| In today's society, organizational resources are being forced to interact more than ever to maintain quality and remain competitive. Adams (1976, 1980) and Alderfer (1976a, 1976b) among others have discussed the functions and roles of these corporate actors, known as boundary spanners, who are individuals representing one organization and interacting with other organizations. Few scholars have focused on communication perceptions, strategies, and outcomes involved in producing this role. This study addresses these communication factors by examining the effect of (a) boundary spanners' own role perceptions, (b) boundary spanners' perceptions of where they learn their roles (e.g., socialization), and (c) the self-reported strategies they use in face-to-face communication with external constituents.;To get a wide range of experience, intensive in-depth interviews were conducted using a purposive sample consisting of 42 people from 35 different organizations that were evenly dispersed under three general types of organizations: university, industry, and government. The participants were located in the central region of a large industrial and agricultural state in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Using a grounded theory method of analysis, 19 perceptual themes emerged in response to three Research Questions posited in this study.;The findings in this study support many elements discovered in prior literature; but also, it has provided us with many new insights as to how boundary spanners, perceive the performance of their role. This study found six key findings. The first finding was that individuals perceive that they follow implicit standards of conduct when engaged in external interactions as they represent their organization. Second, boundary spanners across types of organizations appear to have a high value-based orientation to their role. Third, boundary spanners learn their role performance through mimicry of role models, trial-and-error, on-the-job training, and informal mentoring. Another conclusion was that boundary spanners tend to have a high level of tolerance for ambiguity. In addition, boundary spanners attempt to influence relationships by using appropriate compliance-gaining tactics that will achieve organizational goals. The last conclusion was that boundary spanners consider reputation paramount to survival and remain cognizant of it at all times. |
