Tài liệu Research " BOUNDARY BEHAVIOR OF LEADERS ORGANIZATION: DEFINITION AND SCALE DEVELOPMENT " pptx

Summary of the Moderating Effects of Leader Expertise on the Relationship Between the Leader Boundary Behaviors and Satisfaction with Supervision and Work_.... Summary of the Moderating

BOUNDARY BEHAVIOR OF LEADERS IN ORGANIZATIONS:

DEFINITION AND SCALE DEVELOPMENT

BY JENNIFER R VILLA, B.B.A, M_B.A

A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree Doctor of Philosophy

Major Subject: Business Administration Minor Subject: Labor Relations

New Mexico State University

Las Cruces, New Mexico

May 2000

Copyright 2000 by Jennifer R Villa

UMI Number: 9968115

® UMI

UM! Microform9968115

Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Leaming Company All rights reserved This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

Bell & Howell Information and Leaming Company

300 North Zeeb Road P.O Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

“Boundary behavior of organizational leaders: definition and scale development,” a dissertation prepared by Jennifer Rose Villa in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy, has been approved and accepted by the following:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work would not have been possible without the constant support and encouragement of my husband, Daniel J Villa, and the understanding of my sons, Jesus Cuahteméc and Cipriano José I cannot thank them enough I would also like to thank my father for always believing in me and my mother for insisting that I learn to type because I “may need it to fall back on some day”—I did need it after all!

Graduated from Robert O Anderson School of Management, The

University of New Mexico, B.B.A , Albuquerque, New Mexico

Graduated from Robert O Anderson School of Management, The

University of New Mexico, M.B.A., Albuquerque, New Mexico

Instructor of Economics, University of Alaska Anchorage, Eilson

Omicron Delta Epsilon Honor Society in Economics

Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society

Board member, Las Cruces Natural History Museum Foundation

PUBLICATIONS Cox, R., Blum, A A & Villa, J R (1998) Promoting organizational fairness in small

business: An analysis of grievance procedures Journal of Business

Entrepreneurship, 10 (2), 1-19

Villa, D J & Villa, J R (1998) Identity labels and self-reported language use:

Implications for Spanish for native speakers programs Foreign Language Annals, 31(4), 505-516

Villa, J R & Blum, A A (1996) Collective bargaining in higher education:

Prospects for faculty unions Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 25(2), 157-169

Villa, J R., Howell, J P & Dorfman, P W (1996) Problems with detecting

moderators using moderated multiple regression in leadership research

Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings 1996 Expanded

Electronic Version

Villa, J R., & Ghosh, S (1995) The decline of union membership in OECD

countries Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Miles International Conference Villa, J R., & Blum, A A (1994) New Mexico's Public Employee Bargaining Act:

Its first year for teachers Journal of Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 23(4), 321-332

Howell, J P & Villa, J R (1994) Supportive leadership: Extending the definition

Proceedings of the Organizational Studies Group, Association of

Management 12(1), 115-120

Daily, B F & Villa, J R (1993) Total quality management in the maquiladoras

Proceedings 1993 Western Decision Sciences Institute

PAPERS PRESENTED May 1997 Villa, J R "Interpreting interaction effects using moderated multiple

regression." Paper presented at the Graduate Research Symposium, New Mexico State University

August 1996 Villa, J R., Howell, J.P & Dorfman, P W., "Problems with detecting

research." Paper presented at the Fifty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Cincinnati, Ohio

May 1995 Villa, J R & Ghosh, S., " The decline of union membership in OECD

countries." Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Miles International Conference, El Paso, Texas,

August 1994 Howell, J P & Villa, J R., "Supportive leadership: Extending the

definition." Paper presented at the Association of Management Twelfth Annual Conference, Dallas, Texas

FIELD OF STUDY Major Field: Management— Leadership and Motivation

Minor Field: Management— Labor Relations

ABSTRACT BOUNDARY BEHAVIOR OF LEADERS IN ORGANIZATIONS :

DEFINITION AND SCALE DEVELOPMENT

BY JENNIFER R VILLA, B.B.A, M.B.A

Doctor of Philosophy in Business Administration

New Mexico State University

Las Cruces, New Mexico, 2000

Dr Jon P Howell, Chair

An important function of leaders in organizations is the management of boundaries Boundaries can be both spatial and psychological in nature Recognizable boundaries are necessary to the orderly function of organizations, however, they can also discourage cooperation, impede the timely flow of information and inhibit

innovation Leaders need to be able to recognize and manage boundaries The

functions that a leader engages in when managing boundaries can be labeled leader boundary behavior and described as the activities and accompanying strategies

through which a leader defines, protects and spans the boundaries which differentiate

his/her unit from the environment

There is a need to develop and test a theoretical model of the antecedents and outcomes of boundary-related activities performed by leaders in organizations This study provides construct development and theoretical validation of the concept of leader boundary behavior as a pattern of behavior distinct from other leader

behaviors It also empirically examines a theoretical framework that incorporates social-structural antecedents, behavioral outcomes, and situational factors which can enhance or inhibit the effectiveness of boundary-related activities by organizational leaders

This dissertation describes an empirical study of boundary activities of

university department heads and the effects of these activities on the trust,

satisfaction, group cohesion and organizational commitment of faculty The study combines scale development of leader boundary behaviors and the use of the scales in

a questionnaire completed by faculty ina medium-sized state university in the

Southwestern United States

The study examines whether the boundary-related behaviors of leaders in this organization have an impact on employee outcomes A three dimensional

conceptualization of leader boundary behavior is developed based on a review of the organizational studies literature The three dimensional conceptualization is then incorporated into a theoretical model of the antecedents, outcomes and moderators of leader boundary behavior This model is based on a review of evidence of social- structural antecedents, behavioral outcomes, and situational factors which can

enhance or inhibit the effectiveness of this type of behavior by organizational leaders The research design used to empirically examine the theoretical model is detailed and results of the analyses are discussed along with the implications for theory and

management practice, and directions for future research

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES xvi

LIST OF FIGURES xxi

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1

The Importance and Expansion of Leader Boundary Behavior 2

Statement of the Problem to Be Investigated 4

Overview of the Research Study 7

2 CONSTRUCT DEFINITION 9

Boundary Levels 9

Boundary Activilies 12

Three Categories of Boundary Activities 15

Buffering l6 Boundary Spanning 18

Boundary Definition and Maintenance 20

Discussion of the Three Dimensions of Leader Boundary Behavior 23

3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK_ 25

Antecedents 27

Environmental Uncertainty 27

Resource Scarcity 28

Outcomes 31

Group Cohesion 32

Organizational Commitment 33

Trust in theLeader 36

Moderators 38

Organizational Trust 38

Leader Expertise 40

Task Interdependencc 42

Organizational Formalization 43

Organizational Inflexibility 44

Employee Characteristics 46

Summary 49

4 METHODOLOGY' 50

Procedure 30

Setting and Sample 31

Questionnaire Development 56

Leader Boundary Behavior Scale Development 57

Items from existing scales 37

Items from the critical incident study 58

Preliminary analyses 58

Supportive, Directive and Partcipative Leader Behaviors Scales 61

Antecedent Variables 63

Environmental uncertainty 63

Resource scarcity 63

Outcome Variables 64

Satisfaction with supervision 65

Satisfaction with work ó6 Group cohesion 66

Organizational commitment 67

Trust in the leader 67

Moderator Variables 67

Organizational trust 68

Leader expertise 69

Task interdependence 69

Organizational formalization 70

Organizational inflexibility 70

Employee characteristics 71

Strategy for Data Analysis 73

The Three Dimensions of Leader Boundary Behavior 73

Relationships Between the Leader Boundary Behaviors, Antecedents and Employees Outcomes 74

Moderated Relationships 74

Factor Analyses of the Leader Boundary Activities

Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the Leader Boundary Behaviors and Other Leader Behaviors

Antecedents and Outcomes of Leader Boundary Behavior

Antecedents of Leader Boundary Behavior

Environmental uncertainty

Resource scarcity

Outcomes of Leader Boundary Behavior

Satisfaction with supervision

Satisfaction with work

Group cohesion

Organizational commitment

Trust in theleader

Moderated Relationships Between Leader Boundary Activity and Outcomes_

Organizational Trust

Leader Expertise

Task Interdependence

Organizational Formalization

Organizational Inflexibility

Employee Characteristics 122

Academic tetnure 122

Academrtc rank 124

Gender, ethnicity and time 125

Summary of Results 131

6 CONCLUSIONS 136

Recap ofResults 136

Three Dimensions of Leader Boundary Behavior 137

Direct Relationships 137

Anteccdents 137

Employee outcomes 138

Moderated Relatonships 138

Discussion 139

Scale Development 139

Leader Boundary Behavior Path Model 140

Moderated Regression Analyses 142

Summary 142

APPENDICES 145

A FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS_ 146

B BOUNDARY BEHAVIOR SORT PROCEDURE DESCRIPTIONS ANDITEMS 153

C 52ITEM BOUNDARY BEHAVIOR QUESTIONNAIRE 158

ANALYSIS OF THE LEADER BOUNDARY BEHAVIORS 173

ANALYSIS OF ALL MEASURED LEADER BEHAVIORS 176

H LISREL PRINTOUT OF THE PATH ANALYSIS OF LEADER

BOUNDARY BEHAVIORS, ANTECEDENTS AND EMPLOYEE OUTCOMES_ 180

REFERENCES_ 198

LIST OF TABLES

1 Boundary Functions ofManagers 23

2 Number of Regular Faculty, Number of Surveys Mailed and Returned by College 55

3 | Comparison of Sample with Population of Regular Faculty 56

4 Boundary Scale Items and Scale Reliability 61

5 Leader Behaviors, Scale Length, Mean, Standard Deviation and Reliability 62

6 | Antecedent and Outcome Measures, Scale Length, Mean, Standard Deviation and Reliability 65

7 Situational Variables, Scale Length, Mean, Standard Deviation and Reliability 72

8 Leader Boundary Behavior Scale Items and Scale Reliability 82

9 Standardized Parameter Estimates for the Three Factor Leader Boundary Behavior Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model 83

10 Goodness of Fit Statistics for the Three Factor Leader Boundary Behavior Model 85

11 Standardized Parameter Estimates for the Six Factor Leader Behavior Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model 87

12 Goodness of Fit Statistics for the Six Factor Leader Behavior Model 89

13 Summary ofResults ofHypothesis l 90

14 Goodness of Fit Statistics for the Path Model 92

15 Correlation of Leader Boundary Behaviors, Resource Scarcity and Antecedent Variables 94

on the Relationship Between the Leader Boundary Behaviors and Employee Outcomes Regression Estimates of Trust in Other Departments and Buffering on Affective Commitment Before and after the Addition of the Interaction Term Summary of the Moderating Effects of Leader Expertise on the

Relationship Between the Leader Boundary Behaviors and Satisfaction with Supervision and Work_ Summary of the Moderating Effects of Task Interdependence on the

Relationship Between the Leader Boundary Behaviors and Satisfaction with Supervision and Work Summary of the Moderating Effects of Organizational Formalization on the Relationship Between the Leader Boundary Behaviors and Satisfaction with Supervision Summary of the Moderating Effects of Organizational Inflexibility on the Relationship Between the Leader Boundary Behaviors and Satisfaction with Supervision and Affective Commitment Summary of the Moderating Effects of Employee Characteristics on the Relationship Between the Leader Boundary Behaviors and

Satisfaction with Supervision Correlation of Gender, Ethnicity, Academic Tenure, Time at the

University, Time as a Faculty Member and Academic Rank Summary of the Results of Hypotheses 10 Through 23 kh nh ha Means, Standard Deviations and Reliabiliies

Terms on Satisfaction with Supervision Trust in the Dean, Leader Boundary Behavior and Interaction

Terms on Group Cohesion Trust in Other Departments, Leader Boundary Behavior and Interaction Terms on Group Cohesion Trust in the University, Leader Boundary Behaviors and Interaction

Terms on Group Coheson Trust in the Dean, Leader Boundary Behavior and Interaction Terms

on Affective Commitment Trust in Other Departments, Leader Boundary Behavior and Interaction Terms on Affective Commitment Trust in the University, Leader Boundary Behavior and Interaction

Terms on Affective Commitment Leader Expertise, Leader Boundary Behavior and Interaction Terms

on Satisfaction with Supervision Leader Expertise, Leader Boundary Behavior and Interaction Terms

on Satisfaction with Work Task Interdependence, Leader Boundary Behavior and Interaction

Terms on Satisfaction with Supervision Task Interdependence, Leader Boundary Behavior and Interaction

Terms on Satisfaction wth Work

on Satisfaction with Supervision Academic Tenure, Leader Boundary Behavior and Interaction Terms

on Satisfaction with Work_ Academic Rank, Leader Boundary Behavior and Interaction Terms

on Satisfaction with Supervision Academic Rank, Leader Boundary Behavior and Interaction Terms

on Satisfaction with Work

Gender, Leader Boundary Behavior and Interaction Terms on

Satisfaction with Supervision Gender, Leader Boundary Behavior and Interaction Terms on

Satisfaction with Work

Ethnicity, Leader Boundary Behavior and Interaction Terms on

Satisfaction with Supervision Ethnicity, Leader Boundary Behavior and Interaction Terms on

Satisfaction with Work

Time at the University, Leader Boundary Behaviors and Interaction

Terms on Satisfaction with Supervision Time at the University, Leader Boundary Behaviors and Interaction

Terms on Satisfaction with Work Time as a Faculty Member, Buffering, Spanning and Boundary

Definition and Maintenance on Satisfaction with Supervision

EE

128 Time as a Faculty Member, Buffering, Spanning and Boundary

Definition and Maintenance on Satisfaction with Work 196

129 Time with the Department Head, Buffering, Spanning and Boundary

Definition and Maintenance on Satisfaction with Supervision 197

130 Time with the Department Head, Buffering, Spanning and Boundary

Definition and Maintenance on Satisfaction with Work 197

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Leader boundary behaviors .0 -0-020 000022 e eee eee eee 18

2 Model ofleader boundary behaviors 26

Path diagram of the confirmatory factor analysis of the leader boundary

behaviors and three other leader behaviors 88 Path analysis of antecedents, leader boundary behaviors and outcomes 93 Moderating effect of trust in the dean on the relationship between

boundary spanning and group cohesion 106 Moderating effect of trust in the university on the relationship between

boundary definition and maintenance and satisfaction with

Moderating effect of trust in other departments on the relationship

between buffering and affective commitment 110 Moderating effect of trust in other departments on the relationship

between boundary spanning and affective commitment 110 Moderating effect of trust in other departments on the relationship

between boundary definition and maintenance and affective

Moderating effect of leader expertise on the relationship between

buffering and satisfaction with work_ - 112 Moderating effect of task interdependence on the relationship between

buffering and satisfaction with work_ 114 Moderating effect of task interdependence on the relationship between

Moderating effect of task interdependence on the relationship between

boundary definition and maintenance and satisfaction with work 115 Moderating effect of organizational formalization on the relationship

between boundary spanning and satisfaction with supervision 116 Moderating effect of organizational formalization on the relationship

between boundary definition and maintenance and satisfaction

with superVision 117 Moderating effect of inflexibility of university policies on the relationship

between buffering and affective commitment 120 Moderating effect of inflexibility of university policies on the relationship

between boundary spanning and affective commitment 120 Moderating effect of inflexibility of university policies on the relationship

between boundary definition and maintenance and affective

commitment 121 Moderating effect of tenure on the relationship between boundary

spanning and satisfaction with supervision and work 124 Moderating effect of rank on the relationship between boundary

spanning and satisfaction with supervision 125 Moderating effect of time at the university on the relationship between

boundary spanning and satisfaction with supervision 127 Moderating effect of time at the university on the relationship between

boundary spanning and satisfaction with work 128 Moderating effect of time at the university on the relationship between

boundary definition and maintenance and satisfaction with work 128 Moderating effect of time as a faculty member on the relationship between

boundary spanning and satisfaction with supervision 129 Moderating effect of time with department head on the relationship

between boundary spanning and satisfaction with work 130

27 Moderating effect of time with department head on the relationship

between boundary definition and maintenance and satisfaction with

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Managers are right to break down the boundaries that make

organizations rigid and unresponsive But they are wrong if they think

that doing so eliminates the need for boundaries altogether

(Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992, 104-105.)

An important function of leaders in organizations is the management of boundaries (Gilmore, 1982; Rice, 1969) A boundary is a demarcation that bounds or limits, that marks a separation Psychological boundaries are the basis of group formation, defining who is and who is not part of the group Groups are also bounded

by time and by observable spatial boundaries (McCollom, 1990) Recognizable boundaries are necessary for the orderly functioning of organizations However, in organizations, the defense of one’s boundaries can also discourage cooperation, slow work processes, impede the timely flow of information and inhibit innovation

Leaders therefore, need to be able to recognize and manage boundaries (Ashkenas,

Ulrich, Jick, & Kerr, 1995)

The functions that a leader engages in when managing boundaries can be labeled leader boundary behavior and can be defined as the activities and

accompanying strategies through which a leader defines, protects and spans the

boundaries which differentiate his/her unit from the environment The unit can refer not only to the organization as a whole, in which case the leader referred to may be the CEO or president of the organization, but also to smaller units within the

in the definition is the idea that leader boundary behavior is applicable to both

personal and organizational boundaries Researchers (e.g Gilmore, 1982; Rice, 1969) have argued that boundary-related activities of organizational leaders apply also to the

individual in his or her role, and the role boundaries between the leader and his or her followers, as well as to the boundaries between organizations and the subunits of

organizations The individual, the work group, and the larger group are similar in that all can be described as consisting of a system with internal processes, an external environment, and a boundary which differentiates what is within from what is outside

of the system (McCollom, 1990; Miller & Rice, 1967)

The purpose of this research is to extend the theoretical construct of leader boundary behavior through the development and validation of a measure of the

boundary functions of managers in a work place context Delineation of types and levels of leader boundary behavior and the effects of leader boundary behavior on employee outcomes is an important focus of this study

The Importance and Expansion of Leader Boundary Behavior

A new organizational reality faces many leaders The environment for many firms is changing rapidly Increasing competition, changing technology, shifting

consumer preferences, deregulation, litigious clients, a more diverse workforce, and shrinking budgets are examples of the challenges being faced by organizations

Downsizing, reorganizing, and reengineering are among the responses used to

describe the process of trying to transform organizations to meet these environmental

challenges The success General Electric has had in decreasing bureaucracy and increasing communication and employee involvement has been described as

encouraging “boundaryless behavior” (Welch, 1996) Boundaryless behavior,

described also as boundary spanning, has been characterized as “the Capacity to transcend current administrative boundaries” and “substituting permeable structures for concrete walls” (Prahalad, 1995, p xv-xvi)

Establishing more permeable boundaries can indeed be beneficial to the

organization when it increases collaboration, flexibility and integration, however, there is also a dark side to breaking or lowering boundaries For example, cell phones, pagers, e-mail, voice mail and facsimile machines have broken down boundaries between work and home, leaving workers less and less private life Assignments to task forces, committees and other temporary or cross-functional teams divide one’s loyalties and compete for limited time and attention As companies adjust in an effort

to become leaner and more flexible, the security of traditional boundaries is lost, leaving many employees to try to define their own boundaries As Victor and Stevens (1994) note,

Instead of a role anchored by the organization and codified in a job

description, the new forms are offering a role defined by the task of the

moment and location of the worker Time, space and shifting group

membership are becoming the primary definers of responsibility and

accountability for the virtual wage slave (480)

Boundary-related activities, like a number of other organizational activities, have become increasingly important at lower levels of the organization With the

decline of bureaucratic structure, activities such as bringing in outside funds and other resources; determining how, what, how much, and to whom information is

communicated; contacting suppliers, distributors, and customers; as well as other boundary-related activities fall more frequently on leaders at the organization’s core Thompson’s (1967) characterization of an organization as composed of “a stable core

of productive activity sheltered by a mantle of uncertainty-absorbing boundary-

spanning activity” may no longer hold true for many organizations (Louis & Yan, 1996; Spender & Kessler, 1995)

Statement of the Problem to Be Investigated Recent conceptualizations of leader boundary behavior build on the studies of group formation and group dynamics (e.g Alderfer, 1980, 1987; Brown, 1978, 1983; Freidlander, 1987; McCollom, 1990) and on systems theories (e.g Miller, 1976;

Miller & Rice 1967; Scott, 1992) While a series of authors have written about

boundary spanning, a major component of the boundary functions performed by

leaders, little has been written on other aspects of this type of work As will be

detailed in the second chapter, Construct Definition, boundary activities include not just the “outward-facing” activities of spanning boundaries and buffering the unit from external influences, but also involves internal or “inward-facing” boundary

maintenance activities (Louis & Yan, 1996)

Certain types of boundary-related activities can, and often are, performed by work unit members other than organizational leaders Sales representatives, customer

Service representatives, receptionists and other organizational members are frequently noted as performing boundary spanning tasks However, in some organizations, the majority of boundary-spanning individuals are in leadership positions (Katz &

Tushman, 1983; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981) Most of the research studies on

organizational boundary-related activities investigate the activities of organizational members other than those in leadership positions, including, but not limited to,

salespersons (e.g Goolsby, 1992; Singh, Goolsby & Rhodes, 1994; Wall & Adams, 1974) purchasing agents (Speckman, 1979), psychologists and social workers

(Amedore & Knoff, 1993; Jerrell, 1984; Steadman, 1992), bargaining agents

(Friedman & Podolny, 1992; Klimonsky & Ash, 1974; Liddel, 1973; Manring, 1993; Organ, 1971), and engineers and scientists primarily in research and development

organizations (Ancona, 1990; Ancona & Caldwell, 1990; Katz & Allen, 1985; Katz & Tushman, 1983; Keller, & Holland, 1975, 1978; Miles 1976; Nochur & Allen, 1992; Sexton, 1996; Tushman, 1977; Tushman & Katz, 1980; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981)

Additionally, much of the prior research has focused on external

organizational boundaries (e.g Fennel & Alexander, 1987; Goolsby, 1992;

Klimonsky & Ash, 1974; Schwab, R C., Ungson & Brown, 1985; Speckman, 1979; Steadman, 1992; Wall & Adams, 1974), ignoring intra-organizational work unit

boundaries and inter-personal boundaries Apart from studies of role conflict of boundary spanning personnel (e.g Friedman & Podolny, 1992; Goolsby, 1992;

Liddel, 1973; Miles, 1976) outcomes of boundary activities have also received little attention

There is a need, therefore, to develop and test a theoretical model of boundary-

related activities performed by leaders in organizations, including their antecedents and outcomes In response to these voids in the literature, this study provides

construct development and theoretical validation of the concept of leader boundary behavior as a pattern of behavior distinct from other leader behaviors It also

empirically examines a theoretical framework that incorporates social-structural

antecedents, behavioral outcomes, and situational factors which can enhance or

inhibit the effectiveness of boundary-related activities by organizational leaders

This dissertation includes an empirical study of boundary activities of

university department heads and their effects on the trust, satisfaction, group cohesion and organizational commitment of faculty A sample comprised of university faculty members was chosen because it seemed that the boundary activities performed by their leaders, academic department heads, may be particularly salient to academic work

Faculty members and research staff frequently are involved in boundary-

related activities, representing the university to students, the public, other academics, outside agencies and organizations Department heads who successfully engage in boundary related behavior can model appropriate behavior, as well as facilitate the interaction of their faculty and staff with students, administrators, and members of the

public Those who have contacts in the research community can act as a liaison, introducing faculty members to influential colleagues on editorial boards, funding agencies and research institutes

Faculty may also appreciate help with intra-organizational boundaries

Department heads who are adept at dealing with these boundaries can facilitate

cooperation with other departments and groups within the university and assist faculty with introductions to researchers in other disciplines, support staff in the statistics department, computer center, and the office of grants and contracts Such skills and contacts are valuable Faculty frequently need to go outside their departments to acquire resources to fund, publish and present their research As there is increasing pressure for faculty to publish, bring in funding and interact with the public,

department heads who have the requisite skills to facilitate these ends may be more successful These factors led to the choice of a faculty sample with department heads

as the focal leaders of the study

Overview of the Research Study This dissertation is a combination of theory development and scale

development to measure leader boundary behaviors and use of the scales in a

questionnaire completed by faculty in a medium-sized state university in the

Southwestern United States The university was chosen, in part, because it is

designated a Carnegie-Research University I, awards more than 50 doctoral degrees a year and brings in over $40 million yearly in research money This designation attests

to the importance of research activity, and possibly, therefore, the importance of boundary activity at the site

The first chapter has introduced the problem to be addressed, that is, do the boundary-related behaviors of leaders in organizations have an impact on employee outcomes

A three dimensional conceptualization of leader boundary behavior is

developed in Chapter two based on a review of the Organizational Studies literature

In Chapter three, Theoretical Framework, the three dimensional conceptualization is incorporated into a theoretical model of the antecedents, outcomes and moderators of leader boundary behavior

Chapter four, Methodology, describes the research design used to empirically examine the theoretical model Results of the analyses are detailed and discussed in Chapter five, while Chapter 6, Conclusions, provides a discussion of the limitations

of this study, the implications for theory and management practice, and directions for

future research

CHAPTER 2 CONSTRUCT DEFINITION

In this chapter, the organizational studies literature is examined for the ways in which organizational boundary activities have been defined and measured Three basic levels of boundaries found within organizations are discussed and a three

dimensional conceptualization of leader boundary behavior is presented

Boundary Levels Organizational boundaries are socially constructed That is, people determine when and where a boundary exists Individuals may also determine who may belong

to a group and to what degree (Friedlander, 1987) In discussing political boundaries, Morehouse, (1995) argues “Boundaries persist only to the extent that they are

reinforced through social discourse and practice”(53) The visibility of organizational boundaries is a subject of debate From an anthropologist’s perspective, boundaries can be “easily defined both qualitatively and quantitatively as the place where

networks of interaction [fall] sharply” (Aguilera, 1996, p 737) Conversely,

boundaries are fluid in that leaders can redefine organizational boundaries (Aldrich, 1971) Centrality to the organization and degrees of inclusion are often considered when determining membership Organizational leaders may choose to discount the membership (and privileges of membership) of more marginal groups when defining boundaries For example, temporary employees such as doctoral students or adjunct faculty are generally not considered “full” members of a university department As

Aldrich (1971) asserts, “membership [in a group] is not an ‘either-or’ distinction but instead is a matter of degree” (286)

Some organizational boundaries are observable—physical, spatial and temporal divisions may distinguish one group from another Some boundaries are

psychological The determination of who is in the group, and to what extent an

individual is allowed to participate as part of a group may be ambiguous (McCollom, 1990) A person’s identification with a political party, ethnic identity or other social affiliation is primarily internal and may not be apparent to others While another psychological grouping, the composition of a leader’s “in-group,” may be recognized

by a pattern of joint agreement, insider joking, support from the leader, polite

disagreement rather than conflict, and low levels of monitoring (Fairhurst, 1993)

In an organizational context it is reasonable to discuss three levels of

boundaries: the external organizational boundaries, the boundaries which separate an organization from its customers, suppliers, regulators, and other elements of the external environment; intra-organizational or work-unit boundaries, horizontal and vertical boundaries between subunits of the organization; and inter-personal

boundaries, boundaries of authority, identity, and tasks Distinctions can also be made with these levels of boundaries, but parsimony favors limiting the discussion to these three levels

The external organizational boundary describes what is and what is not the organization The defining element of a formal organization is the determination of

membership in the organization (Aldrich, 1971; Aldrich & Herker, 1977) Intra- organizational or work-unit boundaries are both lateral and vertical boundaries between subunits of the organization In most formal organizations, membership in these first two classes of boundaries is organizationally determined; one is either hired

or not, accepted into a school or program, incarcerated or released Membership at the organizational level generally includes membership in a sub-unit of the organization (Alderfer, 1987)

While organizational and intra-organizational boundaries are often defined by hierarchy, function and geography, inter-personal boundaries are often more

psychological in nature They include boundaries of authority, political boundaries, identity and task boundaries (Gilmore, 1982; Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992)

Boundaries of authority determine who is responsible for making decisions The

person who is nominally in charge is not always the person who has the most current information on which to base decisions Negotiating the boundary with which a

subordinate has latitude in decision making can be particularly important in

professional work

Political boundaries delineate factions with different needs and goals For example, in a union shop, identification with management or the union may have a large impact on the level of cooperation an employee exhibits Similarly, boundaries

of identity describe our interests and values, and include professional or occupational identity, ethnic, racial, national and gender identity These identity groups may merge

with political affiliation For example, engineers and programmers may identify with the “technical side” of the business rather than the “functional” or “client-oriented side” focusing on technical requirements rather than client needs Professional

employees may identify more strongly with their profession than with the

organization and its goals

Task boundaries describe how work and responsibilities are apportioned within or between work groups In situations where tasks are interdependent, the

negotiation of who does what and when is critically important Psychological

ownership of a particular task, with clear understanding of how one’s work relates to the work of others may be critical for success

Defining and managing the various boundaries found in organizations is an important function of managers and will be further explored in the following section

on boundary activities

Boundary Activities Boundary activities have most frequently been described as “outward-facing”

or externally-oriented activities which organizational members engage in to relate the organization to its environment Externally-oriented activities are referred to by most organizational researchers as boundary spanning activities Several authors have also included “inward facing”or internally-oriented boundary maintenance activities in their descriptions of boundary activities (e.g Aldrich 1971; Gilmore, 1982,

Hirschhorn & Gilmore, 1992; Louis, 1996; Louis & Yan, 1996; McCollom, 1990;

Miller & Rice, 1967) However, the empirical studies of boundary-related activities have focused primarily on externally-oriented activities

Boundary spanning has been defined and measured in a number of ways Quite a few studies have focused on the organization’s need for information, defining and measuring boundary spanning as time spent in information acquisition and

transmittal Amedore and Knoff (1993) measured internal and external boundary Spanning as the number of hours spent in formal and informal consultation within and outside the organization A number of studies of communication in research and development organizations measured boundary spanning activity as the number of research articles read and/or recommended, and the frequency with which information and advice was sought or given (Keller & Holland 1975, 1978; Keller, Szilagyi & Holland, 1976) A number of studies of R&D organizations focused on other

communication aspects of boundary spanners, characterizing persons in boundary spanning roles as gatekeepers-communication stars who cross the organizational boundary; or Jiaisons—internal boundary spanners (Katz & Tushman, 1983; Nochur & Allen, 1992; Tushman, 1977; Tushman & Katz, 1980; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981)

Other researchers have investigated a range of boundary behaviors Aldrich and Herker (1977) classified the functions of boundary-role persons as information processing and external representation Hills (1963) developed a 30 item boundary spanning scale to measure leader effectiveness, divided into two categories of

behavior which she termed procurement and disposal Procurement was composed of

15 items which pertain to the acquisition of resources, and to the leader’s influence with higher authorities The 15 item Disposal scale was made up of items which pertain to protecting members from outside interference and to representing the group

to outsiders Miles (1976, 1980) developed an 11 item integration and boundary spanning scale used in several studies (Miles & Perreault, 1976; Schwab, Ungson & Brown, 1985) which included protecting boundaries, information processing and gatekeeping, acquisition of inputs and disposal of outputs, and integrating and

coordinating units

In a review of the literature, Adams (1980) identified 5 types of boundary activities: (1) acquiring inputs and disposing of outputs; (2) filtering inputs and

outputs; (3) searching for and acquiring information; (4) representation; and (5)

protecting and buffering While Ancona and Caldwell (1990, 1992), in a study of product development teams, identified 24 activities as belonging to four boundary roles: (1) ambassador activities which included buffering and representation; (2) task coordinator activities which involved obtaining feedback, and coordinating and

negotiating with outsiders; (3) scout activities which included environmental scanning for information and ideas; and (4) guard activities which involved preventing the leakage of information

A number of studies did not define or measure boundary spanning beyond indicating that boundary spanning activities are performed by boundary spanning personnel or boundary role persons Most of these studies focused on individual

outcomes for these personnel such as role stress, role conflict, role differentiation, and burnout Boundary role persons were generally defined as persons who interact with

others outside the group or organization (Friedman & Podolny, 1992; Goolsby, 1992; House, 1991; Organ, 1971; Speckman, 1979; Steadman, 1992; Wall & Adams, 1974;

Weber, 1995)

Fennel and Alexander (1987) identified 3 boundary spanning strategies:

boundary redefinition (merging), buffering (increasing administrative structures) and bridging (creating linkages to other organizations) engaged in by hospitals to deal with environmental pressures These three strategies engaged in by organizations are also applicable to intra-organizational units and individuals and encompass the

strategies and behaviors engaged in by organizational leaders

The typologies listed above all focus on externally-oriented behaviors, none include leader behaviors oriented to intra-group concerns There is also a lack of consistency and agreement on the grouping of the externally-oriented behaviors The following section presents a categorization of boundary behaviors based on the focus (internal vs external) of the leader behavior and the behavior’s relationship to the unit’s boundary

Three Categories of Boundary Activities Previous conceptualizations of leader boundary behavior focused on outward- facing or externally-oriented boundary activities These were classified into two

general categories: buffering activities and boundary spanning It also appears there

exists a third category of boundary activities, boundary definition and maintenance, ' which describes inward-facing or internally-oriented activities such as defining or redefining a group’s boundaries—deciding who is a part of the organizational group, their rights and privileges as members of the group, creating a sense of shared identity and task, providing information, and resolving disputes

In an organizational context, it is also reasonable to discuss three categories of leader behavior, all of which are relevant to each of the three levels of boundaries discussed earlier: buffering—outward facing activities in which the leader attempts to protect the group from outside demands and intrusions, boundary spanning-bridging activities in which the leader crosses the system’s boundary to acquire information and resources and to represent the group to outsiders, and boundary definition and maintenance-—activities which concentrate the leader’s attention on inward-facing or intra-group concerns (See Figure 1.)

Buffering

Buffering can be described as the protective “gatekeeper” or “guard” activities

of managers This type of activity includes protecting the team from unwanted

intrusions and unreasonable demands, filtering inputs and outputs, and preventing the leakage of information and other resources (Adams, 1980; Aldrich & Herker, 1977; Ancona & Caldwell, 1990, 1992; Louis & Yan, 1996) The following discussion of buffering behaviors will be limited to these “outward facing” boundary activities and