THE TRADE-OFF BETWEEN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL TEAM
PROCESSES – THE INTRODUCTION OF THE BALANCE OF TEAM
BOUNDARY SPANNING AS A MODERATOR
BY
DANA KWAKMAN
University of Groningen
Department of Human Resource Management and Organizational Behaviour
Nettelbosje 2, 9747 AE Groningen, The Netherlands
2
THE TRADE-OFF BETWEEN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL TEAM PROCESSES – THE
INTRODUCTION OF THE BALANCE OF TEAM BOUNDARY SPANNING AS A
MODERATOR
ABSTRACT
Most essential tasks in organizations require coordinated actions by two or more teams
(Mathieu, Marks & Zaccaro, 2001). Consequently, team boundary spanning is needed.
Literature suggest that team boundary spanning can have both benefits and disadvantages for
team performance. This research aims to understand and explain this paradox, whereby team
cohesion and external resources were expected to function as mediators. In addition, this
research introduced the balance of team boundary spanning as a moderator in order to try to
resolve this ambiguous relationship. To test for the hypotheses, I conducted a research among
37 educational teams at an educational center in the Northern part of the Netherlands.
Contrasting my expectations, none of my hypotheses were supported. This might be due to the
small sample size and to the relatively low score on team boundary spanning. Nevertheless, this
research was able to find a significant direct effect of team boundary spanning on team
performance. Results show that for higher levels of balance, when there is imbalance in team
boundary spanning, the relationship between team boundary spanning and team performance is
strengthened. For a low and medium level of team boundary spanning, no interaction effects
were being found. Theoretical and practical implications were given.
Key words: Team boundary spanning, team cohesion, external resources, team
3
INTRODUCTION
Most essential tasks in organizations cannot be performed by single individuals and
even not by single teams (DeChurch & Zaccaro, 2010). Organizational teams’ work is too complex, non-routine, and difficult to perform independently of other parties in the organization
(DeChurch & Mathieu, 2009). Instead, they require coordinated actions by two or more teams
(Mathieu, Marks & Zaccaro, 2001). Consequently, teams cannot exist in a vacuum, and team
boundary spanning is needed.
Several scholars have shown the positive influence of team boundary spanning on the
performance of teams, as well as the performance of organizations (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992;
Drach-Zahavy, 2011; Marks, DeChurch, Mathieu, Panzer & Alonso, 2005). The quality of the
team’s output is positively influenced by team boundary spanning, since coordination with other teams offers the opportunity to exchange information and knowledge with experts of other
teams (Ancona, 1990).
However, besides the benefits of team boundary spanning, there are also downsides to
it. Whereby engaging in team boundary spanning seems inevitable for organizations to survive,
internally focused processes, such as team cohesion, must not be forgotten. Team cohesion is
been considered as a key determinant of team performance (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009).
However, it should be noted that according to several researchers, external activities, such as
team boundary spanning, are negatively related to team cohesiveness (Ancona & Caldwell,
1992; Choi & Kim, 1999; Keller, 2001; Waller, 1999). Ancona (1990) stated that teams who
are strongly externally oriented, are unable to unite and motivate their team members to
integrate their efforts within the team, because they are not cohesive enough, which is referred
to as being ‘underbounded’. On the other hand, being ‘overbounded’ is defined as being
internally very loyal and having many internally complex dynamics, but being unable to make
4
In sum, team boundary spanning offers both a great opportunity as well as an enormous
challenge for organizations. Managing the balance between internal and external activities is
extremely difficult, yet essential. No single team can exist without an external focus. However,
a team can also not exist without maintaining its boundaries (Choi, 2002). Team boundary
spanning, as an external team process, differs from internal team processes, whereas intrateam
activities involve interactions with team members about internally focused processes occurring
within the group boundary, such as forming group norms, developing strategies, group
decision-making processes, managing conflicts, and coordinating work processes (Marks,
Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; Dibble, 2010; Choi, 2002). Team boundary spanning however
concerns the team processes beyond the team boundaries (Yan & Louis, 1999). When a team’s
only focus is on external activities, these activities might be at the cost of the team’s internal activities. And vice versa, if the team only concentrates on internal activities, it might perform
internal activities at the expense of external activities. To manage team boundaries, it is very
important to take care of this trade-off between internal and external activities (Sundstrom et
al., 1990). According to Sundstrom et al. (1990:130), the team boundaries need to be managed
carefully to prevent it of becoming too strictly defined or too permeable, in such a way that the
team does not become isolated or loses its identity.
Taken together, team boundary spanning appears to be a double-edged sword,
increasing the opportunity to obtain external resources as well as the likelihood that the team
cohesiveness will be decreased. Subsequently, team boundary spanning might have both
positive and negative effects on team performance, for both different reasons. However thus
far, only limited studies have focused on introducing moderators to investigate and understand
potential resolutions to this paradox.
In this research I will introduce the moderator the balance of team boundary spanning.
5
therefore is still a gap in the literature. The balance of team boundary spanning is about the
extent to which the team boundary spanning activities are evenly or unevenly distributed among
team members within the team. This moderator is expected to be relevant, because till now,
there is not much attention for the processes within the team concerning team boundary
spanning. A lot of research is focused on the individual level of team boundary spanning and
the antecedents to predict boundary spanning behavior (Ancona & Caldwell, 1998; Joshi &
Jackson, 2003; Drach-Zahavy, 2011, de Vries et al., 2014, Katz & Kahn, 1978). Besides, a lot
of scholars have researched the team level of team boundary spanning and the consequences
for team outcomes (Marrone et al., 2007; Marrone, 2010; Ancona, 1992). However, no studies
have researched the effects of the distribution of team boundary spanning within the team. Since
now, the focus of research about this topic was on the level of team boundary spanning, however
the influence of the distribution of team boundary spanning kept unknown. Nevertheless, I
expect that investigating the distribution of the team boundary spanning refreshes the existing
view in the literature about this construct. Examining the balance of team boundary spanning
combines the team level focus and the individual level focus of boundary spanning, since the
distribution of team boundary spanning depends heavily on the individuals operating in the
teams, and has an important influence on how the team scores on team boundary spanning.
Moreover, organizations will not only be able to identify and select applicants with more
expected team boundary spanning behavior, however also to find the right combination of team
members in order to get the best team results matching their strategy. Consequently, introducing
this moderator might have important implications for HR managers and organizations about
how to manage team boundary spanning in order to improve team performance.
All in all, I expect that this moderator can resolve the incompatibleness of internal and
external processes, such as team boundary spanning and team cohesiveness. This moderator
6
and strengthen the positive relationship between team boundary spanning and external
resources. Consequently, examining this moderator will help organizations find ways in which
both team boundary spanning and team cohesion can have positive effects on team performance
simultaneously, since both variables are strong predictors of team performance (Ancona &
Caldwell, 1992; Drach-Zahavy, 2011; Marks, DeChurch, Mathieu, Panzer & Alonso, 2005;
Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009).
THEORICAL BACKGROUND
Team Boundary Spanning
Based on the work of Ancona (1990) and Ancona and Caldwell (1992), I define team
boundary spanning as the collective team behavior intended to create relationships and to
interact with parties beyond the team boundaries in order to improve team performances. Team
boundary spanning consists out of multiple constructs (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988, 1992, 1998),
respectively ambassador activities, scout activities, and task coordinator activities. Ambassador
activities focus on top managers and use the power structure to achieve resources and support,
scout activities are oriented on obtaining information from the external general environment,
and task coordinator activities are concerned with the processes that involve other teams.
Even though all three constructs are expected to promote team performance, only task
coordination is expected to benefit the overall performance of the organization (DeChurch &
Marks, 2006; Smith, Carrol & Ashford, 1995), since task coordination is focused on common
goals and on the alignment of activities with other teams. In contrast, scout activities and
ambassador activities might also be hindering the success of the organization as a whole (Faraj
& Yan, 2009), because they are primarily focused on promoting their own team’s benefit (Joshi
7
activities on the success of organizations, I still decide to examine the entire construct of team
boundary spanning, because I expect this to be reflecting the most realistic situation of external
activities teams are engaging in.
Team Boundary Spanning and Team Performance
Several scholars have researched the effect of team boundary spanning on team
performance. For example, according to Marrone (2010), are team boundary spanning activities
assisting the team, and other parties connected to the team, to meet performance goals. Since
team performance can be defined as the degree to which a team is able to meet the objectives
(Hackman 1987, Pinto et al. 1993, Denison et al. 1996, Lechler 1997, Hoegl and Gemuenden
2001), team boundary spanning is being expected to be positively related to team performance.
Also other scholars state that the coordination between varies interdependent teams is essential
for innovation, network performance, and organizational learning (DeChurch & Mathieu, 2009;
Mohrman et al., 1995). Besides, Ancona (1990) argues that teams are more likely to perform in
such a way that they will meet objectives and satisfy stakeholders, when they engage in team
boundary spanning. The quality of the team’s output can be positively influenced by the
coordination with other teams, which is due to the fact that coordination with other teams offers
the possibility to exchange information, knowledge, and thoughts with experts from other
teams, which might help teams to deal with uncertain and complex situations in the environment
(Hoegl et al., 2004; Marks et al., 2005). In addition, team boundary spanning provides more
diversity in the information that is gathered during these team boundary spanning activities
(Hansen, 1999a). Obtaining information and knowledge from different teams in the
organization means information from different functionalities, different experiences and
different personalities. Hereby, alternative perspectives and new ideas may be introduced to the
8
thereby increasing the overall productivity of the team (Reagans & McEvily, 2003).
Furthermore, team boundary spanning also allows for possibilities for teams to negotiate about
expectations and requirements of projects, which facilitates team performance (Ancona, 1990).
Next to the opportunities team boundary spanning provides to discuss tasks and
exchange information which improves the quality of the teams’ output, does team boundary spanning also improves the access to external support, such as assistance from other teams. This
enables the team to perform their tasks in a better way (Joshi et al., 2009; Marrone, 2010), since
research showed that team boundary spanning is needed in order to successfully complete
complex tasks (Tushman, 1977).
Lastly, team boundary spanning may also prevent the team from isolating itself from
the external environment, and for being too internally focused. When teams focus too much on
their internal activities, groupthink may come across, as a result of the strong group
cohesiveness (Janis, 1982), whereby groupthink is defined as the strong motivation of team
members to strive for unanimity instead of considering alternative courses of action (Janis,
1982:9). A potential downside of groupthink is the conformity pressure group members
experience which may lead to defective decision-making, and therefore poor team performance
(Janis, 1972). When groupthink occurs, members of the team are less likely to disagree with
the team because they want to prevent team conflicts. However, this also means that alternative
perspectives are being avoided, which might lead to poor decisions. In sum, team boundary
spanning helps to avoid focusing on the internal activities only, and thereby consequently the
negative consequences of groupthink.
In contrast to this supported positive relationship between team boundary spanning and
team performance, a continually focus on other teams in the organization may also hurt the
team performance. According to Ancona (1990), if a team is constantly scanning the external
9
result of a team that is unable to put its information into specific course of action. In addition,
Ancona (1990) examined that teams who are strongly externally oriented, are unable to
motivate members of the team to integrate their efforts within the team, because they are not
cohesive enough. Also Alderfer (1976) argues that when a team runs the risk of being
‘underbounded’, they lack the ability to get everyone in the team on the same page. These findings suggests that team boundary spanning may also have a negative impact on team
performance, since team boundary spanning is been expected to be negatively related to
cohesiveness (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Choi & Kim, 1999; Keller, 2001; Waller, 1999).
Because the relationship between team boundary spanning and team performance does
not seem to be straightforward, there have to be other variables that have some kind of influence
on the relationship between team boundary spanning and team performance which might
explain this ambiguity. To understand this paradox, I will first identify mechanisms through
which team boundary spanning may negatively affect team performance, and through which
team boundary spanning may positively affect team performance. By identifying mediators to
explain this ambiguity, I will be able to understand and explain why and when team boundary
spanning does (not always) have a positive effect on team performance. Secondly, I will explore
a contingency factor that may activate or deactivate the positive or negative mechanisms of this
relationship. I introduce the balance of team boundary spanning as a moderator, and I expect
this moderator to weaken the negative relationship of team boundary spanning and team
cohesion, and to strengthen the positive relationship of team boundary spanning and external
resources. By doing so, I hope I will be able to find a way in which both team boundary spanning
and team cohesion can have a positive effect on team performance simultaneously, depending
on the balance or imbalance in the team on team boundary spanning. Figure 1 shows all the
10
Figure 1. Conceptual model
In order to explain the negative effect of team boundary spanning on team performance,
I assume team cohesion to act like a mediator in this relationship. Several researchers already
assumed that team boundary spanning is negatively related to team cohesion (Ancona &
Caldwell, 1992; Choi & Kim, 1999; Keller, 2001; Waller, 1999), and since team cohesion is
one of the major antecedents of team performance (Chang & Bordia, 2001), it is relevant to
examine team cohesion as a mediator in the relationship between team boundary spanning and
team performance. Examining team cohesion as a mediator will provide more clarity in the
ambiguity we still find in the literature about this topic. If team boundary spanning has a
negative relation with team cohesion, and team cohesion has a positive relation with team
performance, this might explain why the relationship between team boundary spanning and
11
The Role of Team Cohesion in the Relationship between Team Boundary Spanning and
Team Performance
According to several scholars, is cohesion the most important small group variable
(Golembiewski, 1962; Lott & Lott, 1965). Groups are omnipresent in our lives, and therefore
it is enormous relevant to investigate group processes, such as cohesion. Carron and Brawley
(2012) argue that if a group exists, it should be cohesive in some extent, whereby cohesion is
about the perception that members of a team are united (Carron et al., 1998). More extensive,
cohesion is a dynamic process that reflects the tendency for the team to stick together and
continue to be united in order to reach common objectives and the affective needs of its team
members (Carron, Brawley & Widmeyer, 1998:213). Moreover, cohesion also has an affective
dimension. Members of the group enjoy the social bonding and task unity that evolve in groups.
Some of the most fundamental human motives are also the need to belong, and the desire for
interpersonal attachment (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).
Keeping this definition in mind, I expect team boundary spanning to be negatively
related to team cohesion. First of all, if members of the team engage in more team boundary
spanning, they will be spending a lot of time outside their team, since team boundary spanning
activities are performed beyond the boundaries of the team, and in addition require a lot of time.
Subsequently, team members will be working less with each other within the boundaries of the
team and therefore they will be spending less time together. Consequently, less opportunities
arise in which team members can build up a cohesive team. According to Buss (1983),
individuals may obtain important social rewards from the mere presence and attention of others.
The presence of others offers an opportunity team members to be validated, recognized, and
valued for their achievements (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The presence and the time team
12
Furthermore, when team boundary spanning is higher, team members will engage in
more team boundary spanning activities. Consequently, they have diverse, additional activities
besides their team tasks. Since not every team members performs the same team boundary
spanning activities, team members will perceive their team as that they have less in common
and consequently the perceived similarity in the team will be lower. Because the perceived
similarity or dissimilarity of team members affects the perceived group membership (Campbell,
1958; Zarate & Sanders, 1999), is a higher level of team boundary spanning expected to
decrease the likelihood that team members perceive their team as a team. Since team members
will be less likely to treat the team as a team when they perceive the team less like a team (Alter
& Darley, 2009), I expect that team boundary spanning is negatively affecting team cohesion.
Besides, engaging in team boundary spanning offers boundary spanners a lot of diverse
information, knowledge, and perspectives, which they will share with their team. This might
create divergent opinions and perspectives within the team, which has a negative effect on team
building (Ancona, 1990), because people feel closer to those people who have similar beliefs,
attitudes, and values (Byrne, Bond & Diamond, 1969). Therefore, having more different
perspectives, opinions, and information among team members, due to team boundary spanning,
is expected to decrease team cohesion.
Additionally, if team members notice other members of the team engaging in team
boundary spanning, this might lead to negative emotions and feelings of threats. By witnessing
unpleasant interactions between others at work, co-workers experience negative emotions
(Totterdell et al., 2012), which will be shared and transferred, and create a negative emotional
climate at the team level (Barsade, 2002), which is expected to disturb team cohesion. In
addition, team members might experience team boundary spanning of their co-workers as an
identification with the outsider, and therefore as less identification with their group (Keller,
13
associated with group formation, including intragroup cohesion. Therefore if team members
perceive less group identification and more identification with the outsider, this has negative
consequences for team cohesion (Ancona, 1990), since team boundary spanning opens up
teams’ boundaries.
In sum, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: team boundary spanning is negatively related to team cohesion
Team cohesion is been considered as a key determinant of team performance
(Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009). First of all, if team members have the tendency to be united and
to stick united (definition team cohesion (Carron, Brawley & Widmeyer, 1998:213; Kozlowski
& Ilgen, 2006)), they will try to reach for common goals, which has a positive effect on team
performance. In contrast, teams that don’t have the tendency to be united show lower
performance levels (Johnson & Johnson, 2005). Also Cartwright and Zander (1968) suggest
that team cohesion has an important impact on the team members’ attitude toward the team, and as a result, toward their motivation to act in line with the goals of the team.
Besides, team cohesion is expected to be positively related to team performance, since
cohesive teams are more willing to share knowledge with co-workers than non-cohesive teams
are, which will benefit the team performances (Reagens & McEvily, 2003). Due to the fact that
the feeling of competition in cohesive teams is almost nihil, the willingness to share knowledge
within the team increases (Ingram & Roberts, 2000). Furthermore, the strength of an
interpersonal relationship can affect the ease of the transfer of knowledge as well (Szulanski,
1996; Uzzi, 1997; Hansen, 1999b). If individuals communicate frequently, and feel strongly
emotional attached to each other, they are more willing to share knowledge, than when the
14
attachment is missing (Reagens & McEvily, 2003). Since cohesive teams are expected to be
more willing to share their knowledge, this has a positive influence on team performance.
Lastly, team cohesion influences the willingness of team members to spend time and
effort in assisting co-workers (Reagens & McEvily, 2003). Because of the cohesiveness of the
team, team members are more willing to spend time and effort on behalf of each other, including
the time to support co-workers to accomplish team goals (Reagens & McEvily, 2003). Also,
Granovetter (1982) stated that the commitment and the emotional attachment individuals
experience concerning their relationships with team members is important, since this has a
positive effect on their motivation to support each other and provide assistance. In sum,
cohesive teams are expected to be more emotional attached to each other, and therefore more
willing to support each other, which will benefit the performance as a team (Joshi et al., 2009;
Marrone, 2010).
Therefore the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Team cohesion is positively related to team performance
In conclusion, I assume team cohesion to have a mediating role in the negative
relationship between team boundary spanning and team performance, because I expect team
boundary spanning to be negatively related to team cohesion, and team cohesion to be positively
related to team performance. In other words, team cohesion will be lower, when team boundary
spanning is high and a decrease in team cohesion leads to a decrease in team performance.
Therefore the following hypothesis is proposed:
15
The Role of External Resources in the Relationship between Team Boundary Spanning
and Team Performance
On the other side, the positive relationship between team boundary spanning and team
performance might be explained by the external resources teams obtain during team boundary
spanning activities. A single team has only limited resources (e.g., time, effort, personnel,
information, knowledge) (Choi, 2002), and Ancona (1990) argues that coordination with other
teams offers the possibility to exchange information and knowledge with experts from other
teams, and therefore obtain more resources than they would have obtained without the
coordination with other teams. In addition, because teams who coordinate try to align common
goals (Cartwright & Zander, 1968), they will be more willing to help and support each other
and provide resources such as information, knowledge, and effort. In sum, I expect that the
more a team engages in team boundary spanning, the more external resources will be obtained.
Therefore the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: team boundary spanning is positively related to external resources
Besides, I expect a positive relationship between external resources and team
performance. External resources have an influence on the quality of the team’s output, since
external resources provide more diversity in the information and knowledge that is obtained
(Hansen, 1999a). Information and knowledge from different teams in the organization, provides
information and knowledge from different functionalities, different experiences, and different
personalities. Hereby, alternative perspectives and new ideas may be introduced to the team
(Barczak and Wilemon 1991, Sethi 2000), resulting in more creativity and innovation, and
16
external resources such as support and effort will also help the team in accomplishing its goals
and facilitate the performance of the team as a whole (Joshi et al., 2009; Marrone, 2010).
Therefore the following hypothesis is proposed:
H5: External resources is positively related to team performance
In conclusion, I assume that the variable external resources has a mediating role in the
positive relationship between team boundary spanning and team performance, because I expect
team boundary spanning to be positively related to external resources, and external resources
to be positively related to team performance. In other words, a team obtains more external
resources when team boundary spanning is high, and an increase of external resources leads to
an increase in team performance.
Therefore the following hypothesis is proposed:
H6: team boundary spanning is positively related to team performance, because teams acquire more external resources when team boundary spanning increases.
Besides the identification of the relevant mediators, I will now identify a contingency
factor that is expected to moderate the relationship between team boundary spanning and team
cohesion, and team boundary spanning and external resources.
Moderator Balance of Team Boundary Spanning
The moderator the balance of team boundary spanning is expected to function as a
solution in the ambiguous and contradicting relationship between team boundary spanning and
17
tradeoff between internal and external processes suggest that team boundary spanning and
internal processes, such as team cohesion, are not compatible. With the introduction of this
moderator, I hope to find a way in which both team boundary spanning and team cohesion can
have a positive effect on team performance simultaneously, since both variables are strong
predictors of team performance (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Drach-Zahavy, 2011; Marks,
DeChurch, Mathieu, Panzer & Alonso, 2005; Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009). First, I will
explain the moderating effect of the balance of team boundary spanning on the relationship
between team boundary spanning and team cohesion, and secondly I will explain its moderating
effect on the relation between team boundary spanning and external resources.
Moderating Effect of Balance of Team Boundary Spanning between Team Boundary
Spanning and Team Cohesion
The balance of team boundary spanning can be defined as the balance in the distribution
and allocation of team boundary spanning activities towards the team members. A variation in
such allocation can lead to imbalances between the team members’ engagement in team boundary spanning activities. These imbalances in team boundary spanning activities may have
consequences for the relationship between team boundary spanning and team cohesion. As
mentioned before, team boundary spanning is been expected to be negatively related to team
cohesion. I expect that this moderator, the balance of team boundary spanning, may weaken
this negative relationship when there is more balance in team boundary spanning activities, and
activities are more evenly distributed among team members.
First of all, the relationship between team boundary spanning and team cohesion is
expected to be less negative when there is balance of team boundary spanning activities within
the team, because team members will perceive their team members as more similar to them
18
distributed among team members. As mentioned before, the perceived similarity or
dissimilarity of team members affects the perceived group membership (Campbell, 1958;
Zarate & Sanders, 1999). Moreover, team members are expected to identify themselves more
with colleagues who are more similar to them. Therefore, when teams have more imbalance of
team boundary spanning, so when team boundary spanning activities are more unevenly
distributed, the perceived similarity of team members, and therefore the perceived group
membership will decrease. Consequently, the relationship between team boundary spanning
and team cohesion will be more negative when there is imbalance, because in imbalanced
teams, team members identify themselves less with the team, which will decrease the
cohesiveness (Raffield, Greenlow, Price & Collard, 2016). In contrast, when teams are more
in balance in terms of team boundary spanning, team members are more similar to each other
in tasks and activities, and therefore have more in common, are more likely to see themselves
as part of the team, and consequently more likely to feel connected to the team (Doosje,
Ellemers & Spears, 1995).
Besides, when team boundary spanning activities are more in balance, team members
will be better able to understand each other’s tasks and perspectives of engaging in these team
boundary spanning tasks, because they are experiencing the same and understand it’s
importance. Consequently, this will cause less negative feelings when a team member is
experiencing team boundary spanning behavior among co-workers. Contrasting, when there is
imbalance of team boundary spanning, this understanding is expected to be missing or only
partially existing. Therefore, having imbalance of team boundary spanning within the team
might even strengthen the negative relationship between team boundary spanning and team
cohesion.
Furthermore, if team boundary spanning is in imbalance and only a few of the team
19
as being unfair. The boundary spanners have less time to spend on internal activities of the
team, and their co-workers might experience this negatively. They might perceive this as that
these boundary spanners do not contribute enough to the team and to the internal activities of
the team, also because team boundary spanning activities can be directly competing with
internal activities for effort, and time spend (Choi, 2002; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Therefore,
having imbalance within the team in terms of team boundary spanning, might strengthen the
negative relationship of team boundary spanning and team cohesion. When team boundary
spanning is more evenly distributed, this might not happen, since there is more perceived
similarity among team members and team members are better able to understand the importance
of these team boundary spanning activities. Therefore, when there is more balance in team
boundary spanning, the relationship between team boundary spanning and team cohesion might
be less negative, than when there is imbalance.
Additionally, boundary spanners are responsible for managing both internal and external
activities simultaneously (Katz & Kahn, 1978). In order to do so, it is necessary for the boundary
spanner to be in contact with members inside his team and beyond the boundaries of his team.
Consequently, this requires costs in terms of effort and time, and in addition, boundary spanners
might get the feeling of being torn apart, since they have to manage two often conflicting
pressures (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek & Rosenthal, 1964; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Therefore,
when there is more imbalance, I expect the relationship between team boundary spanning and
team cohesion to be even more negative. When there is more balance in team boundary
spanning, I expect that these feelings of being torn apart will decrease, since there is more
common understanding of the importance of team boundary spanning and in addition the team
boundary spanning activities are more evenly distributed among team members.
20
H7: The balance of team boundary spanning moderates the indirect relationship between team boundary spanning and team performance, as mediated by team cohesion. This negative indirect relationship is strengthened when there is imbalance of team boundary spanning and weakened when team boundary spanning is more in balance.
Moderating Effect of Balance of team boundary spanning between Team Boundary
Spanning and External Resources
It is expected that team boundary spanning is positively related to external resources. In
addition, I expect that when there is more imbalance in team boundary spanning activities, this
relationship is less positive than when there is more balance in team boundary spanning.
First of all, when there is imbalance of team boundary spanning within the team, this
might weaken the positive relationship between team boundary spanning and external
resources, since imbalance in team boundary spanning might cause distortion,
miscommunications, and misunderstandings of the external information. When there are only
a few boundary spanners within a team, they function as information and knowledge hubs for
the rest of the team (Zhao & Anand, 2013). They are receiving and gathering external resources,
and are also providing these new insights to their own team members. Non-boundary spanners
are therefore dependent on the boundary spanners on how they process, filter, and translate the
external information to them. Subsequently, these boundary spanners do not only function as a
provider of external information, however also as a bottleneck in this flow of information, due
to the indirect way of communicating. If only one person has contacts with other teams, all the
boundary spanning activities within the teams needs to be carried out by this person, which
might increase delay times and increases the opportunities for misunderstandings and distortion
(Hansen, 2002). Besides, when there is imbalance in team boundary spanning, the boundary
21
volume and scope of this input might exceed the cognitive capacity of those few people (Zhao
& Anand, 2013). According to Marrone et al. (2007), more information can be obtained in a
shorter amount of time, when all team members engage in team boundary spanning, so in other
words, when there is more balance in team boundary spanning, In sum, I expect that the
imbalance of team boundary spanning hinders the delivery and receiving of external resources,
and therefore weakens the positive relationship between team boundary spanning and external
resources. When teams are more in balance, more team members are aware of the external
resources, and teams are better able to communicate more directly, faster and more effectively,
in order to get the resources they need (Zhao & Anand, 2013). Therefore, when there is more
balance, less time delays and distortion of information will emerge, which will positively affect
the relationship between team boundary spanning and external resources.
Furthermore, according to Ancona (1990) is the agreement and understanding of all
team members about the importance of team boundary spanning essential for successful
boundary spanning management. When team members consciously and purposefully consider
team boundary spanning, team boundary spanning has higher possibilities to succeed. Research
showed that when there is more consensus within the team about team boundary spanning
strategies, this will also help motivating the behaviors of team members to facilitate goal
accomplishment (Colquitt, Noe, & Jackson, 2002; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Teams will be
better able to collaborate in order to strive for the same goal and distribute tasks among team
members effectively, when team members have a shared understanding (Hambrick, 1994).
Subsequently, when there is more balance of team boundary spanning, team members have
more consistent views and agreement on team boundary spanning, because they all understand
it’s importance. This will make them more able to collaborate and integrate their team boundary spanning efforts with the team, which will benefit the external resources. When there is
22
non-boundary spanners are not always capable of understanding the external information (Zhao
& Anand, 2013). Therefore, having more imbalance might weaken the positive relationship
between team boundary spanning and external resources.
Additionally, for the team members who differ from their team members, is it very hard
to overcome these differences, and to successfully coordinate their work with their team
members (Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin, 1999). Hence, those who are dissimilar to their team
members will be less likely to integrate their efforts with the team. Therefore, when there is
more imbalance of team boundary spanning, this will weaken the positive relationship between
team boundary spanning and external resources, since the dissimilar team members (mostly the
boundary spanners) are unwilling to integrate their efforts with the team, and therefore also
their team boundary spanning efforts. Consequently, less external resources will be provided
for the team, since dissimilar team members are more likely to keep information to themselves.
In contrast, team members who are more similar to their team members will be more likely to
integrate their efforts with the team and to share their externally obtained information with the
team.
Therefore, I expect that when team boundary spanning is more in balance, the positive
relationship between team boundary spanning and external resources will be strengthened and
when teams are more in imbalance, the relationship will be weakened.
The following hypothesis is proposed:
23 METHODS
Participants and Procedure
In order to examine the hypotheses, a field study is conducted at a regional education
center for regular vocational education, contract education, and education and integration
programs in the Northern part of the Netherlands. With 17 different schools across the region,
around fourteen thousand students and fourteen hundred employees is this education center one
of the largest in the Northern Netherlands.
To test the hypotheses, an on-line questionnaires was developed. Of all fourteen hundred
employees at the organization, only the employees part of educational teams and operating in a
team of minimal three persons were being asked to participate in the questionnaire of this
research (Sample of 865 employees). Participants are the team members of 47 different
educational teams (teachers, assistant-teachers etc.) The team leaders did not receive an
invitation to participate in this research, based on their existing workload. Confidentiality of the
participants is being protected, and participation is voluntary. The questions in this
questionnaire were being translated in Dutch, to make sure that the employees fully understood
the questions.
Of the 865 team members who received an invitation to participate in the questionnaire,
419 employees participated in the research. This is a response rate of 48%. However, only 328
employees completely finished the questionnaire. This is a response rate of 38%. The
unfinished questionnaires are not immediately excluded from the research, since some answers
might be useful for analysis. After analyzing the sample, I decided to exclude all the participants
in teams with a response rate of less than three team members. Consequently, 17 participants
part of 7 different teams were excluded. In total 402 employees remained respondents. The total
24
and 228 are female (57%) (SD=.5, N=402). The mean age of the team members who
participated is 48 years (SD=11, N=402), ranging from 22 to 69 years. The mean organizational
tenure of team members was about 9 years (SD = 7, N=402). The teams ranged in size from a
minimum of 9 team members to a maximum of 46 members (M = 28.5, SD =10, N=39).
In addition, the sample of teams in this research are very similar to each other concerning
tasks and life cycles. They are all educational teams, performing the same activities and trying
to achieve the same goal. In addition, they are exposed to the same external environment and
pressures. Therefore is this sample very applicable for testing the hypothesis, and potential
confound will be ruled out.
Measurements
Team boundary spanning. I measured team boundary spanning by asking the
respondents to select all team members they had frequently coordinated with (De Vries et al.,
2014). Specifically, I provided participants with a list of all the teams existing in the
organization and asked them to select all teams with members they had frequently coordinated
with (See Wasserman & Faust, 1994). In the next question I asked respondents to choose all
the team members - of the teams they had selected- with whom they had regularly task related
contacts with. I then calculated individuals’ team boundary spanning scores as the total number
of the members of external teams with whom the individual had coordinated with. Individuals’
team boundary spanning scores varied between 0 (no team boundary spanning) and 43, with a
mean of 4.7 (SD=6.5, N=380). I aggregated the mean of the individual scores in order to get a
team score of team boundary spanning (F(37, 342) = 2.112, p=.000. ICC(1)=.1, and
ICC(2)=.53).
Team performance. Team performance is being measured by using objective data.
25
significantly and positively related to objective measures of team performance. For measuring
team performance, data about sick leave of the employees is being used, since absenteeism
caused by sick leave, has been expected as one of the largest sources of a decrease in
productivity (Baker-McClearn, Greasley, Dale & Griffith, 2010). In addition, a review of Black
(2008), called ‘Working for a healthier tomorrow’, suggests that a culture of wealth, instead of
a culture of sickness is crucial in reducing sick leave and improving performance. An increased
level of sickness leads to an increase in work load by non-absent workers, and therefore the
overall team performance is expected to decrease. In order to be able to predict team
performance, the data about sick leave is gathered the month after conducting the questionnaire.
The sick leave data from the past year is being used as control variable, in order to be able to
predict future performance. The data about sick leaves ranged from .00 to 24.00 with a mean
of 6.5 (SD=4.8, N=37).
Team cohesion. In order to measure team cohesion, I will use 4 items of cohesiveness,
based on the items of Seashore (1954) (α= .85), and which are being used in several previous
studies (O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1985). In addition these 4 items are based on the items of task
cohesiveness developed by Zaccaro & Lowe (1988). Participants are being asked to respond to
the 4 items of the 5-point Likert scale. Some examples of these items are “There is a good personal match between members of team … “, “Members of team … are ready to defend each other from criticism by outsiders”, “There is a lot of mutual trust among members of team … “, “Members of team … see each other as allies”. The outcomes could vary between 1 and 5, on a 5-point Likert scale, whereby 1 is totally disagree and 5 totally agree. A component
analysis yielded a single factor, and the individual scores were averaged into a single individual
team cohesion score (M=3.85, SD=.4, N=402, α= .89). In addition, I aggregated the mean of
the individual scores in order to get a team score of team cohesion (F(38, 363)=1.49, p=.000,
26
External resources. To measure if task related contacts between teams will lead to more
and useful resources, the variable external resources is being used. Respondents are being asked
to indicate how much they value the contacts with the teams they have selected, in terms of the
exchange of information, the mutual support, and the degree to which other teams use their
input. Participants are being asked to respond to a 5-point Likert scale for three items developed
based on the four items of the variable resource exchange of Richter, Scully, and West (2005).
The three questions are: “We from (team name) receive exactly the information we need from colleagues form team…”, “We from (team name) receive exactly the support we need from colleagues form team…”, and “Colleagues from the teams below effectively use our input from (team name)”. They only had to answer these questions for teams they had selected in the question about team boundary spanning. The outcomes could vary between 1 and 5, on a
5-point Likert scale, whereby 1 is totally disagree and 5 totally agree. A component analysis
yielded a single factor, and the individual scores were averaged into a single individual external
resources score (M=3.6, SD=.7, N=320, α= .84).
In order to test for justifying aggregation, an one-way ANOVA was conducted.
However, this ANOVA of external resources was not significant, F(38, 281) = .87, p=.70. This
means that the first condition for justifying aggregation is not met. The results even show a
bigger difference in external resources scores within the teams than between the teams.
However, although the team level of external resources might consist out of significantly
variability among team members responses, I still use the aggregated data. Previous work
showed that within a team there are always different perceptions of the importance of externally
directed activities for the team (Ancona, 1990; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Choi, 2002). Also
Berger and Luckman (1967) argue that individual team member’s perception of experiences might differ, even though team members experience the exact same situation. Concluding, for
27
Team members can have different perceptions of the exchange of information, knowledge and
support with other teams, and the importance of these activities.
Balance of team boundary spanning. The balance of team boundary spanning is about
the balance or imbalance existing within the team in which members are engaging in team
boundary spanning. To measure the distribution of team boundary spanning, the network
question of team boundary spanning is being used. With this data, I am able to identify whether
the team boundary spanning is rather in balance or in imbalance within the team. The balance
of team boundary spanning varies between .00 (complete balance) and 3.05, with a theoretical
maximum of 100 and a mean of .82 (SD=0.6, N=380). The individual score of the balance of
team boundary spanning was measured by taking the maximal score within the team of team
boundary spanning and compare how much the individual scores deviated of the maximal score
in the team. I aggregated the mean of the individual scores in order to get a team score of the
balance of team boundary spanning (F(37, 342)=15.32, p=.000, ICC(1)= .59, ICC(2)=.94).
Control variables
Based on existing research, a few control variables are being tested, since they are being
expected to correlate with one or more variables in this research model. First of all, I measured
interteam interdependence as potential control variables. The team members’ perceived
interdependence might affect the coordination efforts and the performance of a team (Joshi et
al., 2009). Also, the resource dependency theory argues that team members might engage in
more team boundary spanning if they are more dependent of other teams (Joshi et al., 2009;
McCann & Ferry, 1979). In that case team boundary spanning may result from the
interdependency of the team member’s work. I used the three Likert-type items based on the research of van der Vegt et al. (2001) to measure interteam interdependence (1=totally disagree
28
order to do my work properly, I have to exchange information with colleagues of other teams”,
“If colleagues of other teams do not complete their tasks in time, I am delayed”, and “If colleagues of other teams do not deliver proper work, it is hindering me in performing my job”.
A component analysis yielded a single factor, and the individual scores were averaged into a
single individual external resources score (M=2.86, SD=.36, N=402, α= .91). In addition, I
aggregated the mean of the individual scores in order to get the team score (F(38, 363)=2.023,
p=.00, ICC1=1, ICC2=1).
Besides, I consider age as potential control variable. Lastly, I control for the variable
team performance of the past year (M=6.2, SD=3.4, N=36), in order to be able to predict for
future team performance. By controlling for earlier levels of team performance, I am able to
determine if variances in teams were already existing before I measured for the current team
performance.
A correlation analysis (Table 1) shows whether I need to take the control variables into
further account during analysis. Since all variables in my model are measured at the team level,
the correlation analysis with the control variables will also be based on the team level scores.
Table 1
Correlation analysis with core variables and control variables
29 (7) Team performance (past year) (8) Age -.01 -.13 -.05 .06 .07 -.22 -.10
Note. N = 39. Cronbach’s alphas are displayed on the diagonal. * p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 1 shows that the control variable age is not significantly correlating with any core
variable in my model. Therefore, age is being excluded for further analysis. The control
variables interteam interdependence, and team performance of the past year do significantly
correlate with one or more of the core variables. Interteam interdependence correlates
significantly with the independent variable team boundary spanning (r=.56, p<.001, N=402).
Furthermore, the control variable team performance of the past year is not surprisingly
significantly correlating with the current team performance, (r=.40, p<.05, N=402).
Data analysis
To examine the relationship between team boundary spanning and team outcomes, I
performed several analyses. First, I aggregated all the data from the individual level to the team
level. Hereby, each team has one score. In order to be able to aggregate the individual score
into a team score, it is needed to test whether the individual scores are in agreement of each
other within the team (LeBreton & Senter, 2008). Aggregation is justified when the team
members have similar perceptions on the variables such as team boundary spanning of the team,
and when these perceptions are different across teams. First, it is needed to indicate whether the
answers of the team members vary across teams and are dependent on their team membership
(Yamarino & Markham, 1992). In order to do so, I conducted one-way ANOVAs to calculate
the ICC(1) and ICC(2) values. Researchers commonly justify for aggregation if the F-ratio of
30
Secondly, I conducted a correlation analysis with all the variables in my model and
additionally all the relevant control variables. In order to test the effects of team boundary
spanning on team cohesion, team cohesion on team performance, team boundary spanning on
external resources, and external resources on team performance, I conducted multiple
regressions. Previous all predictor variables were standardized to control for multicollinearity
(Aiken & West, 1991). The linear regressions were being used to test for the mediating role of
team cohesion and external resources in the relationship between team boundary spanning and
team performance. There are three conditions that need to be met for a mediator model. First of
all, there has to be a significant relationship between the independent variable and the mediator.
In this research this is team boundary spanning on team cohesion and team boundary spanning
on external resources. Secondly, the relationship between the independent variable and the
dependent variable needs to be significant. In this case this is team boundary spanning on team
performance. And thirdly, the significant relationship between the independent variable (team
boundary spanning) and the dependent variable (team performance) is no longer significant, or
way less significant, when the mediator (team cohesion and external resources) is being
introduced(Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Third, the interaction effect of the balance of team boundary spanning on the
relationship between team boundary spanning and team cohesion and on the relationship
between team boundary spanning and external resources will be tested by performing a Process
bootstrapping analysis model 1. Lastly, to examine the full moderator-mediator model, I used
the Process bootstrap approach model 7, at higher and lower levels of balance of team boundary
spanning. A 95-percent confidence interval is used to determine statistical significance
31 RESULTS
Descriptives
In Table 2, all the means, standard deviations, and correlations for all the variables in
my model and the relevant control variables are being presented. Table 2 shows that team
boundary spanning and team cohesion are not significantly correlating (r=.24, p>.01). Also a
correlation of team boundary spanning and external resources is not significant (r=.18, p>.01).
However, a correlation of team boundary spanning and team performance is marginally
significant (r=-.32, p=.055). The variable team cohesion is not significantly correlating with
team performance (r=-.19, p>.01), and the variable external resources is not as well (r=-.25,
p>.01). The variable the balance of team boundary spanning is only significantly correlating
with team boundary spanning (r=.49, p=.002).
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, Scale Reliabilities, and Correlations
M SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (1) Team boundary spanning 4.7 6.5 () (2) Team cohesion 3.85 0.4 .24 (.89) (3) External resources 3.6 0.7 .18 .68** (.84) (4) Team performance (5) Balance of team boundary spanning (6) Interteam interdependence (7) Team performance (past year) 6.5 0.8 2.86 6.2 4.8 0.6 0.36 3.4 -.32* .49** .56** -.21 -.19 .09 .23 -.02 -.25 .08 .13 -.22 () .09 () -.22 .05 (.91) .40* -.12 -.22 ()
32 Regression Analysis
H1: Team boundary spanning is negatively related to team cohesion
To analyze if a higher level of team boundary spanning leads to a lower team
cohesiveness, I conducted a linear regression of team boundary spanning on team cohesion.
The results of this regression (Table 3), R²=.06, F(1, 35)=2.181, p=.15, show that there is no
significant relation between team boundary spanning and team cohesion. My first hypothesis is
not accepted. More team boundary spanning is not negatively related to team cohesion, B=.224,
p=.15. Consequently, the first condition of a mediator model is not met - the relationship
between the independent variable and the mediator is not significant-.
Table 3
Predicting team cohesion
Predictor B R² p F
Team boundary spanning .224 .06 .15 2.181
*p .05
H2: Team cohesion is positive related to team performance
To analyze if a higher level of team cohesion has a positive effect on team performance,
I conducted a linear regression of team cohesion on team performance. The results of this
regression (Table 4), R²=.04, F(1, 35)=1.363, p=.25), show a non-significant relationship
between team cohesion and team performance, B=-1.06, p=.25 Therefore my fourth hypotheses
is not supported. Team cohesion is not positively related to team performance.
Table 4
Predicting team performance
33
Team cohesion -1.06 .04 .25 1.363
*p .05
In addition, when I conducted a regression analysis of team cohesion on team
performance with the control variable the past team performance included, the regression
analysis (Table 5) is significant, R²=.20, F(1, 33)=4.01, p=.028. However, not team cohesion,
but the past team performance is significantly related to the team performance, B=.57, p=.015.
Table 5
Predicting team performance including control variables
Predictor B R² p F
Team cohesion -1.06 .04 .27 1.283
Team cohesion -1.02 .20 .25 4.01
Team performance (year) .57 .015
*p .05
H4: Team boundary spanning is positively related to external resources
To analyze if a higher level of team boundary spanning leads to more external resources,
I conducted a linear regression of team boundary spanning on external resources. The results
of this regression (Table 6), R²=.03, F(1, 35)=1.107, p=.30), show a non-significant relationship
between team boundary spanning and external resources, B=.09, p=.30. Therefore, my fourth
hypothesis is not supported. Team boundary spanning is not positively related to external
resources. Consequently, the first condition of a mediator model is not met - the relationship
34 Table 6
Predicting external resources
Predictor B R² p F
Team boundary spanning .09 .03 .30 1.107
*p .05
H5: External resources is positively related to team performance
To analyze if external resources is positively related to team performance, I conducted
a linear regression of external resources on team performance. The results of this regression
(Table 7), R²=.06, F(1, 35)=2,354, p=.13, show a non-significant relationship between external
resources and team performance, B=-1.87, p=.13. Therefore my fourth hypothesis is not
supported. External resources is not positively related to team performance.
Table 7
Predicting team performance
Predictor B R² p F
External resources -1.87 .06 .13 2.354
*p .05
In addition, when I conducted a regression analysis of external resources on team
performance with the control variable the past team performance included, the regression
analysis (Table 8) is significant, R²=.19, F(1, 33)=3.86, p=.03. Again however, not external
resources, but the past team performance is significantly related to the team performance,
35 Table 8
Predicting team performance including control variables
Predictor B R² p F
External resources -.5.03 .06 .14 2.30
External resources -3.42 .19 .29 3.86
Team performance (year) .52 .03
*p .05
Mediation Analysis
Since both the a-path (team boundary spanning on team cohesion, and team boundary
spanning on external resources), and the b-path (team cohesion on team performance, and
external resources on team performance), were not proven significant, not all conditions for a
mediator model according to Baron and Kenny (1986) were being met. Therefore do team
cohesion and external resources in this research not function as a mediator in the relationship
between team boundary spanning and team performance. Hypothesis 3 and 4 are being rejected.
Moderation Analysis
In order to test for the moderating effect of the balance of team boundary spanning on
the relationship between team boundary spanning and team cohesion and team boundary
spanning and external resources, I conducted Process bootstrapping analyses, model 1(Hayes,
2012; 5000 resamples).
The moderation analysis of team boundary spanning on team cohesion, with the
moderator the balance of team boundary spanning, was non-significant (F(3, 33)= .7086, p>.01,
R²=.06), and in addition there is no interaction effect (B = -.01, t(33)= -.11, p>.01) of the balance
of team boundary spanning and team boundary spanning on team cohesion. Concluding, the
36
between team boundary spanning and team cohesion. Table 9 shows the model results and table
10 presents the results of the interaction effects.
Table 9
Team cohesion Predicted from team boundary spanning and the balance of team boundary spanning
Predictor B p 95% CI
Balance of team boundary spanning -.02 .95 -.59, .56
Team boundary spanning .05 .51 -.10, .19
Balance of team boundary spanning
x team boundary spanning -.01 .92
-.11, .10
*p .05
Table 10
Conditional Effects of the balance of team boundary spanning on team cohesion Balance of team
boundary spanning B p
95% CI
One SD below mean .05 .45 -.08, .17
At the mean .04 .29 -.04 .12
One SD above mean .04 .18 -.02 .10
*p .05
The moderation analysis of team boundary spanning on external resources, with the
moderator the balance of team boundary spanning, was also proven to be non-significant (F(3,
33)=.56, p>.01, R²=.05), and in addition there is no significant interaction effect (B = .02, t(33)=
.78, p>.01) of the balance of team boundary spanning and team boundary spanning on external
resources. As a conclusion, the moderator the balance of team boundary spanning does not have
an influence on the relationship between team boundary spanning and external resources. Table
37 Table 11
External resources Predicted from team boundary spanning and the balance of team boundary spanning
Predictor b p 95% CI
Balance of team boundary spanning -.01 .53 -.43 .22
Team boundary spanning -.01 .75 -.10, .07
Balance of team boundary spanning
x team boundary spanning .02 .44
-.04, .08
*p .05
Table 12
Conditional Effects of the balance of team boundary spanning on external resources Balance of team
boundary spanning b p
95% CI
One SD below mean -.01 .83 -.08, .06
At the mean .00 .87 -.04 .05
One SD above mean .02 .38 -.02 .05
*p .05
Moderation – Mediation Analysis
Since team cohesion and external resources do not seem to function as mediators in the
relationship between team boundary spanning and team performance, and since the moderator
the balance of team boundary spanning does not influence the relationships of team boundary
spanning and team cohesion and of team boundary spanning and external resources, the
mediation – moderation analysis will not be an useful addition to this research. Consequently,
38 Additional Research
Since no indirect effects of team boundary spanning on team performance -while
mediated by team cohesion and external resources- have been found, is it interesting to test for
the unhypothesized direct effect of team boundary spanning on team performance.
To analyze if team boundary spanning has an direct effect on team performance, I
conducted a linear regression of team boundary spanning on team performance. The results of
this regression (Table 13), R²=.10, F(1, 35)=3.95, p=.055, show that there is a marginally
significant relationship between team boundary spanning and team performance. Since a lower
level of sick leave means a higher level of team performance, is team boundary spanning
marginally positively related to team performance, B=-.53, p=.055.
Table 13
Predicting team performance
Predictor B R² p F
Team boundary spanning -.52 .10 .055 3.953
*p .05
When I conducted a regression analysis of team boundary spanning on team
performance, controlling for the past team performance, the analysis is significant (R²=.22, F(1,
33)=4.627, p=.02), however not team boundary spanning is significantly related to team
performance, but past team performance is (Table 14). In other words, in this analysis not team
boundary spanning, but the past team performance is predicting current team performance.
However, since the past team performance and team boundary spanning do not significantly
correlate and since team boundary spanning and the current team performance do strongly
