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

Abstract

The benefits boundary spanners offer organizations by bridging information silos are well documented. However, informational boundary spanning also implies crossing organizational territories, as employees seek advice from others outside their supervisors' control. Applying a territoriality theory lens, we develop new insights about when and why supervisors may view their subordinates' informational boundaryspanning activities unfavorably and attempt to undermine boundary spanners. We argue that undermining results from supervisors perceiving the boundary spanning of their employees as weakening their control over their organizational territory. We further argue that subordinates who seek advice across organizational boundaries without also seeking advice from their supervisor are more likely to be seen by their supervisors as having negative intentions when engaging in boundary spanning, which increases their risk of being undermined. We find support for our arguments in a field study and in a scenario experiment. Our results provide new insights into the potentially negative reactions from supervisors toward employees who engage in boundary spanning. We discuss how these insights contribute to the boundary spanning literature, to territoriality theory, and to the leadership literature.

Feeling possessive, performing well? Effects of job-based psychological ownership on territoriality, information exchange, and job performance.

“…Further research might take recipients’ perspective, to explore leaders’ and colleagues’ attitudes and reactions to territorial actors. For example, if an employee often displays territorial expanding, some supervisors may experience a loss of control over part of the group and respond with attempts to undermine the territorial expander (Gardner et al, 2018; Mell et al, 2021); others might regard this boundary spanner as a great contributor to team goals and identify him or her as a role model. Detailing recipients’ reactions to different territorial behaviors then could provide further insights into the confounding influences of territoriality.…”

How leader humor stimulates subordinate boundary-spanning behavior: A social information processing theory perspective

“…10.3389/fpsyg.2022.956387 Choi, 2002). Moreover, because subordinate boundary activities weaken the leader's territorial control over the team, they could even result in leaders' undermining (Mell et al, 2022).…”

“…Boundary spanners might encounter inconsistent expectations from the internal and external entities ( Katz and Kahn, 1978 ; Choi, 2002 ). Moreover, because subordinate boundary activities weaken the leader’s territorial control over the team, they could even result in leaders’ undermining ( Mell et al, 2022 ). Given the potential risks for boundary spanners, we expect subordinate psychological safety to be a necessary antecedent of subsequent boundary-spanning behavior.…”

“…Prior work has elucidated that subordinates carrying out boundary-spanning behavior can improve their status, influence, performance, and innovation through gaining unique information and opportunities ( Hargadon, 2002 ; Tortoriello et al, 2014 ; Liu et al, 2016 ; Shah et al, 2018 ); however, they can also experience role overload in meeting contradictory expectations among the internal and external parties ( Kahn et al, 1964 ; Katz and Kahn, 1978 ; Marrone et al, 2007 ). Further, when leaders view subordinate boundary-spanning behavior as weakening their control, they may attempt to undermine such boundary spanners ( Mell et al, 2022 ). Due to this dual nature of boundary spanning, it is important to examine determinants that may shape the tendency of subordinate boundary-spanning behavior.…”

“…Although these existing studies have made significant contributions toward our understanding of how leaders direct, encourage, and support subordinate boundary-spanning behavior, they underscore that the potential interpersonal risks for boundary spanners may come from the leaders themselves. That is, subordinates who step up to exhibit boundary-spanning behavior may encounter the formal leaders’ undermining due to weakening their control over the team ( Mell et al, 2022 ). Despite the common portrait of boundary-spanning behavior as a worthy, needed, and encouraged endeavor ( Morgeson et al, 2010 ), subordinates sometimes see risks for themselves if they step up to do so ( Zhang et al, 2020 ; Lee Cunningham et al, 2022 ).…”