Examining the role of team boundary buffering as a proactive and reactive stress intervention for boundary spanning new product teams
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape, the capacity of new product development (NPD) teams to innovate hinges significantly on their ability to leverage external networks, known as ‘team boundary spanning’. While this activity is traditionally viewed as beneficial, its potential to exacerbate job stress and consequently diminish team satisfaction and NPD performance demands closer examination. Our research extends this area of inquiry by exploring the impact of team boundary spanning on job stress within NPD teams. Drawing on the conservation of resources theory, we hypothesize that team boundary spanning increases job stress which, in turn, decreases job satisfaction and NPD performance. This study also investigates the role of team boundary buffering as both a proactive and reactive intervention to mitigate the stress experienced by teams. Data were collected from 140 NPD projects in high and medium-high technology firms. Results reveal that team boundary spanning indeed elevates job stress and that high levels of stress correlate with declines in product quality and job satisfaction. Additionally, our results indicate that while team boundary buffering is not an effective proactive stress intervention, it is beneficial as a reactive intervention to the stress precipitated by boundary spanning activities.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it