A Study of Key Communicators in Research and Development laboratories

Abstract

Although much has been written to document the existence of the keycommunicator role, relatively little attention has been directed toward determining the factors that motivate an individual to assume the role and to maintain the behaviors that define the role. The purposes of the study reported here were to identify key communicators within a sample of R &D laboratories; to explore those factors which motivate individuals to assume and maintain the role of key communicators; and to derive implications for further study of the characteristics of key communicators in R &D laboratories. Three U.S. government laboratories engaged in applied research and development participated as research sites in the field study. The factors that motivated those identified as key communicators to assume and maintain the role varied. All of those interviewed reported that the role was intrinsically rewarding, but those in supervisory positions looked upon it as part of theirjob requirements. The personal costs involved in maintaining the role were viewed by the respondents to be insignificant when weighed against the perceived social and organizational benefits derived from performance in the role of key communicator.Previous studies of the communication behavior of scientists and engineers have indicated that a few key individuals play a critical role in linking researchers within the laboratory with the external information environment. The individuals who function in this linking role Downloaded from 337 have been diversely called &dquo;gatekeepers,&dquo; &dquo;key communicators,&dquo; &dquo;communication stars,&dquo; and &dquo;linking persons.&dquo; Efforts to describe the linking-person role and identification of individuals who assume and maintain the role abound in the literature (Allencommunicators have been described as differing from their colleagues in two important respects. First, they read much more, especially the &dquo;harder&dquo; scientific literature, and their readership of professional and scientific journals is significantly greater than that of the average researcher. Second, they maintain broader, more diverse, and longer term relationships with experts in the field located outside of the immediate working environment. In this way, the key communicator acts as a linking person mediating between his organizational colleagues and research efforts in other organizations and effectively couples his work group to the scientific and technical activity of the larger scientific community.Although much has been written to document the existence of the key communicator role, relatively little attention has been paid to the factors that motivate an individual to assume the role and to maintain the behaviors that define the role.The purposes of this study were: 1. To identify key communicators within a sample of R&D laboratories; 2. To explore those factors that motivate individuals to assume and maintain the role of key communicators; 3. To derive implications for further study of the characteristics of key communicato...

Bridging the gap between suppliers and customers through relationship promoters: theoretical considerations and empirical results

“…We utilized four items to measure information exchange, three items to measure searching for appropriate actors, four items to measure bringing actors together, five items to measure coordinating activities, and three items to measure getting negotiation results. Several items were adapted from scales used to measure boundary spanning activities (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992;Chakrabarti and O'Keefe, 1977;Keller and Holland, 1975). Social competence was measured with a 4-item scale.…”

Promoting the Penguin: Who Is Advocating Open Source Software in Commercial Settings?

“…In particular, developers were found, in 8 out of 12 cases, both accounting and not accounting for other individual characteristics, to be significantly less favorably disposed to OSS than either architects or testers. For developers, OSS seems to approximate what Lyytinen and Rose (2003) (Chakrabarti et al 1977;Hauschildt et al 1989;Hauschildt et al 2001;Howell et al 1990;Markham et al 1991;Rothwell et al 1974). The project managers who would seem, due to their boundary-spanning role, to be ideally suited to act as champions turn out to be the least favorably disposed towards OSS.…”

“…Such peer influence is also important in the context of interaction and knowledge exchange with others both within and outside an organization (Granovetter 1985;Granovetter 1973;Katz et al 1982;Katz et al 1985;Rogers 2003). This study combines social systems and communication-as a mediator of peer influence, a means to bridge gaps in compatibility, and a valuable source of innovation in itself (Chakrabarti et al 1977;Ebadi et al 1984;Katz et al 1985 or at most very little, change to the status quo) is classified as an "adopter" rather than an "innovator" (Kirton 1976;Kirton 2003). Using OSS, contributing to existing OSS projects, and releasing proprietary software as OSS, because they involve considerable change, should be more likely to be viewed favorably by individuals who score higher on the index.…”

Division of labour in championing activities for technological innovations in Korea: patterns and performance consequences

“…Case studies Technical innovator, product champion, business innovator, chief executive Chakrabarti and O'Keefe (1977) 251 scientists and engineers in 3 large government laboratories…”