This article presents the results and implications of an empirical study designed to explore the descriptive characteristics of boundary spanning individuals. Boundary spanners are individuals in an organization who facilitate and filter the flow of information internally and externally. Demographic profiles of boundary spanners (stars, isolates, and liaisons) are developed. Conclusions of this study provide information that could enable organizations to more effectively manage the boundary spanning process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DollingerM., Environmental Boundary Spanning and Information Processing Effects on Organizational Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 27, pp. 351–368, 1984.
2.
BrownW. and SchwabR., Boundary Spanning Activities in Electronics Firms, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 31, pp. 105–110, 1984.
3.
KatzR. and TushmanM., A Longitudinal Study of the Effects of Boundary Spanning Supervision on Turnover and Promotion in Research and Development, Academy of Management Journal, 26, pp. 437–456, 1983.
4.
PearceJ. and DavidF., A Social Network Approach to Organizational Design-Performance, Academy of Management Review, 8, pp. 436–444, 1983.
5.
TushmanM. and ScanlanT., Boundary Spanning Individuals: Their Role in Information Transfer and their Antecedents, Academy of Management Journal, 24, pp. 289–305, 1981.
6.
RobertsK. and O'ReillyC.III, Some Correlates of Communication Roles in Organizations, Academy of Management Journal, 22, pp. 42–57, 1979.
7.
TaylorR., An Analysis of the Two Step Flow Process in a Military R&D Laboratory, unpublished D.B.A. dissertation, Indiana University, 1972.
8.
TushmanM., Special Boundary Roles of the Innovation Process, Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, pp. 587–605, 1977.
9.
MillerJ., Isolation in Organizations: Alienation from Authority, Control, and Expressive Relations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, pp. 260–270, 1975.
10.
AldrichH. and HerkerD., Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization Structure, Academy of Management Review, 2, pp. 217–230, 1977.
11.
TushmanM. and ScanlanT., Characteristics and External Orientation of Boundary Spanning Individuals, Academy of Management Journal, 24, pp. 83–98, 1981.
12.
AllenT. J., Managing the Flow of Technology, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1977.
13.
FarrisG., The Effects of Individual Roles on Performance in Innovative Groups, R&D Management, 3, pp. 23–78, 1972.
14.
SundquistJ., Research Brokerage: The Weak Link, The Brookings Institute Reprint #342, 1978.
15.
SchwartzD. and JacobsonE., Organizational Communication Network Analysis: The Liaison Communication Role, Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 18, pp. 158–174, 1977.
16.
CoserL., Publishers as Gatekeepers of Ideas, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 421, pp. 14–22, September 1975.
17.
CraneD., Invisible Colleges, Free Press, New York, 1972.
18.
HirschP., Processing Fads and Fashion: An Organization Set Analysis of Cultural Industry Systems, American Journal of Sociology, 72, pp. 639–659, 1972.
19.
WebsterF., Informal Communication in Industrial Markets, Journal of Marketing Research, 7, pp. 186–189, 1970.
20.
KellerR. and HollandW., Individual Characteristics of Innovativeness and Communication in R&D Organizations, Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, pp. 759–762, 1978.
21.
TichyN.TushmanM., and FombrunC., Social Network Analysis in Organizational Settings, Academy of Management Review, 4, 1979.
22.
BlauP., The Dynamics of Bureaucracy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1963.
23.
O'ReillyC. and RobertsK., Task Group Structure, Communication, and Effectiveness in Three Organizations, Journal of Applied Psychology, 62:6, pp. 674–681, 1977.
24.
BaldridgeJ. V. and BurnhamR. A., Organization Innovation: Individual, Organizational, and Environmental Impacts, Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, pp. 165–175, 1975.
25.
RobertsK. and O'ReillyC.III, Measuring Organizational Communication, Journal of Applied Psychology, 14, pp. 98–104, 1975.
26.
HagedornR. and LabovitzS., Participation in Community Associations by Occupations: A Test of Three Theories, American Sociological Review, 33, pp. 272–283, 1963.
27.
WeissR. S. and JacobsonE., A Method for the Analysis of the Analysis of the Structure of Complex Organizations, American Sociological Review, 20, pp. 661–668, 1955.
28.
RossI. C. and HararyF., Identification of the Liaison Persons of an Organization Using the Structure Matrix, Management Science, 1, pp. 251–258, 1955.
29.
MacDonaldD., Communication Roles and Communication Content in a Bureaucratic Setting, doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970, University Microfilms No. 71-23, 212.
30.
JacobsonE. and SeashoreS. E., Communication Practices in Complex Organizations, Journal of Social Issues, 7, pp. 28–40, 1951.
31.
LeavittH. J., Managerial Psychology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1964.
32.
KillworthP. and BernardH. R., CATIJ: A New Sociometric and Its Application to a Prison Living Unit, Human Organization, 33:4, pp. 335–350, Winter 1974.
33.
DavidF., “An Assessment of Individual Performance and Group Structure Associated with the Functional and Divisional Organizational Design,” doctoral dissertation, The University of South Carolina, 1981.
34.
CochranD. S.GiallourakisM. C., and ShimJ. P., PC's in the BC Classroom: Present and Future Perceptions, ABC Bulletin, XLIV: 1, March 1986.
35.
CochranD. S. and DolanJ. A., Qualitative Research: An Alternative to Quantitative Research in Communication, Journal of Business Communication, 21:4, Fall 1984.
36.
CochranD. S. and GibsonC. K., Improving Communication and Problem Solving Skills Through Behavior Modeling and the Case Approach to Learning, Journal of Business Education, 60:2, 1984.
37.
PearceJ. A.II, and DavidF. R., A Social Network Approach to Organizational Design-Performance, Academy of Management Review, 8:3, pp. 436–444, July 1983.
