INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
The mediation effect of boundary spanning activities between extraverted employees and job satisfaction, with a moderating effect of team identity
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Human Resource Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 4, 2016
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the relationships between an individual’s boundary spanning, extraversion, job satisfaction and team identity. Boundary spanning is used as mediating variable and team identity as a moderator. The hypotheses are tested by the workforce of one municipality. Corroborating my prediction, extraversion is positively related to boundary spanning activities. This may indicate that extraverted tend to seek more external contact, compared to less extraverted individuals. Job satisfaction and perceived team identity also tend to affect boundary spanning. This study provides insights about how boundary spanning can have positive effects on job satisfaction. Moreover, it provides understandings why team identity may lead to greater boundary spanning activities. For organizations knowing these effects of extraversion and team identity on boundary spanning and on job satisfaction is important, as both boundary spanning and job satisfaction influences organizational performance. Ultimately, this study advances new knowledge and directions for future research concerning factors that contribute to individual boundary spanning.
INTRODUCTION
The world we live in is an interconnected world. The business processes in this interconnected world have become flat, diverse, global and networked (Ancona & Bresman, 2007). Tasks have increased in complexity, speed and are more knowledge-based than ever before. Organizations can cope with these new challenges by making themselves flexible and innovative. This flexibility and innovation can be leveraged by creating effective teams in organizations (Leonard & Sensiper, 1998). However, creating efficient teams does not seem to be sufficient in this interconnected world. Teams may create an internal focus and isolate themselves within the organization. This internal team focus can limit the ability of organizations to perform large scale, customer oriented, and complex tasks (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). In order to deliver the optimal service or product to customers, teams need to look for resources beyond the boundaries of their own team and engage in boundary spanning activities. Boundary spanning is behavior intended to establish a relationship with and generate knowledge from sources outside one’s team (Marrone, Tesluk & Carson, 2007). A variety of studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of boundary spanning for team and organizational performance (de Vries, Walter, van der Vegt & Essens, 2014; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Additionally, boundary spanning has been shown to have positive effects on organizational learning and innovation (Hargadon, 1998). Ofstein (2014) described boundary spanning as the most important driver of firm performance and of firm innovativeness. Therefore, boundary spanning activities are becoming significantly important for many organizations.
external factor that can assist a team in meeting objectives (Marrone et al., 2007). A team is more likely to succeed when one or more of the team members act as a scout (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988). Coordination activities refer to making links and build trust between members across boundaries of different teams. McDermott (1999) found that having a coordinator in your team increases knowledge sharing and collaboration with other teams. Ambassadorial activities refer to promoting one’s own team to management and protecting it from interference (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988). Boundary spanning occurs on two levels: between organizations and within organizations (i.e. in-firm boundary spanning). This paper is limited to in-firm boundary spanning behavior. Or in other words this paper is limited to the the interaction between different teams in one organization rather than the interaction of teams between different organizations. The reason for this limitation is because it provides a narrower focus.
The focus of this research is on one personality type that may lead to boundary spanning activities. Personality type is used since it has been found to be a valid for individual’s behavior (Deinert, Homan, Boer, Voelpel & Gutermann, 2015). Goldberg (1992) identified five personality types, the Big-Five: extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism. Prior research seems to suggest that extraversion and openness are the types which are most likely to result in boundary spanning. According to Wang, Jackson, Zhang, and Su (2012), individuals who are extraverted and/or open to experience both like a social environment. Additionally, these researchers found evidence that extraverts gained the highest satisfaction from interaction with colleagues compared to individuals who are open to experiences. A difference between being more open to experience and being more extraverted is that people who are more open prefer independence in their work, whereas people who are more extraverted prefer to work more in teams (Judge & Zapata, 2015). Interaction with outsiders is a key component of boundary spanning. Given extraverted individuals’ general tendency to seek and enjoy such social interaction, boundary spanning might be more valuable to extraverted individuals, compared with less extraverted persons (Oh, Ozkaya & LaRose, 2014). Therefore, I predict that the personality type “extraversion” has the strongest link to boundary spanning activities.
satisfied in their job (Fu, Deshpande, & Zhao, 2011; Qureshi, Hayat, Ali, & Sarwat, 2011; Malik, Nawab, Naeem, & Danish, 2010). Hence, clarity about boundary spanning’s impact on job satisfaction would be an important addition to current research and valuable knowledge for organizations.
Organizations also need to take into account the level of team identity a team has. Current research on this aspect is neglected. Most studies focus on the effect organizational identity has on team effectiveness rather than the effect team identity has on team effectiveness (Richter, West, Van Dick and Dawson, 2006). Korschun’s review (2015) argues that employees who identify strongly with an organization become adversarial rather than cooperative towards other stakeholders. Brewer (1991) found that, individuals on a team with a strong team identity tend to behave more competitively rather than cooperatively. They try to maximize the benefits of their own team and promote only their own team. This might lead to counterproductive behavior, such as behavior that makes other teams look bad and refuse helping other teams. According to these findings, a strong team identity may also decrease the effects of boundary spanning activities and indirectly decrease organization performance.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual model
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Boundary spanning appears to be an important aspect in creating successful organizational practices. This is especially true for organizations that are customer oriented and do large-scale projects where input is needed from all teams in the organization. Input from all teams is called in-firm boundary spanning (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). The focus in this study is on the individual level since prior research demonstrated that having one or a few members on a team who bring in new information and collaborate with other teams is enough to have an effective interconnected organization (Tushman & Scanlan, 1981). Boundary spanning individuals are important for linking teams with external sources of information. These individuals have a strong connection throughout the whole organization. Thus they can exchange information between their team and other teams (Tushman & Scanlan, 1979). Therefore, they are an important linking mechanism, providing the organization with a collaborative and interconnected workforce (March, Guetzkow, & Simon, 1958).
they spend too much time alone. They recharge by being social, which may cause them to seek more contact outside team boundaries. Furthermore, according to Eysenck’s theory (1970), introverts and extraverts behave differently due to differences in ‘cortical arousal’. Cortical arousal (the speed of brain activity) is higher for introverts; they process more information per second. In an active environment introverts become overwhelmed by all the information they process. They tend to avoid such active environments. In contrast, extraverts are only minimally aroused; they even seek highly stimulating environments to increase their cortical arousal level. This might mean that extraverts seek such active environments through boundary spanning activities, in order to make their work environment more challenging.
activities because these activities can satisfy their social needs. Additionally they make their work less detail-oriented. Hence, the first hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 1. Extraverts are positively related to his or her boundary spanning behavior.
more variety in job demands. Variety is the degree to which a job requires the performance of a wide range of tasks (Sims, Szilagyi & Keller, 1976). Providing job characteristics such as variety in tasks and level of autonomy leads to a high level of intrinsic motivation because it enhances the experienced meaningfulness of the job (Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991). Internal motivation is believed to result in a high level of job satisfaction. A study conducted by Lysonski (1985) found some associations between boundary spanning and positive role outcomes by managers, such as performance and satisfaction. Thus, the second hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 2. Boundary spanning activities increase job satisfaction.
research on cross-functional-teams, there is also evidence about the ineffectiveness team identity may have on promoting boundary spanning activities. If there is little interdependency or need for teams to interact, team identity might indeed have positive effects. In contrast, when teams are more dependent on each other and need to interact, a strong team identity may cause communication problems in the sense that the teams do not understand each other well enough (Dougherty, 1992; Pfeffer, 1981). Individuals of a team with a strong team identity tend to behave more competitively than cooperatively (Brewer, 1991; Brewer & Silver, 1978), which reduces boundary spanning activities. Such team might establish boundaries, become isolated and try to perform better than the other teams in the organization. Additionally, a team with a strong team identity is more likely to condemn a member who collaborates with other teams. The team feels this particular member is letting the team down. Since a team will respect a member by reporting his or her team identification and members want to earn this respect, team members restrict boundary spanning behavior. The high team identity makes the person competitive towards other teams. Consequently, it can be expected that the cooperative behavior of members with other teams will reduce as their team has a strong team identity. Strong team identity is used as moderator, since it can be assumed that it has a negative effect on the relationship between extraversion and boundary spanning. Extraverts will become more cautious in seeking external contact since the team will not appreciate this behavior. Thus, the third hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 3. Strong team identity reduces the positive relationship between extraverts and boundary spanning activities.
(Wang et al, 2012). Boundary spanning activities increase the amount of interaction, which increases the job satisfaction of extraverts. Moreover, extraverts lose motivation from doing detail-oriented work (Singh, 1998). Boundary spanning makes a job more challenging because boundary spanning allows individuals to perform different roles in the organization, which will increase extraverts’ job satisfaction even more. Corroborating these predictions, a study conducted by Hyondong and Yang Woon (2014) supports the idea that an extravert’s job satisfaction will increase when participating in social-network-service (SNS) activities in the workplace. SNS is a web-based platform that allows individuals to make connections with others outside their team and shape a particular community group based on shared interests. It has similarities to boundary spanning activities in the sense that it allows individuals to connect with outsiders and share information with them. These services increase extraverts’ self-esteem and decrease their feeling of loneliness (Kiesler Kraut, Cummings, Boneva, Helgeson, & Crawford, 2002). Therefore, it can be assumed that extraverts rather than introverts like boundary spanning activities, because they increase extraverts, but not introverts, job satisfaction. For organizational success keeping your employees satisfied with their job is significantly important (Brashear, White, Chelariu, 2003). Job satisfaction is the first step towards organizational performance. Additionally, a team with a strong team identity might negatively impact boundary spanning because of competitive team pressure, whereas the team does not allow the member to collaborate that much with other teams (Sleebos et al., 2006). This process might decrease boundary spanning activities and also indirectly decreases job satisfaction. Thus, the fourth hypothesis is:
METHOD Sample and procedure
The data used in this study was collected in the 2016 Master HRM program of the University of Groningen. Specifically, I administrated a multi-source, cross-sectional survey in a single organization. This organization is the municipality of one region in the Netherlands. Currently there are 82,284 citizens in this region. The main tasks of the municipality included providing a wide area of public services, keeping records of citizens and preparing and executing decisions about the region. In the municipality the focus was mostly on the relationship and collaboration within teams. This focus should be extended more towards connections between teams. This boundary spanning-effect might result in higher effectiveness and cost saving (McGuire, 2006). Consequently, boundary spanning demands were an integral part of employee’s daily work. The HR-manager of the municipality believed that boundary spanning is essential for success and that this study could give the organization new insights about how to further promote boundary spanning.
The organization has 983 employees distributed over 32 work teams with each team having one team manager.1 The focus of this research is only on the office/ -knowledge workers.2 This means that the data is collected from 30 work teams, with team sizes ranging from 4 to 57 members. A total of 801 employees received a survey. Of these surveys, 603 have been answered, which is a response rate of 75%. The team leaders are excluded in the measurements for the hypotheses. The team leaders filled in another questionnaire to control the outcomes of their teams. 222 employees were male and 264 were female. Ages range from 19 to 65, with the average being 44. The variables are determined by an online questionnaire where individuals rated themselves.
1
Management team has four team managers. 2
Measures
Extraversion. The degree of extraversion is measured by 10 items adapted from Goldberg (1992). Participants were asked to rate their personality on a 7-point scale ranging from 1= “never, not at all” to 7= “almost always, continuously”. The 10 items are: “Extravert,” “Energetic,” “Talkative,” “Enthusiastic,” “Adventurous,” “Active,” “Assertive,” “Spontaneous,” “Social,” and “Impulsive”. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86.
Boundary spanning. In order to measure boundary spanning I conducted two network questions. The first question was on the team- level: With which teams do you regularly work together, one or more times per week? This implies solving problems together, aligning work duties and making decisions. The second question was on the individual- level: Select the individual of this team which who you work with one or more times a week (e.g. by mail, telephone, or face-to-face). The times the individual is selected by peers as a partner with who he intensively cooperates with, makes the individuals personal boundary spanning score.
Job satisfaction. To measure job satisfaction I used three items used by van der Vegt, Emans, & van de Vliert (2000). Individuals were asked to report how much they agree with each item on a 5-point scale (1= “Strongly disagree” and 5= “Strongly agree”). The items are: “Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job”; “Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with the kind of work I do on this job”; and “I frequently think of quitting this job” (reverse code). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.70.
than ‘‘they’’; “This team’s successes are my successes”; and “When someone praises this team, it feels like a personal compliment”. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89.
Control variables
Boundary spanning. Participants indicated the extent to which boundary spanning activities were a part of their job adopted by using items from Ancona and Caldwell (1988). Originally 14 items were measured to capture all three roles of boundary spanning. A selection of eight items is made for this study, three items for scouting, two items for ambassadorial activities and three items for the coordinating tasks. The items are measured on a 7-point scale ranging from 1= “never” to 7= “daily”. The questions are slightly modified to fit the organizational context. Example items are: How often do you execute the following activities…“try to figure out what other teams are doing”; “asking for documents (e.g. reports/ policies) from other teams”; “asking other teams to think about your work”; and “asking for feedback from other teams”. Cronbach’s alpha was .88.
Interdependency in team. Boundary spanning behavior may be influenced by the nature of work demands (Joshi, Pandey & Han, 2009). Therefore, in this research I controlled for the demand of collaboration within a team. I adapted three items from van der Vegt, van de Vliert, and Oosterhof (2003) and measured them on a five-point Likert scale (1= “completely disagree” to 5= “completely agree”). The items are: “In order to complete my work, I had to exchange information and advice in my group”; “I had to work closely with my team members to do my work properly”; and “I rarely had to check or work with team members” (reverse coded). Cronbach’s alpha was .79.
perceived team task interdependence as control variable. I adapted three items from de Vries et, al. (2014) and measured them on a five-point Likert scale (1= “completely disagree” and 5= “completely agree”). The items are: “In order to complete my work, I had to exchange information and advice with other groups”; “I had to work closely with other groups to do my work properly”; and “I rarely had to check or work with other groups” (reverse coded). Cronbach’s alpha was .90.
Coordination within team. Coordination within a team might influence boundary spanning. It might be the case that seeking sources outside the own team is a result of coordinating activities and are therefore no boundary spanning activities (McCann & Ferry, 1979). I adapted five items from Ancona and Coldwell (1992) and measured them on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1= “completely disagree” to 5= “completely agree”). The items are: “My team members work very well together”; “Misunderstandings almost do not exist within my team”; “Regularly, work is “double” performed” (reverse score)”; “Regularly, there are work delays because colleagues do not consider each other’s schedule” (reverse score); and “My team has problems matching the work pace of other colleagues” (reverse score). Cronbach’s alpha was .79.
Workload. An individual’s perceived workload might influence their job satisfaction (Bakker, Demerouti, de Boer, & Schaufeli, 2003). Hence, workload is a control variable in the survey. Using three items created by Marrone et al. (2007) with a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = “Completely disagree,” 5 = “Completely agree”). I asked members to what extent they agree with the statements, “It often seems that I have more work to do than one person can handle”; “I am often expected to do more than is realistic” and “ It often feels I have more tasks to do than is possible”. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.91.
Tenure. Employees’ with long tenure may have had more opportunities to establish external-team connections, thereby influencing their boundary spanning (Zenger & Lawrence, 1989). Hence, I obtained members’ years of tenure from company records and considered it as a potential control for analyses that included boundary spanning as an outcomes variable.
Gender & age. In order to make sure gender and age had no influence on the results. I gathered information about employees’ gender (0 male; 1 female), about their age in years.
Team performance. Each team leader rated the performance of the team he or she supervised. This data is collected to correlate the average boundary spanning of team members with their team leader’s performance appraisal. Six items are adapted from Ancona and Caldwell (1992). They are measured on a five-point Likert-type scale (1= “Far below average” and 5= “Far above average”). The items are: “Achieving team goals”; “Achieving of deadlines”; “Working speed”; “Quality of the work”; “Productivity”; and “Efficiency”. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.81.
and techniques”; “This team comes up with creative solutions to problems”; “This team comes up with new ways to improve quality”; “This team suggests new and practical ideas to improve performance”; and “This team brings new ways in for the implementation of the tasks”. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89.
Team innovation. Innovation is about actually implementing new ideas made by the team. Four items are adapted from Ancona and Caldwell (1992), measured on a five-point Likert-type scale (1= “Far below average” and 5= “Far above average”) and conducted by the team leaders. The items are: “Implements the team new ways to perform tasks”; “Uses the team creative solutions”; “Uses the team new methods and techniques”; and “Uses the team new ideas to improve performance”. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88.
Data analysis
PROCESS-analysis (Hayes, 2013) is used to analyse data, because it generates confidence intervals for inference about the indirect effect using bootstrapping. The program is useful for assessing indirect effects with mediators and/ or moderators. UCINET is used to calculate the boundary spanning scores and to draw network-diagrams.
RESULTS Descriptive Statistics
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Variableshallo Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Gender 1.54 0.499 2. Age 44.50 10.85 -.097* 3. Function Tenure 6.47 7.64 -.054 .326** 4. Team tenure 4.13 4.89 -.048 .199** .365** 5. Org tenure 5.39 5.80 .37 .245** .209** .349** 6. Extraversion 4.92 .79 .58 -.064 -.048 .046 .071 7. Boundary spanning 5.02 2.14 .002 -.020 -.027 .063 .032 .161** 8. Job satisfaction 3.49 .46 .025 -.129** -.033 .022 -.061 .186** .058 9. Workload 3.02 .96 -.053 .144** .052 .023 .023 .000 .131** -.061 10. Team identity 3.80 .74 .011 -.060 -.108* .061 .011 .176** .178** .227** .003 11. Org identity 3.41 .69 0.32 .057 -.040 .079 .058 .175** .141 .227** .031 .665**
Note. N = 603 *p < .05, **p <.01 (two tailed significance)
Hypotheses testing
The first hypothesis predicted that an individual’s extraversion is positively related to his or her boundary spanning activities. In order to test this hypothesis I conducted a regression analysis. As shown in Table 1, results revealed a positive relationship between extraversion and boundary spanning (B = .169, SE = 0.28, P < .001). Hence, I found supporting evidence for Hypothesis 1.
The second hypothesis predicted that an individual’s boundary spanning activities are positively related to this person’s job satisfaction. An individual’s perceived workload appeared to affect their job satisfaction. Hence, to test this hypothesis I conducted a regression analysis using workload as a control variable. As shown in Table 1 results revealed a non-significant relationship between job satisfaction and boundary spanning (B = .04, SE = .002, P = .058). Hence, Hypothesis 2 was not supported.
and organizational identity appeared to be correlated. Hence, I included organizational identity as a covariate. In order to test this hypothesis I first standardized the variables used and conducted a PROCESS analysis. Results revealed no impact of team identity on the relationship of extraversion and boundary spanning (Table 2, Figure 1). Hence, Hypothesis 3 was not supported.
A direct relationship between team identity and boundary spanning is also investigated. As shown in Table 1, this relationship is significant (B = .173, SE = 1.361, P < .001). This indicates that there is supporting evidence that teams with a strong team identity seek more boundary spanning activities. Moreover, a direct relationship between organizational identity and boundary spanning is also significant as shown in Table 1 (B = .145, SE = 1.463, P = .001). This indicates that there is supporting evidence that organizational identity increases boundary spanning activities.
The fourth hypothesis covers all hypotheses. This hypothesis predicts that extraverts seek more boundary spanning in their work and that boundary spanning has a positive effect on job satisfaction, while high team identification has a negative effect on this relationship. In order to test this hypothesis I standardized all variables used and conducted a PROCESS analysis. The results show that the total model was not significant (Table 3, Figure 2). Hence, Hypothesis 4 was not supported.
TABLE 2
Linear model of predictors of boundary spanning change (standardized)
B SE B T P Constant 26.91 6.21 4.33 .00 Team ID 3.91 1.7 2.29 .02 Extraversion 3.9 1.31 2.96 .003 Interaction .35 1.7 .204 .84 Org ID 1.47 1.83 .805 .42 R2= .230, R2Δ= .053, F= 7.165, p= .000 Conditional effect of IV on
DV at different values of the moderator 95 % Confidence Interval LLCI ULCI - 1SD .64 6.74 M 1.42 6.58 + 1SD .31 8.33 Note. N = 603. *p < .05, **p < .01, p ***< .001 FIGURE 2
The moderation effect of team identification on the relationship between extraversion and boundary spanning (standardized variables)
-0,2 -0,1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4
Low Extraversion High Extraversion
TABLE 3
Linear model of predictors of job satisfaction (standardized)
B SE B T P Constant .1 .04 2.30 .02 Extraversion .13 .04 3.03 .002 Team ID .13 .05 2.38 .02 Interaction .01 .05 .20 .84 Org ID .04 .05 .51 .51 Workload .14 .04 .00 .00 R2= .270, R2Δ= .073, F= 7.70, p= < .001 Conditional effect of IV on
DV at different values of the moderator 95 % Confidence Interval LLCI ULCI - 1SD -.01 .01 M -.01 .03 + 1SD -.01 .02 Note. N = 603. *p < .05, **p < .01, p ***< .001 DISCUSSION Findings
reduces the positive relationship between extraverts and boundary spanning activities, is also unsupported in this research. Team identity did not have a moderating relationship on extraversion and boundary spanning activities. Meanwhile, supporting evidence has been found for a direct positive relationship between team identity and boundary spanning. Thus, teams with a high team identity tend to seek more boundary spanning activities. The hypotheses were controlled by multiple control variables.
Theoretical implications
The results of this study support previous findings about extravert behavior. The social behavior of extraverts is frequently mentioned in literature (Hofstee et al., 1992; Ashton et al., 2002). Extraverted individuals enjoy social attention more and seek more social relations. Nonetheless, a direct relation of extraverts and boundary spanning has not been made. For practical implications knowing which individuals to include on a team is very useful for organizations. Having the right individuals on a team might increase boundary spanning behavior within an organization. By adding only one or two of the right individuals to a team might be enough to foster successful boundary spanning activity. In this research the relation between extraversion and boundary spanning is significant. This finding expands current literature by confirming that extraverts exhibit more boundary spanning behavior than introverts do.
between job satisfaction, a high level of autonomy and variety in tasks. Brown and Peterson (1993) report that job characteristics such as variety and autonomy are indeed positively associated with greater job satisfaction but only up to a certain point. They investigated a U-shaped relationship between variety, autonomy and boundary spanning. Too much variety is perceived by employees as a lack of focus and too much autonomy as lack of direction. Consequently, both high and low levels of these job characteristics result in low satisfaction. In this study it could be the case that the employees have too much autonomy or variety where the positive effects on job satisfaction decline. The non-significant result found here supports studies that report about boundary spanning providing employees with more job demands (Voydanoff, 2004), which is related to burn-out and absenteeism and is negatively related to job satisfaction (Bakker, et al., 2003). Boundary spanning gives an employee a variety of internal and external roles. It leads to role expectations from colleagues. However, these roles can be misunderstood by the receivers. Conflicting expectations may result in role conflict, and vague or unclear expectations may result in role ambiguity (Kahn et al., 1964). Employees who experience these problems gain a lower level of job satisfaction. In certain cases, boundary spanning provides employees with role conflict and ambiguity instead of autonomy. Next to perceived role conflict and ambiguity from boundary spanning activities, it is also possible that the job demands do not exceed the job resources. It means that the necessary resources are not available in order to carry out the job demands. This is positively related to psychological spill over (Voydanoff, 2005) and adversely affects job satisfaction. The lack of evidence for the second hypothesis supports prior findings about role overload, stress, and role ambiguity through boundary spanning.
isolated, and try to perform better than the other teams in the organization. In this research no significant effect of team identity on the amount of boundary spanning is found. This finding also supports some studies. For example, individuals can identify with multiple groups (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Haslam & Ellemers, 2005; Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). Employees who are identified with multiple groups are more committed to the overall organization goals instead of only their team goals. Being committed to organizational goals results in more boundary spanning behavior. These employees view successes and failures of the whole organization as their own (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) and therefore act like citizens of the organization. They are represented by behaviors such as helping others to make overall organizational activities more effective. (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bachrach, 2000). Furthermore, there exists a direct relationship between team identity and boundary spanning. This contradicts my expectations. A possible explanation might be that members who highly identify with their team want to make their team the most effective. One way of doing so is by searching for external resources and using that new information for greater creativity and innovation on their own team. They seek collaborations with other teams for “win-win” situations (Homburg, Wieseke, & Hoyer, 2009; Saxe & Weitz, 1982). When someone is committed to his or her team, he or she also feels more affection for the organization and vice versa (Albert et al., 2000). Therefore, he is willing to put more effort in team and organizational goals. This greater boundary spanning behaviour in an organization obtained by a high team identity adds a new understanding to current literature.
their self-esteem and decreases feelings of loneliness (Kiesler et al., 2002). Having the opportunity for more communication increases their job satisfaction (Hyondong & Yang Woon, 2014). In this study extraverts have indeed conducted more boundary spanning activities, yet this does not directly increase their job satisfaction. Looking exclusively into the mediation part of this last hypothesis it turns out that extraverts are indeed more satisfied in their job. However, this process is not mediated by boundary spanning activities. The positive finding between extraverts and job satisfaction is confirmed in many studies (Elom & Agba, 2015; Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002; Furnham and Zacherl, 1986). The relationship could be explained by the fact that extraverts interact and communicate more with colleagues (in and outside their team), which gives them the opportunity to learn from outside their normal job. This learning will increase their productivity and will enhance their performance (Elom & Agba, 2015). In turn, this increases their job satisfaction level. Another explanation is provided by McCrae and Costa (1986). They argued that extraverts tend to handle stress through positive reappraisal coping styles. These styles were associated with high levels of job satisfaction. Since other studies and this study confirm that extraverts like social contact and communication, and since being employed usually implies being in a social context, this taken together could explain why extraverts are more satisfied in jobs. Nonetheless, this assumed relationship has never been investigated before.
Limitations
appreciated due the “dark sides” of extraverted behaviour, for example extraverts are indicated as poor listeners (Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Judge, Piccolo, & Kosalka. 2009). In these organizations or teams, extraverts are less effective, lose power, and act in less boundary spanning behavior. The same is true for the difference in structure of organizations. The municipality in this study can be characterized by having a decentralized structure. The results might differ in a more centralized organization. Since a centralized structure gives employees less freedom to perform their job (Pugh, Hickson, Hinings, & Turner, 1968). This may lower the opportunity to participate in boundary spanning behavior and thus also the boundary spanning score.
The focus is limited to in-firm boundary spanning and leaves interaction between organizations aside. Therefore, complete boundary spanning behavior is not captured in this study. Individuals might have the preference to interact outside their team, however are reluctant to interact outside the organization or vice versa. Hence, investigating boundary spanning between organizations may give different results.
The present study used self-report measures for individual-level variables. Future research is therefore needed to replicate the findings reported here using more objective measures (e.g., peer ratings or supervisor ratings). This would increase the validity of this study.
Future research
The mediated model here could be altered by the variable ‘commitment’ instead of ‘satisfaction’. In prior research, commitment seems important for organizational successes (Hira & Waqas, 2012; Iqbal, Latif, & Naseer, 2012). It may be that when using commitment as dependent variable the overall mediating model is significant. The relationship between extraversion and commitment could be mediated by boundary spanning. The external contacts that boundary spanning provides, makes the extraverted individual more involved in the organization. This greater involvement increases their commitment in the organization.
Extraverts in many studies are found to be more satisfied in their job. Investigating why introverts seem to be less satisfied in their job and how would you solve this would be a further interesting topic for research. Prior research found having diversified teams with both extraverts and introverts is important (Regts & Molleman, 2016). It is therefore important that introverts stay at their jobs and are satisfied in their jobs.
Previous research has shown that job satisfaction is important for organizational performance. There is also shown that boundary spanning is necessary for organization effectiveness. Because I did not found a positive effect of boundary spanning on job satisfaction, future research may investigate mediating variables for this relationship. Finding a mediating variable which makes the effect of boundary spanning on job satisfaction positive, seems useful.
More research should be spent on boundary spanning at the individual level, specifically on which individuals and factors are the best matches for boundary spanning activities. That individuals are the ones who can make or break organizational actions is generally known. Therefore, they deserve careful research in order to be used optimally in boundary spanning activities. Possible things to look at are personality traits which benefit boundary spanning, optimal organizational context for stimulating individuals, and which kinds of leadership style positively impact boundary spanning.
Practical implications
This study has several practical implications for organizations. This research shows that extraverts seek boundary spanning activities. When an organization wants greater boundary spanning, they should include extraverted members in their organization. These members will take care of the connection between teams in one organization.
Since both employee satisfaction and boundary spanning are important for organizational performance and success, organizations need to manage the effects boundary spanning has on job satisfaction. Two factors that have a negatively influence on job satisfaction gained by boundary spanning activities are work demand and role stress. When employees become overworked their job satisfaction will decline, continued by performance. Therefore, managers need to keep records on what extend of boundary spanning activities are possible for their team members so they are not overworked.
to connect them, has a direct effect on boundary spanning and an indirect effect on team and organizational identification (Reichers, 1985). Another benefit is that this identification reduces daily stress and burnout because employees develop stronger bonds with colleagues (Lapointe, Morin, Courcy, Boilard, & Payette, 2012). Employees with the desire to be part of the organization have better job performance, which results in higher job satisfaction (Budihardjo 2013).
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Albert, S., Ashforth, B., & Dutton, J. 2000. Organizational identity and identification: Charting new waters and building new bridges, Academy of Management Review, 25(1): 13-17.
Ancona, D. G., & Bresman, H. 2007. X-teams: How to build teams that innovate, lead and succeed, Harvard Business School Press
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1988. Beyond task and maintenance: Defining external functions in groups. Group & Organization Studies, 13(4): 468-494.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in or-ganizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4): 634 665.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(l): 20-30.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Paunonen, S. V. 2002. What is the central feature of extraversion? Social attention versus reward sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1): 245-251.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., de Boer, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. 2003. Job demands and job resources as predictors of absence duration and frequency. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62: 341–356.
Becker, T. E. 2005. Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 8(1): 274–289.
Bonsdorff, M. E., Janhonen, M., Zhou, Z. E., & Vanhala, S. 2015. Team autonomy, organizational commitment and company performance- A study in the retail trade. Human Resource Management, 26(8): 1098-1109.
Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doosje, B. 2002. Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6): 744–753.
Brashear, T. G., White, E. L., & Chelariu, C. 2003. An empirical test of antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction among Polish retail salespeople. Journal of Business Research, 56(12): 971-978.
Brewer, M. B. 1991. The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5): 475-482.
Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11(4): 710-725.
Brown, S. P., & Peterson, R. A. 1993, Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job satisfaction: Meta-analysis and assessment of casual effects, Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1): 63-77.
Budihardjo, A. 2013. The relationship between job satisfaction, affective commitment, organizational learning climate and corporate performance. GSTF Business Review, 2(4): 58–64.
Caldwell, D. F., Chatman, J. A., & O’Reilly, C, A. 1990. Building organizational commitment: a multiform study. Journal of occupational psychology, 63(3): 245-261. Deinert, A., Homan, A. C., Boer, D., Voelpel, S. C., & Gutermann, D. 2015. Transformational
leadership sub-dimensions and their link to leaders' personality and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6): 1095-1120.
Dougherty, D. 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2): 179-202.
Elom, S. O., & Egba, N. A. 2015. Marital stress and extraversion personality as predicators of job satisfaction among married women teachers in Enugu, Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(33): 61-66.
Eysenck, H. J. 1970. The biological basis of personality. Transaction Publishers
Fu, W., Deshpande, S. P., & Zhao, X. 2011. The impact of ethical behavior and facets of job satisfaction on organizational commitment of Chinese employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4): 537–543.
Furnham, A., & Zazherl, M. 1986. How people make their own environments: A theory of geneotype environment effects. Child Development, 54(2): 424-435.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. 2000. Reducing intergroup bias—The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
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. Goldberg, L. R. 1992. The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.
Psychological assessment, 4(1): 26-42.
Hargadon, A. B. 1998. Firms as knowledge brokers: Lessons in pursuing continuous innovation. California Management Review, 40(3): 209-227
Helliwell, J. F., & Huang, H. 2010. How’s the job? Well-being and social capital in the workplace. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 63(2): 205-227.
Hira, A., & Waqas, I. 2012. A Study of job satisfaction and IT’s Impact on the performance in the banking industry of Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(19): 174–180.
Hofstee, W. K. B., de Raad, B., & Goldberg, L. R. 1992. Integration of the Big Five and circumplex approaches to trait structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(1): 146-163.
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. 2001. Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1-2): 40-51.
Hogg, M. A. & Mullin, B. A. 1999. Joining groups to reduce uncertainty: Subjective uncertainty reduction and group identification. In: Abrams, D. and Hogg, M. A. (ed.). Social Identity and Social Cognition, Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Hoyer, W. D. 2009. Social identity and the service-profit chain. Journal of Marketing, 73(2): 38–54.
Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. 2000. Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2): 143–156.
Hyondong, K., & Yang Woon C. 2014. The use of social networking services and their relationship with the Big Five Personality Model and job satisfaction in Korea. CyberPsychology Behaviour, and Social Networking, 17(10): 658-663.
Ilgen, D. R., & Hollenbeck, J. R. 1991. The Structure of Work: Job Design and Roles. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(2): 165-207.
Iqbal, M. T., Latif, W., & Naseer, W. 2012. The impact of person job fit on job satisfaction and its subsequent impact on employees performance. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(2): 523–530.
Joshi, A., Pandey, N., & Han, G. H. 2009. Bracketing team boundary spanning: An examination of task-based, team-level, and contextual antecedents. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6): 731–759.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. 1997. Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50(2): 359-394
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. 2002. Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3): 530-541.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. 2012. The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(3): 376–407.
Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. 2015. The person-situation debate revisited: effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the big five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of management journal, 58(4): 1149-1179. 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. New York: Wiley. Kiesler, S., Kraut, R., Cummings, J., Boneva, B., Helgeson, V. & Crawford, A. 2002. Internet
evolution and social impact. IT & Society, 1(1): 120-134.
Korschun, D. 2015. Boundary-spanning employees and relationships with external stakeholders: a social identity approach. Academy of Management Review, 40(4): 611-629.
Langan-Fox, J., & Cooper, C. 2014. Boundary spanning in organizations: Network, influence and conflict. New York: Routeledge.
Lapointe, E., Morin, A. J. S., Courcy, F., Boilard, A., & Payette, D. 2012. Workplace affective commitment, emotional labor and burnout: A multiple mediator model. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(1): 3–21.
Leonard, D.A., & Sensiper, S. 1998. The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. Calafornia Review, 40 (3): 112-132.
Locke, E. A. 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnette, N. D. (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (1st Ed.). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Lysonski, S. 1985. A boundary theory investigation of the product manager role. Journal of marketing, 49(1): 26-40.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2): 103-123.
Malik, M. E., Nawab, S., Naeem, B., & Danish, R. Q. 2010. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment of university teachers in Public sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(6): 17–26
March, J. G., Guetzkow, H., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.
McCann, J. E., & Ferry, D. L. 1979. An approach for assessing and managing inter-unit interdependence. Academy of Management Review, 4(1): 113–119.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. 1986. Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of personality, 54(2): 385-405.
McDermott, R. (1999) Learning across teams: How to build communities of practice in team organizations. Knowledge Management Review, 8(3): 32–36.
McGuire, M. 2006. Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66(1): 33–43.
van der Meer, P. H., & Wielers, R. J. J. 2013. What makes workers happy? Applied Economics, 45(3): 357-368.
Meyer, R. D., & Dalal, R. S. 2009. Situational strength as a means of conceptualizing context. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2(1): 99–102.
Oh, H. J., Ozkaya, E., & LaRose, R. 2014. How does online social networking enhance life satisfaction? The relationships among online supportive interaction, affect, perceived social support, sense of community and life satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 30(1): 69–78.
Oz, H. 2014. Big five personality traits and willingness to communicate among foreign language learners in Turkey. Social behaviour and personality, 42(9): 1473-1482. Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in organizations. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3): 513–563.
Pugh, D. S., Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., & Turner, C. 1968. Dimensions of organizational structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13(1): 65-91.
Ofstein, L. F. 2014. Boundary spanning in the entrepreneurial firm: Effects on innovation and firm performance. Humanities and Social Sciences. 74(12-A)(E).
Qureshi, J. A., Hayat, K., Ali, M., & Sarwat, N. 2011. Impact of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on employee performance, evidence from Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(4): 642–657. Regts, G., & Molleman, E. 2016. The Interaction between personality, social network
position and involvement in the innovation process. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(1).
Richter, A. W., West, M. A., van Dick, R., & Dawson, J. F. 2006. Boundary spanners’ identification, intergroup contact, and effective intergroup relations. Academy of Management Journal. 50(1): 1252-1269.
Saxe, R., & Weitz, B. A. 1982. The SOCO Scale: A measure of the customer orientation of salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(3): 343–351.
Sims, H. P., Szilagyi, A. D., & Keller, R. T. 1976. The measurement of job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 19(2): 195-212.
Singh, J. 1998. Striking a balance in boundary-spanning positions: An investigation of some unconventional influences of role stressors and job characteristics on job outcomes of sales people. Journal of Marketing, 62(3): 69-86.
Sleebos, E., Ellemers, N., & de Gilder., D. 2006. ‘The paradox of the disrespected: disrespected group members’ engagement in group-serving efforts’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2): 413–427.
Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G. and Worchel, S. (eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. 1979. Characteristics and external orientation of boundary spanning individuals. Academy of Management Proceedings, S. 205-209.
Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. 1981. Boundary spanning individuals: their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2): 289-305. Tyler, T. R., & S. L. Blader. 2003. The group engagement model: procedural justice, social
identity, and cooperative behavior, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4): 349–361.
van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B., & Van de Vliert, E. 2000. Team members’ affective responses to patterns of intragroup interdependence and job complexity. Journal of Management, 26(4): 633-655.
van der Vegt, G. S., van de Vliert, E., & Oosterhof, A. 2003. Informational dissimilarity and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of intrateam interde-pendence and team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6): 715–727.
Voydanoff, P. 2004. The effects of work demands and resources on work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(2): 398–412.
de Vries, T. A., Walter, F., van der Vegt, G. S., & Essens, P. J. M. D. 2014. Antecedents of individuals of interteam coordination: broad funtional experiences as a mixed blessing. Academy of Management Journal, 57(5): 1334-1359.
Wang, J. L., Jackson, L. A., Zhang, D. J., & Su, Z. Q. 2012. The relationships among the Big Five Personality factors, self-esteem, narcissism, and sensation-seeking to Chinese University students’ uses of social networking sites (SNSs). Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6): 2313-2319.
Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. 1989. Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management journal. 32(2): 353-376.
Zuckerman, M. 1996. The psychobiological model for impulsive unsocialized sensation seeking: A comparative approach. Neuropsychobiology, 34(3): 125-129.
