How Does Performance Feedback Affect Boundary Spanning in Multinational Corporations? Insights from Technology Scouts

Abstract

As much as prior research has shed light on the boundary‐spanning processes of global organizations and their (positive) impact on an MNC's performance, whether, when and how past performance ultimately shapes an MNC's boundary‐spanning activities remains an open question in management research. To tackle these questions, we examine the behaviour of technology scouts in global organizations who span organizational and national boundaries to tap into novel knowledge and span internal boundaries to present this knowledge to constituents inside the MNC. Drawing on the behavioural theory of the firm, we propose that the intensity of organizational boundary spanning, the likelihood of spanning national boundaries and the way technology scouts span internal boundaries to engage with members inside the organization are sensitive to how the MNC has performed relative to its aspirations. We support our theoretical expositions with insights gained from interviewing senior industry professionals with direct experience in technology scouting in MNCs.

Managing the MNE subsidiary: Advancing a multi-level and dynamic research agenda

“…Schotter et al (2017: 404) define boundary spanning ''as a set of communication and coordination activities performed by individuals within an organization and between organizations to integrate activities across multiple cultural, institutional, and organizational contexts.'' The boundary spanning literature can be divided into two perspectives, including, first, the boundary spanning roles of subsidiaries and regional management centers within MNEs (e.g., Klueter & Monteiro, 2017;Tippmann, Scott, & Parker, 2017), and, second, the roles (e.g., Liu & Meyer, 2018;Vora, Kostova, & Roth, 2007) characteristics and actions of individuals (e.g., Furusawa & Brewster, 2015;Mäkelä, Barner-Rasmussen, Ehrnrooth, & Koveshnikov, 2019).…”

Boundary Spanning Activities of Corporate HQ Executives Insights from a Longitudinal Study

“…In the context of the MNC, the term boundary spanning has been used in a variety of ways. For the most part, it has been used to describe how overseas units sense and gain access to external knowledge (Doz et al, 2001;Klueter and Monteiro, 2017;Monteiro and Birkinshaw, 2016), but it has also been used to refer to bridging between different functions or professional guilds in the organization (Mudambi and Swift, 2009), and to the roles played by subsidiary managers more generally (Schotter and Beamish, 2011). The intention in this paper is to complement these primarily subsidiary-level studies with an analysis of boundary spanning in the corporate HQ of the MNC.…”

“…In the networked MNC where organizational units take on differentiated roles and responsibilities (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1989;Nohria and Ghoshal, 1997), these boundary spanners are likely to be specialized units on the periphery of the organization, such as scouts located in technologically sophisticated locations, corporate relations teams working with foreign governments, or business development teams seeking to build partnerships with universities, customers, competitors or suppliers. A considerable amount of research has been based on this perspective, and has provided valuable insights into the mechanisms that individuals or organizational units in the MNCs use to tap into and leverage information that lies beyond their formal boundaries (Doz et al, 2001;Klueter and Monteiro, 2017;Monteiro and Birkinshaw, 2016;von Zedtwitz and Gassmann, 2002;Yang et al, 2008).…”

When is Effort Contagious in New Venture Management Teams? Understanding the Contingencies of Social Motivation Theory

“…Specifically, our study illustrates that effort in management teams is more contagious when performance is low than when performance is high. These insights are important because implementing strategic change in response to low performance requires that managers invest high effort (Chen and Miller, 2007;Klueter and Monteiro, 2017); however, our study suggests that they only tend to do so when their teammates do so as well. Prior findings that owner-managers withdraw from low performing firms (Wennberg et al, 2010) might apply primarily to teams that collectively invest low effort.…”