Boundary spanning

Last updated

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]

Contents

Background

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

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

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

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

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

Broader adoption

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]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Knowledge management</span> Process of creating, sharing, using and managing the knowledge and information of an organization

Knowledge management (KM) is the collection of methods relating to creating, sharing, using and managing the knowledge and information of an organization. It refers to a multidisciplinary approach to achieve organizational objectives by making the best use of knowledge.

Dispersed knowledge in economics is the notion that no single agent has information as to all of the factors which influence prices and production throughout the system. The term has been both expanded upon and popularized by American economist Thomas Sowell.

Organizational learning is the process of creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge within an organization. An organization improves over time as it gains experience. From this experience, it is able to create knowledge. This knowledge is broad, covering any topic that could better an organization. Examples may include ways to increase production efficiency or to develop beneficial investor relations. Knowledge is created at four different units: individual, group, organizational, and inter organizational.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Knowledge transfer</span> Sharing knowledge for problem solving

Knowledge transfer is the sharing or disseminating of knowledge and the providing of inputs to problem solving. In organizational theory, knowledge transfer is the practical problem of transferring knowledge from one part of the organization to another. Like knowledge management, knowledge transfer seeks to organize, create, capture or distribute knowledge and ensure its availability for future users. It is considered to be more than just a communication problem. If it were merely that, then a memorandum, an e-mail or a meeting would accomplish the knowledge transfer. Knowledge transfer is more complex because:

Opinion leadership is leadership by an active media user who interprets the meaning of media messages or content for lower-end media users. Typically opinion leaders are held in high esteem by those who accept their opinions. Opinion leadership comes from the theory of two-step flow of communication propounded by Paul Lazarsfeld and Elihu Katz. Significant developers of the opinion leader concept have been Robert K. Merton, C. Wright Mills and Bernard Berelson. This theory is one of several models that try to explain the diffusion of innovations, ideas, or commercial products.

In business administration, absorptive capacity is defined as a firm's ability to recognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends. It is studied on individual, group, firm, and national levels. Antecedents are prior-based knowledge and communication. Studies involve a firm's innovation performance, aspiration level, and organizational learning. It has been said that in order to be innovative an organization should develop its absorptive capacity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diffusion of innovations</span> Theory on how and why new ideas spread

Diffusion of innovations is a theory that seeks to explain how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread. The theory was popularized by Everett Rogers in his book Diffusion of Innovations, first published in 1962. Rogers argues that diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated over time among the participants in a social system. The origins of the diffusion of innovations theory are varied and span multiple disciplines.

Open innovation is a term used to promote an information age mindset toward innovation that runs counter to the secrecy and silo mentality of traditional corporate research labs. The benefits and driving forces behind increased openness have been noted and discussed as far back as the 1960s, especially as it pertains to interfirm cooperation in R&D. Use of the term 'open innovation' in reference to the increasing embrace of external cooperation in a complex world has been promoted in particular by Henry Chesbrough, adjunct professor and faculty director of the Center for Open Innovation of the Haas School of Business at the University of California, and Maire Tecnimont Chair of Open Innovation at Luiss.

Organizational effectiveness is a concept organizations use to gauge how effective they are at reaching intended outcomes. Organizational effectiveness is both a powerful and problematic term. The strength of it is that it may be used to critically evaluate and improve organisational activities. It's problematic since it means various things to different individuals. And there are other alternative methods for measuring organizational performance. Organizational effectiveness embodies the degree to which firms achieve the goals they have decided upon, a question that draws on several different factors. Among those are talent management, leadership development, organization design and structure, design of measurements and scorecards, implementation of change and transformation, deploying smart processes and smart technology to manage the firm's human capital and the formulation of the broader Human Resources agenda.

Knowledge sharing is an activity through which knowledge is exchanged among people, friends, peers, families, communities, or within or between organizations. It bridges the individual and organizational knowledge, improving the absorptive and innovation capacity and thus leading to sustained competitive advantage of companies as well as individuals. Knowledge sharing is part of the knowledge management process.

Technology scouting is an element of technology management in which

Corporate foresight has been conceptualised by strategic foresight practitioners and academics working and/or studying corporations as a set of practices, a set of capabilities and an ability of a firm. It enables firms to detect discontinuous change early, interpret its consequences for the firm, and inform future courses of action to ensure the long-term survival and success of the company.

Communities that support innovation have been referred to as communities of innovation (CoI), communities for innovation, innovation communities, open innovation communities, and communities of creation.

Psychological safety is the belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes. In teams, it refers to team members believing that they can take risks without being shamed by other team members. In psychologically safe teams, team members feel accepted and respected. It is also the most studied enabling condition in group dynamics and team learning research.

In organisational theory, organisational routines are "repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent actions carried out by multiple actors".

Policy entrepreneurs are individuals who exploit opportunities to influence policy outcomes so as to promote their own goals, without having the resources necessary to achieve this alone. They are not satisfied with merely promoting their self-interests within institutions that others have established; rather, they try to create new horizons of opportunity through innovative ideas and strategies. These persistent individuals employ innovative ideas and nontraditional strategies to promote desired policy outcomes. Whether from the private, public or third sector, one of their defining characteristics is a willingness to invest their own resources – time, energy, reputation and sometimes money – in hope of a future return. While policy entrepreneurs may try to block changes proposed by others, entrepreneurial activities usually seek to change the status quo rather than preserve it. It should be stressed, however, that although the literature has focused mainly on entrepreneurs who have led successful changes in policy, not all policy entrepreneurship ends in success. Finally, policy entrepreneurship is but one form of political participation. It is a process that involves individuals who are willing to take risks, identify policy problems and solutions, and use their political skills and timing to achieve a specified outcome". Most accounts and case studies address these individuals in a national context but the emergence of transnational policy entrepreneurs is increasingly apparent.

Technology intermediaries are an important actor of the innovation system. According to Howells their role is to act as brokers or third parties in order to build the bridges between the various participations within the open system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Boundary organization</span>

A boundary organization is a formal body jointly generated by the scientific and political communities to coordinate different purposes and promote consistent boundaries and mutually incomprehensible interactions. Boundary organizations provide an institutionalized place for the development of long-term relationships, the promotion of two way communication, the development and use of management tools, and the negotiations on the boundaries of the problem itself. According to Carr and Wilkinson, boundary organizations are increasingly becoming networks and social arrangements between scientific and political institutions. On the international level, boundary organizations are most frequently set up for governments to deal with environmental issues.

Research Quotient (RQ) is a measure of companies' innovation capability introduced in the 2008 article, R&D Returns Causality: Absorptive Capacity or Organizational IQ, The measure was originally referred to as IQ (Innovation Quotient), but because IQ and innovation quotient were already in use commercially, it was referred to as RQ in subsequent work. The motivating argument in the 2008 article was that the main prescription from absorptive capacity — that the more a company spends on R&D, the greater its ability to absorb spillovers from rivals’ R&D, seemed implausible. This is because the greater the R&D, the closer a company gets to the knowledge frontier, and accordingly, the less likely it can use spillovers. Instead, Knott proposed and found, it wasn't that spending more led to higher returns, it was that companies have inherently different returns (RQ), and those with higher RQ spend more.

In business administration, desorptive capacity has been defined as "an organization’s ability to identify technology transfer opportunities based on a firm’s outward technology transfer strategy and to facilitate the technology’s application at the recipient". It is considered as a complement to absorptive capacity, and it may be a driver of a successful knowledge transfer.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Tushman, Michael L (1977). "Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process". Administrative Science Quarterly. 22 (4): 587–605. doi:10.2307/2392402. ISSN   0001-8392. JSTOR   2392402.
  2. ↑ March, J; Simon, H (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.
  3. ↑ Thompson, J D (1967). Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  4. ↑ Allen, T J; Cohen, S (1969). "Information flow in R&D Labs". Administrative Science Quarterly. 14: 12–19. doi:10.2307/2391357. JSTOR   2391357.
  5. ↑ Bergenholtz, C (2011). "Knowledge brokering: spanning technological and network boundaries". European Journal of Innovation Management. 14 (1): 74–92. doi:10.1108/14601061111104706.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Christopherson, E.G.; Howell, E.L.; Scheufele, D.A.; Viswanath, K.; West, N.P. (2021). "How science philanthropy can build equity". Stanford Social Innovation Review. 19 (4): 48–55. doi:10.48558/P4G8-QM77.
  7. ↑ Aungst, H.A.; et al. (2012). "Boundary spanning and health: invitation to a learning community". London J Prim Care (Abingdon). 4 (2): 109–115. doi:10.1080/17571472.2012.11493346. PMC   4461106 . PMID   26265946.
  8. ↑ Bhasin, Hitesh (9 July 2021). "Boundary spanning".
  9. ↑ Matous, P.; Wang, P. (2019). "External exposure, boundary-spanning, and opinion leadership in remote communities: A network experiment". Social Networks. 56: 10–22. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2018.08.002. S2CID   53947635.
  10. ↑ Nonaka, Ikujiro; Takeuchi, Hirotaka (1995). The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation . New York: Oxford University Press. p.  284. ISBN   978-0-19-509269-1.
  11. ↑ Cohen, W; Levinthal, D (1990). "Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation". Administrative Science Quarterly. 35 (1): 128–152. doi:10.2307/2393553. ISSN   0001-8392. JSTOR   2393553.
  12. ↑ Zahra, S; George, G (2002). "Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension". Academy of Management Review. 27 (2): 185–203. doi:10.5465/amr.2002.6587995. ISSN   0363-7425.
  13. ↑ Cramer, K (16 November 2016). "For years, I've been watching anti-elite fury build in Wisconsin. Then came Trump". Vox. Retrieved 3 April 2022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.