Segmentation–Integration Preferences

Nippert-Eng (Reference Nippert-Eng1996) clearly argued that preference for segmenting versus integrating life domains is an individual difference that varies among people. She developed the idea following an intensive case study of workers in a single organization. In an attempt to capture this via measurement, Kreiner (Reference Kreiner2006) developed a scale to assess segmentation–integration preference that distinguishes preference for segmenting work from nonwork and preference for segmenting nonwork from work. For example, some people may gladly allow family phone calls or texts during work hours, but strongly prefer to keep work matters at work and during work hours. Recently, Methot and LePine (Reference Methot and LePine2016) provided further evidence that there are two distinct dimensions of segmentation–integration preferences. That is, they showed that individuals have separate segmentation–integration preferences for work and home. They refer to these as preference to protect work and preference to protect home. Although they did not examine correlates of such preferences, they did find that people allow fewer non-domain intrusions into the protected domain. Other researchers have reported some similar findings that people establish different boundaries around different domains, often referring to this practice as asymmetric boundaries or differential permeability (e.g., Bulger, Matthews, & Hoffman, Reference Bulger, Matthews and Hoffman2007).

There is growing evidence for the nomological network of segmentation–integration preference as an individual difference variable that can impact work and family outcomes. For instance, Olson-Buchanan and Boswell (Reference Olson-Buchanan and Boswell2006) found that segmentation preference was related to role involvement or centrality. In particular, they found that role involvement was related to the integration of one role into the other. In another study, McNall, Scott, and Nicklin (2015) found that positive affectivity and preference for integration were independently related to higher work-to-family enrichment. Additionally, recent research has also investigated the interaction of segmentation–integration preference and personality traits on outcomes related to work and family. Michel and Clark (Reference Michel and Clark2013) found that preference for segmentation moderated the relationship between several personality traits and work–family conflict and facilitation. Specifically, preference for segmentation strengthened the effect of negative affect on work-to-family conflict, neuroticism on family-to-work conflict, positive affect on work-to-family facilitation, and core self-evaluations on family-to-work facilitation.

Although there is some evidence that segmentation–integration is an individual difference variable, there is also evidence that segmentation–integration preference is influenced by other life factors. Moen and her colleagues (Moen, Kelly, & Huang, Reference Moen, Kelly and Huang2008; Moen, Reference Moen2011) have argued that work–family researchers should use a life-course perspective in understanding the ways people attempt to manage their multiple roles. They argue that roles are dynamic and change over the course of one’s life, resulting in different needs and desires with regard to work and nonwork roles. This suggests that segmentation–integration preference may change within individuals as they advance in their careers or change jobs, as the makeup of their household changes due to relationship changes and/or children, among various other life events.

In an Australian qualitative study, Skinner, Elton, Auer, and Pocock (Reference Skinner, Elton, Auer and Pocock2014) found evidence for some of Moen and colleagues’ arguments. Skinner et al. studied health professionals at various stages in the life course and found differences and some similarities in their perspectives on work and nonwork. Workers at all stages described a need for flexibility from their work, yet the reasons for flexibility were different. For instance, younger workers who were just entering the workforce described the significance of the change in lifestyle that accompanied entering the workforce full-time as impacting their ability to form and maintain important relationships, including romantic relationships, outside of work. Mid-career individuals expressed the most pressures from both work and nonwork as these individuals were the most likely to be advancing toward new positions in their career as well as to be juggling responsibilities that come with having children at home. Finally, older workers described a desire to continue to work as they approached retirement, yet also desired flexibility in the number of hours worked and in the way the hours were scheduled. Although this is a cross-sectional study, it is one attempt to identify potential life course influences on the way the work–family interface is viewed.

Other research suggests that in addition to life-course changes, there may also be generational effects or changes in segmentation-integration preferences. In a recent cross-sectional study, Haeger and Lingham (Reference Haeger and Lingham2014) found a trend toward increasing “fusion” of work and nonwork (an idea similar to integration), particularly for younger workers in the millennial generation. They suggest this trend is a result of increasingly available smart, mobile technologies allowing for access to both domains at any given moment, as well as to the changing needs and desires for segmentation–integration for younger workers.

Little research seems to have investigated segmentation–integration preference either as an individual difference or from a life-course or generational perspective at the cross-national or global level. One exception to this is a study that compared workers from Canada and the United States (Schieman & Young, Reference Schieman and Young2015). Using national databases from both countries, Schieman and Young investigated what influences people to engage in “work–family multitasking,” which they defined as being engaged in tasks related to one domain while physically located in the other. Schieman and Young used a single item to measure work–family multitasking, and found that many factors influence it, including characteristics of the individual (e.g., more educated), the type of job (e.g., owner of the business), working from home, and job demands (e.g., frequent contact with work outside regular hours). In addition, the authors note Canadian and US workers were quite similar in terms of the influences on work–family multitasking. It should be noted that work–family multitasking is very similar to the notion of inter-domain transitions introduced by Matthews and colleagues (Matthews & Barnes-Farrell, Reference Matthews and Barnes-Farrell2010; Matthews, Barnes-Farrell, & Bulger, Reference Matthews, Barnes-Farrell and Bulger2010; Matthews, Winkel, & Wayne, Reference Matthews, Winkel and Wayne2014) in that both are intended to measure the connection between work and family domains. However, inter-domain transitions (Matthews et al., Reference Matthews, Barnes-Farrell and Bulger2010) are intended to measure the frequency with which work and family come into contact both physically and cognitively.

Segmentation–Integration Behaviors, Norms, and Policies

Most researchers agree that although individuals may hold certain preferences for segmentation versus integration and strive to create and maintain boundaries to support that preference, they also must contend with demands from work and nonwork that may not conform to their preferences. As such, a great deal of research has focused on behaviors related to segmentation–integration not only at the level of the individual, but also the influence of organizations and cultural or societal norms.

Kreiner, Hollensbe, and Sheep (Reference Kreiner, Hollensbe and Sheep2009) introduced the notion of boundary work tactics. These are the actions people take to establish boundaries around work and home domains that are more or less flexible to promote more or less integration versus segmentation. In a qualitative study of Episcopal priests, Kreiner and colleagues identified four categories of boundary work tactics: behavioral, temporal, physical, and communicative. Behavioral tactics may include such actions as using other people (i.e., border keepers) to help maintain the boundary or focusing on urgent demands first. Temporal tactics involve taking advantage of time within each domain to the fullest as well as seeking a respite from demands. Physical tactics may include managing the physical boundaries around domains, for example by turning off notifications for a personal email account during work time. Finally, communicative tactics involve setting expectations with members of each domain about how demands will be handled, such as letting coworkers know that work email will not be answered during the weekend.

Kreiner et al. (Reference Kreiner, Hollensbe and Sheep2009) showed that people employ boundary work tactics to establish boundaries to match their individual segmentation–integration preferences, as well as to satisfy influences from the environment (e.g., job) and from other domain members (e.g., family, supervisors). This finding is in line with the propositions put forth by Clark (Reference Clark2000), suggesting that people contend with their own preferences, norms, and the “border keepers” in their domains. Similar findings were obtained by von Borell de Araujo, Tureta, and von Borell de Araujo (Reference Von Borell de Araujo, Tureta and von Borell de Araujo2015), who interviewed sixty-three Brazilian professional working mothers in dual-earner couples to explore segmentation–integration preferences and the boundary management tactics employed by these women. Their results confirmed the four categories of boundary work tactics described by Kreiner et al. (Reference Kreiner, Hollensbe and Sheep2009). However, their work was also suggestive of new directions for research on boundaries and segmentation–integration. One example is the notion of “setting expectations,” which Kreiner et al. identified as a communicative tactic. The interviewees in von Burell de Araujo et al.’s study also discussed setting expectations for segmentation and integration, but noted that sometimes demands changed, resulting in the need for a new tactic: “renegotiating expectations.” This is an interesting finding, particularly in line with the ideas discussed earlier about the dynamic nature of boundaries and changes in the life course.

Santos (Reference Santos2015) interviewed male and female Portuguese academics to understand their work and family segmentation–integration from a life-course perspective. She notes that the work environment for Portuguese academics has changed in that more is demanded of these employees with less offered in return (i.e., fewer tenure-track positions). Santos describes preferences first in terms of whether the respondents described work and family as being complementary domains or whether one domain was subordinate to the other. She notes that only a small number of her respondents described a subordination narrative; most described work and family as complementing the other domain. Santos did not directly study the kinds of boundary work tactics described by Kreiner et al. (Reference Kreiner, Hollensbe and Sheep2009) and von Burell de Araujo et al. (Reference Von Borell de Araujo, Tureta and von Borell de Araujo2015), rather she describes a set of what she calls “micro-narratives” about work and family. A full unpacking of her findings is not appropriate here, but the narratives she describes include crafting boundaries of variable strength around domains that vary according to several variables including individual preference for segmentation versus integration, identity and/or role centrality, gender, relationship status, career stage, and presence of children as well as ages of children. Thus, this study is in line with much of the research described earlier on the multiple influences on segmentation–integration preference and behavior.

Ba’ (Reference Ba’2011) examined segmentation and integration in dual-earner couples in the United Kingdom. His findings suggest that whether they are striving to segment or integrate work and family, the overarching goal for the individuals in his study is to “harmonise” (p. 321) the demands of work and family, thereby reducing conflict and stress. In addition, Ba’ suggests that whether people aim to segment or integrate their work and family domains, one way in which they make sense of their domains is by attaching symbolic meaning to the cognitive and emotional experiences of work and family. For instance, Ba’ asked participants about particularly gratifying activities they did with their children. One respondent described taking children to the theater as being an activity she felt was meaningful because her work was in a creative field. Ba’ argues that this is an example of ascribing symbolism to “creativity” for this mother as she integrates her work and family life.

Despite many calls to investigate the nonwork domain beyond the family (e.g., Casper, Weltman, & Kwesiga, Reference Casper, Weltman and Kwesiga2007; Fisher, Bulger, & Smith, Reference Fisher, Bulger and Smith2009), few studies have taken up the call. One study has looked at the impact of segmentation–integration on friends and friendship (Pedersen & Lewis, Reference Pedersen and Lewis2012). This study was conducted using a Danish sample of employed individuals to try to determine how people managed to maintain friendships outside of work and family. Pedersen and Lewis found that participants managed to maintain friendships by integrating friends with both the work and family domains to some degree. For example, individuals often spend time with friends and family together or with friends and co workers together. Each study described here supports the tenets of early work on boundaries and segmentation–integration in that the process of boundary work is active and dynamic, based on individual needs and desires, and influenced by demands from the domains.

There have been some attempts to develop boundary management profiles related to segmentation–integration based on much of the research identified above. In one of the first studies, Bulger, Matthews, and Hoffman (Reference Bulger, Matthews and Hoffman2007) used cluster analysis to identify patterns of boundary profiles. The main finding in this study was that there is not a simple segmentation–integration continuum. Rather, the clusters identified included one that seemed mainly integration-oriented, two clusters that integrated one domain but protected the other, and one cluster that did not demonstrate high degrees of segmenting or integrating either domain. Based on these findings, the authors suggested that the segmentation–integration continuum was not necessarily simple and straightforward. Although this study is important for being one of the first to examine profiles, it did not directly assess segmentation–integration preferences. Rather, the clusters were identified based on boundary strength (e.g., the flexibility and permeability of the boundary) and behaviors associated with crossing boundaries.

Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy, and Hannum (Reference Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy and Hannum2012) also investigated types of boundary management profiles in a study conducted in the United States. Their profiles were based on a combination of role centrality, perceived boundary control, and frequency of other domain interruptions. Thus, the profiles they developed were based on an individual difference variable, a behavior, and a perception of the ability to control the boundary. Their results suggested six boundary management profiles, ranging from high segmentation (i.e., Dividers) to high integration (i.e., Fusion Lovers) to other profiles that seem to segment and integrate (i.e., Family Guardians). What is not clear is the extent to which these profiles are stable over time, may be influenced by environmental factors, or whether similar studies conducted in other countries would result in the same profiles.

Ammons (Reference Ammons2013) conducted a study of boundary management profiles in an organization before and after a large-scale cultural change aimed in part at work–life balance, changing the focus at work to results-oriented rather than physical presence-oriented. In one way, her findings were similar to Bulger et al. (Reference Bulger, Matthews and Hoffman2007) and Kossek et al. (Reference Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy and Hannum2012); there was a wide variety of strategies employed by participants. An important contribution of her study is the finding that despite the organization-wide effort to change work norms, most employees made only small (often no) changes to the way they managed their work and family boundaries. This lack of change in strategy was reported despite employees also reporting shifts in boundary preference toward somewhat more integration. Ammons suggested that perhaps the respondents in her study were satisfied with their boundary strategies and felt no need to change them despite changes in boundary preference. It may also be that more effort could be made to train people on boundary management strategies that best fit their desired segmentation–integration preference.

Ammons (Reference Ammons2013) also called for researchers to focus on the fit between individual preferences and the types of segmentation–integration practices allowed by organizations. In this call, she echoes earlier work on the fit between preferences and organizational policies or actions. Rothbard, Phillips, and Dumas (Reference Rothbard, Phillips and Dumas2005) conducted one of the first studies on fit between segmentation–integration preference and organizational actions. They found that misfit in either direction was related to negative outcomes. Namely, when presented with organizational programs that promote integration (e.g., onsite childcare), people who had higher preference for segmentation reported lower satisfaction and organizational commitment. The reverse was also true: people with a preference for integration reacted to segmentation-promoting policies with lower satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Kreiner (Reference Kreiner2006) also explored the impact of the resources for segmentation–integration provided by the organization. In particular, he examined the fit or congruence between segmentation–integration preference and segmentation–integration supplies offered by the organization, and how congruence or incongruence was related to various outcomes. In general, his study showed that the impact of congruence was positive: when segmentation preferences and supplies matched, people reported less work–home conflict, less stress, and higher levels of job satisfaction. Incongruence in general was related to negative outcomes, with the exception of having an over-supply of segmenting resources. When resources exceed preferences for segmentation, people reported less work–home conflict. A more recent study in Germany by Koch and Binniewies (Reference Koch and Binniewies2015) found that supervisors model segmentation behaviors for their employees. That is, when supervisors engaged in segmentation tactics, their employees tended to do the same, and those employees who did so had positive outcomes related to well-being.

These findings certainly raise the question of the global work–family interface: do segmentation–integration behaviors look similar or different in different cultures? A few studies have attempted to shed some light on this question. Zhang, Li, and Foley (Reference Zhang, Li and Foley2014) suggest that understanding the context of social expectation and social change in China matters for understanding the work–family interface. First, Chinese employees may be more tolerant of integration and any resulting conflict because they expect long-term gains for their family. The authors introduce the concept of prioritizing work for family, meaning that Chinese employees are highly committed to the success of their families and will, therefore, focus on work over family for the longer-term gain this practice will bring to the family. Ryu (Reference Ryu2014) suggests that in South Korea, Asian cultural norms influence segmentation of the work and family domains. In particular, the author suggests that Korean people are taught to leave family issues at home when they go to work, which may explain why family stressors were not associated with job satisfaction in this study, while job stressors were associated with life satisfaction. However, boundary strength was not directly measured in this study. Rather, these other measures of spillover and crossover were used as proxies for segmentation versus integration.

In another recent study, Bodolica, Spraggon, and Zaidi (Reference Bodolica, Spraggon and Zaidi2015) conducted a case study of one family firm in the United Arab Emirates. They found that the organization began with high integration, which may be expected when the family is running the business. However, over time, the firm made use of segmentation practices, including protecting work and/or family sometimes, but not always. The authors suggest that many factors contribute to successful boundary management strategies, including factors related to organizational culture, the cultural context related to the country/region, and individual/family preferences.

Clearly more research is needed to examine global issues related to segmentation–integration. To date, only one study has directly examined segmentation–integration behaviors and preferences using a cross-national sample. Sanséau and Smith (Reference Sanséau and Smith2012) examined the impact of changes in working time laws in France and in the United Kingdom. In France, the working time was reduced to thirty-five hours from forty hours, while in the United Kingdom working time laws changed to mandate a maximum of forty-eight hours per week (where there was no maximum prior). One result in France was a greater flexibility in the organization of work, but also increased work intensification and decreased work porosity: people worked less, worked more intensely during that time, and did not allow for interruptions. In the United Kingdom, however, long work hours persisted and increased for women. There were some less obvious changes in the flexibility of work hours. In terms of employee well-being, satisfaction with integration of work and nonwork decreased in France and increased in the United Kingdom. The authors suggest that there are many factors at play, including individual preferences as well as societal norms and expectations and slowly changing gender roles in both countries.

Outcomes of Segmentation and Integration

Much of the research on segmentation–integration preferences and behaviors has focused on outcomes related to either the preference or the behavior. These outcomes may be directly or indirectly related to segmentation–integration, and may be themselves attitudinal, behavioral, psychological, and even physiological.

Inter-domain transitions. Matthews and colleagues have demonstrated that the strength of the boundary around a domain is related to the frequency with which people tend to leave that domain to attend to another domain, a process they termed inter-domain transitions (Matthews & Barnes-Farrell, Reference Matthews and Barnes-Farrell2010; Matthews, Barnes-Farrell, & Bulger, Reference Matthews, Barnes-Farrell and Bulger2010; Matthews, Winkel, & Wayne, Reference Matthews, Winkel and Wayne2014). Inter-domain transitions may be seen as an integrating boundary management tactic, particularly because they are related to flexibility of the boundary (Matthews et al., Reference Matthews, Barnes-Farrell and Bulger2010). In addition, inter-domain transitions are related to outcomes such as work–family conflict (Matthews et al., Reference Matthews, Barnes-Farrell and Bulger2010, Reference Matthews, Winkel and Wayne2014). In a study of couples, Carlson, Kacmar, Zivnuska, and Ferguson (Reference Carlson, Kacmar, Zivnuska and Ferguson2014) showed that family-to-work transitions related to increased strain for the individual, and individual strain was related to boundary management for the spouse. This suggests that this integrating tactic has outcomes for the person engaging in transitions and for others in his or her domain. They also showed that more frequent family-to-work transitions were positively related to work–family enhancement, work–family conflict, and to relationship tension.

As noted earlier, Methot and LePine (Reference Methot and LePine2016) conducted three studies and found that the two dimensions of segmentation–integration preference function differently. In particular, they found that people reported or allowed fewer intrusions (i.e., inter-domain transitions) into the protected domain. In their second study, they found that segmentation–integration preference impacted the likelihood of taking a job in a firm where the significant other was employed and the likelihood of establishing a romantic relationship with a coworker. Finally, in their third study, preference to segment their work or nonwork was related to satisfaction with the preferred domain (e.g., preference to segment work from home was related to satisfaction with home).

Spouses, partners, and children. Clark (Reference Clark2000) asserted that certain members of the work and family domains are border keepers who influence the boundary and its outcomes. One recent study investigated a particular form of integration and potential border keepers: work-linked couples. Halbesleben, Zellars, Carlson, Perrewé, and Rotondo (Reference Halbesleben, Zellars, Carlson, Perrewé and Rotondo2010) defined work-linked couples as those who work in the same organization, in the same occupation, or both. Perhaps not surprisingly, they found that spouses who are work-linked integrate domains more than spouses who are not work-linked. Further, they found that being work-linked moderates the relationship between spouse instrumental support and emotional exhaustion, such that the negative relationship between support and exhaustion was stronger for work-linked couples.

The impact of segmentation–integration on family members has also been studied by Danner-Vlaardingerbroek, Kluwer, van Steenbergen, and van der Lippe (Reference Danner-Vlaardingerbroek, Kluwer, van Steenbergen and van der Lippe2013) in a study in the Netherlands. These authors found that residual negatives from work, such as mood, exhaustion, and rumination, were linked with lower-quality interactions with children due to decreased psychological availability by the parents. Interestingly, this was shown to be the case for those who preferred integration, but not for those who preferred segmentation. In addition, positive residuals, namely positive mood and vigor, were linked with greater psychological availability and higher-quality interactions with children for those who preferred segmentation, but not for those who preferred integration. This study provides support for Clark’s (Reference Clark2000) proposition regarding the importance of role of border keepers; in this case, children as border keepers.

Hahn and Dormann (Reference Hahn and Dormann2013) also found evidence for the role of border keepers. First, they found that employees’ and their partners’ segmentation preference was related to psychological detachment, or the act of disengaging both cognitively and physically from work, such that psychological detachment was higher when both the employee and his or her spouse had a preference for segmentation. Also, children in the house moderated the relationship between segmentation preference and detachment, such that even those with a low segmentation preference were more likely to detach when children lived in the home.

Mellner, Aronsson, and Kecklund (Reference Matthews, Winkel and Wayne2014) studied Swedish telecom employees to explore the impact of working flexible hours and in flexible locations on segmentation–integration. Overall, they found that the employees showed a stronger preference for segmentation than integration as well as a perception of having low control over the boundary between work and home. But they also found that men with a preference for segmentation had higher perceived boundary control than anyone else, while women with a preference for segmentation living with a partner and children had the lowest perceived boundary control. Men with a preference for segmentation reported the highest work–life balance. The authors suggest that although most employees say they would prefer segmentation, there is a strong and perhaps increasing norm for integration in many workplaces. Thus, employees in general perceive lower boundary control as they attempt to meet integration demands. They further speculate that segmentation may be a more accepted traditional gender-based norm for men, whereas integration is a gender-based norm for women, and this may explain the gender differences related to preference for segmentation and boundary control.

Mellner et al. (Reference Matthews, Winkel and Wayne2014) suggest that many psychosocial work factors were related to perceived boundary control, including working outside of normal work time and place, goal clarity, and work support. Interestingly, while those who preferred segmentation worked outside of time and place less than those who preferred integration, these psychosocial factors were related to low boundary control only for those who preferred segmentation. This was also true of goal clarity and work support. This study certainly has implications for the many influences on segmentation–integration as well as the influences of segmentation–integration. In fact, their findings underscore some of the earliest tenets suggested by Nippert-Eng (Reference Nippert-Eng1996): 1) boundaries are idiosyncratic and 2) people construct boundaries both proactively and reactively.

The findings reported by Mellner et al. (Reference Matthews, Winkel and Wayne2014) also provide some avenues for future research on these issues. For instance, to what extent do traditional gender norms for work and family impact segmentation–integration preferences, boundary management, and outcomes related to work and family? In addition, because their study was conducted in an organization where people have a great deal of flexibility in working time and place, it would be interesting to extend the study to other types of jobs and organizations in order to further examine the various influences on segmentation–integration and the outcomes of segmentation–integration.

Psychological detachment. Psychological detachment has become an important area of study in the work–family literature because it has been shown to influence outcomes in both the work and family domains (e.g., Sonnentag, Mojza, Binniewies, & Scholl, Reference Sonnentag, Mojza, Binniewies and Scholl2008). Thus, researchers have looked at the impact of segmentation–integration on psychological detachment. For instance, Michel, Bosch, and Rexroth (Reference Michel, Bosch and Rexroth2014) trained a sample of German employees in mindfulness. They found that mindfulness was positively related to psychological detachment and satisfaction with work–life balance and negatively related to strain-based work–family conflict. The authors argue that mindfulness can be used as a strategy to maintain segmentation–integration preferences. Further, although not directly a study on psychological detachment, Dettmers, Vahle-Hinz, Bamberg, Friedrich, and Keller (Reference Dettmers, Vahle-Hinz, Bamberg, Friedrich and Keller2016) found in a sample of German employees that the requirement to be available after work hours, also known as “extended work availability,” was linked with next-morning negative mood and higher cortisol level.

Work and nonwork conflict and enrichment. Certainly the most studied outcomes of segmentation–integration preferences and behaviors are work–family conflict and facilitation. Importantly, many of the most recent studies have looked at both phenomena, resulting in many of the researchers to note that segmentation–integration may be a “double-edged sword.” For instance, Paustian-Underdahl, Halbesleben, Carlson, and Kacmar (Reference Paustian-Underdahl, Halbesleben, Carlson and Kacmar2016) indicated that integration has both positive and negative impacts for employees. Namely, integration was related to increased family involvement and thus family-to-work enrichment, but also negatively impacted supervisors’ perceptions of employee promotability. As noted earlier, Carlson et al. (Reference Carlson, Kacmar, Zivnuska and Ferguson2014) found that family-to-work transitions had both positive and negative outcomes, which suggests that using family-to-work transitions are a “double-edged sword.”

In a study of Chinese bank employees and their spouses, Liao, Yang, Wang, and Kwan (Reference Liang, Yang, Wang and Kwan2016) found that segmentation preferences moderated the relationship between leader–member exchange (LMX) and work–family enrichment, such that the relationship was stronger for those who preferred integration over segmentation. However, segmentation preferences also moderated the relationship between work–family enrichment and family performance, such that the relationship was stronger for those who preferred segmentation over integration. The authors actually use the “double-edged sword” (p. 680) language to describe this, in that there is positive family impact but a negative work impact for preferring integration.

Kubicek and Tement (Reference Kubicek and Tement2016) also found both positive and negative effects of segmentation–integration in an Austrian study. In particular, they found that work–home segmentation, measured as an organizational norm, reduced work–home conflict and was a moderator of the relationship between work intensification and the affective component of work–home enrichment, such that a work–home segmentation norm buffered the negative impact of work intensification on affective work–home enrichment. In addition, the effect of work intensification on time-based work–home conflict was stronger for employees who used integration strategies than for those who used segmentation strategies. Further, the effect of work intensification on work–home enrichment was complex. In terms of enrichment as the transfer of competencies, the effect of work intensification was negative for those who used integration strategies. Yet, in terms of enrichment as the transfer of positive mood, the effect was negative for those who used segmentation strategies.

One recent Chinese study also indicated that segmentation–integration preferences are related to various outcomes in complicated ways. Liu and Cheung (Reference Liu and Cheung2015), in a study of Chinese teachers, showed that work–family role integration partially mediated the relationship between job demands and work–family conflict and the relationship between job resources and work–family enrichment. Here again we see evidence for the dual process, or double-edged sword, in that higher job demands were negatively related to work–family role integration, but higher job resources were positively related to work–family role integration. In addition, work–family role integration was negatively related to work–family conflict and positively related to work–family enrichment. The authors suggest that high job demands result in a perceived incompatibility between work and family, while high job resources stimulate “an integration mindset” (p. 9).

Taken together, the results of these studies on work–family conflict and enrichment underscore the complexity of the work–family interface. In particular, they signify the need to investigate the nature of the possible dual process of experiencing both work–family conflict and enrichment, and how this may be influenced by segmentation–integration preferences and behaviors. It is also clear, based on the notion that there may be cultural influences on segmentation–integration preferences and behaviors, that these studies should take a cross-national and/or global approach. To date, although studies have looked at work–family issues around the globe, none have specifically looked at similarities and differences that may be grounded in or influenced by culture nor have they specified what aspect of culture or which cultural dimensions may be important for understanding segmentation–integration.

Technology, Globalization, and Segmentation–Integration

Changing technologies and telework. Increasingly available smart, mobile technology is having a significant impact on both the work and nonwork domains (Hoffman & Bulger, Reference Hoffman, Bulger and Kleinman2009; Purcell & Rainie, Reference Purcell and Rainie2014). There is an assumption, perhaps warranted, that technology is significantly blurring the boundaries between and around work and nonwork. Hoffman and Bulger argue that although technology certainly affords highly flexible, integrated boundaries, it does not dictate those boundaries. Rather, boundaries may still be actively constructed by individuals. Research indicates that this is the case. For instance, Park, Fritz, and Jex (Reference Park, Fritz and Jex2011) demonstrated that higher segmentation preferences and perceived segmentation norms were related to higher psychological detachment. They further showed that this relationship is partially mediated by technology use at home. Those who had higher segmentation preferences and perceived segmentation norms used less technology at home and were more likely to detach.

Sayah (Reference Sayah2013) studied German independent contractors in the information technology and media sectors. She found information and communication technologies do allow for work and family to impact one another, but that the impact is not automatic. Rather, her respondents reported on various ways in which they manage the use of their information and communication technologies as they engage in boundary work tactics. She found that information and communication technology use can be deliberately designed to establish full segmentation or integration, as well as segmenting one domain and integrating the other. Organizational expectations and norms also influenced whether technology use had a positive or negative (or both) impact on work–family outcomes. In a study in Romania, Köffer, Junglas, Chiperi, and Niehaves (Reference Köffer, Junglas, Chiperi and Niehaves2014) found that people who reported organizational cultures that encouraged use of mobile technologies to do work also reported higher work-to-life conflict, and this relationship was stronger for those who prefer segmentation. Barber and Santuzzi (Reference Barber and Santuzzi2015) recently coined the term telepressure to refer to when individuals feel a need to respond to communications coming in over information and communication technologies. They found that telepressure was influenced by organizational norms for segmentation versus integration. In addition, telepressure was linked with stress outcomes in their study.

Employers are increasingly offering flexible working arrangements to employees, including telework. Some organizations may also implement telework organization-wide, resulting in employees working in telework arrangements involuntarily. LaPierre, van Steenbergen, Peeters, and Kluwer (Reference LaPierre, van Steenbergen, Peeters and Kluwer2016) found that employees working involuntarily in a telework situation had higher strain-based work–family conflict than those teleworking voluntarily. Contrary to the authors’ expectations, using segmentation tactics as a boundary management strategy did not moderate this relationship, but self-efficacy in balancing work and family did attenuate the negative impact of involuntary telework on work–family conflict.

Global organizations and expatriates. There is very little research on how globalization of work impacts segmentation–integration, yet there is a great deal of speculation that global work will require more integration for employees as work crosses both time zones and cultural norms. Richardson, McKenna, Dickie, and Kelliher (Reference Richardson, McKenna, Dickie, Kelliher, Mäkelä and Suutari2015) studied expatriate mining professionals representing fourteen different nationalities. They found that work and nonwork are “inextricably intertwined” for expatriates, mainly because expatriates rely heavily on coworkers and supervisors for support. See Chapter 26 (Dimitrova) in this handbook for further exploration of the work–family interface for expatriates.

Concluding Thoughts

Dumas and Sanchez-Burks (Reference Dumas and Sanchez-Burks2015) review various theoretical perspectives on work and family. They suggest that there are dual pressures on employees to both integrate and segment work and family stemming from a need to navigate the demands from both domains, while maintaining a particular work identity as an ideal worker. Specifically, they conclude that the norm of the “ideal worker” as someone who is work-focused and always ready to contribute to the organization holds a place of primacy. The ideal worker would, thus, segment family out of work, but also integrate work into family. This is echoed by Williams, Berdahl, and Vandello (Reference Williams, Berdahl and Vandello2016) in their review of literature on segmentation–integration and flexible work practices. They suggest that the notion of the ideal worker holds a great deal of sway in organizations and in the minds of individuals, possibly resulting in resistance to efforts to offer resources that would better enable people to manage their work–family boundaries. Williams et al. further suggest that there are also potential culturally and socially bound notions of the importance of being work-focused as a sign of masculinity for men as well as the clash of ideals for women workers who need to be both always available for work (e.g., ideal worker) and always available for family (e.g., ideal mother). Both sets of authors suggest that these norms are old-fashioned and that researchers and employers should rethink and revamp what is needed for work and workers.

Still it seems likely that the norms identified by Williams et al. (Reference Williams, Berdahl and Vandello2016) and Dumas and Sanchez-Burks (Reference Dumas and Sanchez-Burks2015) may inform what the research findings described here suggest. Research has borne out the proposition first made by Nippert-Eng (Reference Nippert-Eng1996) that boundaries are idiosyncratic and actively constructed. Segmentation–integration preferences are at least partially an individual difference variable, but may also be related to the demands from the work and family domains as well as cultural norms. Boundary work behaviors, enacted to establish segmentation or integration, can be useful in meeting domain demands. However, a mismatch between the segmentation–integration preferences or behaviors on the part of an individual and the resources for segmentation–integration offered by the organization can lead to negative outcomes. In addition, there are both positive and negative outcomes associated with segmentation–integration preferences and behaviors. Technology may be integration-affording, but it can also be used to segment domains. Further, family members, coworkers, supervisors and other “border keepers” do impact work and nonwork boundaries and the effects of managing boundaries.

There remain many unanswered questions about segmentation–integration, particularly as related to the global work–family interface. Some of the literature described here asserts that there are cultural differences in norms for segmenting versus integrating work and family, yet there is little empirical evidence for such differences. As such, researchers should undertake carefully designed studies aimed at further understanding the similarities and differences in segmentation–integration norms at the cultural level and how these norms inform both individual and organizational norms and expectations for segmentation–integration. There seems to be at least a possibility that cultural norms have an impact on the practice of segmentation–integration and the outcomes of segmenting versus integrating work and family. For example, there may be differences in segmentation–integration norms based on whether the culture is more individualistic or collectivistic, resulting in systematic cultural differences in segmentation–integration preferences.

Alternately, it may be that cultural norms are related to the types of segmentation–integration behaviors employed to manage work and nonwork demands. Future studies could identify types of segmentation–integration behaviors that are more common in various cultures, and could explore whether cultural norms and values influence psychological, familial, and/or organizational outcomes of those behaviors. In countries where there are strong laws related to work time, family-friendly practices, and the like, what are the expectations for segmentation versus integration? On the other hand, in developing nations, how are segmentation–integration norms developing? Most of the studies cited here were conducted in the United States, Australia, Europe, and developed countries in Asia. Future research should investigate how work and nonwork issues are handled in developing economies in Asia, Africa, and South America.

Pertinent to all of these questions is the ever-changing role of technology. Smart, mobile technology has been available since IBM introduced a device called “Simon” in 1992 that was able to make calls and had features similar to a personal data assistant, such as the ability to send faxes (Reed, Reference Reed2010). The ensuing years saw the introduction of other devices that were mobile and smart, such as the Palm Pilot in 1996 and the Blackberry in 2006. But the explosion in ownership of smart, mobile devices is generally traced to 2007 when both the iPhone and the Android operating systems were introduced (McCarty, Reference McCarty2011; Reed Reference Reed2010). In the decade since then, we have seen a tremendous impact of that technology on both the work and family domain. The applications and capabilities associated with smartphones are improving rapidly, suggesting that there may be continued impact of these technologies on segmentation–integration. Ollier-Malaterre et al. (Reference Ollier-Malaterre, Rothbard and Berg2013) suggest that boundary management now also includes social media, in that individuals and organizations must actively determine what kinds of information is shared on social media.

In addition, cultural norms may impact how smart, mobile technology influences segmentation preferences and practices, particularly as use of the internet and smart technology permeates developing economies. To date, there is little research on this question, but a recent survey by the Pew Research Center (Poushter & Stewart, Reference Poushter and Stewart2016) indicated that smartphone ownership is rising fairly dramatically in developing nations, from a reported 21% (in twenty-one developing nations) in 2013 to 37% in 2015. Further, even in those nations, the majority of respondents reported owning some form of mobile technology even if it was not a smartphone. This study also points to some possible cultural impacts of technology on segmentation–integration of work and nonwork. One example is the gender gap in both internet use and smartphone ownership; in twenty of the nations studied, men were far more likely than women to be internet users and smartphone owners, particularly in some African nations. Whether and how this relates to cultural norms and practices related to work and nonwork issues should be examined in future research.

Given all of these remaining questions, we echo Allen, Cho, and Meier (Reference Allen, Cho and Meier2014) and call for continued research on segmentation–integration. Specifically, we believe that cross-cultural research on segmentation–integration preferences practices is sorely needed. Furthermore, we encourage additional theoretical and conceptual work that goes beyond simple comparisons to develop theory and an empirical research base regarding why culture and which aspects of culture may affect workers’ boundaries, role transitions, and preferences.

What Is Work–Life Balance?

There is no single understanding or use of the term WLB. Rather, multiple and overlapping WLB discourses within organizations and among academic researchers are dynamic and shift across time and place (Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Gambles and Rapoport2007; Lewis, Anderson, Lyonette, Payne, & Wood, Reference Lewis, Anderson, Lyonette, Payne and Wood2017a; Lewis, Anderson, Lyonette, Payne, & Wood, Reference Lewis, Anderson, Lyonette, Payne and Wood2017b). Work–family interface scholars tend to define WLB at an individual level. Some explicitly focus on work–family balance. For example, Grzywacz and Carlson (Reference Grzywacz and Carlson2007) discuss the “accomplishment of role-related expectations that are negotiated and shared between an individual and his/her role-related partners in the work and family domains” (p. 458). Other scholars define the “life” domain more broadly (Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Anderson, Lyonette, Payne and Wood2017a; Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Anderson, Lyonette, Payne and Wood2017b). For instance, Haar, Russo, Suñe, and Ollier-Malaterre (Reference Haar, Russo, Suñe and Ollier-Malaterre2014) characterize WLB as an individual’s assessment of how well multiple life roles are balanced. Nevertheless, the majority of the work–life literature treats, at least implicitly, the “life” domain as being interchangeable with that of “family,” particularly as represented by caregiving responsibilities for dependent children (Özbilgin, Beauregard, Tatli, & Bell, Reference Özbilgin, Beauregard, Tatli and Bell2011).

The concept of balance is itself problematic. The term was initially understood by researchers as signifying low levels of conflict between work and nonwork demands (see Wayne, Butts, Casper, & Allen, Reference Wayne, Butts, Casper and Allen2016, for a review). However, the word “balance” implies a goal of equal participation in work and nonwork activities and overlooks the diverse ways in which individuals manage occupancy of multiple roles, not all of which involve balance (Clark, Reference Clark2000; Gambles et al., Reference Gambles, Lewis and Rapoport2006; Hobson, Reference Hobson2014). For instance, Rajan-Rankin (Reference Rajan-Rankin2016) argues that the messy reality of family and community life and the blurring of boundaries she found in her research on Indian call centers cannot be accounted for by Western discourses of WLB idealized as tidy, segmented lives. A growing critical literature argues that these definitions imply a false dichotomy, as work (paid and unpaid) is part of life rather than a separate element to be balanced with life (Bloom, Reference Bloom2016; Fleetwood, Reference Fleetwood2007; Gambles et al., Reference Gambles, Lewis and Rapoport2006; Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Gambles and Rapoport2007).

Given the difficulties in determining the meaning of WLB as an individual experience, the use of the term to describe workplace policies or practices is also highly problematic. Specifically, it is often unclear what such policies are designed to achieve. These WLB policies and practices are also often labelled as “family-friendly.” However, this labelling within the WLB discourse has been criticized for implying gender neutrality when considerable research has established that women remain disproportionately responsible for caregiving in addition to the demands of paid work (Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Gambles and Rapoport2007; Smithson & Stokoe, Reference Smithson and Stokoe2005). Women are more likely than men to use WLB practices and to have a low sense of entitlement to advance in their careers if they do so (Herman & Lewis, Reference Herman and Lewis2012).

Critics also argue that labeling workplace policies as WLB policies implies an employee-led focus , or favors granted to employees, which can mask the employer benefits of such policies and practices (Fleetwood, Reference Fleetwood2007; Gatrell & Cooper, Reference Gatrell and Cooper2008; Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Gambles and Rapoport2007; Lewis et al., 2016a; Özbilgin et al., Reference Özbilgin, Beauregard, Tatli and Bell2011; Smithson & Stokoe, Reference Smithson and Stokoe2005). The emphasis on individual choices and outcomes in understandings of WLB has also been criticized for camouflaging the general shift in responsibility for well-being from state to individual effected by neoliberalism, a form of capitalism in which state-provided services (e.g., state-funded childcare centers) are replaced with market-based alternatives (e.g., organizational voucher schemes through which parents are offered some financial support for their choice of privately operated daycare) (Fleetwood, Reference Fleetwood2007). While purporting to empower individual workers, neoliberalism is acknowledged by scholars as increasing the power of business and corporations to determine public policies and setting regulatory frameworks that are advantageous to themselves rather than to workers (Fleetwood, Reference Fleetwood2007; Harvey, Reference Harvey2005).

According to Fleetwood (Reference Fleetwood2007), Western WLB discourses have increased in recent years because they help to legitimize employer-driven flexible working practices that are presented as offering employees greater choice and freedom, but which often manifest themselves in employee-unfriendly ways. For example, research has found that access to available practices can be inconsistent within organizations and fuel employee perceptions of unfairness (Beauregard, Reference Beauregard2014). Additionally, managers and professionals using flexible working practices often experience work intensification in the form of longer hours and greater work effort, professional isolation and fewer networking opportunities, a reputation among peers and superiors for being less committed to the organization, increased work–family conflict, and reduced prospects for career advancement (Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley, Reference Allen, Johnson, Kiburz and Shockley2013; Beauregard, Reference Beauregard, Kaiser, Ringlstetter, Pina e Cunha and Eikhof2011; Leslie, Manchester, Park, & Mehng, Reference Leslie, Manchester, Park and Mehng2012; Kelliher & Anderson, Reference Kelliher and Anderson2010). As such, so-called WLB policies can actually obstruct the achievement of individual experiences of work–life “balance” rather than facilitate it.

The reason why many WLB policies may fail to lead to actual experiences of WLB on the part of workers may be because these policies are rarely accompanied by changes to workplace structures, cultures, and practices, which continue to be based on outdated assumptions about ideal workers and the way that work should be carried out (Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Gambles and Rapoport2007). Specifically, employers continue to view those individuals who value work above all else and have fewer nonwork obligations as the ideal workers (Dumas & Sanchez-Burks, Reference Dumas and Sanchez-Burks2015). Thus, the attainment of WLB has been depicted by critical management scholars as “an eternally unfinished journey of self-discovery” (Bloom, Reference Bloom2016, p. 596), in which individuals’ modern-day identity is structured by the simultaneous desire and inability to achieve equilibrium between work and nonwork roles.

Comparative Research on Work–Life Balance

These definitional problems may be one factor explaining why WLB is one of the least frequently studied concepts in the work–family interface literature (Greenhaus & Allen, Reference Greenhaus, Allen, Quick and Tetrick2011), and why there are fewer cross-cultural studies on work–life balance compared to those on conflict and enrichment (Ollier-Malaterre, Reference Ollier-Malaterre, Allen and Eby2016 Ollier-Malaterre & Foucreault, Reference Ollier-Malaterre and Foucreault2017). There is some evidence suggesting that WLB is valued by employees across many national contexts (Hill, Yang, Hawkins, & Ferris, Reference 731Hill, Yang, Hawkins and Ferris2004; Kossek, Valcour, & Lirio, Reference Kossek, Valcour, Lirio, Cooper and Chen2014). However, the value of WLB may be moderated by national culture – highlighting the need to include cultural dimensions in research using cross-national designs (Haar et al., Reference Haar, Russo, Suñe and Ollier-Malaterre2014).

Some limited comparative research has examined differences in the provision of so-called policies and practices to support WLB (Chandra, Reference Chandra2012). However, WLB is a Western construct and although it is increasingly emerging in a wider range of national contexts in employee and employer discourses as well as in organizational research (e.g., Abubaker & Bagley, Reference Abubaker and Bagley2016; Atsumi, Reference Atsumi2007; Chandra, Reference Chandra2012), the majority of the WLB research literature remains focused on Western contexts and largely neglects the contested and culture-sensitive nature of the WLB concept. There are issues relating to both interpretation of WLB in diverse contexts and also how to take account of intersections between layers of contexts that shape these interpretations. Surveys assessing individual experiences of WLB include items such as, “I manage to balance the demands of my work and personal life/family well” (Haar et al., Reference Haar, Russo, Suñe and Ollier-Malaterre2014). Interpretations of balance and judgments about doing this “well” are highly subjective, and we cannot rule out the possibility that these are related to contextual social expectations, norms, and comparisons that impact personal expectations and sense of entitlement to invest differently in work and family or personal life.

It is important for research to reflect on and take into account the possibilities of diverse interpretations of WLB and the layers of context in which they are rooted. Both quantitative and qualitative research have a role in providing more nuanced accounts of meanings and experiences of WLB. In relation to mostly quantitative research, Ollier-Malaterre and Foucreault (Reference Ollier-Malaterre and Foucreault2017) argue that the inclusion of “more structural and cultural factors (is) a step towards capturing the polycontextuality (Von Glinow, Shapiro, & Brett, 2004) of country-level contexts – that is, the interactions of multiple layers of context” (p. 4). Qualitative researchers argue for more in-depth qualitative case studies to draw out intersections of multiple layers of context in comparative cross-national research (Nilsen, Brannen, & Lewis, Reference Nilsen, Brannen and Lewis2013). Case studies are particularly useful for understanding processes whereby conceptual understandings of constructs such as WLB shift across time as well as place (Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Anderson, Lyonette, Payne and Wood2017a; Tatli, Vassilopoulou, Al Ariss, & Özbilgin, Reference Tatli, Vassilopoulou, Al Ariss and Özbilgin2012). Below, we discuss some of the intersecting layers of context that can shape diverse understandings of the construct of WLB.

Contexts Shaping the Meanings of Work–Life Balance

The Future

This chapter has discussed the problematic nature of meanings of WLB. As the language used to describe a particular concept influences the ways in which individuals and organizational actors think about and respond to it (Lewis et al., Reference Lewis, Gambles and Rapoport2007), this is not a trivial issue. The ways in which individual workers understand “balance” in relation to work and personal life in diverse contexts influence whether they see balance as feasible and attainable, the supports that they expect or would like, and the “choices” they can make.

Similarly, understandings of WLB vary within and across organizations. For example, if WLB is conceptualized as a health issue with implications for employee well-being and performance, then it may help to challenge practices that encourage work to spill over into nonwork time. In contrast, if WLB is conceptualized as a luxury and support for WLB as a favor, then WLB-supportive policies and practices will be vulnerable, especially in more difficult economic circumstances.

Evidence suggests that WLB may be regarded as a luxury or favor in contexts where there is a long-hours culture, particularly in professional and managerial work (e.g., Moen, Lam, Ammons, & Kelly, Reference Moen, Lam, Ammons and Kelly2013). Interestingly, WLB is also likely to be regarded as a luxury in smaller businesses with limited resources, which may be struggling to compete for survival, and in developing country contexts and subsistence economies. As most WLB research takes place in large organizations and in industrialized countries, more research is needed to understand whether and how WLB is interpreted in other contexts. Moreover, most research focuses on high-status, middle-class workers. More needs to be known about the meanings and usefulness of the WLB concept to those working in low-paid and insecure work, for whom the main priority is simply earning enough to get by (Warren, Reference Warren, Lewis, Anderson, Lyonette, Payne and Wood2017).

Moreover, the concept of WLB is not static. Evidence that meanings of WLB can change over time within a given context, as discussed in this chapter, suggests, that future scholarship in this vein is likely to be fruitful. To expand our knowledge of how individuals in a particular place and time understand WLB, more research is needed into how these meanings develop, and how they impact individuals’ sense of entitlement to use WLB provisions, such as flexible or reduced working hours (Herman & Lewis, Reference Herman and Lewis2012; Lewis & Smithson, Reference Lewis and Smithson2001), and their capability for accessing WLB supports (Hobson, Fahlén, & Takács, Reference Hobson, Fahlén and Takács2014) to achieve WLB according to their perception of this concept.

Theory-building in this regard would have practical benefits. For instance, HR practitioners could guide the processes of change in meaning of WLB in a more conscious manner, taking account of employee perspectives, and thereby ensure greater and more effective employee take-up of WLB practices. Individuals could examine their understanding of WLB more closely and perhaps challenge employers whose mixed messages regarding WLB contribute to the maintenance of standard ways of working and thereby generate little or no improvement in employee experiences of WLB.

More broadly, the dearth of research investigating the meanings attached to WLB in cultures outside the Western sphere means that it is reasonable to ask how and why these meanings might vary cross-culturally. Looking forward, we might also ask whether cultural differences in the meaning of work and life will gradually attenuate with increasing globalization and industrialization. With distinctions between “work” and “life” domains already perceived as artificial in some cultural contexts (Rajan-Rankin, Reference Rajan-Rankin2016), an important question for both scholarship and practice is whether WLB remains a useful term or whether the WLB discourse that has helped to raise awareness about some paid-work and personal-life issues now constitutes a barrier to thinking more widely about the diversity of experiences and how these might change in the future.

Existing Research on Individual Differences

The role of individual differences in the work–family interface has become of increasing interest within the work–family literature. To date, most of the existing research has focused on work–family conflict. Meta-analytic studies support relationships between personality and both directions of work–family conflict (Allen, Johnson, Saboe, Cho, Dumani, & Evans, Reference Allen, Johnson, Saboe, Cho, Dumani and Evans2012; Michel, Clark, & Jaramillo, Reference Michel, Clark and Jaramillo2011). In general, negative trait-based variables (e.g., negative affect, neuroticism) appear to make individuals more vulnerable to both directions of work–family conflict, while positive trait-based variables (e.g., positive affect, optimism) appear to protect individuals from work–family conflict. Moreover, there is evidence of a stable predisposition, distinct from Big Five personality traits, associated with both negative and positive work–family spillover (Cho, Tay, Allen, & Stark, Reference Cho, Tay, Allen and Stark2013). These studies are an important contribution to the work–family literature in that the effect sizes associated with dispositional variables rival those associated with work and family demands and exceed those associated with work–family practice initiatives, such as flextime (Allen, Johnson, Kiburz, & Shockley, Reference Allen, Johnson, Kiburz and Shockley2013).

In addition to personality, individual beliefs about one’s own capabilities have been investigated as predictors of work–family conflict. Specifically, self-esteem, internal locus of control, and self-efficacy are each negatively associated with both directions of work–family conflict (Wayne, Michel, & Matthews, Reference Wayne, Michel, Matthews, Allen and Eby2016). In addition, Butler, Gasser, and Smart (Reference Butler, Gasser and Smart2004) examined self-efficacy specific to the work–family interface, defined as beliefs about one’s ability to competently manage conflicts between work and family. Sample items included, ‘‘Handling the conflicting demands of work and family is well within my abilities,’’ and, ‘‘My past experiences increase my confidence that I will be able to handle conflicting demands of work and family.’’ They found that work–family self-efficacy was negatively associated with both directions of work–family conflict. Personal preferences and strategies for managing work and family boundaries, such as segmenting versus integrating roles, have also become of interest to work–family researchers with mixed results concerning relationships with work–family conflict (Allen, Cho, & Meier, Reference Allen, French, Dumani and Shockley2015). The focus of PRWLB is likely related to perceived ability and to strategic preferences, but unique in that it centers on personal responsibility and priorities, recognizing that priorities can shift across the life course. Moreover, PRWLB is specific to the work–life interface whereas constructs such as locus of control are part of a set of stable traits that reflect one’s fundamental overall evaluation of the self (Judge, Locke, & Durham, Reference Judge, Locke and Durham1997).

Gender

Gender is inextricably intertwined with the work–life interface, owing at least in part, to a persistent gendered division of work and family labor (Leslie, Manchester, & Kim, Reference Leslie, Manchester, Kim, Allen and Eby2016; Shockley & Shen, Reference Shockley, Shen, Allen and Eby2016). Although gender differences in work–family variables, such as work–family conflict, would be expected, meta-analytic evidence suggests few differences exist (Shockley, Shen, Denunzio, Arvan, & Knudsen, Reference Shockley, Shen, Denunzio, Arvan and Knudsen2014). Some research has examined gender differences in general feelings of personal control, with mixed results as well, but among a sample of married parents Cassidy and Davies (Reference Cassidy and Davies2003) found women reported lower levels of general personal control than did men. Given differences in the social organization of work and family roles, we explore whether there are mean differences in PRWLB across gender and whether gender interacts with culture in relation to PRWLB.

Results

To examine mean differences in PRWLB at the country-level, we conducted a one-way analysis of variance. Results indicated significant mean differences across the eight countries (F = 24.28, p <.001). A Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc test was conducted to determine which countries significantly differed from one another. Results are shown in Table 40.1. Hungary had the lowest mean at 3.09 while Russia had the highest mean at 3.79. We next examined mean differences across region clusters and found significant differences (F = 14.68, p <.001). The Arabic cluster (M = 3.38) significantly differed from the Sub-Saharan cluster (M = 3.56) and the Eastern European cluster (M = 3.58).

Table 40.1 PRWLB means by country

Country	Subset 1	Subset 2	Subset 3	Subset 4
Hungary	3.09 (1.08)
Egypt	3.29 (1.02)	3.29 (1.02)
Morocco		3.37 (.97)	3.37 (.97)
Turkey		3.45 (1.07)	3.45 (1.07)
Kazakhstan		3.53 (1.13)	3.53 (1.13)
Nigeria			3.56 (1.03)	3.56 (1.03)
Poland			3.59 (.94)	3.59 (.94)
Russia				3.79 (.87)

Note: Countries within the same subset do not significantly differ from one another. Standard deviations appear in parentheses.

We next tested for differences in PRWLB as a function of cultural values. We first tested for mean differences in low versus high GE clusters and low versus high IC clusters. Results indicated that participants in the high GE cluster (M = 3.58, SD =.98) reported greater PRWLB than did participants in the low GE cluster (M = 3.40, SD = 1.03) (t = 4.96, p <.001). Results also indicated that participants in the high IC cluster (M = 3.61, SD =.96) reported greater PRWLB than did participants in the low IC cluster (M = 3.34, SD = 1.06) (t = 7.56, p <.001).

We tested for differences across the four clusters that varied in their combination of GE and IC. One-way analysis of variance supported a significant difference in the four clusters (F = 47.96, p <.001). A Tukey HSD post hoc test was conducted to determine which clusters significantly differed from one another. As shown in Table 40.2 each cluster significantly differed from the other. Those in the high IC-high GE cluster reported the greatest PRWLB (M = 3.68) while those in the low IC-high GE cluster reported the lowest PRWLB (M = 3.09).

Table 40.2 PRWLB means by cultural cluster

Cluster	Subset 1	Subset 2	Subset 3	Subset 4
Low IC-high GE	3.09 (1.04)
Low GE-high IC		3.29 (1.02)
Low IC-low GE			3.45 (1.04)
High IC-high GE				3.68 (.93)

Note: Clusters within the same subset do not significantly differ from one another. Standard deviations appear in parentheses.

To further probe the interaction between GE and IC, we conducted a hierarchical regression analysis in which imputed GLOBE values were used to represent GE and IC and the interaction between the two was computed. The interaction was significant (R² change =.01, F = 40.70, p <.001). The interaction was plotted based on levels of the variables one standard deviation above and below the mean (see Figure 40.1). As shown in Figure 40.1, the relationship between GE and PRWLB is positive when coupled with high IC, but the sign of the relationship switches to negative when coupled with low IC.

Figure 40.1 Gender egalitarian (GE) by institutional collectivism (IC) interaction.

Lastly, we examined gender. First, an independent samples t-test was conducted to test whether PRWLB differed by gender. Results indicated women reported greater PRWLB (M = 3.58, SD =.99) than did men (M = 3.49, SD = 1.00) (t = 2.53, p =.01). However, it should be noted that this difference was small in magnitude (Cohen’s d =.09). Next we examined whether gender interacted with IC or GE. Analysis of variance based on the low-high clusters of GE revealed no interaction with gender (F = 2.02, p =.15). Similarly, no interaction between gender and low-high IC clusters was detected (F = 1.05, p =.31). Gender in conjunction with the four-group culture cluster was examined next. A significant interaction emerged (F = 2.72, p =.04) (see Figure 40.2). Results based on t-tests revealed significant differences in the low IC-low GE group (t = −2.79, p =.01) such that women reported greater PRWLB (M = 3.58, SD = 1.00) than did men (M = 3.38, SD = 1.04) (Cohen’s d =.20). Gender differences were not significant within the other three clusters. Finally, we tested for an interaction between gender and regional cluster. The interaction was not significant (F = 2.76, p =.06).

Figure 40.2 Culture combination cluster by gender interaction.

Conclusion

Our goal with the current research was to help spur conversation with regard to individual perspectives on responsibility for work–life balance and how it is viewed around the globe. Such a focus examines the abilities of the individual rather than making the individual dependent on the organization or the state for support. The role of the individual should be integrated with the situational approach to work–family management. It cannot be assumed that individuals will directly benefit or change as a result of situational benefits or policies. Ultimately, responsibility for work–life balance is one that is shared by the individual, the organization, and society.