Introduction

Organisation restructuring of the twenty-first century has compelled many organisations to alter their internal and external operations (Sarfo, 2002). The burning desire of Generation X (workers born after 1963) for work-life balance (WLB) (Chao, 2005), the need for most organisations stay operational at all times (Tan & Klaasen, 2007; Torrington, Hall, & Taylor, 2008), the prevalence of dual-earner families and the rise of older employees in the workforce (Galinsky, Aumann, & Bond, 2009; Raley, Mattingly, & Bianchi, 2006), demographic and social changes (Sharma & Mishra, 2013) that have resulted in an influx of women entering the labour force (Jones, Burke, & Westman, 2006), and the economic uncertainties (Hughes & Bozionelos, 2007) leading to the global economic downturn in 2008 (United Nations, 2011). These factors have collectively affected employees’ movements from work domain to the non-work domain, consequently, creating a shift in the construct and application of border theory. These changes have driven many organisations to change their functions, strategies, and human resources management (HRM) policies to include policies that facilitate employees’ unrestricted movement from work domain to non-work domain. Thus, it is necessary to re-think border theory in terms of its components and application.

Border theory is a work-family balance theory. It explains employees’ movements from work domain to home/family domain. According to Clark (2000), employees are border crossers who travel between work and home domains. This article, however, takes Clark’s study further by introducing the work-life border control model. This model describes employees as border crossers who journey between work and non-work domains. It draws a distinction from the spill-over model (Staines, 1980), the conservation of resource model (Hobfoll, 1989), the compensation model (Lambert, 1990), the segmentation model (Young & Kleiner, 1992), Clark’s (2000) work/family border theory, and other studies on border theory (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Nippert-Eng, 1996a, 1996b; Zerubavel, 1993), which only dealt with how employees construct, maintain, negotiate and cross the borders between work domain and home/family domain and ignored employees’ other non-familial activities. This article also aims to build upon the aforementioned theories, especially border theory, in order to accommodate what has previously been omitted in these early studies.

In other words, the work-life border control model is not just about work and family/home but rather work and life domain domains. It is imperative to have a model that consider ‘life’ as an enclave for employees’ non-work general activities. According to Osoian, Lazar, and Ratiu (2011), there are many other activities in the non-work domain that are equally as important as family responsibilities, depending on each employee’s status. For example, single employees who have no familial responsibilities to cater for may choose going to the gym, attending religious, social, or community activities, etc. as their non-work duties as opposed home/familial duties. Home or family is by no means the only activity in the ‘life’ domain that matter to employees. Rantanen, Kinnunen, Mauno, and Tillemann (2011) called for a WLB model that would capture that whole gamut of activities in ‘life’ domain. Furthermore, there is a need for a model that will explain factors that determine employees’ movements across the border. This will illuminate our understanding of how employees’ movements between work and life domains are bordered. Although Clark (2000) have argued that employees’ movements depend on borders’ strength and permeability. However, aside that Clark’s (2000) border theory portrayed home/family as the only ‘life’ domain activity, the factors that determine the strength and weakness of the borders are also limited to spatial, temporal and psychological. This model attempts to expand work-family theory by discussing in-depth the five main factors that determine the strength or weakness of the borders. Ransome’s (2007, p. 374) argued that ‘it is rather important to use an established theory and concepts as a basis to develop a new one’. The current study is expected to broaden the scope of discussions on work-life border theory and enrich the literature in that aspect of study.

Historical Evolution of Border Theory

Boundary theory grew from a miscellany of studies about cognitive organisation of roles (Berg & Piszczek, 2012). Its development can be traced back to Zerubavel’s (1993, 1996) lumping and splitting heuristic classification of organisational frames and Nippert-Eng’s (1996a, 1996b) work on ‘Home and Work: Negotiating Boundaries through Everyday Life’. According to Zerubavel (1993, 1996), people use heuristic methods of classification to organise physical and mental constructs by either ‘lumping’ several categories into a single one or by ‘splitting’ one mental category into distinct, separate entities. Zerubavel argues that lumping and splitting classifications are socially constructed and based on individual identification process. Berg and Piszczek (2012, p. 3) concluded that ‘the mental categorisations at the heart of boundary theory are influenced by broader social factors, which cause individuals in the same social structures to create similar classification schemas’. Zerubavel (1993, 1996) posits that individual fashion ‘islands of meaning’ out of reality and potentially separate chunks of reality from the world and occurrences around them. ‘The islands of meaning are not part of the nature; rather they are cluster of things which are similar to one another within their circle of classification’ (Zerubavel 1991, pp. 70–80). Zerubavel, from a cognitive sociological perspective, further suggests that islands are outcomes of active construction, which complement the processes of lumping and splitting. These processes are at the heart of border theory and deal with cognitive processes that are neither personal nor logical (Zerubavel, 1997). He further identified the need for a comparative approach in social classification in order to clarify different classification schemas across thoughts communities (Zerubavel, 1996).

However, Nippert-Eng (1996a, 1996b) broadened the discussion by applying the notion of cognitive sociological classification to the work-family interface. Initially, she developed the concept of individual segmentation and integration of work and home mental categorisation into a theoretical cline. In ‘boundary work’, she classified employees as segmentors or integrators (Nippert-Eng, 1996a). Segmentation happens ‘when the border between work and home is impregnable, while integration occurs when work and home are the same’ (Nippert-Eng, 1996c, pp. 567–568). Warhurst, Eikhof, and Haunschild (2008, p. 10) stated that ‘segmentors have two key rings, one for work, the other for the house and integrators affix all keys to one key ring’. However, despite the fact that integrating roles brings about less difficulties in role transition, yet it has been argued that less integrated roles lead to clearer and more easily maintained borders (Desrochers & Sergent, 2004). Literature is somewhat contradictory on this issue.

Nippert-Eng interpreted border theory beyond heuristic to include a strategic choice (Berg & Piszczek, 2012) in which employees’ boundary management plans include those principles that they use to organise and separate role demands and expectations into particular spheres (Kossek, Noe, & DeMarr, 1999). For Nippert-Eng (1996a, 1996b), employees who prefer and engage themselves in high overlapping between work and home domains are integrators while those who opt to keep work and home domain distinct are separators. Employees differ in their preferences, which often influence them in their decisions as to whether to separate or integrate work and family domains (Kossek et al., 1999). It is imperative to understand that the notion of strategy was incorporated into border theory by Nippert-Eng (1996c) in her conceptualisation of the border negotiation, in which she focused on employees as active role players. Consistent with Nippert-Eng’s (1996c) position, mental categories of work and home can be managed by using three tools: internalised cultural images, socio-structural constraints, and personal practices within situational constraints. However, research has neglected the first two tools and embraced only the third one which consequently narrows the potential for understanding how and why employees segment or integrate their mental categorisation (Berg & Piszczek, 2012).

Nippert-Eng (1996c) underscored the importance of Zerubavel’s social classification scheme in developing boundary theory. She argued that socio-structural forces act as constraints in boundary negotiation and influence the extent to which an employee is a separator or an integrator. Although she believes that employees cognitively construct the work and home domains, she maintained that individual thinking is nothing less than the embodiment of group thinking (Nippert-Eng, 1996c). She also posited that boundaries can be different in terms of the size of their conceptual territory and that their size can change from time to time as employees change in their thinking and behaviour. She identified permeability as an ‘essential ease of transition from one mental category to another and part of boundary’s structure profile’ (Nippert-Eng, 1996c, p. 280). Undoubtedly, Nippert-Eng’s (1996c) work made a significant contribution to border theory; however, she did not deal with ‘how socio-structural forces are shaped by domestic institutions at higher and theoretical levels’ (Berg & Piszczek, 2012, p. 5). Furthermore, Nippert-Eng’s work focuses mainly on ‘home’ as the only aspect of employees’ life, whereas, ‘life’ (or non-work domain) involves more than just family/home (Osoian, Ratiu, & Lazar, 2011; Warhurst et al., 2008). It is, however, essential to note that the term ‘boundary theory’ is often attributed to Nippert-Eng (1996c). Even though her work was not the first theoretical examination of work and home boundaries, she was one of the first to examine them in a systematic and broad fashion (Berg & Piszczek, 2012).

The insightful work of Perry-Jenkins, Repetti, and Crouter (2000) and Bianchi and Milkie (2010) showed the interrelationship between work and home domains. They identified the structural factors that facilitate and impede employees’ efforts to integrate their different responsibilities, but their studies ignored the boundaries that exist between these two domains (Desrochers, Sargent, & Hostetler, 2012). In the same vein, Ashforth et al. (2000) developed their study on the conceptualisation of the characteristics of boundaries, while Clark (2000) propounded work/family theory. Clark (2000) developed on the previous border theories based on the premise that they did not sufficiently explain, predict or solve the problems confronted by employees when balancing work and family responsibilities. However, Poelmans, O’Driscoll and Beham (2005) argued that previous border theories did not operate on the assumption that they are universally valid in all environments.

Clark’s Work/Family Border Theory

Clark (2000) described the work and family domains as two asymmetric spheres with a penetrable or permeable boundary between them. She describes employees as border-crossers who make numerous trips across these two domains on a daily basis. The transition between the two domains may be easy or difficult, depending on the similarity of the variables within the two spheres. For example, in the domains in which the language and culture are similar, the transition is easier. However, in the domain in which language, culture and the expected behaviour are significantly different, transition is difficult (Kinnunen et al., 2005). According to Clark (2000, p. 747), ‘border theory’ addresses how domain integration and segmentation, border creation and management, border-crosser participation, and the relationship between border-crossers (employees) and others at work and home influence work/family balance. Clark (2000) argued that the boundaries between work and family domains are temporally, spatially and psychologically permeable. Clark (2000) recognised changes which blur boundaries that separate work and family domains and the two domains interact.

The activities in the two domains occur at different time and in different places (Clark, 2001). The theory posits that the primary relationship between work and family systems is not emotional as previous theories claimed, it is human. The theory further posits that employees can shape their environment just as the environment can also shape them and ‘it is these contradictions of determining and being determined by the two domains that make work/family balance a very challenging concept’ (Clark, 2000, p. 748). According to Clark, an individual employee manages and negotiates between the two spheres. However, striking a balance between these two settings is somewhat varied among employees. It depends on the differences between their purposes, statuses and cultures. Border-crossers often ‘modify their focus, goals and interpersonal style to fit the unique demands of each domain’ (Clark, 2000, p. 751). As earlier mentioned, this article aims to expand on Clark’s (2000) work/family border theory by developing a work-life border control model.

Characteristics of Borders

Clark (2000) argues that borders are demarcations between work and family domains and define benchmarks for acceptable behaviour. Ashforth (2001, p. 262) defined boundaries as ‘mental fences used to simplify the environment’. Boundaries have been referred to as ‘the physical, emotional, temporal, cognitive and/or relational limit that define entities as separate from one another’ (Ashforth, et al., 2000, p. 474). It is ‘a gateway into the functions of domains’ (Mathews & Barnes-Farell, 2010, p. 330). The boundary separates domains from each other yet promotes and/or constrains how domains are connected and related (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2006). Boundaries define the perimeter and the range of any domain (Kreiner, Hollensbe, & Sheep, 2009) and they become institutionalised to the extent that they are hard to alter once they are socially shared (Zerubavel, 1991). Arguably, once employee activities are ritualised, it becomes difficult to change. Boundaries could be physical (seen or felt), temporal (scheduled work and family commitments) or psychological (thoughts and emotions) (Clark, 2000, p. 756). While weak boundaries allow a great deal of permeability and flexibility, strong boundaries are impermeable and highly inflexible (Clark, 2000; Kinnunen et al., 2005). Nippert-Eng (1996c) and Clark (2000) argue that flexibility and permeability are the two main characteristics of the boundaries.

Border Flexibility and Permeability

Border flexibility is the capacity of the border to be shifted (Berg & Piszczek, 2012). Flexibility can also be defined as the malleability of the border between two or more roles (Desrochers & Sargent, 2004) or the ability of the border to expand or contrast to accommodate the demands of another domain (e.g. an employee working from home takes the opportunity to pick children from school) (Desrochers et al., 2012). In fact, flexibility answers the question of when and where a role can be enacted (Sundaramurthy & Kreiner, 2008). Border permeability, however, refers to the extent to which a domain’s border is easily penetrated by the thoughts or behaviour connected with another domain. For Ashforth et al. (2000, p. 474), ‘permeability is the degree to which a role allows an employee to be physically located in the role’s domain but psychologically and/or behaviourally involved in another role’. The permeability of any border determines the extent of integration or segmentation of the content of the bounded domains (Kreiner et al., 2009). For example, an employee who can switch easily from non-work-related responsibilities to deal with work related issues and vice-versa is said to have a highly permeable border (Glavin & Schieman, 2011). Permeability, according to Nipert-Eng (1996c, p. 280), is part of a boundary’s ‘structural profile’. Pleck (1984) refers permeability as the ability of one pre-defined role to encroach upon the physical and temporal territory of another. Flexibility and permeability are, thus, central to employees’ movements across the border.

Development of Work-Border Control Model

Practically, all of the studies undertaken on border theory centred on work and family/home domains (Ashforth et al., 2000; Clark, 2000; Nipper-Eng, 1996c; Zerubavel, 1993, 1996). However, globalisation and organisational restructuring means non-work-related activities are no longer confined to home/family duties. This has necessitated the replacement of the term ‘work-family balance’ with ‘work-life balance’. Furthermore, scholars have recognised the fact that work-life balance issues are not restricted to women and family issues alone (Chan, 2008; Osoian et al., 2011). There are many other activities in the non-work domain that are equally important to employees as familial duties, depending on the individual employees’ personal circumstances (Osoian et al., 2011) (Fig. 2.1).

Fig. 2.1
figure 1

Pictorial Representation of Work–Life Border Control Model

Full size image

This model is a theoretical extension which seeks to identify essential constituents of border theory to offer a fresh perspective on work-life balance. The work-life border control model is divided into two domains. The work domain (daily work activities) provides an employee with income and a sense of accomplishment (Clark & Farmer, 1998) and the non-work domain which provides an employee with fulfilment and personal happiness (Clark & Farmer, 1998). Work activities fully engage domain members throughout their working hours. Non-work-related activities include but not limited to family duties, community services, societal functions, gym/exercise, leisure, friendship, religious activities, part-time or full-time studies. The main crust of this model is that employees’ movement between work and non-work domains are determined by organisational culture, management support, supervisors’ support, co-workers’ support, employees’ willingness to cross the border and organisational time expectation. Clark (2000, p. 757) stated that ‘when a great deal of permeability and flexibility occurs around the border, blending occurs’. However, the work-life border control model proposes that restriction occurs in the border area when all or any of these forces are present.

Determinant Factors

Organisational Culture

Organisational culture is one of the factors in the work-life border control model which determines employees’ movements across the border. In an organisation, culture represents the written and the unwritten rules and norms about the organisation. The spoken and unspoken widely shared assumptions unobtrusively manipulate organisational members (Schein, 1992). Most of the time, culture is invisible (Stinchcomb & Ordaz, 2007). Schein (2010) explains the three levels of culture, which range from the visible and tangible manifestations to the deeply embedded, unconscious and basic assumptions which is ‘the essence of culture’ (Schein, 2010, p. 23).

According to Schein, the basic underlying assumptions are the core of an organisation’s culture with espoused beliefs and values forming the next level and artefacts forming the surface aspect of the organisational culture (Schein, 1985). In Schein’s model of culture, there is a hierarchy between these levels which distinguishes between observable and unobservable elements of culture (Dauber, Fink, & Yolles, 2012). The mere existence of WLB policies in an organisation without duly implementation may be considered as organisational artefacts. Ramachandran, Chong and Ismail (2011) observe that artefacts are easy to recognise but related meanings are often ambiguous to people outside the organisation. Only members of the organisation would know whether WLB policies actually are available or not. A firm parading itself to the public as WLB supportive organisation may not be in practice. The employees may understand this paradox, but would not openly discuss the issue with outsiders. To support Schein’s (1985) model of culture, Thompson, Beauvais, and Lyness (1999, p. 394) define work-family culture as ‘the shared assumptions, beliefs, and values regarding the extent to which an organisation supports and value the integration of employees work and private lives’. Employees will view a supportive organisational culture as one that takes care of the well-being of its employees and a non-supportive culture as one that cares less about the well-being of its employees (Peeters, Wattez, Demerouti, & de Regt, 2009). However, there are organisations whose culture and system of operations such as commitments to effectiveness and efficiency may restrict employees from using WLB policies. For example, the medical profession has a culture that prevents employees (especially doctors) from using WLB policies and practices (see Adisa, Mordi, & Osabutey, 2017). This profession has a culture of visibility (required physical presence in the hospital at all time of the doctors’ shifts) which is equal to productivity (Adisa et al., 2017). Furthermore, the culture of long hours and shift work patterns is prominent among doctors and nurses in order to monitor safety and promote continuity of patient care (Wise, Smith, Valsecchi, Mueller, & Gabe, 2007). Unfortunately, this culture restricts the employees’ movements between work and non-work domains, which affects their WLB (Timmins, 2002). Organisational culture, therefore, is a critical factor in determining employees’ movements across the border area. This is because a supportive work-life organisational culture will facilitate easy and frequent movements of employees across the border while an unsupportive culture will restrict employees’ movement which may lead to work-life conflict (WLC) (Burke, 2006).

Proposition 1:

An organisational culture supportive of work-life balance would enhance frequency and ease of employees’ movements across the border, while an unsupportive culture would tighten border and restrict employees’ movements across the border.

Management or Supervisor Support

Management and supervisor play a prominent role in whether an employee uses WLB policies or not. The work-life border control model proposes that, if management is unsupportive of work-life balance policies employees’ movements across the border will be restricted. Management support is the degree to which employees believe their organisation cares about their well-being and values their contributions (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Formal and informal management support is required for achieving WLB (Allen, 2001; Thompson et al., 1999). In this context, supportiveness refers to the extent to which an organisation’s management and its supervisors at all levels support and allow employees to use of WLB policies. Thompson et al. (1999) assert that management support is critical for the success of WLB practices because of power they wield. Management support promotes positive outcomes, facilitates employees’ general well-being, and enhances a positive spill-over from work to family which is particularly useful in promoting employees’ confidence (Ayman & Antani, 2008; Hammer, Kossek, Yragui, Bodner, & Hanson, 2009). The work-life border control model perceives that the responsibility of formulating WLB policies lies in the hands of the organisation’s management. Therefore, an organisation whose leadership or management are unsupportive of WLB policies and practices will tighten the border that exists between its employees’ work and non-work domains thus making movements between the domains almost impossible.

Support from supervisors is the extent to which employees perceive that their supervisors care about them and values their contributions (Eisenberger, Singlhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002; Simosi, 2012). It is essential to note that support from supervisors is not the same as management support. Supervisors represent management by overseeing and directing employees’ performance and general behaviour (Eisenberger et al., 2002). Supervisors are, often, responsible for operational decisions at work and they are responsible for the decisions about who uses what policies at what time (Maxwell & McDougall, 2004) and their decisions are regarded by employees as reflective of an organisation’s views (Simosi, 2012). The work-life border control model proposes that supervisors can make the border weak or strong by allowing or preventing employees’ use of WLB policies. The model argues that support from supervisors remains a strong determinant of employees’ movement across the border. This is because even if management provides WLB policies for its workforce, supervisors may still prevent the use of those policies. Supervisors can restrict or prevent employees from using the policies (De Cieri, Holmes, Abbott, & Pettit, 2005). The disinclination of supervisors to sanction the use of WLB policies could be personal or a reflection of the organisation’s embedded culture. Sakazume (2009) argued that some supervisors reject WLB initiatives because they assume that allowing WLB policies and practices would negatively influence employee morale and efficiency. It is important to note that the management/supervisor actions are often guided by unwritten rules deeply ingrained in organisational culture, thus making employees’ movement across the border easy or difficult.

Proposition 2:

The more supportive an organisation’s management/supervisors are towards allowing employees use work-life balance policies, the weaker the borders between work and non-work domains and vice versa.

Co-Workers’ Support

Support from co-workers determines employees’ movements across the border. Co-workers’ support is the extent to which employees perceive that their colleagues respect their contributions and care about their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 2002; Simosi, 2012). Adisa (2015) highlighted the importance of co-workers’ support to achieving employees’ WLB. Adisa et al. (2017) found that co-workers sometimes complain and pass insinuations on employees who often use WLB policies. This often dissuades employees from using them or makes the organisation or supervisors to altogether stop employees from using them. Therefore, the support an employee receives from his/her colleagues to use WLB policies has an impact on border flexibility and permeability such that it determines movements across the border. In other words, co-workers could determine how strong or weak a border would be. This assertion is supported by Marks’ (1977) argument that having supportive colleagues can lead to positive results. Additionally, research has revealed that support from co-workers is a potential predictor of good WLB and its absence could lead to WLC (Ferguson, Carlson, Zivnuska, & Whitten, 2012; Lu, Siu, Spector, & Shi, 2009; Ng & Sorensen, 2008). The work-life border control model thus postulates that lack of support from co-workers will restrict employees from using WLB policies, which will then prevent or slow down employees’ movements across the border. White, Hill, McGovern, Mills, and Smeaton (2003) expounded that fear of alienation and resentment from co-workers often forms a significant concern for many workers. Kirby and Krone (2002) argued that resentment from co-workers often discourages employees from using WLB policies. The work-life border control model proposes that support from co-workers determine employees’ movements across the border and vice-versa.

Proposition 3:

The more employees support each other in using WLB policies, the more flexible and permeable the border becomes and the more freely and frequently employees move across the border.

Employees’ Willingness to Cross the Border

It is one thing to be supported by management, supervisors, and colleagues to use WLB policies and practices and quite another for an individual employee to be willing to use the policies. Employees’ willingness to cross the border means their willingness to use the various WLB available to them. Employees’ willingness to use WLB policies often hangs on some overarching factors such as marital status, non-work responsibilities, perceived impact of using WLB policies on career, and support from the organisation and supervisors (Adisa, 2015). For example, an unmarried employee with no care responsibilities will make less or no use of WLB policies. Studies have shown that single employees who have no care responsibilities often perceive colleagues with family and care responsibilities as lazy and less committed (Beauregard & Henry, 2009; CIPD, 2007; Eikhof et al., 2007). Consequently, employees who need to use WLB policies may be reluctant or unwilling to them (McDonald, Townsend, & Wharton, 2013). In the same vein, some employers consider employees who make use of WLB policies as less productive (Osoian et al., 2011) and uncommitted (Wharton, Chivers, & Blair-Loy, 2008). Furthermore, employees’ willingness to use WLB policies could be determined by fear of lack of career progression (Beauregard & Henry, 2009). Some professions (such as the medical profession) place serious importance on employees’ physical presence at work. For medical doctors, a requirement of physical presence at work at all times of the shift is a core tenet of medical profession (Adisa, 2015). This is required to care for and monitor the patients and also for doctors’ career advancement (Adisa et al., 2017). McDonald, Bradley, and Brown (2008) and Wu, Uen, Wu, and Chang (2011) argued that employees’ willingness to use WLB policies will be limited dramatically if using the policies will have negative consequences on their career. Similarly, a report of the American Bar Association stipulated that 95% of law firms in the US offer WLB policies but only 3% of lawyers subscribe to them due to the fear of the negative consequences it will have on their career advancement (Cunningham, 2001). Hence, work-life border control model posits that a greater unwillingness to cross the border prevails in a situation in which there is a circulated perception among the employees that crossing the border would have damaging consequences on their career progression or their images and reputations. In other words, employees’ perceived negative consequences of using WLB policies on their career progression could mitigate its use.

Proposition 4:

The greater the employees’ preparedness and willingness to cross the border, the more flexible and permeable the border and the more frequent the employees’ movements and vice-versa.

Organisational Time Expectations

The issue of organisational time expectations (OTE) is concerned with the number of hours which employees are required to devote to work-related activities (Bailyn, 1997; Lobel & Kossek, 1996). This invariably influences employees’ movements from the work domain to non-work domain. For instance, if an organisation link long working hours to commitment, loyalty, productivity, and promotion then its employees will be inclined to put in longer hour at work, which is antithetical to the principle of WLB (Bailyn, 1997; Joyce, Pabayo, Critchley, & Bambra, 2010; Pocock, Van Wanrooy, Strazzari, & Bridge, 2001). In such organisation, employees who often use WLB policies and eschew working for long hours are perceived as lazy and less committed (Lewis, 1997). For example, Adisa (2015) found that medical profession (in Nigerian context) have a high OTE. This is because in medicine, long working hours is attached to patients’ care and doctors’ training. This consistently keeps doctors in the hospital for unbelievably longer hours. Based on this, work-life border control model suggests that organisations in which OTE is high, employees’ movements from work domain to non-work domain would be greatly restricted. This is because the number of hours worked will be high and this will invariably affect employees’ activities in the non-work domain.

Proposition 5:

The lower the OTE, the flexible and permeable the border that exists between work and non-work domains, and the frequent the employees’ movements across the border, and vice-versa.

Implications

The work-life border control model is essential in the contemporary application and understanding of the border theory. It is important for WLB researchers because it provides a comprehensive and coherent understanding of a framework within which employees’ movements from work to non-work domains (border flexibility and permeability) can be studied. The work-life border control model provides the theoretical framework which has been missing in WLB studies. In order to embrace and absorb WLB as a leverage point for practice, organisations should make informed decisions about, and alter their culture, attitudes and policies to accommodate WLB policies and practices, which will enhance the border flexibility and permeability, and facilitate employees’ free movement from work domain to non-work domain. In this way, organisations will be able to keep their skilled and talented employees (Sholarios & Marks, 2004). Furthermore, employees flourish when their organisations and their various entities help them on what matter most at work and in the non-work aspects of their lives (Whittington, Maellaro, & Galpin, 2011). This contribution is theoretically appealing particularly now that the study of WLB is attracting serious attention. It also provides a theoretical basis for the contemporary and future studies.

Discussion and Conclusions

This study presented work-life border control model. A model that extend our thinking and understanding on work-life border theory. This model builds on previous studies on border theory (Ashforth et al., 2000; Clark, 2000; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Nippert-Eng, 1996c; Zerubavel, 1993, etc.) that describe home/family as the only non-work activities. Work-life border control model has two important elemental divisions.

Firstly, this model recognises other life activities, which are equally important to employee in the non-work domain as opposed to just home/family proposed by previous studies border theory. According to Osoian et al. (2011) and Chan (2008), WLB issues are not restricted to women and/or family matters alone. The model incorporates familial duties, community services, societal functions, gym/exercise, leisure, friendship, religious activities, part-time or full-time studies in the non-work domain’s activities. Boyar, Maertz, and Keough (2003) highlighted the importance of achieving a balance between social and work life. Dean (2007) also averred that achieving a balance between religious/spiritual life and work-life is increasingly becoming important among employees. These studies further attest that non-work activities go beyond the family/home duties. We posit that whatever is important to an employee (depending on employee’s status, taste, needs/wants and preferences) besides work-related activities becomes his/her non-work activities. This means that what constitutes non-work domain’s activities differ from one employee to another.

Secondly, the model outlined factors that determine the flexibility and permeability of the border (employees’ movement across the border). The work-life border control model, based on Adisa’s (2015) and Adisa et al.’s (2017) identified five factors that determine how strong or weak the border: organisational culture, management/supervisors’ support, co-workers’ support, employees’ willingness to cross the border, and organisational time expectations. These factors determine the flexibility and permeability of the border. The model proposes that a WLB supportive organisational culture will enhance employees’ easy and frequent movements across the border and vice-versa. For example, Adisa et al. (2017) found that medical organisational culture (in Nigerian context) is unsupportive of WLB policies, which then make achievement of WLB for the Nigeria doctors difficult. Unsupportive organisational culture allows for little or no flexibility and permeability in the border area. However, as stated in Proposition 1, organisational culture must be supportive of WLB policies and practices in order for employees to be able to move freely and frequently across the border.

In addition, management and supervisors’ support play a prominent role in border flexibility and permeability. The management creates WLB policies and supervisors may enhance or prevent their usage. For example, Rodgers and Rodgers (1989) argued that the well-being of American families primarily lies in the hands of first-line supervisors. Clark (2000) argues that supervisors can bend the rules to accommodate employees’ family commitments or they can choose to be less-flexible. In recognition of the importance of supervisors’ support in border flexibility and permeability, some organisations require their supervisors to undergo employees’ WLB training programmes (Galinsky & Stein, 1990). This would help the supervisors to be able to recognise the need for WLB and help their employees to achieve it. Proposition 2 thus state that the more supportive the management of an organisation and its supervisors are towards allowing employees to use WLB policies, the more flexible and permeable the borders between work and non-work domains and vice versa.

The work-life border control model’s third proposition bothers on co-workers’ support. This is the support that employees receive from their co-workers in using WLB policies and practices. According to Marks (1977), having supportive colleagues can be very helpful and often lead to positive results. This assertion is also supported by Kirby and Krone (2002). Resentment from co-workers towards a particular employee or group of employees for using WLB policies can compel the management or supervisors to prevent employees from using WLB policies. Additionally, employees’ preparedness to use WLB policies and OTE were also identified as determinants of employees’ movement across the border. The perceived consequences of using WLB policies and practices on employees’ image and career progression often dissuade from using the policies (Cunningham, 2001). While OTE (the number of hours an employee is required to devote to work related activities) keeps employees at work for longer hours, which is anti-WLB. Adisa et al. (2017) found that medical organisations (in Nigeria) have a high OTE, which keep medical doctors in the hospital for longer hours, thereby negatively impacting the flexibility and permeability of the border between the work domain and non-work domain.

It is important to note that border must not be too flexible and too permeable. This is because if either of the extremities occurs, it may affect employees’ performance and organisational success. However, organisations must find a balance between the two extremist. As mentioned, the development of the work-life border control model is in strict acquiescence with Ransome’s (2007, p. 374) argument that ‘it is rather important to use an established theory and concepts as a basis to develop a new one’.

The need for more carefully contrived scholarly guidance to theory building especially in work-life studies has recently dominated sociology, psychology and management studies. Powell, Greenhaus, Allen, and Johnson (2019) argues that the explosion in work-life research stems from several social trends, such as the changing nature of gender roles, families, work, and careers. A special issue of the Academy of Management Review was recently devoted to theory building and development in work-life literature. There were six papers in all, each proposing a new theoretical argument. While four of the articles focused on a work-life perspective (Bear, 2019; Bourdeau, Ollier-Malaterre, & Houlfort, 2019; Crawford, Thompson, & Ashforth, 2019; Leslie, King, & Clair, 2019), it is the two papers that focus on the work-family perspective (Hirschi, Shockley, & Zacher, 2019; Ladge & Little, 2019) that are of preeminent interest to this chapter.

In the first paper, Ladge & Little (2019) suggest that work-family images influence the assessment of individuals both at work and their personal lives which can invariably have important consequences for working parents’ identities. They introduced a work-family image construct suggesting that individuals are often evaluated on their competence in both their family and work roles. From a psychology background work, they linked the debate of work-family to impression management (Gardner & Martinko, 1988). The theory they present captures the dynamic interplay between image and identity. It illuminates on how work-family norms influence work-family image discrepancies and impression management strategies and lead to identity adaptation.

In the second paper, Hirschi et al.’s (2019) theoretical model was interested in how people can attain work-family balance that are useful for designing practical interventions. They presented a novel theoretical model that showcases a sound understanding of the work-family interface. They proposed the types of action strategies that could be used and under which circumstances to proactively achieve goals in both work and family domains.

Powell et al. (2019), the editors of the special forum, provided a rationale for the development of these new theories arguing that work-life theory has not kept up with the explosion in research in the area, thus a need for a re-evaluation of the theoretical advancement, theory testing and practice implications. Essentially, they argue that such new theories will advance the course of future research by provided deeper reflection of research design and contribution.

This chapter essentially joins these recent contributions to work-life theory by offering yet another novel guidance for future research. We thus offer guidance for employees, couples, HR practitioners and all supervisors/managers, organisations and policy makers. The work-life border control model recasts contemporary understanding by bringing to light a new idea in the application of the border theory. It is hoped that the model will be useful to academics, WLB researchers, and organisational practitioners in theorising their works. The model can be used descriptively and prescriptively, and it can be used in all environments. Future studies can develop propositions from the model before data collection in order to eliminate the use of theory post-hoc.