The previous two chapters have explored the nature and role of boundary spanners in a public sector context. In contrast, this chapter shifts the focus to the private sector to examine whether there are any practical or theoretical lessons and learning from the activities of boundary spanners in this sphere of management and governance which may be of interest to the public sector. Moreover, it looks at public–private partnerships (PPPs) for additional insights and perspectives into the work of boundary spanners.

Early perspectives

The early literature from organisational theory on boundary spanning was set primarily within a private sector context. Here, the boundary spanning function is considered to be one of managing the interface between organisations and their environments. Katz and Kahn (1966) suggest that this involves a process of exporting goods, services and ideas from an organization, and of importing staff and raw materials into it; Adams (1976) and Aldrich and Herker (1977) identify two main roles in this function, an information-processing or transmitter role involving filtering and facilitation, and an external representation or gatekeeping function which includes resource acquisition and political/social legitimacy; Aldrich (1979, p 249) views it as a process of ‘buffering, moderating and influencing external events’; and finally, Thompson (1967) suggests that it involves controlling threats from the environment. Tushman and Scanlan (1981b, p 290) focus on issues of communication across boundaries caused by differences in ‘idiosyncratic languages and coding systems’ and ‘local conceptual frameworks’ resulting in bias and distortion of information. Aldrich and Herker (1977) argue that the nature of the environment has a direct influence on the need for boundary spanning roles in organisations. Organisations positioned within heterogeneous and dynamic environments, and involved in mediating technology, are considered more likely to warrant the creation of boundary spanning roles.

References are made to the potentially powerful position of boundary spanners because of their access to information and control over its dissemination, and to their enhanced status acquired through their exposure to the external environment. In view of the multiple roles boundary spanners are expected to discharge, this can be seen as a source of stress and conflict, although alternatively some argue that it might ‘serve as resources for status enhancement and role performance’ and ‘enrich the personality and self-conception of boundary spanners, offering them a diversity of experience closed off to other members’ (Aldrich, 1979, p 262).