Walking a tightrope: the joint impact of customer and within-firm boundary spanning activities on perceived customer satisfaction and team performance

2014 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 472-489 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Sleep ◽  
Sundar Bharadwaj ◽  
Son K. Lam
Keyword(s):  
Customer Satisfaction ◽  
Team Performance ◽  
Boundary Spanning ◽  
Firm Boundary

Building and Managing Great Teams: An Evidence-Based Approach

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gergana Todorova
Keyword(s):  
Team Performance ◽  
Boundary Spanning ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Innovation Networks ◽  
Entrepreneurial Teams ◽  
Managerial Decisions ◽  
Team Motivation ◽  
New Business ◽  
Shared Ownership ◽  
Performance Literature

Efforts to initiate new startups rely heavily on teams and networks. Research demonstrates that 95 percent of the individuals trying to start a business involved others in helping build the new business. This article provides an overview of the team performance literature that can be used when making managerial decisions about building and managing successful entrepreneurial teams. I integrate and review prior research in three areas that have been disconnected previously: 1) innovation networks and teams; 2) team boundary spanning and internal processes; and 3) shared ownership and team motivation. The integration and review in this article provide new insights towards an evidence-based approach on managing entrepreneurial teams,

scholarly journals Interteam Cooperation and Competition and Boundary Activities: The Cross-Level Mediation of Team Goal Orientations

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (15) ◽  
pp. 2738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shin ◽  
Kim ◽  
Hur
Keyword(s):  
Goal Orientation ◽  
Team Performance ◽  
Team Learning ◽  
Boundary Spanning ◽  
Goal Orientations ◽  
Cooperation And Competition ◽  
Learning Goal ◽  
Learning Goal Orientation ◽  
And Performance ◽  
The Relationship

Drawing on Dragoni’s cross-level model of state goal orientation, this research aims to examine the cross-level mediating effect of team goal orientation on the relationships between interteam cooperation and competition and three forms of boundary activities. Study 1 tested the proposed mediating relationships by collecting survey data from 249 members of 45 South Korean work teams. Additionally, we conducted a two-wave longitudinal study (Study 2) on 188 undergraduate students to replicate the relationships between three types of team goal orientation and their relevant forms of boundary activities. In Study 1, we found positive associations between interteam cooperation and team learning goal orientation, and between interteam competition and team performance-prove and performance-avoid goal orientations. Team learning and performance-prove goal orientations were positively related to boundary spanning and reinforcement. As predicted, team learning goal orientation had a stronger relationship with boundary spanning than team performance-prove goal orientation, whereas team performance-prove goal orientation had a stronger relationship with boundary reinforcement than team learning goal orientation. While team learning goal orientation mediated the relationship between interteam cooperation and boundary spanning and reinforcement, team performance-prove goal orientation mediated the relationship between interteam competition and boundary spanning and reinforcement. The results of Study 2 demonstrated the positive lagged effects of team performance-prove goal orientation on boundary reinforcement and of team performance-avoid goal orientation on boundary buffering.

Team boundary activity: a review and directions for future research

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (5/6) ◽  
pp. 273-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chitra Dey ◽  
Ganesh M.P.
Keyword(s):  
Team Performance ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Boundary Spanning ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Team Identification ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Measurement Issues ◽  
External Communication ◽  
Search Terms

Purpose The purpose of this paper is an examination of the literature on team boundary activity to trace how team boundary activity has evolved as a construct and examine the dimensions of team boundary activity and their relationships. It highlights the need for a deeper examination of the dimensions of buffering and reinforcement, and why buffering and reinforcement are required. It presents the case of why it is important to study this topic and maps out areas for future research. Design/methodology/approach The paper reviews conceptual and empirical papers published on team boundary activity in reputed journals between the years 1984 and 2016. Findings The focus of research in team boundary activity has been on external interactions of the team (boundary spanning), and very few papers have studied the activities through which the team defines and defends its borders (boundary strengthening). These boundary-strengthening activities can be equally important for innovation and learning in externally dependent teams. Further, there is a need to clearly distinguish these constructs from other variables like team identification. Another area that has here-to not been researched is the relationships between the dimensions of team boundary activity. Last, there is a need to consider a wider range of antecedents, outcomes and moderators of team boundary activity. Research limitations/implications This paper is based on past empirical and conceptual papers, identified using search terms such as team boundary activity, team boundary spanning and external communication. Other related areas can also be explored for identifying variables of interest. Originality/value As opposed to previous reviews which focused mainly on team boundary spanning, this paper considers all dimensions of team boundary activity, with special focus on buffering and reinforcement. It proposes a 2 × 2 framework to explain the effect of boundary-spanning and boundary-strengthening activities on the achievement of team objectives. It examines the cyclical nature of relationship between team boundary activity and team performance. It highlights measurement issues in the area of team boundary activity.

Working at the Boundary: A Meta Analysis of Boundary Spanning and Team Performance

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (1) ◽  
pp. 14117
Author(s):  
Angela DeMichele ◽  
Daniel Slyngstad ◽  
Maritza R. Salazar
Keyword(s):  
Team Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Boundary Spanning

Communication

2020 ◽  
pp. 102-118
Author(s):  
Scott Tannenbaum ◽  
Eduardo Salas
Keyword(s):  
Team Performance ◽  
Closed Loop ◽  
Effective Communication ◽  
Boundary Spanning ◽  
Communication Quality ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Unique Information ◽  
Effective Boundary ◽  
The Right ◽  
Communication Breakdowns

Communication breakdowns make a team vulnerable, but simply communicating “more” won’t necessarily make a team more effective. Communication quality is far more important than communication quantity. The basics of high-quality communication are to share useful information clearly, accurately, and on time to the right people. Beyond the basics, research has shown it is the sharing of unique information the drives team performance. Other hallmarks of effective communication are the use of closed-loop communication and effective boundary spanning with people outside the team. The chapter identifies the most common obstacles and challenges to effective communication, including biases such as “everybody knows” and highlights situations with the greatest risk of communication breakdowns. Advice is given for fostering better team communications and mitigating common risks.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document