The role of work–nonwork boundary management
in work stress recovery
Kinnunen, U., Rantanen, J., de Bloom, J., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., &
Korpela, K. (2016).
Introduction
● In current times, technological advances have enabled working almost any time in any
place, which means the boundaries between work and nonwork are often blurred.
● Not separating work from other important parts of life, being constantly accessible to
work -> reduces time for rest and recovery, which is important for reducing the
negative effects of stressful working conditions.
○ Replenish resources
○ Return to the pre-stressor level after a stressful experience
○ Recovery during off-job time promotes employees’ well being, heath and job
performance
● Focus of the research: examine the work-nonwork boundary management from the
perspective of work-stress recovery
● Boundary management = the ways in which employees create, maintain and negotiate
boundaries between work and nonwork
○ Boundaries can be physical, temporal or psychological
○ Boundaries define entities as separate from one another and serve to structure
the various roles of individuals in different life domains
○ The styles of constructing boundaries can be located along a continuum from
weak boundaries (high integration between domains) to strong boundaries
(high segmentation between domains)
● This research combines two areas of theory and research:
○ Boundary management
○ Recovery
● The research has two aims:
○ Continue the research stream initiated by Bulger et al (2007) and Kossek et al
(2012) broadening the focus from separate boundary management styles to
profiles of different styles (see below as well).
■ Examine a combination of different styles, distinct profiles of boundary
management using a person-centered approach
■ More holistic picture of boundary management -> employees may use
several boundary management styles simultaneously
● I.e. use segmentation regarding non work, but not work
● I.e. switch between separation and integration
■ Achieve a better understanding of individual differences in boundary
management than when looking at each separate boundary
management style at a time.
○ Examine the profiles from the perspective of work-stress recovery
■ Recovery is conceptualised in terms of:
● Recovery experience = the processes that aid recovery
1
, ● Recovery outcomes = the result of the recovery process
○ Focus on vigor (successful outcome) and exhaustion at
work (unsuccessful outcome)
● Contributions to literature:
○ Show which profiles (not separate styles) of boundary management are
conducive or deleterious (causing damage) to recovery
○ Broaden the picture of boundary management in recovery by studying both
recovery experiences and outcomes
■ Addressed before: psychological detachment (from recovery
experiences)
● This study covers the experiences of: relaxation, mastery and
control during off-job time
■ In terms of recovery outcomes, previously the work-family outcomes
have been studied (work-family conflict, work-life balance)
● This study extends the potential outcomes
Characteristics of work-nonwork boundaries
● Previous research has assessed the ways individuals separate or integrate life
domains while carrying out work and nonwork roles as being high or low on
segmentation to integration tendencies
○ Boundaries might be permeable or impermeable
○ When moving from one life domain to another, people have to cross boundaries
■ Strictly separated work and nonwork roles: transitions are effortful,
as boundaries are inflexible and impermeable -> roles are confined to
specific places and times
■ Highly integrated roles: transitions are less elaborate, as boundaries
are flexible and permeable -> individual participates in the activities of
one role in various setting and at various times and allows the concerns
and issues of one role to encroach on those of another role
○ Boundaries can be symmetrical or asymmetrical
■ Symmetrical boundaries: processes flow evenly between the domains
● High integration (in both directions)
● High segmentation (in both directions)
■ Asymmetrical boundaries: processes flow in one direction (i.e.
answering work calls at home) but not the other way around (i.e. taking
care of family matters at work).
○ Work and family role centrality determines how strongly individuals protect a
domain from intrusion by another domain.
■ I.e. employees with a highly pronounced work identity are likely to
prevent family issues from intruding on the workplace
○ There are also certain contextual factors at home (i.e. children) and at work (i.e.
occupation) which play a role in forming boundaries
● Two previous studies examined profiles of boundary management -> the significance
of different combinations of boundary management styles
○ Study by Bulger et al (2007): identified profiles based on boundary strength:
flexibility-willingness, flexibility-ability, permeability of the domain.
2
in work stress recovery
Kinnunen, U., Rantanen, J., de Bloom, J., Mauno, S., Feldt, T., &
Korpela, K. (2016).
Introduction
● In current times, technological advances have enabled working almost any time in any
place, which means the boundaries between work and nonwork are often blurred.
● Not separating work from other important parts of life, being constantly accessible to
work -> reduces time for rest and recovery, which is important for reducing the
negative effects of stressful working conditions.
○ Replenish resources
○ Return to the pre-stressor level after a stressful experience
○ Recovery during off-job time promotes employees’ well being, heath and job
performance
● Focus of the research: examine the work-nonwork boundary management from the
perspective of work-stress recovery
● Boundary management = the ways in which employees create, maintain and negotiate
boundaries between work and nonwork
○ Boundaries can be physical, temporal or psychological
○ Boundaries define entities as separate from one another and serve to structure
the various roles of individuals in different life domains
○ The styles of constructing boundaries can be located along a continuum from
weak boundaries (high integration between domains) to strong boundaries
(high segmentation between domains)
● This research combines two areas of theory and research:
○ Boundary management
○ Recovery
● The research has two aims:
○ Continue the research stream initiated by Bulger et al (2007) and Kossek et al
(2012) broadening the focus from separate boundary management styles to
profiles of different styles (see below as well).
■ Examine a combination of different styles, distinct profiles of boundary
management using a person-centered approach
■ More holistic picture of boundary management -> employees may use
several boundary management styles simultaneously
● I.e. use segmentation regarding non work, but not work
● I.e. switch between separation and integration
■ Achieve a better understanding of individual differences in boundary
management than when looking at each separate boundary
management style at a time.
○ Examine the profiles from the perspective of work-stress recovery
■ Recovery is conceptualised in terms of:
● Recovery experience = the processes that aid recovery
1
, ● Recovery outcomes = the result of the recovery process
○ Focus on vigor (successful outcome) and exhaustion at
work (unsuccessful outcome)
● Contributions to literature:
○ Show which profiles (not separate styles) of boundary management are
conducive or deleterious (causing damage) to recovery
○ Broaden the picture of boundary management in recovery by studying both
recovery experiences and outcomes
■ Addressed before: psychological detachment (from recovery
experiences)
● This study covers the experiences of: relaxation, mastery and
control during off-job time
■ In terms of recovery outcomes, previously the work-family outcomes
have been studied (work-family conflict, work-life balance)
● This study extends the potential outcomes
Characteristics of work-nonwork boundaries
● Previous research has assessed the ways individuals separate or integrate life
domains while carrying out work and nonwork roles as being high or low on
segmentation to integration tendencies
○ Boundaries might be permeable or impermeable
○ When moving from one life domain to another, people have to cross boundaries
■ Strictly separated work and nonwork roles: transitions are effortful,
as boundaries are inflexible and impermeable -> roles are confined to
specific places and times
■ Highly integrated roles: transitions are less elaborate, as boundaries
are flexible and permeable -> individual participates in the activities of
one role in various setting and at various times and allows the concerns
and issues of one role to encroach on those of another role
○ Boundaries can be symmetrical or asymmetrical
■ Symmetrical boundaries: processes flow evenly between the domains
● High integration (in both directions)
● High segmentation (in both directions)
■ Asymmetrical boundaries: processes flow in one direction (i.e.
answering work calls at home) but not the other way around (i.e. taking
care of family matters at work).
○ Work and family role centrality determines how strongly individuals protect a
domain from intrusion by another domain.
■ I.e. employees with a highly pronounced work identity are likely to
prevent family issues from intruding on the workplace
○ There are also certain contextual factors at home (i.e. children) and at work (i.e.
occupation) which play a role in forming boundaries
● Two previous studies examined profiles of boundary management -> the significance
of different combinations of boundary management styles
○ Study by Bulger et al (2007): identified profiles based on boundary strength:
flexibility-willingness, flexibility-ability, permeability of the domain.
2
