Advertisement

Boundary Management as a Crucial Success Factor for Flexible-Mobile Work, Demonstrated in the Case of Home Office

Boundary-Types, Boundary-Management and Boundary-Tactics Used in Home Office
  • Leila Gisin
  • Hartmut Schulze
  • Barbara Degenhardt

Abstract

The compatibility of work life and family life is a key factor in today’s modern work arrangements, particularly with regard to the increase of transition to flexible working hours and places. The herein presented research study considers the question, whether the boundary-types proposed by the boundary-theory [cf. Ashforth et al. Acad Manag Rev 25(3):472–491, 2000; Nippert-Eng, Home and work: negotiating boundaries through everyday life. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1996]. can be ascertained within flexible-mobile working, notably upon working in home office. Furthermore which difficulties the distinct boundary-types have with these new work styles and which boundary-tactics are promising in regard to those difficulties. Based on a mixed method approach consisting of an online survey (N = 395) and subsequent semi standardised interviews (N = 9) the boundary-types segmentor and integrator could be confirmed. In addition an intermediate mix type was found and empirically proven. Moreover, there is evidence that this newly described mix type has the most difficulties with his boundary-management within flexible-mobile work styles. Based on these findings the article concludes in guidance suitable for each boundary-type in favour of working in home office.

Keywords

Boundary theory Boundary-management Boundary-types Boundary-work-tactics flexible-mobile work Home office 

References

  1. 1.
    Allen TD, Johnson RC, Kiburz KM, Shockley KM (2013) Work-family conflict and flexible work arrangements: deconstructing flexibility. Pers Psychol 66(2):345–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arlinghaus A, Nachreiner F (2014) Health effects of supplemental work from home in the European Union. Chronobiol Int 31(00):1100–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ammons SK (2013) Work-family boundary strategies: Stability and alignment between preferred and enacted boundaries. J Vocat Behav 82:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ashforth BE, Kreiner GE, Fugate M (2000) All in a day’s work: boundaries and micro role transitions. Acad Manage Rev 25(3):472–491Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brenke K (2014) Heimarbeit: immer weniger Menschen in Deutschland gehen ihrem Beruf von zu Hause aus nach. DIW-Wochenbericht 8:131–140Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gisin L (2014) Boundary-Typen, Boundary-Management und Boundary-Taktiken im Home Office. Untersuchung des Einflusses der “Boundary Theorie” auf das mobile Telearbeiten, insbesondere der Arbeit im Home Office. Master Thesis, S. 178. Olten: Hochschule für Angewandte Psychologie FHNWGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grebner S, Berlowitz I, Alvarado V, Cassina M (2010) Stress bei Schweizer Erwerbstätigen. Zusammenhänge zwischen Arbeitsbedingungen, Personenmerkmalen, Befinden und Gesundheit. Staatssekretariat für Wirtschaft SECO, Bern. S. 135Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horx M (2014) Das Megatrend-Prinzip. Wie die Welt von morgen entsteht. Pantheon Verlag, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Karmaker U, Apte U (2007) Operations management in the information economy: information product, processes and chains. J Oper Manag 25(2):438–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kossek EE, Ruderman MN, Braddy PW, Hannum KM (2012) Work-nonwork boundary management profiles: a person-centered approach. J Vocat Behav 81:112–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kreiner GE, Hollensbe EC, Sheep ML (2009) Balancing borders and bridges: negotiating the work-home interface via boundary work tactics. Acad Manage J 52(4):704–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mayring P (2010) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Mey G, Mruck K (eds) Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nippert-Eng CE (1996) Home and work: negotiating boundaries through everyday life. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paridon H, Heise O (2012) Ständige Erreichbarkeit: Wie belastet sind wir? Ursachen und Folgen ständiger Erreichbarkeit. Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung e.V, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rey L (2002) Mobile Arbeit: Zwischen Hochgefühl und Untergangsstimmung. In: Ray L (Hrsg) Mobile Arbeit in der Schweiz. vdf Hochschulverlag AG, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rexroth M, Sonntag K (2014) Abgrenzung der Lebensbereiche lernen - Effekte eines Boundary-Management Trainings. GfA, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schulze H, Weichbrodt J, Meissner J (2015) Gestaltung mobil-flexibler Arbeit. Gastherausgabe. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspsychologie, 1(17), Pabst Science PublishersGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vartiainen M, Hyrkkänen U (2010) Changing requirements and mental workload factors in mobile multi-locational work. N Technol Work Employ 25(2):117–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weichbrodt J (2014) SwissFlexWork 2014. Repräsentative Befragung der Schweizer Erwerbstätigen zur Verbreitung von mobiler Arbeit und Home Office. Bericht, 14 S. Olten: Hochschule für Angewandte Psychologie FHNWGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leila Gisin
    • 1
  • Hartmut Schulze
    • 1
  • Barbara Degenhardt
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Research and Development of Collaborative Processes, School of Applied PsychologyUniversity of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern SwitzerlandOltenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations