Table Of ContentSunil Sahadev · Keyoor Purani
Neeru Malhotra Editors
Boundary Spanning
Elements and the
Marketing Function
in Organizations
Concepts and Empirical Studies
Boundary Spanning Elements and the
Marketing Function in Organizations
ThiSisaFMBlankPage
Sunil Sahadev (cid:129) Keyoor Purani (cid:129) Neeru Malhotra
Editors
Boundary Spanning Elements
and the Marketing Function
in Organizations
Concepts and Empirical Studies
Editors
SunilSahadev KeyoorPurani
SalfordBusinessSchool IndianInstituteofManagement
UniversityofSalford Kozhikode
Manchester Kerala
UnitedKingdom India
NeeruMalhotra
AstonBusinessSchool
Birmingham
UnitedKingdom
ISBN978-3-319-13439-0 ISBN978-3-319-13440-6(eBook)
DOI10.1007/978-3-319-13440-6
SpringerChamHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2015934008
©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2015
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,andtransmissionor
informationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.Exemptedfromthislegalreservationarebriefexcerpts
inconnectionwithreviewsorscholarlyanalysisormaterialsuppliedspecificallyforthepurposeofbeing
enteredandexecutedonacomputersystem,forexclusiveusebythepurchaserofthework.Duplication
ofthispublicationorpartsthereofispermittedonlyundertheprovisionsoftheCopyrightLawofthe
Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from
Springer.PermissionsforusemaybeobtainedthroughRightsLinkattheCopyrightClearanceCenter.
ViolationsareliabletoprosecutionundertherespectiveCopyrightLaw.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexempt
fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication,neithertheauthorsnortheeditorsnorthepublishercanacceptanylegalresponsibilityfor
anyerrorsoromissionsthatmaybemade.Thepublishermakesnowarranty,expressorimplied,with
respecttothematerialcontainedherein.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia(www.springer.com)
Contents
ManagingBoundarySpanningElements:AnIntroduction. . . . . . . . . . 1
SunilSahadev,KeyoorPurani,andNeeruMalhotra
CustomerCyberbullying:TheExperiencesofIndia’sInternational-
FacingCallCentreAgents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
PremillaD’CruzandErnestoNoronha
AStudyofServiceWorkerBurnoutinRussia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
MichelRod,NicholasJ.Ashill,andTanyaGibbs
DriversofSalesperson’sCustomerOrientation:AWork
ValuePerspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
RamendraSinghandRakeshSingh
ExploringtheRoleofSalespersonAttributesandServiceBehaviors
inAdaptiveSelling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
SeeMei(Mandy)LoandPiyushSharma
TheMediatingRoleofRoleStressintheRelationshipBetween
GoalOrientationandJobSatisfactionAmongSalespersons:An
EmpiricalStudy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
SunilSahadev,KeyoorPurani,andSatishK.Nair
ManagementInterventionsandProsocialBehaviours:Understanding
theMediatingMechanisms. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 99
Anna-LenaAckfeldtandNeeruMalhotra
CustomerResponsestoServiceFailureandRecovery
Experiences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
JaywantSinghandBenedettaCrisafulli
v
vi Contents
BoundaryObjectsandEndUserEngagement:Illustrationsfrom
theSocialEnterpriseDomain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
UnnikrishnanK.NairandAnkitaTandon
BoundarySpanningChallengesinaCo-CreativeEnterprise:Lesson
fromSocialProblem-SolvingCollaborations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
SatishK.Nair
Managing Boundary Spanning Elements:
An Introduction
SunilSahadev,KeyoorPurani,andNeeruMalhotra
Introduction
Asanorganisationexpandsintodifferent countries aswellastoentirelydifferent
functions, organisational boundaries are formed, which could eventually restrict
synergy and therefore efficiency. As Aaker (2008) extols in his book ‘Spanning
Silos’, organisations could degenerate into ‘silos’ or organisational units that
contain their own management team and talent and lack the motivation to collab-
orate with or even communicate with other organisational units. Further, with the
emergence of complex organisational structures and a strong emphasis on
outsourcing, organisational boundaries have become very flexible and difficult to
define in rigid inelastic terms (Cilliers 2001; Brusoni et al. 2001). Boundary
spanning activities and boundary spanning behaviours have thus become increas-
ingly important and critical to operating successful organisations. Accordingly, a
largenumberofacademicstudieshavelookedatboundaryspanningbehaviourand
issues associated with it. These studies attempt to cover important dimensions of
boundary spanning activities and bring new ideas and perspectives into this
discourse.
S.Sahadev(*)
SalfordBusinessSchool,UniversityofSalford,Salford,UK
e-mail:[email protected]
K.Purani
IndianInstituteofManagement,Kozhikode,India
e-mail:[email protected]
N.Malhotra
AstonBusinessSchool,AstonUniversity,AstonTriangle,B47ETBirmingham,UK
e-mail:[email protected]
©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2015 1
S.Sahadevetal.(eds.),BoundarySpanningElementsandtheMarketingFunction
inOrganizations,DOI10.1007/978-3-319-13440-6_1
2 S.Sahadevetal.
Theterm‘boundaryspanning’hasachievedmuchtractionrightfromitsincep-
tion in the early 1970s and late 1960s. A number of organisational theorists like
Brown(1966),Aldrich(1971),AikenandHage(1968),AldrichandHerker(1977),
and Leifer and Delbecq (1978) etc. who pioneered the initial theoretical develop-
ment in this field, considered boundary spanning as an important construct to
explain the boundaries of an organisation, inter organisational exchanges, depen-
dence and in general to explain the concept of an organisation. An important
purpose of the boundary-spanning construct was (and still continues to be) to
explain the dynamics of the information absorption of an organisation. In fact, as
LeiferandDelbecq(1978,pp.40–41)putsit:
Personswhooperateattheperipheryorboundaryofanorganization,performingorgani-
zational relevant tasks, relating the organization with elements outside it, are called
boundaryspanners.Theyareprimarilyresponsibleforinformationexchangebetweenthe
organizationanditstaskenvironment
By this definition, a broad set of activities and organisational tasks can be
included within the framework of boundary spanning responsibilities. It also
implies that boundary-spanning activities encompasses a large array of
organisational roles and skills across different organisational contexts. Endorsing
thisview,severalauthorsfromdiversespheresofresearchhaveusedthe‘boundary
spanning’frameworktoanalyseandexploredifferenttypesoforganisationalroles.
Typical examples include Gasson (2006) and Lindgren et al. (2008) who used
boundary spanning effectiveness to explain the tasks of Information Systems
managers in IS design; Tortoriello and Krackhardt (2010) who explain the effec-
tiveness of R&D managers using the depth of their boundary spanning ties or
exploringthe need for boundaryspanning expertise incross-culturalproject man-
agementdomainbyDiMarcoetal.(2010).
Research studies spawned by ‘boundary spanning theory’ can be seen as com-
prising of two different research tracks. One research track emphasises on
organisational theory and focuses more on organisational systems and networks.
Thislineofresearchtakesageneralmanagementperspectivewithgreateremphasis
on organisational learning, innovation and collaboration. These studies look at
boundary spanning roles of organisational actors as they span the boundaries
betweendifferentorganisationalfunctionsornetworkswithinasingleorganisation.
Boundary spanning activities that traverse different organisations or autonomous
actors representing varied interests are not necessarily included in this stream of
research.
Another stream of research that adopts the basic logic of boundary spanning
deals with actors that traverse the boundary between an organisation and its
customers.Significantly,inthisresearchdomain,discourseonboundaryspanning
behaviour is dominated by issues typical of organisational elements specifically
entrustedwith the responsibilityof interacting withcustomers.Alarge volume of
studies have appeared in this stream that consider issues related to salespersons,
serviceworkers,healthcareworkerslikenurses,publicsectorworkerslikepolice
officers etc. This is natural given the considerable size of customer facing
ManagingBoundarySpanningElements:AnIntroduction 3
employees or frontline employees in the work force. While estimates vary, the
percentage of work force employed in some sort of customer facing jobs in
developed economies range from 20 to 30 %1 (D’Agostino et al. 2006). In fact,
despitethefastandsteadygrowthofe-servicesandastrongthrusttowardsreducing
facetofaceserviceorsalesexchanges,theimportanceoffrontlineemployeeshas
never waned. Customer facing or frontline employees constitute a significant
segment of work force and managing these employees efficiently and effectively
can go a long way in generating competitive advantage for any firm. Research
focusedoncustomerfacingemployeesconsidersissuesthatarerelatedtoindivid-
ualslikerole-stress,motivation,satisfaction,commitment,etc.ofindividualbound-
ary spanning employees. In this stream, construct definitions and cause effect
relationships relate to perceptions, attitudes and behaviours of individuals rather
thanorganisationsornetworks.
Whilethetwostreamsofresearchemergefromthesamedefinitionofboundary
spanning and share the same theoretical foundation, there exist important differ-
encesintermsoffocusvariables,theoreticaltreatmentsaswellasthepurposeofthe
research by way of its practical implications. The research stream that looks at
boundaryspanningintermsoforganisationwidefactorsaimtocontributeinsights
towards strategy development for organisational level innovation, organisational
learning, knowledge management effective collaboration between organisational
entities or between different organisations etc. This research stream, that take the
premise that spanning boundaries of diverse professional and organizational set-
tings can become a key organizational competence, has received extensive theo-
reticalsupport(Grant1996;KogutandZander1992asquotedinLevinaandVaast
2005)especiallyinfieldslikeinformationsystemsresearch.Ontheotherhand,the
research stream focused on individuals that traverse the boundary between the
organisationanditscustomersmainlylooksathowindividualattitudesandbehav-
iour are shaped by spanning the boundary between the organisation and its cus-
tomers.Thisresearchstreamprimarilyaimstocontributetowardshumanresources
management, service quality, service processes etc. For want of another term, it
may be suitable to differentiate the two streams as organisation focused and
individualfocused.
Even though the two research streams emanating from boundary spanning
theory are both crucial in understanding an organisation’s existence, growth and
relationshipswithitsmainstakeholders,thetworesearchstreamshavecompletely
differentfocusandseekanswerstocompletelydifferentresearchquestions.How-
ever,giventhesignificantimportanceattachedtotheboundaryspanningactivities
in general, there is a vast scope for new research studies in this area. There are
significant research questions to be addressed and new theoretical perspectives to
beintegrated.
1Basedontheroughestimateofemployeesworkinginwholesaleandretailtrade,restaurantsand
hotelsprovidedintheworkingpaperauthoredbyD’Agostinoetal.(2006).
