Role negotiation and systems-level work-life balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the processes underlying a systems perspective on work–life balance (WLB), with a particular focus on the tensions and role negotiations that arise within and across work and non-work roles. Design/methodology/approach The authors employed a qualitative methodology, conducting 42 interviews with lawyers at large law firms, which is a context notorious for long work hours. Findings While a cornerstone of a systems view is that balance is social in nature, and that negotiations occur among stakeholders over role expectations, the process through which this happens has remained unexamined both theoretically and empirically. The authors learned that negotiating around work and non-work role expectations are often contested, complex and fluid. The authors contribute to the literature by elaborating on how these negotiations happen in the legal profession, describing factors that inhibit or facilitate role negotiation and exploring how interdependencies within work systems and across work and non-work systems shape these negotiation processes. Originality/value The findings offer a more nuanced conceptualization of the system-level perspective on WLB, and in particular an enriched explanation of work and non-work role negotiation. The authors encourage employers who are interested in promoting WLB to ensure that their employees feel empowered to negotiate their roles, particularly with others in their work systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".