Boundary Spanning in Global Organizations

• Author: Yves L. Doz,Ajai Gaur,Andreas P. J. Schotter,Ram Mudambi
• Published date: 01 June 2017
• Date: 01 June 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12256

Boundary Spanning in Global Organizations

Andreas P. J. Schotter, Ram Mudambi, Yves L. Doz and

Ajai Gaur

Ivey Business School at Western University Canada; Temple University; INSEAD; Rutgers Business

School

ABSTRACT Global organizations are inherently complex. The spatial dispersion of activities

results in organizational subunits becoming embedded in local host-country contexts that

differ from their parents’ home country contexts. These subunits are also embedded in their

parents’ corporate networks, causing them to differ from their locally embedded peers. The

dual embeddedness and associated complexities create complex and often implicit boundaries.

In addition, the contextual and operational diversity that affects the boundaries in global

organizations are continually changing. Hence managing and coordinating across different

inter- and intra-organizational boundaries has emerged as an important capability for the

success of global organizations. So far, we have a limited understanding of the factors that

affect the complexity and effectiveness of the boundary spanning function. In this article, we

focus on clarifying these key issues and propose a model for effective boundary spanning in

global organizations.

Keywords: boundary spanners, boundary spanning, dispersed networks, dual embeddedness,

global organizations, microfoundations, MNE

INTRODUCTION

The efficient management of spatially dispersed business units is central to strategy

development and execution in global organizations. There are however significant chal-

lenges in managing the inherently complex global organization, emanating from the

dual forces of globalization and innovation (Doz and Wilson, 2012). Rapidly developing

emerging markets and technological advances create the need for continuously develop-

ing new ways of coordinating, organizing, and reconfiguring of routines across inter-

and intra-organizational boundaries (Schotter and Beamish, 2011). In addition, increas-

ing spatial dispersion of innovative activities coupled with digital convergence have led

Address for reprints: Andreas P. J. Schotter, Ivey Business School at Western University Canada, 1255

Western Road, London, ON N5X 3W8, Canada (aschotter@ivey.ca).

V

C2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies

Journal of Management Studies 54:4 June 2017

doi: 10.1111/joms.12256

to complex and dynamic new organizational architectures and processes (Doz et al.,

2001; Kostova and Roth, 2003; Tallman and Chacar, 2011).

As the importance of boundary spanning has increased in global organizations, a

wider range of activities and individuals have become associated with the function. This

proliferation of activities and new individual roles has resulted in boundary spanning

becoming an umbrella term encompassing considerable diversity. This poses challenges

to developing a systematic and scientific understanding of both the function and the role

(Reiche et al., 2016). We define boundary spanning in global organizations as a set of

communication and coordination activities performed by individuals within an organi-

zation and between organizations to integrate activities across multiple cultural, institu-

tional and organizational contexts. As we detail below, this article and the associated

special issue are attempts to advance our understanding of boundary spanning in global

organizations, addressing both theory and practice.

Existing research on boundary spanning and boundary spanners is predominantly

conceptual or based on a limited number of case studies. The key insight from these

studies is that a small number of managers with unique skill sets emerge as critical facili-

tators of cross boundary coordination. From an organizational architecture perspective,

the boundaries that have received the most attention are those that manifest themselves

explicitly in the form of hierarchies, functional domains, or geographic territories. In

global organizations, organizational subunits often become embedded in local geo-

graphical contexts that differ from their parents’ home country contexts. These subunits

are also embedded in their parents’ corporate networks, causing them to differ from

their purely locally embedded peers. These organizational complexities create implicit

and multi-dimensional boundaries including cultural and psychic distance, institutional

incompatibilities as well as linguistic issues that may be labelled as ‘lost in translation’.

The boundary spanning function in such global organizations includes a wide range of

processes, all of which are under-researched.

Early work on managing boundary complexities emphasized the roles of gatekeepers

in the context of technology transfer between different departments or functional areas

within organizations (Aldrich and Herker, 1977; Allen, 1971; Friedman and Podolny,

1992; Huber, 1991; Tushman and Katz, 1980; Tushman and Scanlan, 1981). In more

recent research, one stream has focused on the boundary spanning function and

explored the role of boundary objects as contextual aids for cross-boundary knowledge

sharing (Carlile, 2002, 2004; Hsiao et al., 2012; Levina and Vaast, 2005). A comple-

mentary stream focuses on the role and characteristics of specific individuals as bound-

ary spanners and their effectiveness in operating across complex inter- and intra-

organizational, socio-cultural and geographic boundaries (Au and Fukuda, 2002; Doz

and Wilson, 2012; Mudambi and Swift, 2009; Mudambi 2011; Pappas and Wooldridge,

2007; Schotter and Beamish, 2011). This is important, since individuals and their

actions are the nested antecedents to organizational level outcomes and therefore

deserve careful theoretical and empirical deliberation (Abell et al., 2008; Coff and

Kryscynski, 2011; Felin et al., 2012; Barney and Felin, 2013).

However, little is known about the characteristics of boundary spanners in global

organizations and whether their capabilities are inherent or can be developed (Jemison,

1984; Katz and Tushman, 1983; Williams, 2002). Although the literature has provided

404 A. Schotter et al.

V

C2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and Society for the Advancement of Management Studies