Work Without End?

Abstract

The common finding in the work–family literature that workplace scheduling flexibility reduces work‐to‐family conflict may not be generalizable to service occupations with intense client demands. This qualitative analysis of stockbrokers finds that brokers in firms granting scheduling flexibility experience more work‐to‐family conflict than those in the firm with scheduling rigidity. Although brokers in the latter firm lose autonomy from their employer (and earning potential), bureaucratic rigidity buffers them from client pressures that intrude on family life. This finding should be tested in other occupations requiring extensive client interactions in a 24‐hour economy.