bracketing team boundary spanning: an examination of task-based, team-level, and contextual...

Bracketing team boundary spanning:an examination of task-based, team-level,and contextual antecedents

APARNA JOSHI1*, NITI PANDEY1 AND GUOHONG (HELEN) HAN2

1School of Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign,Illinois, U.S.A.2Department of Management, Williamson College of Business Administration, Youngstown StateUniversity, Youngstown, Ohio, U.S.A.

Summary There is growing recognition that teams do not function in a vacuum and that externalboundary activities are important predictors of team performance, effectiveness, and knowl-edge sharing. In the past, researchers have focused on the effects of team composition or taskcharacteristics as antecedents of critical boundary spanning activities. However, less effort hasbeen directed at understanding how antecedents at multiple levels can simultaneouslyinfluence boundary spanning behavior in teams. This paper takes stock of over 20 yearsof research on the topic of team boundary spanning. Adopting a ‘‘bracketing’’ approachetc., we develop a multi-level theoretical model to guide future research on thedeterminants of team boundary spanning. This model specifies task-based, team-level, andcontextual antecedents of team boundary spanning and outlines the contingencies shaping theemergence of effective boundary-management behavior in teams. Copyright # 2008 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

With the increasing adoption of team-based, knowledge oriented, and distributed organizational

structures, researchers have acknowledged that team performance is not merely an outcome of the

internal functioning of teams (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992a, 1992b; Joshi, 2006; Marrone, Tesluk, &

Carson, 2007; Oh, Chung, & Labianca, 2004; Reagans, Zuckerman, & McEvily, 2004). In meeting

organizational goals, external team relationships are also immensely valuable (Druskat & Kayes, 1999;

Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). In knowledge-oriented organizations, external team interactions can facilitate

the effective transfer of non-codified and complex forms of knowledge across organizational units

(Hansen, 1999). Research in the context of distributed organizations has also shown that boundary

spanning between teams enables the generation of new knowledge and knowledge sharing across

distances (Gasson, 2005; Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2004). In these dynamic organizational settings, the

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 731–759 (2009)

Published online 21 October 2008 in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.567

*Correspondence to: Aparna Joshi, School of Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,109 LIR Building, 504 East Armory Avenue, Champaign, IL 61820, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 1 February 2007Revised 27 August 2008

Accepted 6 September 2008

extent to which teams can coordinate efforts and share resources externally can predict the team’s

success and also act as a source of competitive advantage for the organization (DeNisi, Hitt, & Jackson,

2004; Malhotra & Majchrzak, 2004).

Since Ancona and Caldwell’s (1992a, 1992b) pioneering work, some researchers have considered

the role of external team interactions in predicting outcomes such as knowledge sharing, knowledge

transfer, innovativeness, and effectiveness (e.g., Oh et al., 2004; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998; Tsai, 2000;

Weisz, Vassolo, & Cooper, 2004). However, empirical and theoretical work on the antecedents of a

team’s boundary spanning efforts remains meager (see Marrone et al., 2007 for a recent exception).

Furthermore, research in this area has not explicitly accounted for the role of higher and lower level

constructs in explaining team-level boundary spanning activities, thereby, providing only a partial

understanding of this complex phenomenon.

This paper aims at contributing to current research on the topic of team boundary spanning in a

number of ways. First, we present a comprehensive review of over 20 years of research on the topic

team boundary spanning with the aim of identifying antecedents considered at multiple levels in past

research. Second, we develop a multi-level theoretical model to guide future research on the

determinants of team boundary spanning. This model specifies the role of task characteristics, team

member and leader attributes, and organizational context in fostering the emergence of effective

boundary-management behavior in teams. Third, we draw on and integrate multiple theoretical

perspectives to specify how and why these antecedents can shape specific aspects of boundary spanning

behavior. Finally, despite recognition that groups in organizations are inherently embedded entities

(Guzzo & Shea, 1992), a multi-level theoretical approach to understanding team functioning has been

lacking (Hackman, 2003; Joshi, 2006; Oh, Labianca, & Chung, 2006). By integrating macro- and

micro-level theory and research, this paper develops a multi-level approach to studying teams and also

addresses a call for meso-level theorizing in the broader domain of organizational behavior research

that is in tune with the essentially multi-level complexities of organizational life (Hackman, 2003;

House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000).

Several scholars have noted that a more comprehensive understanding of organizational phenomena

requires recognition of factors at higher and lower levels of analysis (Hackman, 2003; House et al.,

1995; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Recently, Hackman (2003) argued that by identifying constructs one

level higher and one level lower than the focal phenomenon researchers will be able to gain a more

comprehensive understanding of complex organizational issues. Such a ‘‘bracketing’’ approach can be

of value from a theoretical as well as a practical standpoint (Hackman, 2003). Applying this approach,

we examine how team boundary spanning may be better understood by examining both organizational

and individual factors that ‘‘bracket’’ this important variable. In the subsequent section, we define team

boundary spanning and highlight the inherently multi-level nature of this construct. Next, we review

over two decades of research on team boundary spanning in order to highlight antecedents that have

been considered in past research and identify opportunities for future inquiry. We then present key

theoretical perspectives that can frame future research in this area—resource dependence and

exchange theory, perspectives based onmanagerial sensemaking, and social identity theory. Finally, we

integrate these theoretical perspectives and past empirical findings to propose a framework for future

research on the antecedents of team boundary spanning.

Conceptualizing Team Boundary Spanning

Team boundary spanning is defined as interactions that are aimed at establishing relationships and

interactions with external actors that enable the team to meet its overall goals (Ancona & Caldwell,

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 30, 731–759 (2009)

DOI: 10.1002/job

732 A. JOSHI ET AL.

1992a, 1992b; Marrone et al., 2007). In line with past research, we conceptualize boundary spanning as

an aggregate team-level phenomenon (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992a, 1992b; Oh et al., 2004;

Reagans et al., 2004; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998; Tsai, 2000; Weisz et al., 2004). In order to develop

propositions regarding the antecedents of team boundary spanning at multiple levels, we apply this

latter approach. Our approach considers team boundary spanning as a ‘‘shared team property’’ which

‘‘originates in the experiences, perceptions, attitudes, values, cognitions, or behaviors’’ (Klein &

Kozlowski, 2000, p. 215) of team members.

While a wide range of activities may fall within the domain of boundary spanning activities, we will

focus on behaviors that are aimed at representing the team to external constituents, gaining access to

resources and support, and scanning the environment for information and knowledge necessary for

meeting team goals. We view team boundary spanning as a compilation of these types of team-referent

external activities, engaged in by team members. These activities correspond with two specific sets of

boundary spanning functions described by Ancona (1990)—ambassador and task coordinator

activities. We focus on these boundary spanning behaviors because past research has shown that this set

of external activities are significant predictors of important organizational outcomes such as knowledge

sharing, innovativeness, and overall team effectiveness (Oh et al., 2004; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998; Tsai,

2000; Weisz et al., 2004).

Ambassador activities involve persuading external constituents, typically upper management, to

support the team, and provide the team with resources (e.g., finance or equipment) (Ancona, 1990;

Ancona & Caldwell, 1992a, 1992b; Gladstein, 1984). Activities such as presenting the team’s

accomplishments to upper level management, protecting the team from outside interference,

persuading others to support the team, and seeking information regarding the political and strategic

terrain of the organization constitute ambassadorial activities (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992a). Teams also

interact externally with teams or work groups at comparable or lower levels in the organization. This

form of boundary spanning is termed task coordinator activity and involves coordinating tasks, sharing

information and knowledge-based resources, and gaining feedback from other teams in the

organization (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992a, 1992b). As an example, consider members of a product

development team involved in launching a new product in an overseas location seeking inputs

regarding laws and regulations from the legal department in the organization. Other examples of task

coordinator activity include obtaining data needed for completing a task, getting feedback regarding

the team’s output, and coordinating activities with external groups. Through task coordinator activities,

a team can gain access to diverse perspectives and information that will contribute to its overall

performance (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992b; Joshi & Jackson, 2003).

Across a variety of settings, research indicates that external team interactions that correspond to

ambassador and task coordinator activities are significantly and positively associated with team

performance. For example, Ancona and Caldwell (1992a, 1992b) found that ambassadorial boundary

spanning predicted adherence to budget and technical innovation and task coordinator activities

positively predicted innovations in product development teams. Marrone et al. (2007) reported that

boundary spanning activities (including ambassador and task coordinator activities) aggregated at the

team level predicted client-rated team performance among teams of MBA students completing

consulting projects. Weisz et al. (2004) found that the external interactions of nascent entrepreneurial

teams contributed to the quality of business ideas generated by the team. In a study including teams in

sales, manufacturing, and software development, Oh et al. (2004) found that the range of task-related

lateral networks predicted group effectiveness. Based on this research, we focus on ambassador and

task coordinator activities that have been identified as significant predictors of team effectiveness

across a variety of settings.

Based on the conceptualization presented above, a team’s boundary spanning activities can be

viewed as inherently ‘‘in between’’ or meso-level phenomena (House et al., 1995) that emerge at the


DOI: 10.1002/job

BRACKETING TEAM BOUNDARY SPANNING 733

cross-section of macro- and micro-level processes in organizations. At the micro level, team members’

affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses to the environment can influence their external

interactions and, in turn, shape a team’s boundary spanning efforts. We view these antecedents as

‘‘bottom up’’ or team-level factors that can influence boundary spanning activities. At the macro level,

organizational structure, culture, and processes can influence the extent and nature of a team’s

boundary spanning activity. We view these macro antecedents as ‘‘top-down’’ or contextual factors that

can influence boundary spanning activity (Klein &Kozlowski, 2000). In addition, the nature of a team’s

task is also an important influence on boundary spanning activity. In the subsequent section, we present

a review of empirical research conducted over the past two decades with the aim of identifying task-

related, team-level, and contextual antecedents of team boundary spanning behavior that have received

research attention to date.

Literature Review

We conducted electronic searches of EBSCO, ABI/Inform, and PsycINFO using numerous keywords,

including ‘‘boundary spanning,’’ ‘‘external team communications,’’ ‘‘team/group social capital,’’

‘‘team networks,’’ and ‘‘inter-unit links/relationships’’ to trace published research in the period

between 1980 and 2008. We also manually scanned major journals in the area of Organizational

Behavior including the Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly,

Organization Science, Journal of Management, and Journal of Organizational Behavior. We limited our

search to empirical articles that measured boundary spanning at the team level of analysis. Finally, we

cross-referenced articles identified in our search to identify additional articles that may have been

missed in our initial search. We found 29 empirical articles on this topic. Table 1 provides a summary of

our literature search.

Our literature search revealed that past research has considered teams’ external interactions in

relation to outcomes such as the efficient transfer of knowledge between units/teams (Hansen, 1999),

product innovativeness (Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998), adherence to budget and technical innovation (Ancona

& Caldwell, 1992a, 1992b), quality of business ideas generated (Weisz et al., 2004), and group

effectiveness (Oh et al., 2004). However, less than 30 per cent of the studies we reviewed focused on

determinants of team boundary spanning. In this section, we present an overview of the limited research

on the antecedents of a team’s external interactions at the individual, team, and organizational levels.

Task-based antecedents considered in past research

The nature of a team’s task defines the team’s position in the overall workflow and resource exchange

relationships in the organization (Choi, 2002). The extent to which a work unit is strategically aligned

with other work units in order to accomplish its goals has been viewed as a predictor of team boundary

spanning behavior. Based on the social capital and resource exchange perspectives, Tsai (2000)

examined the creation of intra-organizational networks by newly formed units within the organization.

Specifically, the study considered the effects of the unit’s strategic relatedness on the exchange of both

tangible and intangible resources with the other organizational units. Results indicated that along with

strategic relatedness, prior network centrality, and trustworthiness had a direct as well as interactive

effect on tangible and intangible resource exchanges with the new unit (Tsai, 2000). In a study of school


DOI: 10.1002/job

734 A. JOSHI ET AL.

Table

1.Resultsofliterature

review

Study

Conceptualizationof

boundaryspanning

Antecedents

Outcomes

Moderators/m

ediators

Sam

ple

andmethod

Key

findings

Amedore

andKnoff(1993)

Consultativeboundary

spanningactivities

Perceived

environmental

uncertainty,perceived

task

uncertainty,perceived

role

specification,role

professionalism,

size,andreal

property

wealth

oftheschooldistrict

N/A

District-level

specialeducation

multi-disciplinaryteam

sfrom

New

York

State

schools

Usedsurvey

based

measure

Boundaryspanningis

significantlyrelatedto

perceived

task

uncertainty

Ancona(1990)

Outwardboundactivities

(inform

ing,parading,

andprobing)

Team

perform

ance

(internal

evaluation,

external

evaluation)

N/A

5regional

team

sin

thestate

educationdepartm

ent

Usedqualitativemethods

Outwardboundactivities

arerelatedto

team

perform

ance

Anconaand

Caldwell(1992a)

External

communication

Tenure

diversity,functional

diversity

Team

perform

ance

Mediator:internal

groupprocess,

external

communication

47hightech

new

product

developmentteam

sin

computer,

analyticinstrumentation,and

photographic

industries

Usedsurvey

andqualitative

methods

Functional

diversity

isrelated

tocommunicationoutside

thegroupwhiletenure

diversity

ismore

closely

relatedto

internal

group

dynam

ics.Internal

task

processes

andexternal

communicationmediate

the

linkbetweendem

ography

andperform

ance.Thedirect

effectsofdiversity

on

perform

ance

werenegative

Anconaand

Caldwell(1992b)

External

activities

(ambassadorial,

technical

scouting,isolationist,

comprehensive)

Team

perform

ance,

frequency

ofcommunication,

internal

process

N/A

38hightech

new

product

team

sand45product-development

team

sin

thecomputer,analytic

instrumentation,andphotographic

industries

Teamsengagein

external

activitiestowardthe

environment.Thetypeof

communicationaffects

team

perform

ance

Usedsurvey

based

measure

Baldwin,Bedell,

andJohnson

(1997)

Social

networks(friendship,

communication,andadversarial

networks):centrality,

in-group

preference,popularity,

expansiveness

Perform

ance

outcomes

(individual

andteam

),team

effectiveness,shared

workload,

team

-based

learning,

program

satisfaction.

N/A

62first-yearMBA

studentteam

sworkingonaonesemester

longproject

Usednetwork

measures:

strength,range,

centrality

Centralityin

friendship,

communicationandadversarial

networksaffect

both

student

attitudes

andgrades.Within

andbetweenteam

networks

affect

studentperceptionsof

team

effectivenessand

objectiveteam

perform

ance

Cummingsand

Cross

(2003)

Structuralproperties

ofwork

groups(grouphierarchy

structure,group

core–peripherystructure,

leader

structuralholes)

Groupperform

ance

N/A

182telecommunicationwork

groupsoncomplex,non-routine

projects

Usednetwork

measure:

frequency

Grouphierarchystructure,

core–peripherystructure

and

structuralholesoftheleader

areallnegativelyrelatedto

groupperform

ance

(Continues)


DOI: 10.1002/job


Table

1.(Continued)

Study

Conceptualizationof

boundaryspanning

Antecedents

Outcomes

Moderators/m

ediators

Sam

ple

andmethod

Key

findings

Druskat

and

Wheeler(2003)

Team

leaders’

external

boundary

spanningactivity(relating,

scouting,persuading,and

empowering)

Team

effectiveness

N/A

Durable

consumer

goods

manufacturingself-m

anaging

work

team

sUsedqualitativemethods

Effectiveexternal

leaders

activelyengagein

four

boundaryspanningstrategies

tofacilitate

team

effectiveness

Hansen(1999)

Inter-unitweakties

Project

completiontime

Moderator:non-codified

knowledge

120electronicsnew

product

developmentteam

sUsednetwork

measures:

strength,frequency,closeness

Tie

weaknessexpedites

aproject

when

theknowledge

tobetransferredisnot

complexandim

pedes

aproject

when

theknowledgeis

highly

complex

Hansen(2002)

Knowledgenetwork

(path

lengthsin

aknowledge

network,directrelationswith

divisionsin

aknowledgenetwork)

Project

completiontime,

amountacquired

knowledge

Moderator:knowledgecodification

level

(non-codified

vs.codified)

120electronicsnew

product

developmentteam

sUsednetwork

measures:

closeness,

strength,in-degree/out-degree,

reach/range,

betweenness,

centrality

Project

team

swithshort

inter-unitnetwork

pathsand

more

directrelationsin

the

knowledgenetwork

can

obtain

more

existing

knowledgeandcomplete

projectsfaster.Direct

relationslessonsthedifficulties

intransferringnon-codified

knowledge,

butisharmful

when

theknowledgeis

codified

owingto

the

maintenance

cost

Hansen,Mors,

andLovas

(2005)

Inter-subsidiary

network,

transfer

network

Soughtknowledge,

search

costs,transfer

costs

Moderator:tacitnessofknowledge

121new

-product

development

team

sand41subsidiaries

of

alargehigh-techcompany

Usednetwork

measures:

size,

density,strength

Differentsubsetsofsocial

networkshaveim

pacts

on

differentphases

ofknowledge

sharing:knowledgeseeking,

searchingcostsandtransfer

costs

Hirst

and

Mann(2004)

Team

communication(team

boundaryspanning,

communicationsafety,

team

reflexivity,

task

communication)

Leadership

role

perform

ance

(boundaryspanner,facilitator,

innovator,director)

Project

team

perform

ance

Mediator:team

communication

56R&D

team

from

twolarge

miningandchem

ical

manufacturingorgsand

governmentR&D

orgs

Usedsurvey-based

measure

Differentfactors

are


differentstakeholders’

ratingsofproject

perform

ance.

Communicationsafety

strongly

predicts

customer

ratings’

project

perform

ance.

Leadership

boundary

spanningissignificantly

relatedto

project

perform

ance

(Continues)


DOI: 10.1002/job

736 A. JOSHI ET AL.

Table

1.(Continued)

Study

Conceptualizationof

boundaryspanning

Antecedents

Outcomes

Moderators/m

ediators

Sam

ple

andmethod

Key

findings

Katzand

Tushman

(1983)

Boundaryspanningsupervisors

(internal

liaison,gatekeeper,

gatekeeper

andinternal

liaison,

neither

aliaisonnora

gatekeeper)

Project

mem

bers’

turnover,

project

mem

bers’

promotion

tomanagerialpositions

Moderators:project

characteristics(research,

development,technical

service)

61R&D

project

groups

Usednetwork

measures:

frequency,out-degree

Boundaryspanning

gatekeepingsupervisors

can

significantlyreduce

group

mem

bers’

turnover

ratesand

enhance

mem

bers’

chance

of

promotionto

managem

ent.

Theinfluence

changes

with

project

characteristics

Keller(2001)

External

team

communication

Functional

diversity

Technical

quality,

budget

perform

ance,schedule

perform

ance,

groupcohesiveness

Mediators:communication

external

tothegroup,

communication

internal

tothegroup

93R&D

technical

innovationgroups

Usednetwork

measures:

degree,

frequency

Cross-functional

R&D

groups

aresignificantlyrelatedto

bettertechnical

quality,

faster

schedule

perform

ance,

andbetterbudget

perform

ance

throughthemediationof

external

communication

Krackhardtand

Stern

(1988)

Friendship

networksbetween

andwithin

subunitsofthe

organization

Perform

ance

(resourcebase,

totaloutput,internal

cohesion,

mem

ber

commitment)

N/A

6trialsofexperim

ental

simulation

Usednetwork

measures:

strength,closeness

Organizationswithfriendship

ties

across

groupsaremore

effectivewhen

facing

organizational

crises

Labianca,Brass,

andGray(1998)

Inter-groupnetwork

(inter-personal

relationships

across

groups)

Inter-groupconflict

N/A

11work

groupsin

auniversity

healthcenter

Usednetwork

measures:

frequency,strength

Negativerelationshipsacross

groupsweresignificantly

relatedto

perceptionsof

inter-groupconflict

Marrone,

Tesluk,

andCarson(2007)

Boundaryspanningat

the

individual

andteam

level

Individual

boundaryspanning

efficacy,boundaryspanning

role

team

external

focus

Individual

role

overload

team

viability,

team

perform

ance

Team

external

focusas

amoderatoroftherelationship

betweenindividual

boundaryspanningrolesand

boundaryspanningbehavior

31consultingteam

sof

MBA

students

Usedsurvey-based

measure

Team

external

focusmoderates

therelationship

between

individual

level

antecedents

andboundaryspanning

behavior.Individual

boundary

spanningpredictsrole

overload.

Team

level

boundaryspanning

behaviorisastrongpredictor

ofteam

viabilityandteam

perform

ance

Nelson(1989)

Inter-groupnetwork

(external

strongties

vs.internal

strong

ties)

Conflict

N/A

84groupsin

20organizations

inmanufacturing,service,

publicsector,andprivatesector

Strongties

betweengroups

areassociated

withlow

conflictorganizations

Usednetwork

measure:

frequency

Oh,Chung,

andLabianca

(2004)

Groupsocial

capital

(closure

conduits,inter-grouphorizontal

bridgingconduitdiversity,

inter-groupverticalbridging

conduits)

Groupeffectiveness

N/A

60process

team

sfrom

various

organizationsin

Korea

Usednetwork

measures:

density,

range,

out-degree,

frequency

ThereisaU-shaped

curvilinearrelationship

betweengroupclosure

andgroupeffectiveness.

Inter-groupverticalbridging

conduitsaresignificantly

relatedto

groupeffectiveness

Reagansand

Zuckerman

(2001)

Inter-groupnetworks(network

density,network

heterogeneity)

Team

productivity

N/A

224industrial

R&D

team

sUsednetwork

measures:

density,range

Both

network

variablesare


team

productivity

(Continues)


DOI: 10.1002/job


Table

1.(Continued)

Study

Conceptualizationof

boundaryspanning

Antecedents

Outcomes

Moderators/m

ediators

Sam

ple

andmethod

Key

findings

Reagans,

Zuckerman,

andMcE

vily

(2004)

Internal

network

density,

external

network

range

Dem

ographic

diversity

(functional

diversity,

tenure

diversity)

Team

perform

ance

Mediator:team

social

capital

(internal

network

density,external

network

range)

1518materials

science

R&D

team

sUsednetwork

measures:

internal

density,external

range

Dem

ographic

diversity

isnegativelyrelatedto

internal

density

andpositivelyrelated

toexternal

rangewhile

team

s’social

capital

ispositivelyrelatedto

team

perform

ance

Schulz

(2001)

Inter-unitknowledgeflows

(horizontalandvertical

outflowsto

other

subunits)

Threelearningprocesses

(collectingnew

knowledge,

codifyingknowledge,

combiningold

knowledge)

N/A

97subsidiaries

oftwomulti-

national

companies

Survey

measure

Organizational

subunitswith

more

knowledgearemore

likelyto

distribute

knowledge

toother

subunits

Sparrowe,

Liden,

Wayne,

and

Kraim

er(2001)

Team

networks(advicenetwork,

hindrance

network)centrality

anddensity

Individual

perform

ance

Groupperform

ance

N/A

47work

groupsfrom

five

variousorgs

Usednetwork

measures:

in-degreecentrality,

density,strength

Social

network

isrelatedto

individual

perform

ance.

Hindrance

network

density

affectsgroupperform

ance

inanegativeandsignificant

way

TsaiandGhoshal

(1998)

Inter-unitsocial

capital:social

interaction,trust

and

trustworthiness,andshared

vision

Product

innovation

Mediator:resourceexchange

andcombination

15electronicsbusinessunits

managem

entteam

sUsednetwork

measures:

betweenness,in-degree

centrality

Twodim

ensionsofsocial

capital–social

interaction

andtrust,arepositively

relatedto

resourceexchange

andcombination,whichin

turn

leadsto

positivevalue

creation

Tsai(2000)

Inter-unitlinkage

Unit’spriornetwork

centrality,

trustworthiness,

strategic

relatedness

Moderator:strategic

relatedness

37unitsin

amulti-national

food-m

anufacturingcompany

Usednetwork

measures:

degree

centrality,

in-degree,

strength,

frequency

Eachunit’ssocial

capital

and

strategic

relatednessare

positivelyrelatedto

the

creationofnew

inter-unit

linkages

Tsai(2001)

Knowledgetransfer

inintra-organizational

networks

(absorptivecapacity,

network

position)

Innovation,perform

ance

Moderator:absorptivecapacity

(highvs.low)

60businessunitsfrom

petrochem

ical

andfood

manufacturingorgs

Usednetwork

measure:

in-degreecentrality

Thecentralityofan

organizational

unit’snetwork

positionispositivelyrelated

toitsinnovation.An

organizational

unit’s

absorptivecapacityis

positivelyrelatedto

its

innovationandbusiness

perform

ance.Absorptive

capacitymoderates

anorganizational

unit’snetwork

position,andinnovationand

perform

ance

(Continues)


DOI: 10.1002/job

738 A. JOSHI ET AL.

Table

1.(Continued)

Study

Conceptualizationof

boundaryspanning

Antecedents

Outcomes

Moderators/m

ediators

Sam

ple

andmethod

Key

findings

Tsai(2002)

Inter-unitknowledgesharing

Form

alhierarchical

structure

(centralization),inform

allateralrelations

Moderator:inter-unitcompetition

(internal

resourcecompetition,

external

market

competition)

24businessunitsin

alargecompany

Usednetwork

measures:

in-degree/out-degree,

frequency

Greater

centralizationis

negativelyrelatedto

inter-unitknowledge

sharingwhilegreater

social

interactionispositively

associated

withinter-unit

knowledgesharing.These

effectsaremore

pronounced

intheface

ofexternal

market

competition

Tushman

and

Katz(1980)

External

communication

Project

Perform

ance

Moderator:projectsw/gatekeepers,

project

task

characteristics

61R&D

project

team

sUsednetwork

measures:

frequency/strength,size,

in-degree/out-degree

Therole

that

gatekeepers

playonproject

perform

ance

variesdependingupon

differentproject

tasks.

Gatekeepersalso

facilitate

external

communicationfor

someproject

tasks

Weisz,Vassolo,

andCooper

(2004)

External

team

social

capital

Team

perform

ance

N/A

114nascententrepreneurial

team

sUsednetwork

measures:

size,

strength,closeness,out-degree

Teams’

higher

external

social

capital

isrelatedto

high

perform

ance.Thereis

apositiverelationship

between

increase

ininternal

social

capital

andteam

perform

ance

Zenger

and

Law

rence

(1989)

Frequency

oftechnical

communication(technical

communicationinside

project

groupsandtechnical

communicationoutside

project

groups)

Agesimilarity,

tenure

similarity

N/A

19electronicsproject

developmentgroups

Frequency

ofcommunication

measure

Agesimilarityandtenure

similarityarerelatedto

the

frequency

oftechnical

communication.Age

similarityexerts

more

influence

ontechnical

communicationinside

project

groupswhiletenure

similaritypredictsmore

technical

communication

outsideproject

groups


DOI: 10.1002/job


psychologists, Amedore and Knoff (1993) found that consultative boundary spanning activities outside

the school increased when the nature of the task was uncertain. In other words, multi-disciplinary teams

of school psychologists were more likely to seek informational and professional support outside the

school when the task was uncertain (Amedore & Knoff, 1993).

These studies indicate that the nature of the team’s task, in conjunction with the types of

contingencies team members face, can trigger external interactions. Teams that are highly dependent

on other teams or faced with uncertain and complex tasks are more likely to engage in external

interactions to achieve team goals. However, task characteristics alone may not sufficiently explain

boundary spanning activity. As indicated by Tsai’s (2000) study, the strategic relatedness of a unit

interacted with the unit’s network centrality and perceived trustworthiness to predict external

knowledge sharing. Attributes of team members and leaders can contribute to the overall centrality and

perceived trustworthiness of a team and shape its external interactions. In addition, the overall strategy,

culture, and climate in the organization can also impose contingencies on boundary spanning behavior.

We identify research on these additional antecedents below.

Team-level antecedents considered in past research

We define team-level boundary spanning antecedents as the attributes, perceptions, and behaviors of

team members and their leaders that manifest at the team level and can influence boundary spanning

behavior at the team level (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Leader behaviors and perceptions may be

considered as team-level antecedent of team boundary spanning because leaders’ attributes,

perceptions, and behaviors can be a critical influence on the extent to which the team as a whole

interacts with its external environment. Depending on the leader’s perception of his/her own role in

the team and the team’s environment, Ancona (1990) found that leaders encouraged teams to undertake

three distinct boundary spanning strategies—informing (gathering and obtaining information from the

external environment), parading (making the team visible to its external constituents), and probing

(understanding the needs of clients in order to ‘‘sell’’ the team’s services to clients) (Ancona, 1990).

Apart from the team leader’s perceptions and attitudes, team members’ attributes, aggregated to the

team level, can also shape team boundary behavior. For example, the team’s composition, which is a

compilation of individual team members’ attributes at the team level can be considered a team-level

construct (Klein &Kozlowski, 2000) that shapes team boundary spanning (Ancona &Caldwell, 1992a;

Reagans et al., 2004). Ancona and Caldwell (1992a) found that team functional diversity predicted the

frequency of a team’s external communications. Corroborating this finding, Keller (2001) reported that

external communication mediated the relationship between functional diversity and technical quality,

schedule performance, and budget performance. In a study of R&D teams, Zenger and Lawrence

(1989) found that team members relied on tenure and age similarity outside the team to engage in

technical communications externally. Thus, team member attributes such as tenure and functional

background, aggregated to the team level, can influence boundary spanning behavior.

Research in the area of social networks demonstrates that individuals’ personal attributes, such as

personality or demographics, can influence the formation of interpersonal relationships or networks

and are of relevance to boundary spanning research (Burt, 1992; Ibarra, 1992, 1993; Kilduff & Day,

1994; Kilduff & Tsai, 2003; Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 2001). Klein, Lim, Saltz, and Mayer (2004)

found that an individual’s education and value-based similarity to teammembers predicted centrality in

advice and friendship networks within the team. While these studies shed light on the relevance of

individual attributes to interpersonal networks within work units, additional research is needed to

extend this inquiry to predict external interactions at the team level. Recently, Marrone et al. (2007)

reported that individuals’ boundary spanning efficacy influenced boundary spanning behavior at the


DOI: 10.1002/job

740 A. JOSHI ET AL.

individual level. However, the extent to which these task-based and team-level antecedents can

influence boundary spanning behavior would also be contingent on the context in which teams are

embedded.We therefore highlight the embedding or contextual antecedents considered in past research

next.

Contextual antecedents considered in past research

We define contextual antecedents as higher-level influences on team level boundary spanning (Klein &

Kozlowski, 2000). In contrast to task-based and team-level antecedents, contextual variables have

received far less attention in the past. Organizational processes and structures provide the embedding

context in which a team’s boundary spanning activities unfold. In a multi-unit R&D firm, Tsai (2002)

found that the organization’s formal hierarchical structure and informal lateral relationships influenced

knowledge sharing between units. Greater centralization of organizational processes reduced a unit’s

flexibility to respond to the task environment and the extent to which the focal unit formed linkages

with other units. Informal lateral relationships in the organization had a positive effect on inter-unit

knowledge sharing in settings that were also characterized by low levels of inter-unit competition over

organizational resources (Tsai, 2002). Research also suggests that organization level cooperation or

conflict can influence inter-unit networks. In a study of 20 organizations, Nelson (1989) found that the

socio-metric properties of inter-group networks differed significantly across high-conflict versus low-

conflict organizational settings. In contrast to high-conflict organizations, low-conflict organizations

were characterized by strong inter-group ties (Nelson, 1989). These studies suggest that organizational

structures, informal processes, and overall climate are important determinants of a team’s boundary

spanning activity. This research also suggests that understanding the embedding context shaping team

boundary spanning behavior is important and can inform how and if team level characteristics can

influence boundary spanning outcomes.

Conclusions from literature review

Despite recognition that groups in organizations are inherently embedded entities (Guzzo & Shea,

1992), our review of the literature led us to conclude that a multi-level approach to understanding team

boundary spanning has been lacking.We combined research on boundary spanning with social network

research to identify specific antecedents examined at various levels of analysis in past research. This

research certainly hints at the existence of multi-level dynamics relevant to team boundary spanning.

However, it does not explicitly articulate how and why task-based, team-level, or contextual factors are

likely to conjointly influence team boundary spanning activities. In order to supplement the sparse

research in this area, and extend research on team boundary spanning as a bracketed phenomenon, in

the subsequent sections we present three theoretical perspectives. These perspectives delineate the

theoretical mechanisms by which these task-based, team-level, and contextual factors might shape a

team’s boundary spanning.

An Integrative Multi-level Framework

We discuss three theoretical perspectives—resource dependence and exchange theory, managerial

sensemaking perspectives, and social identity theory—as these can guide the development of testable


DOI: 10.1002/job


propositions to explicate the joint effects of organizational, team, and individual level factors on team

boundary spanning. Furthering our goal of building a multi-level framework, these theoretical

perspectives combine ‘‘top down’’ as well as ‘‘bottom up’’ perspectives on the emergence of team

boundary spanning activities.

Theoretical background

The main tenet of resource dependence theory is that actors engage in exchange relationships based on

perceptions of control over or dependence upon scarce resources (Benson, 1975). Resource

dependence and exchange perspectives have been recently applied to examine the emergence of inter-

organizational networks and have been extended to understanding the emergence of ‘‘network

organizations’’ (Poole, 1999). Research in this area suggests that firms may be linked together as

‘‘value constellations’’ (Norman & Ramirez, 1993) based on mutual interdependence on technology,

skilled personnel, knowledge, and financial resources (Monge & Fulk, 1999; Norman & Ramirez,

1993). These perspectives are also applicable to understanding how resource exchange based

relationships within organizations may drive inter-team interactions (Tsai, 2002). Overall, resource

dependence theory provides a ‘‘top down’’ view of why teams develop relationships externally. While

resource exchange and dependence based relationships may explain the manner in which the

organizational processes, structure, and strategy shape team boundary spanning, the relational

resources that individual team members acquire through social and work-related relationships could

also shape team boundary spanning (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). We draw on sensemaking research

and social identity theory to explicate the manner in which cognitive, affective, or behavioral processes

influence the attainment of these relational resources at the individual and team levels and can further

enrich our understanding of the determinants of team boundary spanning.

As organizations move from traditional hierarchical structures to team-based, modular, or network

forms, managers’ ability to interpret environmental changes has important implications for managerial

decision-making processes (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Maitlis, 2005). In these flexible and dynamic

contexts, a central process governing the interpretation of organizational environments is managerial

sensemaking. Managerial sensemaking is the process by which individuals socially construct

organizational reality by interpreting cues from the environment (Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Maitlis,

2005). Researchers have considered organizational restructuring and environmental uncertainty as a

relevant environmental influence on sensemaking processes in organizations (Balogun & Johnson,

2004). Perspectives based on managerial sensemaking provide several important insights regarding the

manner in which environmental cues shape team members’ and leaders’ external interactions.

Particularly relevant in this regard is research on issue-selling and sensegiving in organizations

(Dutton, Ashford, Lawrence, & Miner-Rubino, 2002; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). This research shows

that individuals are not only recipients of contextual cues from their environment; they are also active

participants in reshaping the organizational environment (Dutton et al., 2002; Gioia & Chittipeddi,

1991; Maitlis, 2005). Based on this research we theorize on the role of leaders/managers in actively

shaping organizational stakeholders’ perceptions of their units or teams and its impact on various

boundary spanning activities like gaining access to limited resources.

Social identity theory also provides valuable insights on the role of individuals’ memberships to

organizational and social groups in shaping boundary spanning relationships (Tajfel, 1982; Hewstone,

Rubin, &Willis, 2002). Studies on interpersonal networks have considered individual attributes such as

race and gender as determinants of an individual’s networks. This research has found that individuals

form relationships based on perceived in-group biases influenced by these demographic traits (Ibarra,

1992; Mehra et al., 2001). Social identity perspectives suggest that individuals may rely on their


DOI: 10.1002/job

742 A. JOSHI ET AL.

membership to other organizational and social groups to form boundary spanning relationships.

Together, resource dependence theory, social identity theory, and managerial sensemaking perspectives

take into account organizational contingencies, team members’ attributes, and team leaders’ and

members’ responses to the environment that can collectively shape a team’s boundary spanning

activities. In the subsequent sections, we draw on these theoretical insights to develop propositions that

relate task-based, team-level, and contextual factors to team boundary spanning behaviors.

Next, we aim at developing a comprehensive theoretical model that identifies specific antecedents of

team boundary spanning activities based on the theoretical perspectives introduced above. Figure 1

represents the multi-level and integrative framework that delineates the effects of these antecedents

across multiple levels on team boundary spanning activities.

We illustrate the theoretical propositions with quotes from an interview study that was conducted for

the purpose of contextualizing and enriching our theoretical framework. We refer to this company as

Knowtech, a large global agricultural company that undertakes extensive research, innovation, and

product development for the farming industry. Details regarding the interview based study and

interview protocol are presented in the Appendices A and B, respectively.

Task-based antecedents

In this section, we describe specific task-related antecedents of team boundary spanning that shape

either task coordinator or ambassador activities. In team-based organizations, we would expect that all

teams are interdependent on other teams in order to get their tasks accomplished. However, as we have

noted earlier, the position of a team in the organizational workflow may also imply that the level of

inter-team interdependence varies across teams. Past research on team effectiveness has considered the

level of interdependence within the team as a relevant task characteristic (Campion, Papper, &

Medsker, 1996). However, considerations of inter-team interdependence, that is, the extent to which

teams have to exchange resources with other teams in order to accomplish team goals, have been

lacking in research (Choi, 2002).

Resource dependence perspectives suggest that teams’ boundary spanning efforts would differ

considerably depending on their level of embeddedness in inter-unit transfers within organizations

Task Coordinator Activities

Ambassador Activities

Team Level Antecedents:

Team Leadership

Team Composition

-Function/Tenure

Contextual Antecedents:

Organizational Uncertainty

Organizational Conflict

Inter-Team

Task Interdependence

Team Development Stage

Prop: 1

Prop: 2

Task-Based Antecedents

Prop: 3-5

Prop:6

Prop:9

Prop: 7-8

Figure 1. Integrative multi-level framework of bracketed team boundary spanning


DOI: 10.1002/job


(Astley & Sachdeva, 1984; McCann & Ferry, 1979). In the past, researchers have applied resource

dependence perspectives to argue that the strategic relatedness or ‘‘resource-fit’’ between business units

creates a shared language and common purpose that provides incentives to develop effective inter-unit

linkages (Norman & Ramirez, 1993; Tsai, 2000). Based on these perspectives, we would expect that a

team’s reliance on other groups for technology, expertise, and other types of resources is likely to be an

important influence on the team’s boundary spanning behavior, particularly on task-coordinator

activities.

Our interview study provided us with rich illustrations of the role of interdependence in shaping team

boundary spanning behaviors. Respondents discussed how their team’s position in the product cycle

and in the overall workflow of the organization influenced the team’s external relationships. An

upstream team member noted: ‘‘People on the Gamma team are very interested in our result; we deal

with a lot of teams, basically for us its data in and data out; right now we are working with teams in

Alpha and Beta.’’ A downstream team member discussed his team’s external interactions as follows:

‘‘Our main project is to commercialize our new products. . . We have to shepherd these projects down

the pipeline and we have to network throughout the company to expedite the process.’’ Faced with

higher levels of external interdependence, teams will need to engage in exchange relationships with

other teams laterally to share knowledge, expertise, and resources. Thus, higher levels of inter-team

task interdependence will require that teams engage in task coordinator activities with other teams to

achieve their goals. For teams that are less interdependent on other teams there will be less of a need to

coordinate activities with other teams in the organization. Based on these theoretical and empirical

perspectives we propose the following:

Proposition 1: The level of inter-team task interdependence will positively predict team-level task

coordinator activities.

Temporal factors can also influence team boundary spanning activity. Marks, Mathieu, and Zaccaro

(2001) have noted that different internal team processes are critical at different phases of task

execution. However, the temporal dynamics of team task development have never been considered to

date in research on team boundary spanning. Extending Marks et al.’s (2001) framework, we propose

below that teams’ external interactions would also differ depending on the stage of task execution.

At different stages of its development, a team may be engaged either in actions related to goal

accomplishment (action phase) or on reflecting upon and learning from past performance (transition

phase) (Marks et al., 2001). During the action phase of team development, team members are likely to

focus on activities such as monitoring progress toward the team’s mission, assessing team performance,

and coordinating activities internally (Marks et al., 2001; Zalesny, Salas, & Prince, 1995). In this phase,

the team is concerned with monitoring and scanning the environment to ensure that it has the personnel,

equipment, and resources to achieve its goals (Fleishman & Zaccarro, 1992). Task coordinator

activities are more likely to complement these types of team activities. During the transition phase of

the team’s development, team members focus on interpreting and evaluating the teams’ performance

and also on acquiring any additional resources and support that may be needed for mission

accomplishment (Fleishman & Zaccarro, 1992; Marks et al., 2001). In this phase of the team

cycle, ambassador activities may become expedient as team members ascertain the team’s external

reputation and leverage this reputation to obtain additional resources for the team.

Sensegiving research also shows that a team’s past performance and performance-related reputation

can become a precursor for ambassador activities (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007). Thus, in the transition

phase of team development, team members and leaders may be more likely to draw attention to past

performance in order to gain resources necessary for implementing the team’s strategy. Ambassador

activities would be aligned with this goal for teams in the transition phase. Our interview study also


DOI: 10.1002/job

744 A. JOSHI ET AL.

indicated that team members often relied on past performance and performance reputation to access

additional resources at this development stage. Hence, we propose:

Proposition 2: Team development stage will predict task coordinator and ambassador activities at

the team level. Specifically:

(a) In comparison to teams in other stages, teams in the transition phase will display the highest

levels of ambassador activities.

(b) In comparison to teams in other stages, teams in the action phase will display the highest levels of

task coordinator activities.

Team-level antecedents

The antecedents discussed above pertain to aspects of the team’s task and task development that may be

viewed as primary influences on team boundary spanning activity. However, additional influences that

reflect attributes of the team members and leaders are also relevant antecedents of team boundary

spanning. Research shows that a leader’s efforts in scouting the organization for information and

making the team visible to its external constituents may enhance access to resources and information

(Druskat &Wheeler, 2003). Past research suggests that leader behavior such as ‘‘probing,’’ ‘‘scouting,’’

‘‘parading,’’ and ‘‘relating’’ (Ancona, 1990; Druskat & Wheeler, 2003) might have important

implications for a team’s boundary spanning behavior although this relationship has not been directly

tested. Ancona (1990) found that leaders differed with respect to the extent to which they wanted the

team to interact with the environment. Some leaders focused on internal communication and chose to

manage the amount of communications to be directed externally, while other leaders directed team

members’ efforts at becoming visible externally and made external visibility an integral part of the

team’s goals (Ancona, 1990). Druskat and Wheeler (2003) note that constantly shifting the focus

between the team and organization is a strategic decision by high performing boundary spanning

leaders in organizations. Organizational sensemaking perspectives suggest that these varying

approaches to managing the team’s boundary spanning activity may be influenced by team leaders’

perceptions of the political terrain, knowledge of business strategy, and understanding of top

management concerns. Based on these considerations leaders will direct boundary spanning efforts to

gain resources, recognition, and support for the team (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Maitlis, 2005).

Empirical research on leadership in R&D contexts shows that a leader’s championing behavior has

important implications for team functioning (see Elkins & Keller, 2003 for a review). This research

suggests that team leaders’ championing and upward influence activities were important for making

team members aware of information and resources available in the organization as well as for

identifying important stakeholders in the organization (Allen, Katz, Grady, & Slavin, 1988; Shim &

Lee, 2001). In a product development context, Edmondson (1999) found that team leaders’ boundary

spanning activity was positively associated with the team’s boundary spanning. In the interview study,

we also noted that team leaders played an important role in encouraging team members to be more

aware of external constituents (such as upper management), gaining necessary information, and selling

the team’s products in the organization. A team leader noted: ‘‘We give pitches about what our team

does called the Road-show and the boss of the entire bio-tech division is a big advocate for us—so he

sends us a lot of business—and its continually being out there and trying to make it a point to attend

other team reviews and to see what other projects are going on and how we can help them. . .’’ Teamleaders also discussed how as part of making the team more visible externally, they also encouraged

team members to communicate their team’s capabilities both laterally and to upper management in the


DOI: 10.1002/job


organization. For instance, a team leader noted: ‘‘A big part of surviving in an organization like this that

is constantly shrinking—is networking. Scientists often think that survival is sitting at their bench and

being as productive as possible. But what they don’t realize is that the team could be more productive

by building relationships outside of this little bench area. . .’’ Thus, we propose:

Proposition 3: Team leader’s championing activities will positively predict team-level task

coordinator and ambassador activities.

Apart from team leaders, team members are also important repositories of technical expertise and

firm-specific skills that can shape the team’s external activities. We propose that team members’ broad

functional knowledge and tenure in the organization can be important influences on boundary spanning

behavior. Research has considered the role of ‘‘intra-personal functional diversity’’ as a predictor of

dynamics within the team (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002). This research suggests that an individual’s

past experience across multiple functional areas (i.e., intra-personal functional diversity) predicts

information sharing within the team (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002) and that a person’s ‘‘meta-cognitive

expertise’’ (i.e., broad knowledge of multiple functional areas) influences the individual’s centrality in

workflow relationships within the team (Bunderson, 2003). We propose that intra-personal functional

diversity, to the extent that it represents meta-cognitive expertise in the team, may also enhance a

team’s boundary spanning activities. From a sensemaking perspective, individuals’ past experiences in

multiple functions may shape their understanding of the organizational environment and interpretation

of ongoing organizational changes; these experiences may enable individuals to identify and approach

important stakeholders in the organization.

Based on the social identity perspective, some researchers have argued that the overall composition

of the team can influence the nature and extent of boundary spanning activities (Joshi, 2006; Reagans

et al., 2004). Team members may draw on membership to social groups to develop identity-based

relationships outside the team. Thus, social identity based perspectives help us understand how the

relational resources of individual team members may be influenced by their individual attributes and

can contribute to the team’s external interactions. Based on this perspective, individuals with broad

functional experience in the organization may also develop a broad identity base in the organization

that encourages partnerships and collaborations laterally in the organization.

Functional background similarity is a basis for developing a common language and understanding of

the organizational context and, as such, can be a basis for identification between individuals. When

team members’ personal backgrounds represent expertise and understanding across a broad array of

functional domains, the team will be more likely to utilize these diverse experiences to engage in task

coordinator activities. When team members have broad understanding of various functional domains,

they are also more likely to identify and recognize important stakeholders at higher levels in the

organization as well. At Knowtech such individuals were an important source of information regarding

organizational norms and structure as well as task related expertise. Their presence within teams

emerged as another factor shaping a team’s boundary spanning. Hence, we propose:

Proposition 4: The team’s average intra-personal functional diversity will positively predict team-

level task coordinator and ambassador activities.

Like intra-personal functional diversity, organizational tenure is also an individual attribute that can

facilitate broad organizational knowledge and embeddedness in social relationships in the organization

as a whole. Based on social identity theory, we would also expect individuals with longer tenure in the

organization to be able to identify more closely with overall organizational goals and develop

emotional attachment to the organization which might promote cooperative relationships laterally.

These perspectives suggest that the presence of highly tenured individuals in the team would facilitate


DOI: 10.1002/job

746 A. JOSHI ET AL.

task coordinator activities. Knowledge and understanding of the organizational context also enhances

the legitimacy and technical competence of highly tenured individuals which may be important for

engaging in sensegiving behaviors that correspond to ambassador activities.

Zenger and Lawrence (1989) also found that tenure similarity to individuals outside the team drives

the frequency of external communications in teams. The authors note that organizational tenure leads to

the development of a shared language among cohort group members. The presence of multiple cohort

groups within a team can therefore facilitate the external interactions based on tenure similarity with

individuals outside the team. In our interview study one of the respondents noted: ‘‘In the past 21 years

I have seen 5 different organizations . . . Having been in so many different groups, I know what my

group thinks about other groups and what other groups think about my group.’’ Highly tenured

respondents discussed how their experience in the organization enabled them to build relationships

externally. As noted by a senior scientist, ‘‘In my 18 years here I have moved around a lot so often my

job is to help folks on my team find the right people to go to. . .’’ Respondents also discussed the

difficulty that newcomers had in developing relationships in the unstructured and dynamic environment

at Knowtech. The discussion above suggests that both average tenure and the variance in tenure within a

team (i.e., tenure diversity) can facilitate boundary spanning activities. Hence, we propose:

Proposition 5: The team’s average organizational tenure and tenure diversity will positively predict

team-level task coordinator and ambassador activities.

Interactive effects of task-based and team-level antecedents

So far we have proposed that task-based and team-level antecedents can directly influence team

boundary spanning outcomes. We now propose that team attributes such as team leadership, tenure,

or functional diversity can also strengthen the effects of team task characteristics on task coordinator

or ambassador activities. For example, consider the effects of team task development on

ambassador activities. We proposed that teams in the transition phase are likely to engage more in

ambassador activities in order to strategize about the team’s task completion. A team-level antecedent

such as a team leader’s championing activity may further bolster this relationship. Based on

sensemaking perspectives, the extent to which a team leader is able to scan the environment and

champion the team’s accomplishments to upper management while making requests for more resources

may serve to enhance the team’s ambassador activities during the transition phase of task development

(Maitlis, 2005; Marks et al., 2001). Other attributes of team members such as intra-personal functional

diversity, organizational tenure, and tenure diversity will also facilitate the effects of team task

development on ambassador and task coordinator activities. Teams that are in the transition phase are

more likely to engage in ambassador activities and team members’ attributes can further enhance the

likelihood of engaging in these activities. Teams in the action phase are more likely to pursue task

coordinator activities and team members’ attributes in this phase are also likely to facilitate these types

of boundary spanning activities (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992a; Marks et al., 2001). Thus, the relationship

between inter-team interdependence and boundary spanning outcomes is also likely to be strengthened

by leader’s championing activities and the other team member characteristics discussed in the previous

section (Choi, 2002; Edmondson, 1999; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989). We, therefore, forward the

following proposition:

Proposition 6: Team-level antecedents will moderate the relationship between task-based

antecedents and boundary spanning outcomes. Specifically:


DOI: 10.1002/job


(a) The positive relationship between inter-team independence and task coordinator activities will

be strengthened by team leader’s championing activity, team level intra-personal functional

diversity, tenure, and tenure diversity.

(b) Within the transition development stage, teams that display higher levels of championing leader

activity, intra-personal functional diversity, tenure, and tenure diversity will also display higher

levels of ambassador activities. Within the action development stage, teams that display higher

levels of championing leader activity, intra-personal functional diversity, tenure, and tenure

diversity will also display higher levels of task coordinator activities.

Contextual antecedents

Resource dependence perspectives also suggest that organization level changes can influence the nature

of dependence between teams. While mutual dependence on resources may generate collaborative ties

between units in organizations, organizational structure and processes can also generate parallel

competitive pressures between groups (McCann& Ferry, 1979; Tsai, 2002). The organizational context

can create conditions in which teams actively engage in lateral and vertical interactions or exchanges in

an effort to gain greater access and control over scarce organizational resources (Astley & Sachdeva,

1984; Burkhardt & Brass, 1990; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). The extent to which the organizational

structure and climate fosters collaboration is likely to influence task-coordinator activities.

Furthermore, in the context of uncertainty and resource scarcity, ambassador activities may become

critical to lobby for resources and support from top management (Tsai, 2002).

Environmental uncertainty, particularly during organizational crises, can have a profound impact on

relationships between organizational subunits. In these circumstances, ‘‘resources may be reallocated

or changed in absolute availability, perceived resource scarcity may increase, power may be

redistributed, and day-to-day organizational procedures may shift’’ (Krackhardt & Stern, 1988, p. 125).

Changes at the organizational level such as a change in an organization’s strategic direction or

corporate restructuring may enhance perceptions of resource scarcity and change resource allocation

decisions regarding certain products and functions. In these situations, teams offering products and

expertise that are more central to the organization’s new strategy would receive greater resources and

support than teams that are engaged in more peripheral products and services. Based on the resource

dependence perspective articulated earlier, it can be argued that resource reallocation and dependence

in these circumstances might spur teams to develop external relationships vertically in order to acquire

greater autonomy and control over resources (Papa, 1990).

At the same time, organizational uncertainty may have very different implications for task

coordinator activities. In an environment of uncertainty and resource scarcity, teams may also perceive

greater threat from other teams laterally and may close their boundaries to these teams. The interview

study corroborated these theoretical perspectives; the influence of organizational restructuring and

change in strategic direction had a profound effect on team boundary spanning. In the 5 years preceding

this study, the organization had endured three restructuring efforts involving substantial layoffs. At

Company Knowtech, restructuring and layoffs generated a sense of environmental uncertainty and a

heightened awareness of resource constraints. Respondents perceived that a team’s inability to respond

to these environmental shifts might ultimately threaten its survival and, as a result, the survival of team

members in the organization. The perception of boundary spanning as a response to threat was evident

in several responses. Respondents often used the words ‘‘survival,’’ ‘‘resource constraints,’’ and ‘‘lost

confidence’’ while discussing their organizational environment.

The interview study also revealed the role of change in the strategic direction of the organization in

shaping team boundary spanning efforts. Over the past two decades, the organizational focus had

steadily shifted from the chemical to the biotechnology products, and within biotechnology the focus


DOI: 10.1002/job

748 A. JOSHI ET AL.

was on a specific product line—Alpha. This change in emphasis had pulled some groups to the core of

the organization’s networks and marginalized others. Teams that were housed under the biotechnology

division and had skills needed to contribute to the organization’s new product focus were privy to

increased funding and upper management support. Teams that were primarily involved in the

development of chemical products became marginal and had to develop new linkages with

biotechnology focused teams and team members had to develop new skills. One of the respondents in

the chemical division noted: ‘‘I have been here 21 years and the company is not what we started out

being—and one of the things that is hard is that most of us have a chemistry background—as the

company began to move away from chemistry to biotechnology and molecular biology and all that—in

our team we have tried to build linkages with biotech people—that’s the only way to remain updated.’’

These restructuring efforts at Company Knowtech, involving downsizing and a change in strategic

direction, generated an environment of uncertainty that directly influenced the perceptions of

interdependence between teams and groups. Based on resource dependence perspective outlined

above, we propose that the level of uncertainty in the organizational environment is likely to influence

the nature of team boundary spanning:

Proposition 7: Organization-level uncertainty will positively predict team-level ambassador

activities and negatively predict team-level task coordinator activities.

Past research also suggests that the overall organizational climate for cooperation can also facilitate

or hinder team boundary spanning. Research has shown that the nature of inter-group relationships

varies depending on the overall level of conflict in organizations (Nelson, 1989). In Knowtech, despite

resource scarcity and environmental turbulence (conditions that typically enhance inter-unit conflict;

Krackhardt & Stern, 1988), we found an overall emphasis on working collaboratively with other teams.

In organizations with an overall climate for cooperation, competitive pressures to gain control over

scarce resources may be mitigated. In these settings, teams that need to gain additional resources

externally will be more likely to engage actively in developing external relationships laterally.

Company Knowtech’s emphasis on transparency, knowledge sharing, and learning were reflected in

respondents’ narratives regarding teams’ external relationships. Company Knowtech’s flat

organizational structure and the emphasis on learning and open communications facilitated a culture

of inter-team cooperation. For instance, a senior scientist who had spent over 10 years at Knowtech

mentioned: ‘‘(Information sharing) has become ingrained upon us as team members not just in one

team but across teams, teams are such an important part of Knowtech’s culture.’’ It is possible that

organization-level conflict has different implications for ambassador activities. Ambassador activities

involve persuading external constituents, typically upper management, to support the team and provide

the team with resources (Ancona, 1990; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992a, 1992b); teams will undertake

these activities to a greater extent in order to accumulate resources relative to other groups under

conditions of high conflict (Astley & Sachdeva, 1984). Thus, we propose:

Proposition 8: Organization-level conflict will have a negative effect on team level task coordinator

activities and a positive effect on team-level ambassador activity.

The interactive effects of contextual antecedents

The contextual factors discussed above can both independently and jointly shape a team’s boundary

spanning activities. We propose that these characteristics can jointly either enhance or minimize the


DOI: 10.1002/job


relationships described above. In other words, we propose below that these contextual antecedents set

the boundary conditions under which Propositions 1–6 are likely be significant. Figure 2 represents the

complex interactive effects of contextual antecedents on boundary spanning outcomes.

Cell 1 represents a scenario in which both conflict and level of uncertainty at the organizational level

are high. In this scenario, task-based or team-level antecedents are less likely to emerge as significant

predictors of team boundary spanning activity. In these contexts, mutual distrust may not allow teams to

engage in coordinator activities despite task requirements (Nelson, 1989). At the same time,

organizational uncertainty and perceptions of resource scarcity may drive teams to higher levels of

ambassador activity and lower levels of task coordinator activities, regardless of team task

characteristics or team member/leader attributes (Krackhardt & Stern, 1988; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998;

Tsai, 2002). In such a scenario, team level characteristics are less likely to influence boundary spanning

activity and the organizational context provides the pervasive influence on team level boundary

spanning outcomes (Johns, 2006; Mischel, 1970). Hence, we propose:

Proposition 9a: Under conditions of high organizational uncertainty and conflict, the positive

relationship between inter-team interdependence and task coordinator activity will be mitigated and

team development stage will not significantly predict task coordinator/ambassador activities. The

positive relationship between leaders’ championing activity, team level intra-personal functional

diversity, tenure, and tenure diversity and task coordinator activity/ambassador activity will also be

mitigated.

In organizational contexts wherein uncertainty is high and level of conflict is low (Cell 2),

organizational antecedents may constrain the effects of task-based antecedents and enhance the effects

of team-level antecedents. In these situations, resource dependence perspectives suggest that all teams,

despite task characteristics, may be spurred to engage in lateral and vertical resource mobilization in

order to survive in the organization (Astley & Sachdeva, 1984; Burkhardt & Brass, 1990; Pfeffer &

Salancik, 1978). The effects of team-level antecedents on boundary spanning activities are more likely

to be critical for predicting boundary spanning outcomes in these contexts. Social identity and

Organizational context mitigates

the effects of task-based

antecedents

and enhances the effects of team

level antecedents

Organizational context enhances


antecedents

and mitigates the effects of team level

antecedents



and team level antecedents


the effects of task-based antecedents on

task coordinator activities

and enhances the effects of team level

antecedents on ambassador activities

Organizational Conflict

Org

aniz

atio

nal

Un

cert

ain

ty

Low

High

Low

High

HighLow HighLow

Cell 1: Prop 9aCell 2: Prop 9b

Cell 3: Prop 9c Cell 4: Prop 9d

Figure 2. Interactive effects of contextual antecedents


DOI: 10.1002/job

750 A. JOSHI ET AL.

sensemaking perspectives would imply that under this scenario, team member/leader attributes

perceptions of the environment and identity-based interactions may be more significantly associated

with ambassador and task coordinator activities (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Maitlis, 2005; Zenger &

Lawrence, 1989). Hence, we propose:

Proposition 9b: Under conditions of high organizational uncertainty and low levels of conflict, the

positive relationship between inter-team interdependence and task coordinator activity will be

mitigated and team development stage will not significantly predict task coordinator/ambassador

activities. The positive relationship between leader’s championing activity, team level intra-personal

functional diversity, tenure, and tenure diversity and task coordinator activity/ambassador activity

will be strengthened.

In organizations characterized by low levels of conflict and low levels of uncertainty, task-based

antecedents are more likely to influence boundary spanning outcomes (Cell 3). In these relatively stable

and cooperative situations, resource exchange relationships between teams are less likely to be driven

by perceptions of scarcity or uncertainty (Astley & Sachdeva, 1984; Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Tsai &

Ghoshal, 1998) and because of these conditions team’s task requirements rather than team-level

antecedents are likely to influence coordinator or ambassador activities (Choi, 2002). Hence:

Proposition 9c: Under conditions of low organizational uncertainty and low levels of conflict, the


strengthened and team development stage will significantly predict task coordinator/ambassador

activities. The positive relationship between leaders’ championing activity, team level intra-

personal functional diversity, tenure, and tenure diversity and task coordinator activity/ambassador

activity will be weakened.

Finally, in organizations characterized by high levels of conflict and low levels of uncertainty (Cell 4)

the effects of task-based and team-level antecedents on task coordinator activity are likely to be

constrained and the effects of these antecedents on ambassador activity are likely to be enhanced. In

such a scenario, high levels of conflict will constrain lateral boundary activities despite task

requirements (Nelson, 1989). For example, even if a team needs to coordinate activities with other

teams due to high interdependence, or needs to seek information from other teams in the action phase of

task development, faced with a climate of high conflict, such a team would not engage in task

coordinator activities. In high-conflict organizations, teams would close their boundaries to other teams

in the organization regardless of the level of inter-team interdependence. At the same time, in these

settings, teams may continue to lobby with upper management in order to hoard finite organizational

resources regardless of task requirements; teams may rely on leader/team member attributes to engage

in this type of boundary spanning (Astley & Sachdeva, 1984; Druskat &Wheeler, 2003; Maitlis, 2005).

Thus, the effects of team-level antecedents on ambassador activity are likely to be stronger in this

setting. Below we propose the following proposition:

Proposition 9d: Under conditions of low organizational uncertainty and high levels of conflict, the


weakened and team development stage will not significantly predict ambassador or task coordinator

activities. The positive relationship between the leader’s championing activity, team level intra-

personal functional diversity, tenure, and tenure diversity and ambassador activity will be

strengthened; this relationship will be weakened with respect to task coordinator activity.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Discussion

Since Ancona’s pioneering work, there has been a growing recognition that teams do not function in a

vacuum and that external boundary activities are important predictors of team performance,

effectiveness, and knowledge sharing (Joshi, 2006; Marrone et al., 2007; Reagans et al., 2004). Taking

this reasoning one step further suggests that team level phenomena such as boundary spanning

activities are likely to be ‘‘bracketed’’ within the specific organizational and individual level

parameters unique to each team. In this article, we took stock of 20 years of research on the concept of

team boundary spanning and developed a framework that integrates multiple theoretical perspectives to

understand how, when, where, and why teams engage in specific boundary spanning activities. The

multi-level research framework developed in this paper has rich theoretical and research implications.

Hackman (2003) noted that such multi-level approaches to understanding organizational phenomena

can: (1) enrich understanding of one’s focal phenomena, (2) help one discover non-obvious forces that

drive those phenomena, (3) surface unanticipated interactions that shape an outcome of special interest,

and (4) inform the choice of constructs in the development of actionable theory (p. 907).

In this article, by applying a ‘‘bracketing’’ approach (Hackman, 2003) to specify the antecedents of

team boundary spanning, we attempted to achieve this four-fold purpose. First, by bringing together three

disparate research perspectives, we aimed at enriching past theorizing on boundary spanning phenomena

in organizations. The application of these perspectives to the study of external team interactions allows

for both a bottom-up as well as a top-down understanding of the emergence of team boundary spanning.

From the bottom-up, sensemaking processes govern individuals’ interpretation of contextual cues from

the environment (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). Teammembers’ boundary spanning efforts may be viewed

as reflections of organizational sensegiving behaviors aimed at reshaping the environment (Gioia &

Chittipeddi, 1991). In team-based or matrix organizations, characterized by continual change and

uncertainty, the application of sensemaking perspectives to understand cognitive processes governing

boundary spanning behavior provides several avenues for further exploration. In the past, social identity

theory has been applied to the study of interpersonal networks (Mehra, Kilduff, & Brass, 1998) and more

recently to understanding external team networks (Joshi, 2006). We consider the role of identity-based

affiliations in determining team boundary spanning in this paper. This framework helps us understand

how individual team members’ attributes can manifest in team boundary spanning outcomes. Finally,

resource dependence and exchange perspectives have been fairly prevalent in research on interpersonal

and inter-unit networks (e.g., Burkhardt & Brass, 1990). However, this theoretical perspective has been

less often considered in specifying how organizational structure, strategy, or climate can exert a top-down

influence on boundary spanning activity and how these higher-level constructs can enhance or constrain

the effects of team level antecedents on boundary spanning behavior. This paper explicitly acknowledges

these multi-level top-down linkages based on these theoretical perspectives. By firmly setting our

framework in existing theoretical concepts in the broader organizational research domain, our framework

provides a theoretically sound understanding of team boundary spanning as bracketed between both team

and organizational constraints.

Second, while antecedents such as environmental uncertainty (Krackhardt & Stern, 1988) and

leadership activity (Ancona, 1990) have received some attention, other antecedents such as the phase of

task development or inter-team interdependence have not been considered in past research. The

temporal dimensions of team processes have been developed to understand internal team processes

(Marks et al., 2001). Interdependence has also been considered in relation to interactions within the

team. Our approach extends this inquiry to external interactions as well. Furthermore, the interactive

effects of these variables with other team and organizational-level antecedents have been seldom

captured in past research.


DOI: 10.1002/job

752 A. JOSHI ET AL.

Third, incorporating teams’ boundary spanning activities into models of team effectiveness is

inescapable in the present context of team-based, knowledge-oriented, and complex organizations. By

drawing attention to the complex interactive effects of contextual factors on boundary spanning

outcomes, our model also initiates a line of inquiry that is in tune with complex organizational realities.

Finally, the theoretically driven multi-level model that we present provides a generalizable and

actionable theoretical framework to inform the choice of task-based, team-level, and contextual

constructs that can be used in future research on identifying the contingencies shaping effective

boundary spanning behaviors in organizations.

From a methodological standpoint, our review indicated two predominant approaches to

conceptualizing external team interactions—a qualitative or descriptive approach and a network

analytic approach (see Table 1). Studies have relied on qualitative techniques to develop rich

descriptions of a team’s external activities that encompass relationships developed to enhance

visibility, obtain information, and coordinate activities with other groups (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992b;

Gladstein, 1984). A second set of studies uncovered in our search applied network analysis to measure

and conceptualize a team’s external activities (e.g., Reagans & Zuckerman, 2001; Reagans et al., 2004;

Oh et al., 2004). These studies primarily draw on social capital theory to argue that investments in

social interactions create value or resources for individuals and groups (Lin, Ensel, & Vaughn, 1981).

These parallel streams of research have rarely been integrated and offer rich opportunities to develop

multi-dimensional conceptualizations and measurement strategies.

In order to develop propositions regarding the antecedents of team boundary spanning at

multiple levels, we conceptualized boundary spanning activities at the team level. From an

empirical standpoint we note that aggregation at the team level would need to be justified based

on specific criteria (see Klein & Kozlowski, 2000 for a discussion). We also note that other

organizational contextual variables such as aspects of organizational culture (individualism versus

collectivism) or organizational structure (centralized versus decentralized) may also be interesting

to consider as antecedents in the future. Finally, there has been a growing interest in understanding how

teams adapt to change and modify their structures, capacities, and actions in response to change (e.g.,

Burke, Stagl, Salas, Pierce, & Kendall, 2006; Lepine, 2005). Based on these studies, it may also be

interesting to consider how a team’s shared cognition and behavioral adaptability may be a mechanism

mediating the relationship between organization-level antecedents and boundary spanning outcomes in

the future (see Burke et al., 2006; Rico, Sanchez-Manzanares, Gil, & Gibson, 2008).

In conclusion, this is an exciting time for research in the area of team boundary spanning. Growing

interest in exploring meso-level phenomena, an abundance of network analytic and multi-level

tools provide several theoretical and empirical possibilities to guide future research. This paper sheds

light on under-researched questions pertaining to the determinants of team boundary spanning

activities. Our contribution to research in this area has been to present a comprehensive theoretical

framework to study team boundary spanning as a bracketed phenomenon. Such a conceptualization

allows researchers to view team boundary spanning as a meso-level phenomenon embedded within the

constraints of the organization and team.We hope that the multi-level framework proposed in this paper

offers insights to guide several possibilities for future research.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was provided by the Center for Human Resource Management, University of

Illinois. We thank Susan E. Jackson and Michael Pratt for helpful comments on earlier versions of the


DOI: 10.1002/job


paper. We are also grateful to Prof. Coyle-Shapiro and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable

feedback. A version of this paper was presented at the Annual Academy of Management Meetings,

2005.

Author biographies

Aparna Joshi is an Assistant Professor of Industrial Relations and Human Resources at the University

of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. She received her PhD from the School of Management and Labor

Relations, Rutgers University. She conducts research in the area of work team diversity, global and

distributed teams, team social capital and generational issues in the workplace.

Niti Pandey received her PhD in Human Resources and Industrial Relations from the School of Labor

and Employment Relations at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign where she is currently a

visiting assistant professor. Her research interests are focused on individual and team dynamics in

organizations.

Guohong (Helen) Han is an Assistant Professor of Management in the College of Business

Administration at the Youngstown State University in Ohio. She earned her PhD in Human Resources

and Industrial Relations at the School of Labor and Employment Relations at the University of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign. Her research interests are leadership, diversity, team development, and

employee attitudes.

References

Allen, T., Katz, R., Grady, J. J., & Slavin, N. (1988). Project team aging and performance: The roles of project andfunctional managers. R&D Management, 18, 295–308.

Amedore, G. H., & Knoff, H. M. (1993). Boundary spanning activities and the multidisciplinary team process:Characteristics affecting school psychological consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Con-sultation, 4, 343–356.

Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of ManagementJournal, 33, 334–365.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992a). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance.Organization Science, 3, 321–341.

Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992b). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance inorganizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665.

Astley, W. G., & Sachdeva, P. S. (1984). Structural sources of intraorganizational power: A theoretical synthesis.Academy of Management Review, 9, 104–113.

Baldwin, T. T., Bedell, M. D., & Johnson, J. L. (1997). The social fabric of a team-basedM.B.A. program: Networkeffects on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1369–1397.

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy ofManagement Journal, 47, 523–549.

Benson, J. K. (1975). The interorganizational network as a political economy. Administrative Science Quarterly,20, 229–249.

Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. London, NY, Toronto: Penguin Books.Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Team member functional background and involvement in management teams: Directeffects and the moderating role of power centralization. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 458–475.

Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity inmanagement teams: Process and performance effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 875–893.

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: A conceptualanalysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1189–1207.


DOI: 10.1002/job

754 A. JOSHI ET AL.

Burkhardt, M. E., & Brass, D. J. (1990). Changing patterns or patterns of change: The effects of a change intechnology on social network structure and power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 104–127.

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. (1996). Relations between work team characteristics andeffectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429–452.

Choi, J. N. (2002). External activities and team effectiveness: Review and theoretical development. Small GroupResearch, 33, 181–208.

Cummings, J. N., & Cross, R. (2003). Structural properties of work groups and their consequences forperformance. Social Networks, 25, 197–210.

DeNisi, A., Hitt, M., & Jackson, S. E. (2004). The knowledge-based approach to sustainable competitiveadvantage. In S. E. Jackson, M. Hitt, & A. DeNisi (Eds.), Managing knowledge for sustained competitiveadvantage (pp. 3–33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Druskat, V. U., & Kayes, D. C. (1999). The antecedents of team competence: Toward a fine-grained model of self-managing team effectiveness. In M. A. Neale, & E. A. Mannix (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams(Vol. 2, pp. 210–231). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.

Druskat, V. U., & Wheeler, J. V. (2003). Managing from the boundary: The effective leadership of self-managingwork teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 435–457.

Dutton, J., Ashford, S. J., Lawrence, K., & Miner-Rubino, K. (2002). Red light, green light: Making sense of theorganization context for issue-selling. Organization Science, 13, 355–369.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 44, 350–383.

Elkins, T., & Keller, R. T. (2003). Leadership in research and development organizations: A literature review andconceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 587–606.

Fleishman, E. A., & Zaccarro, S. J. (1992). Toward a taxonomy of team performance functions. In R.W. Swezey, &E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 31–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Gasson, S. (2005). The dynamics of sensemaking, knowledge and expertise in collaborative, boundary-spanningdesign. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10, 23–34.

Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. StrategicManagement Journal, 12, 433–448.

Gladstein, D. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,29, 499–517.

Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organisations. In M. D.Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.),Handbook of industrial and organisational psychology (Vol. 2) Palo Alto, CA:Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hackman, J. R. (2003). Learning more by crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, hospitals, and orchestras.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 905–922.

Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizationsubunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82–111.

Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies.Organization Science, 13, 232–248.

Hansen, M. T., Mors, M. L., & Lovas, B. (2005). Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiplephases. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 776–793.

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604.Hirst, G., &Mann, L. (2004). A model of R&D leadership and team communication: The relationship with projectperformance. R&D Management, 34, 147–160.

House, R., Rousseau, D., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration ofmicro and macro organizational behavior. In L. L. Cummings, & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizationalbehavior (Vol. 17, pp. 71–114). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in anadvertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 422–447.

Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academyof Management Journal, 18, 56–87.

Joshi, A. (2006). The influence of organizational demography on the external networking behavior of teams.Academy of Management Review, 31, 583–595.

Joshi, A., & Jackson, S. E. (2003). Understanding work team diversity: Challenges and opportunities. In M. West,D. Tjosvold, & K. Smith (Eds.), The international handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperativeworking (pp. 277–296). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.


DOI: 10.1002/job


Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31,386–408.

Katz, R., & Tushman, M. L. (1983). A longitudinal study of the effects of boundary spanning supervision onturnover and promotion in research and development. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 437–456.

Keller, R. T. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: Diversity,communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 547–555.

Kilduff, M., & Day, D. V. (1994). Do chameleons get ahead? The effects of self-monitoring on managerial careers.Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1047–1060.

Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Klein, K., & Kozlowski, S. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conductingmultilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211–236.

Klein, K. J., Lim, B., Saltz, J. L., & Mayer, D. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of theantecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 952–963.

Krackhardt, D., & Stern, R. N. (1988). Informal networks and organizational crises: An experimental simulation.Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 123–140.

Labianca, G., Brass, D., & Gray, B. (1998). Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role ofnegative relationships and third parties. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 55–67.

LePine, J. A. (2005). Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: Effects of goal difficulty and teamcomposition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1153–1167.

Lin, N., Ensel, W.M., &Vaughn, J. C. (1981). Social resources and strength of ties. American Sociological Review,46, 393–405.

Maitlis, S. (2005). The social process of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 21–49.Maitlis, S., & Lawrence, T. B. (2007). Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations. Academy ofManagement Journal, 50, 57–84.

Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (2004). Enabling knowledge creation in far-flung teams: Best practices for ITsupport and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8, 75–88.

Marks, M., Mathieu, J., & Zaccaro, S. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes.Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376.

Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). A multi-level investigation of antecedents and consequencesof team member boundary spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1423–1439.

McCann, J. E., & Ferry, D. L. (1979). An approach for assessing and managing inter-unit interdependence.Academy of Management Review, 4, 113–119.

Mischel, W. (1970). Sex typing and socialization. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s handbook of childpsychology (Vol. 2, pp. 3–72). New York: Wiley.

Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. (1998). At the margins: A distinctiveness approach to social identity and socialnetworks of underrepresented groups. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 441–452.

Mehra, A., Kilduff, M. K., & Brass, D. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications forworkplace performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 121–146.

Monge, P. R., & Fulk, J. (1999). Communication technology for global network organizations. In G. DeSanctis, &J. Fulk (Eds.), Communication technology and organizational forms (pp. 71–100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academyof Management Review, 23, 242–266.

Nelson, R. E. (1989). The strength of strong ties: Social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations.Academy of Management Journal, 32, 377–401.

Norman, R., & Ramirez, R. (1993). From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy.Harvard Business Review, 71, 65–77.

Oh, H., Chung, M., & Labianca, G. (2004). Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informalsocializing ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 860–875.

Oh, H., Labianca, G., & Chung, M. (2006). A multilevel model of group social capital. Academy of ManagementReview, 31, 569–582.

Papa, M. J. (1990). Communication network patterns and employee performance with a new technology.Communication Research, 17, 344–368.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Poole, M. S. (1999). Organizational challenges for the new form. In G. DeSanctis, & J. Fulke (Eds.),Organizationsand communication technology. Newbury Park: Sage.


DOI: 10.1002/job

756 A. JOSHI ET AL.

Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of CorporateR&D teams. Organization Science, 12, 502–517.

Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., & McEvily, B. (2004). How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography ascriteria for designing effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 101–133.

Rico, R., Sanchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F., & Gibson, C. (2008). Team implicit coordination processes: A teamknowledge-based approach. Academy of Management Review, 33, 163–184.

Schulz, M. (2001). The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows. Academy ofManagement Journal, 44, 661–681.

Shim, D., & Lee, M. (2001). Upward influence styles of R&D project leaders. IEEE Transactions on EngineeringManagement, 48, 394–413.

Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance ofindividuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 316–325.

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy ofManagement Journal, 41, 464–476.

Tsai, W. (2000). Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages. StrategicManagement Journal, 21, 925–939.

Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptivecapacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 996–1004.

Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of ‘‘Coopetition’’ within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, andintraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13, 179–190.

Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. (1980). External communication and project performance: An investigation into therole of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26, 1071–1085.

Weisz, N., Vassolo, R. S., & Cooper, A. C. (2004). A theoretical and empirical assessment of the social capital ofnascent entrepreneurial teams. Academy of Management Proceedings, K1-K6.

Zalesny, M. D., Salas, E., & Prince, C. (1995). Conceptual and measurement issues in coordination: Implicationsfor team behavior and performance. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 13, 81–115.

Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenuredistributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 353–376.

Appendix A

Description of interview based study

In order to contextualize and enrich our theoretical framework, we conducted semi-structured

interviews in an R&D based biotechnology and chemical company that manufactures agricultural

products—Company Knowtech. Knowtech invests over $1 million per day in research and

development of its products and follows a business strategy of leveraging a handful of key products by

further investing in the enhancement, testing, and global acceptance of the same.

Our conversations with members of top management from various parts of the organization gave us a

basic understanding of the way teams are formulated in the organization and the level of

interdependence built into the workflow. Conversations with a senior director of the biotechnology

division and the vice-president of Human Resources led us to a better understanding of the overall

strategic context at the organization. Knowtech has to constantly upgrade their products to comply with

regulatory guidelines and develop new agricultural products to stay competitive. In order to do so,

teams in various divisions of the organization work on product-specific projects requiring considerable

exchange of information with other teams both up and down the product pipeline. Thus, this made

Knowtech an ideal setting for contextualizing our theoretical framework. The organization’s workflow

can be characterized as a product-to-market pipeline with feedback loops along each step of the

process. The product development teams are comprised of bench-scientists, who work in laboratories

on research and development tasks and are involved in the early stages of the product pipeline (i.e., the


DOI: 10.1002/job


product identification and development stages). After a product has been proven functional and viable it

is moved along to the commercial part of the organization for compliance and marketing issues.

Additionally, already existing products may often go back to the laboratory for enhancement or for

development of custom characteristics in keeping with market demands. The regulatory teams focus on

data analysis and compliance issues. They provide support for the R&D teams during the product

development phase and they also ensure that once the product is ready it complies with all local and

global governmental regulations before being commercialized.

Team outputs are in the form of project reports. Most teams are characterized by regular meetings for

goal setting and for keeping track of project progress. Team projects are usually assigned on the basis of

fit depending on the requirements of the project and the strategic goals of the organization. While there

is no team-based performance appraisal, there are some team-based incentives, with pools of money

and special recognition for superior teams, while individual performance is rewarded with bonuses.

Semi-structured interviews

We conducted semi-structured interviews with employees at Knowtech working in teams at each of the

stages of the company’s product-to-market pipeline. Employees interviewed represented the Product

Identification group (n¼ 10), the Product Development group (n¼ 11), the Product Testing group

(n¼ 5), the Marketing/Commercialization group (n¼ 5), the Quality group (n¼ 8), and the Regulatory

group (n¼ 9), thus totaling 48 interviews in all.

While the interviews were conducted at the individual level, these employees represented 30 different

teams in the organization. The sample comprised of 28 men and 20 women. The racial/ethnic

composition of the sample was as follows: Caucasian: 33; Asian: 11; Hispanic: 2; African-American: 2.

The mean organizational tenure of the sample was 10.9 years (with a standard deviation of 8.49). The

average reported team size was 11.9 (with a standard deviation of 6.22). Of the 48 respondents

7 identified themselves as team leaders.

The interviews lasted on average for 45 minutes. Initial interviews were conducted jointly by two

members of the research team for purposes of developing uniformity of the phrasing and sequencing of

questions. Subsequently, these two members conducted the interviews individually. The sessions

began with introductions and an explanation of the purpose of the interviews. Permission was sought

to record the sessions. A semi-structured interview blank was used with open-ended questions

asking the interviewees to describe various aspects of their work and experiences. (The interview

protocol is attached in Appendix B.) Responses illustrating our key propositions are included in the

text.

Appendix B

Semi-structured interview protocol

Individual code: ______________________ Time: Date:

Team code: _______________________

1. Could you please tell me a little about yourself—your job title, work experience, educational

background?

2. Can you describe what a typical work day looks like?


DOI: 10.1002/job

758 A. JOSHI ET AL.

3. Could you describe the team that you work with? How many people are there on this team? How

long has the team been together? Do members join and leave frequently? Is there a team leader?

4. How were members selected to be on this team?

5. How would you define the main objective of your team?

6. Do teams have the autonomy to pick projects? On what basis does your team typically pick

projects? Do you have the autonomy to pick your task—how are tasks assigned?

7. If there is a shortage of some kind in terms of finances or equipment how is it resolved?

8. If you or your team faces a technical problem, do you usually try and solve it within the team? Do

you consult with other teams to find solutions? How often do you look for solutions outside the

team?

9. The next few questions are aimed the role of a leader or a manager in an R&D environment. Here’s

a very general question to begin with—in your opinion what is the role of a leader in an R&D

team? What do you expect from him/her in terms of:

a. For you to get your work done and

b. also for the team to meet its objectives

10. Do you have the opportunity to get feedback regarding work with colleagues outside the team?

What kinds of issues do you typically discuss outside the team? How have you developed these

relationships?

11. Do you have any networks with colleagues outside the organization that you have in your

experience found useful? How so? Give us an illustration? How have you developed this network?

12. How would you describe the culture in the organization as a whole in terms of interactions across

teams? Do teams have to compete for resources or projects?

13. Are there any other issues that you would like to bring up regarding the nature of collaboration

within and between R &D teams based on your experience or about the challenges of managing

and leading these teams?


DOI: 10.1002/job


bracketing team boundary spanning: an examination of task-based, team-level, and contextual...

Documents