Boundary Dynamics of Work-Life Integration During Covid-19 Induced Work from Home

Kalaa Chenji
Assistant Professor, Human Resources, IBS Hyderabad (Under IFHE - A Deemed to be University u/s 3 of the UGC Act, 1956), Hyderabad, Telangana, India; and is the corresponding author. E-mail: kalaa.chenji@ibsindia.org

Sode Raghavendra
Assistant Professor, Human Resources, IBS Hyderabad (Under IFHE - A Deemed to be University u/s 3 of the UGC Act, 1956), Hyderabad, Telangana, India. E-mail: raghavendra.s@ibsindia.org

Many organizations were forced to adopt Work From Home (WFH) practices during the lockdown due to Covid-19. As employees are experiencing WFH for the first time, the study aims to understand the positive and negative experiences of 25 respondents from the manufacturing sector, service sector and academia. Boundary dynamics of work-family conflict and the theory and constructs of work-life integration are reviewed to identify and understand the existing literature. The study examines the trends that contributed to the area, and studies the theoretical perspectives of boundary/border management, integration/segmentation and related constructs.

Introduction

The Covid-19 pandemic has changed the world today. Work From Home (WFH), flaunted as the future of work till recently, has now become the only alternative to survive for employees as well as employers. Remote working has always been a motivational tool for most as it protected many from the confines of a physical office and saved commuting time. A few words like "quarantine", "social distancing", "containment", "community spread", "pandemic", never heard before, are most frequently used today. Unprecedented challenges introduced by Covid-19 have thrown the world into a new universe. Busy office premises are now deserted, dark and lonely, wondering where the army of inhabitants has suddenly disappeared. Millions are no longer confined to the offices but are locked in their own homes.

This paper focuses on the hardships faced by employees due to WFH during the lockdown, provides insights from the border and boundary theories of work-family boundary dynamics of work-life integration during these testing times propounded by Allen et al. (2014), and finally suggests opportunities and strategies available to employees to make best use of the present time to overcome the uncertain future. The current study conducted interviews with 25 employees working in different sectors, who are under different age groups, to identify and understand their experiences with the new work regime.

WFH is the new normal now. In the past, when employees pleaded for flexible working hours, bosses and HR rule book compelled them to attend office every day. Now, employees are pressurized to get adjusted to WFH regime and learn to be away from their offices. WFH saved employees from the agony of waking up early in the morning to reach the office, peak hour traffic grumblings, parking problems, strict reporting time and of course, the pollution. While employees are missing the joy of association with each other, collegiality, bonding with peers and healthy politics that keep up the high spirits of motivation, there are no lunch breaks, coffee breaks and weekends to relax. Employees are confined to the new workplace called homes.

To understand the impact of WFH on employees during the lockdown, interviews of 25 employees found WFH to have physical, social, psychological and financial effects on employees of all age groups. Most of the employees were experiencing WFH for the first time in their careers. More than 50% of the employees complained of working more than usual without compensation for the extra hours worked. One-third of the employees opined that they were denied leaves as they stayed at home. Employees faced health concerns due to the new arrangement as about 30% of them complained of headaches, back pain and sleep disorders. At least two-thirds of the employees reported a rise in electricity and internet expenses and 30% of the employees suffered pay cuts. 60% of the employees have reported a decrease in the quality time spent with their families. Research on work-life balance recommended the integration of work and other activities called "life" helped employees in dealing with a stressful situation and accomplishing the desired levels of production and productivity to meet the needs of their employers.

Literature Review
The work-family interrelation has been identified to influence individuals, organizations and society for a considerable time now. The mechanism of interdependence has been an important aspect of research in this domain (Ashforth et al., 2000; Hammer and Zimmerman, 2011; and Allen, 2012). The most fundamental question of understanding is how individuals draw a boundary between work and family and how they negotiate and maintain the transition. The focal point is how the line of demarcation is drawn across family and work to achieve work-family balance (Ashforth et al., 2000).

Several studies have focused on boundary management due to the overlap between work and family domains. Research reveals that employees have reported checking their office mails during weekends, vacation and after their work hours for many reasons. Access to the latest technology and electronic gadgets has played a crucial role in taking the work to the home domain. The increasing percentage of employees telecommuting and completing a portion of work from home has enhanced the occasions of integration and segmentation (Nippert-Eng, 1996; and Kreiner et al., 2009).

Further, it is essential to consider the role played by organizational policies and practices in the field of boundary management. Nippert-Eng (1996) opined that two theories play an outstanding role in understanding the management of boundaries around family and work. Boundaries between family and work and the method in which employees learn to manage may act as an important source of delineating the behavior of individuals and formation of a foundation for their interaction with each other. Kahn et al. (1964) found that these boundaries could be the sources of conflict as the transition between both the domains may be difficult. Research revealed that work-family conflict may arise when role pressures related to membership in one group may be associated with the membership in other groups (Kreiner et al., 2009).

Research on work-family conflict indicated its close association with practices related to work-life integration, as individuals seek methods of resolving conflicts between work and family by using strategies such as integration and segmentation. Literature on worklife integration supported the availability of several methods and techniques in the direction of achieving wellbeing (Briad, 2009). The challenge for individuals is to explore the cultural shift and identify the approaches to work and life management. Several organizations in the 21st century developed methods of work-life integration with the combination of worklife initiatives for the overall wellbeing of the employees (Olson-Buchanan and Boswell 2006; and Poelmans et al., 2013).

Theoretical Framework
The present study aims to draw implications from work-life boundary dynamics that explain segmentation and integration of work and other activities of life including family, and demonstrates several ways in which employees sustain, confer, and juggle between these domains (Ashforth et al., 2000). The most important question that arises is how employees draw the boundary between work and life. Work and life boundary dynamics, as elucidated by Allen et al. (2014), focuses on boundary theory and border theory explaining roles played by individuals in several scenarios of life. Boundary theory deals with the way employees form, preserve and modify the world around them to bridge the gaps in their lives. It includes actions, objectives and psychological boundaries existing between individuals' life and work domains. The way employees focus their attention on life and work and ease of transition between them is explained by work-life integration. Border theory opines that employees tend to cross borders between life and work domains. Borders are demarcations between work and life and may take three forms, namely, physical, temporal and psychological. Physical borders explain behavior according to domain and role. Temporal borders explain work done according to a specific role. Psychological borders include emotions, behavior and thinking patterns for each domain. According to boundary dynamics, border keepers are responsible for boundary management. For example, bosses determine borders for the work domain and spouses fix the borders for family activities. The extent to which these borders can be extended is determined by these border keepers. Therefore, both border and boundary theories determine and identify the roles to be performed by individuals.

Crucial concepts associated with border and boundary theories are integration/ segmentation, role blurring and role referencing. These concepts play a crucial role in determining the guidelines for the behavior of employees in their respective domains. Integration and segmentation represent the degree to which employees keep their work and family domains away from each other (Kreiner et al., 2009). Integration does not differentiate between work and home while segmentation keeps the roles distinct without any overlap. Most employees exist between the two extremes. Role blurring is the ability of an individual to expand or contract a domain based on the requirements of each domain. Role referencing is acknowledging one role while the individual is playing other roles. Employees use these concepts interchangeably to accomplish several tasks in the workplace environment.

Research Questions
In the WFH scenario, employees are observed to combine theory and practice of worklife boundary dynamics to make the best use of their time and resources for achieving their objectives. The need to determine the extent of integration and segmentation of work and life is contrary to what happened in the pre-Covid state of affairs. Employees expressed that earlier it was integrating life with work, while it is exactly reciprocal during the pandemic. Does this reciprocity really work? Is it possible to integrate/segment work with life?

Data and Methodology
The study included 34 respondents from the manufacturing sector, service sector and academia. Structured interviews were conducted to record the responses of the participants. A total of 25 responses were used for the study; 9 of the 34 responses failed to meet the inclusion criteria as the answers were not clear. The questions included in the interview were related to demographics, home environment, occupational and lifestyle factors. The reported data focused on factors associated with the changes in mental and physical wellbeing. Some sample statements included were: "I don't like work issues creeping into my home life", "I am able to arrive and depart from work when I want to meet my family and my personal life responsibilities", "I have freedom to vary my work schedule", "I control whether I combine my work and personal life activities throughout the day", and "I have a dedicated room for work activities" (Matthews and Barnes-Farrell, 2010; and Kossek et al., 2012).

The sample included 11 respondents from the manufacturing sector, 8 from the service sector and 6 from academia. The interviews were recorded and the responses were statistically analyzed using simple statistical measures like arithmetic mean and percentages. The data was analyzed using excel sheets. The demographics were analyzed to test their influence on variables. 52% of the participants were women indicating that the data was evenly distributed. 45% of the respondents were married and 37% reportedly had more than one child. More than two-thirds of the partakers served a tenure of more than 5 years.

The responses of every participant were carefully analyzed to derive meaningful interpretations and conclusions. The reported data focused on the changes in the wellbeing due to the pandemic and WFH-related consequences. Data was used to test the conflict originating from the family and work-related activities and the interferences in each other. Work-family dynamics represent the extent to which individuals strive to keep family and work domains separate from each other. The study analysis attempts to identify the segmentation or integration enactment and the extent of flexibility an individual demonstrates to mitigate work-family conflict.

Analysis of the Results
Analysis of the results showed that the lockdown during the pandemic reduced the work efficiency of nearly half of the respondents and about a quarter of them expressed that they were more efficient during the pandemic than before. Based on their own experiences, nearly 50% of the respondents felt that their efficiency would continue after lockdown if they could spend more time with family. At least 25% of the respondents felt that their efficiency would decrease after the lockdown if they continued to WFH. It may be observed that some of the obstacles were due to the need to learn more methods to survive during the WFH times. The study observed that the activities that involve peers and team members were better bound at the workplace, while the activities which require more attention were better achieved at home. The results of the study revealed that women respondents reported physical and mental issues more than men. The results align with the recent survey which found the existence of the higher risk of depression during lockdown WFH (Yijing, 2021).

Discussion
The outbreak of pandemics made organizations realize the benefits of WFH. Integration and segmentation techniques of work-life boundary dynamics have made WFH successful for employees. Firstly, employees must learn to plan and stay ahead of the tasks to be accomplished. A schedule is essential to complete the tasks on time. A specific time for work to be done and a specific workplace may help in segmenting and focusing on the job. Short breaks in between to complete a few chores at home can distress employees and help them in integration. Setting boundaries for the tasks to be completed by informing the family and office colleagues about the work schedule and family time may prove to be beneficial to a great extent. Remote working might confine employees to their homes, but it may not curtail the advantages of collegiality and networking. Keeping in touch with peers allows employees to know their progress at work and suggest several alternatives for switching from one role to another to minimize work-family conflict.

Boundary theory explains the way individuals explore, uphold and alter boundaries to simplify and classify the world around them (Nippert-Eng, 1996; and Ashforth et al., 2000). Boundary theory is said to include behavioral, cognitive and physical boundaries existing between family and work domains. Boundaries may mean keeping family and work separate and blending work and family. Within a specific time and location tasks may be bounded by relevant time and space on the day and the week. For example, the respondents of the present study expressed that their behavior at the workplace during the working hours is different from the behavior at home during the working hours. The transitions occurring across roles are considered by boundary theory to recognize and identify the behavior of individuals in each role. The theory is said to differentiate between micro and macro transitions and focus on micro role transitions only. Micro role transitions are recurring transactions like individuals commuting from home to work and work to home while macro role transitions are permanent such as transfers or promotions at the job. The segmentation and integration of roles greatly influence the dynamics of work-life integration. Of 25 respondents interviewed for the study, 16 opined that they were able to focus better on their performance when their children were around during the lockdown and the WFH days. Most of them experienced anxiety when they were at work and their children were at school or home.

Work-family dynamics postulates border theory that divides the boundary based on places, times and people associated. Clark (2002) suggested that the theory is about familywork balance and depends on the factors such as factor similarity between family and work domains and the strength of these domains. Border theory considers demarcations such as physical, temporal and psychological. Domain members are referred to as border keepers for border management, e.g., bosses at the workplace and spouses at home. Border keepers play the role of negotiator as to what constitutes the domain and the extent of its flexibility. Some supervisors do not allow personal calls at the workplace to ensure that family does not intrude into the work domain (Allen et al., 2014).

Boundary and border theories postulate the same frameworks for understanding how individuals build and deal with the boundaries between family and work domains. The tenets of the theories are applicable to work and family domains as individuals strive to recognize the meanings they assign to these domains to simplify the transitions. Literature on work-family enrichment adopted the term boundary over the border; boundary theory has been in vogue. Results of the present study revealed that the concepts of integration/segmentation were not possible as respondents opined that it was not easy to carry out work-related activities at home as the demarcation between the domains was not possible. Individual differences and attitudes towards work made it complex to practice integration/segmentation between the domains. Three-fourths of the employees expressed that working from home negatively influenced their performance as they could not focus on their work. The respondents felt that the segmentation of both domains could help them in focusing on either of the domains. The roles of work and family can be arranged on a gamut that ranges from high integration to high segmentation. High integration identifies no distinction between work and home. In practice, less than onefourth of the respondents expressed the ability to integrate. It was difficult to consider spouses, supervisors and friends on the same continuum. On the other hand, segmentation was not practical to refuse to talk about work with partners and not reveal personal information to coworkers. The study found that most of the respondents existed between the two extremes.

During WFH, the majority of the respondents struggled to enact the integration/ segmentation preferences. The blurring of roles and multitasking were identified during lockdown that left a clear distinction between how gender differences were identified. More than 75% of the women respondents reported an increase in household chores/childcare during the WFH days. Additionally, both genders cited distractions from family/work due to stress and an increase in family responsibilities.

Conclusion
The present study revealed that at least 33% of the respondents cited increased stress to be an important outcome of the lockdown due to Covid-19. 26% of the respondents expressed a rise in workload and working hours. At least 15% of the respondents reported reduced productivity due to lack of equipment and space. In conclusion, it may be said that working from home during the Covid-19 situation has mixed results. The research suggests that a proportion of employees may dislike working from home due to factors such as collegial interaction, lack of space and equipment to carry out work and intention to have a clear distinction between work and home. The current study found positive experiences during the Covid-19 lockdown as some respondents embraced their preferences towards flexible hours of work and division of housework/care.

References

1. Allen T D (2012), "The Work-Family Interface", The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology, Oxford University Press, New York.
2. Allen T D, Cho E and Meier L L (2014), "Work-Family Boundary Dynamics", Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 99-121.
3. Ashforth B E, Kreiner Glen E and Fugate Mel (2000), "All in a Day's Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions", The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 472-491.
4. Briad Harrington J L (2009), "Work-Life Integration", Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 148-157.
5. Clark Sue Campbell (2002), "Employees' Sense of Community, Sense of Control and Work/Family Conflict in Native American Organizations", Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 92-108.
6. Hammer L B and Zimmerman K L (2011), "Quality of Work Life", in S Zedeck (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 3. Maintaining, Expanding, and Contracting the Organization, pp. 399-431, American Psychological Association.
7. Kahn R L, Wolfe D M, Quinn R P et al. (1964), Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity, John Wiley.
8. Kossek E E, Ruderman M N, Phillip W B and Hannum K M (2012), "Work-Nonwork Boundary Management Profiles: A Person-Centered Approach", Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 81, No. 1, p. 112.
9. Kreiner G E, Hollensbe E C and Sheep M L (2009), "Balancing Borders and Bridges: Negotiating the Work-Home Interface via Boundary Work Tactics", Acad. Manag. J., Vol. 52, pp. 704-30.
10. Matthews R A and Barnes-Farrell J L (2010), "Development and Initial Evaluation of an Enhanced Measure of Boundary Flexibility for the Work and Family Domains", Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 15, p. 330.
11. Nippert-Eng E C (1996), Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries Through Everyday Life, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
12. Olson-Buchanan J B and Boswell W R (2006), "Blurring Boundaries: Correlates of Integration and Segmentation Between Work and Nonwork", Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68, pp. 432-448.
13. Poelmans S, Greenhaus Jeffrey H and Maestro Mireia Las Heras (2013), Expanding the Boundaries of Work-Family Research, Palgrave, Basingstoke, UK.
14. Yijing Xiao B B G (2021), "Impacts of Working from Home During COVID-19 Pandemic on Physical and Mental Well-Being of Office Workstation Users", Journal of Occupational Environment in Medicine, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 181-190.
15. Zerubavel Eviatar (1991), The Fine Line: Making Distinctions in Everyday Life, Free Press, New York.