A basic tenet of this article is that the nature of an organization’s or group’s boundaries influences the ability of its members to exert influence on other organizations and groups. The organizations in the study are of different size and form, including an informal group, institutional sub-units, educational institutions and a virtual organization. A framework of interpretation is developed to assist in the distinction between organizations on the basis of their boundary properties. The framework is applied to the setting up and development of a virtual organization. It is used to interpret how three key developments between the organizations were possible due to differences in their respective boundary characteristics. The findings are critiqued and implications are suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Todd, J. & Kerr, S. The boundaryless organization: Breaking the chains of organizational structure. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass , 1995.
2.
Bakken, T. & Hernes, T. The macro–micro problem in organization theory: Luhmann’s autopoiesis as a way of handling recursivity. In T. Bakken & T. Hernes (Eds), Autopoietic organization theory. Oslo: Abstrakt Liber Copenhagen Business School Press , 2003, pp. 53–74.
3.
Barth, F. Introduction. In F. Barth (Ed.), Ethnic groups and boundaries – The social organization of cultural difference. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget , 1969.
4.
Crozier, M. & Friedberg, E. Actors and systems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press , 1980.
5.
Douglas, M. Purity and danger. London: Routledge , 1966.
6.
Elias, N. & Scotson, J. L. The established and the outsiders. London: Sage , 1994.
7.
Gagliardi, P., Ed. Symbols and artifacts – Views of the corporate landscape. New York: Aldine de Gruyter , 1992.
8.
Giddens, A. The constitution of society. Cambridge: Polity Press , 1984.
9.
Goffman, E. Asylums. New York: Doubleday , 1961.
10.
Hannan, M.T. & Freeman, J. Organizational ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press , 1989.
11.
Harshbarger, D. The individual and the social order: Notes on the management of heresy and deviance in complex organizations . Human Relations, 1973, 262, 251–269 .
12.
Hernes, T. Organization as evolution of space. In B. Czarniawska & G. SevÛn (Eds), Northern lights organization theory. Stockholm: Liber, Abstrakt, Copenhagen Business School Press , 2003, pp. 267–290.
13.
Hirschorn, L. & Gilmore, T. The new boundaries of the ‘boundaryless’ organization. Harvard Business Review, 1992, May–June, 104–115.
14.
Latour, B. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press , 1987.
15.
Lefebvre, H. The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell , 1991.
16.
Ljungberg, J. Open source movements as a model for organising . European Journal of Information Systems, 2000, 9, 208–216 .
17.
Luhmann, N. Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press , 1995.
Miller, E.J. & Rice, A.K. Systems of organization – The control of task and sentient boundaries. London: Tavistock , 1967.
20.
Morner, M. The emergence of open-source software projects: How to stabilize self-organizing processes in emergent systems. In T. Bakken & T. Hernes (Eds), Autopoietic organization theory. Oslo: Abstrakt, Liber, Copenhagen Business School Press , 2003, pp. 259–271.
Paulsen, N. ‘Who are we now?’: Group identity, boundaries, and the (re)organizing process. In N. Paulsen & T. Hernes (Eds), Managing boundaries in organizations: Multiple perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan , 2003, pp. 14–34.
23.
Perrow, C. Complex organizations – A critical essay, 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill , 1986.
24.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G.R. The external control of organizations – A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row , 1978.
25.
Powell, W.W. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network form of organization . Research in Organizational Behaviour, 1990, 12, 295–336 .
26.
Rothschild-Whitt, J. The collectivist organization: An alternative to rational-bureaucratic models . American Sociological Review, 1979, 44, 509–527 .
27.
Schwartz, M. Boundary problems in political organizations . Journal of Organizational Change Management, 1996, 94, 43–55 .
Scott, W.R. Organizations – Rational, natural and open systems, 4th edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall , 1998.
30.
Selznick, P. Leadership in administration. Berkeley: University of California Press , 1957.
31.
Van Maanen, J. Boundary crossings: Major strategies of organizational socialization and their consequences. In R. Katz (Ed.), Career issues in human resource management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall , 1982.
32.
Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E.H. Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavour, Vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press , 1979, pp. 209–264.
33.
Weick, K.E. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems . Administrative Science Quarterly, 1976, 21, 1–18 .
34.
Weick, K.E. The social psychology of organising, 2nd edn. New York: Random House , 1979.
