Can Supportive Coaching Behaviors Facilitate Boundary Spanning and Raise Job Satisfaction? An Indirect-Effects Model

Abstract

As organizations encounter unpredictable external environments, expectations are changing for managers and team leaders toward providing more facilitative, less directive coaching in order to stimulate more flexibility and adaptability. Prior research has underscored the role of team leader supportive coaching behaviors in reinforcing and growing team member capabilities to work independently from the leader. What is not yet understood, however, is if and how supportive coaching behaviors relate to team member engagement in boundary-spanning behaviors, which are team member efforts to establish and maintain relationships with key parties external to their team. This study examines how team leaders’ supportive coaching of boundary spanning—defined as a set of behaviors that (a) encourages team members to engage in frequent and open collaborations with key parties external to the team and (b) grants team members the latitude to engage external parties in ways the team members deem necessary—relates to team member boundary-spanning behavior and job satisfaction through a motivational pathway. We test a hypothesized indirect-effects model within a field sample of 256 engineering employees working in teams. Results indicate that leaders’ supportive coaching of boundary spanning is positively related to team member boundary-spanning self-efficacy, which in turn is positively related to team member engagement in boundary-spanning behavior for their teams. Also, team members who reported more boundary-spanning behavior experienced greater job satisfaction. The findings have important implications for organizations, team leaders, and team members.

Protecting their turf: When and why supervisors undermine employee boundary spanning.

“…This leader-focused analysis is important as it shows why behaviors that break down silos and enable idea dissemination, cross-fertilization, and better coordination also pose challenges for those who engage in them as well as those who manage them. Prior work taking a leadership perspective on boundary spanning examined how leaders can foster boundary spanning of their subordinates (Ancona, 1990; DeChurch & Marks, 2006; Marrone et al, 2021). Our study complements this work by shedding light on psychological processes that can shape supervisors’ motivation to foster or, conversely, to undermine employee boundary spanning.…”

“…On the contrary, under some circumstances, they may be motivated to suppress and undermine it. This is a critical insight because it means that interventions aimed at helping leaders to better facilitate employee boundary spanning may miss the mark if they focus only on skills and behaviors (e.g., supportive coaching as suggested by Marrone et al, 2021). Rather, effective leader interventions may need to first address leaders’ attributions around employee boundary spanning.…”

“…Supervisors have been shown to play a key role here. Through strategic direction and supportive coaching, supervisors are able to encourage and support employee boundary spanning (Ancona, 1990; DeChurch & Marks, 2006; Marrone et al, 2021). While extant research has focused on what supervisors can do to foster employee boundary spanning, it has failed to ask whether supervisors actually want to foster it.…”

Leader boundary-spanning behavior and creative behavior: the role of need for status and creative self-efficacy

“…Boundary spanning is defined as an individual or team behavior that builds and manages external linkages with parties within an organization or across organizational boundaries (Kou, 2021; Marrone, 2010). It is generally classified into three broad categories: representation, task performance coordination, and general information search (Marrone et al. , 2021).…”

“…However, it is essential to examine individual boundary-spanning behavior and its effects because individuals perform boundary-spanning activities and connect with external actors (Liu et al. , 2018; Marrone et al. , 2021; Zhang and Li, 2021).…”