Communicating across the borders: managing work-life boundaries through communication in various domains

ABSTRACT

Communicating work issues at home and home issues at work, also known as across-the-border (ATB) communication, is a part of everyday work and family interaction. This study focuses on the concept of ATB communication, using Work/Family Border Theory, according to which the boundaries between work and private life are seen as negotiated and shaped through social interactions and practices. We argue that through ATB communication, and especially by focusing on what is shared and how, employees can manage boundaries and achieve work-life balance. Altogether, 32 informants, comprising journalists (N = 16) and their relational others (N = 16), were interviewed to investigate the role of ATB communication in employees’ work-life boundary management. The findings show that ATB communication entails discussions about responsibilities in different life domains and a search for support in demanding or complex work or private life situations. One feature of boundary management involves refraining from ATB communication in order to achieve a balance between work and life. The study extends existing knowledge of boundary management as a communicative process and offers important practical implications by highlighting the role of interpersonal relationships in boundary management practices and the quality of ATB communication in these relationships.

KEYWORDS:

• Across-the-border communication
• borders
• boundaries
• boundary management
• work-family communication
• work-life boundary

The boundaries between work and other life domains are becoming increasingly blurred. Employees may be constantly connected to work in their private lives (e.g. Mazmanian, 2013), but technology also enables them to stay in touch with family members and friends during their worktime. This type of boundary-crossing may have several implications for the employees (border-crossers) as well as their relational others (border-keepers), both inside and outside of work (Clark, 2002). This study seeks to increase understanding of how employees, specifically journalists in a large Finnish media organization producing regional and local newspapers in various sites across Finland, manage these boundaries in interpersonal relationships with their family members, supervisors, and friends at home, at work, and in other life domains.

Work in news media organizations can be seen as a form of knowledge-intensive work that demands personal involvement, self-initiative, flexibility, and autonomy (Gonzalez & Morer, 2016). Research on the work-life conflict in journalistic professions has become increasingly prevalent due to the increased usage of digital technology and the changing industry and work requirements in the news media industry (Bossio & Holton, 2019; Robinson, 2011; Snyder et al., 2019) and in newspaper journalism; long working hours due to the pursuit of deadlines and scoops may create conflicts with the family (Reinardy, 2011). Moreover, the strong professional identification of journalists (Russo, 1998) and the holistic nature of journalists’ work, reflected in Siapera’s (2019, p. 275) idea that journalists’ knowledge, creativity, emotions, and personality are part of the economic resource of the production process, provide an interesting framework of inquiry into how journalists cope with these pressures.

The aim of the study is to unpack the work-life boundary negotiations that take place between border-crossers and border-keepers in various domains. The study extends theory by identifying the types of across-the-border (ATB) communication practices employees have, how they engage in ATB communication, and the consequences these communication processes have for employees’ boundary management. We also examine how the border-keepers at work and in other life domains make sense of these negotiations. The data are collected both from employees (N = 16) and their partners, friends, and supervisors (N = 16). By taking a collective perspective to study boundary management, we are able to understand how boundaries are negotiated in interpersonal relationships. By investigating not only the border-crossers but also the border-keepers, we are able to draw a more comprehensive picture of the social relationships and the social environment in which boundary management occurs. A similar approach has been used in studies in which organizations and families were viewed as interacting systems, where both members of the organizations and the families were interviewed (Golden, 2013), and in a study in which interviews were conducted both with work-spouse pairs and with individuals (McBride, Thorson, & Bergen, 2020). A collective perspective helps to increase understanding of the multidimensionality of boundary negotiations (see, e.g. Golden & Geisler, 2007).

This study contributes to work-life studies by taking into account the roles of both organizational communication and family communication in employees’ boundary management. This is encouraged by Golden et al. (2006), who suggest that instead of framing work-life studies only as an organizational communication challenge, the integration of organizational and family communication perspectives is needed. Similarly, Yerkes et al. (2020) propose a community-based approach, in which communities influence work-family experiences. In this framework, work-life processes, local policies and services, and local relationships may offer important resources in the work-life interface. Finally, our study contributes to the discussion of work-life conflict (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985) and work-life balance (Clark, 2002; Grzywacz & Carlson, 2007) as contested concepts. Following the ideas of Work/Life Border Theory, our study proposes that both of these concepts are context-dependent and socially constructed through ATB communication in boundary negotiations. This means that work-life conflict and work-life balance do not mean the same thing to everyone, and thus the meanings of these concepts are shaped in everyday interaction.

Finland provides an interesting context for this study in many ways. First, the most comprehensive national work-life policies are found in Nordic countries, Finland included (Abendroth & Den Dulk, 2011; Mauno et al., 2005). Second, the level of work-life conflict in Finland is lower than in other European countries (e.g. France, the United Kingdom); this may be influenced by the institutional and policy context in Finland (Crompton & Lyonette, 2006). Third, the reported amount of support available at the national level, as well as at work and in personal life, to maximize satisfaction with work-life balance is relatively high in Finland (Abendroth & Den Dulk, 2011). Fourth, the characteristics of the Nordic management style, including equality (in terms of small distances between leaders and employees), informality in relationships, and open and straightforward communication, together with a focus on managing through values and vision (Gustavsson, 1995), may play a role in the ways Finnish journalists manage their work-life boundaries.

Boundary management as a communicative process

In this study, boundary management is defined as an ongoing communicative process, in which individuals make sense of and reconstruct role demands and macro and micro discourses surrounding roles (Cruz & Meisenbach, 2018; Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Role demands comprise the expectations expressed and values represented by the individual in relation to their own behavior, both at home and at work (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). Boundaries can be defined as lines of separation between domains, which define the point at which the domain-relevant behavior begins or ends (Clark, 2000). Boundary-crossing involves transitions in which the individual leaves and enters roles by crossing role boundaries; these transitions can be physical, temporal, or psychological. Physical and temporal transitions refer to the crossing of boundaries between different locations and times for work and private life activities. Psychological boundaries prescribe the patterns of thinking, behavior, and emotions that are appropriate for each domain (Ashforth et al., 2000).

When people engage in work-life boundary management practices, they are seeking balance. The concept of balance is slightly controversial because it can be seen as a fixed state rather than a complex and contradictory set of processes (Gambles et al., 2006). According to Clark (2002, p. 24), ‘balance is attained when a person feels comfortable with the way they have allocated their time and energy, and integrated and separated their responsibilities at work and at home’. Clark proposes that one way to create balance is through ATB communication, which enables individuals to negotiate and build awareness of other-domain responsibilities. This perspective also fits Grzywacz and Carlson’s (2007) definition, according to which balancing different life domains requires negotiation with role-related partners about the expectations associated with a role. In a situation in which the demands of work and life are so incompatible that meeting the demands in one area makes it difficult to meet the demands in another, work-life conflict occurs (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Kreiner et al., 2009). As individuals move back and forth across domains and manage the boundaries between work and life, a complex decision-making process evolves in which the interpretations created and constructed in the interactions between work and personal life are reflected (Powell & Greenhaus, 2006).

In this study, boundaries are viewed through a social constructionist lens (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). This means that boundaries between work and life are seen as constructed and negotiated through interactions with others, creating a shared understanding and shared assumptions of the everyday realities (Denzin, 1996). Instead of focusing on the individual him/herself, the social constructionist lens offers the possibility of studying the role of other people in employees’ work-life boundary negotiations. The investigation of boundary management from this perspective is also based on the idea that organizational and societal contexts shape individuals’ experiences and enactments of work as a part of everyday life (Wieland, 2011). Although there is a scarcity of studies focusing on the social construction of work-life boundaries specifically in Finnish organizations, a study by Choroszewicz and Kay (2020) shows how Finnish culture shapes employees’ boundary management practices, interpretations, and actions. In addition, their study illustrates how boundary management practices, such as availability expectations, are constructed in the workplace. For example, employees who wanted to climb career ladders were required to be available at all hours via mobile technology to demonstrate their commitment to the firm, clients, and senior partners (Choroszewicz & Kay, 2020). Overall, the increasing use of communication technology is blurring the boundaries between work and life, making the need for boundary negotiations even more obvious.

The consequences of boundary management

Work-Life Border Theory (Clark, 2002) defines boundary management as something that occurs through ATB communication. In this framework, the quality of ATB communication is dependent on how satisfying the communication about work or private life issues is for the employee. When employees experience communication about work or home as understood, meaningful experience, both the border-crosser and border-keeper reach a state of understanding. In this state, employees feel listened to and the border-keeper understands the importance of the other domain to the employees’ identity and the demands inherent in their membership of that domain (Clark, 2002).

To some extent, dealing with stressful issues of private life with colleagues at work can lead to supportive workplace relations that are important for work-life boundary management (Krouse & Afifi, 2007). Similarly, discussing family demands with a supervisor has been found to reduce employees’ work-life conflict and increase organizational identification (van Zoonen et al., 2020). The ability to discuss difficult private life issues can be seen as family-supportive supervisor behavior, consisting of emotional and instrumental support (Hammer et al., 2009). Emotional support requires that the employee feels comfortable communicating with the source of support when needed, while instrumental support requires reactive communication, in which the employee's work and family needs are addressed through day-to-day management transactions (Hammer et al., 2009).

Talking about work issues at home can also be seen as a positive work-to-family spillover, in which the positive effects of work spread into family life (Sweet, 2013). Positive work experiences can help to improve employees’ moods, thereby enhancing their emotions and experiences with family members at home (Culbertson et al., 2012). According to Snyder et al. (2019), journalists experience positive spillover when they are able to share stories with their families or when they feel that their family members contribute to their news stories. Finally, friendships over time are often important for work-life challenges. People who live alone rely heavily on their friendships because these relationships offer emotional support and companionship (Wilkinson et al., 2017). Similarly, friendships are critical for a sense of well-being and fulfillment because they enable sharing of common experiences and interests concerning specific contexts, such as work and life (Pedersen & Lewis, 2012).

However, Clark’s (2002) idea of work-life balance as something that is achieved through ATB communication can be seen largely dependent on social and contextual factors. The quality of interpersonal relationships influences the amount of ATB communication (Clark, 2002), and, depending on the nature of the relationships, individuals perform different types of boundary work (Trefalt, 2013). It is also possible that not all individuals feel comfortable talking about their family issues at work, since they may be worried about what their supervisor and co-workers might think (Kirby, 2001). For example, knowing too much private information about co-workers’ difficult family issues may make it challenging to disagree with them at work in a group decision-making scenario and thereby reduce the extent to which colleagues deliberate on a complex issue (Pillemer & Rothbard, 2018). Smith and Brunner (2017) have argued that organizational culture and relational considerations (i.e. trust of co-workers) are core factors motivating individuals to reveal or conceal private information at work, one form of ATB communication. In the private life domain, employees may not feel the need to engage in ATB communication and talk about work problems if there is a close friend at work who can help to deal with work problems (McBride & Bergen, 2015).

Thus, it is important to identify the kinds of ATB communication that are considered helpful in journalists’ boundary management, as well as the type of work and life contexts in which they occur. This study extends theory by identifying what is shared and why, when employees engage in ATB communication. Our study extends previous studies on boundary management as a communicative process (Clark, 2002; Cruz & Meisenbach, 2018; Krouse & Afifi, 2007) by unpacking what is constructed through ATB communication between employees and their relational others that help them achieve shared realities and find a balance between work and private life. Specifically, we focus on the role of meaningful ATB communication in various life domains in knowledge-intensive journalistic work. Our research question is as follows: When managing work-life boundaries at work, home, and in other life domains, what types of ATB communication practices do employees and their relational others engage in and why?

Methods

Participants

This study focuses on employees working in full-time positions in a large Finnish media organization that has operations in various locations across the country. The study is part of a larger research project focusing on journalists’ communication technology use as part of their work. In the present study, some of the informants worked in a team producing a magazine-style weekend section for regional newspapers and others worked in teams producing daily news sections for various regional newspapers. All the informants worked mainly on the day shift, but a few of the informants were also working during weekends and/or evenings, either regularly or occasionally. Participants’ work assignments and positions varied: Some of the informants worked exclusively as journalists, while others also worked as producers, either part-time or regularly. The informants used various communication technologies daily, such as professional and personal cell phones, email, social media, and communication and collaboration platforms.

Altogether, 32 informants, primary (N = 16) and secondary (N = 16), were interviewed. Primary informants (journalists working in the media organization) were recruited by contacting them via email or by phone call. Informants were identified in part on the basis of the larger research project and by using snowball sampling (Tracy, 2013, p. 156), in which the idea is to identify several participants who fit to the study's criteria and then ask these people to suggest a colleague, friend, or family member who also fits the same criteria. The main criterion in identifying the informants was that they all had to work in the same media organization. As this was one of the largest media organizations in Finland, focusing on the interviews of journalists working in different sites and editorial offices provided us with a diverse set of interviewees. This helped us to better understand the various perceptions that different types of employees in this occupational group may have in a large organization. As informants were recruited, they were asked to name a person with whom they usually talked about work-related issues outside working hours or a person with whom they talked about their private lives at work. The aim was to identify an interpersonal relationship in which ATB communication occurred. These secondary informants consisted of eight partners, four close friends, and four supervisors. The term ‘relational other’ was used to allow for consideration of familial and friend relationships as well as workplace relationships.

The primary informants consisted of ten females and six males aged between 25 and 55 years. Informants had worked in the field of journalism for periods of between 4 and 30 years; average tenure was 16 years, and almost all had an academic degree (MA, BA, M.Soc.Sc). All but one employee was married or lived with a partner; eight had no children, seven had children under 12 years of age, and one had children older than 12. The secondary informants consisted of ten females and six males aged 26–55 years. The average length of their relationships was 12.9 years, with a range of 5–30 years. Table 1 presents the profiles of the informants.

Table 1. Profiles of the primary and secondary informants.

Primary informant (N = 16)*	Gender	Age	Work experience (in years)	Employment status	Secondary informant (N = 16)	Gender	Age	Length of the relationship (in years)
Tim	M	35	10	permanent	Spouse	F	34	20
Elsa	F	45	28	permanent	Spouse	M	47	18
Susan	F	49	11	permanent	Spouse	M	53	30
Emil	M	39	18	permanent	Spouse	F	37	18
Axel	M	41	20	permanent	Spouse	F	42	12
Julia	F	26	4	temporary	Spouse	M	26	5
Klara	F	25	6	permanent	Spouse	M	26	5
Leo	M	29	5	temporary	Spouse	F	28	10
Nina	F	53	20	permanent	Friend	F	48	10
Vera	F	41	20	permanent	Friend	F	38	15
Peter	M	42	18	permanent	Friend	F	49	6
Otto	M	39	15	permanent	Friend	M	42	7
Sara	F	43	20	permanent	Supervisor	M	41	0.6
Linnea	F	38	13	permanent	Supervisor	F	55	10
Ellen	F	38	15	permanent	Supervisor	F	48	8
Hillevi	F	56	30	permanent	Supervisor	F	38	3

*Pseudonyms are used to ensure anonymity.

Data collection and analysis

Data were collected by using semi-structured in-depth interviews with the 16 employees and their 16 relational others. Through the interviews, the informants had an opportunity to talk about their opinions, motivations, and experiences (Tracy, 2013). The aim was to obtain answers that were as open and frank as possible, in which the interviewees spoke for themselves and brought their own world of experience to light (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002; Tracy, 2013), while keeping the main structure of the interview similar each time.

Before the interviews, participants were given information about the research and data management and asked to sign a consent form. After each interview, the relational other (partner, friend, or colleague/supervisor) selected by the employees was also contacted and interviewed.

Prior to the relational other being contacted, the employee had obtained their relational other's consent to be contacted.

All the interviews were carried out face to face or over the phone by the first author. The interviews with primary informants lasted between 53 and 117 minutes, with an average of around 76 minutes. Interviews with secondary informants lasted between 15 and 60 minutes, with an average of around 37 minutes. The interview protocol used with primary informants involved multiple themes: workday routines, perceptions about work-life boundaries, communication technology use, and work-life boundary negotiations in different relationships. The protocol had questions such as ‘How would you describe the domains of work and life?’ and ‘What kind of boundary is there between these domains?’. The interview protocol used with secondary informants was narrower and involved themes about work-life boundary negotiations with the primary informant, perceptions of primary informant's work-life boundaries, and the role of communication technology in boundary negotiations. It included questions such as ‘How would you describe the boundaries between the work and life of your partner/friend/co-worker?’ and ‘Why do you see them that way?’

All 32 interviews were transcribed and analyzed using an iterative analysis method (Tracy, 2013, p. 184), which ‘encourages reflection upon the active interests, current literature, granted priorities and the various theories the researcher brings to the data’. The authors discussed the data that helped in sense-making and reducing the uncertainty associated with the variety of interpretations. The analysis was guided by Clark’s (2002) study on ATB communication and how individuals enact their work and home environments to create balance. At first, open coding was conducted using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Schreier, 2014), with the help of the qualitative analysis software Atlas.ti. In the first level of coding, codes were established to indicate how informants talk about their work and other life domains. Data excerpts including words and expressions, such as ‘strict work-life boundaries’, ‘flexibility at work’, and ‘working after hours’, were identified, and descriptive codes such as ‘talking about responsibilities’ and ‘personal disclosure at work’ were applied to this reduced set of data. These codes summarize the basic ingredients of the context or issue at hand (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

In the second level of coding, the codes were organized into families by following Clark’s (2002) analysis, forming a framework to describe the variations of discussions with family members, close friends, and supervisors. In the final level of coding, three main themes for ATB communication were formed as a result of the analysis: discussing responsibilities across different life domains, seeking support in demanding or complex work or private life situations, and refraining from ATB communication. The iterative analysis alternated between different phases, with the recursive process being systematically repeated until the codes answered questions (Tracy, 2013). In the Finding section, all quotes are translated from Finnish to English, pseudonyms are used for all participants, and all the identifying details are modified to protect confidentiality.

Findings

The findings of this study show that ATB communication generates a shared understanding that helps both journalists and their relational others to discuss responsibilities that occurred both at home and work. ATB communication also provides two types of support that are sought and received from relational others at home and at work: instrumental support and emotional support. In addition, the findings suggest that even though ATB communication offers multiple opportunities for journalists and their relational others to engage in boundary management practices, an important part of achieving a balance between work and life is to refrain from ATB communication.

Discussing responsibilities across different life domains

Discussing responsibilities across different life domains consisted of building on earlier discussions, reconciling overlapping responsibilities, and making colleagues aware of responsibilities at home.

In hectic and dynamic news production work, there were situations in which the informants had to work after hours or extend their workday to home. Typically, if the workday was longer than normal, journalists informed their partners about the situation. This type of informing was usually regarded as an adequate justification by the partners, as it often was built on earlier discussions. Ella, one of the partners said, ‘If there is a situation that requires his [journalist spouse's] presence [at home] and at the same time he has to stay at work, we will negotiate about it and try to solve it as best we can’. Journalists often referred to earlier discussions that served as the basis for their current activities. The partners knew details of the journalistic work processes and the reasons for extended workdays, such as internal or production deadlines. As Peter, one of the journalists noted, ‘Over the years, it has become clear to my partner that there are situations in which work overrides private life and work is sometimes at the top of the priority list’. Partners also referred to discussions with their spouses and to being aware of their journalistic responsibilities: ‘It has never been unclear to me what journalistic work requires’ (Ella, partner).

Although journalists reported that these discussions about responsibilities made it easier to balance work and life, it was clear that sometimes couples were unable to avoid overlapping demands, especially in situations in which the responsibilities of work and family life were simultaneous. Moreover, journalists also said that in some situations, the role of partners was not only to understand the work responsibilities of their partners but also to remind them that work responsibilities did not have to be completed outside of working hours, as illustrated in the following example:

He [the spouse]says bluntly, when he calls me and I say I’m at work in the evening, he reminds me to keep the hours down. And when I’m stressed in my spare time, he reminds me that you’re on your spare time now, try to let go. (Julia, journalist)

Discussions about responsibilities also helped journalists in situations in which they needed to make additional arrangements to complete their work tasks. One option was to continue working after the responsibilities in private life were taken care of. Such an arrangement was also appropriate for partners if they were aware of the reason for working late. A mutual agreement with the partner about working long days helped journalists to fulfill their responsibilities both at work and home. The role of the partners in this kind of balancing was important, as the following example illustrates:

She[the spouse] asks me how I could organize my day better. We can agree in advance that I will work a long day and the next day a short one. She says that I should stay [at work] until the work is done so that I don't have to think about work after coming home. (Otto, journalist)

Discussions about responsibilities also took place at work, but in those discussions, ATB communication created the opportunity to talk about responsibilities in the participants’ private life. The journalists described situations in which private life responsibilities hampered concentration during the workday, and in these situations, journalists were willing to share the reason for their distraction with their supervisors and colleagues. By discussing home responsibilities at work, the journalists generally wanted to ensure that the colleagues they worked with were aware of their private lives, at least to some level. One of the informants talked about a situation in which she had to take care of her elderly father's affairs during the workday. In order to solve the problem of simultaneous work and private life responsibilities, she communicated the situation to her supervisor and colleagues so that she could take care of her father's affairs during appropriate work breaks. She also noted that ‘my supervisor knows that I might have to leave for another city at very short notice [because of my father]’ (Nina, journalist). The informants said that, at work, they could disclose their personal life responsibilities through ATB communication. This was quite normal, especially in journalistic teams where the team members had worked together for years. Informants also said that ‘disclosing information on one's private life concerns does not have a negative effect at work; on the contrary, it makes everything easier’ (Emil, journalist).

From the supervisors’ point of view, the discussions that journalists had about their personal life responsibilities helped the supervisors to organize and schedule workdays better because they were aware of the different responsibilities of the journalists. Both journalists and their supervisors described journalistic work as self-managed. According to their superiors, the journalists were self-motivated and work oriented. Still, they saw it as important to assess their employees’ workload and actively discuss the different work assignments with the employees. When supervisors knew about journalists’ responsibilities in their private lives, they were able to take them into account when planning shifts and work assignments. One of the supervisors said that this kind of ATB communication ‘improves my understanding of the situation, and I can better support the employee when I know what is going on [in her private life]’ (Keith, supervisor). According to the supervisors, one of their important tasks is to assess the amount of resources that the work demanded and to estimate the resources of employees. Under these circumstances, journalists’ ATB communication served this purpose well since discussions about responsibilities helped supervisors to recognize situations in which the journalists were working too much. Supervisors said that they sometimes needed to tell journalists ‘not to work too hard’ or ‘to leave the assignment, someone else will finish it’ (Keith and Kira, supervisors). When supervisors were aware of the time and involvement that their employees’ private life domain required, they felt that they were able to help journalists to balance work and family responsibilities.

Supervisors also perceived that in discussions in which both the employee and supervisor ‘openly talked about private life issues’, they became more collegial, and this strengthened their interpersonal relationship. However, supervisors emphasized that they did not force anyone to ‘open up’, even though they themselves were ready to disclose. Overall, this type of ATB communication, in which responsibilities were discussed between supervisors and journalists, was perceived as strengthening the personal side of their relationship.

ATB communication both at home and work enabled journalists and their relational others to balance between different life domains. These communication practices also illustrate how communication generates understanding and provides opportunities to change and shape the boundaries in journalists’ everyday boundary management.

Seeking support in demanding or complex work or private life situations

The search for support in demanding or complex work or private life situations reveals another aspect of ATB communication. In this respect, ATB communication provides two types of support that were sought and received from relational others at home and at work: instrumental and emotional support.

Journalists reported that ATB communication with partners, friends, or relatives was one of their main sources for instrumental support, which helped them in various work processes. Klara, one of the journalists, said, ‘I have a list of story ideas in my phone, most of which come directly from our conversations [with her partner]’. Journalists also asked relational others’ opinions or ideas for upcoming interviews. If the partner or a friend happened to work in the same industry, these kinds of brainstorming sessions outside work were quite natural for both parties. Lisa, a close friend of one of the journalists but working in another media organization, described the instrumental support as follows: ‘Together we have been looking for new perspectives for articles; it is very common to us and happens so easily’. Knowing the work context helped relational others to contribute more to their partner's or friend's working life because understanding journalistic work helped in ‘throwing out ideas that are actually relevant since we both observe the world through journalistic lenses’ (Samuel, partner).

Instrumental support was also sought in ATB communication with relational others in the form of pre-reading, editing, and improving different kinds of written texts authored by the journalists. This type of instrumental support was common even if the relational other was not a professional in the media industry. Journalists sought instrumental support from their partners, friends, or even their own children by asking them to read through their articles, columns, and various types of texts.

Instrumental support from supervisors and co-workers was usually sought and received through ATB communication that occurred during routine work practices. The more aware a supervisor was of a journalist’s family needs, the better they were able to react when instrumental support was needed. Supervisors provided instrumental support by making sure that journalists’ job tasks were completed in time by, for example, limiting the length of the writing assignments, providing assistance to finish the work, or asking journalist to postpone the publication of the news article on which they were working. Less was reported about the instrumental support sought and received from co-workers because they did not have the same kind of power to manage or re-arrange work schedules.

Emotional support was also an important form of support that journalists received from their relational others through ATB communication. Emotional support was sought and received in the form of unrestricted venting and by obtaining guidance in complex work-life situations. Unrestricted venting refers to conversations between journalists and their relational others in which the journalists were able to talk about their emotions, from frustration and irritation to happiness and satisfaction. In many interviews, this kind of ATB communication meant the possibility of talking ‘freely and openly’ in the private life domain about complex, work-related situations. Sometimes, journalists’ work role or position prevented them from venting in the workplace with co-workers. In these situations, the emotional support sought and received from the relational other was significant. Klara, one of the journalists, said, ‘At home I can tell what I really felt in these [work] situations’, and Tim [journalist] commented ‘I can’t use that sort of language [swearing] at work when I’m annoyed, but at home I can’. For relational others, this kind of venting was also familiar. Samuel, one of the partners, said, ‘Since she can’t let out her frustration at work, she will do it at home, with me. We talk about situations that were complex or difficult’. From the perspective of the relational other, it was important to listen and let their interlocutor do the talking. Anna, one of the partners, said, ‘When he has terrible work anxiety, it is probably nice for him that he can talk to me and I can help him by listening’.

Unrestricted venting was also familiar to friends who worked in the same field and shared mutual work experiences with journalists. They were usually aware of the context and circumstances in journalists’ work. Thus, there was no need to embellish the conversation, as Vera, a journalist noted: ‘My friend understands the context and understands what kind of feedback I can get from the readers. She understands my reactions and responds, which is good. I don’t have to explain or justify anything’. Another journalist, Peter said, ‘We have a common understanding [with my friend] of what journalistic work involves and this facilitates all communication’.

It is noteworthy that a similar type of ATB communication enabling journalists to seek and receive emotional support also occurred between journalists and their supervisors and co-workers. There were situations in which journalists had experienced a challenging transition in their personal lives and felt it important that their supervisors and, in some cases, their co-workers be made aware of the circumstances. Even though the relationship with their supervisor was often quite formal, journalists felt comfortable venting without restraint and sharing the ups and downs of their lives. Linnea, one of the journalists, said, ‘My supervisor was the first to know about my new romantic relationship, I told him before I told my children’. Personal life circumstances could also be burdensome and affect work. Ellen, one of the journalists, described her situation by saying ‘I was crushed and sad about the divorce, and I explained the reason to my supervisor and colleagues, and I felt that they protected me from working too much, and I got more time to finish my texts’. In fact, many of the informants, both journalists and supervisors, reported situations in which they had experienced receiving this kind of emotional support from co-workers.

For supervisors, receiving sensitive and private information from journalists’ personal lives was important for practical reasons. If there were complications in employees’ personal lives, these had to be taken into account when planning their work. However, supervisors wanted to stress that in no situation would they tell their employees ‘how to live their lives and what kind of decisions they should make’ (Keith, supervisor). Sharing private life issues at work was not considered to be a part of supervisors’ work obligation but entirely voluntary.

Even though supervisors did not see themselves as people who could provide guidance on journalists’ complex work-life situations, this type of emotional support was sought and received through ATB communication with partners and friends. Obtaining guidance in complex work-life situations was typical when journalists had to make important decisions regarding their future work. Generally, journalists planned their futures and careers together with their partners but they often also wanted to get help and guidance from their close friends. They engaged in this type of ATB communication with their friends when they were not sure what kind of career choices to make, asking, for example, ‘Should I apply for a new position that has opened up?’ (Vera, journalist) or ‘Should I start a project in addition to normal work, which would require extra time?’ (Otto, journalist). For journalists, it was important that in such situations the relational other did not give clear answers, but rather asked ‘the right questions’ and guided the decision-making process, helping and supporting journalists in their work-life decisions. When obtaining guidance in complex work-life situations, journalists reflected on their thoughts with their relational others in order to make sense and justify their own actions. Nina, a journalist, described a conversation with her friend as follows:

In a situation in which I was wondering about the behavior of my supervisor, I asked my friend, who is also a supervisor, for her opinion. And I was able to reflect on the situation with her and get a point of view that helped me to understand what was going on [at work].

Refraining from ATB communication

Even though ATB communication offered multiple opportunities for journalists and their relational others to engage in boundary management practices, an important part of achieving a balance between work and life was to refrain from ATB communication. This was done in two ways: by concealing or downplaying the journalistic identity or by limiting excessive ATB communication. Both the journalists and their relational others reported that they had experienced situations in which they had decided to refrain from ATB communication in order to achieve balance.

Concealing their journalistic identity was one of the ways in which journalists refrained from ATB communication. Almost all the journalists interviewed for the study talked about their strong journalistic work identity and the way they viewed the world through the lens of journalism, even in their leisure time. However, journalists addressed situations in which they wanted to avoid talking about work and played down their role as a journalist in their private life settings. Klara, one of the journalists explained: ‘In my leisure activities, I won’t tell anyone that I’m a journalist since people do have different opinions about my profession and I don’t want to talk about my work [on my free time] or hear questions related to it’. Sometimes, their journalistic identity also felt too intrusive at home, during morning coffee, for example. As Julia, explained,

In the morning, when my husband starts to read the newspaper and I know there is a piece I have written, I ask him not to read the article since I don't want to know if there are mistakes. I don't want to hear about possible mistakes before I’m at work.

Informants also said that it was very typical for them to be pressured to talk about work because of the general impression that journalists are always waiting for a perfect scoop and willing to talk about articles or news published in the newspapers. Even though journalists emphasized that these kind of random meetings and conversations with news consumers were important and helped them to find interesting story ideas, they also found ATB communication in these situations to be overwhelming. One informant described his feelings about ATB communication in private life settings as follows: ‘It is disturbing, for example, for my daughter’s hobby, when I am asked to write a story about the event. Even though people might recognize me as a local journalist, I don’t want to talk only about my work’ (Emil, journalist).

Another way of refraining from ATB communication was to limit excessive ATB communication. From the relational others’ perspective, ATB communication at home with their journalist partners was so typical that it was not always considered to be ‘work talk’ because anyone could have the same kinds of conversation while reading the newspaper in the morning. However, they also identified the characteristics of excessive ATB communication with their partners. The most burdensome were journalists’ discussions about their ‘practical work issues, work contents, and schedules’ (Livia, partner). In these situations, the relational others helped the journalists to find a balance by constraining these kinds of conversations. One of the partners described the excessive ATB communication by saying that ‘she continues to work and talk about work matters, even when the official working day is over. So I had to set boundaries by saying that I’m not interested’ (Samuel, partner). The journalist herself remarked that this kind of restriction helped her to realize that it was not reasonable to focus too much on work issues at home. By constraining excessive ATB communication and guiding the conversations to other topics, relational others helped journalists to make the transition from work to the private life domain. Although refraining from this type of ATB communication was not always easy for both sides of the interpersonal relationship, it was a way to manage the boundaries of work and life.

There was no evidence of ATB communication that was perceived as excessive or problematic in the workplace. However, while the informants talked about their private life issues at work, there were also topics and issues that they did not want to talk about, since they were too private. Overall, most of the journalists and supervisors felt that there was no need to refrain from ATB communication at work, since it was a part of everyday interaction.

Discussion

The findings of the study identify a communicative aspect of boundary management, more specifically, the role of ATB communication in negotiating work-life boundaries. Border-crossers’ discussions and negotiations with border-keepers at home and at work construct and shape work-life boundary management, which can be seen as an ongoing communicative process (Cruz & Meisenbach, 2018). Three interrelated themes were identified: discussing responsibilities across different life domains, seeking support in demanding or complex work or private life situations, and refraining from ATB communication. These themes characterize boundary management as the productions of employees’ ATB communication.

Our findings extend the literature by showing the kinds of purpose that ATB communication serves for the employees and their relational others and why and how engaging in ATB communication helps employees to achieve balance at home, at work, and in other life domains. First, communicating work-related issues at home and home-related issues at work helped employees to find a balance between these two domains. More precisely, ATB communication both at home and at work helped employees to navigate their time and resources as they discussed with their relational others the expectations related to the different life domains. Clark (2002) identified discussions about responsibilities as a something that generally helps the border-crosser work out scheduling problems and prevent minor work-life conflicts but does not resolve issues of deeper disagreement because the meaning of work and home are not discussed. By contrast, our findings show that discussions about responsibilities were experienced as important and meaningful. In line with the study by Cruz and Meisenbach (2018), openly negotiating responsibilities with relational others reduced tensions that might have arisen due to conflicting demands. Moreover, discussion about responsibilities produced a shared understanding with relational others, which supports the idea of the importance of these discussions. Finally, discussions about responsibilities mainly took place with people at home and work but not with close friends. Close friends played a different role in employees’ boundary negotiations, such as offering support with work and private life considerations.

An interesting feature of ATB communication specifically in the work setting was the fact that none of the informants talked about being worried about discussing their private responsibilities with their supervisors. The journalists were not stressed about their supervisors’ assessment of their work performance; discussions of private responsibilities that supervisors could use against employees were not seen as a threat. This finding can also be seen as evidence of a family-friendly workplace culture and supportive supervisor behavior that promote a healthy work environment (Krouse & Afifi, 2007). However, this could also be related to the strong work-life policies and worker rights legislation in Finland, which may play a role in determining how openly or courageously private life issues are discussed in the workplace.

The second important aspect of ATB communication in helping employees to maintain a balance was the search for support in demanding or complex work or private life situations. This involved ATB communication with relational others that enabled employees to seek and receive both instrumental and emotional support. This finding extends Clark’s (2002) study because it sheds light on the supportive aspects of ATB communication, which has an important role in border-crossers’ and border-keepers’ interpersonal relationships. The findings highlight the active role of the employees as support seekers and of the relational others as support providers. However, relational others are also able to provide both instrumental support by directly encouraging or supporting the work and emotional support by offering a moment for venting, as well as meaningful reflection and guidance in complex work-life situations. For employees, and especially for journalists, instrumental support can also be seen as a positive spillover (Snyder et al., 2019) in situations in which journalists are able to share news stories with their families or when they feel that their family members contribute to their news stories.

Seeking support in demanding or complex work or private life situations raises the question of the circumstances that enable this kind of ATB communication. Because they need to seek and receive emotional support from supervisors, employees must feel comfortable communicating with the source of support when needed (Hammer et al., 2009). Even though these discussions with supervisors about private life may be perceived to be even more important for work-life balance than discussions about work at home (van Zoonen et al., 2020), the organizational culture and relational considerations play a role in how motivated individuals are about revealing or concealing private information at work (Smith & Brunner, 2017). In Finland, the amount of support available to maximize satisfaction with work-life balance is relatively high at the national, workplace, and family/personal life levels (Abendroth & Den Dulk, 2011), and this might at least partly explain the outcome. Furthermore, ATB communication at work produces instrumental support since it helps supervisors to respond to employees’ work and family needs (Hammer et al., 2009). Overall, organizational work-life policies can be seen as a form of instrumental support in the workplace since the aim is to create a successful work-life balance (Abendroth & Den Dulk, 2011).

Finally, refraining from ATB communication was also an important aspect in maintaining work-life balance. This finding suggests adverse implications from ATB communication. In certain situations, especially outside the workplace, refraining from ATB communication helped journalists to find a balance between work and life. Journalistic work has characteristics that easily blur the boundaries between different domains of life (Bossio & Holton, 2019; Robinson, 2011; Snyder et al., 2019). In order to find a balance, journalists set boundaries explicitly, for example, by saying ‘I don't want to hear about possible mistakes in a news story before I’m at work’. Although ATB communication increases understanding of domain-relevant responsibilities, excessive ATB communication can be harmful both to border-crossers and border-keepers. Refraining from ATB communication may be connected to asymmetrically permeable boundaries, meaning that demands from one domain cross into the other domain at unequal rates of frequency (Frone et al., 1992; van Zoonen et al., 2020). This type of asymmetric permeability may be more common in occupations that place particularly strong identity demands on their members (Kreiner et al., 2006). Kreiner et al. (2006) found that in order to manage these demands, employees enacted ephemeral roles by stepping or escaping into an entirely different role. Similarly, our findings suggest that by constraining the flow of ATB communication, employees are able to diminish their journalistic role. Furthermore, communicating work matters at home may be more common than communicating home matters at work, since permeability of boundaries has been shown to be more strongly associated with spillovers from work to home than home to work (Hyland & Prottas, 2017). Refraining from ATB communication can also be seen as a way to avoid work-life conflict (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000), as it helped journalists to manage the demands related to their work and profession.

Theoretical and practical implications

The results of our study contribute to ATB communication literature (Clark, 2000, 2002) by extending the findings in two respects. First, in addition to open and active ATB communication, employees and their relational others, both at work and at home, also need to refrain from ATB communication in situations in which it is experienced as excessive, in order to achieve balance. Employees and their relational others manage the work-life boundaries through ATB communication, and by refraining from it, they adjust the flow of this communication. This finding provides insight into boundary management as a communicative process (Cruz & Meisenbach, 2018) and specifically as a dynamic, interpersonal negotiation in which boundaries are collectively adjusted through the timing and amount of ATB communication.

Second, by including relational others in the study design, this study demonstrates the dynamic nature of ATB communication and the role of border-keepers in its processes. Research has begun to document the social nature of boundary management in different life domains, both at home with family members (Golden, 2013; Trefalt, 2013) and in other life domains (Cruz & Meisenbach, 2018). Living in the midst of a global pandemic has shown how easily the boundaries between work and life can blur. Therefore, it is important to increase the understanding of the social settings that employees have both at home and at work in order to uncover the processes through which they seek balance between the different domains of life. From a social constructionist perspective, the interpersonal relationships in different domains are at the heart of employees’ boundary management, and it is through ATB communication that boundaries are constructed and a shared understanding between the domains is created.

Limitations and future research possibilities

This study does not come without limitations. First, a more complete understanding of boundary negotiations needs further research that includes different types of organizations and occupations. Our data are based on a single occupational group, Finnish journalists working in one organization, although they work at different sites. It is possible that both organizational and national culture play a role in shaping the findings, and it is possible that journalists have a strong sense of professional identification (Russo, 1998), which may appear, for example, as a special kind of boundary blurring. The way employees are able to manage the boundaries and engage in ATB communication in different contexts and different organizations should be examined in future studies.

Second, a broader network of relational others could provide an even more nuanced picture of boundary negotiations across borders. As the study by Yerkes et al. (2020) suggests, a community-based approach could offer new avenues to conceptualize the role of broader networks and communities and to study the role of community in the work-family interface. In this study, we asked journalists to identify a person with whom they usually talked about work-related issues outside of working hours or a person with whom they talked about their private lives at work. The aim was to identify an interpersonal relationship in which ATB communication occurred. For this reason, it is possible that all the relationships in this study are of good quality. By using a larger interpersonal network, we might have been able to obtain a more diverse and complex picture of boundary negotiations. However, with our current study design, we were able to study both leisure time relationships and relationships that are not voluntary, such as supervisor relationships at work, bringing variance to our dataset.

Finally, ATB communication is a part of employees’ everyday interactions and plays a significant part both in work and family communication. As this study concentrated on investigating employees’ and their relational others’ perceptions of ATB communication, future studies should focus on observing the actual negotiations in various domains in order to better understand the complex nature of boundary management as a communicative process. While the study yielded insights into how these processes are perceived and understood, it is difficult with interview data to follow what actually happens in employees’ everyday lives. This challenge could be tackled by, for example, utilizing log data from different communication technologies to collect data from actual interactions.

Overall, when we talk about the concepts of work-life balance or work-life conflict, we consider these concepts to be something constructed from our everyday interactions. Engaging in but also refraining from ATB communication, which creates shared assumptions and meanings in our interpersonal relationships at home, at work, and in other life domains, can help in seeking a balance between work and life as well as in preventing conflicts when the demands of work and life are incompatible.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jonna Leppäkumpu

Jonna Leppäkumpu is a PhD student in the Department of Language and Communication Studies at University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Her research interests include managing work-life boundaries as a communicative process, work-life negotiations and connectivity inglobal teams and in other distributed work arrangements.

Anu Sivunen

Anu Sivunen is a Professor of communication in the Department of Language and Communication Studies at University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Her research focuses on communication processes in global teams and in other distributed work arrangements, workspaces, and the affordances of organizational communication technologies. Her work has appeared injournals from a variety of disciplines, such as the Academy of Management Annals, Journal of Communication, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, and Human Relations.