The impact of work-related technology and boundary management on work-family conflict and enrichment during COVID-19

The ubiquitous nature of technology in modern life is hard to avoid and the sudden implementation of global remote working triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic brought this issue into sharp focus. Initially, the pandemic put remote working and work-related technology firmly on the agenda, as employers and employees alike suddenly scrambled to work remotely. The pandemic had a particularly profound impact on academia with the sudden closure of schools and universities and the rapid shift to deliver online teaching. This led to the negotiation of work in the home with disruptions to space, routines and family life in general (Adisa et al., 2022). It also led to the almost complete negotiation of technology into work tasks, particularly online teaching (Ziemba and Eisenbardt, 2021), bringing major disruption (Adisa et al., 2022) and highlighting the extent to which some institutions were more ready than others (Tokareva et al., 2021). Against this backdrop, technology has undoubtedly changed how, when and where work is performed (Field and Chan, 2018; McDowall and Kinman, 2017). As we emerge from the pandemic, there is a sense that the workplace has changed forever (Murphy, 2021). Yet, how society, organisations and employees will adapt is still not entirely clear.

The increasing and sometimes constant presence of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) in contemporary society has been associated with higher levels of work-family conflict (WFC) – defined as ‘when pressures arising in one role are incompatible with pressures in another role’ (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985, p. 77). In considering these associations, it is helpful to define ICTs. Zuppo (2012, p.13) states that ‘the primary definition of information and communication technologies revolves around the devices and infrastructures that facilitate the transfer of information through digital means.’ It includes the internet, file creation and sharing, video conferencing, lecture recording, emails, mobile phone usage, text messaging, intranet platforms and social media. It is worth noting that ICTs operate as part of a wider social system through which employees interact (Chesley, 2014). Studies have reported associations between ICT use and outcomes such as increased workloads, longer working hours, work extensification and overall higher levels of WFC (e.g. Fenner and Renn, 2010; Ter Hoeven et al., 2016), leading to stress (Fein et al., 2017) and an inability to switch off (Fenner and Renn, 2010). At the same time, ICTs have been associated with high levels of work-family enrichment (WFE) - where experiences in the work domain can enhance experiences in the life domain and vice-versa (Greenhaus and Powell, 2006). For instance, ICTs have been associated with greater temporal/physical flexibility (Mazmanian, Orlikowski and Yates, 2013), and enhanced perceptions of autonomy (Potter et al., 2022), productivity (Chesley, 2014) and control over interactions (Mazmanian et al., 2013). Some studies (e.g. Ter Hoeven et al., 2016) suggest that work-related ICTs can be a concurrent source of demands and resources at work. However, the extent to which WFC or WFE manifests will depend on whether individuals can create temporal, spatial, cognitive and emotional boundaries between their work and family lives (Nippert-Eng, 1996).

Whilst much is known about the work-life interface in general, a number of gaps remain with regard to tensions that exist particularly regarding ICT use. While flexible work practices and high levels of autonomy are well established job design features in academia (Beigi, Shirmohammadi and Stewart, 2018), and academics have extensively integrated ICTs into their roles since the 1990s (Heijstra and Rafnsdottir, 2010), there has been very little research pertaining to the influence of ICTs on the work-life interface in academia (Adisa et al., 2022; Heiden et al., 2021; Potter et al., 2022). Extant research has produced contradictory findings regarding the consequences of ICTs for academics suggesting that it can either be a benefit or a curse (Currie and Eveline, 2011; Fernback, 2018; Heiden et al., 2021; Heijstra and Rafnsdottir, 2010; Potter et al., 2022). Emergent research in the wider ICT and work-life balance literature (e.g. Gadeyne et al., 2018; Mazmanian et al., 2013; Ter Hoeven et al., 2016) has also produced inconsistent findings suggesting greater complexity and a need for further investigation. Mazmanian et al. (2013) highlight the tensions regarding autonomy and mobile email devices and suggest that there is a need for a better understanding of the implications of ICTs for different professions and different technologies. Prior to the pandemic, researchers had warned against taking a reactive stance to the changes being brought about by work-related technology, calling instead for an evidence-led approach in the interest of maximising technology and minimising deleterious effects for all concerned (Schlachter et al., 2018). Despite this, the requirement to adapt to online teaching which was thrust very suddenly upon academics at the onset of the pandemic, presented a unique circumstance where widely unfamiliar ICTs seriously challenged the work-life interface and accelerated the potential for boundary blurring.

This study aims to explore the experiences of academics with young children working in an Irish university during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to whether and how work-related use of ICTs affected their WFC and WFE. It contributes to the growing conversation about the potential contradictory consequences of work-related technology and the need to build on the long-established theories of work design and work stress, many of which predate modern technology. This is important because the autonomy paradox challenges the long held notion that job autonomy and flexibility represent attractive features of academic work (Menzies and Newson, 2007), despite evidence that workloads are ever-increasing (Kraimer et al., 2019). The extant evidence of further pressures associated with ICT use limits the extent to which work-life balance can be achieved, which could make academia a much less attractive career option in the future. While some recent research has examined aspects of work-life balance among academics during the pandemic (e.g., Adisa et al., 2022), it does so by looking at WFC only. Indeed, most research on the work/life interface has tended to focus on conflict (Vaziri et al., 2020). Our study considers the nuances of WFC and WFE in tandem in order to better understand how they relate to work-life balance (Vaziri et al., 2020). It therefore provides a more comprehensive understanding of how unprecedented, situational factors can influence preferences for integration and segmentation in a university setting. Schlachter et al. (2018) note the potential for studies to consider reflections of different members from the same organisation about expectations and work processes regarding ICT use.

The paper is structured as follows. First, the literature pertaining to WFC, WFE and boundary theory is reviewed. Emergent literature on the interplay between these constructs and work-related ICTs is also considered. Then the methodology adopted in the study is described. This is followed by a review of the findings, which are summarised according to the main themes that emerged from the data. Finally, the findings and their implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Covid-19 forced organisations, individuals and governments to reconsider where and how work gets done. The adoption of remote working by organisations prior to the pandemic was not widespread, despite it offering flexibility to employees and opportunities to enrich both their work and family lives (McNall et al., 2010). The increase in remote working opportunities has been associated with the increased prevalence of ICTs, which have also been associated with mixed outcomes. Some studies report associations between ICT use and higher WFC (Beigi et al., 2018), while others suggest that it can lead to higher WFE (McNall et al., 2009). Whether WFC or WFE manifests will depend on the extent to which individuals can create temporal, spatial, cognitive and emotional boundaries between their work and family lives (Nippert-Eng, 1996).

The work-life literature is characterised by a conflict perspective, which is useful in elucidating negative aspects of the work/life interface (Kossek et al., 2020). Greenhaus and Beutell’s (1985) seminal work on interrole WFC defines it as ‘when pressures arising in one role are incompatible with pressures in another role’ (p. 77). This conflict can appear as time-based, strain-based and behaviour-based and can stem from work or family (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985), with time commitments from one role possibly preventing compliance with expectations from another and pressure causing preoccupation with one role when physically engaged with another. Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) suggest that WFC includes strain-based symptoms (e.g. anxiety and fatigue) and behaviour-based symptoms (e.g. having a sense of being caught between two value systems or difficulty complying with role expectations). Furthermore, they suggest that excessive time in one role can produce strain in another. Research has found that WFC negatively impacts job-life satisfaction (Kossek and Ozeki, 1998) and employee well-being (Fein et al., 2017). Researchers have also established associations between WFC, role overload and job stress (Fein et al., 2017). Autonomy is a feature of job design that reflects the degree of status that an individual holds and often represents success in a profession, giving people the freedom to exercise judgements and the authority to set physical and temporal boundaries at work (Engel, 1970). Yet, there are times when individuals restrict their autonomy to engage in mobile technologies even beyond their ‘normal’ working day. In a study of knowledge professionals, Mazmanian et al. (2013) found that rather than restricting their discretion or authority or making them feel trapped, participants reported that these technologies provided greater flexibility and control over their work. This is relevant to the current study because academics have typically enjoyed a high degree of autonomy in their work (Menzies and Newson, 2007). As an enabler of where/when individuals can work, work-related ICTs can infringe on family time and create pressures that lead to WFC (Adisa et al., 2022; Currie and Eveline, 2011), which can reduce employees’ well-being (see Beauregard, Basile and Canónico, 2019 for a review). Autonomy is thus an unexpected stressor in the conceptualisation of WFC as while it is typically associated with positive outcomes (Engel,1970), in this context it represents a potential source of overload. This has given rise to the notion of ‘the autonomy paradox’ reflected in professionals’ ‘ongoing navigation of the tension between their interests in personal autonomy on the one hand and their professional commitment to colleagues and clients on the other’ (Mazmanian et al., 2013, p. 1337).

Being ‘always on’ has emerged as a stable theme in the literature (McDowall and Kinman, 2017), resulting in a ‘cycle of responsiveness’ as theorised by Perlow (2012, p. 6) in her research regarding smartphone use. In their US study of knowledge professionals, Mazmanian et al. (2013, p.1345) also associated constant connectivity with ‘escalating engagement’ with work emails among users of mobile devices. Similarly, Jarvenpaa and Lang’s (2005) empowerment/enslavement paradox warns about how working anywhere, anytime can possibly become everywhere all of the time. Work-related ICTs have also been associated with compulsive checking behaviours causing interruptions (Jarvenpaa and Lang, 2005; Potter et al., 2022; Ter Hoeven et al., 2016) and multi-tasking, resulting in unexpected increased workloads (Chesley, 2014; Ter Hoeven et al., 2016), longer working hours (Fenner and Renn, 2010), work extensification (Ter Hoeven et al., 2016), information overload (Chesley, 2014), technostress (Tarafdar et al., 2007), and overall higher levels of WFC (Fenner and Renn, 2010). A sense of work intensification triggered by ICTs is also evident in the literature (Chesley, 2014; Kelliher and Anderson, 2010; Ter Hoeven et al., 2016), serving as an antecedent for stress (Fein et al., 2017) and an inability to switch off (Fenner and Renn, 2010). In turn, this prevents post-work recovery (Derks and Bakker, 2014; Derks et al., 2016), negatively impacting sleep quality and resulting in next day depletion and reduced work engagement. Consequently, research highlights the need for boundary creation around work-related ICTs while working from home (WFH) to enable psychological detachment from work (Barber and Jenkins, 2014). This suggests that organisations need to be careful and creative when attempting to help employees manage WFC, particularly as mobile ICTs seem to play a bigger role in the development of WFC.

The use of mobile email and smartphones for work became particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic as employees leaned heavily on these technologies (Steffensen et al., 2021). Long before the pandemic, suggestions of functional/dysfunctional usage patterns were exemplified by Middleton and Cukier (2006) amongst Blackberry users, who simultaneously valued how they enabled them to be available anytime, anywhere, while also recognising that their mobile email usage infringed upon personal space/time and work-flow. In their coining of the term autonomy paradox, Mazmanian et al. (2013, p. 1337) found that employees who chose to use mobile email to work wherever, whenever found that their autonomy was reduced by virtue of working everywhere all of the time. Other studies consider how potent email can be in provoking emotional responses that spillover into personal lives (Butts et al., 2015) and as a source of overload and stress due to perceived organisational pressure to be constantly available (Barley et al., 2011). Although research related to the pandemic is somewhat limited, email use was reported as a source of WFC (Steffensen et al., 2021). More generally, Mazmanian et al. (2013) highlight the tensions regarding autonomy and mobile email devices and suggest that there is a need for a better understanding of the implications of ICTs for different professions and different technologies.

In contrast to WFC, a more positive framing of the work/life interface in the form of WFE has provided some balance to the literature. While Greenhaus and Powell’s (2006) conceptualisation of WFE is the predominant construct to explore this positive side, related constructs are evident, including work-family facilitation (Wayne et al., 2004) and positive spillover (Hanson et al., 2006). Similarities between these concepts are apparent but they differ in how they are operationalised. In this regard, and because they have different antecedents, they are not regarded as ‘two sides of the same coin’ (Zhou and Buehler, 2016).

Greenhaus and Powell’s (2006) WFE model states that experiences in the work domain can enhance experiences in the life domain and vice-versa. The construct identifies different types of work/family resources that can promote WFE and that are generated in roles in either the work or life domains. Furthermore, WFE includes instrumental and affective pathways by which these resources function. Prior research has identified consequences of WFE such as higher organisational commitment, lower turnover intention, greater work/life satisfaction and better physical and mental health (McNall et al., 2010), positive associations between flexibility and perceived work-family control (Wayne et al., 2004) and improved overall levels of WFE and greater job satisfaction (McNall et al., 2009). Literature regarding ICTs as previously noted has hitherto highlighted only negative consequences for the work/life interface. Next, the focus will redress the balance by considering positive consequences.

WFE has not been the default position in the emergent ICT/work-life literature, however, it isn’t entirely absent either. Some scholars highlight positive outcomes, but they are not framed as WFE. This is perhaps due to flexibility being regarded as the only relevant WFE resource that technology can be ‘assigned’ to, which is perhaps a limitation of the construct, but a highly functional resource nonetheless. ICTs that enable greater temporal/physical flexibility (Mazmanian et al., 2013; Middleton and Cukier, 2006), that engender increased perceptions of autonomy (Jarvenpaa and Lang, 2005), that give rise to productivity gains (Chesley, 2014), enhanced control over interactions (Mazmanian et al., 2013) and communication efficiencies (Barley et al., 2011) are all positive outcomes identified in prior studies. However, more recent studies (Ter Hoeven et al., 2016) posit that work-related ICTs can be a concurrent source of both demands and resources within the work domain.

While a focus on the negative and positive outcomes of ICTs provides a solid basis for understanding the work/life interface, questions remain about how this interface can be managed. In particular, the extent to which individual choices are embedded within layers of family, work and societal expectations has been largely overlooked (Rothbard and Ollier-Malaterre, 2016). The concept of boundaries between the work/life domains emerged in the literature during the 1990s. Nippert-Eng (1996) suggested that employees created temporal, spatial, cognitive and emotional boundaries with some preferring to integrate their non-work/work roles and others preferring to segment them. Related research suggests that integration/segmentation are positioned along a continuum but are experienced differently by individuals (Kreiner et al., 2009). Ashforth et al. (2000) expanded the focus from inter-role conflict to examine how individuals moved between roles, known as role transition. This involved the creation, maintenance and crossing of boundaries as a means of simplifying and ordering an individual’s environment, enabling them to focus on whichever one is most salient at that time. This is the fundamental definition of boundary theory but it is far more nuanced than that and has developed considerably. Role boundaries are usually bound in space and time, are embedded in social domains and local contexts and are characterised by permeability and flexibility. Permeable boundaries permit intrusions e.g. interrupting work to take a personal call, while flexible boundaries relate to the ability to leave one domain to address the needs of another e.g. leaving work early to collect a sick child (Hunter et al., 2019). Within this theory, role identities are socially constructed definitions of the self in a role and comprise core and peripheral features that might include aspects of the context(s) that help situate the role identity as location (e.g. university campus) or role set members (e.g. students). It is the concept of contrast that makes role identities relevant to the role transitions. The greater the contrast, the more difficult the transition can be, something Ashforth and colleagues (2000, p. 475) describe as ‘switching cognitive gears’. Within this framework exiting and entering roles involves the psychological movement of role-switching and is facilitated by important rites of passage signalling role changes to the individual and sometimes to role set members. Moreover, time to transition has been linked to positive work/life boundary management (Kossek, 2016).

A key distinction is made in the literature between boundary management preference and enactment (Kossek and Lautsch, 2012). Without this distinction, consideration of the consequences of boundary management is problematic because how boundaries are managed may not be by choice leading to loss of boundary control. This suggests that clear-cut segmentation/integration strategies are not realistic particularly in the digital age, where technology regularly blurs boundaries (Field and Chan, 2018). Research has provided valuable insight in this regard by identifying different boundary management characteristics including perceptions of boundary control, cross-role interruption behaviours and work/family identity centralities (Kossek et al., 2012). In so doing, it helps exemplify personal outcomes when boundary management can or cannot be enacted. For instance, perception of boundary control relates to how in control an individual feels rather than whether or not a segmentation/integration strategy is effective or realistic for them. This provides real insight into how personal outcomes are formed and is more reflective of how individuals manage these domains in technology dependent work environments. Boundary theory has also been extended to include behaviours that both integrate and segment daily, for example, switching from research to teaching to administration in any given day. Moreover, this research notes varying levels of technological dependence and the differential impact that this dependency can have for individuals. Clearly, technology has the ability to cross boundaries temporally and physically, but as the literature indicates, the issue is more complex than simply deciding to use this technology or not, an issue that emergent research is continuing to wrestle with.

This study explored whether or how work-related ICT use by academics in an Irish university positively and/or negatively affected work and life priorities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, it examined how participants managed the consequences of ICT use while remote working and how their reactions impacted the work/life interface. The literature pertaining to the interplay between ICTs, WFC and WFE is still emergent and many studies often only look at either WFC or WFE and ICTs, with mixed results (Vaziri et al., 2020). A key contribution of this study is that it looks at both WFC and WFE together in a single study and produces equally complex results. While the findings highlight the importance of autonomy in reducing WFC, it is the importance of autonomy to carve out time for enrichment in the life domain that represents this study’s key contribution to knowledge.

The findings suggest that work-related ICT use resulted in differential consequences contributing to varying levels of both WFC and WFE. This concurs with research that highlights the paradoxical outcomes of using work-related ICTs (e.g. Mazmanian et al., 2013; Ter Hoeven et al., 2016). Moreover, the study found that the role of work-related ICTs in managing work-life boundaries is an important, yet complex process and one that is dependent on multiple factors including behaviours, preferences and resources to enact these preferences. This finding supports prior research highlighting the importance of managing work-life boundaries in the digital age (e.g. Kossek et al., 2012; Kossek, 2016). Overall, this contributes to knowledge on the differential consequences of technology and to the very current conversation around how to adapt in a post-COVID-19 world.

With regard to WFC, the findings show that the shift to mostly ICT-enabled work during COVID-19 triggered a series of negative outcomes. This provides support for the different types of WFC (time, strain and behaviour-based conflict) posited by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985). Time-based conflict was evident as work intensification led to work extensification, corroborating prior findings about remote working (Kelliher and Anderson, 2010) and specifically among academics’ experiences of WFH (Adisa et al., 2017; Currie and Eveline, 2011). Additionally, change in the nature of work resulted in fatigue, a symptom of strain-based WFC. Notably, work stressors were the primary sources of these types of WFC through a disproportionate shift in focus to online teaching/administration effort and the requirement for increased student support. Symptoms of behaviour-based WFC (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985) were also evident, including feelings of guilt and a sense of being pulled between domains. By contrast, family stressors were the source of this type of conflict as WFH enabled more interruptions from children necessitating extended working hours to counteract time lost (time-based WFC), thus confirming Greenhaus and Beutell’s (1985) assertion that strain produced in one role can create conflict in another.

The findings show that the pervasiveness of work-related ICTs during COVID-19 generated a sense of being ‘always on’, mirroring the findings of previous studies (Mazmanian et al., 2013; McDowall and Kinman, 2017), including those undertaken in academia (Heijstra and Rafnsdottir, 2010; Potter et al., 2022). Furthermore, participants believed that their workload increased during COVID-19, which was most likely due to ICTs. This supports previous findings which associated work-related ICTs with increased workload (Chesley, 2014; Ter Hoeven et al., 2016), a symptom of technostress (Tarafdar et al., 2007). Specifically, email volume increased dramatically confirming research linking increased engagement with email to a greater sense of overload (Barley et al., 2011). This finding extends the literature on the negative effects of email in the workplace which is still emergent (Steffensen et al., 2021) to the context of academia, where the increased salience of email has become a source of time pressure (Potter et al., 2022). In our study this was associated with increased WFC in that participants found themselves caught in a vicious circle of ICT-enabled work resulting in increased workload, which extended working hours thus reinforcing a sense of being ‘always on’. Consequently, participants experienced time-based and strain-based WFC through interaction fatigue (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Of particular interest are the findings that hint at a breach of organisational norms around meeting times. Although this was not a core theme in the study, it echoes the connection between changed expectations of availability and shifting norms identified by Mazmanian et al. (2013) in their study of ICTs and mobile email. Relatedly, the finding regarding a sense of guilt for not working more while at home also suggests an awareness of a possible change in work expectations during this time.

With regard to WFE, the findings substantiated the instrumental mechanism in Greenhaus and Powell’s (2006) model which enables a resource to be transferred directly from one role to enhance the performance in the other role; in the case of these findings by improving participants’ availability to tend to family commitments. This is consistent with prior research suggesting that ICTs enable participants to WFH at a time convenient to both domains. Temporal and physical flexibility enabled by technology is identified as a key positive outcome of ICTs (Mazmanian et al., 2013; Middleton and Cukier, 2006), although it is not explicitly framed as WFE. This flexibility was a clearly salient aspect of WFE in the study. Firstly, flexibility generated in one role (work) directly promoted better performance in the other role (home) as the home role was highly salient during COVID-19. Secondly, there was evidence that flexibility was perceived as having greater relevance during this time as it enabled role expectations to be met. Finally, flexibility as a resource was regarded as compatible with the demands of the home role during COVID-19.

In the context of academia, this study extends the literature on positive consequences of ICT-enabled flexibility among academics with children (Currie and Eveline, 2011; Heijstra and Rafnsdottir, 2010). It shows how ICTs empowered participants further by revealing the benefit of technology as a resource for future temporal/physical flexibility e.g. using asynchronous lectures. This finding is noteworthy as this resource existed prior to COVID-19 but it suggests that the requirement to engage with ICTs in new ways normalised it for participants, increasing their perception of the temporal/physical flexibility that technology can provide. Additionally, the study demonstrated that ICTs provided a greater sense of time control for some, which is in line with similar studies that found that ICT-use was associated with productivity gains (Chesley, 2014), and increased interaction control (Mazmanian et al., 2013). Importantly, this suggests that if used properly, technology is potentially controllable, rather than controlling. The findings showed that ICT-enabled flexibility helped to maintain and enhance participants’ perception of autonomy during COVID-19 providing positive outcomes and contributing to WFE. This provides support for the notion of ‘personal autonomy’ (Cousins and Robey, 2015; Mazmanian et al., 2013), as ICTs enabled individuals to work anywhere at any time leaving them free to tend to work/family commitments.

Finally, regarding boundary management, the enforcement of WFH imposed by COVID-19 restrictions presented an immediate constraint on the enactment of boundary management preferences shaping personal outcomes for the work/ life interface. The study showed evidence of segmentation/separation behaviours as identified in the literature (Ashforth et al., 2000; Kossek et al., 2012), for example, in the way some participants employed ICTs and/or a separate home office to create and maintain temporal/physical boundaries between their work-home lives. Participants regarded this behaviour positively and indicated a greater sense of boundary control as posited by Kossek (2016), contributing to positive perceptions of the balance between work and life priorities. Conversely, though the study demonstrated integration behaviours as identified in the literature (Ashforth et al., 2000; Kossek et al., 2012), the fact that this was not often by choice negatively influenced perceived boundary control and consequently outcomes for WLB. The findings regarding integration corroborate research in the context of academia that attributes blurred boundaries leading to negative perceptions of WLB (Adisa et al., 2017; Eveline and Currie, 2011).

Some participants sabotaged their own efforts to create/maintain boundaries through continuous checking of emails resulting in a ‘cycle of responsiveness’ as theorised by Perlow (2012, p.6) and subsequent ‘escalating engagement’ with work emails (Mazmanian et al., 2013, p. 1345), demonstrating support for the relationship between constant connectivity and this type of behaviour. These findings validate research associating work-related ICTs to compulsive checking behaviours (Jarvenpaa and Lang, 2005; Ter Hoeven et al., 2016), ultimately blurring temporal/physical boundaries between work and home and leading to lower boundary control which negatively impacted their perception of WLB.

The increased salience of email highlighted earlier as a driver of work intensification is worth re-examining in the context of boundary management. Similar to research identifying email as a source of stress (Barley et al., 2011) and a trigger for emotional responses (Butts et al., 2015), our findings expose the powerful, stressful influence of email in participants’ lives and how it can contribute to negative mood spillover. Of note, is the related finding that somehow negative outcomes from email engagement were the participants’ fault. This is less noticeable in the literature but provides tentative support for the research by Mazmanian et al. (2013), who found that mobile device users rationalised their compulsive behaviours regarding mobile email and never blamed the technology itself. These findings are important as they extend the literature and indicate a need for further exploration, particularly as the salience of email in the context of academia is a well-established feature of work, which is unlikely to disappear (Steffensen et al., 2021).

Our findings regarding participants’ efforts to disconnect are similar to findings from research associating ICTs with difficulties disconnecting and recovering (Barber and Jenkins, 2014; Fenner and Renn, 2010), suggesting a lack of psychological boundary control (Kossek, 2016; Kossek et al., 2012). However, this may not have been purely as a direct result of ICTs as the pre-existing drivers of work intensification/extensification noted in the study contributed to less available recovery time in any case.

The study found that the ubiquity of ICTs and enforced WFH eliminated opportunities to transition adequately from one role to another, a process identified by Ashforth et al. (2000). Notably, this contributed to boundary blurring and reduced perception of boundary control among participants as observed by Kossek (2016), who argues that transition time provides positive boundary management outcomes. Moreover, participants displayed symptoms of behaviour-based WFC as identified by Greenhaus and Beutell (1985) as some experienced difficulty complying with role expectations while WFH. In particular, some female participants experienced confusion around role salience and a sense of dual commitment as identified in the boundary management literature (Ashforth et al., 2000) arising from their secretive behaviours (e.g., nappy changing, hair braiding) in a bid to comply with work-role expectations. This endorses Murphy’s (2021) view that remote work has the potential to increase WFC because boundaries are particularly blurred for women. Furthermore, our findings show participants being torn between domains and unable to assert more salient work/family identity centralities, reflecting research which suggests that interruption behaviours are often related to identity salience and boundary control perceptions (Kossek et al., 2012). This also confirms the claim by Ashforth et al. (2000) that higher role integration complicates boundary creation/maintenance. A summary of the main findings from the study are presented in Figure 1.