We live in a culture where work has no natural edges. The phone in your pocket brings the office into your bedroom. The laptop on the kitchen table whispers reminders when you are trying to eat with your family. The story we have been sold is that this is the cost of being important, of being connected, of being needed. Yet there is another story available: one where leaving work at work is an act of reclaiming your own life, an act of creating space for relationships, joy, and rest.
This is not only a matter of personal preference. Research in organisational psychology makes clear that how we manage the interface between work and life shapes health, resilience, and effectiveness. Boundary Theory (Ashforth, Kreiner and Fugate, 2000) shows that individuals differ in whether they prefer to keep domains separate or blended, and that stress increases when environments clash with those preferences. Border Theory (Clark, 2000) highlights that the lines between roles are not given but constructed, and that we cross them every day in ways that can be either smooth or disruptive. The Effort-Recovery Model (Meijman and Mulder, 1998) and Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, 1989) show that energy drained at work must be replenished or strain accumulates. The Work–Home Resources Model (ten Brummelhuis and Bakker, 2012) reminds us that spillover is inevitable, but it can enrich as well as deplete.
So this is not a soft issue. It is central to human sustainability at work. The invitation is to consider how you draw edges, how you recover, how you transition, how you exercise autonomy, and how you manage resources so that work is not all-consuming. What follows are five areas of practice, each grounded in research and offered not as prescriptions but as possibilities.
Boundaries and borders
Boundaries are the edges we draw to honour the different parts of our lives. They are not walls to keep work out, but agreements that allow us to be fully present where we are. Without them, everything seeps together and we end up half at work and half at home, rarely giving our best to either. With them, we protect the dignity of both domains.
Boundary Theory (Ashforth, Kreiner and Fugate, 2000) shows us that people vary in their preferences. Some thrive on segmentation, keeping work and home firmly apart. Others are more comfortable with integration, blending the two domains fluidly. Neither is right or wrong. What matters is fit: whether your preference aligns with your environment. Border Theory (Clark, 2000) adds that boundaries are physical, temporal, and psychological. They can be more or less permeable, meaning how easily interruptions cross them, and more or less flexible, meaning how easily they can bend without breaking.
Set spatial boundaries: Physical separation offers one of the most explicit cues. When work has a defined place, it is easier to leave behind. For those in offices, this may be as simple as not carrying work home or leaving papers at the desk. For hybrid and remote workers, it requires more intention, such as creating a workspace that is distinct from where you eat or sleep. Closing the laptop and stepping away becomes a ritual of closure. Research confirms that spatial boundaries reduce role conflict and increase the likelihood of psychological detachment after hours (Park, Fritz and Jex, 2011). At heart, this is about letting spaces keep their integrity: a kitchen for meals, a bedroom for rest, a desk for work.
Define temporal boundaries. Time is a second kind of border. Without clear start and stop points, work expands endlessly, colonising evenings and weekends. Defining temporal boundaries means choosing work hours that you honour and communicating them to others. It may mean setting a cut-off for email or blocking time in your calendar that is not negotiable. Research on after-hours email finds that without temporal limits, recovery is undermined and stress builds (Barber and Santuzzi, 2015). In practice, this is less about rigid schedules and more about integrity. By declaring when the day ends, you create space for the rest of your life to matter.
Negotiate team norms: Boundaries are not only individual acts. They are co-created in relationships. A team that normalises sending messages late into the night makes it harder for any one person to resist. A team that agrees there is no expectation of response after a certain time makes it easier for everyone to breathe. Research shows that shared norms reduce boundary violations and increase psychological safety to switch off (Mazmanian, Orlikowski and Yates, 2013). Here the invitation is to move from silent resentment to open conversation. Ask: What availability do we truly need? What would it take for us to respect one another’s time? Boundaries are stronger when they are built together.
Detachment and recovery
Recovery is the process that allows us to come back whole after a period of effort. It is not simply the absence of work but the presence of rest, reflection, and renewal. Without recovery, the strain of work accumulates and slowly erodes both wellbeing and performance. With it, we restore the resources that make us resilient.
The Effort-Recovery Model (Meijman and Mulder, 1998) explains that every demand at work draws on our physical and psychological capacities. Only when those demands are followed by genuine recovery do we return to baseline. Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, 1989) adds that when resources are continually drawn down without replenishment, individuals become increasingly vulnerable to stress and burnout. Detachment, the ability to mentally switch off from work, is the key mechanism that allows recovery to occur (Sonnentag and Fritz, 2015).
Build micro-breaks into the day: Recovery does not only belong to evenings or weekends. It can begin in the middle of the day, if we allow it. Taking short breaks to walk, stretch, or breathe interrupts the cycle of depletion. Research shows that micro-breaks improve energy and reduce fatigue, even when they are only a few minutes long (Hunter and Wu, 2016). The invitation is to treat these pauses not as lost productivity but as investments. A moment of rest is often what makes the next hour more effective.
End-of-day rituals: Closure helps the mind let go. Unfinished tasks tend to linger, creating rumination that follows us into the evening. Simple rituals such as writing down what remains for tomorrow, clearing the desk, or taking a final look at the calendar provide psychological completion. Studies show that such rituals reduce after-hours rumination and improve evening recovery (Syrek, Weigelt, Peifer and Antoni, 2017). The act itself does not need to be grand. What matters is the signal: the day is done, it is safe to turn toward the rest of life.
Choose absorbing leisure: Not all leisure restores. Passive activities such as endless scrolling or television marathons may occupy time but often do little to replenish resources. Engaging in activities that fully absorb attention, such as cooking, sport, music, or creative pursuits, provides far greater recovery. Flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) shows that when attention is deeply engaged, stress recedes and renewal occurs. More recent research confirms that active, absorbing leisure has stronger benefits for wellbeing than passive downtime (Kujanpää, Syrek and Weigelt, 2022). The deeper point is that leisure is not indulgence. It is recovery work, and it deserves as much intention as the workday itself.
Role transitions and rituals
We are never only workers. We are also parents, partners, friends, neighbours, and citizens. Each role has its own expectations, its own rhythms, its own meaning. Moving from one role to another is not automatic. Without intention, we risk being half-present everywhere, carrying the weight of one role into the space of another. Rituals of transition help us cross the threshold with awareness.
Border Theory (Clark, 2000) describes these transitions as crossings between domains that are physical, temporal, and psychological. They are not switches we flip but processes that need to be supported. When we ignore transitions, work-related thoughts spill into family time, or home stress bleeds into the office. When we respect transitions, we step into each role with greater presence. Research on role identity also shows that rituals, symbols, and routines help individuals shift more effectively across roles (Ashforth, 2001).
Create commute rituals, even when working from home: For many people, the commute provides a natural transition. The train ride, the podcast in the car, or even the act of walking home allows time to decompress and reset. When working remotely, that buffer disappears. Research shows that individuals who intentionally create substitute rituals, such as walking around the block or to the end of the street, cycling briefly, or listening to a designated “end of work” playlist, experience greater psychological detachment (Ohly and Latour, 2014). These rituals need not be long. What matters is that they signal, clearly and consistently, that the workday has ended and another role is beginning.
Use clothing as a signal: Clothing is more than fabric. It is a symbol of the role we are playing. Changing clothes at the end of the day is a simple yet powerful act. Research into role identity highlights that visible cues help the mind adjust more quickly to a new role (Ashforth, 2001). Even at home, moving from work attire to leisure wear tells both yourself and others: I am no longer in my work role. The invitation here is to treat this not as a superficial change but as a ritual of identity. Each shift in clothing becomes a reminder that you are more than your job.
Adopt digital transition cues: technology can be one of the biggest barriers to role transitions. Notifications, messages, and emails pull us back into work even when we have physically left it. Yet technology can also support transitions if used intentionally. Logging out of work accounts, moving the phone to another room, or setting “do not disturb” functions can all serve as signals of closure. Research finds that employees who manage digital transitions deliberately report greater detachment and lower strain from after-hours intrusions (Derks, van Duin, Tims and Bakker, 2015). The deeper choice is whether technology will control you or you will control it. Creating digital rituals of transition is one way to reclaim that authority.
Control and autonomy
Leaving work at work is not only about setting boundaries. It is also about the sense of control you feel over how those boundaries are managed. Many people can tolerate high demands if they believe they have choice in how and when they respond. What creates strain is not only the workload but the loss of autonomy. Reclaiming control over the flow of work into your life is therefore a central act of wellbeing.
The idea of boundary control, defined by Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy and Hannum (2012), captures this well. It refers to the degree of autonomy individuals feel in deciding how permeable their work and life boundaries should be. Research shows that when people perceive high boundary control, they report less stress and more satisfaction, regardless of whether they prefer integration or segmentation. Kreiner (2006) adds that the critical factor is not whether you choose to integrate or separate, but whether the environment allows you to align your practices with your preferences.
Design your personal boundary style: Each of us has a natural rhythm for how we want to organise our work and life. Some prefer firm walls, others prefer fluid integration. The first step toward autonomy is clarity about your own style. Reflect on questions such as: When do I do my best work? At what times do I want to be most available to family or friends? How much interruption can I tolerate before it becomes stressful? Once you have clarity, you can make choices that reflect it. Research suggests that individuals who actively shape their boundary style, rather than simply accepting what is imposed, experience lower stress and higher satisfaction (Kreiner, 2006). The invitation is to become the architect of your own boundaries, not a passive recipient of others’ demands.
Own your availability: Uncertainty about availability often fuels boundary strain. If colleagues are unsure when you will respond, or if you feel pressured to answer immediately at all hours, work can become an endless intrusion. One way to reclaim control is to make availability explicit. This may involve blocking focus time in your calendar, setting clear email response windows, or telling colleagues that evening messages will be addressed in the morning. Research shows that when employees clearly signal boundaries around availability, they experience less intrusion and better psychological detachment (Sonnentag and Kruel, 2006; Derks, van Duin, Tims and Bakker, 2015). When you own your availabili
Customise your technology use: Technology can either undermine or reinforce autonomy, depending on how it is used. When devices constantly ping with alerts, they erode any sense of control. Yet technology can also be harnessed to protect boundaries. Strategies include disabling push notifications, using delayed-send features on email, or activating focus modes that silence distractions. Research by Mazmanian, Orlikowski and Yates (2013) shows that employees who shape their technology use intentionally report higher wellbeing and less conflict between work and life. The deeper point is that tools are not neutral. Each setting is a small but powerful choice about the kind of life you are willing to live.
Resource management and spillover
Work and life are not separate containers. They constantly flow into each other, sometimes with nourishment, sometimes with strain. What happens at work follows us home in our mood, our energy, and our attention. What happens at home shapes how we show up at work the next day. The challenge is not to eliminate spillover but to manage it, so that the flow enriches rather than depletes.
The Work–Home Resources Model (ten Brummelhuis and Bakker, 2012) explains that demands in one domain drain resources such as energy, time, and emotional capacity, while resources gained in one domain can enrich the other. Research on role conflict shows that strain arises when the expectations of multiple roles outstrip available resources (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). At the same time, enrichment is possible when skills, energy, or positive emotions transfer from one domain to another (Greenhaus and Powell, 2006).
Conduct regular energy audits: Awareness is the starting point. Most people know they feel drained or restored but rarely track the patterns that create those feelings. An energy audit involves setting aside ten minutes at the end of each week to review where your energy went. Make a simple two-column list: tasks or interactions that drained you, and those that gave you energy. At work, this might mean noticing that back-to-back status meetings leave you depleted, while mentoring a colleague or solving a technical problem lifts you. In personal life, hosting a noisy dinner may feel draining, while walking the dog or cooking a meal may restore you. Research by Fritz, Lam and Spreitzer (2011) found that employees who intentionally monitored and managed their energy engaged in more sustainable work practices and reported higher wellbeing. The practical step is to act on these insights: reduce exposure to high-drain activities where possible, pair them with energising tasks, or build in recovery afterward. At the same time, deliberately schedule more of what restores you. Seeing energy as a resource to steward, rather than something that is simply used up, helps you design both work and life with greater intention.
Harness positive spillover: Spillover is often framed negatively, as if work inevitably contaminates personal life, yet enrichment is equally possible. Greenhaus and Powell (2006) describe this as work–family enrichment, where resources gained in one role improve performance or satisfaction in another. Skills learned at work, such as negotiation or conflict resolution, can strengthen family life, just as patience or humour developed at home can improve leadership. Positive emotions also travel across domains: a sense of accomplishment at work can lift your mood for an evening with family, while joy and support at home can provide resilience for the next day’s challenges (Fredrickson, 2001). Social support functions in the same way, with affirmation at work building confidence at home and family encouragement fuelling persistence in professional contexts (ten Brummelhuis, Ter Hoeven, Bakker and Peper, 2011). The practical step is to notice and cultivate these transfers: share small wins with loved ones, carry humour from family life back into the office, and thank those whose support in one sphere strengthens you in another. By doing so, you guide the flow of spillover and allow the best of each role to enrich the other.
Create intentional recovery routines: Recovery is most powerful when it is structured into daily life rather than left to chance. Instead of hoping that rest or exercise will fit into the margins, create deliberate routines that protect recovery time. This might include setting a consistent bedtime, scheduling regular exercise, or designating one evening a week as a work-free zone for family or hobbies. Research shows that structured recovery routines build psychological resilience and reduce work–family conflict because they create predictable opportunities for replenishment (Sonnentag and Fritz, 2015). These routines also function as boundaries in practice. By deciding in advance how you will allocate your time and energy, you make it easier for work demands to be managed effectively, preventing them from spilling into every corner of your life. The invitation is to treat recovery with the same seriousness as meetings or deadlines. It is not what you do once you have time left over, it is what makes you able to show up fully tomorrow.
Conclusion: choosing wholeness
The ability to leave work at work is not a soft skill. It is a core capacity for resilience and sustainable performance. The research is clear: without boundaries, recovery, rituals, autonomy, and resource management, we erode both our wellbeing and our contribution.
But the research also points to possibility. There is no single formula. Each person must experiment with edges, rituals, and routines that fit their own life and context. The deeper act is intentionality. To live without edges is to allow work to consume every part of life. To live with edges is to reclaim wholeness.
Three questions remain for reflection:
- Which boundaries in my life need reinforcing?
- What ritual could I begin tomorrow to mark the end of my workday?
- How can I invest more in the resources that sustain me?
The invitation is simple. Reclaim the edges of your life, not to step away from work, but to step into wholeness.
Work-life balance is one of the 100 capabilities of the Leadership Library
Do you have any tips or advice on establishing work-life boundaries or achieving a better work-life balance?
What has worked for you?
Do you have any recommended resources to explore?
Thanks for reading!
References
Ashforth, B.E. (2001) Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ashforth, B.E., Kreiner, G.E. and Fugate, M. (2000) ‘All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions’, Academy of Management Review, 25(3), pp. 472–491. doi:10.5465/amr.2000.3363315.
Barber, L.K. and Santuzzi, A.M. (2015) ‘Please respond ASAP: Workplace telepressure and employee recovery’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), pp. 172–189. doi:10.1037/a0038278.
Clark, S.C. (2000) ‘Work/family border theory: A new theory of work/family balance’, Human Relations, 53(6), pp. 747–770. doi:10.1177/0018726700536001.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Derks, D., van Duin, D., Tims, M. and Bakker, A.B. (2015) ‘Smartphone use and work–home interference: The moderating role of social norms and employee work engagement’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 88(1), pp. 155–177. doi:10.1111/joop.12083.
Fredrickson, B.L. (2001) ‘The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions’, American Psychologist, 56(3), pp. 218–226. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218.
Fritz, C., Lam, C.F. and Spreitzer, G. (2011) ‘It’s the little things that matter: An examination of knowledge workers’ energy management’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), pp. 28–39. doi:10.5465/amp.25.3.zol28.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Beutell, N.J. (1985) ‘Sources of conflict between work and family roles’, Academy of Management Review, 10(1), pp. 76–88. doi:10.5465/amr.1985.4277352.
Greenhaus, J.H. and Powell, G.N. (2006) ‘When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment’, Academy of Management Review, 31(1), pp. 72–92. doi:10.5465/amr.2006.19379625.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989) ‘Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress’, American Psychologist, 44(3), pp. 513–524. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513.
Hunter, E.M. and Wu, C. (2016) ‘Give me a break: Choosing workday break activities to maximize resource recovery’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), pp. 302–311. doi:10.1037/apl0000045.
Kossek, E.E., Ruderman, M., Braddy, P. and Hannum, K. (2012) ‘Work–nonwork boundary management profiles: A person-centered approach’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81(1), pp. 112–128. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2012.04.003.
Kreiner, G.E. (2006) ‘Consequences of work–home segmentation or integration: A person–environment fit perspective’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), pp. 485–507. doi:10.1002/job.386.
Kujanpää, M., Syrek, C.J. and Weigelt, O. (2022) ‘The recovery value of leisure activities: A longitudinal study of engaged and passive recovery’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 27(1), pp. 1–14. doi:10.1037/ocp0000280.
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W.J. and Yates, J. (2013) ‘The autonomy paradox: The implications of mobile email devices for knowledge professionals’, Organization Science, 24(5), pp. 1337–1357. doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0806.
Meijman, T.F. and Mulder, G. (1998) ‘Psychological aspects of workload’, in Drenth, P.J.D., Thierry, H. and de Wolff, C.J. (eds.) Handbook of work and organizational psychology: Volume 2. Work psychology. Hove: Psychology Press, pp. 5–33.
Ohly, S. and Latour, A. (2014) ‘Work–home transitions: A multi-level perspective on boundary permeability’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(3), pp. 455–471. doi:10.1002/job.1902.
Park, Y., Fritz, C. and Jex, S.M. (2011) ‘Relationships between work–home segmentation and psychological detachment from work: The role of communication technology use at home’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16(4), pp. 457–467. doi:10.1037/a0023594.
Sonnentag, S. and Fritz, C. (2015) ‘Recovery from job stress: The stressor–detachment model as an integrative framework’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), pp. S72–S103. doi:10.1002/job.1924.
Sonnentag, S. and Kruel, U. (2006) ‘Psychological detachment from work during off-job time: The role of job stressors, job involvement, and recovery-related self-efficacy’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(2), pp. 197–217. doi:10.1080/13594320500513939.
Syrek, C.J., Weigelt, O., Peifer, C. and Antoni, C.H. (2017) ‘Unfinished tasks foster rumination and impair sleep: Is job stress to blame?’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(2), pp. 225–238. doi:10.1037/ocp0000023.
Ten Brummelhuis, L.L. and Bakker, A.B. (2012) ‘A resource perspective on the work–home interface: The work–home resources model’, American Psychologist, 67(7), pp. 545–556. doi:10.1037/a0027974.
Ten Brummelhuis, L.L., Ter Hoeven, C.L., Bakker, A.B. and Peper, B. (2011) ‘Breaking through the loss cycle of burnout: The role of motivation’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(2), pp. 268–287. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02019.x.
Leave A Comment