Imagined Interactions and memorable messages

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rwjc20

Western Journal of Communication

ISSN: 1057-0314 (Print) 1745-1027 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwjc20

Expressing Work–Family Tension Management in Memorable Messages with Coworkers

Christina G. Yoshimura & Brian Heisterkamp

To cite this article: Christina G. Yoshimura & Brian Heisterkamp (2019) Expressing Work–Family Tension Management in Memorable Messages with Coworkers, Western Journal of Communication, 83:4, 444-462, DOI: 10.1080/10570314.2019.1590729

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2019.1590729

Published online: 14 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 140

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Expressing Work–Family Tension Management in Memorable Messages with Coworkers Christina G. Yoshimura & Brian Heisterkamp

This study complements existing research on responses to work–family tension by illuminating the constitutive role of communication in framing this tension at work. We used a memorable-messages format to investigate the most memorable message 892 participants shared with coworkers regarding work–family conflict. We used thematic analysis to code messages, resulting in a model of 20 themes. Themes varied in their focus on independence vs. interdependence and perceived efficacy vs. perceived inefficacy at work–family tension management. We concluded that messages coworkers craft about work–family tension could have implications for perceptions of self and others, as well as impacts on organizational communication.

Keywords: Coworkers; Family; Memorable Messages; Work; Work–Family

The tension between work and family is a significant source of ongoing stress for many people. Though work and family are “cornerstones of life” that are highly valued by most individuals (Rapoport & Bailyn, 1996, p. 6), decades of research have corroborated what many people feel on a daily basis: these two realms are at odds with one another in a multitude of ways. Incompatible skill sets, competing time

Christina G. Yoshimura is a Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Montana. Brian Heisterkamp is a Professor in the Communication Studies Department at California State University, San Bernardino. Dr. Yoshimura and Dr. Heisterkamp are equal contributors to this manuscript and author order does not reflect differential participation in this study or manuscript. Portions of this paper were presented in 2016 at the International Communication Association Conference in Fukuoka, Japan, and in 2014 at the Western States Communication Association Conference in Anaheim, CA. Correspondence to: Christina G. Yoshimura, Department of Communication Studies, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT 58812, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at corwww.tandfonline.com/ RWJC

Western Journal of Communication Vol. 83, No. 4, 2019, pp. 444–462

ISSN 1057-0314 (print)/ISSN 1745-1027 (online) © 2019 Western States Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/10570314.2019.1590729

demands, behavioral or role strain between the two spheres, and stress spillover (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996; Parasuraman & Greenhaus, 1997) have been posited as just some of the reasons that many people feel a tension between work and family realms. Yoshimura (2013) argued that work and family are distinct poles on a dialectic scale. Specifically, she noted that given societal structuring of work and family our full engagement with the demands of one pole excludes fully meeting the demands of the other, resulting in an ongoing and dynamic contradiction referred to as work–family tension.

The experience of work–family tension carries considerable consequence for individuals. Numerous health and economic outcomes have been associated with the level of work–family tension experienced by individuals; notably negative asso- ciations with life, marital, family, and leisure satisfaction (Netemeyer et al., 1996). It contributes to increased health-care costs and even fatalities (Goh, Pfeffer, & Zenios, 2016). It is positively associated with depression, substance abuse, burnout, and both physiological and psychological strain (Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000). (For more comprehensive reviews see Allen et al., 2000, or Dallimore & Mickel, 2011.)

Given that the majority of one’s waking hours are generally spent at work, the workplace may have a strong influence not only in shaping an individual’s percep- tion of work–family tension but also in providing a venue for managing that tension through interactions with coworkers. These interactions may reveal areas of satisfac- tion/dissatisfaction with their own or other peoples’ management of work–family tension. In this study, we examine the messages of part- and full-time employees who responded to our inquiry regarding the most memorable message they recall sharing with coworkers regarding work–family tension. We do so in order to garner participants’ own perceptions of the specific messages they share with coworkers, so that we might understand which are the most salient responses to work–family tension participants have shared in those relationships. We believe that participants’ own reports of how they’ve framed their responses to the work–family tension are critical to understanding their perceptions and choices surrounding work–family tension management. We examine themes of work–family tension management in these reported messages and explore the possible implications of these messages for individuals and for organizations.

Tension Management

The term “balance” is frequently used in discussion of the competing demands of work and family. Yet many researchers have identified “balance” as a misnomer and an untenable goal (e.g., Tretheway, Tracy, & Alberts, 2006) or at a minimum a concept that has not yet been fully operationalized (Wayne, Butts, Casper, & Allen, 2017). The concept of balance is rooted in finding a stable way to fully meet two sets of demands. It is not always possible or desirable to sustain a stable balance when the responsibilities of work and family on either side of the tension are prone to shifts and changes. Considering “satisfactory management” of the

Western Journal of Communication 445

tension or “work–family enrichment” (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006) allows for solutions that stem from differential prioritization and engagement of work and family based on each individual and on their dynamic contexts. This framing offers less emphasis on finding a prescription for “fixing” the work–family tension and more emphasis on the need for understanding how individuals frame and experi- ence the worlds of work and family to engage in ongoing tension management. The current study maintains this focus upon gaining insight into how individuals frame their own experience of work–family tension and tension management.

Within this tension-management framework, studies have identified numerous coping strategies related to the work–family tension. These range from adjusting privacy orientations (Carmon, Miller, & Brasher, 2013) to shifting work times and work settings through telework (Golden, 2012), though these strategies are not persistently associated with an actual reduction of work–family tension or increase in well-being (for example, see Golden [2012] on the unintentional increase of tension for those engaged in high levels of telework). Yet we maintain (along with many other communication scholars, such as Day [2013] and Kirby, Golden, Medved, Jorgenson, and Buzzanell [2003]) that for all of the diverse instrumental responses to work–family tension that have been catalogued there is insight to be gleaned from focusing specifically upon the communicative practices used to discuss the tension. Buzzanell (2010) has found that people use communication about difficult life experiences to craft normalcy, affirm identity anchors, maintain and use communication networks, put alternative logics to work, and downplay negative feelings. Focusing on the discursive practices of individuals evidences not only behavioral responses to work–family tension, but communicates evidence of mental constructs individuals hold regarding work, family, self, and other.

Coworker Interactions

There are many life realms that shape individuals’ perceptions of work–family tension, but the work realm and family realms are at the forefront. Golden (2009) has provided evidence of mutual enactment of work and family environments (in both cooperative and competitive ways), such that family members shape percep- tions of work environment, and organizational members can shape perceptions of the home environment. We focus specifically here on Golden’s claims that interac- tions at work may be an important way in which people strive to understand and manage work–family tension.

Research provides mixed findings regarding whether communication at work plays a role in managing work–family tension. Krouse and Afifi’s (2007) examina- tion of women’s family-to-work spillover stress in the caregiving professions found various communicative coping mechanisms including work immersion, using work as a social outlet, and venting with supervisors or managers for catharsis. Using work as a social outlet, for example, highlights how family stress can be ameliorated through workplace friendships.

446 C. G. Yoshimura and B. Heisterkamp

Ten Brummelhuis, Oosterwaal, and Bakker (2012) asserted that demands from home are often negatively related to workplace productivity, but that effect is mediated by the level of support from coworkers. Coworker supportmay take the form of instrumental aid, sympathy, or appreciation (Karasek, Triantis, &Chaudhry, 1982). Supportive relationships at work have been posited to aid in coping with both work and nonwork issues (Folwell & Kauer, 2018; Schieman, 2006). These studies evidence that coworker communication in the workplace may be a factor associated with positive coping with work–family tension.

However, Dallimore and Mickel (2011) found that out of all advice messages for managing work–family tension that individuals receive only 3% emerge from the workplace. Kirby and Krone (2002) found that the messages from coworkers may undermine efforts at managing work–family tension. Coworker messages of disap- proval exert significant peer pressure pushing employees to limit the utilization of organizational policies to manage their work–family tension (Kirby & Krone, 2002). The results from these studies offer a somewhat pessimistic view of the utility of coworker communication in managing work–family tension.

Taken together, research regarding coworker communication provides mixed findings regarding how helpful a role these messages play in the management of work–family tension. Given this uncertainty further investigation of messages shared between coworkers regarding work–family tension is warranted.

Memorable Messages

In order to extend research that examines how the workplace frames experiences of work–family tension and serve as a site for tension management, we propose a closer examination of the salient messages people recall sharing with coworkers about their management of work and family tensions. In soliciting the most memorable mes- sages shared at work we hope to illuminate the themes revealed in these messages, offering insight into how individuals frame their own experience of work–family tension management to their peers.

Knapp, Stohl, and Reardon (1981) operationalize memorable messages as those identified by individuals as most salient and impactful in the face of the multitude of messages that are exchanged in one’s life. These scholars note that memorable messages are, by their nature, impactful messages; they are recalled by participants because they have bearing on the cognitions and behaviors of the person who recalls them. Several researchers have fruitfully examined memorable messages regarding work and family that originate from family members (e.g., Dallimore & Mickel, 2011; Medved, Brogan, McClanahan, Morris, & Shepherd, 2006). Dallimore and Mickel (2011) have shown that participants memorably receive advice from family on how to manage the work–family tension and more than half of the messages reported were those aimed at some kind of balance (or satisfactory management) between work/life. Medved et al. (2006) examined messages that socialize individuals towards specific understandings of work and family, finding ample evidence that

Western Journal of Communication 447

people recall salient messages from parents that shape their views on work and family (and the intersection of the two).

Both of these studies examined memorable messages within the parent/child relationship and both focused upon messages received by participants. Two distinct contributions of the current study are the focus on messages shared with coworkers and the examination of memorable messages that an individual has communicated to others, rather than those communicated from others. The benefit to focusing upon messages that have been articulated (rather than received) is that it puts the locus of control on the individual. The language used in these memorable interactions offers important insight into the ways in which people think, feel, and make choices about work–family tension, as well as their perception of which strategies they find most helpful in coping with that tension. We are particularly focused upon the way that self-perceptions are encoded into messages shared with others in the workplace.

Thus, we begin this work by asking the following: What do the memorable messages individuals communicate to coworkers reveal about the ways these indivi- duals frame their experience with the work–family tension?

Method

Sampling and Participants

Participants were recruited into a nonrandom sample using two procedures. First, we posted announcements seeking participants on a variety of listservs including those related to work–family balancing and to communication scholarship. Second, undergraduate and graduate students taking psychology courses at a Southern Cali- fornia university received credit for their participation through an online research management system. From the 1,047 responses, 892 were usable based upon com- pleteness of the survey. Participants were 238 males and 645 females. They ranged in age from 18 to 60 with a mean age of 29.21 years. The sample consisted of 816 heterosexuals and 49 who identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. In terms of children, 447 reported having no children and 348 reported having one or more child. Most of the respondents (643) reported working part-time (fewer than 40 hours per week), and 231 reported working full-time. Many participants identified as Hispanic (430), although the sample also contained Caucasian (298), African American (103), Asian/ Pacific Islander (70), and Native American (17) individuals.

Procedures

After indicating informed consent required by the institution’s Institutional Review Board, participants completed an online survey that lasted approximately 20–- 25 minutes. Although our focus here is upon memorable messages shared with a coworker, participants were asked to provide the most memorable message or story shared with individuals in a number of categories: a romantic partner, a child,

448 C. G. Yoshimura and B. Heisterkamp

a family member, and a coworker about managing work and family. If a message or story with an individual in one of these categories could not be recalled, participants were instructed to skip that item and move on to the next category.

Analysis

We examined the messages participants reported delivering to a coworker using the thematic analytic approach outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006). First, we familiar- ized ourselves with the data by reading through the messages. Second, we created an initial set of codes. Using Atlas.ti 7.0 we discovered that the participants used over 2,500 different words in their responses. We created a list of codes from this list of words by looking at frequency of use and by identifying emergent themes such as ability words (e.g., could, should), emotion words (stress, frustrated, angry, etc.), and family terms (son, daughter, spouse, etc.). We independently coded 10% of the messages and resolved any discrepancies. Through that resolution process, we refined our coding scheme by adding and removing codes. Then we split the remaining data and independently coded at the sentence level using those words as codes, utilizing as many codes per message as were applicable. We chose to retain participants’ own spelling and syntax when we analyzed responses, as well as when we chose to use them as examples here.

Findings

Our examination of memorable messages suggests that participants express specific themes in messages that reflect management of work–life tensions, and these themes differ notably from those in messages that reflect an inability to manage that tension. Additionally, we identified two key dimensions that differentiate the messages participants reported expressing to a coworker (see Figure 1).

First, participants expressed messages that reflected perceived efficacy or perceived inefficacy in their management of work–family tension. We coded messages as reflecting perceived efficacy if the message shared offered evidence of a participant’s competence, pride, or other self-perceived ability to manage work– family tension. We coded messages as reflecting perceived inefficacy when the messages shared indicated a participant’s disorientation, confusion, or other self- perceived insufficient ability to find ways to manage work–family tension. Messages were coded based on participants’ framing of their own efforts at the ongoing management of work–family tension, and in line with our overall tension- management framework our coding of perceived efficacy was not predicated upon whether they had “solved” or “balanced” work and family demands in some perma- nent way.

Second, participant messages focused either on their own individual efforts to manage work–family tension, or on the intersection of their own and others’ efforts in a shared context. The dimension of efficacy and the dimension of context crossed

Western Journal of Communication 449

to create four main types of messages regarding work–family tension: efficacy at managing focused on the self, efficacy at managing focused on others, inefficacy of managing focused on the self, and inefficacy at managing focused on others.

Messages of Perceived Efficacy

Messages characterized as conveying perceived efficacy reflected a sense of content- ment or fulfillment regarding the interplay between the work and family realms. Messages were generally positive and expressed a sense of accomplishment and competence. Messages of perceived efficacy were framed within either an individual or shared context.

Perceived Efficacy

Perceived Inefficacy

Individual Context

• Perspective taking • Developing/having competence • Setting boundaries • Reframing tension • Prioritized one realm over another

Shared Context

• Give advice to others • Give support to others • Express appreciation to others • Receive help from others

• Desire to prioritize one realm over another

• Fatigue • More personal effort needed • Overwhelmed/disoriented • Seeking relief/release/change • Stress/frustration • Time

• Comparisons to others • Unfair treatment • Desire for help • Unsatisfying division of labor

Figure 1 Themes Identified in Coworker Memorable Messages.

450 C. G. Yoshimura and B. Heisterkamp

Shared Context Messages First, participants conveyed perceived efficacy with work–life tension in two distinct types of messages: those in which they were speaking about another’s contribution to the participant’s work–family issues or about how they themselves contributed to another’s management of work–life tensions. Though the directionality of the efforts (as extending from or toward the participant) varied, there were two recurring themes that emerged from the memorable messages that focused on perceived efficacy in managing work–family tension in the context of interdependence with others.

The first theme that emerged in this category of messages was expressions of appreciation to others: “I don’t feel as stressed as I used to about getting it all done because I have you guys” or “Now that I’m on break from school I am definitely not as stressed as I was. Thank you so much for pushing me to do better and prioritize my assignments. I am definitely grateful for this job and you!” or “We work as a team I appreciate all the efforts you make to make my workload easier.” These messages of gratitude framed the participant as having achieved some measure of efficacy in managing work–family tensions in part due to the presence or contribu- tions of others.

The second theme in this category was labeled giving advice or support to others. We identified this theme in messages where participants offered insights or encour- agement to a coworker. Many messages coded within this theme reflected that the speaker felt they were in the position to give either advice or support, although in some cases the speaker offered both within the same message:

My fellow co-worker at work was having bad time balancing family and work because she had kids to look after. She became very sad and could not plan out her schedule very well. I remember telling her that you can do it, don’t let your emotions take over your life. Try to work out a suitable schedule, so that you can support your kids.

This message suggests that a coworker is experiencing work–family tension and the speaker offers both support (“you can do it”) and advice (“don’t let your emotions take over your life”). This individual also stresses the importance of supporting kids rather than attaining any goal related to the workplace, thus establishing a priority for family over work.

These quotes illustrate that messages of perceived efficacy conveyed a sense of the speaker’s success or expertise, indicating that the speakers in these messages are not currently experiencing high levels of distress and instead may be recounting ways they have overcome past distress. The messages illustrate the fluctuating nature of managing work–life tensions through indications such as not being “as stressed” (because of a coworker’s efforts), implying a previous period of being “more stressed.” Messages within this category emphasize consideration of how an indivi- dual’s work–family tension management was either shaped by others or had the potential to shape the work–family tension management of others, framing the experience of work–family tension management as something that can be under- taken as a collaborative effort.

Western Journal of Communication 451

Individual Context Messages The memorable messages coded within this category expressed perceived efficacy in managing work–life tension matters that involved only the participants’ own beha- vior, rather than including another individual such as a coworker or family member. In the first theme of this category participants conveyed developing/having compe- tence or proficiency in their management of work–family realms through messages that indicated the ability to navigate these areas through their own skills and efforts. Instances of messages coded as developing/having competence include: “The more I go to work and balance home life, the easier and naturally it comes to me,” referencing growth in achieving competence, and “It’s not that hard being a single mom. I just come to work and then dedicate the rest of my time for Rosie,” referencing perceived efficacious management. These messages reflect a person’s growing or crystallized ability to manage both work and family life. In a matter-of- fact manner, some people asserted an innate inclination for managing the different aspects of their lives, while others candidly reflected that there is “work” involved in achieving this competence.

Within the second theme in this category, setting boundaries, participants invoked an ability to partition work and family with clear perimeters. This strategy conveys participants’ use of physical and psychological limits in their management of work and family life. Examples of this theme include: “I know my limitations—if I say, I can do—I will do my best and I can only do it between these hours” and “What I do outside of work does not concern what I do when I am at work” and “When I come to work it is all I think about, and when I go home I forget all about work.” These individuals partition the different aspects of their lives so that one does not spill over into the other. These borders can be based upon time that is allocated to one aspect or another. Or, the division might concern what people do or think about in different physical locations such as work or home.

A third theme—perspective taking—included messages in which participants viewed circumstances within a broader context. For example, one participant stated, “Relax this is just work . . . family is more important . . . your employer can get rid of you anytime and your family cannot and won’t” and another stated, “This is really difficult and sometimes I wonder if I can handle it all, but I have to remember that I have God on my side and I can do all things through Him who gives me strength.”

Overall, these messages of perceived efficacy emphasize the participants’ framing that management of work–life tensions can emerge from an individuals’ own abilities or from the interactions with others in their work or home lives. Their sense of competence was articulated as developing from their ability to establish clear boundaries between work and home life by establishing hours for each, or by reframing their thoughts to focus upon a particular context or value (such as family or a divine presence) that allowed for more manageable perceptions of their work– family stress.

452 C. G. Yoshimura and B. Heisterkamp

Messages of Perceived Inefficacy

Themes evidenced in the second main dimension for messages, perceived inefficacy, framed work–family tension in stark contrast to the framing involved in messages of perceived efficacy. Messages of perceived inefficacy included references to undesir- able or disappointing management of work and family tension. The messages within this dimension were divided between those which framed inefficacious management of work–family tension as one that was perceived as influenced by or influencing others in a shared context or as an individual problem.

Shared Context Messages There were two themes that emerged within the category of messages that referenced a shared context for work–family tension management and perceived inefficacy in managing the tension. First, the theme of comparison to others included messages in which the speaker expressed dissatisfaction about their own work–family tension management in direct contrast to others. For instance, “I don’t know how you do it. I am so tired and all i want to do is sleep,” or “It is soo hard to work two jobs, be a full time student and balance family, but if other people can do it . . . so can I, I just need to try a little bit harder.” Messages in this category often referenced fatigue, frustration, or stress. The dissatisfaction in one’s own management of work–family tension was notably framed in direct comparison of one’s own experience to the perceived superior experience of others.

Another theme of messages in this category was termed unfair treatment. Mes- sages within this category included statements like: “I feel like I’m the only compe- tent one here so I get overwhelmed with more work because I am efficient and accurate and I don’t feel like the work load is fairly divided because of this” and “I had told my boss that I felt like too many projects were being left for me to do. I told her that I felt a lot of pressure because of it.” Those expressing the viewpoint that they are being treated unfairly attributed that to either their superior workplace skill or to managers or supervisors who did not distribute the workload equitably. This conception of unfair treatment left participants feeling pressured or overwhelmed because of the perception of having a heavy workload. It is important to note that participants’ salient framing of their experience in these messages rested on their perceptions of inequitable workload distribution, which may or may not be con- nected to actual workloads or treatment. The impact of one’s perception is an important component of how work–family tension is experienced and managed absent any objective measure of workload, an idea we will return to in the discussion.

Individual Context Messages A broad range of messages fell within the category of perceived inefficacy in managing work–family tension. We identified two important themes when indivi- duals referenced their own less efficacious management.

Western Journal of Communication 453

In the theme coded as stress/frustration, participants framed their stress or frustration with their current state of work–life tension: “Well between work, school, sorority I don’t have time to breathe, that’s why my mind is everywhere” and “I can’t handle all of this it’s so stressful. I feel like I don’t have time to study” and “I told my old supervisor that I couldn’t handle it anymore. I was going crazy and I hated everyone at work. I was so stressed out I just wanted to die.” These individuals report reaching some sort of tipping point related to having insufficient time or emotional fortitude to continue at work. They convey an inability to continue because they cannot focus their minds in a way that will enable them to carry on with their lives.

Also coded within the individual context were messages in which participants discussed time management issues: “I’m only getting 5–6 hours of sleep a night . . . and it is really hard to study,” “I have way too much work to do and not enough time to do it,” and “I feel like there are not enough hours in the day!” Because time is often perceived as a finite resource, it is not surprising that individuals reported time as a source of dissatisfaction in relation to the work–life realms. Implicit in these statements is the idea that more time could lead to greater satisfaction with work and/or family life. This perception, while pervasive, is not necessarily connected to better managed work–family tension through the availability of more time. Even with additional time participants would still need to decide in which realm they wanted to spend the time, and the nontemporal elements of the work–family tension identified previously (role strain, stress spillover, incompatible skill sets) would still be present.

Discussion

As communication scholars, we believe that the framing inherent in the messages individuals choose to share matters for them on an individual level and matters for the communication climate in their workplace. In our analysis of memorable messages, we found that people expressed either perceived efficacy or perceived inefficacy in managing tension between work and family realms. These messages focused upon either their own individual efforts in managing work–family tension or focused upon a shared context where their own actions and the actions of others were jointly considered. We believe the model we outline in Figure 1 establishes an initial means for considering the framing of work–family tension management that is encoded within messages communicated in the workplace. The model highlights two key dimensions of communication about work–family tension management— level of perceived efficacy and locus of control.

First, as participants talked with coworkers about work–family tension there was a clear demarcation between messages that exhibited perceived efficacy and those that exhibited perceived inefficacy in managing work–family tension. In messages we labeled perceived efficacy participants spoke of work–family tension either directly or indirectly as something they had developed skills to manage. Direct messages of efficacy often took the form of people disclosing to a coworker what worked in

454 C. G. Yoshimura and B. Heisterkamp

helping them manage the tension. Participants spoke of having set up firm bound- aries between home and work, of having prioritized one realm over another, or of having engaged in the mental reframing of their work–family tension as normal or as something that was not a problem once they took a broader perspective on life. These participants often framed work–family tension management as something that had been (at least partially) achieved rather than something in a state of disarray. One respondent noted:

Recently, two co-workers and I were discussing the pursuit of the elusive balance of work and family. My husband and I mentioned how we always try to take Fridays off from work: we do NOT answer student emails, calls, prep notes, etc. on Friday as a way to unplug and de-stress from the week.

Although the speaker was not telling her coworkers that she had “solved” the tension between work and family she spoke confidently of an ongoing management strategy that she has succeeded in implementing.

Participants often indirectly indicated their sense of perceived efficacy in tension management through messages about giving advice or support to others. Offering advice to others entails some claim to expertise. Telling a coworker “Being a mom and an academic is like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Don’t ASK anyone for help, and don’t TELL anyone you’re a mom!” situates the speaker as knowledgeable about how to manage work and family and as someone capable of sharing that proficiency with others. This particular message entails both advice-giving and setting boundaries.

Framing work–family tension management through messages of perceived effi- cacy may help a speaker achieve several important goals. First, it may reaffirm for the speaker their achievements and promote their self-concept as someone who is (or is on the path toward) competently managing work–family tension. Second, it may promote positive identity management by allowing the speaker to engage in positive facework. Individuals can choose to frame themselves with achieved or growing competence and thus offer to others a desirable identity. Third (and somewhat unexpectedly), we have come to believe that some efficacious messages speakers choose to share might have a positive impact on the speaker’s own impression of how distressing they find their experience of work–family tension.

Specifically, during our analysis of the skillful messages that focused upon elements such as support from others, appreciation, and perspective-taking we were struck by the contrast between these messages and the messages that focused upon a lack of time, unfair treatment, or stress. Although we did not propose equity theory as a framework for this study and thus did not measure the work and family responsibilities of participants in a way that allows for objective comparison between their perceived and actual equity between them- selves and others at work or at home, it is worth noting that participants may be influencing their psychological sense of equity when they choose to focus upon or amplify their benefits rather than focusing upon how unfair their situation feels to them. In brief, the three paths posited by equity theory to lead toward alleviation of an inequitable situation are: change to actual inputs/outputs, change

Western Journal of Communication 455

in psychological framing of inputs/outputs, and leaving the situation (Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1973).

We argue that it is possible that the participants who chose to share messages focusing upon factors such as support, good fortune, or divine guidance were engaging in communication choices that supported framing that could restore psychological equity when comparing self with others. It is certainly possible that some of the participants who reported high levels of stress truly do not possess the same resources, support, or fair workload as participants who reported low levels of stress. They may, in fact, be in an inequitable situation with regards to their work and/or family responsibilities when objectively compared to others. The latitude to shift actual inputs/outputs related to work–family tension (such as the amount of time in a day or responsibilities at home or work) can be quite limited.

However, even in cases where it is not possible to exit an inequitable situation or to change one’s actual ratio of inputs and outputs to restore a sense of fairness with regard to work and family responsibilities it may be possible to restore a psychological sense of equity (or something closer to equity than inequity) through one’s framing in conversation. Constructing messages that frame work–family ten- sion as something manageable may be one important skill in the repertoire of individuals facing work–family tension that allows them some control in the level of perceived inequity they experience and thus may also allow them to lower distress associated with perceived inequities when compared to the situations of others. We will return to this idea as an area for future research.

While we have identified several possible benefits to the themes found in messages that provide tools for management of work–family tension, there may also be strategic motivation behind messages of inefficacy and distress. Many messages shared by participants focused upon dissatisfaction with the skills or resources needed to manage work–family tension well. Participants talked about what needed to happen that was not yet achieved, such as shifting priorities, effort, or division of labor at home or work. They spoke of barriers such as the constraints of time, assistance from others, or fatigue. Individuals who expressed messages about needing relief or reaching a breaking point often seemed to be identifying a sense of helplessness or distress.

Framing oneself as helpless explicitly or implicitly may function to draw others in to provide assistance. Some participants went to employers asking for a shift to their schedule or time off because they felt “so overwhelmed” in managing work–family tension. In other cases, sharing messages like “I am so stressed and overwhelmed trying to handle work, school, house duties and being a mom. I need a break” with a coworker may elicit sympathy or support from others, including assistance with job tasks or through lowered expectations.

Another function of sharing messages of perceived inefficacy in management of work–family tension may be securing validation regarding one’s frustrations. One participant recounted:

456 C. G. Yoshimura and B. Heisterkamp

I told a co-worker my fight I had with my boyfriend. How he got mad at me that I don’t clean around the house. I described how he was suppose to understand how busy I am, and I plain out and simple don’t have time to clean.

While this participant framed her boyfriend as not understanding her perspective, sharing this message with a coworker may lead to bonding with that coworker through elicitation of their similar home experiences.

A second dimension had to do with locus of control—namely whether their message framed their experience of work–family tension as something that had to do with them as an individual or whether it was considered within the context of the efforts of others. Notably, participants who spoke only of their own behaviors in managing the work–family tension (with or without a sense of having efficacy) often focused on how they were independently responsible for managing that tension. In these messages the way work–family stress was managed said something about the individual’s character or abilities. This was exhibited in messages such as: “I’m struggling. Sometimes I’m so tired but I want to push myself to the point where later in life my kids can look up to me and want to be something better.” Changes in work–family tension management were framed as within the control of the individual.

When participants discussed their work–family tension in the contexts of others they shared messages of interdependence. This was framed positively when people utilized messages of appreciation for the help or efforts of others, or when they identified how they could offer support or advice to aid others in managing work– family tension. For instance, individuals who expressed appreciation for others in helping them shift their work schedule so that they could both work and take care of important family events were speaking both to their own accomplishment of achiev- ing both work and family goals and to the generous or understanding qualities of others that helped to make that happen.

Participants also invoked the actions of others (or at least their perception of those actions) when their messages reflected dissatisfaction with their work–family tension management. For instance, one respondent noted: “It is soo hard to work two jobs, be a full time student and balance family, but if other people can do it . . . so can i.” This participant considered her own tension management in light of the way she saw others managing work–family tension. Although this message relates to dissatisfaction with her current level of work–family tension management, it also indicates an aspiration born of her positive perception of other people’s tension management.

In other messages participants illustrated a negative sense of interdependence, recognizing that unfair treatment from others or lack of assistance were causes of their failure to efficaciously manage work–family tension. This external focus for at least some of the distress related to work–family tension was apparent in messages such as: “I spoke to one of my co-worker about only receiving three hours a week and not being able to pay my insurance or bills and how my family refused to help.” People utilizing messages of dissatisfaction regarding others’ actions as interfering

Western Journal of Communication 457

with their own attempts to manage work and family may be using the negative construction of others to salvage some positive sense of themselves.

While the framing of efficacy, self, and others in messages to coworkers has individual-level consequences, the impact of these messages is likely to be conse- quential in the context of others, as well. Individuals are situated within organiza- tional climates, and their individual communication choices are constitutive pieces of that organizational climate. Kirby and Krone (2002) identified the importance of informal communication between coworkers in establishing norms of appropriate- ness for how much focus one should place on family, as well as how feasible it is to utilize family-friendly organizational policies. In the memorable messages expressed here we see further evidence of this informal norm-building.

Individually focused messages like “It’s not that hard to be a single mom” or “I keep work and home separate, I don’t let one effect the other” may function to build competence and confidence in an individual. When they are shared between cow- orkers, they may move from a personal accomplishment to an expectation of other coworkers that they should be able to manage just as well. Kirby and Krone (2002) note that workers often feel that others would not be willing to “pick up the slack” for them if they use organizational policies aimed at easing work–family tension because of the disapproval they’ve heard informally from coworkers regarding such policies. Even coworker reinforcement for not utilizing policies can be meaningful, as evidenced by the memorable message of one respondent who said:

I remember a senior colleague telling me that he was impressed that I was in the office the same number of hours as before my child arrived. I thanked him for the positive feedback and told him that it was important to me to NOT allow mothering to interfere with my ability to do my job well.

This respondent’s prioritization of work contributes to a climate where work and family are established as oppositional or adversarial.

On the other hand, it is likely that the converse is also true: coworker messages can shape a productive climate for managing the dynamic, important, mutually connected domains of work and family. When coworkers share messages such as “Please feel free to bring your (baby) daughter to the committee meeting. We don’t draw rigid lines between work & family here” or “I explained to my co-worker . . . that people who work more than they see their families seem to lead less happy lives than people who see their family and work rational-able amounts,” they are con- tributing to an organizational culture which provides inspiration and/or assistance for productively managing work–family tension.

The ability to frame one’s experience is an important skill in managing work– family tension. When participants express appreciation or reframe tensions, they display an ability to manage work–family tensions. As interventions go, this is a low- cost, straightforward strategy to incorporate in employee meetings, individual ther- apy, or organizational training programs. Organizations could solicit and encourage messages of perceived efficacy from employees and share them, contributing to an organizational climate that recognizes work–family tension as a group-level rather

458 C. G. Yoshimura and B. Heisterkamp

than individual-level problem. At the same time, actual inequities in expectations and workload exist at both home and work. Reframing alone cannot combat all of the tension at the employee level and should not (and cannot) be the only action taken to alleviate work–family tension.

The power of message framing is best considered as one in a repertoire of strategies, and message-planning strategies should be undertaken as part of organi- zational planning and policy implementation. The Work, Family, and Health inter- vention research team has suggested that instituting supportive interpersonal communication training for supervisors is a promising intervention to reduce work–family tension for employees (Kossek, Hammer, Kelly, & Moen, 2014). We found that employees reported that expressing appreciation for instrumental and emotional support from others was a way that they managed their work–family tension. Organizations and governmental agencies can also communicate their value of family responsibilities by funding parenting training classes (“Public Policy, Work, and Families,” n.d.). The resources and skills reinforced in sessions may reduce some of the strain of family responsibilities, and the existence of the sessions as offered by employers or governments sends a clear message recognizing the challenging dual realms of home and work that individuals must navigate.

Our findings demonstrate that messages shared between coworkers have impact. The ambiguity evidenced in past research related to whether this impact is positive or negative is also present here. When coworkers share messages of perceived efficacy involving positive reframing of the work–family tension and an emphasis on positive interdependence (support) at the workplace, these messages may con- tribute to an overall workplace climate that supports efficacious management of work–family tension. Messages framing inefficacious work–family tension manage- ment may add to the disorientation and stress in the workplace. We believe that messages communicated at work have the power to impact expectations and self- concept for all individuals who are part of that system, and we suggest that organizations should take a proactive role in encouraging messages of perceived efficacy.

Limitations and Future Research

This study identified themes in the framing of work–family tension management in messages shared with coworkers. Although we have made some connections between the themes that emerged from this research and work in communication studies, future research will be necessary in order to test these proposed connections. The sample of memorable messages reveals that communicative framing might be useful in managing work–family tensions. Future research could utilize the perceived efficacy/perceived inefficacy and individual/other matrix of messages identified here by testing how the use of such messages is related to a host of relational and organizational variables, such as equity, relational satisfaction, commitment, and organizational culture/climate.

Western Journal of Communication 459

Although we sampled broadly, we recognize that the study of memorable messages communicated to coworkers would benefit from more information regarding the nature of participants’ employment, including the number of hours worked and type of employment. For instance, the majority of our sample consisted of individuals working part-time, which we defined as working fewer than 40 hours per week. While approximately 25% of our sample reported working full-time, defined as work- ing more than 40 hours per week, it will be important to further explore how the number of hours worked per week influences perceived work–life balance and strate- gies for addressing it. We did not gather data regarding the type of work that individuals engaged, and see warrant in purposive sampling in future studies to generate responses from individuals who are self-employed, or who work schedules outside of the presumed 9–5 (such as shift workers or seasonal employees). Impor- tantly, we heard from relatively few men in comparison to women (238 males vs. 645 females) and very few gay and lesbian couples vs. heterosexual couples; given the differentially structured expectations for men and women in their roles our relative dearth of input from men and gay/lesbian/bisexual individuals may be an important limitation to overcome in future studies.

Conclusion

Our analysis of memorable messages indicates that they convey either perceived efficacy or inefficacy at tension-management within a locus of tension-management focused on the individual or the context with others. The framing of these messages shared with coworkers has the potential to influence the speaker’s self-concept, their identity-management, and their work–family tension management. These messages become part of the organizational culture and have the potential to influence group norms and actions regarding skillful work–family tension management. The analysis of themes in the messages also reveals strategies that individuals find helpful or not helpful in managing work–life stress. We believe that recognizing the four categories of messages identified in this research (arranged along the axes of perceived efficacy/ perceived inefficacy and individual context/shared context) is a necessary step on the path towards understanding the impact of these messages on work–family tension management at the individual as well as organizational level.

Acknowledgments

We are deeply appreciative for the participants who took the time to share their experience of work–family tension with us. We are also sincerely grateful for the feedback we’ve received from colleagues who generously reviewed our work; including Greg Dickinson, Robin Rowland, Amy Way, and our anonymous reviewers.

460 C. G. Yoshimura and B. Heisterkamp

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict : A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 278–308. doi:10.1037//1076-899B.5.2.278

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1191/ 1478088706qp063oa

Buzzanell, P. M. (2010). Resilience: Talking, resisting, and imagining new normalcies into being. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 1–14. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01469.x

Carmon, A. F., Miller, A. N., & Brasher, K. J. (2013). Privacy orientations: A look at family satisfaction, job satisfaction, and work-life balance. Communication Reports, 26(2), 101–112. doi:10.1080/08934215.2013.824017

Dallimore, E. J., & Mickel, A. E. (2011). The role of advice in life-quality decision-making. Community, Work & Family, 14(4), 425–448. doi:10.1080/13668803.2010.535662

Day, A. M. (2013). Balancing the business of family: Family business daughters’ tensions between motherhood and work. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 21(3), 125–148. doi:10.1080/ 15456870.2013.773483

Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 178–199. doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.2791609

Folwell, A., & Kauer, T. (2018). ‘You see a baby die and you’re not fine:’ A case study of stress and coping strategies in volunteer emergency medical technicians. Journal of Applied Commu- nication Research, 46(6), 723–743. doi:10.1080/00909882.2018.1549745

Goh, J., Pfeffer, J., & Zenios, S. A. (2016). The relationship between workplace stressors and mortality and health costs in the United States. Management Science, 62(2), 608–628. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2115

Golden, A. G. (2009). Employee families and organizations as mutually enacted environments: A sensemaking approach to work–Life interrelationships. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(3), 385–415. doi:10.1177/0893318908327160

Golden, T. D. (2012). Altering the effects of work and family conflict on exhaustion: Telework during traditional and nontraditional work hours. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(3), 255–269. doi:10.1007/s10869-011-9247-0

Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 72–92. doi:10.5465/ AMR.2006.19379625

Karasek, R. A., Triantis, K. P., & Chaudhry, S. S. (1982). Coworker and supervisor support as moderators of associations between task characteristics and mental strain. Journal of Orga- nizational Behavior, 3(2), 181–200. doi:10.1002/job.4030030205

Kirby, E., & Krone, K. (2002). “The policy exists but you can’t really use it”: Communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(1), 50–77. doi:10.1080/00909880216577

Kirby, E. L., Golden, A. G., Medved, C. E., Jorgenson, J., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2003). An organiza- tional challenge to the discourse of work and family research: From problematics to empowerment. In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication yearbook (pp. 1–43). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.

Western Journal of Communication 461

Knapp, M. L., Stohl, C., & Reardon, K. K. (1981). “Memorable” messages. Journal of Communica- tion, 31(4), 27–41. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb00448.x

Kossek, E. E., Hammer, L. B., Kelly, E. L., & Moen, P. (2014). Designing work, family & health organizational change initiatives. Organizational Dynamics, 43(1), 53–63. doi:10.1016/j. orgdyn.2013.10.007

Krouse, S. S., & Afifi, T. D. (2007). Family-to-work spillover stress: Coping communicatively in the workplace. Journal of Family Communication, 7(2), 85–122. doi:10.1080/ 15267430701221537

Medved, C. E., Brogan, S. M., McClanahan, A. M., Morris, J. F., & Shepherd, G. J. (2006). Family and work socializing communication: Messages, gender, and ideological implications. Jour- nal of Family Communication, 6(3), 161–180. doi:10.1207/s15327698jfc0603_1

Netemeyer, R. G., Boles, J. S., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(4), 400–410. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.400

Parasuraman, S., & Greenhaus, J. H. (Eds.). (1997). The changing world of work and family. In Integrating work and family: Challenges and choices for a changing world (pp. 3–14). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Public policy, work, and families. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/ work-family.aspx

Rapoport, R., & Bailyn, L. (1996). Relinking life and work: Toward a better future. Darby, PA: Diane Publishing.

Schieman, S. (2006). Gender, dimensions of work, and supportive coworker relations. Sociological Quarterly, 47(2), 195–214. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2006.00043.x

Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., Oosterwaal, A., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). Managing family demands in teams. Group & Organization Management, 37(3), 376–403. doi:10.1177/1059601111435410

Tretheway, A., Tracy, S. J., & Alberts, J. K. (2006). Crystallizing frames for work-life. The Electronic Journal of Communication, 16(3–4), 1–7. Retrieved from http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/ 016/3/01636.HTML

Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151–176. doi:10.1037/h0033967

Wayne, J. H., Butts, M. M., Casper, W. J., & Allen, T. D. (2017). In search of balance: A conceptual and empirical integration of multiple meanings of work-family balance. Personnel Psychol- ogy, 70(1), 167–210. doi:10.1111/peps.12132

Yoshimura, C. G. (2013). A dialectic approach to work – Family conflict. The Northwest Journal of Communication, 41(1), 7–40.

462 C. G. Yoshimura and B. Heisterkamp