New Technology, Work and Employment 28:2

ISSN 0268-1072

Remixing work, family and leisure:

teleworkers’ experiences of everyday life
Margo Hilbrecht, Susan M. Shaw, Laura C. Johnson and
Jean Andrey

This paper explores whether and in what ways telework is

associated with a reconfiguration or remixing of daily work,
family and leisure activities. Semi-structured interviews were
conducted with 51 teleworkers employed in a financial organi-
sation in Canada. For some, telework was a condition of
employment, while others negotiated part-time telework
arrangements with managers. Using interpretive thematic
analysis techniques, intersections and inter-relationships
between experiences of work, family and leisure were identified.
Three main themes emerged, including the need to not only
protect, but also containing work time and space; the signifi-
cance of family and being available for children; and, the rela-
tive devaluation of leisure. Although it was anticipated that
differences between involuntary and voluntary teleworkers
would be evident, gender and family stage were more influen-
tial in structuring daily life. The flexibility of telework was
valued, but there was little evidence of a reconfiguration of life
spheres except for women with children at home.
Keywords: telework, flexibility, work-leisure relationship,
intensive motherhood, work-life balance, leisure, involuntary
telework, telecommute.

With the emergence of digital technologies and the subsequent widespread use of and
dependence on computerisation, telework is a realistic option for workers in a range of
occupations. It is an attractive possibility for companies seeking to reduce costs and for
employees who are seeking to avoid daily commutes to work and have more control

Margo Hilbrecht (ciwmargo@uwaterloo.ca) is the Associate Director of Research for the Canadian
Index of Wellbeing, University of Waterloo. Her research interests centre on the relationship of non-
standard work arrangements to gendered experiences of time use, leisure, health and well-being,
particularly in the context of family life. Susan M. Shaw is a Distinguished Professor Emerita in the
Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies at the University of Waterloo. Her research focuses on
the intersection of work, leisure, and family for women and men, including changing ideologies of
parenthood and the implications of this and other forms of social change for leisure and life quality.
Laura C. Johnson is a professor in the University of Waterloo School of Planning where she teaches
social planning and social research methods. Her research has addressed the social impacts of telework
and other home-based work. She has authored numerous articles on telework, the 2003 book The
Co-Workplace: Teleworking in the Neighbourhood (UBC Press), and an earlier volume on industrial home-
work, The Seam Allowance: Home Sewing in Canada (Canadian Women’s Press). Jean Andrey is a profes-
sor in the Department of Geography and Environmental Management at University of Waterloo. Her
research focuses on transportation planning, especially the challenges of creating safe and environmen-
tally sustainable transportation systems. Her interest in telework stems from its potential to help
reshape mobility patterns and, in turn, people’s lives.

130 New Technology, Work and Employment © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
over their work schedule. Although there is evidence of work–family tensions, con-
tested space and competing temporal rhythms of the home and workplace (see Sullivan
and Lewis, 2001; Tietze and Musson, 2002; Baines and Gelder, 2003; Madsen, 2003;
Osnowitz, 2005; Tietze and Musson, 2005), less is known about how telework affects
patterns of daily life or leisure experiences. Some studies report a positive link between
telework and perceptions of work-life balance (e.g. Maruyama et al., 2009), but few
have looked at whether this change has wider implications in terms of the intersection
of life spheres. The purpose of this paper is to address this broader notion by exploring
whether and in what ways telework is associated with a reconfiguration or ‘remixing’
of work, family and leisure.
Definitions and understandings of telework are varied due, in part, to the preva-
lence of e-work and unpaid overtime at home. We conceptualise teleworkers as
organisationally employed individuals who work at home or another location such as
a telecentre for all or a portion of their work day during regular business hours
(Duxbury and Higgins, 2002). The arrangement may be a condition of employment,
or an informal agreement with the employer. Those with the option to telework are
more often highly educated, male, and in more prestigious occupations than
employees for whom telework is a requirement (Felstead et al., 2002). The exact
number of teleworkers is difficult to determine, perhaps because of different inter-
pretations of telework and the prevalence of informal arrangements (Mokhtarian
et al., 2005). Some studies suggest that rates are increasing in Canada and in the
United States (e.g. see Canadian Telework Association, 2009, WorldatWork, 2009),
where half or more of paid jobs may be at least partly telecommutable (Nie, 1999;
Nilles, 2000). Other research indicates that the number of teleworkers remains
modest with just 15.8 per cent of employed Canadians working from home for at
least one hour during a regular workweek (Chalmers, 2008). This discrepancy may
reflect changes in the nature of telework and/or could signify that the anticipated
uptake of this employment arrangement has not yet materialised. Questions remain
as to whether this new mode of work can be seen to challenge the dominant model
of employment; how it affects the intersection of work, family, and leisure; and
whether telework offers the potential for a more integrated or ‘balanced’ way of life
(Korabik et al., 2008).

Background context
The term ‘work-life balance’ represents a discourse prevalent in the media and broadly
interpreted by researchers and others as an appropriate division of time and attention
(or lack of conflict) between work and other life spheres (e.g. Duxbury and Higgins,
2002; Frone, 2003; Gambles et al., 2006). More specifically, problems are seen to arise
when work time and work responsibilities interfere with family time (Duxbury and
Higgins, 2009). The work-life balance discourse is usually directed toward mothers in
the workforce (Gambles et al., 2006) and typically features advice for improving indi-
vidual time management skills. This approach often overlooks men, those without
dependent children or individuals not actively engaged in paid employment, even
though these individuals may also have time-consuming responsibilities and other
commitments (Ransome, 2007).
Williams’ (2001) conceptualisation of work-life balance provides a more inclusive
framework to consider different life stages and individual circumstances by recognis-
ing three contributing domains, namely personal, caregiving and work spheres. This
perspective acknowledges the significance of family and other types of caregiving. It
includes both unpaid work (household labour) and paid work (employment). Wil-
liams’ approach also incorporates the notion of leisure and other activities that con-
tribute to quality of life and, in doing so, extends the work-life balance debate to a
broader population base (Ransome, 2007).
Mounting evidence suggests that leisure contributes to enhancing work-life balance
and reducing work-life tension (e.g. Crosbie and Moore, 2004; Brown et al., 2008) by
mitigating detrimental health effects of time pressure, transitory employment and job

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Remixing work, family and leisure 131
instability (Cartwright and Warner-Smith, 2003), and by providing a means of coping
with stressful situations at work and with chronic stressors (Iwasaki, 2003; Hutchinson
and Kleiber, 2005). Leisure is part of the full range of daily activities that people pursue
and, as such, clearly merits attention when considering the work-life interface
(Ransome, 2007). Leisure is traditionally understood in terms of time, activity or
experiential qualities (Horna, 1994), but these categories may present challenges
because understandings of leisure are also tied to social context. We conceptualise
leisure as personal time, or time for one’s self. This avoids focusing on work versus
non-work time while involving some dimension of choice, a sense of freedom and the
experience of enjoyment (Henderson et al., 1996).
Apart from issues of definition and conceptualisation, transformations in the
economy and technology must also be considered to better understand current
debates about work-life balance. Although some futurists writing in the mid-20th
century envisioned a ‘rosy’ picture of shortened work weeks and abundant time for
self-development, education and cultural participation (Pieper, 1952; de Grazia, 1964),
such predictions proved inaccurate. Instead of an excess of leisure, one of the major
problems today is the increasing demands of the workplace (Swan, 2005; Macky and
Boxall, 2008), longer rather than shorter work weeks (Gambles et al., 2006; Turcotte,
2007; Gershuny, 2011), rising concerns about work–family conflict (Duxbury and
Higgins, 2009), and increasing levels of time stress and work overload (Zuzanek,
2004). From this perspective, telework has been hailed as a potential solution
(Tremblay et al., 2006). That is, telework has been advocated as a way for individual
workers, and especially workers who are parents, to better manage the demands of
work and family and to improve life balance (Bailey and Kurland, 2002; Madsen,
2003; Maruyama et al., 2009).
Another socio-cultural change in recent years is the development of new ideologies
and practices of parenthood. Whereas beliefs about ‘good parenting’ and, especially,
‘good mothering’ are constantly evolving and being constructed and reconstructed
(Fox, 2001; Johnston and Swanson, 2006), family sociologists have noted a new domi-
nant institution of motherhood (O’Reilly et al., 2005; Gouendouzi, 2006). This vision of
motherhood is one of intensity and high demands, involving constant vigilance and
self-sacrifice (Warner, 2005), and an increasing array of parenting responsibilities
(Arendell, 2001; Wall, 2005). Within this context, ‘intensive mothering’ has emerged,
characterised as ‘more emotionally absorbing, labour intensive, and financially expen-
sive than ever before’ (Hays, 1996: 46). Telework can be highly compatible with inten-
sive mothering practices by allowing mothers some flexibility in arranging work hours
around children’s routines and providing greater physical accessibility to children
compared with women who work in other locations (Hilbrecht et al., 2008).
At the same time, fathers are expected to be more involved in their children’s lives
compared with previous generations (Coakley, 2006), which entails both contributing
to daily child care (Daly, 2001; Eggebeen, 2002), and spending time with children and
developing close emotional connections (Kazura, 2000; Marsiglio and Cohan, 2000).
These changes in parenting practices are associated with decreased personal leisure
and increased family leisure that tends to be more purposive in nature, with additional
work-like dimensions especially for mothers (Shaw, 2008). For parents, then, increasing
levels of time stress, overload and loss of personal leisure may be due not only to
changing work hours and work cultures, but also to current expectations of parenthood
(Hilbrecht, 2009; Shaw, 2010).
Not all agree that telework can resolve these issues. Although some may experience
telework as a ‘new opportunity’ to integrate employment and other activities, it may
undermine gender equality by creating conditions for women to assume total domestic
responsibility and, therefore, can be seen as a form of exploitation (Sullivan and Lewis,
2001). Telework may also contribute to the expansion and intensification of work hours,
making it less suitable for those with caregiving responsibilities (Glass and Noonan,
2012). Moreover, different temporal rhythms associated with the workplace and family
life can create complexities and tensions that are difficult to reconcile when the cultur-
ally distinct spheres of home and paid work comingle and overlap (Tietze and Musson,

132 New Technology, Work and Employment © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
2002; 2005; Osnowitz, 2005). Flexible scheduling allows more control over the timing of
activities, but it can also become a source of stress when choices have to be made
between numerous tasks and responsibilities that coexist at home (Tietze and Musson,
2005). As Brannen (2005) observed, having more control over daily activities does not
always improve quality of life.
These historic and contemporary changes help to explain points of convergence and
conflict in the intersection of work, family and leisure. The discussion of social change
also raises questions about the experiences and daily routines of teleworkers. Sensitiv-
ity to gender and role expectations may be especially salient. Women more often cite the
advantages of telework in managing work and family commitments, whereas men
report being able to ‘help out’ with domestic responsibilities more readily and spend
time with their children (Sullivan and Lewis, 2001; Osnowitz, 2005). Telework may be
especially appealing for women who follow an intensive motherhood approach to
raising children by allowing them to optimally coordinate children’s school and leisure
activities while still meeting employers’ expectations (Hilbrecht et al., 2008). Although
fewer studies have examined men’s telework experiences, at least some men may be
attracted to working at home because of the potential for a better fit with their expec-
tations and understanding of involved fatherhood (Marsh and Musson, 2008). Despite
new technologies and changing parental roles, relatively little attention has been given
to the potential for telework to lead to new configurations of time and/or new ways of
integrating work, family and leisure, a question that we seek to address in this paper.

Research design
The data for this analysis are drawn from an interview study with teleworkers
employed by the same financial company in Canada. Some participants worked part
time at home by choice through negotiations with their supervisors, while others were
required to work at home full time. Most, though, had prior experience of more
traditional work arrangements. We examine these workers’ experiences of telework,
with particular attention to their perspectives on the influence of telework on their paid
work activities, household and family responsibilities, and leisure.
Throughout the analysis, it was necessary to be sensitive to situational factors that
might influence perspectives such as having children at home, occupational class, and
expectations and requirements related to work hours. Similarly, whether the telework
arrangement was voluntary or a job requirement, it may lead to different choices and
constraints in temporal flexibility, household activities and time for self. Of particular
significance was a sensitivity to gender and gender relations. Time use studies have
consistently shown gender to be a significant predictor of work and non-work time
(Jacobs and Gerson, 2004; Hilbrecht, 2009). Despite new ideologies of involved father-
hood, mothers typically take on the primary caregiving responsibilities in the family
(Fox, 2001; Craig, 2006). Further, while some telework literature indicates that the
benefits related to work-life balance accrue primarily to women, other research has
challenged this suggestion (Siha and Monroe, 2006). Thus, an important question in the
analysis of teleworkers’ daily lives is whether any remixing of work, family and leisure
among teleworkers is also associated with a reconfiguration of traditionally gendered
practices and the gendered distribution of labour.

The teleworkers
Participants were initially contacted with the help of the Human Resources department
of the company for which they worked. The department sent an email message to
teleworkers explaining the research project, inviting them to complete a short Internet
survey and to indicate whether they would be willing to participate in a subsequent
interview. Of the 75 teleworkers who completed the survey, 51 (43 women and eight
men) agreed to be interviewed. All data were kept confidential, and participants were
given pseudonyms.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Remixing work, family and leisure 133
 More than one-half of the teleworkers (26) lived with a spouse or partner and
child(ren). Of this group, 17 had a pre-school child (less than six years old), and the
others had at least one school-aged child (6–11 years old) or teenager (12–18 years old).
Four participants were single, although one lived with her school-age child. Seventeen
participants (15 women and two men) lived with a partner, but no children younger
than 19 years lived in the household (see Table 1).
Most participants, including 27 women and five men, worked in a department which
no longer had office space at the company headquarters, and so required all employees
to work at home. These ‘involuntary’ teleworkers all had semi-professional jobs, which
included activities such as phone interviews, travel for meetings, as well as record
keeping and report writing. The home-based workers communicated with head office
via email, and typically worked 37.5 ‘billable hours’ per week. About half (17) of the
involuntary teleworkers reported a household income greater than $100,000 CAN per
year. The remaining 19 participants were ‘voluntary’ teleworkers who had requested
permission to spend part of their workweek at home (typically one to three days per
week). They were drawn primarily from the professional and managerial ranks of the
company and had greater job flexibility than the involuntary teleworkers, but also
tended to work longer hours overall. Although a concerted effort was made to recruit
more male participants, members of this group included just three men and 16 women.
Because employees negotiated the telework arrangement with their supervisors
without a formal agreement, it was difficult to discern whether the gender division was
representative of the company’s ‘voluntary’ teleworkers or not.
About one-half of the semi-structured interviews (25) took place in person. The
others were conducted by phone because of the travel distance involved. Participants
were asked about the ways in which their home-based work was different from, or
similar to, working at the company office. Other topics included daily work routines,
participation in housework, family activities and leisure. In general, they were encour-
aged to talk about their satisfaction (or lack of satisfaction) with working at home, the
ways in which telework had affected their family and non-work lives, and their feelings
of work-life balance.
Interpretive thematic analysis techniques were used to develop initial descriptive
coding of the interview data. These initial themes were subsequently compared and
refined through focused and theoretical coding processes (Charmaz, 2006). Attention
was paid to individual commonalities and differences, with sensitivity to gender, work
status and family situation. The data were organised into categories and themes that
reflected the experiences of work, family and leisure, and which indicated and illus-
trated the various intersections and inter-relationships between different life spheres.
Although it was anticipated that differences between the voluntary and involuntary
cohorts might be more pronounced, this was not the case, perhaps because the invol-
untary cohort was atypical in terms of income, education and occupational class when
compared with others who are required to work from home (e.g. see Felstead et al.,
2002). Rather, gender and family stage were most influential in the organisation of daily
activities.

Telework and the nature of daily life

The three main themes which developed from the analysis were: (1) the need to protect,
but also contain, work time and space; (2) the significance of family and being available
for children; and (3) the relative devaluation of leisure for many teleworkers. Gendered
pseudonyms are provided along with the youngest child’s age group for participants
who are parents.

Protecting work time and space

Despite personalised routines, all participants stressed the importance of having set
work hours in order to ensure that their work was completed. Work was a clear priority,
and workdays were structured for efficiency.

134 New Technology, Work and Employment © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 Table 1: Participant characteristics by household structure

Characteristic Category Household structure Total (51)

Partnered with Partnered, no Not living with

children (32) children (15) a partnera (4)

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Gender Female 26 13 4 43
Male 6 2 0 8
Age group 20–29 years 2 2 0 4
30–39 years 18 3 1 22
40–49 years 10 4 1 15
50–59 years 1 6 2 9
Number of children 0 0 15 3 18
1 9 0 0 9
2 20 0 1 21
3 or more 3 0 0 3
Job categoryb Semi-professional 21 8 3 32
Professional/technical 5 1 1 7
Manager/administrative 3 2 0 5
Other 3 4 0 7
Household income (CAD) $40,000–$59,999 0 1 2 3
$60,000–$79,999 3 1 2 6
$80,000–$99,999 11 5 0 16
$100,000 or more 17 8 0 25
Notes: aAll non-partnered adults, with or without children, are combined into one category.
b
Semi-professional workers were required to telework as a condition of employment. All others negotiated a voluntary telework arrangement with the
employer.
One participant chose not to disclose her age or household income.

Remixing work, family and leisure 135

 I usually start around 7.30 in the morning . . . and a typical day goes until about 6 o’clock. When I’m
hungry I just grab something out of the fridge or I make a big blender full of smoothie and just keep
drinking it throughout the day. (Cicely)
I work as a rule from 8.30 to 4.30, with an hour in between for lunch. (Andy)

Of significance, too, was the need to protect work time from intruding household
demands. Several of the men expressed a willingness to ‘help out’ (help their spouses)
by putting in the occasional load of laundry, or picking up milk or bread if they had to
leave the house for work-related reasons. But, as these comments reveal, the primacy of
work activities during days at home was paramount.

She [my wife] knows that days I’m working from home, obviously if something comes up, or there’s
a quick errand that has to be done, that’s great. I’m here. I can spend that half hour doing an errand,
but I’m working. (Nick, school-age child)
I can be flexible . . . that’s important. The key thing though, is you have work to do, and you have to
get it done. (Derek, pre-schooler)

The women were just as determined as the men to protect their work time; but, they
often had to more actively resist this intrusion of time into their work lives, including
resisting their own inclinations to complete household chores, as noted by this
participant:

Well, I’m used to it now . . . But at first [I’d think] “oh, I’ll just put in a load of laundry first”. And
then you put in the load of laundry, but then you’ve got to check the kitchen for stuff, and before you
know it you’ve wasted an hour. (Eileen, pre-schooler)

Women also appeared more aware of potential disruptions to their workday because of
the social expectations of family members. In order to protect work time, they
employed various strategies to avoid interruptions. Susan, the mother of a teenager,
commented, ‘I got to the point where I would not answer my phone, my personal
phone, and I posted a sign on my door, I am working.’ Similarly, others’ perceptions of
accessibility and availability of teleworkers for non-work activities had to be addressed.
As one of the ‘involuntary’ teleworkers related, ‘my mother-in-law actually was a
problem at first, ‘cause she would just drop by. But she doesn’t do that anymore’
(Sandra, school-age child). In protecting work time, it was important to establish and
maintain boundaries, as well as teach others to respect them.
Apart from ‘educating’ family members, another strategy used to reduce the
‘leakage’ of household responsibilities into work time was the spatial separation of
work from the rest of the home environment. This created different associations for
each activity and helped to reduce the blurring of work with personal and family time
and space. A typical comment here was:

I would keep that space [the work space] strictly office. I like separation. I know we call it work-life
integration, and, yes, to some degree I have that. But I would say for the most part I try to separate
the two as best I can. (Tina, pre-schooler)

While work was a priority and work time needed to be protected, most did not want to
be drawn into feeling they should be working all the time. The temporal and spatial
separation of work and household spheres was necessary both to ensure that their
work would get done during ‘work hours’ and they would not feel obliged to work at
other times.
Yet, some participants apparently struggled with maintaining this separation. The
physical proximity of the home office led one mother to comment, ‘It’s just the feeling
of having your work at home – and you never feel free’ (Jill, school-age child). Work
also leaked into family and leisure activities because of the high priority given to
completing tasks and meeting the billable hours target. One mother described how she
sometimes integrated role responsibilities: ‘If it’s something that I have to get done and
I’ve run out of time, fine. I have sat in the stands typing away. I will get it done,

136 New Technology, Work and Employment © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
wherever I have to do it’ (Linda, school-age child). For mothers, especially, there was a
greater likelihood of blurred boundaries between work, family and leisure in order to
minimise role strain.
Many participants focused on temporal flexibility to protect work time, whether or
not they took advantage of the other opportunities it provided. As one commented, ‘I
have flexibility in what I do. I’m not set to any certain hours that I work . . . as long as
you’re meeting your deadlines and timeframes’ (Ruth, school-age child). In reality,
most work was accomplished during weekday hours because of the need to commu-
nicate with other employees at head office or with clients who were only available at
this time. One teleworker noted that a Monday-to-Friday routine allowed him ‘to reach
people on the phone to set up meetings, to set up discussions, it’s much easier to do’
(Pierre, pre-school child). Therefore, although perceptions of temporal autonomy were
central to their experience of telework, paid work mostly took place during traditional
business hours. Within these limitations, several participants set work schedules to
coordinate with other family members or match personal preferences, as this comment
illustrates: ‘Initially, I was actually more inclined to start work at 8 o’clock. And then I
started, gradually just starting to work as soon as my husband left . . . there’s more
flexibility’ (Alyssa). For many, particularly parents, protecting work time was a process
of continually assessing and reassessing optimal work times and structuring their days
accordingly.

The importance of family

Although participants resisted being drawn into household tasks during their work-
days, their views on family time and on being available for their children were different.
Family was clearly an important factor in the configuration of work and the rest of
life for teleworkers with children at home. Both mothers and fathers talked about
the value they placed on time with children and attending to their needs, but there
were also evident gender differences in the way parents managed work and family
responsibilities.
Among fathers, spending time with children was seen to be primarily a matter of
work-life balance. For example, the fathers who were managers, but spent part of their
workweek at home, felt that telework allowed them to see more of their children. They
were more likely to see their children in the mornings and evenings when they might
otherwise have been at the office, as this father indicates:
I’m seeing a lot more of them [the children] working from home than I found with the office, you
know, I can’t complain about that. I get to have breakfast with them when I’m at home. (Marty,
pre-schooler)

The three ‘involuntary’ teleworkers who were fathers also appreciated the opportunity
to spend time with their children and to be present for significant events in their
children’s lives. This contributed to stronger perceptions of work-life balance. For
example, Derek, a father of a two, observed, ‘I do spend time with my children. If I was
working from head office and busy, I wouldn’t get home until 7 in the evening.’ Unlike
mothers, fathers were unlikely to work during evening hours nor did they feel con-
flicted about it; instead, time with family was prioritised. Another reflected,
I think that if I had this job and I didn’t have my son, I would be a lot more tempted to go back to
work in the evening. Having him really forces me to shut down and step away from it, and spend
some quality time and really relax and focus on him and things other than work (Pierre,
pre-schooler).

None of the fathers identified as the primary caregiver, but they were willing to ‘help
out’ with child care and children’s leisure activities at times that fit around their work
day. As one father described, ‘She usually takes them swimming. Anything in the
evening, I’ll do. I can take them’ (Chris, school-age child). Fathers valued spending time
with children and participating in their daily activities, but typically did not organise
work routines around them.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Remixing work, family and leisure 137
 In addition, it was clear that work took priority for fathers. Most spoke about the
need to ensure that their children understood that work had to come first, as the
following comment illustrates:
Well, I think that first of all that really organizing your family . . . I hate to use the word control, but
I mean sitting down with your family, your spouse and explaining . . . you’re at home, still actually
working, and so to respect that space as a real work day – like you don’t exist. (Chris, school-age
child)

The women’s interviews revealed a different discourse related to children and family
time. For many, the primary value of telework was to be available for their children
when needed. Cathy, a mother of four, related, ‘working from home improved my
ability to be there for my kids.’ Schedule flexibility also allowed them to volunteer at
their children’s school or drive them to after-school activities, something that would
not have been possible with a traditional office job. Although daytime activities could
interfere with the timing of the mothers’ paid work, some still went to great lengths to
participate in children’s school activities. As a mother of two commented,
I take time out to go every other week to my son’s school and read there for an hour but I have to
come into work from 9 to 10, leave at 10 to be there at 10:15, read for the hour, so I don’t get back
really until 11:45. That’s very rushed. (Carol)

Even though overlapping responsibilities meant increased time pressure, temporal

flexibility allowing them to restructure their workday was usually considered a job
‘perk’ that enhanced, rather than detracted from feelings of balance. A few commented
on the difficulties faced when trying to integrate work and school activities:
I might be able to pick up my son for lunch, in order to just go and read every other week. That takes
out two hours, and I do try and get those two hours back [for work], but it isn’t easy. (Eileen)

Like the men, the women felt the need to establish boundaries to protect work time
and space; however, the strategies some mothers used to manage the competing
demands of work and family, like working extra hours in the evening, were some-
times challenging.
A particularly important advantage of telework, as perceived by the mothers, was to
be available for their children if they were sick. This was seen as a responsibility of
motherhood that was more difficult to fulfill with traditional office-based work. As one
mother stated,
If they’re sick, I often work around them. If they sleep, I’ll work. Or I might just work the afternoon
instead of the morning, or whatever. (Nancy, pre-schooler)

Others appreciated not having to use their own sick leave days when a child was ill.
Another perceived advantage was being able to spend more time with children, and
not ‘miss out’ on developmental milestones with young children. They could also be a
supportive presence for older children during the workday.
I look at the ages that they are and this is the most important thing for me right now, you know, just
to be sure that you spend enough time. It isn’t for me about little bits of quality . . . If they want to
say something you’ve got to be there to catch it whenever it comes out. (Linda, school-age child)

Thus, for the women in this study with children at home, the significance of telework
was not so much the idea of work–family ‘balance’, but rather the fulfilment of their
parenting responsibilities as framed by the dominant discourse of intensive mother-
hood, even if this added to their sense of stress and time pressure.

Opportunities for leisure? Some gains, and some losses

Only a handful of participants spoke about the opportunities that telework presented
for enhanced leisure and free-time activities. Those who took advantage of such oppor-
tunities were usually either male, or women who did not have children at home. Even
so, only one man, who was an ‘involuntary’ teleworker with no children, seemed to

138 New Technology, Work and Employment © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
have adopted what might be described as a ‘leisure lifestyle’. He scheduled work to be
completed by 4.30 pm, and the rest of his life was devoted to leisure, including hockey,
golf, fitness activities, eating out and socialising with friends. As he noted, ‘I have time
for anything I want’ (Andy).
Some men appreciated increased leisure opportunities, which they attributed to time
saved by not having to travel to and from work. Brad, the father of a pre-schooler,
commented, ‘Without that commute, I just have an extra two hours a day.’ Similarly,
another noted that by not commuting, ‘I have more time in the evenings now for
leisure’ (Chris, school-age child). For these men, time ‘saved’ was reallocated to leisure
rather than more paid work or household chores.
Other teleworkers, and particularly those who teleworked full time, valued the
increased control they had over their work time and workload. For some, this allowed
them to take breaks as needed or to go for walks. These possibilities were viewed as
improvements to their quality of life. For example:
I’ll put a cup of coffee on when I first get up and have those little mini breaks . . . I tend to have, at
home, more little mini breaks. (Angela, school-age child)

For teleworkers who did not have competing family responsibilities, flexible schedules
allowed them to take advantage of days when the weather was good for running, skiing
or bike riding.
It’s wonderful. I can go cross-country skiing right across the road. I just pick up my skis and walk
across the road, and put them on, and go through the park. (Hazel)
I do have time to go for a bike ride and stuff, where I wouldn’t have done that otherwise. (Fern)

This increased leisure was considered to be a valued outcome of telework. They could
also schedule leisure activities to take advantage of non-peak periods at recreation
facilities. As Rosemary observed, ‘It [telework] makes it much easier. I belong to a gym
and I can go whenever.’ For most participants, though, and especially for women with
children at home, a flexible work schedule did not necessarily translate into more
leisure.
There are a lot of great things about working at home: having that flexibility. But it [leisure] doesn’t
happen as often as people imagine. I think it’s great that I can even think about going to Ladies
[Golf] League on Tuesday, but so far that’s all I’ve been able to do about it. (Susan, teenager)

Indeed, for some mothers, the combination of working at home and looking after
children seemed to result in increased stress. This was because time spent during the
day with children or at their children’s school, involved ‘trading in’ their evening free
time. Thus, while telework may have led to a greater sense of control over time, the
ability to reconfigure work hours did not necessarily lead to increased leisure and, in
a few cases, appeared to reduce personal leisure time. When considering the effect of
telework on her daily routine, a mother of two school-age children remarked, ‘What
seems to suffer is my personal time’ (Jill).
Even when there was no net loss of leisure time, there was sometimes a decrease in
the quality of the experience. As one mother observed,
Home-based work made it [leisure time] more difficult. You know, I always had this feeling that I
should go back to the desk for an hour or so. So I would take a TV break, and then be too tired to
go back. By then I had wasted the whole evening, when I could have been planning to do something.
So it wasn’t always the actual work, but the feeling that I could or should go back to it. (Cathy,
school-age child)

A loss of social time was reported by several of the men. They experienced reduced
social contact with co-workers and colleagues after relocating to a home office. There
was also a loss of casual social time outside the work environment such as going for a
beer with friends after work. As these men noted,
You don’t have the camaraderie . . . so you’re pretty much on your own. (Chris, school-age child)
The thing I miss most is the people contact. (Jake)

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Remixing work, family and leisure 139
Some of the men counteracted this situation by taking the initiative to arrange social
gatherings such as meeting up with a friend or colleague for lunch if they happened to
be in town. For others, there was a sense of isolation that led to mixed feelings about
home-based work. This issue was seldom raised by the female teleworkers.

Discussion
Relatively little reconfiguration of work, family and leisure was evident, although
women who internalised the social norms of intensive motherhood were more inclined
to alter their activities. In many ways, and consistent with the literature (e.g. Lewis, 2003;
Haworth and Lewis, 2005), work commitments remained the central concern. The
flexibility of telework was used to optimise work schedules, but these schedules were
also primarily developed to protect work time and to ensure work productivity. Most
paid work occurred during regular business hours, with evening and weekend work
generally reserved for ‘catching up’ if mothers rearranged their workday schedule to
accommodate children’s needs. Resisting household labour was also a strategy associ-
ated with the primacy of work. Moreover, participants’ schedules reflected a desire to
separate rather than integrate work from other aspects of home life. When looking at the
intersection of daily activities, it made little difference whether telework was a condition
of employment or the participant’s choice. Unlike most involuntary teleworkers in other
research (e.g. Felstead et al., 2002), the participants occupied a higher occupational class
as semi-professional workers, with considerable autonomy and a relatively high income.
Given the number of female participants and the gendered nature of caregiving, family
responsibilities were more influential in prioritising non-work activities. Therefore, in
some circumstances, voluntary or involuntary telework arrangements may have little
impact on the organisation and experience of daily activities.
Some reconfiguration of daily life could be discerned from the ways in which
teleworkers sought to fulfill socially expected family responsibilities. This may help to
explain why fathers who increased the time spent with their children at the beginning
and end of the workday reported a better sense of work-life balance. The most obvious
‘remixing’ of life spheres was among the mothers who reworked their schedules to
spend significantly more time during the day with their children. This form of remixing
appeared to simultaneously reduce aspects of work–family conflict but at the same time
increase time stress and an ongoing sense of being ‘rushed’.
These mothers’ actions were consistent with the intensive motherhood discourse.
Their self-identify was related to normative behaviour of ‘good’ mothers, which meant
they were likely to restructure their days to accommodate children’s needs and inter-
ests (see Warner, 2005). When this happened, work was shifted to weekends or eve-
nings, a pattern also recognised by Michelson and Crouse (2004), and to places such as
children’s sport facilities. This could either decrease their time for personal leisure or
affect the quality of the experience and, indeed, some of these women did report
feelings of time stress. Fathers appreciated opportunities for greater involvement with
children such as taking them to school, having more meals together and avoiding
commutes that had previously interfered with family time. Fathers’ perceptions of
‘greater involvement’, though, were probably in comparison with other fathers and
expectations about fathers’ roles, whereas mothers were making comparisons with
other mothers, where expectations are much higher. There was little indication that
fathers reorganised their schedules to assist with children’s activities by moving their
work time to evening or weekend hours or decreasing personal leisure. For men,
having more time with children seemed to enhance feelings of work-life balance but
did not appear as closely connected to social expectations of a more intensive involve-
ment in children’s daily routines.
It may be that for teleworkers with children at home, there is a better structural fit
between different life spheres, linked to flexible schedules, closer proximity to schools
and leisure facilities, and the possibility of combining work with caring for children
when they are sick. Temporal and spatial flexibility allowed participants to more easily
fulfill their own and possibly others’ expectations of involved parenting. Caring time

140 New Technology, Work and Employment © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
and space, an integral component of work-life balance (Williams, 2001), was certainly
enhanced for women by telework, although intersections between work and personal
time and space were not always advantageous. For women in particular, one might
question the extent to which telework led to a ‘balance’ between life spheres or,
instead, a greater intensification of parenting practices.
Telework had little effect on reorganising the gender distribution of household
chores. Consistent with previous research (Devine et al., 1997; Sullivan and Lewis,
2001), telework failed to challenge women’s primary responsibility for household
labour. There was some evidence that timing could be shifted more advantageously for
chores such as laundry, which required minimal effort and caused little disruption to
work routines. Men spoke of ‘helping out’ and women reported varying degrees of
assistance from spouses rather than a more dramatic reconfiguring of traditional roles.
This study focused not only on work and family but also on leisure—a component of
everyday life that has received less attention in the North American sociological and
time use literature (Hilbrecht, 2009). Among those interviewed, only a minority of
teleworkers without children had been able to enhance their leisure participation
without compromising employment responsibilities. This was managed through
gaining back their commute time and through being able to take advantage of
community and neighbourhood-based opportunities. For these workers, some
reconfiguration of leisure time was facilitated by temporal flexibility and relative
freedom from monitoring and supervision, provided they completed assigned tasks
and billable hours. For many of the women, though, and especially for those with
children at home, personal leisure was either diminished or unchanged. Although there
were some leisurely moments during daily activities, much like the ‘lazy moments’
reported by Tietze and Musson (2005), these did not seem to represent a resurgence of
leisure or substantially reduce stress or improve work-life balance.
There was limited, and sometimes contradictory, evidence for reconfiguring tradi-
tionally gendered activities. The mothers’ greater involvement in their children’s
daytime activities can be seen as a process of creating or ‘doing’ gender (Fox, 2001). This
was revealed, as well, in the different ways that men and women talked about
caregiving and time with children (see also Osnowitz, 2005). On the other hand,
women’s resistance to the ‘leakage’ of household labour into their workday, and men’s
willingness to take on some additional household tasks, at least on occasion, represents
a challenge to more traditional expectations of gender and gender relations.
The findings support previous literature documenting women’s and men’s commit-
ment to paid work activities (Gatrell, 2005) as well as changing ideologies and practices
of parenting (Coltrane and Adams, 2008). The study challenges the notion, though, that
telework provides an easy solution to time stress and work-life balance (Diamond, 2002);
instead, the relationship between home-based work and life balance is complex and
nuanced. Specifically, our analysis challenges the idea that telework is particularly
beneficial for women. Rather, the data suggest that telework facilitates intensive moth-
erhood practices, which further restrict women’s leisure opportunities. Perhaps it is
men’s rather than women’s participation in telework that could potentially be an
important factor in future years in terms of the reconstruction of gender relations. The
expansion of telework for men may lead to a better work-life balance for male employees
and, perhaps, in the long run with greater sharing of household labour, for women too.

References
Arendell, T. (2001), ‘The New Care Work of Middle Class Mothers: Managing Childrearing,
Employment, and Time’, in K.J. Daly (ed.), Minding the Time in Family Experience: Emerging
Perspectives and Issues (Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd), pp. 163–204.
Bailey, D.E. and N.B. Kurland (2002), ‘A Review of Telework Research: Findings, New Directions,
and Lessons for the Study of Modern Work’, Journal of Organizational Behaviour 23, 383–400.
Baines, S. and U. Gelder (2003), ‘What Is Family Friendly About the Workplace in the Home? The
Case of Self-Employed Parents and Their Children’, New Technology, Work and Employment 18,
223–234.

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Remixing work, family and leisure 141
Brannen, J. (2005), ‘Time and the Negotiation of Work-Family Boundaries: Autonomy or Illu-
sion?’, Time & Society 14, 113–131.
Brown, P., E. Cerin and P. Warner-Smith (2008), ‘The Work/Life Tensions Project: A Perspective
on How Dual-Earner Parents Experience Time in Australia’, in A. Fontaine and M. Matias (eds),
Family, Work and Parenting: International Perspectives (Portugal: Livpsic), pp. 47–64.
Canadian Telework Association (2009), Canadian Telework Scene, http://www.ivc.ca/
canadianscene.html (accessed 1 May 2010).
Cartwright, S. and P. Warner-Smith (2003), ‘ “Melt Down”: Young Women’s Talk of Time and Its
Implications for Health, Well-Being and Identity in Late Modernity’, Annals of Leisure Research
6, 318–338.
Chalmers, L. (2008), ‘Using It in Work at Home: Taking A Closer Look at It Use in Home-Located
Production’, New Technology, Work and Employment 23, 77–94.
Charmaz, K. (2006), Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
Coakley, J. (2006), ‘The Good Father: Parental Expectations and Youth Sports’, Leisure Studies 25,
153–163.
Coltrane, S. and M. Adams (2008), Gender and Families, 2nd edn (Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield).
Craig, L. (2006), ‘Does Father Care Mean Fathers Share?: A Comparison of How Mothers and
Fathers in Intact Families Spend Time with Children’, Gender & Society 20, 259–281.
Crosbie, T. and J. Moore (2004), ‘Work-Life Balance and Working from Home’, Social Policy &
Society 3, 223–233.
Daly, K. (2001), ‘Deconstructing Family Time: From Ideology to Lived Experience’, Journal of
Marriage and Family 63, 283–294.
De Grazia, S. (1964), Of Time, Work, and Leisure (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books).
Devine, K., L. Taylor and K. Haryett (1997), ‘The Impact of Teleworking on Canadian Employ-
ment’, in A. Duffy, D. Glenday and N. Pupo (eds), Good Jobs, Bad Jobs, No Jobs: The Transforma-
tion of Work in the 21st Century (Toronto, ON: Harcourt Brace), pp. 97–116.
Diamond, C. (2002), ‘Telework: A “Family-Friendly” Work Arrangement’, Labour & Industry 13,
39–54.
Duxbury, L. and C. Higgins (2002), ‘Telework: A Primer for the Millennium Introduction’, in C.L.
Cooper and R.J. Burke (eds), The New World of Work: Challenges and Opportunities (Oxford, UK:
Blackwell Publishers Ltd), pp. 157–200.
Duxbury, L. and C. Higgins (2009), Work-Life Conflict in the New Millennium: Key Recommendations
from the 2001 National Work-Life Conflict Study (Ottawa, ON: Canadian Policy Research Net-
works).
Eggebeen, D.J. (2002), ‘The Changing Course of Fatherhood: Men’s Experiences with Children in
Demographic Perspective’, Journal of Family Issues 23, 486–506.
Felstead, A., N. Jewson, A. Phizacklea and S. Walters (2002), ‘The Option to Work at Home:
Another Privilege for the Favoured Few?’, New Technology, Work and Employment 17, 204–223.
Fox, B. (2001), ‘The Formative Years: How Parenthood Creates Gender’, Canadian Review of
Sociology and Anthropology 38, 373–390.
Frone, M.R. (2003), ‘Work-Family Balance’, in J.C. Quick and L.E. Tetrick (eds), Handbook of
Occupational Health Psychology (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association), pp.
143–162.
Gambles, R., S. Lewis and R. Rapoport (2006), The Myth of Work-Life Balance: The Challenge of Our
Time for Men, Women and Societies (West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd).
Gatrell, C. (2005), Hard Labour: The Sociology of Parenthood (Berkshire, UK: Open University Press).
Gershuny, J. (2011), ‘Increasing Paid Work Time? A New Puzzle for Multinational Time-Diary
Research’, Social Indicators Research 101, 207–213.
Glass, J.L. and M.C. Noonan (2012), ‘The Hard Truth About Telecommuting’, Monthly Labor
Review 135, 38–45.
Gouendouzi, J. (2006), ‘ “The Guilt Thing”: Balancing Domestic and Professional Roles’, Journal of
Marriage and Family 68, 901–909.
Haworth, J. and S. Lewis (2005), ‘Work, Leisure and Well-Being’, British Journal of Guidance and
Counselling 33, 67–79.
Hays, S. (1996), The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press).
Henderson, K.A., M.D. Bialeschki, S.M. Shaw and V.J. Freysinger (1996), Both Gains and Gaps:
Feminist Perspectives on Women’s Leisure (State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc).
Hilbrecht, M. (2009), Parents, Employment, Gender and Well-Being: A Time Use Study. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Waterloo.

142 New Technology, Work and Employment © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Hilbrecht, M., S.M. Shaw, L.C. Johnson and J. Andrey (2008), ‘ “I’m Home for the Kids”: Contra-
dictory Implications for Work-Life Balance of Teleworking Mothers’, Gender, Work and Organi-
zation 15, 454–476.
Horna, J. (1994), The Study of Leisure: An Introduction (Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press).
Hutchinson, S.L. and D.A. Kleiber (2005), ‘Gifts of the Ordinary: Casual Leisure’s Contributions
to Health and Well-Being’, World Leisure Journal 47, 2–16.
Iwasaki, Y. (2003), ‘The Impact of Leisure Coping Beliefs and Strategies on Adaptive Outcomes’,
Leisure Studies 22, 93–108.
Jacobs, J.A. and K. Gerson (2004), The Time Divide: Work, Family, and Gender Inequality (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press).
Johnston, D.D. and D.H. Swanson (2006), ‘Constructing the “Good Mother”: The Experience of
Mothering Ideologies by Work Status’, Sex Roles 54, 509–519.
Kazura, K. (2000), ‘Fathers’ Qualitative and Quantitative Involvement: An Investigation of Attach-
ment, Play, and Social Interaction’, Journal of Men’s Studies 9, 41–57.
Korabik, K., D.S. Lero and D.L. Whitehead (2008), Handbook of Work-Famly Integration (London,
UK: Elsevier).
Lewis, S. (2003), ‘The Integration of Paid Work and the Rest of Life. Is Post-Industrial Work the
New Leisure?’, Leisure Studies 22, 343–355.
Macky, K. and P. Boxall (2008), ‘High-Involvement Work Processes, Work Intensification and
Employee Well-Being: A Study of New Zealand Worker Experiences’, Asia Pacific Journal of
Human Resources 46, 38–55.
Madsen, S.R. (2003), ‘The Effects of Home-Based Teleworking on Work-Family Conflict’, Human
Resources Development Quarterly 14, 35–58.
Marsh, K. and G. Musson (2008), ‘Men at Work and at Home: Managing Emotion in Telework’,
Gender, Work and Organization 15, 31–48.
Marsiglio, W. and M. Cohan (2000), ‘Contextualizing Father Involvement and Paternal Influence:
Sociological and Qualitative Themes’, Marriage and Family Review 29, 75–95.
Maruyama, T., P.G. Hopkinson and P. James (2009), ‘A Multivariate Analysis of Work-Life Balance
Outcomes from a Large-Scale Telework Programme’, New Technology, Work and Employment 24,
76–88.
Michelson, W. and D. Crouse (2004), ‘Examining Large-Scale Time-Use Files through Graphic
Representation’, Electronic International Journal of Time Use Research 1, 85–100.
Mokhtarian, P.L., I. Salomon and S. Choo (2005), ‘Measuring the Measurable: Why Can’t We
Agree on the Number of Telecommuters in the U.S.?’, Quality & Quantity 39, 423–452.
Nie, N.H. (1999), ‘Tracking Our Techno-Future’, American Demographics 21, 50–52.
Nilles, J.M. (2000), Telework American 2000 Research (Washington, DC: International Telework
Association and Council).
O’Reilly, A., M. Porter and P. Short (2005), Motherhood: Power and Oppression (Toronto, ON:
Women’s Press).
Osnowitz, D. (2005), ‘Managing Time in Domestic Space: Home-Based Contractors and House-
hold Work’, Gender & Society 19, 83–103.
Pieper, J. (1952), Leisure: The Basis of Culture (New York, NY: Random House).
Ransome, P. (2007), ‘Conceptualizing Boundaries between “Life” and “Work” ’, The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 18, 374–386.
Shaw, S.M. (2008), ‘Family Leisure and Changing Ideologies of Parenthood’, Sociology Compass 2,
1–16.
Shaw, S.M. (2010), ‘Diversity and Ideology: Changes in Canadian Family Life and Implications for
Leisure’, World Leisure Journal 52, 4–13.
Siha, S.M. and R.W. Monroe (2006), ‘Telecommuting’s Past and Future: A Literature Review and
Research Agenda’, Business Process Management Journal 12, 455–482.
Sullivan, C. and S. Lewis (2001), ‘Home-Based Telework, Gender, and the Synchronization of
Work and Family: Perspectives of Teleworkers and Their Co-Residents’, Gender, Work and
Organization 8, 123–145.
Swan, J.C.C.L. (2005), Time, Health and the Family: What Working Families Want (London, UK:
Working Families Group).
Tietze, S. and G. Musson (2002), ‘When “Work” Meets “Home”: Temporal Flexibility as Lived
Experience’, Time & Society 11, 315–334.
Tietze, S. and G. Musson (2005), ‘Recasting the Home-Work Relationship: A Case of Mutual
Adjustment?’, Organization Studies 26, 1331–1352.
Tremblay, D.G., R. Paquet and E. Najem (2006), ‘Telework: A Way to Balance Work and Family Or
An Increase in Work-Family Conflict?’, Canadian Journal of Communications 31, http://www.cjc-
online.ca/index/php/jounal/article/view/1721 (accessed 13 June 2010).

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Remixing work, family and leisure 143
Turcotte, M. (2007), ‘Time Spent with Family During a Typical Work Day, 1986 to 2005’, Canadian
Social Trends 83, 2–11.
Wall, G. (2005), ‘Childhood and Child Rearing’, in M. Baker (ed.), Families: Changing Trends in
Canada (Toronto, ON: McGraw-Hill Ryerson), pp. 163–180.
Warner, J. (2005), Perfect Madness: Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety (New York, NY: Riverhead
Books).
Williams, F. (2001), ‘In and Beyond New Labour: Towards a New Political Ethics of Care’, Critical
Social Policy 21, 467–493.
WorldatWork (2009), Telework Trendlines 2009: A Survey Brief By WorldWork, http://www.
worldatwork.org/waw/search/searchWorldatWork.jsp?N=0&Ntt=telework+trendlines&
Ntk=General&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial (accessed 1 May 2010).
Zuzanek, J. (2004), ‘Work, Leisure, Time-Pressure and Stress’, in J.T. Haworth and A.J. Veal (eds),
Work and Leisure (East Sussex, UK: Routledge), pp. 123–144.

144 New Technology, Work and Employment © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd