RELATIONSHIP S IN EEW PRODUCT

DeborahSloan S chool of ManagementMITCambridge , MA 02 1 39

July 1 5 , 1 98 6

TEAMS

David CaldwellLeavey S chool of

Bus ines s Adminis trationUniver s i ty of Santa ClaraSanta Clara , CA 95 053

WP 1 805-8 6

BEYOND THE BOUNDARY : MANAGING E!TERNALRELATIONSHIP S IN NEW PRODUCT TEAMS

Deborah David Caldwel lSloan S chool of Management Leavey S chool of

MIT Bus ines s Admini s trat ionCambridge , MA 02 1 39 Univer si ty of Santa Clara

Santa Clara , CA 95 05 3

July 1 5 , 1 986 WP 1 805-8 6

The ba s ic premi s e o f th i s paper i s that boundary manag ement

i s a cri t ica l pred ictor o f team performance , part iculary for tho s e

teams that are dependent on re sources found outs i de the i r borders .

Us ing intervi ew data from a set o f new product teams , the paperdescribes a s e t o f boundary behaviors carri ed out at d i f ferent

s tag es o f product deve lopment . Propo s i t i ons l inking boundarybehavi or and team per formance at d i f f erent pha s e s o f deve lopmentare introduced .

I t is unfortunate that , at the very t ime res earch on group p roc es s is on

the wane , the use o f group s in organizat ions is inc reas ing (Goods tein Dovico .

Tasks that onc e were p erformed by individuals are as s igned inc reas ingly

to group s , because the task s are comp lex , and p roduc ing resul t s requires

comb ining informat ion and expert ise from divers e sources . The group l iterature

that does exis t focuses p rimarily on internal group p roces ses such as dec is ion

making and p rob l em so lving , on group s engaged in s imp le tasks . and on

cro s s- s ec t ional data . This orientat ion does not f it the real ity of

organiz at ional task g roups . managing ext ernal as well as internal p roces ses ,

that is the focus of this paper .

The bas ic as s ert ion of this paper is that the management o f ext ernal

relat ionship s (henc eforth called b oundary management ) is a c rit ical p redic tor

of t eam effec t ivenes s . This is p art icularly t rue o f a t eam that must engage in

exchange relat ionship s with many other actors b oth ins ide and out s ide the

organizat ion . in order to ob tain informat ion and re sourc es ( Sp read ,

Boundary management is es sent ial for a t eam that does no t cont rol all the

c rit ical resources needed to accomp lish it s task . App lying the re source

dependency p erspect ive (Pfef fer Salancik , 1 9 7 8 ) such a t eam is not autonomous

but rather cons trained by a network of int erdep endenc ies with other part s o f

the organizat ion and the external environment . This interdep endenc e . when

coupled with unc ertainty ab out what act ions those other part s of the

organiz at ion will take . l eads to unc ertainty about the survival and succes s o f

the focal team . Therefore , a team must take ac t ion to manage external

interdependencies . These ac t ions l ead to new patt erns of dep endenc e and

interdependenc e that require ongo ing boundary management (Pfef fer ,

Our second as sert ion is that the amount and typ e o f b oundary b ehavior

needed fo r high t eam performanc e changes over t ime . Previous research has

tended to take a c ros s- sect ional view o f group s rather than an evolut ionary or

developmental p erspec tive . In many organizat ional group s , however , task

demands and resou rc e dependenc ies o ften shif t over t ime . Group p roc es s es change

to meet evolving demands .

We use new p roduc t t eams to rep resent groups fac ing complex and c ritical

interac t ions with others , and we explore the re lat ionship b etween their

boundary p roces ses and group effect ivenes s over t ime . First we review the

lit erature on b oundary p roc es s es . This is followed by a summary and c rit ique

of research on group development . Finally we p res ent data from new p roduc t

teams to highlight the ro le o f ef fec t ive b oundary management in t eam succes s .

Boundary Proc es s es in Group s

Internal group p roces s es are comp lemented by external p roces ses , or

interac tion with the environment that surrounds the group (Al derfer , 1 9 7 6 ;

Cummings , A s tudy by Glads t ein ( 1 9 84 ) showed that in ongoing

organizat ional sales teams memb ers focused on two maj or set o f ac tivities :

intragroup proc es ses and b oundary p roc es ses , rather than the t radit ional task

and maintenance ac t ivit ies . These external or b oundary spanning p roc es ses may

take the form o f p rocuring res ources . working out int erdependencies , or

trans ferring group output to others (Al derfer , 1 9 7 6 ; !uinn Muell er ,

Res earch on b oundary proc es ses has focused p rimarily on individual and

organiz at ional levels o f analys is . Res earch at the individual level has

concentrated on the charac teris t ic s o f b oundary spanners Caldwell

O ' Reilly , 1 9 82 ) and the role conflic t these ind ividuals experienc e (Adams ,

1 97 6 ; Kell er Ho lland , 1 9 75 ; Organ Greene , Organ izat ion- level

res earch has addres sed p roc es s es by which organ iz at ions adap t to their

environment by selec t ing , t ransmit t ing , and interp ret ing informat ion

originat ing in the environment Ald rich Betker , 1 9 7 7 ; Child ,

Fewer s tudies o f boundary management have been done at the group level .

This is surp ris ing because group s , l ike organiz at ions , are op en sys t ems that

mus t manage their relat ionship s with the external environment . Moreover , much

of this research has b een done with lab oratory group s or with T-group s that

work in isolat ion . Such group s seldom have complex tasks or interact with

others . Most groups in organizat ions must interac t with interdep endent others

to ob tain resourc es , to coordinate work and dec is ion making , and to exchange

input s and output s ( see F igure l fo r a comparison of group s working in

isolat ion and group s working in the organiz at ional context ) . Such " real "

groups may carry out the organizat ion- environment b oundary spanning act ivit ies

that are required for their task (Thomp s on ,

Insert F igure 1 Ab out Here

One s et o f group- level b oundary spanning s tudies examines the pattern of

work- relat ed informat ion flow in R D laboratories Allen , 1 9 84 ; Katz ,

1 9 82 ; Tushman , 1 9 77 , In general , these studies found a relat ionship

b etween the input o f info rmat ion by boundary spanners and performanc e in the

group . For example . high-performing R D p roj ec t group s showed far great er

communicat ion with organizat ional colleagues out s ide the group than

low-p erforming teams (Al l en , In addit ion , c ommunicat ion followed a

two- s t ep p roc es s , with communic at ion " s tars " f irs t gett ing the informat ion from

out s ide and then t ranslat ing the informat ion and t ransmit t ing it to the group

(Tushman ,

Mos t of the group- level research on b oundary spanning has b een l imited to

s tudying how memb ers b ring technical informat ion into the group . Exchange

theory and the resource dep endenc e perspect ive would sugges t , however , that

when a t eam is part o f a sys t em organiz ed by an interconnec ting web of

relat ionship s , a b roader conc eptual izat ion of b oundary spanning is needed

(Bagozz i , 1 975 ; Brinberg Wood , 1 9 83 ; Tichy Fombrun , For examp le ,

b oundary ac t ivity can b e categorized not s imply by the trans fer o f technical

informa t ion , but als o by whether po lit ical and organizational informat ion ,

goods and servic es , affec t and liking , ideas , and/or power and influenc e flow

into and out of the group . S imilarly , group memb ers are not the sole

init iato rs o f t ransac t ions ; out s iders o ften init iate t ransact ions , and group

members may p lay a reac t ive role in responding to ext ernal init iatives .

This b roader conc ep tual izat ion raises many research ques t ions : What is the

range o f b oundary b ehaviors that group s use to maintain their t ransac t ions!What t riggers thes e b ehaviors -hab it , resource dependency , failure!With what

result!Given the pauc ity of answers to these ques t ions we have t ried to

ident ify the internal and external b ehaviors of new p roduc t teams in a

res ourc e- dependent cont ext in order to generate some p ropos it ions about the

link of b oundary b ehaviors to team effect ivenes s .

Team Development

Team development has b een modeled as a sequent ial p roces s having four

s tages : 1 ) individuals b ecome oriented to the group and det ermine rol es , 2 )

confl ic t develop s as group memb ers s t ruggle for leadership in the group , 3 )

members agree on no rms and rules , and 4 ) work leads to complet ion of the task!

(Heinen Jacob son ,

This view of development focuses on two of the four func t ions in Pars ons '

( 1 959 ) func tional analys is o f soc ial syst ems : integrat ion and patt ern

maintenance . Integrat ion refers to the coord inat ion of ef fort , hierarchy ,

workflow , and p rocedures , or in group t erms , work norms and roles . Pat tern

maintenance refers to reduc ing tens ions in the syst em through the es tab lishment

o f values to guide behavior , and at t empt s to sat is fy memb ers .

Left out of the current models of development from a res ource dependenc e

perspect ive is the need to carry out the external func t ions ident if ied by

Parsons adaptat ion and goal at tainment . Adaptat ion is the p rocurement

and dep loyment of resourc es and gaining environmental support to achieve goals .

Goal at tainment involves defining goals and evaluat ing p rogres s towards them .

Goals here are not ones o f eff ic iency or sat is fac t ion within the group but

rather ef fec t ivenes s , demons t rat ing to thos e out s id e the group what has b een

accompl ished (Lyden , Because mos t organizat ional group s are open

sys tems that are dependent upon other part s o f the organizat ion and

environment . we need to add adaptat ion and goal at tainment to our developmental

models o f group s .

This p erspec t ive yields many research ques t ions : How do external roles get

carried out in conj unc t ion with internal ones!Which func t ions , and therefore

roles are mos t c rit ical over t ime!How do b oundary rol es help to carry out the

external func tions o f adap tat ion and goal at tainment!

New Produc t Teams

This paper addres ses the research ques t ions desc rib ed by examining new

p roduc t t eams in organizat ions . A new p roduc t t eam is a set o f interdependent

individuals who view themselves as a t eam , and who are respons ib l e for the

development and int roduc t ion of p roduc t s out s ide the exis t ing p roduc t l ine

(Al derfer , 1 9 7 6 ; Flesher , Flesher , Skelly , A new p roduct t eam depends

on the resources o f many other part s of the organiz at ion and must coordinat e

with myriad other func t ions such as market ing , manufacturing , and sales . The

nature o f these interdependenc ies shif ts over t ime as the focus moves f rom an

idea to a c omp let ed p roduc t .

New p roduc t teams are more than an example of evolving , highly

interdep endent task groups . They serve important funct ions for many

organizat ions . Bus ines s expert s , for examp le , not e that the cont ribut ion of

new p roduc ts to sales growth is expec ted to inc rease by one- third during the

1 9 80 3 while the port ion of total company prof its generat ed by new p roduct s is

exp ect ed to inc rease by 5 0 perc ent over the next five years (Booz , Allen

Hamilton , Relianc e on new p roduc t succes s is part icularly p revalent in

high- technology indus t ries . There is a push from b oth government and indust ry

" not j us t to p roduc e more technical innovat ion , but to p roduce it more quickly

and ef fic ient ly " (David , 1 9 84 , p .

We as s ert that b oundary management is one o f the important p redic tors o f

new p roduc t t eam effect ivenes s . An examinat ion of the boundary ac t ivit ies and

internal p roc es ses of new p roduc t teams over t ime can t ell us about the l ink

between p roces s and ef fec t ivenes s . Given that our goal is to learn more about

general group p roces ses , not ident ify all the fac tors relat ed to p roduc t

development , we do not att empt exhaust ive l it erature review of new p roduc t

development or discus s data unrelat ed to group p roc es s .

Methods

The f indings of this paper were derived b oth from a review of the p resent

lit erature and from over 1 00 hours of interviews with new p roduc t team managers

and members at s ix corp orat ions in the computer and int egrat ed c ircuit s

industries . Four t eam leaders were interviewed for three to t en hours , from

within a week to s ix weeks af ter the complet ion of their p roj ect s . We asked

these managers how their new p roduct teams were set up , how the teams evolved

over t ime ( including key event s , c rises , and tasks ) , and how the teams

coordinated their effort s with other group s . Aft er the desc ript ive data were

col lect ed , we asked team leaders what they saw as important fac tors for succes s

of a new p roduc t team . A f if th team leader was interviewed every four to s ix

weeks over a twenty month period to get a more f ine- gra ined view of the

development p roces s . Finally , four managers o f mult ipl e new p roduc t t eams ,

four new p roduc t team leaders , and s ix memb ers from a set o f other t eams were

interviewed during the early and middle phases o f p roduct development to ge t a

further desc ript ion of team ac t ivit ies . Examples o f the types of p roducts the

teams were working on ranged from engineering work stat ions to computer

int erconnec t s .

This samp le is not meant to b e rep resentat ive or large enough to t es t

hypotheses . Rather data from the interviews is used to augment current group

theory by ident ifying the range and importanc e of b oundary ac tiv ity , and t rying

to dis cover patt erns o f ac t ivity that may lead to succes s . So we have fo llowed

a comparat ive case analys is app roach . This res earch st rat egy was cho sen

because we b elieve that the research on group p roces s in organizat ions is at an

early s tage o f development . Henc e , that re search will b ene fit if the following

research ac t ivit ies p recede hypothes is tes t ing : 1 ) explorat ion and des c ript ion

(c reat ing a data base ) , 2 ) cataloguing and clas s if icat ion ( develop ing a

taxonomy ) , 3 ) extens ion of ob servat ion into general iz ed patterns (def ining

sub-sys tem laws ) , and 4 ) p ropos ing hypotheses ( sugges t ing causal mechanisms )

(Glads tein !uinn ,

Stages o f New Produc t Development

The key to the succ es s of new p roduc t teams is to meet the task demands at

each phas e o f p roduc t development . This requires that the group b e able to

ef fec tively ob tain informat ion and resources from external sources , p roces s the

info rmat ion and resourc es internally , and use those input s to c reate and gain

accep tanc e o f a viab le p roduc t (Burgelman , Research on new p roduct

management has ident ified s i!phases of new p roduc t development and

introduc t ion as suming that a new p roduc t s t rategy is in p lace . These s ix

phases include : idea generat ion , sc reening and evaluat ion , bus ines s analys is ,

development , t es t ing , and commerc ializat ion (Booz , Allen Hamilton , 1 9 82 ;

Urban Haus er ,

While the Booz , Allen Hamilt on phas es out l ine what must b e done to

develop and p roduc e new p roduc t s succ es s fully , they do not spec ify what the

group mus t do to in ord er to get the p roduc t through thes e phas es . In

addit ion , they port ray the p roces s as l inear , while our ob servations and other

research indicat e a more cycl ical p rocess . Burgelman for example ,

indicates that the p roces s may cycle through several t imes , involving several

hierarchical levels and numerous func t ional groups .

In our data we ident if ied three phases of ac t ivity separated by two

trans it ion po ints : c reat ion ( t rans ition from pos s ib le to def init e p roduc t ) ;

development ( t ransit ion through technology trans fer) ; and dif fus ion and end ing

( s ee Figure Each phas e has dif ferent internal and external demands . Here

we provide excerp t s from interviews to charac terize the part icular phase and

b riefly interp ret the data .

The Creat ion Phas e

I j o ined the company in July 1 9 84 . I was hired to take onthis p roduc t s inc e I had some exp erience in the low end of themarket and detailed knowledge of is sues o f compatib il ity . Thecompany had a p roduc t on it s mind , at l eas t there was an idea .

There had b een an off- s it e meet ing f if t een months b efore with toplevel p eopl e - the CFO and numerous R&D VPs . The purpo se had b een

to set a direc t ion for the new p roduc t , but they got into detailsb ecause they had to .

The firs t thing I did was to go to talk to lo t s o f people tof ind out what they thought the produc t was and how to get there .

This was at the technical l evel , what are the details , not j us tglobal suggest ions . I s tart ed out with the guy who b rought me

here , he sent me to see someone els e , and so it went that I cameto talk to a lot o f high and middle— level peop le . Theinterviews were op en-ended but I pushed and maybe even taughtthem a few things about the ir concept : what it meant to p roducethe p roduc t they envisioned . So I gained knowledge about details

of what the p roduc t ought to b e , who the players were , what theydid , and what they wanted . I spent the f irs t month on the j obdoing thes e int erviews .

We ac tually b egan in Sept emb er , when a repres entat ive frommarket ing , two from software , and one f rom hardware were as s igned

to the p rogram . So the p roduct vis ion and buy—in were somewhat

there b efore I came in . Peop l e were ready to exp end res ources ,

and the culture supported the team idea . By mid- Sept emb er wewere hiring more peop le and ident ifying res ourc es that wereneeded . By now we would meet as a single group every Monday

morning . The purpo se o f the meet ings was to take the concep t andref ine it into a real p roduc t . The firs t three months , Sep t emb erthrough Novemb er , were spent dec iding what the p roduc t could b e ,

and gett ing resourc es . Res ourc es weren ' t really a p rob lem s inc et op management was pushing this one .

-New Produc t Team Leader

I t ' s not exac tly c lear how the whol e thing got s tart ed ,

but then it s eldom is . I had b een very busy talking to t opmanagement and s tudying the t echnology and the compe t ition andthinking about the next generat ion of p roduc t s . There were thesetwo other p roj ect s going on , but they weren ' t doing too well . Soabout a year ago the Produc t Commit t ee ( t op- level p roduc t

s trategy group ) d ecided to start this new p roj ec t . I t wasc rit ical to the s t rat egy of the company to produc e s omething witha much higher p erformanc e level than anything we ' d done before .

And they came to me to run the t eam .

The firs t thing to do was obviously to get the two former

t eam leaders s igned on . They almos t s aid no , aft er all they werelos ing control , but in the end they did it . Then we start ed outby having a meet ing with the two old p roj ec t t eams , and members

o f the top corporat e and divis ion management . The CFO explainedthat we needed everyone ' s help to get back into pos it ion withthis p roduc t . This was May and we were supposed to have thiswonder machine ready to ship by January . These were b ig s takes .

This was important to the company . And with the pep talk we wereo f f . I was the p roj ec t leader , the CFO was our Godfather and theR D VP was our help er . After the two former leaders were

s igned up fo r the p roj ec t I pulled in two more key people and hadan init ial meet ing . This was the core of the group , one pers onin charge o f software , hardware , mic rocode and syst ems . We wouldhold the group together . We added a few more peop le and thenspent a c ouple o f weeks frit t ering ab out , reading s tuff , dec idingif the p roduc t was feas ib le . Peop le were saying " no way it canhapp en" and I was busy s et t ing things up so we ' d have a place tolive .

We moved in and launched into work . Thos e firs t two weeks

we l ived in the conferenc e room . We were meet ing everyday andwent out to dinner a lot . We dealt with technical is sues andthere were l is t s of is sues to explore everywhere . Peop le wouldgo o f f and p repare a report or alternat ives and imp lications o fvarious des ign is sues and we would o ffer O p inions . They had moreinformat ion than I did so they made the dec is ions . After twoweeks o f this we were a t eam . We made mos t o f the maj ordec is ions in those two weeks , and then spent much les s t imetogether . There were , o f c ourse , weekly meet ings and ad hoc

meet ings for p rob lem resolut ion . I f a p rob lem couldn ' t b e s olvedin a meet ing it was put on a l is t and taken care o f lat er .

"

-New Produc t Team Leaderl

Several ac t ivit ies appear to take place ac ros s the team 's b oundary in

this early c reat ion phase . The group s co llec t large amounts of informat ion :

technical informat ion about what is and is not feas ib le , and what the lates t

innovat ions have been , market informat ion ab out what p roduc t s are sell ing well

and what the compet it ion is doing , and political informat ion about who support s

the p roj ec t and who does not . At this t ime the group may also b e at t empt ing to

determine what the peop le in power want the p roduc t to b e and how the product a .

fit s into the corp orate p roduc t s trategy . The group , or at l eas t some

representat ive o f the group may als o b e t rying to gain support for the p roduc t

by get t ing an early commitment and coop erat ion from group s whos e support may b e

needed in the future .

1 0

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 2 3

Not only do t eams manage their boundaries by alt ering what takes p lac e

acros s these boundaries , but they also alt er the permeab ility of these

boundaries . That is , one des ign tool the manager uses is how open the boundary:

is . Not e that at this phase the " group " may shif t from an engineer working

with top management , or other part s o f the organizat ion in a loose informat ion

sharing mode , t o a set o f c ross- funct ional peop le actually des igning the

p roduc t . During the Creat ion phase the t eam may change b oth through expans ion

and a shif t in compos it ion . The c reat ion phase is of ten uns t ructured : a

p roduc t idea can come from various sourc es , the origin of the idea o ft en cannot

b e clearly ident if ied , and the idea may exis t in mult ip le part s o f the

organizat ion for long periods o f t ime b efore someone formaliz es it s

development .

The group is not solely negot iat ing ac ro ss its boundaries . There is a

great deal of internal ac t ivity in the c reat ion s tage as well . Jus t as some

s t rat egic dec is ions do , the team ' s p roc es s o f defining the p roduc t appears to

p roceed inc rementally (!uinn , The original p roduc t idea may b e very

general but the t eam works to collect informat ion so that a greater level o f

specif icity is achieved ( see F igure Thus , the team needs to define the

p roduc t , determine feas ib il ity , and figure out how to work together to do

this . In addit ion , team memb ers must b e chosen and integrated into the group .

Po s s ib le to Definit e Proj ec t : A Trans it ion Po int

The des ign review was set up to make sure we weren ' t go ingo ff in crazy direc t ions . All of R&D was invited , quit e a few

showed up . I ended up with two pages o f ques t ions that peopl ehad . We had answers to mos t o f them , and we got lo ts of help fulinput . We were o ffic ial now , they had given us the OK . We wentback to work .

-New Produc t Team Leader

1 3

The f irst s ell was to the R&D s taf f , in Sept emb er . We as

a group had dec ided what we wanted to do and we had to get them

to agree , the VPs had to s ign off . We ' re spending their money ,

we have t o meet the ir needs to keep get t ing res ourc es . I

p resented the team ' s ideas and we got lot s of comment s . Twoweeks lat er there was another meet ing t o discus s our p rogres s and

ref inements o f the firs t meet ing . This was to a b roaderaudienc e , we were s eeking the bl es s ing of top management .

Several is sues were raised and we went back to the drawingboard . Three weeks lat er we had another meet ing to makedec is ions ab out the op en is sues . This meet ing was with highlevel s of R&D , market ing and manufac turing -all the p layersrequired to make decis ions . One big is sue was PC compat ib ilityand although we c lo sed on other things this is sue remained op en ,

we couldn ' t dec ide . I wish we had b ecause now this is caus ings ome delay , but no agreement was reached .

-New Produc t Team Leader

Management j ust c ouldn ' t all get t ogether and dec ide which

chip they were go ing t o use . I t was debat ed and changed and

debated and we couldn ' t really get working . The co s t and t ime todelivery got out of control . We had to s c rap the whole thing andmos t of the team le ft the company .

-New Product Team Memb er

We had the machine des igned already and it looked like it

was going to do j us t what we want ed it to do . But no one woulds ign off on it . I t took months and months , and so many

meet ings . One of the VP8 said he didn ' t want to s ee me anymore .

But we j us t kept on p lugging away at it and f inally we

got p ermis s ion to go ahead in a maj or way . I think this guy j us tgot t ired o f seeing all my phone mes sages .

-New Produc t Des igner

There appear to be c ertain t rans it ion po ints that s e rve to def ine or

segment the rather mes sy , c ircular new p roduc t p roc es s . Thes e t rans it ions seem

to b e like hoop s or challenges ; if they are not achieved to a part icular

sp ecif icat ion , organizat ional suppo rt for the group and it s p roduc t may b e

withdrawn and the group disbanded (as in one example ab ove ) . I f , however , the

group does receive support it moves on to a dif ferent set o f ac t ivit ies , a

dif ferent s tatus , and p erhaps adds dif ferent memb ers . Thes e t rans ition points

serve to organize and focus group ac t ivit ies , o ften marking a shif t in the

group ' s p roces s .

In most of the teams that we spoke to , the f irs t o f two trans it ion po ints .

oc curred j us t p rior to the maj or port ion of the development phase , so we call

it a shift from a " pos s ib le " p roj ec t to a " definit e " p roj ect . Crawford ( 1 9 83 )

desc rib es a s imilar shift from a recognit ion of pot ent ial feas ib ility to

commitment to one new p roduc t idea . This entails movement from low- cos t effort

with minimal organizat ion respons e to maj or cap ital inves tment and commitment

f rom t op management . In ou r samp le there was usually some formal ,

organiz at ionally impos ed , des ign review that forc ed the new p roduct group to

p resent and defend it s des ign . Even when this was not the case , there was

usually informal organiz at ional p res sure to b rief top management and get their

support . Teams des c rib ed spending a great deal o f frenz ied t ime and ac t ivity

p reparing for thes e reviews . Two teams that could no t make this t rans ition had

either delays or failure .

Development

By now we were up to July . I would go back to the companyonc e a week for a s taf f meet ing with my bos s and b ring my peop le“ letters from home .

" I would report b ack to them on things thatmight b e of int eres t . This was also a chanc e to s ee what wasgoing on in other areas . There was a lot o f coordinat ing to do .

I wanted to make sure that components were ordered and the

p rinted c ircu it b oards were out . George was the l iaison tomanufac turing , but I needed to check on things every onc e in

awhile . We had dec ided to build a mini manufacturing fac il ity .

There was a lot to watch over so we dec ided to b ring in threep eopl e from manufac turing . Later we would b ring moremanufacturing people in to help with the debugging , but theseguys b ecame part of the t eam . The manufacturing peop le helpedwith the components dec is ions : which could b e ob tained , did they

have the right performanc e sp ecs .

In early Augus t we hired four contrac t workers and s tart edhaving proj ec t s tatus meet ings where we would l is t all thep robl em areas and who would do what , when . At this point we alsostart ed meet ing with peopl e outs ide the group to p rovide a status

update . We had representat ives from purchas ing , largermanufac turing areas , p roduc t ion planning , diagnos tic s , andmarket ing . There were twenty to thirty peop l e . We informed themof progres s and changes and pub lished the meet ing minut es on

— l ine

so everyone could acc es s them . We also had to keep the Produc t

Commit t ee info rmed . They wanted to know what was going to b e

built when and we to ld them .

By Novemb er the top commit t ee was gett ing panicky : they

were nice , but they were nervous . We never mis s ed a schedule , Ichanged them and sent out new schedules . I t ried hard to p rot ectthe team from the p res sure from t op management . But I sens ed

that it was like a p res sure cooker in the res t o f the company .

So though I felt bad asking , some of the t eam had to come induring Chris tmas t ime . I t ried to report informat ion aboutp rogres s calmly , and to exude the at t itude of it ' s OK . St ill ,

people felt b ad . Novemb er , D ecemb er , January , the machine j us twasn ' t working and everyb ody felt as though we ' d fail ed . Even

though we ' d done the impos s ib le . S t ill , we were lat e t omanufac turing and everyone was scared .

-New Product Team Leader

The dec is ion was made not to separate the team from theres t o f the o rganizat ion . Fo r the p roj ec t that ' s a great idea ,

but for morale and work it ' s not good . The so f tware peop le needto learn from other s of tware p eop le . Bes ides , the softwarep roj ec t l eader was oppo sed to separat ion , having b een isolat edb efore and having lo s t out on c areer oppo rtunit ies . So therewere lot s o f one-on— one meet ings and sub- group meet ings . Lot s o fp eopl e were involved in the p roj ec t and the Monday morning

meet ings were too big to get everything done .

At this t ime we were already two months b ehind because ithad taken longer than expec t ed to get R&D to s ign o ff . I 'm not

good at power is sues . I asked my bos s how I was doing and he

said OK , but b ehind . Then things changed a lit t le . Theyb rought in this high-level guy . He has lo ts o f connect ions with

top management and now it ' s eas ier to get what we need . My b o s sasked him to come on , I think , to get more buy- ih for the p roj ect

f rom the top guys . Bes ides he ' s run a p roj ect like this b e foreand he ' s an added res ourc e to the engineers . Also a new level of

management has b een added in the company . So now there is a newp ers on coordinat ing our ef forts . Although mo s t o f these newmanagers are from R&D this one is from manufac turing , p robablyb ecaus e some of the b igges t p robl ems this p roj ec t will have arewith manufac turing .

Several rules are in plac e now , such as minimiz ing newt echnology so that this thing get s out in t ime . We put t ogetherthis bottom-up p roces s to put together this p lan . So now forevery p iec e of the p rogram there exis t s a p lan . And every Monday

morning peop le have to report on where they are with resp ect tothe plan . This makes p eopl e ac countable . I ' m in the middle oftwo ends o f a p rob lem . From above I get maj or direc t ion and goal

set t ing , like we really don ' t want to del iver in Feb ruary but inDec emb er , and then in the Monday morning meet ings I get reality

,

here ' s what we can really do . Lots o f work is being done insub-group s now , l ike hardware . The t eam is sp read out over fou rbuildings and that ' s the pit s . I f you run around with a tap erecorder and t ry to p ick up p roj ec t group things you don ' t hear alot . That concerns me . St ill , we ' re cont inuing to make progres swith the machine .

—New Produc t Team Leader

1 5

I f peop le aren ' t together the p roj ect is not go ing to turnout as good as it c ould have b een . And the analogy I use is when

you have a gem -you take a diamond , and you cut it , and you 'vedone all this great s tuff —you do a f inal pol ishing to it and itadds a sparkle to it and I j u s t have this really st rong intuition

that that ' s what ' s mi s s ing becaus e peop le aren ' t int eract ing on adaily b as is- they aren ' t having lunch , they aren ' t meet ing in thehallway t o dis cus s thes e things , s o what ' s happening is peopleare in a l it t le more isolat ed pos it ion to make decis ions . Theyend up being more local op t imiz at ions rather than p roj ec topt imiz at ions . I can feel that there ' s a delay in makingdec is ions . Peopl e who are working on the operat ing sys t em havetwo things to do . One is they have to do the op erat ing syst emfor the p roj ec t and the other is that they have to s tay in touchwith all of the res t of the organizat ion and so they ' re torn .

-New Produc t Team Advisor

I dec ided to house us in some space in an isolat edbuilding . This was a novel task , there were lot s o f new peop le ,

and we were going to b e going hard and fas t . That kind ofint ensity has to b e is olat ed . I didn ' t want p eop le to sp end toomuch t ime there but I knew it would happen so I got four fold-outb eds , but I was c lear that p eop l e would take weekends of f and nodoub le shif ts . Everything we needed was right there- co f fees ervice , food s tand , candy t ruck .

-New Produc t Team Leader

In the development s tage there again appear t o b e b oth external and

internal ac t ivities . Dep endenc e on other groups decreases b ecause res ources

and informat ion have already b een ob tained . Henc e t ransac t ions ac ro ss the

boundary b ecome les s c rit ical . Yet b ehaviors aimed at coordinat ion with other

groups t end to inc rease . The new p roduc t team needs to make sure that other

funct ional groups , those that will p rovide component s and those that take the

p roduc t over , are working according to the schedule agreed upon . In addition ,

top corporate management needs to b e updat ed and informed o f the p roduc t ' s

p rogres s .

An impo rtant ques t ion during this phase is the degree o f separat ion b etween‘

the group and the res t of the organiz at ion . Spec if ically , should the team

ob tain s eparat e fac il it ies or perhap s even phys ically isolate its elf f rom the

1 7

res t o f the o rganiz at ion!Relat ed to the ques t ion of separat ion is the not ion

of p rot ec t ion o f the group from out s iders . I so lat ion of the group , inc luding

phys ical s eparat ion , can allow the group to focus on it s work but may make it

dif f icult for the group to cont inue cont inue build ing relat ionship s with other

groups .

These external ac t ivit ies occur concurrent ly with numerous internal

ac t ivit ies . The development s tage sees the highes t need for int ernal

coo rdinat ion among team members . Members have to work together c lo sely , they

need to p roduc e a feas ib le schedule , deal with external p res sures and apparent

failures , and c reate new des igns as p robl ems with the o ld ones appear . I t is

at this point that the interact ion b etween internal g roup p roc es s and b oundary

management seemed , to us , most obvious . I s olat ion may serve to focus the group

on it s internal p roces s , but it l imit s the group ' s ab ility to coordinat e with

others and to respond to new informat ion .

Technology Trans fer : A Trans it ion Point

By lat e January large part s o f the work were done . Therewere lo t s o f p eop l e working and it was dif ficult to keep t rack ofwho was doing what . There was les s control with thes e new peop lecoming in . Then we had this fight . Manufac turing said let ' sbuild it and make repairs later . Engineering said hold it . Iwas in the middle . Manufac turing yanked these peop le out . I was

in a t enuous po s it ion . I wanted the p roduc t t o s tay with theteam to get the bugs out , but the Product Committ ee and the res tof the organizat ion were go ing crazy . We had made a deal withsome customers . There were huge p res sures to get it over tomanufacturing .

Finally a deal was made with manufacturing and we shippedsome ma chines , and surp ris e- they weren ' t working . Meanwhile

manufac turing was working three shif t s a day , s even days a week .

They had quotas to make and we were t rying to help them . We hadto explain how certain things worked . I had lo ts and lot s o fmeet ings ab out the status o f the p roj ec t . We wanted some las tminut e changes on the machine , but manufacturing was not able ornot will ing to put it in all the machines . There were greatargument s and the P roduc t Commit t ee was very involved . By Ap rilwe had worked out a compromis e agreement . By then manufac turing

had learned the rec ip e and the machines were coming out f ine .

-New Produc t Team Leader

DECLARATION OF IMPATIENCE : The t ime has come , we believe ,

to call a hal t to xxxx engineering and ship the p roduct . Thismeans to s eal o f f all loos e ends , caut erize all op en wounds , make

it rel iab le , p rint the documentat ion , make the kit s , and se ll it!We believe it ' s t ime to say IT ' S Finish what ' s

there , fix it s ship it . Put the unf inishedbus ines s on the shelf for 2xxxx . This p roduc t al ready is theb est on the market , by far , and the momentum of things to comewil l insure that it s tays that way . BUT NOT IF IT DOESN ' T SHIP!

We have a mechanism that is des igned to keep a st eady flowof imp rovements , new technology , bug fixes , going to themarketp lace . Sell the cus tomer on evolut ion , not on a so lut ionfo r all men for all t ime on with the “ final game .

" NOMORE I s there something wrong with havingdevelop ers s it on the ir hands fo r awhile!I f develop ers are notsuffic ient ly busy reviewing send them onp robab ly much needed vacat ions/R&R . Jus t think , if we s toppedchanging the fo rms , the funct ionality and the sys t em it could b emeasured and test ed . I f it was finished , we could make it , sellit , and ship it!

-Memo to all peop le get t ing xxx to market

The second t rans it ion po int usually occurs somewhere during the t es t ing

phase . The technological p rob lems have b een as ses sed and a p rototype exist s

and has b een tes ted . The t rans it ion cons is t s o f moving from team ownership of

the p roduc t to more general organizat ional ownership . Now organizat ional

groups will b egin to take over large- scale produc tion and d ist ribut ion of the

produc t .

This corresponds to what!uinn and Mueller ( 1 9 63 ) would c all a technology

t ransfer po int , where the emphas is moves from develop ing the t echnology to

pas sing informat ion , enthus iasm , and authority to use that t echnology to other

groups in the organizat ion . The t rans ition will not occur if the group is

either unwill ing to rel inquish the p roduc t or unwill ing to cont inue to work on

the p roduc t when it has pas s ed into the hands o f others .

This was a dif ficult t rans it ion for all the teams we examined . Probl ems

ranged from memb ers who were unwill ing to trans fer the p roduc t to others , to

less commit ted team memb ers who b egan work on other p roj ect s , leaving the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

Team memb ers may b e out o f touch with the res t of the organizat ion and

burnt-out from their final push to get the p roduc t done , but b oundary

act ivit ies s t ill are es sent ial , part icularly with group s who will b e

respons ib le for p roduc ing and ma rket ing the new p roduc t .

Variab ility of individual involvement with the p roduc t will b e high at

this s tage . Some team members will b e needed to finish up the p roj ect , whil e

others whose contribut ion has b een made will move on to o ther act ivities .

I s sues o f burnout , future career moves , and reconnect ing with other part s o f

the organizat ion all need to b e handled .

Boundary Proc es ses

It s eems cl ear from comment s we have coll ect ed that t eams manage their

boundaries to deal with the dif ferent c ritical cont ingenc ies or resourc e

dep endenc ies that they have over t ime , and to balanc e internal and external

demands . Cons is tent with an op en sys t ems view of group s and exchange theory ,

the flow of informat ion and resourc es can b e seen as dif fering on two

dimens ions : 1 ) source of init iat ion of the t ransac t ion and 2 ) the direction of

in format ion and resourc e flow . The teams we ob served appeared to b e both

init iators of t ransac t ions and recip ient s o f reques ts from external agents .

They clearly made at tempt s to model and influenc e their environment , and to

garner resources , whether they b e in the form o f t echnical advice or additional

manpower . At the same t ime , other part s o f the organizat ion were t ry ing to

influence the group , perhap s t o inc lude an additional feature , to f ind out how

well the group is p rogres s ing , or to encourage the group to get the p roduct

out

2 1

Because o f thes e highly interac t ive exchanges , f lows o f informat ion ,

influence , and resources were es tab l ished b etween the focal group and it s role

set (Whett en , The team or team leader appear to then sp end t ime t ry ing

to modify those flows to meet current needs , inc luding co-opt ing other part s o f

the organizat ion , b ringing them into the group , changing the permeab ility o f

the b oundary , o r t rying to reach out and influenc e external ent it ies to change

their d emands on the team . In other words , the focal unit and the role se t

were each t rying to set up and manage a flow that met their needs . These flows

are not p erfec t , and with feedback both s et s of ac tors at t empt ed to modify , or

influenc e the flows . The management o f this flow in response to task demands

b ecomes b oundary management .

Tab le 1 ident ifies four b oundary spanning rol es that app ear to capture

this exchange not ion of the set t ing up and regulat ing informat ion , influenc e ,

and resourc e flows . The ro les - sc out , ambas sador , s ent ry , and guard —may b e

dis t ribut ed among memb ers or taken on by one individual . The t ransact ions

these memb ers carry out may involve other group s or ind ividuals ins ide or

out s ide o f the organizat ion .

The sc out b rings informat ion or re sourc es in ac ro ss the b oundary ( s ee

Tab le 1 for examp les from the data ) . Thes e are the act ivit ies that have b een

tradit ionally as soc iat ed with the b oundary spanner . Examples of the kind of

informat ion the scout might coll ect inc lude task- relevant info rmat ion neces sary

for p roblem so lut ion ( is this des ign polit ical data about who

support s or oppo ses the group‘s ac t ivit ies (what direct ion does each of the

members o f the p roduc t commit tee want to and the extent o f demand for

the group ' s outputs (Does manufac turing want to get involved with a high volume

p roduc t right The scout takes on an environmental scanning func t ion .

Bes ides collec t ing informat ion , the sc out p rocures other resources such as

equipment , extra workers , and ''home " spac e .

The sc out aids in the adap tat ion func t ion by p roviding a p icture o f the

res ourc e cons t raint s , a model o f the external environment that p rovides

res ources to the team . When resources are readily available , the scout s imply

p rocures them ; when resourc es are not eas ily given the scout gathers

int ell igenc e so that the team can b egin negot iat ing to get them . The scout

also aids in the goal at tainment func tion by enab ling the t eam to gather

informat ion in order to set app rop riate goals and then by ob taining neces sary

feedback on how external agent s view p rogres s t oward those goals .

The ambas sador role involves carrying informat ion , resources , or

influence to transmit to others . The ambas sador rep resents the group to

out s iders . Rep resentat ion is the p resentat ion of informat ion by the group

about it s el f to its surrounding environment in order to shape b el iefs and

b ehavior o f others (Adams , 1 9 7 6 , This is a form o f p rof ile management .

As the data indicate , the team is not pas s ive . There are numerous at t empt s by

all group s to reach out and influence the t eam ' s ideas and output . The

amb as sador develop s and maintains channels of communicat ion that explain the

group ' s ac t ivit ies to powerful out s iders and help p ersuade these out s iders that

the group 's ac t ivit ies are valuab le and should b e support ed . Table 1 shows

examp les of the amb as sador role from the data .

Kanter ( 1 9 83 ) des c rib es thes e ambas sadorial func t ions as get t ing others

to commit thems elves to , or share the goals of , the group . In Parsons ' t erms ,

this ro le can b e viewed as fulf ill ing the func t ion of adaptat ion . In this case

adap tat ion is not s imply int ernal change in response to external demands , but

rather an att empt to exert influenc e to change those external demands to match

internal goals . One example in our data is the p roduc t team leader ' s att empt

to make manufac turing wait unt il p roduc t modif icat ions were completed . The

ambas sador ro le cont ributes to the goal at tainment func t ion in t rying to

23

convinc e external evaluators to reas ses s p roj ec t goals (changing due

dates ) , thereby making the t eam seem farther ahead than it is .

The role that es tab lishes permeab il ity of the group ' s b oundary is that o f

the s entry . The sentry pol ic es the boundary by cont roll ing the informat ion and

resourc es that external agents want to send into the group , act ing as a fil t er

dec id ing who can give input , how much of that input will b e admitt ed , and when

the f low of input must st op . A good e!ample o f this ro le is the t eam leader

who t ries to p rot ec t the team from the p res sure o f top management by b ringing

in only selec ted informat ion ab ou t what is go ing on in the res t o f the

organizat ion ( s ee Tab le The sent ry p ro t ect s the group by allowing it t o

work with minimal d ist rac t ion . Ext ernal ent it ies will want to communicat e

the ir p riorit ies , interes t s , and demands . When this input is des ired , the j ob

of the s entry is to allow ent ry . When this informat ion and other input s are

not des ired , the j ob o f the sent ry is to buffer the group (Thomp son ,

The sentry ab sorb s external p res sures , such as po lit ical t ens ions , on b ehalf o f

the group . An extreme fo rm of buffering is ac tual phys ical separat ion of the

group from the organizat ion .

One area that is dif f icul t for a t eam to make dec is ions about is the

extent t o which the t eam should b e is olat ed . While t ighter b oundaries allow

for great er e ff ic iency in the internal func tions of int egrat ion ( c oordinat ion

of ef fort ) and pat tern maintenanc e ( the estab lishment o f a set of values to

guide b ehavior) , this b oundednes s may cut individuals of f f rom career

opportunit ies and also inhib it adap tat ion to changing organizat ional and

environmental c ondit ions . This is cons is tent with research that shows

underbounded syst ems o ft en have unc lear authority st ruc tu res , and d if f icult ies

harnes s ing energy to do work and communicat ing among memb ers (Alderfer ,

By cont roll ing the flow o f informat ion , influenc e and resourc es that outs iders

try to push into the group , in effect the sent ry makes t rade-of fs b etween

internal and ext ernal ef fect ivenes s .

External ent it ies may well b e curious about group act ivit ies or p roduc ts 5

or envious of group resources . The guard monitors the information and

resources that others reques t from the group and det ermines what the group will

release in response to these demands . The guard role is reac tive ; and it

requires j udgment to det ermine if it is in the group ' s b es t interest to l et

informat ion out o f the group . The team may b e consc ious o f it s p ro f ile so that

it releas es pos it ive informat ion to those who are needed for future support

( " help us , we ' re the next generat ion" ) and keep s s ilent with compet itors

( " don ' t l et anyone from that other company know anything ab out the s tatus o f

this

These b oundary roles are inter- related . The scout and sent ry rol es b oth

deal with input to the group . As such , b oth ro les influence group memb er

percept ions o f the outs ide world , b ecaus e they are likely to f ilt er ,

c onsolidate , and interp ret external input s , po tent ially disto rt ing them in

some way . Similarly , the ambas sador and guard ro les influenc e how external

ent it ies perceive the group . They det ermine what is said and how to tho se

out s ide the group . Such roles may require a high degree o f dip lomacy for

correc t communicat ion of sens it ive informat ion and market ing skill s t o " se ll "

the group 's po sit ion . While the sent ry and guard have to deal with initiat ives

from other part s o f the external environment , theirs is a react ive role . In

cont rast , the scout and amb as sador rep resent init iatives on the part o f the

group to inc rease the flow of inputs and outputs it receives . Thus , the roles

mus t ac t in concert .

25

These roles can all b e taken on by one individual , or many dif ferent

peop le can play the same role . A sequenc e of b oundary act ivit ies als o may

require el ements of more than one role . For example , the group l eader may

as sume all boundary ac t ivit ies . Roles may be comb ined ; someone in the po s ition

of ambas sador also may carry out sc out ing . The leader may ask each group

member t o p lay the role o f guard to keep certain informat ion sec ret .

Boundary Management— Performanc e relat ionship s in New Product Teams

Thus far we have comb ined our data with conc ept s of resourc e dependency

and exchange theory to b roaden the scope o f b oundary act ivity b eyond the

boundary spanner who import s technical informat ion . We organ ize data in the

four-role framework : the sc out , ambas sador , s entry and guard , who monitor the

flow of t echnical , market , and po lit ical informat ion , inf luence , and

resourc es . The data are desc ript ive , but the resourc e dependency conc ept s

allow us to cons ider some normat ive p ropos itions .

Thes e p ropos it ions are bas ed on the as sumpt ion that the new p roduc t team

dep ends on dif ferent part s o f the organizat ion at dif ferent t imes , for

dif ferent typ es o f transac t ions . Therefore the amount and type o f b oundary

ac t ivity must change over t ime . In addit ion , the re lat ive importanc e o f

int ernal and external ac t ivit ies changes over t ime to re f lect the complexit ies

o f changing task demands .

During the c reat ion phase the team needs the input of technical , market ,

and pol it ical informat ion . The t eam , or the several p eop le who will lat er form

the t eam , are dep endent on other part s o f the organizat ion for ideas , for

support , and for cooperat ion . The t eam als o depends on top management to give

it resources , on market ing and engineering for market and t echnology ideas , and

on many other groups for p romised support over t ime .

2 6

Propos it ion 1 : In high—performing teams , during the c reat ion phase , s cout and

ambassador ac t ivit ies will b e higher than in low-performing teams .

When the p rimary task of a group is to gather inputs , and some of the

neces sary informat ion , resources , and expert ise are out s ide the group ,

high-p erforming t eams will inc rease scout ac t ivity . When the group ' s actual

survival is on the l ine , and pol it ical informat ion is neces sary , the s c out can .

ob tain data about top management support and p rocure resources . In the

meant ime , ambas sadorial ac t ivity serves to maintain support from those who have

given it , as well as t ries to ob tain it from tho se who oppo se the group plan .

Coop erat ion and support that are cult ivated early can help the group later .

In Parsons ' ( 1 95 9 ) t erms , at this early s tage there is cons id erab le need

to adapt to the current p riorit ies of the organizat ion and to set goals in line

with the rest o f the organizat ion . Clearly , int ernal funct ioning is neces sary

as well . The group needs to det ermine p roduc t feas ib ility and set an initial

st ructure and tone . So while s ome sentry and guard act ivity are needed to

allow the group t ime to coalesc e , we p ropo se that in high-performing teams this

ac t ivity is l imit ed in early s tages to p revent rigidity and p remature c losure

on a p roduc t idea and t eam st ruc ture .

Once organizational commitment is there and the funding sourc es have

agreed to the p roj ect , dependency decreases and the task shif ts from p roduc t

definit ion and gaining support to ac tual development . We p ropose that at this .

phase of p roduc t development sc out and ambas sador act ivity can decrease .

External ent it ies have to b e kept informed to coordinate work act ivit ies , but

in ternal group func t ions b egin to p lay a more important role . The t eam needs

to b e p rotect ed from external interferenc e to enable it to coordinate and

innovate .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

While internal management is also needed at this t ime , the external

act ivit ies are likely to b e o f greater importanc e . Again dependency is highr sw

if thes e external groups do not take the t eam output at the app rop riate t ime '

and with a high degree o f commitment , all the t eam ' s effort s could b e los t . In!

Parsons ' ( 1 9 59 ) t erms , adap tat ion and goal attainment b ecome dominant

funct ions . The c riticality o f each role changes depending upon the demands of "

the task at a part icular phase of development .

Imp licat ions for Team Management and Future Res earch

Much of the current l iterature on group func t ioning suggest s that t eam

leaders spend their t ime fos t ering good internal p roc es ses such as effedt ive

dec is ion making , support ivenes s , and t rus t (Argyris , 1 9 66 ; Dyer , 1 97 7 ; !ander ,

There is no ques t ion that while these p roc es ses are important in t eam

management , we gave shown that another aspect o f group p roces s des erves s tudy .

New p roduc t team leaders , and the leaders o f all group s that are interdep endent

with external ent it ies , mus t succ es s fully manage a complex set of boundary

ac t ivit ies as well if the group is to b e effec t ive .

We have ident if ied four roles that delineate thes e boundary ac tivities .

The scout , ambassador , sent ry , and guard accomplish the myriad t ransact ions

with the external environment . Roles will not always b e taken on

automat ically . Henc e , we p ropo se that in resourc e—dependent environment s the

t eam leader mus t as s ign thes e roles to group memb ers and evaluate them on their

performance in thes e ro les . Role performanc e is also influenced by the

organiz at ional cont ext . The team leader must work to make organizat ional

reward and control mechanisms encourage and reward effect ive role b ehavior .

29

The team leader has to b e very sens it ive to changing task requirements

and changing dependencies and ab le to use b oundary ac tivities to help meet

those demands . When the t eam is very dependent on out s iders , a t emporary

network needs to b e set up to asc ertain what those demands are , how the groups

can influenc e o r change the demands to b e more congruent with it s needs , and

how the group has to shif t internally to meet the demands . When this network

ac t ivity b egins to int erfere with internal coordinat ion and innovat ion , the

t eam leader needs to cons ider making the boundary les s permeable to p rot ect the

team , p erhap s shif t ing team ac t ivity and modify ing the network with the

external organizat ion to respond to demands . The l eader also must l earn how to

dec ide if these external dependencies have to b e dealt with through boundary

t ransac t ions or whether members o f that external world should be b rought int o

the group (b ringing in manufac turing pers onnel to b e part o f the team early on ,

for example ) . Perhap s added to the l ist o f roles are ho stages , and immigrant s .

The data p resent ed here have impl icat ions for research as well as for

management . Firs t and foremos t , we studied teams within their organizat ional

cont ext in order t o examine b oundary as well as internal p roces ses . We

advocate that app roach for further research . Also inherent in the p ropos it ions

is recognit ion that group s should b e monitored over t ime and their interact ions

monitored both ac ros s l evels in the hierarchy and ac ro ss func t ional l ines .

Finally , and perhap s mos t important , a care ful analys is o f the group task is

needed for good result s . In accordanc e with Goodman we b el ieve that

this task analys is would do well to go b eyond the ab s trac t , one-dimens ional

categorizat ion high complexity — to a clearer des c ript ion of ac tual task

act ivit ies and demands .

30

Perhap s the most int eres t ing impl ication is that our models of group

development need to b e reexamined . We need to add adaptat ion and goal

at tainment to our developmental models of resource- dependent groups . Clearly

the data in dicate that thes e func t ions are a fact or in t eam survival . Many

quest ions remain , however . How do these external funct ions develop in

conj unc t ion with internal ones!Do all groups need to model their external

demands and hence adop t adaptat ion as the dominant funct ion in the f irs t phas e

o f development!Or is this developmental pattern a funct ion of the t eams in

this s tudy!We mus t not only explore how individuals adapt to the group , but

als o how the group adap ts to the organization and int egrat es individual

memb ers . Other ques t ions emerge : Do op en and clo sed group s have dif ferent

developmental patt erns!Which is the more effec t ive!In a sense , these data sugges t that the whole def init ion of group b e

reexamined . Each team we have describ ed is really several group s . Group

membership changes over , and the extent to which groups are p art of an

everc

changing larger network shif t s over t ime . Are thes e the " same " group s!Res earch on groups needs to focus on how to put together group s and take

them apart quickly . I t needs to addres s how to develop and shif t external

networks . I t needs to b etter illuminate how permeab ility , separat ion ,

inc orporat ion of external part s o f the organizat ion , modeling o f the external

environment , and influenc e of the external environment can influenc e

ef fec t ivenes s .

Future research in this area may disp rove the content ion of Hackman and

Morris ( 1 975 ) that we st ill know very lit tle about what makes one group b ett er

than another .

3 1

Not es

1 Although mos t o f the team leaders we spoke to fell into this mold o f

general support and even init iat ion from top divis ion or corporate management ,

this was not always the cas e . Two group s in part icular had very dif ferent

beginnings . Bas ically , one group ' s p roduc t idea came from an engineer who got

some of his friends to work on it with him as a back bu rner p roj ect ; his

manager thought it might have some pot ent ial but wasn ' t overly enthus iast ic .

This small group of engineers got all the sp ecs done , sc rap ing together t ime

and resources as well as they could . For this lat ter group , development t ime

was short but the trans it ion phase into a funded , c ompany- support ed p roj ect was

more dif ficul t than comparab le group s with external support . A second group

was put together by a p roduc t champ ion who had developed the p roduc t idea as

part of a bus ines s school p roj ec t and then convinc ed an R D V . P . t o hire him

to b ring the p roduc t through to p roduc t ion . These two group s follow the more

famil iar p roduc t champion model .

TABLE E!AMPLE OF BOUNDARY ROLES

Scou t

" I came back to the group once per week for as ta f f go t news and went back to myteam wi th ' le t ters from

I would go around to the o t her groups to see wha tThere was a grea t deal o f coordi

na t ion to take care o f and th is way I cou ld makewas going on .

sure tha t components were o rdered we ll enoug hin advance so tha t we cou ld ge t t he product ou ton t ime .

"

"We have a kind o f de tector.

and works wi t h the peo p le interfaces no t thetechnica l part . She spends t ime wi t h a l l t hegroups in manu facturing to de tect pro b lems so

t ha t they dea l t wi th qu ickl y .

"

"

We needed to ge t inpu t from engineering a t t heWe didn

' t wan t to come up wi th somebeg inning .

kind o f Dr . Seuss mach ine tha t had to b eredesi gned la ter so we le t t he eng ineeringpeop le in .

"

Near t he end I talked to t he top manag ement groupa lo t . I tried to pro t ect t he group from t ha tkind o f pressure t hough . It '

s l ike Tom Wes tsaid ,

" we won ' t pass on t he garbage and t hepo li t ics .

"

She 's very sensit ive

Ambassador"

Then we s t arted having mee t ings with al l o fthose peop le ou ts ide the group . There wererepresenta t ive from purchas ing , manu facturing

,produc t ion p lanning , the d iagnos t ics group,

marke t ing , everyone . This was an opportuni tyto g ive in forma t ion and hear abou t new businesEveryone was informed abou t pro gress andchanges . The minu tes were typ ed on l ine so

t ha t the team and t hose who p et en ' t a t themee t ing knew wha t was going on . The top

sgement group also go t cop ies .

"

go down to where the pro!ect f irs t hi tstell

'em wha t ' s coming down . I say tha t

or things are coming , and th is is thest cri t ical . You can ' t always say rus h ,

ush, rush .

Guard

we

s top in even when t here ' s no t hing urgent.

0 deve lop a relat ions hip wi th t ho se peop le.

send t hem minutes o f our'

meetings and whenhe pro!ec t ge ts closer

‘Isend t hem memo slaining wha t ' s required and aski ng themat t hey need from us .

"

'm l ike a cheerleader , trying to ge t tho seys e!c ited abou t our produc t s . But I t ickle

ur group too ; I'm no t go ing to carry ove r somelf-baked ideas . They

'd . get t ired o f t ha t

enl quickly .

So we se t up l iv ing quar ters and moved t heeam away . That kind o f inten s i ty needed0 be iso lated . Peop le kep t com ing over andaying ,

"How ' s i t go ing!What are you up toow!Thi s was at be s t d is trac t ing , at wo rs tike be ing in a pressure coo ke r .

"

Near the end peop le s tar ted pan ick i ng . The

op guys would come down and wan t to know i fre making pro gre ss . I told t hem they had

s top . t hat t hey were hav ing a d istrac t ingd dele ter ious e f fec t on the group .

"

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

some .

wesley Pub

Flesher , D . L . , Flesher , T .K . and Skelly , C .U . The Newb Product Decision . New

Society of .Management. Accountants of Canada , 1 984 .

Friedlander , F .

" The Ecology of work Groups ,

" to be published in The Handbookof Organiz

1 984 .

Friedlander , F . and Scott , B .

" The Use of Wbrk Groups for OrganizationalChange .

" In Groups at. Wbrk , ed . , C . Cooper and R . Payne (New York :Wiley ,

Gladstein , D .

" Groups in Conte!t : A. M0de1 of Task Group Effectiveness .

"

Administrative Science!uarterly , 30

Gladstein , D . and!uinn , J . B .

" Janis Sources of Error in Strategic DecisionMaking .

"To appear in H . Pennings San

Francisco , CA : Jossey—Bass Publishers , 1

Goodman , P . , Raulin , B . , and Schminke , .M .

"Understanding Groups in Organizations

Iondon : JAI Press , Inc . , forthcoming .

Goodstein , L . D . and Dovico , M .

" The Decline and Fall of the Small Group .

" In

Hackman , J . R . and Morris , C .G .

" Group Tasks , Group Interaction Process andGroup Performance Effectiveness : A. Review and Proposed Integration .

"

In VO 1 . 8 , pp . 45-99 . Editedby 9 7 5 .

Heinen , J . Stephen and Jacobson , Eugene .

"A. Mbde1 of Task Group Development

Management Review , October 1 9 76 , pp . 98-1 1 1 .

Katz , R .

" The Effects of Group Longevity on Pro!ect Communication and

Keller , R . and Holland , W .

" Boundary Spanning Roles in a Research andDevelopment Organization : An Empirical Investigation .

" Academy of

Lyden , Fremont James .

"Using Parsons ' Functional Analysis in the Study of

Organ , D . and Greene , C .

"Rome Ambiguity , Locus of Control and . Wbrk

Satisfaction .

" Journal of Applied Psychology , 1 974 , 5 9 , 1 01—1 02 .

Parsons , Talcott .

" General Theory in Sociology .

" In Robert Merton , Leonard

York : Basic , 1 95 9 .

Pfeffer , J . "A Resource Dependence Perspective on Intercorporate Relations .

"

In .Mark S . Mizruchi and Michael Schwartz Structural Analysis ofBusiness , New Y0 rk : Academic Press , 1 985 .

Pfeffer , J . and Salancik , G . R . The E!ternal Contro l of Or anizations : A Resourc

!uinn , J . B .

"Managing Strategies Incrementally u

"6 1 3-6 27 .

!uinn , J . B . and Mueller , J .A .

" Transferring Research Results to Operations .

"

In Harvard Business Review (January—February , 49-87 .

Spread , P .

" Blau ' s E!change Theory , Support and the Macrostructure .

" The

1 96 7 .

Tichy , N . and Fombrun , C .

" Network Analysis in Organizational Settings .

"

Human Relations , V0 1 . 32 , No . 1 1 , 923- 96 6 .

Tushman , M .

" Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process .

" AdministrativeScience!uarterly 22 587-605 .

Tushman , M .

"work Characteristics and Solounlt Communication Structure : .A

Contingency Analysis .

" Administrative Science!uarterly 24 82- 98 .

Urban , G . L . and Hauser , J . R . EnglewoodCliffs , NJ : Prentice-Hall , Inc .

Whetten . D .

" Interorganizational Relations .

"To appear in Handbook of