Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 122 (2013) 244–256

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate /obhdp

The clocks that time us are not the same: A theory of temporal diversity,task characteristics, and performance in teams q

0749-5978/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.08.004

q The authors thank Jeff Conte, Stephen Humphrey, Richard Klimoski, and AbbieShipp for their comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.⇑ Corresponding author. Address: 141 Moore Building, Department of Psychol-

ogy, University Park, PA 16802, United States.E-mail address: sxm40@psu.edu (S. Mohammed).

Susan Mohammed a,⇑, David A. Harrison b

a Department of Psychology, The Pennsylvania State University, United Statesb Department of Management, University of Texas at Austin, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 9 April 2012Accepted 26 August 2013Available online 21 September 2013Accepted by Richard Moreland

Keywords:TeamsDiversityTimeTime urgencyTime perspectivePolychronicityPacing styleTask characteristics

Temporal individual differences are an under-explored, but research-worthy form of diversity in teams.Although persistent differences in how members think about and value time can profoundly influenceteam performance, the compositional impact of time-based individual differences is regularly over-looked. Optimal or suboptimal team performance can result because the composition of time-based indi-vidual differences is matched or unmatched (respectively) to task demands. Therefore, we offer a detailedpresentation of how the configuration of four time-based individual differences (time urgency, time per-spective, polychronicity, and pacing style) interact with two task typologies (task type and task complex-ity) to specify when elevation (mean) and diversity (dispersion) of temporal differences is helpful orharmful to team performance.

� 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Differences in the composition of individual characteristics area large part of what makes teams unique, giving rise to complexpatterns of dispersion that are quintessentially team-level. Giventhis presumption, what individual differences should be consid-ered in forming maximally effective teams? In answering thisquestion, researchers have investigated various categories of attri-butes, including cognitive factors (e.g., education, functionalknowledge), social category differences (e.g., gender, ethnicity),personality traits (e.g., conscientiousness, extraversion), and statusdifferences (e.g., organizational tenure, title) (Mannix & Neale,2005; Moreland & Levine, 1992). Based on these categories of indi-vidual differences, however, ‘‘so far, extensive efforts to link diver-sity with team performance have thus been relatively futile’’(Stewart, 2010, p. 802). Indeed, many quantitative (e.g., Bell,2007; Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011; Bowers, Pharm-er, & Salas, 2000; Horowitz and Horowitz, 2007; Stewart, 2006;Webber & Donahue, 2001) and qualitative (e.g., Jackson, Joshi, &Erhardt, 2003; Mannix & Neale, 2005; Milliken & Martins, 1996;

Moreland, 2012; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Williams &O’Reilly, 1998) reviews of team diversity have reprised this conclu-sion, consistently referring to the lack of discernible or mixed ef-fects on team performance, especially for demographic and broadpersonality variables.

There is one category of individual differences important toteam success, however, that is commonly excluded from lists gen-erated by researchers and practitioners alike: time-based charac-teristics, including time urgency (feeling chronically hurried),time perspective (cognitive bias toward being past, present, or fu-ture oriented), polychronicity (preference to engage in more thanone task concurrently), and pacing style (pattern of effort distribu-tion over time in working toward deadlines). Diversity scholarshave urged that future research focus on categories that are notonly task-based, but relevant and critical to the self identities ofgroup members (e.g., Mannix & Neale, 2005; Van Knippenberg,De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). Temporal individual differences meetboth of these criteria. All teams have some sort of implicit or expli-cit time constraints, and the ticking clock has practically becomean obsession in modern organizations, with an unrelenting strug-gle to shorten wait times, speed up the delivery of services andproducts, and gain a temporal advantage over the competition(e.g., Pearce, 2011). In addition, because they are so deeply in-grained, temporal constructs have been recognized as one of thefundamental parameters of individual differences (Bluedorn &Denhardt, 1998).

S. Mohammed, D.A. Harrison / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 122 (2013) 244–256 245

Despite their potential importance, however, temporal charac-teristics seldom make the research list of what is consideredimportant for team performance. In practice, temporal individualdifferences likely operate ‘‘beneath’’ awareness, and are not oftenpart of the initial conversation or everyday language of gettingwork done in teams (e.g., Waller, Conte, Gibson, & Carpenter,2001). Nevertheless, persistent differences in how members thinkabout and value time can profoundly influence team performance,either positively or negatively. Failure to identify the underlyingtemporal source of team difficulties or successes can cause a teamto ‘‘spin its wheels’’ on various interventions and training pro-grams that never directly address how the asynchrony of memberbeats could be at the heart of many team performance issues.

In addition to the question of what individual differences shouldbe considered in forming maximally effective teams, the questionof how individual differences should be configured must also beaddressed (e.g., Moreland, Levine, & Wingert, 1996). Should teamsbe staffed with individuals of differing characteristics or shouldvariability be minimized? Would a leader, for example, benefitfrom deliberately including members who have different temporalorientations in the same team (e.g., time-urgent and time-patientindividuals; present and future time perspective individuals)?

Clearly, the received wisdom throughout the decades leansheavily in the direction of synchrony, coordination, harmony, andcollective flow. Indeed, the machine metaphor that underlies theway that we think about action teams underscores the necessity ofgroup members being synched up in a system where all of the gearsand interchangeable parts are carefully coordinated. In contrast,poor performance in sports teams is commonly attributed to theinability to find a rhythm and team members being ‘‘out of sync’’(e.g., Jackson, 2011; Rogers, 2009; Sando, 2008). Similar assump-tions abound in the team literature, where synchronization withothers is thought to foster smooth team and organizational func-tioning through increased coordination and control (Puffer, 1989),and temporal misfit facilitates inefficiencies and poor performance(Perez-Nordtvedt, Payne, Short, & Kedia, 2008). This notion is alsoembodied in the empirically supported ‘‘in-sync preference’’ thatresults in a bias toward temporal alignment when interacting withothers and negative psychological consequences when people areout of tempo with one another (Blount & Janicik, 2002).

Given that practitioners and researchers generally endorsegreater synchrony and harmony as the model for effective teams,the implicit theory underlying temporal individual differences isthat they should be minimized. However, we challenge this notion,arguing that there are situations in which it is optimal to increasethe variability of time-based characteristics. Ultimately, whetherdiversity of temporal individual differences should be maximizedor minimized will depend on relevant aspects of the task environ-ment. Therefore, it seems to us that intra-team temporal diversityshould be matched to the nature of task demands and taskcomplexity.

The purpose of our paper is twofold. First, we draw attention totime-based characteristics as an under-explored, but research-worthy form of individual differences operating in a team. Weexpand beyond commonly studied categories of diversity (e.g.,demographics, functional background, Big Five personality traits)to propose that the varying perspectives that team members holdrelative to time exert potentially powerful effects on team perfor-mance, given the need to carefully manage temporal resources intoday’s business world. Yet, because temporal features are nothighly visible or commonly considered, their compositional impacton team functioning is regularly overlooked. The potential combi-nation of ‘‘hidden’’ but ‘‘potent’’ temporal differences is particu-larly problematic because it is likely that temporal differenceswill be misattributed to more explicitly addressed backgroundfeatures, personality traits, stereotypes, and attitudes.

A second purpose of our research is to present a theory thatmatches a team’s composition of time-based individual differenceswith task types. Because it can be advantageous or disadvanta-geous for members to differ on temporal characteristics, the spe-cific nature of effects on team performance will depend on theteam’s task and the specific attribute under discussion. Optimalor suboptimal team performance can result because the composi-tion of time-based individual differences is (respectively) matchedor unmatched to task demands.

Temporal individual differences

Time urgency

Time-urgent individuals subscribe to the belief that temporalresources are scarce and must be conserved, resulting in a preoccu-pation with the passage of time, deadlines, and the rate that tasksmust be performed (e.g. Landy, Rastegary, Thayer, & Colvin, 1991).Whereas time pressure reflects externally imposed constraints,time urgency reflects constraints that are internally imposed (Rast-egary & Landy, 1993). Individuals high on time urgency attend todeadlines rigorously and are chronically hurried, which involveseating fast, talking fast, finishing others’ sentences, and hating towait (Conte, Mathieu, & Landy, 1998; Menon, Narayanan, & Spec-tor, 1996). Time urgency is regarded as a stable individual differ-ence, as indicated by the high test–retest reliability of existingmeasures (Conte, Landy, & Mathieu, 1995; Landy et al., 1991).

Time perspective

Time perspective (also labeled temporal focus) refers to the rel-ative importance of past, present, and future time frames. Individ-uals with a present-time perspective focus on immediate pleasure,take more risks, and make plans with shorter time frames, whereasindividuals with a future-time perspective are highly goal-ori-ented, make longer-term plans, and are more likely to consider fu-ture consequences (Ashkanasy, Gupta, Mayfield, & Trevor-Roberts,2004). Past orientation reflects either a pessimistic and aversive ora nostalgic and sentimental view of the past (Thoms, 2004).According to Zimbardo and Boyd (1999), a habitual over- or un-der-emphasis on the past, present, or future serves as a fairly sta-ble, cognitive temporal bias, with high test–retest reliabilities inrelevant measures (Keough, Zimbardo, & Boyd, 1999; Strathman,Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994). This bias has been shownto predict how individuals will respond across various choices withtask implications, including information processing, planning, anddecision making (e.g., Das, 1987; Kivetz & Tyler, 2007; Simons,Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Lacante, 2004).

Polychronicity

Conceptually distinct from time urgency and time perspective,polychronicity describes a proclivity towards particular patternsof simultaneity in how work is done (Conte, Rizzuto, & Steiner,1999; Slocombe & Bluedorn, 1999). Specifically, the construct isdefined as the extent to which individuals prefer to be engagedin more than one task concurrently (Bluedorn, Kalliath, Strube, &Martin, 1999; Konig & Waller, 2010). Based on high test–retest reli-ability coefficients for relevant measures (e.g., Bluedorn, 2002;Conte & Jacobs, 2003; Conte et al., 1999), polychronicity is consid-ered to be more of a trait than a state.

Highly monochronic individuals focus on one task at a time (A isstarted and finished before B is begun), perceive events other thana focus on A as interruptions (e.g., a phone call about B while doingA), and attempt to shield themselves from distractions that keep A

246 S. Mohammed, D.A. Harrison / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 122 (2013) 244–256

from being continually pursued (Bluedorn, 2002). In contrast,highly polychronic individuals engage in several tasks at once.They view unscheduled events (e.g., colleagues dropping in with-out appointments) as ‘‘normal’’ (Bluedorn et al., 1999). Polychro-nicity involves several activities being carried out at exactly thesame time (e.g., eating, driving, and listening to music), as wellas the switching, interspersing or dovetailing of several tasks with-in the same time period.

Pacing style

Introduced by Blount and Janicik in 2002, pacing styles capturehow individuals distribute their effort over time in working towarddeadlines (Gevers, Mohammed, & Baytalskaya, in press). Threemodal styles have received the most attention thus far: early, stea-dy, and deadline (Gevers, Rutte, & van Eerde, 2006). Specifically, adeadline action style is when one completes the bulk of the work ina flourish – just before time runs out (Gevers et al., 2006). It is anantithesis to an early action style, in which task behaviors arestarted right away and finished long before the deadline (Gevers,Claessens, van Eerde, & Rutte, 2009). Still other people tend towork at a constant pace by spreading task activities out evenly overthe time available (steady action style). Moderate test–retest reli-ability in relevant measures suggests that pacing style is less stablethan dispositions, but more stable than mere transitory states suchas affect (Gevers et al., 2006, in press).

Stepping up and in: temporal individual differences in teams

Whereas time urgency and time perspective have more estab-lished literatures, polychronicity and (especially) pacing style arerelative newcomers to organizational research. In addition, timeurgency and time perspective represent more general orientationsbecause they have been applied broadly to a variety of humanbehaviors. In contrast, polychronicity and pacing style apply morenarrowly to work activity. It is our contention that time urgency,time perspective, polychronicity, and pacing style characterizethe ways that individuals differ in their approach to time and tasks.Although the four time-based tendencies share temporal content,they are not theoretically bound to one another and do not neces-sarily covary (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011; Shipp, Edwards, &Lambert, 2009). Because many time-based individual differenceshave been proposed over the years (e.g., morningness–evening-ness: Natale & Cicogna, 2002; temporal depth: Bluedorn & Standif-er, 2004), we do not claim that this set of temporal individualdifferences is completely exhaustive. Indeed, others have groupedtemporal constructs in other ways, including Francis-Smith andRobertson (1999), Ballard and Seibold (2003), McGrath and Tschan(2004), and Bluedorn and Standifer (2004).

However, there are two good reasons to focus on our particularsubset of temporal individual differences. First, each makes a un-ique contribution in describing how individuals think and feelabout time, and how they adjust their behavior accordingly. Forexample, time is represented as a scarce resource for time urgency(e.g., how much is accomplished per time unit?), but is representedas information value for time perspective (e.g., present orientedindividuals ascribe greater worth to short-term information overlong-term information). In contrast, time signifies simultaneityfor polychronicity (e.g., narrow versus broad bandwidth in termsof accomplishing one or multiple tasks at one time), but it signifiesbehavioral variability for pacing style (e.g., bursts of effort for earlyand deadline action styles versus sustained exertion for steady ac-tion style).

Second, each of these time-based individual differences hasbeen theoretically implicated as important for group functioning

(see Blount & Janicik, 2002; Bluedorn & Standifer, 2004; Gibson,Waller, Carpenter, & Conte, 2007; Waller et al., 2001). Team-levelstudies have even begun to emerge for time urgency (Mohammed& Nadkarni, 2011), time perspective (West & Meyer, 1997), poly-chronicity (Souitaris & Maestro, 2010), and pacing style (Geverset al., 2006), although such work is rare. Given increasing concep-tual interest and the nascent state of empirical work on time-basedpersonality characteristics in teams, the literature is poised for the-oretical development. Much of the previous team-level research ontemporal individual differences focused on elevation, or the aver-age amount of the temporal construct within the team, rather thanits distribution or diversity (e.g., Mohammed, Rizzuto, Hiller, Neu-man, & Chen, 2008; Souitaris & Maestro, 2010; Waller, Giambatis-ta, & Zellmer-Bruhn, 1999; Waller et al., 2001; West & Meyer,1997). Furthermore, the existing research on diversity tends toexamine outcomes other than performance without explicitly mar-rying time-based individual differences to the task environment(e.g., Blount & Janicik, 2002; Gevers et al., 2006; Gibson et al.,2007; Jansen & Kristof-Brown, 2005; Mohammed & Angell,2004). In response to these research needs, we offer a theory thatblends time-based individual differences with task types, to specifywhen homogeneity and heterogeneity in members’ temporal char-acteristics is helpful or harmful to team performance. Our underly-ing premise is that team-level combinations of these temporalindividual differences – their variation plus their elevation – canhave complex, task-dependent effects on performance.

Task characteristics

In addition to moving beyond demographic and functional vari-ables to more task-relevant individual differences, a pervasive rec-ommendation by scholars reviewing the team diversity literatureis to incorporate task characteristics as moderators (e.g., Mannix& Neale, 2005; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Williams &O’Reilly, 1998). Guided by several team diversity meta-analyses,we focus on two types of task characteristics: task type and taskcomplexity. Each of eight group diversity meta-analyses has high-lighted the importance of team and task types (Bell, 2007; Bellet al., 2011; Bowers et al., 2000; Devine & Philips, 2001; Horowitz& Horowitz, 2007; Joshi & Roh, 2009; Stewart, 2006; Webber &Donahue, 2001). Although no overarching theory or paradigmhas emerged as the best way to organize team tasks, decision-mak-ing and action-oriented tasks are two broad dimensions commonto many typologies (e.g., Driskell, Hogan, & Salas, 1987; Hackman,1968; McGrath, 1984). Decision making tasks comprise the knowl-edge work of the team (e.g., problem solving, information process-ing), whereas action-oriented tasks consist of physical activitiesthat require members to coordinate actions (e.g., De Church & Mes-mer-Magnus, 2010).

To accommodate the dynamic nature of task requirements, welayered task complexity onto the decision making/action-orientedtypology, resulting in a more comprehensive framework that clar-ifies how task characteristics interact with temporal individual dif-ferences to affect team performance. Demonstrating itsimportance, two meta-analyses concluded that diversity was morepositively related to team performance for more complex tasks(Bowers et al., 2000; Van Dijk, van Engen, & van Knippenberg,2012).

Offering the most detailed treatment of task complexity to date,Wood’s (1986) typology includes component, coordinative, and dy-namic complexity. Component complexity refers to the number ofdistinguishable acts that need to be executed for task performanceand the number of distinct information cues that need to be pro-cessed to perform those acts. Tasks with more non-redundant actsdistributed across team members (e.g., playing baseball; building a

S. Mohammed, D.A. Harrison / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 122 (2013) 244–256 247

house) have higher component complexity than tasks with moreoverlapping demands across team members (e.g., rowing aneight-person scull; milling lumber on a ripsaw). Coordinative com-plexity captures the functional relationship between individual in-puts and team outcomes, including the timing, frequency, andlocation requirements. Tasks that involve tight contingencies ofwho, when, where, and how inputs are brought together to createa team output (e.g., players executing a ‘‘drive’’ of football plays; anorchestra performing a Beethoven symphony) are more coordin-atively complex than tasks comprised of behavioral combinationsless affected by slight changes in physical or temporal simultaneity(e.g., gymnasts performing in a meet; studio musicians recordingseparate tracks for a pop song). Finally, dynamic complexity cap-tures changes in component complexity. Frequent modificationsin the means-ends sequencing of tasks, from the start of a projectto its end, reflect a higher degree of dynamic complexity (e.g.,mountain climbing; planning and implementing a new productline), compared to tasks in which the relationship between inputsand outcomes is more stable over time (e.g., playing basketball;assembling ‘‘motherboards’’ on an assembly line).

Incorporating task complexity allows for the specification ofwhether teams are involved in decision making and/or action-ori-ented tasks at one time (high component complexity) versus overtime (high dynamic complexity). For example, a collegiate rowingteam would be characterized by low component complexity(mostly execution) and generally low dynamic complexity. In con-trast, a jazz band, involves high component complexity as well ashigh dynamic complexity, due to the improvisational nature ofthe music being created. A surgical team would generally be highon component and dynamic complexity, whereas an asphalt patch-ing crew would be low on both.

Predicting team performance effects

Having discussed team task dimensions and temporal charac-teristics, we now match those time-based individual differenceswith task types to specify when elevation (mean) and diversity(variance) in temporal characteristics is helpful and harmful toteam performance. Although we address both elevation and dis-persion, our emphasis is on the complex and non-intuitive natureof diversity predictions for team performance. Therefore, we startwith brief descriptions of simpler elevation (mean) effects; thosedescriptions provide some of the conceptual foundation for morecomplicated diversity (variance) effects that we propose thereafter.For each temporal individual difference, we discuss the team com-position implications for decision making and action-orientedtasks under varying conditions of complexity.

Time urgency and team performance

ElevationAssuming a speed–accuracy tradeoff for complex tasks (e.g.,

Beersma et al., 2003; Karau & Kelly, 2004; Perlow, Okhuysen, &Repenning, 2002),1 time urgency is oriented toward speed, whereastime patience is oriented toward quality. Indeed, time-urgent indi-viduals have been found to act as pacers for their groups, imposingstrict schedules on their teams and issuing repeated warnings aboutthe time remaining to complete tasks (Waller et al., 1999). Speedmay be emphasized more towards the latter stages of the work cyclefor a product development team, when the focus is on getting theproduct to market first, before competitors. For example, in a studyexamining the fluidity of priorities in temporal decision making,

1 We acknowledge that a speed–accuracy tradeoff may not always exist, especiallyfor experts and for non-complex tasks (e.g., Atuahene-Gima, 2003; Eisenhardt, 1989)

.

attention to the completion of deadlines became more important to-wards the end of a project (Humphrey, Moon, Conlon, & Hofmann,2004). Although fine craftsmanship, requiring slow and careful workexecution, is still needed (e.g., piano building), speed is increasinglya competitive asset and a key measure of project success in modern-day work teams (e.g., Pearce, 2011). Because time pressure is oftensalient in executing work, we expect greater levels of time urgencyin a team to improve performance on action-oriented tasks. Indeed,time-urgent individuals would be especially important in contextsthat place a premium on rapid task accomplishment, such as thecontexts in which shock trauma teams operate (e.g., Klein, Ziegert,Knight, & Xiao, 2006).

Yet fast action can easily translate into rash action. The ten-dency to satisfice (stop at ‘‘good enough’’) when time is of the es-sence, and the hurried, pressed, and rushed nature of time- urgentindividuals could make them ill- suited to decision-making tasks.According to Kruglanski and Freund (1983), time pressure inducesa ‘‘closing of the mind’’ – individuals engage in shallow rather thanthorough and systematic processing of information, refrain fromcritical probing, and use more heuristics. Indeed, time pressurehas been shown to inhibit the creative thinking necessary for prob-lem-solving tasks (Amabile et al., 2002; Andrews & Smith, 1996;Kruglanski & Freund, 1983; see Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt,2004 for a divergent view). Thus, because of their internal timepressure, individuals high on urgency tend to eliminate alterna-tives prematurely and focus only on a restricted range of informa-tion. In negotiation, real or self-imposed time pressure maydecrease the motivation to systematically process information,increasing the likelihood of unfounded assumptions about thepreferences and intentions of opponents (De Dreu, 2003). There-fore, complex information processing is inhibited by (internaland external) time pressure on tasks requiring creative problemsolving, decision making, and negotiation.

DiversityIf our predictions so far are correct, then having languorous

members executing work with stringent deadlines, and/or impetu-ous members responsible for steady, careful information process-ing, might create ‘‘time wreck’’ scenarios in teams. Time wrecksare mismatches between temporal individual differences and taskcharacteristics that lead to team performance breakdowns. How-ever, a mixture of time urgency and time patience might be advan-tageous for high component complexity jobs involving acombination of decision-making and action-oriented tasks. Despitethe fact that speed and accuracy are distinct aspects of tasks (e.g.,Elliott, Helsen, & Chua, 2001), and often create contradictory de-mands (Beersma et al., 2003), high reliability team contexts (e.g.,nuclear power plants) require fast decision making with zero mar-gin for error. Because neither time-urgent nor time-patient indi-viduals are likely to consistently meet both speed and accuracyperformance requirements, a diversity of temporal characteristicsis needed to meet the demands of high component complexity inteam settings. In addition, high diversity in time urgency may beideal when component complexity is coupled with dynamic com-plexity, because the multifarious nature of the task requires morevariability among team members.

To illustrate, consider search and rescue teams such as the CoastGuard rescuing Hurricane Katrina victims or national park employ-ees looking for mountain climbers on Mount Hood. Search and res-cue task components require members who handle informationflow and monitor radar, as well as members who are directly in-volved with saving lives, respectively. In this context, a team com-posed of all time-patient individuals would tend to emphasizemethodically sifting incoming data for accuracy, but at the costof timely execution once informed decisions are made. In contrast,having all time-urgent members might produce impulsive rather

248 S. Mohammed, D.A. Harrison / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 122 (2013) 244–256

than careful consideration of informational resources, resulting inquick action with high error rates, false alarms, and the inefficientuse of valuable time and energy. Therefore, the ideal compositionfor component complexity and dynamic search and rescue teamsis both time-urgent and time-patient group members.

Proposition 1a. Greater diversity in time urgency within a team willfacilitate performance under conditions of high component and/orhigh dynamic complexity involving a combination of decision makingand action-oriented tasks.

In contrast to Proposition 1a, greater time urgency diversitymight hinder performance when there is high coordinative com-plexity. What constitutes a ‘‘grace period’’ surrounding deadlinesis likely to be a point of contention in diverse teams, with time-ur-gent individuals demanding pinpoint accuracy regarding whenwork will be accomplished and time-patient individuals allowingmore latitude for extensions beyond pre-set time limits. This lackof agreement on timing issues would be especially costly in con-texts that involve extreme time pressure and sequential teaminterdependence (where the presence of a single time-patientteam member can ruin performance for the whole team). Forexample, track relay teams are clearly disadvantaged by a slowrunner, who can cost the team the winning trophy. And in organi-zational contexts, an unhurried team member who dawdles whilecollecting market data might derail a whole product developmentteam during its preparations for the final presentation. Because ofthe precise timing requirements necessitated by high levels ofcoordinative complexity, high variance on time urgency could bemore of a liability than an asset.

Proposition 1b. Lower diversity in time urgency within a team (moretime urgent members) will facilitate performance on high coordinativecomplexity tasks involving precise timing.

2 Reflecting the lack of attention that it has received in the extant literature, thele of past orientation has been noticeably absent in our theorizing thus far. Withw exceptions (e.g., Holman & Silver, 1998; Shipp et al., 2009; Zimbardo & Boyd,

999), most researchers have measured only future and present perspectives.esearch on past orientation has been mostly conceptual at the organizational orltural levels of analysis (e.g., Ashkanasy et al., 2004; Ofori-Dankwa and Julian,

001). Nevertheless, due to their ability to recall and appreciate prior learning andaditions, past-oriented individuals can add value to a group by using a historicalerspective to address current situations. Through their careful monitoring of the pastends and insights gleaned from what occurred years before, past-oriented members

re often skilled at predicting future events (Thoms, 2004). Planning groups,erefore, would be aided by the participation of a past-oriented member who serves

s an archivist of strategies that have succeeded and failed in the organization’sistory. Members possessing an institutional memory for a team could also offeraluable contributions to committees assigned tasks such as revamping organiza-onal policies or changing ethics rules. On the downside, a strong attachment to theast often fosters maintenance of the status quo, detracting from the flexibilityeeded to enact changes. A past-orientation may also prove to be a distraction andus a liability in dealing with the day-to-day operations necessary for execution

tasks.

Time perspective and team performance

ElevationBecause present-oriented individuals want to act rather than

deliberate (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), decision-making tasks involv-ing planning, problem solving, and negotiation are better matchedto future-oriented individuals. Supporting this logic, studies havefound that greater temporal distance from events promotes a‘‘big picture’’ focus that emphasizes essential rather than periphe-ral choice features (Forster, Friedman, & Liberman, 2004; Liberman,Sagristano, & Trope, 2002; Trope & Liberman, 2000).

Henderson, Trope, and Carnevale (2006) concluded that greatertemporal distance in negotiation facilitates concessions on low pri-ority issues in exchange for favorable outcomes on high priority is-sues. As a result, both individual and joint outcomes improve.Although time horizon was operationalized in this study using dis-tance from a hypothetical event, the results have clear implicationsfor time perspective as an individual difference. A future time per-spective may enable global consideration of issues and the abilityto clearly distinguish primary from secondary concerns, resultingin more satisfactory agreements on decision-making and negotia-tion tasks.

In contrast, action-oriented tasks involving discrete perfor-mance episodes are best matched with team members who havea present time perspective. Analyses of data from five residentialservices departments revealed that group members with brief taskcompletion cycles and routine, predictable tasks exhibited greaterpresent-time perspective than did group members with extendedtask completion intervals and novel, uncertain tasks (Ballard & Sei-bold, 2004). When the goal is to ‘‘get it done,’’ members with anorientation toward anticipated outcomes, and the ability to visual-

ize and comprehend distant future events, add less value andmight even impede team performance by expressing (too great a)concern over longer-term outcomes. Consequently, present-ori-ented members responsible for long-term planning or decision-making tasks, and/or future-oriented members executing workwith short-term goals, might create a ‘‘time wreck’’ of mismatchedelevation, in this case involving time perspective with task type.

DiversityFuture-oriented and present-oriented group members attend to

different informational cues and stimuli in their environments, setgoals with different temporal qualities, and behave differently asguided by their intentions toward the future. When team membershave similar time perspectives, their interpretive biases may leadthem to ignore or disregard valuable information. Therefore, vari-ability on time perspective is well suited to the complexity, com-petitiveness and evolving environment of many teams in modernorganizations. For example, top management teams (see Thoms,2004) capture the temporal tension involved with having to simul-taneously plan for long-term growth (e.g., pilot prospective newproducts) as well as manage performance and profitability in theshort-term (e.g., ‘‘make the numbers’’ for quarterly filings). Notonly must top management teams engage in exploration and fu-ture-directed vision in order to develop innovations, but they mustalso engage in exploitation and implementation to provide prod-ucts to customers (Ofori-Dankwa & Julian, 2001). Because past,present, and future frames serve as cognitive biases, top manage-ment teams composed of only visionaries, and those whose mem-bers are grounded only in the ‘‘here and now,’’ are unlikely to meetboth exploration and exploitation performance requirements.Teams including only members with a present-centered focusleave an organization without the capacity to anticipate and re-spond to future environmental jolts (Meyer, 1982). Teams whosemembers focus too much on the future, in contrast, may seek toenact transitions too quickly, without waiting for others to gothrough stages of change (Thoms, 2004). Thus, greater temporaldiversity is needed to ensure that both proximal and distal corpo-rate objectives are achieved.

Supporting this logic, West and Meyer (1997) concluded fromtheir study of 22 top management teams that a balance of futureand present oriented members was needed for strategic change.Interestingly, the type of intense communication associated withstrategic change occurred between future- and present-orientedmanagers, as opposed to within each time perspective group. Otherresearchers have also argued that the best executive teams shouldbe diverse in time perspective, to capture the persistent tension be-tween acting immediately versus waiting for more information (e.g.,Bartel & Milliken, 2004; Eisenhardt, 2004; Gibson et al., 2007).2

rofe1Rcu2trptrathahvtipnth

S. Mohammed, D.A. Harrison / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 122 (2013) 244–256 249

Proposition 2. Greater diversity in time perspective within a teamwill facilitate performance under conditions of high component and/orhigh dynamic complexity involving a combination of decision makingand action-oriented tasks.

Polychronicity and team performance

ElevationAs discussed previously, polychronicity involves a continuum of

preferences, ranging from engaging in one activity at a time (focus)to engaging in many activities at once (multi-tasking). In matchingthis temporal trait to task types, we propose that individuals highin polychronicity will be especially well-suited to decision-makingtasks involving idea creation, problem solving, and negotiation. Apolychronic orientation, by definition, is compatible with the abil-ity to consider multiple alternatives simultaneously, one of thehallmarks of effective decision making (Nutt, 2002, 2004), as wellas the capacity to maintain multiple and competing streams ofthought concurrently, a skill critical to complex cognitive tasks(Wickens, 2002). Switching back and forth between ideas enhancesopportunities for cross-fertilization, consideration of more uniquealternatives, and information integration (Bluedorn, 2002; Souita-ris & Maestro, 2010), increasing the odds of creative and effectiveproblem solving (Wickens, Sandry, & Vidulich, 1983). Similarly,Schein (1992) proposed that polychronic tendencies are mosteffective when information is broadly distributed in complex prob-lem solving. Supporting this logic, polychronicity was associatedwith a negotiation strategy requiring parties to address multiple is-sues at the same time to create integrative agreements (Tinsley,2001). In contrast, monochronic individuals perceive the world ina more compartmentalized fashion (Benabou, 1999), and have dif-ficulty grouping diverse activities together to be performed duringthe same time period (Bluedorn, Kaufman, & Lane, 1992).

According to Bluedorn et al. (1992, p. 23), the flexibility associ-ated with polychronic behavior is not universally advantageous be-cause it may lead to ‘‘the exploitation of an unanticipatedopportunity’’ in some situations, but ‘‘unproductive dithering’’ inother situations. Expanding on this idea, we propose that thebroader scope of attention that serves polychronic individuals fordecision making tasks becomes a liability for action-oriented tasksthat require implementation of choice and the pursuit of a singletask. Indeed, polychronicity has been negatively related across sev-eral studies to schedule and deadline-meeting (Benabou, 1999;Bluedorn et al., 1999; Conte et al., 1999), time awareness (Conteet al., 1999), and punctuality (Benabou, 1999; Bluedorn et al.,1999). In contrast, the benefits of monochronicity, including ex-treme concentration and dedication to a particular assignment,adherence to plans, and the preference for task closure (e.g., Bena-bou, 1999; Bluedorn et al., 1992), are well-suited to prompt taskaccomplishment. Specifically, Schein (1992) noted that mono-chronic tendencies are more compatible with situations that de-mand highly coordinated actions emphasizing tight timeconstraints. In fact, researchers have found a monochronic orienta-tion to be positively correlated with performance for train opera-tors (Conte & Jacobs, 2003) and nuclear power plant controlroom crews (Kaplan & Waller, 2007), jobs that would be catego-rized as action-oriented.

DiversityAlthough previous conceptual and empirical work has investi-

gated the fit between polychronic preferences and job demands(e.g., Bluedorn, 2002; Conte & Gintoft, 2005; Conte & Jacobs,2003; Hecht & Allen, 2005; Slocombe & Bluedorn, 1999), the fit be-tween polychronicity and group-level task demands has not beenaddressed. Following the reasoning we have presented here,

monochronic individuals performing discontinuous work that ishighly varied, fragmented, and interrupted, and/or polychronicindividuals performing work that involves specialization and ex-treme concentration, might become time wrecks. However, a mix-ture of monochronicity and polychronicity might be advantageousfor high component and/or dynamic complexity tasks involving acombination of decision-making and action-oriented tasks. Specif-ically, a combination of monochronic and polychronic group mem-bers could balance the need for attentiveness and adherence todeadlines with a need for fluidity and cross-fertilization of ideas.The multitasked environment of many modern work groups, suchas consulting and project teams, does not allow for the luxury ofdevoting everyone’s energy to a single task while everything elsegrinds to a halt (Nandhakumar & Jones, 2001). Nevertheless,achieving task closure by a specified deadline often requires prior-itizing and giving undivided attention to one activity above all else.By definition, neither monochronic nor polychronic members arelikely to consistently meet both focus and flexibility performancerequirements (Bluedorn, 2002). Therefore, within-group diversityon this time-based individual difference allows for the task de-mands of high component and/or dynamic complexity to be metin teams over time.

To illustrate, the work of new product development teams re-quires a complex skill set to deal with the diverse task require-ments, often in environments with considerable uncertainty (e.g.,Cox, Pearce, & Perry, 2003). Because the team mission exceedsthe capacity of an individual expert, new product developmentteams are commonly engineered for diversity in capabilities andfunctional backgrounds (e.g., accounting, engineering, marketing,and production). However, we would argue that this team typealso needs diversity in polychronicity. The mental facility, flexibil-ity and cross-fertilization of ideas of polychronic group membersclearly add value in a team context that prizes and rewards inno-vative problem solving and creative information processing. How-ever, during the last stages of a product development team, when aprototype is due and a presentation date is imminent, there is aneed for the ability of monochronics to focus on a single courseof action until completion.

Proposition 3a. Greater diversity in polychronicity within a teamwill facilitate performance under conditions of high component and/orhigh dynamic complexity involving a combination of decision makingand action-oriented tasks.

Contrary to Proposition 3a, polychronicity diversity might hin-der performance when there is high coordinative complexity. Thegeneral lack of attention by polychronics to punctuality, and theirdifficulty with giving an activity undivided attention (Benabou,1999; Bluedorn et al., 1992), would jeopardize the precise synchro-nization required for high levels of coordinative complexity. Incontrast, monochronic strengths contribute to the precise schedul-ing that fosters team coordination (Kaufman-Scarborough andLindquist, 1999). Therefore, homogeneity on monochronicity mayprove to be more of an asset than diversity for coordinativecomplexity.

Proposition 3b. Lower diversity in polychronicity within a team(more monochronic members) will facilitate performance on highcoordinative complexity tasks involving precise timing.

Pacing style and team performance

ElevationReflecting an individual’s penchant to allocate his or her tempo-

ral resources across various stages of task completion, pacing style

250 S. Mohammed, D.A. Harrison / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 122 (2013) 244–256

differs from time urgency, time perspective, and polychronicity inthat it is more malleable. Moreover, because early, steady, anddeadline styles are distinct, it is difficult to discuss elevation forthis construct. Pacing styles also do not map as clearly to tasktypes. Individuals with an early action style are not necessarily bet-ter at decision making tasks; neither are individuals with a dead-line action style particularly suited for action oriented tasks. Adeadline action style does, however, produce an overemphasis onexecution, because there is not enough time remaining to engagein lengthy brainstorming, information processing, or conflictresolution.

The tension inherent with pacing styles concerns whether per-formance is superior with bursts of effort or sustained exertionover time. Analogous to the notion of massed (all at once) versusspaced (distributed over time) learning in the training literature(e.g., Donovan & Radosevich, 1999), early action and deadline ac-tion styles foster task completion that occurs within a short period,whereas a steady action style describes incremental movement to-ward work goals. Individuals with an early action style prefer tospend effort resources toward the beginning of a task, to avoidincomplete work ‘‘hanging over their head,’’ and as a preventionstrategy for the stress they might experience by waiting until thelast minute. In contrast, deadline action style members, energizedby time pressure and the desire to be maximally efficient, savetheir effort resources for spending at the end of a task timeline. Fi-nally, subscribing to the ‘‘steady wins the race’’ approach, individ-uals with a constant action style mete out their efforts, preferringthe predictability that accompanies sustained performance overtime.

DiversityWhereas component complexity was important when consider-

ing diversity in time urgency, time perspective, and polychronicity,its relevance for pacing style is limited. Pacing style describes effortdistribution over the entire time available to complete a team task,not in a specific interval of that time. For that reason, coordinativeand dynamic complexity assumes a more prominent role for pac-ing style diversity. For example, a mix of pacing styles within ateam may be best for tasks that allow individuals with an early ac-tion style to start and those with a deadline action style to finish.Or, time wrecks could result when those with a deadline actionstyle are assigned to tasks that occur at the beginning of a project’slife span, while those with an early action style are assigned totasks that occur immediately before the deadline. Members gener-ally do not inventory their pacing styles at the team’s outset, and sosuch problems can go undetected until it is too late to solve them.

Proposition 4a. Greater diversity in pacing styles within a team willfacilitate performance under conditions of high coordinative complex-ity in which early action style members start, steady action stylemembers maintain project momentum over time, and deadline actionstyle members finish.

Dynamic complexity assumes a prominent role in predictinghow heterogeneity in pacing styles will affect team performance.Task requirements are often reconfigured when modern workteams face uncertainty in the environment with regard to informa-tional, temporal, or financial resources (e.g., Tannenbaum, Mat-hieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012). Yet the success of early or late taskcompletion depends on tasks and the environment remaining con-stant over time. For example, the initial investments of early actionstyle individuals could become irrelevant near the deadline if thereare dramatic fluctuations in the relationship between task inputsand outcomes. Individuals with a deadline action style similarly as-sume stability in due dates, in ‘‘grace periods,’’ and how much ef-

fort expenditure is needed, risking that estimates of ‘‘just enoughtime’’ will become ‘‘too little, too late’’ in the face of changingdemands.

Incremental task completion, in contrast, anticipates dynamiccomplexity and safeguards against unpredictability in task require-ments by not allocating all effort early or late. To use a financialmetaphor, a steady action style is analogous to dollar-cost averag-ing, investing in the stock market with each paycheck to protectoneself from major risks by taking smaller losses and smaller gainsrepeatedly. Such an investment strategy minimizes the effects ofmarket fluctuations. Likewise, those who spread out their effortover the timeline of a task are best equipped to weather changesin task demands.

Based on this reasoning, a group task with high dynamic com-plexity necessitates a mix of early and deadline action styles or ateam composed of steady action style individuals. A team compo-sition that is homogeneous for early action styles has no safety netwhen task demands at the end are not the same as at the begin-ning. When there is a possibility that initial efforts will fail or be-come immaterial because of changing task demands, otherpacing styles are needed. Moreover, groups consisting of deadlineaction style members may cut things too close, leaving no marginfor error or unanticipated events (e.g., equipment breakdowns, lostinputs, and member illness). Diversity of pacing styles, conversely,equips the team with resources to handle unforeseen changesoccurring early or late in the task life cycle. And a team composedsolely of steady action style individuals can withstand dynamiccomplexity by sustaining effort over time rather than risk all-at-once expenditures.

Research project or knowledge production teams (Wuchty,Jones, & Uzzi, 2007) are dynamically complex entities, becausestudy results are unpredictable, and where the research startsmay not resemble where it ends. Circuitous routes, detours, andchanges in direction are frequent and unexpected (Gray, 2000;Nandhakumar & Jones, 2001). This level of dynamism may wellbe served by pacing style diversity. Members with an early actionstyle might initiate actions required at the beginning of the pro-cess, such as applying for funding, receiving university permissionto conduct the research, and writing a first draft of the proposal.Team ‘‘early birds’’ play a key role in identifying problems at theoutset, helping to avoid long-term failure. However, despite effortsto plan ahead, project uncertainty is likely to result in unexpectedtask reconfigurations, introducing the need for members who canhandle, and even prefer, expending the majority of their effort nearthe team’s eventual deadline. Individuals with a penchant for sus-tained effort over time maintain project momentum and are thecaretakers of the group’s efforts between the extremes of earlyand late action styles.

Proposition 4b. A team composed of steady action style members ora mix of early and deadline action styles will facilitate performanceunder conditions of high dynamic complexity.

According to Gersick (1988, 1989), teams often face a specificform of dynamic complexity known as punctuated equilibrium.Specifically, groups experience inertial movement until the mid-point of their allotted time. They then undergo a transition that re-sults in a reevaluation of their progress and significant changes instrategy (Gersick, 1988, 1989). The initial meeting is also a criticalperiod in teams, and this is where individuals with an early actionstyle exert influence by setting precedents for how the group willuse the first half of its expected time. However, Gersick’s task pro-gress model may render early action style efforts moot becausefirst-phase agendas are abandoned and new perspectives areadopted at the midpoint. Nevertheless, transitional advances are

S. Mohammed, D.A. Harrison / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 122 (2013) 244–256 251

partially dependent on learning from the first phase (Gersick,1988). Thus, without members who initiate early efforts in thegroup, there would be little basis upon which to transition.

Under Gersick’s (1988) theory, a steady action style may notyield the best outcomes either, because an incremental approachmay be insufficient to complete all the work required betweenthe midpoint and the time limit. Punctuated equilibrium consti-tutes enough of a radical change to require bursts of activity withina short duration, as opposed to small to medium modificationsover extended periods of time. Therefore, this model seems bestsuited for a deadline action style that favors outbursts of effort asthe due date looms closer. Relishing the surge of time pressure thatrises after the mid-point of time available to finish a project, indi-viduals with a deadline action style are the most likely to be enthu-siastic in their reaction to punctuated equilibrium.

Proposition 4c. A team composed of deadline action style memberswill facilitate performance under conditions of punctuated equilibrium.

Temporal diversity and process losses

Thus far, we have largely adopted an input–output perspectivein deriving propositions regarding the effects of temporal diversityon team performance. However, we must also address some of themajor process issues arising from the heterogeneity of time-basedindividual differences in teams. Because our primary emphasis ison the moderating role of task characteristics, a thorough digres-sion into the expansive topic of team processes is beyond the scopeof the paper. However, we highlight some key areas of intersectionwith temporal diversity.

Process loss is a generic term describing the gap between ateam’s potential and actual performance (Steiner, 1972). Examplesof process loss include communication, coordination, and motiva-tional failures. With regard to diversity, social identity, self-catego-rization, and similarity-attraction theories all predict thatheterogeneous team members have less positive attitudes towardone another than do members of homogeneous teams (e.g., Mannix& Neale, 2005; Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Empiricalwork tends to bear this out for conflict (e.g., Jehn, Northcraft, &Neale, 1999; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999), satisfaction (e.g.,Tsui, Eagan, & O’Reilly, 1992; Wharton & Baron, 1991) and socialintegration (e.g., Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002; O’Reilly,Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989).

Role mismatches and difficulties in team member handoffs areespecially salient forms of process loss in temporally diverseteams. Team members should be assigned or self-select into roleswhose temporal characteristics closely correspond to their jobresponsibilities. To illustrate, long term planning and identifyingforthcoming market trends would ideally be staffed by someonehigh on future time orientation rather than present or past orien-tation. However, even when roles are properly matched, processlosses can still occur if there is a breakdown in the transitioningof work between team members. Handoff process losses result inaccidents and mistakes, requiring a team to start over or back up.Handoffs from a time-urgent member to a time-patient memberare more likely to result in missed deadlines (albeit with betterquality work) than handoffs between time-urgent members. Rolemismatches and/or handoff process losses cause key duties to fallthrough the cracks, harming team performance. Conflict quicklyensues, as members seek to ascribe blame for team failures (e.g.,Leary & Forsyth, 1987).

Often following directly from role mismatches and handoff dif-ficulties, misattributions regarding negative performance feedbackare another form of process loss in temporally diverse teams. Poorperformance prompts teams to generate explanations for their lack

of success. Homogeneous teams are unlikely to make internal attri-butions for suboptimal performance, because blaming the collec-tive would be analogous to blaming the self. In contrast, intra-group diversity offers a convenient justification for negative feed-back, and easily named surface-level characteristics (e.g., func-tional background, demographics) or general personalityvariables (e.g., Big Five traits) are easy attribution targets. The rootcause of poor team performance, however, may be traced back toconflicts arising from diversity on time urgency, time perspective,polychronicity, and/or pacing style. Because of their ubiquitous andunderstated nature, time-based characteristics are seldom salientenough to be part of the discussion concerning why a group is fail-ing (e.g., Gibson et al., 2007; Waller et al., 2001).

As a result, the underlying source of performance problems maygo undetected or be misattributed to other causes. Time-urgentindividuals, for example, may be viewed as demanding and up-tight, whereas time-patient individuals may be viewed as undisci-plined and lazy (Waller et al., 2001). Feeling constrained byunwanted delay, faster members may easily become frustratedwith slower members, and slower members may feel anxiousabout the unwanted time pressure imposed by faster members(Blount & Janicik, 2002). Although deadline action style membersmay feel energized and be more efficient under time pressure, theirstyle may be viewed by teammates as irresponsible behavior, pro-crastination, or a lack of commitment. Because deep-level aspectsof temporal differences sometimes covary with surface-level fea-tures of team members such as race or ethnic background (Thatch-er & Patel, 2012), those features may be seen as the culprit andserve as the flashpoint for team conflict. Incorrect attributions cre-ate false theories about team dynamics, resulting in negative per-formance cycles and severe team schisms.

Proposition 5. The combination of misattributed negative perfor-mance feedback with a suboptimal configuration of temporal individ-ual differences generates a steep decline in performance.

Four tensions of temporal diversity

In this paper, we matched four time-based individual differ-ences (time urgency, time perspective, polychronicity, and pacingstyle) with two task typologies (task type and task complexity, tospecify when both elevation and diversity in temporal characteris-tics is helpful or harmful for team performance. By capturing dif-ferences of opinion among group members on a horizontalcontinuum, time urgency, time perspective, polychronicity, andpacing style reflect the type of diversity known as separation (Har-rison & Klein, 2007; Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011). However, timeperspective may capture variety when past, present, and future-oriented members attend to different information in their environ-ment, reflecting access to unique sources of knowledge (Harrison &Klein, 2007). Table 1 summarizes our predictions for temporal ele-vation and diversity effects on team performance. We now offer asynthesis involving four emerging paradoxes that bridge our argu-ments thus far.

An integrative theme woven throughout the latter half of ourpaper was that heterogeneity of temporal individual differencesis advantageous for team performance in more complex environ-ments. Two theories supporting this reasoning include the princi-ple of requisite variety from cybernetics (Ashby, 1956) and thecategorization-elaboration model from the group diversity litera-ture (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). According to the former prin-ciple, the complexity of an organism’s sensing and processingmechanisms must match the complexity of the environment.Whereas a simple organism can survive in an uncomplicated,steady environment, a multifaceted or dynamic environment

Table 1Summary of predictions for temporal elevation and diversity effects on team performance.

Temporalindividualdifference

‘‘Time Wrecks’’ for team performance Optimal configurations for team performance Relevant example

Element Elevation Diversity Elevation Diversity

Time urgency � Time-patient members executingwork with stringent deadlines

� Mix of time-urgent and time-patient members for low compo-nent and/or dynamic complexitytasks

� Time-urgent members perform-ing action-oriented tasks

� Mix of time-urgent and time-patient members under condi-tions of high component and/orhigh dynamic complexity involv-ing some combination of decisionmaking and action-oriented tasks

� Search and rescue teams

� Time-urgent members responsi-ble for steady, careful informationprocessing

� Mix of time-urgent and time-patient members for high coordi-native complexity tasks

� Time-patient members perform-ing decision making tasks

� Time-urgent members (lowdiversity) for high coordinativecomplexity tasks

Time perspective � Future-oriented members exe-cuting work with short-termgoals

� Mix of future and present timeperspective members for lowcomponent and/or low dynamiccomplexity tasks

� Present time perspective mem-bers performing action-orientedtasks

� Mix of future and present timeperspective members under con-ditions of high component and/or high dynamic complexityinvolving a combination of deci-sion making and action-orientedtasks

� Top management teams

� Present-oriented membersresponsible for long-term plan-ning and decision making

� Future time perspective membersperforming decision making tasks

Polychronicity � Polychronic members executingwork requiring extreme concen-tration toward the pursuit of asingle course of action andprompt task accomplishment

� Mix of monochromic and poly-chronic members for low compo-nent and/or low dynamiccomplexity tasks

� Monochromic members perform-ing action-oriented tasks

� Mix of monochromic and poly-chronic members under condi-tions of high component and/orhigh dynamic complexity involv-ing a combination of decisionmaking and action-oriented tasks

� New product development teams

� Monochronic members responsi-ble for considering multiple ideassimultaneously in highly frag-mented, interrupted work

� Mix of monochronic and poly-chronic members for high coordi-native complexity tasks

� Polychronic members performingdecision making tasks

� Monochronic members (lowdiversity) for high coordinativecomplexity tasks involving pre-cise timing

Pacing style � (Not a continuum, so elevationnot defined)

� Early action style membersassigned to tasks immediatelybefore the deadline, steady actionstyle members forced to completework within a short period, anddeadline action style membersassigned to tasks at the beginningof a project’s lifespan

� (Not a continuum, so elevationnot defined)

� Mix of pacing styles in the teamunder conditions of high coordi-native complexity in which earlyaction style members start,steady action style membersmaintain project momentumover time, and deadline actionstyle members finish

� Research project/knowledge pro-duction teams

� Homogeneity of early action stylemembers when initial efforts failbecause of changing taskdemands

� Steady action style members or amix of early and late action stylesunder conditions of high dynamiccomplexity

� Homogeneity of deadline actionstyle members when changingdemands leave no safeguardagainst unpredictability in taskrequirements

� Deadline action style membersunder conditions of punctuatedequilibrium

� Early or steady action style mem-bers under conditions of punctu-ated equilibrium

252S.M

ohamm

ed,D.A

.Harrison

/Organizational

Behaviorand

Hum

anD

ecisionProcesses

122(2013)

244–256

S. Mohammed, D.A. Harrison / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 122 (2013) 244–256 253

demands greater sophistication. A parallel argument is conveyedby the categorization-elaboration model. It proposes that the po-tential positive effects of team diversity are more likely to be real-ized for complicated and non-routine activities due to theelaboration of task-relevant information (van Knippenberg et al.,2004). The key is getting team members to bring their unique ca-ches of information into the group’s shared attention andprocessing.

Based on all of this, we argued that the benefits of temporaldiversity are greatest in multifaceted, uncertain, and dynamic taskenvironments. However, to say that complexity mandates diversityfor team effectiveness is overly simplistic, because the type of com-plexity, as well as the type of individual difference, both matter.Thus, we qualify the more generalized statement by specifying dis-tinct, inherent tensions with task complexity that help to deter-mine performance for each time-related disposition featured here.

These tensions involve tradeoffs between speed versus accuracyfor time urgency, short- versus long-term viewpoints for time per-spective, focus versus flexibility for polychronicity, and bursts of ef-fort versus sustained exertion for pacing style. The value ofdiversity in temporal characteristics becomes salient when effec-tive performance requires speed and accuracy, short- and long-term viewpoints, focus and flexibility, bursts of effort and sustainedexertion. But there are costs to diversity as well, including signifi-cant misunderstandings, greater conflict, and lower social integra-tion (e.g., Harrison et al., 2002; Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled et al., 1999).In the case of temporal diversity, we have argued that processlosses stemming from role mismatches, handoff difficulties, andmisattributions regarding negative performance are potentiallytroublesome. So, what differentiates a team that is able to harnessheterogeneity on time-based individual differences for beneficialpurposes from a team that implodes from internally generatedconflicts emanating from such heterogeneity? A reconsiderationof task characteristics may provide a conditional answer. For sim-ple (routine, repetitive, straightforward combination of inputs)tasks, process loss costs are likely to outweigh the potential bene-fits of team members differing in temporal characteristics. The re-verse is expected for uncertain, dynamic, and multifaceted tasks.

Discussion

Having introduced time-based individual differences as a keyelement of group composition, and argued that diversity in tempo-ral characteristics can influence performance, we now articulatethe boundary conditions of our theorizing. We also identify contri-butions of this work to theory and practice, and discuss how theseconceptual ideas can be tested empirically.

Boundary conditions

Because personality traits are not applicable in all situations(Tett & Burnett, 2003), it is important to articulate the circum-stances under which time-based individual differences will be rel-evant to team performance. We have limited our discussion totask-oriented groups and excluded groups with a social emphasis.Temporal diversity will be more salient when individuals exhibitsome level of personal investment in their work and teams havehigh interdependence. In addition, because dispositional effectshave the greatest influence in weak situations and the smallestinfluence in strong ones (Mischel, 1968), time-based individual dif-ferences are likely to be more prominent when team membershave some flexibility in how and when they perform their work.To illustrate, extreme time pressure created by a strict deadlineimposed from top management without prior warning couldoverpower temporal proclivities by mandating clear prescriptions

for behavior, regardless of time urgency, time perspective, poly-chronicity, or pacing style. In contrast, traits have more room toplay a significant role when task completion choices are more atthe discretion of the team.

We have emphasized the psychological bases of how individu-als think about and value time in this paper. At this stage of theorybuilding, the decision was made to focus solely on bottom-up oremergent aspects regarding how time-related dispositions affectteam performance rather than simultaneously incorporating top-down processes (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Nevertheless, weacknowledge that time-based individual differences are alsoshaped by the larger organizational and cultural environment inwhich people work and live (e.g., Ashkanasy et al., 2004; Hall,1959; Saunders, Van Slyke, & Vogel, 2004).

Contributions to theory

Incorporating moderators and new, task-oriented forms ofdiversity have been among the most pervasive recommendationsoffered by scholars for moving group diversity research forward(e.g., Mannix & Neale, 2005; Van Knippenberg & Schippers,2007). Answering this call, we expand beyond commonly studieddifferences (e.g., demographics, functional background, Big Fivepersonality traits) to propose that temporal diversity exerts subtleand often overlooked, but potentially powerful, effects on teamperformance. The varying perspectives and values that team mem-bers hold relative to time assume significant importance in light ofthe need to properly allocate scarce temporal resources in modernfirms. Yet temporal characteristics are subtle in their operation andoften remain in the background of thought processes and behav-iors. The combination of ‘‘hidden’’ but ‘‘potent’’ is particularlyproblematic because temporal characteristics are prone to bemis-attributed by observers to more visible individual differences(e.g., gender, functional background, skills, culture, and personal-ity). For example, time-urgent individuals may be perceived asrash and time-patient individuals may be perceived as lazy (Walleret al., 2001). Likewise, present-time oriented members may beviewed as ‘‘enmeshed in minutia,’’ whereas future time orientedmembers are viewed as out of touch and ‘‘off in the clouds’’(Thoms, 2004). Monochronics may be perceived as dull and plod-ding, whereas polychronics are perceived as scattered and frag-mented. Finally, early action style individuals may be viewed asuptight ‘‘worry warts,’’ whereas deadline action style individualsare viewed as undependable ‘‘loose cannons.’’ Each of these labelsignores the temporal element that actually underlies the person’sbehavior. As such, training programs and interventions may nevertarget the core performance issues faced by teams, resulting inmisdirected efforts that yield disappointing outcomes.

In addition to highlighting a previously neglected form of indi-vidual differences operating in teams, we push beyond the simple‘‘synchrony is good’’ arguments to explicate the conditions underwhich increasing the variability of temporal characteristics is opti-mal for team performance. For the complexity of temporal diver-sity to be fully understood, the moderating role of taskcharacteristics must be taken into account. In doing so, we high-lighted the inherent tension underlying each temporal characteris-tic, including speed versus accuracy for time urgency, short-versuslong-term for time perspective, focus versus flexibility for poly-chronicity, and ‘‘bursts of effort’’ versus sustained exertion overtime for pacing style.

By examining time-imbued individual differences as a centralaspect of group composition, we answered calls by temporalresearchers to bridge across individual and team levels of analysis(e.g., Bartel & Milliken, 2004; Labianca, Moon, & Watt, 2005). Ourpaper adds value by explicitly integrating the notion of temporaldiversity within a multilevel perspective that examines how

254 S. Mohammed, D.A. Harrison / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 122 (2013) 244–256

individual-level characteristics affect team-level performance. Inaddition, our theory addresses concerns among multilevel theo-rists that existing work has relied too heavily on mean aggregationto conceptualize collective constructs rather than examining themore complex and uniquely team-level (configural) attribute ofdispersion (e.g., Chan, 1998; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Because re-search on how temporal individual differences affect group func-tioning is still in a nascent stage (Eisenhardt, 2004; Mohammed,Hamilton, & Lim, 2009), these ideas should stimulate future empir-ical studies.

Implications for empirical research3

To maximize the effects of temporal diversity, laboratory exper-iments or classroom studies could be designed to explicitly buildteams with high versus low intra-team variability in time-basedindividual differences. These types of studies would allow greatercontrol of task characteristics and sharper tests of our propositionsabout (mis)matches of temporal diversity to team tasks. However,the artificial time scale of such work might not allow temporaldiversity effects to materialize (see Bell’s (2007) meta-analysisshowing stronger personality composition effects in the field ver-sus the lab). In addition, execution tasks are much less likely tobe used in the lab relative to their occurrence in the field (Bell,2007). Alternatively, the distribution of temporal individual differ-ences and task characteristics could be allowed to vary naturally insurvey-based organizational studies, with careful attention tomeasurement at different points in time and/or use differentsources to avoid common method bias. Given the broad patternsof covariation we are proposing, it would be best to have teamsfrom multiple organizations, as opposed to the (likely) restrictedrange of team variables that would occur within a singleorganization.

Implications for practice

The way a team resolves the asynchronies resulting from tem-poral diversity is, in our formulation, a potentially important deter-minant of performance. Therefore, a key issue for managers, teamleaders, and self-managed members in team-based organizationsis the need to leverage group member differences for maximal per-formance, while at the same time minimizing the process lossesthat may occur as a result of those differences. That is, teams andtheir managers would benefit from actively managing temporaldiversity.

While attempting to carry out task objectives, group membersmay passively and imperceptively be involved in conflicts involv-ing speed versus accuracy, short term versus long term perspec-tive, focus versus flexibility, and/or bursts of effort versussustained exertion over time. Therefore, having a basic awarenessthat temporal differences exist is a prerequisite for handling ten-sions more effectively when variance in temporal characteristicsasserts itself. With a basic understanding of team members’ tem-poral differences, managers can begin to assign roles that best

3 Empirical investigations will require sound measures of temporal individualdifferences. New survey measures have recently been developed for time perspective(Shipp et al., 2009), polychronicity (Poposki & Oswald, 2010), and pacing styles(Gevers et al., in press). In contrast, the measurement of time urgency has remainedconsistent (Landy et al., 1991). Although no dominant measurement approach hasemerged for team task characteristics, task types have been operationalized by askingmembers to indicate the percentage of time their team spends on decision makingand executing work (e.g., Stewart & Barrick, 2000). Various measures have also beencreated for task complexity (e.g., Braarud, 2001; Maynard & Hakel, 1997). With regardto team performance, we recommend a comprehensive assessment that includes notonly quantity and quality, but also the less commonly measured dimension oftimeliness (Mohammed et al., 2009).

match time-based proclivities and avoid time wrecks. In addition,explicitly considering time-based individual differences whiledeveloping team charters and role assignments would facilitate adeeper understanding of a team’s own temporal approaches andhelp members to proactively develop strategies to cope with differ-ences in how others perceive and value time. Because special ef-forts must be made to reduce process problems in diverse teams(e.g., Eisenhardt, 2004; Mannix & Neale, 2005), team leaders canplay a critical role in developing basic agreements concerningscheduling and time-related norms that enable team members tofunction effectively together (e.g., Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011).Procedures for handing off performance responsibilities amongmembers as projects progress can be developed with a sensitivitytoward differences in temporal proclivities. These types of inter-ventions could play a key role in preventing process losses involv-ing role mismatches, handoff difficulties, and misattributionsregarding negative performance.

References

Amabile, T. M., Mueller, J. S., Simpson, W. B., Hadley, C. N., Kramer, S. J., & Fleming, L.(2002). Time pressure and creativity in organizations: A longitudinal field study(Working paper No. 02-073). Boston: Harvard Business School.

Andrews, J., & Smith, D. C. (1996). In search of the marketing imagination: Factorsaffecting the creativity of marketing programs for mature products. Journal ofMarketing Research, 33, 174–187.

Ashby, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Methuen & Company,Ltd..

Ashkanasy, N., Gupta, V., Mayfield, M. S., & Trevor-Roberts, E. (2004). Futureorientation. In R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta(Eds.), Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies(pp. 282–342). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Atuahene-Gima, K. (2003). Effects of centrifugal and centripetal forces on productdevelopment speed and quality: How does problem solving matter? Academy ofManagement Journal, 46(3), 359–373.

Ballard, D. I., & Seibold, D. R. (2003). Communicating and organizing in time: Ameso-level model of organizational temporality. Management CommunicationQuarterly, 16(3), 380–415.

Ballard, D. I., & Seibold, D. R. (2004). Communication-related organizationalstructures and work group temporal experiences: The effects of coordinationmethod, technology type, and feedback cycle on members’ construals andenactments of time. Communication Monographs, 71(1), 1–27.

Bartel, C. A., & Milliken, F. J. (2004). Perceptions of time in work groups: Domembers develop shared cognitions about their temporal demands? In S.Blount (Ed.). Research on managing groups and teams: Time in groups (Vol. 6,pp. 87–109). New York: Elsevier.

Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., Conlon, D. E., & Ilgen, D. R.(2003). Cooperation, competition, and team performance: Toward acontingency approach. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 572–590.

Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of teamperformance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595–615.

Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. (2011). Getting specificabout demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: Ameta-analysis. Journal of Management, 37, 709–743.

Benabou, C. (1999). Polychronicity and temporal dimensions of work in learningorganizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(3–4), 257–268.

Blount, S., & Janicik, G. A. (2002). Getting and staying in-pace: The ‘‘in-synch’’preference and its implications for work groups. Research on managing groupsand teams: Toward phenomenology of groups and group membership (Vol. 4,pp. 235–266). New York: Elsevier Science.

Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of time: Temporal realities andexperience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bluedorn, A. C., & Denhardt, R. B. (1998). Time and organizations. Journal ofManagement, 14(2), 299–319.

Bluedorn, A. C., Kalliath, T. J., Strube, M. J., & Martin, G. D. (1999). Polychronicity andthe inventory of polychronic values (IPV): Development of an instrument tomeasure a fundamental dimension of organizational culture. Journal ofManagerial Psychology, 14, 205–230.

Bluedorn, A. C., Kaufman, C. F., & Lane, P. M. (1992). How many things do you like todo at once? An introduction to monochronic and polychronic time. Academy ofManagement Executive, 6, 17–26.

Bluedorn, A. C., & Standifer, R. L. (2004). Groups, boundary spanning, and thetemporal imagination. In S. Blount (Ed.). Research on managing groups andteams: Time in groups (Vol. 6, pp. 159–182). New York: Elsevier Science.

Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). When member heterogeneity isneeded in work teams: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 31(3), 305–327.

Braarud, P. O. (2001). Subjective task complexity and subjective workload: Criterionvalidity for complex team tasks. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics,5(3), 261–273.

S. Mohammed, D.A. Harrison / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 122 (2013) 244–256 255

Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domainat different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 83(2), 234–246.

Conte, J. M., & Gintoft, J. N. (2005). Polychronicity, Big Five personality dimensions,and sales performance. Human Performance, 18(4), 427–444.

Conte, J. M., & Jacobs, R. R. (2003). Validity evidence linking polychronicity and BigFive personality dimensions to absence, lateness, and supervisory performanceratings. Human Performance, 16(2), 107–129.

Conte, J. M., Landy, F. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (1995). Time urgency: Conceptual andconstruct development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 178–185.

Conte, J. M., Mathieu, J. E., & Landy, F. J. (1998). The nomological and predictivevalidity of time urgency. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 1–13.

Conte, J. M., Rizzuto, T. E., & Steiner, D. D. (1999). A construct-oriented analysis ofindividual-level polychronicity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(3/4),269–287.

Cox, J. E., Pearce, C. L., & Perry, M. L. (2003). Toward a model of shared leadershipand distributed influence in the innovation process: How shared leadership canenhance new product development team dynamics and effectiveness. In C. L.Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys ofleadership (pp. 48–60). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Das, T. K. (1987). Strategic planning and individual temporal orientation. StrategicManagement Journal, 8, 203–209.

De Church, L. A., & Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings ofeffective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1),32–53.

De Dreu, C. K. W. (2003). Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 280–295.

Devine, D. J., & Philips, J. L. (2001). Do smarter teams do better: A meta-analysis ofcognitive ability and team performance. Small Group Research, 32(5), 507–532.

Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distributionof practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied Psychology,84, 795–805.

Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. (1987). Personality and group performance. In C.Hendrick (Ed.). Group processes and intergroup relations (Vol. 9, pp. 91–112).Newbury Park: Sage.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high velocityenvironments. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 543–576.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (2004). Five issues where groups meet time. In S. Blount (Ed.),Time in groups: Research on managing groups and teams (pp. 267–283). NewYork: Elsevier.

Elliott, D., Helsen, W. F., & Chua, R. (2001). A century later: Woodworth’s (1899)two-component model of goal directed aiming. Psychological Bulletin, 127,342–357.

Forster, J., Friedman, R. S., & Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal construal effects onabstract and concrete thinking: Consequences for insight and creativecognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 177–189.

Francis-Smith, J., & Robertson, I. (1999). Time-related individual differences. Timeand Society, 8(2), 273–292.

Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model ofgroup development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–41.

Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Marking time: Predictable transitions in task groups.Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 274–309.

Gevers, J. M. P., Claessens, B. J. C., van Eerde, W., & Rutte, C. G. (2009). Pacing styles,personality and performance. In R. Roe, M. J. Waller, & S. R. Clegg (Eds.), Time inorganizational research (pp. 80–102). New York: Routledge.

Gevers, J. M. P., Mohammed, S., & Baytalskaya, N. (in press). The conceptualizationand measurement of pacing style. Applied Psychology: An International Review.

Gevers, J. M. P., Rutte, C. G., & van Eerde, W. (2006). Meeting deadlines in workgroups: Implicit and explicit mechanisms. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 55(1), 52–72.

Gibson, C. B., Waller, M. J., Carpenter, M. A., & Conte, J. M. (2007). Antecedents,consequences, and moderators of time perspective heterogeneity forknowledge management in MNO teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28,1005–1034.

Gray, P. (2000). The effects of knowledge management systems on emergent teams:Towards a research model. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 175–191.

Hackman, J. R. (1968). Effects of task characteristics on group products. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 4, 162–187.

Hall, E. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as

separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of ManagementReview, 32(4), 1199–1228.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and taskperformance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on groupfunctioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.

Hecht, T. D., & Allen, N. J. (2005). Exploring links between polychronicity and well-being from the perspective of person-job fit: Does it matter if you prefer to doonly one thing at a time? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,98, 155–178.

Henderson, M. D., Trope, Y., & Carnevale, P. J. (2006). Negotiation from a near anddistant time perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4),712–729.

Holman, E. A., & Silver, R. C. (1998). Getting ‘‘stuck’’ in the past: Temporalorientation and coping with trauma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74(5), 1146–1163.

Horowitz, S. K., & Horowitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on teamoutcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management,33(6), 987–1015.

Humphrey, S. E., Moon, H., Conlon, D. E., & Hofmann, D. (2004). Decision-makingand behavior fluidity: How focus on completion and emphasis on safetychanges over the course of projects. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 93, 14–27.

Jackson, T. (May 21, 2011). Dodgers P. Garland, C Barajas at odds. Espn.com:Baseball.

Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team andorganizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal ofManagement, 29, 801–830.

Jansen, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2005). Marching to the beat of a differentdrummer: Examining the impact of pacing congruence. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 97, 93–105.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why difference makes adifference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups.Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763.

Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: Ameta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 599–627.

Kaplan, S. A., & Waller, M. J. (2007). On the perils of polychronicity: Multitaskingeffects in nuclear crews. Poster presented at the annual conference of the societyfor industrial/organizational psychology, New York City.

Karau, S. J., & Kelly, J. R. (2004). Time pressure and team performance: Anattentional focus integration. In S. Blount (Ed.), Time in groups (Vol. 6, pp. 185–212). New York: Elsevier JAI.

Kaufman-Scarborough, C., & Lindquist, J. D. (1999). Time management andpolychronicity comparisons, contrasts, and insights for the workplace. Journalof Managerial Psychology, 14(3/4), 288–312.

Keough, K. A., Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Who’s smoking, drinking, andusing drugs? Time perspective as a predictor of substance use. Basic and AppliedSocial Psychology, 21, 149–164.

Kivetz, Y., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). Tomorrow I’ll be me: The effect of time perspectiveon the activation of idealistic versus pragmatic selves. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 102, 193–211.

Klein, K. J., Ziegert, J. C., Knight, A. P., & Xiao, Y. (2006). Dynamic delegation: Shared,hierarchical, and deindividualized leadership in extreme action teams.Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 590.

Konig, C. J., & Waller, M. J. (2010). Time for reflection: A critical examination ofpolychronicity. Human Performance, 23, 173–190.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory andresearch in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J.Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods inorganizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kruglanski, A. W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay influences:Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448–468.

Labianca, G., Moon, H., & Watt, I. (2005). When is an hour not 60 minutes?Deadlines, temporal schemata, and individual and task group performance.Academy of Management Journal, 48(4), 677–694.

Landy, F. J., Rastegary, H., Thayer, J., & Colvin, C. (1991). Time urgency: The constructand its measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 644–657.

Leary, M. R., & Forsyth, D. R. (1987). Attributions of responsibility for collectiveendeavors. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 167–188.

Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distanceon level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38,523–534.

Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promiseand reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the PublicInterest, 6(2), 31–55.

Maynard, D. C., & Hakel, M. D. (1997). Effects of objective and subjective taskcomplexity on task performance. Human Performance, 10, 303–330.

McGrath, J. E. (1984). Group interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

McGrath, J. E., & Tschan, F. (2004). Temporal matters in social psychology.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Menon, S., Narayanan, L., & Spector, P. E. (1996). Time urgency and its relation tooccupational stressors and health outcomes for health care professionals. In C.D. Sp ielberger, I. G. Sarason, & Associates (Eds.). Stress and emotion: Anxiety,anger, and curiosity (Vol. 6, pp. 127–142). London: Taylor & Francis.

Meyer, A. D. (1982). Adapting to environmental jolts. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 27, 515–537.

Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understandingthe multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy ofManagement Review, 21(2), 402–433.

Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. (2004). Surface- and deep-level diversity in

workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and teamprocess on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,1015–1039.

Mohammed, S., Hamilton, K., & Lim, A. (2009). The incorporation of time in teamresearch: Past, current, and future. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C. S. Burke (Eds.),Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives andapproaches (pp. 321–348). New York: Routledge, Taylor Francis Group.

256 S. Mohammed, D.A. Harrison / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 122 (2013) 244–256

Mohammed, S., & Nadkarni, S. (2011). Temporal diversity and team performance:The moderating role of temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal,54(3), 489–508.

Mohammed, S., Rizzuto, T., Hiller, N., Neuman, D., & Chen, T. (2008). Individualdifferences and group negotiation: The role of polychronicity, dominance,and decision rule. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1(3),281–306.

Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1992). The composition of small groups. In E. Lawler,B. Markovsky, C. Ridgeway, & H. Walker (Eds.). Advances in group processes (Vol.9, pp. 237–280). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Moreland, R. L. (2012). Composition and diversity. In J. M. Levine (Ed.), Groupprocesses (pp. 11–32). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Moreland, R. L., Levine, J. M., & Wingert, M. L. (1996). Creating the ideal group:Composition effects at work. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.). Understandinggroup behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 11–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nandhakumar, J., & Jones, M. (2001). Accounting for time: Managing time inproject-based teamworking. Accounting, Organizations, and Society, 26,193–214.

Natale, V., & Cicogna, P. (2002). Morningness–eveningness dimension: Is it really acontinuum? Personality and Individual Differences, 32(5), 809–816.

Nutt, P. C. (2002). Why decisions fail: Avoiding the blunders and traps that lead todebacles. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc..

Nutt, P. C. (2004). Expanding the search for alternatives during strategic decision-making. Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), 13–28.

Ofori-Dankwa, J., & Julian, S. D. (2001). Complexifying organizational theory:Illustrations using time research. Academy of Management Review, 28(3),415–430.

O’Reilly, C., Caldwell, D., & Barnett, W. (1989). Work group demography, socialintegration and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37.

Pearce, L. (2011). Missed deadlines: The high cost of project management slips.Liquid planner. <http://www.liquidplanner.com/blog/2011/215/missed-deadlines-the-high-cost-of-project-management-slips.html>.

Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: Ananalysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28.

Perez-Nordtvedt, L., Payne, G. T., Short, J. C., & Kedia, B. L. (2008). An entrainment-based model of temporal organizational fit, misfit, and performance.Organization Science, 19(5), 785–801.

Perlow, L. A., Okhuysen, G. A., & Repenning, N. (2002). The speed trap: Exploring therelationship between decision making and the temporal context. Academy ofManagement Journal, 45(5), 931–955.

Poposki, E. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2010). The multitasking preference inventory:Toward an improved measure of individual differences in polychronicity.Human Performance, 23, 247–264.

Puffer, S. M. (1989). Task completion schedules: Determinants and consequences ofperformance. Human Relations, 42, 937–955.

Rastegary, H., & Landy, F. J. (1993). The interactions among time urgency,uncertainty, and time pressure. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maule (Eds.), Timepressure and stress in human judgment and decision-making (pp. 217–240). NewYork: Plenum Press.

Rogers, J. (December 23, 2009). Seabrook, Keith look out of sync. Espn.com:Blackhawks.

Sando, M. (August 17, 2008). Bulger, Rams receivers out of sync. Espn.com: NFCWest.

Saunders, C., Van Slyke, C. V., & Vogel, D. R. (2004). My time or yours? Managingtime visions in global virtual teams. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1),19–31.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2009). Conceptualization andmeasurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of past, present,and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110, 1–22.

Simons, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Lacante, M. (2004). Placing motivation andfuture time perspective theory in a temporal perspective. EducationalPsychology Review, 16, 121–139.

Slocombe, T. E., & Bluedorn, A. C. (1999). Organizational behavior implications ofthe congruence between preferred polychronicity and experienced work-unitpolychronicity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(1), 75–99.

Souitaris, V., & Maestro, B. M. M. (2010). Polychronicity in top management teams:The impact on strategic decision processes and performance of new technologyventures. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 652–678.

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press.Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design

features and team performance. Journal of Management, 32(1), 29–54.Stewart, G. L. (2010). The past twenty years: Teams research is alive and well at the

Journal of Management. Journal of Management, 36(4), 801–805.Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing

the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type.Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 135–148.

Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The considerationof future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes ofbehavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 742–752.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing:Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(1), 2–24.

Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model ofjob performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517.

Thatcher, S. M. B., & Patel, P. C. (2012). Group faultlines: A review, integration, andguide to future research. Journal of Management, 38(4), 969–1009.

Thoms, P. (2004). Driven by time: Time orientation and leadership. Westport,Connecticut: Praeger.

Tinsley, C. (2001). How negotiators get to yes: Predicting the constellation ofstrategies used across cultures to negotiate conflict. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 86(4), 583–593.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changesin preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 876–889.

Tsui, A. S., Eagan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relationaldemography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly,37, 549–579.

Van Dijk, H., van Engen, M. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying conventionalwisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences betweendemographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, 38–53.

Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversityand group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 98(6), 1008–1022.

Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. In S. Gubins(Ed.), Annual review of psychology (pp. 515–541). Annual Reviews: A NonprofitScientific Publisher.

Waller, M. J., Conte, J. M., Gibson, C. B., & Carpenter, M. A. (2001). The effect ofindividual perceptions of deadlines on team performance. Academy ofManagement Review, 26(4), 586–600.

Waller, M. J., Giambatista, R. C., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (1999). The effects ofindividual time urgency on group polychronicity. Journal of ManagerialPsychology, 14(3–4), 244–256.

Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. (2001). Impact of highly and less job-relateddiversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal ofManagement, 27, 141–162.

West, G. P., & Meyer, G. D. (1997). Temporal dimensions of opportunistic change intechnology-based ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22(2), 31–52.

Wharton, A. S., & Baron, J. N. (1991). Satisfaction? The psychological impact ofgender segregation on women at work. Sociological Quarterly, 32, 365–387.

Wickens, C. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. TheoreticalIssues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 150–177.

Wickens, C. D., Sandry, D., & Vidulich, M. (1983). Compatibility and resourcecompetition between modalities of input, output, central processing. HumanFactors, 25, 227–248.

Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations:A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140.

Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: Definition of the construct. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 60–82.

Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams inproduction of knowledge. Science, 316, 1036–1039.

Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliableindividual-differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6),1271–1288.