuals as well organizations. The postulates summarized in the above table provides tools for attaining balance between two domains of work and family, these tools can be used by individuals as well as organizations to attain balance between two domains of work and family.

Organizational tools for attaining balance between work and family.

Work/family border theory proposed that organizations can mold their domains and borders to attain balance between two domains of work and family. As stated in postulate 1 and postulate 2, borders and domains must be according to each other to facilitate in attaining balance between two domains of work and family. Although many organizations have made certain changes to their concept of border by adding flexible working hours, flexible working places, and flexible leave policies, yet very little changes are being done to change the concept of domains i.e. culture of the domain which includes language, norms, rules, regulations and responsibilities. According to work/family border theory, flexible working hours and flexible working places are essential in attaining balance between two domains of work and family. Changing pattern of border and domain should be in the interests of organizations as well as individual border-crossers. If changes occur only to facilitate either organization or border-crosser, it would not be possible to attain balance and harmony between two domains of work and family. As stated in postulate 1 and postulate 2, if the difference between two domains is significant and organizations do not bring changes in their domain i.e. culture of the domain which includes language, norms, rules, regulations and responsibilities, then borders between the two domains must be kept strong so that an individual can attain and maintain balance between two domains of work and family.

Postulates 5, 6 and 8 of work/family border theory provides another tool to help in attaining balance between work and family i.e. the support from the border-keeper, border-crosser and other members of the domain. Attaining and maintain balance between work and family is largely in the hands of border-keepers i.e. managers of the organizations at work place and spouses at home. Although some organizations allow the managers to have a look at employees family affairs, communicate with the members of individuals other domain, and encourage employees to take advantage of flexible leave policies. Border-keepers supportive role is significantly crucial in attaining and maintaining balance between two domains of work and family. Balance between work and family can only be attainable with the mangers supportive and encouraging attitude towards his employee. In this regard managers can be trained so that they can show supportive attitude towards their employees at the time of crises in employee’s family life.

Postulates 2, 3 and 4 of work/family border theory provides another tool to help in attaining and maintaining balance between work and family i.e. central participation of border-crosser in his domain. According to work/family border theory, organizations must be supportive so that employees can take central participation in organization’s affairs. The prerequisites to be central participant of the organization can be achieved if the organization facilitates an employee to have influence and control over his work in his organization. Work/family border theory put forward that employees can become central participant in his organization if that organization help the individual to

a. internalize domain’s culture i.e. language, rules, regulations, and values attached to a certain domain.

b. gain proficiency in his responsibilities.

c. have associations and interactions with the management of the domain.

d. clearly and fully know the required responsibilities of the domain.

Central participation provides an individual the tools of power and influence that is required to attain and maintain balance between the two domains of work and family.

Individual tools for attaining balance between work and family.

Communication and central participation are the tools that can be used at individual level to attain and maintain balance between the two domains of work and family. Individuals can increase their communication and interaction with the members of his domains by actively take part in group discussions and gossips being done in organizations.

Communication and interaction between members of the domain also helps in bridging the gaps between differences in different domains. Members of one domain can get information about the members of the other domain if the interaction between the members of different domains increases. Employees must tell their managers, co-workers about their family affairs, similarly family members should also be informed about individual’s work places challenges and success. If the border-keepers i.e. managers at the work place and spouses at the home, are well informed of border-crosser’s challenges or crises at the other domain, that border-keeper can proved to be helpful and supportive in helping that individual to overcome those challenges and crises. In these ways communication and interaction between members of the different domains proved to be useful in attaining and maintaining balance between two domains of work and family.

Along with communication and interaction between members of the different domains, central participation of an individual in a certain domain is also very essential tool in attaining and maintaining balance between two domains of work and family. Individuals must increase their central participation at all the domains of his life. Central participation can be increased by:

a. developing close relationships with the members of the domain

b. gaining proficiencies in responsibilities both at work and place

c. making work and family fundamental part of their identity

As proposed in postulates 4 and 5, influence can be achieved through central participation in a domain. With greater central participation individual can achieve greater influence over his domain and similarly with lesser central participation individual will get lesser influence over his domains. Influence and central participation are fundamental prerequisites in attaining and maintaining balance between two domains of work and family.

Directions for research.

Work/family is a comprehensive theory that provides theoretical framework to do research in work/family domain. Postulates presented by this theory can be used to make hypothesis and research questions while doing research in this area.

Work/family border theory can be used as:

• descriptive i.e. it provides theoretical framework for explaining why conflict occurs between two domains of work and family.

• prescriptive i.e. it identifies ways to attain and maintain balance between two domains of work and family.

Work/family border theory also identifies variables that are fundamental in creating changes in work/family domain i.e. type of communication and interaction required at different domains to create balance between them, changes required in the structures of the domains to attain and maintain balance between the two domains of work and family. Using work/family border theory as a theoretical framework can be very influential in bringing balance between the two very important aspects of an individual’s life i.e.

• work

• family.

Criticism on Work/Family Border Theory

Work/family border theory attempts to describe “how individuals manage and negotiate the work and family spheres and the borders between them in order to attain balance”. The concept of work and family constituting different domains or spheres which influence each other is central to this theory. Although work/family border theory provides a comprehensive framework that fully explains the two important aspects of an individual’s life i.e. work and family, how conflicts arises between these two spheres and how an individual can attain and maintain balance between these two spheres of life.

Work/family border theory has been critiqued on many bases. Major criticism on work/family border theory is given below:

One of the major criticisms on work/family border theory is that the concept of border seems to reinforce the distinction between work and family. This approach fails to comprehend the interactive and interconnected nature of life. In real life there is no clear-cut division between the spheres of work and the sphere of family from friends, community and other social circles. Human being has to live an interconnected life while continually crossing over to the one area of life to the other area of his life. In this it is very difficult for an individual to mark boundaries between different areas of his life. An individual has to perform several duties at a single time relating to different spheres of his life. Thus marking boundary around every domain of an individual’s life is not very practical. It also seems to go against the interconnected nature of life as a whole.

Work/family theory has also been critiqued as: the theory is largely gender-blind. The border between work and family is supposed to be more important to men than to the women. Women are supposed to be more close to the family than to the men, having responsibilities of caring for her children, accomplishing house hold chores, while doing work place affairs simultaneously. In this way women are more frequently border-crossing between work and family domains. Temporal borders, which separates work domain from family domain in context of working hours, are also differ with respect to men and women. As men, being father are with children for limited time and are more often at work place, in this way men are less frequently border-crossing between work and family domains.

Furthermore, border strength may also be influenced by gender. In every society men are supposed to be the bread-winner and women are largely supposed to be family care-giver. Work/family theory did not explain the gender specific problems in explaining the causes of conflicts that arises in work and family spheres. Mostly men are stronger in influencing border strength between work and family and thus they would be central participants in the domain. They are also influential in identifying and shaping their domains and their borders and bridging the gaps between the two spheres of work and family. Work/family border theory did not take gender into account while explaining the ways to attain and maintain the balance between two domains of work and family.

Border strength can also be influenced by socio-economic structures. Those with greater socio-economic means and resources can become central participants in the domain very easily. They are more influential in changing and shaping the domains and borders between the two domains of work and family. They can alter the temporal border between the domains by reducing work hours between work and family. They can also change the psychological border between the domains by reducing their responsibilities at work or family. Thus individuals with greater socio-economic structure are more influential in identifying and shaping their domains and their borders and bridging the gaps between the two spheres of work and family. Work/family border theory did not take socio-economic structure into account while explaining the ways to attain and maintain the balance between two domains of work and family.

Work/family border theory addresses only two main domains of life i.e. work and family. This theory did not take account any other area of life into the explanation of attaining balance between work and family. Although Clark, the author of the theory, justifies this flaw by stating work and family as the most fundamental spheres of life. According to the author, work and family are the most important and influential domains in an individual’s life. With focus only on work and family, work/family border theory fails to take other areas of any individual’s life into account while explaining the balance between work and family. Other important areas can be leisure time activities, sports, and socializing. These areas are equally important in attaining balance in an individual’s life. Work/family border theory did not take other areas of life into account while explaining the ways to attain and maintain the balance between two domains of work and family. This is one of the major criticisms on work/family border theory.

Work/family border theory has been critiqued for failing in explaining the structure and nature of the work place and home. According to the work/family border theory, work and family are separated on the basis of domains and border between them. Domain and border are psychological concepts specific each individual. For every individual domain and border of work and family are different concepts on the basis of permeability, flexibility and blending between the two domains. Work/family border theory do not take other aspects of work and family into the account such as structure and nature of the work and family, organizational culture prevailing in the organization and home environment, and socialization trends at work place or family. All these aspects can be very influential in determining the balance between work and family. Work/family border theory did not take these aspects of work and family into account while explaining the ways to attain and maintain the balance between two domains of work and family. This is also one of the major criticisms on work/family border theory.

Extended Concepts of Work/Family Border Theory

According to work/family border theory, border-crossers can change the nature of the work and home domain, border and the bridge between the two domains in order to attain and maintain balance between the two domains. This proactive participation of border-crossers in shaping the domain and border differentiates work/family border theory from the other theories of work/family domain. Work/family border theory can be extended as follows:

Work/family border theory: the border-crosser domain.

Domains and borders are psychological concepts specific to every individual. The importance of domain is different for different individuals. Individuals who are single and live alone will place more importance and priority on their work domain over their family domain. Individuals having strong family bonds and happy family life will place more importance and priority on their family domain over their work domain. The importance of domain also changes with time. Elderly individuals place more importance on their leisure domain over their work domain because of their physical weakness and dependency on the others. The importance of domain also changes across the life course. Individuals having younger kids place more importance on their family domain over their work domain because of their increasing familial responsibilities. Individuals having independent children place more importance on their leisure domain over their work domain because of their decreasing familial responsibilities.

Work/family border theory: the work domain.

Borders are psychological concepts specific to every individual. Some work places establish strong physical borders around them. In this way those work places inhibit permeability, flexibility and blending of work place constituents into other domain of individual’s life. Strong work-to-family physical borders will inhibit easy flow of work place constituents into the family domain. Strong work-to-leisure physical borders will inhibit easy flow of work place constituents into the leisure domain of individual’s life. This concept can be presented as follows:

[pic]

Some work places establish strong psychological borders around them. In this way those work places inhibit permeability, flexibility and blending of thinking patterns, behaviors and emotions into other domain of individual’s life. When psychological permeation did not occur, it would be difficult for the individuals to take his emotions and behaviors from or towards the work domain into the other domain of his life. This concept can be presented as follows:

[pic]

Work/family border theory: the family domain.

Mostly physical and temporal borders between the work domain and family domain are strong. The easily permeable border between work domain and family domain is psychological border. This border can be permeable from work to family domain and similarly from family to work domain. If psychological border is weak with respect to work to family domain, this will allow an individual to think about his work while being present with his family. Similarly, if psychological border is weak with respect to family to work domain, this will allow an individual to think about his family while being present at his work. This concept can be presented as follows:

[pic]

If the two domains of work and family are not very different from each other and do have similarities between them, then the permeation of the constituents of one domain into the other domain would be very easily attainable. For example if a woman is employed at a fast food restaurant and her duty is to cook the food. For her, her work domain and family domain are very different from each other. In this case the psychological border between her work and family domain would not be very strong, thus permeability would be easy to occur. In contrast if a man is employed at a fast food restaurant and his duty is to cook the food. For him, his work domain and family domain are very different from each other. As he did not cook food at his house. Thus he had to do a very different job at his work place. In this case the psychological border between his work and family domain would be very strong, thus permeability would not be easy to occur.

Work/family border theory and leisure.

Another important domain in individuals’ life is leisure domain. This domain can also play a crucial role in attaining and maintaining balance between two domains of work and family. The importance attached to this domain is also very subjective. For some individuals having leisure time is important and crucial in determining their happiness and well-being. In contrast, for some individuals having leisure time is not very important and crucial in determining their happiness and well-being. For them time spend in leisure activities can be wasted. This concept can be presented as follows:

[pic]

Individuals who are work-oriented and money-oriented would take leisure domain as a waste of time. Such individuals would put priority on their work domain over other domains of their life. Individuals who are social and like to be socializing with others would take leisure domain as a means of meeting with others and having good time. Leisure domain can be viewed as separate domain from work and family domain by very individuals whereas most of the individuals view leisure domain as interconnected domain with work and family domain. Leisure domain can also be explained as a means of resolving conflict that arises between work domain and family domain.

Border of leisure domain is highly flexible and permeable allowing easy flow of constituents of one domain into the other domain of individual’s life. Physical border of leisure domain is week because more often leisure activities are carried out with the members of work domain or family even within the spheres of work and family domains, for example socializing with colleagues of work place or family members thus making physical border of leisure domain very flexible and permeable. Temporal border of leisure domain is weak because leisure activities can be carried out at any time with no fixed time span, for example having gossip with members of work place in lunch breaks. This concept can be presented as follows:

[pic]

Work/family border theory and gender.

The concepts of domains, borders including physical, temporal and psychological, and border-strength are specific to gender. Men and women having different responsibilities, norms, values, social pressures and culture assign different priorities to importance of domain. Similarly temporal and psychological borders are differently viewed and perceived by men and women. If we examined family domain more closely, we would find many sub-domains within this single domain. Thus making family domain comprising many different, often conflicting domains i.e. sub-domains. These sub-domains would be particularly crucial for women who are supposed to be responsible for caring, and doing house-hold chores. This concept of sub-domains within a single domain is very important in understanding conflicts and imbalances that may arise in a single domain because of not fulfilling all the required responsibilities associated with a single domain because of these sub-domains. These sub-domains also provides basis for creating imbalances between different domains. This concept can be presented as follows:

[pic]

The concept of border around family domain is also gender specific. Men and women viewed border around family domain from different perspectives. Men and women also had different responsibilities at different domains. In family domain women are supposed to be responsible for caring, and doing house-hold chores while men are supposed to be responsible for tasks such as collecting children from their schools, bringing grocery for home etc. The responsibility of women as mother as entirely different ranging from giving birth to her children, feeding her kids, taking care of her kids to every responsibility of her kids. This concept of motherhood is expended to every sphere of mother’s life. Thus psychological border is very week between different domains of her life for a mother. However, the concept of fatherhood is not very expended like motherhood.

For some individuals, psychological borders are not very important. They believe that psychological border between different domains of life do not exist. An individual can think, express emotions, or exhibit behavior of one domain in every other domain. For them psychological borders between different domains of their life are very permeable, flexible and blended. Whereas, for some individuals psychological borders are very important. They believe that psychological border between different domains of life exist. An individual cannot think, express emotions, or exhibit behavior of one domain in every other domain. For them psychological borders between different domains of their life are not very permeable, not flexible and not blended. This shows that family domain is different for different people depending upon their perception of physical, temporal and psychological border around the family domain. This concept can be presented as follows:

[pic]

Current researches on Work/Family Border Theory

Although work/family border theory is a new theory in work/family area, yet significant research has been done on this theory. Following are some of the researches being done using work/family border theory.

Gurney (2010) did her Ph.D thesis based on work/family border theory. The topic of study was Gender, work-life balance and health amongst women and men in administrative, manual and technical jobs in a single organization: a qualitative study. According to Gurney (2010), awareness is growing about how people try to cope with multidimensional demands and responsibilities of their work place, family life and their personal life, and if one fails to accomplish his duties concerning his work place and family conflict occurs. This conflict can have significant results on individual’s health. There is restricted qualitative research exploring the importance people gave to gender, work/family balance and the health. This attitude is particularly prevalent in people doing non-managerial or non-professional jobs. This study was carried out with non-professional men and women working in an organization.

Gurney (2010) used qualitative research techniques of semi-structured interviews with forty men and women in various cities across the UK. The sample was composed of men and women with difference in ages and family structures. The study was based on Clark’s (2000) work/family border theory. The theory explains how individuals attain and maintain balance between their work and family and how Individuals constructs borders between work and family. The focus of the study was on work, family, leisure and the balance individuals tried to attain and maintain between all these domains. Results drawn from the sample of non-professional workers were different from results of professional workers. Results showed that duties and responsibilities that an individual has to do at his work place are the main cause of conflict between work and family. One has to give much of his time to his work place, especially in low paid jobs. People generally sacrifice their leisure pleasures in order to attain their work/family balance. The border of leisure domain was very permeable for individuals. Tasks were carried out on traditional gender specific concept that is at home, house-hold chores are usually carried out by women and at work place usually men were responsible for completing the tasks. Health was not a main concern for many of the individuals. Problems at work and family were the main source of stress for most of the individuals. Another research was done by Bennett, Patterson, Wiitala and Woo in 2006. The topic of the study was Social Risks for At-Risk Drinking in Young Workers: Application of Work-Life Border Theory. This research aimed to identify work-related risks specifically associated with at-risk drinking in young workers against older workers. The age limit for the younger workers selected for the study was 18 years to 30 years and two samples of older workers were selected, their age limit for one sample was 31 years to 40 years and age limit for the other sample was 41 years or older. The sample was drawn from large municipal departments from different cities of UK and people engaged in small businesses across the country. Equal numbers of younger and older workers were taken from municipal departments and small business. Measures that were selected were based on the theories of alcohol culture (e.g. Norms related to drinking at work place) and conflicts that arise between work and family. Based on the Clark’s work/family border theory an exploratory model was developed. This model examined the relationships of the measures, already selected on the basis of theories of alcohol culture and work/family conflict, with at-risk drinking and job-related hangovers across the sample of both younger workers and older workers. The results of the research showed that conflicts that arise due to family related issues towards the work place were proved to be determinants of at-risk drinking for younger workers. Family-to-work conflicts were not causal factor for at-risk drinking in older workers. In small businesses, younger workers reported that job related hangovers were the most indulgent norms related to the drinking. Results also showed that job related hangovers decrease with age especially in people employed in municipal departments. Age related differences were not significant in people engaged in small businesses. Age related differences were significant in people employed in municipal departments. Findings also revealed that there was significant difference in attitude to take risks related to drinking in people employed in municipal departments and people engaged in small businesses. While discussing the importance of outcomes related to at-risk drinking and job related hangovers, there was also a significant difference in people employed in municipal departments and people engaged in small businesses. Results also showed similarity with propositions proposed by work/family border theory. Suggestions were also given regarding prevention programs for younger workers both at municipal departments and small businesses. Another research was done by Greenhaus, Collins and Shaw in 2003. Topic of the study was’ The relation between work–family balance and quality of life’. In this study the researchers examined the relationship between two domains of work and family and effect of this work/family balance on quality of life among professionals working in accounting departments of public sector. Sample was composed of members of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). In the present research, three constituents of work-family balance were measured. These constituents were time balance i.e. equal amount of time given to both the domains of work and family, involvement balance i.e. equal level of involvement given to both the domains of work and family and satisfaction balance i.e. equal level of satisfaction attain from both the domains of work and family. Involvement and satisfaction refers to the psychological involvement with the family. Results of the study showed that those individuals who spent equal amount of time in both of their domains of work and family experienced balanced quality of life. In contrast, those individuals who spent much amount of their time with their family that at their work place experienced higher quality of life. Those individuals who spent much of their time at their work place than with their family experienced the least quality of life than all the other participants. While examining the time balance it was revealed that time spent with the family is directly proportional with the quality of life for the individuals. Similarly, involvement balance and satisfaction balance was also analyzed. Again the results showed that individuals who have equal involvement and satisfaction at both of their domains of work and family have balance quality of life. In contrast, those individuals who have more involvement and satisfaction at their family than at their work place experienced higher quality of life. Those individuals who have more involvement and satisfaction at their work place than at their family experienced least quality of life. Hence, while examining involvement balance and satisfaction it was again revealed that involvement and satisfaction at the family is directly proportional to the quality of life among the individuals. Results also showed that time, involvement and satisfaction is positively related to the quality of life among individuals whereas the predicted mediators such as conflicts that arise due to the work related issues at the family, conflicts that arise due to the family related issues at the work place, and the resulting stress among the individuals are negatively related to the participant’s quality of life. Results also found out that work-family balance is also a promoter of well-being among individuals. Another study was done by Saungweme in 2010. The topic of the study was Work-Family Culture and Border Permeability in the Context of Work-Family Border Theory. This study was based on Clark’s work/family border theory. Using work/family border theory as a theoretical framework the researcher found out variables and tried to examine the relationship in between. This study examined the relationship between individual’s role centrality, work-family culture, work-family balance and work-family conflict. Furthermore, the study also examined the amalgamation of work-family culture into the border-permeability as stated in work/family border theory. Sample was composed of 103 individuals taken from five different organizations. Results showed that significant relationship exists between role centrality, home centrality, work-family balance and work-family conflict. Positive relation was found between role centrality, home centrality and work-family balance. Whereas, negative relation was found between role centrality, home centrality and work-family conflict. The result supported the Clark’s work/family border theory. According to the results, there exist significantly strong relationship between work-family culture and work-family balance. Work-family culture also predicts the causes that are significant in arising work-family conflict. The results of the study supported work/family theory of Clark and also suggested to include work-family culture as an aspect of border permeability.

Bibliography

Bennett, J. B., Patterson, C. R., Wiitala, W. L., & Woo. A. (2006). Social Risks for At-Risk Drinking in Young Workers: Application of Work-Life Border Theory. Journal of Drug Issues, 36, 485-514. Retrieved March 2, 2013, from http://jod.sagepub.com/content/36/3/485

Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance.Human Relations, 53(6), 747-770. Retrieved February 28, 2013, from http://hum.sagepub.com/content/53/6/747

Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw. J. D. (2003). The relation between work– family balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 510–531. Retrieved March 2, 2013, from http://www.choixdecarriere.com/pdf/6573/2010/GreenhausCollinsShaw2003.pdf

Gurney, S. (2010). Gender, work-life balance and health amongst women and men in administrative, manual and technical jobs in a single organization: a qualitative study (Published P.hD Dissertation). Medical Research Council, Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Scotland, UK. Retrieved February 28, 2013, from http://theses.gla.ac.uk/1641/

Leka, S. & Houdmont, J. (Ed.) (2010). Occupational Heath Psychology. Malaysia:

Wiley-Blackwell

Muchinsky, P. M. (2000). Psychology Applied to Work: An Introduction to Industrial

and Organizational Psychology (6th ed.). USA: Wadswoth.

Saungweme, R. (2010). Work-Family Culture and Border Permeability in the Context

of Work-Family Border Theory (Published M.A Research Project). Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. Retrieved March 2, 2013, from http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/jspui/bitstream/10539/8399/2/R%20Saungweme%20328436%20Final%20research.PDF

Bibliography: Bennett, J. B., Patterson, C. R., Wiitala, W. L., & Woo. A. (2006). Social Risks for At-Risk Drinking in Young Workers: Application of Work-Life Border Theory Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance.Human Relations, 53(6), 747-770 Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw. J. D. (2003). The relation between work– family balance and quality of life Gurney, S. (2010). Gender, work-life balance and health amongst women and men in administrative, manual and technical jobs in a single organization: a qualitative study (Published P.hD Dissertation) Leka, S. & Houdmont, J. (Ed.) (2010). Occupational Heath Psychology. Malaysia: Wiley-Blackwell Muchinsky, P. M. (2000). Psychology Applied to Work: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology (6th ed.) Saungweme, R. (2010). Work-Family Culture and Border Permeability in the Context of Work-Family Border Theory (Published M.A Research Project)