Search results

Work-life flexibility policies (e.g., flextime, telework, part-time, right-to-disconnect, and leaves) are increasingly important to employers as productivity and well-being strategies. However, policies have not lived up to their potential. In this chapter, the authors argue for increased research attention to implementation and work-life intersectionality considerations influencing effectiveness. Drawing on a typology that conceptualizes flexibility policies as offering employees control across five dimensions of the work role boundary (temporal, spatial, size, permeability, and continuity), the authors develop a model identifying the multilevel moderators and mechanisms of boundary control shaping relationships between using flexibility and work and home performance. Next, the authors review this model with an intersectional lens. The authors direct scholars’ attention to growing workforce diversity and increased variation in flexibility policy experiences, particularly for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality, which is defined as having multiple intersecting identities (e.g., gender, caregiving, and race), that are stigmatized, and link to having less access to and/or benefits from societal resources to support managing the work-life interface in a social context. Such an intersectional focus would address the important need to shift work-life and flexibility research from variable to person-centered approaches. The authors identify six research considerations on work-life intersectionality in order to illuminate how traditionally assumed work-life relationships need to be revisited to address growing variation in: access, needs, and preferences for work-life flexibility; work and nonwork experiences; and benefits from using flexibility policies. The authors hope that this chapter will spur a conversation on how the work-life interface and flexibility policy processes and outcomes may increasingly differ for individuals with higher work-life intersectionality compared to those with lower work-life intersectionality in the context of organizational and social systems that may perpetuate growing work-life and job inequality.

The purpose of this study is to extend Bippus and Young’s (2005) study and examine the effectiveness of the “I-you,” “I,” “You,” “We,” “But” and Question-based “Why” statements from Winer’s (2021) verbal coding program of conflict management using Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory (SLT).

Mixed methods were used using 175 university students from Texas and New York. A cross-sectional convenience sampling approach was conducted. Survey data was collected using Qualtrics.

Descriptive results demonstrated that the “We” statement was the most passive, the “I-you” statement was the most assertive and the “But,” “I,” “You” and Question statements were perceived to be aggressive. In addition, assertive “I-You” statements were perceived to be more effective in resolving the conflict and maintaining a relationship, whereas aggressive statements were less likely to resolve the conflict and maintain the relationship. Qualitative themes also support the “I-You” statement as the most assertive, while the “But,” “You” and “I” statements were found to be the most aggressive statements.

Implications and applications are discussed to stimulate future research among researchers and practitioners when addressing conflict. Being aware of the verbal statements that de-escalate conflict may be helpful in solving conflict in interpersonal, family and professional relationships. Future trainings can adopt effective verbal statements to resolve conflict when experiencing anger issues. Future research can continue to investigate verbal communication statements using SLT to help practitioners and managers address conflict in interpersonal relationships.

This study examines verbal statements in relation to communication styles and conflict management.