Journal of Family Issues
31(10) 1391 –1414
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192513X10361866
http://jfi.sagepub.com
Is There a Downside
to Schedule Control
for the Work–Family
Interface?
Scott Schieman1 and
Marisa Young1
Abstract
Using data from a 2007 U.S. survey of workers, this article examines the
implications of schedule control for work–family role blurring and work–family
conflict. Four main findings indicate that (a) schedule control is associated
with more frequent working at home and work–family multitasking activities;
(b) the positive association between schedule control and multitasking
suppresses the negative association between schedule control and work–
family conflict; (c) the positive association between working at home and
multitasking is weaker among individuals with greater schedule control; and
(d) the positive association between work–family multitasking and work–
family conflict is weaker among individuals with greater schedule control.
Our findings reveal previously undocumented mediating, suppression, and
moderating patterns in the ways that schedule control contributes to
work–family role blurring and work–family conflict. The authors discuss the
implications of these findings for views of schedule control as a “resource”
and theories about the borders in the work–family interface.
Keywords
schedule control, work–family conflict, role blurring, job demands
1University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Scott Schieman, Department of Sociology, 725 Spadina Ave., University of Toronto, Toronto,
ON M5S 2J4, Canada
Email: scott.schieman@utoronto.ca
1392 Journal of Family Issues 31(10)
The ways that individuals navigate the work–family interface is of increas-
ing interest in sociological research (Blair-Loy, 2003; Jacobs & Gerson,
2004). One important dimension of the work–family interface involves
multitasking—or the frequency that individuals try to engage in work- and
home-related activities simultaneously when they are at home (Voydanoff,
2005a). Work–family multitasking represents a consequential form of
role blurring because it increases the likelihood of distractions and
interruptions between work and family domains. Drawing from boundary
theory, Desrochers, Hilton, and Larwood (2005) define work–family
blurring as “a subjective, cognitive phenomenon involving perceived
integration of work life and home life that is situated in a highly interde-
pendent work-family context such as the simultaneous work and family
demands that can be present when people bring their paid work into the
home” (p. 449).
Although there has been much discussion about the potentially negative
implications of role blurring, few studies (if any) have addressed the ways
that boundary-spanning resources influence role blurring and its conse-
quences for work–family conflict. Boundary-spanning resources involve
“structural or psychosocial assets that may be used to facilitate perfor-
mance, reduce demands, or generate additional resources, for example
flexibility regarding when and where work activities are performed”
(Voydanoff, 2005a, p. 491; also see Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, &
Schaufeli, 2001). Voydanoff’s (2004, 2005a) demands–resources model
provides a framework for analyzing the effects of boundary-spanning
resources. Although it has parallels to other well-known models, such as
Karasek’s (1979) demand-control model and Hobfoll and Shirom’s (2001)
conservation of resource theory, the demands–resources model focuses
greater attention on the interaction of demands and resources across work
and family domains. For reasons described below, we focus on one particular
boundary-spanning resource—schedule control. Integrating Voydanoff’s
ideas about demands and resources and insights from border/boundary
theories (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000; Clark, 2000; Nippert-Eng,
1996), three questions are addressed: (1) Is schedule control associated
with two forms of work–family role blurring—working at home and
work–family multitasking? (2) Do those associations influence the total
association between schedule control and work–family conflict? (3) Does
schedule control modify the associations between (a) working at home and
work–family multitasking and (b) work–family multitasking and work–
family conflict?
Schieman and Young 1393
Theoretical Framework
Schedule Control as a Boundary-Spanning
Resource and Role-Blurring Catalyst
Schedule control entails the degree to which workers have control of the start
and/or finish times of work (Golden, 2008). Although schedule control shares
some conceptual and empirical terrain with broader constructs like job auton-
omy and decision-making latitude—which tend to involve freedom from
supervision and control over the nature, pace, and direction of work—sched-
ule control is more specifically related to individuals’ capacity to determine
the temporal parameters of their own work (Jacobs & Gerson, 2004). Many
scholars have identified schedule control as a resource that helps people navi-
gate the boundary between work and family and minimize conflict between
those domains (Bakker & Geurts, 2004; Christensen & Staines, 1990; Clark,
2001; Golden, 2008; Voydanoff, 2005a). Employers may offer schedule control
as an incentive to workers juggling competing work and family expectations
(Rau & Hyland, 2002). From this standpoint, schedule control should be
associated with lower levels of work–family conflict. We seek to elaborate on
this proposition, however, by examining a different view: There may be
something about schedule control that actually masks or suppresses its
resource benefits for lower work–family conflict. Specifically, schedule con-
trol may increase work–family role blurring by offering workers the flexibility
to take work home and spend more time engaged in paid work at home. In
turn, Voydanoff (2005a) has shown that these conditions may generate more
frequent work–family multitasking activities that are associated with higher
levels of work–family conflict. We examine this paradox in greater detail: If
schedule control is associated with more work–family role blurring, the con-
sequences for the work–family interface may challenge the resource view of
schedule control for reduced exposure to work–family conflict. We explore
the possibility that these forms of role blurring suppress or counterbalance
the resource elements of schedule control that theoretically should reduce
work–family conflict. Simply put, the boundary-spanning resource function
of schedule control may be offset if it increases role blurring. In addition, the
resource view predicts that schedule control may buffer the association
between role blurring and work–family conflict. In the sections that follow,
we organize our review of the literature and ideas about the focal associa-
tions with three core hypotheses: (a) the role-blurring hypothesis, (b) the
suppressed-resource hypothesis, and (c) the buffering-resource hypothesis.
As Figure 1 illustrates, these hypotheses articulate the potential intervening
1394 Journal of Family Issues 31(10)
and moderating processes that link schedule control to role blurring and
work–family conflict.
The Role-Blurring Hypothesis
The role-blurring hypothesis predicts that schedule control is associated with
greater role blurring in (a) the amount of time spent doing paid work at home
and (b) the frequency of work–family multitasking. In developing this hypoth-
esis, we draw on the ideas of boundary and border theories—especially the
concepts of segmentation–integration, flexibility, and permeability (Ashforth
et al., 2000; Clark, 2000; Nippert-Eng, 1996). The boundaries between work
and family are viewed as a continuum of segmentation versus integration.
High segmentation means that the boundary between employees’ work and
family roles is impermeable, rendering work and family into separate and
distinct spheres. By contrast, high integration is when “no distinction exists
between what belongs to the ‘home’ or ‘work’ and where they are engaged”
(Nippert-Eng, 1996, p. 567). An individual who performs work at home or
engages in work–family multitasking is embedded in a high-integration
context; this elevates the likelihood that individuals switch between work
and family roles when necessary (Desrochers et al., 2005). The potential
Schedule
Control Work−Family
Multitasking
Work-to-
Family
Conflict
–
++
Working at Home
–
+
+
Boundary-Spanning Resource Boundary-Spanning Demands/Role Blurring
–
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the influence of boundary-spanning resources
and demands on work–family conflict
Note: Double line indicates a suppression effect; dashed line indicates a moderating effect.
Schieman and Young 1395
downside of this role-blurring activity entails more interference or interrup-
tions of role-related responsibilities (Ashforth et al., 2000; Clark, 2000;
Nippert-Eng, 1996).
What factors increase integration and role blurring? The extent of integra-
tion is influenced by flexibility and permeability. According to Ashforth and
colleagues (2000, p. 474), flexibility “is the degree to which the spatial and
temporal boundaries are pliable” (also see Hall & Richter, 1988). By contrast,
permeability involves “the degree to which a role allows one to be physically
located in the role’s domain but psychologically and/or behaviorally involved
in another role” (Ashforth et al., 2000, p. 474). Although greater flexibility
and permeability can ease the transitions between roles, potentially reducing
the risk of interrole conflict, it is also possible that the looseness of the work–
family boundary can contribute to greater role blurring between work and
family domains and generate conflict (Hill, Hawkins, & Miller, 1996). For
example, Voydanoff (2005a, p. 498) finds that individuals who have more
work schedule flexibility are more likely to work at home, bring work home,
and receive work-related contact at home—each is indicative of “operating in
both domains at the same time” and predicts more frequent work–family mul-
titasking activities (p. 492; also see Ahrentzen, 1990; Desrochers et al., 2005).
However, it is important to underscore that we are not suggesting that role
blurring necessarily equals multitasking.
Collectively, the interrelationships described above provide a rationale for
the role-blurring hypothesis: Schedule control should increase time spent
working at home, which in turn likely increases the frequency of work–family
multitasking (Voydanoff, 2005a). Thus, the role-blurring hypothesis also pre-
dicts that working at home should partly explain why people with greater
schedule control report more work–family multitasking. Figure 1 illustrates
these hypothesized links.
The Suppressed-Resource Hypothesis
As we have articulated in the preceding sections, schedule control is a
boundary-spanning resource related to flexibility that purportedly allows
workers to create more permeable boundaries between work and family life.
Although flexibility and permeability tend to ease the transition between
work and home domains, the blurring of boundaries also likely increases
(Ashforth et al., 2005; Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006). We contend that
this role blurring represents a potential downside of schedule control. To the
extent that schedule control is associated with the performance of paid work
at home and the frequency of work–family multitasking, its resource benefits
1396 Journal of Family Issues 31(10)
may become obscure—especially given the well-documented link between
these forms of role blurring and work–family conflict (Voydanoff, 2005a).
Stated more formally in analytical terms as the suppressed-resource hypothe-
sis, the consequences of these interrelationships for work–family conflict may
be evident in the following ways: (a) Overall, schedule control should be asso-
ciated with lower levels of work–family conflict. (b) However, that negative
association should become stronger after we account for the increased work–
family role blurring that is associated with schedule control. Taken together,
these patterns represent the indirect costs of schedule control and the ways
that role blurring seemingly detracts from its potency as a boundary-spanning
resource. In our conceptual framework shown in Figure 1, we represent this
suppressed-resource hypothesis with a negative sign above the double-line
arrow that links schedule control to work–family conflict.
The Buffering-Resource Hypothesis
In addition to the potential indirect effects of schedule control, it is plausible
that the resource benefits of schedule control function in two specific ways:
Schedule control moderates the associations between (a) working at home and
work–family multitasking and (b) work–family multitasking and work–family
conflict. Schedule control may provide a context in which working at home
leads to less frequent work–family multitasking. Similarly, multitasking may
be less strongly associated with work–family conflict among individuals with
greater schedule control. We refer to these two predictions as components of
the buffering-resource hypothesis.
The possession of greater schedule control may enhance what Nippert-Eng
(1996) refers to as boundary work: “the strategies, principles, and practices
[people] use to create, maintain, and modify cultural boundaries” (p. 7).
Boundary work can help workers sustain a clearer sense of the work–family
border—one that is more adaptive to their own personal needs (and that of
others in work and family domains). This may be especially true in highly
integrated work–family circumstances (Desrochers et al., 2005). We apply
these ideas to inform the buffering-resource hypothesis in two ways. First,
although individuals who perform work at home are more likely to engage in
work–family multitasking (Voydanoff, 2005a), the possession of greater
schedule control—a key form of flexibility—may facilitate a more manage-
able and efficacious disengagement from work-related tasks if or when family
demands arise. In turn, the greater flexibility afforded by schedule control
may minimize the need to multitask. That is, the resource benefits of schedule
control foster a greater degree of latitude in individuals’ capacity to switch
Schieman and Young 1397
between roles without having to engage simultaneously in both roles. Apply-
ing Nippert-Eng’s ideas here, we posit that schedule control may enable more
effective, resourceful boundary work—especially among different forms of
work–family role-blurring processes. In sum then, the first component of the
buffering-resource hypothesis predicts that any observed positive association
between working at home and work–family multitasking should be weaker
for workers who have greater schedule control.
The second way we apply Nippert-Eng’s (1996) ideas about boundary
work involves schedule control as a buffer in the association between work–
family multitasking and work–family conflict. Work–family multitasking
represents a highly integrated form of role blurring. Theoretically, it should be
associated with more work–family conflict—and evidence suggests that it is
(Voydanoff, 2005a). However, we hypothesize that work–family multitasking
that occurs in the context of greater schedule control may be more character-
istic of individuals’ efforts to maintain the integrity of borders. We contend
that one way to interpret these ideas is a “controlled permeability” in which
the individual has more control with respect to the temporal and psychological
parameters of work. Under conditions of greater schedule control, a weak or
null association between work–family multitasking and work–family conflict
may reflect a more efficacious, instrumental enactment of multitasking behav-
ior. Some evidence supports this idea by showing that the most optimal
arrangement for lower work–family conflict is high flexibility (i.e., full sched-
ule control) and low permeability (i.e., infrequent multitasking) (Clark, 2001).
In sum, then, the second component of the buffering-resource hypothesis pre-
dicts that any observed positive association between work–family multitasking
and work–family conflict should be weaker for workers who have greater
schedule control. In Figure 1, the two components of the buffering-resource
hypothesis are represented with the dashed lines (and negative signs) from
schedule control to the arrows that link working at home with multitasking
and multitasking with work–family conflict.
Ruling Out Potential Antecedent and/or Confounding Conditions
To more accurately specify the associations among schedule control, role
blurring, and work–family conflict, our analyses seek to rule out potential
antecedent and/or confounding conditions that may influence the hypothe-
sized focal associations. For example, prior evidence indicates potential
variations across core sociodemographic characteristics like gender, race, age,
marital status, and parental status (Blair-Loy, 2003; Grzywacz, Almeida, &
McDonald, 2005; Hochschild, 1997; Jacobs & Gerson, 2004; Voydanoff,
1398 Journal of Family Issues 31(10)
2004, 2005a; Williams, 2000; Winslow, 2005). Likewise, work–family inter-
face research has also underscored the relevance of education; occupation;
income; partner and spouse work status; and job characteristics, such as hours,
authority, and job pressures (Major, Klein, & Ehrhart, 2002; Mesmer-Magnus
& Viswevaran, 2006; Voydanoff, 2005a, 2005b). In our analyses, we statisti-
cally control for all of these statuses and conditions to rule out their potential
influence on our focal hypothesized associations.
Method
Sample
The data derive from telephone interviews with working adults in the United
States; the first wave of interviews of 1,800 adults occurred from February
through August 2005. Eligible participants had to be 18 years of age or older
and participating in the paid labor force. Interviews were conducted in Eng-
lish, so participants had to be sufficiently fluent to complete the interview. At
Wave 1, we successfully interviewed 71% of individuals who were identified
as eligible. Approximately 18 to 20 months after the initial interview, we
were able to successfully reinterview 1,286 of the original participants. In
the present analyses, we examine data from the second interview because the
focal measures of interest were asked only at that time. The age range of the
initial sample is 18 to 94, with a mean of 43.51 (SD = 13.21). The sample
characteristics are similar to those of working adults in other national data
sets, such as the 2002 National Survey of the Changing Workforce (NSCW).
We exclude participants with missing values on focal and control measures,
yielding a sample of 1,100 cases for the present analyses.
Measures
Work–family conflict. An index of four items was used to assess work–
family conflict, including “How often have you not had enough time for your
family or other important people in your life because of your job?” “How
often have you not had the energy to do things with your family or other
important people in your life because of your job?” “How often has work
kept you from doing as good a job at home as you could?” and “How often
has your job kept you from concentrating on important things in your family
and personal life?” Response choices include (1) never, (2) rarely, (3) some-
times, and (4) frequently. Items averaged to create the index; higher scores
represent greater work–family conflict (α = .85). This index is similar to
Schieman and Young 1399
those in other studies (Thompson, Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999; Voydanoff,
2005c, 2007).
Work–family multitasking. Information on work–family multitasking was
gathered by asking respondents “How often do you try to work on job tasks
and home tasks at the same time while you are at home?” Responses include
(1) never, (2) rarely, (3) sometimes, and (4) frequently. Although we acknowl-
edge that multiple-item measures are ideal, it should be noted that the
researchers involved in the 2002 NSCW specifically designed this single
item to assess the frequency of multitasking. Moreover, analyses that have
used this single-item measure have appeared in recently published research
on the work–family interface (Voydanoff, 2005a, 2007).
Working at home. Hours of work at home was calculated as a percentage
of the total number of hours respondents worked in a typical week at their
main job.
Schedule control. One question asks about schedule control: “Who usually
decides when you start and finish work each day at your main job? Is it some-
one else, or can you decide within certain limits, or are you entirely free to
decide when you start and finish work?” Response choices are: no schedule
control (0), limited control (1), and full control (2). In regression analyses,
individuals with no schedule control are the omitted or contrast category.
Again, although multiple-item measures are typically desired, in this instance
a single item adequately captures the conceptualization of schedule control,
as offered by Golden (2001, 2008): Schedule control entails the degree to
which workers have control of the start and/or finish times of work. More-
over, analyses of similar single-item measures have appeared in other recently
published research (e.g., Jacobs & Gerson, 2004) and multiple waves of the
General Social Survey.
Gender. We use dummy codes for men (0) and women (1).
Age. Age is coded in years.
Race. For participants’ race, we contrast White (1) versus all other catego-
ries (0).
Marital status. We use married (includes common-law) as the omitted ref-
erence category and contrast against never married and previously married in
regression analyses.
Spouse or partner work status. One item assesses whether participants have
a spouse or partner who is currently working full-time (1) versus those who
do not have a working spouse (0). In additional analyses (not shown), we
assessed the influence of having a spouse or partner who works part-time.
None of those effects were statistically significant, so we present results with
the full-time versus other contrast.
1400 Journal of Family Issues 31(10)
Number of children in household. We included a measure of the total number
of children under the age of 18 residing in the household. Additional analyses
(not shown) that consider age of children, especially the presence of children
under 6 years of age, yielded results similar to those associated with the
number of children under age 18 in the household.
Education. Education is coded as (1) some high school but did not gradu-
ate, (2) high school graduate or GED, (3) specialized vocational training or
some college, (4) Associate’s Degree (2-year program), (5) college graduate
(BA or BS), and (6) postgraduate—advanced degree (MA, PhD). These codes
are standard across the literature.
Occupation. To assess occupation, we asked participants about the job
title of the “main job at which you worked last week.” This question refers
to their main place of employment, that is, the one in which participants
spend the most time. We also asked about some of the main duties in order
to more accurately code responses. Using the open-ended information pro-
vided, we coded responses into five main categories in accordance with the
Bureau of Labor Statistics codes. These include professional (managerial
and professional specialty occupations), administrative (technical, sales,
and administrative support occupations), service (service occupations),
craft (precision production, craft, and repair occupations), and labor (opera-
tors or laborers). In regression analyses, we use professional as the omitted
reference category.
Work hours. Work hours are coded as the number of hours respondents
worked in a typical week at their main job.
Supervisor. One item asks participants, “Do you supervise or manage
anyone as part of your job?” We coded yes responses as 1 (supervisor) and no
responses as 0.
Personal income. Income is assessed with the question “For the complete
year of 2004, what was your total personal income, including income from
all of your paid jobs, before taxes?”
Job pressure. To assess exposure to job pressure, we ask, “How often do the
demands of your job exceed those doable in an 8-hour workday?” Response
choices are never (0), rarely (1), sometimes (2), and frequently (3).
Table 1 provides summary statistics for all variables used in these analyses.
Zero-order correlations between all variables are presented in Appendix A.
Plan of Analyses
The analyses were conducted using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression
techniques. All analyses adjust for a broad array of demographic, marital and
Schieman and Young 1401
household, and work-related conditions. In the first part of our analyses
shown in Table 2, we examine time spent performing paid work at home and
work–family multitasking as the dependent variables. Model 1 provides evi-
dence about the association between schedule control and working at home.
Model 2 regresses multitasking on schedule control. Model 3 includes work-
ing at home without schedule control. In Model 4, we include schedule
control and working at home simultaneously. These three steps allow for a
clearer representation of the independent effects of schedule control and
working at home on multitasking, as well as an assessment of potential medi-
ating links. We also test for an interaction between schedule control and
working at home in Model 5.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for All Variables in the Study (N = 1,100)a
M SD Range
Focal measures
Work–family conflict 2.33 0.78 1–4
Work at home 0.12 0.22 0–1
Work–family multitasking 2.04 1.02 1–4
No schedule control 0.43 0.50 0–1
Some schedule control 0.38 0.48 0–1
Full schedule control 0.20 0.40 0–1
Control measures
Women 0.59 0.49 0–1
White 0.79 0.41 0–1
Age 45.00 12.30 18–88
Married 0.63 0.48 0–1
Previously married 0.28 0.41 0–1
Never married 0.15 0.36 0–1
Children in the household 0.82 1.09 0–5
Spouse or partner works 0.44 0.50 0–1
Education 3.78 1.52 1–6
Administrative occupations 0.38 0.49 0–1
Service occupations 0.14 0.35 0–1
Craft occupations 0.07 0.25 0–1
Laborer occupations 0.08 0.27 0–1
Professional occupations 0.33 0.47 0–1
Hours 41.67 14.07 2–110
Excessive job demands 2.86 1.00 1–4
Supervisor 0.63 0.48 0–1
Personal income $50,752.73 $85,431.64 $0–$2,500,000
a. Means for categorical variables represent the percentage of respondents in each category.
1402
T
ab
le
2
. R
eg
re
ss
io
n
of
W
or
k
at
H
om
e
an
d
W
or
k–
Fa
m
ily
M
ul
tit
as
ki
ng
o
n
Fo
ca
l M
ea
su
re
s
an
d
C
on
tr
ol
s

W
or
k

at
h
om
e
W
or
k–
fa
m
ily
m
ul
tit
as
ki
ng

M
od
el
1

M
od
el
2

M
od
el
3

M
od
el
4

M
od
el
5
Fo
ca
l a
ss
oc
ia
tio
ns






So
m
e
sc
he
du
le
c
on
tr
ol
a
.0
5*
**
(
.0
2)

.3
0*
**
(
.0
7)

–
.2
3*
**
(
.0
6)

.1
5*
(
.0
7)

Fu
ll
sc
he
du
le
c
on
tr
ol
a
.1
7*
**
(
.0
2)

.7
4*
**
(
.0
8)

–
.4
8*
**
(
.0
8)

.4
1*
**
(
.0
8)

W
or
k
at
h
om
e
–
–
1.
72
**
* (
.1
3)

1.
50
**
* (
.1
3)

2.
17
**
* (
0.
28
)

So
m
e
Sc
he
du
le
C
on
tr
ol
×
W
or
k
at
H
om
e
–
–
–
–
–0
.4
9
(0
.3
5)

Fu
ll
Sc
he
du
le
C
on
tr
ol
×
W
or
k
at
H
om
e
–
–
–
–
–1
.1
4*
**
(
0.
34
)
C
on
tr
ol
m
ea
su
re
s





W
om
en

–.
01
(
.0
1)

.0
6
(.0
6)

.0
2
(.0
6)

.0
7
(.0
6)

.0
6
(.0
6)

W
hi
te

.0
1
(.0
1)

–.
08
(
.0
7)

–.
10
(
.0
7)

–.
10
(
.0
7)

–.
08
(
.0
7)

A
ge

.1
9*
* (
.0
6)

.0
4
(.2
7)

–.
15
(
.2
5)

–.
23
(
.2
6)

–.
24
(
.2
5)


Pr
ev
io
us
ly
m
ar
ri
ed
b
.0
1
(.0
2)

.1
6
(.0
8)

.1
3
(.0
8)

.1
5
(.0
8)

.1
5
(.0
8)

N
ev
er
m
ar
ri
ed
b
.0
3
(.0
3)

.1
2
(.1
0)

.0
9
(.0
9)

.0
8
(.0
9)

.0
9
(.0
9)

C
hi
ld
re
n
in
t
he
h
ou
se
ho
ld

–.
01
(
.0
1)

.0
1
(.0
3)

.0
1
(.0
3)

.0
1
(.0
3)

.0
1
(.0
3)

Sp
ou
se
o
r
pa
rt
ne
r
w
or
ks

–.
01
(
.0
2)

.0
2
(.0
7)

.0
4
(.0
7)

.0
2
(.0
6)

.0
2
(.0
7)

Ed
uc
at
io
n
–.
01
(
.0
1)

.0
6*
(
.0
2)

.0
7*
**
(
.0
2)

.0
7*
**
(
.0
2)

.0
6*
* (
.0
2)

A
dm
in
is
tr
at
iv
ec

–.
07
**
* (
.0
2)

–.
27
**
* (
.0
7)

–.
20
**
(
.0
7)

–.
19
**
(
.0
7)

–.
19
**
(
.0
7)

Se
rv
ic
ec

–.
07
**
(
.0
2)

–.
19
(
.1
0)

–.
14
(
.1
0)

–.
09
(
.0
9)

–.
10
(
.0
9)

C
ra
ft
c
–.
06
* (
.0
3)

–.
15
(
.1
3)

–.
07
(
.1
3)

–.
06
(
.1
2)

–.
06
(
.1
2)

La
bo
re
rs
c
–.
10
**
* (
.0
3)

–.
44
**
* (
.1
2)

–.
36
**
(
.1
2)

–.
30
**
(
.1
2)

–.
30
**
(
.1
2)

H
ou
rs

–.
01
**
(
.0
1)

.0
1*
**
(
.0
2)

.0
1*
**
(
.0
2)

.0
1*
**
(
.0
2)

.0
1*
**
(
.0
2)
(c
on
tin
ue
d)
1403
Ta
bl
e
2.
(
co
nt
in
ue
d)

W
or
k

at
h
om
e
W
or
k–
fa
m
ily
m
ul
tit
as
ki
ng

M
od
el
1

M
od
el
2

M
od
el
3

M
od
el
4

M
od
el
5

Ex
ce
ss
iv
e
jo
b
de
m
an
ds

.0
1
(.0
1)

.1
3*
**
(
.0
3)

.1
3*
**
(
.0
3)

.1
2*
**
(
.0
3)

.1
1*
**
(
.0
3)

Su
pe
rv
is
or

.0
3*
(
.1
3)

.0
5
(.0
6)

–.
04
(
.0
6)

.0
1
(.0
6)

.0
1
(.0
6)

Pe
rs
on
al
in
co
m
e
.2
5*
**
(
.7
8)

.2
0
(.3
5)

–.
09
(
.3
4)

–.
18
(
.3
3)

.1
0
(.3
3)
C
on
st
an
t
–.
15
**

–1
.1
6*
**

–.
73
**

–.
93
**
*
–.
80
**
*
R2

.1
5
.1
9
.2
5
.2
8
.2
9
N
ot
e:
U
ns
ta
nd
ar
di
ze
d
co
ef
fic
ie
nt
s
ar
e
sh
ow
n,
w
ith
s
ta
nd
ar
d
er
ro
rs
in
p
ar
en
th
es
es
.
a.
C
om
pa
re
d
to
n
o
sc
he
du
le
c
on
tr
ol
.
b.
C
om
pa
re
d
to
m
ar
ri
ed
.
c.
C
om
pa
re
d
to
p
ro
fe
ss
io
na
l o
cc
up
at
io
ns
.
* p
<
.0
5.
**
p
<
.0
1.
**
* p
<
.0
01
(
tw
o-
ta
ile
d
te
st
).
1404 Journal of Family Issues 31(10)
Table 3 reports results for regression analyses, with work–family conflict
as the focal dependent variable. Model 1 regresses work–family conflict on
schedule control. Model 2 includes working at home but excludes schedule
control. Model 3 includes schedule control and working at home simultane-
ously. Again, these steps allow for a clear presentation of the unique effects
of schedule control and working at home on work–family conflict. In Model
4, we include work–family multitasking to assess its potential influence on
the effects of schedule control and working at home. In more formal analyti-
cal terms, support for the suppressed-resource hypothesis will be evident if
the size of the coefficients observed in Model 3 increase in size (away from
zero in either direction); explanatory and mediating effects will be evident
if those same coefficients decrease in size. Model 5 reports a test for the
buffering-resource hypothesis with an interaction between schedule control
and multitasking. To illustrate the more complex interaction patterns, we pro-
vide figures for the interactions between schedule control and working at
2.0
3.0
4.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Work at Home
W
o
rk
−
Fa
m
ily
M
ul
tit
as
ki
ng
No Control
Some Control
Full Control
Figure 2. The association between work–family multitasking and working at home
at different levels of schedule control
Note: Predicted values are derived from Model 5 in Table 2. We solved the equation for modal
responses to categorical variables and mean values for continuous variables.
Schieman and Young 1405
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
1 2 3 4
Work−Family Multitasking
W
o
rk
−
to
-F
am
ily
C
on
fli
ct
No Control
Some Control
Full Control
Figure 3. The association between schedule control and work–family conflict
across different levels of work–family multitasking
Note: Predicted values are derived from Model 5 in Table 3. We solved the equation for modal
responses to categorical variables and mean values for continuous variables. Work–family
multitasking is centered in all analyses.
home on work–family multitasking (Figure 2) and schedule control and mul-
titasking on work–family conflict (Figure 3).
Results
Role Blurring: Working at Home and Work–Family Multitasking
Model 1 in Table 2 indicates that individuals with some or full schedule con-
trol report a significantly higher percentage of hours working at home. These
patterns provide preliminary evidence to support the role-blurring hypothe-
sis. All else being equal, those with some schedule control perform, on
average, approximately 7% of their total work hours at home. Individuals
with full schedule control perform roughly 20% of their work hours at home.
Model 1 of Table 2 shows that individuals who report some or full schedule
control report higher levels of work–family multitasking compared to those
1406 Journal of Family Issues 31(10)
Table 3. Regression of Work–Family Conflict on Focal Measures and Controls
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Focal associations
Some schedule -.06 (.05) – -.07 (.05) -.13** (.05) -.15*** (.05)
controla
Full schedule -.15* (.06) – -.20** (.06) -.32*** (.06) -.33*** (.06)
controla
Work at home – .21* (.10) .30** (.10) -.08 (.10) -.07 (.10)
Multitasking – – – .25*** (.02) .33*** (.04)
Some Schedule – – – – -.13** (.05)
Control
× Multitasking
Full Schedule – – – – -.13* (.05)
Control ×
Multitasking
Basic control
measures
Women .14** (.05) .16*** (.05) .14** (.05) .13** (.05) .13** (.05)
White .03 (.05) .03 (.05) .03 (.05) .05 (.05) .06 (.05)
Age -.19 (.20) -.29 (.20) -.24 (.20) -.19 (.19) -.19 (.19)
Previously marriedb -.08 (.07) -.07 (.06) -.08 (.06) -.12 (.06) -.13* (.06)
Never marriedb -.06 (.07) -.07 (.07) -.06 (.07) -.09 (.07) -.09 (.06)
Children in the .05* (.02) .05* (.02) .05* (.02) .05* (.02) .04* (.02)
household
Spouse or partner -.14** (.05) -.14** (.05) -.14* (.05) -.14** (.05) -.14** (.05)
works
Education .01 (.02) .01 (.02) .02 (.02) -.01 (.02) -.01 (.02)
Administrativec -.09 (.06) -.06 (.06) -.06 (.05) -.01 (.05) -.01 (.05)
Servicec .07 (.08) .11 (.08) .09 (.08) .11 (.07) .12 (.07)
Craftc -.07 (.10) -.05 (.11) -.05 (.10) -.04 (.09) -.03 (.09)
Laborersc .05 (.09) .10 (.09) .08 (.09) .15 (.09) .16 (.09)
Hours .01*** (.01) .01*** (.01) .01*** (.02) .01*** (.02) .01*** (.01)
Excessive job .22*** (.02) .22*** (.02) .22*** (.02) .19*** (.04) .18*** (.02)
demands
Supervisor -.10* (.05) -.09* (.05) -.11* (.05) -.11** (.04) -.11* (.04)
Personal income .20 (.27) .08 (.26) .13 (.27) .17 (.25) .19 (.25)
Constant 1.34*** 1.31*** 1.39*** 1.62*** 1.66***
R2 .20 .21 .22 .29 .30
Note: Unstandardized coefficients are shown, with standard errors in parentheses.
a. Compared to no schedule control.
b. Compared to married.
c. Compared to professional occupations.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).
Schieman and Young 1407
with no schedule control. As shown in Model 3, the percentage of work hours
performed at home is associated with more frequent multitasking. In Model 4,
the simultaneous inclusion of schedule control and working at home indicates
that part of the influence of schedule control on work–family multitasking
occurs indirectly via working at home. Collectively, these patterns lend further
support to the role-blurring hypothesis. Independent of each other, schedule
control and working at home increase exposure to work–family multitasking—
and, more importantly, working at home explains part of the positive association
between schedule control and work–family multitasking.
In addition, we observed a significant Schedule Control × Working at Home
interaction effect, indicating that the positive association between working at
home and work–family multitasking varies across levels of schedule control
(F = 6.91, p < .05). As Figure 2 illustrates, the positive association between
working at home and work–family multitasking is weaker among individuals
who report full schedule control. This interaction effect provides support for
the buffering-resource hypothesis.
Finally, although peripheral to our focal associations, several patterns
among the control measures deserve brief mention. First, we observe that age,
professional occupation and income are associated positively with working at
home. Second, the well educated, professionals, and those with longer hours
and more job pressures report more frequent work–family multitasking.
Work–Family Conflict
As shown in Model 1 of Table 3, workers with full schedule control report
less work–family conflict than those with no schedule control. By contrast, at
least initially it appears that workers with some schedule control report simi-
lar work–family conflict as those with no schedule control. In Model 2, we
observe that working at home is associated with more work–family conflict.
The simultaneous inclusion of schedule control and working at home has
little effect on their respective coefficients, suggesting that each has indepen-
dent associations with work–family conflict (see Model 3).
In Model 4, we observe that work–family multitasking is associated with
higher levels of work–family conflict. More importantly, the inclusion of
multitasking reveals important suppressor effects on the association between
schedule control and work–family conflict. Specifically, the coefficient asso-
ciated with some schedule control changes from –.07 (Model 3) to –.13
(Model 4), and the effect becomes statistically significant at the p < .01 level.
Likewise, the negative coefficient associated with full schedule control
1408 Journal of Family Issues 31(10)
changes from –.20 (Model 3) to –.32 (Model 4), with the effect becoming
significant at the p < .001 level. Taken together, these patterns indicate that
the positive association between schedule control and work–family multi-
tasking conceals part of schedule control’s benefits for reducing work–home
conflict. These patterns support the suppressed-resource hypothesis: Were it
not for the greater role blurring among those with schedule control, workers
with greater schedule control would report even lower levels of work–family
conflict.
In Model 4, after we statistically control for work–family multitasking,
we observe that working at home is no longer significantly associated with
work–family conflict. As hypothesized above and illustrated in Figure 1,
working at home is associated with more frequent multitasking activities;
both increase work–family conflict. Taken together, these patterns support
the role-blurring hypothesis: More frequent multitasking among people who
perform work at home explains why working at home is associated with ele-
vated work–family conflict.
We also find more evidence to support the buffering-resource hypothesis.
As shown in Model 5, the association between work–family multitasking and
work–family conflict varies across levels of schedule control; the inclusion
of this interaction significantly improves the model (F = 8.66, p < .05). Thus,
the positive association between work–family multitasking and work–family
conflict is significantly stronger among individuals with no schedule control.
By contrast, that positive association is attenuated for workers with some and
full schedule control. Figure 3 illustrates this interaction effect.1
Discussion
The present study documents complex associations among schedule control,
work–family role blurring (working at home and work–family multitasking),
and work–family conflict. Several observations contribute to knowledge
about the work–family interface: (a) Schedule control is associated with
higher levels of work–family role blurring; (b) the positive association
between schedule control and role blurring suppresses the negative associa-
tion between schedule control and work–family conflict; and (c) schedule
control has a moderating role in two relationships: the association between
working at home and work–family multitasking and the association between
multitasking and work–family conflict. Taken together, these findings reveal
previously undiscovered mediating, suppression, and moderating patterns in
the ways that schedule control influences work–family role blurring and their
subsequent association with work–family conflict.
Schieman and Young 1409
Is there a downside to schedule control for the work–family interface? We
contribute to the work–family interface literature by documenting the ways
schedule control—a boundary-spanning resource—has consequences that
are seemingly inconsistent with this “resource” characterization. Prior theory
and empirical evidence identifies schedule control as a condition that
increases flexibility and the degree of permeability between work and family
boundaries (Voydanoff, 2005c). However, the apparent cost of this increased
flexibility and permeability is work–family role blurring, which manifests as
working at home and work–family multitasking; these observations support
the role-blurring hypothesis. Thus, if there is a downside to schedule control,
it appears to be embedded in the ways that schedule control increases expo-
sure to work–family role blurring. These patterns are important given the
well-established association between work–family role blurring and work–
family conflict described above.
Although these processes represent a potential downside of schedule con-
trol, we also find evidence that supports the resource view of schedule control.
First, the interrelationships that characterize the role-blurring hypothesis have
implications for the overall association between schedule control and work–
family conflict. That is, the resource benefits of schedule control associated
with reduced work–family conflict are masked by the fact that many people
with schedule control tend to more frequently engage in work–family multi-
tasking activities. Moreover, multitasking is associated with more work–family
conflict. By extension, these patterns generate a previously undocumented
suppression effect: Were it not for their more frequent work–family multitask-
ing activities, people with greater schedule control would experience lower
levels of work–family conflict than those without schedule control. These pat-
terns support the suppressed-resource hypothesis.
The resource benefits of schedule control are also observed in the ways
that it moderates several relationships. As predicted by the buffering-resource
hypothesis, two patterns are weakened by the possession of greater schedule
control: (a) the positive association between working at home and work–
family multitasking and (b) the positive association between work–family
multitasking and work–family conflict. Taken together, these modifying
effects reinforce and extend Voydanoff’s (2005a, 2007) account of schedule
control as a boundary-spanning resource. Despite the fact that schedule con-
trol increases exposure to consequential forms of role blurring, it also
functions to buffer the potentially deleterious effects of those forms of role
blurring for other components of the work–family interface.
Collectively, applying Voydanoff’s conceptual language about resources
and demands as well as insights from border and boundary theories, our
1410 Journal of Family Issues 31(10)
observations underscore the importance of paying closer attention to the
interrelationships among boundary-spanning resources and boundary-spanning
demands. Our findings reinforce other scholars’ concerns about role blurring
associated with multitasking and the ways that these can generate interrole
conflict. As we noted above, Nippert-Eng (1996) and others have identified
the potential implications of greater integration of work and family domains.
Working at home and engaging in work–family multitasking typify high inte-
gration contexts; this elevates the likelihood of interruptions of role-related
responsibilities (Ashforth et al., 2000; Clark, 2000; Desrochers et al., 2005).
Our observations unpack the links between boundary-spanning resources
and demands and demonstrate (via the suppressed-resource hypothesis) their
relevance for work–family conflict.
With respect to the practical implications of these findings, the main con-
tribution may be to simply raise consciousness about several concepts and
processes. For example, workers may desire greater schedule control—but
our analyses indicate that this may have unexpected or unintended conse-
quences for work–family integration and role blurring. Knowledge about the
ways that schedule control blurs the boundaries and potentially yields more
multitasking, for example, may help inform workers about ways to utilize
temporal or spatial control over work while minimizing role blurring. Like-
wise, employers might be especially interested in ways that schedule control
and its link to flexibility generate greater work–family multitasking that
occurs at work. Although our data do not contain such measures, it does seem
plausible that schedule control is also relevant for permeability and integra-
tion that fosters more work–family multitasking that occurs when individuals
are functioning within the physical or spatial parameters of the workplace.
Several other limitations of our study also deserve brief mention. The
cross-sectional design constrains our capacity to conclusively describe causal
ordering—thus, other interpretations of the observed patterns are plausible.
Future research might seek to determine the extent that one condition leads
to or fosters the other (i.e., workers use their schedule control to more effec-
tively and productively engage in multitasking activities). In addition,
selection effects are worth considering. It is plausible, for example, that indi-
viduals with higher levels of work–family conflict modify their position in
the paid workforce and/or the nature of the arrangements in the workplace
(Rau & Hyland, 2002). They may select jobs with more flexibility or modify
the ways that they engage in role-blurring activities. These possibilities have
implications for our estimates and interpretations about specific patterns of
association.
Schieman and Young 1411
Finally, although others have used many of these same survey items in
recently published research (e.g., Voydanoff, 2005a), some readers may be
concerned with the use of single items to measure several of the focal condi-
tions. We agree that more items are typically ideal. However, these are also
straightforward and clear indicators of control over the start and finish times
of work, the percentage of time spent performing work at home, and the fre-
quency of work–family multitasking. For example, similar (single-item)
measures of schedule control have appeared in numerous General Social Sur-
veys as well as the 2002 NSCW (e.g., Jacobs & Gerson, 2004; Voydanoff,
2005a). Nonetheless, future research should investigate ways that the mea-
surement of these constructs might be improved with multiple items. In some
ways, our analyses provide a framework in which to push the conceptualiza-
tion of processes like schedule control and work–family multitasking a bit
further. For example, further analysis might focus more attention on the types,
forms, and appraisals of multitasking that are relevant for increasing or reduc-
ing work–family conflict. Likewise, future inquiry could seek to specify the
different aspects of schedule control and their meanings and implications for
flexibility, permeability, and work–family integration. We suspect that having
control over the start and finish times of work may be quite different from
having the flexibility to deal with family demands as they arise; the latter may
minimize role blurring.
Conclusion
Voydanoff (2007) observes that most studies on this topic have found a weak
or no effect of flexible work scheduling on work–home conflict. Our obser-
vations speak directly to this issue by refining and reinforcing the ways that
work–family role blurring contributes to what appears to be a downside to
schedule control. However, we have unpacked the complex mediating, sup-
pression, and moderating effects that link schedule control, role blurring, and
work–family conflict. These previously undocumented patterns may have
been contributing to prior ambiguous findings. Thus, although schedule con-
trol often functions as a boundary-spanning resource that affords more
benefits than costs, it is important to assess schedule control’s influence on
work–family role blurring—especially given the well-established positive
association between role blurring and work–family conflict. In sum then,
this study makes small strides toward illuminating the connections between
boundary-spanning resources and demands and their consequences for the
work–family interface.
1412 Journal of Family Issues 31(10)
Appendix
Table A1. Zero-Order Correlations for Focal Measures
1 2 3 4 5
1 Work–family conflict 1.00
2 Work at home .05 1.00
3 Work–family multitasking .36* .39* 1.00
4 Schedule control –.04 .31* .31* 1.00
*p < .05, one-tailed test.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or
publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/
or authorship of this article: A grant award from the National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control supports this study (R01
OH008141; S.S., principal investigator).
Note
1. Even though they are not part of our focal hypotheses, some readers might wonder
about the possibility of other potential contingencies in our models given their
relevance for the work–family interface. These include gender, marital status, and
parental status. First, with work–family multitasking as the dependent variable,
we found no evidence of gender-contingent effects for either schedule control or
working at home. Thus, schedule control and working at home are associated with
higher levels of multitasking in similar ways among women and men. Likewise,
with work–family conflict as the dependent variable, we found no evidence that
the effects of schedule control, working at home, and multitasking on work–family
conflict differ by gender. Thus, the associations that we document in Tables 2 and
3 do not vary by gender. In addition, none of the following marital and paren-
tal status interactions yielded significant results: Marital Status × Multitasking;
Number of Children in the Household (of any age) × Multitasking, and Spouse or
Partner Employment Status (either full- or part-time) × Multitasking; Moreover,
separate assessments of these potential contingencies by gender reveal similar non-
significant patterns for women and men. In sum, although there may be theoretical
reasons for suspecting that marital, parental, and spouse or partner arrangements
Schieman and Young 1413
modify the focal associations assessed above—in different ways for women and
men—our additional analyses found no evidence to support such claims.
References
Ahrentzen, S. B. (1990). Managing conflict by managing boundaries. Environment
and Behavior, 22, 723-752.
Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., & Fugate, M. E. (2000). All in a day’s work: Bound-
aries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 472-491.
Bakker, A. B., & Geurts, S. A. E. (2004). Toward a dual-process model of work-home
interference. Work and Occupations, 31, 345-366.
Blair-Loy, M. (2003). Competing devotions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Christensen, K. E., & Staines, G. L. (1990). Flextime: A viable solution to work-
family conflict? Journal of Family Issues, 11, 455-476.
Clark, S. C. (2000). Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance.
Human Relations, 53, 747-770.
Clark, S. C. (2001). Work cultures and work/family balance. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 58, 348-365.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. (2001). The job demands-
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512.
Desrochers, S., Hilton, J., & Larwood, L. (2005). Preliminary validation of the work-
family integration-blurring scale. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 442-466.
Golden, L. (2001). Flexible work schedules: Which workers get them? American
Behavioral Scientist, 44, 1157-1178.
Golden, L. (2008). Limited access: Disparities in flexible work schedules and work-at
home. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 29, 86-109.
Grzywacz, G., Almeida, D. M., & McDonald, D. A. (2005). Work-family spillover
and daily reports of work and family stress in the adult labor force. Family Rela-
tions, 51, 28-36.
Hall, D. T., & Richter, J. (1988). Balancing work life and home life: What can organi-
zations do to help? The Academy of Management Executive, 11, 213-223.
Hill, J. E., Hawkins, A. J., & Miller, B. C. (1996). Work and family in the virtual
office: Perceived influences of mobile telework. Family Relations, 34, 293-301.
Hobfoll, S. E., & Shirom, A. (2001). Conservation of resource theory: Applications to
stress and management in the workplace. In R. T. Golombiewski (Ed.), Handbook
of organizational behavior (2nd ed., pp. 57-80). New York: Marcel Dekker.
Hochschild, A. (1997). The time bind. New York: Henry Holt.
Jacobs, J. A., & Gerson, K. (2004). The time divide: Work, family and gender inequal-
ity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
1414 Journal of Family Issues 31(10)
Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implica-
tions for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-308.
Major, V. S., Klein, K. J., & Ehrhart, M. G. (2002). Work time, work interference with
family, and psychological distress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 427-436.
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2006). How family-friendly work envi-
ronments affect work–family conflict: A meta-analytic examination. Journal of
Labor Research, 17, 555-574.
Nippert-Eng, C. (1996). Home and work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Boswell, W. R. (2006). Blurring boundaries: Correlates of
integration and segmentation between work and nonwork. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 68, 432-445.
Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. A. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work arrangements:
The effects on applicant attraction. Personnel Psychology, 55, 111-136.
Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benefits
are not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, orga-
nizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behaviour,
54, 392-415.
Voydanoff, P. (2004). The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family
conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 398-412.
Voydanoff, P. (2005a). Consequences of boundary-spanning demands and resources
for work-to-family conflict and perceived stress. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 10, 491-503.
Voydanoff, P. (2005b). Toward a conceptualization of perceived work-family fit and
balance: A demands and resources approach. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67,
822-836.
Voydanoff, P. (2005c). Work demands and work-to-family and family-to-work con-
flict: Direct and indirect relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 707-726.
Voydanoff, P. (2007). Work, family, and community: Exploring interconnections.
Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do
about it. New York: Oxford University Press.
Winslow, S. (2005). Work-family conflict, gender, and parenthood, 1977-1997. Journal
of Family Issues, 26, 27-55.