Boundary Spanner Roles

[Dante-Gabryell Monson]

http://www.wissensstrukturplan.de/wissensstrukturplan/glossar/g_gatekeeper.php

https://web.archive.org/web/20160707193928/http://www.wissensstrukturplan.de/wissensstrukturplan/glossar/g_gatekeeper.php

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wissensstrukturplan.de%2Fwissensstrukturplan%2Fglossar%2Fg_gatekeeper.php

Google Translation :

Gatekeeper - Boundary Spanner

The transfer of knowledge is a communicative task that requires a high degree of role diversity of the actors through a multitude of interfaces to internal and external social networks and groups. The highly personalized knowledge in projects also complicates a cross-phase or even cross-project transfer of knowledge like the large number of external forces, which are used only for events. However, these often bundle a large amount of project-relevant knowledge due to their role as gatekeepers or boundary tensioners. Therefore, a better understanding of these roles is of great importance for the optimization of communication tasks as the basis of a knowledge transfer.

disambiguation
Very generally, a gatekeeper can be described as a person who allows information exchange through informal communication (Allen 1969). Tushman and Katz (1980) already point out that this makes a gatekeeper a conscious mediator in an organization that shares contacts and knowledge between individual groups within an organization or externally. For Walter R. Hein, gatekeeping even covers all "processes of interactions and selection by applying institutional standards to biographies. This is a two-way process which is not necessarily asymmetric " (Heinz 1992, p. 11). This broad conception, which is transferable to a variety of communication situations in social networks, needs to be restrained to better understand the role of the gatekeeper. With regard to the activation of network resources, Bettina Hollstein focuses on institutional gatekeepers who, as so-called "access guards", accompany, control and design the status transitions in the curriculum vitae of individuals. She refers to status transitions, recurring situations in the curriculum vitae, in which the patterns of belonging to the individual, be it social positioning or individual resources are changed (Hollstein 2007. p. 54) . This sociological understanding of institutional gatekeepers, ie " castles with decision-making authority in the mediation of individuals and organizations with respect to institutions" (Struck 2001, p. 37), is important in that it does not make any informal communication a pivotal point but only special transitional situations. Struck speaks here of social subspaces in which a controlled selection takes place. The deliberate occupation of this role of gatekeeper as well as the information power of the access guardian are inherent in conceptualization. Comparable is the sociological image of the social subspaces on the one hand and the transitory space between the completed project and the transition to a new project on the other, in which the same actors, enriched by a shared experience, enter.
Aldrich and Herker (1977) consider boundary tensioners to be people who sit at the interfaces of organizations and perform important tasks for them. They have a bridge function that transcends company borders and thus allows information to be passed through this interface (Leifer and Delbecq 1978) . The borders can be internal or external to the organization. Boundary tensioners are thus clearly conceivable between individual departments ( Tushman and Scanlan 1981) or even within the department between different groups (Ancona and Caldwell 1992) . A strict separation between Gatekeeper on the one hand and Bondary Spanner on the other hand does not succeed.
Mast (2006 mast) points out that Boundary Spanner members are members of outside contact networks, that is, cultivating informational relationships with the environment, acting as gatekeepers, as they determine what information is collected and passed on. Gatekeepers , on the other hand, are the network members who control the flow of communication and curb the flood of information generated by the borderline situation at the interface to other networks. So you filter the information and thus carry the risk of information loss.




Fig .: Model for innovations in the company by Reid and de Brentani after Neumann and Holzmüller 2007

In the company's innovation model by Reid and de Brentani (2004) , Boundary Spanner and Gatekeeper are even involved in a collaborative process of sharing information. The "boundary interface" forms the boundary between the company and its environment. The company uses them to obtain external information and suggestions. They can identify possible innovation impulses and opportunities by identifying potentially innovation-relevant information. The second interface, the gatekeeping interface, lies between the gatekeeper and the company. Here gatekeepers evaluate the information collected at the "Boundary Interface" in terms of their relevance to the company and decide whether and how they share this information with other members of the company (Neumann and Holzmüller 2007) .
In the model of Reid and de Brentani, the process of informational boundary-tensioning is divided into two roles. The Boundary Spanner interacts with the environment to collect information (step 1 of the informational boundary-tensioning), which is then relayed by the gatekeeper within the company (step 2 of the informational boundary-stretching, Neumann and Holzmüller, 2007) that informational boundary-spanning roles often emerge in an informal or emergent manner at the initiative of one person, with the intention of creating informal networks as well as new sources of information for the enterprise.


Fig .: Informational Boundary Spanner according to Neumann and Holzmüller 2007

The construction of these networks means for the Boundary-Spanner an investment in time and other resources, which is usually accepted by the company but not reimbursed. By contrast, Aldrich and Herker (1977) distinguish the informational boundary spanner from the representative Boundary Spanner, which, in analogy to the institutional gatekeeper, also takes over representation functions of the company externally.



Fig .: Representative Boundary Spanner according to Neumann and Holzmüller 2007

Meaning of the boundary tensioner in networks

Windeler (2001, p. 195) assumes that " actors (...) can only act competently in the network if they reflexively carry both contexts" : that of the network unit and that of the enterprise network. The mediation of both levels is done by Boundary Spanner. These can be found in a two-part role: in influencing and influencing: " Firstly, they can more or less control access to enterprises; second, as competent, broker 'resources - such as information flows - between the network companies and, thirdly, within the network Traps of entrepreneurial networks that hinder or (only selectively) foster the formation of other direct links between the network companies. " (Windeler 2001, p. 197) Thus, these actors find themselves in a complex network of relationships, giving them a high degree of freedom of action but also a high degree of flexibility imposes a responsibility on adequately providing those actors who have less access to resources with knowledge. They have an important function and can strengthen knowledge sharing beyond project completion. Their positions for the motivation to exchange knowledge should also be taken into account.
In 1992, Burt's network-theoretical approach to the importance of structural holes developed a model that included the distinction between power as a social influence and power as structural autonomy. Structural holes are the areas between networks that are not, or only a few, weak ties in a relationship. These can only be bridged by boundary tensioners, which allow knowledge to flow between otherwise unconnected groups.
In a decision-making and managerial analysis, Burt concluded that his own positioning as a " broker between separate and internally connected groups " (Jansen, 2006, p. 29) proved to be beneficial. Burt speaks of a structurally autonomous actor, if this acts as a cutpoint so interface to bridge structural holes, which can open him not only an information advantage, but also additional options for action. These result from the strategically favorable position, if the contact partners of an actor are not connected to each other and therefore also no information exchange is possible. According to Burt, an ideal information network consists of actors who, if possible, all come from different, unconnected groups in order to minimize redundant information and to maximize the information advantage.
This phenomenon of power from structural autonomy, as described by Burt, should be considered for implementation in knowledge management in the event industry, where it is highly regarded and desirable as a desirable goal, such as the relative insecurity of temporary employment or lack of social inclusion, lack of intimacy or attachment motivation by changing working groups and bridge function between social networks as well as high responsibility with the associated risk. Structural autonomy and the associated power can be considered a value in the event industry. In order nevertheless to motivate the knowledge exchange, the positioning should rather be promoted, by a greater autonomy and thus an increased information gain for the next project by knowledge transfer from the organization is assured.
Due to the high proportion of external forces that form information and job networks among each other, and thus also through the exchange of experience and the common area of ​​interest, all external forces have the potential to become a Boundary Spanner promoting cross-company knowledge exchange. As described by Kaiser, Paust and Kampe (2007, p. 111f) , the weak external relations can be used to identify needed or even interesting resources for the next event. They point out that in terms of the management of external forces, the consideration and use of social capital is a fundamental prerequisite for the development of cross-project knowledge management. However, there are three factors that need to be considered: the ability to generate social capital by accessing social networks through the Boudary Spanner, rather than the internal organization. There is a chance that the weak ties with external forces will develop strong ties with redundant information paths between the network partners and a longer-term development horizon. " The opportunity for this can be given, on the one hand, by the repeated use of certain external employees and, on the other hand, during deployment through a clear occupational involvement of external employees." (Kaiser, Paust and Kampe 2007, p. 112) The motivation of the actors Their knowledge At this point, they address one of the core problems of knowledge management, which is discussed in detail under Barriers and Moral Hazard . The explanation on the one hand, the motivation through socialization so the known group processes and by the assumption of reciprocity falls short in any case, because they take too little reference to the intrinsic motivation by the power of their own position and motivation by the power of the structural Autonomy. In addition, the model of reciprocity in complex performance and the codification of knowledge is difficult to operationalize, since it is here that the subjective assessments of the value of one's own knowledge compare with the assessment of the knowledge that I can expect in the future.


© Thomas Sakschewski

Literature | Left

• Allen, TJ / Cohen, SI (1969): Information Flow at Research and Development Laboratories. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 14: 12-19
• Tushman, Michael / Katz, R. (1980): External Communication and Project Performance: Investigation Into the Role of Gatekeepers. Management Science 26 (1980): 1071-1085.
• Heinz, Walter R. (1992): Introduction: Institutional Gatekeeping and Biographical Agency. In the S. (Ed.): Institutions and Gatekeeping in the Life Course. Weinheim: German Study Publishing, 9-28.
• Hollstein, Bettina 2007: Social capital and status passages. The role of institutional gatekeepers in activating network resources. In: Jörg Lüdicke & Martin Diewald (ed.): Social Networks and Social Inequality. On the role of social capital in modern societies. Series of social structure analysis. Wiesbaden: VS publishing house for social sciences, P. 53-85.
• Struck, Olaf (2001): Gatekeeping between the individual, organization and institution. On the importance of the analysis of gatekeeping on the example of transitions over the life course. In: Lutz Leisering, Rainer Müller and Karl F. Schumann (eds.): Institutions and CVs in Transition. Institutional Regulations of CVs. Weinheim: Juventa, 29-55.
• Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. The Academy of Management Review, 2, 217-230.
• Leifer, R. / Delbecq, A. (1978): Organizational / Environmental interchange: a model of boundary spanning activity. In: Academy of Management Review 3, p. 40-50.
• Tushman, ML / Scanlan, TJ (1981): Boundary Spanning Individuals. Their Role in Information Transfer and their Antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24: 289-305
• Ancona, DG / Caldwell, DF (1992): Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634-665.
• Mast, Claudia 2006: Corporate Communications. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Lucius Verlag.
• Reid SE, de Brentani U. (2004): The Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development for Discontinuous Innovations: A Theoretical Model. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21: 170-187
• Holzmüller, Hartmut H. / Neumann, Debra 2007: Boundary-tensioners as actors in the innovation policy of companies. In: Angela Carell / Thomas Herrmann / Uwe Kleinbeck (ed.): Innovations at the interface between technical service and customers 1. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag
• Windeler, A. (2001): Entrepreneurship Networks. Constitution and structuration. Wiesbaden.
• Burt, R. (1992): Structural Holes. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.
• Jansen, Dorothea (2006): Introduction to Network Analysis. Basics, methods, research examples, 3. Aufl. Bielefeld: VS publishing house
• Kaiser, Stephan / Paust, Robert / Kampe, Tim (2007): External staff. Successful management of external professionals, freelancers and service providers. Vienna: Linde