Boundary spanner closeness to partner firm as relational governance in turbulent versus stable environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to explore the overall relationship between a boundary spanner and a partner firm, i.e. boundary spanner closeness to partner firm. Drawing on consumer-service provider relationship literature and the tripartite model of affect-behavior-cognition, the authors identify three key dimensions of such closeness, namely, boundary spanners’ relational ties, customer-specific capabilities and accommodative behaviors, and examine their effects on exchange outcomes in turbulent versus stable environments. Design/methodology/approach The paper examines the effects of three dimensions of boundary spanner closeness on various exchange outcomes (i.e. retailers’ cooperation, satisfaction and willingness for investment) using two industries as exemplars, characterized by distinct levels of environmental turbulence – the retailing networks of a major cell phone company and a petroleum company in China. Findings The results indicate that the three dimensions individually and jointly affect exchange outcomes and the interplay of customer-specific capabilities and relational ties affect exchange outcomes differently across industry turbulence. Originality/value The existing literature lacks a comprehensive understanding of the function of boundary spanners, which serve as a key relational interorganizational governance component. By identifying three key dimensions of boundary spanner closeness and examining their effectiveness in promoting exchange outcomes, this study advances the understanding of the role of boundary spanners in interorganizational governance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".