Boundary spanning and the effect on role conflict and role ambiguity

1

Boundary spanning and the effect on role conflict and role ambiguity

functional experience

Master thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

January 20th_{, 2019} Eline Scholtens Student number: 3265919 Trompkade 8G 9724 GD Groningen Email: e.e.scholtens@student.rug.nl

2

ABSTRACT

By collaborating with stakeholders both inside and outside the organization, team members engage in boundary spanning activities for the purpose of completing their own tasks and establishing relationships with external actors. However, research reports on both its positive and negative effects related to the role perceptions of team members. On the one hand, boundary spanning creates the opportunity to access of new knowledge, information and expertise, which could diminish ambiguities regarding the team members role. On the other hand, boundary spanning could create feelings of confusion and conflict among team members due to receiving a lot of input from external actors. Therefore, the aim of this study is to examine whether boundary spanning would lead to perceived role conflict and role ambiguity by looking into two moderators: the dependency of team members on team members from other teams and the individual functional experience of team members. An existing data set, obtained during a one-week training exercise by different teams for peace support missions, comprising 99 participants from 29 teams, is used within this research. Evidence is found that team members with experience in one specific functional area who engage in boundary spanning, perceive more role ambiguity. Additionally, a positive relation between boundary spanning and inter-team interdependence as well as a positive relation between role conflict and role ambiguity were found. These findings, as well as the findings, although insignificant, contradictory to my expectations, provide interesting insights and steps for future research to further deepen the knowledge about boundary spanning.

Keywords: Boundary spanning; Inter-team interdependence; Breadth of functional

3 INTRODUCTION

It seldom occurs that team members can find all the resources they need within their own team’s boundaries (Faraj & Yan, 2009). Therefore, they need to collaborate with stakeholders both inside (e.g. marketing and manufacturing team members) and outside (e.g., external customers or suppliers) the organization in order to obtain the resources, information, and support they need to meet their task objectives and performance goals (Ancona, Bresman & Kaeufer, 2002; Marrone, 2010). Through these collaborations outside their own team’s boundaries, team members engage in boundary spanning. By engaging in boundary spanning, the team member will be involved in different activities such as acquiring key sources of information, negotiating about the project scope (Ancona, 1990), coordinating tasks, gaining feedback and sharing information (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992a, 1992b). All of these activities are about collaborating with team members of other teams for the purpose of completing their own tasks (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988) and establishing relationships with external actors (Joshi, Pandey & Han, 2009).

4 Besides the positive effects involved with boundary spanning, research also reports on the detrimental effects regarding the role perceptions of the individual team member. Boundary spanning requires much time and effort, in such a way that it could be perceived as challenging and stressful for the team member who is involved within boundary spanning activities (Aldrich & Herker, 1976). This may contribute to the experience of role overload among team members (Marrone, Tesluk & Carson, 2007). For the reason that they receive lots of information, input and conflicting pressures from several team members of other teams (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek & Rosenthal, 1964), team members could feel overwhelmed as a result. Under such circumstances, it will be hard to recognize the most important information (Katz & Kahn, 1978) and to know when to do each activity (Kahn et al., 1964). Therefore, boundary spanning occasionally could create feelings of confusion and conflict among team members regarding their role expectations. As a consequence of those feelings, team members will be exposed to more perceived role conflict.

5 members’ roles. While a low level of interdependency does not require team members to engage in such boundary spanning activities (Joshi et al., 2009), due to the fact that they are not dependent on other teams’ members in order to fulfil their roles.

Second, the relation between boundary spanning and the team members’ perception of role conflict and role ambiguity seems also to be moderated by the diversity of the team member. Diversity is about the individual differences between team members (e.g. tenure, functional background and demographics) (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Within this study, the focus will be on functional diversity and specifically on the individual’s breadth of functional experience. Team members with experience in many different functional areas are called ‘generalists’, whereas team members with experience in one specific functional area are called ‘specialists’. Research shows that team members who have a broad set of functional experience (i.e. generalists) better understand members of other teams (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002), are more able to exchange the necessary information (Joshi et al., 2009) and are therefore more able to react on different situations and expectations. This can be explained by the fact that individuals who have experience within multiple functional areas are less likely to be biased and stereotyping, because they can identify themselves within different functions (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002). Therefore, generalists will benefit more from boundary spanning compared to team members with experience in one specific functional area (i.e. specialists). Specialists do not know what other members are doing due to their limited range of observation within the environment (Sutcliffe, 1994).

6 situations where boundary spanning will lead to more or less perceived role conflict and role ambiguity among team members. Second, this paper will deepen the understanding of this relationship by examining the possible moderating effect of inter-team interdependency and functional diversity on the effectiveness of boundary spanning behaviour. More precisely, it will be clear whether it is effective to engage in boundary spanning when the team member is highly dependent on other teams’ members or has a broad functional background in order to reduce his or her perceived role conflict and role ambiguity. Additionally, this study will have important practical implications. Insight in the relation between boundary spanning and perceptions of role ambiguity and role conflict as well as insight in factors which are possibly related to the effectiveness of boundary spanning, can help organizations in facilitating and supporting team members in the interaction with other teams. This can in turn increase the positive outcomes of boundary spanning.

THEORY SECTION

The individual’s boundary spanning behaviour and his or her perceived role conflict and perceived role ambiguity

7 make, (2) coordination of task performance, which represents achieving goals which are set together, and (3) general information search, which is about collaborating with external stakeholders to get access to specific information and knowledge. Within this research, the focus will be on representation and general information search. The occurrence of perceived role conflict and role ambiguity among team members is about incongruences of role expectations and the lack of information regarding their role. Both representation and general information search are about finding the necessary information. Therefore, they will cover current research about the perception of role conflict and role ambiguity.

Boundary spanning could increase role demands of team members and is therefore related to the team members’ perceptions of role conflict (Marrone et al., 2007). A role is defined as “a set of expectations about behaviour for a position in a social structure” (Rizzo et al., 1970, p. 155). Individuals can experience situations in which they need to carry out a role which is inconsistent with their values or where they have to carry out different roles that are inconsistent with each other (Sell, Brief & Schuler, 1981). This experience of role conflict is described in the literature as “the simultaneous occurrence of two or more role expectations such that compliance with one would make compliance with the other more difficult” (Katz & Kahn, 1978: p. 204).

8 conflict is associated with boundary spanning in such a way that through boundary spanning the team member would perceive more role conflict. Friedman and Podolny (1992) stated that role conflict is the problem which is most often associated with boundary spanning. For the reason that each team can have different values and interests, the team member could receive conflicting expectations regarding their role (Friedman & Podolny, 1992; Keller & Holland, 1975). To illustrate, the team member is involved within boundary spanning activities with members of different teams, whom will communicate their own expectations regarding the role of the team member. However, each different team member could communicate different role expectations, as they have different values and interests. For example, one team could state that it is necessary to respond to emails within one day, whereas another team could state that it would be sufficient if the team member responds within two weeks. The team member, therefore, will be exposed to conflicting expectations regarding how to fulfil his or her role. This may also contribute to the experience of role overload among team members (Marrone, Tesluk & Carson, 2007), as they receive lots of information and input from different team members of other teams (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Kahn et al., 1964). In this situation, it will be hard for the team member to decide how to comply with the different role expectations (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Altogether, through boundary spanning team members frequently interact with team members of other teams, each with other values and interests. By this, I suggest that, with boundary spanning, the team member will be exposed to conflicting expectations regarding their roles, which could lead to a higher perception of role conflict.

9 incompletely communicated, team members could experience role ambiguity (Kahn et al., 1964). Role ambiguity can be defined as “the degree to which clear information is lacking regarding the expectations associated with a role and methods for fulfilling known role expectations” (Sell, Brief & Schuller, 1981: p. 44).

Kahn and colleagues (1964) stated, similar to role conflict, that team members who are involved with boundary spanning activities will perceive more role ambiguity. However, if a team member perceives their role expectations as conflicting, it does not necessarily mean that these expectations are not clear for the team member (Pearce, 1981). Besides that, research of Keller and Holland (1975) did find that boundary spanning activities would lead to less perceived role ambiguity among employees. Therefore, I suggest that through boundary spanning the team member will perceive less role ambiguity. For the reason that team members who are involved in boundary spanning activities will be more actively interacting with external actors looking for new resources and information (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992a). The interunit linkages between members of different teams created through boundary spanning (Tsai, 2000), create opportunities to access of new knowledge and expertise, as team members are actively looking for information (Marrone, 2010). Within this situation boundary spanning will serve to exchange the necessary information in order to reduce ambiguities and to deal with problems which can occur (Keller & Holland, 1975). In this way, with boundary spanning all necessary information will be available to the team member, which could diminish ambiguities regarding their roles. Furthermore, research of Tsai (2000) stated that by the exchange of information, expertise and knowledge, team members can learn from team members outside their own team’s boundaries. By this, the exchanged information, if not understood, can be further explained in order to create clarity in such a way that they can perform their tasks in a good manner.

10 Furthermore, I also expect that boundary spanning is related to a decrease of the team members’ perception of role ambiguity, which could be a positive effect of boundary spanning. This leads to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between an individual’s boundary

spanning behaviour and his or her perceived role conflict.

Hypothesis 2: There is a negative relationship between an individual’s boundary

spanning behaviour and his or her perceived role ambiguity.

The moderating role of inter-team interdependence

Inter-team interdependence could be defined as “the extent to which work unit members have one-person jobs and the degree of collaboration required among unit members to produce or deliver the finished product or service of the unit” (Van de Ven, Delbecq & Koenig, 1976: p. 324). In other words, the higher the level of interdependence, the more collaboration is needed to deliver the final product. Eppinger, Whitney, Smith and Gebala (1994) explain this by the example of an automobile, which cannot be made by one team, due to the complexity to build one. The development of one automobile is split into different smaller projects which are carried out by different teams in such a way that one team will build the motor, another the tires etc. In such situations, teams have a high level of inter-team interdependence, because each team is depending on the other teams in order to finish the final product (Van der Vegt et al., 1999). In contrast, a team with low inter-team interdependence could finish its tasks within their own team (Wageman, 1995). This mostly occurs within small tasks (Eppinger et al., 1994), such as a plumber who can repair sinks without any help of others.

Inter-team interdependence and the perception of role conflict. Interdependence is a

11 and only together with other teams they can finish the whole project (e.g. building an automobile). Within this situation it is necessary to cooperate with team members of other teams in order to get input to finish their own tasks (Van der Vegt et al., 1999). The collaboration needed in cases of high interdependency between teams can be achieved by engaging in boundary spanning activities, which will create access to expertise, resources and knowledge from team members of other teams (Joshi et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2007). As a result, all necessary information and expertise can be brought together. Therefore, I suggest that in a situation of high inter-team interdependence, these collaborations through boundary spanning will reduce conflicts regarding the expectations of the different roles of the different team members involved. That is because boundary spanning can create knowledge and expertise about the role of each different team and its members. This can support each team member how to contribute to the final product (Joshi et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2007), which in turn could have a positive effect on finishing the overall task. On the contrary, without the exchange of necessary knowledge between the team members of the different teams, it will remain unclear how to collaborate and how to comply with the different role expectations.

12 and suggestions from other teams (Tushman & Scanlan, 1981; Keller & Holland, 1975). For the reason that, as mentioned before, each team has its own ideas on how to perform within a role (Friedman & Podolny, 1992), the team member will be exposed to deviant information about role expectations. Therefore, I suggest that this can create new incongruences regarding expectations on how to perform their role and tasks, which in turn can lead that team members experience more role conflict.

To summarize, I expect that team members who have a high level of inter-team interdependence experience less perceived role conflict through boundary spanning than team members who have a low level of inter-team interdependence. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3a: The relationship between an individual’s boundary spanning behaviour

and his or her perceived role conflict is moderated by inter-team interdependence. This relationship is negative when team interdependence is higher, but positive when inter-team interdependence is lower.

Inter-team interdependence and the perception of role ambiguity. When there is a high

13 different teams in order to create an environment where team members are more willing to share information (Hoegl et al., 2004) and help team members of other teams (De Jong, Van der Vegt & Molleman, 2007). Subsequently, this provides team members with access to the necessary expertise, resources and knowledge from members of other teams (Joshi et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2007). In other words, all the necessary information becomes available for the team member in order to fulfil his or her role. While on the other hand, when team members are not cooperating with members of other teams, there is less access to this necessary information as retrieved from boundary spanning (Joshi et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2007). When good collaboration and thereby the gathering of the necessary expertise, resources and knowledge is lacking, it can lead to perceiving more role ambiguity. Therefore, a high level of inter-team interdependence, requires that team members retrieve the missing relevant information through boundary spanning. By this, team members could fulfil their roles and experience less role ambiguity.

14 own way of communicating (Tushman & Scanlan, 1981). Therefore, interacting with different team members of other teams could be complex, because team members will retrieve many different sorts of information communicated differently than they are used to. As a consequence, information retrieved from boundary spanning could easily be misunderstood (Keller & Holland, 1975), which could create ambiguities among team members about the fulfilment of their role. Therefore, I suggest that, in case of low inter-team interdependence, it could be difficult to understand the information communicated through boundary spanning between different teams and its members, which could cause ambiguities regarding how to perform within their roles.

Altogether, I expect that team members who have a high level of inter-team interdependence experience less perceived role ambiguity through boundary spanning than team members who have a low level of inter-team interdependence. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3b: The relationship between an individual’s boundary spanning behaviour

and his or her perceived role ambiguity is moderated by inter-team interdependence. This relationship is negative when team interdependence is higher, but positive when inter-team interdependence is lower.

The moderating role of the individual’s breadth of functional experience

15 intrapersonal functional diversity (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002). To get a complete overview of the past and present functional background of the individual team member, the focus within this study will be on an individual’s breadth of functional experience (i.e. intrapersonal functional diversity), which involves the extent in which team members are narrow specialists or broad generalists (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002). A low breadth of functional experience means that the individual only has experience in one functional area (which is called a specialist) and a high breadth of functional experience means that the individual has experience in multiple functional areas (which is called a generalist).

Functional experience and the perception of role conflict. As each person has other

16 In contrast to a broad functional experience, there are also so called specialists with experience within one specific functional area. Interacting with team members of other teams who have expertise in other functional areas could bring them more difficulties, as the different team members will have other ways of communicating (Tushman & Scunlan, 1981). Besides that, due to the lack of experience in interacting with outsiders, the team member only knows his or her way of doing tasks (Sutcliffe, 1994). By this, I suggest that information about role expectations retrieved from boundary spanning could easily be misinterpreted. Therefore, the boundary spanning behaviour of specialists can be less effective, as they base this on only one functional perspective (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992b). Hence, I suggest that specialists will benefit less from boundary spanning and will experience more difficulties in solving certain role conflict.

Altogether, I expect that generalists are more able to react on situations when there is inconsistency among expectations between various roles than specialists. Therefore, I expect that boundary spanning is related to perceiving less role conflict among generalists, whereas specialists will experience more role conflict through boundary spanning. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4a: The relationship between an individual’s boundary spanning behaviour

and his or her perceived role conflict is moderated by the individual’s breadth of functional experience. This relationship is negative when the team member is more a generalist, but positive when the team member is more a specialist.

Functional experience and the perception of role ambiguity. A broad set of functional

17 functional areas (Bell et al., 2011; Choi, 2002; Bunderson, 2003). In other words, I suggest that they will already be able to effectively use their own knowledge to perform their role without interacting with outsiders. Moreover, when interacting with team members of other teams, they are able to integrate their acquired resources through boundary spanning more effectively, due to the fact that they could better understand other teams’ members (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Joshi et al., 2009). This is supported by research of Auh and Menguc (2005), they state that this diversity enables team members to share information more effectively and to better understand another’s perspectives. Therefore, generalists are expected to be able to transfer valuable missing information more effectively and to understand this information better when engaging in boundary spanning, which in turn will reduce their perception of role ambiguity.

18 possibility of getting access to new knowledge and information. In other words, when there is a lack of information, there is no possibility to retrieve this missing information, such that role ambiguity will remain.

To conclude, I expect that generalists are more able to understand the information retrieved via boundary spanning. Therefore, I expect that boundary spanning is related to perceiving less role ambiguity among generalists, whereas specialists will experience more role ambiguity through boundary spanning. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4b: The relationship between an individual’s boundary spanning behaviour

and his or her perceived role ambiguity is moderated by the individual’s breadth of functional experience. This relationship is negative when the team member is more a generalist, but positive when the team member is more a specialist.

The hypotheses based on the previous section are visualized in the following conceptual model showed in figure 1.

19 METHOD

Participants and procedure

For this study, an existing data set, comprising 99 participants from 29 teams, was used. This data was obtained during a one-week training exercise for peace support missions, which was attended by those teams. Participants varied from police forces, professionals of departments of multiple nations from the United States, Germany and the Netherlands, senior members of a military command-and-control centre and professionals of a few humanitarian aid foundations. The survey was offered via paper-and-pencil, two days before the exercise ended. Finally, privacy and anonymity of each participant was assured, due to the fact that the data set did not include questions regarding gender, age and tenure.

Measurements

The data used in this study was collected through a survey questionnaire. This questionnaire included questions on the boundary spanning behaviour of the team members, and their experiences regarding role conflict and role ambiguity. Furthermore, the questionnaire addressed the team members’ breadth of functional experience and the inter-team interdependence of their teams.

Boundary spanning. A network question was used in order to measure the boundary

20 behaviour was calculated by the sum of teams the team member has had meetings with (M = 12.57, SD = 5.53).

Role conflict. To measure role conflict, six items developed by Rizzo et al. (1970) were

used, such as the following two items: ‘I do things that are apt to be accepted by one person and not accepted by others’ and ‘I work with two or more groups who operate quite differently’. These items were measured with a seven point measuring scale: 1 = completely disagree; 7 = completely agree (M = 3.31, SD = 1.15, α = .759).

Role ambiguity. Five items of the same study from Rizzo et al. (1970) were used to

measure role ambiguity. For instance, two of these items are: ‘I feel certain about how much authority I have’ and ‘Explanation is clear of what has to be done’. These items were measured with a seven point measuring scale: 1 = completely disagree; 7 = completely agree. However, as those items measure role clarity, all of the five items were re-coded in order to measure role ambiguity (M = 2.88, SD = 1.00, α = .748).

The individuals’ breadth of functional experience. To measure the breadth of

functional experience, the participants were asked to indicate their work experience in years in different functional areas (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002), including all aspects of the training exercise used for the data (e.g. general management/command, personnel/HR, operations, logistics, plans, training and exercise etc.). After that, the individual breadth of functional experience was computed via the heterogeneity index of Blau (1977) by using the version of Bunderson (2003):

Within this formula, pi stands for the percentage of total work experience in years in one

functional area, and k is the total number of functional areas asked within the present survey (K=13). The outcomes can range from 0 to a maximum of .921_{, where 0 stands for experience}

21 in one single functional area and .92 which stands for evenly distributed experience in each of the thirteen functional areas (M = .47, SD = .26).

Inter-team interdependence. Three items of research from Van der Vegt and Janssen

(2003) were used to measure inter-team interdependence. These items included the following statements: ‘It is not necessary for me to coordinate or cooperate with other teams’ (re-coded), ‘I need information and advice from other teams to perform my job well’ and ‘I need to collaborate with other teams to perform my job well’. These items were scored on a seven point measuring scale: 1 = completely disagree; 7 = completely agree (M = 5.83, SD = 1.16, α = .827).

Control variable. Research showed that through boundary spanning, team members

need to control relationships within their own team and relationships outside their team. Each of these different relationships requires other types of boundary spanning behaviour (Aldrich & Herker, 1976; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Therefore, intra-team interdependency will be considered and included as a control variable. Same as for inter-team interdependence, three items of research from Van der Vegt and Janssen (2003) were used to measure intra-team interdependence. The items were: ‘It is not necessary for me to coordinate or cooperate with others’ (re-coded), ‘I need information and advice from my colleagues to perform my job well’ and ‘I need to collaborate with my colleagues to perform my job well’. These items were measured with a seven point measuring scale: 1 = completely disagree; 7 = completely agree (M = 5.69, SD = 1.08, α = .723).

RESULTS Preliminary analysis

22 were loaded into different components. Therefore, these items were removed for further analysis: ‘I have to do things that should be done differently’ (i.e. Duid3), ‘Lack of policies and guidelines to help me’ (i.e. Duid4), ‘I have to buck a rule or policy in order to carry out an assignment’ (i.e. Duid7) and ‘I know what my responsibilities are’ (i.e. Duid6_re-coded). This resulted in the use of four components. The first component included items of role conflict (α = .759), the second component included items of role ambiguity (α = .748), the third component included items of inter-team interdependence (α = .827) and the fourth component included items of intra-team interdependence (α = .723).

Table 1.

Output factor analysis.

23 Additionally, as this study investigated members of teams, it was necessary to check if those teams had an effect on the different relations as proposed within the hypotheses. Therefore, the intra-class correlation (ICC1) was computed by performing a One-Way ANOVA test for the two dependent variables role conflict and role ambiguity. Table 2 provides the results of the One-Way ANOVA between the groups and within the groups.

Table 2.

One-Way ANOVA.

Variables Mean Square Sig.

Role Conflict Between groups 1.326 .039

Within groups .911

Role Ambiguity Between groups 1.728 .111

Within groups 1.004

Notes. N = 90 participants, from N = 29 teams.

By calculating the ICC1 of both variables, I made use of the following formula: (𝑀𝑆 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑠 − 𝑀𝑆 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑠)

((𝑀𝑆 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑠 + (𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 − 1)) × 𝑀𝑆 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝𝑠)

24 role ambiguity = 87%2), which illustrates the disagreement among the participants within the teams (Bartko, 1976). Therefore, for further analysis, there is chosen to conduct a normal regression analysis for both variables3.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 3 provides the means, standard deviations and inter-correlations for all study variables.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics.

Means, Standard Deviations and Pearson correlation coefficients

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Boundary spanning 12.58 5.54 1 2. Role conflict 3.31 1.15 .063 1 3. Role ambiguity 2.88 1.00 .068 .334** 1 4. Interteam interdependence 5.83 1.16 .349** -.021 -.089 1 5. Functional experience .47 .26 .191 .118 -.096 .126 1 6. Intrateam interdependence 5.69 1.09 .231* _{.007 -.099 .325}** _.272** ₁ Notes. N = 99. *p < .05, **p < .01.

2 _{Based on the formula 1-ICC1 of Bartko (1976)}

3 _{Multilevel analysis is done with the variable role conflict to check whether there are differences between doing}

25 Similar to my proposed relationship, I found a small positive correlation between boundary spanning and role conflict (r = .063, p > .05). Besides that, contrary to my proposed relationship, I found a small positive correlation between boundary spanning and role ambiguity (r = .068, p > .05). However, for the reason that both correlations are not significant and close to zero, I cannot imply that there are indeed correlations between those variables within the population.

Either way, significant correlations are found between the main variables. First, there is found a positive correlation between role conflict and role ambiguity (r = .334, p < .01). This implies that a high level of perceived role conflict could lead to a higher perception of role ambiguity and a low level of perceived role conflict to a lower perception of role ambiguity. Subsequently, there is found a positive significant correlation between boundary spanning and inter-team interdependence (r = .349, p < .01). So, this implies that when there is a high level of inter-team interdependence team members are more likely to engage in boundary spanning. By looking into the control variable intra-team interdependence, the analysis showed three significant correlations: with boundary spanning (r = .231, p < .05), inter-team interdependence (r = .325, p < .01) and the individual’s breadth of functional experience (r = .272, p < .01). Therefore, the control variable is included within the analysis. However, including this variable in the analysis did not result in any additional significant differences compared to the analysis without the control variable.

Hypotheses Testing

Hypotheses 1 and 2. The first hypothesis proposed that boundary spanning would lead

26 In the same way, I conducted another linear regression, which showed, contrary to the proposed hypothesis, a small positive relationship (B = .096, p = .359). However, due to the insignificant relationships, hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 cannot be supported by the data.

Table 4.

Regression results of H1 and H2

B t CI [LL, UL]

Dependent variable: Role Conflict

Constant 3.31** _{28.44 [3.08 , 3.54]} Boundary spanning .074 .616 [-.165 , .313] Control variable Intrateam interdependence -.010 -.079 [-.249 , .229] R² .004

Dependent variable: Role Ambiguity

Constant 2.89** 28.68 [2.68 , 3.09] Boundary spanning .096 .922 [-.111 , .302] Control variable Intrateam interdependence -.121 -1.163 [-.327 , .085] R² .018 Notes. N = 99. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.

As proposed in the theory section, the relation between boundary spanning and perceived role conflict and role ambiguity could be moderated by inter-team interdependence and the individual’s breadth of functional experience.

Hypotheses 3A and 3B. A multiple regression analysis was conducted for both

27 which showed, contrary to the proposed hypothesis, a positive, but insignificant, interaction (B = .102, p = .397). Besides that, the moderation effect of inter-team interdependence on the relation between boundary spanning and perceived role ambiguity (H3B) showed a negative, but insignificant, interaction (B = -.199, p = .248). Therefore, both hypothesis 3A and hypothesis 3B cannot be supported by the data.

Table 5.

Multiple regression analysis of moderation effect inter-team interdependence

B t CI [LL, UL]

Dependent variable: Role Conflict

Constant 3.28** 26.39 [3.03 , 3.53] Boundary spanning .091 .714 [-.161 , .342] Inter-team interdependence -.025 -.183 [-.295 , .246] Interaction .102 .851 [-.136 , .339] Control variable Intra-team interdependence -.009 -.072 [-.261 , .243] R² .014

Dependent variable: Role Ambiguity

28 To visualize the moderation effect of inter-team interdependence on the relation between boundary spanning and perceived role conflict and role ambiguity, both interactions were plotted, as illustrated in figure 2. This shows a small interaction within the moderation effect of inter-team interdependence on the relationship between boundary spanning and role conflict (see figure 2, left half), implying that when there is high interdependence between teams, a high level of boundary spanning could lead to more role conflict. This interaction is in contradiction with the proposed hypothesis, as I expected that in case of high inter-team interdependence, boundary spanning would lead to less role conflict. Within the interaction of boundary spanning and inter-team interdependence on role ambiguity (see figure 2, right half) there is no interaction found. However, the plot needs to be significant in order to conclude on these interactions on the level of the population, which is not the case within this study.

Figure 2. Moderation interaction of inter-team interdependence on boundary spanning with

role conflict and role ambiguity

Hypotheses 4A and 4B. Also for calculating the possible moderation effects of the

29 by the data. However, the moderation effect of the individual’s breadth of functional experience on the relation between boundary spanning and perceived role ambiguity (H4B) showed a significant negative interaction (B = -.212, p = .04).

Table 6.

Multiple regression analysis of moderation effect individual’s breadth of functional experience.

B t CI [LL, UL]

Dependent variable: Role Conflict

Constant 3.34** 28.20 [3.10 , 3.57] Boundary spanning .087 .698 [-.160 , .334] Functional experience .117 .945 [-.129 , .363] Interaction -.134 -1.12 [-.371 , .104] Control variable Intrateam interdependence -.052 -.421 [-.298 , .194] R² .030

Dependent variable: Role Ambiguity

Constant 2.93** 28.99 [2.73, 3.13] Boundary spanning .157 1.48 [-.053 , .368] Functional experience -.120 -.1.14 [-.329 , .090] Interaction -.212* _{-2.08 [-.414 , -.010]} Control variable Intrateam interdependence -.115 -1.09 [-.325 , .095] R² .069 Notes. N = 99. +_{p < .10,} *_{p < .05,} **_{p < .01.}

30 perceived role conflict and role ambiguity are visualized. Within the interaction of boundary spanning and the functional experience on role conflict (see figure 3, left half), a small interaction is shown, implying that generalists who are involved within boundary spanning experience less role conflict. However, the plot needs to be significant in order to conclude on this interaction on the level of the population, which is not the case within this study. Regarding role ambiguity (see figure 3, right half), generalists who are involved within boundary spanning experience less role ambiguity (simple slope at +1SD: B = -.05, SE = .12, p = .67) and specialists who are involved within boundary spanning experience more role ambiguity (simple slope at -1SD: B = .37, SE = .16, p = .02). Based on these results, Hypothesis 4B is partially supported.

Figure 3. Moderation interaction of the individual’s breadth of functional experience on

boundary spanning with role conflict and role ambiguity

DISCUSSION Summary of results

31 boundary spanning, such as role conflict and role ambiguity. Hence, the aim of this study was to examine whether boundary spanning would lead to perceived role conflict and perceived role ambiguity by looking into the moderators inter-team interdependence and the individual’s breadth of functional experience. First, no significant results for the relationships between boundary spanning and perceived role conflict and perceived role ambiguity were found. Furthermore, this study does not provide evidence that inter-team interdependence will moderate the effect of boundary spanning on perceived role conflict and perceived role ambiguity. Besides that, no evidence is found that the individual’s breadth of functional experience moderates the effect of boundary spanning on perceived role conflict. However, evidence is found that specialists who engage in boundary spanning perceive more role ambiguity.

Subsequently, significant correlations of the main variables are found. First, the correlation between role conflict and role ambiguity showed a strong positive relation, implying that a high perception of role ambiguity leads to a higher perception of role conflict and a low perception of role ambiguity leads to a lower perception of role conflict, or the other way around. These findings are in line with other research, since research of Rizzo et al., (1970) also found a positive inter-correlation (r = .25).

32 Theoretical and practical implications

This study only provides evidence for the moderation effect of the individual’s breadth of functional experience on the relation between boundary spanning and role ambiguity. There is no evidence found for the other proposed hypotheses. Nevertheless, it shows interesting implications about boundary spanning, role conflict and role ambiguity, for research as well as for the practice field.

First of all, this study contributes to the boundary spanning literature by providing evidence regarding the moderation effect of the individual’s breadth of functional experience on role ambiguity. Evidence is found that specialists who engage in boundary spanning will perceive more role ambiguity. This is in line with previous research, which states that specialists could be less effective in cooperating with other teams’ members, as they base this on only one functional perspective (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992b).

33 different expectations retrieved through boundary spanning could also create ambiguities regarding the team members role.

Third, regarding the moderation effect of inter-team interdependence, I proposed that by including inter-team interdependence as moderator that team members would perceive less role conflict and role ambiguity in case of high interdependency between teams. Research shows that boundary spanning creates the opportunity to access of new expertise, resources and knowledge of other teams’ members (Joshi et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2007). As a result, all necessary information needed to finish the tasks can be brought together, which could create clarity about the role expectations of team members. However, in this study, the interaction of inter-team interdependence and boundary spanning on role conflict showed the opposite interaction than expected (H3A). In this study, team members with high inter-team interdependence who engage in boundary spanning perceive more role conflict. An explanation could lie in complex communication strategies involved with boundary spanning (Tushman & Scanlan, 1981). This kind of communication can result in inaccurate information which is not needed to perform their tasks, which in turn can lead to conflict about how to comply with different role expectations. After all, due to insignificant results in this study, this contradiction should be further examined in future research to get more insight in the moderating effect of inter-team interdependency in practice.

34 other teams) and its possible negative effects, it is an important recommendation for organizations to support team members in this communication, to enable them to optimize the understanding and sharing of information and resources.

At last, regarding the relationship between role ambiguity and role conflict, a significant positive inter-correlation was found, which is in line with previous research (Rizzo et al., 1970). Kahn et al. (1964) explain that when team members perceive ambiguities regarding their role, conflicting pressures often occur due to unconsciousness about the inconsistency within their role demands.

Limitations and future research

Despite the interesting findings and its implications for research and practice, this study has some limitations. The first limitation is the small sample size, caused by a low response rate (De Vries, Walter, Van der Vegt & Essens, 2014). The small sample size could be the reason why the results only partially support one hypothesis (H4B). Because of this, I cannot explicitly say that the relationships really exist within the population. Therefore, examining a larger sample size would be profitable in order to increase the reliability and quality of future studies.

35 be interesting to investigate whether results would be different during different periods of time and whether results would be different for professionals working in other types of organizations.

Finally, as this study only examined whether boundary spanning leads to more or less perceived role conflict, insight in the outcomes regarding the consequences of role conflict and role ambiguity is missing. For example, there is much research about the relationship of boundary spanning with performance, which are both positive and negative (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992a, Faraj & Yan, 2009; Joshi et al., 2009; Weisz, Vassolo & Cooper, 2004). Other variables mentioned as outcomes for role conflict and role ambiguity are higher levels of stress, anxiety and psychological effects such as a lower self-efficacy and satisfaction (Rizzo et al., 1970; Beauchamp & Bray, 2001; Kahn et al., 1964; Sell et al., 1981). A suggestion for future research is to include one of these outcome variables in order to examine whether perceived role conflict and role ambiguity does mediate the relationship between the individual’s boundary spanning behaviour and one of these variables.

CONCLUSION

36 REFERENCES

Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1976) Boundary spanning roles and organizational structure. The

academy of management journal. 2, 217-230.

Ancona, D.G. (1990). Outward Bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. The

academy of management journal. 33 (2), 334-365.

Ancona, D., Bresman, H., & Kaeufer, K. (2002). The comparative advantage of X-teams. MIT

Sloan Management Review, 43(3), 33-39.

Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1988). Beyond task and maintenance: Defining external functions in groups. Group and organization studies. 13, 468-494.

Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992a). Bridging the Boundary: external activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative science quarterly. 37 (4), 634-665. Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992b). Demography and Design: Predictors of new

product team performance. Organization science. 3 (3), 321-341

Auh, S. & Menguc, B. (2005). The influence of top management team functional diversity on strategic orientations: the moderating role of environmental turbulence and inter-functional coordination. International journal of research marketing. 22, 333-350. Bartko, J. J. (1976). On various intraclass correlation reliability coefficients. Psychological

bulletin, 83(5), 762-765

Bell, S.T., Villado, A.J., Lukasik, M.A., Belau, L. & Briggs, A.L. (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: a meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37 (3), 709-743.

Beauchamp, M. R., & Bray, S. R. (2001). Role ambiguity and role conflict within interdependent teams. Small group research, 32(2), 133-157.

37 Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Team member functional background and involvement in management teams: Direct effects and the moderating role of power centralization. Academy of

Management Journal, 46, 458–474.

Bunderson, J.S. & Sutcliffe, K.M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: process and performance effects. The

academy of management journal. 45 (5), 875-893.

Choi, J. N. (2002). External activities and team effectiveness: Review and theoretical development. Small Group Research, 33(2), 181-208.

De Jong, S. B., Van der Vegt, G. S., & Molleman, E. (2007). The relationships among asymmetry in task dependence, perceived helping behavior, and trust. Journal of

applied psychology, 92(6), 1625.

De Vries, T. A., Walter, F., Van der Vegt, G. S., & Essens, P. J. (2014). Antecedents of individuals' interteam coordination: Broad functional experiences as a mixed blessing. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5), 1334-1359.

Eppinger, S. D., Whitney, D. E., Smith, R. P., & Gebala, D. A. (1994). A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development. Research in engineering

design, 6(1), 1-13.

Faraj, S. and Yan, A. (2009). Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied

Psychology. 94 (3), 604-617

Friedman, R. A., & Podolny, J. (1992). Differentiation of boundary spanning roles: Labor negotiations and implications for role conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28-47.

Gladstein, D.L. (1984). Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness. Administrative

38 Glynn, M. A., Kazanjian, R., & Drazin, R. (2010). Fostering innovation in complex product

development settings: The role of team member identity and interteam

interdependence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(7), 1082-1095. Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as

separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of management

review, 32(4), 1199-1228.

Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal

study. Organization science, 15(1), 38-55.

Joshi, A., Pandey, N. & Han, G. (2009). Bracketing team boundary spanning: an examination of task-based, team-level, and contextual antecedents. Journal of Organizational

Behavior. 30, 731-759.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).

Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2, p. 528). New York: Wiley.

Keller, R. T., & Holland, W. E. (1975). Boundary-spanning roles in a research and development organization: An empirical investigation. Academy of Management

Journal, 18(2), 388-393.

Marrone, J.A. (2010). Team Boundary Spanning: A Multilevel Review of Past Research and Proposals for the Future. Journal of Management. 36 (4), 911-940.

Marrone, J.A., Tesluk, E. & Carson, J.B. A multi-level investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behaviour (2007) . Academy of

39 Pearce, J. L. (1981). Bringing some clarity to role ambiguity research. Academy of

Management Review, 6(4), 665-674.

Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J. & Lirtzman, S.I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 150-163.

Stark, E., Bierly, P., & R. Harper, S. (2014). The interactive influences of conflict, task interdependence and cooperation on perceptions of virtualness in co-located teams. Team Performance Management, 20(5/6), 221-241.

Sutcliffe, K.M. (1994). What executives notice: accurate perceptions in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1360-1378

Tsai, W. (2000). Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages. Strategic management journal, 21(9), 925-939.

Tsai, W. 2002. Social structure of “coopetition” within a multiunit organization:

Coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization

Science, 13, 179–190.

Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of management journal, 24(2), 289-305.

Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van De Vliert, E. (1999). Effects of interdependencies in project teams. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139(2), 202-214.

Van der Vegt, G. S., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of management, 29(5), 729-751.

40 Van Sell, M., Brief, A. P., & Schuler, R. S. (1981). Role conflict and role ambiguity: Integration of the literature and directions for future research. Human relations, 34(1), 43-71.

Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative science

quarterly, 145-180.

Weisz, N., Vassolo, R.S. & Cooper, A.C. (2004). A theoretical and empirical assessment of the social capital of nascent entrepreneurial teams. Academy of Management Best

Conference Paper. K1-K6.