Boundary Work Tactics Measure

Abstract

The Boundary Work Tactics Measure, developed by Reinke, Niederkrome, & Ohly in 2023, is designed to evaluate how individuals actively manage the boundaries between their work and non-work lives. The scale, consisting of 21 items, was constructed based on a comprehensive literature review, including works such as Clark (2000), and refined through rigorous psychometric analyses. The instrument aims to differentiate various types of availability-related boundary work tactics and categorize them according to their underlying motivations: preventive, restrictive, and rejecting tactics. The development and evaluation of this measure involved a sample of employed individuals, working students, civil servants, self-employed individuals, and others. The psychometric properties, including factor analysis, reliability, and validity, have been thoroughly reported for these items.

Keywords

Work-Life Boundaries; Work-Nonwork Life; Availability-Related Boundary Work Tactics; Restrictive; Preventive; Rejecting; Boundaries (Psychological); Strategies; Organizational and Occupational Measures; Work-Life Balance

Authors

Reinke, Kathrin; Niederkrome, Lisa; Ohly, Sandra

---

Purpose

The questionnaire’s primary purpose is to differentiate between various types of availability-related boundary work tactics and to organize them based on their underlying motives: preventive, restrictive, and rejecting tactics.

Validity

Convergent and Discriminant Validity: The measure demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity. Correlations with the general construct of boundary work tactics were mostly low to medium, with the highest observed correlation being r = .57. Furthermore, the three motive-oriented tactics exhibited differential correlations with segmentation preferences and segmentation enactment, aligning with theoretical expectations. For instance, restrictive tactics showed the lowest correlations with segmentation preferences (r = .19) and segmentation enactment (r = .21). In contrast, rejecting tactics showed the highest correlations (r = .38 for segmentation preferences; r = .52 for segmentation enactment). These findings collectively suggest that the three motive-oriented tactics are distinct types with differential relationships within their nomological network.

Reliability

Internal Consistency: The internal consistency of the Boundary Work Tactics Measure was assessed using Cronbach’s alphas, which ranged from .87 to .91, indicating strong reliability across the subscales.

Factor Analysis

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): Initial examination using Kaiser’s criteria suggested the presence of seven factors with eigenvalues above 1, though only three of these factors marginally exceeded 1. A review of the scree plot, along with the small eigenvalues, leaned towards a three-factor or four-factor solution. The three-factor solution was ultimately chosen as the most conceptually interpretable and statistically distinct option, as it aligned with the three motive-oriented types of tactics. This three-factor model accounted for 38.48% of the total variance.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA): After refinement and item removal, the final three-factor model demonstrated a superior fit (χ2 = 347.89, df = 180; RMSEA = 0.07; CFI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.08) when compared to a one-factor model (χ2 = 591.30, df = 179; RMSEA = 0.12; CFI = 0.84, SRMR = 0.13). This further supports the three-factor structure of the scale.

Instrument: Boundary Work Tactics Measure

Test Type: Original
Format: Items are measured on a response scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
Language Available: English, German
Population Group: Human (Male and Female)
Age Group: Adulthood (18 years and older)
Population Details: The respondents were adult participants located in Germany.
Test Methodology: The methodology involved various psychometric analyses including Test Validity, Convergent Validity, Discriminant Validity, Test Reliability, Internal Consistency, Factor Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, and Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Keywords

Work-Life Boundaries; Work-Nonwork Life; Availability-Related Boundary Work Tactics; Restrictive; Preventive; Rejecting; Boundaries (Psychological); Strategies; Organizational and Occupational Measures; Work-Life Balance

Authors

Reinke, Kathrin

• Author ORCID Identifier: 0000-0002-1116-4436

• Affiliation: Hochschule Fresenius, Department of Business Psychology

Niederkrome, Lisa

• Affiliation: University of Kassel, Department of Business Psychology

Ohly, Sandra

• Author ORCID Identifier: 0000-0001-6818-7519

• Affiliation: University of Kassel, Department of Business Psychology

• Email addresses: [email protected]

• Correspondence Address: University of Kassel, Department of Psychology, ITeG, Pfannkuchstraβe 1, Kassel, Germany, 34121, [email protected]

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: May be used for Research/Teaching purposes.
Commercial Use: No
Fee: No
Test Year: 2023
Web Site: creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en

References

Reinke, K., Niederkrome, L., & Ohly, S. (2024). Boundary work tactics and their effects on information and communication technology use after hours and recovery: Taking action when boundaries are blurring. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 23(1), 36–48. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000335

Items of the Boundary Work Tactics Measure

The Boundary Work Tactics Measure is a 21-item scale.
Factors and Subscales: The scale is structured into three subscales:

• Preventive tactics

• Restrictive tactics

• Rejecting tactics

Test Items Available: Yes, the test items are available. No data is Available regarding the location of the test items other than in Supplemental Material S3, Pages 5-6 of the source reference.

Boundary Work Tactics Measure

Items

Preventive Tactics

1. Utilization of distinct phone numbers for work-related and personal matters.

2. Utilization of distinct Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for work-related and personal matters.

3. Indication of availability status (e.g., online or absent) to work contacts during leisure time.

4. Provision of absence notes to work contacts to indicate unavailability during leisure time.

5. Communication to customers or colleagues of a preference not to be contacted via ICT for work-related matters during leisure time.

6. Communication to supervisors of a preference not to be contacted via ICT for work-related matters during leisure time.

7. Communication to work contacts that ICT contact during leisure time is reserved exclusively for emergencies.

Restrictive Tactics

In my leisure time:

1. Limitation of ICT use (e.g., smartphone only, laptop only) for receiving and editing work-related messages.

2. Cessation of ICT use when professionally contacted at specific times (e.g., during social interactions, sports, dinner).

3. Limitation to written messages (no phone calls) for work-related communication to maintain flexibility in determining response timing and method.

4. Limitation of ICT use for work-related matters to designated time slots.

5. Review of work-related messages exclusively at specific times.

6. Limitation of the duration of ICT use for work-related purposes.

7. Decision on whether to address work-related calls based on the caller.

8. Decision on responding to work-related messages based on urgency, utilizing an answering machine or mailbox.

9. Decision on which work-related messages to read or process based on urgency.

Rejecting Tactics

1. In my leisure time, I read work-related messages. (r)

2. In my free time, I check work-related messages. (r)

3. I carry ICT, on which I am contacted professionally, with me in my leisure time. (r)

4. I carry ICT, on which I am contacted professionally, with me on vacation. (r)

5. In my leisure time, I take work-related calls. (r)

Note: Items are rated from 1 (never) to 5 (always).