Look at what you protect without hesitation. Important meetings go on the calendar. Money gets passwords. Businesses have contracts. Your phone has a lock screen. People you love have emergency plans.

Yet joy is often left completely unsecured.

It gets whatever time survives after the calls, requests, emails, caregiving, errands, emergencies, favors, deadlines, and people who “just need a minute.” Then we wonder why there is never enough of it. The issue may not be that you need more joy.

Your joy may need better access control.

Availability Is a Boundary Decision

Modern psychology increasingly recognizes that boundaries are not simply about separating work from home. Boundary fit describes how closely the boundaries people actually live match the boundaries they would prefer. That distinction matters.

In a 2025 randomized controlled study, Mueller et al. (2025) tested a brief intervention that helped participants identify their preferred boundaries, set goals, and change how they managed them. Participants showed improvements in boundary fit, work–nonwork balance satisfaction, and subjective well-being.

The lesson is not that everyone should turn off her phone at 5:00 p.m. It is that your actual availability should resemble the availability you consciously chose.

  • If you planned a quiet evening but answer every message because you feel guilty, that is misalignment.
  • If Saturday was supposed to belong to your family but clients know you will respond anyway, that is misalignment.
  • If you repeatedly cancel something you enjoy because someone else’s request feels more legitimate, that is also a boundary issue.

A Boundary Nobody Respects Is Just a Preference

There is an important complication. Individual boundaries operate inside systems.

A 2026 systematic review examined interventions and policies intended to reduce after-hours availability and work connectivity. Nilsen et al. (2026) found that organizational policies by themselves often produced limited results. Better outcomes appeared when boundary management was supported through supervisors, organizational practices, flexibility, and multiple levels of intervention.

Translation? Putting “I don’t answer email after 6” in your bio means little if your workplace rewards the person answering at 10:47 p.m. In fact, Buechel and Solinas (2025) documented what they call the detachment paradox. Managers recognized that employees psychologically disconnecting from work could benefit well-being and performance, yet still evaluated those employees less favorably because detachment could signal lower commitment.

That is why protecting joy sometimes feels uncomfortable. You may be violating an unwritten rule that says availability proves devotion.

For Some Black Women, Even a Break Is Not Equally Protected

We also need to be careful about turning every boundary problem into a personal-development problem. Using data from 13,574 hourly service-sector workers, Harknett et al. (2024) found racial and gender inequalities in access to workplace breaks, with Black women less likely than comparison groups to receive a break during their shifts. Even union membership and laws requiring breaks did not eliminate the disparity.

This study makes a larger point worth remembering:

Sometimes a woman is not failing to protect herself. The environment is failing to protect her.

The answer cannot always be better boundary scripts. Employers, families, organizations, and communities may need to redistribute access, labor, expectations, and responsibility.

Stop Explaining the Boundary Until It Sounds Optional

Here is where apologies become expensive.

“I’m so sorry, but I really need to…”

“I hope you don’t mind…”

“I know I should probably be available, but…”

Every additional explanation can turn a decision into a negotiation.

Try evaluating your life through protected access instead. Identify one thing that reliably brings you joy or restores you.

Then answer:

  • When does it happen?
  • What usually interrupts it?
  • Who currently has permission to override it?
  • What would have to change for that time to remain protected?

Maybe the answer is putting your phone away during dinner.

Maybe clients receive responses the following business day.

Maybe your family discovers that your free time is not automatically communal property.

Maybe one Saturday each month belongs to whatever makes you feel most like yourself.

The specific boundary is yours to design. Research on boundary fit suggests that effective boundaries should match the life and preferences of the person living them rather than follow one universal formula (Mueller et al., 2025).

Joy deserves that level of intentionality. If everyone else has a claim on your energy while joy has no protected claim at all, depletion is not some mysterious accident. It has been designed into the system.

Change the design. And stop apologizing for protecting something this valuable.

Alesha Brown, CEO, Fruition Publishing Concierge Services®

Editor-in-Chief, Published! Magazine®

Award-Winning Entrepreneur|Publisher|Film Producer 

References

Buechel, E. C., & Solinas, E. (2025). The detachment paradox: Employers recognize the benefits of detachment for employee well-being and performance, yet penalize it in employee evaluations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 188, 104403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104403

Harknett, K., O’Herron, C., & Bellew, E. (2024). Can’t catch a break: Intersectional inequalities at work. Sociological Science, 11, 233–257. https://doi.org/10.15195/v11.a10

Mueller, N., Haerdter, L., Scholz, M., Steinke, J., Haun, V. C., & Kempen, R. (2025). Improving work–nonwork balance and well-being through a boundary fit microintervention. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 98(3), e70043. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.70043

Nilsen, W., Nordberg, T., Lescoeur, K., Ingelsrud, M. H., & Egeland, C. (2026). What do we know about limiting after-hours availability expectations and work-related connectivity? A systematic review of interventions and policies. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 52(3), 206–218. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4277