The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Boundary Control: The Social Ordering of Work and Family Time in a High-Tech Corporation
Abstract
Work on this paper has been supported by grant #910-1036 from the Ford Foundation. Lotte Bailyn, Andrea Campbell, Gideon Kunda, John Van Maanen, Stephen Barley, and three anonymous ASQ reviewers offered invaluable advice and suggestions. Through a qualitative study of a software development group, I examine how managers control the hours employees work, and therefore the temporal boundary between employees' work and life outside of work. Analysis of field data shows that managers use three types of techniques to exert boundary control over knowledge workers: (1) imposing demands, by setting meetings, reviews, and internal deadlines, controlling vacations, and requesting extra work; (2) monitoring employees, by standing over them, checking up on them, and observing them; and (3) modeling the behavior they want employees to exhibit. Employees either accept or resist managers' boundary control; those who resist are penalized by the reward system, even when they devise creative ways to schedule and complete their work. Many employees are married, and the demands of their work have consequences for their spouses. Spouses' reactions to the demands that ultimately affect them further influence how employees respond to boundary control. These findings contribute to a theory of boundary control and carry practical implications for resolving work-family conflicts in our society.'
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The Autonomy Paradox: The Implications of Mobile Email Devices for Knowledge Professionals
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2013) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0806 · Cited by 1,364
Fonner, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2010) · Journal of Applied Communication Research · doi:10.1080/00909882.2010.513998 · Cited by 514
Reid, E. (2015) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2015.0975 · Cited by 399
Blessing or Curse?: Work-Family Policies and Mother’s Wage Growth Over Time
Glass, J. (2004) · Work and Occupations · doi:10.1177/0730888404266364 · Cited by 338
Cha, Y. (2010) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122410365307 · Cited by 311
Gajendran, R. S., Harrison, D. A., & Delaney‐Klinger, K. (2015) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12082 · Cited by 310
Mindfulness at work: antecedents and consequences of employee awareness and absent-mindedness
Reb, J., Narayanan, J., & Ho, Z. W. (2015) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-013-0236-4 · Cited by 277
New Ways of Working: Impact on Working Conditions, Work–Family Balance, and Well-Being
Demerouti, E., Derks, D., ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2014) · The Impact of ICT on Quality of Working Life · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-8854-0_8 · Cited by 256
Becker, W. J., Belkin, L. Y., Conroy, S. A., & Tuskey, S. (2021) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206319890655 · Cited by 73
Toxic leadership, overwork and stress: review and integration of the last 15 years
Mishra, R., & Jena, L. K. (2025) · Leadership & Organization Development Journal · doi:10.1108/lodj-02-2025-0140 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Perlow, L. A.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1998-06
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 328
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2049242846
- Cited by
- 481
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 40.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.