Tải bản đầy đủ
3 Research’s Scope and Approach

3 Research’s Scope and Approach

Tải bản đầy đủ


time urgency,future time perspective and the nascent concept of team temporal
leadership, which are still quite new in Vietnam.
1.4.2 Managerial Contributions
This study provides managers with a deeper understanding of how their
leadership in time perspective affects team performance, and how theirfollower’s
difference in time urgency, time perspective can affect the result of their leadership.
1.5 Research Structure
This paper is included in 5 chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Literature review provides theoretical and empirical background
connecting to the hypothesized research model.
Chapter 3: Methodology addresses methodologies and analysis tools and
Chapter 4: Analysis is conducted based on the collected data to test the hypotheses
and answer the research questions.
Chapter 5: Discussion base on the result and provide theoretical, practical
implication, and possible directions for further research.
This chapter had introduced the important to conduct this research and
relevance researches of pioneers over the issue of this paper (the issue of time). The
Objectives of this paper is defined as the relationship between team temporal
leadership and team performance and the moderators of this relationship, they are
time urgency and future time perspective.The academic and managerial contribution
of this research also had introduced.



This chapter reviews the theoretical and empirical literatures, providing the
theoretical background to the problem under research.
Temporal Individual Differences
In the scope of this paper, the author examines two temporal individual
differences: time urgency and time perspective. These temporal individual
differences are conceptually distinct, capture unique time-based characteristics
relevant to team tasks, and have been theoretically implicated as important for team
functioning. Although sparse, team-level studies are beginning to investigate time
urgency (Mohammed & Angle, 2004) and time perspective (West & Meyer, 1997).

2.1 Time Urgency
2.1.1Time Urgency and Type A Behavior Pattern
The empirical and theoretical studies have shown the important of how
people make decisions under time pressure. Time urgency is an important factor to
consider when study people conducting their activities under deadline condition.
Time urgency emerged from the study of the relationship between coronary-prone
individual (Type A) and heart disease (Friedman and Roseman, 1974). Time
urgency, a subcomponent of Type A behavior, is a frequent concern with the
passage of time, and a relatively stable characteristic of Type A behavior individual


(Waller et al., 2002). Type A behavior individuals consider hard-driving,
competitive, hostile, and time urgent comparison to no coronary-prone individual
(Type B). Type A individuals are expected work significantly faster than Type B’s
(Yarnold and Grimm, 1982). This sense of time urgency is one of the central
elements of Type A behavior.
Time urgency is characterized by an accelerated pace of activities that results
from striving to fulfill more and more in less time (Friedman and Roseman, 1974).
This hard-driving nature is supported by the finding of Burman et al. (1975), who
suggests that Type A’s approach all tasks with almost maximum capacity,
regardless of specific goal demands of the task (such as deadlines). These
researchers’ experiments use two different conditions, one with a set deadline and
one without a specific deadline. The experiment shows that the deadline condition
did not influence the pace of Type A individuals, probably because they created
their own deadlines in the no-deadline condition. Type A individuals are
continuously involved in a struggle with time, as they are occupied with a sense of
haste. Type A’s check their watches repeatedly and by creating their own deadlines,
they try to maintain control over the situation.
2.1.2 Characteristic of Time Urgency
People with time urgent characteristic have a chronic feeling of being
pressured and appear to be preoccupied with setting deadlines. They are aware of
time and are likely to do more activities than they are able to do in a certain amount
of time. They often tend to feel time passing slowly, since they turn to more
impatient when they want to slow down the speed of their activities (Glass et al,
1974). The feeling of urgency affects both the perception and the usage of time for
them when individuals are overwhelmed with activities and duties; a way to control
order is to follow a schedule they have driven. Time-urgent individuals state that by
making schedule, they can perform well under time pressure (Rastegary & Landy,
1993). Gastorf (1980) reports time-urgent people usual schedule for activities


earlier than less time-urgent people. Time urgent people also tend to multiple
taskssimultaneously to save time.
Time-urgency is connected with behavior under time pressure conditions.
Time urgency individuals are tent to aware of time, setting task prioritization and
scheduling their own task within the allotted time (Conte, Landy & Mathieu, 1985).
Time-urgency individual usually attend carefully the passing of time by checking
their watch repeatedly (Price 1982)
In order to fulfill all the activities that they have scheduled, time urgent
individuals must be quite efficient in using their time. When time urgent individuals
plan many tasks they usually use deadlines as heuristics to prioritize tasks, and to
measure time remaining to fulfill a task.
2.1.3 Time Urgency and Team Performance
Although many researchers have been conducted on time urgency and type
A behavior, The research on time urgency and team performance is spare and
inconsistent (Mohammed &Nadkarni, 2011). Previous research mainly focused on
the affects of time urgency on individual performance level. Some research state
that time urgency may have a negative effect on performance. For example, Friend
(1982) findsout that time urgency and subjective workload both have a negative
linear relation with performance results on a problem-solving exam. Both variables
were proven to be related with a higher level of stress, which is negative for
individual performance. Glass et al (1997) also find a negative relationship between
time urgency and performance in a take which need performer be patient. In
contrast, Bingham and Hailey (1989) find out that high time-urgent individual
perform better under deadline condition than low time-urgent individuals, and les
time-urgent individual performance better high time-urgent individual under
without deadline condition. Mohammed and Nadkarni (2011) also suggest that less
time urgent individual would perform better high time urgent one in case of
complicate tasks that need high attention and accuracy.


Since it is generally accepted that a team’s effectiveness is partly determined
by the individual characteristics of its team members, a number of studies focused
on the effect of individual time urgency in relation to team performance. Some
individual characteristics are more facilitative to team effort than others and certain
combinations of characteristics also enhance team performance. Waller et al (1998)
show that the presence of one time-urgent member increase team’s focus on
primary task activity. The author demonstrates that the actions of a time-urgent
member might affect team behavior under deadline condition. Meeting deadlines is
viewed as one of measure of team’s performance. The authors combined the
constructs time urgency and time perspective and established four prototypical
individual-level behavior patterns under deadline conditions. The results indicate
that a temporal mismatch between team members, where individual time urgency
and time perspective greatly differ, would have a negative impact on the team’s
performance. This implies that teams are more effective when the team members
have the same levels of time urgency and time perspective. Time-urgent people who
think they lack the time to make a considerate decision will rely on the things that
worked in previous situation. By hurrying, these individuals will more easily
overlook certain parts of the circumstance that need more attention. The inability to
make considered decisions will reduce individual and organizational performance.
Thus, time urgency can have positive effects, such as increasing efficiency, as well
as negative effects on team performance.
2.2 Time Perspective
2.2.1 Time Perspective
Individual’s time perspectives may result from various antecedents,
including culture, religion, family, education, and work backgrounds (Mohammed
and Nadkarni, 2011). Due to the constraints of time, a full investigation of these
antecedents is beyond the scope of this paper. Regardless of how they may
developed, time perspectives affect how individuals perceive time and behave
regarding time. Individuals’ time perspectives act as temporal cognitive frames used


to “form expectations, goals, contingencies, and imaginative scenarios” (Zimbardo
& Boyd, 1999), which are all important in planning and execution activities.
Researchers have different perspectives of time. Some researchers argue that
individual’s time perspective focus more on either past, present, or future time
(Kluckhohn &Strodtbeck., 1961). Some others consider time perspective as a single
element varying from a future orientation to a past-and-present orientation
(Hofstede& Bond, 1988). However, researches on organizations had focus on the
effect of present and future time perspective on individual decision making and job
performance (Mohammed and Nadkarni, 2011); therefore, this paper just analysts
on present and future time perspective.
Present-oriented individuals tend to believe that behaviors taken today have
no more effect on the probability of attaining a future goal than do future behaviors
that could be taken as the goal nears. Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) reveal that
individuals with present time perspective focus on present pleasure and tend to (1)
believe that planning for the future is somehow useless, (2) take more risk and act
hastily, and lose sense of time seriously more than people with

other time

perspectives. Other researchers also support this argument. Das (1987) reveals that
present-oriented individuals tended to make plans with shorter planning horizons,
whereas Bird’s (1992) and West and Meyer’s (1998) researchsfind that teams with
strong present-oriented individuals tend to focus less on future-oriented strategic
thinking than other teams.
Future time perspective is overall attitude toward time that focuses on the
future (Nuttin, 1985). Individuals with future time perspective believe that a
behavior performed today increases the probability of desired goals in future (Jones,
1988). Zimbardo and Boyd (1999) reveal that individuals with high future time
perspectives were highly goal-oriented individuals and were more likely other
individuals to consider future consequences, make to-do lists, wear a watch, and
have more clearly defined future goals. In addition, planner with future time


perspectives considered longer time horizons that did other planners. West and
Mayer (1998) prove that teams with more future-oriented individuals made more
changes in strategic thinking than did teams with more present-oriented members.
Future-oriented individuals tent to focus in long-term strategy, while presentoriented individual are likely involve more in day by day activities (Thom, 2004).
Neither team with only future-oriented individuals or those with current viewers
meets performance requirements. Therefore, some researchers suggest that diversify
with time perspective in teams helps to ensure performance (Mohammed &
Harrison, 2007)
2.2.2 Time Perspective and team performance
While future-oriented people are likely to make a vision, involve in longterm planning, and willing to make change, present-oriented people tent to pay
careful intention in day-to-day activities (Thoms, 2004). Because present and future
oriented perspective have both advantages and disadvantages, neither teams
composed of only long-term nor are those of only short-term oriented people likely
to consistently meet both performance requirements (Mohammed & Nadkarni,
The strengths of present-oriented people are they are good at keeping on
track activities, rarely forgetting to do daily work, tend to do well at scheduling
events, and know where everyone is and should be on a daily basis. Presentoriented individuals tend to be good at understanding and evaluating the reactions
of other people because of their frequent interaction with them. They show to be
effective at the conductions of plans because of their scheduling skills. Part of that
present-oriented people can spend so much of their time on present-oriented
activities is because they are spending little time planning for future (Thom, 2004).
The disadvantages of present-oriented people are their short-term point of view,
overseeing in every aspect of current activities in detail, spending little time to think


about the future. They make improvement with short-term rather than long-term
(Thom, 2004).
Future-oriented individuals also have some advantage. They have good
vision, detailed cognitive images of what the future can be, and behave accordingly
with their vision. They tend to pay attention to what is going on in the external
environment and constantly assess their own position in contrast to that of others.
They are good at making people have future point of view with them. People with
future-oriented perspective also have some drawbacks. They are good at create
vision but not good at working with what is going to happen.They may not
acknowledge the past accomplishment and contribution of others (Thom, 2004).
Because neither present-oriented nor future-oriented individuals have both
good vision to draw out future and good scheduling to bring out day-to-day
activities, groups with single time perspective hardly accomplish high performance.
A diversity of time perspective in teams helps to ensure that both short-term and
long-term objectives are adequately addressed (Mohammed & Harrison, 2007)
However, greater heterogeneity can also generate temporal ambiguities and
conflicts among team members in planning and executing team activities (Waller et
al., 2001). For example, present-oriented members tend to prefer shorter planning
horizons; whereas future-oriented members favor longer planning horizons (Das,
1987). These differences may not only create ambiguity about team schedules, but
also lead to temporal conflict. In addition, members’ time perspective biases may
cause them to ignore or discount valuable information from members with
dissimilar time perspectives. For instance, present-oriented individuals may be
perceived as carelessly acting without adequately considering long-term
consequences, and future-oriented individuals may be regarded as having an “day
dream” mentality out of touch with day-to-day activities


Team temporal leadership is likely to serve as a situational mechanism to
reduce the negative and support the positive aspects of diversity in time perspective
(Ancona et al., 2001).When leaders engage in activities such as building in time for
contingencies, enforcing schedules and deadlines through reminders, and balancing
the attention given to short-and long-term activities through behavior sequencing,
there is a greater ability that the strengths of present- and future-oriented members
will be effectively utilized. “Synchrony in group member expectation about
deadlines may be critical to groups’ ability to accomplish successful transition in
their work” (Gersick, 1989:305); therefore, stronger team temporal leadership may
allow time perspective diversity to be properly leveraged

2.3 Team Temporal Leadership.
Mohammed & Nadkarni (2011) define team temporal leadership as
integrating the time, interaction, performance theories with the nascent literature on
temporal leadership. The theory related studies have identified three closely related
activities that could handle the problems arising from diversity of temporal
individual differences: scheduling of activities, synchronization of activities, and
allocation of temporal resources (McGrath & Kelly, 1986). Setting clear and wellunderstood schedules reduces temporal conflict by specifying which events happen
when and by creating a coherent and unifiedplan of provisional deadlines and
milestones that allow team members to follow their progress (Zerubavel, 1981).
Synchronization of team activities reduces conflict of temporal interests by
controlling the flow of the task, improving coordination among team members, and
adjusting individual work cycles (Schriber, 1986; Schriber & Gutek, 1987). Finally,
lack of temporal resources (time pressure) can be reduced by creating built-in times
for unexpectedcontingencies, prioritizing task goals, and efficiently allocating
temporal resources among team members (Schiber & Gutek, 1987). When team
members experience less time pressure they are likely to be more productive and
more committed to task accomplishment (Gevers, van Eerde, & Rutte, 2001).


Although the time, interaction, performance theory does not specify who will
perform these three activities, other temporal researchers have stated that team
leaders are often responsible for implementing time-related activities such as
scheduling and reminding team members of deadlines (Gevers, Rutte, & van Eerde,
2004; Gevers et al., 2009). Because a team leader’s primary function is “to do, or
get done, whatever is not being adequately handled for group needs” (McGrath,
1962:5), the task of managing temporal problem in a team often falls to the
leader;indeed, leadership researchers are beginning to explicitly link temporal
related activities to the leadership role. For example, Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence,
and Tushman (2001) use the term “temporal leadership” to address leadership
challenges such as deciding how fast to act and managing multiple time frames.
Recently, Halbesleben, Novicevic, Harvey, and Kuckley (2003)point out that
temporal activities recognizing time-related differences, and synchronizing the
abilities of members should be integral to the leadership role. Similarly, van der
Erve advocated that “the notion of leadership should become more inclusive when it
comes to the temporal or time-related needs of the organization” (2004: 605).
Despite these calls, Bluedorn and Jaussi lamented that “the formal use of temporal
variables in leadership research has been scares and scattered; work form temporal
theory has not made its mark on the leadership process” (2008:657). Addressing
this need, Mohammed & Nadkarni (2004), expand the nascent opinion of temporal
leadership to the team context by conceptually and operationally examining the
intersection of time, leadership, and teams.
Team temporal leadership is leader behaviors that aid in structuring,
coordinating, and managing the pacing task accomplishment in a team. The
dimensions of temporal leadership behaviors are scheduling, synchronizing task and
allocating temporal resources (Mohammed, 2011). Temporal individual differences
can create both advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, diversify of
temporal in team members can be beneficially in complex, dynamic, and uncertain
task environment (Eisenhardt, 2004; Mohammed & Harrison, 2007). On the


negative side, diversify of temporal in team member can create ambiguity and
conflict among team members (Bartel & Milliken, 2004). Consequently, strong
team temporal leadership can generate the benefit of temporal diversify in team
member (Mohammed 2011)
2.4 Team Temporal Leadership and Team Performance
In addition to moderating the relationship between diversity of temporal
individual differences and team performance, team temporal leadership may also
contribute directly to team performance. Because virtually all teams have implicit or
explicit deadlines, the timely completion of work is regarded as a critical indicator
of team success in both science (e.g., Hackman, 1990) and practice (e.g., Fine,
1998). Indeed, effective adjustment to external temporal parameters is central to
maximizing team performance in today’s business word, where team are closely
tied to environmental pacers such as technology, customer, supplier, and economic
cycles (Ancona et al., 2001)
Bridging the team-organization boundary, team temporal leadership
behaviors may allow team leaders to create internal temporal structures that entrain
the internal tempo, rhythm, and work cycles of a team’s activities to those of its
external project environment (Ancona et al., 2001; Halbeslaben et al., 2003;
Kelly&McGrath, 1986). For instance, setting interim milestones allow teams
involved in complex, dynamic, and creative tasks to shift their attention from the
developmental aspects of the project in the later phases so that deadlines are met
(Gersick, 1989). Moreover, team temporal leadership behavior such as scheduling,
synchronization, and temporal resource allocation can help team leaders better
understand and communicate the complexities of department time frames (Ancona
et al., 2001). Crossan, Cunha, Vera and Cunha (2005) suggest that understanding
temporal issues in an environment enables leaders to set the context for team
activities and to develop a more integrated and flexible approach to time, which is
likely to support adaptability and performance. Therefore, leaders who establish