Skip to main content

Evolving Conceptions of Work-Family Boundaries: In Defense of The Family as Stakeholder


In the management and organization studies literature, a key question to explore and explain is that of the family as an organizational stakeholder, particularly when working-from-home became the “new normal”. Departing from meta-analytic studies on the work-family relation and connecting with scholarly conversation on work-family boundary dynamics, we identify three main narratives. In the separation narrative, work and family belong to different realms, and including the family in the domain of organizational responsibility is seen as pointless. The interdependence narrative stresses that organizations and families are overlapping domains in which it is important to acknowledge that the policies and practices of the former might have an impact on family life, and vice-versa. The embeddedness narrative, brought to the fore by the COVID-19 pandemic, sees employment and family as progressively convergent and hybrid work domains. The evolution of employment relations towards increased hybridity of the work situation being embedded in the familial/household context increasingly calls for consideration of the family/household as an integral rather than a peripheral stakeholder.


“While families have a large and undeniable impact on human behavior, management research is yet to fully embrace how aspects of families (e.g., family-member relationships, family structures, and family events) influence entrepreneurs, employees, managers, and their organizations.”

Jaskiewicz et al. (2017, p. 309).

Organizations enact and participate in a great many networks of stakeholder relations (Freeman 2010). From a stakeholder perspective, “business is seen as a set of relationships among groups that have a stake in the activities that make up the business” (Parmar et al. 2010, p. 405). In a typical formulation, stakeholders include “employees, suppliers, customers, communities, civil society, governments and others” (Böhm and Pascucci 2020, p. 548) that interact to jointly create and trade value. According to this perspective, “It is the executive’s job to manage and shape these relationships to create as much value as possible for stakeholders and to manage the distribution of that value” (Parmar et al. 2010, p. 406). Managing and shaping relationships with stakeholders is both an economic and moral endeavour. However, with some notable exceptions (Mitchell et al. 2011; Venter et al. 2012), the family is not included in lists of stakeholders (Friedman and Miles 2002). In management and organization studies (MOS), the family is often seen as part of a “non-work” arena, a “haven in a heartless world” (Lasch 1995). As an extra-organizational source of identity, family is often seen as an attribute akin to religion, gender, or nationality (Ramarajan and Reid 2013).

At the same time, the family has been touted as a core institution in human life (Laslett 1973), and it has been claimed in prior research that the family should be considered as “the missing variable in organizational research” (Dyer 2003, p. 401). Recent research, building on Morgan (1975, 1996, 2014), stresses the family less as an institution (Parsons, 1951) and more as a site of social practices and lived family experiences. As such family practices are a form of social organization with a multiplicity of expressions, institutionally regulated by law, norms, religion, etc. (Rogers 2017). Seen thus, as a form of organization, then the family can be seen as existing in a tense relationship with other organizations that make significant claims of one’s time, such as employing organizations (Kopelman et al. 1983; Michel et al. 2009), namely because time spent at work in an organization cannot be time spent with the family as a social organization. The mundane idea of “going to work” suggests this separation succinctly; work is another place.

Historically, the workplace was part of the public sphere and coded as masculine, while the organization of the family was a private space, coded as feminine; these distinctions were embedded in classic statements such as the separation of the public and private spheres in Weber (1978). Organizations and their practices were clearly a public space whose resources and affordances should be sequestered from the private sphere. Nonetheless, in the twenty-first century, as Casper et al. (2018, p. 182) put it, “Everyone seems to want work–life balance”, which entails a blending of the masculine and feminine realms of work and family as normatively conceived. As they go on to say “Anne-Marie Slaughter ignited controversy when she argued that work–life balance is not possible for women, who cannot ‘have it all’ (Slaughter 2012)”. Given the importance of this interface as well as its’ highly visible consequences, how can the absence of the family as an organizational stakeholder be interpreted?

The exception of the case of the family not being considered in the management and organizations literature is the family-owned business (Uhlaner et al. 2004; Zellweger and Nason, 2008). Elsewhere, the absence of discussion of the family as a social organization with a stake in the sphere of formal organization is in part historical. A dualistic interpretation of family and work has lineages embedded in nineteenth century bourgeois assumptions that coded the workplace as a masculine controlled public sphere while domestic space was private and under command and control by the lady of the house, a distinction inscribed in law (Baron, 1981). Given this legacy, family and work existed in separate spheres, as Gerson (2004, p. 163) notes:

“A half century ago, when most women withdrew from paid work to rear children and men’s breadwinner status went largely unquestioned, work and family life were generally conceived as ‘separate spheres’ (Acock & Demo, 1994). In the closing decades of the twentieth century, as women joined the labour force in ever mounting numbers and gender boundaries began to blur, ‘work and family’ emerged as a distinct field of study and the image of work–family conflict gradually but inexorably replaced long-held assumptions about ‘separate spheres’ for women and men (Barnett & Rivers, 1996)”.

With these major social transformations, opposing work and family as different realms, with the family realm lying outside the scope of MOS, is a convention difficult to sustain and one whose applicability has been greatly changed by the work from home strategies adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Indeed, the COVID-19 pandemic confounded oppositions between work and home as separate places in which family-work conflicts centred on time spent on different pursuits in different places (Greenhaus and Powell 2006) became instead a feature of a coterminous space. With responses to the pandemic, micro and liminal “recurring transitions that occur on a frequent basis” (Allen et al. 2014, p. 101), such as daily commutes, disappeared and challenged notions of work-family balance (Pradies et al. 2021). The pandemic interrupted this form of daily “border crossing”, as it collapsed physical, temporal, and psychological domains into one. Based on these opening remarks, we investigate the work-family boundary literature to discuss two related research questions: (1) how has the family as an organization been considered (or not) as a stakeholder in formal organization? (2) what does COVID-19 reveal about family-work tensions?

To do so, we advance a comprehending (Sandberg and Alvesson 2021), paradoxical (Smith and Lewis 2011), and non-dualistic (Tsoukas 2019) view of family organization as a formal organizational stakeholder. Comprehending theories are meaning-making conceptual systems that contribute to ongoing theoretical conversation by redirecting attention to some specific topic. In our case, accepting that work and family exist in a state of tension, with paradoxical characteristics of opposition and persistence (Smith and Lewis 2011), we suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic “visibilized” (Tuckermann 2019) work-family embeddedness, and we explore the implications of this change for the consideration of the family as an organizational stakeholder. We suggest that developments in technology, work and organization, such as the diffusion of telework and the home office, working from anywhere (Choudhury et al. 2021; Kniffin et al. 2021; Kurland and Bailey 1999), flex time (Gonsalves 2020), and home-based businesses (Reuschke and Mason 2020) render this topic especially relevant.

With this article we contribute to discussion of work-family tension by suggesting that the family may constitute itself as an organizational stakeholder rather than being an extension or “the other side” of employees’ lives. The idea that the family as a form of social organization is a stakeholder in formal organization is one that stakeholder theory has not entertained; hence, our contribution addresses a significant gap in the MOS literature related to organizations and stakeholders. Our proposal is based on the progressive intertwinement of the two realms, as will be discussed next.

Reasons for Marginalizing the Family in Stakeholder Theory

In this section we discuss how and why the family has been marginalized in stakeholder theory’s increasingly longer list of stakeholders. We consider three main reasons for this conceptual neglect: (1) narrow conceptions of the worker, (2) dualism, and (3) methodological individualism, i.e., the methodological propensity to study individuals. MOS has contributed enormously to our understanding of organizational functioning, but it has been bounded by its onto-epistemological assumptions. We suspect that the assumptions we present here are common to other theories of organization (e.g., Tsoukas 2019).

First, the worker has often been represented as a homo economicus (Doucouliagos 1994) rather than as a whole person that exists beyond the organization’s boundaries. Even when the worker was represented as a being social, emotional and spiritual, such representations have focused mainly on the work domain or on their effects on the work domain. Second, dualistic separation is often used in MOS, as in the work vs. non-work divide. For example, significant attention has been devoted to work identities (e.g., Ashforth and Kreiner 1999) but less attention has been paid to the overlaps and negotiations between work and non-work identities (e.g., Ramarajan and Reid 2013) and, especially, the way work and family processes and identities coexist. Third, the extensive methodological individualism of the organizational behaviour corpus (Hosking et al. 1995) biases a focus on subjective personal motivation as appropriate for studying entities such as persons, rather than focusing on processes, relationalities, and interactions (Tsoukas 2019).

Narrow conceptions of the worker

MOS rested upon a work and non-work separation assumption. In foundational texts (Taylor 1911), people were employees being made into experts in obedience (Jacques 1995; Watkins and Dalton 2020), minimizing their reflective and agentic powers as people who strove to preserve their energies in work for multiple other life domains (Clegg et al. 2006). The construction of the individual as obedient employee is manifest in many ways. The process of the social construction of the employee, as told by Jacques (1995), depicts workers as tools, “human resources” over whom, in an extreme case, with the creation of Ford’s Sociological Department a form of moral surveillance of employee’s family lives became normalized (Clegg et al. 2006). The agency of being at work determined the appropriate being not at work, at home and in other private spaces.

Such historical legacy, combined with the cognitive view of organizations (Brief and Downey 1983), fundamentally conceptualized individuals as independent, rational beings who could be trained and drilled in work to manage other spaces with a rationality that their employers could reward. Stakeholder theory softened some of the hard edges of these earlier conceptions by suggesting that employees were “stakeholders” (Friedman and Miles 2002), independent contributors bringing meaning from their life worlds to work. The emotional turn of the 1980s (Fineman 2000) and a growing awareness of the role of relationality in organizations (Cooper 2005; Uhl-Bien 2011) meant more attention was paid to affect and emotion in the workplace yet, always within boundaries defined by the organization.


Dualism refers to doubleness, defined as the existence of a relationship of opposition and conflict between two elements (Farjoun 2010) such as work and family. It is well established, for example, that organizational policies and practices often constrain individuals in their family roles (e.g., Kopelman et al. 1983; Zhao and Mattila 2013). As theorized by dualism, the two are in tension but their relationship is fundamentally dilemmatic: gains in one domain represent losses in the other and while managers have responsibilities in one domain they do not in the other. In MOS, the relationship between work and family has largely dealt with this dualism, as in the influential work of Edwards and Rothbard (2000, p. 180) by theorizing “linking mechanisms” between work and family constructs. The two domains have been conceptualized and investigated as distinct (Kabanoff 1980).

Methodological individualism

Methodological individualism refers to understanding organizational behaviour in terms of individual acts (Tsoukas 2019) rather than the relationships that support human flourishing (Dierksmeier 2016). As noted by Pirson et al. (2021), MOS has been pervaded by an individualistic approach, sometimes taken to the extreme. Individual acts are subsequently aggregated at other levels of analysis (e.g., teams, organizations, networks, and even societies). Those higher-level populations are interpreted as aggregates rather than relations and interactional units. The family and its collective dynamics in the context of organizations are rarely a habitual unit, except in the unique case of family business (Calabrò et al. 2018).

Marginalization is Unsustainable from a stakeholder perspective

The COVID-19 pandemic and the lockdowns that forced millions to work from home (Hemmings 2020; Kniffin et al. 2021) suggest that it is timely to reconsider the family as a legitimate and important organizational stakeholder. The pandemic accelerated trends already underway: some offices were becoming more like home through practices such as the adoption of pet policies (Cunha et al. 2019) and by designing living spaces in the workplace (e.g., gaming and relaxing areas, gardens, work environments designed similarly to living room, etc.). Meanwhile, in a sudden shift, homes became more like offices as the pandemic struck and people worked from home. Children and pets (Kelemen et al. 2020) were no longer hidden in a private space but visible to peers and managers. Organizations, recognizing how family life and work were becoming increasingly entangled in a difficult and nervy balancing act, offered support in the form of mindfulness and wellbeing sessions. Therefore, the pandemic made apparent that the family was not a marginal factor, adjacent to yet separate from work but a form of organization made integral to formal work and organization. It is thus important to explore how MOS literature has, or has not, recognized family as an important stakeholder and how the pandemic accelerated such a trend.


We followed an inductive and interpretive approach to theorizing, our main objective being understanding of why family organization has not featured as a stakeholder for formal organization in MOS. Conceptually, we explore some of the possible implications of theorizing family organization as a stakeholder. We followed the methodological recommendations of inductive research (Böhm and Pascucci 2020; Gioia et al. 2013) and used the existing literature to compose conceptual propositions, forming a three-scenario theoretical framework on the family as a stakeholder.

In line with Böhm and Pascucci (2020), instead of conducting a traditional literature review, we established a coherent narrative related to the evolution of the work-family relationship by purposefully sampling published meta-analytical works on the role of the family in MOS. We proceeded in two steps. First, to develop a broad understanding of the literature, we identified meta-analytical works by performing a systematic search in Web of Science (WoS), a comprehensive citation database characterized by its objective scholarly journal selection standard, as well as by its widespread diffusion within the scientific community (Hernández-Linares et al. 2018; Perri and Peruffo 2016). Specifically, on October 20, 2021, we searched all “articles” and “reviews” (published in English) in which family, work, and meta-analysis or metanalysis appeared as topics. These keywords were accompanied by special characters to capture any orthographic and/or linguistic variation (a common practice in the field: see, for example, Weale et al. 2020).

We used the entire WoS database to avoid any omission or potential bias derived from considering only a set of relevant journals (López-Fernández et al. 2016). However, we limited our search to published (or forthcoming) articles and reviews published (or in press) in academic journals. It is common to do so in literature reviews (e.g., Byron 2005; Zhao et al. 2020a) because publications in peer-reviewed journals are considered validated knowledge which has the largest impact on scholarly discourse (Kossek and Ozeki 1998; Podsakoff et al. 2005). As result of our search process, once duplications were eliminated, we identified 853 documents, which had been published in 123 different Web of Science categories, with “Medicine General Internal” (103 documents), “Public Environmental Occupational Health” (91), “Psychiatry” (89), “Psychology Applied” (72) and “Management” (70) being the categories with more studies published, the remaining below 45 studies each. The search revealed a growing scholarly interest in the topic: until 2008 the number of works published per year remained below 20, in 2015 they reached 54 and this number was doubled in only 5 years (108 publications in 2020).

We then conducted an inductive, qualitative analysis of the titles and abstracts of these 853 documents, to eliminate both misclassifications and papers not focused on the study of the family-work relationship. Although the selected time limit was the maximum allowed to prevent distortion of the results (Hernández-Linares and López-Fernández 2018), the first meta-analysis found was published in 1998 by Kossek and Ozeki. Then, we complemented this search with a review of key exemplars that helped us make sense of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic over organizations and organizational behaviour (Kniffin et al. 2021). The meta-analytic sources included 34 studies (see Table 2 in appendix 1) focused on the dynamic relations between work and family dimensions, which were published in 20 journals (see Table 3 in appendix 2).

Analytically we ordered the literature by selecting representative narrative templates and then abstracting these first-order templates to gain theoretical distance. These works revealed that the extant literature paid special attention to work-to-family and family-to-work conflict, explaining the reasons why these domains have been mainly seen, in recent decades, as a field of tension, after an initial period of separation. From these sources, which we complemented with others that were theoretically sampled and mainly COVID-19 related, we derived a model with ordering intentions (Sandberg and Alvesson 2021), i.e., developed to assist scholars making sense of the evolution of the field. Doing this allows us to consider past and present trends, namely how the COVID-19 pandemic is redefining the boundaries of work and family.

By interpreting these works inductively, we composed three coherent scenarios or conceptual propositions on the work-family narrative: separation, interdependence, and embeddedness (Table 1). Our three narratives incorporate prevailing analyses and theorizations but also include recent developments triggered by the pandemic. It is known that pandemics potentially have long-lasting changes in terms of the representation of the workplace (e.g., Fayard et al. 2021) and there is no reason why the present case should differ. In this sense, our work combines an effort to zoom in and out (Nicolini 2009): we zoom in on existing research and zoom out from it to see how the pandemic raised new questions at the boundary between work and family. We develop three propositions (depicted in Fig. 1): (1) work and family constitute separate domains (or the separation narrative), (2) work and family are overlapping domains (interdependence narrative), and (3) work and family are embedded (embeddedness narrative). We do not consider that our scenarios exhaust interpretive possibilities. Other approaches such as differences between family and non-family businesses, dual and non-dual work couples, as well as differences between the knowledge work elite and the “cybertariat” (Burrell and Fourcade 2021) might have been chosen as a basis for analysis. We have chosen to consider the tensions between work and family domains of organization as our conceptual focus. Different conceptual angles may certainly produce different scenarios, a possibility that might be explored in future research.

Table 1 Work and family: logics, tensions, implications.
Figure 1
figure 1

Three propositions on the work-family relationship.

As noted in Table 1, in the first case the family is a non-stakeholder, in the second, a peripheral stakeholder, and in the third an integral stakeholder. The Table presents evidence of each approach, drawn from the literature.

Proposition 1: Work and Family Constitute Separate Domains (Separation Narrative)

In MOS, in the past work and non-work were devised as distinct realms. Even though they existed in tension, they were taken as separate. Ontologically, the relation was one of dualistic separation. This is captured, for instance, in the notion of psychological detachment, in which, while at home, people mentally disconnect from work (Sonnentag and Bayer 2005). The narrative is one of opposition, even if spill-over effects occur from one domain to the other.

Organization theory has traditionally treated the family as laying outside its domain of inquiry. The family could be considered relevant for disciplines such as sociology (Greenfield 1961), anthropology (Kertzer 1984) or family studies (Hamon and Smith 2014), but not in MOS. The relation of work and family is represented here as of the either-or type, a prevailing logic in MOS, in which one process and its opposite tend to be viewed as existing in a state of opposition and separation (Farjoun 2010). As an independent phenomenon, the family has not been traditionally engaged by organization theorists, even though there is necessarily a degree of permeability between the two domains. Meanwhile, outside the MOS domain, the shift from conceptualizing the family as an institution to thinking of it as an organization with a multiplicity of forms (Rogers 2017) makes the importance of rethinking these relations evident. Social and formal organizational relational domains are entangled (Barling and Macewen 1992) but mainstream MOS scholarship’s interest is largely in only one organizational side: that of the employing formal organization, not the social organization of the family. Dealing with the work-organizational domain, the private side, including the family, can be marginalized by MOS.

Scholars have been aware of work-non work inter-role conflict and work-non work boundary dynamics. While Kanter (1977) famously criticized the “myth” of separate worlds, work-family overlaps were mainly viewed from the perspective of work, as in the case of expatriate failure because of the spouse (Gupta et al. 2012) or the loss of female talent because of family life and female dropouts (Cech et al. 2011). For the family side, there was a specific, dedicated field, that of family studies. From the organizational side, family emerged as a source of competition for time (Hewlett and Luce 2006), work-life balance (Clark 2000) and more freely, coordination of dual couple agendas (Petriglieri 2019). Most of these works emphasize the trade-offs involved in the process of articulating work and family. In this narrative, as in Whyte’s famous formulation, the organization man “belonged” to the organization (Whyte 1956; see also Randall 1987), despite, as Covaleski et al. (1998) found, that the spouses of these organizational men were contingently co-opted to support their work (see representative quote in Table 1). As noted by Covaleski et al. (1998), managers in the big accounting firm they studied added to the pressure that employees felt by engaging with employee’s spouses. Important contributions were produced from this stream of work highlighting, for example, the hegemonic structures preserving prevailing work cultures (Padavic et al. 2020) and the costs associated with sacrificing personal needs to fulfil corporate requirements (Gratton and Ghoshal 2003).

The previous focus is understandable, given that organizational behaviour deals with organizational contexts. What lies outside the formal context of the organization as a work-place space is not within the domain of MOS. In this perspective, workers are independent individuals, which explains the reluctance to study supra-individual units, such as dyads (Tse and Ashkanasy 2015) and relationships (Cunha et al. 2015). Despite the growing recognition of organization as relational space (Dutton 2003), the focus on workers as individuals being at work is dominant. The fact that these individuals have identities forged in other enduring forms of organization, such as their family and household form, is discounted. Research in this tradition has centred on the internal side of the organization. Knowing that family boundaries are more permeable than organizational boundaries (Hall and Richter 1988), however, there is one clear tension: the organization does not interfere with the family unless it is instrumentally advantageous to do so.

Proposition 2: Work and Family are Overlapping Domains (Interdependence Narrative)

A second stream approaches work and family as integrated domains. Instead of being represented as independent or only episodically overlapping, work and family became mutually influencing, co-existing as a dynamic balance between persistent, interdependent domains, as a paradox (Berti et al. 2021; Smith and Lewis 2011). It is because the domains of work and family can be represented as composing a paradox that the persistent tension between them can be navigated but not resolved (Cunha and Clegg 2018). Ontologically the relation is one of duality (Farjoun 2010). The decline of the era of the “organizational men” (Whyte 1956) was catalysed by the advent of dual career couples (Kanter 1977).

Dual career couples brought new motives, arrangements and challenges to the domains of work and family. Work was changing and with it the workers: they were no longer viewed as the docile employees of the past, especially in knowledge intensive firms (Starbuck 1992). They were now portrayed as more mobile and flexible (Gratton and Ghoshal 2003). The relation between work and home was characterized by opportunities that benefitted both work and family (the enrichment thesis; Greenhaus and Powell 2006) as well as by costs created by conflicts over resources, such as time and attention (Voydanoff 1988). The interdependence narrative fundamentally focuses on the role and notably, the salience, of conflict. It attempts to find a balance between the two domains.

The interdependence narrative emphasizes not the search for a solution but attempts to find some state of paradoxical dynamic equilibrium (Smith and Lewis 2011) in which workers continuously split and integrate work and family as opposing but mutually defining forces. Such balance can be obtained from the family side (via flexibly working from home) and from the organizational side (via family-friendly policies). The paradoxical nature of the relationship renders the endeavour difficult, as reaching and maintaining balance is challenging. Padavic et al. (2020) observed empirically that even family-oriented policies, intended to favour women, may aggravate the lack of balance. The persistent lack of balance is indicative of vicious circularity, a repetitive dynamic in which attempts to solve a problem end up aggravating it, in a self-reinforcing dynamic that is difficult to grasp and to interrupt (Tsoukas and Cunha 2017).

Proposition 3: Work and family are embedded (embeddedness narrative)

The logic of embeddedness emerged from the departure from traditional forms of work and the workplace. In 1980 Alvin Toffler predicted that work would be relocated from the employer’s facilities to the employee’s premises. Toffler (1980) anticipated that jobs will shift from the factory or office to “where they came from originally: home” (p. 210), albeit that it has taken forty years and a global pandemic to validate the prediction although working from home was promoted in the 1980s by Californian companies such as Yahoo (Messenger and Gshwind 2016). More recently, the old representations of work and home as separate domains are giving way to new forms of work-family articulation that are in the process of coming into being. One impetus has been technological. Increasingly sophisticated digital devices created a progressive embeddedness of work and home via an “always on” type of culture (Kelly and Moen 2020, online).

The major impetus has been epidemiological as new possibilities for virtual organizing were boosted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The result has been the normalization of so-called “hybrid workers” who work partly at home, partly in the office (Fayard et al. 2021). The traditional bipolar spatial structuring of work is challenged, suggesting that in the future work would be detached from some specific space (the “workplace”) and that it could be done from anywhere (Kurland and Bailey 1999), including home (Standen et al. 1999). As an illustration, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Twitter announced that workers could work from home “for ever” (Financial Times 2020, p. 10). In another example, the insurance company Liberty decided to allow employees in Europe to work only from home, offering an additional 660 Euros annually to cover expenses (The Irish Times 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic constituted a massive experiment with remote work, with recent studies showing that productivity in some cases increased during the pandemic (Barrero et al. 2020; Bloom et al. 2015; Choudhury et al. 2021). At the same time, companies realised that they could save substantially on real estate costs, with many revising their understanding of the office (Fayard et al. 2021).

New technological possibilities and the changing nature of work as knowledge work (Blackler 1995) popularized new work arrangements, such as teleworking or working from the home office. That employees might have difficulties in maintaining boundaries between work and non-work (Ramarajan and Reid 2013) was accentuated by the pandemic. It is possible that habituation to the new form will create tension with the old form to create a new synthesis, as explained in dialectics (Hargrave and Van de Ven 2017), the ontology of this approach. We do not attribute positive or negative characteristics to such synthesis; while it will certainly bring positive possibilities, it will also open new possibilities in modes of monitoring and surveillance (Bhave et al. 2020; Zorina et al. 2021), which explains the need for new legal frameworks for remote work.

Emerging forms of work become “increasingly intrusive into the time and space normally reserved for personal life” (Messenger and Gshwind 2016, p. 205). At some point, these domains entangle and leach into each other, work and family organization becoming permeable, making it difficult to clearly disentangle one realm from the other. Managers are urged to learn from successful marriages (Alony 2020) and to conduct “learning by living”, including parenting, which is presented as a template for leadership development (Sturm et al. 2017, p. 364). The family-work relationship becomes increasingly dialectical, displaying characteristics of tension, reconciliation, and synthesis. It is becoming clear that, as people spend more time in the home office, family organization becomes integral to the other organizational landscape. Assuming that family organization is no longer removed from MOS’ conceptual bounds, it seems realistic to consider that the once private space is becoming part of organizational networked space, part of a distributed office, articulating multiple physical territories, including the hybrid office, the home office and the anywhere office.

Research indicates that working from home has many positive benefits, such as less partner conflict, better monitoring of children, as well as flexible schedules that may provide benefits in responding multiple domains (Hill et al. 2003). For this reason, organizations might want to keep the benefits of giving people more freedom and choices in hybrid organization of work. Instead of designing “one size fits” all solutions, policies that integrate distinct needs of different segments of the workforce (i.e., different jobs and tasks, different projects and workflows, different employee preferences) become more appealing (Gratton 2021). People in different life stages have different needs (Ahlrichs 2007), indicating diverse work-family arrangements for different occupational segments. Not only young children’s parents but also employees with aging parents have needs that such arrangements might meet. More flexibility on the part of organizations may be an expression of social responsibility as well as an increasingly salient factor for talent retention.

Well-designed but flexible and customized options may serve to empower people to make work decisions and to mitigate some negative management practices, projecting harmful consequences, namely for health (Goh et al. 2019). For these reasons, the hybrid workplace, promoting family organization as a stakeholder, may deter inadequate management practices and create mitigating conditions for some damaging effects of the modern workplace, including close monitoring (Gonsalves 2020) and presentism (Padavic et al. 2020), even when flex time and work-life balance are proclaimed values.


We make three major contributions to the work-family literature by stressing the role of family organization as a stakeholder rather than seeing it as in normative institutional terms. First, the inescapability of tension; second, the progressive approximation of work and family beyond family firm literature; third, the need to treat forms of family organization as legitimate stakeholders, especially in face new forms of work, widely experienced during the pandemic.

First, the analysis of the narratives found in the literature reveals the presence of tension as normal. Organizations are rife with tension and paradox (Schad et al. 2016) as is the interplay between work and family. The relationship may change but the tension is inescapable, defining the organization of work and family as processes imbued with a paradoxical ethos. Our analysis shows that the process changes without becoming non-paradoxical. For MOS this means that, instead of approaching workers from the angle of methodological individualism and the two realms of work and family as independent, it may be better to treat them as paradoxically interdependent or dialectically becoming a new synthesis. Instead of considering that the family is out of organizational bounds, family organization should be incorporated and treated as an inescapable stakeholder.

Second, the analysis indicates a progressive integration of work and non-work. The logic of separation is giving place to one of approximation, initially accelerated by dual career couples. If plausibility attached to the separation thesis, dual career couples made it less adequate. The COVID-19 pandemic collapsed work and family spaces and promoted hybrid workplaces, in which occupational responsibilities are partly assumed from home. Managing hybridity, for organizations that employ family members, will require more attention being given to the family organization of work. The integration of family organizations as stakeholders is particularly necessary. Our discussion thus invites MOS scholars to conceptualize family as a core stakeholder, a group that is affected by the organization’s actions but that, at present, lacks any forms of adequate representation. Family organization was obviously and indirectly (proposition 1) or directly (proposition 2) affected by employing organizations while the COVID-19 crisis, in the case of “non-essential workers”, literally integrated family and work organization. In this sense, family relations and their organization entered employing organizations virtually, through presence in Zoom meetings (proposition 3).

A key question for future research will be whether family organization is intruding on workplace organization or workplace organization is intruding on family organization? Our analysis, in summary, suggests that the dynamics of approximation point in the direction of hybrid models of work, indicating that the relationship between the organization of employment and family needs to be conceptualized as integral, rather than peripheral, to MOS.

Implications for Theory

For theory we advance several possibilities that deserve further consideration. The conflict thesis, prevalent in meta-analytic work (e.g., Allen et al. 2012, 2015), captures the relationship between work and family as separate domains “mutually incompatible” (Greenhaus and Beutell 1985, p. 77). The pandemic crisis has blurred the boundaries between the two realms and challenged established theories. Regarding one of our research questions (what does COVID-19 reveal about family-work tensions?) we found that the emergence of the home office is creating liminal spaces (Söderlund and Borg 2018) with its own challenges, resulting from the dissolution of physical and psychological boundaries.

This change is expressed in the advent of “hybrid workers” and “hybrid work” arrangements that raise new challenges, as the traditional roles and spaces are being replaced with new notions of the meaning of the “office” (Davenport and Pearlson 1998). In other words, the unfolding changes, precipitated by the pandemic, constitute an invitation for revising the meaning of both the workplace and the homeplace and even creating a synthesis in the form of the home office.

The home office opens novel research avenues and stimulates new research streams in terms of law (e.g., can an employee’s home be legally framed as an extension of a distributed office?), control (e.g., how legitimate is the control of people in their private/family space?), and leadership (e.g., when do leaders lead when flex time becomes a norm?). These and other interrogations will be relevant to redraw the contours of work-family research and to re-conceptualize the topic as it is redefined by new technological possibilities.

Implications for Practice

If organizations accept that the family is a legitimate stakeholder, then they need to consider the motives not only of their employees as members of family organizations but also the motives of the family organization and the ways its multiple members are relating to multiple organizations of work and education from home. Such an orientation will help organizations contribute to the common good (Schlag and Melé 2020). The structure and dynamics of families have implications for career progression, especially for working mothers (Benavides and Montes 2020), so addressing the family as an organization is an important endeavour, especially as it relates to other organizations, such as childcare provision, costs and regulation. Employing organizations may have to formulate policies to help their members to effectively manage work and family organization (Stein et al. 2021; Vaziri et al. 2020), a challenge already embraced by multinational companies regarding the expatriates’ family (e.g., “family is treated as a unit and included in the selection process” of expatriates; Anderson 2005, p. 567). Policies that can make role transitions less difficult will need to be implemented either by state, market or firm hierarchy.

While the mere recognition of family organization as a stakeholder will not change anything per se, if decisions take into consideration not the case of individual employees but also their family organization, more flexible solutions may emerge from consideration of the family (by soliciting, for instance, family perceptions of organizational cultures and practices, as is proposed by Li et al. 2021). The job of Human Resources departments will certainly become more complicated. Organizations may segment work to respond to different employee needs. Flexible policies may support such endeavour. Employing organizations may realize that neo-liberal instincts and a functioning care system that enables effective organization are inimical. They may even have to start lobbying for increased taxes if the state is to bear the burden of making family organization work for them.

More ethical decisions may also become normal; for example, if one family member is jobless, is it morally acceptable that the organization involves another family member in a downsizing (Leite 2012)? Or should it avoid causing extra-suffering and health issues through financial hardship (Pfeffer 2018)? These questions gain a new light if family organizations are taken as stakeholders. The question of representation arises: how do the demands and requirements of a multiplicity of family organizational forms become represented, ranked, and implemented? Questions for hiring are also raised. There are, again, good arguments both for and against recruiting family members to the same organization (Pfeffer and Salancik 2003; Southwest Airlines 1999). From the perspective of family organization, hiring a couple is not the same as hiring any two employees.

Given the demographic challenges confronting many societies, protecting families is critical to reverse trends and to prepare the future. It is thus possible to affirm that the implications of our discussion extend beyond the domain of MOS and will need to be considered by national states. The demographic crisis (Morgan 2003) constitutes a challenge for the sustainability of the welfare state in many parts of the world and is indicative of the need to think about the family as an organizational unit of analysis. Doing this may be indicative of the need to embrace flexible policies to allow employees to address parental duties or accommodation of aging parents. Articulating work and family may thus gain from the flexible solutions untapped by the pandemic. Organizations may learn from this experience to retain the elements that can have a positive impact on future working experiences.


Our discussion is bound by several limitations: the analysis combines past findings and emerging trends. The circumstances may shift and neutralize some of our conceptual propositions. We wrote this piece during the pandemic. Future developments will also be conditioned by variables pertaining to national culture, technology adoption and economic development. For example, it is hard to tell if diffuse cultures (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars 2008), that more naturally allow work and private spheres to intersect, will be more accepting of this new hybrid reality or instead resist it because people miss their “family” at work. On the other hand, we are curious to observe whether specific cultures (Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars 2008), which tend to separate work and private life, will become more diffuse themselves, now that people were able to see that their fellow workers also have a family and share similar challenges at home. It is also possible that in cultures where family is regarded with higher importance (Jin et al. 2013; Zhao et al. 2019), organizations that treat family as a stakeholder get a higher level of social legitimacy.

The new-New Normal (Ahlstrom et al. 2020) that will emerge after this period may gain new shapes that might neutralize the trends proposed here. It is possible, in other words, that we have captured a moving target that will evanesce. It is admissible that some of the experiments will be suspended in the post-pandemic period. It is true that flexible designs propelled by new technologies were already under development (Hanelt et al. 2021), but the depth of their adoption in a post-pandemic world is unpredictable.


The family is not often regarded as an organizational stakeholder, in both senses of the word “organizational”. Families have been conceptualized as external to organizations or as partly overlapping via their individual employees. From the stakeholder perspective (which considers an organization as set of relationships among groups that have a stake in the activities that make up the organization; Parmar et al. 2010), the absence of the family from the list of relevant stakeholders is surprising. From a stakeholder perspective and that of developing more humanistic management theories, the family dimension cannot be ignored. The COVID-19 pandemic catalysed change and created a superposition between family and work. This created an opportunity and the necessity to theorize the family as stakeholder. Anticipating that some forms of work adopted during the pandemic will persist, and that more people will work from home, there is space to accept family organization as an integral and legitimate organizational stakeholder.


References marked with an asterisk indicate meta-analytical sources for our narrative analysis (cited in text). Other meta-analytical sources used for our narrative analysis (and not cited in text)

  • Acock, A.C., and D.H. Demo. 1994. Family diversity and well-being. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahlrichs, N.S. 2007. Managing the generations differently to improve performance and profitability. Employee Relations Today 34 (1): 21–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahlstrom, D., J.L. Arregle, M.A. Hitt, G. Qian, X. Ma, and D. Faems. 2020. Managing technological, sociopolitical, and institutional change in the new normal. Journal of Management Studies 57 (3): 411–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T.D., E. Cho, and L.L. Meier. 2014. Work–family boundary dynamics. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 1 (1): 99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Allen, T.D., K.A. French, S. Dumani, and K.M. Shockley. 2015. Meta-analysis of work–family conflict mean differences: Does national context matter? Journal of Vocational Behavior 90: 90–100.

  • *Allen, T.D., R.C. Johnson, K.M. Kiburz, and K.M. Shockley. 2013. Work-family conflict and flexible work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychology 66 (2): 345–376.

  • *Allen, T.D., R.C. Johnson, K.N. Saboe, E. Cho, S. Dumani, and S. Evans. 2012. Dispositional variables and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior 80 (1): 17–26.

  • Alony, I. 2020. It’s about how the relationship feels: What managers can learn from successful marriages. Organizational Dynamics.

  • *Amstad, F.T., L.L. Meier, U. Fasel, A. Elfering, and N.K. Semmer. 2011. A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 16 (2): 151–169.

  • Anderson, B.A. 2005. Expatriate selection: good management or good luck? The International Journal of Human Resource Management 16 (4): 567–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B.E., and G.E. Kreiner. 1999. “How can you do it?”: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review 24 (3): 413–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barling, J., and K.E. Macewen. 1992. Linking work experiences to facets of marital functioning. Journal of Organizational Behavior 13 (6): 573–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, R.C., and C. Rivers. 1996. He works/she works: How two-income families are happier, healthier, and better off. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, A. 1981. Protective labor legislation and the cult of domesticity. Journal of Family Issues 2 (1): 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrero JM, Bloom N, Davis SJ (2020) Why working from home will stick. University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economics, Working Paper 174. Available at: Accessed 29 Oct 2021.

  • Benavides, G., and Y. Montes. 2020. Work/family life by 2040: Between a gig economy and traditional roles. Futures 19: 102,544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berti, M., A.V. Simpson, M.P. Cunha, and S. Clegg. 2021. Elgar introduction to organizational paradox theory. Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bhave, D.P., L.H. Teo, and R.S. Dalal. 2020. Privacy at work: A review and a research agenda for a contested terrain. Journal of Management 46 (1): 127–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackler, F. 1995. Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies 16 (6): 1021–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, N., J. Liang, J. Roberts, and Z.J. Ying. 2015. Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130 (1): 165–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhm, S., and S. Pascucci. 2020. It’s not just about the mafia! Conceptualizing business-society relations of organized violence. Academy of Management Perspectives 34 (4): 546–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brief, A.P., and H.K. Downey. 1983. Cognitive and organizational structures: A conceptual analysis of implicit organizing theories. Human Relations 36 (12): 1065–1089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, J., and M. Fourcade. 2021. The society of algorithms. Annual Review of Sociology 47: 213–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Butts, M.M., W.J. Casper, and T.S. Yang. 2013. How important are work-family support policies? A meta-analytic investigation of their effects on employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 98 (1): 1–25.

  • *Byron, K. 2005. A meta-analytic review of work-family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior 67 (2): 169–198.

  • Calabrò, A., A. Minichilli, M.D. Amore, and M. Brogi. 2018. The courage to choose! Primogeniture and leadership succession in family firms. Strategic Management Journal 39 (7): 2014–2035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casper, W.J., H. Vaziri, J.H. Wayne, S. DeHauw, and J. Greenhaus. 2018. The jingle-jangle of work–nonwork balance: A comprehensive and meta-analytic review of its meaning and measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology 103 (2): 182–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cech, E., B. Rubineau, S. Silbey, and C. Seron. 2011. Professional role confidence and gendered persistence in engineering. American Sociological Review 76 (5): 641–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury, P., C. Foroughi, and B. Larson. 2021. Work-from-anywhere: The productivity effects of geographic flexibility. Strategic Management Journal 42 (4): 655–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, S.C. 2000. Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations 53 (6): 747–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S.R., D. Courpasson, and N. Phillips. 2006. Power and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. 2005. Relationality. Organization Studies 26 (11): 1689–1710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covaleski, M.A., M.W. Dirsmith, J.B. Heian, and S. Samuel. 1998. The calculated and the avowed: Techniques of discipline and struggles over identity in Big Six public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 43 (2): 293–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunha MP, Clegg S (2018) Persistence in paradox. In M. Farjoun, W.K. Smith, A. Langley, and H. Tsoukas (Eds.), Perspectives on process organization studies: Dualities, dialectics and paradoxes in organizational life (vol.8, pp.14–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Cunha, M.P., S.R. Clegg, A. Rego, and J. Story. 2015. Powers of romance: The liminal challenges of managing organizational intimacy. Journal of Management Inquiry 24 (2): 131–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunha, M.P., A. Rego, and I. Munro. 2019. Dogs in organizations. Human Relations 72 (4): 778–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T.H., and K. Pearlson. 1998. Two cheers for the virtual office. MIT Sloan Management Review 39 (4): 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dierksmeier, C. 2016. What is “humanistic” about humanistic management? Humanistic Management Journal 1 (1): 9–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doucouliagos, C. 1994. A note on the evolution of homo economicus. Journal of Economic Issues 28 (3): 877–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J.E. 2003. Energize your workplace: How to create and sustain high-quality connections at work. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, W.G. 2003. The family: The missing variable in organizational research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27 (4): 401–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J.R., and N.P. Rothbard. 2000. Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review 25 (1): 178–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farjoun, M. 2010. Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Academy of Management Review 35 (2): 202–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fayard, A.L., J. Weeks, and M. Khan. 2021. Designing the hybrid office. Harvard Business Review 99 (2): 114–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Fellows, K., H.-Y. Chiu, E.J. Hill, and A.J. Hawkins. 2016. Work-family conflict and couple relationship quality: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 37 (4): 509–518.

  • Financial Times. 2020. Companies need a new homeworking company. 10 September, 10.

  • Fineman, S., ed. 2000. Emotion in organizations. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Ford, M., B.A. Heinen, and K.L. Langkamer. 2007. Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology 92 (1): 57–80.

  • Freeman, R.E. 2010. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • *French, K.A., S. Dumani, T.D. Allen, and K.M. Shockley. 2018. A meta-analysis of work–family conflict and social support. Psychological Bulletin 144 (3): 284–314.

  • Friedman, A.L., and S. Miles. 2002. Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies 39 (1): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerson, K. 2004. Understanding work and family through a gender lens. Community, Work & Family 7 (2): 163–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D.A., K.G. Corley, and A.L. Hamilton. 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods 16 (1): 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goh, J., J. Pfeffer, and S.A. Zenios. 2019. Reducing the health toll from US workplace stress. Behavioral Science & Policy 5 (1): 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonsalves, L. 2020. From face time to flex time: The role of physical space in worker temporal flexibility. Administrative Science Quarterly 65 (4): 1058–1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gratton, L. 2021. How to do hybrid right. Harvard Business Review 99 (3): 66–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gratton, L., and S. Ghoshal. 2003. Managing personal human capital: New Ethos for the ‘volunteer’ employee. European Management Journal 21 (1): 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield, S.M. 1961. Industrialization and the family in sociological theory. American Journal of Sociology 67 (3): 312–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhaus, J.H., and N.J. Beutell. 1985. Sources and conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review 10 (1): 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhaus, J.H., and G.N. Powell. 2006. When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review 31 (1): 72–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, R., P. Banerjee, and J. Gaur. 2012. Exploring the role of the spouse in expatriate failure: A grounded theory-based investigation of expatriate ‘spouse adjustment issues from India. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 23 (17): 3559–3577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, D.T., and J. Richter. 1988. Balancing work life and home life: What can organizations do to help? Academy of Management Perspectives 2 (3): 213–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamon, R.R., and S.R. Smith. 2014. The discipline of family science and the continuing need for innovation. Family Relations 63 (3): 309–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hampden-Turner, C.M., and F. Trompenaars. 2008. Building cross-cultural competence: How to create wealth from conflicting values. Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanelt, A., R. Nohnsack, D. Marz, and C. Antunes. 2021. A systematic review of the literature on digital transformation: Insights and implications for strategy and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies 58 (5): 1159–1197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargrave, T.J., and A.H. Van de Ven. 2017. Integrating dialectical and paradox perspectives on managing contradictions in organizations. Organization Studies 38 (3–4): 319–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemmings, J. 2020. The Covid-19 crisis and the coming Cold War. Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.

  • Hernández-Linares, R., and M.C. López-Fernández. 2018. Entrepreneurial orientation and the family firm: Mapping the field and tracing a path for future research. Family Business Review 31 (3): 318–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Linares, R., S. Sarkar, and M.J. Cobo. 2018. Inspecting the Achilles heel: A quantitative analysis of 50 years of family business definitions. Scientometrics 115: 929–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewlett, S.A., and C.B. Luce. 2006. Extreme jobs: The dangerous allure of the 70-h workweek. Harvard Business Review 84 (12): 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, E.J., M. Ferris, and V. Märtinson. 2003. Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal of Vocational Behavior 63 (2): 220–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Hoobler, J.M., J. Hu, and M. Wilson. 2010. Do workers who experience conflict between the work and family domains hit a “glass ceiling?”: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Vocational Behavior 77 (3): 481–494.

  • *Hoobler, J.M., S. Gericke, and E. Koekemoer. 2021. Does extant work-family research generalize to African nations? Meta-analytic tests. Africa Journal of Management 7 (2): 173–195.

  • Hosking, D.M., H.P. Dachler, and K.J. Gergen, eds. 1995. Management and organization: Relational alternatives to individualism (pp. 1–28). Aldershot: Avebury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacques, R. 1995. Manufacturing the employee: Management knowledge from the 19th to 21st centuries. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaskiewicz, P., J.G. Combs, K.K. Shanine, and K.M. Kacmar. 2017. Introducing the family: A review of family science with implications for management research. The Academy of Management Annals 11 (1): 309–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, J.F., M.T. Ford, and C.C. Chen. 2013. Asymmetric differences in work–family spillover in North America and China. Journal of Business Ethics 113 (1): 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabanoff, B. 1980. Work and nonwork: A review of models, methods, and findings. Psychological Bulletin 88 (1): 60–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R.M. 1977. Work and family in the United States: A critical review and age da for research and policy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen, T.K., S.H. Matthews, M. Wan, and Y. Zhang. 2020. The secret life of pets: The intersection of animals and organizational life. Journal of Organizational Behavior 41 (7): 694–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly EL, Moen P (2020) Fixing the overload problem at work. MIT Sloan Management Review. Available at Accessed 29 Oct 2021.

  • Kertzer, D.I. 1984. Anthropology and family history. Journal of Family History 9 (3): 201–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kniffin, K.M., J. Narayanan, F. Anseel, J. Antonakis, S.J. Ashford, A.B. Bakker, P. Bamberger, et al. 2021. COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American Psychologist 76 (1): 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopelman, R.E., J.H. Greenhaus, and T.F. Connolly. 1983. A model of work, family, and interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 32 (2): 198–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Kossek, E.E., and C. Ozeki. 1998. Work-family conflict, policies, and the job-life satisfaction relationship: A review and directions for organizational behavior human resources research. Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (2): 139–149.

  • *Kossek, E.E., S. Pichler, T. Bodner, and L.B. Hammer. 2011. Workplace social support and work–family conflict: A meta-analysis clarifying the influence of general and work–family-specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology 64 (2): 289–313.

  • Kurland, N.B., and D.E. Bailey. 1999. Telework: The advantages and challenges of working here, there, anywhere, and anytime. Organizational Dynamics 28 (2): 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lapierre, L.M., Y. Li, H.K. Kwan, J.H. Greenhaus, M.S. DiRenzo, and P. Shao. 2018. A meta-analysis of the antecedents of work–family enrichment. Journal of Organizational Behavior 39 (4): 385–401.

  • Lasch, C. 1995. Haven in a heartless world: The family besieged. WW Norton & Company.

  • Laslett, B. 1973. The family as a public and private institution: An historical perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family 35 (3): 480–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leite, A.P. 2012. O amor como critério de gestão. Lisboa: Principia.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Li, A., R. Cropanzano, A. Butler, P. Shao, and M. Westman. 2021. Work–family crossover: A meta-an.alytic review. International Journal of Stress Management 28 (2): 89–104.

  • *Liao, E.Y., V.P. Lau, R.T.Y. Hui, and K.H. Kong. 2019. A resource-based perspective on work-family conflict: meta-analytical findings. Career Development International 24 (1): 37–73.

  • *Litano, M., D.A. Major, R.N. Landers, V.N. Streets, and B.I. Bass. 2016. A meta-analytic investigation of the relationship between leader-member exchange and work-family experiences. Leadership Quarterly 27 (5): 802–817.

  • López-Fernández, M.C., A. Serrano-Bedia, and M. Pérez-Pérez. 2016. Entrepreneurship and family firm research: A bibliometric analysis of an emerging field. Journal of Small Business Management 54 (2): 622–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Matei, A., L.P. Maricuțoiu, and D. Vîrgă. 2021. For better or for worse family-related well-being: A meta-analysis of crossover effects in dyadic studies. Applied Psychology. Health and Well-being 13 (2): 357–376.

  • Messenger, J.C., and L. Gschwind. 2016. Three generations of telework: New ICT s and the (R)evolution from home office to virtual office. New Technology, Work and Employment 31 (3): 195–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Mesmer-Magnus, J.R., and C. Viswesvaran. 2006. How family-friendly work environments affect work/family conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of Labor Research 27 (4): 555–574.

  • Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle, J.J. Chrisman, and L.J. Spence. 2011. Toward a theory of stakeholder salience in family firms. Business Ethics Quarterly 21 (2): 235–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Michel, J.S., and M.B. Hargis. 2008. Linking mechanisms of work-family conflict and segmentation. Journal of Vocational Behavior 73 (3): 509–522.

  • *Michel, J.S., J.K. Mitchelson, L.M. Kotrba, J.M. Le Breton, and B.B. Baltes. 2009. A comparative test of work-family conflict models and critical examination of work-family linkages. Journal of Vocational Behavior 74 (2): 199–218.

  • *Michel, J.S., Mitchelson, J.K., Pichler,S., and Cullen, K.L. 2010. Clarifying relationships among work and family social support, stressors, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(1), 91–104.

  • *Michel, J.S., L.M. Kotrba, J.K. Mitchelson, M.A. Clark, and B.B. Baltes. 2011. Antecedents of work-family conflict. A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior 32 (5): 689–725.

  • Morgan, D. 1975. Social theory and the family. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. 1996. Family connections: an introduction to family studies. London: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. 2014. The family, politics, and social theory (RLE social theory). London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, S.P. 2003. Is low fertility a twenty-first-century demographic crisis? Demography 40 (4): 589–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *McNall, L.A., Nicklin, J.M., and Masuda, A.D. 2010. A meta-analytic review of the consequences associated with work-family enrichment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 381–396.

  • Nicolini, D. 2009. Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies 30 (12): 1391–1418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Nohe, C., L.L. Meier, K. Sonntag, and A. Michel. 2015. The chicken or the egg? A meta-analysis of panel studies of the relationship between work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Applied Psychology 100 (2): 522–536.

  • Padavic, I., R.J. Ely, and E.M. Reid. 2020. Explaining the persistence of gender inequality: The work–family narrative as a social defense against the 24/7 work culture. Administrative Science Quarterly 65 (1): 61–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmar, B.L., R.E. Freeman, J.S. Harrison, A.C. Wicks, L. Purnell, and S. de Colle. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. The Academy of Management Annals 4 (1): 403–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. 1951. The social system. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perri, A., and E. Peruffo. 2016. Knowledge spillovers from FDI: A critical review from the international business perspective. International Journal of Management Reviews 18 (1): 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petriglieri, J. 2019. Couples that work: How dual-career couples can thrive in love and work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. 2018. Dying for a Paycheck: Why the American way of business is injurious to people and companies. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., and G.R. Salancik. 2003. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirson, M., C. Dessi, M. Floris, and E. Giudici. 2021. Humanistic management: What has love got to do with it? Humanistic Management Journal 6 (1): 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. Mackenzie, D.G. Bachrach, and N.P. Podsakoff. 2005. The influence of management journals in the 1980s and 1990s. Strategic Management Journal 26 (5): 473–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradies, C., I. Aust, R. Bednarek, J. Brandl, S. Carmine, J. Cheal, M.P. Cunha, M. Gaim, A. Keegan, J. Lê, E. Miron-Spektor, R.K. Nielsen, V. Pouthier, G. Sharma, J.L. Sparr, R. Vince, and J. Keller. 2021. The lived experience of paradox: How individuals navigate tensions during the pandemic crisis. Journal of Management Inquiry 30 (2): 154–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramarajan, L., and E. Reid. 2013. Shattering the myth of separate worlds: Negotiating nonwork identities at work. Academy of Management Review 38 (4): 621–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, D.M. 1987. Commitment and the organization: The organization man revisited. Academy of Management Review 12 (3): 460–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuschke, D., and C. Mason. 2020. The engagement of home-based businesses in the digital economy. Futures.

  • Rogers, P. 2017. Family is NOT an institution: Distinguishing institutions from organisations in social science and social theory. International Review of Sociology 27 (1): 126–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg, J., and M. Alvesson. 2021. Meanings of theory: Clarifying theory through typification. Journal of Management Studies 58 (2): 487–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schad, J., M.W. Lewis, S. Raisch, and W.K. Smith. 2016. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals 10 (1): 5–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlag, M., and D. Melé. 2020. Building institutions for the common good. The practice and purpose of business in an inclusive economy. Humanistic Management Journal 5 (1): 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Shockley, K.M., and N. Singla. 2011. Reconsidering work—family interactions and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management 37 (3): 861–886.

  • *Shockley, K.M., W. Shen, M.M. DeNunzio, M.L. Arvan, and E.A. Knudsen. 2017. Disentangling the relationship between gender and work-family conflict: An integration of theoretical perspectives using meta-analytic methods. Journal of Applied Psychology 102 (12): 1601–1635.

  • Slaughter A (2012) Why women still can’t have it all. The Atlantic. Available at Accessed 29 Oct 2021.

  • Smith, W.K., and M.W. Lewis. 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review 36 (2): 381–403.

  • Söderlund, J., and E. Borg. 2018. Liminality in management and organization studies: Process, position and place. International Journal of Management Reviews 20 (4): 880–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnentag, S., and U.V. Bayer. 2005. Switching off mentally: Predictors and consequences of psychological detachment from work during off-job time. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 10 (4): 393–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnentag, S., C. Binnewies, and E.J. Mojza. 2010. Staying well and engaged when demands are high: The role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied Psychology 95 (5): 965–976.

  • Southwest Airlines (1999) Love is in the air at Southwest Airlines. February 3, Available at Accessed 29 Oct 2021.

  • Standen, P., K. Daniels, and D. Lamond. 1999. The home as a workplace: Work–family interaction and psychological well-being in telework. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 4 (4): 368–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starbuck, W.H. 1992. Learning by knowledge-intensive firms. Journal of Management Studies 29 (6): 713–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein D, Hobson N, Jachimowicz JM, Whillans A (2021) How companies can improve employ engagement right now. Harvard Business Review. Available at Accessed 29 Oct 2021

  • Sturm, R.E., D. Vera, and M. Crossan. 2017. The entanglement of leader character and leader competence and its impact on performance. The Leadership Quarterly 28 (3): 349–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, F. 1911. The principles of scientific management. W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Irish Times. 2021. Liberty Insurance in for the long term on remote working. Accessed 29 Oct 2021.

  • Toffler, A. 1980. The third wave. New York: Bantam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tse, H.H., and N.M. Ashkanasy. 2015. The dyadic level of conceptualization and analysis: A missing link in multilevel OB research? Journal of Organizational Behavior 36 (8): 1176–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. 2019. Praxis, character, and competence: From a behavioral to a communitarian view of the firm. Advances in Strategic Management 39 (1): 181–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H., and M.P. Cunha. 2017. On organizational circularity: Vicious and virtuous circles in organizing. In The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox: Approaches to plurality, tensions, and contradictions, ed. M.W. Lewis, W.K. Smith, P. Jarzabkowski, and A. Langley, 393–412. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuckermann, H. 2019. Visibilizing and invisibilizing paradox: A process study of interactions in a hospital executive board. Organization Studies 40 (12): 1851–1872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhl-Bien, M. 2011. Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. In Leadership, gender, and organization, ed. P. Werhane and M. Painter-Morland, 75–108. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Uhlaner, L.M., H.A. van Goor-Balk, and E. Masurel. 2004. Family business and corporate social responsibility in a sample of Dutch firms. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 11 (2): 186–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaziri, H., W.J. Casper, J.H. Wayne, and R.A. Matthews. 2020. Changes to the work–family interface during the COVID-19 pandemic: Examining predictors and implications using latent transition analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 105 (10): 1073–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venter, E., S. Van der Merwe, and S. Farrington. 2012. The impact of selected stakeholders on family business continuity and family harmony. Southern African Business Review 16 (2): 69–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voydanoff, P. 1988. Work role characteristics, family structure demands, and work/family conflict. Journal of Marriage and the Family 50 (3): 749–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, A., and N. Dalton. 2020. Change the workplace, change the world. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weale, V., J. Oakman, and Y. Wells. 2020. Can organisational work–life policies improve work–life interaction? A scoping review. Australian Psychologist 55 (5): 425–439.

  • Weber M (1978) Economy and society, Roth G, Wittich C (Ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press

  • Whyte, W.H. 1956. The organization man. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Wong, K., A.H.S. Chan, and P. Teh. 2020. How is work-life balance arrangement associated with organizational performance? A meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17 (12): 4446.

  • *Xin, S., Y. Zheng, and Z. Xin. 2020. Changes in work-family conflict of Chinese employees: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 2005–2016. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 124.

  • *Xu, S., Wang., Y., Mu, R., Jin. J., and Gao, F. 2018. The effects of work-family interface on domain-specific satisfaction and wellbeing across nations: The moderating effects of individualistic culture and economic development. PsyCh Journal, 7, 248–267.

  • Zellweger, T.M., and R.S. Nason. 2008. A stakeholder perspective on family firm performance. Family Business Review 21 (3): 203–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zorina, A., F. Bélanger, N. Kumar, and S. Clegg. 2021. Watchers, watched, and watching in the Digital Age: Reconceptualization of it monitoring as complex action nets. Organization Science.

  • *Zhang, Y.C., X. Xu, J.F. Jin, and M.T. Ford. 2018. The within and cross domain effects of work-family enrichment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior 104: 210–227.

  • Zhao, X., and A.S. Mattila. 2013. Examining the spillover effect of frontline employees’ work-family conflict on their affective work attitudes and customer satisfaction. International Journal of Hospitality Management 33: 310–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, K., M. Zhang, and S. Foley. 2019. Testing two mechanisms linking work-to-family conflict to individual consequences: Do gender and gender role orientation make a difference? International Journal of Human Resource Management 30 (6): 988–1009.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Zhao, X., R. Ghiselli, J. Wang, R. Law, F. Okumus, and J. Ma. 2020a. A mixed-method review of work-family research in hospitality contexts. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 45: 213–225.

  • *Zhao, X.Y., J.L. Wang, R. Law, and X.P. Fan. 2020b. A meta-analytic model on the role of organizational support in work-family conflict and employee satisfaction. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 13 (12): 3767–3786.

Download references


Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. This work was funded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (UID/GES/00731/2019, UID/GES/00315/2019, UID/ECO/00124/2019, UIDB/00124/2020 and Social Sciences DataLab, PINFRA/22209/2016), POR Lisboa and POR Norte (Social Sciences DataLab, PINFRA/22209/2016).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Remedios Hernández-Linares.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests

We confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.



Table 2

Table 2 Meta-analytical sources on work and family, organized chronologically

Table 3

Table 3 Journals where meta-analytical sources on work and family were published

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cunha, M.P.E., Hernández-Linares, R., De Sousa, M. et al. Evolving Conceptions of Work-Family Boundaries: In Defense of The Family as Stakeholder. Humanist Manag J 7, 55–93 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • work-family
  • stakeholder theory
  • family as stakeholder
  • COVID-19