Boundary spanning people’s characteristics

The trust in the individuals with a boundary spanner role in the projects was to a large extent due to their individual characteristics. As such, the boundary spanning people in the case are identified to have a set of characteristics that enables trust transfer, contributing to the existing trust transfer literature. These individuals were typically described as people with a strong personality having a high degree of expertise and a broad knowledge base, being inclusive and proactive while at the same time clear and precise in their expectations and requirements. Moreover, the boundary spanning people were described as benevolent, collaborative people, doing their best to tie the organisations together to one cohesive unit rather than separate firms, attesting for their likability. Various descriptions about the boundary

spanning people being similar to oneself in some regard, for instance having a similar mindset, were highlighted as positive for the transfer of trust as well. These descriptive characteristics – not necessarily exhaustively describing all boundary spanning people but each having a mixture – align well with Doney and Cannon’s (1997) study in which the authors claim that trust between individuals in an organisational context may result from a person’s expertise or power, in addition to his or her likability and similarity. Competence as a boundary spanner characteristic was put great emphasis on by many of the interviewees, being a sound attest for the spanners’ trustworthiness (Hawes et al., 1989; Kroeger, 2012).

The characteristics of expertise/competence, power, and likability are emphasised to a larger extent than that of similarity – although the similarity is not regarded as an unimportant factor. In addition to these characteristics, some boundary spanning people were also regarded as being very thorough and structured, versatile, and actionable; The findings indicate that Doney & Cannon’s (1997) established characteristics may not cover all the nuances to boundary spanning people entirely, however, they seem to coincide well with the prior literature to some extent.

Boundary spanning people, possessing the described characteristics and tying organisations together, are deemed enablers of trust transfer and cause interpersonal trust to ‘rub off’ onto organisational trust (Kroeger, 2012) – therein also group level trust (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Zaheer et al., 1998). These individuals, even though not being the same person(s) to all trustors throughout both projects (but rather depending on the position, tasks, and personal relationships of the trustor), have been pointed out as having a particularly important role regarding the transfer of trust (e.g. Curall & Judge, 1995; Perrone et al., 2003). As the composition of people from the organisations in the coalition were not entirely the same throughout, new people entered Project B without any first-hand knowledge of Project A. However, due to the continuity of some individuals – and thus relations – from the first project, enough ‘carriers of history and experience’ was present to maintain momentum and enable trust transfer. These carriers and the identified boundary spanning people are not necessarily the same, however, they might overlap.

Besides, the nature and duration of the relationships (personal or organisational) in the case were highlighted as decisive for the collaborative environment and trust

between actors, also in line with Doney and Cannon’s (1997) study. The frequent contact between the actors and duration of the relations improved the quality of the relationships and gave a prolonged period for establishing trust, thus easing the trust transfer. Further, the effect of the ‘carriers of history and experience’ is similar to that of the shadow of the past in that the carriers bring along knowledge of past encounters to the rest of the organisation, while simultaneously facilitating a better environment for the boundary spanning people’s enabling effect on trust transfer.

The boundary spanning people’s transfer enabling effects were further strengthened through (boundary spanning) structures, identified in the study as the co-location, meetings and meeting places, and organisational structures. The existing literature is scarce in its description of boundary spanning structures as a concept in relation to trust transfer. However, the empirical findings of this thesis point to the effect of boundary spanning structures on what the researchers argue to be boundary spanning people’s capability to enable trust transfer. Although not conditional to their transferring effect, the structures are argued to pose as an arena for such and thus strengthen the effect; The co-location, meetings and meeting places served as

‘strengtheners’ in the way that through these, the boundary spanning people gained proximity to a ‘wider’ part of the organisation. Although the logic of closer proximity in a project would suggest tighter connected organisations and therefore less need for boundary spanning people connecting the organisations, the researchers suggest this is not the case. As such, the trust transfer caused by having closer proximity, ‘shorter’ lines of communication, and more frequent contact is not solely due to the structures but also helped by the augmentation of the area of operation for the boundary spanning people.

Furthermore, the possible overlap of boundary spanning people and ‘carriers of history and experience’ was observed in the effect a familiar organisational structure has when entering a new project, described as simplifying the making of acquaintances – both in terms of others and of the structures. When there is familiarity in organisational structures across two subsequent projects, only the individuals having experienced the first project will carry the history and experience in that sense. However, these people need not be boundary spanning people, yet they will help the newcomers transition into the project and assist the boundary spanning people to be more efficient in their role as enablers of trust transfer.