Abstract
This agenda-setting article examines emotion and work–family conflict (WFC) through different paradigmatic lenses. To date, WFC and emotion research has been dominated by the functionalist perspective. This perspective has been quite informative; however, examining WFC and emotion through three alternative paradigms, namely, interpretivism, critical management theory, and postmodernism will serve to broaden and deepen our understanding of this important area of organizational and management scholarship. A paradigmatic analysis can offer a more comprehensive understanding of WFC and emotion because it utilizes an array of theoretical and methodological approaches. In addition, we advance the co-mingling of certain paradigms to offer a more comprehensive future research agenda for emotion and WFC scholarship.
For the past 30 years, both scholarly and professional interest has grown significantly on the subject of work–family conflict (WFC; Clark, 2000; Fortney, 2005; Frone, Russell, & Cooper, 1992; Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Guendouzi, 2006; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1979; Kossek, Noe, & DeMarr, 1999; Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; MacDermid, Seery, & Weiss, 2002; Ray & Miller, 1994). WFC refers to the simultaneous tensions from the work and family spheres that are mutually incompatible with one another (Sloan Work and Family Research Network, 2009). Moreover, it means that meeting the demands of one role makes it difficult to meet the demands of the other role (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1979). Given the importance of both work and family spheres to individuals’ lives (Barnett & Hyde, 2001), we believe it is important to acknowledge that WFC may not only produce significant work and family outcomes but can also be a very emotional experience (MacDermid et al., 2002; Morgan & King, 2012; Rodell & Judge, 2009). Floyd, Pauly, and Hesse (2010) found that perceptions and communication outcomes are often affected by the emotions elicited from communicative experiences such as conflict. Moreover, while we cognitively recognize the presence of conflict in our everyday lives, MacDermid et al. (2002) posit that we only feel it some of the time. Thus, the role of emotion in the WFC interface is ambiguous and in need of further investigation by management and organization scholars. Although the broader area of work–family research has benefitted from exploring emotion (see Buzzanell & Burrell, 1997; Jorgenson, 2000; Yanchus, Eby, Lance, & Drollinger, 2010), studies focusing on WFCs more closely are rare.
Why is it important to focus on WFC and emotion? There are important work implications as well as personal implications associated with an individual’s emotional experiences related to WFC (Morgan & King, 2012). Understanding emotion in the context of WFC is particularly meaningful as employees with care responsibilities or dependents often feel as though they may fall short at home, work, or both (MacDermid et al., 2002). Moreover, Judge, Ilies, and Scott (2006) assert that we need to take a “within-individual” approach where issues such as mood, affect, and emotional state are considered (p. 781). WFC has been shown to have an unfavorable relation with a variety of variables associated with employee work life, home life, and general health and well-being (see Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000, for a review). In addition, recent organizational research suggests there is considerable conflict between work and family responsibilities with experiences at work spilling over into the family role and vice versa (Morgan & King, 2012) and can illicit certain emotional responses. Thus, if we ever want to fully explain and understand the whole experience of conflict between work and family, we need to start looking at the total human experience, which includes both the affective and attitudinal consequences related to performance, life/marital satisfaction and overall psychological well-being as some examples. If we have a better understanding of how emotion specifically is tied to WFC and various outcomes, we could gain a more holistic understanding of what makes for better employees and better family members. Therefore, it is critical for scholars and practitioners to investigate the connections between conflict and emotion as it may lead to “unintended behavioral responses” that do not foster sustainability in career and care spheres (Morgan & King, 2012, p. 698).
While there has been a resurgence of the study of emotion in organizational studies (see Guendouzi, 2006; Morgan & King, 2012; Rodell & Judge, 2009), this research has assumed a predominately functionalist approach with an emphasis on antecedents and consequences of WFC (see Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005). Burrell and Morgan (1979) described the functionalist approach as one that is “firmly rooted in the sociology of regulation and approaches its subject matter from an objectivist point of view” (p. 25). While it seems functionalism currently represents the dominant paradigm in WFC and emotion research, there are other paradigmatic approaches that have the potential to enrich our understanding of WFC (Clegg, 2010; Suddaby, 2010). Moreover, several researchers have acknowledged that while the positive contributions made by functionalist approaches are significant, we believe there are other methodologies and lenses better suited to examine various organizational phenomena (Bailey, Ford, & Raelin, 2009; Samnani, 2012). As the study of emotion in organizational life has burgeoned in recent years (Morgan & King, 2012), we feel it is time to expand our ontological, epistemological, and methodological approaches with regard to the understanding of emotion and WFC as the research to date has been very unidimensional and focused largely on a functionalist perspective. To accomplish this, we apply both Burrell and Morgan’s framework and the revisions to this framework proposed by Deetz (1996). We also argue for a “co-mingling” (or blending) of these paradigms to illuminate and expand academic knowledge in the area of WFC. We chose to concentrate on WFC and not work–family research more generally because the larger interface has already benefited from a somewhat more expansive exploration (see Clark, 2000; Jorgenson, 2000; Morgan & King, 2012).
There is much to be gained from investigating organizational phenomena from alternative lenses and co-mingling research methodologies. In fact, there has been extant research that co-mingles paradigms. For example, Martin (2004) developed a meta-theoretical framework for the study of organizational culture through the examination of multiple perspectives and paradigms. In addition, Cunliffe and Eriksen (2011), in her extensive review of organizational research methods, proposed the use of co-mingling multiple paradigms to bolster research claims. Thus, this exercise of co-mingling different paradigmatic perspectives will no doubt point to suggestions for both scholars and practitioners concerning choices in WFC and subsequent emotional responses. We argue a co-mingling of multiple paradigms will yield a more robust and richer base of knowledge concerning emotions and WFC.
The existing research on WFC and emotion has been largely focused on various emotional responses such as guilt or hostility and how they motivate both pro- and antisocial behaviors in the workplace and at home (Morgan & King, 2012; Rodell & Judge, 2009). The majority of the research on WFC and emotion has utilized quantitative methodologies and has focused on an analysis of individual differences in an attempt to predict what kinds of emotional states lead to different organizational and relational outcomes. As we stated previously, most WFC research is informed by the functionalist perspective (Eby et al., 2005; MacDermid et al., 2002). In addition to this functionalist perspective, we will discuss three alternative paradigms, each one challenging the assumptions of the others. For example, the interpretivist paradigm places a strong emphasis on describing and understanding the meanings that individuals (in this case, family members and employees) attach to their experiences in the workplace and at home (Cheney, 2000). The critical paradigm focuses on the role that power and alienation play in organizational settings, with an emphasis on oppression and hegemony (Mumby, 2000). In the case of emotion and WFC, the critical paradigm can direct our attention to more deeply rooted issues and structures that could be influencing employees’ emotional states and how they understand the emotions. Finally, the postmodern paradigm challenges the idea of a single truth and instead, focuses the attention on multiple, fragmented realities, especially with regard to the relationships among discourse, power, and identity (Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004). Therefore, postmodernism might help illuminate issues of emotion and WFC. It is evident that each paradigm subscribes to different assumptions and worldviews and we can benefit from allowing them to mutually influence and co-mingle with one another in our research.
In the next sections, we begin by describing how WFC and emotion has been studied from the dominant functionalist perspective. This is followed by an account of the different research paradigms that should inform research on WFC and emotion as well as ideas for future research agendas coming from each of the varying paradigms. Finally, we conclude with a short discussion arguing the importance of co-mingling the different paradigms to achieve a more complete body of literature.
WFC and Emotion: An Overview
In this section, we outline how WFC and emotion has been examined in the literature. As previously argued, the majority of this research has been informed by the functionalist paradigm. This paradigm assumes rational human action and behavior can be understood through hypothesis testing (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). More specifically, researchers from a functionalist paradigm espouse a post-positivist, objectivist epistemology, which suggests that universal laws can be discovered (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Researchers from this perspective use logic to discover unilateral, causal relationships, and predict patterns of behavior across situations (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991). The functionalist paradigm reflects the primary paradigm for organizational study, which includes research on WFC and emotion. It is important to note again, that currently, there have only been a few studies conducted that investigate emotion and WFC, making it even more important to investigate. The shortage is largely due to the emphasis placed on rationality in the workplace during the first half of the 20th century (MacDermid et al., 2002). Thus, most investigators were consumed with a functionalist approach to the study of organizational life often neglecting emotion completely. To our knowledge, there is only one model which addresses both WFC and emotion (MacDermid et al., 2002). MacDermid and colleagues (2002) developed a model, which centers on emotional responses to WFC and articulates a “road map” for emotional processes in both the work and family domains. The central thesis to their argument is that processes in each domain (work or family) are influenced by factors from the other domain and that emotional states and or conflict generated in one domain can continue to have influence within the other domain, even if the root cause of the affective state is a result of certain events or circumstances relevant only to the first (or initiating) domain. At its core, this model is functionalist with an emphasis on variables, antecedents, and outcomes. However, the authors have prompted scholars to begin thinking about the intersection of emotion and WFC, which a few researchers have begun to explore. In the few empirical studies that have been completed, the focus has been on investigating a number of constructs related to the antecedents and consequences of emotion and WFC. The emotions that have been the primary focus of investigation have been guilt and hostility.
In one of the few published empirical studies of guilt related to work and family, Livingston and Judge (2008) demonstrated that family-to-work conflict predicted guilt, and that the relationship between both family-to-work conflict and work-to-family conflict and guilt was moderated by gender-role orientation (Morgan & King, 2012). Guilt is usually considered an inward emotion in that it is directed toward oneself—in other words, a self-conscious emotion (Judge et al., 2006). The results of Livingston and Judge’s study imply that the role of emotion in the work–family interface likely depends on episodes wherein gender comes into play (MacDermid et al., 2002). Recently, but still from an objectivist, functionalist approach, Morgan and King (2012) took a different approach to the study of guilt. Specifically, they found that work–family guilt motivates both pro- and antisocial behaviors in the workplace. Results demonstrated that when individuals experienced family-to-work guilt, they responded with helping behaviors directed toward individuals (Morgan & King, 2012). When individuals experienced work-to-family guilt, they responded by shirking work responsibilities (Morgan & King, 2012). Thus, work–family guilt may be a critical and underexplored determinant of extra-role behaviors and an important emotion to manage in order to sustain career and care roles. What remains unclear is whether the direction and type of WFC matters to the experience of guilt (van Engen, Vinkenburg, & Dikkers, 2012).
Like guilt, it is productive to also consider hostility as a key emotion (i.e., hostile affect; Zwaal, Prkachin, Husted, & Stones, 2003) in the examination of WFC. Following Barefoot (1992) and Lazarus and Cohen-Charash (2001), hostility is defined as reflecting the experience of anger. Hostility is typically thought of as an outward-focused emotion in that it is directed toward another (e.g., Brissette & Cohen, 2002). Because hostility has been shown to reflect the experience of anger (Lazarus & Cohen-Charash, 2001), this has been linked to obstructed efforts in goal-pursuit (Frijda, 1988). The experience of hostility is likely to be prevalent when WFC is perceived as an obstacle in achieving personal goals (Judge et al., 2006). For example, parents who strive to be available for their children may feel hostile if work prevents interacting with their children by leaving an insufficient amount of time and energy at home. Conversely, the very experience of WFC could be perceived as a goal failure if an individual desires a balanced state of work and family. The effect of WFC on the emotion of hostility has been examined along with guilt to examine job satisfaction and marital satisfaction (Judge, Ilies, & Scott, 2006). Judge et al. (2006) found among individuals, family-to-work conflict experienced at work and work-to-family conflict experienced at home were positively associated with guilt and hostility at work and at home, respectively. In addition, state hostility mediated the negative effect of work-to-family conflict at home on daily marital satisfaction. Finally, cross-level interaction effects were observed such that WFC more strongly affected the emotions of those scoring high on trait guilt and trait hostility (Judge et al., 2006). Thus, one of the key findings with this study is that WFC has been empirically shown to elicit specific emotional reactions such as hostility.
While functionalism does include a wide range of methods to investigate WFC and emotion, the majority of the work has been quantitative and deductive. By examining the work from this lens, we have come to understand WFC and emotion through causal relationships and regularities. We have uncovered that one variable (e.g., emotion) causes a change in another variable (e.g., job or marital satisfaction). This has helped us to understand whether certain emotions like shame or hostility may provoke certain pro- or antisocial behaviors in the workplace and at home. Similarly, this type of lens can also allow researchers to determine whether certain personality traits or characteristics may make individuals more likely to experience an emotional response as a result of WFC. While focusing on causal relationships can be important, exclusively utilizing this deterministic lens is problematic because there may be other issues causing the change in behavior or attitude such as power structures, grand narratives, or implicit status differences. A functionalist approach would not be able to adequately test these other structures nor how participants attach meaning to their experiences, which is why other perspectives could prove useful to the examination of WFC and emotion.
Exploring Emotion and WFC Through the Paradigms
In this section, we move beyond a functionalist examination of WFC and emotion by addressing the three additional paradigms posited by Burrell and Morgan (1979) and Deetz (1996). For each of the paradigms, we provide a brief description of the perspective and research that has been conducted. In the later part of the article, we will provide research questions and agendas that should be the focus of future research. As previously stated, the three paradigms that will be addressed include interpretivism, critical management, and postmodernism. Like Samnani (2012), we recognize that there are other paradigm models (e.g., Crotty, 1998; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). As a result, we use Burrell and Morgan’s typology because of its “comparatively wide acceptance in, and applicability to, organizational analysis” (Samnani, 2012, p. 28). In addition, we would like to note that we conceptualize these paradigms in broader terms, really meant more as a starting point and as a lens in differentiating the research that dominates the domain of emotion and WFC. We also believe by investigating WFC and emotion in this way, it may lead us to a more robust understanding of this complex relationship and provide valuable insight for management scholars, practitioners, and employees in making the workplace more amenable for those with family and care interests.
Interpretivism
Unlike the functionalist paradigm, the interpretive paradigm is distinguished by its subjectivist orientation with regard to the study of organizational life (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). With regard to epistemology, the interpretivist believes that social reality is intersubjectively created through communication between social actors and these constructions are many and varied throughout society (Putnam, 1983). Interpretive research is fundamentally concerned with meaning and seeks to understand individuals’ definition and experiences with a situation. Researchers assume that knowledge and meaning are acts of interpretation, and hence, no single unified truth is advanced and generalization is not a goal (Guba, 1990). Interpretivists adhere to a subjectivist epistemology that argues general knowledge and its accumulation are not possible because no causal relationships or general laws exist about the social world. Instead, interpretivists, with the goal of understanding, seek to uncover local knowledge and this is gained through the researchers interaction and integration with the researched and work toward thick description of experiences (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011).
An interpretive approach to WFC and emotion investigates the connection between both negative and positive emotions with the experiences of work and family. Often, emotional labor is an issue in these situations. Emotional labor is defined as “the act of displaying the appropriate emotion” (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, p. 90). Arlie Hochschild (1983) details two ways in which emotional labor is performed. “Surface acting” is when individuals display (or do not display) various emotions in work interactions. Surface acting is truly acting, in the sense that workers are managing their display of emotions. “Deep acting” is when those emotions are actually evoked or attempted during interactions. Workers perform deep acting by either trying to evoke the appropriate emotion by thinking of various images or scenarios that will evoke those feelings (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999). We argue emotional labor is important to the study of WFC and emotion given that many workers routinely engage in emotional labor (Scott & Meyers, 2005; Tracy & Tracy, 1998) while on the job. Thus, surface or deep acting could affect their home lives as well if processes of emotional management are used in the family setting. In a previous project, we found (Bochantin, 2015) public safety employees (i.e., police officers and fire fighters) work hard to manufacture emotion for the public but also for their families. They do this because there is a limit as to what they can talk about with their families regarding their job. As a result, public safety employees engage in emotional labor with their families when asked about work. Could this also be the experience for other professions? If so, what types of “acting” are employees using to deal with WFCs and why are these used? These are important questions an interpretive approach to WFC and emotion could help us uncover.
In thinking about the role that emotional labor might play with regard to WFC and emotion from an interpretive perspective, we believe one of the most important questions that still needs to be explored is, what are the range of emotions actually experienced by individuals in WFCs and how do they attempt to manage their emotional experiences? The functionalist paradigm has pointed to several negative emotions experienced in this situation including guilt and hostility; however, it is unclear whether these are the only emotions pertinent in WFC situations. Past research on emotional labor is a great example from the interpretive paradigm, but we are still in need of additional research using interpretive constructs (Hochschild, 1983). The goals of the interpretive paradigm often compliment the critical approaches.
Critical Management Theory
According to Samnani (2012), critical management theory differs from interpretivism and functionalism with its focus on challenging the status quo and emancipating marginalized groups. Similar to Deetz (1996) and Samnani (2012), we collapsed the radical humanism and radical structuralism paradigms from Burrell and Morgan’s typology into one category called “critical management theory.” Operating under this paradigm, critical scholarship views the “emergent historical subject as one shaped by power of ideology and hegemony” (Miller, 2005, p. 73). In other words, individuals are compelled into a certain way of thinking and acting. Critical scholarship provides interpretations and reflections that attempt to get readers to alter their narrow, ideologically based views of social phenomena and experiences, to dereify social structures that were previously seen as absolute, and to envision and enact social change to restore balance and equity in a capitalist society (Giddens, 1976). Indeed, Giddens’ (1984) dialectic of control foregrounds the interaction and tensions between individuals/agency and structures/determination. As Trethewey, Tracy, and Alberts (2006) assert, “such a move invites us to approach work–life (family) in a more nuanced ‘both/and’ rather than ‘either/or’ way” (p. 3). Included in critical management scholarship is an examination of power, ideology, hegemony, and emancipation.
A primary component of critical management theory is power, specifically power within institutions such as workplaces. None of the existing research on WFC and emotion places an importance on potential power imbalances that may be operating both in the workplace and at home. As a result of the systemic and structural power imbalance between mutually dependent individuals (i.e., superior-subordinate, parent–child, spouse–spouse), it is likely that certain emotional responses get reified as the “appropriate” or “expected” emotional display dependent on the position one occupies in the power relationship. Antonio Gramsci’s (1971) notion of power would suggest that emotion and WFC stems from a hegemonic ideology or the idea that marginalized individuals have a tendency to accept and even perpetuate their own subordination by adopting the belief system advanced by those with power. Hence, when faced with a work-to-family conflict or family-to-work conflict, a child, subordinate, or passive spouse may more readily display emotions such as deference, shame, guilt, or even contentment because throughout history, our workplaces have been guided by logic and rationality which necessitates certain emotional displays (MacDermid et al., 2002). Operating under the assumption of the critical paradigm, these enacted performances of expected emotional states in response to a conflict between work and family are a form of emotional labor. Emotional labor, which was introduced earlier, is a form of emotion regulation that creates preferred affect displays that may at times be contrary to how an individual might really be feeling with regard to the tension between their work and family lives (Hochschild, 1983). This can lead to emotional dissonance or burnout when the displayed emotion is not truly felt (Maslach & Jackson, 1986).
Aside from the more constraining structures such as power, ideology, and hegemony, emancipation also plays a significant role in critical scholarship. From a critical management approach, knowledge can be a process of self-reflection through which historical constraints can be revealed (Miller, 2005). As Mumby (2000) states, this interest reflects “the human proclivity for self-reflection leading to autonomy and empowerment” (p. 71). In other words, individuals have the ability to free themselves from marginalization and can restore power imbalances. But, they first have to recognize that power imbalances exist and be willing to change the situation. With regard to WFC and emotion management, a critical perspective challenges the emotion management confines employees and family members have been operating under and uncover the reasons why they have been experiencing various emotions. For example, if guilt were an emotional response that is experienced by employees with regard to time they spend away from family activities, critical researchers would question why they feel guilty and attempt to illuminate the cause of these feelings increasing awareness, which can have a liberating effect. Is it possible that the organization is putting too much stress on employees to work harder and longer hours resulting in extra time away from family? If so, a critical theorist would attempt to uncover ways for employees to resist the rigid norms and constraints imposed by the organization so they may free themselves from negative emotional states, and subsequently WFC. This could lead to emancipation. Critical scholars would also look to larger cultural norms and narratives as root causes for feelings such as guilt associated with work and family. In addition, critical scholars may even contest use of the word, conflict, and possibly assert that experiencing a conflict is, in and of itself, an emotional response.
Based on the proceeding discussion, critical researchers, very similar to interpretive researchers, seek to understand organizational experiences directly through the vantage points of the individuals involved (i.e., employees, families, supervisors, etc.). As a result, they use a variety of methods to uncover these experiences such as interviews, focus groups, narratives and ethnographic fieldwork (Samnani, 2012). While we know of no studies examining emotion responses directly related to WFC from a critical perspective, Kirby and Krone’s (2002) essay argued for a structurational approach to the study of work–life (family). Moreover, their article invited scholars to attend simultaneously to the individual agency of organizational members and the organizational rules and resources that structure their experience (Trethewey et al., 2006). These “rules” and “resources” could easily include the application of emotional responses both in and out of the workplace when one feels tension between their work and family. What “rules” are being drawn upon when one experiences emotional discomfort such as guilt or hostility when faced with tension between work and family? Are some emotions more acceptable to experience and express than others? Is the same emotion experienced differently dependent on the conflict arising from work or from family? Who imposed these control mechanisms? The organization? The family members? The employee? Society? Operating under the assumptions of the critical management theory, control systems are thus dispersed among a variety of sources including obtrusive supervisory organizational programs, peers, family, and self-control mechanisms (Tracy, 2000) and can help us get a sense of why certain structures are in place.
While these studies have been extremely useful in shedding light on the subject of organizational life and emotion from a critical perspective, there still remains a gap on critically investigating WFC and its direct relationship to emotion. For example, going back to the idea of “rules” and “resources” described by Giddens (1976, 1984), what makes it okay to experience some emotions in the workplace (i.e., happiness, stoicism) when faced with work-to-family conflict but not others (i.e., anger, sadness)? What rules govern emotional displays in both work and family situations? For example, if an employee were asked by their supervisor to work late which in turn caused a conflict with their family schedule, why are employees discouraged from publically expressing emotions like anger or frustration when such an unexpected disruption occurs? When is it okay to break these rules and what resources must employees have to break them and still maintain respect and a positive reputation? Thinking about it from a family-to-work perspective, what societal influences have mandated that we experience certain emotions at home? Role conflict informs us that when we find ourselves pulled in various directions (i.e., work and family) and we attempt to respond to the many interests that we have (Katz & Kahn, 1978). From the role perspective, how do employees make sense of their experiences with emotional dissonance and WFCs (i.e., when asked to stay late at work and are happy about it)?
Another important question from a critical perspective would be as follows: What larger organizational or societal structures influence how we understand appropriate emotions and emotional displays related to work-to-family or family-to-work conflict? How can these be challenged? We know there are different expectations for appropriate emotional displays at work versus personal domains (Hochschild, 1983). At work, especially if in a position of power, an employee may be expected to express assertiveness, confidence, and excitability but then at home, this same individual is expected to turn off those “work” emotions and turn on the “home” emotions such as compassion, attentiveness, and relaxation.
Postmodernism
Stemming from critical scholarship, postmodernism refers to the idea of multiple “truths” rather than a stable, objective truth waiting to be discovered (Cooper & Burrell, 1988). Derived from the writings of Derrida, Foucault, and Lyotard, postmodern organizational scholars investigate the relationships among discourse, power, and identity (Ashcraft & Mumby, 2004). In addition, they question the distinction between researcher and subject/object of knowledge and the mainstream conception of organizations as stable structures. Hence, the key components of postmodernism are power, control, and discipline, which will be discussed in the proceeding paragraphs as well as ideas for future research in WFC and emotion.
One major component of postmodernism is how control is used in organizational life. Theories of control address the relationship between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions. Foucauldian theory suggests that individuals are constantly supervised through power and, as a result, subject themselves to self-surveillance (Deetz, 1998). Aside from Foucauldian theories, researchers have also investigated the use of language and how discourse can represent a form of control (Derrida, 1981).
One area that has investigated emotion and organizational life from the postmodern perspective is the work done on bounded emotionality and rationality by Dennis Mumby and Linda Putnam. Utilizing a postmodern framework, they introduced the concept of bounded emotionality as an alternative organizational discourse to the already established bounded rationality to demonstrate the instability of meanings and claim the importance of emotions in organizational decision-making (Mumby & Putnam, 1992). According to their research, bounded rationality and emotional labor isolate the emotional or physical self from the process of organizing. However, they argue that emotions are voluntarily bounded in organizations for the protection of interpersonal relationships and for the encouragement of mutual understanding instead of surfacing as a commodity (Mumby & Putnam, 1992). Thus, bounded emotionality is not intended to function as the exact opposite of bounded rationality or emotional labor but was introduced to establish a new way of perceiving emotional expression within organizations and changing organizational discourse (Hartel, Zerbe, & Ahkanasy, 2005). Based on their research and a postmodernist reading of emotion in the workplace, it would seem the expression and experience of emotion is a vitally important component to organizational life. Adopting this understanding of emotion in the workplace may allow researchers to further probe the emotional implications connected to WFC. Similar to the critical and interpretivist approaches, postmodernism uses predominately qualitative methods to investigate phenomena. Because there is a heavy reliance on discourse and language from this perspective, postmodernists rely on interviews, focus groups, and textual/discourse analysis. This provides another way to examine emotion and WFC.
In addition, the postmodern lens allows researchers to contest the language and dominant terminology that gets used to describe work and family interests and how emotion should be displayed. Perhaps instead of viewing the relationship between work and family as representing competing interests (i.e., conflict), researchers can begin to complicate and contest this relationship between work and family. Rather than trying to create policies and cultures that resolve the tension between work and family, postmodern researchers would consider how to create policies and cultures that legitimize and encourage an ambiguous and less tension-filled relationship between work/technical interests and family/practical interests (Wieland, 2011).
The endless pursuit of work–family “balance” both in popular and scholarly conversations about work and life suggests that the solution should be clear-cut and attainable by individuals (Golden, Kirby, & Jorgenson, 2006). From a postmodern perspective, terms such as balance would be deeply contested and deconstructed in favor of a new way of understanding this experience. Deconstructionism, both a method and a theory, was conceptualized by Jacques Derrida and is meant as a way to challenge any ultimate or secure meaning in a text by “deconstructing” the ideological biases and traditional assumptions that infect all histories, as well as philosophical and religious “truths” (Derrida, 1981). Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth. In other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all. To be effective, deconstruction needs to create new terms, not synthesize the concepts in opposition, but to mark their difference and eternal interplay (Derrida, 1981).
That being said, perhaps balance is not the most appropriate term to use when considering the emotional experience of work and family. In fact, Wieland (2011) suggests that instead of the term balance, we need a multifaceted and ambiguous term like harmony to understand the relationship. From a postmodern perspective, an even better term like melody could also be utilized as it really illustrates what it means to be engaged in a healthy-but-necessary, tension-filled relationship (i.e., the “music” and the “lyrics” so to speak; Bochantin, 2015). From this perspective, we might regard the idea of WFC differently, and instead, reframe and deconstruct the term conflict as a positive sign that one is “well rounded” rather than assume its implied negative connotation (Wieland, 2011, p. 180). Perhaps this is where we may shift our attention to positively charged emotions such as contentment or joy that individuals may experience in relation to navigating the different spheres of their lives. Might viewing the relationship this way lead us to pay attention to the discourses that we draw upon when we construct work versus family as a problem in the first place and the subsequent emotions that follow?
Exploring Emotion and WFC Through a “Co-Mingling” of the Paradigms
While ideas for future research from each separate paradigm are clear from the discussion above, in this next section, we offer ways for the paradigms previously addressed to inform and complement one another to further advance ideas for research. Although Burrell and Morgan (1979) strongly assert that their paradigms are “incommensurable” and are unable to be used in tandem with one another, we challenge this notion and firmly believe that a multiparadigm approach offers several insights for the research on WFC and emotion while illustrating for scholars how a single phenomenon can be understood by combining very different approaches, each leading to valuable theoretical and pragmatic avenues. Several scholars since Burrell and Morgan have advanced the notion that the incommensurability thesis has never truly been validated and had only served to make the intellectual world safe for critical and postmodern scholars in an era dominated by functionalism (Deetz, 1996). However, functionalism no longer dominates the research landscape (Corman, 2000) and in fact, Corman and Poole (2000) articulate the need for “common ground” among the paradigmatic approaches through a collection of essays written by established scholars in organizational studies (p. 4). The common theme throughout the essays is that by taking a meta-theoretical and multiparadigmatic approach to research, we can escape “imprisonment in our own rhetoric” and worldview (Corman, 2000, p. 12). That being said, we argue many of the paradigms discussed in this article have the potential to influence and play off of one another to advance more robust research on WFC and emotion. We recognize that there are likely many possibilities for the co-mingling of paradigms, but in the discussion below, we offer two ways the various paradigms could co-mingle. We believe the two combinations selected could best inform research on WFC and emotion. In addition, and to represent other possible combinations across the paradigms, we offer a visual framework that links key constructs we will describe in the following section with all four paradigms. We advance research questions for each of the co-minglings. We present this content in Table 1.
Framework for Future Research on Emotion and Work/Family Conflict.
Note. Functionalist = Seeks external causal variables. Interpretivist: Seeks descriptive characteristics through an understanding of individuals’ definition and experiences with a situation. Critical management: Focuses on challenging the status quo and emancipating marginalized groups. Postmodernism: Refers to the idea of multiple “truths” rather than a stable, objective truth waiting to be discovered. WFC = work–family conflict.
Co-Mingling the Functionalist and Interpretivist Perspectives
One way to advance WFC and emotion research is to co-mingle functionalism and interpretivism. Ideas for theory, method, and future research are advanced in the following sections.
Theory
First, from a theoretical perspective, the emotions of hostility and shame cause both job and marital dissatisfaction (Judge et al., 2006). What we have yet to uncover, however, is whether there may be other issues causing the change in behavior or attitude such as power structures, issues with time and resources, emotion management, status differences, and so on. The merging of functionalist notions with interpretive underpinnings seems like a theoretically fruitful way to gain better understanding of these organizational and relational phenomena. An interpretive approach with its basis in subjective ontological commitments seeks to be person-centered while a functionalist approach tends to adopt an objectivist ontology with the focus on variables and “facts” . However, we believe these two approaches have more in common than meets the eye. In fact, there seems to often be confusion over variable-centered (functionalist) and person-centered (interpretive) research (Lazarus, 2001). The former seeks external causal variables, the latter, descriptive characteristics. From the standpoint of sources of data, the mistake is often made of thinking of variable-centered as objective and person-centered as subjective. Variable-centered research can be either (or both) objective or subjective, and the same can be said for person-centered research (Lazarus, 2001).
Those wanting to investigate WFC and emotion might consider how emotion might relate to WFC and can effectively combine variable- and person-centered research as well as objective and subjective data sources without confounding the data from the two types of analysis (see Lazarus, 2001). For example, the variables of hostility and shame have been found to cause a change in other variables such as job or marital satisfaction (Judge et al., 2006). This has helped us to understand whether certain emotions like shame or hostility may provoke certain pro or antisocial behaviors in the workplace and at home. From an emotion management perspective, we need to examine how people manage tensions associated with the emotions resulting from WFC? And, if these actions are predictors of various pro- and antisocial work and family behavior (see “managing emotions” in Table 1). But what is less known is whether there may be other issues causing the change in behavior or attitude such as power structures, resource management, grand narratives, or implicit status differences. A functionalist approach would not be able to adequately uncover these other structures. However, an interpretivist lens would allow for a deeper understanding of emotion and WFC through the narrative exploration of variables while also simultaneously utilizing a functionalist approach.
Method and future research
From a methodological perspective, utilizing a narrative lens (informed by the interpretive perspective) to the study of emotions has already been advanced by functionalist researchers. In fact, Lazarus (2001) previously made a case for the advantages of a narrative approach to the study of emotions. While his research argued for using narrative to study emotion, it did not address its connection to WFC. In thinking about the integration of these two concepts for future research, each emotional response that has been identified in the literature, which again, comes from a functionalist perspective, must be viewed as part of a dramatic plot or story related to the experience of WFC. What this strategy requires at a minimum is a descriptive portrait of the prototypical story for each discrete emotion that gets experienced as a result of a conflict between work and family. This story or narrative would contain antecedent and outcome variables, which could integrate the descriptive aspects of this approach with traditional cause-and-effect analysis. Perhaps an interesting way for scholars to further investigate emotion and WFC would be through the application of Kenneth Burke’s Dramatistic Pentad. Literary critic Kenneth Burke argues that through five key elements—act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose—an evaluation of the relative emphasis that is given to each of the five elements by any human drama (in this case, emotional responses to WFC) enables a determination of the motive for the behavior of the individuals or characters involved (Burke, 1969). Thus, from a resource management perspective, a character’s stress on one resource over the others suggests their worldview (see “resource management” in Table 1). This narrative tool might be useful for uncovering the more descriptive, subjective aspects of traditional emotion and WFC research.
Given that much of the existing research on WFC has its roots in functionalism, future research could benefit from a deeper understanding of this phenomenon through an interpretive lens. As previously mentioned, the functionalist paradigm has pointed to several negative emotions experienced including guilt and hostility; however, it is unclear whether these are the only emotions pertinent in WFC situations. Currently, we lack a more holistic range of emotions associated with WFC. We believe that emphasis needs to be placed on in-depth understanding and individual (subjective) experiences of various emotions involving the conflict between work and family. Moreover, future research could potentially integrate methodological constructs from both functionalism and interpretivism to better investigate the range of emotions by conducting in-depth interviews. Because an exploration from the interpretivist paradigm would not impose a set of a priori emotions to be explored, new and possibly unexpected emotions might be uncovered through these interviews. Along with doing a traditional grounded theory approach to data analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1990), the data from these interviews could also be “objectively” content-analyzed using computer systems aimed at determining the central tendencies or averages related to the phenomenon under investigation. As Cheney (2000) asserts with his “neighbor” metaphor regarding the integration of different research paradigms, there is nothing wrong with borrowing a “tool from the other side of the fence,” especially when it allows us to “fix” a broken theory or build a new one (p. 18). The co-mingling of the functionalist and interpretive paradigm provides a fruitful way to examine emotion and WFC and gets us thinking about links between other issues causing changes in an individual’s behavior or attitude such as power structures, resource management, grand narratives, or implicit status differences. This coupling of changes and issues has not yet been considered in the research on WFC and emotion and would provide an interesting lens. Next, we suggest how we can take the co-mingling of the paradigms even further in an effort to expand and deepen our understanding and ideas of WFC and emotion.
Co-Mingling the Interpretivist, Critical, and Postmodern Perspectives
Unlike the functionalist approach, interpretive, critical and postmodernist researchers are strongly opposed to the notion of an objective, single truth (Dent, 1995), making this a potentially fruitful combination to achieve paradigmatic consensus. In the following sections, we advance ideas for theory, method, and future research.
Theory
As previously indicated, the focus of critical management theory and postmodernism is on emancipation and the questioning of dominant discourse and language, while interpretive research places a focus on describing and understanding problems or the ways in which individuals make sense out of their situation (Barnett, 2000). While these foci seem disparate, they actually complement one another nicely. Critical management theory researchers as well as postmodernists, similar to interpretivist researchers, seek to understand organizational phenomena through the frame of reference of the individuals directly involved in the phenomenon under investigation. As a result, they draw upon a range of qualitative data collection methodologies such as interviews, narratives, and ethnography to delve into the experiences of these actors.
In thinking about emotions as it relates to WFC, the co-mingling of interpretive, critical, and postmodern paradigms could be useful for future research from a theoretical perspective. Earlier, we offered a few examples of different emotions that have been observed in research on WFC (i.e., guilt and hostility). As indicated, these emotions are typically thought of as being negative. However, these emotions can potentially be experienced in different ways, which suggests that we need to do more extensive research to better understand these experiences. The co-mingling or “blending” of both the tools and theoretical assumptions from interpretive, critical management theory, and postmodernism may better allow us to fully explore how emotion and WFC is subjectively experienced. As a theoretical example, much of the work on emotional labor has been rooted in an interpretivist assumption where we examine how emotional labor is experienced in situations. Taking that knowledge, and applying it to not only examining how different emotions are experienced but also what factors give rise to our need for emotion management strategies like emotional labor, could prove interesting (see “emotional labor” and “emotional intelligence” in Table 1). For example, when one is experiencing hostility or guilt as a result of a conflict between work and family, future research questions might center around, first, what efforts do they make to manage the display of said emotions and, second, what factors caused the emotional responses in the first place? Was it scarcity of time? Misallocation of resources? Exploitative practices of our employers? Lack of understanding from our family members (see “time” and “resource management” in Table 1)? By combining questions and theoretical assumptions from the interpretive, critical, and postmodern paradigms, we start to get a different picture of the experience of WFC and emotion.
Method and future research
While it is important to consider the co-mingling of paradigms from a theoretical perspective, it is also important to think about how to answer these questions methodologically. The co-mingling of these three perspectives could use methods such as thematic analysis, qualitative content analysis, and even discourse analysis to understand the phenomenon. Discourse analysis represents an important analytical tool that multiple paradigms may draw upon (Phillips, Sewell, & Jaynes, 2008) but particularly interpretive, critical management theory and postmodernism (Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2004; Samnani, 2012). Discourse analysis allows researchers to focus both on texts and context from varying levels of analysis (i.e., micro examinations of the text/talk using such analytical tools as conversation analysis and macro examinations of larger societal discourses reflected in the same texts; Alvesson & Karreman, 2000; Putnam & Fairhurst, 2001).
If we use tools from interpretive research such as narrative or discourse analysis, these could be utilized to get at the experiences of individual’s emotional responses to WFC, moving beyond pure survey research. For instance, interpretive research and data collection would allow us to tend to the stories of WFCs and the emotions associated with them through in-depth interviewing. Then, a qualitative discourse or narrative analysis of these stories could bring both breadth and depth with regard to this area of inquiry. As mentioned earlier, an interpretive exploration could help to uncover possible theories and models for different life cycles of emotion and WFC. Understanding WFC from an interpretive and in-depth perspective could also help illuminate how different emotions are experienced and what factors might be important to successful resolution. Conversation analysis (openings, closings, turn taking, use of topic shifts) of actual conflicts could provide significant insight into the power dynamics at play in both work and home relationships and the emotions that are present in and generated by these conflicts. This kind of analysis might also be revealing of why certain emotions are continually reported as being associated with WFCs (i.e., guilt, hostility, etc.; Judge et al., 2006; Morgan & King, 2012) and how, through communication, a conflict can be made more productive.
During data analysis, the critical approach can be used to critique and question the social structures that enable and constrain individuals in the first place. Important questions from a critical perspective on this subject would be, what larger organizational or societal structures influence how we understand appropriate emotions and emotional displays related to work-to-family or family-to-work conflict? How can these be challenged (see “emotional labor” and “managing emotions” in Table 1)? We know there are different expectations for appropriate emotional displays at work versus personal domains (Hochschild, 1983). At work, especially if in a position of power, an employee may be expected to express emotions reflective of assertiveness, confidence, and excitability, but then at home, this same individual is expected to turn off those “work” emotions and turn on the “home” emotions such as compassion, calmness, and attentiveness. This role conflict creates a double-edged sword for both women and men who seek to be both the best employee and the best parent and brings to the surface the inherent tension and contradictory nature of the separation of boundaries (Bochantin & Cowan, 2010) and the experience of emotion. Future research should challenge this framework and uncover the larger, structural issues at play perhaps by looking more closely at the ideal worker/ideal parent discourse (Williams, 2000).
Finally, a postmodern approach to the data, with its emphasis on language, could allow for a possible deconstruction of emotions by considering the possibility that positively charged emotions often contain negative features and so-called negatively charged emotions often have positive features (Lazarus, 2001). Indeed, Lazarus (2001) found that many experiences of happiness and hostility, for instance, especially in our personal relationships, are quite valenced and may have both positive and negatively toned features on different occasions. For example, it might be that when an individual feels happy because of a success at work, their family members could potentially be experiencing sadness as a result of their loved one spending so much time away from home to achieve said happiness at work. When this happiness is unrequited or not also expressed by family members, the person who feels happy because of work may also suffer great distress because their family does not share in this happiness. Similarly, hostility, which is usually regarded as a negatively toned emotion, can under certain circumstances be an important source of gratification and be subjectively experienced as positive (Lazarus, 2001). By being angry or hostile, we are apt to feel less helpless or frustrated and more in control of our situation, whether when dealing with WFC because we are doing something to overcome or avenge something that we may have suffered. In effect, this emotion—which is usually treated as a negative emotional experience probably because of its damaging social consequences—perhaps should not always be regarded as negative, at least prior to the point at which its damaging consequences to work and family become apparent. Depending on the circumstances, hostility could potentially be partly or wholly positive to those experiencing it as a result of a conflict between work and home. By utilizing the postmodern lens, researchers are in the unique position to contest the language and dominant terminology that is used to describe work and family interests and how emotion should be displayed or experienced. Utilizing the myriad of discourse analysis tools (Alvesson & Karreman, 2000; Putnam & Fairhurst, 2001), we can begin to understand how language constitutes social arrangements and how power is instantiated and contested in WFCs (see “power” in Table 1). Perhaps instead of viewing the relationship between work and family as representing competing, mutually exclusive interests, researchers can begin to complicate and contest this relationship between work and family and the subsequent discourse that results.
Future research should embrace a postmodern perspective along with the interpretive and critical approaches described above by considering ways to deconstruct how emotion has been viewed in the literature and offer ways to create alternate perspectives of experiencing emotion in WFC situations and examine how individuals may or may not be empowered in given situations. By combining these three paradigms, we may be able to uncover not only how emotion is displayed and communicated about in the workplace and at home but also the role power plays in the WFC and emotion relationship.
Advancing a Framework for a More Holistic Body of Literature
We have offered a multiparadigmatic approach to the study of emotion and work–family. Because the study of emotion and WFC has been explored predominantly from the functionalist approach, our approach helps demonstrate alternative ways of investigating this phenomenon and integrating different theoretical and methodological assumptions. Throughout this manuscript, we have provided ideas regarding theory, research questions, method, and implications for studying WFC and emotion. In addition, in Table 1, we present these ideas as a visual schematic for scholars interested in co-mingling the paradigms. For scholars who have been accustomed to studying WFC and emotion from a purely functionalist perspective (which the research indicates has been the norm), our research agenda that has been advanced here provides new ways of examining and conceptualizing this phenomenon. While it is useful to examine emotion and WFC from a paradigmatic perspective, segregating and constraining ourselves to the different paradigms does little to advance any discipline. We feel it is time to expand our ontological, epistemological, and methodological approaches with regard to the understanding of emotion and WFC as the research to date has been very unidimensional and focused largely on a functionalist perspective. We do not suggest that a paradigmatic perspective is the best or the only way to approach WFC and emotion. Rather, we hope the agenda we advanced serves to perpetuate Van Maanen’s (1995) notion that greater pluralism between the different approaches is important and necessary. In fact, we believe our co-mingling of the various paradigms that we advanced is the first step in developing a new understanding of emotion in the context of WFC. The conflict between work and family and the subsequent emotional reactions can adversely affect employee and marital satisfaction, performance, and well-being (Kossek & Ozeki, 1998; Morgan & King, 2012; Ray & Miller, 1994). The paradigms allow us to explore and investigate the experience of emotion and WFC in different ways and in a more holistic manner. We believe there are certain constructs or themes, which we described and discussed throughout this article, that allow for deeper understanding WFC and emotion by cutting across all four of the paradigms. These themes include resource management, power/control, emotional intelligence, emotional labor, emotion management, and time. The themes as they relate to the various co-mingling of each paradigm are illustrated in Table 1, which was introduced earlier.
We believe the future research agendas we advanced in this framework make a key contribution to the literature because it allows for a more holistic understanding of emotion and WFC through the application of different ways of approaching research. More specifically, we point to how emotion and WFC can be understood through causal relationships, the experiences and meanings people attach to emotional responses, conceptions of power through dominant institutions, and the reinforcing of power relations through discourse. In addition, ideas for future research operating from the co-mingling of paradigms were suggested and if undertaken would allow for a more robust understanding of the WFC and emotion which could have numerous implications for management scholars and practitioners.
To conclude, we strongly believe it is essential that we as scholars (both in and out of the work–family realm) escape the captivity of our own discourse surrounding paradigmatic research. By moving away from the unilateral, one-dimensional ways in which WFC has been investigated over the years, we can better examine how a single phenomenon can be understood by combining very different approaches, each leading to valuable theoretical and pragmatic conclusions. While the paradigmatic movement was first initiated as a way to protect the intellectual confines of the interpretivists, critical management scholars and the postmodernists, we believe that is now an unnecessary evil (Deetz, 1996). All this segregation does is draw a line in the sand where each perspective does not speak to one another (or hear what the other has to say). We see this happen every day with the quantitative versus qualitative scholarly debates. At what point do we move beyond these essentialist and constraining discourses? When do we shift the rhetoric from an “us versus them” duality to a “you and me” perspective? Why not channel our energy into adding new scholarly “tools” to our personal tool belts informed by varying research perspectives? We believe now is the time, and we offer up our multiparadigmatic, co-mingling research agenda, which has been advanced here as a guiding framework.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.