Boundary rhythms: Adaptation and adjustment to work–nonwork boundary blurring in hybrid work

In 2017, Professor Robert Kelly’s BBC interview was famously interrupted by his children. Eight years on—and after a global turn to hybrid work—that scene feels ordinary. An estimated 100 million employees in Europe and North America now work in hybrid arrangements (Aksoy, 2023), moving between office and non-office locations (Xu, 2023). Hybrid work extends temporal and spatial flexibility while destabilising familiar work–family routines (Allen et al., 2021; Shirmohammadi et al., 2023). Frequent crossings between work and nonwork can be cognitively and emotionally taxing, raising a central question: how do people actually manage blurred boundaries as they unfold, and how do momentary responses scale into more durable patterns of adaptation and change? Boundary management theories explain how individuals enact preferences along an integration–segmentation continuum (Ashforth et al., 2000; Clark, 2000), cataloguing temporal, spatial, behavioural and communicative tactics (Allen et al., 2014; Cobb et al., 2022). Yet the field often assumes relatively stable boundary placement between distinct domains—an assumption long challenged by Kanter’s “myth of separate worlds” and increasingly untenable under hybrid conditions. Recent work calls for dynamic, process-oriented accounts in which strategies are revised to mitigate strain (Grotto, 2022; Piszczek & Yestrepsky, 2024). Person–environment (PE) fit research complements this turn by locating (mis)fit in the interplay of preferences and situational affordances (Edwards et al., 1998; Chen et al., 2009); Kreiner et al. (2009) show how incongruence precipitates shifts in strategy aimed at restoring congruence. Hybrid work—replete with routine blurring and shifting constraints—offers an ideal context to examine boundary dynamics across time and levels of experience. We advance this agenda by proposing a rhythmic, affect-informed model of boundary management fit that foregrounds agency, emotion and environmental co-construction. Rather than treating integration and segmentation as fixed endpoints, we examine how workers keep pace with changing conditions by maintaining, repairing or redefining fit. We term the temporally patterned process that results boundary rhythms: cyclical adjustments through which people align evolving preferences with evolving environments. We conducted a longitudinal qualitative study with 34 UK-based knowledge workers. Participants completed diary entries over four weeks (218 first-person accounts of concrete boundary events such as unexpected calls, ad-hoc deadlines, location shifts and caregiving interruptions), reporting triggers, emotions, tactics and immediate outcomes; follow-up semi-structured interviews elaborated longer trajectories of adjustment and sensemaking. Analysis proceeded abductively across three planes—event-level mechanics, cross-event adjustments and trajectory-level reframing—using coding of appraisals of fit/misfit, affective signals and tactics; time-ordered matrices to trace escalation from ad-hoc fixes to pre-emptive designs; and thematic analysis of identity and preference shifts. Analyst triangulation, constant comparison and negative-case searches supported credibility. Our findings show that boundary management operated as dynamic coordination for fit. At the event level, boundary work unfolded as a rapid loop of appraisal (“does this arrangement fit now?”), affect, and micro-regulation (e.g., deferring intrusions, switching off notifications, carving temporal buffers, changing location, renegotiating expectations). Affective cues—irritation, guilt, relief, pride—functioned as early warnings of misfit or validations of fit and reliably channelled responses (Allen et al., 2014; Michel et al., 2014). Notably, blurring itself was not inherently problematic; when chosen and instrumental (for energy, focus, or convenience), it often produced event-level fit. Across repeated events, individuals developed patterned responses. Recurring misfits triggered learning loops in which emotion both registered strain and accelerated learning, prompting escalation from ad-hoc fixes to pre-emptive architectures. Participants institutionalised transition rituals (e.g., “fake commute”), codified calendar guardrails (focus blocks, meeting-light windows), configured technologies (quiet hours, default-off notifications), redesigned spaces (door-closing zones; planned office days for focus), and co-constructed expectations with managers, colleagues, and family members. Over longer trajectories, many reframed boundary ideals: some shifted from rigid segmentation to flexible, time-boxed integration when impermeability repeatedly failed; others recalibrated from “always-on” integration toward clearer segmentation as caregiving or focus needs rose. Success was increasingly defined not as perfect control but as manageable fit that protects well-being while sustaining performance. The result was a stabilised—though adjustable—boundary rhythm aligned to a given life phase. Theoretically, the study contributes in three ways. First, we extend boundary management beyond static placement on the integration–segmentation continuum (Ashforth et al., 2000) by specifying a process model—boundary rhythms—in which event-level (mis)fit and affective feedback accumulate into cross-event architectures and, ultimately, preference reframing (cf. Grotto, 2022; Piszczek & Yestrepsky, 2024). Second, we deepen affect’s role in boundary dynamics: beyond discrete moods, affect functions as regulator of fit—an early-warning signal at the event (Allen et al., 2014), a learning amplifier across events, and a catalyst for identity and preference change over time (cf. Michel et al., 2014). Third, we enrich PE-fit theory (Edwards et al., 1998; Chen et al., 2009) with a temporal, co-constructive lens: fit is maintained, repaired, or redefined through rules, calendars, spaces, technologies, and policies enacted with others, not solely through individual self-control. Together, these contributions argue against static, dichotomous models and expand processual and fit-based accounts of boundary work under hybrid conditions. Practically, the findings support structured autonomy: pair clear local discretion with lightweight guardrails (response-time norms, meeting-light windows, quiet hours), architect calendars and technologies for intentional responsiveness (protected focus blocks; default-off notifications), model boundary-respectful behaviours, and empower line managers to flex policies quickly (e.g., carer leave) so fragile micro-fixes become durable designs.