Search results

Conference presentations covered a broad range of topics. For example, Brett, Weingart and Olekans presented work that examines patterns in how group negotiations unfold over time; while Chen, Blount and Sanchez-Burks explored how group status structures influence how members align the pace of their tasks within a group. Zellmer-Bruhn, Waller and Ancona initiated the study of how groups can use pauses in work cycles to break out of embedded routines; while Medvec, Berger, Liljenquist and Neale sought to examine how organizational work groups can avoid the pitfalls of short-term time pressure in decision making.

Wow! It was about this time of year – but about sixteen years ago – that we held our first Research on Managing Groups and Teams conference. The first one was held at Stanford but we moved the location between the East and West coasts for 14 years. As homage to where we met and as the touchstone to where so many of the participants in our conferences and the authors in our volumes were trained, taught, or visited, we returned to the Kellogg School of Management, our intellectual spawning ground. With generous and facilitating support from the Kellogg dean Sally Blount (who, not coincidentally, was the thematic editor of the RMGT Volume 5: Time in Groups), about 60 of us convened to present our ideas, engage in good-natured roasting of our colleagues, and remember how we and the field had changed – and the part that we all have played in that transformation. When Beta and I said our last good-byes at the conference, we left Evanston, not with sadness at the ending of the conferences, but with a sense of accomplishment and collegiality. We have watched young assistant professors transform into leaders in the field. We had seen our own research fortunes, responsibilities, and accomplishments ebb and flow over the 16 years. And now – we move on to new adventures, new horizons, and, with luck, a few more successes.

Drawing from findings in sociology and anthropology on time as a symbol of status, this paper examines the role that status differentials affect how group members internally align the pace of their activities over time (group synchronization). We examine the psychological process of group synchronization from the perspective of the individual, the nature of status differentials in work groups, and how one’s status within a group affects a person’s willingness to adjust the timing of his/her activities to match other people’s timing. We then identify three types of status structures within work groups and analyze how each affects the group’s ability to synchronize. We close by considering the implications of our approach for better understanding temporal dynamics in work groups.

This chapter draws from psychological and organizational research to develop a conceptual model of individual temporality in the workplace. We begin by outlining several general cognitive and motivational aspects of human temporal processing, emphasizing its reliance on (a) contextual cues for temporal perception and (b) cognitive reference points for temporal evaluation. We then discuss how an individual's personal life context combines with the organizational context to shape how individuals situate their time at work through: (1) the adoption of socially constructed temporal schemas of the future; (2) the creation of personal work plans and schedules that segment and allocate one's own time looking forward; and (3) the selection of temporal referents associated with realizing specific, valued outcomes and events. Together, these elements shape how individuals perceive and evaluate their time at work and link personal time use to the broader goals of the organization.

This chapter addresses how project teams achieve coordinated action, given the diversity in how team members may perceive and value time. Although synchronization of task activities may occur spontaneously through the nonconscious process of entrainment, some work conditions demand that team members pay greater conscious attention to time to coordinate their efforts. We propose that shared cognitions on time – the agreement among team members on the appropriate temporal approach to their collective task – will contribute to the coordination of team members’ actions, particularly in circumstances where nonconscious synchronization of action patterns is unlikely. We suggest that project teams may establish shared cognitions on time through goal setting, temporal planning, and temporal reflexivity.

I was surprised and delighted to be asked to write the final chapter of a book on groups. I certainly thought of myself as a “groups person,” but I was never quite sure that anyone else did. My research image is much more tied to organization theory and strategy. But the reality is that much of my work – from strategic decision making and product development to acquisitions and cross-business synergies – often does deal with groups. Although these more macro-level topics are in the foreground, groups are very often the backdrop.

During the conference in which this volume’s chapters were presented and discussed, an important topic arose: the proliferation of terms used to describe the temporal aspects of groups and teams. Recognition of this proliferation is not new (cf. Ancona, Okhuysen & Perlow, 2001). While it is partly a reflection of the increased interest in things temporal, it is also a reflection of how we conduct work in the area of groups and organization studies for at least three reasons.

Achieving temporal synchronization may require that work groups develop shared cognitions about the time-related demands they face. We investigated the extent to which group members developed shared cognitions with respect to the three temporal perceptions: time orientation (present vs. future), time compression, and time management (scheduling and time management). We argue that group members are more likely to align their perceptions to temporal characteristics of the group or organizational context (e.g. time compression, scheduling, proper time allocation) rather than to each other’s individual time orientations. Survey data collected from 104 work groups are largely consistent with these expectations. The implications of shared cognitions on time for work group functioning and performance are discussed.