Explore the vast range of titles available.

Prior research has emphasized the importance of boundary spanners in facilitating the transfer of knowledge between organizational units. The successful transfer of knowledge between organizational units is critical for a number of organizational processes and performance outcomes. The empirical evidence on the success of boundary spanners is mixed, however. Research findings indicate boundary spanners can either facilitate or inhibit the flow of knowledge between organizational units. We develop and test a theoretical argument emphasizing the importance of the broader network context in which boundary spanning occurs. In particular, we consider how tie strength, network cohesion, and network range affect the level of knowledge acquired in cross-unit knowledge transfer relationships. An analysis of knowledge transfer relationships among several hundred scientists indicates that each network feature had a positive effect on the level of knowledge acquired in cross-unit knowledge transfer relationships. Our findings illustrate how network features contribute to the flow of knowledge between organizational units and, therefore, how network context contributes to heterogeneity in boundary-spanning outcomes.

Organizational boundaries are a central phenomenon, yet despite their significance, research is dominated by transaction cost economics and related exchange-efficiency perspectives. While useful, it is time to engage in a broader view. Our purpose is to provide a deeper understanding of organizational boundaries. First, we develop four boundary conceptions (efficiency, power, competence, and identity) and their distinctive features including organizational and environmental assumptions, unique conception of boundaries, theoretical arguments, empirical validity, contributions, and limitations. Efficiency takes a legal-ownership view of atomistic boundary decisions. In contrast, the power conception emphasizes the sphere of influence of the organization, while competence focuses on the resource portfolio and its related configuration, and identity centers on the often unconscious mind-set by which organizational members understand \"who we are.\" We also indicate relationships, both coevolutionary and synergistic, among the conceptions. Second, we juxtapose these conceptions with the current literature to create a springboard for a renewed research agenda. This agenda includes greater focus on nonefficiency perspectives, relationships (not competition) among boundary conceptions, studies that take the normative implication of theories more seriously, and problem-driven research on contemporary boundary issues such as contract employment and business ecosystems.

Currently, literature on organizational boundaries is at the center of a heated debate, characterized by a shift from a transactional approach to a broader immaterial perspective centered on the concept of boundless organizations. However, the overestimation of the effects of contemporary dematerialization on business processes can lead to the progressive neglect of the existence of corporate borders. In light of this consideration, the present work aims at proposing a new type of criterion for defining organizational boundaries, halfway between the conception of the firm’s total openness and total closure. To this end, the authors envisage the use of a new interpretive logic defined as “relational”, resulting from the specification of the systemic view (and as the sum of the logic underlying the viable systems approach (VSA)). This approach views the definition of boundaries. Therefore, in the large and intricate scenery of the studies dedicated to organizational boundaries, this work contributes to a better understanding of border selection as an interactive and changeable process capable of pushing organizations towards a greater awareness of their strategic dimension. This paper also offers some insights for future research, suggesting that both scholars and professionals investigate, firstly, new frontiers for the identification of organizational boundaries and, secondly, the possible positive repercussions that new organizational redesign modes could determine for a greater competitive success.

Purpose: This study seeks to analyse how the servitization topic has been addressed through different theoretical approaches. More specifically, the aim is to answer two key questions: What theoretical approaches have been used to study the phenomenon of servitization? What specific aspects of the servitization process have been analysed through each theoretical approach? Design/methodology/approach: This paper adopts a systematic literature review. The first step involves a descriptive analysis, which is then followed by a thematic one. Findings: The results show that the topic of servitization has been analysed according to the main boundary of the firm theories (Resource-based view, Game theory, and Transaction cost economics) and to organizational boundaries (Contingency theory and Resource dependence theory), among others. From the perspective of these theoretical frameworks, the following topics have received the most scholarly attention: Performance, Capabilities, Supply Chain Management, Business Model, Strategy, and Sustainability. Originality/value: Observations are made on the relevance that diverse theories have on the development of research into servitization. The most suitable theoretical lenses are recommended for future research.

This paper presents an account of the moral boundaries of organizations. We define an organization’s moral boundary to encompass all of the actions for which it could be held morally responsible. Our theory requires us to view organizations as subjects that act in the world, rather than as objects that are used as tools; that is, it requires us to focus on corporate moral agency. We present a process model for determining whether a given action lies within an organization’s moral boundary, and we discuss how an organization’s moral boundary can be created, destroyed, or modified as a result of deliberate choices by human and organizational actors. Our article contributes to the literature by conceptualizing the distinction between organizations as subjects and organizations as objects, and so clarifying the distinction between legal and moral boundaries; by recentering the discussion of boundaries on organizational actions rather than on contingent institutional features; and by adding nuance to the assignment of moral responsibility in complex organizational networks and in situations where one corporate moral agent depends upon another for its existence.

The success of eHealth relies on interorganizational collaboration (IOC) throughout the development, evaluation, and implementation phases of eHealth deployment. This IOC is complex, as it involves a diversity of organizations from different sectors, such as technological, academic, health care, and governmental organizations, collaborating to deploy eHealth. Between these organizations, organizational boundaries, defined as the demarcation of an organization from its environment, arise. When these boundaries are perceived as aligned and enable complementarity, IOC is facilitated. By contrast, misalignment of organizational boundaries can hinder IOC. A dialogical learning mechanism, defined as a learning process that occurs when boundaries hinder IOC, can support learning how to navigate such boundaries. However, it is difficult to determine whether and when organizational boundaries facilitate or hinder IOC, and which dialogical learning mechanisms can be used to address these challenges during eHealth deployment. Previous literature presents the barriers and facilitators of IOC during eHealth deployment only for subsets of organizations or specific phases, leaving their generic versus phase specific applicability uncharted. This scoping review aims to identify whether, and under what circumstances, organizational boundaries facilitate or hinder IOC during the development, evaluation, and implementation of eHealth. A scoping review was conducted using searches in the PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were empirical studies written in English or Dutch and contained findings on factors influencing IOC during the development, evaluation, or implementation phases of eHealth deployment. The search yielded 11,867 articles, of which 16 met the inclusion criteria. Open and axial coding of the extracted findings was performed to identify organizational boundaries and dialogical learning mechanisms that hindered or facilitated IOC during eHealth deployment. In each phase, different organizational boundaries either hindered or facilitated IOC. The dialogical learning mechanism identification was crucial for enhancing IOC and was supported by training or by establishing IOC from previous relationships. Additionally, the learning mechanism coordination improved IOC and depended on the involvement of boundary spanners (ie, individuals who span organizational boundaries) and the use of boundary objects (ie, objects which help bridge different social worlds). Furthermore, the mechanism reflection, fostered through open and frequent communication, facilitated IOC. The dialogical learning mechanism transformation did not influence IOC during any phase of eHealth deployment. IOC in eHealth deployment is a dynamic process that depends on the dialogical learning mechanisms identification, coordination, and reflection to navigate organizational boundaries. This review is the first to present organizational boundaries and dialogical learning mechanisms that influence IOC across the different phases of eHealth deployment. However, further research that explicitly considers these phases is needed to deepen the understanding of IOC in eHealth deployment.

“Openness” has become an established norm in the contemporary business environment. However, despite the crucial importance of boundaries and boundary work in organization and management theory, openness—as opening up boundaries of family firms and entrepreneurial families in collaborating with external actors—has received only nascent attention in the family business domain. We introduce the notion of openness in the family business field. Drawing on the organizational boundary and family business literatures, we develop a conceptual framework of family firm openness as boundary work and examine and discuss the drivers, mechanisms, and consequences of openness in family enterprises. Then, drawing on this framework, we set out an agenda for future research that will contribute to a better understanding of openness, boundaries, and boundary work in family firms and entrepreneurial families. We conclude by discussing some contemporary examples of research on the “open family firm.”Plain English SummaryOpenness as boundary work is a significant challenge for many family firms but is critically important in an increasingly complex business environment. We develop a generative framework and future research agenda. Our main implications are for (1) research: our conceptual framework on openness as boundary work and the research questions we put forward as a critical future research agenda open up many possibilities for further developing meaningful and useful theory on openness, boundaries, and boundary work in family firms and entrepreneurial families; (2) practice: we help family firms, entrepreneurial families, and family business advisors better understand the dynamics, complexities, and consequences of openness to make more informed boundary decisions; and (3) society: when family firms open up their boundaries, not only can they create more opportunities for other societal actors, but they can also generate more value than they can do alone.

We examine how organizations that suffer core stigma—disapproval for their core attributes—survive. We explain how men's bathhouses avoid negative attention and minimize the transfer of stigma to their network partners, including customers, suppliers, and regulators, through careful management of their business activities. Using observational, archival, and interview data across different institutional environments, we find that, in response to suffering core stigma, men's bathhouses use a variety of strategies to shield their partners depending, in part, on the level of hostility that they face in their environment. Our work contributes to the emerging literature on organization-level stigma, especially by focusing on how core-stigmatized organizations are able to survive and by drawing attention to the special problem of stigma transfer. Our findings also focus attention on the use of legitimacy in organization studies and call for further examinations of core-stigmatized and other illegitimate organizations to expand our theoretical domain to the fullest range of organizational processes and outcomes.

\"Elite\" and \"flagship\" are two influential groupings used to conceptualize differences among higher education institutions, but rarely defined. We derive common features attributed to these groupings from a content analysis of 40 years of higher education literature. Next, we explore the relationship of these features to other institutional characteristics with multiple regression analyses of organizational-level data. We uncover \"organizational tautology,\" a self-reinforcing manifestation of status beliefs and boundary work. Elite and flagship categories represent stylized facts used to legitimate groupings based on organizational status, reinforcing exclusionary beliefs by higher education insiders and their positions within an unequal higher education system.

In this paper we develop a knowledge-based theory of the firm. While existing knowledge-based theory focuses on the efficiency of hierarchy in economizing on knowledge exchange, we develop a theory of the firm that focuses on the efficiency of alternative organizational forms in generating knowledge or capability. Our theory begins with the problem as the basic unit of analysis, arguing that a problem's complexity influences the optimal method of solution search and the optimal means of organizing that search. The distinguishing feature that differentiates among organizational alternatives is the different way each resolves conflict over the selection of solution trials, that is, the way it chooses the path of search. Our theory predicts that efficiency demands that these governance alternatives be matched in a discriminating way to problems based on their associated benefits and costs in governing solution search. Thus, our theory is among the first to simultaneously treat both the boundary choice (i.e., internal versus external) and the choice among alternative internal approaches to organizing.