Paul Glavin

When Work Interferes with Life: Work-Nonwork Interference and the Influence of Work-Related Demands and Resources.

Using data from a 2005 survey of U.S. workers, we find that a high percentage of employed men and women report that work interferes with nonwork life. This research offers three main contributions: (1) we document the social distribution of work-nonwork interference across social statuses and dimensions of stratification; (2) we develop a conceptual framework that specifies the influence of a comprehensive set of work resources and demands on interference and their contributions to its social distribution; and (3) we advance a “stress of higher status” perspective to understand the paradoxical influence of some work conditions on work-nonwork interference. Findings generally support both the demands hypothesis and the stress of higher status hypothesis, with patterns from both factors contributing substantially to the social distribution of work-nonwork interference. This article refines and elaborates the job demands-resources model with insights from border theory.

Boundary-spanning work demands and their consequences for guilt and psychological distress.

Using data from a national survey of working Americans (Work, Stress, and Health Survey; N = 1,042), the authors examine the associations between boundary-spanning work demands and self-reported feelings of guilt and distress. The authors document gender differences in the emotional and mental health consequences of boundary-spanning work demands, as indexed by the frequency of receiving work-related contact outside of normal work hours. Specifically, the authors observe that frequent work contact is associated with more feelings of guilt and distress among women only. Analyses also demonstrate that guilt accounts for the positive association between the frequency of work contact and distress among women. Statistical adjustments for levels of guilt reduce the positive association between frequent work contact and distress among women to nonsignificance. The findings underscore the importance of focusing on gender and emotions in work-family interface processes, as well as their implications for psychological health.

Work–Family Role Blurring and Work–Family Conflict: The Moderating Influence of Job Resources and Job Demands

Using border theory and the job demands resources model, we examine the work antecedents of work–family role blurring and its consequences for work-to-family conflict in a national sample of U.S. workers. Job predictors of role blurring include jobs with more authority, excessive work pressures, schedule control, and decision-making latitude. Role blurring is associated with higher levels of work-to-family conflict, though the strength of this association is contingent on workers’ access and exposure to certain job resources and job demands. Specifically, the association is stronger among workers reporting excessive pressures, and weaker among those with decision-making latitude and some schedule control.

The Impact of Job Insecurity and Job Degradation on the Sense of Personal Control

I examine the effect of job insecurity and job degradation on the sense of personal control. Analyses of two waves of panel observations from a national survey of American workers reveal that prolonged job insecurity is associated with reduced personal control—and this effect increases with age. I also examine whether insecurity is associated with deteriorating job quality and whether degradation reduces personal control. Recent insecurity is associated with increased job pressures, while prolonged insecurity is associated with decreased decision-making latitude. I find no evidence, however, that changes in job quality explain the relationship between job insecurity and personal control.

INTERPERSONAL CONTEXT AT WORK AND THE FREQUENCY, APPRAISAL, AND CONSEQUENCES OF BOUNDARY-SPANNING DEMANDS

Compared to job-specific conditions, the interpersonal context of work has received less attention from work–family scholars. Using data from a 2007 U.S. survey of workers (N = 1,286), we examine the impact of workplace social support and interpersonal conflict on work–family conflict and exposure to boundary-spanning demands—as indexed by the frequency that workers receive work-related contact outside of normal work hours. Findings indicate that workplace social support is associated negatively with work-to-family conflict, while interpersonal conflict at work is associated with higher levels of work-to-family conflict. Results also indicate that both supportive and conflictive work contexts are associated with more frequent exposure to boundary-spanning demands. However, workers in supportive contexts are more likely to appraise these demands as beneficial for accomplishing work tasks, and are less likely to appraise them as disruptive to family roles. By contrast, workers in conflictive contexts are more likely to appraise demands as disruptive to family roles, and are less likely to appraise them as beneficial for paid work. Consequently, our findings underscore the resource and demands aspects of interpersonal work contexts and their implications for the work–family interface.

Control in the Face of Uncertainty: Is Job Insecurity a Challenge to the Mental Health Benefits of Control Beliefs?

The mental health benefits of the sense of personal control are well documented, but do these benefits persist in social contexts of powerlessness and uncertainty? Drawing from two national panel surveys of American and Canadian workers, we examine whether the association between perceived control and reduced distress is undermined by the uncertainty of threatened employment. While we find evidence that higher levels of perceived control are associated with reduced distress, the association is curvilinear among insecure workers, such that subsequent increases in control produce diminishing reductions in distress for workers reporting the threat of job loss. This curvilinear pattern is particularly prominent among American insecure workers, with higher than moderate levels of control associated with more rather than less distress for this group. We draw from Mirowsky and Ross’s “instrumental realism” model to interpret these patterns and suggest that high control beliefs may be less beneficial for mental health in uncertain role contexts.

Perceived Job Insecurity and Health: Do Duration and Timing Matter?

I examine whether the health penalties of perceived job insecurity are influenced by the duration of the experience and the age at which it is encountered. Analyses of a national panel data set of Americans (N = 1,065) reveal a decrease in health among workers reporting persistent exposure to the threat of job loss; however, these health penalties are experienced unevenly across age groups, with young workers (18–34) reporting the fewest health penalties in response to persistent insecurity. In contrast, while insecure middle-aged and older workers report similar levels of psychological distress and self-rated health, the former are more adversely affected with respect to their emotional well-being. I discuss potential cohort and life stage interpretations for these age patterns in the stress of insecure work.

Insecure People in Insecure Places: The Influence of Regional Unemployment on Workers’ Reactions to the Threat of Job Loss

Social comparison theory predicts that unemployment should be less distressing when the experience is widely shared, but does this prediction extend beyond the unemployed to those who are at risk of job loss? Research demonstrates a link between aggregate unemployment and employed individuals’ perceptions of job insecurity; however, less is known about whether the stress associated with these perceptions is shaped by others’ unemployment experiences. We analyze a nationally representative sample of Canadian workers (Canadian Work, Stress, and Health study; N = 3,900) linked to census data and test whether regional unemployment influences the mental health consequences of job insecurity. Multilevel analyses provide more support for the social norm of insecurity hypothesis over the amplified threat hypothesis: the health penalties of job insecurity are weaker for individuals in high-unemployment regions. This contingency is partially explained by the ability of insecure workers in poor labor market contexts to retain psychological resources important for protecting mental health.

Ironic Flexibility: When Normative Role Blurring Undermines the Benefits of Schedule Control

ABSTRACT Schedule control is touted as a potent work-related resource that helps workers minimize work–family conflict and enhance their own well-being. We ask: Does normative role blurring undermine those benefits? Normative role blurring involves the perceived expectation in the workplace culture that workers should take work home during nonwork hours and/or days. Analyses of the 2002 National Study of the Changing Workforce (NSCW) demonstrates that normative role blurring undermines the benefits of schedule control for work–family conflict and multiple indicators of worker well-being: job satisfaction, turnover intentions, anxiety, and life satisfaction. Moreover, to varying degrees, work–family conflict contributes to those conditional effects on well-being. Our observations offer new insights about the challenges of normative role blurring in workplace cultures and their implications for the benefits of schedule control.

An Occupational Portrait of Emotional Labor Requirements and Their Health Consequences for Workers

Scholarship has revealed inconsistent evidence on the issue of whether emotional labor represents an occupational health risk. Drawing from emotion regulation theory, the conservation of resources model and the interactive service work literature, we examine the association between occupational emotional labor requirements and worker well-being. Analyses of a national sample of American workers merged with occupational information from the O*NET database reveal no evidence that these requirements are associated with psychological distress or high blood pressure; in contrast, emotional labor requirements are associated with a reduced likelihood of self-rated poor health. Consistent with the conservation of resources model, however, we find health penalties for individuals with emotional labor requirements in resource-deprived work contexts. Our findings suggest that for individuals with limited job autonomy and little access to civil interpersonal relationships with coworkers, emotional labor requirements may impede successful emotion regulation in ways that contribute to negative occupational outcomes and strain.