Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
INDIVIDUAL’S WORK-LIFE EXPERIENCESA question of conflict, balance, enrichment, integration or
segmentation
Jean-Charles E. LANGUILAIRE, Ph.D.
AIM OF THE PRESENTATIONReaching a meaningful life by developing different life domains and manage them is becoming one the main needs for around 80% of the working force. However, it is not without challenges for
individuals.
Work-life research has since several decades tried to understand these challenges using a multiple of concepts among those ”work-life balance”, ”work-life conflict”, work-life enrichment”,
“work-life integration”, work-life segmentation”.
The aim of this presentation is to reconnect these concepts to discuss and define a total individual’s work-life experiences
CONFLICT, BALANCE AND ENRICHMENT
CONFLICT• The main assumptions
– People had multiple roles that were not wholly compatible in time and space (Barnett, 1993). – This non-compatibility brought about “inter-role conflict” between different domains (see Barnett, 1993;; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). – The belief that resources are scarce. – Multi-tasking requires thus more resources and requires arbitration between one over the other domains.
• Work-family conflict has been defined by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985, p. 77) as “a form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressure from work and family domains are mutually incompatible in some respect”. Types of conflict– time-based, strain-based, behaviour-based conflict.– With time devoted to one domain, the strain produced in one domain and behaviours expected in one domain may render difficult the role fulfilment in the other domains
• Asymmetry of the conflict (Frone et al., 1992;; Frone et al., 1997). – The conflict “from domain A to domain B” is not equal to the conflict “from domain B to domain A”.
• Mechanism behind– Spillover mechanisms where some elements of a domain cross into another domain.
• Flourish research based – Mapping the causes, antecedents and consequences of conflict (see Duxbury et al., 1999;; Elloy & Smith, 2003;; Frone et al., 1992, 1993;; Frone et al., 1997;; Rice et al., 1992;; Roos et al.,
2006). – CAUSES such as time, strain, behaviour or higher role involvement (Elloy & Smith, 2003;; Geurts & Demerouti, 2003). These causes are not only closely linked with
• the working and living conditions • the changing organisation of work and orientation to work• in other terms, with the context of individuals in and outside work.
– ANTECEDENTS• personality, family or non-work, job characteristics and attitudes like the role salience or centrality of domains (Geurts & Demerouti, 2003). Antecedents of the conflict are seen in terms of
overload/involvement, time commitment and support in the domain in focus (Frone et al., 1997). • Role theory: role conflict, role ambiguity and role overload and thus including as work-family conflict model (Elloy & Smith, 2003).
– CONSEQUENCES • relate directly to physical and psychological health (Frone et al., 1997)• Attitude consequences like job and life satisfaction, performance in domains (Frone et al., 1997;; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998;; Rice et al., 1992) • Other behaviours among those consumptions of cigarettes, drugs, alcohol (Frone et al., 1993;; Roos et al., 2006).
• By focusing on the negative aspects of the work-family relationships, this line of research has provided the opportunity for researchers to claim that individuals need to better ‘balance’ their life domains.
BALANCE• The ”common” assumption : “balance” between life domains as one essential component of one’s well-being.
– how policies have been presented and formulated (see introduction). – flourishing literature and interest on well-being and wellness providing a growing number of methods as well as in a growing number of coaching and consulting offices
aiming at helping individuals to attain harmony and balance in life.
• The theoretical construct of ‘balance’ is not as clear as it seems (see Chistensen, 1997;; Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007).– An absence of conflict or quasi absence of it
• when conducting measurement this is not simple to define the minimum level of conflict.
– Equality in time and efforts that one uses and displays in both domains• “the extent to which individual equally engaged in and equally satisfied with work and family roles” (Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2003, p. 513).• However, research shows that seeking equality is rare and that inequality between the different roles is not negative for an individual’s satisfaction and can be perceived as a
requirement to enhance well-being (Christensen, 1997;; Clark, 2000). In such case it is strongly connected with the compensation mechanism. • It is also essential to consider that equality requires comparing domains which may not be comparable
– Greenhaus and Allen (2006) consider balance as “the extent to which an individual’s effectiveness and satisfaction in work and family roles are compatible with the individual’s life priorities”. • Balance is a subjective evaluation of one’s situation by looking at the fit between one’s life objective and ones satisfaction and achievement in the two domains.• may be understood as too individual centric, which may be a source for theoretical and practical problems (Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007) .
– Grzywacz and Carlson (2007) suggests a definition from a social construction point of view as the “accomplishment of role-related expectations that are negotiated and shared between an individual and his or her role-related partners in the work and family domains”.
• The notion of balance enables to put back in the centre individuals’ perception and sense-making. The two later definitions are complementary. They underline that balance is a subjective and personal view of one’s situation either in terms of effectiveness, accomplishment and/or satisfaction criteria that are socially constructed because individuals are social agents who negotiate and share their life priorities with others in their environment.
• Nonetheless, such a notion is still at its infancy and not neutral when looking at the relationships between life domains as it is undermined by the original meaning of lack of conflict. It is also still undermined by the thought that energy and resources are still not limited. And it is still based on “negative view”.
ENRICHMENT• It is thus central to look at the positive side of the relationships between work and non-work (Pedersen Stevens, Lynn
Minnotte, Mannon, & Kiger, 2007).
• First, conflict and imbalance, emerging from one domain or the other, do not always leading to negative outcomes. – Imbalance may be necessary to compensate when a domain is dissatisfying, making it possible for the individual to attain
effectiveness/satisfaction in the compensated domain . – Conflict can also be positive and beneficial to perform what one desires due to learning and development mechanisms . – In parallel to the controversial notion of “positive stress”, one could define an optimal case of “conflict between domains” under
which individuals may feel empathic, bored, with low morale, absent and not creative because they are not stimulated. Having multiple roles in different domains may push such tensions and pressures to this optimal point that motivates people to be active and to be creative, to be alert and thus performed at their optimum
• Second, one domain may influence positively the other. This corresponds to positive spillover and positive relationships – The concepts of “enrichment”, “enhancement” or facilitation (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006, O'Driscoll, 2006;; Hill et al., 2007). – Grzymacz (2002 in O'Driscoll, Brough, & Kalliath, 2006) indicates that enrichment refers more to an outcome whereas facilitation to
a process. • The concept of facilitation was touched upon at first by Frone (2003 in O'Driscoll et al., 2006) who defines it as the extent to which participation at work (or home) is made easier by virtue of the experiences, skills and opportunities gained and developed at home (or work)” (in O'Driscoll et al., 2006).
• Enrichment refers to the extent that one role in one domain may strengthen a role in another domain and induces that resources are not limited. It is possible for one individual to increase energy and resources because of multiple tasks.
A WAY TO ”BRING ALL TOGETHER”?
Conflict
Balance
Enrichment
Experiences
Spillover
Compensation
Facilitation
Enrichment
Balance
Conflict
SEGMENTATION, INTEGRATION
STARTING POINTZerubavel in “The fine Line” (Zerubavel, 1991) and “Social mindscapes” (Zerubavel, 1997)
• WHAT– Classification theory: individuals mentally dress to classify and group elements of their environment to separate elements that
cannot mentally be perceived as related (Zerubavel, 1991). – Classification is a way of thinking of the world in discrete entities or more precisely in “islands of meanings” (Zerubavel, 1991, p. 5).
• WHY– The purpose of creating such discrete entities in terms of “chunk of space” (p. 6), “blocks of time” (p. 9), “frames” (p. 10), “chunk of
identity” (p.13) or “mental fields” (p. 15) is to avoid confusion and uncertainty but also to make sense of the environment and ourselves.
– “Things become meaningful only when placed in some categories” (Zerubavel, 1991, p. 5).
• RESULTS– Humans thus need to define things and people where defining literally means putting limits or boundaries (Zerubavel, 1991, p. 2).
Without such definition, things as well as the sense of selfhood disintegrate in the environment and become meaningless.
THIS IS THE CORNER STONE OF BOUNDARY THEORY
Non-work boundariesWork boundaries
Non-work Work
TWO MAJOR MINDSETS• Zerubavel (1991) defines two major types of mindscapes.
– The “rigid mind” by which one defines strict lines because one does not accept a mixture and wants to avoid it. – The “fuzzy mind” by which one defines no lines and does not distinguish any categories, making fluidity of mind possible.
One should consider, as Zerubavel (1991) indicates, that both mindsets, when at their extreme, are potentially dangerous for individuals as social beings:
“By overdefining ourselves we clearly risk detachment and loneliness, yet by underdefining it as fused with others’ we likewise risk having no identity. Rigid and porous selves are equally pathological and overindividuation and underindividuation can both lead to suicide.” (Zerubavel, 1991, p. 120)
• As an alternative mindset: a “flexible mind” that balances rigidity and flexibility which complement each other. It is because both mindsets are paired that social beings can indeed apprehend the world:
“Flexible people notice structures yet feel comfortable destroying them from time to time. […]. In fact it is their [flexible people’s] ability to be rigid that allows them to be fuzzy. After all, one must have a pretty solid self to which one can always return in order to be able to step out of it periodically.” (Zerubavel, 1991, p. 120-121)
SEGMENTATION-INTEGRATIONOFWORK AND NON-WORK (BASED ON NIPPERT-ENG, 1996)
Non-work Work& non-work
Work
Segmentation Integration
Based on Nippert-Eng, 1996
Non-work
Work
SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED MINDSETS• Boundaries are neither individual, nor universal but are social because they are shared within social communities (Zerubavel, 1991, 1997). They are not only due to individual initiatives and are not universally shared (Zerubavel, 1991, 1997).
• Boundaries are perceived, created, maintained and changed not as individuals nor as human beings but as social beings, i.e. the French, Swedes, academics, managers, middle-managers, vegetarians, Catholics, Muslims, etc…
• It is via socialisation processes and social interactions that work and non-work boundaries and thus the domains of work and non-work are shared and sustained.
• Finally, social constructionism implies that work and non-work boundaries and the respective domains are not fixed in time and across culture (see Zerubavel, 1991;; Zerubavel, 1997).
Segmentation
IntegrationAgriculture
Industrial
Service
Technological
IS THE SOCIETY IN AN INTEGRATIVE PARADIGM?• The dual view is still string BUT few empirical research:
– Integration is not ideal for well-being.– Individuals are looking for segmentation
1988• “Surprisingly, while many of the remedies touted in the popular press entail greater integration of work and home (such as home-based employment), our findings indicate greater need of separation of the two domains.”(Hall & Richter, 1988, p. 213)
1999• “Wanting and attaining a high degree of separation between work and family may signify effective management of the boundary between these domains. Effective management may facilitate role performance in both domains, which in turn should enhance well-being.” (Edwards & Rothbard, 1999, pp. 119-120)
2000• “Evidence on role conflicts shows that establishing and maintaining boundaries between these two life domains is essential.”( Friedman and Greenhaus, 2000, p. 66)
2003• “there may be times when setting boundaries between work and home and structure may be desirable.” (Kossek, 2003, p. 14)
2004• Wilson et al. (2004) qualitatively illustrate the same individual challenge for young professionals in the UK who fight against their organisational context to recreate boundaries lost in their overall working environment.
2005
• “Integrating policies have become increasingly popular in many organizations as mechanisms for tapping into the full potential of employee. To this end, companies have adopted numerous policies, practices, and amenities such as onsite childcare and gym facilities among others.( …) these policies are also consistent with the goal of many organizations to maximize the productivity of employees. [...] Although these policies and practices may increase some individual’s satisfaction and commitment by helping them actively manage the boundary between work and nonwork roles, our study suggests that greater access to integrating policies may have drawbacks for some employees” (Rothbard et al., 2005, p. 255)
2007• “as currently implemented, any flexibity policies can encourage one to adopt an integration strategy which may not support lower family-to-work conflict” (Kossek et al., 2006, p. 363)
2008• Home-based teleworkers have a need to re-established boundaries between the waged work and other home activities to “legitimise working home in relation to family, friends and neighbours” (Kylin, 2008, p. 185).
2009• Languilaire (2009) empirically show that the same individuals search for segmentation and integration for diverse purposes especially segmentation on daily term and integration on the long term.
Integration
Segmentation
A WAY TO ”BRING ALL TOGETHER”?
RECONCILIATION?
• SPACE• TIME• PEOPLE/RELATIONS• THOUGHTS
• SPACE : major domains close• STRESS• ENERGY• BEHAVIOURS• EMOTIONS
Integration
Segmentation
Going back to boundaries is essentialTime, Space, Thoughts, Relations, Behaviours, Stress, Energy, Emotions
“Examining how we draw the [lines or boundaries] is therefore critical to any effort to understand our social order”(Zerubavel, 1991, p. 2)
!
T
E Ps B
H
S
Segmentation Integration
Leve
l of e
xplic
itnes
s
+
-
Cn
Cp
S=Spatial; T=Temporal; E=Emotional; B=Behavioural; Ps=Psychosomatic; H=Human; = Overall preference Cn=Cognitive (negative); Cp=Cognitive (positive)
!
Assimilation
Segmentation
Integration
ReconciliationAgriculture
Industrial
Service
Technological
WHAT ARE WE THUS TALKING ABOUT?
Conflict
Balance
Enrichment
Experiences
Assimilation
Segmentation
Integration
ReconciliationAgriculture
Industrial
Service
Technological
Spillover
Compensation
Facilitation
Enrichement
Balance
Conflict
INTEGRATION
SEGMENTATION
A ”RECONCILED LIFE”
A SOCIAL PROCESS FOR INDIVIDUALS
MISSION : HAVING A ”RECONCILED LIFE”
Work/non-‐work boundary development & managementSTRATEGY & TACTICS
Work/non-‐work preferences VISION
Mental Work/non-‐work boundaries making(what I can act upon)
Concrete Work/non-‐work boundaries making(what I act upon)
Work/non-‐work constellation RESULT
Work/non-work Evaluation
WE ARE THE DRIVER OF OUR LIFE
THE WORK-LIFE DASHBOARD
S IS I S I S I S I S I S I S I
