WHEN IS BOUNDARY SPANNING EFFECTIVE: THE ROLE OF BOUNDARY SPANNER STATUS AND INTRAGROUP TRUST
June, 13, 2020
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business Master´s Thesis Human Resource Management
EBM722B20.2019-2020.2 Claudia Priem S3674894 Spijksteroudedijk 4 9909 TB Spijk c.j.priem@student.rug.nl
2 ABSTRACT
Teams conduct boundary spanning to acquire knowledge and know-how from other organizations to meet the goals of the organization (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). However, when is boundary spanning effective remains unclear. Externally acquired information is subject to people´s judgments and evaluations. Based on the social influence theory, the present research posits that team members´ social status moderates the relationship between boundary spanning and sharing external information within the team and that intragroup trust enables such information to benefit team performance. Supervisors and their subordinates from various organizations participated in this study. The preliminary analysis at the individual level shows that boundary spanning stimulates team members to share externally acquired information and that high-status people are more likely to share externally acquired information than low-status people. However, the main analysis found only support for the last part, that high-status people are more likely to share external information. Moreover, the analysis found no support for status as a moderator between boundary spanning and sharing external information. At the team level, the preliminary and main analyses show that sharing external information and intragroup trust do not interact to influence the team’s performance. The theoretical implications are clarifying the process of boundary spanning and pointing out the importance of considering team internal social factors. Practically, it will help teams to understand how they can benefit from boundary spanning.
3 INTRODUCTION
Teams in organizations face many challenges these days. These include increased task complexity associated with knowledge work, changing economic conditions, intensified competition, and flatter work structures (Mohrman, Tenkasi, Lawler, & Ledford, 1995). Therefore, teams have become more and more responsible for bridging organizations to create and transfer valuable sources of knowledge and know-how together (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). This is often achieved by boundary spanning which is defined as behaviors intended to establish relationships and interactions with external actors that assist their team in meeting its overall objectives (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Absorbing information from outside experts is a critical driver for team performance (Marrone, 2010). External information brings in new insights to the team, which can help teams to manage project deadlines and coordinate the work within the team as efficiently as possible (Choi, 2002). Despite the great potential of and the great effort team members put on boundary spanning, it is not always effective in enhancing team performance. The effectiveness of boundary spanning relies on both the sharing and acceptance of external information. Not surprisingly, therefore, understanding the boundary spanning process through which external information is transferred to the team is crucial.
To date, however, we know little about when members of teams share external information within teams, and when teams will adopt external information and therefore improve performance. It is important to investigate the boundary spanning process through which external information is transferred to the team because of several reasons.
4 social pressure which could hinder team members to bring in external information since they may be afraid of the negative consequences (e.g., being ostracized by other team members). Nevertheless, based on the social influence theory, I assume that status can solve these problems since high-status people have more confidence (Oxoby, 2002) and are considered as influential (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Van Der Vegt et al., 2006). They believe in their abilities and are able to change the behavior patterns since they can influence the other team members to do the same.
Second, to realize improvements in team performance, teams first need to accept external information that is being shared within the team. However, skepticism about external inputs (‘not-invented-here’ syndrome) can impede team members from accepting external information. Team members tend to favor their team (i.e., their in-group) over other teams (i.e., their out-group), and when they receive new information from outside their team they see this as a threat to their expertise. As a consequence, they are less likely to accept this information and utilize it within their team (Hussinger & Wastyn, 2016). Moreover, accepting/utilizing external information can only be achieved when all the team members are willing to use this information and pull their efforts together since external information is different from the existing knowledge base within the team. I assume, based on the ‘not-invented-here’ syndrome, that intragroup trust can solve these issues since trust among team members is associated with belief in one another’s ability, benevolence, and integrity, which stimulates risk-taking and cooperative behavior. (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Thus this makes intragroup trust important for the relationship between sharing external information and eventually the increase in team performance.
The present research proposes that boundary spanning at the individual level interacts with individual status to influence the sharing of external information, such that when the status of an individual member is high his or her boundary spanning behaviors are more likely to lead to the sharing of external information. Further, the sharing of external information at the team level interacts with intragroup trust among team members to influence the team's performance, such that intragroup trust strengthens the positive relationship between sharing and performance. This study uses survey data to test the hypotheses.
5 the social condition that is essential for effective boundary spanning. Third, practically, it will help teams and organizations, to make boundary spanning effective.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Boundary Spanning Behavior
Team member´s boundary spanning behavior is defined as behaviors intended to establish relationships and interactions with external actors that assist their team in meeting its overall objectives (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Team members can establish relationships and interactions with external actors within the organization (e.g., across other teams within the same organization) or across organizational boundaries (e.g., suppliers). Specific team boundary spanning behaviors are seeking external information, coordinating task activities with other groups, and representing the team to stakeholders (Marrone, 2010). Seeking external information includes team actions to parties that hold specific knowledge to gain access to information and expertise. People can proactively search for external information without people asking them or they can do this on another person’s request (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). With these behaviors, teams can gain problem- or project-specific expertise, and it will help them to understand the environment they operate within (e.g., trends, opportunities, threats). The outcomes of these behaviors are especially important for the boundary spanning team itself (Marrone, 2010).
The coordination behaviors represent the team's actions that are concerned with coordinating the work activities with mutually interdependent entities to reach individually and jointly set task goals. For example, explaining the strategy of the team or the whole organization and what the tasks of everyone are can help in achieving the team goals efficiently and minimizes the chance that people will do each other’s work. Since it involves a high degree of interdependence, these kinds of behaviors provide a variety of outcomes that are relevant to the team itself. The outcomes include, for example, working more efficiently, and the achievement of team goals (Marrone, 2010).
6 resources may help a team to achieve the team goals. Moreover, asking for feedback on team progress informs teams about their current position and shows the team on what team goals they still need to work on.
The Relationship between Boundary Spanning Behaviors and Sharing External Information
The sharing of external information is defined in this study as team members sharing external information they have acquired through boundary spanning within their team. When team members have frequent interaction with external parties they have more social connections than people who do not perform these boundary spanning behaviors. For example, when team members need to coordinate activities across teams, they will have intensive communication with external parties (Garicano & Wu, 2012). Also, seeking for external information means having interactions with members from other teams inside and outside the organization. According to social capital theory (Adler & Kwon, 2002) having more social connections means having more access to information and as a result more access to resources (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). The external parties (e.g. family members, ex-colleagues, friends) may have different, unique information or knowledge that is not available within the team. Thus, when team members have more access to external information and resources, they also have more new information to share within their team. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Team member boundary spanning behavior is positively associated with team members sharing external information within the team.
The Moderating Role of Status
Sharing external information is not always successful since external information is perceived as risky and individuals in a team are more fond of or used to information that is already inside their team. Individual status plays a role in the sharing of external information. Since individuals have different social positions within a team, it is common that they also have different status within a team (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1966; Oxoby, 2002). Social status is awarded to people based on their apparent possession of attributes held as ideal by other members of their social group (Flynn, 2003). Specifically, status is an important factor that can explain knowledge transfer (Argote, McEvily, & Reagans, 2003).
7 Furthermore, the social influence theory suggests that lower status members experience conformity pressure and yield to other’s input (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Van Der Vegt et al., 2006). Moreover, research found that low-status members talk and interrupt less than high-status members (Leffler & Conaty, 1982). Thus, when low-high-status members receive external information they are less likely to share this information since they think they cannot contribute a lot to the team’s success, because they experience conformity pressure, and because they talk and interrupt less than high-status members.
In contrast, a high-status individual probably has more confidence to share external information despite the uncertainty. Specifically, a high-status individual in a team is highly valued by the other team members. High-status people are most of the time well-liked (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006) and considered as influential (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Van Der Vegt et al., 2006). Moreover, high-status people are more cooperative (Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, 2010) and are willing to work with others to achieve a common goal. At last, individuals with high status have more confidence in their abilities and therefore think that they are crucial for the team’s success (Oxoby, 2002). Thus, when they get external information or resources, they are more likely to share this within the team since they believe that their input is crucial for the team and are most of the time well-liked and influential. Therefore, I expect that they have more confidence to share external information despite the uncertainty. The second hypothesis reflects this expectation:
Hypothesis 2: Team member boundary spanning and team member status interact to influence team member sharing external information within the team, such that:
➢ The higher the status of a team member, the stronger the positive relationship between
team member boundary spanning and team member sharing external information.
The Relationship between Sharing External Information and Team Performance
8 not suffer from role overload (Choi, 2002). Thus, when team members share external information, teams have more knowledge and information available. This external information is valuable since it helps them with achieving goals and coordinating activities which in turn can improve the team’s performance.
The Moderating Role of Intragroup Trust
For boundary spanning to influence team performance, teams also need to absorb the information that has been shared within the team. The success of absorbing information depends on three aspects (von Briel, Schneider, & Lowry, 2019). First, a team has to identify valuable external information (i.e., recognition). Second, the team has to understand this knowledge and internalize it (i.e., assimilation). Third, external information must be applied to achieve goals for example (i.e., exploitation). However, people do not always absorb external information. Since external information is also perceived as risky, and external information can threaten the self-concept of teams and therefore team members can have a negative attitude towards externally acquired information referred to as the not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome (Hussinger & Wastyn, 2016). Moreover, accepting/utilizing external information requires the effort of all the team members, which is not always present in teams.
Nevertheless, trust among team members (i.e., intragroup trust) can help them overcome these problems. Trust is defined as the decision to rely on another party under a condition of risk (Currall & Epstein, 2003). With trust, people are willing to rely on others and to take the risk. The first aspect of trust, reliance, refer to a person relying on other people’s actions. The second aspect, risk, refers to the possibility that one person can experience costs or damage if the other people cannot be trusted. When there is a low level of trust, team members forget about the goals and the interests of the team and they become focused on their personal interests (Joshi, Lazarova, Liao, 2016). Accordingly, they are less willing to put in the efforts and collaborate to translate external information or resources into the treasure of the team. Furthermore, they are less willing to take the risk to accept external information. Thus, when there is a low level of intragroup trust, team members are less likely to pull their efforts together to incorporate external information and knowledge.
9 (i.e., the ability). Moreover, when team members believe that every team member within the team wants to do good to the team they are more likely to accept the information that has been shared in the team since they believe this would probably be the best for the team. Also, trust implies reliance. This means that when there is trust among team members, the team members will be more likely to rely on the other person and incorporate the other person’s input. Furthermore, a high level of intragroup trust is positively related to cooperative behaviors, which means that team members are more likely to pull their efforts together (Costa, 2003; Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Specifically, when there is a high level of trust among team members, the team members are more likely to take risks and to rely on the other person. The atmosphere of cooperation, created by trust, means that external information being shared within the team is more likely to be discussed or utilized and this leads to team performance. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: The sharing of external information at the team level and intragroup trust interact to influence team performance, such that:
➢ The positive relationship between the sharing of external information and team
performance is stronger when the level of intragroup trust is higher.
10 METHOD
Participants and Procedures
To test the hypotheses that are introduced above, I conducted two surveys (i.e., one for the supervisors and one for the subordinates). The surveys have been sent to 22 teams of companies within the consumer industry, each with one supervisor and at least three subordinates. The main measures for my study included in the subordinate survey are boundary spanning behavior, status, information sharing, intragroup trust, subordinate expertise, role overload, task and goal interdependence, and task complexity. The supervisors' survey included team performance as the main measure for my study. In total, the survey for the supervisors has been sent to 22 supervisors, and the survey for the subordinates to 70 subordinates.
11 there were seven incomplete teams. Two of these seven teams missed data from their supervisor, two teams missed data from two other members within their team, and three teams missed data from one other member within their team. Thus, the final sample contains fourteen complete teams.
Measures
Boundary Spanning. I measured subordinates´ boundary spanning behavior with nine
items included in the subordinate survey (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). The items are measured on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Subordinates were asked to indicate how often they engage in boundary spanning behaviors. Two example items are, “Keeping other groups in the organization informed of your team’s activities” and, “Proactively seeking advice, information, knowledge, or insights from people outside your team”, α = .779
Social status. The social status of members within a team is measured by using one
item, adapted from the study by Flynn (2003). The subordinates were given the following definition of a high-status member: “High-status members are those who are well respected at work, who exert relatively more influence over decisions at work, and whose contributions are often valued by others”. Afterward, the participants were asked, “To what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following teammates has a high status in the team?”. The item was measured on a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Subordinates rated one another on this question.
Sharing information. Sharing external information on the individual level is measured
by using one item based on the study by De Dreu (2007). The item had the stem “How often do the following team members inform you about work-related information, knowledge, facts, insights, or ideas that they gained from outside the team?”. These items were measured on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). For the individual level, every team member rated each other and I averaged the scores that the team members received from his or her team members, to have one score for each individual. The team level score is measured by averaging all the scores of the team members.
Intragroup trust. I measure trust using four items (Simons & Peterson, 2000). The items
12
Team performance. Team performance is measured using seven items (Sparrowe,
Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001). The items are measured on a scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Supervisors will be asked to rate the performance of the team. Two example items are, “the team’s ability to get work done efficiently” and, “The team’s flexibility in dealing with unexpected changes”, α = .769
Control variables. Control variables are used to check if the effects are not affected by
the different control variables. I first identified nationality, and gender as potential control variables. Their nationality is measured by asking the following question “Do you have a Dutch nationality?” (0 = no and 1 = yes).
Next to the demographics, I identified role overload, task complexity, and subordinate expertise as potential control variables, I did this for several (theoretical) reasons. First, when team members experience role overload it is difficult for them to perform their job well and to fulfill the expectations of the role (Örtqvist & Wincent, 2006) since they do not have enough time, and as a consequence, they will also not have time to search for external information and share this within the team. Second, when the complexity of the tasks increases, the information that is needed become also more complex, which makes it more likely that team members need external information (Saastamoinen, Kumpulainen, Vakkari, & Järvelin, 2013). When team members need external information to fulfill their tasks, it is expected that they will also share more external information. Third, when other team members hold high-performance expectations about a particular team member they will give this team member more opportunities to influence the decisions and the outcomes (Bunderson, 2018). In other words, team members with a high level of expertise are more likely to share external information to influence the outcomes.
13 members need to communicate with each other, they need to help each other when necessary and also coordination is very important (Vegt et al., 2003). Therefore, I assumed that goal interdependence influences the team´s performance.
RESULTS
Assumptions. To test my hypotheses I will conduct regression analyses. Regression analysis requires that six assumptions are met (i.e., linearity, multicollinearity, values of residuals, homoscedasticity, normality, and outliers). Second, sharing information needs to be aggregated to the team level. To measure the reliability when aggregating sharing information to the team level I will measure the intraclass correlation coefficient.
Linearity. There needs to be a linear relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variables. At the individual and the team level, there is a linear relationship. Figure two and three show this linear relationship where the dots follow the line, there are some deviations, but these deviations are small.
Multicollinearity. It is important that the predictors are not too highly correlated. Correlations of more than 0.8 are considered as problematic. For the individual level, with sharing information as the dependent variable, the highest correlation is 0.275. For the team level, with team performance as the dependent variable, the highest correlation is -0.363. So, there is no multicollinearity in the data.
14 Values of residuals. The values of the residuals need to be independent. The Durbin-Watson statistic showed that this assumption is met at both levels. The value needs to be close to two and values below one and above three are a cause for concern. At the individual level, the Durbin-Watson score is 2.089 and at the team level, the Durbin-Watson score is 2.250.
Homoscedasticity. The plots at both levels of standardized residuals vs standardized predicted values show no obvious signs of funneling, this suggests that the assumption of homoscedasticity has been met. Important to note is that there is only a small number of data points, so the graph is difficult to read, but it appears more random than funneled as can be seen in figure four and five.
15 two dependent variables. According to Hayes (2018), it is still possible to conduct regression analysis without normal distribution.
Outliers. There are no Z-scores of the dependent variables, information sharing (at the individual level), and team performance, which is smaller than minus three of bigger than plus three. This means that there are no outliers. So, there is no need to do separate analyses with the outliers included and excluded.
Intraclass correlation coefficient. The ICC shows the reliability of ratings when aggregating it to the team level, it must be above 0.70 (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). The ICC of sharing information is 0.039, which means that it is not high enough. The ICC of intragroup trust is 0.095, which is also not high enough. However, our data sample is very small which may influence the outcomes of the ICC. Thus, sharing information at the individual level and intragroup trust at the individual level will still be aggregated to the team level.
Preliminary Analysis
16 TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Notes. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
Nationality: 0 = not Dutch, 1 = Dutch. Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male.
17 At the team level, I also tested certain control variables, again including the demographics (e.g., nationality, gender), and further for task and goal interdependence, because theoretically (Lam & Chin, 2004; Van der Vegt et al., 2003) they could influence the performance of the team. However, the correlation turned out not to be significant for all control variables tested, so I did not include them in the main analysis to avoid biased parameter estimates (Becker, 2005). Table 2 provides descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for all study variables at level 2.
TABLE 2
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Notes. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
Nationality: 0 = not Dutch, 1 = Dutch. Gender: 0 = female, 1 = male.
The correlation table shows no significant relationships between sharing information, trust, and team performance. However, the correlation table shows some significant relationships that are less important. Specifically, the significant relationship between task interdependence and information sharing (r = .615, p = .019). This shows that teams are more likely to share external information when there is a high level of task interdependence. Moreover, goal interdependence has significant relationships with gender (r = -.538, p = .047) and nationality (r = -.836, p = .000 ).
Level 2 Variables N Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18 Main Analysis
Hypothesis 1, team member boundary spanning behavior is positively associated with team members sharing external information within the team, and hypothesis 2, the higher the status of a team member, the stronger the positive relationship between team member boundary spanning and team members sharing external information, were tested using hierarchical linear regressions, with sharing information as the dependent variable. The results showed a significant relationship between role overload and the independent (i.e., boundary spanning) and dependent variable (i.e., individual information sharing). It is only important to control for these variables when they are exogenous to the model. This means when they are plausibly not influenced by individual information sharing (i.e., independent variable). However, in this study, I think role overload is influenced by individual information sharing, and therefore not exogenous. That is why I excluded role overload from the main analysis and did step 2 again without role overload. Hypothesis 3, the positive relationship between the sharing of external information and team performance is stronger when the level of intragroup trust is higher, was tested by conducting a regression analysis using Process of Hayes (2012).
19 TABLE 3
Test of Hypotheses 1 and 2
Information sharing
predictors Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4
Subordinate expertise 0.247 (2.060) * 0.184 (1.642) 0.131 (1.075) Boundary Spanning behavior 0.175 (1.616) 0.132 (1.148) Status 0.303 (2.844)** 0.292 (2.735) ** BSB x Status -0.143 (-1.056)
Individual level variance 0.690 0.669 0.565 0.563
Team level variance 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000
-2 Restricted Log Likelihood
136.732 119.776 115.223 116.263
Notes. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
Boundary spanning behavior shows no positive significant relationship with information sharing (p = 0.257), so hypothesis 1 is not supported. According to hypothesis 2 status strengthens the positive relationship between boundary spanning behavior and sharing external information. The results show that status has a significant positive effect on information sharing in step 3, B = 0.303 , t = 2.844, p = 0.007, and in step 4, B = 0.292, t = 2.735, p = 0.009, (Table 3). However, the results do not support hypothesis 2 since the interaction effect does not have a significant relationship (p = 0.297). Analysis further show that the control variable subordinate expertise has a positive significant effect on information sharing in step 2, B = 0.247, t = 2.060, p = 0.045.
20 TABLE 4
Testing the effect of sharing and intragroup trust on team performance
Variables B (SE) t P 95% CI Intragroup trust -0.030 (0.143) -0.206 0.841 -0.348 – 0.289 Information sharing -0.217 (0.132) -1.652 0.130 -0.510 – 0.076 Intragroup trust x information sharing -0.306 (0.270) -1.134 0.283 -0.907 – 0.295 Notes. N = 14. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
Analyses revealed no main effect information sharing (B = -0.217, SE = 0.132, p = 0.130) and no effect of interaction (B = -0.306, SE = 0.270, p = 0.283). This means that the third hypothesis is not supported.
DISCUSSION
Previous work about boundary spanning has shown that performing boundary spanning behaviors is critical for team performance (Marrone, 2010). I extended this work by first examining the relationship between boundary spanning and external information sharing (at the individual level) and by including status as a moderator of the boundary spanning behavior-external information sharing relationship. Drawing on the social capital theory, I proposed that boundary spanning behaviors stimulate sharing external information, but that a high level of status is needed that gives team members the confidence to share external information even though it is risky. Second, I examined the relationship between sharing external information (at the team level) and team performance and by including intragroup trust as a moderator. Drawing on the not-invented-here syndrome, I proposed that external information is not always accepted within teams since it can be risky, and threaten the self-concept of teams, but that high levels of intragroup trust can stimulate team members to pull their efforts together and take some risks.
21 I did not find support for either hypotheses, since there was no main effect of boundary spanning behavior and no effect of interaction (table 3). However, I did find a significant main effect of status. An explanation for this could be that high-status people are more confident to share external information (Anderson, Brion, Moore, & Kennedy, 2012), and they have more access to scarce resources that they could share within the team (Blau, 1964). At the team level, the correlation table resulted in none significant relationships and leaving all the control variables out of the analysis (table 2), since none of them was correlated with team performance. The main analysis consisted of regression analysis to check if I could find support for my third hypothesis. However, results show that intragroup trust does not interact with sharing information to influence the team´s performance (table 4). A possible reason for this could be that external information may be incomplete, or inaccurate (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Thus, even though the team does absorb external information because of a high level of intragroup trust it may not improve the team´s performance since external information is not always valuable. I will now discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings. Theoretical Implications
Researchers increasingly consider the effects of boundary spanning behavior on team performance. Previous research has shown that the process of boundary spanning is important for increasing the team’s performance (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Boundary spanning improves the shared understanding across team members regarding external demands, internal coordination and communication, and internal cohesion (Edmondson, 2003), which is likely to positively influence the team’s performance. However, my study investigated the process of boundary spanning and found that the process is not always as effective as assumed in previous research.
22 Although my findings show that boundary spanning does not necessarily ensure more external information being shared in the team, nor does it ensure better team performance. As described above, my study shows that status and the expertise of team members positively influence the sharing of external information. Besides, previous research showed team members can have negative attitudes towards externally acquired information (i.e., NIH syndrome) (Hussinger & Wastyn, 2016) and that team members are often fond of or used to information that is already inside their team (i.e., the social influence theory) (Li, 2013; Van Der Vegt et al., 2006). This highlights the importance of exploring team internal factors that could influence the sharing and absorption of external knowledge.
Practical Implications
First, my findings suggest that teams should pay particular attention to the status hierarchy within teams. Team members with high status are more likely to share information within teams since they have more confidence (Anderson et al., 2012), they believe they can control the group decisions and they have more access to scarce resources (Blau, 1964). Therefore, it is important for teams to make sure that everyone in the team has high status or to give attention to lower-status individuals. High status can be achieved by giving members more confidence, for example, by focusing more on team member’s successes than focussing on one’s failure (Bandura, 1986) or by minimizing the stress levels of the team members since stress negatively influences team members confidence level (Eden, 1990). Giving more attention to the lower status individual can be done by making them familiar with boundary spanning activities and by more often asking explicitly to these low-status members if they want to share some externally acquired information. To increase the chance that team members will perform these boundary spanning activities it is important to improve the boundary spanning self-efficacy. The team member’s efficacy for boundary spanning activities could be developed by exposing teams to successful examples and role models, but also by encouraging them (Bandura, 1997).
23 (Swanson, 2007). The training can be different, since not every team has the same purpose, and not every team member has the same role as one another.
Third, boundary spanning takes a lot of efforts but it does not always improve the team’s performance. Therefore, it is important that managers are aware of when boundary spanning can be effective and what can harm the effectiveness of boundary spanning. For example, incomplete or inaccurate information can cause disruptions in the team’s performance (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992), so this is one important factor that should be taken into account by managers.
Limitations and Future Research
We aimed to send the survey to 90 teams, however, we were only able to send the survey to 22 teams. Furthermore of these 22 teams, there were only 14 complete teams. Since I have a small sample, the results are not reliable, and I cannot make any reliable statements. For future research it is recommended to have a bigger sample size, that will allow researchers to make reliable statements. This could be achieved by taking enough time when searching for teams, by having a network with organizations with multiple teams that are willing to participate, and by searching for teams together with other researchers. Besides, it is recommended to solve the privacy issue by not asking the names of people and by sending the form to one person in the organization that sends it to all the teams that are willing to participate.
As a method, we have used convenience sampling to select the participants. This means that subjects are selected because of their convenient accessibility to the researcher (Lunsford & Lunsford, 1995). The criticism of convenience sampling is that it does not represent the entire population, it is considered bias. During the selection process, we mostly were looking for teams in our network, these people were for us easy to approach. We also looked for teams out of our network but did not get any response from them back. To avoid the selection bias in future research, all possible candidates need to have an equal opportunity for selection. Thus, the candidates need to be selected at random in future research. A random sample is not considered as bias and it meets the requirements for statistical validity (Lunsford & Lunsford, 1995).
24 influence on sharing external information. However, since the study is cross-sectional I cannot say that more status leads to more external information sharing.
Team performance was measured by asking the supervisors about their own team’s performance. According to the supervisors, all the teams were performing “good”, “very good”, or “excellent”. The results could be biased, since the supervisors may have rated the teams high, regardless of the performance, because they wanted to make themselves look good as a supervisor. Future researchers might be able to better measure team performance, without any biases.
This study shows that a high level of status motivates team members to share external information. However, status does not moderate the relationship between boundary spanning behavior and sharing external information in this study. A future research avenue could be to check the relationship between status and boundary spanning. For example, whether status could lead to more boundary spanning and therefore to information sharing. Moreover, future research could explore other mechanisms that could explain the effect of boundary spanning on information sharing. There are some specific conditions in which I expect that boundary spanning behavior leads to information sharing, for example when there is a high level of intragroup trust since previous studies already showed that intragroup trust can stimulate cooperative behaviors (Costa, 2003; Dirks & Ferrin, 2001), this can be checked by future research.
Furthermore, future research could explore other mechanisms that could potentially explain the effect of external information sharing on team performance. For example, team reflexivity, which is defined as the extent to which team members overtly reflect upon, and communicate about the team’s objectives, strategies, and processes, and adapt them to the current or the anticipated situation (West, Garrod, & Carletta, 1997). Research shows that when there is a high level of team reflexivity within teams this positively influences the team’s productivity and effectiveness (Lyubovnikova, Legood, Turner, & Mamakouka, 2017). Therefore, I expect that team reflexivity could explain the effect of external information sharing on team performance.
25 incomplete or inaccurate, it is more likely that this externally acquired information will negatively influence the team’s performance. Thus, future research should take the quality of external information/resources into account.
CONCLUSION
26 REFERENCES
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. The Academy
of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.
Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward Bound: Strategies for Team Survival in an Organization. The
Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 334–365.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance in Organizational Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393475
Ancona, Deborah Gladstein, & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321–341.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.321
Anderson, C., Brion, S., Moore, D. A., & Kennedy, J. A. (2012). A status-enhancement account of overconfidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 718– 735. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029395
Anderson, C., & Brown, C. E. (2010). The functions and dysfunctions of hierarchy. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 30(C), 55–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.08.002
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571–582. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.571.14424
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Berger, J., Cohen, B., & Zelditch, M. (1966). Status characteristics and expectations. In J.
Berger, M. Zelditch, & Anderson (Eds.), Sociological Theories in Progress, Vol 1. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor Books.
Blau, P. M. (1963). The dynamics of bureaucracy: A study of interpersonal exchange in two
27 Bunderson, J. S. (2018). Recognizing and Utilizing Expertise in Work Groups : A Status
Characteristics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 557–591.
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., & Henrich, J. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.004
Choi, J. N. (2002). External activities and team effectiveness: Review and theoretical development. Small Group Research, 33(2), 181–208.
https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640203300202
Costa, A. C. (2003). Work team trust and effectiveness. Personnel Review, 32(5), 605-622+672. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480310488360
Currall, S. C., & Epstein, M. J. (2003). The fragility of organizational trust: Lessons from the rise and fall of Enron. Organizational Dynamics, 32(2), 193–206.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(03)00018-4
Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2001). The Role of Trust in Organizational Settings.
Organization Science, 12(4), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640
Eden, D. (1990). Acute and chronic job stress, strain, and vacation relief. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45(2), 175–193.
Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419– 1452. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00386
Flynn, F. J. (2003). How much should I give and how often? The effects of generosity and frequency of favor exchange on social status and productivity. Academy of Management
Journal, 46(5), 539–553. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040648
Garicano, L., & Wu, Y. (2012). Organizational Capabilities Matter. Organization Science,
23(5), 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peptides.2014.06.009
28 Hussinger, K., & Wastyn, A. (2016). In search for the not-invented-here syndrome: the role of
knowledge sources and firm success. R and D Management, 46, 945–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12136
Joshi, A., Lazarova, M. B., & Liao, H. (2016). Getting Everyone on Board: The Role of
Inspirational Leadership in Geographically Dispersed Teams. 20(1), 240–252.
Lam, P. K., & Chin, K. S. (2004). Project Factors Influencing Conflict Intensity and Handling Styles in Collaborative NPD. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2004.00293.x
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642
Li, C. Y. (2013). Persuasive messages on information system acceptance: A theoretical extension of elaboration likelihood model and social influence theory. Computers in
Human Behavior, 29(1), 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.003
Lunsford, T. R., & Lunsford, B. R. (1995). The Research Sample, Part I. Journal of
Prosthetics and Orthotics.
Lyubovnikova, J., Legood, A., Turner, N., & Mamakouka, A. (2017). How Authentic Leadership Influences Team Performance: The Mediating Role of Team Reflexivity.
Journal of Business Ethics, 141(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2692-3
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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309353945
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The Effect of the Performance Appraisal System on Trust for Management: A Field Quasi-Experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 267–298.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. Mohrman, S. A., Tenkasi, R. V., Lawler, E. E., & Ledford, G. E. (1995). Total quality
29 Örtqvist, D., & Wincent, J. (2006). Prominent consequences of role stress: A meta-analytic
review. International Journal of Stress Management, 13(4), 399–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.13.4.399
Oxoby, R. J. (2002). Status characteristics, cognitive bias, and incentives in teams. Journal of
Socio-Economics, 31(3), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(02)00126-9
Saastamoinen, M., Kumpulainen, S. W., Vakkari, P., & Järvelin, K. (2013). Task complexity affects information use. Information Research, 31(2), 191–213.
Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Van Dyne, L. (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 61–72.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.78.1.61
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A Social Capital Theory of Career Success. Academy of Management, 44(2), 219–237.
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top
management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85(1), 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102
Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. (2001). Social Networks and the Performance of Individuals and Groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316– 325.
Swanson, R. A. (2007). Analysis for Improving Performance: Tools for Diagnosing
Organizations and Documenting Workplace Expertise (Second Edi). San Francisco:
Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Van Der Vegt, G. S., Bunderson, J. S., & Oosterhof, A. (2006). Expertness diversity and interpersonal helping in teams: Why those who need the most help end up getting the least. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 877–893.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22798169
30 von Briel, F., Schneider, C., & Lowry, P. B. (2019). Absorbing Knowledge from and with
External Partners: The Role of Social Integration Mechanisms. Decision Sciences, 50(1), 7–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/deci.12314
Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2003). Interruptive events and team knowledge acquisition.
31 APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Measures
- Boundary spanning behavior – scale: never – rarely – occasionally – usually - always
1. Preventing outsiders from “overloading” the team with too much information or too many requests.
2. Persuading others to support the team’s decisions.
3. Keeping other groups in the organization informed of your team’s activities. 4. Coordinating activities with other teams.
5. Procuring things which the team needs from other groups or individuals in the organization.
6. Resolving project problems with other groups.
7. Finding out what competing firms or teams are doing on similar projects. 8. Proactively seeking advice, information, knowledge, or insights from people
outside your team.
9. Reaching out to people outside your team who can provide ideas/expertise.
- Social status - Scale: strongly disagree – somewhat disagree – neither agree nor
disagree – somewhat agree – strongly agree
1. High-status members are those who are well respected at work, who exert relatively more influence over decisions at work, and whose contributions are often valued by others.
To what extent do you agree or disagree that each of the following teammates has a high status in the team?
- Sharing external information – scale: never – rarely – occasionally – usually - always
1. How often do the following team members inform you about work-related
information, knowledge, facts, insights, or ideas that they gained from outside the team?
- Intragroup trust - Scale: strongly disagree – somewhat disagree – neither agree nor
disagree – somewhat agree – strongly agree
1. We absolutely respect each other’s competence. 2. Every team member shows absolute integrity. 3. We expect the complete truth from each other. 4. We are all certain that we can fully trust each other.
- Team performance – scale: poor – fair – good – very good - excellent
1. The team’s ability to get work done efficiently. 2. The team’s ability to get work done adequately. 3. The quality of the team’s work.
4. The team’s flexibility in dealing with unexpected changes. 5. The team’s overall performance.
6. The team’s timeliness in meeting deadlines.
32
- Role overload - Scale: strongly disagree – somewhat disagree – neither agree nor
disagree – somewhat agree – strongly agree 1. I have too much work for one person to do.
2. The expectations for what I should do are too high.
3. I have to take on too many roles and responsibilities at work. 4. I have to satisfy too many different people at work.
- Subordinate expertise - Scale: strongly disagree – somewhat disagree – neither agree
nor disagree – somewhat agree – strongly agree 1. He/she is capable.
2. He/she is knowledgeable.
3. He/she has the expertise needed.
- Task complexity - Scale: strongly disagree – somewhat disagree – neither agree nor
disagree – somewhat agree – strongly agree
1. My job compromises difficult and complicated tasks.
2. The skills or knowledge needed for my job are constantly changing. 3. Exceptions frequently arise that require substantially different methods or
procedures to do my job.
- Task interdependence - Scale: strongly disagree – somewhat disagree – neither agree
nor disagree – somewhat agree – strongly agree
1. I need information and advice from other team members to perform my job well. 2. Other team members need information and advice from me to perform their jobs
well.
3. I regularly have to communicate with other team members about work-related issues.
- Goal interdependence – Scale: strongly disagree – somewhat disagree – neither agree
nor disagree – somewhat agree – strongly agree
1. Team members receive feedback based on collective performance.
