Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti

Discussion
presented by Ericksen and Dyer (2004) in the context of early project team
development. Ericksen and Dyer examined early events in project teams
and their effects on team development and performance. They found that
the mobilization and launch activities of high performing teams lead the
teams into a virtuous path, contributing positively to team performance.
They further showed how low performing teams may end up on a vacuous
path where the lack of competencies and resources lead to frustration and
failure. In this section, the idea of vacuous and virtuous paths is applied to
change program initiation. The ideas presented by Ericksen and Dyer are
complemented with the findings of the current study concerning boundary
activities and readiness for change program implementation.
The program initiation in case Center provides an example of a vacuous
path. The findings show how program initiation in Center was
characterized by discontinuity, slow progress, and lack of momentum. The
first discontinuity took place at the very beginning of the program, as it
proved difficult to find a program manager for the program. Although
program initiation was formally approved by Center’s top management, top
managers did not seem fully convinced of the need for the program. They
were expecting the appointed program personnel to assure them of the
viability of the program, by coming up with tangible objectives and credible
plans for achieving them. The appointed program core team did not feel
equipped with a clear enough task nor requisite resources. They were
waiting for the input from the top managers to get the program fully
started.
The fairly inactive boundary activity in case Center focused mainly on the
joint sensemaking of what the program was about and how it should be
linked to the existing organizational structures. There were very few
legitimating and committing efforts that would persuade the top
management or other organizational members to engage in the program. As
time passed, the key members of the program organization got frustrated
due to the continuous lack of feedback and support, which discouraged
them and further decreased their motivation for promoting the program.
Due to the lack of boundary crossing activities, Center’s program and its
modest progress remained largely invisible to the peripheral program
participants, many of whom even wondered whether the program was still
active. Simultaneously, top managers and other representatives of the
parent organization received proof for their initial suspicion towards the
program’s capability of delivering change, adding to their reluctance to
commit to the program activities.
Center’s program seemed paralyzed in front of the challenges and never
obtained a strong enough position to serve as a viable vehicle for large scale
204