Talking about time: Effects of temporal planning and time awareness norms on group coordination and performance.

Abstract

Planning is often central to effective coordination and task performance in work groups. Although planning pertains to efforts aimed at establishing objectives, generating subtasks, and creating role or task assignments, it also encompasses discussions about time and temporal issues. This article highlights the importance of temporal planning in groups, especially as it relates to effective coordination and task performance. Specifically, the results of a survey study of 48 self-managing project groups revealed that higher levels of initial temporal planning contributed to the formation of group norms that emphasize awareness of and attention to time. These time awareness norms were found to mediate the effect of temporal planning on coordination and task performance.

Strategic alliance team diversity, coordination, and effectiveness

“…While some members may prefer more coordination, others may prefer less, a situation that can minimize coordination's impact on team members' effectiveness, which in turn may affect alliance team effectiveness in the aggregate. Second, differences in time orientation and relationships among people (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck 1961;Trompenaars 1994) may accentuate disagreement regarding task and coordination details, potentially creating problems that may influence task performance (Janicik and Bartel 2003). Studies in entrainment show that time orientation differences minimize the effect of coordination on group performance (McGrath 1990;Fleishman and Zaccaro 1992).…”

Multiple Team Membership: A Theoretical Model of its Effects on Productivity and Learning for Individuals and Teams.

“…A team's temporal structure includes how frequently it must meet, when meetings typically start (Labianca, Moon, & Watt, 2005), the mix of time that various members must devote to the team (Cummings, 2007), the amount of work that must be completed during given periods (Leroy & Sproull, forthcoming), the team's approaches to deadlines and time pressure (Waller, Zellmer-Bruhn, & Giambatista, 2002), and the rhythm of team meetings (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000). Such structures help teams coordinate and complete their work (Harrison, Mohammed, McGrath, Florey, & Vanderstoep, 2003;Im, Yates, & Orlikowski, 2005;Janicik & Bartel, 2003;McGrath, 1988;Orlikowski & Yates, 2002). …”

“…and complete their work (Harrison, Mohammed, McGrath, Florey, & Vanderstoep, 2003;Im, Yates, & Orlikowski, 2005;Janicik & Bartel, 2003;McGrath, 1988;Orlikowski & Yates, 2002).…”

A student teamwork induction protocol

“…In fact, it is process directiveness that can be said to connote good coordination. For instance, Janicik and Bartel (2003) define effective coordination as dividing tasks among members, "temporal planning" (p. 126; scheduling tasks, planning meetings, prioritizing tasks, etc. ), and setting targets.…”

“…This echoes evidence from other groups. Sub-optimal coordination in groups is a common problem (Janicik & Bartel, 2003) and involves poor synchronization between group members (Rogelberg, Barnes-Farrell & Lowe, 1992), a leadership style that is inappropriate for the task (Peterson, 1997) or poor sharing of pertinent information (Winquist & Larsson, 1998). A third source of group productivity losses is problematic group dynamics; examples are counterproductive norms or modus operandi as far as decision-making is concerned (Postmes, Spears & Cihangir, 2001) and a sense of being 'trapped' into continuing down the path of a faulty decision (Kameda & Sugimori, 1993).…”