Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Theoretical background<br />
Related to the program-level antecedents of boundary spanning, the<br />
nature of a group’s task, the group’s composition, dependence on other<br />
groups, <strong>and</strong> the group’s internal processes may have an effect on the<br />
boundary <strong>activities</strong> (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988; Choi, 2002; Joshi et al.,<br />
2009). Individual-level antecedents include the boundary spanners’<br />
position, skills, knowledge, prior experience, personal characteristics <strong>and</strong><br />
need <strong>for</strong> power, which all may influence boundary spanning behavior<br />
(Ancona & Caldwell, 1988; Joshi et al., 2009). <strong>Boundary</strong> spanning may also<br />
be per<strong>for</strong>med differently by different individuals. For example, different<br />
boundary spanners may use different sources of in<strong>for</strong>mation: some rely on<br />
personal communication, some on impersonal, codified in<strong>for</strong>mation (Allen<br />
& Cohen, 1969). The focus of boundary <strong>activities</strong> may also vary depending<br />
on the needs <strong>and</strong> wants of the boundary spanners’ superiors (Leifer &<br />
Delbecq, 1978). As these different antecedents of boundary <strong>activities</strong> are<br />
interrelated, empirical studies have been encouraged to adopt multi-level<br />
approaches (Joshi et al., 2009). The present study will follow this<br />
suggestion by examining individual, program-level, <strong>and</strong> organization-level<br />
contextual factors involved in change program initiation.<br />
Previous studies show how boundary management may depend on the<br />
team’s lifecycle stage (Ancona, 1990; Ancona <strong>and</strong> Caldwell, 1992a; Katz,<br />
1982; Tushman, 1977), suggesting that the boundaries as well as boundary<br />
<strong>activities</strong> are especially important <strong>for</strong> emerging organizations (Choi, 2002;<br />
Katz & Gartner, 1988). First of all, the early stage of a temporary<br />
organization necessarily includes boundary setting. Vaagaasar <strong>and</strong><br />
Andersen (2007) describe how the permanent organization directly or<br />
indirectly describes the project’s authority <strong>and</strong> responsibility <strong>and</strong> thus<br />
defines its boundaries, creating a basis <strong>for</strong> the project’s identity. In addition<br />
to boundary setting, the early stage of a temporary organization presumably<br />
requires boundary crossing, as the temporary organization is established in<br />
cooperation with different stakeholder groups. Correspondingly, external<br />
support has been identified as particularly important in the beginning of a<br />
project team’s existence (Gladstein & Caldwell, 1985). The findings by<br />
Woodward (1982, see page 69 of the dissertation) concerning the tasks of<br />
planning a large project also highlight external <strong>activities</strong>, as most of the<br />
identified early tasks are in essence boundary <strong>activities</strong> that aim at<br />
positioning the project in the wider organization. Studies on boundary<br />
spanning note that the early project or program phase is about idea<br />
generation, <strong>and</strong> thus involves significant in<strong>for</strong>mation scouting (Gladstein &<br />
Caldwell, 1985; Tushman, 1977).<br />
Earlier literature illustrates the relevance of boundaries within <strong>and</strong><br />
outside an organization <strong>and</strong> provides examples of how boundaries are<br />
71