The role of boundary spanning in organizational innovation: A meta-analysis approaches

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• Saeid Norollahee ¹
• Siroos Ghanbari ²

¹ PhD student in Educational Management, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

² Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/tmj.2024.85077.1502

Abstract

 
1- INTRODUCTION
To acquire innovations produced by universities and higher education institutions, organizations can use the strategy of boundary-spanning to meet their needs. The results of the previous research also indicate the effect of boundary spanning on organizational innovation. Based on this, it is possible to develop innovation in the industry by using boundary spanning. On the other hand, from 2015 to 2023, several researches have been conducted and published regarding the positive impact of boundary spanning on organizational innovation in different countries. By analyzing and summarizing the findings of previous studies by making sure of the relationship between the two considered variables and by making sure of the accuracy of the current findings, it is possible to provide solutions to improve the boundary spanning between industry and university as well as to improve the effect of boundary spanning on organizational innovation. Therefore, the primary question of the research is to what extent does the boundary spanning affect organizational innovation?
 
2- THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
As a description of boundary spanning in the field of organizational innovations, Tashman expanded the communication boundaries that are conceptual and linguistic differences in a laboratory environment, between the laboratory and other parts of the organization, and between different organizations. To increase the level of interaction and participation between industry and university and to take advantage of the innovations created in universities and higher education institutions, there is a need to develop the relationship between industry and university and acquire knowledge resources through the frontier strategy. In bridging and establishing inter-institutional communication and connecting separate groups, these people face boundaries and should cross these boundaries and obstacles and communicate with organizations outside the borders. Accordingly, boundary spanning helps the universities share scientific and technical information, and the industry acquire and understand academic innovations. Generally, boundary spanning is an effective strategy for developing the university-industry relationship to cultivate, share, and apply organizational innovations. Industries and companies are less willing to invest in research and development due to the high cost of complex laboratory equipment, the difficulty of access to international research and development centers, the risks associated with innovation, and the investment limitations. Hence, they are interested in getting the latest innovations in knowledge through higher education institutions. For industry-university collaboration to thrive, companies must learn to operate outside their organizational boundaries and develop their capabilities to interact and collaborate with partners with different characteristics.
3- METHODOLOGY
In terms of its purpose, the current research is an applied study, and by its meta-analysis method, it is considered a quantitative study. In this research, the investigated community was the research studies published in English about the role of boundary spanning in organizational innovation from 2015 to 2023. In the first stage, 189 studies regarding the relationship between boundary-spanning and organizational innovation were selected from various databases. Then, 33 duplicate articles indexed in different databases were identified and removed. The number of 156 articles was identified for title and abstract review. By examining the titles and abstracts of all identified articles, 129 articles were excluded from the article review process due to lack of relevance to the research topic and lack of inclusion criteria. Therefore, 27 articles were selected for full review. By examining the remaining articles more closely and studying their results, 18 were picked for meta-analysis.
 
4- RESULTS & DISCUSSION
The findings showed that the average effect of boundary-spanning (random mixed effects) on organizational innovation equals 0.347. Considering that this effect size (0.347) is within the confidence range, it should be said that boundary spanning affects innovation. The obtained point estimate (0.347), based on Cohen's criterion, indicates an effect in the upper medium range. In general, boundary-spanning moderately affected organizational innovation.
 
5- CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS
In general, innovation is a competitive advantage for organizations and industries, and innovative organizations can compete with other competitors and maintain the survival of their organization. Companies and organizations will be removed from the competition scene if they cannot achieve innovation to meet the new needs of society and the market. One of the ways to achieve innovation is the interaction of industry and university in the form of boundary-spanning activities. In this way, industries can obtain new academic knowledge innovations to develop new products and services to satisfy the market needs. Boundary-spanning operations can facilitate disseminating the innovation produced in universities for industry use. Therefore, it is suggested that to acquire and develop innovations produced in universities and scientific institutions, organizations and industries should turn to boundary-spanning and use boundary-spanning strategies in developing cooperation with universities.

Keywords

• Boundary Spanning
• Organizational Innovation
• University-Industry Connection

References

Acharya, Ch.; Ojha, D.; Gokhale, R., & Patel, P. C. (2022). Managing information for innovation using knowledge integration capability: The role of boundary spanning objects, International Journal of Information Management, 62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102438.

Adams, K. R. (2014). The Exploration of Community Boundary Spanners in University–Community Partnerships. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 18(3), 113-118.

Alharbi, I.; Jamil, R., Mahmood, N.; & Shaharoun, A. (2019). Organizational Innovation: A Review Paper. Open Journal of Business and Management, 7, 1196-1206. doi: 10.4236/ojbm.2019.73084.

Al-Omoush, Kh.; Simón-Moya., & Javier Sendra-García, J. (2020). The impact of social capital and collaborative knowledge creation on e-business proactiveness and organizational agility in responding to the COVID-19 crisis, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(4), 279-288.

Bazrafshan, A.; Hejazi, R.; Rahmani, A., & Bastani, S. (2015). Meta-analysis of Audit Committee Independence and Financial Reporting Quality. Management Accounting, 8(25), 101-117. (In Persian)

Bednarek, A. T.; Wyborn, C.; Cvitanovic, C.; Meyer, R.; Colvin, R. M.; Addison, P. F. E.; Close, K.; Curran, S. L.; Farooque, M.; Goldman, E.; Hart, D.; Mannix, H.; McGreavy, B.; Parris, A.; Posner, S.; Robinson, C.; Ryan, M., & Leith, P. (2018). Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: the practitioners’ perspectives. Sustain Sci, 13, 1175–1183.

Bruneel, J.; D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration. Res Policy 39(7), 858–868.

Cao, N.; Wang, J.; Wang, Y., & Yu, L. (2021). Towards Enterprise Sustainable Innovation Process: Through Boundary-Spanning Search and Capability Reconfiguration. Processes, 9, 2092.

Chryssou. C. E. (2020). University-industry interactions in the Sultanate of Oman: challenges and opportunities. Ind High Educ, 34(5), 342–357.

Colien, I. (2021). Concepts of power in boundary spanning research: A review and research agenda. LJMR, 23(4), 443-465.

Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature, Journal of Management Studies, 47(6), 1154-119.

Dutta. S.; Lanvin, B., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2020). Global innovation index 2020: Who will finance innovation? 13th edn. Cornell University, INSEAD and World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO); Ithaca, Fontainebleau and Geneva.

Engesbak, V., & Ingvaldsen, J. A. (2019). Please Use Our Ideas: Making Parallel Organizations Work. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 26(3/4), 183–195.

Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2021). From mediated actions to heterogenous coalitions: four generations of activity-theoretical studies of work and learning. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 28(1), 4-23.

Fang, Y.; Dai, X.; & Zhang, X. (2021). An empirical study of the relationship between inclusive leadership and business model innovation, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(3), 480-494.

Figueiredo, N., & Fernandes, C. (2020). Cooperation university-industry: a systematic literature review. Int J Innov Technol, 17(8), 2130001.

Ghrobani Zadeh, V. A., & Hassan Nanghir, S. T. (2013). Practical guide of meta-analysiswith CMA2 software. Tehran: Sociologists Publications. (In Persian)

Grawe, S. J.; Daughterty, P. J., & Ralston, P. M. (2015). Enhancing Dyadic Performance through Boundary Spanners and Innovation: An Assessment of Service Provider-Customer Relationships. Journal of Business Logistics. 36(1); 88-101.

Grygoruk, M., & Rannow, S. (2017). Mind the gap! Lessons from science-based stakeholder dialogue in climate-adapted management of wetlands. Journal of Environmental Management, Part 1, 186, 108-119.

Gunday, G.; Ulusoy, G.; Kilic, K., & Alpkan, L. (2011). Effects of innovation types on firm performance. International Journal of production economics. 133(2), 662-676.

Guo, Z.; Heidl, R. A.; Hollenbeck, J. R.; Yu, A., & Howe, M. (2022). When discretionary boundary spanning relationships cease becoming discretionary: The impact of closed ties on informal leadership perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(6), 898–916.

Hogg, M. A.; Van Knippenberg, D., & Rast, D. E. (2012). Intergroup Leadership in Organizations: Leading Across Group and Organizational Boundaries. The Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 232-255.

Hoogstraaten, M. J.; Frenken, K., & Boon, W. P. C. (2020). The study of institutional entrepreneurship and its implications for transition studies, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 36, 114-136. 

Hu, P.; Wang, Y.; Feng, T., & Duan, Y. (2021). Innovative search, capability reconfiguration and firm innovation performance in the process of technological leapfrogging. Chinese Management Studies, 15(5), 961-984.

Jansen, J. J.; Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W., (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661-1674.

Keszey, T. (2018). Boundary spanners’ knowledge sharing for innovation success in turbulent times, Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(5), 1061-1081.

Kim, S. L.; Lee, D., & Yun, S. (2022). Leader boundary-spanning behavior and creative behavior: the role of need for status and creative self-efficacy, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 43(6), 835-846.

Kislov, R.; Hyde, P., & McDonald, R. (2017). New Game, Old Rules? Mechanisms and Consequences of Legitimation in Boundary Spanning Activities. 38(10), 1421-1444.

Knifer, K.; Schreiner, E.; Schmid, E., & Peus, C. (2018). The performance of pre-founding entrepreneurial teams: the importance of learning and leadership. Applied Psychology, 67(3), 401-427.

Lander, B. (2015). Boundary-spanning in academic healthcare organizations. Research Policy, 45(8), 1524-1533.

Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2014). A field-of-practice view of boundary-spanning in and across organizations. In G. Langan-Fox & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Boundary-spanning in organizations: Network, influence and conflict. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Liu, X.; Yu, Y.; Zhao, X., & Zhang, N. (2022). Top management team boundary-spanning leadership: Measurement development and its impact on innovative behavior. Front. Psychol. 13:988771.

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.988771

McNiven, A.; Boulton, M.; Locock, L., & Hinton, L. (2021). Boundary spanning and identity work in the clinical research delivery workforce: a qualitative study of research nurses, midwives and allied health professionals in the National Health Service, United Kingdom. Health Res Policy Sys, 19(74). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-021-00722-0

Mull, C. D. (2014). Boundary-Spanning Behaviors of Individuals Engaged with. The U.S. Military Community,

 https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/mull_casey_d_201412_phd.pdf

Perez-Lu´no, A.; Gopalakrishnan, Sh., & Valle Cabrera, R. (2014). Innovation and Performance: The Role of Environmental Dynamism on the Success of Innovation Choices. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

Romero-Hidalgo, J. A.; Isiordia-Lachica, P. C.; Valenzuela, A., & Rodríguez-Carvajal, R. A. (2021). Knowledge and Innovation Management Model in the Organizational Environment. Information. 12(6), 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12060225

Rossoni, A. L.; de Vasconcellos, E. P. G., & de Castilho Rossoni, R. L. (2023). Barriers and facilitators of university-industry collaboration for research, development and innovation: a systematic review. Manag Rev Q. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00349-1

Russell, R.; Chung, M., & Balk, E. M. (2009). Issues and Challenges in Conducting Systematic Reviews to Support Development of Nutrient Reference Values: Workshop Summary: Nutrition Research Series, 2. Technical Reviews, 17(2)0-0.

Samimi, M.; Cortes, A. F.; Anderson, M. H., & Herrmann, P. (2020). What is strategic leadership? Developing a framework for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 101353. Doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2019.101353

Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. Springer Publishing Company, New York.

Van Lancker, J.; Mondelaers, K.; Wauters, E., & Huylenbroeck, G. V. (2015). The Organizational Innovation System: A systemic framework for radical innovation at the organizational level. Technovation, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.11.008i

Van Meerkerk, I. (2014). Boundary spanning in governance networks: a study about the role of boundary spanners and their effects on democratic throughput legitimacy and performance of governance networks. Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Van Meerkerk, I., & Edelenbos, J. (2018). Facilitating conditions for boundary-spanning behavior in governance networks, Public Management Review, 20(4), 503-524.

Widmann, A., & Mulder, R. H. (2018). Team learning behaviours and innovative work behaviour in work teams, European Journal of Innovation Management, 21(3), 501-520.

Williams, P. (2010). Special Agents: The Nature and Role of Boundary Spanners. (Presentation ESRC research seminars series - Collaborative Futures: New insights from intra and inter-sectoral collaborations). University of Birmingham. Retrieved from https://docplayer.net/43248650-Special-agents-the-nature-and-role-of-boundaryspanners.html

Yang, H. (2018). Boundary spanners in university−school district partnerships. a dissertation presented to the Department of Leadership Studies and the Graduate School of University of Central Arkansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Interdisciplinary Leadership Studies, Conway, Arkansas

Yang, H.; Phelps, C., & Steensma, H. (2010). Learning from what others have learned from you: the effects of knowledge spillovers on originating firms. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 371-389.

Yang, W.; Wu, Z., & Wu, B. (2016). Empirical Research on the Impacts of Geographic Boundary-spanning Search on Innovation Performance. WHICEB 2016 Proceedings. 27.

https://aisel.aisnet.org/whiceb2016/27

Yu, B.; Hao, S., & Wang, Y. (2020). Organizational search and business model innovation: the moderating role of knowledge inertia, Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(7), 1705-1718.

Ze, R.; Kun, Z.; Boadu, F., & Yu, L. (2018). The Effects of Boundary-Spanning Search, Network Ties, and Absorptive Capacity for Innovation: A Moderated Mediation Examination. Sustainability, 10, 3980. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113980

Zhang, H.; Tan, X.; Liu, C., & Chen, M. (2023). Do Team BoundarySpanning Activities Affect Innovation Performance? Sustainability, 15, 10605. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310605

Zhang, J.; Wu, X.; Guo, J., & Jiang, R. (2020). The interactive effects of individual boundary spanning and boundary buffering when using enterprise social media, International Journal of Information Management, 64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102490.

Zhang, Q., & Li, J. (2021). Can employee's boundary-spanning behavior exactly promote innovation performance? The roles of creative ideas generation and team task interdependence, International Journal of Manpower, 42(6), 1047-1063.

Zheng, Z., & Ahmed, R. I. (2022). Humble leadership and employee creative performance in China: the roles of boundary spanning behavior and traditionality, Personnel Review, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi-org.librarylogin-cupey.uagm.edu/10.1108/PR-10-2021-0775

Zhu, J.; Xin, L., & Li, M. (2023). How and when is boundary-spanning behaviour related to innovative behaviour: role of intrinsic motivation and organisational support. European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-11-2022-0608

Zhu, J.; Xu, Sh.; Zhou, J.; Zhang, B.; Xu, F., & Zong, B. (2020). The cross-level double-edged-sword effect of boundary-spanning behavior on creativity. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(11), 1340-1351.