1. INTRODUCTION

Organizations purchase between 50% and 70% of the total value of their products from other organizations, a condition that has increased attention on the importance of close relationships with suppliers (Knoppen & Sáenz, 2017). Organizations acquire these goods or services from market-based relationships or from hybrid relationships (interorganizational relationships based on trust and reputation) (Williamson, 1979). Working together based on inter-organizational relationships is beneficial to the parties. There is greater information sharing, increased cooperation, and improved performance (Gao et al., 2005; Mukherji & Francis, 2008; Grawe et al., 2015) in different dimensions (Yang et al., 2016). These benefits have pushed organizations to seek closer relationships and develop cooperation arrangements to leverage their individual resources and gain joint advantages (Grawe et al., 2015).

Interorganizational relationships depend on recurrent personal interaction between individuals from partner organizations meaning this relationship is influenced by their behavior (Andersen & Kumar, 2006). Interorganizational relationships are built and sustained by individuals, the boundary spanners (Aldrich & Herker, 1977), who establish interpersonal relationships among themselves.

Interpersonal relationships refer to the individual-level friendships developed between boundary spanners. Their absence in inter-organizational relationships would reduce trust, limit information sharing, and make conflict resolution difficult (Butt, 2019). Thus, when interorganizational relationships are immersed in interpersonal relationships, positive results can occur at the organization level, providing infrastructure for cooperation, helping to resolve small conflicts, and ensuring the continuity of dyadic relationships (Butt, 2019).

However, organizations engaged in relationships expose themselves to the risk that partners will not cooperate in good faith (relational risk) and the risk of underperformance despite the cooperation of partner organizations (Dekker et al., 2016). Boundary spanners may be tempted to behave in ways that advance their own interest rather than that of the organization and their partner in the relationship (Perrone et al., 2003). Thus, to better understand interorganizational relationships, it is necessary to examine boundary spanners regarding their social connections since they are important in building and maintaining solid relationships between companies (Larentis et al., 2018).

The literature shows that boundary spanners need strong relational capabilities (Dekker et al., 2019). Thus, not all individuals can be considered ideal boundary spanners, depending on their relational capabilities (Vesalainen et al., 2019). Boundary spanners can occupy different positions in the organizational hierarchy at the operational and corporate levels. However, regardless of the hierarchical organizational level, boundary spanners are critical for managing cooperation between organizations (Janowicz-Panjaitan & Noorderhaven, 2009).

This research shows an increase in studies on boundary spanners in interorganizational relationships from 2015 onward, which suggests that this is an emerging theme. Also, it is possible to identify a lack of studies aiming to understand how interpersonal relationships influence interorganizational relationships and their impacts on different aspects of organizational performance. Studies that consider the different organizational hierarchical levels are also needed, so it is possible to analyze the roles of boundary spanners inherent to the levels at which they operate.

This area has gaps that deserve attention from academia. Therefore, the systematic literature review presented in this article addresses the following research questions: (i) how advanced is the literature on boundary spanners in interorganizational relationships, and (ii) which themes should emerge for future research? The review also intends to consolidate existing knowledge about boundary spanners in interorganizational relationships and propose a research agenda.

The study explored the literature on boundary spanners in interorganizational relationships in the business-to-business (B2B) context. The reviewing process led to 45 articles, systematizing their main findings, analyzing the themes explored, and discussing research opportunities in the area. The characteristics of these studies were identified, assessing how interorganizational relationships and their interdependence with interpersonal relationships were presented, and observing the concepts and roles boundary spanners play in interorganizational relationships.

Studies have explored buyer-supplier relationships at the organizational level but ignored the interpersonal relationships in which interorganizational relationships are embedded (Wu et al., 2010). In these studies, the focus has been almost exclusively on the organizational or interorganizational level of analysis, with little emphasis on the roles of individuals (Chakkol et al., 2018). Therefore, this review is timely since it considers interorganizational relationships at the individual level, involving interpersonal relationships that go beyond the organization’s limits (Chakkol et al., 2018). The literature highlights that boundary spanners are increasingly considered for efficient cooperation (Vesalainen et al., 2019). However, despite the importance of these individuals, few studies have assessed their impact on interorganizational relationships (Manosso & Antoni, 2018).

2. METHODOLOGY

A systematic literature review allows the synthesizing of results and evidence from existing studies and producing new knowledge. In this sense, this review produces knowledge about boundary spanners in B2B interorganizational relationships, pointing out research opportunities. It was developed in ten steps, separated into three phases (Tranfield et al., 2003) (Table 1).

Table 1

Phases of a systematic literature review

Source:Tranfield et al. (2003).

The review protocol encompassed selecting articles in the databases Ebsco, Engineering Village, ProQuest, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and Wiley Online Library. The search was carried out on the articles’ titles, abstracts, and keywords, in October of 2019, using the following keywords: “boundary spanner” OR “boundary spanners” OR “boundary spanning.” The search resulted in 3156 articles. Duplicate publications and articles with titles and abstracts outside the scope of this review were excluded, leaving 82 articles for a full reading. After this last step, 45 articles were selected for further analysis.

3. Critical analysis and review of current literature

3.1. Overview

The 45 selected articles include 116 authors, seven of which are authors of at least two of the analyzed articles (Dekker, Gu, Hu, Luo, Noorderhaven, Zhang, and Zheng). Dekker is a professor at the University of Amsterdam, and Noorderhaven works at the University of Tilburg, both in the Netherlands. Zhang is a professor at the University of Vermont, and Luo is a professor at the University of Miami, both in the United States. Gu and Hu are professors at the University of Science and Technology of China, and Zheng is a professor at the University of Hong Kong.

The 45 articles analyzed were published in 35 different journals. The most prominent journal was Industrial Marketing Management, which published seven articles between 2006 and 2019, including studies by Dekker, Zhang, and Zheng. In 2019, three of the seven articles were published in this journal. The other journal that stood out was the Journal of Operations Management, which published four studies between 2007 and 2011. The Journal of Business Research published two studies in 2010 and 2017. Table 2 presents an overview of these publications.

Table 2

Publications overview

* Some of the articles presented more than one theory ** 11 articles did not present a theory Source: Elaborated by the authors

Most of the reviewed studies were empirical (75.6%), while the theoretical ones were less recurrent (24.4%). The theoretical studies developed and presented models (Schilke & Cook, 2013; Vanneste, 2016; Manosso & Antoni, 2018) and structures (Andersen & Kumar, 2006) about aspects of interorganizational relationships, literature reviews (Hoe, 2006; Claglio et al., 2008; Janowicz-Panjaitan & Noorderhaven, 2009; Luvison & Cummings, 2017), and suggestions for future studies (Olk, 1998; Ireland & Webb, 2007; Ellegaard, 2012) based on previous empirical studies.

The empirical studies comprised qualitative (9), quantitative (24), and mixed (1) research approaches. Qualitative empirical studies are recent, published between 2016 and 2019, while empirical studies with a quantitative and mixed approach were published between 1977 and 2019. None of the articles used experiments, and data from all empirical articles were collected in organizations.

The review identified the theories the studies used to obtain their results or to develop hypotheses or propositions. One of the most approached theories was the transaction cost theory (Olk, 1998; Kamann et al., 2006; Ireland & Webb, 2007; Dekker et al., 2016; Marcos & Prior, 2017), which discusses decisions to appeal to the market to acquire inputs or services and the costs arising from these transactions. The social exchange theory (Beugelsdijk et al., 2009; Ellegaard, 2012; Vanneste, 2016; Manosso & Antoni, 2018; Dekker et al., 2019) was also often used. It proposes that relationships are formed, maintained, or broken down based on cost-benefit analysis and depend on rewarding reactions from others. Other studies adopted the role theory (Perrone et al., 2013; Janowicz-Panjaitan & Noorderhaven, 2009; Luvison & Cummings, 2017), which focuses on how individuals link expectations and behaviors in roles. The social network theory (Li et al., 2010; Vanneste, 2016; Ekanayake et al., 2017) and social capital theory (Ireland & Webb, 2007; Williams, 2016; Butt, 2019) were also recurrent. The social network theory corresponds to structures that represent people or organizations (actors) and the relationships between them. The social capital theory deals with trust and reciprocity in exchange relationships.

3.2. The development of boundary spanner research through time

The analysis of the research development through time revealed an increase in the number of publications over the years. The 45 articles selected were published between 1977 and 2019. However, 51% of them were published between 2015 and 2019, i.e., the number of articles published in these five years was the same as in the previous 37 years. Thus, it is possible to say that the topic has caught more attention recently, indicating that boundary spanners in interorganizational relationships are becoming more important.

The first three studies among the selected articles are those by Leifer and Huber (1977), Dubinsky et al. (1985), and Olk (1998). They recognize boundary spanners as the interface between their organizations and partner organizations. These studies recognized the role of boundary spanners in relationship structures between organizations and criticized studies that emphasized organizational factors and disregarded the individual level. However, the discussions they put forward are still incipient. The different roles these individuals can play, he higher levels on which they can act, and the effects of their performance on the organization’s operation or relationship with other organizations are still not addressed.

The other studies in this review were published from 2000 onward. In studies published between 2000 and 2010, we identified new analysis perspectives concerning boundary spanners, such as developing and maintaining relationships between these individuals (Walter & Gemünden, 2000), the effects of the relationship between boundary spanners on the organization’s performance, and the organization’s satisfaction with the interorganizational relationship (Johlke et al., 2002; Haytko, 2004). These perspectives are important because they start to consider the effects of boundary spanners’ relationships on the organizations, such as improving the performance and the organization’s satisfaction with the interorganizational relationship.

These perspectives inspired studies concerned with the behavior of these individuals and their roles in interorganizational relationships (Perrone et al., 2003; Andersen & Kumar, 2006) and how they could increase the organization’s profitability (Luo, 2005). After these studies, boundary spanners were considered important actors in interorganizational relationships, with roles and responsibilities inherent to their position as interfaces between their organizations and other institutions. These studies also bring an important analytical perspective, from which the organization’s profitability can be related to the development of boundary spanners activities and behavior.

During the same period, some studies focused on analyzing the role of boundary spanners in successful verbal agreements (Kamann et al., 2006) and the trust between these individuals (Ireland & Webb, 2007; Caglio & Ditillo, 2008; Beugelsdijk et al., 2009; Janowicz-Panjaitan & Noorderhaven, 2009). These elements reinforce the need to study these individuals and their behavior. The type of control organizations adopt in an interorganizational relationship depends on the trust established between the boundary spanners, which precedes interorganizational trust (Gulati & Sytch, 2008).

Since 2010, studies have focused more on the roles of boundary spanners (Wu et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2011; Williams, 2016; Vanneste, 2016; Marcos & Prior, 2017; Ekanayake et al., 2017; Larentis et al., 2018; Leonidou et al., 2018; Butt, 2019; Shen et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019) and the use of formal and informal controls and their interaction (Li et al., 2010; Knoppen & Sáenz, 2017; Dekker at al., 2019). This shows that, given the roles these individuals play in establishing and maintaining inter-organizational relationships, trust is an aspect that deserves special attention since it can determine the type of control that will predominate in the established relationship. This trust becomes greater as interpersonal bonds develop between boundary spanners, which can be positively associated with the quality of the interorganizational relationship (Huang et al., 2016; Cai et al., 2017).

Research has also expanded to other perspectives in this same period, such as the roles boundary spanners play in interorganizational relationships. Organizations have expectations regarding the relationships established with partners, and these individuals can act according to this expectation or independently (Luvison & Cummings, 2017), according to the type of behavior when interacting with the partner organization’s boundary spanners. They may present authoritarian or competitive behavior (Vesalainen et al., 2019).

3.3. Interpersonal and interorganizational relationships

Some studies in this review mention interpersonal and interorganizational relationships without discussing their interdependence. Vanneste (2016) and Ekanayake et al. (2017) refer to interpersonal relationships as the social bond that a boundary spanner has with a member of another organization, while Butt (2019) refers to this bond as friendships at the individual level. These bonds are related to goodwill toward other individuals and groups, include sympathy, trust, and forgiveness (Williams, 2016), and are built on cultural premises (Larentis et al., 2018).

Other studies discuss interorganizational relationships without mentioning interpersonal relationships. Andersen and Kumar (2006) state that interorganizational relationships allow organizations to create joint value through rationalization and/or learning but do not mention the role of boundary spanners as individuals responsible for establishing and maintaining these interorganizational relationships.

Some studies argue that interorganizational relationships allow the survival and growth of organizations that cannot develop the knowledge base on their own and create conditions for organizations to access and share resources (Janowicz-Panjaitan & Noorderhaven, 2009), constituting an important source of competitive advantage (Zhang et al., 2011; Dekker et al., 2016). In these relationships, the parties largely influence each other’s actions and attitudes (Ellegaard, 2012), and trust is fundamental (Shen et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019). However, these works are not concerned with addressing the role of boundary spanners in resource sharing nor how interorganizational trust can emerge from the interpersonal trust developed between these individuals.

The review identified studies that recognized the interdependence between interpersonal and interorganizational relationships (Walter & Gemünden, 2000; Andersen & Kumar, 2006; Kamann et al., 2006; Haytko, 2004; Luo, 2005; Chakkol et al., 2018). In common, these studies recognize that interorganizational relationships are developed and maintained by boundary spanners of partner organizations, who develop interpersonal relationships. These interpersonal relationships are fundamental for interorganizational relationships to achieve the objectives of the partner organizations.

Some of these studies rely on the social immersion approach, which emphasizes that economic action is immersed in social relationships to defend the interdependence between interpersonal and interorganizational relationships (Haytko, 2004; Kamann et al., 2006). According to the social immersion approach, the economic processes present in interorganizational relationships are possible by interpersonal relationships developed by boundary spanners, which reinforces the interdependence between interpersonal and interorganizational relationships.

An example of this dynamic is that partners in interorganizational relationships often resort to informal social relationships to solve problems and reduce uncertainty (Li et al., 2010). From close relationships between their boundary spanners, partner organizations can gain a competitive advantage and improve their performance (Grawe et al., 2015).

Another example highlighting the interdependence between interpersonal and interorganizational relationships is the development of interorganizational trust, which arises from boundary spanners and the interpersonal trust developed between these individuals (Vanneste, 2016; Williams, 2016). Thus, organizations need to be aware of the trust developed at the interpersonal level since it is the source of interorganizational trust, which is beneficial to organizations. For instance, greater interorganizational trust can minimize costs by replacing formal with informal controls (Li et al., 2010). Also, when there is greater interorganizational trust, organizations are less susceptible to the opportunism of partner organizations (Gulati & Sytch, 2008).

3.4. Boundary spanners in interorganizational relationships

Boundary spanners have been presented in the literature as organizational members who operate within organizational boundaries (Leifer & Huber, 1977) and are subject to internal and external influences (Dubinsky et al., 1985). Boundary spanners process information provided by the partner organization and represent their organization’s interests in the relationship (Perrone et al., 2003) to achieve specific goals (Haytko, 2004). More recently, Andersen and Kumar (2006) conceptualized boundary spanners as individuals directly involved in the interorganizational process between buyer and supplier. Studies such as Ireland and Webb (2007), Wu et al. (2010), Zhang et al. (2011), and Schilke and Cook (2013) rely on the concept of Perrone et al. (2003), mentioned before in this article.

It was possible to observe a concern in the literature to discuss the boundary spanners’ roles. Judging by the roles identified in the literature, actions taken by these individuals in conducting interorganizational relationships can generate significant effects.

The literature review found that they can mediate environmental influences and organizational structures (Leifer & Huber, 1977) as they receive, process, and transmit information (Dubinsky et al., 1985). Thus, information is shared between partner organizations through boundary spanners, so how these individuals conduct this information sharing process can be decisive in meeting the interests of the organization they represent and, at the same time, maintaining the relationship with the partner organization (Walter & Gemünden, 2000).

Also, these individuals are responsible and able to shape the perceptions and expectations of one organization toward another (Vesalainen et al., 2019). The parties involved in interorganizational relationships have expectations, and meeting such expectations is crucial for a sustainable relationship.

Boundary spanners are responsible for managing conflicts, solving problems with partners, and developing knowledge (Dekker et al., 2019). Therefore, Stouthuysen et al. (2019) refer to boundary spanners as the most relevant people for implementing and managing a buyer-supplier relationship.

Another interesting but less explored aspect of boundary spanners is their hierarchical position within organizations. According to Stouthuysen et al. (2019), these individuals can occupy different positions in the hierarchy of their respective organizations, and Janowicz-Panjaitan and Noorderhaven (2009) divide the hierarchical levels occupied by boundary spanners into operational and corporate levels. Operational-level boundary spanners are the primary agents of tacit knowledge learning in the relationship, and trust is the main determinant of knowledge sharing at this level. Enterprise-level boundary spanners shape structures and systems, affecting the extent of sharing between operational levels.

It should be noted that the roles are systematically different when comparing boundary spanners in positions at higher and lower levels of the corporate hierarchy. These differences based on hierarchical levels strongly influence the focus of attention when learning about more effective controls (Stouthuysen et al., 2019).

3.5. Criticism of interorganizational relationships

The review found criticisms of interorganizational relationships, particularly regarding the organizations’ exposure to relational risk, i.e., the risk of partners not cooperating in good faith, adopting opportunistic behavior, and obtaining unsatisfactory performance despite engaging in cooperation (Dekker et al., 2016).

It was possible to observe that the fear of a partner adopting opportunistic behavior could lead to the organization’s low commitment to interorganizational relationships (Ireland & Webb, 2007). This fear is based on the risk of partners approaching each other to learn commercial or technological secrets (Janowicz-Panjaitan & Noorderhaven, 2009).

It was observed that boundary spanners could act opportunistically even when organizations demonstrate full interest and willingness in the interorganizational relationship. These individuals can act pursuing a personal interest to the detriment of the interests of their and the partner organizations (Perrone et al., 2013).

Another interesting aspect identified is that interpersonal relationships between boundary spanners can be powerful enough to maintain an interorganizational relationship, even long after it should have ended, which can go against the interests of the partner organizations. Furthermore, high levels of trust and personal involvement can increase vulnerability to opportunism in the relationship (Haytko, 2004).

3.6. An integrated framework of existing research

Existing research on boundary spanners in B2B interorganizational relationships can be categorized in different ways as they employ different methodologies, approach different theories, and discuss different aspects of these boundary spanners and interorganizational relationships.

Figure 1.
Integrated framework of existing research
Source: Elaboratedby the authors

Figure 1 shows the integration of the existing research on boundary spanners in B2B interorganizational relationships, according to the results detailed in Appendix I. The framework was developed in the context of supplier-buyer interorganizational relationships, in which boundary spanners represent both organizations at the operational and corporate levels.

The image presents an example of an interorganizational relationship between a supplier and a buyer organization at the organizational level. The literature review offered other perspectives of analysis included to illustrate a deepening of the interorganizational relationships. It is possible to observe that each organization is represented in the interorganizational relationship by their respective boundary spanners, i.e., the individuals who act as an interface between the partners.

These individuals may present different behaviors and actions. For example, boundary spanners may exhibit more or less opportunistic behavior, depending on the level of interpersonal trust established with their peers from the partner organization. They can show greater or lesser reciprocity between each other, and organizations have expectations regarding the roles they assign to boundary spanners.

Figure 1 also shows the boundary spanners’ different hierarchical levels, such as the corporate and operational levels. When in positions at the corporate level, boundary spanners (in positions such as members of management teams and top managers) can influence the organization’s direction, including strategies for the interorganizational relationship. At the operational level, boundary spanners (such as analysts and assistants conducting buying and selling transactions with partner organizations) are responsible for the routine implementation of relationship agreements. Thus, operational-level boundary spanners operate within structures and systems designed by corporate-level boundary spanners (Janowicz-Panjaitan & Noorderhaven, 2009).

The central part of Figure 1 presents the connection between the two organizations through the interorganizational relationship, which is interdependent on the interpersonal relationship between the boundary spanners. We also emphasize that this interorganizational relationship may present different development stages. It may vary according to the scope of activities related to the relationship between organizations and the objectives and performance the organizations expect from the relationship. The central part of Figure 1 shows the inter-organizational trust established between the partner organizations and its interdependence with the interpersonal trust between the boundary spanners.

4. SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES

This section contributes to future research by presenting thoughts on the main themes identified from the systematic literature review and the analyses. The reflections below considered the research proposals presented in the articles analyzed.

4.1. Study of interorganizational relationships immersed in interpersonal relationships

The market has demanded that organizations increase the search for competitiveness, which depends on internal capabilities and established relationships with partner organizations. Interorganizational relationships become fundamental for organizations’ survival and growth by enabling access to new information and resources.

It should be noted that economic action is immersed in social relationships, which means that interorganizational relationships are maintained and sustained by boundary spanners. This indicates that the study of interorganizational relationships is timely, but it must consider that they are immersed in interpersonal relationships. However, much of the literature researched interorganizational and interpersonal relationships separately, with little discussion about the interdependence between interorganizational relationships and the interpersonal relationships involving boundary spanners.

Thus, this research points out the need to develop multilevel models to understand better the complex individual and company interrelationships (Vesalainen et al., 2019). It is important to explore these individuals’ behaviors and their influence on the performance of inter-organizational relationships, considering the benefits identified in the literature (which makes this a promising topic for research.

Another aspect that deserves attention is trust. Despite being one of the most explored topics throughout the literature on boundary spanners in interorganizational relationships, few studies have been concerned with differentiating between interorganizational and interpersonal trust. Studies are necessary to verify how interorganizational trust and interpersonal trust are related and how they contribute to the maintenance and performance of the interorganizational relationship (Schilke & Cook, 2013).

Research on interorganizational and interpersonal trust is relevant because trust may be related to opportunism in interorganizational relationships. The literature shows that this opportunism can be at the interorganizational level, when organizations present opportunistic behavior toward the partner, and at the individual level when the boundary spanner seeks their own interests to the detriment of the interests of both organizations.

The literature also showed that trust is related to adopting informal controls, reducing costs, and exposing the organizations to more significant risks. Thus, trust can be investigated as an informal control mechanism compared to other informal or even formal controls (Stouthuysen et al., 2019).

More specifically, although the literature discusses the different types of control (formal and informal), the relationship between them is not analyzed, nor is the adoption of these controls considering the different stages of evolution of interorganizational relationships. Therefore, formal and relational controls should be analyzed at different relationship stages (Shen et al., 2019).

In summary, the continuity of research that deepens the study of interorganizational relationships immersed in interpersonal relationships seems timely. We still need to understand how these interpersonal relationships influence personal and organizational opportunism and the impacts on different aspects of organizational performance.

4.2. Roles and hierarchical levels of boundary spanners in interorganizational relationships

Several roles have been assigned to boundary spanners in the literature, such as becoming the organization’s interface with other partner institutions; receiving, processing, and transmitting information (Dubinsky et al., 1985); and developing and maintaining relationships (Walter & Gemünden, 2000). However, these roles are investigated in specific contexts defined by the researchers. Future studies can compare the roles that boundary spanners play in emerging and advanced economies (Liu & Meyer, 2018) and in different types of organizational activities and business environments (Wu et al., 2010).

Few studies have given due attention to the interpersonal relationships that support interorganizational relationships (Cai et al., 2017). Thus, it is important to research the interpersonal relationships between boundary spanners, primarily focusing on these individuals’ roles and actions, who are relevant individuals in the process of building interpersonal and interorganizational trust in interorganizational relationships.

As mentioned before, the literature has been concerned about possible opportunistic behavior on the part of boundary spanners when they put their interests above the organization’s interests. Thus, future research can help understand the roles of boundary spanners in contexts of opportunism and the impact of these behaviors on interorganizational relationships (Zhang et al., 2019).

The literature review revealed that boundary spanners can occupy different positions in the organization’s hierarchy, acting at the operational and corporate levels. Regardless of the level at which they operate, boundary spanners are fundamental in managing cooperation between organizations. Thus, it is interesting to explore interpersonal relationships at different hierarchical levels (Perrone et al., 2003; Haytko, 2004; Huang et al., 2016) and study these individuals’ different roles when occupying positions at different hierarchical levels. (Table 3).

Table 3

Directions to advance the framework

Source: Elaborated by the authors

5. Conclusion, limitations, and implications

This literature review aimed to answer the research questions: (i) How advanced is the literature on boundary spanners in interorganizational relationships, and (ii) which themes should emerge for future research? The study explored the literature on boundary spanners in interorganizational relationships in the B2B context and reviewed and analyzed the content of 45 articles. An overview of the articles was presented, discussing the characteristics of these publications, followed by an analysis of the development of the research through time, observing the definitions of interpersonal and interorganizational relationships. The concepts and roles attributed to boundary spanners were assessed, and criticisms about interpersonal relationships between boundary spanners in interorganizational relationships were observed and highlighted. Finally, it was possible to synthesize the main findings, subsidizing the elaboration of an integrated framework of existing research and suggestions for future research.

5.1. Limitations

This study has limitations regarding data collection and analysis. While we ensured rigorous and comprehensive analysis and synthesis procedures, our database selection and filtering processes may have omitted relevant studies. Other keywords and different databases could contain publications with different characteristics. However, we believe that this systematic review covered many publications on the research topic. In addition, even if the analyzed articles have been peer-reviewed, it is not possible to guarantee the quality of all analyzed publications.

5.2. Implications

We hope to help other researchers learn about the literature on boundary spanners in B2B interorganizational relationships, resorting to the authors mentioned here to carry out research that contributes to the advancement of knowledge in a practical and theoretical way. The literature review sheds light on several issues related to interorganizational relationships, more specifically on boundary spanners.

First, organizations have resorted to relationships with other organizations to achieve their goals, recognizing the need for cooperation through interorganizational relationships. Therefore, understanding these relationships is necessary to propose ways to maximize benefits and minimize risks and disadvantages in establishing these relationships.

Second, we observed that studies had explored buyer-supplier relationships at the organizational level, ignoring interpersonal relationships. When considering that interorganizational relationships are embedded in interpersonal relationships, it becomes essential to understand the behavior and roles of boundary spanners that sustain these relationships.

Thirdly, we observe an incipient discussion in the literature about boundary spanners at different levels of the organizational hierarchy. Thus, this seems a promising path for future research that shows organizations how to manage interpersonal relationships between boundary spanners at the operational and corporate levels.

Finally, this systematic literature review subsidizes suggestions for future research on relational controls, contributing to organizations by investigating how to implement a control structure that includes formal and relational controls more suited to interorganizational relationships.

REFERENCES

Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure.Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.2307/257905

Andersen, P. H., & Kumar, R. (2006). Emotions, trust and relationship development in business relationships: A conceptual model for buyer-seller dyads.Industrial Marketing Management,35(4), 522-535. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2004.10.010

Beugelsdijk, S., Koen, C., & Noorderhaven, N. (2009). A dyadic approach to the impact of differences in organizational culture on relationship performance.Industrial Marketing Management ,38(3), 312-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.02.006

Butt, A. S. (2019). Absence of personal relationship in a buyer-supplier relationship: case of buyers and suppliers of logistics services provider in Australia.Heliyon, 5(6), e01799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01799

Caglio, A., & Ditillo, A. (2008). A review and discussion of management control in inter-firm relationships: Achievements and future directions.Accounting, Organizations and Society,33(7-8), 865-898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2008.08.001

Cai, S., Jun, M., & Yang, Z. (2017). The effects of boundary spanners’ personal relationships on interfirm collaboration and conflict: A study of the role of guanxi in China.Journal of Supply Chain Management,53(3), 19-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12132

Chakkol, M., Karatzas, A., Johnson, M., & Godsell, J. (2018). Building bridges: Boundary spanners in servitized supply chains.International Journal of Operations & Production Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2016-0052

Corsten, D., Gruen, T., & Peyinghaus, M. (2011). The effects of supplier-to-buyer identification on operational performance-An empirical investigation of inter-organizational identification in automotive relationships.Journal of Operations Management,29(6), 549-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.10.002

Dekker, H., Ding, R., & Groot, T. (2016). Collaborative performance management in interfirm relationships.Journal of Management Accounting Research,28(3), 25-48. https://doi.org/10.2308/jmar-51492

Dekker, H., Donada, C., Mothe, C., & Nogatchewsky, G. (2019). Boundary spanner relational behavior and inter-organizational control in supply chain relationships.Industrial Marketing Management ,77, 143-154.

Dubinsky, A. J., Hartley, S. W., & Yammarino, F. J. (1985). Boundary spanners and self-monitoring: An extended view.Psychological Reports,57(1), 287-294. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1985.57.1.287

Ekanayake, S., Childerhouse, P., & Sun, P. (2017). The symbiotic existence of interorganizational and interpersonal ties in supply chain collaboration.The International Journal of Logistics Management, 28, 723-754. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-12-2014-0198

Ellegaard, C. (2012). Interpersonal attraction in buyer-supplier relationships: A cyclical model rooted in social psychology.Industrial Marketing Management ,41(8), 1219-1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2012.10.006

Gao, T., Sirgy, M. J., & Bird, M. M. (2005). Reducing buyer decision-making uncertainty in organizational purchasing: can supplier trust, commitment, and dependence help?.Journal of Business Research,58(4), 397-405.

Grawe, S. J., Daugherty, P. J., & Ralston, P. M. (2015). Enhancing dyadic performance through boundary spanners and innovation: An assessment of service provider-customer relationships.Journal of Business Logistics,36(1), 88-101. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12077

Gulati, R., & Sytch, M. (2008). Does familiarity breed trust? Revisiting the antecedents of trust.Managerial and Decision Economics,29(2-3), 165-190. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25151592

Haytko, D. L. (2004). Firm-to-firm and interpersonal relationships: Perspectives from advertising agency account managers.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,32(3), 312-328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070304264989

Hoe, S. L. (2006). The boundary spanner’s role in organizational learning: Unleashing untapped potential.Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 20(5), 9-11. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777280610687989

Hu, N., Wu, J., & Gu, J. (2019). Cultural intelligence and employees’ creative performance: The moderating role of team conflict in interorganizational teams.Journal of Management & Organization,25(1), 96-116.

Huang, Y., Luo, Y., Liu, Y., & Yang, Q. (2016). An investigation of interpersonal ties in interorganizational exchanges in emerging markets: A boundary-spanning perspective.Journal of Management,42(6), 1557-1587. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920631351111

Ireland, R. D., & Webb, J. W. (2007). A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic supply chains.Journal of Operations Management ,25(2), 482-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.05.004

Janowicz-Panjaitan, M., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (2009). Trust, calculation, and interorganizational learning of tacit knowledge: An organizational roles perspective.Organization Studies,30(10), 1021-1044. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609337933

Johlke, M. C., Stamper, C. L., & Shoemaker, M. E. (2002). Antecedents to boundary‐spanner perceived organizational support.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 116-128.

Kamann, D. J. F., Snijders, C., Tazelaar, F., & Welling, D. T. (2006). The ties that bind: Buyer-supplier relations in the construction industry.Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management,12(1), 28-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2006.03.001

Knoppen, D., & Sáenz, M. J. (2017). Interorganizational teams in low-versus high-dependence contexts.International Journal of Production Economics,191, 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.05.011

Larentis, F., Antonello, C. S., & Slongo, L. A. (2018). Organizational culture and relationship marketing: An interorganizational perspective.Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios,20(1), 37-56. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v20i1.3688

Leifer, R., & Huber, G. P. (1977). Relations among perceived environmental uncertainty, organization structure, and boundary-spanning behavior.Administrative Science Quarterly, 235-247.

Leonidou, L. C., Aykol, B., Fotiadis, T. A., & Christodoulides, P. (2018). Betrayal intention in exporter-importer working relationships: Drivers, outcomes, and moderating effects.International Business Review,27(1), 246-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.07.005

Li, Y., Xie, E., Teo, H. H., & Peng, M. W. (2010). Formal control and social control in domestic and international buyer-supplier relationships.Journal of Operations Management ,28(4), 333-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.11.008

Liu, Y., & Meyer, K. E. (2018). Boundary spanners, HRM practices, and reverse knowledge transfer: The case of Chinese cross-border acquisitions.Journal of World Business, 55(2), 100958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2018.07.007

Luo, Y. (2005). How important are shared perceptions of procedural justice in cooperative alliances? .Academy of Management Journal,48(4), 695-709. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20159687

Luvison, D., & Cummings, J. L. (2017). Decisions at the boundary: Role choice and alliance manager behaviors.Group & Organization Management,42(2), 279-309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601117696620

Manosso, T. W. S., & Antoni, V. L. (2018). From value congruence between boundary spanners to satisfaction in B2B markets: A theoretical perspective. Revista Alcance, 25(2), 194-210. https://doi.org/alcance.v25n2(Mai/Ago).p194-210

Marcos, J., & Prior, D. D. (2017). Buyer-supplier relationship decline: A norms-based perspective.Journal of Business Research ,76, 14-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.005

Mukherji, A., & Francis, J. D. (2008). Mutual adaptation in buyer-supplier relationships.Journal of Business Research ,61(2), 154-161.

Olk, P. (1998). A knowledge-based perspective on the transformation of individual-level relationships into inter-organizational structures: The case of R&D consortia.European Management Journal,16(1), 39-49.

Perrone, V., Zaheer, A., & McEvily, B. (2003). Free to be trusted? Organizational constraints on trust in boundary spanners.Organization Science,14(4), 422-439. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.4.422.17487

Schilke, O., & Cook, K. S. (2013). A cross-level process theory of trust development in interorganizational relationships.Strategic Organization,11(3), 281-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127012472096

Shen, L., Su, C., Zheng, X. V., & Zhuang, G. (2019). Between contracts and trust: Disentangling the safeguarding and coordinating effects over the relationship life cycle.Industrial Marketing Management ,84, 183-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.06.006

Stouthuysen, K., Van den Abbeele, A., van der Meer-Kooistra, J., & Roodhooft, F. (2019). Management control design in long-term buyer-supplier relationships: Unpacking the learning process.Management Accounting Research,45, 100643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2019.06.001

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review.British Journal of Management,14(3), 207-222. https://www.cebma.org/wp-content/uploads/Tranfield-et-al-Towards-a-Methodology-for-Developing-Evidence-Informed-Management.pdf

Vanneste, B. S. (2016). From interpersonal to interorganisational trust: The role of indirect reciprocity.Journal of Trust Research, 6(1), 7-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2015.1108849

Vesalainen, J., Rajala, A., & Wincent, J. (2019). Purchasers as boundary spanners: Mapping purchasing agents’ persuasive orientations.Industrial Marketing Management ,84, 224-236.

Walter, A., & Gemünden, H. G. (2000). Bridging the gap between suppliers and customers through relationship promoters: theoretical considerations and empirical results.Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 15(2-3), 86-105. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620010316813

Williams, M. (2016). Being trusted: How team generational age diversity promotes and undermines trust in cross‐boundary relationships.Journal of Organizational Behavior,37(3), 346-373. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2045

Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233-261. https://www.jstor.org/stable/725118

Wu, Z., Steward, M. D., & Hartley, J. L. (2010). Wearing many hats: Supply managers’ behavioral complexity and its impact on supplier relationships.Journal of Business Research ,63(8), 817-823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.07.001

Yang, J., Yu, G., Liu, M., & Rui, M. (2016). Improving learning alliance performance for manufacturers: Does knowledge sharing matter?.International Journal of Production Economics ,171(P2), 301-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.09.022

Zhang, C., Viswanathan, S., & Henke, J. W., Jr.(2011). The boundary spanning capabilities of purchasing agents in buyer-supplier trust development.Journal of Operations Management ,29(4), 318-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2010.07.001

Zhang, C., Zheng, X. V., & Li, J. J. (2019). Is collaboration a better way to develop trust after opportunism? Distinguishing firm and boundary spanner opportunism.Industrial Marketing Management ,82, 38-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.02.018

Zhou, C., Hu, N., Wu, J., & Gu, J. (2018). A new scale to measure cross-organizational cultural intelligence.Chinese Management Studies, 12(3), 658-679. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-10-2017-0309

APPENDIX I - Summary of the key contributions of the identified articles

* N/A = Not applicable / Not Available

APÊNDICE I - Resumo das principais contribuições dos artigos identificados

* N/A = Not applicable / Not Available

Author notes

fagundes.ernando@gmail.comvaldirenegasparetto@gmail.com

Conflict of interest declaration