Haley R. Cobb

Research on work–family and work–life dynamics has grown substantially, yet the experiences of LGBTQ+ employees remain understudied. This chapter synthesises what is known about how LGBTQ+ workers navigate work–family conflict, balance, and enrichment, revealing both shared and unique dynamics relative to heterosexual cisgender workers. While LGBTQ+ employees experience traditional time-, strain-, and behaviour-based conflicts, they also face stigma-based work–family conflict, arising from heterosexist norms, identity concealment pressures, and exclusion of non-traditional families. Research on work–life balance and enrichment is especially scarce for LGBTQ+ workers, though existing evidence suggests both heightened challenges (e.g., smaller support networks and discriminatory climates) and distinct opportunities (e.g., identity-affirming communities and positive effects of authenticity). We outline critical gaps that need addressing in future research, including the near absence of research on bisexual, transgender, nonbinary, and queer employees, and call for updated measures, inclusive methodologies, and policies that acknowledge diverse family structures.

Although some individuals prefer to separate work and nonwork, others prefer to integrate these domains, and organizations, families, and other contextual factors uniquely impact boundary management. Boundary management fit, which integrates boundary management theories with person-environment fit, examines the interplay between these individual and contextual factors. In this systematic review, we take stock of boundary management fit and its implications for worker well-being. Our results conceptualize boundary management fit and outline its nomological network. Results suggest that, although boundary management fit results in some positive well-being-related outcomes, the consequences are somewhat equivocal. Rather, boundary management misfit (i.e., a lack of fit between person and environment) may be more impactful on well-being. From there, we present a conceptual framework that builds on and expands prior research, comprehensively depicting the body of literature to date. We discuss our review's theoretical, empirical, and practical implications and outline future directions for research and practice.

Gender inequity is an ongoing issue that organizations and society have failed to address fully. The (stalled) gender revolution is multidimensional and complex, and the “ideal worker myth” -- the outdated belief that the “ideal worker” can put work above all else in their life – is one such factor that perpetuates gender inequity at work. We use this article as a space to contribute to the conversation around gender equity and the myth of the ideal worker, especially in response to challenges highlighted during and since the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a crucial time at which the ideal worker should be subverted, as women’s participation in the paid workforce wasundermined by pandemic-related issues, perhaps even moving the gender revolution backward. Here, we provide an overview of these topics to orient our readers, and we recommend remedying these issues using an intersectional feminist approach in both research and practice. Our actionable recommendations are the crux of this article and are designed to promote gender equity and end the myth of the ideal worker once and for all.

Although some individuals prefer to separate work and nonwork, others prefer to integrate these domains, and organizations, families, and other contextual factors uniquely impact boundary management. Boundary management fit, which integrates boundary management theories with person-environment fit, examines the interplay between these individual and contextual factors. In this systematic review, we take stock of boundary management fit and its implications for worker well-being. Our results conceptualize boundary management fit and outline its nomological network. Results suggest that, although boundary management fit results in some positive well-being-related outcomes, the consequences are somewhat equivocal. Rather, boundary management misfit (i.e., a lack of fit between person and environment) may be more impactful on well-being. From there, we present a conceptual framework that builds on and expands prior research, comprehensively depicting the body of literature to date. We discuss our review's theoretical, empirical, and practical implications and outline future directions for research and practice.

The policy shifts the United States is facing as of late are creating a changing landscape for workers and organizations. These policy shifts are also impacting how industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology professors engage with pedagogy and politics in the classroom and training. Our policy brief emphasizes using policy shifts to support skill building around critical thinking and evidence-based decision making, thereby promoting classroom and training environments that empower the next generation. In this article, we discuss these implications and recommendations for I-O professors (including instructors, faculty, and others responsible for teaching and training the next generation of workers and I-O professionals). We call on I-O professors to intentionally engage with policy shifts in the classroom, emphasize evidence-based practice and provide opportunities to develop these skills, and support I-O advocacy. We recognize that these efforts are not without challenge, and we provide recommendations to reduce the burden on I-O professors and students when critically engaging with this content. Finally, we highlight several sources, including Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP), that provide information on navigating and understanding the ongoing policy shifts.

A midwestern Jesuit university worked to align an existing IPE program with a new core curriculum and its corresponding student learning outcomes (SLO’s). This paper describes the collaborative curriculum development process used within an institution to develop its first University Core Curriculum. The University-core curriculum development process resulted in a framework, outcomes, and essential criteria associated with nine student learning outcomes (SLO’s). To address this new framework, faculty developed new and revised IPE learning experiences to align with University SLO’s and core attributes. This produced three IPE courses that simultaneously address the health profession program’s unique accreditation requirements, IPE competencies, and the University SLO’s. Positive improvements in pre/post assessment of the SACS and strong ACE-15 scores indicate the development of collaboration skills and behaviors that create a collaborative environment. Narrative responses from the final exam supported positive changes on both the SACS and ACE-15. This collaborative process aligning IPE competencies with the University SLOs strengthened interprofessional learning. A continuous improvement method was applied to course development, pedagogy, and outcomes; accompanied by the development of effective teaching teams. It created a wider understanding across the University of health professions programs and the unique contribution of well-designed IPE learning experiences.

The policy shifts the United States is facing as of late are creating a changing landscape for workers and organizations. These policy shifts are also impacting how I-O psychology professors engage with pedagogy and politics in the classroom and training. Our policy brief emphasizes using policy shifts to support skill-building around critical thinking and evidence-based decision making, thereby promoting classroom and training environments that empower the next generation. In this article, we discuss these implications and recommendations for I-O professors (including instructors, faculty, and others responsible for teaching and training the next generation of workers and I-O professionals). We call on I-O professors to intentionally engage with policy shifts in the classroom, emphasize evidence-based practice and provide opportunities to develop these skills, and support I-O advocacy. We recognize that these efforts are not without challenge, and we provide recommendations to reduce the burden on I-O professors and students when critically engaging with this content. Finally, we highlight several sources, including SIOP, that provide information on navigating and understanding the ongoing policy shifts.

Dual-income couples, where both partners in a romantic couple are employed, comprise a considerable portion of the workforce. Both partners can carry strain from paid work into the home, and the spillover-crossover model posits that individuals carry strain from one domain into another, affecting their well-being (i.e., spillover) and their partner’s well-being (i.e., crossover). Here, we present a meta-analysis examining the influence of actor’s and partner’s work-family conflict on their own and their partner’s marital satisfaction. We apply the actor-partner interdependence model to meta-analysis, demonstrating a methodologically robust synthesis of dyadic data. This novel approach allows us to rigorously test spillover-crossover theory and contribute to the scholarship on dual-income couples by providing a more holistic, field-wide summary of the relationships between work-family conflict and marital satisfaction. Results suggest that dual-income couples’ work-family conflict has a significant impact on their own and their partner’s marital satisfaction; spillover and crossover occurring between actor and partner work-family conflict explains variance in both actor and partner marital satisfaction. Our study provides methodological evidence to support the inclusion of dyadic data in meta-analysis, as well as expands our understanding of spillover and crossover in dual-income couples. Suggestions for future research and practice are presented.