Brenda A. Lautsch

Work–family boundary management styles in organizations A cross-level model

We develop a cross-level model and typology of work–family (W–F) boundary management styles in organizations. A boundary management style is the general approach an individual uses to demarcate boundaries and attend to work and family roles. We argue that variation in W–F boundary management styles (integrator, separator, alternating) is a function of individual boundary-crossing preferences (flexibility, permeability, symmetry, direction); the centrality and configuration of work–family role identities; as well as the organizational work–family climate for customization. The model assumes that an individual’s perceived control to enact a boundary style that aligns with boundary-crossing preferences and identities has direct effects on individual perceptions of work–family conflict and also moderates the level of work–family conflict of boundary management styles experienced across organizational contexts. We offer propositions relevant to future research and practice.

Counting in Qualitative Research: Why to Conduct it, When to Avoid it, and When to Closet it:

In this essay we discuss the issue of counting: the process of assigning numbers to data that are in nonnumerical form. We review why counting is a controversial issue in qualitative research, and explain how this controversy creates what we call the “multiple audience problem” for qualitative researchers. We then identify the purposes that can be served by four different types of counting, explore when counting should be avoided entirely, and discuss when the results of counting should be concealed, or as Sutton put it, kept in the closet.

The Influence of Regular Work Systems on Compensation for Contingent Workers

Using data from a nationally representative survey of U.S. establishments, this article explores how features of regular work influence outcomes for contingent workers. The results show that firms combine regular and contingent work in varied ways: Some managers design contingent work to achieve performance objectives not possible with the regular workforce, whereas managers in other cases create contingent jobs to reinforce the same goals as regular work. In the latter case, contingent workers are more likely to be integrated with regular workers and to receive benefits. Benefit provision for contingent workers is also influenced by traditional internal labor market rules and by spillover effects in which efficiency or regulatory requirements lead benefits to be extended to contingent staff once offered to regular workers.

Balanced Workplace Flexibility: Avoiding the Traps

This article identifies three types of traps that can emerge when implementing workplace flexibility—altered work-life dynamics, reduced fairness perceptions, and weakened organizational culture—and provides core lessons for managers seeking a balanced flexibility approach. First managers must become flex savvy to understand the variation that exists in flexibility practices to align implementation with the workforce and organizational context. Second, implementing flexibility must not be treated as an accommodation but as a broader systemic organizational change empowering individuals and teams. The article provides a Work-smart case to highlight how to avoid traps and implement balanced workplace flexibility across multiple stakeholder interests.