Boundary spanning for supplier relationship management:

Three exploratory inquiries

PhD dissertation

Martin Norlyk Jørgensen

Aarhus BSS
Aarhus University
Department of Management
2021
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have to thank my supervisors Professor Chris Ellegaard and Associate Professor Hanne Kragh.
Chris, thank you for everything! Surely, none of this would have been possible without your vision,
constructive inputs and constant support. Hanne, thank you for taking on the role as my secondary
supervisor. Your attention to the small details that make the big difference is unparalleled.

Jim, affectionately known as “the war correspondent”, thank you for being a most helpful colleague.
Lars Esbjerg and Sarah - I thank you as well. All three of you have provided me with valuable
feedback and inspiration for my studies. My gratitude extends to Professor Lars Frederiksen who was
a discussant at my 1st and 2nd year presentations. Although my time in Groningen was short-lived, I
thank Niels Pulles for giving me a warm welcome and for taking the time to comment on my research.

I also sincerely thank all the managers who invested their time in my project. Your participation has
been the single greatest privilege I have enjoyed over these three years.

Another privilege I have enjoyed is having family members who have travelled the same journey. I
have especially cherished conversations with my mother about the highs and the lows of the PhD.
While I may not come to share with you the honor of receiving The Tietgen Award, I am hopeful that
this thesis still finds its way to one of your bookshelves. You will always be the gold standard in my
eyes. I would be remiss if I did not thank my father as well. Your insistence on always ‘doing things
the right way’ is a quality I have aspired to take with me both inside and outside the walls of academia.
What an interesting thought that you met each other here at Fuglesangs Allé of all places. In addition,
I wish to thank my aunt, Professor Annelise (Leise) Norlyk, for her kind words of encouragement.

Finally, a heartfelt thank you to Lærke for her love, support and extraordinary patience. You are the
most wonderful wife and a loving mother to our children. How blessed I am to have all four of you
in my life - you are all my reasons.

A sincere thank you to Associate Professor Marco Hubert, Professor Elsebeth Holmen, and Professor
Anna Bengtson for participating in the PhD committee.

With all my gratitude,

Martin Norlyk Jørgensen

ii
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This dissertation investigates how boundary spanning managers from buying organizations manage
supplier relationships. As buying organizations frequently use identical suppliers, they are ipso facto
competing with each other for their shared suppliers’ best resources. The ability to manage supplier
relationships is vital for securing preferential treatments from suppliers and access to their critical
resources. To this end, the primary managers representing the buying organization are central figures
owing to their role in establishing and maintaining good working relations with suppliers. Although
interorganizational collaborative structures and mechanisms such as contracts and formalized
communication channels are important tools for binding buyer-supplier relationships together, the
individual level discretionary behaviors of key managers remain instrumental.

By adopting the theoretical perspective of boundary spanning, the dissertation explores how these
key individuals, i.e. boundary spanners, act as mediators and reconcile differences between the buying
organization and its suppliers. The research literature generally acknowledges the salient role
assumed by boundary spanners for successful supplier relationship management endeavors by tying
their importance to a number of critical mediation exercises that include coping with unexpected
contingencies and facilitating strategic alignment.

In a time where organizations’ competitive edge increasingly can be derived from supplier
relationship management, the strategic character of these individual level boundary spanning
exercises have grown all the more pronounced. Despite having been subject to growing academic
interest, important questions surrounding this phenomenon are still underexplored. Building on data
collected in two empirical settings over periods of 15 and 24 months, this dissertation seeks to
generate new insights

Paper 1 is guided by the following research question: How do boundary spanners mediate in cases
of multiple supplier development initiatives involving multiple suppliers?

This study seeks to go beyond four dominant research trends in existing supplier development
literature. It takes point of departure in three core boundary mediation activities, i.e. strategic
communication, reaching compromises, and information mediation, for studying boundary spanning
in an advanced supplier development context. By documenting how the nature of these three groups
of activities differ under four unique mediation conditions, this study makes a theoretical contribution
that lies in the intersection between boundary spanning and supplier development. The findings
highlight how different circumstances require specific internal and external mediation efforts.

iv
Paper 2 seeks to answer the research question: How do boundary spanners cope with internal
dependencies as they attempt to cultivate a trustworthy representation of their organization vis-à-vis
suppliers?

This study explores how intra-organizational dependencies set the scene for boundary spanners’
external trust development activities. In addition to identifying and elaborating on the character of
the internal dependencies and their implications for external trustworthiness development, this study
details the coping behaviors boundary spanners engage in in order to manage them. By breaking
trustworthiness down into three components (ability, integrity and benevolence), this study highlights
the complexity of cultivating organizational trustworthiness. Specifically, the study demonstrates
how internal executive and functional dependencies have different implications for boundary
spanners’ capacity to cultivate organizational trustworthiness

Paper 3 explores the following research question: How do boundary spanners in buying
organizations influence supplier representatives by involving a third person?

This study investigates how influence can be exercised in relation to supplier representatives by
involving a third person. Existing research literature on influence attempts has traditionally focused
on direct influence tactics unfolding in interpersonal dyads. By drawing on social control theory, this
study contributes with a heightened understanding of subtle influence attempts and mechanisms
involving a third person. By zooming in on interactions that take place in individual level triads, this
paper takes a step towards increasing knowledge on how supplier relationships are managed not
single-handedly by one critical boundary spanner alone but through their mediated links to other
actors in the buying organization.

Altogether, the present dissertation addresses three important and underexplored areas related to
boundary spanning in the context of supplier relationship management. By utilizing the boundary
spanning perspective in combination with three central concepts for supplier relationship
management (i) supplier development, (ii) trust, and (iii) social influence, this dissertation provides
novel insights that advance existing theory and offer managerial guidance for achieving competitive
advantages through the supply base.

v
DANSK RESUMÉ
Denne afhandling undersøger hvordan managere fra købende virksomheder plejer relationer med
leverandører. Rivaliserende virksomheder køber ofte komponenter fra de samme leverandører,
hvorfor de i stigende grad er i konkurrence med hinanden om deres fælles leverandørers bedste
ressourcer. Evnen til at samarbejde er et afgørende tema for at kunne mobilisere kritiske
leverandørressourcer. I denne sammenhæng er de personer, der repræsenterer de købende
virksomheder, de mest centrale figurer for etableringen og vedligeholdelsen af et godt
interorganisatorisk samarbejde. Selvom interorganisatoriske strukturer og mekanismer såsom
kontrakter og formaliserede kommunikationskanaler er vigtige værktøjer for at binde virksomheder
sammen, så hviler kvaliteten af samarbejdet i høj grad på nøglepersoners diskretionære adfærd.

Ved at anvende ’boundary spanning’ som teoretisk perspektiv, søger den afhandling at udforske
hvordan disse nøglepersoner, dvs. boundary spannere, agerer bindeled mellem deres interne
organisation og dens leverandører. Forskning anerkender den vigtige mellemmandsrolle som
boundary spannere påtager sig i forhold til at opnå velfungerende leverandørrelationer; og forbinder
i særlig grad rollen med håndtering af uventede situationer og kapaciteten til at skabe strategisk
alignment mellem forskellige interne og esterne organisatoriske interesser.

I en tid hvor virksomheder i stigende grad kan skabe konkurrencemæssige fordele igennem deres
leverandørbase, er boundary spanning fænomenet af voksende strategisk betydning. På trods af at
have været genstand for øget akademisk interesse i senere år, er vigtige spørgsmål angående
fænomenet endnu underbelyst. Baseret på data indsamlet i to case virksomheder, søger denne
afhandling at adressere flere af disse områder.

Artikel 1 er guidet af det følgende forskningsspørgsmål: Hvordan medierer boundary spannere i en

kontekst af flere leverandørudviklingsinitiativer, der involverer flere leverandører?

Artiklen søger at gå udover fire fremherskende tendenser i forskningslitteraturen omkring

leverandørudvikling. Artiklen tager udgangspunkt i tre kerne boundary spanning aktiviteter
(strategisk kommunikation, evnen til at opnå kompromisser, og informationsmægling) til at studere
boundary spanning i en avanceret leverandørudviklingskontekst. Ved at dokumentere hvordan
naturen af disse tre grupper adfærd varierer under fire unikke forhold, laver dette studie et teoretisk
biddrag der ligger i skæringspunktet mellem boundary spanning og leverandørudvikling.

vi
Artikel 2 søger at svare på forskningsspørgsmålet: Hvordan håndterer boundary spannere relationer
til interne aktører imens de forsøger at kultivere en troværdig repræsentation af deres virksomhed i
forhold til leverandører?

Dette studie undersøger hvordan den interne organisatoriske kontekst sætter rammen for boundary
spannernes forsøg på at kultivere ekstern tillid. Studiet identificerer og uddyber på karakteren af
interne organisatoriske forhold samt disses virkninger på boundary spannerens forsøg på at danne
tillid i forhold til leverandører. Derudover belyser studiet hvordan boundary spannere forsøger at tage
aktivt hånd om disse interne forhold. Ved at bryde tillid ned til tre komponenter (evne, integritet,
velvilje), viser dette studie, hvordan interne organisatoriske forhold kan påvirke tillidsdannelse
forskelligt.

Artikel 3 undersøger følgende forskningsspørgsmål: Hvordan udøver boundary spannere indflydelse

på leverandørens repræsentanter ved at involvere en tredje person?

Eksisterende forskning har traditionelt fokuseret på indflydelsesforsøg der udfolder sig i en

interpersonel dyade (person-til-person). Ved at anvende social kontrol teori, bidrager dette studie ved
at skabe en bedre forståelse af diskrete sociale indflydelsesøvelser, der involverer en tredje person.
Ved at zoome ind på interaktioner der finder sted i triader på personniveau, tager dette studie et skridt
mod at øge viden omkring hvordan leverandørrelationer er drevet, ikke kun af en kritisk boundary
spanner egenhændigt, men igennem deres forbindende rolle til øvrige aktører.

Som helhed behandler denne afhandling tre vigtige samt underbelyste områder relateret til boundary
spanning i forbindelse med plejen af leverandørrelationer. Ved at udnytte boundary spanning som
teoretisk perspektiv i kombination med tre centrale koncepter (i) leverandørudvikling, (ii) tillid, og
(iii) indflydelse, bidrager afhandlingen med nye indsigter der avancerer eksisterende teori samt
forsyner managere med praktiske handleanvisninger, der kan gøre det muligt for købende
virksomheder at opnå en konkurrencemæssig fordel igennem leverandørbasen.

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 - INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 – MOTIVATION AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 – DISSERTATION OUTLINE ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

2.0 - THEORETICAL POSITIONING ................................................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 - THE FOUNDATIONS OF BOUNDARY SPANNING .............................................................................................................................................................. 10

2.1.1 – Distinctions between different boundary spanning dimensions ....................................................................................... 12
2.2 – BOUNDARY SPANNING IN BUYER-SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS .................................................................................................................................. 17
2.2.1 – Supplier development...............................................................................................................................................................................................20
2.2.2 - Trust ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................21
2.2.3 – Social influence dynamics ....................................................................................................................................................................................23
2.2.4 – Summary of the three theoretical concepts ........................................................................................................................................ 24

3.0 - RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 28

3.1 – RESEARCH PARADIGM ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................28

3.2 – CASE RESEARCH APPROACH ...................................................................................................................................................................................................29
3.3 – EMPIRICAL SETTINGS AND CASE SELECTION .................................................................................................................................................................... 31
3.3.1 – Empirical setting # 1 – Alpha ...............................................................................................................................................................................31
3.3.2 – Empirical setting # 2 - HiTex ................................................................................................................................................................................32
3.4 – DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................................................................33
3.4.1 – Interviews, observations and documents ............................................................................................................................................... 33
3.4.2 - Triangulation .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................36
3.4.3 – Data analysis......................................................................................................................................................................................................................36
3.4.4 – Quality measures ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................37
References ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................39

4.0 – THE THREE STUDIES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 52

4.1 – STUDY 1.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................53

4.2 – STUDY 2.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................93
4.3 – STUDY 3..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................127

5.0 – CONCLUSION AND CONTRIBUTIONS...............................................................................................................................158

5.1 – THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................................158

5.2 – MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................................162
5.3 – LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH AVENUES .........................................................................................................................................................163
References .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................165

APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................................................................................................168

viii
1.0 - INTRODUCTION
Extant research has cemented that buying organizations rely on suppliers to strengthen their
competitive edge. The value than can be generated by managing supplier relationships successfully
have been documented in the general line of supplier relationship management research (Forkmann
et al., 2016; Li et al., 2006) as well as several distinct literature streams including (i) knowledge
sharing and relation-specific capabilities (Dyer & Hatch, 2006; Dyer & Singh, 1998), (ii) preferred
customer status (Ellis et al., 2012; Schiele et al., 2012), and (iii) supplier development (Humphreys
et al., 2004; Krause, 1997).

A common denominator in these bodies of research is the importance of how the buying organization
manages its relationships with suppliers. This is critical for mobilizing and gaining access to strategic
supplier resources. According to research on customer attractiveness, buying organizations may
motivate preferential supplier resource allocations by virtue of non-behavioral factors such as
advanced R&D capabilities, network position, brand, and market share (e.g. Hüttinger et al., 2012;
Ramsay & Wagner, 2009; Tanskanen & Aminoff, 2015). Notwithstanding the relevance of these
factors, research suggests that behavioral factors lie at the very heart of building and maintaining a
sustainable competitive advantage through the supply base. Indeed, scholars have stressed the
importance of social interactions and variables of a relational character such as trust and commitment
(e.g. Dyer & Chu, 2000; Kwon & Suh, 2005; Morgan & Hunt, 1994).

The strength of the ties between the buying organization and its suppliers are partly rooted in
interorganizational factors such as joint technical investments and integrated exchange
communications systems (Forkmann et al., 2016; Ireland & Webb, 2007). Yet, although such factors
often bind organizations together on an operational level, boundary spanners, i.e. the managers who
operate at the periphery of the organization, often serve the core purpose of integrating the
organizations strategically (Ireland & Webb, 2007; Zhang et al., 2011). The responsibility that rests
on the shoulders of these managers is a testament to the importance of considering the interactions
that unfold at the individual level. Still, much research conceptualizes behavior on an organizational
level neglecting that buying and selling organizations are complex and multifaceted making them far
from entire ‘monolithic’ entities (Albers et al., 2016; Zaheer et al., 1998). In practice,
interorganizational relationships, particularly strategic ones, are managed through interactions
between managers from different hierarchical levels and functions in the buying and selling
organizations (Albers et al. 2016; Cooper et al., 1997; Huang et al., 2016)

1
Although literature has advocated for the need of considering the role of the ‘human factor’ in
developing strong supplier relationships (Handfield & Nichols, 2004), it is primarily in recent years
that interest in individual level (micro) perspectives have gained more traction. In this respect,
growing research has emphasized how individual boundary spanning purchasing and supply chain
managers are important to the quality of supplier relationship management (Cai et al., 2017; Decker
et al., 2019; Ireland & Webb, 2007; Vesalainen et al., 2020; Wilson & Barbat, 2015; Wu et al., 2010;
Zhang et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2015). Fundamentally, this importance is tied to their internal and
external mediation exercises through which they bridge divides between the buying and selling
organization. The present dissertation aims to contribute to this stream of research by developing a
comprehensive understanding of significant, yet, underexposed complexities connected to boundary
spanning in the context of supplier relationship management. The dissertation does so in large part
by going beyond established assumptions and research trends. Specifically, it sets out to explore three
topics: (i) The nature of mediation exercises in a supply network perspective involving several
supplier development initiatives and multiple suppliers, (ii) the nature and impact of intra-
organizational structures on external trust development efforts, (iii) how managers influence supplier
representatives by involving a third person. The purpose of this cover is to discuss the defining
properties of the boundary spanning phenomenon and its current application in research on buyer-
supplier relationships and supplier relationship management. Moreover, the cover aims to bring
clarity to how the concept relates to and is able to further advance knowledge on supplier
development, trust and social influence.

1.1 – Motivation and research questions

Research has offered multiple perspectives on the boundary spanning roles assumed by managers in
the context of supplier relationship management (Chakkol et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2010; Zhang et al.,
2011). In the process, this research has documented how these managers can exert a positive effect
on key relationship outcomes ranging from relational variables such as trust (Doney & Cannon, 1997;
Zhang et al., 2011) and attractiveness (Ellegaard, 2012; Hald, 2012) to supplier willingness to make
investments (e.g. Zhang et al., 2015), or general performance measures (e.g. Dekker et al., 2019).
Yet, although emergent research has increasingly acknowledged that managers, by virtue of their
boundary spanning activities, are instrumental to the success of supplier relationship management,
several complexities and dynamics surrounding these activities remain rather underexplored.
Specifically, the present dissertation contends that the individual level behaviours of key managers

2
responsible for overseeing and orchestrating supplier relationship activities tend to be studied through
certain dominant analytical scopes and theoretical perspectives. Motivated to advance current
knowledge regarding boundary spanning dynamics, the dissertation sets out to answer three research
questions. These questions approach boundary spanning from unique angles facilitating a complete
and nuanced understanding of the concept. The dissertation addresses three prominent aspects of
boundary spanning for supplier relationship management in need of further attention: (i) boundary
spanning outside the perspective of a single buyer-supplier dyad, (ii) the significance of the
organizational context for external boundary spanning, (iii) boundary spanning beyond the individual
level dyad.

Supplier development is an important concept for supplier relationship management. Study 1 uses the
boundary spanning lens to go beyond four dominant research trends and assumptions in supplier
development research. In doing that, it seeks to contribute to the understanding of boundary spanning
and supplier development simultaneously. With few exceptions (e.g. Chakkol et al., 2018; Knight &
Harland, 2005) boundary spanning in a supply chain management context is usually conceived and
examined within the confines of a dyadic interorganizational relationship. Yet, dyads are
interconnected (Ritter, 2000) and must considered as a part of a larger business network context
(Anderson et al., 1994; Gadde & Snehota, 2019). Nevertheless, the role of supplier network dynamics
for individual level boundary role behaviors is a topic that has received limited attention. The
implications of the interplay between a buying organization’s activities with one supplier and
simultaneous activities in relation to other suppliers on boundary spanning is addressed in Study 1.
Guided by the following research question, Study 1 investigates such network dynamics in the context
of supplier development.

How do boundary spanners mediate in cases of multiple supplier development initiatives involving
multiple suppliers?

The role of boundary spanners in cultivating trust in buyer-supplier relationships is well-documented

(e.g. Wu et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2011). However, boundary spanners are seldom free to behave as
they wish in relation to external exchange partners, such as suppliers, as they are often constrained
by the intra-organizational context (Janowicz-Panjaitan & Krishnan, 2009; Perrone et al., 2003;
Schotter et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the organizational structures constituting the backdrop against
which external boundary spanning exercises unfold have rarely been subject to systematic inquiry.
Consequently, knowledge concerning how organizational structures potentially facilitate or obstruct

3
boundary spanners’ attempts to build trust is still rather immature. To the end of advancing the
understanding of this phenomenon further, the dissertation sets out to answer the following research
question:

How do boundary spanners cope with internal dependencies as they attempt to cultivate a trustworthy
representation of their organization vis-à-vis suppliers?

Social influence is a key concept for boundary spanning (Collien, 2021) and for understanding how
differences are managed in buyer-supplier relationships (Benton & Maloni, 2005). Research in this
area has often been guided by typologies of power sources and interpersonal influence tactics
suggested in a group of pioneering contributions (e.g. French & Raven, 1959; Kipnis et al., 1980,
Yukl & Tracey, 1992). Although these theoretical perspectives are informative and relevant for
supplier relationship management, they share certain limitations. A fundamental assumption and
limitation is that they typically assume a dyadic exchange in which one actor, i.e. the influence agent,
strives to exert influence directly on another actor, i.e. the influence target. The potential role played
by a third party in social influence exercises is less frequently considered. Motivated to advance the
nascent state of knowledge in this area, the dissertation asks the following research question:

How do boundary spanners in buying organizations influence supplier representatives by involving

a third manager?

Each of the three questions addresses a distinct aspect related to how boundary spanners from buying
organizations manage supplier relationships. All articles draw on the boundary spanning concept in
combination with a second theoretical concept (i) supplier development, (ii) trust, and (iii) social
influence. In order to answer the three research questions, the dissertation makes use of a qualitative
case study method. Case studies are characterized by a number of qualities which lend themselves
well to the line of research demanded by the research questions in the present dissertation. Data were
collected over time in two empirical settings. The first setting is an OEM operating in the heavy
equipment industry. OEMs usually have exchange relationships with a broad portfolio of suppliers
and frequently engage in a string of varied supplier relationship management oriented activities.
Owing to complex interactions with many suppliers and multifaceted internal organizational
structures combined with a high number of internal stakeholders, managers assuming boundary roles
for OEMs are exposed to various internal and external tensions (Jacobides et al., 2016; Takeishi,
2001). Overall, the relationships between an OEM and its strategic suppliers constitute appropriate
empirical arenas for exploring and capturing the boundary dynamics of interest to the first and second

4
research question. The second empirical setting is a medium-sized organization operating in the
textile industry. The focus in this empirical setting was on a strategic partnership with one key
supplier. Due to the nature of this partnership, buyer and supplier representatives interacted frequently
and intensively in joint teams. Because of this, this empirical setting was well suited for investigating
subtle social influence tactics involving a third person.

1.2 – Dissertation outline

This dissertation is organized in five main sections. Having elaborated on the motivation behind this
research, the current section outlines the dissertation structure before ending with a short introduction
to the three articles. The second section covers the theoretical positioning. In this section, the first
subsection is dedicated to presenting the concept of boundary spanning as it constitutes the core
theoretical perspective in the dissertation. By doing that, it intends to unpack the concept and pay
homage to the foundational contributions who pioneered and developed it. To facilitate theoretical
clarity, I distinguish between several important dimensions and differences, which have traditionally
divided researchers. In what follows, I describe how the concept of boundary spanning has guided
contemporary research on buyer-supplier relationships and supplier relationship management. In this
context, I elaborate on the connection between boundary spanning and the three theoretical concepts,
i.e. supplier development, trust, social influence, as they constitute theoretical anchors in the
individual articles.

The third section accounts for the research approach and methodology. This section provides
descriptions of the empirical settings and elaborates on key research steps incl. data collection,
analysis and quality measures. The fourth section consists of the three articles comprising the
dissertation. The final section concludes the entire dissertation by discussing theoretical
contributions, practical implications and suggestions for future research avenues. Table 1 gives an
overview of each individual article by shortly summarizing the empirical setting, research design,
research objectives and contributions.

5
 Table 1 Overview of the three studies

Studies Empirical Research Research objectives and contributions

setting design
Study 1 Single case Investigates how boundary spanners mediate in a case of
study multiple SD initiatives involving multiple suppliers.
-
Data • Highlights novel SD dynamics by going beyond four
collected dominant tendencies in the literature: (i) organizational
over 15 level behavior, (ii) a dyadic perspective, (iii) SD as a
months set of generic of activities, (iv) a single performance
Alpha improvement area.
-
Heavy • Nuances the boundary spanning concept by showing
Equipment how required mediation behaviors differ across four
Manufacturing distinct SD conditions.
Study 2 Industry Single case Explores how dependencies on other internal actors affect
study boundary spanners’ efforts to cultivate trustworthiness.
-
Data • Demonstrates how executive and functional
collected dependencies can affect the boundary spanners’
over 15 attempts to cultivate distinct dimensions of
months trustworthiness.

• Shows how boundary spanners can cope with these

dependencies in order to make them less pronounced.
Study 3 Single case Explores how boundary spanners influence supplier
HiTex study representatives by involving a third person.
- -
Textile industry Data • Advances the understanding of the antecedents that
collected lead buying managers to mobilize a third manager’s
over 24 social influence base.
months
• Highlights different patterns through which influence
attempts involving a third manager can unfold.

Study 1

In Study 1 we investigate boundary spanning in a complex supplier development context with

multiple development initiatives involving multiple suppliers. We suggest that the existing literature
on supplier development is generally characterized by four dominant trends (i) an organizational level
of behavior, (ii) a dyadic perspective, (iii) supplier development as a set of generic activities, (iv) a
single performance improvement area. In this study, we go beyond these trends in an effort to advance

6
knowledge further. We find that three well-established mediation activities, i.e. information
mediation, reaching compromises, and strategic communication, differ across four distinct supplier
development mediation conditions. By identifying subtypes of these core mediation activities and the
conditions in which they become necessary, the findings add to current knowledge on both boundary
spanning and supplier development.

Study 2

Study 2 examines how internal dependencies affect boundary spanners’ efforts to cultivate
organizational trustworthiness. We find that boundary spanners can be subjected to both executive
and functional dependencies. These dependencies have implications for boundary spanners’ attempts
to develop different antecedent dimensions of trustworthiness. The findings reveal two types of
coping behaviors i.e. proactive and reactive, through which boundary spanners can make these
dependencies and their undesired effects less pronounced. Altogether, this study contributes with a
deeper understanding of the micro foundations of trust development and underscores the significance
of organizational embeddedness often overlooked in the trust literature.

Study 3

Study 3 explores the phenomenon of how boundary spanners from the buying organization can
involve a third manager in order to influence supplier representatives. This is a less researched topic
as the literature on social power often adopts an organization-to-organization perspective while
research on interpersonal influence tactics mainly examines influence in dyads, i.e. person-to-person.
With a theoretical anchor in Social Control Theory, this article advances knowledge about how
influence attempts involving a third person unfolds. The findings show how different types of
antecedents can motivate managers to invoke a third party’s social influence base. The study further
demonstrates different generic patterns of how influence involving a third person can take form.
Collectively, these findings make a novel theoretical contribution that adds to the understanding of
how boundary spanners reconcile buyer-supplier differences through subtle influence exercises.

7
Complementarity of the three studies

By representing the buying organization in its external interactions with suppliers, boundary spanners
carry out various bridging and mediation activities at the organizational interface. Altogether, the
studies in this dissertation address a group of important theoretical concepts for boundary spanning
in the context of supply chain management. First, supplier development revolves around how buying
organizations can improve their suppliers’ performance and/or capabilities. By conducting an
exploratory study in the empirical context of a buying organization’s supplier development initiatives
involving multiple suppliers, Study 1 enhances the understanding of complex individual level
mediation activities performed by the buying organization’s boundary spanners. As the only study in
this dissertation, Study 1 goes beyond a dyadic organizational perspective.

Trust is one of the most critical relational variables in industrial relationships both at the individual
and organizational level. As one of the most researched topics in connection with boundary spanning,
research has offered different perspectives on the role of boundary spanners for trust development in
buyer-supplier relationships. Study 2 examines how boundary spanners can facilitate trustworthiness
at the organizational level. The study submits that the boundary spanner’s capacity to cultivate the
trustworthiness of the buying organization is affected by the internal organizational context. Hence,
this study places emphasis on the relational responsibilities of boundary spanners and the core notion
that they do not operate in a vacuum.

Finally, social influence is a natural element of interactions in buyer-supplier relationships. As there

are often conflicting interests and preferences between internal actors and external supplier
representatives, boundary spanners from buying organizations must find ways to reconcile them.
Study 3 addresses this overall issue by zooming in on subtle influence attempts in the context of a
single strategic buyer-supplier relationship. Consequently, the primary focus of this study is on the
boundary spanner as an influence agent.

Apart from combining a second theoretical concept with the boundary spanning lens, the three studies
differ with respect to some other important research dimensions. Table 2 gives an overview of these
differences and summarizes how the three studies complement each other.

8
 Table 2 How the studies complement each other
Study 1
Concept Supplier development
Research question How do boundary spanners mediate in
cases of multiple supplier development
initiatives involving multiple suppliers?
Unit and level of The unit of analysis is the buying
analysis organization’s exchange relationships with
multiple suppliers – with an analytical
focus on individual level boundary
mediation activities. The analysis is
anchored in the buying organization’s
supplier development initiatives.
Organizational Network
context [single buyer – multiple suppliers]
Key areas where - Boundary spanning in a supply network
the studies management perspective: (i) Demonstrates
complement each how mediation activities with respect to
other one supplier relate to other mediation
activities in the supply network, (ii) shows
how the involvement of multiple suppliers
in multiple supplier development
initiatives requires both internal and
external mediation behaviors
simultaneously, and (iii) shows how
especially internal boundary spanning
becomes important in multi-supplier
initiatives.
Study 2
Trust
How do boundary spanners cope with
internal dependencies as they attempt to
cultivate a trustworthy representation of
their organization vis-à-vis suppliers?
The unit of analysis is the buying
organization in its exchange relationships
with single suppliers – with an analytical
focus on how boundary spanners can
develop organizational level
trustworthiness.
Dyadic relationship
- The role of the internal organizational
context for external boundary spanning:
Demonstrates how the internal
organizational context can impose
constraints on boundary spanners’ external
behaviors and how they can deal with
them.
- The role of boundary spanners for the
development of organizational level
perceived quality: Underscores how
boundary spanners can impact
trustworthiness at the organizational level.
9
Study 3
Social influence
How do boundary spanners in buying
organizations influence supplier
representatives by involving a third
manager?
The unit of analysis is individual level
triads – with an analytical focus on how
individuals from the buying organization
exercise social control by involving a
third person. This is studied in a single
strategic buyer-supplier relationship.
Dyadic relationship
- The role of a third person in boundary
spanners’ influence attempts: (i)
Heightens the understanding of how
boundary spanners in buying
organizations can reconcile conflicting
buyer-supplier interests and orientations
by involving a third person, and (ii)
shows how boundary spanners can seek
to leverage different social bases of third
person in different ways in order to
influence supplier representatives.
.
2.0 - THEORETICAL POSITIONING
Boundary spanning constitutes the main theoretical lens in the present research. The three articles
that constitute this dissertation all draw on the concept in tandem with other theoretical concepts. To
illuminate the theoretical backbone of the dissertation, the central tenets of the boundary spanning
concept will be outlined in section 2.1. The motivating factor for extensively reviewing the
foundational research is that it is home to the most detailed knowledge on the concept. The pioneering
studies on boundary spanning conceptualized its nature and defining theoretical properties in different
ways. Although the majority of the studies have cross-referenced each other, they do not uniformly
adhere to the same understanding of what boundary spanning is. This implies that the concept can be
nuanced along a number of dimensions where the literature has traditionally offered different
perspectives. In the following, these dimensions will be addressed in order to explain the complexity
of the concept and to establish conceptual clarity about how the concept is understood and used in
this dissertation. Following this overview of the literature, section 2.2 accounts for how the concept
has been used in contemporary buyer-supplier and supplier relationship management research.
Sections 2.2.1-2.2.3 elaborate on the relevance of boundary spanning to three other concepts
investigated in this thesis. Accordingly, these sections aim to provide clarity and elaborate on the
connection between these three concepts and boundary spanning.

2.1 - The foundations of boundary spanning

According to foundational boundary spanning theory, the boundary spanner constitutes the mediating
link between her/his organization and its environment (Adams, 1980; Aldrich & Herker, 1977). The
importance of the boundary spanner is tied to the notion that organizations depend on and must
interact with their environment (Aldrich & Herker, 1977). The majority of the classical research
literature on boundary spanning dates back to the 1970s where it started to become an influential
perspective in management research (e.g. Adams, 1976; Adams, 1980; Aldrich & Herker, 1977;
Leifer & Huber, 1977; Tushman, 1977; Tushman & Scanlan 1981a; Tushman & Scanlan 1981b).

The theoretical concept of boundary spanning originates primarily from role theory (Kahn et al.,
1964; Katz & Kahn, 1966) and organization system theory (Thompson, 1967). In addition to these
main theoretical perspectives, Adams (1976) notes that other literatures also have guided much
research on boundary spanning, for example, research on conflict resolution (Sherif et al., 1961) and
intergroup conflict (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959). Consequently, the literature on boundary spanning

10
has drawn inspiration from multiple theoretical camps. In reflection of this, the literature has
introduced and studied different dimensions of boundary spanning.

The notion of a ‘boundary’ warrants a brief specification to avoid conceptual ambiguity about its
meaning in the present dissertation. Consistent with the classical research literature (Adams, 1976;
Aldrich & Herker, 1977) and its application in contemporary buyer-supplier and supply chain
management research, this dissertation understands an external boundary simply as the demarcation
line separating an organization from its external environment, i.e. other organizations. Yet, even so,
I acknowledge that organizational boundaries can be conceptualized in different ways depending on
how one conceives the organization. For example, as reasoned by Araujo et al. (2003, p.1270) “firms
are multi-faceted entities and the definition of their boundaries depends largely on the aims and
purposes of the observer.” Conversely, the internal dimension of boundary spanning can be
conceptualized as the activities taking place within the organization itself (Aldrich & Herker, 1977).

The literature has conceptualized a portfolio of different boundary roles and activities. Traditionally,
research has focused either on what has been conceptualized as ‘informational’ and ‘representational’
boundary spanning. The former has been studied in R&D and laboratory settings (Ancona &
Caldwell, 1992; Tushman, 1977; Tushman & Katz, 1980; Tushman & Scanlan 1981) and in a more
general organizational context not confined to any particular arenas (e.g. Adams, 1976, Adams, 1980;
Aldrich & Herker, 1977).

Informational boundary spanning is essential for facilitating that the organization can adapt to its
external environment (Leifer & Delbecq, 1978). As there is a lot information that can be gathered
from the environment, boundary spanners assume a key role in selecting the most vital pieces of
information and channeling them to relevant actors in the internal organization. Therefore, as argued
by Tushman (1981a), informational boundary spanning is a two-step process that involves first
gathering external information and subsequently communicating it internally. The foundational
research has emphasized some of the potential tensions and difficulties that can arise in this process.
For example, in relation to the communication process, Tushman & Scanlan, (1981a, p.291) argued
that “communicating across organizational boundaries requires learning the local coding schemes
and languages as well as the specialized conceptual frameworks.” It is further critical to underscore
that successful boundary spanning is predicated not only on the ability to select and communicate
relevant information properly. As argued by Aldrich & Herker (1977, p. 219) “the expertise of
boundary role occupants in summarizing and interpreting information may be as important to

11
organizational success as expertise in determining who gets what information, depending upon the
uncertainty in the information processed.” Hence, boundary spanners also have to be extremely
cognizant of whom they should share specific pieces of external information with.

Representational boundary spanning revolves around linking organizations through activities such as
negotiation. Managers assuming representational roles often find themselves subject to role conflict
and role ambiguity. Kahn et al. (1964) distinguished between four forms of role conflict, i.e. intra-
sender, inter-sender, person-role and role overload. Inter-sender conflict reflects when “pressures
from one role sender oppose pressures from one or more other senders” (Kahn et al., 1964, p.20).
This type is particularly relevant for boundary spanners that seek to bridge divergent interests between
internal colleagues and external actors. Stressing the tension in this type of role conflict, Friedman &
Podolny (1992, p.30) argued “constituents, for example, expect the BRP [boundary role person] to
represent them to the opponent BRP and maintain clear loyalties to them, while the opponent BRP
expects the BRP to listen and respond to her, help her deal with constituents, and develop a
relationship of trust and understanding. These expectations are clearly inconsistent, leading to role
conflict.” Role ambiguity centers on lack of transparent information concerning how the manager
should enact a specific role (Rizzo et al., 1970). There are multiple internal and external facets of role
ambiguity (Rhoads et al., 1994; Singh & Rhoads, 1991). For example, facets of role ambiguity can
relate to uncertainty regarding the requirements and expectations of internal colleagues (e.g.
managers from other functions) or external actors (e.g. suppliers). Traditionally, role conflict and role
ambiguity have been studied from a human resource management perspective because of their
potential impact on variables such as job satisfaction, burnout and individual job performance (e.g.
Behrman & Perrault, 1984; Lysonski & Johnson, 1983; Michaels et al., 1987).

2.1.1 – Distinctions between different boundary spanning dimensions

The literature has offered different perspectives on the drivers of boundary spanning activity. As
concerns external drivers of boundary spanning, scholars have touched upon the role of
environmental factors (Aldrich & Herker,1977; Leifer & Delbecq, 1978, Tushman, 1977). Although
this group of researchers have collectively emphasized the importance of environmental factors, there
are subtle variations in how these factors have been perceived. Some scholars have suggested that the
number of boundary roles vary in accordance with certain environmental characteristics. For
example, Aldrich & Herker (1977) juxtaposed different characteristics (heterogeneity vs.

12
homogeneity, dynamic vs. stable, lean vs. rich). In a related vein, Tushman (1977) pointed to the
nature of the environment a R&D project faces, specifically, whether it is changing or stable. Leifer
& Delbecq (1978) referred to decision makers’ perceptions of the environment (low vs. high
uncertainty) as a deciding factor of boundary spanning activity. Reversely, as concerns the internal
antecedents to boundary spanning activities, the literature has discussed factors relating to the role of
organizational technology (Aldrich & Herker, 1977; Leifer & Delbecq; 1978), the nature of the
project and task interdependence (Tushman, 1977).

As the definitions of boundary spanning and suggested roles in table 2 (p.14) highlight, much
foundational literature has generally focused on the organizational roles assumed by individual
boundary spanners (e.g. Adams, 1976; Aldrich & Herker, 1977; Organ 1971). Fewer researchers have
focused on boundary spanning as organizational activities (e.g. Leifer & Delbecq, 1978). In the
context of roles assumed by individuals, the concept of power has always been pivotal. In discussing
the potential power sources that can be leveraged to resolve boundary conflicts, several of the classical
research studies focusing on structures (e.g. Adams, 1976; Organ, 1971) have had a theoretical anchor
in the work of especially French & Raven (1959). In contrast, research with a process emphasis, such
as Tushman (1977) and Tushman & Scanlan (1981a) have drawn on the work of Pettigrew (1972)
among others, to emphasize and shed light on the informal power that boundary spanners can wield
for themselves by nature of assuming gatekeeping roles that allow them to mediate and control
information flows.

Structure vs. process. An important distinction can be made between boundary spanning as involving
structures or processes. One group of scholars conceptualized boundary spanning as taking place in
and through structures (e.g. Adams 1976; 1980, Aldrich & Herker, 1977; Organ 1971; Wall & Adams,
1974). Following this perspective, individuals are boundary spanners, in so far that they simply
occupy a role at the periphery of the organization. In this respect, boundary spanning activities are
viewed as transpiring via fixed structures irrespective of how the individual may go about performing
the role in practice. In contrast to this perspective, Tushman & Scanlan (1981) and Tushman (1977)
theorized informational boundary spanning as an informal process wherein boundary roles ‘evolve’.
In their understanding, it is as an activity that can be ‘accomplished’ by individuals who are ‘well
linked internally and externally’ (p. 300, Tushman & Scanlan, 1981a). Thus, while the first group of
researchers sees boundary spanning through a structure perspective, the process view sees it rather as
something managers can achieve independently of their formal position (Tushman & Scanlan,
1981a).

13
Roles & activities. As table 2 shows, the literature has theorized many different boundary roles and
activities. As previously noted, the context in which boundary spanning has been conceptualized
varies with respect to whether the focus has been on representational or informational mediation
responsibilities. For example, one group of studies have identified and investigated roles and activities
pertinent to R&D settings (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Tushman, 1977) while others laid greater
emphasis on roles and specific activities performed in a general organizational context (Adams, 1976;
Aldrich & Herker, 1977)

Frequency vs. nature of activities. A defining matter for how boundary activities are studied revolve
around frequency and the nature of the activities. As table 2 illustrates, a number of studies focused
on detailing the activities of a few boundary spanning (e.g. Adams, 1980). Conversely, there are also
several studies that have placed an emphasis on measuring the frequency of various boundary
spanning activities (e.g. Dollinger, 1984). While the latter group of studies is informative on the
amount of time spend across internal and external boundaries, it remains indifferent to the activities’
strategic significance or lack thereof.

Internal and external boundary spanning. The majority of contributions have conceptualized
boundary spanning as including both an internal and an external dimension (Adams, 1980; Aldrich
& Herker, 1977; Jemison, 1984; Lysonski, 1985; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981a). Yet, there are also
studies that have focused only on the external dimension and studied it in isolation of the internal
dimension (e.g. Dollinger, 1984, Leifer & Huber; 1977). Tushman & Scanlan (1981a), in particular,
strongly objected to this exclusive external focus. They reasoned that informational boundary
spanning is predicated not only on being well linked externally in the interest of gathering information
but also internally as well for enabling effective dissemination. Additionally, as it relates to the
representative function, boundary spanners must coordinate and strike compromises not only with
members of external organizations but also with internal members simultaneously (Adams, 1980;
Friedman & Podolny, 1992). On the nature of this dual representation exercise, Adams (1976, p.
1178) emphasized that boundary spanners are “at the crunode of a dynamic, dual conflict in which
the outcomes of conflict resolution attempts (however tentative) in one conflict become inputs to the
second conflict, the outcomes of which then become new inputs to the first conflict and so on.”

Formal and informal boundary spanning. A more subtle distinction can be made between formal and
informal boundary spanning. Some studies set out to capture empirically both formal and informal
boundary spanning activities (Jemison, 1984; Leifer & Huber, 1978; Lysonski, 1985) while many

14
other studies have offered no such distinction. By nature of making this distinction, a few researchers
have called attention to the fact that some types of information may be better obtained and shared
either formally or informally. Similarly, compromising behaviors and negotiations may well also take
place through formal and informal interactions. Consequently, successful boundary spanning is
predicated on careful consideration of how and when informal and formal interactions are most
appropriate.

Traditionally, purchasing and sales managers have been categorized as individuals assuming
representational roles (Aldrich & Herker, 1977; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981a). When the classical
research literature has explicitly addressed the nature of these roles, they have been viewed as
involving seemingly little complexity. The following quotes illustrate this view.

“Purchasing agents and sales personnel interact frequently with suppliers and buyers and usually
deal with fairly homogeneous groups of organizations and individuals. A high frequency of
interaction and homogeneity of elements at the boundary allows behavior in these roles to be highly
routinized” (Aldrich & Herker, 1977, p.225-226,)

“Representational roles, however, focus on resource acquisition and disposal—for example,

salesmen, buyers, clerks (Adams, 1976). Because such roles are evaluated, rewarded, and trained for
specific purposes, their sensitivity to exceptions, opportunities, or new ideas from outside the
organization is reduced (…) Unlike informational boundary spanners, representational roles usually
do not mediate critical resources for the organization and, therefore, are not an informally powerful
role.” (Tushman & Scanlan, 1981a, p.301)

As reflected in the above quotes, many scholars at the time believed that managing supplier (and
buyer) relations was a routinized task generating little value. Nonetheless, while some researchers
downplayed the potential complexity and strategic value of purchasing and sales management, there
are also cases of the opposite. For example, Spekman’s (1979) findings suggested that the purchasing
agent is an important actor and that his “power resides primarily in in his ability to cope with
uncertainty for his constituents.” (p.116). Naturally, years later, the strategic value purchasing and
supply chain management can generate has been recognized (Chen et al., 2004; Ivens et al., 2009).

15
Table 3 An overview of influential studies on boundary spanning
Authors Definition of boundary spanners / spanning Functions, roles, activities
Adams (1976) Individuals whose activities place them at Functions: (1) Representation, (2) Influence agent
organization boundaries for the purpose of
effecting transactions with the environment
(p.1176)
Adams (1980) N/A Activities: (1) Transacting the acquisition of organizational inputs and the disposal of outputs,
(2) filtering inputs and outputs, (3) searching for and collecting information, (4) representing
the organization to its external environments, (5) protecting the organization and buffering it
from external threat and pressure.
Aldrich & The link between the environment and the Functions: (1) Information processing, (2) External representation
Herker (1977) organization (p. 217)
Ancona & N/A Activities: (1) Ambassadorial activities, (2) Task-coordinator activities, 3) Scouting activities,
Caldwell (1992) 4) Guarding activities
Dollinger (1984) Represents both the perception of the aspects Activities: Contact with (1) customers, (2) suppliers, (3) new employees, (4) bankers,
of the environment for which action is lawyers, accountants, (5) business, professional, and trade associations, (6) regulators,
necessary and the commitment of government, and union officials, (7) outside stockholders or creditors, (8) competitors, (9)
organizational resources (p.353) other
Jemison (1984) The set of activities involved with Roles: (1) Representative, (2) Physical input control, (3) Customer contact and choice, (4)
organization-environment interaction (p.133) Information acquisition, (5) Information control
Keller et al. The interpersonal transfer of information Activities: (1) Reading magazines, journals, newspapers, (2) recommending specific
(1976) across organizational boundaries (p.700) information sources to a colleague, (3) seeking information/advice from members from other
organizations, (4) Members from other organizations seeking information from you
Leifer & Huber The total verbal and written interactions with Activities: (1) Attending formal meetings, (2) Conferring about work informally, (3) sending
(1977) extra work units (p.241) or receiving formal written communication, (4) sending or receiving informal written
communication.
Leifer & Persons who operate at the periphery or Activities: (1) Protection mechanism against environmental stress, 2) regulates information
Delbecq (1978) boundary of an organization, performing flow and material between the organization and its environment
organizational relevant tasks, relating the
organization with elements outside it (p.40)
Tushman & Those individuals who are both internal and Process: (1) Obtaining information from outside units, and (2) disseminating this information
Scanlan (1981) external communication stars (p. 290) to internal users. (p.292)

16
2.2 – Boundary spanning in buyer-supplier relationships
Owing to its capacity to explain how buyer-supplier relationship differences can be managed at the
individual level, contemporary research has increasingly used a boundary spanning lens. Much of this
recent research has often focused on identifying and investigating different types of boundary
mediation activities. Table 3 provides an overview of suggested activities and explains how they have
been conceived.

Boundary spanning activities such as negotiating, cooperating and resolving conflicts center on
mediating differences between internal and external interests. The context of this balancing act varies
from day-to-day operational issues (Walter & Gemünden, 2000; Wu et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2011),
to managing disagreements and conflicts that arise in the wake of unanticipated contingencies.
Perrone et al. (2003, p.426) refer to the latter as ‘the moment of truth’ for boundary spanners as these
unexpected events require boundary spanners to resolve opposing interests under extreme conditions.
Existing research has also touched upon the potential difficulties of being the voice of the external
organization. Representing external interests in the internal organization can lead internal colleagues
to question the boundary spanner’s loyalty (Adams, 1976). In relation to this phenomenon, research
has referred to “side-changing” (Ford, 1980) as well as the act of “going native” (Lian & Laing, 2007;
Liu et al., 2014) to describe managers who end up prioritizing the external organization’s interests
over the interests of their internal organization. Moreover, boundary spanners from buying
organizations also have a key responsibility in relation to mediating strategic information. In this
respect, research has captured internal boundary spanning in relation to, for example, educating
internal colleagues about decisions and structures in the selling organization (Wu et al., 2010) and
external boundary spanning, for example, by communicating the buying organization’s strategy to its
suppliers (Ireland & Webb, 2007; Zhang et al., 2015). Boundary spanners also have an important role
for innovation. In fact, research has argued that purchasing knowledge is a key catalyst of innovation
(Luzzini et al., 2015; Turkulainen & Swink, 2017). In line with this notion, it has been suggested that
purchasing and supply chain boundary spanners can be innovation ‘facilitators’ (Knight & Harland,
2005). Interestingly, research has indicated that, in some cases, engineers can be more willing and
inclined to contact purchasing and supply chain managers on the basis of their communications skills
rather than on their actual technical knowledge (Wynstra et al., 2000)

Research on boundary spanning has also had a focus on the development and effects of interpersonal
relationships between boundary spanners from the buying and selling organizations. Studies in this
general research stream have focused on relational variables such as trust (Perrone et al., 2003; Zhang

17
et al., 2011), guanxi (Cai et al., 2017; Cai et al., 2021) attractiveness (Ellegaard, 2012; Hald, 2012)
and likability (Pulles & Hartmann, 2017). In addition, studies have also examined related concepts
including boundary spanners’ general relational behaviors (Decker et al., 2019) as well as their
opportunistic behaviors (Zhang et al., 2019)

Another research stream has dedicated itself to examining the antecedents of different types of
individual job outcomes. Referring to Kahn et al. (1964) some of these researchers (e.g. Ambrose et
al., 2014; Liu et al.,2014) anchor their research in role theory and draw on concepts like role conflict
and role ambiguity while other researchers in this stream do not (e.g. Anaza et al.,2015; Hallenbeck
et al., 1999). Furthermore, in later years, boundary spanning as a concept appears to have become
more elastic as it is frequently used in different variations. Examples of this include notions of
boundary spanning culture (Menguc & Auh, 2008), boundary spanning information technologies
(Yao et al., 2009) and boundary spanning chain (Preiss & Murray, 2005).

The majority of studies on boundary spanning are subject to a number of limitations stemming from
their theoretical emphasis and methodological choices. Generally, there has been a tendency to study
boundary spanning interactions in isolated buyer-supplier dyads. This has implied a limited
appreciation of the implications of various supply network dynamics (exceptions include Chakkol et
al., 2018; Knight & Harland, 2005). Second, despite all of the accumulated insights in recent years,
it is only a rather small proportion of studies on boundary spanning that have considered how factors
within the boundary spanners’ own organization affect their external behaviors (some exceptions
include Perrone et al. 2003 and Newell et al. 2018). Third, as much research has studied interactions
between boundary spanners within the confines of an interpersonal dyadic perspective, less is known
about the roles and significance of individuals outside of the dyad (an exception includes Holma,
2012). Finally, by studying external boundary spanning in isolation of its simultaneous internal
dimension, some research may not have captured the full complexity of the concept (Albers et al,
2016; Chakkol et al., 2018).

18
Table 4 An overview of contemporary studies on boundary spanning in industrial relations

Authors Boundary spanning Context

Hallenbeck et al. Roles: (1) Gathering, Filtering, The roles were based on the
(1999) Transmitting, (2) Transacting, (3) Being foundational research. They were used
proactive, (4) Protecting for studying personal outcomes (social
benefits and job satisfaction)
Chakkol et al. Functions: (1) Strategic communication, Functions were identified from a
(2018) (2) Dissonance reduction, (3) qualitative case study exploring how
Professional education, (4) Consultation, boundary spanners mediate in
(5) Leverage offerings servitized supply chains.
Knight & Harland Roles: (1) Network structuring agent, (2) Drawing on existing research and data
(2001) Coordinator, (3) Advisor, (4) Information from a longitudinal study, the authors
broker, (5) Relationship broker, (6) suggest the six network management
Innovation sponsor roles.
Knight & Harland Roles: (1) Innovation facilitator, (2) A study that represents a second
(2005) Coordinator, (3) Supply policy maker, (4) iteration of the roles suggested in
Advisor, (5) Information broker, (6) Knight & Harland (2001)
Network structuring agent
Poblete & Roles: (1) Communicator, (2) Filter, (3) Based on qualitative data, the authors
Bengtson (2020) Enabler, (4) Negotiator, (5) Trust builder, identified roles that are relevant in
(6) Diminisher of uncertainty, (7) different periods of supplier
Hinderer, (8) Catalyser switching-back processes.
Walter & Relational performance contributions: With theoretical anchors in different
Gemünden (2000) (1) Exchange of information, (2) literature streams, the authors identify
Searching for appropriate actors, (3) and examine relational performance
Bringing actors together, (4) contributions of boundary spanners
Coordinating activities, (5) Getting acting as ‘relationship promoters’.
negotiation results
Wilson & Barbat Skills: (1) Political, (2) Entrepreneurial The authors borrowed the concept
(2015) coined political-entrepreneur from key
account management research.
Wu et al. (2010) Roles: (1) Negotiator, (2) Facilitator, Based on qualitative data, the authors
(3) Supplier’s advocate, (4) Educator identified the four roles and studied
them in relation to behavioral
differentiation.
Zhang et al. Capabilities: (1) Strategic The capabilities were based on
(2011) communication, (2) Reaching foundational contributions and
compromises, (3) Professional knowledge relevant trust literature.
Zhang et al. Capabilities: (1) Strategic The capabilities were based on
(2015) communication, (2) Job expertise foundational contributions and
relevant trust literature.

19
2.2.1 – Supplier development
The notion that buying organizations rely on their suppliers is strongly reflected in the phenomenon
of supplier development. Since the idea of supplier development was first introduced by Leenders
(1966), a substantial body of research has been devoted to studying and learning more about it
(Hartley & Jones, 1997; Krause, 1997; Krause & Ellram; 1997; Krause et al., 1998; Modi & Mabert,
2007; Sako; 2004; Wagner, 2006; Watts & Hahn, 1993). Much of this existing research makes a
critical distinction between two primary types of supplier development activities, i.e. direct and
indirect (Wagner, 2006; 2011). In the context of direct activities, the buying organization is actively
involved in trying to develop the supplier. Development efforts of this type include collaborative
actions as for example, educating or training the supplier’s employees, visiting the supplier’s facilities
frequently, giving technical support, involving the supplier in the product development processes,
providing financial support, and making direct investments in the supplier’s production facilities
(Krause et al., 1998; Krause et al., 2000; Krause et al., 2007; Sucky & Durst, 2013). In this regard,
development of suppliers is highly predicated on interpersonal interactions between buyer and
supplier representatives as these interactions facilitate the transfer of tacit knowledge (Krause et al.,
2007). In contrast, in indirect activities the buyer has a more passive role implying that fewer resource
commitments are made. Examples of such activities include performance evaluations, building
incentive structures, giving awards, creating competitive pressure and certifications (Sucky & Durst,
2013; Wagner, 2006). As reflected by these examples, indirect activities often rely on market forces
to motivate the supplier to improve its performance. Moreover, many researchers have investigated
groups of barriers as well as key success factors for supplier development and established the
importance of how the relationship is being managed in the process (Handfield et al. 2000; Krause et
al., 1999; Krause & Ellram, 1997; Lascelles & Dale, 1990).

As strongly reflected in the direct supplier development activities, interpersonal interactions between
boundary spanners are critical. Boundary spanners from both organizations must interact closely in
order to share knowledge effectively and coordinate collective supplier development activities. In
addition to expert engineers from the buying organization, purchasing and supply chain managers as
well as executives are among the individual actors that are most involved in supplier development
efforts (Reed & Walsh, 2002; Rogers et al., 2007; Sako, 2004). For this reason, they often act as the
primary group of informants in supplier development research owing to the likelihood of them having
“an overarching boundary-spanning view of their companies supplier development activities”
(p.3166, Wagner & Krause, 2009). Despite their obvious importance for supplier development, a

20
detailed examination of how these key boundary spanners actively mediate internally and externally
has not been provided. Thus, the understanding of how individual level heterogeneities and mediation
exercises across organizational borders can either impede or propel supplier development forward
has largely been an overlooked topic. Although research on the topic has attracted much scholarly
attention over the past two decades, the present dissertation argues that much of this research has
developed under four core trends inhibiting the production of new knowledge. By going beyond these
trends and using the boundary spanning lens in doing so, Study 1 contributes to this current research.
The study underscores the significance of interpersonal interactions across organizational boundaries
for supplier development. Specifically, Study 1 facilitates an understanding of how boundary
spanners shape supplier development endeavors involving multiple suppliers and different groups of
individuals.

2.2.2 - Trust
Trust is widely regarded as one of the most important concepts guiding behaviors and interactions in
buyer-supplier relationships (e.g. Anderson & Narus, 1990; Doney & Cannon; 1997; Handfield &
Bechtel, 2002; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Ring & Van de Ven, 1994; Zaheer et al., 1998). There is a
broad consensus among researchers that trust, at its very core, revolves around dependability and
accepting a position of vulnerability. Two frequently cited definitions of trust are those suggested by
Mayer et al.’s (1995) and Rousseau et al. (1998). The former group of authors define trust as “The
willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that
the other will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to
monitor or control that other party” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712). In their model of trust development,
they stress that the behavioural manifestation of trust is taking a risk. Based on a cross-disciplinary
collection of writings on trust, Rousseau et al. (1998) largely concur with this definition, but place a
slightly greater emphasis on the notion of positive expectations. Specifically, they define trust as: “A
psychological state comprising the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations
of the intentions or behaviour of another.” (p.395). Reflecting the importance of trust in buyer-
supplier relationships, research has examined extensively both its antecedents and the outcomes it
generates (e.g. Gulati & Sytch, 2008; Johnston et al., 2004; Selnes, 1998).

A greater appreciation of the complexity of trust can be facilitated by elaborating on two defining
aspects (i) how the nature of trust is conceived, and (ii) its multilevel character. First, as concerns the
nature of trust, many researchers have stressed that it is dynamic and illuminated how it can develop

21
over time on the basis of different circumstances and interactions in the relationship (e.g. Ring &
Van, 1994; Smeltzer, 1997; Stevens et al., 2015). These processual views on trust complement the
research that has either deliberately or implicitly treated trust as a static concept. Stevens et al.’s
(2015) conceptualization of a trust pendulum exemplifies such a dynamic theoretical perspective.
They suggest that there is an optimal level of trust between two extremes of insufficient and excessive
trust. In emphasizing that trust is continuously changing, they offer the analogy that reaching a stable
level of optimal trust is as difficult an exercise as achieving zero defects in quality improvement.
Depending on the magnitude of deviations in the level of trust, they propose that either smaller
courses of action (recalibration) or larger courses of action (reorientation) are required. Offering an
extended view of the nature of trust, Lumineau (2017) refers to the notion of an optimal level of trust
between too little and too much trust as a “Goldilocks theory”. Specifically, Lumineau (2017) adds
further nuance to trust research by treating trust and distrust as two distinct concepts arguing that they
may in fact coexist.

Existing research often makes a critical distinction between interorganizational trust and interpersonal
trust (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Rousseau et al. 1998; Zaheer et al., 1998). The precise nature of the
relationship between trust at the two levels has been a topic of much scholarly debate. Some research
suggests that the relationship is unidirectional and that trust placed in the individual leads to trust
placed in the organization (e.g. Zhang et al., 2011). In contrast, other scholars oppose the notion that
trust in individuals can generate trust in organizations. For example, in a retrospective of Dyer and
Chu (2000), Dyer & Chu (2011) clarify on why this may be the case. They refer to a specific interview
with one supplier executive who declared that he had a greater level of trust in his General Motors
individual counterpart than in his Toyota individual counterpart, but, reversely a greater level of trust
in Toyota as an organization than in General Motors. The reasons for the lower trust in General
Motors was rooted in its tendency to constantly rotate employees combined with frequent changes in
internal programs. In contrast, his trust in Toyota was based on its predictable and collaborative
supplier management processes and its ‘strong culture’ leading to similar and predictable behaviors
of all boundary personnel. These insights bring attention to the impact of organizational structures on
boundary spanners’ external trust building activities, which except for few exceptions (e.g. Perrone
et al., 2003) has been subject to little attention. Study 2 explores how boundary spanners can cultivate
external trust in the context of intra-organizational dependencies.

22
2.2.3 – Social influence dynamics
By representing the buying organization’s interests to supplier representatives and vice versa,
purchasing and supply chain managers often have to rely on a repertoire of power sources in order to
reconcile competing preferences. In this context, research has stressed the importance of various
power sources including expert knowledge regarding products, organizational management
structures, network knowledge and other informal bases of influence such as social capital (Perrone
et al., 2003; Spekman, 1979; Zhang et al., 2011). The literature on social influence is extensive and
diverse. Scholars have theorized different perspectives emphasizing unique defining properties of
power and different groups of antecedents, moderators and outcomes (Sturm & Antonakis, 2015).
According to Kim et al. (2005) three of the most influential perspectives on power and influence are
(i) Emerson (1962), (ii) French & Raven (1959, (iii) Kipnis et al. (1980).

Unlike the other two perspectives, Emerson’s (1962) definition of power centers exclusively on the
notion of dependency. Emerson (1962, p.33) suggests that ”the power of A over B is equal to, and
based upon, the dependence of B upon A. ” Building on this notion, Emerson’s (1962) theoretical
framework illuminates different types of ‘balancing operations’. In contrast, French & Raven (1959)
offer a different perspective on the roots of power by suggesting a typology consisting of five social
power bases through which one party can influence a second party, i.e. reward power, coercive power,
expert power, legitimate power, and referent power. It can be noted, that Raven later added
information power as the sixth base. This typology has guided and inspired much contemporary
buyer-supplier relationship and supplier relationship management research reflecting its continued
relevance (see e.g. Benton & Maloni, 2005; Chae et al., 2017; Clauss & Bouncken, 2019; Terpend &
Ashenbaum, 2012; Zhao et al., 2008). Kipnis et al. (1980) were among the first to take steps towards
developing a better understanding of interpersonal influence tactics. Motivated by the limitations of
the prevalent power classifications at the time, Kipnis et al. (1980) advocated for empirical
investigations into how managers actually went about influencing other managers. In their study, they
suggested a typology of eight interpersonal influence tactics which has subsequently been refined and
extended by other scholars (e.g. Yukl & Tracey, 1992, Yukl et al., 2005). This revised typology has
since served as a theoretical perspective in research on influence in buyer-supplier relationships
(Hartmann et al., 2020; Plouffe et al., 2016).

Although the value of these theoretical perspectives for understanding power and social influence
mechanisms in buyer-supplier relationships is well documented, they share a limited capacity to
capture them in a triadic setting. This holds especially true for French & Raven (1959) and the

23
research on interpersonal influence tactics (Kipnis et al., 1980; Yukl & Tracey, 1992; Yukl et al.,
2005). Indeed, these perspectives tend to assume a dyadic context with an emphasis on how one actor,
either an organization or an individual, can exert direct influence on a second actor. By nature, the
contemporary studies drawing on these perspectives are subject to this very same limitation. The
question of how an influence agent can motivate a change in the influence target’s behavior by
involving a third party can be studied through the lens of social control theory. Gibbs’ (1981; 1989)
work on social control, in particular, constitutes a relevant perspective for understanding important
mechanisms of this phenomenon. By drawing on Gibbs (1981; 1989), the present dissertation echoes
his notion that power may be conceptualized as relating to the capacity or ability for control. This
understanding does not render the two concepts identical nor imply that either of the two is a subclass
of one or another (Gibbs, 1981; 1989). Moreover, this understanding is consistent with those
suggested in extant supplier relationship management research where, for example, Bastl et al. (2013,
p.13) note that “power is about influencing or controlling other players, be they person, group or
organization.” Only limited contemporary research has focused on how managers from buying
organizations can exert influence by involving a third person. Drawing on especially Gibbs (1981;
1989), Study 3 investigates this phenomenon.

2.2.4 – Summary of the three theoretical concepts

Boundary spanners are important for supply chain management for different reasons. As they operate
at the periphery of the buying organization’s borders, boundary spanners are subject to various
challenges and assume responsibilities that range from (i) facilitating the development of suppliers,
(ii) developing trust in relationships with suppliers, and (iii) exercising influence internally and
externally in order to reconcile conflicting buyer and supplier interests. By using the boundary
spanning lens in tandem with the three theoretical concepts, i.e. supplier development, trust and social
influence, this dissertation taps into some of the most critical topics for supply chain management.
This dissertation acknowledges and embraces the notion that complex buyer-supplier relationships
involve interactions between multiple contact points from both organizations. Yet, in this regard, the
present research builds on the notion that a few key boundary spanners assume a central role in the
management of supplier relationships – and that this role is critical for the buying organization’s
supplier development activities, trust development efforts, and influence exercises.

Except for a few contributions, research on supplier development has developed without much focus
on individual level interactions and dynamics. Nevertheless, the connection between supplier
development and boundary spanners has been documented in a few studies that emphasize how

24
interpersonal interactions are necessary for effective knowledge transfer and coordination of joint
buyer-supplier development activities. The core premise of Study 1 is that primary boundary spanners
assume an organizational role that involves engaging in internal and external mediation behaviors in
the context of multiple supplier development initiatives involving multiple suppliers.

Trust is a psychological and relational state variable with well-established antecedents and effects in
buyer-supplier relationships. The question of how interactions and relationships between boundary
spanners relate to the development of interorganizational trust have attracted academic interest for
many years. Study 2 builds on the core premise that primary boundary spanners assume a central role
when it comes to cultivating a trustworthy representation of the buying organization as one entire
entity. In contrast to the other two studies, Study 2 has an internal focus with an emphasis on how
primary boundary spanners cope with dependencies on other internal actors also interacting with the
supplier. On the other hand, Study 3 investigates both an internal and external perspective by
examining how boundary spanners can mobilize the social influence base of either an internal or an
external actor. The core premise in this study is that primary boundary spanners occupy a position
that puts them at the heart of influence attempts involving a third person. Thus, in contrast to the
studies on supplier development and trust where multiple individual actors from the buying and
selling organizations are often involved in interaction episodes, Study 3 focuses only on individual
level interactions in triads.

In their own way, each study explores new linkages between boundary spanning and a second
theoretical concept. Study 1 goes beyond four dominant research trends in the field of supplier
development, Study 2 explores how individuals develop trustworthiness in light of being constrained
by the internal organizational context, and Study 3 takes an individual triadic unit of analysis less
common in research regarding social influence in buyer-supplier relationships. Due to the
exploratory character of the research questions guiding the three studies, the research in this
dissertation altogether called for a research approach capable of capturing novel aspects and
connections between concepts. In the next section, I outline this overall research approach
corresponding to the requirements of an exploratory line of research. Table 5 illustrates important
characteristics of the three theoretical concepts, their connection to boundary spanning and the
exploratory focus in the three studies.

25
Table 5 An overview of the theoretical concepts and their links to boundary spanning.
Supplier development
(study 1)
• An extensive body of literature
Important
with insights into how different
characteristics
development activities can
improve supplier performance
• Interpersonal interactions
between boundary spanners are
Connection to critical for knowledge transfers
boundary spanning and the coordination of joint
development activities
• How boundary spanners mediate
Exploratory focus in a case of multiple SD
in the study initiatives involving multiple
suppliers
Trust Social influence
(study 2) (study 3)
• A psychological and relational
• A concept centering on how
state variable with well-
actors can reconcile opposing
established antecedents and
interests in buyer-supplier
effects for supply chain
relationships
management
• By virtue of assuming a • Conflicting interests between
representaitonal role vis-a-vis organizations have to be settled
suppliers, boundary spanners are at the individual level between
important for external trust boundary spanners using
development different influence bases
• How boundary spanners cope
• How boundary spanners in
with internal dependencies as
buying organizations influence
they seek to cultivate a
supplier representatives by
trustworthy representation of the
involving a third manager
organization vis-a-vis suppliers
26
27
3.0 - RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
This section first elaborates on the research philosophical paradigm adopted in this dissertation. Next,
I explain the case research approach and present the two empirical settings and the case selection
rationales. After this, I explain the data collection process and elaborate on the individual data sources
and triangulation. The section ends with reflections on the analytical procedures and the quality
measures.

3.1 – Research paradigm

Whether they are made explicit or remain implicit, all studies are guided by underlying beliefs and
abstract assumptions. In this context, Guba & Lincoln (1994, p. 107) argue that a paradigm
“represents a worldview that defines, for its holder, the nature of the “world,” the individual’s place
in it, and the range of possible relationships to that world and its parts”. They state that a paradigm
is defined by how it answers questions relating to ontology (concerns the nature of reality),
epistemology (concerns the relationship between the researcher and the known), and methodology
(concerns how researchers gain knowledge of the world) (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Denzin & Lincoln,
2017). The literature distinguishes between several philosophical paradigms some of the most
pronounced of which are positivism, constructivism, and critical realism.

The positivist paradigm assumes that there is real world out there that researchers can apprehend
(Guba & Lincoln, 1994). A core epistemological assumption in the positivist paradigm is that the
researcher and the researched object are independent from each other. This implies that the researcher
is “capable of studying the object without influencing it or being influenced by it” (Guba & Lincoln,
1994, p.110). The methodology in this paradigm typically centers on quantitative approaches that
involve putting forth and testing hypotheses in order to verify them as facts or law-like
generalizations. Although many contemporary buyer-supplier relationship research articles rarely
make their research philosophical assumptions explicit, it seems fair to suggest that positivism is one
of the most dominant paradigms. This is also partly reflected in the use of case study scholars (e.g.
Eisenhardt, 1989) who draw on positivist principles. Apart from the other paradigms that distance
themselves from pure positivist ideals, other researchers (e.g. Nelson, 2006) have suggested that some
social scientists suffer from ‘physics envy’ owing to the compelling attributes of physics that include
quantitative specifications of the researched phenomena and mathematical sharpness. In contrast to

28
positivism, constructivism is tied to a relativist ontology (Guba & Lincoln, 1985). This paradigm is
further characterized by a subjectivist epistemology where the findings are created.

In this dissertation, I adopt a critical realist paradigm. This perspective has guided much research on
supply chain management, buyer-supplier relationships, and networks (e.g. Adamides &
Papachristos, 2012; Eriksson & Engstrøm, 2021; Meehan & Wright, 2012; Ryan et al., 2012). The
critical realist perspective operates under the assumption that there is a ‘real world out there’, yet this
assumption can neither be proved nor disproved (Easton, 2010). Whereas the positivist paradigm with
a naïve realist orientation assumes that reality can be easily observed and studied, critical realism
argues that our knowledge of the world is fallible and theory-laden (Sayer, 1992). Because of this
basic assumption, the critical realist perspective also provides a stark contrast to the constructivist
view that rejects the notion that reality can be known. As Easton (1995, p.373) appropriately states
“we see through a glass darkly but there is something there to see.” Easton (2010) underscores that
reality is socially constructed, however, occasionally ‘the real world breaks through’ and motivate
researchers to reevaluate how they understand and make sense of the studied phenomena. In line with
these principles, one of the essential cornerstones of critical realism is that the world can be described
through causal language and explanations (Sayer, 1992). As an inherent critical realist principle, the
structure of causal explanation starts with objects and their relations. These objects can take on many
different forms and can be described on the basis of their relations. According to Sayer (1992, p. 104)
“causality concerns not a relationship between discrete events (‘Cause and Effect’), but the ‘causal
powers’ or ‘liabilities’ of objects or relations, or more generally their ways-of-acting or
‘mechanisms.” In the context of this dissertation, the implications of adopting critical realism are that
I consider the phenomena studied to exist in reality. Yet, this reality is difficult to apprehend and the
knowledge of it is not direct, but rather mediated by the concepts and language used (Erickson, 2017).
Moreover, the focus is on identifying the mechanisms causing events as opposed to identifying
regularities of them.

3.2 – Case research approach

The power of case research to illuminate supply chain and operations management phenomena is well
established (Barratt et al., 2011; Ketokivi & Choi, 2014; Meredith, 1998; Voss et al., 2002).
According to Easton (2010, p.119) case research is “a research method that involves investigating
one or a small number of social entities or situations about which data are collected using multiple
sources of data and developing a holistic description through an iterative research process.”

29
Alternatively, adapting previous definitions, Barratt et al. (2011, p.329) suggest that a qualitative case
research study simply is ‘an empirical research that primarily uses contextually rich data from
bounded real-world settings to investigate a focused phenomenon.”

Proponents of case research often tie its strength to its capacity to explore ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions
(Easton, 2010; Meredith, 1998; Yin, 2003). Some of the essential qualities of case research include,
but are not limited to, studying a phenomenon in its natural real-world settings (Meredith, 1998; Yin,
2003) and enjoying flexibility in this process (Dubois & Aruajo, 2007). While there is consensus
among many scholars about some of these distinguishing qualities of case research, scholars differ
significantly in how they conceive its core nature and ultimate end. Accordingly, the process for
conducting case research has been presented in different ways.

Throughout the research process in the present dissertation, I drew inspiration from an abductive
approach to conducting case research coined ‘systematic combining’ (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). At
the heart of this approach is a non-linear and non-positivistic thrust involving ongoing iterations
between two worlds, i.e. the empirical world and the model world. As argued by Dubois & Gadde
(2002, p.554), systematic combing is a “process where theoretical framework, empirical fieldwork
and case analysis evolve simultaneously.” This abductive investigation mode involves movements
back and forth between a set of different research activities. As conceptualized by Dubois & Gadde
(2002), there are two core interrelated processes in systematic combining; (i) matching, and (ii)
direction and redirection. In its essence, matching is a process where efforts are made to ‘match’
theory and reality. Whilst collecting data, matching involves searching for and contemplating the
potential relevance of other theoretical perspectives as additions to or avenues for refining an existing
framework in order to facilitate a better ‘match’ with the phenomenon being studied. Consequently,
matching is a process involving repeated iterations between the theoretical framework, the data and
the analytical work. Direction and redirection, in their empirical meaning, reflect how multiple data
sources can allow the researcher to discover and explore new dimensions of the researched
phenomenon (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). For example, as I elaborate on in section 3.4.2 my
observations of buyer-supplier meetings regularly revealed new aspects that would both (i) guide new
questions for the next round of interviews, (ii) and inform the search for theoretical perspectives for
furthering the understanding of the research phenomenon. Dubois’ & Gadde’s (2002) approach to
case research constitutes a contrast to the mainstream line of case research advocated by Eisenhardt
(1989) and Yin (2003). As emphasized in Dubois & Gadde (2014), the latter approach subscribes to
a similar linear and positivistic understanding of case research where multiple case studies and a

30
replication logic often takes precedence over single case research. Although the research in this
dissertation is inspired by principles suggested by Dubois & Gadde (2002), isolated arguments from
other case researchers (e.g. Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003), also have relevance for my studies. For
example, in relation to empirical triangulation explained in section 3.4.2 I draw on rationales
presented by both Dubois & Gadde (2002) and Yin (2003).

Single case and multiple case research. The distinction between single case and multiple case
research is essential and a topic of great divide among scholars. According to the positivist line of
case research favoring multiple case studies and a replication logic, one case is largely analogous to
one experiment (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2003). Elaborating on this logic, Eisenhardt &
Graebner (2007, p. 27) reason “to use the analogy of laboratory experiments, the theory is better
grounded, more accurate, and more generalizable (all else being equal) when it is based on multiple
case experiments.” In contrast to this perspective, the present dissertation subscribes to the belief that
conducting single case research offers the opportunity for reaching greater depth and capturing more
details (Dyer & Wilkins, 1991). Reflecting this reasoning, I echo Dubois & Gadde’s (2002, p.558)
argument that “when the problem is directed towards analysis of a number of interdependent
variables in complex structures, the natural choice would be to go deeper into one case instead of
increasing the number of cases.” Therefore, as the research in the present dissertation progressed and
the understanding of the complex phenomena grew, I deemed that an attempt to add additional cases
would be at the risk of diluting potential theoretical advancements

3.3 – Empirical settings and case selection

This dissertation is based on data collected in two empirical settings – Alpha and HiTex. Specifically,
two single case studies were conducted in Alpha and one single case study was conducted in HiTex.
In this section, I describe the empirical settings and briefly explain the case selection rationales

3.3.1 – Empirical setting # 1 – Alpha

Alpha is an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) that operates in the heavy equipment industry.
Due to various competitive and regulative forces in the market, Alpha is increasingly focusing on
establishing and developing closer ties with strategic suppliers in order to maintain its position as one
of the leading actors in the industry. Because of Alpha’s focus on actively engaging and collaborating
with its key suppliers, it constitutes an appropriate setting for studying the boundary spanners’
activities to this end.

31
There were different motivations for selecting Alpha with respect to Study 1 and Study 2. In relation
to Study 1, we investigated the case of Alpha’s advanced supplier development activities involving a
special group of core suppliers. This allowed for capturing special boundary spanning dimensions of
supplier development that have received little attention in extant research. Further details about this
case study is provided in Study 1. In relation to Study 2, the selection criterion was based on
representative qualities (Yin, 2003). In this regard, it was argued that OEMs can be considered as
representative organizations as it pertains to the existence of internal organizational structures and
their implications on external boundary spanning behaviors. Typically, boundary spanners from
OEMs must try to cultivate trust vis-à-vis suppliers, yet, this can be difficult due to internal
organizational forces that affect this process. Study 2 accounts for this selection logic in greater detail.
In summation, Study 1 was a case of complex supplier development activities involving multiple
suppliers constituting a unique case (Yin, 2003). Study 2 was a case of how boundary spanners’
external trust building attempts are affected by the internal organizational context. This was
considered a representative case. Finally, the opportunity to collect data over time was a third
selection criterion that was deemed important for both Study 1 and Study 2. As boundary spanning is
a complex phenomenon that unfolds over time, it was deemed necessary to implement a longitudinal
perspective in order to study all of its facets. In so far that observations had been conducted at a single
point in time, the empirical foundation would not have captured how different phases in time called
for varied mediation activities.

3.3.2 – Empirical setting # 2 - HiTex

HiTex is medium-sized organization residing in Northern Europe operating in the textile industry. It
is a family-owned enterprise with a proud tradition of delivering high-quality textile solutions to the
market. HiTex offers a portfolio of textile products, including linen, towels and tablecloths to its
customers. The textile products are sourced from larger organizations outside of Europe many of
them residing in South Asia. The organization’s competitive edge is strongly tied to its relationships
with a few key suppliers. HiTex is organized into functional groups (logistics, finance, product
development, commercial) that are closely integrated through frequent cross-functional team
meetings and an open office landscape that facilitates information-sharing and communication.

Case 2 takes point of departure in HiTex strategic relationship with one its key suppliers, i.e. TexCo.
This case was initially selected based on it being a strategic partnership. This type of partnership is
characterized by interactions between managers from many different hierarchical levels and

32
functional units (Albers et al., 2016; Cooper et al., 1997). Due to the intensity and complexity of
interpersonal interactions in this partnership form, it proved to be a fruitful arena for studying subtle
influence mechanisms. Moreover, as the primary boundary spanners from both organizations had
worked closely together for over a decade, strong social ties and familiarity made the case all the
more conducive for studying the phenomenon of interest. For example, because the boundary
spanners from the buying and selling organizations had collaborated for so many years, they had
developed special ways of leveraging each other’s social influence bases. Finally, similar to the cases
in empirical setting # 1, it was reasoned that the studied phenomenon was best captured over time.
Additional details about the selection criteria are discussed in Study 3.

3.4 – Data collection and analysis

In both empirical settings, the data corpus comprise interviews, observations and documents that were
all collected over time. In the following, I offer a detailed account for how each data type were
gathered and elaborate on the methodological reflections that guided the data collection process.
Subsequently, I discuss the nature of the data triangulation and provide examples in order to
demonstrate how the combined use of the different data sources contributed to a heightened
understanding of the researched phenomena.

3.4.1 – Interviews, observations and documents

Interviews were used to gather rich insights on the boundary spanners’ mediation efforts. A total of
46 interviews were conducted for this dissertation. All interviews were conducted based on semi-
structured interview guides as they allowed for exploring themes in a flexible manner (Miles et al.,
2014). Unique interview guides were developed for most of the interviews. Interviews were carried
out with multiple managers from different hierarchical levels and functional departments. Due to their
vital roles in overseeing and orchestrating supplier relationship management activities, multiple
interviews were carried out with key managers referred to as ‘primary’ boundary spanners. In
conducting the interviews, I drew inspiration from Kvale & Brinkmann (2009) making me attentive
to a number of important interview steps and techniques (i) prior to the interview, (ii) during the
interview, and (iii) after the interview. Prior to every first interview, I introduced myself and
explained the purpose of the research project to the participants. Throughout the process of carrying
out the interviews, I tried to be aware of a number of factors including the role of body language, the

33
importance of allowing for silence, probing and refraining from using theoretical lingua that could
potentially confuse interviewees unfamiliar with specific scientific terms. At the end of every
interview, I made sure to ask if there were any important topics that had not been covered. In some
instances, participants simply added a few final comments to one of the previously discussed topics
in order to stress its importance once more. In other instances, participants discussed new and
unexplored issues motivating additional questions for the data collection that transpired afterwards.
All but seven of the interviews were recorded and transcribed.

Observations allowed for capturing how interpersonal interactions unfolded in situ (Dewalt & Dewalt,
2010; Light, 1979). 18 non-participant observations were carried out in total. Three of these were
audio-recorded and the rest were documented through extensive field notes. Aside from an internal
workshop in empirical setting # 1, all observations were meetings held between buyer and supplier
representatives. All but two of these meetings took place face-to-face. It is important to highlight, that
observations were made of both formal and informal interactions throughout the duration of the
meetings. While strategic issues and pressing developments were discussed formally in the meetings,
informal discussions taking place before the start of the meetings, after the meetings, or during breaks,
e.g. lunches or coffee breaks, were also instrumental to the supplier management process. Informal
settings could provide an atmosphere where opposing viewpoints, concerns or even sensitive issues
could be discussed and managed delicately. For example, one of the primary boundary spanners
handled a sensitive issue by approaching one of the supplier representatives and pulling her aside
during one of the breaks. As another example of an informal boundary spanning interaction, a group
of supplier representatives casually raised an issue that had not been on the formal agenda after a
meeting had ended. Observations of interactions of both formal and informal characters facilitated a
richer understanding of how certain types of information were better communicated or obtained
informally. In this regard, the present dissertation underscores the importance of the non-trivial
distinction between formal and informal modes of boundary spanning suggested in the foundational
literature (e.g. Jemison, 1984). Table 4 gives an overview of all the interviews and observations
conducted.

34
Table 4 Data overview

Interviews Observations
30 semi-structured 16
Minimum: 18min Minimum: 45min
Empirical setting # 1 Maximum: 1h 30min Maximum: 8h 30min
Total hours: 22h 54min Total hours 85h
Average: 46 min Average: 5h 20min
16 semi-structured 2
Minimum: 28min Minimum: 1h
Empirical setting # 2 Maximum: 1h 30min Maximum: 2h
Total: 13h 15min Total: 3h
Average: 50min Average: 1h 30min

Different types of documents were collected in both empirical settings. The majority of documents
were collected in relation to empirical setting # 1. In contrast to the interviews and observations, the
documents were used primarily as a secondary data source. As clarified in Study 2, the documents
can be meaningfully distinguished based on whether they were either used or originated from (i)
internally in the buying organization (e.g. procurement strategies), (ii) the interorganizational
exchange (e.g. minutes of meetings, presentations), (iii) externally in the selling organizations (e.g.
supplier surveys). The use of these documents are explained in more detail in Study 2. Overall, it can
be stressed that the strengths of documentation data include specified data on important events as
well as unobtrusiveness (Yin, 2003). Reflecting critically, however, there are also a number of
potential weaknesses of document data. Specifically, Yin (2003) points to reporting bias and biased
selectivity in case the collection of documents is incomplete. Yin (2003, p. 87) explains that “you
[the researcher] need to consider that every document was written for some specific purpose and
some specific audience other than those of the case study being done. In this sense, the case study
investigator is a vicarious observer, and the documentary evidence reflects a communication among
other parties attempting to achieve some other objective.” In this dissertation, reporting bias was not
deemed as a potential issue. The majority of the collected document data specified organization and
supply chain strategies. They did not reflect any single individual’s evaluation of an event or state of
affairs – with the exception of the supplier survey where such perspectives were desirable.

35
3.4.2 - Triangulation
Data triangulation in the present dissertation served a dual purpose. First, triangulation was an avenue
for exploring new dimensions of the phenomena of interest. As argued by Dubois & Gadde (2002,
p.556), “multiple [data] sources may contribute to revealing aspects unknown to the researcher.”
Second, consistent with arguments presented by Yin (2003), data triangulation furthermore allowed
for corroboration. Viewing this as its core quality, Yin (2003, p.98) argues that “the most important
advantage presented by using multiple sources of evidence is the development of converging lines of
inquiry.” Rather than considering the two perspectives as mutually exclusive, I have seen fit to use
data triangulation for both purposes at different stages in the research process. As concerns the
investigation of new theoretical aspects, it was common that unexplored themes would surface from
observations as the data collection progressed over time. If the dissertation had been based entirely
on interview data, many critical themes related to the boundary spanning phenomena would not have
been captured at all. As all data sources come with distinct strengths and weaknesses, the combination
of multiple data types also strengthened the overall robustness of the research and results (Yin, 2003).
For example, a frequent criticism of interviews is that they are subject to a number of potential pitfalls
such as response and recollection bias (Yin, 2003). By using interviews in combination with
observations of buyer-supplier meetings, it was possible to take note of actual behaviors while using
subsequent interviews to elaborate on them. Accordingly, interviews in both empirical settings,
especially in setting # 1, were often designed to explore and zoom in on particular behaviors and
interaction episodes that had transpired in actual meetings. In this respect, observations of formal and
informal interactions guided interview questions. In this way, it was possible to use interviews to
obtain more insights on observed informal interactions where the interviewee may have had an
isolated one-on-one discussion during a break with a particular supplier representative. As direct
researcher observations of such intimate interactions were impossible, notes were simply made of
their occurrences and inquired about in later interviews. Moreover, documents were especially useful
for the purpose of corroboration. For example, by having access to past and recent years’ results of
Alpha’s own supplier surveys, it was possible to verify statements from interview participants about
the most important historical and current issues in the different supplier relationships.

3.4.3 – Data analysis

The data analysis was carried out in a similar fashion in all three articles. First, interview transcripts,
notes from observations and document data were used for developing first-order codes. These first-
order codes where then grouped together in second-order themes and finally distilled into aggregate
dimensions. Throughout the analysis, emergent themes were constantly being compared and

36
contrasted with each other as consistent with grounded theory principles (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss &
Corbin, 1998). In conducting the analysis and as it related to presenting the coding-strings, I further
drew inspiration from Gioia et al. (2003). Reflecting the abductive line of case research in systematic
combining, the analysis involved consulting relevant literature streams and concepts when new data
required it. For example, in relation to Study 2, our early analysis motivated us to review existing
studies like Perrone et al. (2003) for further insights on the studied phenomenon. Accordingly,
iterations between the analysis, theoretical frameworks and data were important. In some respect, the
analytical process began already when the first observations had been conducted and the initial
interview guides were formulated based on them. Over time as the analysis progressed and the
understanding of the studied phenomena increased, the interview guides also grew more focused.
Nevertheless, I still retained a lot of flexibility towards at the final stages of the data collection process
in order to account for potential new dimensions and perspectives.

In Study 3, the case was selected based on the reasoning that it was suitable for studying subtle means
of influence. However, the first data collection inquiries were very explorative and anchored in
informational and representational boundary spanning principles. It was only through iterations
between the analysis, theoretical framework and the data that eventually led me to Social Control
Theory (Gibbs, 1981; 1989). As the data was analyzed in the early stages of the data collection
process, it become clear that the existing theoretical perspectives that included French & Raven
(1959) were not entirely sufficient for explaining the observed influence dynamics involving a third
manager. This reflects how finding an appropriate theoretical lens for the analysis was also the
product of the analytical process itself.

3.4.4 – Quality measures

The quality of the research was assessed based on the criteria of trustworthiness proposed by Lincoln
& Guba (1985) i.e. (1) credibility, (2) transferability, (3) dependability, (4) confirmability. In order
to address the practical relevance (5) applicability (Miles et al., 2014) was also applied.

Credibility. Triangulation among data sources (observations, interviews, and documents) allowed for
convergence. Moreover, triangulation also took place when multiple informants were asked about the
same events and gave similar accounts. Throughout the research process, I also made use of ‘member-
checks’ to ensure that preliminary interpretations and results were considered accurate by informants.
Such exercises were particularly used with the primary boundary spanners with whom multiple
interviews were conducted in both empirical setting # 1 and in empirical setting # 2. The constant

37
search for contradictions and potential competing explanations in the analysis added to the credibility
of the research. Academic conferences and presentations for internal colleagues facilitated peer
debriefings that were also crucial for ensuring credibility. In the context of Study 1 and Study 2,
interpretations and codes were also discussed with the co-authors to eliminate potential uncertainties.
For Study 3, internal presentations served the same purpose. Finally, prolonged engagement in both
empirical settings was instrumental for achieving a full understanding of the phenomena.

Transferability. Thick descriptions provided should enable readers to judge the degree to which the
findings from the three studies can be transferred to other contexts. Study 1 was a unique case of
supplier development where the potential transferability may be limited to larger organizations with
many suppliers engaged in similar activities. In relation of Study 2 focusing on the boundary
spanners’ internal organizational context, detailed arguments account for why the empirical setting
of an OEM could be considered as one with representative qualities holding a high potential for
transferability.

Dependability. In order to ensure dependability, I focused on clarifying as much as possible on

critical choices and steps in the research process. These in-depth descriptions should enable the
readers to assess the steps in the data collection, data processing and coding presentation.

Confirmability. In order to ensure confirmability in the three studies, coding themes and dimensions
have been described in detail and supported by empirical examples from interviews and observations.
Finally, frequent discussions between researchers have allowed for reducing any potential researcher
biases that could have affected the research objectivity.

Applicability. In combination with conducting the research in empirical setting # 1, I also had the
opportunity to offer practical perspectives and ideas pertaining to various supplier relationship
management activities. By having meetings that were not a formal part of the data collection, it was
possible to discuss tentative research results with managers and contemplate if and how they could
be useful in different practical contexts. This ongoing practical loop with managers as both informants
and consumers made it possible to increase the applicability of the research (Vermeulen, 2007).

38
References
Adamides, E. D., Papachristos, G., & Pomonis, N. 2012. Critical realism in supply chain
researchUnderstanding the dynamics of a seasonal goods supply chain. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(10): 906-930.
Adams, J. S. 1976. The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational boundary roles.
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1175: 1199.
Adams, J. S. 1980. Interorganizational processes and organizational boundary activities. Research in
Organizational Behavior,2: 321-355
Albers, S., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zajac, E. J. 2016. Strategic alliance structures: An organization design
perspective. Journal of Management, 42(3): 582-614.
Aldrich, H. & Herker, D. 1977. Boundary Spanning roles and Organization Structure. Academy of
Management Review, 2(2): 217-230.
Ambrose, S. C., Rutherford, B. N., Shepherd, C. D., & Tashchian, A. 2014. Boundary spanner multi-
faceted role ambiguity and burnout: An exploratory study. Industrial Marketing Management,
43(6): 1070-1078.
Anaza, N. A., Rutherford, B., Rollins, M., & Nickell, D. 2015. Ethical climate and job satisfaction
among organizational buyers: an empirical study. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
30(8): 962-972.
Ancona, D. G. & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance
in Organizational Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4): 634-665.
Anderson, J. C. & Narus, J. A. 1990. A Model of Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm Working
Partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54(1): 42-58.
Anderson, J. C., Håkansson, H., & Johanson, J. 1994. Dyadic business relationships within a business
network context. Journal of Marketing, 58(4): 1.
Araujo, L., Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. 2003. The Multiple Boundaries of the Firm. Journal of
Management Studies (Wiley-Blackwell), 40(5): 1255-1277.
Barratt, M., Choi, T. Y., & Li, M. 2011. Qualitative case studies in operations management: Trends,
research outcomes, and future research implications. Journal of Operations Management,
29(4): 329-342.
Bastl, M., Johnson, M., & Choi, T. Y. 2013. Who's Seeking Whom? Coalition Behavior of a Weaker
Player in Buyer-Supplier Relationships. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(1): 8-28.
Behrman, D. N. & Perreault Jr, W. D. 1984. A Role Stress Model of the Performance and Satisfaction
of Industrial Salespersons. Journal of Marketing, 48(4): 9-21.

39
Benton, W. & Maloni, M. 2005. The influence of power driven buyer/seller relationships on supply
chain satisfaction. Journal of Operations Management, 23(1): 1-22.
Cai, S., Jun, M., & Yang, Z. 2017. The Effects of Boundary Spanners' Personal Relationships on
Interfirm Collaboration and Conflict: A Study of the Role of Guanxi in China. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 53(3): 19-40.
Cai, S., Jun, M., Wang, X., & Yang, Z. 2021. On boundary spanners and interfirm embeddedness:
The role of guanxi institution in China. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 27(1):
Chae, S., Choi, T. Y., & Hur, D. 2017. Buyer Power and Supplier Relationship Commitment: A
Cognitive Evaluation Theory Perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53(2): 39-
60.
Chakkol, M., Karatzas, A., Johnson, M., & Godsell, J. 2018. Building bridges: boundary spanners in
servitized supply chains. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
38(2): 579-604.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis,
Sage Publications, UK.
Chen, I. J., Paulraj, A., & Lado, A. A. 2004. Strategic purchasing, supply management, and firm
performance. Journal of Operations Management, 22(5): 505-523.
Clauss, T. & Bouncken, R. B. 2019. Social power as an antecedence of governance in buyer-supplier
alliances. Industrial Marketing Management, 77: 75-89.
Collien, I. Concepts of power in boundary spanning research: A review and research agenda.
International Journal of Management Reviews
Cooper, M. C., Ellram, L. M., Gardner, J. T., & Hanks, A. M. 1997. Meshing multiple alliances.
Journal of Business Logistics, 18(1): 67-89.
Dekker, H., Donada, C., Mothe, C., & Nogatchewsky, G. 2019. Boundary spanner relational behavior
and inter-organizational control in supply chain relationships. Industrial Marketing
Management, 77: 143-154.
Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2017). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research.
In Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Vol: 5, 29-71
Londong: Sage.
Dewalt, K. M., & Dewalt, B. R. (2010). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers: AltaMira
Press

40
Dollinger, M. J. 1984. Environmental Boundary Spanning and Information Processing Effects on
Organizational Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(2): 351-368.
Doney, P. M. & Cannon, J. P. 1997. An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships.
Journal of Marketing, 61(2): 35.
Dubois, A. & Gadde, L.-E. 2002. Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research.
Journal of Business Research, 55(7): 553-560.
Dubois, A. & Araujo, L. 2007. Case research in purchasing and supply management: Opportunities
and challenges. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 13(3): 170-181.
Dubois, A. & Gadde, L.-E. 2014. “Systematic combining”—A decade later. Journal of Business
Research, 67(6): 1277-1284.
Dubois, A. & Salmi, A. 2016. A call for broadening the range of approaches to case studies in
purchasing and supply management. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 22(4):
247-249.
Dyer, J. & Wujin, C. 2011. The determinants of trust in supplier-automaker relations in the US, Japan,
and Korea: A retrospective. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(1): 28-34.
Dyer, J. H. & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of of
interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 660-679.
Dyer, J. H. & Chu, W. 2000. The Determinants of Trust in Supplier-Automaker Relationships in the
U.S., Japan and Korea. Journal of International Business Studies, 31(2): 259-285.
Dyer, J. H. & Hatch, N. W. 2006. Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers:
creating advantage through network relationships. Strategic Management Journal (John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 27(8): 701-719.
Dyer Jr, W. G. & Wilkins, A. L. 1991. Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory:
A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3): 613-619.
Easton, G. 1995. Case research as a methodology for industrial networks: a realist apologia.
Proceedings from the 11th IMP Conference, Manchester: Manchester Federal School of
Business and Management, 368-391.
Easton, G. 2010. Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1):
118-128.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management
Review, 14(4): 532-550.

41
Eisenhardt, K. M. & Graebner, M. E. 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 25-32.
Ellegaard, C. 2012. Interpersonal attraction in buyer–supplier relationships: A cyclical model rooted
in social psychology. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(8): 1219-1227.
Ellis, S. C., Henke, J. W., & Kull, T. J. 2012. The effect of buyer behaviors on preferred customer
status and access to supplier technological innovation: An empirical study of supplier
perceptions. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(8): 1259-1269.
Emerson, R. M. 1962. Power-Dependence Relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1): 31-41.
Eriksson, D. & Engström, A. 2021. Using critical realism and abduction to navigate theory and data
in operations and supply chain management research. Supply Chain Management, 26(2): 224-
239.
Eriksson, F. 2017. A history of qualitative inquiry in social and educational research. In Denzin, N.K
& Lincoln, Y.S. (eds), Handbook of qualitative research, vol. 5: 87-140. Thousand Oaks,
CA:Sage
Ford, D. 1980. The Development of Buyer-Seller Relationships in Industrial Markets. European
Journal of Marketing, 14(5/6): 339.
Forkmann, S., Henneberg, S. C., Naudé, P., & Mitrega, M. 2016. Supplier relationship management
capability: a qualification and extension. Industrial Marketing Management, 57: 185-200.
French, J. R., Raven, B., & Cartwright, D. 1959. The bases of social power. Classics of organization
theory, 7: 311-320.
Friedman, R. A. & Podolny, J. 1992. Differentiation of Boundary Spanning Roles: Labor
Negotiations and Implications for Role Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1): 28-
47.
Gadde, L.-E. & Snehota, I. 2019. What does it take to make the most of supplier relationships?
Industrial Marketing Management, 83: 185-193.
Gibbs, J. P. 1981. Norms, deviance, and social control: Conceptual matters: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Gibbs, J. P. & Gibbs, J. P. 1989. Control: Sociology's central notion: University of Illinois Press.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. 2013. Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive
Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1): 15-31.
Guba, E.G & Lincoln. 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of qualitative
research: 105-117.

42
Gulati, R. & Sytch, M. 2008. Does familiarity breed trust? Revisiting the antecedents of trust.
Managerial & Decision Economics, 29(2/3): 165-190.
Hald, K. S. 2012. The role of boundary spanners in the formation of customer attractiveness.
Industrial Marketing Management, 41(8): 1228-1240.
Hallenbeck Jr, G. S., Hautaluoma, J. E., & Bates, S. C. 1999. The Benefits of Multiple Boundary
Spanning Roles in Purchasing. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 35(2): 38-43.
Handfield, R. B., Krause, D. R., Scannell, T. V., & Monczka, R. M. 2000. Avoid the Pitfalls in
Supplier Development. Sloan Management Review, 41(2): 37-49.
Handfield, R. B. & Bechtel, C. 2002. The role of trust and relationship structure in improving supply
chain responsiveness. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(4): 367.
Handfield, R. B. & Nichols, E. L. 2004. Key issues in global supply base management. Industrial
Marketing Management, 33(1): 29-35.
Harland, C. M. & Knight, L. A. 2001. Supply network strategy: Role and competence requirements.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(4): 476-489.
Hartley, J. L. & Jones, G. E. 1997. Process oriented supplier development: building the capability for
change. International journal of purchasing and materials management, 33(2): 24-29.
Hartmann, N., Plouffe, C. R., Kohsuwan, P., & Cote, J. A. 2020. Salesperson influence tactics and
the buying agent purchase decision: Mediating role of buying agent trust of the salesperson
and moderating role of buying agent regulatory orientation focus. Industrial Marketing
Management, 87: 31-46.
Holma, A.-M. 2012. Interpersonal interaction in business triads—Case studies in corporate travel
purchasing. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 18(2): 101-112.
Huang, Y., Luo, Y., Liu, Y., & Yang, Q. 2016. An investigation of interpersonal ties in
interorganizational exchanges in emerging markets: A boundary-spanning perspective.
Journal of Management, 42(6): 1557-1587.
Humphreys, P. K., Li, W. L., & Chan, L. Y. 2004. The impact of supplier development on buyer–
supplier performance. Omega, 32(2): 131.
Hüttinger, L., Schiele, H., & Veldman, J. 2012. The drivers of customer attractiveness, supplier
satisfaction and preferred customer status: A literature review. Industrial Marketing
Management, 41(8): 1194-1205.
Ik-Whan, G. K. & Taewon, S. 2005. Trust, commitment and relationships in supply chain
management: a path analysis. Supply Chain Management, 10(1): 26-33.

43
Ireland, R. D. & Webb, J. W. 2007. A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic
supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2): 482-497.
Ivens, B. S., Pardo, C., & Tunisini, A. 2009. Organizing and integrating marketing and purchasing in
business markets: An introduction to the special issue, issues and implications. Industrial
Marketing Management, 38(8): 851-856.
Jacobides, M. G., MacDuffie, J.P., & Tae, C.J. 2016. Agency, structure, and the dominance of OEMs:
Change and stability in the automotive sector. Strategic Management Journal, 37(9): 1942-
1967.
Janowicz-Panjaitan, M. & Krishnan, R. 2009. Measures for Dealing with Competence and Integrity
Violations of Interorganizational Trust at the Corporate and Operating Levels of
Organizational Hierarchy. Journal of Management Studies, 46(2): 245-268.
Jemison, D. B. 1984. The importance of boundary spanning roles in strategic decision-making.
Journal of Management Studies (Wiley-Blackwell), 21(2): 131-152.
Johnston, D. A., McCutcheon, D. M., Stuart, F. I., & Kerwood, H. 2004. Effects of supplier trust on
performance of cooperative supplier relationships. Journal of Operations Management, 22(1):
23.
Joshi, A. W. 2010. Salesperson Influence on Product Development: Insights from a Study of Small
Manufacturing Organizations. Journal of Marketing, 74(1): 94-107.
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J.d., & Rosenthal, R.A. 1964. Organizational stress:
Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. 1966. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: John Wiley
Keller, R. T., Szilagyi Jr, A. D., & Holland, W. E. 1976. Boundary-Spanning Activity and Employee
Reactions: An Empirical Study. Human Relations, 29(7): 699-710.
Kenneth, J. P. & Peter, A. M. 2005. Fashions of learning: improving supply-chain relationships.
Supply Chain Management, 10(1): 18-25.
Ketokivi, M. & Choi, T. 2014. Renaissance of case research as a scientific method. Journal of
Operations Management, 32(5): 232-240.
Kim, P. H., Pinkley, R. L., & Fragale, A. R. 2005. Power dynamics in negotiation. Academy of
Management Review, 30(4): 799-822.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. 1980. Intraorganizational Influence Tactics: Explorations
in Getting One's Way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(4): 440-452.

44
Knight, L. & Harland, C. 2005. Managing Supply Network: Organizational Roles in Network
Management. European Management Journal, 23(3): 281-292.
Krause, D. R. 1997. Supplier Development: Current Practices and Outcomes. International Journal
of Purchasing and Materials Management, 33(1): 12-19.
Krause, D. R. & Ellram, L. M. 1997. Success factors in supplier development. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 27(1/2): 39.
Krause, D. R., Handfield, R. B., & Scannell, T. V. 1998. An empirical investigation of supplier
development: reactive and strategic processes. Journal of Operations Management, 17(1): 39-
58.
Krause, D. R., Scannell, T. V., & Calantone, R. J. 2000. A Structural Analysis of the Effectiveness
of Buying Firms' Strategies to Improve Supplier Performance. Decision Sciences, 31(1): 33-
55.
Krause, D. R., Handfield, R. B., & Tyler, B. B. 2007. The relationships between supplier
development, commitment, social capital accumulation and performance improvement.
Journal of Operations Management, 25(2): 528-545.
Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. 2009. Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing:
Sage.
Lascelles, D. M. & Dale, B. G. 1990. Examining the Barriers to Supplier Development. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 7(2).
Leenders, M. R. 1966. Supplier Development. Journal of Purchasing, 2(4): 47-62.
Leifer, R. & Huber, G. P. 1977. Relations among Perceived Environmental Uncertainty, Organization
Structure, and Boundary-Spanning Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(2): 235-
247.
Leifer, R. & Delbecq, A. 1978. Organizational/Environmental Interchange: A Model of Boundary
Spanning Activity. Academy of Management Review, 3(1): 40-50.
Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Subba Rao, S. 2006. The impact of supply chain
management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance. Omega,
34(2): 107-124.
Lian, P. C. S. & Laing, A. W. 2007. Relationships in the purchasing of business to business
professional services: The role of personal relationships. Industrial Marketing Management,
36(6): 709-718.

45
Light Jr, D. 1979. Surface Data and Deep Structure: Observing the Organization of Professional
Training. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 551-559.
Lincoln, Y.S & Guba, E.G. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury park: Sage Publications
Lumineau, F. 2017. How Contracts Influence Trust and Distrust. Journal of Management, 43(5):
1553-1577.
Lysonski, S. 1985. A Boundary Theory Investigation of the Product Manager's Role. Journal of
Marketing, 49(1): 26-40.
Lysonski, S. J. & Johnson, E. M. 1983. The Sales Manager As a Boundary Spanner: A Role Theory
Analysis. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 3(2): 8.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 709-734.
Meehan, J. & Wright, G. H. 2012. The origins of power in buyer–seller relationships. Industrial
Marketing Management, 41(4): 669-679.
Menguc, B. & Auh, S. 2008. The asymmetric moderating role of market orientation on the
ambidexterity–firm performance relationship for prospectors and defenders. Industrial
Marketing Management, 37(4): 455-470.
Meredith, J. 1998. Building operations management theory through case and field research. Journal
of Operations Management, 16(4): 441-454.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldana, J. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: A method
sourcebook, 3rd ed, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
Michaels, R. E., Day, R. L., & Joachimsthaler, E. A. 1987. Role Stress Among Industrial Buyers: An
Integrative Model. Journal of Marketing, 51(2): 28-45.
Modi, S. B. & Mabert, V. A. 2007. Supplier development: Improving supplier performance through
knowledge transfer. Journal of Operations Management, 25(1): 42-64.
Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. 1994. The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58(3): 20.
Nelson, R. R. 2016. The sciences are different and the differences matter. Research Policy, 45(9):
1692-1701.
Newell, W. J., Ellegaard, C., & Esbjerg, L. 2019. The effects of goodwill and competence trust on
strategic information sharing in buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 34(2): 389-400.

46
Organ, D. W. 1971. Linking pins between organizations and environment. Business Horizons, 14(6):
73.
Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. 2003. Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust
in boundary spanners. Organization Science, 14(4): 422-439.
Pettigrew, A. M. 1972. Information control as a power resource. Sociology, 6(2): 187-204.
Plouffe, C. R., Bolander, W., Cote, J. A., & Hochstein, B. 2016. Does the Customer Matter Most?
Exploring Strategic Frontline Employees' Influence of Customers, the Internal Business
Team, and External Business Partners. Journal of Marketing, 80(1): 106-123.
Poblete, L. A. & Bengtson, A. 2020. "I want you back": On the strategic roles of boundary spanners
in supplier switching-back processes. Industrial Marketing Management, 91: 234-245.
Pulles, N. J. & Hartman, P. 2017. Likeability and its effect on outcomes of interpersonal interaction.
Industrial Marketing Management, 66: 56-63.
Ramsay, J. & Wagner, B. A. 2009. Organisational Supplying Behaviour: Understanding supplier
needs, wants and preferences. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 15(2): 127-138.
Reed, F. M. & Walsh, K. 2002. Enhancing Technological Capability Through Supplier Development:
A Study of the U.K. Aerospace Industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
49(3): 231.
Rhoads, G. K., Singh, J., & Goodell, P. W. 1994. The Multiple Dimensions of Role Ambiguity and
Their Impact Upon Psychological and Behavioral Outcomes of Industrial Salespeople.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 14(3): 1-24.
Ring, P. S. & Van De Ven, A. H. 1994. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational
relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1): 90-118.
Ritter, T. 2000. A Framework for Analyzing Interconnectedness of Relationships. Industrial
Marketing Management, 29(4): 317.
Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. 1970. Role Conflict and Ambiguity in Complex
Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2): 150-163.
Rhoads, G. K., Singh, J., Goodell, P.W. 1994. The Multiple Dimensions or Role Ambiguity and Their
Impact Upon Psychological and Behavioral Outcomes of Industrial Salespeople. Journal of
Personal Selling & Sales Management, 14(3): 1-24
Rogers, K. W., Purdy, L., Safayeni, F., & Duimering, P. R. 2007. A supplier development program:
Rational process or institutional image construction? Journal of Operations Management,
25(2): 556-572.

47
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. 1998. Not so different after all: A cross-
discipline view of trust Academy of Management Review, 23(3): 393-404.
Ryan, A., Tähtinen, J., Vanharanta, M., & Mainela, T. 2012. Putting critical realism to work in the
study of business relationship processes. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(2): 300-311.
Sako, M. 2004. Supplier development at Honda, Nissan and Toyota: comparative case studies of
organizational capability enhancement. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(2): 281-308.
Sayer, A. 1992. Method in social science: A realist approach, (2nd ed.) London: Routledge.
Schiele, H., Calvi, R., & Gibbert, M. 2012. Customer attractiveness, supplier satisfaction and
preferred customer status: Introduction, definitions and an overarching framework. Industrial
Marketing Management, 41(8): 1178-1185.
Schotter, A. P. J., Mudambi, R., Doz, Y. L., & Gaur, A. 2017. Boundary Spanning in Global
Organizations. Journal of Management Studies (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 54(4): 403-421.
Sherif, M. Harvey, O.J, White, B.J., Hood, W.R and Sherif, C.W. 1961, Intergroup Cooperation and
Competition: The Robers Cave Experiment, University Book Exchange, Norman, OK.
Selnes, F. 1998. Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-seller relationships.
European Journal of Marketing, 32(3/4): 305.
Singh, J. & Rhoads, G. K. 1991. Boundary Role Ambiguity in Marketing-Oriented Positions: A
Multidimensional, Multifaceted Operationalization. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR),
28(3): 328-338.
Smeltzer, L. R. 1997. The Meaning and Origin of Trust in Buyer-Supplier Relationships.
International Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management, 33(1): 40-48.
Spekman, R. E. 1979. Influence and Information: An Exploratory Investigation of the Boundary Role
Person's Basis of Power. Academy of Management Journal, 22(1): 104-117.
Stevens, M., MacDuffie, J. P., & Helper, S. 2015. Reorienting and Recalibrating Inter-organizational
Relationships: Strategies for Achieving Optimal Trust. Organization Studies, 36(9): 1237-
1264.
Strauss, A. and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Sturm, R. E. & Antonakis, J. 2015. Interpersonal Power: A Review, Critique, and Research Agenda.
Journal of Management, 41(1): 136-163.
Sucky, E. & Durst, S. M. 2012. Supplier development: current status of empirical research.
International Journal of Procurement Management, 6(1): 92-127.

48
Takeishi, A. 2001. Bridging inter- and intra-firm boundaries: Management of supplier involvement
in automobile product development. Strategic Management Journal (John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.), 22(5): 403-433.
Tanskanen, K. & Aminoff, A. 2015. Buyer and supplier attractiveness in a strategic relationship —
A dyadic multiple-case study. Industrial Marketing Management, 50: 128-141.
Terpend, R. & Ashenbaum, B. 2012. The Intersection of Power, Trust and Supplier Network Size:
Implications for Supplier Performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48(3): 52-77.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Thompson, J.D. 1967. Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Turkulainen, V. & Swink, M. L. 2017. Supply Chain Personnel as Knowledge Resources for
Innovation-A Contingency View. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53(3): 41-59.
Tushman, M. L. 1977. Special Boundary Roles in the Innovation Process. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 22(4): 587-605.
Tushman, M. L. & Katz, R. 1980. External communication and project performance: An investigation
into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26(11): 1071-1085.
Tushman, M. L. & Scanlan, T. J. 1981a. Boundary Spanning Individuals: Their Role in Information
Transfer and Their Antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2): 289-305.
Tushman, M. L. & Scanlan, T. J. 1981b. Characteristics and External Orientations of Boundary
Spanning Individuals. Academy of Management Journal, 24(1): 83-98.
Vermeulen, F. 2007. "I shall not remain insignficant": Adding a second loop to matter more." vol. 50:
754-761: Academy of Management.
Vesalainen, J., Rajala, A., & Wincent, J. 2020. Purchasers as boundary spanners: Mapping purchasing
agents' persuasive orientations. Industrial Marketing Management, 84: 224-236.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. 2002. Case research in operations management.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2): 195.
Wagner, S. M. 2006. Supplier development practices: an exploratory study. European Journal of
Marketing, 40(5/6): 554-571.
Wagner, S. M. & Krause, D. R. 2009. Supplier development: communication approaches, activities
and goals. International Journal of Production Research, 47(12): 3161-3177.
Wagner, S. M. 2011. Supplier development and the relationship life-cycle. International Journal of
Production Economics, 129(2): 277-283.

49
Wall, J. J. A. & Adams, J. S. 1974. Some Variables Affecting a Constituent's Evaluations of and
Behavior Toward a Boundary Role Occupant. Organizational Behavior & Human
Performance, 11(3): 390-408.
Walter, A. 2000. Bridging the gap between suppliers and customers through relationship promoters:
theoretical. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 15(2/3): 86.
Watts, C. A. & Hahn, C. K. 1993. Supplier Development Programs: An Empirical Analysis.
International Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management, 29(2): 11-17.
Wilson, K. & Barbat, V. 2015. The supply chain manager as political-entrepreneur? Industrial
Marketing Management, 49: 67-79.
Wu, Z., Steward, M. D., & Hartley, J. L. 2010. Wearing many hats: Supply managers' behavioral
complexity and its impact on supplier relationships. Journal of Business Research, 63(8): 817-
823.
Wynstra, F., Axelsson, B., & Weele, A. v. 2000. Driving and enabling factors for purchasing
involvement in product development. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, 6(2): 129-141.
Yao, Y., Dresner, M., & Palmer, J. W. 2009. Impact of boundary-spanning information technology
and position in chain on firm performance. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(4): 3-
16.
Yin, R. K. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5).
Yukl, G. & Tracey, J. B. 1992. Consequences of Influence Tactics Used With Subordinates, Peers,
and the Boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4): 525-535.
Yukl, G., Chavez, C., & Seifert, C. F. 2005. Assessing the construct validity and utility of two new
influence tactics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6): 705-725.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. 1998. Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effects of
Interorganizational and Interpersonal Trust on Performance. Organization Science, 9(2): 141-
159.
Zhang, C., Viswanathan, S., & Henke, J. W. 2011. The boundary spanning capabilities of purchasing
agents in buyer–supplier trust development. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4): 318-
328.
Zhang, C., Wu, F., & Jr.Henke, J. W. 2015. Leveraging boundary spanning capabilities to encourage
supplier investment: A comparative study. Industrial Marketing Management, 49: 84-94.

50
Zhang, C., Zheng, X., & Li, J. J. 2019. Is collaboration a better way to develop trust after
opportunism? Distinguishing firm and boundary spanner opportunism. Industrial Marketing
Management, 82: 38-51.
Zhao, X., Huo, B., Flynn, B. B., & Yeung, J. H. Y. 2008. The impact of power and relationship
commitment on the integration between manufacturers and customers in a supply chain.
Journal of Operations Management, 26(3): 368-388.

51
4.0 – THE THREE STUDIES

52
4.1 – Study 1

Boundary spanning in Advanced Supplier Development Initiatives: An

Exploratory Study

Conference contributions:
A previous version of this paper was presented at Academy of Management 2020
(OSCM Division) in Vancouver, virtual

Status:
In review - Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

53
 Boundary Spanning in Advanced Supplier Development Initiatives: An Exploratory
Study
Martin Jørgensen, Chris Ellegaard, Hanne Kragh 1
Abstract

Purpose – Boundary spanners link their internal organization with its external environment. In the
present research, we study supply managers who build a bridge between a large OEM and its
network of suppliers. The purpose of this paper is to explore how boundary spanners mediate
between internal (buyer) and external (supplier) managers in Supplier Development (SD) initiatives.

Design/methodology/approach - This paper adopts a qualitative case method to study an OEM

pursuing multiple SD initiatives with multiple suppliers simultaneously. Data consist of interviews
and non-participant observations conducted over a period of 14 months.

Findings – The findings highlight the mediation tasks that emerge at the organizational interface in
advanced SD undertakings. Based on the analysis, we demonstrate how the nature of three core
boundary spanning activities, information mediation, reaching compromises and strategic
communication, differ in four general SD conditions.

Research limitations/implications – The present paper advances the understanding of individual

level buyer-supplier tensions in SD. It makes a theoretical contribution that sits in the intersection
between boundary spanning and supplier development.

Practical implications - The paper increases managers’ knowledge of a range of required SD

mediation activities and provides an overview of where they unfold in the buyer-supplier
relationship.

Originality/value - The paper breaks new ground by creating knowledge that extends beyond four
dominant trends in SD research: (i) SD as organizational level behavior, (ii) SD as a dyadic
management task, (iii) SD as a generic set of activities, (iv) SD as a single performance
improvement area.

Keywords: Boundary spanning, supplier development, supplier innovation, supply network,

qualitative study

Paper type: Research paper

1
See appendix 1 for co-author statement

54
1. INTRODUCTION

Motivated by the growing importance of suppliers, buying firms increasingly strive to build close
buyer-supplier relationships and engage in various supplier-oriented activities aimed at creating
competitive advantage. Supplier development (SD) is one of the key concepts and research streams
dealing with how buyers can actively improve their suppliers’ performance and capabilities. Because
of its strategic value, SD has attracted attention from researchers and managers for decades. Indeed,
since Leenders (1966) introduced SD, many studies have elaborated on its nature and importance.
Studies have shown that SD is difficult to implement and maintain (Handfield et al., 2000; Hartley
and Jones, 1997; Helper and Kiehl, 2004; Langfield-Smith and Greenwood, 1998). Several studies
report difficulties with sustaining SD over time, often because the initiatives require considerable
changes in practice and capabilities (Hartley and Jones, 1997; Helper and Kiehl, 2004). SD pitfalls
have been documented at both the supplier and buyer sides, as well as in the interface between the
companies (Handfield et al., 2000). Such pitfalls may be related to low preparedness of the involved
companies, for example inadequate resources or lack of an organizational structure to support SD
(Handfield et al., 2000; Hartley & Choi, 1996). Pitfalls may also be caused by poor relationships
between the parties, for example low levels of trust or commitment (Handfield et al., 2000; Nagati
and Rebolledo, 2013). Another set of failure reasons relate to the coordination between the parties,
for example unfair practices, low perceived benefits on either side, poor alignment of objectives or
misunderstandings (Handfield et al., 2000; Praxmarer-Carus, Sucky and Durst, 2013; Wagner and
Krause, 2009; Zhang, Wu and Henke, 2015). Based on this existing SD literature, we expect that
some of these difficulties are likely found in the interactions that take place between individual
managers from buyers and suppliers, as they seek to collaborate on SD initiatives. In an effort to
advance the body of research on SD, we adopt a focus and a method that allow us to look into the
managerial interactions and the more fine-grained nature of SD. Specifically, we attempt to generate
knowledge on the interpersonal managerial mediation activities that occur in connection to SD.

We argue that the extant literature is characterized by a number of critical research trends that may
somewhat restrain further SD knowledge creation. First, the implicit assumption of an organizational
level coherent actor dominates the literature. In many studies, it appears that the SD activities are
executed by the entire buying organization that acts as a single coordinated entity. Mentions are
frequently made of key individual managers, including technical SD engineers and purchasing
managers (e.g. Reed and Walsh, 2002; Sako, 2004), However, how these individuals orchestrate SD
efforts that include a high number of managers across internal and external organizational boundaries

55
and manage tensions in the process have received limited attention. Second, with a few exceptions
(e.g. Friedl and Wagner, 2016), research on SD has traditionally adopted a dyadic perspective
focusing on a single buyer-supplier relationship. Those few studies that investigate beyond the dyad
tend to employ a non-empirical modelling approach, placing little focus on ‘the human factor’ in SD.
Third, SD is mostly conceptualized as a series of generic supplier oriented activities (e.g. training),
without specifying the more detailed content of the overall supplier oriented initiative or project that
the buying company is carrying out. This means that the potential interplay between different
initiatives has been outside the scope of most research. Fourth, research has often narrowed its focus
to a single performance improvement area, separating this area from other development areas that
buying companies sometimes need to consider simultaneously.

In order to view beyond these tendencies of SD research, we adopt boundary spanning theory (Aldrich
& Herker, 1977; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981). Aldrich and Herker (1977, p. 218) argue that boundary
spanners carry out “boundary roles that link organizational structure to environmental elements
whether by buffering, moderating or influencing the environment” As points of contact with the world
outside the organization (Zhang et al., 2011), the boundary spanner builds a bridge between her/his
internal organizational demands and objectives, and those outside the organizational boundaries, in
this case suppliers. The boundary spanner is therefore required to manage inconsistencies and
tensions between internal and external goals and behaviors through various boundary spanning
activities. Applying a boundary spanning lens to the investigation of SD, enables us to discover the
multitude of tensions occurring in the complex interorganizational interface between a buyer and its
network of key suppliers. We thereby uncover a range of novel managerial activities, which have
received little attention in SD research. Our research is guided by the following research question:

How do primary boundary spanners mediate in cases of multiple SD initiatives involving multiple
suppliers?

To answer this research question, we rely on a qualitative single case method. We study a large OEM
within the heavy-equipment manufacturing industry seeking to develop several suppliers in multiple
performance improvement areas simultaneously. The OEM’s customer interfaces are project delivery
based, while relations with suppliers are on-going and reminiscent of conventional purchasing and
supplier interfaces. The OEM is involved in five SD initiatives with one key supplier, but at the same
time, the buying company runs similar initiatives with other key suppliers within the same purchase

56
category. We study the boundary spanning activities of the OEM relative to all suppliers within this
category, which provides us with unique insights into supply network management in the context of
supplier development.

By answering the research question, we make a theoretical contribution that sits in the intersection
between SD and boundary spanning. As the principal contribution, we highlight how four specific
SD conditions call for different boundary spanning activities, and that these activities differ in nature
depending on where in the internal and external interfaces they occur, and depending on the number
of involved suppliers and number of initiatives. We believe that our contributions are critical for SCM
research, which has only provided limited insights into these mediation tasks between individual
managers within and between networked organizations. By looking beyond the four trends described
above, we uncover the variety of mediation tasks in complex SD interfaces. This way, our findings
also assist managers in understanding the range of activities required for successful SD. The
remainder of the article is structured as follows. First, we review the literature and present the four
SD research trends. Next, we introduce the theoretical perspective of boundary spanning, followed
by a description of the methodology. Then, we present the findings and discuss them. Finally, we
conclude on the paper by outlining managerial implications, limitations and future research avenues.

2. SUPPLIER DEVELOPMENT

Adopting Krause et al.’s (2000, p. 34) definition, we understand supplier development as “any activity
undertaken by a buying firm to improve either supplier performance, supplier capabilities, or both,
and to meet the buying firm’s short- and/or long-term buying needs” Under this broad definition,
supplier development initiatives can be initiated to improve a range of different supplier capabilities,
including quality management, capacity development, new production equipment and procedures,
lead time reduction/delivery, product design/development, and new market entry, among others (de
Toni and Nassimbeni, 2000; Krause et al., 2007; Lawson et al., 2015; Wagner, 2006). Based on a
comprehensive literature review of SD studies, we identified four trends in the SD literature. Table 1
shows the studies and their focus relative to the four trends, including the supplier capabilities the
studied initiatives seek to develop. The four trends have had the effect that little knowledge exists on
the complex set of individual mediation tasks boundary spanners are faced with, when they manage
multiple SD initiatives relative to multiple suppliers.

57
In conducting our literature review, we drew inspiration from Alvesson and Sandberg’s (2011)
problematization methodology, comprising principles for identifying and challenging assumptions.
First, we identified key texts in the SD domain. The next step involved identifying and articulating
the most dominant trends in this body of literature. As pointed out to by Alvesson and Sandberg
(2011), there are several methodological tactics for identifying dominant assumptions in existing
research. We relied on two distinct tactics. First, trend 1 and 2 were theoretically informed by
advancements made in recent research. Specifically, for trend 1, research has increasingly
demonstrated the salient role individual boundary spanners assume in managing supplier relations
(e.g Chakkol et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2011). In relation to trend 2, contributions pointing to the
limitations of the dyadic view has increasingly surfaced (e.g. Aune et al., 2013; Friedl and Wagner,
2016), providing the grounds for articulating and elaborating on its nature. The assumptions
constituting trend 3 and 4 are less illuminated in emergent research and were “difficult to identify
because “everyone” shares them, and thus, they are rarely thematized in research texts” (Alvesson
and Sandberg, 2011, p. 257). The identification of these trends were anchored in our empirical
observations, motivating us to scrutinize how key texts studied SD activities and outcomes.

58
 Table 1. Key SD studies organized by research trends
Authors Method Level Scope SD activities Performance/capability
(Trend 1) (Trend 2) (Trend 3) improvement area
(Trend 4)
Arroyo-López et al. Survey Org Dyadic Unrelated to initiative(s) Financial, Operational, Capabilities
(2012)
Aune et al. Case study Org Triadic Related to specific SD strategies Capabilities
(2013) (Multiple types)
Blonska et al. Survey Org Dyadic Unrelated to initiative(s) N/A
(2013)
Carr & Kaynak Survey Org Dyadic Unrelated to initiative(s) Product quality
(2007)
De Toni & Survey Org Supply base Unrelated to initiative(s) Quality, Delivery time, Unit cost
Nassimbeni
(2000)
Friedl & Wagner Modelling Org Triadic Cooperation vs. non-cooperation N/A
(2016) (2 buyers, 1 supplier)
Giannakis Case study Individ Dyadic Unrelated to initiative(s) N/A
(2008) & org
Ghijsen et al. Survey Org Dyadic Unrelated to initiative(s) N/A
(2010)
Glavee-Geo Survey Org Dyadic Unrelated to initiative(s) Operational & Financial
(2019)
Humphreys et al. Survey Org Dyadic Unrelated to initiative(s) Operational
(2004)
Krause Survey Org Dyadic Unrelated to initiative(s) Operational
(1997)
Krause et al. Survey Org Dyadic Related to a specific SD effort Product
(2000)
Krause & Scannell Survey Org Dyadic Unrelated to initiative(s) Operational
(2002)
Krause et al. Survey Org Dyadic Unrelated to initiative(s) Operational, Financial
(2007)
59
 Lawson et al. Survey Org Dyadic Related to a single project Task performance – NPD
(2015)
Modi & Mabert Survey Org Dyadic 2 instances: Least and most Operational, Capabilities
(2007) successful
Nagati & Survey Org Dyadic Unrelated to initiative(s) Operational
Rebolledo (2013)
Narasimhan et al. Survey Org Dyadic Unrelated to initiative(s) Operational
(2008)
Prahinski & Benton Survey Org Supply base Unrelated to initiative(s) Operational
(2004)
Qi et al. Modelling Org Triadic Investing vs. not investing N/A
(2015) (2 buyers - 1 supplier)
Reed & Walsh Case study Individ Dyadic Unrelated to initiative(s) Technological capabilities
(2002) & org
Rogers et al. Case study Individ Supply base Unrelated to initiative(s) Operational
(2007) & org
Sako Case study Individ Supply base Unrelated to initiative(s) Capabilities
(2004) & org
Sanchez-Rodriguez Survey Org Supply base Unrelated to initiative(s) Purchasing
et al. (2005)
Talluri et al. Modelling Org 1 buyer - 4 suppliers Cooperation vs. non-cooperation N/A
(2010) 2 buyers - 4 suppliers
Wagner Mixed Org Supply base Unrelated to initiative(s) N/A
(2006)
Wagner & Krause Survey Org Supply base Unrelated to initiative(s) Product & delivery, Capabilities
(2009) (buyer goals)
Wagner Survey Org Dyadic Related to a single project Product & delivery, Capabilities
(2010)
Wagner Survey Org Dyadic Unrelated to initiative(s) Product & service
(2011)

60
2.1 Trend 1: Organizational level behavior

The majority of existing SD research has adopted an organizational level of analysis and thereby
implicitly conceptualized SD as activities carried out by the entire buying firm as a coherent unit (e.g.
Carr and Kayak, 2007; Wagner, 2010; Nagati and Rebolledo, 2013). However, although research
focusing on interpersonal interactions is scarce in the SD literature, the role of individuals is not
neglected. Some studies have touched upon the involvement and responsibilities of key SD
individuals that include designated managers, engineers, purchasing managers and executives (e.g.
Reed and Walsh, 2002; Sako, 2004). Despite rarely being a primary unit of analysis, interpersonal
interactions both within the buying organization itself and those unfolding between buyer and supplier
representatives have sometimes been acknowledged for their importance. For example, Handfield et
al. (2000, p. 20) stressed the importance of developing internal cross-functional consensus among
buying function employees prior to engaging in SD, in order to represent a unified front relative to
suppliers. Wagner and Krause (2009) documented that employee exchanges (e.g. guest engineers)
between buyer and supplier, facilitating human interaction, were highly critical to SD. The role of the
individual also arose in considerations of managerial implications, such as Giannakis’ (2008) study
of SD programs’ facilitation of learning and knowledge transfer. Based on the findings, the author
advocated the appointment of knowledge brokers as facilitators, and stressed that the quality of
knowledge transfer processes largely relied on the skills of SD managers. Rogers et al. (2007) drew
on institutional theory and revealed that buyer and supplier representatives may manipulate the results
of improvement efforts to satisfy senior management. In sum, although the ‘human factor’ is essential
for successful global supply chain management (Handfield and Nichols, 2004), an argument
increasingly supported by empirical research (e.g. Chakkol et al., 2018; Zhang et al, 2015), it has only
been subject to limited attention in a SD context.

2.2 Trend 2: The dyadic perspective

The dyadic perspective has dominated the SD literature as research has primarily focused on generic
SD efforts of a single buyer towards a single supplier. Some studies have examined how the same
buying organization develops multiple or entire portfolios of suppliers simultaneously. However,
such SD efforts are often highly generic, with the corporations applying the same initiatives for all
suppliers, and only to a limited extent emphasizing the individual characteristics of each supplier.
The majority of studies of the SD efforts of Japanese keiretsu corporations such as Honda and Toyota

61
apply this focus (MacDuffie and Helper, 1997; Sako, 2004). Studies also tend to down prioritize the
unique interdependencies between suppliers, except for some accounts of cross supplier efforts such
as Toyota’s supplier association or parallel sourcing (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000; Sako, 2004). A few
studies have also touched upon SD efforts towards second tier suppliers. Attesting to the importance
of such efforts, a respondent in Johnson et al. (2013) accounted for how several second tier suppliers
could fulfill 90% of the buying organization’s needs, and that developing these suppliers resulted in
lower overheads from the first tier supplier. Handfield et al. (2000) also noted how a large IS provider
assisted second-tier suppliers in order to reduce overall lead-time.

Other research has employed a triadic perspective. For example, Wu and Choi (2005) illustrated SD
interdependence between suppliers by employing a triadic (buyer-supplier-supplier) perspective to
shed light on a case, in which a buyer requested one of its suppliers to develop another competing
supplier. In one of Aune et al.’s (2013) triadic cases (buyer-buyer-supplier), one of the buyers
employed a SD strategy of getting another buyer to develop a shared supplier’s capabilities. In another
case, two buying firms joined forces to develop the supplier together. This choice of cooperation vs.
noncooperation between buying organizations lies at the heart of SD in the buyer-buyer-supplier triad
(Friedl and Wagner, 2016; Qi et al., 2015). Yet, despite increasing interest in SD in triads, many of
the contributions have relied exclusively on a modelling methodology. While these studies have
advanced the knowledge of multi-actor interactional dynamics, which are central to SD, this research
could well be complemented with empirical studies. Finally, to our knowledge, the scenario in which
multiple buying firms simultaneously develop multiple suppliers has only been considered in Talluri
et al.’s (2010) modelling study of two manufacturers and four suppliers.

2.3 Trend 3: SD as a set of generic activities

Except for a few studies, for example Lawson et al. (2015) and Wagner (2011), extant research has
rarely focused on the particular SD initiatives or projects that companies carry out when they seek to
develop their suppliers. Apart from these studies, the majority of research investigates SD as a generic
set of activities without considering the exact content of the overall initiative. Consequently, this
research cannot capture the interplay between possible parallel SD initiatives. Some studies, in
particular those investigating keiretsu type supplier oriented initiatives (e.g. (Sako, 2004)), are
specifying the initiatives, e.g. teaching suppliers Lean Production principles. However, research with
an empirical anchor in a single generic SD initiative is by nature also silent concerning connections

62
between initiatives. Modi and Mabert (2007) are among the few exceptions, as they investigated two
extreme SD efforts of a buying organization (the least and the most successful). While they did not
study the interplay between simultaneous SD efforts, their study called attention to the importance of
considering inherent differences in SD efforts or initiatives.

2.4 Trend 4: One performance improvement area

As concerns the objectives of SD, the literature distinguishes between SD for performance
improvement and for capability improvement (Hartley and Choi, 1996; Krause et al., 1998).
Following this distinction, some contributions focused on performance improvements (Nagati and
Rebolledo, 2013), while others studied capability development (e.g. Sako, 2004) or, alternatively and
more rarely, examined both in tandem (e.g. Wagner and Krause, 2009). The majority of research
focused on how SD improved performance, often with a focus on a single performance area. In the
archetypical studies of the Japanese Keiretsus, the aim was specifically to make suppliers lean (e.g.
MacDuffie and Helper, 1997). Apart from these studies, research typically emphasized the effects of
SD on various operational performance measures (e.g. Narasimhan et al., 2008: Prahinski and Benton,
2004; Rogers et al., 2007). A few exceptions focused on effects on other metrics, such as new product
development performance (e.g. Lawson et al., 2015). These SD effects were measured either on the
selling organization’s performance (e.g. Nagati and Rebolledo, 2013; Prahinski and Benton, 2004),
or on the buying organization’s performance (e.g. Sanchez-Rodriguez et al., 2004; Krause et al.
2007).

3. BOUNDARY SPANNING

Boundary spanning was pioneered by Thompson (1962) and became an established theoretical
perspective in the late 1970’s because of influential contributions that include Adams (1976) and
Aldrich and Herker (1977). As such, boundary spanning theory has been widely applied in the broader
general management discipline for decades. Although some SCM/OM studies have used boundary
spanning as a theoretical lens recently (e.g. Zhang et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2015; Chakkol et al.,
2018), it is still not widely used in supply chain management research (Gligor et al., 2019). Boundary
spanning theory is ideal for the study of tensions or differences arising between the organization and
its suppliers that need to be dealt with in order to ensure a well working interorganizational
relationship. It has a specific focus on differences between individual managers placed in different

63
parts of the overall buyer-supplier exchange, and the roles carried out by the boundary spanner, as
she/he needs to mediate or facilitate between these managers (Chakkol et al., 2018).

In its original conceptualization, boundary spanning involves both an internal and an external
dimension (Tushman and Scanlan, 1981). However, research has often placed a premium on the
boundary spanners’ external interactions, and therefore produced little knowledge about how internal
and external boundary spanning are connected (Albers et al., 2016; Chakkol et al., 2018). In our study,
we explore both dimensions in tandem and thereby contribute to filling this research gap. We seek to
understand how boundary spanners reconcile conflicting views and build a bridge between internal
and external differences. In addition, SD initiatives are associated with a high level of technological
and organizational complexity, and therefore comprise a broad range of varied boundary spanning
tasks, which have not yet been illuminated by research.

The foundational literature distinguishes between two boundary spanning functions: information-
processing and external representation (Aldrich and Herker, 1977). To study the information-
processing function of boundary spanning, we apply the works of Aldrich and Herker (1977) and
Tushman and Scanlan (1981). For external representation, we separate this function into the two
activity types suggested by Zhang et al. (2011) because they have proved critical for OEM supply
chain management: strategic communication and reaching compromises. Table 2 explains the three
boundary spanning activity types, provides an overview of key studies of the three types and show a
few examples of individual behaviors belonging to each type derived from the studies.

64
 Table 2. Boundary spanning activity types
Activity type Purpose and key references Examples of behaviors
Strategic Facilitating transparency about the Explaining the supplier's role in the
communication organization’s strategic intentions vis-à-vis company's overall strategy (Zhang et al.
external organizations 2015)

(Aldrich & Herker (1977), Chakkol et al.
(2018), Ireland & Webb (2007), Zhang et al.
(2011), Zhang et al. (2015))
Reaching Reconciling conflicting internal and external
compromises organizational interests
(Aldrich & Herker (1977), Friedman &
Podolny (1992), Huang et al. (2016), Perrone
et al. (2003) Wu et al. (2010), Zhang et al.
(2011))
Information Ensuring responsiveness by (A) collecting
mediation and transmitting information, and (B)
regulating information sharing and protection
Explaining the company's technology
roadmap (Zhang et al. 2015)
Striving to reach solutions that are
equitable to both firms when differences
arise (Zhang et al. 2011)
When conflict occurs, persuasive
attempts are used by either side,
including ignoring the differences and
emphasizing the common interests
(Huang et al. 2016)
(A) Gathering information about
competitors from the external
organization (Huang et al. 2016)

(Adams (1976), Aldrich & Herker (1977), (B) Protecting the organization’s
Ancona et al. (1992), Hallenbeck et al. interests and guarding proprietary
1999), Huang et al. (2016), Harland & information.
Knight (2001), Tushman & Scanlan (1981)) (Hallenbeck et al. 1999)

4. RESEARCH METHOD

Since only limited knowledge of SD, beyond the four described tendencies, has appeared in SCM
research, an exploratory qualitative single case study is appropriate. This choice also reflects the
nature of our research question (Yin, 2003). Important for the research objective of the present study,
the qualitative case study allows for flexibility, rich data and exploring the phenomenon of interest in
its natural settings (Miles et al., 2014; Voss et al., 2002). By virtue of these qualities, our research
lends itself favorably to this approach as it allows us to capture the full complexity of the boundary
spanning challenges faced by the OEM managers. While qualitative case studies in operations
management have made important contributions, particularly in terms of theory building, some
studies have also displayed shortcomings related to insufficient descriptions of the data collection
approach and analytical procedure (Barratt et al., 2011). In the following sections, we elaborate on
these and other methodological elements.

65
4.1 Company description

Alpha is an OEM operating in the heavy equipment industry. Historically, Alpha has had a strong
tradition of developing and keeping capabilities in-house and therefore keeping suppliers at a
moderate arm’s length distance. However, due in part to macro developments, Alpha has begun to
look beyond its own organizational boundaries and work more closely with suppliers in order to be
more competitive in the customer market. At present, Alpha is in the process of building more
strategic working relationships with key suppliers.

4.2 Case selection procedure

We make use of a unique sampling method, which allows us to study the phenomenon of interest in
its most extreme variant possible (Yin, 2003). Alpha has a purchasing category wherein they run five
different SD initiatives, with different performance purposes (see table 3), and with multiple key
suppliers simultaneously. Beta is the only supplier involved in all types of initiatives, while several
other suppliers are involved in fewer initiatives. As the complex initiatives focus on different
performance improvement areas including, design, new product development, financial interface and
operations optimizations, they involved a high number of different Alpha and supplier managers, who
interact across internal and external boundaries. Due to the high proportion of boundary roles and
interactions that differ in nature, this constitutes a special case of boundary spanning (Aldrich and
Herker, 1977). To our knowledge, such an extreme SD context has not been subject to scientific
investigations before. Indeed, the merit of the single-case research approach is that it “typically
exploits opportunities to explore a significant phenomenon under rare or extreme circumstances”
(Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007, p. 27). The choice of a single case obviously also has limitations,
for example the limited external validity of the findings and issues with observer bias (Barratt et al.,
2011). Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) recommended between four and 10 cases. However, since a
single unique case offers the opportunity to capture and explore in-depth the detailed nature of the
studied phenomenon (Barrat et al., 2011; Voss et al., 2002), in this case the extreme diversity of the
mediation boundary spanning activities, we believe that the positives outweigh the negatives of this
methodological choice.

66
4.3. Case description

Within the investigated category, Alpha has a number of fairly strong relationships with suppliers.
However, it is only in recent years that Alpha has pursued a collaborative strategic relationship and
initiated multiple supplier initiatives with these suppliers. In certain performance areas, and in
particular some of those pertaining to technology, Alpha has widely begun to acknowledge that some
suppliers has capabilities that may exceed its own. In total, Alpha pursues five SD initiatives, which
are the analytical anchors for our study of boundary spanning. We study the simultaneous SD
initiatives of Alpha relative to all suppliers within the same category. Table 3 shows the SD initiatives
and the targeted improvement areas. To ensure confidentiality, the SD initiatives are described in
terms that convey only their essential characteristics.

67
 Table 3. SD initiatives and data overview

Initiative Description Improvement area Informants Boundary N Initiative(s)

spanner
Development of a new concept, New product Key Boundary Spanner Primary 6 All
1 which Alpha lacks the in-house development Senior Boundary Spanner Primary 6 All
capabilities to develop itself. Purchasing Manager A Secondary 1 All
A component designed in Alpha, Purchasing Manager B Secondary 2 3
2 now also designed with and by a few Design Purchasing Manager C Secondary 1 4
capable suppliers. Purchasing Manager D Secondary 1 5
A component designed and sourced Product Development Head Secondary 1 1, 2
3 in Alpha which suppliers are now Operational/design Logistics Managers (2) Secondary 1 3
assuming full operational scope over. Operations Manager Secondary 1 Operations
Alpha encourages suppliers to make SRM Specialist Secondary 3 Sourcing
4 particular operational investments to Operational Business Analyst Secondary 1 Strategy
improve operations performance. Meetings In
attendance
Development of a specific financial Joint strategy sessions Both types 10 All
5 purchasing solution, which Alpha is Financial Business & performance review Both types 2
incapable of developing and Technical meeting, workshop Both types 2 N/A
implementing itself.

68
4.4 Data collection

The primary source of data consists of semi-structured interviews and observations collected over a
period of 14 months. In line with the focus of our study, the interviewees were initially purposefully
selected based on their involvement in the SD initiatives. The selection of informants took place in
collaboration with a key purchasing executive from the OEM, in order to identify and secure access
to knowledgeable and centrally placed boundary spanners in the OEM. Similar to Chakkol et al.’s
(2018) study of the boundary spanning activities of a UK solutions provider, our focus was on the
individual boundary spanners, embedded in the network of managers involved in the SD initiatives.
Due to their special involvement in all initiatives and key roles in overseeing and orchestrating SD,
the two primary boundary spanners were interviewed multiple times. Interviewing these central
managers multiple times also served to minimize respondent bias (Birkinshaw et al., 2017). The other
interviewed OEM managers are referred to as secondary boundary spanners, as they did not share the
same level of strategic responsibility with respect to suppliers, and as their involvement was typically
limited to one or two initiatives. In total, 24 interviews lasting approximately 30-90 minutes were
conducted with managers from the OEM. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed ad
verbatim, except three interviews where recording was not possible, and the interviewer had to take
notes instead. Furthermore, the data includes observations of different types of SD meetings with all
key suppliers, with Beta being represented mostly due to their participation in all five initiatives. In
total, 14 observations amounting to approximately 70 hours were conducted. All of these observations
were of a formal character; however, observations were also made of informal interactions taking
place before meetings, during breaks and after meetings. Table 3 provides an overview of the
interview and observational data. The table shows the interviewees, the character of their boundary
spanning, the number of interviews, and the initiatives examined. For the observations, we show the
type of the buyer-supplier meetings, the managers in attendance, and the total number of observations.
Although they are not illustrated in table 3, confidential documents including procurement strategies,
training documents, supplier survey results, and presentations have also been collected and used for
triangulation purposes.

4.5 Data analysis & research quality

Inspired by analytical guidelines presented in Charmaz (2006) and Miles et al. (2014), the present
analysis was carried out by coding through the use of keywords, building categories, and constant

69
comparison. We also drew inspiration from the qualitative boundary spanning studies of Birkinshaw
et al. (2017), Chakkol et al. (2018) and Soundararajan et al., (2018). Throughout the analysis, our
coding was guided by the three boundary spanning behaviors suggested in the literature: information
mediation, reaching compromises and strategic communication. However, an inductive coding
process was necessary in order to go beyond the traditional and generic conceptualization of these
activities and to unveil their details in a complex SD context. Therefore, due to the emergent state of
the research, we did not rely on predetermined codes for the entire analysis. In contrast, in the first
coding stage, codes were assigned to keyword(s), sentences or longer paragraphs and passages in a
largely inductive fashion. For the most part, these codes were labelled with the interviewees own
words or phrases (i.e. In Vivo coding). In the next step of the analysis, second-order codes were
developed and theoretical categories formed, with distinct qualities clearly separating them from each
other. These categories were organized under the umbrella of the three core boundary spanning
behaviors. Codes were revised and refined throughout the analysis. Accordingly, the coding process
was not linear, but rather, entailed repeated iterations between emerging codes and data. As an
ingrained part of our analysis, emerging categories were compared on a constant basis to examine
potential similarities and differences. In instances of uncertainty, or where interpretations of sentences
or passages differed among the researchers, codes where subject to additional scrutiny and discussion
to arrive at a consensus interpretation. In addition to multiple coders, researcher triangulation, a
constant comparison and search for contradictions among emerging codes, measures of data
triangulation and checking with informants post interviews, have contributed to securing the quality
of the present research. Through these combined quality measures, we have attempted to avoid
prevalent analytical biases in qualitative research that include researcher bias and holistic fallacy
(Miles et al., 2014). Finally, it can be noted that our use of observations in particular is well aligned
with the adoption of the boundary spanning lens. In fact, some of its key contributors advocated for
using observations as they provide insights into actual rather than self-reported behavior (Aldrich and
Herker, 1977). Moreover, as boundary spanning occurs through formal and informal interactions
(Jemison, 1984), our observations of both types are well geared for exploring the OEM managers’
boundary spanning exercise. The fit between our theoretical perspective and data collection approach
contributes to increasing the research quality.

70
5. FINDINGS

Our findings show that SD takes place across a web of interconnected individual managers in Alpha
and its network of suppliers. We find that the mediation activities required of primary boundary
spanners take on a range of different characteristics. Figure 1 shows the different identified activities,
belonging to each of the three mediation activity types: information mediation, reaching compromises
and strategic communication. The figure also shows how the activities differ between four distinct
mediation conditions (one or several suppliers and one or several initiatives).

Figure 2 shows where in the complex interorganizational network the various mediation tasks occur
and who is involved. Activity numbers refer to the numbered quadrants in figure 1. Bold arrows refer
to direct mediation, whereas dotted arrows indicate indirect mediation (the primary boundary spanner
facilitates the communication between other boundary spanners). For each condition, we elaborate
on which subset of activities that are particularly salient in each condition and discuss the associated
challenges.

71
Figure 1. The four different SD mediation conditions, each with different sets of mediation activities
2. Mediation in multiple initiatives with the same supplier
Information mediation
• Detect supplier prioritization of SD initiatives to secure attention and to
determine optimal internal resource allocations
Reaching compromises
Multiple
• Identify and disarm ‘trespassers’ who interfere with other initiatives
• Oversee and coordinate key activities across internal and external functions
Strategic communication
• Communicate buying firm’s overall SD strategy and the supplier’s current and
future role in it
• Develop an account strategy of all initiatives to facilitate strategic discussions
between executive management from both organizations
Initiatives
1. Mediation in a single initiative with the same supplier
Information mediation
• Gather information on supplier capabilities and competitive intelligence
regarding the supplier’s experiences with similar initiatives
• Facilitate and structure information exchanges
Reaching compromises
Single
• Identify and deal with ‘blockers’ and managers with competitive convictions
• Settle differences and disagreements between managers
Strategic communication
• Engage with the supplier to communicate strategic value of initiative and to
understand the supplier’s strategic agenda
• Engage with internal executive management to secure support for SD initiative
Single
Suppliers
72
4. Mediation in multiple initiatives with multiple suppliers
Information mediation
• Mediate information protection and sharing relative to multiple suppliers
involved in multiple initiatives
Reaching compromises
• Coordinate with key internal stakeholders for internal alignment between SD
initiatives across the supply base and in-house activities
Strategic communication
• Develop portfolio overview of all SD account strategies to i) communicate
progress with executive management, and to ii) discuss supplier portfolio
balancing
3. Mediation in a single initiative with multiple suppliers
Information mediation
• Mediate information protection and sharing relative to multiple suppliers
regarding the same initiative
Reaching compromises
• Align divergent internal perceptions to coordinate the initiative across the
supply base
Strategic communication
• Evaluate suppliers and communicate with executive management to determine
internal priorities for which suppliers to involve and the initiative scope
Multiple
Figure 2. An overview of where the mediation activities occur

Strategic communication
2. Develop account strategy to
BETA facilitate executive level discussions
ALPHA

Executive Management Executive Management

Strategic communication
1. Understand supplier strategic agenda
2. Communicate role in SD strategy Strategic communication
1. Secure and mobilize support for initiative
Information mediation 3. Determine internal prioritizations
1. Gather information on capabilities and experience 4. Develop portfolio overview to communicate
Primary Boundary Spanners progress and to discuss portfolio balancing
1. Facilitate and structure information exchanges
Senior Boundary Spanner 2. Detect supplier prioritization of initiatives
Key Boundary Spanner
Reaching compromises Primary Boundary Spanners Reaching compromises
1. Identify and deal with ‘blockers’ 4. Coordinate to secure alignment
Senior Boundary Spanner
2. Identify and disarm ‘trespassers’ between SD across supply base
Key Boundary Spanner
and in-house activities
Reaching compromises
1. Settle differences and disagreements
2. Oversee and coordinate key activities

Reaching compromises
1. Identify and deal with ‘blockers’ Internal non-boundary
Secondary Boundary Spanners
2. Identify and disarm ‘trespassers’ spanning organization
Technical / R&D 3. Align divergent perceptions
Operations
Logistics
Information mediation
3-4. Mediate information sharing and
protecting on single and multiple initiatives Secondary Boundary Spanners
SUPPLY NETWORK
Technical / R&D
Operations
Logistics
Other Suppliers

73
5.1 Mediation in single initiatives with the same supplier

5.1.1 Information mediation

Prior to committing internal resources to a SD initiative with a supplier, the primary boundary
spanners needed to gather information on the supplier’s capabilities. Interviewees argued that this
type of informational boundary spanning was necessary to assess the degree to which the supplier’s
internal organization was geared for the initiative requirements. For the same reason, primary
boundary spanners also occasionally sought to collect competitive intelligence from suppliers.
Gathering insights on each supplier’s past and ongoing similar SD initiatives launched with Alpha’s
competitors, could place the primary boundary spanners in a better position to evaluate the supplier’s
potential. In some situations, competitors’ SD efforts were well-known among actors in the industry.
When this was the case, information could be collected through open plenum discussions in buyer-
supplier meetings without great difficulty. In contrast, supplier representatives were more hesitant to
share information on other initiatives. This was often either due to issues of confidentiality or supplier
representatives’ apparent reluctance to reveal knowledge of other customer-oriented initiatives. These
situations called for subtle information gathering techniques with informal interactions proving the
most suitable setting.

Once the initiative had been initiated, a second information mediation activity revolved around
facilitating effective information exchanges. For each initiative, the primary boundary spanners took
on a key role in making sure that information could be collected and shared internally and externally.
Although they were not always directly managing each initiative, they were instrumental in
structuring and facilitating the lines of communication and information-sharing processes. This
involved a high degree of coordination and making agreements about which buyer and supplier
managers took charge of the different responsibilities and how they should share and collect
information. The key boundary spanner recalled the challenge involved in setting up the required
information sharing related to one SD initiative:

“No one (in Alpha) knew where to get the information (in Beta). So I said (at a Beta meeting) “let’s
set it up”… first of all, who does what, and whom should I reach out to if I need that information?
Then we made lists (of key managers) from each side… now our technical team is sitting with their
technical team and discussing technical issues. That never happened before”

74
5.1.2 Reaching compromises

Our data shows that Alpha’s primary boundary spanners occasionally encountered managers, whom
they defined as “blockers”. Blockers, residing on both sides of the buyer-supplier relationship would
work against initiatives in various ways, for instance because they were proponents of a more
competitive management style or because they had another agenda, which conflicted with the
initiative. Such employees would openly oppose SD, or covertly utilize their social network to rally
support for their opposition. As a results, the primary boundary spanners had to mediate to reach a
compromise required for moving the SD initiative forward. For example, in initiative 2, an internal
resistance among some technical employees at Alpha formed as the supplier became increasingly
involved. Alpha wanted to get supplier engineers increasingly involved in product design, which
required that the supplier’s and Alpha’s engineers could find a design compromise. One of the
primary boundary spanners accounted for this mediation challenge:

“In some phases I was negotiating inside Alpha more than I was negotiating with the supplier - to be
honest. The Alpha technical team said no, no, no, we will never leave the Alpha design. We will work
with the Alpha design, and we do not believe that they will make it better than us”

Dealing with the managers that blocked possible compromises was the most conflict ridden mediation
task for boundary spanners, as they needed to identify and confront the blockers. This required both
social networking and use of hierarchical authority. Furthermore, Alpha’s primary boundary spanners
had to mediate in interactions between internal and external secondary boundary spanners working
on the same initiative. This mediation centered on balancing the tension between collaboration and
competition. On one side, the nature of the SD initiatives required close collaboration and esprit de
corps. On the other side, competition always lurked in the background as commercial discussions
regarding prices, payment conditions and commitments among other things ran in parallel. In this
respect, Alpha’s primary boundary spanners needed to create a collaborative atmosphere, yet
simultaneously ensure that competitiveness was not jeopardized by unfavorable commercial
agreements following increased interdependence caused by SD. This involved mediating to find
compromises between buyer and supplier representatives, some of whom tended to be entrenched in
an overly competitive engagement style.

75
5.1.3 Strategic communication

For each initiative, the primary boundary spanners had to communicate its strategic value to suppliers.
Hence, all initiatives were initially “sold” to individual suppliers through a strategic representation
effort. This essentially meant bringing the initiative to the supplier’s primary boundary spanners and
convincing them that it was worth pursuing in order to secure supplier investments and resources. For
example, in initiative 4, Alpha’s key boundary spanner had to promote the idea of operations
improvements and convince each supplier of the benefits of such improvements, because significant
supplier investments in facilities and equipment were required. Success in this mediation exercise
was predicated on simultaneously engaging with the supplier to understand its strategic agenda. Our
observations of various meetings showed how the two primary boundary spanners inquired into each
individual supplier’s strategic orientations concerning the individual initiatives. Alpha’s primary
boundary spanners continuously focused on learning about each supplier’s strategic agenda and
priorities to build and promote a structure that would motivate supplier commitments. For example,
at one point in time, Beta’s representatives were hesitant to invest and commit resources to initiative
4, yet months later they had increased their interest due to the communication of the key boundary
spanners.

Reversely, we also observed instances where the supplier complied to the extent that they actually
took over most of the initiative. In these cases, the boundary spanner often had to play a reverse
representation role. For example, in initiative 1 and 2, Beta turned out to have matching (maybe even
superior) design capabilities and a supportive strategic agenda of performing design work for and
with customers. In this case, the mediation activity was internal and focused on securing support from
Alpha’s executive management.

5.2 Mediation in multiple initiatives with the same supplier

5.2.1 Information mediation

Although Alpha sought to develop Beta in multiple initiatives, they seldom received equal attention
and priority of initiatives in Beta’s organization. As some initiatives, e.g. initiative 2, corresponded
well with the supplier’s own strategic agenda, allocations of supplier resources to such initiatives
often took precedence over initiatives with apparent lower degree of strategic fit. Accordingly, in
order to ensure a desired level of supplier attention for all initiatives, Alpha’s primary boundary

76
spanners had to detect how the supplier prioritized among initiatives. This was primarily done through
interactions with Beta’s primary boundary spanners. In some cases, it was easy to see when a supplier
such as Beta was only half-heartedly pursuing one of the initiatives. In other situations, it was difficult
to determine. Regardless, during meetings we observed that the two primary boundary spanners
would sometimes have to politely challenge the supplier on its internal resource allocations and
attention to certain initiatives. Consequently, this particular mediation effort was not a matter of
getting to a yes internally or externally, but a matter of ensuring that an initiative was prioritized
strategically in the supplier organization over time, resulting in the required resources being
accessible on a consistent basis.

5.2.2 Reaching compromises

As Alpha pursued multiple initiatives with the same supplier, the primary boundary spanners had to
mediate between managers on different initiatives. Initiatives as well as broader interests of buyer
and supplier managers would occasionally collide, for example leading some managers to “trespass”
into meetings and activities related to other initiatives. For example, one of Beta’s boundary spanners
involved in initiative 4, would often seek to exert much influence on decisions related to initiatives 1
and 2, which damaged the ability to reach compromises in these two initiatives. This represented a
significant mediation challenge for Alpha’s primary boundary spanners, who diligently attempted to
reduce this manager’s interference. On the nature of this exercise, the senior boundary spanner
commented:

”The best thing that ever happened was when I told them that (Beta boundary spanner) should not
participate (in initiative 4). Now she has snuck back into the meetings… we have to be careful. We
will start to drift if we do not take care of the structure”

As the quote shows, this mediation activity could be confrontational, but it remained critical for
maintaining some level of separation among initiatives, while simultaneously keeping the strategic
overview of all initiatives. In other cases, internal or external managers trespassed covertly on other
initiatives, which was more difficult to discover and act on. Overall, trade-offs between initiatives
and resource mobilization for each needed to be managed by the primary boundary spanners. For this
reason, it was important to oversee and coordinate key SD activities across internal and external
functions to limit interferences and allow compromises.

77
5.2.3 Strategic communication

The pursuit of multiple SD initiatives with the same supplier had important implications for strategic
communication. To secure and maintain an overview of all SD activities and processes, primary
boundary spanners had a key role in developing and periodically recalibrating an account strategy.
This served the purpose of forming an overview of details regarding critical SD steps and
requirements for each initiative including its objectives, the buyer and supplier actions required, the
managers involved, success drivers, potential roadblocks and the agreed-upon timelines. Based on
this account overview, primary boundary spanners assumed a key role in communicating the buying
firm’s overall SD strategy and the supplier’s current and future role in it. This communication
transpired mostly with Beta’s primary boundary spanners, and was important to cultivate continued
buy-in and commitment. In addition, this SD overview facilitated strategic discussions between
executive management from both the buying and selling organizations. These high-level meetings
went beyond the single initiatives as they concerned the broader strategic direction and future buyer-
supplier collaboration. If there were any underlying issues that affected one or multiple initiatives,
they could be escalated and brought to the fore in this arena.

5.3 Mediation in a single initiative with multiple suppliers

5.3.1 Information mediation

At the most basic level, information mediation between Alpha and multiple suppliers involved in the
same initiative comprised finding a balance between sharing and protecting information. The primary
boundary spanners were responsible for all supplier relations in the category portfolio. They needed
to protect proprietary information, yet also maintain a solid interest in initiatives from suppliers. For
example, in a discussion regarding one of the operational initiatives, our observational data captured
how an Alpha purchasing manager started to share information about what Alpha was doing with
another competing supplier. At this point, the Senior Boundary Spanner had to intervene in order to
avoid an undesirable information leak. Moreover, not all suppliers had equal interests in, and the
capabilities required for the five initiatives. Therefore, it was in Alpha’s interest to work with several
suppliers on most initiatives. Alpha had to balance the need for developing several suppliers for the
same initiative. The Key boundary spanner explained:

78
“No, no they do not know what we are doing yet (with the other suppliers). They just see the train (the
SD initiative) and they are running for it. At the end we will see who will be the best option”
To maintain trust and commitment from suppliers, the primary boundary spanners sometimes needed
some level of openness regarding efforts with competing suppliers, while still balancing this with the
need for confidentiality. In contrast, some initiatives held high degrees of visibility in the market. For
example, in initiative 4, some suppliers quickly learned about Alpha’s developments with competing
suppliers, as it required investments that were difficult to conceal from other actors in the industry.
Reversely, initiative 1 was in the early phases and it was impossible for suppliers to know how
competitors were performing. As observed in a meeting, one supplier representative tried to learn
about how his organization was doing compared to the competition, but the Key Boundary Spanner
did not disclose any information.

5.3.2 Reaching compromises

The fact that multiple suppliers were involved in the same initiative raised certain challenges in
achieving compromises. In this mediation activity, the primary boundary spanners had to secure an
aligned Alpha approach relative to all category suppliers. The importance of this exercise grew from
perceptual gaps among managers, within and between functions. At one point, this was evident in
initiative 4 where Alpha’s secondary boundary spanners differed in their perceptions regarding
whether Beta had in fact accepted and understood particular requirements. Speaking on this issue, the
Senior Boundary Spanner reasoned:

”In large organizations such as ours, we often see that perceptions differ depending on who you ask.
Some would say that the supplier already said no. I would say that the supplier misunderstood the
task to begin with. So, we have to make sure that the supplier has really understood the task. Have
we explained it well enough to you? And have you yourselves explained it well enough internally?”

Observations of buyer-supplier discussions frequently demonstrated how Alpha’s primary boundary

spanners had to mediate when divergent internal perceptions rose to the surface in meetings. Without
some level of alignment of perceptions, compromises were difficult to realize.

5.3.3 Strategic communication

Alpha’s primary boundary spanners also had a key internal mediation role in terms of evaluating and
comparing suppliers on their relative prioritization of an initiative and capability level. This particular

79
mediation activity was highly predicated on the information gathering described in section 5.1.1.
Based on an exercise of comparing suppliers in the portfolio, communication with executive
management followed to determine the optimal internal prioritization of resources with different
suppliers for a specific initiative. When it came to evaluating suppliers, their prioritization of the
initiative was a critical issue. For example, in initiative 3, Beta representatives clearly expressed in
meetings that it was not a strategic priority for them, but that they would willingly pursue it to satisfy
Alpha. Purchasing manager B noted:

“Beta just does not seem to be the supplier that is most interested in taking over the initiative. It looks
like for them it is a way to keep on making Alpha happy instead of seeing it as a strategic movement
towards acquiring more scope and trying to develop in that area”

Suppliers varied in profiles in terms of expertise, capabilities, strategic agenda etc. In many cases, the
most salient quality was not how a supplier prioritized a specific initiative per se, but rather whether
it possessed the capabilities and organizational structures required. Comparing suppliers also
demanded a future-oriented outlook, as some suppliers did not have the required capabilities at
present, but had made recent strategic investments to develop them. On some initiatives, the boundary
spanners essentially needed to determine which supplier to focus most of their efforts on. Focusing
on one supplier in an initiative could end negatively, if that supplier turned out to down-prioritize the
initiative, possibly hindering the mobilization of scarce Alpha resources for the initiative with another
supplier.

5.4 Mediation in multiple initiatives with multiple suppliers

5.4.1 Information mediation

Decisions regarding if, when and how to protect or share information expanded considerably in
complexity with multiple initiatives, compared to single initiatives with multiple suppliers. As
observed in meetings, the other suppliers (besides Beta) would express interest in hearing about what
Alpha was developing with other suppliers outside of the initiatives involving themselves. Following
such requests, primary boundary spanners took the lead in meditating information to ensure that the
requests, whether formal or informal, were managed with due attention to confidentiality and
protecting a competitive edge. In this way, they played a central role in determining which types of
information secondary Alpha boundary spanners could share with suppliers. In this process, the

80
primary boundary spanners had to be attentive to the suppliers’ different profiles. On the differences
between some of the suppliers and its implications for information sharing, the Senior Boundary
Spanner noted:

“If you compare Charlie to Beta, then Charlie is very dependent on the information etc. that we give
them. Charlie is not quite as mature and as big an organization as Beta. Beta can challenge us. They
can easily ‘smell’ if we indicate something which is sort of like… a shot from the hip [in contrast to
Charlie]”

One approach to satisfy the suppliers’ interest in learning about Alpha’s SD activities was to prepare
carefully selected pieces of information and share them openly with all suppliers. With primary
boundary spanners taking the lead, decisions concerning what to share required internal consensus
and agreements made prior to the buyer-supplier meetings. By sharing information, which suppliers
were either not accustomed to see or did not expect to be disclosed, Alpha boundary spanners could
take additional steps towards cultivating trust and commitment.

5.4.2 Reaching compromises

Multiple initiatives involving multiple suppliers meant that Alpha’s primary boundary spanners had
to maintain and ensure alignment between external SD efforts and in-house activities. To this end,
communicating with key internal stakeholders, who were not always directly involved in SD was
important to reach a shared understanding. This was a practical boundary spanning exercise requiring
an overview of all SD initiatives coupled with an overview of the relevant and interdependent internal
activities. The fact that several suppliers were involved in multiple initiatives and in different stages
(e.g. varying action plans and timelines) added to the complexity of this task. This mediation activity
was not one of convincing internal stakeholders as described in section 5.1.2, but one of collaborating
and coordinating to secure full alignment between internal and external activities. Accordingly, this
type of mediation was not rooted in internal resistance but rather prompted by a need for consistency
and avoidance of potential internal misunderstandings due to SD complexity.

5.4.3 Strategic communication

Alpha’s commitment to pursuing multiple SD initiatives with multiple suppliers had important
implications for the primary boundary spanners’ strategic communication. This particular mediation

81
exercise was of an internal character. At its core, it entailed communicating to top management how
SD progressed with respect to the different initiatives and suppliers. To this end, a portfolio overview
based on account strategies for each single supplier gave executive management insights into the finer
details of the SD strategy and progress. Transparency regarding the process and on-going
developments across initiatives with different suppliers provided executive management with solid
grounds for strategic decision-making. A high level of transparency also facilitated primary boundary
spanners’ efforts to mobilize executive hierarchical support. Against the backdrop of the portfolio
overview, a key strategic issue emerged in the form of supplier portfolio balancing decisions. As an
inherent part of this internal strategic communication, Alpha’s boundary spanners would engage with
executive management to address the question of how to balance multiple SD initiatives across the
supply network. Issues of dependence on suppliers and the wish to maintain a strong bargaining
position were key factors in this regard. The Senior Boundary Spanner frequently reflected on this:

”Nothing is risk free. For example, this thing about how big we want to allow these potential mega
projects to become and how dependent we want to be on them (the suppliers), this is something that
we have to keep in mind... If we ever get to the point where we have a product that is dependent on a
supplier, then there is no turning back”

6. DISCUSSION

By adopting a boundary spanning lens to move beyond the four dominant SD research trends, this
study has contributed with a heightened understanding of the SD phenomenon. SD research,
characterized by the four trends, has until now created only limited understanding of the complicated
boundary spanning challenges inherent in large SD efforts and the boundary mediation activities,
which they require. Investigating the (i) actions and interactions of individual managers in a unique
case involving (ii) multiple suppliers, (iii) multiple initiatives targeted at (iv) multiple performance
improvement areas, our study contributes to existing research by illuminating a range of mediating
activities that boundary spanners must perform. Specifically, we contribute by demonstrating how
three well-established boundary mediation behaviors differ in four general conditions. Extant
research on boundary spanning identified three overall types of mediation activity in more overall
and general terms (information mediation, reaching compromises and strategic communication), but
provided little details on how they may play out differently under distinct conditions and
circumstances. This study contributes by showing how these core types of mediation activity consist

82
of different subsets of activities that become salient in different SD contexts, and in different places
of the interfaces between the buying company and its network of suppliers. Through these findings,
we advance the literature on boundary spanning in buyer-supplier relationships, chains and networks
(Chakkol et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2015), by exploring and mapping a range of
novel details of the managerial mediation task. Moreover, the literature on boundary spanning has
focused mostly on the boundary spanner’s external interactions, but not on the interplay between
internal and external interactions. The present study contributes by shedding light on these internal-
external dynamics.

Relative to the four SD research trends specifically, we contribute in the following ways. First, as
established in this paper, the majority of SD studies have conceptualized mediation behavior on an
organizational level. From this analytical perspective, tensions only arise between two homogenous
organizations, who as coherent wholes differ only in uniform information sharing demands and
exchange interests. Consequently, with the exceptions of a few contributions (e.g. Giannakis, 2008;
Rogers et al., 2007), SD research has not investigated individual level role tensions. By exploring the
interactions between boundary spanning managers and challenging three other dominant research
trends simultaneously, we contribute by documenting a series of novel, yet, critical boundary
spanning challenges in SD. This findings suggest that success in advanced SD efforts is predicated
on primary boundary spanners’ proficiency in mediating internally and externally.

Furthermore, the present research contributes to the small, although growing movement in the SD
literature, which adopts triadic and network perspectives (Aune et al., 2013; Friedl and Wagner, 2016;
Talluri et al., 2010; Qi et al., 2015; Jin et al., 2019). As many studies in this emerging literature stream
have relied on a non-empirical modelling methodology, the present research complements them by
providing novel insights based on an empirical foundation. The findings detail how boundary
mediation efforts in SD activities with respect to a critical supplier are connected to simultaneous SD
activities and developments with other critical suppliers. The key boundary spanners must manage
the four conditions (see figure 1), spanning multiple initiatives and multiple network suppliers (see
figure 3 for a visualized representation of the conditions).

83
Figure 3. SD mediation conditions in a supply network context (i = initiative)

Mediation condition 3
Single initiative with
multiple suppliers

Mediation condition 1
Single initiative with the i1 i1 i1
same supplier
Supplier 1 Supplier 2 Supplier 3
Mediation condition 2
Multiple initiatives with the i2-n i2-n i2-n
same supplier

Mediation condition 4
Multiple initiatives with
multiple suppliers

We contribute to the SD literature, by documenting the mediation activities required for the
simultaneous management of multiple SD initiatives involving multiple suppliers. For example,
information mediation becomes a task of protecting and carefully deciding what to share in the
“multiple supplier” quadrants, unlike the single supplier conditions, where information mediation
subtasks take on different characteristics (see figure 1). Our findings thereby document novel supply
network dynamics not captured in extant research.

As identified in trend 3 and 4, existing research has often focused on SD as a uniform group of
activities aimed at a single performance improvement area (e.g. Carr and Kaynak, 2007; Modi and
Mabert, 2007; Nagati and Rebolledo; 2013; Sanchez-Rodriguez et al., 2005). In contrast, the present
case study covered five SD initiatives targeting different improvement areas. Through this scope, a
contribution is made by highlighting the emergence of an interplay between separate SD initiatives.
In this regard, the findings show that the supplier’s prioritization of the initiatives may develop into
a pressing issue and that a certain type of strategic communication is required. We also show how
managers leading one initiative may strive to impose their influence on other initiatives, despite
limited involvement in them. This reflects a relationally distressing force, which the buyer’s primary
boundary spanners must deal with. As such, the potential outcome of a single SD initiative may not

84
only be contingent on how it is managed individually. Rather, in complex SD involving multiple
initiatives, success may hinge on mediation efforts ensuring that interpersonal friction in one initiative
does not spill over and hinder progress in other parallel initiatives. Altogether, the findings in this
paper advance current research on SD by providing insights into individual level activities essential
for managing multiple SD initiatives with multiple suppliers. These insights expand the dominant
understanding of the phenomenon and inspire new avenues for future research.

7. CONCLUSION

7.1 Managerial implications

The findings have a number of important implications for managers in organizations pursuing SD.
First, as the most basic advice, boundary spanning managers should be aware that SD is to a large
extent a task of resolving tensions unfolding horizontally between individual managers, and vertically
relative to top management, within and across multiple buyer-supplier relationships. Furthermore, the
number and variety of those tensions grow with higher levels of complexity. In our extreme case, we
have shown the complex set of tasks required when a buying company carries out multiple initiatives,
with multiple suppliers simultaneously. Boundary spanners should be aware of the varied nature of
the tensions and the different managerial requirements associated with the different mediation
activities. Importantly, our study suggests that it is vital for managers to expand their view beyond
considering every initiative in isolation from others, considering the full portfolio of SD initiatives,
within the full category portfolio of suppliers. Similarly, boundary spanners must consider the
network of suppliers involved in SD. The web of interdependencies and interactions between
individual managers involved in SD give rise to the role tensions, and actions to address one role
tension affects other interactions and tensions in the network of involved individuals. Successful
bridge building, balancing and aligning differences require overview, relational skills, and strategic
understanding.

7.2 Limitations and future research

All research conducted on the basis of a single case is subject to a number of limitations, e.g. limited
generalizability. This study is no exception to such limitations. In addition to the generic limitations,
our focus has been limited exclusively to the OEM managers’ perspectives. Although observations
of meetings provided insights into the participating supplier representatives’ interests and actions, as

85
well as tensions between them and other involved managers, the study did not explore the interactions
inside the supplier organizations. We suggest that a similar focus in the supplier organization
constitutes a potential fruitful avenue of future research, that way enabling an even broader view of
the complex web of tensions arising in SD. Indeed, such a supplier perspective may contribute further
to the understanding of boundary spanning factors that potentially constrain or facilitate SD.

Finally, although we focus on the development efforts targeted towards one key supplier, the study is
one of a single buyer and multiple network suppliers. By virtue of the focus one buying company
(Alpha), we do not consider the influence of other competing buying organizations. Yet, we
acknowledge that other competing OEMs are also pursuing SD with some of the same suppliers
simultaneously. Consequently, we encourage future SD and SCM research to explore the cases of i)
multiple buyers and a single supplier, or ii) multiple buyers and multiple suppliers. Empirical studies
of such cases are rare in the literature, particularly in SD research. Moreover, adopting the supplier’s
perspective in these cases could provide meaningful insights into the complexity that unfolds as
supplier representatives have to balance the interests of multiple buyers. Uncovering these additional
layers of network complexity could contribute further to an improved understanding of SD.

86
References

Adams, J. S. (1976). "The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational boundary roles", in
M.E. Dunnette (editor), Handbook of industrial/organizational psychology, Rand McNally,
Chicago.
Albers, S., Wohlgezogen, F. and Zajac, E. J. (2016). "Strategic alliance structures: An organization
design perspective", Journal of Management, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 582-614.
Aldrich, H. and Herker, D. (1977). "Boundary spanning roles and organization structure", Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 217-230.
Alvesson, M. and Sandberg, J. (2011). "Generating research questions through problematization",
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 247-271.
Ancona, D. G. and Caldwell, D. F. (1992). "Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance
in organizational teams", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 634-665.
Arroyo‐López, P., Holmen, E. and de Boer, L. (2012). "How do supplier development programs affect
suppliers? Insights for suppliers, buyers and governments from an empirical study in Mexico",
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 680-707.
Aune, T. B., Holmen, E., and Pedersen, A.-C. (2013). "Beyond dyadic supplier development efforts:
The multiple roles of the network in bringing about supplier development", IMP Journal, Vol.
7 No.1, pp. 91-105.
Barratt, M., Choi, T. Y. and Li, M. (2011). "Qualitative case studies in operations management:
Trends, research outcomes, and future research implications", Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 329-342.
Birkinshaw, J, Ambos, T. C. and Bouquet, C. (2017). "Boundary spanning activities of corporate HQ
executives: insights from a longitudinal study", Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 54 No.
4, pp. 422-454.
Blonska, A., Storey, C., Rozemeijer, F., Wetzels, M. and de Ruyter, K. (2013). "Decomposing the
effect of supplier development on relationship benefits: The role of relational capital",
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 8, pp. 1295-1306.
Carr A.S. and Kaynak, H. (2007). "Communication methods, information sharing, supplier
development and performance: An empirical study of their relationships", International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 346-370.

87
Chakkol, M., Karatzas, A., Johnson, M. and Godsell, J. (2018). "Building bridges: boundary spanners
in servitized supply chains", International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 579-604.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis,
Sage Publications, UK.
De Toni, A. and Nassimbeni, G. (2000). "Just-in-time purchasing: an empirical study of operational
practices, supplier development and performance", Omega, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 631-651.
Dyer, J. H. and Nobeoka, K. (2000). "Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing
network: the Toyota case", Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 345-367.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Graebner, M. E. (2007). "Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32.
Friedl, G. and Wagner, S. M. (2016). "Supplier development investments in a triadic setting", IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 136-150.
Friedman, R. A. and Podolny, J. (1992). "Differentiation of boundary spanning roles: Labor
negotiations and implications for role conflict", Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37
No. 1, pp. 28-47.
Ghijsen, P. W. T., Semeijn, J. and Ernstson, S. (2010). "Supplier satisfaction and commitment: The
role of influence strategies and supplier development", Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 17-26.
Giannakis, M. (2008). "Facilitating learning and knowledge transfer through supplier development",
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 62-72.
Glavee-Geo, R. (2019). "Does supplier development lead to supplier satisfaction and relationship
continuation?", Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 1-14.
Gligor, D., Bozkurt, S., Russo, I. and Omar, A. (2019). "A look into the past and future: theories
within supply chain management, marketing and management", Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 24 No.1, pp. 170-186.
Hallenbeck Jr, G. S., Hautaluoma, J. E. and Bates, S. C. (1999). "The benefits of multiple boundary
spanning roles in purchasing", Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 38-
43.
Handfield, R. B., Krause, D. R., Scannell, T. V. and Monczka, R. M. (2000). "Avoid the pitfalls in
supplier development", Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41 No.2, pp. 37-49.

88
Handfield, R. B. and Nichols Jr, E. L. (2004). "Key issues in global supply base management",
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 29-35.
Harland, C. M. and Knight, L. A. (2001). "Supply network strategy: Role and competence
requirements", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No.
4, pp. 476-489.
Hartley, J. L. and Jones, G. E. (1997). "Process oriented supplier development: building the capability
for change", International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 33 No.2,
pp. 24-29.
Helper, S. and Kiehl, J. (2004). "Developing supplier capabilities: Market and non-market
approaches", Industry and Innovation, Vol. 11 No. 1-2, pp. 89-107.
Humphreys, P. K., Li, W. L. and Chan, L. Y. (2004). "The impact of supplier development on buyer–
supplier performance", Omega, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 131-143.
Ireland, R. D. and Webb, J. W. (2007). "A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic
supply chains", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No.2, pp. 482-497.
Jemison, D. B. (1984). "The importance of boundary spanning roles in strategic decision‐making",
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 131-152.
Johnson, N., Elliott, D., and Drake, P. (2013). "Exploring the role of social capital in facilitating
supply chain resilience", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No.
3, pp. 324-336.
Krause, D. R. (1997). "Supplier development: Current practices and outcomes", International Journal
of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 33 No.1, pp. 12-19.
Krause, D. R., Ragatz, G. L. and Hughley, S. (1999). "Supplier development from the minority
supplier's perspective", Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 33-41.
Krause, D. R. and Scannell, T. V. (2002). "Supplier development practices: Product- and service-
based industry comparisons. Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 13-21.
Krause, D. R., Handfield, R. B. and Tyler, B. B. (2007). "The relationships between supplier
development, commitment, social capital accumulation and performance improvement",
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 528-545.
Langfield‐Smith, K. and Greenwood, M. R. (1998). "Developing co‐operative buyer–supplier
relationships: a case study of Toyota", Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp.
331-353.

89
Lawson, B., Krause, D. and Potter, A. (2015). "Improving supplier new product development
performance: The role of supplier development", Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 777-792.
Leenders, M. R. (1966). "Supplier development", Journal of Purchasing, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 47-62.
MacDuffie, J. P. and Helper, S. (1997). "Creating lean suppliers: diffusing lean production through
the supply chain", California Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 118-151.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook, 3rd edition, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Modi, S. B. and Mabert, V. A. (2007). "Supplier development: Improving supplier performance
through knowledge transfer", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 42-64.
Nagati, H. and Rebolledo, C. (2013). "Supplier development efforts: The suppliers' point of view",
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 180-188.
Narasimhan, R., Mahapatra, S. and Arlbjørn, J. S. (2008). "Impact of relational norms, supplier
development and trust on supplier performance", Operations Management Research, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 24-30.
Praxmarer-Carus, S., Sucky, E. and Durst, S.M. (2013). "The relationship between the perceived
share of costs and earnings in supplier development programs and supplier satisfaction",
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42, pp. 202-210.
Prahinski, C. and Benton, W. C. (2004). "Supplier evaluations: communication strategies to improve
supplier performance", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 39-62.
Qi, A., Ahn, H.-S. and Sinha, A. (2015). "Investing in a shared supplier in a competitive market:
Stochastic capacity case", Production and Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 1537-
1551.
Reed, F. M. and Walsh, K. (2002). "Enhancing technological capability through supplier
development: a study of the UK aerospace industry", IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 231-242.
Rogers, K. W., Purdy, L., Safayeni, F. and Duimering, P. R. (2007). "A supplier development
program: rational process or institutional image construction?", Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 556-572.
Sako, M. (2004). "Supplier development at Honda, Nissan and Toyota: comparative case studies of
organizational capability enhancement", Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp.
281-308.

90
Sánchez‐Rodríguez, C., Hemsworth, D. and Martínez‐Lorente, Á. R. (2005). "The effect of supplier
development initiatives on purchasing performance: a structural model", Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 289-301.
Soundararajan, V., Khan, Z. and Tarba, S.Y. (2018). "Beyond brokering: Sourcing agents, boundary
work and working conditions in global supply chains", Human Relations, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp.
481-509.
Talluri, S., Narasimhan, R. and Chung, W. (2010). "Manufacturer cooperation in supplier
development under risk", European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 207 No. 1, pp.
165-173.
Thompson, J. D. (1962). "Organizations and output transactions", American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 309-324.
Tushman, M. L. and Scanlan, T. J. (1981). "Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information
transfer and their antecedents", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 289-305.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. and Frohlich, M. (2002). "Case research in operations management",
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, 195-219.
Wagner, S. M. (2006). "Supplier development practices: an exploratory study", European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 40 No. 5/6, pp. 554-571.
Wagner, S. M. and Krause, D. R. (2009). "Supplier development: communication approaches,
activities and goals", International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 47 No. 12, pp. 3161-
3177.
Wagner, S. M. (2010). "Indirect and direct supplier development: Performance implications of
individual and combined effects", IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 57
No. 4, pp. 536-546.
Wagner, S. M. (2011). "Supplier development and the relationship life-cycle", International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 129 No. 2, pp. 277-283.
Wu, Z. and Choi, T. Y. (2005). "Supplier-supplier relationships in the buyer-supplier triad: Building
theories from eight case studies", Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 27-
52.
Wu, Z., Steward, M. D. and Hartley, J. L. (2010). "Wearing many hats: Supply managers' behavioral
complexity and its impact on supplier relationships", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63
No. 8, pp. 817-823.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.

91
Zhang, C., Viswanathan, S. and Henke, J. W. (2011). "The boundary spanning capabilities of
purchasing agents in buyer–supplier trust development", Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 318-328.
Zhang, C., Wu, F. and Henke Jr., J. W. (2015). "Leveraging boundary spanning capabilities to
encourage supplier investment: A comparative study", Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 49, pp. 84-94.

92
4.2 – Study 2

How the organizational context affects boundary spanners’ attempts to

cultivate organizational trustworthiness

Conference contributions:
None

Status:
In preparation for submission to a high quality, peer-reviewed journal

93
How the organizational context affects boundary spanners’ attempts to cultivate
organizational trustworthiness.

Martin Jørgensen, Hanne Kragh, Chris Ellegaard 2

Abstract
Boundary spanners representing large organizations who are highly dependent on external exchange
partners often find themselves subject to an under-researched dilemma. Externally, they must
cultivate trust vis-à-vis these exchange partners by demonstrating integrity, competence and
benevolence on behalf of their organization. At the same time, however, dependencies on other
internal agents can reduce the external behavioral leeway required for doing so. Drawing on principles
from boundary spanning theory and using a qualitative case study of an OEM and its relationships
with a group of key suppliers, we explore (i) the nature of these internal dependencies, and (ii) how
boundary spanners can cope with them. The findings demonstrate how two types of internal
dependencies, i.e. executive and functional, affect boundary spanners’ capacity to cultivate
organizational trustworthiness. We show how boundary spanners through two coping behaviors, i.e.
proactive and reactive, can make these dependencies and their implications less pronounced.
Altogether, the findings extend current knowledge on the micro foundations of interorganizational
trust.

Keywords: Trust, boundary spanners, buyer-supplier relationships, supplier relationship

management, organizational embeddedness

2
See appendix 2 for co-author statement

94
1. INTRODUCTION

Trust is one of the most essential building blocks for managing relationships with exchange partners
(Ganeshan, 1994, MacDuffie, 2011; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Zaheer et al., 1998). Being perceived as
trustworthy by exchange partners helps reduce uncertainty in interorganizational relationships and
promotes trusting behaviors that can facilitate a competitive edge (Barney & Hansen, 1994; Becerra
et al., 2008; Dyer & Chu, 2003).

As trust is developed through interactions, individuals positioned at the periphery of their

organizations, i.e. boundary spanners, are central actors in cultivating it (Currall & Judge, 1995;
Schilke & Cook, 2013; Williams, 2002). As they represent their organization towards external
partners, boundary spanners must coordinate and integrate activities across external and internal
boundaries (Aldrich & Herker, 1977; Friedman & Podolny, 1992; Schotter et al., 2017). Developing
trust is an important element of this boundary work. If boundary spanners are successful in carrying
out activities such as communicating strategic intents and reaching compromises that both internal
and external stakeholders find acceptable, they can cultivate a trustworthy representation of their
organization (Zhang et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2015).

Nevertheless, boundary spanners are often subject to conditions that influence their external behaviors
and attempts to demonstrate trustworthiness. Boundary spanning unfolds across different cultural,
institutional and organizational contexts all of which can shape its nature (Schotter et al., 2017).
Externally, boundary spanners can experience natural constraints, for example, when suppliers
behave in ways that are inconsistent with the goals pursued by the buying organization. However,
simultaneously, the internal organizational context can also present limitations for boundary
spanners’ external behaviors and restrict their capacity to develop trust (Kroeger, 2012; Ring & Van
de Ven, 1994). For example, Perrone et al. (2003) show that boundary spanners who enjoy a high
degree of role autonomy are better able to demonstrate good intentions and achieve compromises that
lead to trust. Specifically, these authors found that purchasing managers, who were not constrained
by other functional managers, were better able to cultivate trust from external partners.

Despite these results and the fact that research has addressed how the responsibilities of executive
level and operational level actors differ (Janowicz-Panjaitan & Krishnan, 2009; Janowicz-Panjaitan
& Noorderhaven, 2009), the internal dependencies that boundary spanners are subject to and their
consequences for their ability to develop trustworthiness are still not well understood.

95
The purpose of this paper is to contribute with an increased understanding of how boundary spanners
from buying organization develop trustworthiness in the eyes of suppliers. We are particularly
interested in the organizational dependencies that affect boundary spanners’ trust-building efforts and
how they cope with them. Therefore, we seek to answer the following research question:

How do boundary spanners cope with internal dependencies as they attempt to cultivate a trustworthy
representation of their organization vis-à-vis suppliers?

Our inquiry builds on three premises. First, we see strategic interorganizational relationships as
involving frequent and interwoven interactions between multiple boundary spanners from different
levels and functions in the exchanging organizations (Albers et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2016). Second,
we draw on Zaheer et al. (1998) and submit that a few ‘primary’ boundary spanners assume a key
role for trust development as they oversee operational activities and facilitate executive interactions.
By virtue of this role, they carry a significant responsibility for cultivating the trustworthiness of their
organization as one collective entity. This responsibility grows particularly salient in the context of
meetings attended by larger groups of organizational representatives from both sides requiring
primary boundary spanners to orchestrate interactions. Third, similar to Perrone al. (2003) we
conceive trust-building activities as deeply embedded in the organizational context and infer that the
development of organizational trustworthiness is predicated on how well primary boundary spanners
cope with internal dependencies.

Our empirical setting is the case of an OEM and its relationships with a group of key suppliers. An
OEM is ideal for our study given that (i) its reliance on suppliers to facilitate competitive advantages
motivate boundary spanners to engage in external trust-building activities (Zhang et al., 2011), and
(ii) because OEMs are characterized by complex internal structures and many internal actors with
distinct logics and interests (Jacobides et al., 2016; Takeishi, 2001). In order to qualify our answer to
the research question, we study trust as a multidimensional concept by adopting Mayer et al.’s (1995)
distinction between its three dimensions, i.e. ability, benevolence and integrity. The findings
underscore how executive and functional dependencies have different effects on boundary spanners’
ability to demonstrate the three dimensions of organizational trustworthiness. We identify two types
of coping behaviors, i.e. proactive and reactive, that serve to make dependencies and their undesirable
implications on trust development less pronounced. The internal dependencies and the coping
behaviors are integrated into a model displaying their interrelations. Altogether, the findings deepen
the understanding of how boundary spanners can shape interorganizational trust.

96
2. CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Trust and trustworthiness

There is broad consensus among researchers about trust being one of the most essential building
blocks for managing relationships with exchange partners (Ganeshan, 1994, MacDuffie, 2011;
Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Zaheer et al., 1998). The concept of trust consists of several components
(Schilke & Cook, 2015), three of the most salient of which are: (i) beliefs about trustworthiness, i.e.
the perceived characteristics of the trustee, (ii) intentions to trust, i.e. the willingness to accept a
position of vulnerability, and (iii) trusting behaviors, i.e. actual actions (Dietz & Hartog, 2006;
McEvily & Tortoriello, 2011). In this study, we focus exclusively on the trustworthiness of the
organization which has proven to be a source of sustained competitive advantage (Barney & Hansen,
1994; Becerra et al., 2008; Dyer & Chu, 2003).

Consistent with previous research (Bell, 2002; Schilke & Cook, 2015; Schoorman et al., 2007), we
consider Mayer et al.’s (1995) conceptualization of trustworthiness as appropriate for an organization
perspective. According to Mayer et al. (1995), trustworthiness is a multidimensional concept
encompassing three distinct but also related dimensions, i.e. ability, benevolence and integrity. Ability
denotes the perception that an actor has the competencies and skill set required for carrying out a
given task successfully. This perception is domain-specific in that it depends on the area in which the
task is performed (Mayer et al., 1995). For example, the trustee may be perceived as competent within
a technical area but less so with regards to relationship management tasks such as initiating contact
(Bell et al., 2002). Benevolence refers to the perception that the trustee cares for and has a positive
orientation toward the trustor (Mayer et al., 1995). Examples of benevolent acts include showing
concern for the other party’s general welfare, holding that party’s needs and desires in high regard,
and not wanting to knowingly do wrong by that party (Mayer & Davis, 1999). Integrity concerns the
perception that the trustee acts in accordance with appropriate principles (Mayer et al., 1995). This
includes following through on promises, behaving consistently and acting fair in dealings with the
trustor (Mayer & Davis, 1999; Schilke & Cook, 2015). As the three dimensions are distinct and
furthermore have asymmetric effects (Becerra, 2008; Connelly et al., 2018), we submit that it is
important to consider and study them separately.

It can be noted that while many scholars generally refer to ‘trust’, what they are in fact often studying
is the perceived trustworthiness of the counterpart (e.g. that of the buying organization as perceived
by the sales representative) (McEvily et al., 2017). In light of this, we have made our focus on

97
trustworthiness explicit to avoid ambiguity (Schilke & Cook, 2015). Furthermore, in resemblance
with Zhang et al. (2011) and Zhang et al., (2015), we take the perspective that individual boundary
spanners that carry a primary responsibility for linking their organization with exchange partners are
important for cultivating perceptions of their organization’s overall trustworthiness.

2.2 Boundary spanners and trust development

The metafunction of boundary spanners is to facilitate that their organization is appropriately linked
to its environment. Schotter et al.’s (2017) definition encapsulates the key properties of boundary
spanning well. They define it “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.” (p. 404). These activities can be broadly grouped
into two often simultaneous and interlinked activities, i.e. informational and representational.
According to boundary spanning literature, information-related activities include gathering and
disseminating information (Tushman & Scanlan, 1981) and protecting information (Adams, 1980;
Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). In the context of trust development, for example, boundary spanners can
gather and interpret clues about the trustworthiness of the external organization in the early
interorganizational relationship initiation phase (Schilke & Cook, 2013). Representational activities
include negotiating and compromising between internal and external interests (Aldrich & Herker,
1977; Podolny & Friedmann, 1990). These activities are critical for developing trust as they allow for
demonstrating fairness and positive orientations toward the exchange partner (Perrone et al., 2003;
Zhang et al., 2011).

The importance of boundary spanners for the development of trust in interorganizational relationships
is well-documented (Currall & Judge, 1995; McEvily et al, 2003; Ring & van de Ven 1994; Williams,
2002), and often considered in connection with the relationship between interpersonal trust and
interorganizational trust (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Kroeger, 2012; Vanneste, 2016; Zaheer et al.,
1998). A dominant line of inquiry in this body of research has been whether the former is an
antecedent of the latter. Much research supports this idea albeit through different theoretical
mechanisms among which institutionalization appears most prominent (Kroeger, 2011; Schilke &
Cook, 2013; Zaheer et al., 1998). In this processual view of trust development, boundary spanners’
interactions with each other over time can lead to trust in individuals becoming transferred to trust in
entire organizations eventually leading to trust between organizations (Schilke & Cook, 2013). In

98
further reflection of how historical ties between boundary spanners matter, Gulati’s & Sytch’s (2008)
findings suggest that when such relationships surpass a threshold of two years they can contribute to
the development of interorganizational trust. A complementary view on the importance of boundary
spanners to interorganizational trust that is not rooted in interpersonal trust emphasizes how boundary
spanners can cultivate the trustworthiness of their organization directly through representative acts
such as transparent strategic communication (Ireland & Webb, 2007; Zhang et al., 2011; Zhang et al.,
2015).

Much trust research relies on boundary spanners as primary informants. However, abstracting
responses from single boundary spanners to organizational level beliefs may neither give an accurate
representation nor take into account critical differences between individuals from different
hierarchical levels (Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012; Janowicz-Panjaitan & Krishnan, 2009; Seppänen et al.,
2007). In order to account for nuances between individuals, some researchers suggest a distinction
between higher and lower level boundary spanners (Huang et al., 2016). For example, Janowicz-
Panjaitan & Krishnan (2009) and Janowicz-Panjaitan & Noorderhaven (2009) distinguish between
corporate and operating boundary spanners. The former assume the responsibility of deciding on the
collaboration strategy, the latter carry out the implementation. Existing research often confines
interpersonal trust to single dyads, hence ignoring the broader context and the complex interactions
characterizing strategic interorganizational relationships (Albers et al., 2016). Indeed, much research
is subject to the limitation that individual level trust phenomena are often considered in isolation of
the organizational context. As Lumineau & Schilke (2018, p.238), for example, contend with respect
to interpersonal trust, it is often conceptualized “in a vacuum, (…) stripping it from the broader social
and organizational context.” Nevertheless, although sometimes neglected, boundary spanners are
deeply embedded in the organizational context, which can have decisive ramifications for trust
development (Perrone et al., 2003).

2.3 Implications of the organizational context for boundary spanners’ trust development

As reflected in Schotter et al.’s (2017) definition of boundary spanning presented earlier, boundary
spanning activities unfold across cultural, institutional and organizational contexts, the latter being
the focus in this study. The organizational context comprises a range of elements that can shape
boundary spanners’ behaviors and capacity to develop trust (McEvily et al., 2003). Among some
prominent contextual factors are organizational culture (Perrone et al., 2003; Schilke & Cook, 2015),

99
policies (Korsgaard et al., 2002) and incentive systems (MacDuffie & Helper, 2007; Ferrin & Dirk,
2003). In this study, we investigate the contextual factor related to the boundary spanner’s
dependencies on other actors in her/his internal organization.

The notion that the boundary spanner relies on other functional actors in order to enact his/her role
effectively is a principle that can be traced back to Role Theory. In fact, Kahn et al. (1964) introduced
the concept of functional dependence as a means to capture “the fact that one person’s task can be
accomplished adequately only if certain others perform their jobs in a satisfactory manner” (p.189).
In a similar vein, MacDuffie (2011) identified conflicts between internal functions as one of several
critical themes for developing and maintaining interorganizational trust. These conflicts between
functions, e.g. between purchasing and engineering, are by no account new (see also MacDuffie &
Helper, 2007; Zhang et al., 2011). However, as buying organizations have grown increasingly reliant
on suppliers to take part in product development and design activities, MacDuffie (2011) stresses
how conflict-ridden relationships between functions acting against each other’s interests can hinder
trust development. Building on the notion of functional interdependence, Perrone et al. (2003)
conceptualized the closely related, yet distinct concept of ‘functional influence’ as the ability of other
functional actors to constrain the boundary spanner’s actions relative to suppliers. Their results
suggest that a high degree of functional influence makes the boundary spanner unable to manage
unforeseen contingencies flexibly and to signal good intentions to suppliers. Thus, lack of role
autonomy challenges efforts to cultivate trust because the boundary spanner is not ‘free to be trusted’
(Perrone et al., 2003). As an indicator of the variety of functional actors that may place constraints
on the boundary spanner, the authors conceived them to include not only engineering but also
manufacturing, research and development, quality and finance/accounting. In this respect, research
suggests that internal actors’ propensity to constrain the boundary spanner depend on their own
relational orientations towards her/him, such that internal distrust implies that less role autonomy will
be afforded to her/him (Adams, 1976). These internal-external trust dynamics render boundary
spanners subject to complex problems for which there are no ‘off-the-shelf solutions’ (Kroeger, 2012)

Dependencies on executives are less researched than those of the functional character. Nevertheless,
existing research has suggested that higher-level boundary spanners assume the decision-making
responsibility for introducing interorganizational relationship policies and instruments, e.g. legalistic
measures for trust repair, while lower-level boundary spanners are confined to simply implement and
act on these decisions (Janowicz-Panjaitan & Krishnan, 2009; Janowicz-Panjaitan & Noorderhaven,
2009). Dyer & Chu (2011) suggested that organizations are less likely to be trusted if their internal

100
processes are unpredictable as manifested in, for example, frequent rotations of employees or
introductions of new programs. Although the authors highlighted them for how they make it difficult
to develop organizational trust, such changes at the same time indicate that executive decisions can
create internal turbulence that boundary spanners must navigate. Similarly, in finding that boundary
spanners through transparent communication of their organization’s strategic intent can develop trust,
Zhang et al. (2011) simply note that this activity is predicated on first being granted the authority to
so. This clearly reflects how dependence on executive decision-making is a critical and ever-present
condition for boundary spanning.

3. METHOD

3.1 Case selection logic

The case selection rationale for the present study was two-fold. First, we opted to select a single OEM
by virtue of it being a representative case enabling us to study conditions assumed typical in similar
organizations (Yin, 2003). OEMs, particularly automakers, are frequent case organizations in studies
on trust (Dyer & Chu, 2000; Zhang et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2015). OEMs share two essential
characteristics that make them well-suited for our exploratory inquiry. First, OEMs comprise many
different internal groupings with unique interests that render internal coordination and strategic
decision-making processes conflict-ridden (Jacobides et al., 2016; Takeishi, 2001). Owing to their
size and the functional division of labor, cross-functional interdependence in OEMs is high and so is
the need for internal coordination (Kahn et al., 1964). Second, developing trusting ties with suppliers
have become all the more vital for OEMs as they have grown increasingly reliant on them to facilitate
their competitive edge (Dyer & Hatch, 2006; Zhang et al., 2011). In conclusion, we suggest that
boundary spanners in these organizations are subject to a similar dilemma in that the desire for
competitive advantage give impetus for them to cultivate trust vis-à-vis suppliers, yet, simultaneously
they are prone to see their external behavioral leeway constrained by other internal agents. The second
rationale for conducting a single-case study was the need for a longitudinal perspective (Yin, 2003).
As past research has evidenced variation in how internal constraints on boundary spanners can be
manifested (Janowicz-Panjaitan & Krishnan, 2009; Perrone et al., 2003), their full complexity and
the coping behaviors for dealing with them are unlikely to reveal themselves at any single point in
time. Rather, we submit that they are best captured over time.

101
3.2 Case description & research setting

The study was conducted in an OEM in the heavy equipment industry headquartered in Northern
Europe. The OEM, henceforth referred to as Alpha, has due to a recent strategic push, increasingly
focused on developing closer relationships with its key suppliers. The relationships with a group of
these suppliers constitute the empirical setting in which we conducted our study.

3.3 Data collection

In order to understand (i) the exact character of the intra-organizational context and its ramifications
on boundary spanners’ external trust development, and (ii) the coping behaviors for dealing with
them, a data collection process comprising observations and interviews was considered suitable. As
the enactment of boundary roles in situ is a phenomenon best studied in its natural context (Kane &
Levina, 2017), observations of interorganizational meetings were essential. The capacity of
observational studies to give insights into actual as opposed to self-reported behaviors is echoed
among pioneering proponents of the boundary spanning perspective (Aldrich & Herker, 1977). This
data were untainted by potential biases associated with self-reporting such as recollection and social
desirability bias (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). By leveraging interviews as an instrument to delve
deeper into the details surrounding observed critical interaction sequences, the two data collection
approaches had a synergistic relationship. In this regard, manifestations of intra-organizational
constraints surfacing in meetings and coping behaviors were frequent anchor points for questions in
subsequent interviews to uncover their nature in order to further theory-building (Doz et al., 2011).
Figure 1 illustrates the complementary relationship between observations and interviews as data
sources and how it was initially informed by document data. Starting primo 2018, the data collection
process spanned 15 months and ceased when theoretical saturation was achieved (Charmaz, 2006;
Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

102
Figure 1. Data collection logic

Initial step Continuous loop

Familiarizing with the observational arena Observations guiding questions in subequent interviews

Data Documents / archival data Observations Interviews

Setting Internal Organizational interface Internal

Type Documents Meetings with suppliers Managers from the OEM

Understanding (i) the history of the Capturing how internal Elaboration on determinants of the
Purpose relationships, (ii) the strategic dependencies affect external internal dependencies, their nature
agenda, and (iii) the training interactions and how boundary and the use of different of coping
boundary spanners have received spanners attempt to cope with them behaviors

In-depth explanations enhancing the understanding of

observed interactions and issues for the next meetings

Observations
Overt non-participant observations of buyer-supplier meetings made it possible for us to capture how
internal dependencies affected Alpha’s boundary spanners’ external organizational trust development
activities and how they sought to cope with the dependencies in practice. Apart from these
observations carried out at the organizational interface, we started the data collection process with
observing an internal workshop on supplier relationship management. This informed us about how
Alpha managers interacted with each other to discuss strategic priorities and supplier engagement
models. The knowledge gleaned from this workshop was useful in terms of understanding the broader
context and lingua used internally in Alpha. Altogether, we conducted 16 observations. The majority
of observations (n = 13) were documented through extensive field notes while the rest (n = 3) were
audio-recorded.

Interviews
We used interviews to explore the mechanisms underlying the internal dependencies and the coping
behaviors unfolding in the buyer-supplier meetings. In reflection of this focus, OEM managers were
purposely targeted as key informants. While the coping behaviors we label ‘reactive’, took place in
meetings as immediate responses, the second group of coping behaviors, i.e. ‘proactive’, unfolded
partly internally prior to meetings as illustrated later in relation to ‘selective executive involvement’.
The capacity of interviews to illuminate these unobserved activities were therefore also instrumental

103
to our study. All interviews were conducted based on unique semi-structured interview guides in
order to allow for flexibly exploring emergent themes and interrelations between them (Kvale &
Brinkmann, 2009). As the research progressed and our understanding of the phenomena developed,
we used a theoretical sampling logic (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) leading us to interview multiple
managers with varying boundary work responsibilities. Due to their central roles in managing supplier
relationships, multiple interviews were conducted with a group of key managers referred to as the
‘primary’ boundary spanners. Finally, in order to check supplier reactions beyond how they were
expressed in meetings, we conducted interviews with two supplier representatives and conducted a
site visit to a supplier’s production facility. In total, we conducted 30 interviews. The interviews were
carried out either in person (n = 13) or virtually (n = 17). All but four were audio-recorded and
transcribed verbatim.

Documents
We collected different types of documents in Alpha that were intended for internal use only. This
body of document data can be meaningfully differentiated according to three purposes. First, raw data
extracted from Alpha’s annual supplier surveys allowed us to become familiarized with the history
of the specific supplier relationships prior to commencing observational work and doing interviews.
This data corpus contained responses from key supplier representatives evaluating Alpha on various
operational and strategic performance measures coupled with elaborating comments on the most
salient issues from their viewpoints. Second, sourcing strategies provided insights into internal
priorities and how they were pursued externally. Finally, internal training and exercise templates gave
a picture of the formal guidance boundary spanners had received on how to manage supplier
relationships. In addition to the internal documents, other data sources such as PowerPoint
presentations and minutes of meetings were also used for triangulation (Miles et al., 2014; Yin, 2003).
Table 1 provides an overview of all the data while figure 2 illustrates the data collection process.

104
 Figure 2. Data collection sequences
31. Strategy Meeting Supplier 1
32. Strategy Meeting Supplier 3
33. Strategy Meeting Supplier 5
34. Strategy Meeting Supplier 6
Observations 20. Strategy Meeting Supplier 1
Strategy Meeting Performance Review
Supplier 1 Supplier 1 21. Strategy Meeting Supplier 3
22. Strategy Meeting Supplier 4 38. Engineering Meeting Supplier 3
Internal Business Review Strategy Meeting Negotiation 39. Strategy Meeting Supplier 3
Workshop Supplier 1 Supplier 2 Supplier 2 40. Strategy Meeting Supplier 1

Data # 1 2 3 4 5-7 8 9 10 11-12 13 14-19 20-22 23 24 25-30 31-34 35-37 38-40 41-46

SRM Technical Lead Primary BS2 35. Primary BS1

Specialist 11. Primary BS 3 36. SRM Specialist
Primary BS1 12. Purchasing Manager 37. Purchasing Manager
5. Primary BS2 14. Supplier representative 1 25. Primary BS1 41. Two Logistics Managers
Interviews 6. Primary BS2 15. Supplier representative 2 26. Purchasing Manager 42. Primary BS2
7. Primary BS1 16. SRM Specialist 27. Purchasing Manager 43. Business Analyst
17. Primary BS2 28. SRM Specialist 44. Primary BS1
18. Primary BS3 29. Primary BS4 45. Purchasing Manager
19. Primary BS2 30. Operations Manager 46. Primary BS1
Table 1. Data overview

Interviews Primary BS1 (N = 6) Purchasing Manager C (N = 2) Business analyst (N = 1)

Primary BS2 (N = 6) Technical Lead (N = 1) SRM specialist (N = 4)
(N = interviews) Purchasing Manager A (N = 1) Two Logistics Managers (N = 1) Purchasing Manager D (N = 1)
Purchasing Manager B (N = 1) Operations Manager (N = 1) Supplier representative 1 (N = 1)
Primary BS3 (N = 2) Primary BS4 (N = 1) Supplier representative 2 (N = 1)
Observations Internal workshop (N = 1) Supplier 3 (N = 4) Supplier 6 (N =1)
Supplier 1 (N = 6) Supplier 4 (N = 1)
(N = meetings) Supplier 2 (N = 2) Supplier 5 (N = 1)
Total 30 interviews (22h 54min) 16 Observations (85h)

105
3.4 Analysis

The analysis was inspired by prevailing principles for conducting grounded theory research
(Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Our approach was initially inductive and later it grew more
abductive. Adhering to the suggestions offered by Gioia et al. (2013) for ensuring rigor in qualitative
coding, a systematic analysis transpired over three key analytical phases of increasing levels of
abstraction. In the following, we elaborate on the nature of these phases.

Phase 1. With an inductive thrust, the first coding stage involved clustering data into first-order
concepts based on data excerpts from the empirical body consisting of transcripts, field notes and
documents. In this early stage, we sought to capture all distinct facets of organizational dependencies
and coping behaviors. To this end, we organized and grouped together interview passages and
interaction-sequences from meeting observations based on the merit of their shared defining
properties. In this process, we often used ‘in vivo’ codes in order to stay grounded in the data (Miles
et al., 2014).

Phase 2. In the subsequent coding stage, second-order themes were developed by merging first-order
concepts. This involved constant comparisons between emergent themes to ensure robustness and to
identify and systematically investigate dynamic interrelations and linkages among them. As we
moved closer to saturation, we formulated and visualized the relationships between these higher-order
themes of organizational constraints and coping behaviors to facilitate grounded theory articulation
(Gioia et al., 2013). Throughout this phase in the analysis, we made repeated iterations between data
collection and relevant literature. Thus, in this phase we transitioned from the inductive coding mode
characterizing the first phase to a more abductively-driven phase. Drawing on extant research, we
were able to refine and nuance the understanding of themes. For example, we grew aware of how the
second-order theme of ‘difficulty in honoring agreements owing to functional dependence’ bore close
resemblance to Perrone et al.’s (2003) conception of ‘functional influence’ capturing the degree to
which other functions can constrain the boundary spanner’s decisions vis-à-vis external
organizations.

Phase 3. In the final coding phase, we distilled second-order themes into four aggregate dimensions
denoting the highest level of theoretical abstraction: Executive dependencies, functional
dependencies, proactive coping behaviors, and reactive coping behaviors. The data structure shown
in figure 3 provides a graphical representation of all first-order concepts, second-order themes and
aggregate dimensions.

106
The first author who collected the data was deeply immersed in the field enabling a unique insider
perspective. The second and third authors offered counterbalancing outsider perspectives eliminating
the potential risks of e.g. gullible interpretations induced by going too ‘native’ (Gioia et al., 2013).
As further measures to ensure the trustworthiness of our research, we used both periodic inter-coder
agreement checks and checks with informants (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

107
Figure 3. Data structure

1st Order Concepts 2nd Order Themes Aggregate Dimensions

• A. Depending on executive approval

for finalizing agreements
1. Reliance on executive level decision-
• B. Limited capacity to be responsive making
due to lag in strategic decision-making
Executive
dependence

• C. Lack of knowledge about the 2. Uncertainty about supplier

content of executive communication to expectations induced by executive
suppliers communication

• D. Breakdown in internal functional

communication channels
3. Difficulty in honoring agreements
• E. Lack of timely prioritizing and
follow through from internal functions

Functional
• F. Internal employees adopting a dependence
confrontational communication style
towards suppliers
4. Emergence of interpersonal friction
• G. Internal reactions to supplier
representatives adopting a
confrontational communication style

• H. Prepping executives on strategic

priorities, key developments and areas
for which support is desired
5. Selective executive involvement
• I. Inviting and involving executives in
meetings
Proactive coping
• J. Developing shared strategic
objectives, deliverables and timelines
6. Synchronizing boundary objects
• K. Developing joint frameworks, tools
and concepts to guide the inter-
organizational collaboration

• L. Being cognizant of the different

profiles attending the meetings, and the
relationships between them

• M. Direct intervention 7. Relational buffering

• N. Communicating covertly with team

members for consensus on how to
handle emerging conflicts
Reactive coping
• O. Acknowledging and providing
explanations for the causes of
operational issues
8. Open problem-solving
• P. Finding solutions and delegating
tasks to internal team members in
plenum

108
4. FINDINGS

4.1 Internal dependencies

The analysis revealed that boundary spanners were subject to internal executive and functional
dependencies that had different implications for their efforts to develop organizational
trustworthiness. For each of the two levels, respectively, our data suggest the existence of two distinct
types of dependence. First, at the executive level, primary boundary spanners must cope with (i)
reliance on executive decision-making, and (ii) uncertainty about supplier expectations induced by
executive communication. Second, at the functional level, they must cope with the (i) difficulty in
honoring agreements owing to functional dependence, and (ii) the emergence of interpersonal friction
created by other functional actors.

4.1.1 Executive dependence

Reliance on executive decision-making. Although in charge of orchestrating key activities with

suppliers, primary boundary spanners did not always assume full responsibility and exclusive
decision-making authority over them. In some cases, the character of the activities meant that formal
approval by executive management was required in order to proceed and finalize agreements.
Referring to such a situation, one of the primary boundary spanners recalled ‘so we were just waiting
on them [executive management] to sign that letter. Then suddenly the supplier said “we are not
starting production of the first project or anything else (…) unless we receive the awarding letter.”’
(Primary BS 2, IV3). Another form of executive dependence was manifested in lags in strategic
decision-making. Due to the potential ramifications for Alpha’s in-house capabilities, some strategic
initiatives with suppliers required more than just approval. These cases required lengthier internal
decision-making processes predicated on consensus among multiple executive-level stakeholders. In
having to wait on the outcomes of this larger decision-making apparatus, primary boundary spanners
would see their role autonomy vis-à-vis suppliers reduced. One such example involved a supplier that
was interested in committing additional resources to a certain initiative. However, the primary
boundary spanners were unable to accommodate that desire as a critical executive level decision on
the matter had not yet been made. This made it difficult to display a positive orientation towards the
supplier. Referring to this predicament, one of the primary boundary spanners argued ‘what we in
Alpha just have to decide on, is how much we are actually willing to give them [suppliers], and where,

109
and how we manage the process you could say more strategically.’ (Primary BS 1, IV4).
Consequently, the capacity of primary boundary spanners to make decisions that would demonstrate
benevolence could be limited either by a need for executive approval or lags in strategic decision-
making.

Uncertainty about supplier expectations induced by executive communication. Reflecting the

strategic character of the interorganizational relationships, intimate high-level interactions between
buyer and supplier executives were common practice. However, a troublesome situation could arise
in the immediate wake of such intimate meetings, when primary boundary spanners were unfamiliar
with their content. By having little insight into the topics covered, they could find themselves in a
position where they were unaware of suppliers’ expectations resulting from the executive line of
communication. This made it difficult to fulfill those very same expectations. These dilemmas were
primarily caused either by an imbalanced internal communication flow between boundary personnel
and executive management, or because suppliers in more seldom cases sporadically reached out
directly to Alpha’s executives. Exemplifying the former, a primary boundary spanner explained: ‘We
had an executive meeting and when it was over, I thought that was it. Then, they just continued in
private. You don’t get to prep your team on what they are discussing. Of course, they can have an
intimate meeting [without the Primary BS 1]. That is not it, but it would be nice to know what is on
the agenda.’ (Primary BS 1, IV5). In case of the latter, supplier representatives from one organization
would, motivated by urgent issues, bypass the primary boundary spanners and travel to the OEM’s
headquarters to engage with Alpha’s executive management directly. On these occurrences, a primary
boundary spanner remarked ‘Sometimes they came directly to the headquarter bypassing me,
bypassing primary boundary spanner 1 and just to go meet [executive] management without
arranging it with us’ (Primary BS2, IV2). Whenever this was the case, primary boundary spanners
were often entirely unaware that any meetings had taken place only learning about them later. By not
being fully attuned to the supplier expectations induced by executive communication, primary
boundary spanners would struggle to fulfill and act in accordance with them. In turn, this would make
it difficult to cultivate perceptions of organizational integrity.

4.1.2 Functional dependence

Difficulty in honoring agreements owing to functional dependence. Primary boundary spanners were
instrumental in structuring and entering agreements with suppliers. Bringing these agreements to

110
fruition typically rested on a string of activities performed by several internal functional actors. Owing
either to lack of timely prioritizing or lack of follow through from these actors, however, it could
become difficult to deliver on promises in initial agreements. For example, a primary boundary
spanner argued “Sales asks us to reserve the full capacity. Okay, so we negotiate and push the
supplier (…) then supply chain planning maybe they move components, they deduct components, the
demand is not as forecasted. Then okay, now I need to go back to my guys [supply chain planning]
and negotiate with them. You asked me for that volume and I get it to you (…). Why are we not doing
what we have agreed?” (Primary BS 2, IV2). Breakdowns in internal functional communication
channels produced similar difficult situations. As an example, on numerous occasions Alpha’s
operational IT system failed to provide suppliers with the right information specified in agreements.
Although visible to actors in Alpha, a recurrent technical glitch implicated that this was not always
the case for suppliers. Expressing his frustration in a meeting, a supplier representative argued “one
thing we are missing again, again and again is the IT system. We don’t have any visibility. We are
checking it week after week, we do not have any information there.” (Meeting #2). Another example
involved the finance function and pending invoices causing frustration. In one meeting, a supplier
representative spoke of his organization’s proactive attempts to avoid specification issues related to
invoices. He stressed “we have been knocking the door [contacting Alpha]. Two weeks before, one
week before, two days before, one day before (…) saying this time let us [supplier] do our best in
order to avoid this issue … it’s very frustrating.” (Meeting #1). As Alpha financial managers removed
from the organizational boundary handled issues surrounding invoices, the task of defusing these
crises in meetings fell to the primary boundary spanners. Altogether, these functional challenges
could make it difficult to uphold past promises and agreements, potentially resulting in reduced
perceptions of both organizational integrity and competence.

Emergence of interpersonal friction. Interpersonal friction occasionally arose when either supplier
representatives or Alpha managers adopted a confrontational communication style. In one of the most
illustrative examples, an Alpha manager interrupted the supplier representatives’ presentation early
on in a meeting to express his uncertainty and confusion regarding the supplier’s decision-making
processes. Imposing his will on the agenda, he asked “So for issue X, what is your approach? How
do you assess the criteria and make decisions?” Initially, the supplier representative relieved the
tension in the room by producing laughter as he turned to the next slide and responded “that is the
subject of this slide”. However, only minutes later in this interaction sequence, the same Alpha
manager proceeded to contrast the abilities of that focal supplier with those of a competing supplier

111
thereby reinforcing a competitive atmosphere. As the primary boundary spanners had little to no
control over the behaviors of these other functional managers attending the meetings, their potential
to upset suppliers and create interpersonal friction was a constant risk. Likewise, it was difficult to
control their responses when supplier representatives adopted a confrontational style. In summation,
by accelerating conflicts, other internal functional managers could violate principles for ‘appropriate’
behavior as perceived by suppliers. This could exert an undesired effect on Alpha’s perceived
organizational integrity.

4.2 Coping behaviors

Two overall types of coping behavior for dealing with the internal dependencies and their
implications on trustworthiness were identified in the analysis. The first was proactive comprising (i)
selective executive involvement and (ii) synchronizing boundary objects. Both were aimed at making
executive level dependencies less pronounced. Synchronizing boundary objects served a dual purpose
by also being a coping behavior for avoiding the emergence of interpersonal friction at the functional
level. Second, reactive coping behaviors consisted of (i) relational buffering and (ii) open problem-
solving.

4.2.1 Proactive coping behaviors

Selective executive involvement. Selective involvement of executive management covered two

distinct groups of proactive activities for shaping interactions in two different settings. First, for
guiding discussions in intimate executive-level buyer-supplier meetings, primary boundary spanners
provided Alpha’s executives with short summaries on strategic priorities, key developments, and
critical areas for which their support was desirable. Exercises to engage executive management via
this line of proactive communication was predicated on careful thoughts about which specific topics
to highlight and involve them in. In the context of such an exercise, one of the primary boundary
spanners clarified “We made a brief to the Executive Manager saying you have to be aware of in our
mutual strategy when we are talking XY, then this is what they [suppliers] are looking for. Maybe
you can make inquiries about point A, B, C” (Primary BS 1, IV5). In this respect, selective
involvement facilitated certainty regarding supplier expectations stemming from executive
communication. Echoing this point and reflecting on an earlier occasion where executive involvement
had been less selective and proactive, a primary boundary spanner recalled ‘We know that Alpha

112
Executive Manager X meets with the supplier’s Executive Manager Y four times a year. Of course,
we try to get him prepped. In the old days this was one of the worst things when the former Executive
Manager A wanted a status on the supplier relation (…) then all the skeletons would come out of the
closet.” (Primary BS 1, IV2). Second, selective involvement of Alpha’s executives took place in
larger settings in the form of meetings attended by multiple operational actors from both
organizations. In this respect, this coping strategy entailed extending invitations to executive
management in order to facilitate that they could oversee how activities were managed and stay
updated on key issues and developments. Whether in the context of intimate or larger meetings,
selective executive management allowed for aligning decisions and perceptions between primary
boundary spanners and executive management in an ongoing fashion. This was a key step towards
reducing the potential risk of being constrained by executive management decision-making at any
single point in time.

Synchronizing boundary objects. In relation to each supplier, synchronizing boundary objects first
involved developing an overview of shared strategic objectives, deliverables and timelines. This
exercise allowed for establishing a common frame of reference and expectations regarding the future
direction of the activities in the relationship. Altogether, this streamlined executive dialogues and
therefore made executive communication predictable. Speaking on this issue, ” I think we managed
to close that loop [undesired executive communication] by saying really that ”listen, we have a shared
strategy now. It is signed off by both organizations. Executive management on both sides have a copy
and here is the team executing it” (Primary BS 1, IV5). Building on this shared strategic overview, a
second level of synchronizing could take form in the development of joint frameworks, tools and
concepts purposed for guiding the collaborative process towards reaching the objectives. In some
cases, this entailed bringing together separate buyer and supplier decision-making models and
merging them into one unified framework reflecting both parties’ requirements. In addition to
ensuring transparency regarding important needs of both organizations, this constituted a crucial step
towards facilitating a collective decision-making process. In the past, interpersonal friction had arisen
following unexpected outcomes of activities pushed forward by Alpha managers. By developing
shared decision-making criteria, expectations of both sides were aligned up front reducing
interpersonal friction between functional managers. However, while many of these synchronizing
attempts proved themselves successful to the end of facilitating collective decisions, they were not
always free of tension. In one meeting, uncertainty about the effectiveness of a joint framework
surfaced. This led one of the primary boundary spanners to emphasize “So what are the main criteria

113
that we are going to apply, the conditions and what you are looking for in the different criteria. It is
really important that we understand that, so that the developing framework that we have in Alpha,
we want to have mirrored into our strategic suppliers as well, so you are synchronized with us.“
(Meeting #1). This incident illustrates that synchronizing boundary objects was not a single discrete
undertaking but rather a continuous process of recalibrating. Moreover, in some cases, the capacity
of the boundary spanners to develop joint buyer-supplier decision-making frameworks were
predicated on strategic executive decision-making.

4.2.2 Reactive coping behaviors

Relational buffering. When interpersonal friction emerged in meetings immediate mediation was
required to prevent a hostile atmosphere from derailing discussions. With limited authority to decide
who could participate in the meetings, the primary boundary spanners had to be cognizant of the
internal and external actors who in their experience were prone to instigate friction. Reflecting on the
differences between individual managers, one of the primary boundary spanners elaborated.
“Supplier representative X is working with the old-fashioned style. Just working with win-lost or if I
didn’t win that means that I am loosing.” (Primary BS2, IV3). Echoing this sentiment, the other
primary boundary spanner argued “This is the guy you want to avoid.” (Primary BS 1, IV2).
Moreover, it was important to be attentive to the interpersonal relationships between different
managers from both sides. To prevent friction from escalating, primary boundary spanners frequently
had to step in to ease adversarial discussions early. A less frequent mediation exercise for managing
growing tension was a subtle collectively coordinated effort. Observations gave insights into how
managers from the buying organization would communicate with each other in meetings covertly via
an internal chat system to build consensus regarding appropriate actions for handling conflicts. In one
case, where emotions were running high on both sides, an Alpha manager covertly inquired her
internal colleague for permission to share a specific piece of strategic information with the supplier
in order to alleviate tension and to segue into the next point on the meeting agenda. When asked about
it in a later interview, the primary boundary spanner remarked “We do that [communicate covertly]
(…) Alpha Manager X was asking me about that piece of information “shall we show the information
or not? (…) I said yes, definitely we can show it. We were in a position where we could see that
supplier representative X was really hot on that topic and supplier representative Y also started to
get hot.” (Primary BS 2, IV6). By virtue of resolving conflicts in these different ways, the primary

114
boundary spanners were able to reduce the harm created by conflicts accelerated by other internal
functional actors.

Open problem-solving. Coping with difficulties to live up to agreements owing to dependency on

internal functions was often a two-faceted exercise. First, it involved acknowledging the existence of
the operational problems and their implications for the selling organizations. This was followed by
explanations of the internal circumstances producing the issues in order to provide transparency for
suppliers. In situations where they were familiar with the issues themselves, this was a retrospective
account offered by the primary boundary spanners. In other situations, they were unaware of the roots
of the problems and they had to ask other meeting participants for clarity. By doing that, the primary
boundary spanners were able to communicate that any inability to deliver on promises stipulated in
prior agreements was not an act of deception or because they harbored any ill will against the supplier.
Instead, they could elaborate on how such inability was a product of internal dynamics in Alpha
outside their span of control. Following the explanatory exercise, a forward-looking solution-oriented
mode often ensued. This entailed primary boundary spanners identifying relevant internal
stakeholders and discussing appropriate courses of action required to tackle the operational issue at
hand. This problem-solving behavior transpired in the interorganizational meetings creating visibility
for suppliers on future amendatory actions in Alpha and reassurance that their concerns were being
attended to with due priority. Altogether, these efforts made it possible to reduce the initial harm on
organizational integrity and competence engendered by not being able to fulfill the letter of prior
agreements.

4.3 Summary: How primary boundary spanners cultivate organizational trustworthiness

All the interrelations between the identified internal dependencies and coping behaviors are integrated
into the model presented in Figure 4. This model provides precise illustrations of their connection to
the three components of organizational trustworthiness. Table 2 that follows summarizes the nature
of the interrelationships between the themes. For transparency, numbers are used as indicators of
interrelations in Figure 4 and Table 2.

115
Figure 4. Primary boundary spanners’ development of organizational trustworthiness

116
 Table 2. Interrelations between 2nd order themes specified
Internal Implications for the development of
dependencies organizational trustworthiness
Reliance on executive 1. Reliance on executive management decision-
decision-making making can restrict boundary spanners capacity to
make in situ decisions demonstrating good intentions
towards suppliers. This limits the behavioral leeway
required for cultivating organizational benevolence.
Uncertainty about 2. Uncertainty about the content of executive
Executive
external expectations communication implies that boundary spanners are
induced by executive less familiar with supplier expectations. This can
communication make it difficult to fulfill them, in turn, reducing
organizational integrity.
Emergence of 3. By accelerating interorganizational conflicts,
interpersonal friction internal functional agents can violate principles for
‘appropriate’ behavior as perceived by suppliers. This
exerts a negative influence on organizational
integrity.
Functional
Difficulty in honoring 4 a-b. When external promises made by boundary
agreements owing to spanners require internal functional activities that are
functional dependence not performed as expected, the promises are difficult
to uphold, reducing (a) organizational integrity, and
(b) organizational competence.
117
Coping Implications of coping mechanisms
behavior
Proactive: 5. Involving executive management periodically in larger
Selective buyer-supplier meetings makes it possible for boundary
executive spanners to update them on key activities and calibrate
involvement perceptions with them. This makes reliance on executive
decision-making at any single point in time less
pronounced.
6. Engaging executives prior to intimate executive level
buyer-supplier meetings allows for influencing executive
communication, giving transparency about its content.
This facilitates a clear understanding of suppliers’
expectations and how to fulfill them.
Proactive: 8. Synchronizing boundary objects facilitates predictable
Synchronizing executive communication, reducing uncertainty about its
boundary objects content. This makes it easier to fulfill suppliers’
7. This can be expectations.
hindered by
reliance on 9. Synchronizing boundary objects creates shared frames
executive of references that guide interactions between internal and
decision-making external functional actors. This reduces (but does not
prevent) the risk of internal managers accelerating friction.
Reactive: 10. Resolving conflicts either singlehandedly or
Relational collectively following covert internal communication,
buffering allows boundary spanners to reduce the harm inflicted
from the emergence of impersonal friction.
Reactive: 11a. Acknowledging the issues, explaining their origins
Open problem- and trying to solve them in front of the supplier, lessens
solving the negative effect on integrity
11b. Through timely and effective problem-solving
boundary spanners can mitigate the negative effects on
organizational competence
5. DISCUSSION

The organizational context has important implications for trust development. In one of the most
influential contributions to the field, Mayer et al. (1995) deliberately sought to provide a parsimonious
conceptualization of trust, yet they still stressed that the role of context is critical for developing
trustworthiness. Revisiting this study, the same authors (Schoorman et al., 2007) once again reasoned
that context-specific models are fruitful research avenues as they can “develop additional variables
that help better explain the antecedents and consequences of trust” (p.351.). In this study, we
contribute by deepening the understanding of how organizational embeddedness affect boundary
spanners’ attempts to cultivate trustworthiness. Often, trustworthiness is studied with a focus on
positive outcomes, i.e. trusting behaviors of the trustor, that can facilitate a competitive advantage
(e.g. Barney & Hansen, 1994; Becerra et al., 2008; Dyer & Chu, 2003). We complement these studies
by providing a novel view on the micro foundations of three well-established antecedent dimensions
of trustworthiness. Specifically, this study demonstrates that boundary spanners’ attempts to cultivate
organizational trustworthiness hinge on how well they cope with internal dependencies on executive
and functional actors. Except for a few studies that have been guided by a similar line of inquiry
(Janowicz-Panjaitan & Krishnan, 2009; Perrone et al., 2003), previous research has touched upon this
phenomenon sporadically. Moreover, as research has often focused on interpersonal trust, it has
primarily considered interactions between boundary spanners within the confines of interpersonal
dyads. Through empirical observations of meetings attended by multiple representatives from the
buying and selling organizations, we go beyond this perspective and show (i) how dependencies on
actors outside this dyad has ramifications for the development of trustworthiness, and (ii) how
boundary spanners deal with them.

The findings from this study add to previous research showing that internal relations with other
functional actors are decisive for boundary spanners’ external trust development (Perrone et al., 2003;
Zhang et al., 2011). Despite being a well-accepted notion, there is surprisingly little knowledge
regarding the precise nature of these functional dependencies. Our exploratory inquiry allows us to
uncover these dependencies and to illustrate how they affect boundary spanners’ attempts to influence
suppliers’ perceptions of the buying organization’s competence and integrity. We also offer novel
insights into how boundary spanners utilize predominantly reactive coping measures in order to
manage them when they unfold in situ. Although the literature has suggested social power bases that
boundary spanners can leverage to influence their internal constituents such as social capital and

118
expertise (often operationalized as tenure, see e.g. Perrone et al., 2003 and McEvily et al., 2017), so
far, there has been limited observations on actual behaviors.

Moreover, extant research has elucidated how executive level actors set the overall direction of the
interorganizational relationship (Janowicz-Panjaitan & Krishnan, 2009; Janowicz-Panjaitan &
Noorderhaven, 2009). Consistent with this, our findings reflect how dependencies on executive level
actors affect boundary spanners’ ability to demonstrate benevolence on behalf of the organization.
Although literature has uniformly acknowledged that executive actors bear the responsibility of
making decisions that are formative for boundary spanners’ external behaviors (Janowicz-Panjaitan
& Krishnan, 2009; Zhang et al., 2011), there is strikingly little knowledge on how boundary spanners
can cope with this dependency. Our results suggest that proactive coping behaviors involving setting
the scene for executive interactions are effective in the way of reducing this hierarchical dependency
and avoiding its undesired implications on perceived organizational benevolence. In contrast to
reactive coping behaviors that are suited for functional dependencies and involve mediating between
internal and external actors, this proactive coping is more subtle and unfolds internally in the
organization prior to physical interorganizational meetings.

Altogether, the findings from this study also complement the view that boundary spanners are
primarily important to interorganizational trust because interpersonal trust between boundary
spanners can be a primus motor in institutionalizing interorganizational trust (Schilke & Cook, 2015;
Zaheer et al., 1998) or ‘rub off on it’ (Kroeger et al., 2012).

6. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

Consistent with extant research (Zhang et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2015), our findings show that
boundary spanners are important for developing organizational trustworthiness in the eyes of
suppliers. We demonstrate how the work of boundary spanners towards this end are influenced by
internal dependencies on other actors at the executive and functional level and how boundary
spanners navigate such dependencies. Our findings have a number of managerial implications for
boundary spanners as well as for executive level managers. For both types of actors, our findings
point to the need for an increased awareness of internal dependencies and their potential harmful
implications for supplier relationship management.

119
For boundary spanners, the most important implications of our results are linked to how they can
cope with different internal dependencies. Being aware of different proactive as well as reactive
approaches for managing dependencies on executives and colleagues from other functions should
make boundary spanners more capable of furthering strong supplier relationships. Our findings
underscore the relevance of subtle and carefully contemplated internal boundary work that should
transpire prior to interorganizational meetings. In contrast, functional dependencies are comparatively
more difficult to reduce prior to interorganizational interactions. These dependencies are more prone
to emerge in actual meetings and require immediate reactive coping behaviors in order to manage
them and cultivate trustworthiness. Hence, functional dependencies should be dealt with in the
situation before they grow beyond the point where amendable coping is no longer sufficient. These
findings call attention to an important, yet, often overlooked temporal element of successful boundary
spanning.

Our findings also have a number of more indirect implications for managers at the executive level,
who are responsible for strategic decision-making and determine the conditions under which
boundary spanners operate. These managers should realize that their decisions and actions have major
implications for the ability of boundary spanners to work efficiently with suppliers. Things that may
seem harmless or were meant to support supplier relationships, such as buyer-supplier top
management meetings and informal talks between executives, may actually hinder the work of
boundary spanners if they are not kept in the loop. Also, top management should keep in mind that
restricting the autonomy of boundary spanners vis-à-vis suppliers, may obstruct their work and result
in lower perceived trustworthiness from the perspective of suppliers (Perrone et al., 2003). Instead
they should consider extending the necessary degrees of freedom to boundary spanners to make
decisions and work with suppliers as they see fit based on experience and knowledge of the supplier.
Such an approach to boundary spanners and supplier relationships in turn requires strong leadership
and management of intra-organizational relationships in order to avoid functional conflicts.

7. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The research design and theoretical focus of our research make it subject to limitations. Some of these
open up new fruitful avenues of research. Importantly, this study was guided by a focus on how
primary boundary spanners can cultivate their organization’s trustworthiness. Thus, the core premise
is that these boundary spanners, who assume the key responsibility for managing relationships with

120
external partners, suppliers in this case, are the central actors to this end. We acknowledge that this
perspective downplays the active roles of executives and other functional boundary spanners in
developing trustworthiness. In this context, extant research has shown that executives are especially
active and particularly important in the early interorganizational phases (Janowicz-Panjaitan &
Krishnan, 2009). Our research indicates that the importance of executives after the relationship
initiation phase, in part, can be understood in light of their interactions with primary boundary
spanners. Future research can advance the understanding of how executive actors are important not
only for their direct actions in relation to suppliers but also for their ties to other boundary spanners.
Similar to our own approach, we propose that observations of interorganizational meetings represent
a fertile empirical ground for capturing these issues. As the majority of trust research is conceptual,
based on quantitative methods or interviews, actual observations of interactions between boundary
spanners may show new nuances of trust development.

Furthermore, the findings suggest that executive and functional dependencies have different
implications for the boundary spanners ability to cultivate perceptions of benevolence, integrity and
ability. In this respect, we find that both executive and functional dependencies can challenge
boundary spanners’ efforts to develop organizational integrity. Although our research design cannot
establish the strength of their isolated effects, it appears reasonable to expect that the executive kind
is the most significant of the two. Future research should examine this issue further.

8. CONCLUSION

In this study, we have enhanced the understanding of the important, yet, often neglected role of
organizational context on boundary spanners’ attempts to cultivate organizational trustworthiness. In
order to so, we used a boundary spanning lens to study three widely accepted antecedents of
trustworthiness in the setting of an OEM’s relationships with a group of strategic suppliers. The
empirical foundation consisted of interviews, observations and documents collected over a period of
15 months. Our analysis centered on the trust development activities of key boundary spanners. We
have demonstrated how these individuals are subject to internal dependencies on executive level and
functional level actors and shown how they can cope with them. By integrating these findings into
one coherent model, our research makes a theoretical contribution to knowledge on the micro
foundations of interorganizational trust

121
References

Albers, S., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zajac, E. J. 2016. Strategic Alliance Structures. Journal of
Management, 42(3): 582-614.
Adams, J. S. 1976. The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational boundary roles.
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1175: 1199.
Adams, J. S. 1980. Interorganizational processes and organizational boundary activities. Research in
Organizational Behavior,2: 321-355
Aldrich, H. & Herker, D. 1977. Boundary Spanning roles and Organization Structure. Academy of
Management Review, 2(2): 217-230.
Ancona, D. G. & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance
in Organizational Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4): 634-665.
Barney, J. B. & Hansen, M. H. 1994. Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic
Management Journal (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 15: 175-190.
Becerra, M., Lunnan, R., & Huemer, L. 2008. Trustworthiness, Risk, and the Transfer of Tacit and
Explicit Knowledge Between Alliance Partners. Journal of Management Studies (Wiley-
Blackwell), 45(4): 691-713.
Bell, G. G., Oppenheimer, R. J., & Bastien, A. 2002. Trust Deterioration in an International Buyer-
Supplier Relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(1/2): 65-78.
Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis,
Sage Publications, UK.
Connelly, B. L., Crook, T. R., Combs, J. G., Ketchen, D. J., & Aguinis, H. 2018. Competence- and
Integrity-Based Trust in Interorganizational Relationships: Which Matters More? Journal of
Management, 44(3): 919-945.
Currall, S. C. & Judge, T. A. 1995. Measuring Trust between Organizational Boundary Role Persons.
Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 64(2): 151-170.
Dietz, G. & Hartog, D. N. D. 2006. Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review, 35(5):
557-588.
Doney, P. M. & Cannon, J. P. 1997. An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships.
Journal of Marketing, 61(2): 35.
Doz, Y. 2011. Qualitative research for international business. Journal of International Business
Studies, 42(5): 582-590.

122
Dyer, J. & Wujin, C. 2011. The determinants of trust in supplier-automaker relations in the US, Japan,
and Korea: A retrospective. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(1): 28-34.
Dyer, J. H. & Chu, W. 2003. The Role of Trustworthiness in Reducing Transaction Costs and
Improving Performance: Empirical Evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea.
Organization Science, 14(1): 57-68.
Ferrin, D. L. & Dirks, K. T. 2003. The Use of Rewards to Increase and Decrease Trust: Mediating
Processes and Differential Effects. Organization Science, 14(1): 18-31.
Friedman, R. A. & Podolny, J. 1992. Differentiation of Boundary Spanning Roles: Labor
Negotiations and Implications for Role Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1): 28-
47.
Fulmer, C. A. & Gelfand, M. J. 2012. At What Level (and in Whom) We Trust: Trust Across Multiple
Organizational Levels. Journal of Management, 38(4): 1167-1230.
Ganesan, S. 1994. Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 58(2): 1.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. 2013. Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive
Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1): 15-31.
Gulati, R. & Sytch, M. 2008. Does familiarity breed trust? Revisiting the antecedents of trust.
Managerial & Decision Economics, 29(2/3): 165-190.
Huang, Y., Luo, Y., Liu, Y., & Yang, Q. 2016. An Investigation of Interpersonal Ties in
Interorganizational Exchanges in Emerging Markets. Journal of Management, 42(6): 1557-
1587.
Ireland, R. D. & Webb, J. W. 2007. A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic
supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2): 482-497.
Jacobides, M. G., MacDuffie, J. P., & Tae, C. J. 2016. Agency, structure, and the dominance of
OEMs: Change and stability in the automotive sector. Strategic Management Journal (John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 37(9): 1942-1967.
Janowicz-Panjaitan, M. & Krishnan, R. 2009. Measures for Dealing with Competence and Integrity
Violations of Interorganizational Trust at the Corporate and Operating Levels of
Organizational Hierarchy. Journal of Management Studies (Wiley-Blackwell), 46(2): 245-
268.

123
Janowicz-Panjaitan, M. & Noorderhaven, N. G. 2009. Trust, Calculation, and Interorganizational
Learning of Tacit Knowledge: An Organizational Roles Perspective. Organization Studies,
30(10): 1021-1044.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. 1964. Organizational
stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity.
Kane, A. A. & Levina, N. 2017. 'Am I Still One of Them?': Bicultural Immigrant Managers
Navigating Social Identity Threats When Spanning Global Boundaries. Journal of
Management Studies (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 54(4): 540-577.
Korsgaard, M. A., Brodt, S. E., & Whitener, E. M. 2002. Trust in the face of conflict: the role of
managerial trustworthy behavior and organizational context. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(2): 312-319.
Kroeger, F. 2012. Trusting organizations: The institutionalization of trust in interorganizational
relationships. Organization, 19(6): 743-763.
Kvale, S. Brinkmann, S. 2009. Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing:
Sage
Lincoln, Y.S & Guba, E.G (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage publications
Lumineau, F. & Schilke, O. 2018. Trust development across levels of analysis: An embedded-agency
perspective. Journal of Trust Research, 8(2): 238-248.
MacDuffie, J. P. & Helper, S. 2007. Collaboration in supply chains: With and without trust.
MacDuffie, J. P. 2011. Inter-organizational trust and the dynamics of distrust. Journal of
International Business Studies, 42(1): 35-47.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 709-734.
Mayer, R. C. & Davis, J. H. 1999. The Effect of the Performance Appraisal System on Trust for
Management: A Field Quasi-Experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1): 123-136.
McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. 2003. Trust as an Organizing Principle. Organization Science,
14(1): 91-103.
McEvily, B. & Tortoriello, M. 2011. Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and
recommendations. Journal of Trust Research, 1(1): 23-63.
McEvily, B., Zaheer, A., & Kamal, D. K. F. 2017. Mutual and Exclusive: Dyadic Sources of Trust in
Interorganizational Exchange. Organization Science, 28(1): 74-92.

124
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. and Saldana, J. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: A method
sourcebook, 3rd ed, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. 1994. The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58(3): 20.
Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. 2003. Free to Be Trusted? Organizational Constraints on
Trust in Boundary Spanners. Organization Science, 14(4): 422-439.
Podsakoff, P. M. & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and
Prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4): 531.
Ring, P. S. & Van De Ven, A. H. 1994. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational
relationships. Academy of Management Review, 19(1): 90-118.
Schilke, O. & Cook, K. S. 2013. A cross-level process theory of trust development in
interorganizational relationships. Strategic Organization, 11(3): 281-303.
Schilke, O. & Cook, K. S. 2015. Sources of alliance partner trustworthiness: Integrating calculative
and relational perspectives. Strategic Management Journal (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 36(2):
276-297.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. 2007. An integrative model of organizational trust:
Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2): 344-354.
Schotter, A. P. J., Mudambi, R., Doz, Y. L., & Gaur, A. 2017. Boundary Spanning in Global
Organizations. Journal of Management Studies (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.), 54(4): 403-421
Seppänen, R., Blomqvist, K., & Sundqvist, S. 2007. Measuring inter-organizational trust—a critical
review of the empirical research in 1990–2003. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(2):
249-265.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
Developing Grounded Theory, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Takeishi, A. 2001. Briding inter-and intra-firm boundaries: Management of supplier involvement in
automobile product development. Strategic Management Journal (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.),
22(5): 403-433.
Tushman, M. L. & Scanlan, T. J. 1981. Boundary Spanning Individuals: Their Role in Information
Transfer and Their Antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2): 289-305.
Vanneste, B.S. 2016. From interpersonal to interorganizational trust: The role of indirect reciprocity.
Journal of Trust Research, 6 (1): 7-36
Williams, P. 2002. The Competent Boundary Spanner. Public Administration, 80(1): 103.

125
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. 1998. Does Trust Matter? Exploring the Effects of
Interorganizational and Interpersonal Trust on Performance. Organization Science, 9(2): 141-
159.
Zhang, C., Viswanathan, S., & Henke, J. W. 2011. The boundary spanning capabilities of purchasing
agents in buyer–supplier trust development. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4): 318-
328.
Zhang, C., Wu, F., & Jr.Henke, J. W. 2015. Leveraging boundary spanning capabilities to encourage
supplier investment: A comparative study. Industrial Marketing Management, 49: 84-94.

126
4.3 – Study 3

Influencing supplier representatives by involving a third person: An

exploratory study anchored in Social Control Theory

Status:
A prior version of this paper has been accepted for presentation at Academy of
Management (OSCM Division) 2021, virtual

127
 Influencing supplier representatives by involving a third person: An exploratory study
anchored in Social Control Theory

Martin Jørgensen

As they sit at the nexus of where internal and external organizational interests meet and must be
reconciled, purchasing and supply chain managers assume a key boundary mediation role. In this
respect, their ability to influence supplier representatives is a sine qua non of successful supplier
relationship management. This article investigates influence tactics of a subtle character, specifically,
how managers from a buying organization (influence agents) manipulate supplier representatives’
(influence targets) behaviors by involving a third person. So far, this phenomenon has received scarce
attention as existing literature on social influence in buyer-supplier relationships tends to (i) adopt an
organizational level unit of analysis, and (ii) if examining the individual level seldom extend beyond
a dyadic perspective. Drawing on Social Control Theory and employing an exploratory case study
with data collected over a two-year period, the author develops an overview of different influence
patterns involving a third person. With these findings, this article makes a novel theoretical
contribution by developing a deeper understanding of underexposed social influence dynamics in
individual level triads in buyer-supplier relationships.

Keywords: Social influence, social control, triads, boundary spanning, case study, supply chain
management,

128
1. INTRODUCTION

Social influence is a key concept in buyer-supplier relationships. Indeed, the fact that buying and
selling organizations often have divergent orientations and preferences inevitably renders social
influence an integral component of supplier relationship management (Benton & Maloni, 2005; Chae
et al. 2017, Zhang et al., 2011).

A recent resurgence of interest in buyer-supplier social power dynamics in the last decade (e.g.
Hingley et al., 2015; Reimann & Ketchen, 2017) in tandem with growing interest on interpersonal
influence tactics (e.g. Hartmann et al., 2020; Plouffe et al., 2016) has advanced the understanding of
how influence attempts are exercised in buyer-supplier relationships. Yet, due to the dominant units
of analysis with which this line of research has developed, the present study argues that important
individual level influence dynamics have remained underexplored.

Despite growing knowledge on social influence mechanisms and effects, much research has generally
adopted an organizational level conceptualization of behavior (Olsen et al., 2014). This organization-
to-organization perspective implies an underexposure of individual level heterogeneities (Albers et
al., 2016; Zaheer et al., 1998; Qiu & Haugland, 2019). The managers that represent the buying and
selling organizations, i.e. boundary spanners, are the center of where these overlooked individual
level dynamics unfold. Recent studies on interpersonal influence tactics between managers in buyer-
supplier relationships (e.g. Hartman et al., 2020; Plouffe et al., 2016) contribute in the way of
counterbalancing the tendency to neglect the role of individuals. Yet, while this literature stream
provides insights into various tactics employed by managers, it suffers from a primary focus on direct
influence attempts that transpire within the confines of individual level dyads. Collectively, these
trends have left an indirect and subtle social influence phenomenon underexplored, i.e. how a
representative from one organization influences a representative from the other organization by
involving a third person. Raven (1992) referred to this phenomenon simply as ‘invoking the power
of third parties’.

Research on triads in operations and supply chain management (e.g. Bastl et al.; 2013; Choi & Wu,
2009; Wynstra et al., 2015) has touched upon triadic power dynamics. For example, by echoing
Simmel’s (1950) notion of the Tertius Gaudens who reaps benefits by being connected to two actors
whom themselves are unconnected. In contrast to this triadic research which takes an organizational
level perspective, the present study sets out to explore an individual level triadic perspective within
the confines of a single buyer-supplier relationship. Little research has been devoted to systematic

129
investigations into the phenomenon of influence attempts involving a third person. Nevertheless, the
literature on interpersonal influence tactics is home to a few relevant studies. For example, Yukl &
Tracey (1992) and Yukl et al. (2005) suggested a typology consisting of near to a dozen interpersonal
influence tactics. However, only two of these involve a third person, i.e. upward appeal and coalition
building. The former involves invoking the hierarchical power of a third person. This is a well-
documented influence tactic that can be traced back to studies such as Strauss’ (1962) inquiry into
purchasing agents’ tactics for managing internal conflicts with engineers. Relatedly, building a
coalition with another manager is also a well-known tactic for manipulating the behavior of an
influence target in a buyer-supplier context (e.g. Hartmann et al., 2020).Yet, as these types of
influence tactics involving a third person have primarily been studied in combination with several
other tactics from the same large typology, they have only received limited attention. Motivated to
advance the nascent state of knowledge regarding this particular influence type in the context of
supplier relationship management, the present study addresses the following research question:

RQ: How do boundary spanners in buying organizations influence supplier representatives by

involving a third person?

The present study has a theoretical anchor in Social Control Theory but also draws on boundary
spanning literature and studies on social power and interpersonal influence tactics. In using Social
Control Theory, which is rarely used in supply chain management research (Giunipero et al., 2019;
Gligor et al., 2019), I draw specifically on Gibbs’ (1981: 1989) conceptual work. By answering the
research question, this study contributes by enhancing the understanding of influence dynamics in
individual level triads in buyer-supplier relationships. Altogether, the findings bring attention to
subtle influence exercises through which purchasing and supply chain managers can influence
supplier representatives. The remainder of this study is structured as follows. First, I review and
outline the central tenets of the theoretical perspectives of boundary spanning, social influence and
Social Control Theory. Next, I describe the research method and present the findings. This is followed
by a discussion elaborating on the theoretical contributions. Finally, I conclude the article with
managerial implications, limitations and future research directions.

130
2. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

2.1 Boundary spanning in buyer-supplier relationships

Boundary spanners are individuals that serve the essential purpose of connecting their own
organization with its external environment (Adams, 1976; Aldrich & Herker, 1977). To this end, they
perform a portfolio of boundary activities vis-à-vis both internal and external organizational members
(Jemison, 1984). The importance of boundary spanners to the quality of buyer-supplier relationships
is well-documented. In particular, research has highlighted the capacity of boundary spanners to
positively affect variables of a relational character including, most prominently, trust (Doney &
Cannon, 1997; Huang et al., 2016; Perrone et al.,2003; Zaheer et al., 1998; Zhang et al., 2011). The
literature is rich in conceptualizations of boundary spanning activities which despite their conceptual
distinctiveness often interrelate and overlap with each other. A few foundational contributions offer
parsimony by distinguishing between two main types of activities (i) representational and (ii)
informational (Aldrich & Herker, 1977; Tushman & Scanlan, 1981).

A central tenet of boundary spanning theory is that managers can facilitate their organization’s ability
to deal with environmental constraints through representational activities (Aldrich & Herker, 1977).
This representational role is twofold as it implies both the representation of internal interests to
external agents and, vice versa, the representation of external interests to internal colleagues (Adams,
1976). For example, purchasing managers often have to negotiate and coordinate with supplier
representatives and simultaneously be the ‘supplier’s advocate’ in their internal organization (Wu et
al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2011). Hence, by the very nature of their role, boundary spanners have to
reconcile different and frequently opposing internal and external interests, attitudes and preferences
(Adams, 1976). For this reason, proficiency in cooperation and conflict resolution is instrumental
(Huang et al., 2016; Perrone et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2011). Moreover, by virtue of occupying a role
at the periphery of their organization, boundary spanners are often also tasked with collecting external
information and disseminating it in their internal organization (Aldrich & Herker, 1977; Tushman &
Scanlan, 1981). Regardless of whether managers enact a representational role, an informational role
or both simultaneously, the success of their boundary work ultimately rests on their ability to
influence other managers effectively (Perrone et al., 2003; Schotter & Beamish, 2011; Spekman,
1979).

131
2.2 Influence

French & Raven’s (1959) bases of social power and Kipnis et al.’s (1980) work on influence tactics
and its extensions (Yukl & Tracey, 1992; Yukl et al., 2005) are together with power-dependence
theory (Emerson, 1962) among the most prominent contributions in the domain of power and
influence (Kim et al., 2005). In order to shed light on of how managers can exercise influence by
involving a third person, I first look to the literature on interpersonal influence tactics and then to
literature on social power bases for insights as these two perspectives have touched upon the
phenomenon.

2.2.1 Interpersonal influence tactics

Research in the tradition of interpersonal influence tactics offers some insights on how influence can
be wielded by involving a third person. Typically, this research conceptualizes this type of influence
as but one tactic out of many others. Kipnis et al. (1980) originally introduced eight intra-
organizational influence tactics (assertiveness, ingratiation, rationality, sanctions, exchange, upward
appeals, blocking and coalitions) only two of which i.e. upward appeals and building coalitions, imply
mobilizing support from third parties. In refining the work of Kipnis et al. (1980) and Schriesheim &
Hinkin (1990), Yukl & Tracey, (1992) and Yukl et al. (2005) developed a taxonomy of nine influence
tactics and later extended it to 11 (rational persuasion, consultation, inspirational appeals,
collaboration, apprising, ingratiation, personal appeals, exchange, legitimating tactics, pressure,
coalition tactics). Yukl et al.’s taxonomy has become a leading theoretical anchor for studies on
interpersonal influence in buyer-supplier relationships, however, primarily from a sales manager
perspective (Hartmann et al., 2020; Plouffe et al., 2016). Previous literature has often distinguished
between influence tactics and grouped them into unique categories based on, for example, compliance
character, i.e. compliance-generating or compliance-impeding (Joshi, 2010) or based on coercive
intensity, i.e. non-coercive, soft coercive or hard coercive (Venkatesh et al., 1995). However, research
has not distinguished between tactics on the grounds of whether they involve a third person or not.

2.2.2 French & Raven’s social power typology

French’s & Raven’s (1959) and Raven’s (1992) typology of the six bases of social power, i.e. reward,
coercive, legitimate, referent, expert and information, has been a leading theoretical perspective in

132
the literature on buyer-supplier relationships and supply chain management. Reward and coercive
power can be categorized as mediated power sources as they revolve around deliberate efforts to
guide the influence target’s behaviors (Johnson et al., 1993; Maloni & Benton, 2000) often relying
on extrinsic motivation (Chae et al., 2017). Legitimate, referent, expert and information power can
be categorized as nonmediated power sources as the influence agent does not mediate reinforcements
to guide behavior (Brown et al., 1995; Johnson et al., 1993). Table 1 provides an overview of the
formal definitions of the six traditional power sources.

Table 1. Social power bases

Power source Definitions

Reward “Reward power depends on the ability of the power holder to administer
positive valences and to remove or decrease negative valences” (French &
Raven, 1959, p. 156)
Coercive “Coercive power stems from the expectation on the part of the power
recipient that he will be punished by the power holder if he fails to conform
to the influence attempt” (French & Raven, 1959, p. 157)
Expert ”The strength of expert power varies with the extent of the knowledge or
perception which the power recipient attributes to the power holder within
a given area” (French & Raven, 1959, p.163)
Referent ”Referent power has its basis in the identification of the power recipient
with the power holder” (French & Raven, 1959, p. 161)
Legitimate “Legitimate is defined as that power which stems from internalized values
in the power recipient which dictate that the power holder has a legitimate
right to influence the power recipient and that the power recipient has an
obligation to accept this influence” (French & Raven, 1959, p.159)
Informational “Informational power, or persuasion, is based on the information, or logical
argument, that the power holder can present to the target in order to
implement change.” (Raven, 1992, p.221)

Note: Consistent with other studies (e.g. Chae et al., 2017; Terpend et al., 2011) I have inserted ‘power holder’
and ‘power recipient’ in the definitions

The mechanisms underlying the different social influence sources and their distinct effects on supplier
relationship management outcomes have been examined extensively (Benton & Maloni, 2005; Chae
et al. 2017; Clauss & Bouncken, 2019; Maloni & Benton, 2000). Originally conceived as an
interpersonal theory of social influence, French & Raven’s typology has following early studies on

133
distribution channels (Beier and Stern, 1969; El-Ansar &Stern, 1972; Hunt & Nevin, 1974) primarily
been used in an interorganizational context and with an organizational level of analysis (Olsen et al.,
2014). Referring to this trend, some scholars have contended that extant research rarely gives due
consideration to the potential caveats underlying this theoretical and analytical abstraction (Blois &
Hopkinson, 2013). In response to this criticism, Hunt (2015) objected that all social influence attempts
are carried out by organizational representatives and that all firms, by their very nature, will aspire to
exercise influence by leveraging social power bases such as those suggested by French and Raven.

The typology represents but a group of power sources that are relevant in buyer-supplier relationships.
In addition to the six conventional bases of social power, Raven (1992) also stresses the potential to
wield power through other and more indirect sources. Specifically, he points to environmental
manipulation and the act of invoking the power of third parties. The former refers to manipulating
the business environment of the other party. The latter is the focus in the present study and refers to
an agent’s efforts to mobilize the power of a third party in order to manipulate the influence target’s
behavior. While environmental control has received some attention, albeit primarily as an addition to
the original typology (e.g. Terpend et al., 2011), this is not the case for efforts to invoke the power of
third parties. In the following, the present study introduces Gibbs’ (1981; 1989) theory of social
control to reinforce the theoretical foundation with which it seeks to illuminate influence exercises
involving a third party.

2.3 Social Control Theory

Social Control Theory has a long history of being among one of the most debated theories in sociology
(Gibbs, 1981). Despite longstanding interest in social control, disagreements about its defining
properties have always surrounded it. According to the majority of conceptualizations, however,
social control centers on deviant behavior. Black’s (1983, p.34) definition that Social Control Theory
“predicts and explains how people define and respond to deviant behavior” encapsulates this line of
thought well. Nonetheless, conceptualizations of social control have often been considered either too
vague and universal or, inversely, too narrow (Gibbs, 1981). Because of a lack of consensus
concerning the subtle mechanisms of social control, Gibbs (1981; 1989) suggested an alternative and
in his own words ‘unconventional’ conceptualization of social control. At the heart of Gibbs (1981;
1989) conceptualization is a triadic emphasis that lends itself well to empirical inquiries.

134
2.3.1 Gibbs’ theory of social control

Gibbs (1981) defines social control, simply, as attempts by the first party to manipulate the behavior
of a second party through a third party in any capacity except for sequential control, i.e. a normal
chain of command (employer – supervisor – worker). In elaborating on this definition, he writes:
“attempted social control is overt behavior by a human, the first party, in the belief that (1) the
behavior increases or decreases the probability of a change in the behavior of another human or
humans, the second party in either case, (2) the overt behavior involves a third party but not in the
way of sequential control; and (3) the increase or decrease is desirable (Gibbs, 1981, p.78). Building
on this definition, Gibbs distinguished between five main types of social control, i.e. referential,
vicarious, allegative, modulative and prelusive. Collectively, these five types represent a range of
different approaches for how the first party can attempt to manipulate the behavior of second party
by involving a third party. Referential social control attempts to alter the second party’s behavior
transpires by making a reference to a third party when communicating with the second party in the
expectation that this reference will lead to a behavioral change in the second party. In the case of
vicarious social control, attempts to alter the second party’s behavior take place either by way of
rewarding, punishing or rectifying the third party’s behavior. Allegative social control covers
instances in which the first party makes allegations about the second party to the third party in the
expectation that the third party will subsequently be motivated to influence the second party
somehow. In modulative social control, the first party seeks to leverage the presumed capacity of the
third party to influence the second party without relying solely on referential or allegative control
mechanisms. Finally, prelusive social control refers to attempts to mobilize a third party to gather
information about the second party, or to direct a third party to use coercion or threats to limit the
behavior of the second party to specific contexts, or taking steps that will facilitate changes in the
behavior of the second party through the third party. Table 2 shows the formal definitions and
provides examples of each social control type in a supply chain management context.

135
Table 2. Definitions of social control types and supply chain management examples
Social control type Example Parties
First Second Third
Referential Communicating with a Sales Manager, a Purchasing Sales Manager Top management
Purchasing Manager emphasizes that top Manager in the buying firm
The first party communicating to the second party management has assured her of its
a reference to a third party (Gibbs, 1981, p.78) continued support.
Vicarious A Purchasing Manager cuts ties with a Purchasing Sales Managers Sales Manager
selling firm because its Sales Manager Manager from other firms from one firm
The first party punishing, rewarding, or rectifying behaved opportunistically in the belief that
a third party’s behavior (Gibbs, 1981, p.78) Sales Managers from other firms will be
deterred.
Allegative ”This is the fourth time in a row that he Purchasing Sales Manager Top management
fails to meet a deadline.” A Purchasing Manager in the selling firm
The first party manipulating a third party’s Manager makes an allegation about a Sales
behavior by communicating allegations about the Manager to his top management, in the
second party to the third party. (Gibbs, 1981, p.78) belief that it will take steps to influence the
Sales Manager’s future behavior.
Modulative A Purchasing Manager gets a Buyer Purchasing Sales Manager Buyer Engineer
Engineer to convince the Sales Manager of Manager
The first party using the presumed influence of a the superior strength of a certain solution
third party on the second party’s behavior, without
exclusive reliance on communicating an allegation
or communicating a reference (Gibbs, 1981, p.78)
Prelusive (1) A Purchasing Manager encourages an Purchasing Other Internal
internal colleague to take note of other Manager Purchasing Colleague
The first party (1) using a third party in gathering Purchasing Managers who may be favoring Managers
information on the second party, or (2) the first certain suppliers over others due to
party directing a third party to limit the behavior friendship ties, with a view to
of the second party to certain social contexts manipulating the behavior of those
through coercion or the threat of coercion, or (3) Purchasing Managers.
the first party taking any action with a view to
facilitating the manipulation of the second party’s (2) A Purchasing Manager tries to get a Purchasing Engineer Sales Manager
behavior through a third party. (Gibbs, 1981, p.78) Sales Manager to exclude a specific Manager
Engineer by not inviting him to a meeting
136
2.4 Theoretical framework

As a step towards exploring how boundary spanners from buying organizations seek to influence
supplier representatives by involving a third person, I integrate French’s & Raven’s (1959) social
power typology and Social Control Theory (Gibbs, 1981; 1989) into one coherent theoretical
framework (figure 1). Social Control Theory is an appropriate lens for understanding (i) how the
influence agent goes about involving the third person, while French & Raven (1959) and Raven
(1992) are effective for (ii) identifying the third person’s social power base. As suggested by Gibbs
(1981; 1989) the influence agent can involve a third person in different ways each of which is rooted
in unique micro level logics and presumptions regarding the influence target’s and the third person’s
intentions and behavioral responses. As the social power typology (French & Raven, 1959; Raven,
1992) offers a parsimonious overview of essential social power bases that remain highly relevant for
supplier relationship management, it is considered suitable for the individual level focus in this study.

Figure 1. Theoretical framework

Social influence bases

(French & Raven, 1959, Raven 1992)

3 Third person

Social Control Theory

(Gibbs, 1981; 1989)

1 2

Influence agent Influence target

(from the buying organization) (from the selling organization)

137
3. RESEARCH METHOD

In light of the infant state of current knowledge regarding how boundary spanners seek to invoke the
power of third parties, an explorative qualitative case method was considered appropriate. Qualitative
case studies lend themselves well to capturing complexity and rich nuances of unexplored phenomena
in their natural settings and in a flexible way (Dubois & Araujo, 2007; Yin, 2003). Due to these
essential qualities, the case study approach has proved itself suitable for studying the interconnected
and inherent messiness of individual level boundary spanning interactions in buyer-supplier
relationships and networks (Chakkol et al., 2018). By design, the present study used an abductive
research approach involving iterations between data analysis, theoretical framework and data
collection (Dubois & Gadde, 2002).

3.1 Case selection and description

A buyer-supplier relationship was selected based on the criterion of it being a strategic partnership.
Compared to non-strategic and arm’s length exchanges, strategic partnerships are characterized by
idiosyncratic investments, interdependencies and complex boundary spanning tasks (Bensaou et
al.,1999). Additionally, partnerships involve boundary spanners from multiple functions and
hierarchical levels on both sides of the dyad which increases the complexity of interactions (Albers
et al., 2016). Owing to the high level of interaction complexity, partnerships constitute a relationship
form that is a well-suited setting for uncovering and exploring subtle individual level influence
dynamics. In addition to this main selection criterion, access to data over time was also an important
condition.

The buying organization, HiTex, resides in Northern Europe and buys high quality textile solutions
from the selling organization, TexCo, residing in South Asia. The relationship between HiTex and
TexCo was initiated shortly before the new millennium as HiTex stopped sourcing from one of its
main European suppliers. In the immediate years following relationship initiation, HiTex assisted
TexCo in setting up and developing its production facilities. From this point, the relationship started
to develop from that of an ordinary arm’s-length relationship to a strategic partnership. Today, the
partnership is characterized by interorganizational teams across key buyer and supplier functions.

138
3.2 Data collection

Data were collected over a two-year period. Interviews constitute the primary source of data with
observations of meetings and documents as secondary data sources. Table 3 provides an overview of
the data and gives details on the informants, the time of collection and the purpose of each empirical
inquiry. Due to the focus on supplier relationship management, the majority of interviews were with
HiTex managers. Initially, interviewees were selected based on the weight of their boundary spanning
responsibilities. Because of their significant roles in overseeing and orchestrating relationship
activities, HiTex’s Head of Sourcing and Senior Purchasing Manager were central actors with whom
multiple interviews were conducted over the two years. Inspired by Zaheer et al.’s (1998)
terminology, they are referred to as the primary boundary spanners. The remaining informants who
also occupied boundary positions are referred to as secondary boundary spanners. In table 3, BS 1
and BS 2 indicate primary and secondary boundary spanners. Interviews ranged from approximately
30-90 minutes. All but three interviews were recorded and transcribed. Observations of buyer-
supplier meetings and documents were used for triangulation purposes. Such empirical triangulation
made it possible to reveal new unexplored dimensions of the phenomenon as the research progressed
over time (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). For example, strategic documents covering important internal
strategic sourcing concerns and decisions were used for developing interview questions that would
allow for eliciting additional relevant insights. Similarly, observations allowed for exploring new
perspectives on the nature of the boundary spanning interactions and influence exercises. In further
reflection of the longitudinal nature of the data collection process, insights from the early interviews
also guided questions in later interviews.

139
 Table 3. Data overview

Time Data Participants BS Objective(s)

August Documents Documents and records Learning about HiTex’s history,
2018 strategy and performance
August Interview Head of Strategic Sourcing 1 Exploring sourcing strategy and
2018 micro relationships
September Interview Business Development Manager 2 Exploring relationship strategies
2018 and micro interactions
October Documents Internal sourcing strategy Exploring sourcing strategy
2018
October Interview Head of Strategic Sourcing 1 Exploring the partnership with
2018 TexCo, identifying interviewees
January Interview Product Development Manager 2
2019
January Interview Senior Purchasing Manager 1 Exploring the nature of key
2019 functional actors’ internal and
January Interview Export Coordinator 2 external interpersonal interactions
2019 with a focus on influence
January Interview Sales and Operations Planning 2
2019 (2 managers)
October Interview Head of Strategic Sourcing 1 Exploring micro influence
2019 attempts in relation to TexCo
October Observation Meeting between buyer and supplier 1+2 Observing micro interactions
2019 (meeting involving the Senior between key buyer and supplier
Purchasing Manager and KAM)
October Interview Key Account Manager (KAM) 1 Exploring TexCo’s KAM’s role
2019 and micro interactions
October Observation Meeting between HiTex, TexCo and 1+2 Observing micro interactions in
2019 HiTex’s Customer an organizational triad setting
November Interview Senior Purchasing Manager 1 Elaboration on the observed
2019 micro interactions
February Interview Business Development Manager 2 Exploring influence in
2020 development initiatives
April Interview Business Development Manager 2 Elaboration on influence in
2020 development initiatives
May Interview Product Development Manager 2 Exploring influence dynamics in
2020 the R&D collaboration
May Interview Sourcing Manager 2 Exploring influence dynamics in
2020 sourcing activities
June Interview Head of Sourcing 1 Informant check
2020
October Group (7 employees, 1 independent researcher) 1+2 Presentation of findings,
2020 Meeting respondent feedback
November Interview Business Development Manager 2 Presentation of findings,
2020 feedback, questions

140
3.3. Data analysis & quality measures

Interviews were transcribed shortly after they were conducted. These transcripts served as the core
data material subject to analysis. As the transcripts represent spoken discourse converted into written
discourse (Kvale & Brinkman, 2009), I adhered to transcribing protocols in order to fully capture the
manner in which issues were discussed. By noting laughter, pauses, changes in tones etc. several
critical interaction episodes were identified and fruitfully revisited in later interviews. Furthermore,
in transcribing the interviews, relevant data excerpts were highlighted and commented on as part of
the pre-coding process (Saldana, 2015).

The data analysis was carried out based on coding principles presented in Gioia et al. (2013) and
Miles et al. (2014). Reflecting the abductive nature of the research process, the analysis comprised
both inductive and deductive elements. In close resemblance with the analytical approach introduced
by Gioia et al. (2013), a part of the analysis consisted of several inductive coding steps. These related
specifically to the identification of antecedents of influence attempts involving a third person. In the
first step, informant quotes were grouped together based on their common links to emergent
categories of antecedents. These themes were compared and contrasted with each other in order to
establish their unique properties and to increase robustness. Building on this, the following step in
the analysis entailed grouping together these categories into one broad dimension. In parallel, a
deductive coding process also transpired based on pre-defined codes. This coding process was similar
to thematic coding and provisional list coding discussed in Miles et al. (2014). These codes were
based on the theoretical concepts presented by French & Raven (1959), Raven (1992), Johnson et al.
(1993) and Gibbs (1981; 1989). However, the theoretical concepts derived from Gibbs (1981; 1989)
were incapable of capturing and explaining all nuances of the influence dynamics that unfolded in
the case study. Thus, building on codes derived from Gibbs (1981; 1989), the analysis led to the
distinction between the third person as having either a direct or an indirect role with respect to the
influence target. The coding structure is illustrated in figure 2.

141
Figure 2. Coding structure

1st Order Concepts Categories Dimensions

• The supplier’s allocation of strategic

resources (R&D / technical experts)
Strategic antecedents
• Decisions with implications on the
long-term relationship Antecedents
(of involving a 3rd person)
• The supplier’s allocation of operational
resources (production decisions, KAM
team composition) Operational antecedents
• Difficulties in influencing functional
counterparts in the selling organization.

• Allegative
Direct role
• Modulative
(in relation to the influence target)
• Prelusive (directing the 3rd party)
Third party role
(internal or external person)
• Referential
• Prelusive (gathering information from Indirect role
the 3rd party) (in relation to the influence target)

B A

• Coercive power
Mediated
• Reward power
Social power base
(of the third person)

• Expert power
• Information power Nonmediated
• Legitimate power

A) Inductive coding process, B) Deductive coding process

4. FINDINGS

The analysis revealed that influence attempts involving a third person varied with respect to four
defining aspects: (i) The antecedent of involving the third person (either an operational or a strategic
influence issue), (ii) the nature of the third person’s involvement (either direct or indirect relative to
the influence target), (iii) the third person’s social power base (either mediated or nonmediated), and
(iv) the third person’s organizational location (either from the buying organization, i.e. internal, or
from the selling organization, i.e. external). The first and second are related as both concern the
influence agent (her/his motivation as well as decision of how to involve the third person). The latter

142
 two are also connected and center on the characteristics of the third person. These findings are
illustrated in figure 3. As a two-fold distinction can be made of all four aspects, a conceptual
framework of 16 generic influence patterns is developed in table 4. As indicated in this table, the
present study captured seven of these patterns. These will now be described after which table 5
provides a summary of the results.

Figure 3. Defining aspects of influence attempts involving a third person

3rd person characteristics

(iii) 3rd person social power base (iv) 3rd person organizational location
(a) Mediated | (b) Nonmediated (a) Internal | (b) External

3 Third person
(ii) Nature of 3rd person involvement
1st person motivation (a) Direct | (b) Indirect
and decision of how to
involve the 3rd person
(i) Antecedent of involving 3rd person
(a) Operational | (b) Strategic 1 2

Influence agent Influence target

(from the buying organization) (from the selling organization)

Table 4. Generic influence patterns involving a third person

3rd person characteristics

(iii-a) Mediated (iii-a) Mediated (iii-b) Nonmediated (iii-b) Nonmediated
(iv-a) Internal (iv-b) External (iv-a) Internal (iv-b) External
(i-a) Operational 1 2 3 4
(ii-a) Direct (section 4.1) (section 4.2) (section 4.3)

1st person (i-a) Operational 5 6 7 8

motivation (ii-b) Indirect (section 4.4) (section 4.5)
and way of
involving (i-b) Strategic 9 10 11 12
(ii-a) Direct (section 4.6) (section 4.7)
the 3rd
person (i-b) Strategic 13 14 15 16
(ii-b) Indirect

143
Section 4.1 - Influence pattern 2
TexCo’s Key Account Manager assumed a critical role in activating internal supplier resources with
respect to HiTex’s account. Owing to cross-functional interdependence, successful efforts to mobilize
these resources were predicated on aligning divergent interests with key production planners in the
selling organization. The Key Account Manager occasionally struggled in this internal coordination
exercise. In order to overcome this operational issue, HiTex’s Head of Sourcing and Senior
Purchasing Manager would sometimes approach TexCo’s CEO directly to report on these issues and
in doing so make careful and subtle allegations about the production planners’ behaviors to TexCo’s
CEO. In this respect, the Head of Sourcing and Senior Purchasing Manager were able to leverage the
goodwill and direct access they enjoyed with TexCo’s CEO in order to leverage his capacity to use
coercive power stemming from his position. On the basis of these efforts, TexCo’s CEO would
sometimes be motivated to reach out directly to the supplier production planners in question and
resolve disagreements by way of hierarchy and an implicit threat of sanctions. In several cases, this
was an effective way to help the Key Account Manager in his internal coordination work and resource
allocation decisions.

Section 4.2 - Influence pattern 3

HiTex’s sourcing, logistics and technical representatives sometimes struggled to influence their
counterparts in TexCo successfully. In trying to overcome these difficulties relating to operational
tasks, they would occasionally seek the support of HiTex’s Head of Sourcing and Senior Purchasing
Manager both of whom had several years of experience working with TexCo and were very familiar
with its organizational culture, management structures and decision-making processes. An
observation of a buyer-supplier meeting attended by the Senior Purchasing Manager and a HiTex
logistics employee and two supplier representatives provided an example of such a case. The logistics
employee had made repeated efforts to suggest potential process improvements to TexCo’s logistics
personnel, but had not succeeded in convincing them to investigate the suggestions further. Finally,
in a push to influence them, she sought to leverage the Senior Purchasing Manager’s expert power.
By obtaining his support in the meeting, the HiTex logistic employee utilized the Senior Purchasing
Manager’s expertise respected by the supplier representatives. Referring to the antecedent of this
particular influence exercise, the Senior Purchasing Manager remarked: “She [HiTex’s logistics
employee] thinks that if she sends the information via e-mail they will make adaptations. But it is not
at all like that. Not at all. You have to get involved and understand how they work.” Echoing the
importance of the Head of Sourcing’s and Senior Purchasing Manager’s expert power, the majority

144
of HiTex’s sourcing, logistics and technical representatives all reported how they had sought to
leverage it in interactions with the supplier representatives.

Section 4.3 – Influence pattern 4

Another operational issue concerned TexCo’s Key Account Management (KAM) team composition.
In this respect, the Head of Sourcing and the Senior Purchasing Manager often tried to influence
TexCo’s hiring practices. The motivation underlying these efforts was twofold. First, the style of the
collaboration with HiTex was considered unique in TexCo and different from its conventional
relationships with its buyers. Second, due to the special products in HiTex’s portfolio, supplier
employees had to have keen eye for small details. For these reasons, some employee profiles were
valued higher than others were. Elaborating on TexCo’s internal hiring practices, the Key Account
Manager explained: “We do keep a good eye on for which customer we are trying to recruit. Different
customers require different kinds of psychologies, different kinds of business needs, different kind of
work. For HiTex (…) we look into the academics, we look into the spontaneous reactions, they have
to be very detailed-orientated and very smart at catching minor details.” In trying to influence the
Key Account Manager’s hiring decisions, the Head of Sourcing and Senior Purchasing Manager used
a prelusive approach by trying to proactively direct his hiring behaviors. In the process of doing that,
they would advocate for the employment of certain employees and vice versa against the employment
of others. In this way, they sought to leverage the Key Account Manager’s legitimate power position
he enjoyed in the selling organization.

Section 4.4 – Influence pattern 6

In trying to manage the operational issue described in section 4.1, HiTex’s Head of Sourcing and
Senior Purchasing Manager sometimes resorted to engage directly with the focal production planners
who complicated the resource allocation decisions. In this context, they made deliberate use of
physical visits at the supplier’s production facility in order to meet with these supplier production
employees and discuss the specific operational issues face-to-face. As HiTex’s Senior Purchasing
Manager explained in one context: “We will visit them [TexCo] soon and the production facility where
we will meet was not chosen at random. It is never random where we meet. Because if it is the case
that there are issues at a certain production facility, then we will go there to have the meeting (…)
That way he [KAM] will have it a little easier. So we are helping him deal with his internal
colleagues.” These influence attempts were typically based on a firm and direct communication style.
The access and good-natured relationship that HiTex’s Head of Sourcing and Senior Purchasing

145
Manager enjoyed with TexCo’s CEO amplified the strength of these influence attempts by facilitating
the use of references to the CEO. As the Senior Purchasing Manager remarked in this respect “they
[production planners] know that we have that access.” In this reference-based approach TexCo’s
CEO was only indirectly involved and important for his capacity to exercise coercive power.

Section 4.5 – Influence pattern 7

As described in section 4.2, HiTex’s sourcing, logistic and technical representatives occasionally
approached the Head of Sourcing and the Purchasing Manager when they experienced difficulties in
communicating with and influencing their counterparts in the selling organization. Motivated by the
same reason, they would also sometimes consult them for advice regarding how to influence these
counterparts single-handedly. Thus, in addition to the exercises described in section 4.2, they would
also seek to gather information about appropriate influence behaviors before engaging in direct
influence attempts themselves. In other situations, HiTex’s representatives reached out especially to
the Senior Purchasing Manager who would know both whom in the selling organization to contact
but also how to influence them successfully. As the Export Coordinator stated: “He knows exactly
how to communicate with TexCo. He is always up to date on all the things that are going in that
organization.” Similarly, HiTex’s Business Development Manager explained how he had obtained
advice from the Senior Purchasing Manager. He emphasized “He [Senior Purchasing Manager]
knows TexCo extremely well. He knows about the management structures (…) due to his experience,
he sees things before they actually happen.”

Section 4.6 – Influence pattern 10

For HiTex’s Head of Sourcing and Senior Purchasing Manager TexCo’s allocation of its technical
experts to their account was an issue of a strategic character. It was not uncommon for TexCo’s
technical experts to be rotated or promoted in their internal organization. As these transfers implied
that HiTex would once more have to dedicate time and resources to educating newcomers about
product specifications, manufacturing processes and interorganizational workflows, it was critical to
ensure that transfers of skilled technical experts were kept at a minimum. Elaborating on this
predicament, The Head of Sourcing stressed:“ We have to make sure that they [TexCo] have the right
people employed and that the product development managers, who are very good, are not getting
absorbed in their internal organization only to get higher and higher positions, so that we have to
start over all the time.” As they lacked the formal authority and capacity to influence supplier
employees directly, HiTex’s Head of Sourcing and Senior Purchasing manager saw no other option

146
than to influence them indirectly by escalating the issue to TexCo’s CEO. Referring to the difficulties
of influencing these technical employees themselves, The Head of Sourcing remarked in a later
interview: “We can’t tell people not to get promoted. “ In lobbying against employee rotations, they
sought to leverage the CEO’s reward power he held over these employees by virtue of his hierarchical
position. The success of this particular boundary spanning exercise was also predicated on a good
working relationship with TexCo’s CEO. Specifically, HiTex’s Head of Sourcing and Senior
Purchasing Manager attempted to motivate him to engage directly with the technical employees. In
doing that, they suggested that he could offer additional incentives to the employees and communicate
internally in TexCo the attractiveness and prestige associated with working on HiTex’s account given
its status as a strategic partner.

Section 4.7 – Influence pattern 11

Although the Head of Sourcing and the Senior Purchasing Manager could manage one strategic issue
by involving TexCo’s CEO (section 4.6), this was not considered a viable solution for all strategic
issues. In relation to certain sensitive issues and decisions with long-term implications on the
interorganizational relationship, influencing TexCo’s CEO required direct involvement from HiTex’s
own CEO. Prior to strategy meetings, it was not uncommon for the Head of Sourcing and the Senior
Purchasing Manager to inform their CEO about the details of a particular strategic issue in order to
have him discuss it with TexCo’s CEO. In this way, they sought to leverage his legitimate position
power and status respected by TexCo’s CEO. Interestingly, the Key Account Manager would also on
rare occasions encourage the Senior Purchasing Manager to involve and mobilize the support of
HiTex’s CEO relative to TexCo’s CEO. When agreeing with the reasoning behind doing so, he would
oblige. Yet, consensus did not always ensue in the wake of such requests. Decisions regarding if and
when to involve HiTex’s CEO was subject to careful consideration. Reflecting on how to exercise
this gatekeeper discretion, the Senior Purchasing Manager reasoned: “Sometimes he [Key Account
Manager] also tells me about something because he wants to send a message [to HiTex’s CEO]
through me (…) but ultimately I make that decision. It’s up to me to make that decision but, naturally,
I listen. (…) In some cases, you should not transfer information too fast. Sometimes it makes sense to
say; okay, lets us be patient and see what happens.” As this statement indicates, the best course of
action was sometimes not to escalate issues immediately but to remain patient. Nonetheless, no matter
the nature of the requests, it was important to welcome and manage them in ways that would not
jeopardize the quality of the interpersonal relationship with the Key Account Manager.

147
 Table 5. A summary of the results

Influence Antecedent Influence description Parties 3rd party

pattern Description (character) (Role of 3rd party) First Second Third (location) power base
Pattern 2 Supplier production employees constrain Senior Purchasing Manager uses Senior Purchasing Production Supplier’s CEO Coercion
(section 4.1) the Key Account Manager’s resource allegative approach in relation to the Manager employees (external) (mediated)
allocations vis-à-vis the buying supplier CEO (allegative- direct)
organization (operational)
Pattern 3 Sourcing, logistics, technical Sourcing, logistics and technical ask Sourcing, logistic Sales, logistics, Head of Sourcing, Expertise
(section 4.2) representatives struggle to influence Head of Sourcing and Senior Purchasing technical reps. technical reps. Senior Purchasing (nonmediated)
their counterparts on day-to-day issues Manager to help influence supplier (buyer) (supplier) Manager
(operational) counterparts (modulative - direct) (internal)
Pattern 4 Head of Sourcing and Senior Purchasing Head of Sourcing and Senior Purchasing Head of Sourcing, KAM team Key Account Legitimate
(section 4.3) Manager wish to have certain employee Manager try to influence the Key Senior Purchasing members Manager (nonmediated)
profiles in the KAM team (operational) Account Manager’s hiring decisions Manager (external)
(prelusive - direct)
Pattern 6 Supplier production employees constrain Senior Purchasing Manager engages Senior Purchasing Production Supplier’s CEO Coercion
(section 4.4) the Key Account Manager’s resource with production employees using Manager employees (external) (mediated)
allocations vis-à-vis the buying references to the supplier’s CEO
organization (operational) (referential - indirect)
Pattern 7 Sourcing, logistics, technical Sourcing, logistics and technical reps. Sourcing, logistic Sales, logistics, Head of Sourcing, Information
(section 4.5) representatives struggle to influence gather information from Head of technical reps. technical reps. Senior Purchasing (nonmediated)
their counterparts on day-to-day issues Sourcing and Senior Purchasing (buyer) (supplier) Manager
(operational) Manager on how to influence their (internal)
counterparts (prelusive - indirect)
Pattern 10 Avoiding that technical experts are Head of Sourcing and Senior Purchasing Head of Sourcing, Technical Supplier’s CEO Reward
(section 4.6) rotated in the selling organization Manager appeal to the supplier CEO in Senior Purchasing experts (external) (mediated)
(strategic) order to avoid this issue. Manager
(modulative - direct)
Pattern 11 On sensitive issues, the Head of Head of Sourcing and Senior Purchasing Head of Sourcing, Supplier’s CEO Buyer’s CEO Legitimate
(section 4.7) Sourcing and Senior Purchasing Manager prep their CEO and motivate Senior Purchasing (internal) (nonmediated)
Manager influence the supplier’s CEO him to engage with the Supplier CEO. Manager
through their own CEO (strategic) (modulative - direct)

148
5. DISCUSSION

Boundary spanners must be able to influence their counterparts in selling organizations in order to
reach their objectives and manage supplier relationships successfully (Huang et al., 2016; Wu et al.,
2010; Zhang et al., 2011). However, sometimes, they lack the necessary capacity to exert influence
on their own. In such situations, they may have to involve a third person. As the growing body of
research on social influence in buyer-supplier relationships has adopted an organizational level unit
of analysis or had a focus on influence in individual level dyads, it has developed without much
attention to how influence can be exercised by involving a third person. Using the lens of Social
Control Theory (Gibbs, 1981; 1989) in combination with a widely accepted social power typology
(French & Raven, 1959; Raven, 1992) the present study contributes with an enriched understanding
of this phenomenon.

Extant research has suggested that current knowledge on the antecedents of interpersonal influence
tactics in buyer-supplier relationships is not yet fully developed (Hartmann et al., 2020). This study
takes a step toward advancing the understanding of the influence issues leading boundary spanners
from buying organizations to involve a third person in their efforts to influence supplier
representatives. By showing how these influence issues can have an operational or a strategic
character, this study offers new insights on the nature of antecedents of special influence exercises.
Although much research has evidenced that boundary spanners in industrial exchange relationships
can invoke the power of executive managers or form coalitions with other managers to influence a
target (e.g. Hartmann et al, 2020; Plouffe et al., 2016), the question of how they may go about doing
so has received limited attention. So far, only few studies have touched upon this dimension (e.g.
Joshi (2010) who distinguished between informal and formal ways of appealing to senior
management). However, akin to Kipnis et al. (1980) Joshi (2010) also studied influence in an intra-
organizational and not in an interorganizational setting. In this respect, this study makes a novel
theoretical contribution by illustrating how the influence agent can involve a third person and seek to
invoke her/his social power base in different ways. Specifically, the findings demonstrate that the
influence agent in the buying organization can either (i) involve the third person in an effort to get
that person to exert direct influence vis-à-vis the target (ii) or reversely involve the third person in an
indirect way relative to the target (e.g. through a reference). This distinction nuances the question
regarding the precise nature of the third person’s role. Furthermore, these results underscore how the
same source of social power held by the third person (e.g. coercive power) can be leveraged in
different ways.

149
Drawing on French & Raven, (1959) and Raven (1992) and the distinction between mediated and
nonmediated power sources (Johnson et al., 1993; Maloni & Benton, 2000), this study demonstrates
a great variety in the social power sources held by the third party. These findings extend the current
understanding of the potential power sources that the influence agent may seek to invoke. Moreover,
the findings revealed that the third person can reside either in the buying or in the selling organization.
As this characteristic of the third person has been unspecified in extant research, this distinction
facilitates an understanding of how boundary spanners may look toward either an internal or an
external actor for assistance.

Traditionally, extant literature on interpersonal influence has suggested two tactics involving a third
person, i.e. coalition building and upward appeal (Yukl & Tracey, 1992; Yukl et al., 2005). However,
this research has offered few distinctions allowing for a deeper understanding of these tactics. The
present study contributes to theory by making such distinctions and developing a conceptual overview
of different influence patterns involving a third person. By demonstrating the dynamics and relevance
of some of these overlooked means for bridging organizational divides, the findings from this study
contribute to the literature on boundary spanning for supplier relationship management (Huang et al.,
2016; Wu et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2011). Altogether, these findings further pave the way for a deeper
understanding of important interaction dynamics in individual level triads in buyer-supplier
relationships.

6. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

This study offers several relevant insights for practitioners. Managers should acknowledge how
influence can be wielded by involving a third person. In this context, managers are encouraged to
reflect on the different ways in which they can go about mobilizing and leveraging the third person’s
social power base. The distinctions presented in this study provide managers with concepts that can
guide them in this endeavor. If they prove incapable of directly influencing the influence target in the
selling organization singlehandedly, such an exercise can be useful for guiding their next actions.
Moreover, in some situations, it may well be beneficial for purchasing and supply chain managers to
first contemplate how and if a third person is capable of influencing the target more effectively before
they try to exert influence themselves. Importantly, the findings highlighted that influence attempts
involving a third person were predicated on intimate knowledge concerning who could favorably
influence whom and how. Based on these findings, buying organizations and their representatives are

150
advised to take steps toward developing this particular type of knowledge. Thus, executive
management should consider implementing intra-organizational structures that facilitate this learning
process. For example, internal knowledge exchange seminars could provide managers with
opportunities to learn from each other’s experiences and thus create a better understanding of the
dynamics of subtle influence exercises involving a third person.

7. LIMITATIONS, FUTURE RESEARCH, AND CONCLUSION

The present research is subject to some limitations. As the core focus was on boundary spanners from
the buying organization, the viewpoints of supplier representatives were illuminated only to a limited
extent. Future research could explore both parties’ perspectives in tandem to advance the
understanding of the interplay that can emerge as purchasing managers, on one side, and sales
managers, on the other side, both aspire to influence each other in different ways simultaneously.
Another limitation that invites future research concerns the role of culture. Given that the buying
organization resides in Northern Europe and the selling organization resides in South Asian, it is
likely that cultural differences have a bearing on the results. For example, the finding that invoking
the coercive power stemming from a hierarchical position was an effective way of achieving influence
in the selling organization is consistent with the notion that many countries in this region measure
comparatively higher on the cultural dimension of power distance (Hofstede et al., 2010). Future
research could make important contributions by investigating this non-trivial role of culture further.

Another future research avenue is to adopt Gibbs’ (1981; 1989) Social Control Theory to further
advance the understanding of influence attempts in a triadic perspective. The present study has shown
that this theoretical perspective is well suited for understanding and explaining how a first party can
attempt to invoke the power of a third party. Yet, as the present research is one of the first studies
with such a focus, the understanding of the phenomenon is still in its infancy. Future research could
also expand on the findings from this study by addressing questions relating to the relational and
performance effects of the different influence exercises. Traditionally, research has suggested that
‘upward appeal’, i.e. involving executive management, can lead to tension between the influence
agent and target (Joshi, 2010; Tellefsen, 2006). However, as this literature has operated with a rather
narrow understanding of such influence attempts, it could be that the nature of the relational effects
are more complex and context-dependent than previously assumed.

151
The results led to the development of a table identifying 16 generic influence patterns, however, the
present study only captured seven of these. Thus, future research could explore the other patterns to
enhance the understanding of how influence attempts involving a third person can unfold. Lastly,
future research could look into the opposite phenomenon referred to by Raven (1992) as ‘reducing
the power of a third party’. In conclusion, the present study offers a novel perspective on subtle
influence dynamics in buyer-supplier relationships. By demonstrating how boundary spanners from
buying organizations can involve a third person in order to influence supplier representatives, this
study points to the importance of considering influence at the individual level and going beyond a
dyadic perspective.

References
Adams, J. S. 1976. The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational boundary roles.
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, 1175: 1199.
Albers, S., Wohlgezogen, F., & Zajac, E. J. 2016. Strategic alliance structures: An organization design
perspective. Journal of Management, 42(3): 582-614.
Aldrich, H. & Herker, D. 1977. Boundary Spanning roles and Organization Structure. Academy of
Management Review, 2(2): 217-230.
Bastl, M., Johnson, M., & Choi, T. Y. 2013. Who's seeking whom? Coalition behavior of a weaker
player in buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(1): 8-28.
Beier, F. J. & Stern, L. W. 1969. Power in the Channel of Distribution. Distribution channels:
Behavioral dimensions: 92-116.
Bensaou, M. 1999. Portfolios of buyer-supplier relationships. MIT Sloan Management Review, 40(4):
35.
Benton, W. & Maloni, M. 2005. The influence of power driven buyer/seller relationships on supply
chain satisfaction. Journal of Operations Management, 23(1): 1-22.
Black, D. 1983. Crime as social control. American sociological review: 34-45.
Blois, K. & Hopkinson, G. C. 2013. The use and abuse of French and Raven in the channels literature.
Journal of Marketing Management, 29(9-10): 1143-1162.
Brown, J. R., Lusch, R. F., & Nicholson, C. Y. 1995. Power and relationship commitment: Their
impact on marketing channel member performance. Journal of Retailing, 71(4): 363.

152
Chae, S., Choi, T. Y., & Hur, D. 2017. Buyer power and supplier relationship commitment: A
cognitive evaluation theory perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53(2): 39-60.
Chakkol, M., Karatzas, A., Johnson, M., & Godsell, J. 2018. Building bridges: boundary spanners in
servitized supply chains. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
38(2): 579-604.
Choi, T. Y. & Wu, Z. 2009. Taking the leap from dyads to triads: Buyer–supplier relationships in
supply networks. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 15(4): 263-266.
Clauss, T. & Bouncken, R. B. 2019. Social power as an antecedence of governance in buyer-supplier
alliances. Industrial Marketing Management, 77: 75-89.
Doney, P. M. & Cannon, J. P. 1997. An examination of the nature of trust in buyer–seller
relationships. Journal of marketing, 61(2): 35-51.
Dubois, A. & Araujo, L. 2007. Case research in purchasing and supply management: Opportunities
and challenges. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 13(3): 170-181.
Dubois, A. & Gadde, L.-E. 2002. Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research.
Journal of business research, 55(7): 553-560.
El-Ansary, A. I. & Stern, L. W. 1972. Power measurement in the distribution channel. Journal of
Marketing research, 9(1): 47-52.
Emerson, R. M. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American sociological review: 31-41.
French, J. R., Raven, B., & Cartwright, D. 1959. The bases of social power. Classics of organization
theory, 7: 311-320.
Gibbs, J. P. 1981. Norms, deviance, and social control: Conceptual matters: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Gibbs, J. P. & Gibbs, J. P. 1989. Control: Sociology's central notion: University of Illinois Press.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research:
Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational research methods, 16(1): 15-31.
Giunipero, L. C., Bittner, S., Shanks, I., & Cho, M. H. 2019. Analyzing the sourcing literature: Over
two decades of research. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 25(5): 100521.
Gligor, D., Bozkurt, S., Russo, I., & Omar, A. 2019. A look into the past and future: theories within
supply chain management, marketing and management. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal. 24(1): 170-186.
Hartmann, N., Plouffe, C. R., Kohsuwan, P., & Cote, J. A. 2020. Salesperson influence tactics and
the buying agent purchase decision: Mediating role of buying agent trust of the salesperson

153
 and moderating role of buying agent regulatory orientation focus. Industrial Marketing
Management.
Hingley, M., Angell, R., & Lindgreen, A. 2015. The current situation and future conceptualization of
power in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 48: 226-230.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede G.J, Minkov, M. 2010. Culture and Organizations: Software of the mind, 3rd
ed, McGraw-Hill
Holma, A.-M. 2012. Interpersonal interaction in business triads—Case studies in corporate travel
purchasing. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 18(2): 101-112.
Huang, Y., Luo, Y., Liu, Y., & Yang, Q. 2016. An investigation of interpersonal ties in
interorganizational exchanges in emerging markets: A boundary-spanning perspective.
Journal of Management, 42(6): 1557-1587.
Hunt, S. D. & Nevin, J. R. 1974. Power in a channel of distribution: sources and consequences.
Journal of marketing Research, 11(2): 186-193.
Hunt, S. D. 2015. The bases of power approach to channel relationships: has marketing’s scholarship
been misguided? Journal of Marketing Management, 31(7-8): 747-764.
Jemison, D. B. 1984. The importance of boundary spanning roles in strategic decision‐making [I].
Journal of Management Studies, 21(2): 131-152.
Johnson, J. L, Sakano, T., Cote, J. A., & Onzo, N. 1993. The exercise of interfirm power and its
repercussions in U.S-Japanese channel relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57 (2): 1
Joshi, A. W. 2010. Salesperson influence on product development: insights from a study of small
manufacturing organizations. Journal of Marketing, 74(1): 94-107.
Kim, P. H., Pinkley, R. L., & Fragale, A. R. 2005. Power dynamics in negotiation. Academy of
Management Review, 30(4): 799-822.
Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., & Wilkinson, I. 1980. Intraorganizational influence tactics: Explorations
in getting one's way. Journal of applied psychology, 65(4): 440.
Kvale, S. & Brinkmann, S. 2009. Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing:
Sage.
Maloni, M. & Benton, W. C. 2000. Power influences in the supply chain. Journal of business
logistics, 21(1): 49-74.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. 2014. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook.
3rd: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

154
Olsen, P. I., Prenkert, F., Hoholm., & Harrison, D. 2014. The dynamics of networked power in a
concentrated business network. Journal of Business Research, 67 (12): 2579-2589.
Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. 2003. Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust
in boundary spanners. Organization Science, 14(4): 422-439.
Plouffe, C. R., Bolander, W., Cote, J. A., & Hochstein, B. 2016. Does the customer matter most?
Exploring strategic frontline employees’ influence of customers, the internal business team,
and external business partners. Journal of Marketing, 80(1): 106-123.
Qiu, X. & Haugland, S. A. 2019. The role of regulatory focus and trustworthiness in knowledge
transfer and leakage in alliances. Industrial Marketing Management, 83: 162-173.
Raven, B. H. 1992. A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty
years later. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality.
Reimann, F. & Ketchen Jr, D. J. 2017. Power in supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 53(2): 3-9.
Saldaña, J. 2015. The coding manual for qualitative researchers: Sage.
Schotter, A. & Beamish, P. W. 2011. Performance effects of MNC headquarters–subsidiary conflict
and the role of boundary spanners: The case of headquarter initiative rejection. Journal of
International Management, 17(3): 243-259.
Schriesheim, C. A. & Hinkin, T. R. 1990. Influence tactics used by subordinates: A theoretical and
empirical analysis and refinement of the Kipnis, Schmidt, and Wilkinson subscales. Journal
of applied psychology, 75(3): 246.
Simmel, G. 1950. The sociology of georg simmel: Simon and Schuster.
Spekman, R. E. 1979. Influence and information: An exploratory investigation of the boundary role
person's basis of power. Academy of Management Journal, 22(1): 104-117.
Strauss, G. 1962. Tactics of lateral relationship: The purchasing agent. Administrative Science
Quarterly: 161-186.
Terpend, R., Krause, D. R., & Dooley, K. J. 2011. Managing buyer–supplier relationships: empirical
patterns of strategy formulation in industrial purchasing. Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 47(1): 73-94.
Tushman, M. L. & Scanlan, T. J. 1981. Boundary Spanning Individuals: Their Role in Information
Transfer and Their Antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2): 289-305.
Venkatesh, R., Kohli, A. K., & Zaltman, G. 1995. Influence strategies in buying centers. Journal of
Marketing, 59(4): 71-82.

155
Wu, Z., Steward, M. D., & Hartley, J. L. 2010. Wearing many hats: Supply managers' behavioral
complexity and its impact on supplier relationships. Journal of Business Research, 63(8): 817-
823.
Wynstra, F., Spring, M., & Schoenherr, T. 2015. Service triads: A research agenda for buyer–
supplier–customer triads in business services. Journal of Operations Management, 35: 1-20.
Yin, R. K. 2003. Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5).
Yukl, G. & Tracey, J. B. 1992. Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peers, and
the boss. Journal of Applied psychology, 77(4): 525.
Yukl, G., Chavez, C., & Seifert, C. F. 2005. Assessing the construct validity and utility of two new
influence tactics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6): 705-725.
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. 1998. Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of
interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization science, 9(2): 141-
159.
Zhang, C., Viswanathan, S., & Henke Jr, J. W. 2011. The boundary spanning capabilities of
purchasing agents in buyer–supplier trust development. Journal of Operations Management,
29(4): 318-328.

156
157
5.0 – CONCLUSION AND CONTRIBUTIONS
Boundary spanning for supplier relationship management is a complex phenomenon. Although
emergent research has increasingly explored it, there are still a number of its important facets that are
in need of more systematic attention. To this end, the objective of the present dissertation was to take
a step towards learning more about how managers from buying organizations act as bridge between
their organization and its suppliers. With this motivation, it investigated how boundary mediation
exercises unfolded: In unique supplier development settings, against the backdrop of the internal
organizational context, and in an interpersonal triadic perspective.

In the following, I discuss the major theoretical contributions of the dissertation. After that, I elaborate
on its practical relevance. While the articles account for these implications in detail, I highlight their
key take-aways and discuss the contributions and relevance of the dissertation in its entirety. Finally,
I reflect on the general limitations of this research and suggest opportunities for future research.

5.1 – Theoretical contributions

Increasingly, research acknowledges that boundary spanners are important for successful supplier
relationship management (Cai et al., 2017; Dekker et al., 2019). In this regard, a growing body of
research has suggested different boundary spanning capabilities (Zhang et al., 2011; Zhang et al,
2015), roles (Chakkol et al., 2018; Poblete & Bengtson, 2020) and skills (Wilson & Barbat, 2015).
Notwithstanding variations in terminology, this research has done much to advance the understanding
of the multifaceted nature of the boundary spanning exercises that purchasing and supply chain
managers can engage in. Nonetheless, although studies in this vein have outlined different behaviors
intended for linking buying and selling organizations, important questions revolving around tensions
and complexities inherent in these behaviors have remained unaddressed. By using the theoretical
lens of boundary spanning and integrating it with three other key concepts for supplier relationship
management: Supplier development, trust and social influence, this dissertation sought to uncover
some of these less researched boundary spanning dynamics.

Supplier development is a topic that has attracted much scholarly attention. In trying to add to this
established body of work, Study 1 sought to challenge and go beyond dominant research trends. In
this respect, it is hardly a new notion that important exploratory inquiries can be meaningfully guided
by critical reflections of the dominant assumptions in extant research. In relation to their
problematization methodology, Alvesson & Sandberg (2011, p.23) noted that “it is increasingly

158
recognized that theory is made interesting and influential when it challenges assumptions that
underlie existing literature.” Using a boundary spanning lens, Study 1 highlighted a number of
critical individual level mediation actions that differed with respect to four conditions. These findings
revealed the varied mediation activities required in the context of large supplier development
undertakings involving multiple suppliers and complex webs of interpersonal interactions. As past
research has primarily alluded to the significance of interactions between boundary spanners (e.g.
Wagner & Krause, 2009), Study 1 contributes by providing an in-depth understanding of some of
these underexposed individual level heterogeneities. Specifically, Study 1 shows how primary
boundary spanners, i.e. the managers assuming a key responsibility in orchestrating supplier
development and managing supplier relationships, have to mediate both in the buying and in the
selling organizations. In the process, the results detail how these internal and external mediation
exercises (i) unfold in different hierarchical levels and functions, and (ii) are contingent on
development activities involving other suppliers. These findings contribute to the research on
boundary spanning in which internal mediation and external mediation outside the dyadic perspective
have traditionally been less studied (Albers et al., 2016; Chakkol et al., 2018). Furthermore, previous
studies have emphasized different potential barriers and key success factors for supplier development
(Handfield et al. 2000; Krause et al. 1999; Lascelles & Dale, 1990). Study 1 complements these
insights by showing how drivers determining the outcomes of supplier development also lie at the
hands of key individuals that have to act as mediators. Finally, by systematically challenging the
dominant ways of studying the supplier development, this study can motivate future research to
consider supplier development in a different light reinvigorating new interest.

Study 2 examined boundary spanning in relation to trust development. Previous research has
examined the connection between interpersonal trust between boundary spanners and
interorganizational trust between the buying and selling organization (e.g. Gulati & Sytch, 2008;
Zaheer et al., 1998;). The findings from Study 2 add to the few previous studies (e.g. Janowicz-
Panjaitan & Krishnan, 2009; Perrone et al., 2003) that have linked the boundary spanner’s intra-
organizational context with her/his capacity to cultivate trust. By identifying how executive and
functional dependencies affect the boundary spanner’s capacity to cultivate different components of
organizational trustworthiness, i.e. competence, integrity, benevolence (Mayer et al. (1995), this
study contributes with a fine-grained understanding of the critical connection between organizational
embeddedness and the boundary spanner’s external trust building activities. In addition to these
findings, Study 2 also identifies two groups of coping behaviors for dealing with these internal

159
dependencies. This complements extant research that has identified internal constraints, yet, rarely
investigated how boundary spanners can overcome them. Finally, much research often tends to
employ a global conceptualization of trust that does not consider its isolated components. In this
respect, Study 2 makes a theoretical contribution as it demonstrates how different individual level
mechanisms in organizations can influence the three dimensions of organizational trustworthiness.

Study 3 investigated interpersonal influence attempts involving a third person. Influence is generally
viewed as one of the most important concepts for interactions in buyer-supplier relationships (Benton
& Maloni, 2005). Understandably, it is a central concept particularly for managers assuming
boundary roles given that they face internal and external pressures and have to reconcile competing
interests through influence attempts. Influence has traditionally been a core topic in research on
boundary spanners in buyer-supplier relationships (Spekman, 1979). According to much of this
research, successful boundary spanning is predicated on the capacity to influence internal and external
agents (Friedman & Podolny, 1992; Perrone et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2011). Study 3 contributes to
this line of research by demonstrating how managers from buying organizations can mobilize the
social power bases of a third individual (either an internal or external actor) to influence supplier
representatives. By introducing Social Control Theory (Gibbs, 1981; 1989) as a complementary
theoretical perspective to influential perspectives such as French & Raven (1959) and Yukl (2005),
Study 3 makes a novel theoretical contribution that enhances the understanding of complex and subtle
influence attempts in a supplier relationship management context. Interestingly, the findings show
how efforts to invoke the same source of power held by a third person can vary significantly. In this
regard, Study 3 underscores how the different attempts are rooted in unique individual level logics
and presumptions about behaviors of the third and the second party. This contributes to existing
theory concerned with interactions in interpersonal triads in supply chain management (Holma,
2012). While the triadic perspective in supply chain management have gained traction over recent
years, it usually with an organizational level of analysis (Bastl et al., 2013; Choi & Wu, 2009; Wynstra
et al., 2015) implying that triads at the individual level have been less investigated. Study 3
contributes to filling this research gap.

In conclusion, considered as a whole, the present dissertation has contributed with a heightened and
more nuanced understanding of boundary spanning in the context of supplier relationship
management. So far, research in this vein has mainly considered the individual purchasing and supply
chain managers’ mediation activities in interorganizational dyads and the benefits that organizations
can harness from strong interpersonal ties between boundary spanners. Moreover, emergent research

160
may have had a tendency to simplify boundary spanning in buyer-supplier relationships implicitly
suggesting that they operate in a vacuum void of tensions. This is in stark contrast to several
pioneering contributions of boundary spanning that have emphasized its conflict-ridden nature. These
early studies stressed the importance of making the distinction between the internal and the external
dimensions of boundary spanning and considering their interplay. As the research in this dissertation
considers both dimensions in tandem, it facilitates an in-depth understanding of the link between
them. These insights are important as much contemporary buyer-supplier and supply chain
management research has tended to put a premium on the external dimension of boundary spanning
with a limited focus on its internal dimension. By taking point of departure in different organizational
contexts (network and dyads) and levels of analysis (organizational and individual) the three studies
in the dissertation touch on this internal – external interplay in different ways. From a supply network
management perspective, Study 1 demonstrates how activities with one supplier resonate with another
supplier, yet, these insights relate to the external dimension of boundary spanning. In relation to the
internal-external interplay in particular, Study 1 shows how the buying organization’s external supply
network activities require extensive internal coordination, strategic communication and information
mediation from key boundary spanners. Thus, Study 1 points to important and complex internal
individual level mediation behaviors that grow salient as the buying organization manages activities
with multiple suppliers. As the majority of contemporary research has investigated boundary
spanning in a dyadic context, these insights advance the understanding of some underexplored
internal boundary spanning activities further. Study 2 builds on the notion that the buying
organization must adhere to certain principles in order to develop trust with respect to single suppliers.
With an organizational level of analysis, this study demonstrates how key boundary spanners must
navigate and cope with internal organizational constraints in order to give a trustworthy external
representation of the buying organization. Finally, in relation to the link between internal and external
dimensions of boundary spanning, Study 3 shows how external supplier representatives can be
influenced by leveraging the social influence base of an internal organizational member. In this
respect, this study underscores how effective external boundary work can be predicated on knowledge
regarding which third party individual to approach and the capacity to mobilize her/his influence.
Furthermore, there are some subtle, yet non-trivial, differences between the three studies as concerns
temporality. Study 1 and Study 2 share a theoretical and analytical focus involving a greater long-
term time perspective as compared to Study 3. Specifically, in Study 1, the mediation conditions
necessitate a long-term outlook as activities with one supplier have a bearing on similar and future

161
activities involving other suppliers. Study 2 shares this long-term orientation as it addresses
trustworthiness and factors that determine its development over time. In contrast, Study 3 has a greater
focus on interpersonal interactions unfolding in a short-term perspective as consistent with the
theoretical perspectives of social control and social influence.

5.2 – Managerial implications

By of adopting a theoretical perspective with a focus on individual managers, the present dissertation
suggests managerial implications that are relevant for boundary spanners from buying organizations
in the areas of (i) supplier development, (ii) trust development, and (iii) social influence.

In relation to supplier development, Study 1 provides managers engaged in supplier development

with practical insights into a range of appropriate mediation activities. The study further stresses that
managers are advised to take a broad view of their organization’s supplier development strategy. In
this regard, managers are encouraged to consider the interrelatedness of development activities across
the entire supply base. Accordingly, contemplating carefully how dynamics involving one supplier
affect dynamics involving another supplier, and vice versa, is a key managerial take-away. If the
organization’s supplier development efforts involve multiple suppliers, plans should consider not
only each supplier individually, but also take into account the larger supply network perspective. As
Study 1 goes beyond dominant trends in supplier development literature, these practical suggestions
may well supplement those found in existing studies.

As concerns trust development, Study 2 facilitates awareness for managers regarding how the intra-
organizational context affect external trust development. An understanding of the nature of these
internal dependencies that many managers may be subjected to could enable them to navigate through
them. Furthermore, Study 2 identifies relevant coping behaviors that managers may draw inspiration
from as they have to manage internal dependencies and give a trustworthy external representation of
the buying organization. Research has demonstrated how boundary spanners’ external behavioral
flexibility required for trust development can be constrained by intra-organizational factors. The
practical suggestions proposed in Study 2 study offers managers with knowledge on how to deal with
these issues.

In the context of influencing supplier representatives, article 3 offers interesting managerial learnings.
The concept of influence is usually conceived as what one party can do to directly influence another

162
party. Admittedly, research adopting this dyadic lens often highlights influence tactics that are fairly
easy for managers to comprehend and put to use. The findings in Study 3 have important managerial
value by demonstrating how influence can also be exercised indirectly and in more subtle ways by
involving a third person. Study 3 sparks managerial awareness of how the social power bases of other
individuals can be leveraged. Thus, if the purchasing or supply chain manager has trouble with
influencing either internal constituents or supplier representatives, involving a third party may be a
viable tactic. By distinguishing between different ways a third person can be involved relative to the
influence target, this study offers guidance to managers.

Altogether, this research provides managers with relevant practical insights that can further their
supplier relationship management endeavors. Considered as a whole, the dissertation brings attention
to different types of interorganizational collaborative tensions and practical boundary spanning
exercises that have received limited attention in extant research. Ultimately, the managerial
implications from this dissertation relate to different facets that are critical from a boundary spanning
perspective. In summation; first, it suggests managerial implications that consider a broader supply
network context. Second, it gives managers an understanding of how they can cope with intra-
organizational factors affecting their external supply management behaviors. Third, it gives managers
an increased understanding of subtle means of influence that goes beyond the traditional
conceptualizations of influence tactics. Consequently, by investigating and highlighting different
facets of boundary spanning, the practical value that managers can enjoy from this dissertation is
broad.

5.3 – Limitations and future research avenues

Although each single article accounts for its own specific limitations in isolation of the others, some
overall reflections on the limitations of the entire dissertation are appropriate. These limitations can
be tied to the methodological choices as well as the choice of the theoretical lens guiding the research.
In relation to case research, I echoed (Dubois & Gadde, 2002; Dubois & Gadde, 2014; Dyer &
Wilkins, 1991) in section 3.2 arguing that single cases can allow for great depth. However, I
acknowledge that their generalizability as compared to multiple cases can be challenged by readers
subscribing to an opposing logic of case research. In general, case research lend itself well to doing
explorative work that may allow for generating propositions. I acknowledge and suggest that the
exploratory inquiries in this dissertation could be complemented by future research with a deductive
quantitative theory-testing thrust.

163
Observations and interviews complemented by documents constitute the qualitative data used in this
dissertation. While these data types allowed for capturing the most important face-to-face interaction
sequences, other types of data such as e-mail communication between boundary spanners could
potentially also have provided some additional interesting perspectives. Existing studies have attested
to the insights that can be harnessed from systematic investigations of e-mails (e.g. Orlikowski &
Yates, 1994). In the context of the present dissertation, however, the confidential and sensitive nature
of the emails could make their use difficult. Nevertheless, it is clear that interactions across
organizational borders also unfolded via mails and other types of electronic communication systems
that were not included in the present research.

The primary focus in this dissertation was on a group of facets related to the boundary spanning
exercises of key managers from the buying organizations. Hence, managers from the buying
organizations were the primary informants. Notwithstanding this focus area, the present research also
sought to account for suppliers’ perspectives in a secondary fashion through the observations of
meetings, a few interviews with supplier representatives and document data. Future research could
examine further both perspectives equally in order to build more knowledge on boundary spanning
in buyer-supplier relationships. In this respect, several studies have demonstrated that exploring the
buying and selling perspectives simultaneously can pave the way for important theoretical insights
(e.g. Carter, 2000; Tanskanen, 2015).

Finally, some critical reflections are also warranted with respect to the dominant theoretical lens in
the dissertation. Employing the boundary spanning perspective to study interactions across
organizational boundaries allowed for fruitfully investigating individual level behaviors critical for
supplier relationship management. Indeed, the motivating factor for adopting this perspective, in the
first place, was its core focus on how individuals can bridge differences and facilitate
interorganizational interactions. However, I acknowledge that other theories such as social exchange
theory (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1976; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) could also potentially have been
leveraged in tandem with boundary spanning to further enhance the understanding of interactions
between buyer and supplier representatives. In this regard, it can be noted that foundational literature
on boundary spanning also has stressed the connection between the concept and social exchange
theory (Adams, 1976). In conclusion, there are several theoretical perspectives that also have merit
when it comes to learning more about key managers’ boundary spanning exercises in the context of
supplier relationship management.

164
References
Alvesson, M. & Sandberg, J. 2011. Generating research questions through problematization.
Academy of Management Review, 36(2): 247-271.
Bastl, M., Johnson, M., & Choi, T. Y. 2013. Who's Seeking Whom? Coalition Behavior of a Weaker
Player in Buyer-Supplier Relationships. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(1): 8-28.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exhange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley
Benton, W. & Maloni, M. 2005. The influence of power driven buyer/seller relationships on supply
chain satisfaction. Journal of Operations Management, 23(1): 1-22.
Cai, S., Jun, M., & Yang, Z. 2017. The Effects of Boundary Spanners' Personal Relationships on
Interfirm Collaboration and Conflict: A Study of the Role of Guanxi in China. Journal of
Supply Chain Management, 53(3): 19-40.
Carter, C. R. 2000. Ethical issues in international buyer-supplier relationships: a dyadic examination.
Journal of Operations Management, 18(2): 191-208.
Chakkol, M., Karatzas, A., Johnson, M., & Godsell, J. 2018. Building bridges: boundary spanners in
servitized supply chains. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
38(2): 579-604.
Choi, T. Y. & Wu, Z. 2009. Taking the leap from dyads to triads: Buyer–supplier relationships in
supply networks. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 15(4): 263-266.
Dekker, H., Donada, C., Mothe, C., & Nogatchewsky, G. 2019. Boundary spanner relational behavior
and inter-organizational control in supply chain relationships. Industrial Marketing
Management, 77: 143-154.
Dubois, A. & Gadde, L.-E. 2002. Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research.
Journal of business research, 55(7): 553-560.
Dubois, A. & Gadde, L.-E. 2014. “Systematic combining”—A decade later. Journal of Business
Research, 67(6): 1277-1284.
Dyer Jr, W. G. & Wilkins, A. L. 1991. Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory:
A rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3): 613-619.
French, J. R., Raven, B., & Cartwright, D. 1959. The bases of social power. Classics of organization
theory, 7: 311-320.
Friedman, R. A. & Podolny, J. 1992. Differentiation of boundary spanning roles: Labor negotiations
and implications for role conflict. Administrative science quarterly: 28-47.
Gulati, R. & Sytch, M. 2008. Does familiarity breed trust? Revisiting the antecedents of trust.
Managerial & Decision Economics, 29(2/3): 165-190.

165
Gibbs, J. P. 1981. Norms, deviance, and social control: Conceptual matters: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Gibbs, J. P. & Gibbs, J. P. 1989. Control: Sociology's central notion: University of Illinois Press
Handfield, R. B., Krause, D. R., Scannell, T. V., & Monczka, R. M. 2000. Avoid the Pitfalls in
Supplier Development. Sloan Management Review, 41(2): 37-49.
Holma, A.-M. 2012. Interpersonal interaction in business triads—Case studies in corporate travel
purchasing. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 18(2): 101-112.
Janowicz-Panjaitan, M. & Krishnan, R. 2009. Measures for Dealing with Competence and Integrity
Violations of Interorganizational Trust at the Corporate and Operating Levels of
Organizational Hierarchy. Journal of Management Studies, 46(2): 245-268.
Krause, D. R., Ragatz, G. L., & Hughley, S. 1999. Supplier Development from the Minority Supplier's
Perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 35(3): 33-41.
Lascelles, D. M. & Dale, B. G. 1990. Examining the Barriers to Supplier Development. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 7(2).
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of management review, 20(3): 709-734.
Orlikowski, W. J. & Yates, J. 1994. Genre Repertoire: The Structuring of Communicative Practices
in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(4): 541-574.
Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. 2003. Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust
in boundary spanners. Organization Science, 14(4): 422-439.
Poblete, L. A. & Bengtson, A. 2020. "I want you back": On the strategic roles of boundary spanners
in supplier switching-back processes. Industrial Marketing Management, 91: 234-245.
Tanskanen, K. 2015. Who wins in a complex buyer-supplier relationship? A social exchange theory
based dyadic study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 35(4):
577-603.
Wagner, S. M. & Krause, D. R. 2009. Supplier development: communication approaches, activities
and goals. International Journal of Production Research, 47(12): 3161-3177.
Wilson, K. & Barbat, V. 2015. The supply chain manager as political-entrepreneur? Industrial
Marketing Management, 49: 67-79.
Wynstra, F., Spring, M., & Schoenherr, T. 2015. Service triads: A research agenda for buyer–
supplier–customer triads in business services. Journal of Operations Management, 35: 1-20.
Yukl, G., Chavez, C., & Seifert, C. F. 2005. Assessing the construct validity and utility of two new
influence tactics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(6): 705-725.

166
Zhang, C., Viswanathan, S., & Henke, J. W. 2011. The boundary spanning capabilities of purchasing
agents in buyer–supplier trust development. Journal of Operations Management, 29(4): 318-
328.
Zhang, C., Wu, F., & Jr.Henke, J. W. 2015. Leveraging boundary spanning capabilities to encourage
supplier investment: A comparative study. Industrial Marketing Management, 49: 84-94.

167
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Co-author statement – Study 1

168
Appendix 2 – Co-author statement – Study 2

169