Bridging Temporal Divides: Temporal Brokerage in Global Teams and Its Impact on Individual Performance

Abstract

Members of global teams are often dispersed across time zones. This paper introduces the construct of temporal brokerage, which we define as being in a position within a team’s temporal structure that bridges subgroups that have little or no temporal overlap with each other. Although temporal brokerage is not a formal role, we argue that occupying such a position makes an individual more likely to take on more coordination work than other members on the team. We suggest that, while engaging in such coordination work has advantages in the form of enhanced integrative complexity, it also comes with costs in the form of a greater workload relative to other members. We further argue that the increased integrative complexity and workload that result from occupying a position of temporal brokerage have implications that go beyond the boundaries of the focal team, spilling over into other projects the individual is engaged in. Specifically, we predict that being in positions of temporal brokerage on global teams decreases the quantity but increases the quality of an individual’s total productive output. We find support for these predictions across two studies comprising 4,553 individuals participating in global student project teams and 123,586 individuals participating in global academic research teams, respectively. The framework and findings presented in this paper contribute to theories of global teamwork, pivotal roles and leadership emergence in global teams, and social network theory.

Leadership and Followership in Teams

“…Today, more than ever before, organizations are increasingly reliant on teams that consist of members that are geographically and culturally dispersed (Mell et al, 2021). The divergent cultural orientation of global team members has the potential to impinge teamwork (Gibbs et al, 2021).…”

Detrimental Collaborations in Creative Work: Evidence from Economics

“…First, we highlight a new channel through which collaboration can negatively affect creative output quality. Research on the cost of collaboration has focused on the frictions embedded within the collaboration process, producing a rich literature that has highlighted a variety of mechanisms such as free-riding (Levine and Prietula 2013), coordination costs (Mell, Jang, and Chai 2020), conflict (Hinds and Bailey 2003), or groupthink (Godart, Shipilov, and Claes 2013). Rather than examining the process of collaboration, we show that the decision to engage in collaboration in the first place can be influenced by the misalignment of individual-and output-level incentives.…”

Are American Presidents Becoming Less Rhetorically Complex? Evaluating the Integrative Complexity of Joe Biden and Donald Trump in Historical Context

“…Additional studies have compared expert human scorers to AutoIC and shown continued positive results -indeed, in each case, the human-AutoIC correlation was greater than in the original Conway et al (2014) paper (Conway et al, 2020;Houck et al, 2018;McCullough & Conway, 2018a;Prinsloo, 2016). Further, AutoIC has been used in multiple studies across a wide variety of domains to produce theoretically-interpretable findings, including in the domains of organizational science (Mell et al, 2021), forecasting (Karvetskia et al, in press), terrorism (Houck et al, 2017;Putra et al, 2018), fictional versus real dialogue (McCullough & Conway, 2018a), decision-making (Prinsloo, 2016), the film industry (McCullough & Conway, 2018b), video game dialogue (McCullough, 2019), fan fiction (McCullough, 2019), religion (Houck et al, 2018), social media (McCullough & Conway, 2019), and trial outcomes (Zubrod et al, 2021). Also, a recent set of studies revealed that AutoIC showed similar across-domain and across-time correlations as human-scored IC (Conway & Woodard, 2019).…”