Hubbry Logo
Boundary spanningBoundary spanningMain
Open search
Boundary spanning
Community hub
Boundary spanning
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Boundary spanning
Boundary spanning
Boundary spanning
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In social science research and organizational psychology, boundary spanning is a term to describe individuals within an innovation system who have, or adopt, the role of linking the organization's internal networks with external sources of information.[1] While the term was coined by Tushman,[1] the concept was being developed by social scientists from the late 1950s onwards.[2][3][4] Most of the early work was conducted in large American corporations with well-established R&D laboratories. The term has since been used in relation to more general innovation networks.[5]

Background

[edit]

The post-WWII years saw the burgeoning of the American corporation and a subsequent increased interest in improving the efficiency of these workplaces to maximize productivity. However, workers tend to become siloed in their various specialties, making cross-boundary communication and collaboration a challenge. Organizational theorist Tushman noted that "”one critical aspect of the innovation process is the ability of the innovating unit to gather information from and transmit information to several external domains” but that “communication across organizational boundaries is both inefficient and prone to bias and distortion”."[1] Identifying and utilizing boundary spanning individuals in organizations ranging from corporations to academia[6] to healthcare[7] has become a point of focus for communications researchers as well as industrial-organizational (I/O) psychologists.[8]

Academic adoption

[edit]

The concept of a boundary spanning role has been popular throughout academic research into innovation systems with over 48,000 peer-reviewed articles referencing the term since 1958. With the exception of closed systems, all systems have a transference across their boundaries and this process is facilitated by the boundary spanner. As models of innovation developed, the role of the boundary spanner remained key in seeking out and bringing new ideas into the system or sub-system. Research has also found that boundary spanners tend to be opinion leaders.[9] The role of the boundary spanner is defined largely by where the boundary is drawn.

Internal boundary spanners

[edit]

One challenge within the field of knowledge management is that the collection and codification of explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge is frequently held in silos within the organization. Boundary spanners are needed to move that knowledge around the organization in a process sometimes referred to as socialization.[10] Also, with increased interest in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace, it has been argued that boundary spanners performing extra tasks because of their various identities (such as serving on a disproportionate number of committees, more mentoring duties, and other DEI-related work) should be recognized and compensated more for this additional effort. Extra work without recognition only serves to reinforce existing imbalances of power and underrepresentation of minority identities that boundary spanners can help improve.[6]

External boundary spanners

[edit]

In business administration, boundary spanning is a key element in the acquisition capacity of a firm in Cohen's[11][12] theory of absorptive capacity. In spheres such as science communication and political outreach, boundary spanning individuals can engender trust in communities generally underserved and overlooked by those in power.[6] They can be particularly effective communicators because of their competence in a certain area in addition to shared values, language, and priorities with the community they are serving, in a way that outgroup academic researchers and political elites cannot.[13]

Individual boundary spanners

[edit]

At the individual level, this may be equated to the Resource Investigator role within Belbin's Team Inventory.

Broader adoption

[edit]

The term boundary spanning is now widely used to describe any situation where an individual crosses the boundaries of a social group to enable knowledge exchange, translate language, and share values among various groups.[6]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Boundary spanning

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Boundary spanning is a foundational concept in and , denoting the processes, roles, and activities through which individuals or units bridge —gaps between disconnected clusters or domains—to enable the exchange of information, knowledge, resources, and influence across internal organizational subunits, external environments, or inter-organizational networks. These boundary spanners, often functioning as brokers or bridges, perform critical functions such as environmental scanning, information diffusion, conflict mediation, and relationship building, which help organizations manage uncertainty, acquire diverse inputs, and coordinate actions in complex settings. Originating from early work on organizational interfaces and later integrated with Burt's theory, the concept underscores how such linkages counteract isolation, fostering adaptive responses without relying on hierarchical controls alone. Empirical reviews of boundary spanning in collaborative networks reveal its consistent association with improved connectivity, trust-building, and outcomes, as spanners recombine disparate to generate novel solutions, though structural positions can impose bottlenecks or cognitive overload on those roles. In and contexts, boundary spanners enhance integrative performance by linking actors across institutional boundaries, promoting actionable amid fragmented stakeholder interests. variants emphasize directing alignment and commitment across horizontal, vertical, demographic, geographic, and stakeholder boundaries, with surveys of senior executives indicating its paramount role in navigating strategic trends like cross-functional and organizational learning. Despite these benefits, studies highlight that effectiveness depends on balancing brokerage opportunities with network closure to avoid coordination failures.

Origins and Conceptual Foundations

Historical Development

The concept of boundary spanning originated in during the mid-, as scholars shifted from closed-system models of organizations to open-systems views emphasizing interactions with external environments for resource acquisition and adaptation. This perspective built on earlier foundational work, such as Katz and Kahn's (1966) analysis of organizations as open systems where boundary roles facilitate exchanges across permeable organizational edges, contrasting with rigid internal structures. By the , amid increasing environmental turbulence from and market complexity, researchers formalized boundary spanning as a structural mechanism to manage inputs like and outputs like products. A seminal contribution came from Aldrich and Herker (1977), who defined boundary spanning roles as specialized positions linking organizations to their environments, arguing that these roles' structure and power depend on factors like organizational size, technology, and external dependencies. They distinguished between input-spanning roles (e.g., purchasing agents scanning for resources) and output-spanning roles (e.g., sales personnel buffering internal operations from market pressures), emphasizing how such roles reduce uncertainty by filtering external information. Concurrently, Tushman (1977) highlighted "special boundary roles" in innovation processes, demonstrating through empirical study of 19 R&D labs that boundary spanners—often technical gatekeepers—enhance information transfer from external sources, correlating with higher project performance (e.g., fewer delays, better outcomes). Subsequent developments in the late and extended the concept beyond individual roles to organizational units and inter-firm networks, influenced by , with studies showing boundary spanning's efficacy in dynamic sectors like technology and . For instance, research in the linked boundary spanning to reduced in complex organizations, as spanners negotiated dual loyalties between internal norms and external demands. This foundational work established boundary spanning as a critical adaptive function, with from lab and field studies underscoring its in uncertainty absorption and knowledge inflows.

Core Definitions and Principles

Boundary spanning refers to the structural and behavioral mechanisms in organizations that link internal activities with external environments, facilitating the exchange of , resources, and influence to manage environmental dependencies. In foundational , these mechanisms are embodied in boundary spanning roles, which Aldrich and Herker (1977) describe as positions designed to filter and process environmental while representing the to outsiders, thereby reducing and equivocality in . Such roles emerged as responses to open , recognizing organizations as interdependent with their task environments rather than closed entities. Core principles of boundary spanning emphasize dual functions: information processing, which involves scanning external signals, filtering relevant , and distributing it internally to inform strategy and operations; and external representation, which includes buffering the from threats, negotiating exchanges, and safeguarding legitimacy through tailored communications to stakeholders. These principles operate on the causal that effective boundary enhances adaptability, as organizations with proactive spanners acquire timely on market shifts—evidenced, for instance, in studies showing boundary roles correlate with faster adoption in uncertain sectors like firms during the 1970s crises. Boundary spanners must balance protective insulation from volatility with permeable channels for resource inflows, preventing while enabling causal linkages to environmental opportunities. Empirically grounded principles further highlight that boundary spanning efficacy depends on organizational contingencies, such as environmental and internal structure; in stable settings, routine scanning suffices, but high-velocity contexts demand dedicated personnel with to interpret ambiguous data. This aligns with causal realism in viewing boundaries not as static barriers but as dynamic interfaces where spanners mitigate transaction costs by internalizing external dependencies, as formalized in Aldrich and Herker's model linking design to structural outcomes like subunit . Violations of these principles, such as underinvestment in spanning roles, empirically lead to isolation and , as seen in case analyses of firms unable to respond to regulatory changes in the late 20th century.

Types and Mechanisms

Internal Boundary Spanning

Internal boundary spanning encompasses the activities, roles, and structures that connect distinct subunits, departments, or functional areas within an to facilitate coordination, , and . These efforts address internal divisions arising from specialization, , or geographic separation, such as between and teams or local and overseas R&D units. Key functions include processing and distributing information across internal boundaries to reduce and align goals, as boundary spanners interpret data from one unit for use in another. Unlike external spanning, which links to the environment, internal variants emphasize representational and integrative roles supported by organizational mandates, such as formal liaison positions or cross-functional committees. Aldrich and Herker (1977) highlighted that these roles depend on organizational size and complexity, with larger entities requiring more decentralized structures to manage internal linkages effectively. Mechanisms for internal boundary spanning often involve both structural and relational elements, including centralized coordinators who control information flows or informal networks that enable ad-hoc collaboration. For instance, in professional service firms, internal ties across knowledge domains support exploration and innovation by accessing diverse internal expertise. from computational models demonstrates that such spanning enhances organizational learning by linking subunit boundaries, leading to improved collective problem-solving and adaptability. Despite benefits like heightened internal knowledge dissemination, internal boundary spanning exhibits duality: it boosts through cognitive diversity but can impose costs via overload or conflicting priorities. In multinational corporations, for example, internal spanners like technology scouts process feedback across units, yet their efficacy varies with environmental stability and role formalization. Studies in contexts identify specific activities, such as joint planning and , as critical for spanning functional boundaries, with roles categorized into coordinators, scouts, and ambassadors. Overall, effective internal spanning correlates with reduced coordination failures, as evidenced in analyses of team-level interactions where relational behaviors mitigate information asymmetries.

External Boundary Spanning

External boundary spanning involves the activities of individuals or organizational units that link the internal operations of a firm with external entities, such as customers, suppliers, competitors, regulators, or partners, to acquire resources, information, and legitimacy while managing environmental uncertainties and dependencies. These activities are distinct from internal spanning by focusing on outward-oriented interactions that facilitate inflows, representation, and against external pressures. Empirical studies indicate that effective external spanning enhances organizational adaptability, as firms with greater external exposure—measured by ties to diverse sectors or markets—access novel domains more readily, though it can strain internal cohesion if not balanced. Key mechanisms of external boundary spanning align with established typologies, including for external , ambassadorship to promote the , guarding against threats, and coordinating tasks across boundaries. In the scout role, boundary spanners actively scan the environment for trends, opportunities, or risks, such as market shifts or technological developments, relaying this inward to inform ; for instance, store managers in service networks gather competitive from suppliers and customers to anticipate changes. The ambassador function entails representing the externally through negotiations, , or alliances, building legitimacy and partnerships, as seen in product development teams for resources from clients or vendors. Guarding involves filtering and interpreting external inputs to shield the organization from overload or , selectively disseminating relevant while withholding sensitive internal details, which is critical in high-uncertainty contexts like global account management where external volatility must be buffered. Task coordination synchronizes joint efforts with outsiders, such as aligning with partners, often requiring hybrid internal-external efforts to absorb changes. At the organizational level, external spanning manifests structurally through diversification across product lines, geographic markets, or segments, with empirical of 2,714 goods firms showing that nation-state spanning (e.g., operations in multiple countries) correlates with broader adoption in areas like s and environment, reflecting greater external . Such mechanisms are interdependent, as unchecked external ties without internal absorption can lead to inefficiencies, underscoring the need for integrated spanning strategies.

Individual versus Organizational Boundary Spanners

Individual boundary spanners are organizational members positioned at the interface with external environments, tasked with acquiring information, resources, and legitimacy while representing internal interests. These roles, such as sales representatives or procurement specialists, involve filtering external inputs to protect the core from environmental uncertainties and buffering internals from overload. Aldrich and Herker (1977) identified key functions including information processing—scanning, translating, and distributing external data—and representational activities, where individuals negotiate on behalf of the . Empirical studies highlight traits like high tolerance for and networking skills as essential for effectiveness, with role strain often arising from conflicting demands of external advocacy and internal alignment. In contrast, organizational boundary spanning encompasses structural and collective mechanisms that extend beyond single actors, such as dedicated boundary units, inter-organizational alliances, or shared artifacts like protocols and ICT tools that enable sustained cross-boundary flows. These approaches distribute spanning activities across multiple roles or embed them in formal structures, reducing reliance on individual charisma or tenure. For instance, in collaborative networks, boundary objects—neutral representations like data standards—facilitate coordination without designating personal brokers, promoting and resilience against personnel changes. Quick and Feldman (2014) emphasize how such systemic integrations address physical, cognitive, and social divides more enduringly than individual efforts. Key differences lie in agency, , and : individual spanners enable agile, relationship-driven exchanges but risk bottlenecks from overload, turnover, or in personal judgments, as seen in cases where key personnel departure disrupts partnerships. Organizational variants mitigate these through and institutionalization, though they may dilute relational depth or introduce bureaucratic inertia. Research on , for example, finds "collective bridges"—teams of distributed spanners—superior for complex, collective knowledge dissemination compared to singular heroes, enhancing efficiency in multidivisional firms. Van Meerkerk et al. (2015) note that while individuals excel in trust-building across diverse stakeholders, organizational designs better sustain long-term collaborations in volatile settings like public-private partnerships.

Theoretical Underpinnings and Empirical Support

Key Theoretical Frameworks

Boundary spanning is underpinned by open systems theory, which conceptualizes organizations as entities that must exchange information, resources, and energy with their external environments to survive and adapt, thereby necessitating roles or mechanisms to manage these interfaces. This framework, originating from works like Katz and Kahn's analysis of organizations as open systems, emphasizes boundary spanning as a structural response to environmental interdependence rather than isolation. A foundational contribution comes from Aldrich and Herker's framework, which delineates boundary spanning roles as links between s and their environments, performing dual functions of —gathering and filtering external to reduce —and external representation—advocating for the in inter-organizational interactions. Their model highlights how environmental factors, such as stability and , and internal technological contingencies shape the elaboration and power of these roles, with boundary spanners often gaining influence due to their control over critical flows. This structuralist perspective integrates by treating boundary spanners as occupants of specialized positions demanding interpersonal skills and contextual to bridge divides, distinct from core operational roles. Contingency theory further frames boundary spanning as an adaptive mechanism where organizational structures, including boundary roles, vary according to environmental demands like munificence or hostility, promoting differentiation for specialized responses and integration via spanners to align subunits. complements this by viewing boundary spanners as strategic actors who mitigate external dependencies through resource acquisition, , and buffering against uncertainties, thereby preserving organizational amid power imbalances with suppliers or stakeholders. Empirical extensions, such as in projects, demonstrate how leader-level boundary spanning leverages team resources to manage dependencies and foster . These frameworks collectively underscore boundary spanning's causal role in enabling causal realism: organizations actively shape and respond to environmental causal chains rather than passively reacting.

Empirical Evidence and Causal Mechanisms

Empirical studies consistently demonstrate that boundary spanning activities positively influence organizational outcomes, including and . A of 52 independent samples encompassing employee boundary-spanning behaviors revealed significant benefits, such as improved , , task performance, and innovative behavior, with effect sizes indicating moderate to strong associations (e.g., ρ = 0.22 for performance). Another synthesizing 30 years of team-level research (1980–2020) confirmed that boundary spanning—defined as efforts to connect s with external entities—enhances team performance by enabling access to diverse and resources, though effects vary by team and task interdependence, with smaller teams showing stronger gains (β = 0.15–0.28). These findings hold across contexts, including private firms and networks, but are tempered by costs like increased job stress from , as evidenced in longitudinal surveys where high boundary-spanning loads correlated with burnout (r = 0.18). At the individual level, boundary spanners exhibit heightened creative performance through mechanisms rooted in status characteristics theory. A 2023 study of 312 employees in Chinese firms found that boundary-spanning behaviors mediated the link between employee status and (indirect effect = 0.12, p < 0.01), as external networking elevates perceived expertise and idea novelty. Organizationally, top boundary-spanning fosters employee ; survey data from 428 teams in South Korean companies showed a direct path from leadership boundary spanning to innovative behavior (β = 0.24), amplified in uncertain environments via shared vision alignment. In , boundary spanning by managers improves project outcomes; a 2022 analysis of Dutch water governance projects linked spanner activities to higher quality (r = 0.31), subsequently boosting performance metrics like goal attainment by 15–20%. Causal mechanisms underlying these effects center on and resource flows that mitigate environmental . Boundary spanners reduce causal by channeling external inflows, as computational models of organizational learning simulate how spanning links generate adaptive routines, yielding 10–25% faster convergence to optimal strategies in simulated markets. This operates via brokerage processes: spanners bridge , facilitating trust and norm alignment, which empirically mediates gains in inter-organizational networks (mediation effect = 0.17 in path analyses of 200+ collaborations). In dynamic settings, -driven spanning activates learning drives, causally increasing networking breadth; experimental manipulations in 2022 studies showed piqued boosted boundary ties by 22%, indirectly enhancing recombination for through reduced . However, mechanisms can falter under overload, where spanning depletes internal resources, inverting effects via stress mediation (β = -0.14 for satisfaction), underscoring the need for supportive structures like clear role definitions to sustain . These pathways align with causal realism, where observable inputs (e.g., tie formation) produce verifiable outputs (e.g., variance explained: 12–18% in regressions), rather than untested assumptions of inherent positivity.

Practical Applications

In Private Sector and Business Management

In business management, boundary spanning involves designating individuals or units to facilitate , resource coordination, and relationship-building across internal departmental or with external entities such as suppliers, customers, and partners, thereby enabling firms to respond effectively to market dynamics. This approach originated from observations that larger, differentiated organizations require specialized roles to manage environmental uncertainties, with boundary spanners acting as interpreters and buffers to prevent while promoting adaptive strategies. Key roles include sales representatives who gather customer insights for product development and global account managers who align internal operations with client needs across geographies, often drawing on diverse career paths to build and influence. In functions, boundary spanners integrate external market signals with internal R&D efforts, as evidenced in empirical studies of firms where such integration led to improved strategic alignment and revenue growth through mechanisms like joint ventures and licensing agreements. For example, in for-profit research labs, boundary spanners engage in communities to import non-redundant knowledge, reducing the risk of technological obsolescence by disseminating external insights internally, with case analyses showing accelerated innovation cycles in participating firms as of the early 2010s. Empirical evidence from organizational studies indicates that boundary spanning enhances firm performance by fostering lateral , with boundary spanners in cross-functional teams correlating to higher adaptability in volatile industries; one analysis of units found that firms employing dedicated spanners achieved 15-20% improvements in outcomes due to better diffusion and . However, effectiveness depends on structural support, such as to sustain influence, as routinization can diminish the unique value of these roles over time. In practice, companies like those in high-tech sectors leverage boundary spanners for strategic alliances, where causal links from spanning activities to outcomes like contractual fairness and are supported by data from multi-firm surveys showing positive associations with .

In Public Administration and Policy

In , boundary spanning refers to the activities of public managers and officials who connect internal agency functions with external entities, such as other levels, non-profits, or private partners, to exchange , resources, and legitimacy. This process aids in navigating fragmented administrative structures, enabling coordinated responses to issues like disaster recovery or regulatory enforcement that require multi-agency involvement. Empirical research demonstrates that boundary-spanning behaviors by public managers enhance quality in inter-organizational projects, directly contributing to improved metrics, such as timely delivery and stakeholder satisfaction in public infrastructure initiatives. For example, in public-private partnerships for transportation projects, boundary spanners reduce informational asymmetries and build relational trust, leading to fewer disputes and higher rates compared to non-spanning approaches. In policy formulation and implementation, boundary spanning facilitates co-creation by linking policy actors across sectors, particularly for "wicked problems" involving environmental or social welfare domains where siloed fails. Political boundary spanners, often elected officials, strategically mediate between policy design in legislative bodies and execution in bureaucracies, as observed in European reforms post-2010 that emphasized cross-level coordination to address fiscal . At science-policy interfaces, boundary spanners—such as dedicated liaison roles in agencies—promote evidence integration by increasing permeability, evidenced by case studies in climate adaptation policies where spanning activities accelerated the adoption of empirical models into regulatory frameworks between 2015 and 2020. However, depends on competencies like emotional regulation to manage conflicting demands, with studies noting higher burnout risks in spanning roles handling citizen-facing cross-boundary issues.

In Inter-Organizational and Collaborative Contexts

Boundary spanning in inter-organizational and collaborative contexts involves actors who bridge structural divides between distinct organizations to enable the flow of , resources, and innovations, often acting as brokers, translators, or coordinators in alliances, , and joint ventures. These activities address inherent tensions from differing goals, cultures, and expertise, fostering mutual adaptation and collective problem-solving. Empirical analyses, including a of 45 peer-reviewed studies, underscore the interdependence of cultivated by boundary spanners and broader organizational outcomes, with trust emerging as a core mediator of . Such spanning proves particularly vital in partnerships, where relational behaviors by designated spanners—such as building rapport and resolving disputes—strengthen mechanisms and mitigate risks. Key mechanisms include for external opportunities, ambassadorial representation of organizational interests, and coordinating joint actions, each correlating positively with enhanced team performance in cross-organizational settings. For example, in multinational enterprises, boundary-spanning coordination supports lateral alignment, enabling sustained amid hierarchical and geographic barriers. Quantitative evidence from 73.6% of reviewed studies (predominantly post-2015) links these practices to improved knowledge integration, provided spanners possess requisite expertise to navigate group boundaries effectively. In public-private , managers engaging in spanning activities elevate efficacy by aligning diverse stakeholders, as evidenced by cases where such efforts directly boosted project deliverables through reduced silos and targeted inter-organizational focus. Applications extend to dynamic capabilities in inter-firm networks, where boundary spanners unbundle routines for , yielding measurable gains in adaptability and during collaborative ventures. However, effectiveness hinges on contextual factors like relational trust levels and spanner , with studies indicating that high-opportunism environments demand robust behavioral safeguards to prevent control erosion. Overall, these practices empirically drive performance in resource-constrained collaborations, though multilevel analyses reveal variances across operational and strategic hierarchies.

Criticisms, Limitations, and Debates

Identified Challenges and Drawbacks

Boundary spanners frequently encounter , arising from divergent expectations and priorities between internal organizational units and external entities, which can undermine their effectiveness in facilitating coordination. This tension is exacerbated in inter-organizational settings, where spanners must navigate incompatible goals, leading to delays in and reduced trust among collaborators. Empirical studies in healthcare and contexts document how such conflicts result in spanners feeling caught between loyalties, with qualitative data from general practitioners highlighting persistent frustration from balancing clinical against administrative mandates. A primary drawback is role overload, where the intensive demands of information exchange and relationship maintenance deplete personal resources, often culminating in burnout. Research on representatives in boundary-spanning roles identifies uncontrollable task flows as a key driver, correlating with elevated and diminished job performance. Multilevel analyses further reveal that team-level boundary-spanning behaviors predict individual overload, which in turn fosters cynicism and withdrawal, with survey data from over 200 employees showing a 0.25 to 0.35 standardized beta linking overload to reduced . Leaders in these positions report similar strains, including work-to-family interference, as boundary activities extend beyond standard hours, amplifying stress without compensatory support. Organizational challenges compound these individual burdens, including insufficient training, recognition, and evaluation mechanisms for spanners, which hinder sustained performance. Studies in collaborative networks note that without formal protocols, spanners lack tools to manage cognitive demands like , leading to selective filtering that risks distorting . In public-private partnerships, empirical evidence from applications indicates that low exacerbates conflict, with spanners in hierarchical structures experiencing up to 20% higher stress levels compared to those with greater . Power asymmetries further limit efficacy, as meta-analyses show that while power can enable spanning, it often constrains , favoring dominant stakeholders and perpetuating inequities in . These drawbacks are not uniform; contextual factors like sector-specific regulations can intensify vulnerabilities, yet evidence consistently underscores the need for targeted interventions to mitigate overload and conflict, as unaddressed they erode long-term collaborative outcomes.

Controversies in Effectiveness and Power Dynamics

Boundary spanning's has been contested due to persistent ambiguities and conflicts that can dilute its purported benefits in facilitating coordination and . Empirical studies in inter-organizational settings, such as collaborations, reveal that boundary spanners—often general practitioners in novel s—struggle with defining their responsibilities, negotiating legitimacy with stakeholders, and balancing internal organizational demands against external partnerships, resulting in reduced collaborative efficiency. A 2015 qualitative analysis of Norwegian general practitioners highlighted these issues, noting that unclear boundaries led to formative responses only among those with high clarity, while others experienced heightened conflict and inefficacy. Similarly, in public urban universities, boundary spanners exhibit stemming from competing loyalties, with greater boundedness correlating to adaptive strategies but overall limiting proactive spanning. These findings challenge optimistic views by demonstrating causal mechanisms where erodes trust and , as boundary spanners divert energy from core tasks to role clarification. Power dynamics further complicate effectiveness, often amplifying inequalities rather than resolving them, as boundary spanners navigate asymmetric relations that can perpetuate resistance or suboptimal outcomes. A 2021 review of power concepts in boundary spanning literature identifies imbalances rooted in , race, class, and global hierarchies—such as barriers limiting -sharing among Indian professionals—as key inhibitors of collaborative success, with spanners relying on bases like expert to counteract but frequently failing against entrenched domination. In integrated , qualitative interviews with 13 boundary spanners (2021) underscore power mismatches as predictors undermining trust development, despite spanners' use of authenticity and to bridge scales; unresolved imbalances led to stalled interconnections. Educational research-practice partnerships (RPPs) provide examples, where graduate student spanners in 2021 case studies encountered hierarchical power through control (e.g., time allocation requiring 1.5 years of trust-building at one site) and historical tensions, manifesting in spectrums of agency from passive to , with nondominant actors facing deficits that hindered equity-focused goals. Critics argue that dominant resource-oriented models overlook collective power dynamics, portraying boundary objects as neutral while they subtly reinforce limitations, as in poststructuralist analyses of projects where apparent enablers masked discursive control (e.g., Hawkins et al., 2016). This raises debates on whether spanning inherently democratizes or entrenches asymmetries, with evidence from postcolonial contexts showing spanners' awareness of racial inequalities but limited mitigation, leading to uneven outcomes. Empirical support for these controversies includes multinational team studies (Kane & Levina, 2017), where cultural power navigation empowered some collaborations but provoked resistance in others, suggesting effectiveness hinges on explicit —absent which, spanning risks causal inefficacy through unaddressed domination.

Recent Developments

Advances in Research (Post-2010)

Post-2010 research on boundary spanning has increasingly emphasized its multilevel dynamics, integrating , , and network perspectives to explain coordination across organizational . Studies have advanced theoretical models by incorporating boundary spanners' roles in integration and , moving beyond traditional to include motivational and ability-based mechanisms that facilitate intergroup . For instance, empirical work has demonstrated how boundary spanners' and competence interact to enable the translation of external into internal use, enhancing organizational adaptability in dynamic environments. This shift reflects a broader recognition of boundary spanning as a relational process influenced by power asymmetries, with meta-analytic reviews confirming that higher power positions expand spanners' scope while lower power constrains it, often leading to selective information filtering. In and policy contexts, advances have focused on boundary spanners' contributions to trust-building and regime formation for "wicked" problems. Research highlights their pivotal role in integrated water resource management, where spanners foster interpersonal trust among stakeholders by bridging technical and social divides, thereby enabling coordinated action. Similarly, scoping reviews in local identify spanners as key actors in overcoming jurisdictional barriers, with behaviors such as relationship-building and sense-making promoting outcomes. These findings underscore causal links between spanning activities and performance, as evidenced by studies showing public managers' external networking improves project quality and goal attainment. Team-level boundary spanning has emerged as a distinct stream, with multilevel reviews proposing taxonomies of actions like ambassadorial and task-coordination roles that mitigate coordination failures in interdependent teams. Post-2010 links team spanning to heightened identification and , mediated by inflows that challenge internal chambers and spur novel recombinations. In innovation-driven settings, such as startups, boundary-spanning search—scanning beyond firm boundaries—positively impacts performance through resource acquisition, though moderated by internal . Applications in information systems and reveal boundary spanning's role in practical impact, with reviews advocating for activities like brokering and translating to bridge academic-practitioner divides. In higher education engagement, extended models incorporate social closeness and task orientation, showing spanners enhance community outcomes by aligning diverse stakeholder logics. -focused advances, including boundary-spanning leadership practices, emphasize six core behaviors—managing identities, creating direction, and building bridges—that drive problem-solving in global teams, supported by case studies from multinational contexts. Overall, these developments prioritize causal mechanisms like relational over mere structural positions, with longitudinal data affirming spanning's effects on turnover reduction and promotion in R&D settings.

Implications for Future Practice

Future organizational practices must prioritize the strategic development of boundary-spanning roles and competencies to navigate volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous () environments, where empirical simulations demonstrate that optimal numbers of boundary spanners—neither too few nor excessive—maximize information import and collective performance, with necessitating higher proportions of such agents to sustain output levels. This involves empowering boundary spanners with task adaptation authority and implementing efficient knowledge diffusion mechanisms, such as incentive-aligned transfers over hierarchical ones, to balance external permeability with internal cohesion and prevent overload from redundant inflows. Leadership training programs should incorporate boundary-spanning behaviors to foster employee and voice, as evidenced by surveys of 383 leader-employee pairs showing that such actions directly boost proactive contributions (β = 0.10, p < 0.05), mediated by efficacy gains, though undermined by supervisory abuse. Organizations can mitigate this by embedding and resource-supportive policies, extending beyond traditional vertical management to holistic practices that align cross-boundary efforts amid transitions. In sustainability-focused contexts, proactive boundary-spanning searches—spanning value chains or industry-university collaborations—should be institutionalized to build resilience and drive radical innovations, with data from 294 Chinese firms indicating full mediation via resilience for chain-based searches and partial for academic ones, amplified by analytics capabilities. Practitioners are advised to integrate these into core strategies, prioritizing external to enhance without over-reliance on internal silos. Across sectors, the emergence of boundary-spanning competence requires targeted interventions, such as dedicated training curricula that cultivate practices like connecting, mobilizing, and weaving across hierarchies, as observed in higher education where such skills address fragmented ecosystems. This includes selecting and developing individuals with relational acumen for information systems implementation, ensuring that future routines evolve to support emergent, practice-based spanning rather than rigid role prescriptions. Overall, these practices demand a shift toward dynamic structures that reward spanning outcomes, validated through ongoing field validations in deregulated or high-change industries.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3648408/
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343514000529
  3. https://cclinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/boundaryspanningleadership.pdf
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/boundary-spanning
  5. https://commons.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=emr
  6. https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/amr.1977.4409044
  7. https://www.jstor.org/stable/257905
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245024252_Boundary_Spanning_Roles_and_Organization_Structure
  9. https://newprairiepress.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3008&context=aerc
  10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323627972_Spanning_the_Boundary_of_Organisations_A_Systematic_Review_of_the_Inter-Organisational_Boundary-Spanning_Literature
  11. https://ecologyandsociety.org/vol28/iss1/art41/
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Howard-Aldrich/publication/245024252_Boundary_Spanning_Roles_and_Organization_Structure/links/0deec532c863ae8452000000/Boundary-Spanning-Roles-and-Organization-Structure.pdf
  13. https://journal.emergentpublications.com/Article/d21521ca-e7a1-4498-ba81-b61ad7684b4b/jats
  14. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1229762.pdf
  15. https://psychiatry.ucsd.edu/research/programs-centers/instep/tools-resource/definitions/team-processes/interpersonal-phase/boundary-spanning.html
  16. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1323698.pdf
  17. https://academic.oup.com/jpo/article/5/3/184/5127702
  18. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jee.20219
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S0019850118301044
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/104783109090001K
  21. https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/AMJ.2007.28225967
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9873534/
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296316304209
  24. https://www.vaia.com/en-us/explanations/business-studies/human-resources/boundary-spanning/
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090951621001024
  26. https://hal.science/hal-04300612/document
  27. https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4439&context=soss_research
  28. https://research.tue.nl/files/188534125/Master_Thesis_Joris_van_Tongerloo.pdf
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343515300026
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260247065_Beyond_Boundary_Spanners_The_%27Collective_Bridge%27_as_an_Efficient_Interunit_Structure_for_Transferring_Collective_Knowledge
  31. https://www.elgaronline.com/monochap/9781786434166/09_chapter3.xhtml
  32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1977.4409044
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/resource-dependence-theory
  34. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-57511-007
  35. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01492063231206107
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0923474825000025
  37. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-management-and-organization/article/how-and-when-employees-boundaryspanning-behavior-improves-their-creative-performance-a-moderated-mediation-model/A7CB7AC18E769F8C6FE83FF9801AC396
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9798318/
  39. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15309576.2022.2137212
  40. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666049021000037
  41. https://journals.aom.org/doi/full/10.5465/AMBPP.2022.241
  42. https://rucforsk.ruc.dk/ws/files/57688134/Incorporating_boundary_spanning_into_the_social_investment_framework_FINAL.pdf
  43. https://hbr.org/2019/12/why-every-sales-and-marketing-team-needs-a-boundary-spanner
  44. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-13440-6
  45. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijmr.12251
  46. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14719037.2023.2262474
  47. https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/usd/boundary-spanners-in-public-management-and-governance-9781786434166.html
  48. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/padm.12927
  49. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14719037.2021.1942529
  50. https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety/article/39/4/530/6404005
  51. https://uiin.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/We-are-all-boundary-spanners.pdf
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6086300/
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5868552/
  54. https://anzsog.edu.au/research-insights-and-resources/research/becoming-a-boundary-spanning-public-servant/
  55. https://academic.oup.com/book/2267/chapter/142373573
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372053924_Boundary_spanners_in_inter-organizational_relationships_A_literature_review_and_research_agenda
  57. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13594320903115936
  58. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joms.12797
  59. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14719037.2023.2197914
  60. https://www.emerald.com/ccsm/article/26/3/422/68963/Unbundling-dynamic-capabilities-for-inter
  61. https://bmcprimcare.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12875-015-0231-z
  62. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00953997231219262
  63. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002224379403100409
  64. https://psycnet.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.491
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1877343520300014
  66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296322009821
  67. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274733508_The_challenges_of_boundary_spanners_in_supporting_inter-organizational_collaboration_in_primary_care_-_A_qualitative_study_of_general_practitioners_in_a_new_role
  68. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=etdarchive
  69. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23328584211016868
  70. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/266210/1/opal-wp02.pdf
  71. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240249113_Team_Boundary_Spanning_A_Multilevel_Review_of_Past_Research_and_Proposals_for_the_Future
  72. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9182
  73. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23294906251345799?int.sj-abstract.similar-articles.6
  74. https://lbsresearch.london.edu/id/eprint/768/6/BirkinshawJ_boundary%2520spanner%2520paper%2520050916%2520changes%2520accepted_AAM.pdf
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9952170/
  76. https://cmoe.com/glossary/boundary-spanning-leadership/
  77. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bse.3576
  78. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220260322_The_Emergence_of_Boundary_Spanning_Competence_in_Practice_Implications_for_Implementation_and_Use_of_Information_Systems
  79. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03075079.2017.1318364
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.