folding under pressure or rising to the occasion ... · viswanath venkatesh university of arkansas...

r Academy of Management Journal2015, Vol. 58, No. 5, 1313–1333.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0468

FOLDING UNDER PRESSURE OR RISING TO THEOCCASION? PERCEIVED TIME PRESSURE AND THE

MODERATING ROLE OF TEAM TEMPORAL LEADERSHIP

LIKOEBE M. MARUPINGGeorgia State University

VISWANATH VENKATESHUniversity of Arkansas

SHERRY M. B. THATCHERUniversity of South Carolina

PANKAJ C. PATELBall State University

“Team temporal leadership” orients teams toward managing the time-related aspectsof their work. We examine how perceived time pressure affects team processes andsubsequent performance under weak versus strong team temporal leadership. Theresults of our field study of 111 project teams show that the mediated relationshipbetween perceived time pressure and team performance is non-linear. Moreover, thisnon-linear mediated relationship is moderated by team temporal leadership such that,under strong team temporal leadership, the indirect effect of perceived time pressureon team performance is mostly positive, while, under conditions of weak team tem-poral leadership, the indirect effect is positive at low levels of perceived time pressureand negative at intermediate to high levels. Implications for current and future timepressure research are also discussed.

Teams have emerged as an attractive form fororganizing work largely because they possess bet-ter informational resources compared to individu-als, they facilitate management of interdependenceunder increased task complexity, and they are ca-pable of integrating different sources of expertiseto identify new product and service opportunities(Argote & Ingram, 2000; Gardner, Gino, & Staats,2012). Teamwork often requires multiple tasksto be executed simultaneously, sequentially, or recip-rocally (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; McGrath,1991). Increasingly responsible for designing andbringing new products and services to market, teamsoften perceive that they are under time pressure(Amabile, Hadley, & Kramer, 2002). Thus, im-proving team performance requires the ability to

manage complex assignments under tight dead-lines (Harrison, Mohammed, McGrath, Florey, &Vanderstoep, 2003). Unfortunately, research on teamsshows a mixed track record regarding team perfor-mance in the face of “perceived time pressure”—hereafter referred to simply as “time pressure”1

(Driskell, Salas, & Johnston, 1999; Pearsall, Ellis, &Stein, 2009).

At the individual level, there are mixed findingsregarding the relationship between time pressure andemployee performance (e.g., Cavanaugh, Boswell,Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000; LePine, Podsakoff, &LePine, 2005). Indeed, various theoretical frame-works, such as the challenge–hindrance stressorframework, suggest that time pressure is a positivestressor that motivates individuals to engage in ac-tivities that will overcome obstacles to performance(LePine et al., 2005). Other individual-level studiesfind a negative relationship between time pressure

The authors thank associate editor Bennett Tepper andthree anonymous reviewers for the numerous insightsand suggestions that helped shape this article. The authorsare also grateful to Riki Takeuchi and Sucheta Nadkarniwho provided valuable feedback on an earlier version ofthis article.

1 We use the terms “perceived time pressure” and “timepressure” interchangeably. We use the term “actual timepressure” when referring to objective time constraints.

1313

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s expresswritten permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0468

and performance (e.g., Kelly & McGrath, 1985;McDaniel, 1990), and yet others find evidence of aninverted U-shape relationship (e.g., Baer & Oldham,2006). Empirical examinations at the team level havealso yielded mixed results about the effect of timepressure on performance. Some studies have foundthat time pressure has a positive effect on perfor-mance (e.g., Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, &Herron, 1996; Andrews & Farris, 1972; Pearsallet al., 2009). Other empirical studies at the teamlevel show time pressure having a negative effect onperformance (e.g., Driskell et al., 1999; Perlow,1999). However, this corpus of work does not ex-plain when time pressure has positive versus neg-ative effects on performance.

One commonality across studies of time pressureis that it affects performance through its impact onteam members’ interdependent actions—that is, thesequencing and synchronization of tasks amongteam members that is required for teams to meettheir objectives. The findings suggest that, undertime pressure, successful teams engage in task man-agement activities that facilitate the execution ofinterdependent tasks (e.g., Chong, van Eerde,Chai, & Rutte, 2011; Pearsall et al., 2009). In con-trast, in less successful teams, team members with-draw from task management activities under timepressure and focus on their own task assignments(e.g., Driskell et al., 1999; Perlow, 1999). This sug-gests that managing interdependence is critical forachieving success when teams operate under timepressure. Further, it raises important questionsabout the mechanisms through which perceivedtime pressure affects performance in field settings.Marks et al. (2001: 359) observed that externalconditions in the task environment, such as dead-lines, “dictate many aspects of team functioning,including the strategies that are employed, the paceof activities, and role assignments that develop inorder for the team to perform successfully.” To thisend, we answer Ancona, Okhuysen and Perlow’s(2001) call for research to examine the link betweentemporal context, treated as an element of the taskenvironment, and team functioning.

In seeking to address the theoretical ambiguityabout how and why time pressure affects teamperformance, we integrate views on the effect oftime pressure and views on the role of leadershipin managing temporal issues in teams. First, assome research at the individual level suggests, timepressure can have non-linear effects on task per-formance (Baer & Oldham, 2006; Ohly, Sonnentag,& Pluntke, 2007). Such research argues that time

pressure can be motivational at low to intermediatelevels by evoking task engagement, but it can be-come detrimental at high levels. We consider thepresence of such a relationship at the team level toadd insight about the differential effects of timepressure on performance in teams. Second, wepropose that leadership will affect team perfor-mance under varying degrees of time pressure. Priorresearch has shown that teams are not naturallyadept at managing their temporal resources (e.g.,Gersick, 1988; Labianca, Moon, &Watt, 2005). Teamleaders, who have a high-level view of their teams’tasks and objectives, are in an ideal position to drawteam members’ attention to temporal issues as wellas to provide guidance for efficacious responsesunder existing time constraints (Morgeson & DeRue,2006). But just what is it that team leaders should dowhen their teams are faced with increasing timepressure? Current literature offers limited guidanceon this issue.

We delve into this question by investigating thecontingent role of “team temporal leadership”(Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011) in shaping projectteams’ responses to time pressure. FollowingMohammed and Nadkarni’s (2011: 492) definition,we conceptualize team temporal leadership as“leader behaviors that aid in structuring, coor-dinating, and managing the pacing of task ac-complishment within the team.” We posit thattemporal leadership plays an important role indirecting teams’ attention to the need for team pro-cesses, defined as task management processes thatteams use to handle interdependencies between themultiple tasks for which they are responsible(Marks et al., 2001). We propose that strong teamtemporal leadership enables teams to use timepressure as amotivator for, rather than a discouragerof, interdependent task management activities. Ourtheory proposes that strong team temporal leader-ship attenuates the curvilinear effect of time pres-sure on team functioning by enhancing its positiveeffects and reducing its negative effects. As a con-sequence, the indirect effect of time pressurethrough team processes is proposed to vary as afunction of (a) the degree of time pressure and (b)the strength of team temporal leadership.

Our work advances theory in several importantways. First, we extend theory on the effects of timepressure by identifying conditions under whichtime pressure, at the team level, has a positive, ratherthan a negative, effect on team performance. Thisis accomplished by identifying leadership inter-ventions that shape responses to time pressure.

1314 OctoberAcademy of Management Journal

Second, we advance theory on the effects of timepressure by uncovering its non-linear mediatedeffects under weak versus strong team temporalleadership. Prior theory has implicitly assumeda linear mediated relationship and has focused ona narrow set of team processes. Finally, we advancethe study of temporal leadership. Although priorwork has focused on the contingent role of temporalleadership based on team composition (Mohammed& Nadkarni, 2011), we have a limited understandingof this important leadership role in the contextof perceptions of the task environment and teamprocesses.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Perceived Time Pressure in Teams

Time pressure is a common feature of organiza-tional work (Gersick, 1988; Gevers, Rutte, & vanEerde, 2006; Waller, Zellmer-Bruhn, & Giambatista,2002) and has been found to affect behavior andperformance in teams (e.g., Chong et al., 2011; Karau& Kelly, 1992; Kelly & Loving, 2004; Pearsall et al.,2009; Perlow, 1999). It is defined as the perceptionthat there is a scarcity of time available to completea task, or set of tasks, relative to the demands of thetask(s) at hand (Cooper, Dewe, & O’Driscoll, 2001;Kelly & McGrath, 1985). This is conceptually dis-tinct from performance pressure, which focuses onshared accountability for outcomes, high scrutiny ofwork, and significant consequences of performanceoutcomes (Gardner, 2012). Time pressure is alsoconceptually distinct from urgency. Urgency is astable trait that reflects a concern for time and afeeling of being chronically hurried (Mohammed &Nadkarni, 2011). In contrast, time pressure is anevaluation of the task environment, as opposed tobeing an individual trait.

A number of prior studies have found a positiverelationship between time pressure and team per-formance. For example, an experiment by Pearsallet al. (2009) showed that teams under high time pres-sure conditions reported higher levels of problemsolving, exhibited an improved coping style, andachieved greater performance compared to teams inother experimental conditions. In a field study ofnew product development teams, Chong et al. (2011)found that, when experienced as a motivator, timepressure positively influenced team coordinationand performance. Other studies, adopting a socialentrainment perspective, have found that actual timepressure acts as a “pacer”—a mechanism that allows

teams to calibrate the speed of task execution rela-tive to existing time constraints—that increases teamperformance (e.g., Kelly & Karau, 1999; Kelly &Loving 2004; Kelly & McGrath, 1985; Waller et al.,2002). Taken together, these studies support the viewof time pressure as a factor that promotes positivebehaviors that enhance team performance.

Contrary to the positive view advanced above,there are also studies that show a negative re-lationship between time pressure and team per-formance. For instance, when varying actualtime pressure, Karau and Kelly (1992) found thatteams working under greater time pressure pro-duced outputs that were of lower quality, crea-tivity, and depth than those of teams workingunder lesser time pressure. Similarly, Kelly andMcGrath (1985) found that teams initially operat-ing under greater actual time pressure performedpoorly (i.e., produced outputs of lower qualityand quantity) on initial and subsequent tasks,even when subsequent tasks involved less actualtime pressure. In contrast, they found that teamsthat initially operated under lower actual timepressure had higher performance even whensubsequent tasks involved greater actual timepressure. An experiment by Driskell et al. (1999)found that time pressure led to lower performancein teams. Durham, Locke, Poon, and McLeod(2000) argued that time pressure negatively affectsteams’ willingness to seek knowledge to informtheir decisions and confidence in their decisions.Finally, the negative effect of time pressure isrevealed in Perlow’s (1999) sociology of timeframework, in which perceptions of time pres-sure cause developers to engage in an endlesscycle of inefficient time use, thus constraininggoal achievement.

What accounts for this differential influence oftime pressure on team performance? One stream ofresearch suggests that the level of time pressuremay provide part of the explanation. In particular,empirical research on the effects of job demands(which include time pressure) has found supportfor an inverted-U shape relationship with variousemployee outcomes, such as creativity (e.g., Baer &Oldham, 2006; Ohly, Sonnentag, & Pluntke, 2007)and job satisfaction (e.g., Zivnuska, Kiewitz,Hochwater, Perrewe, & Zellars, 2002). The argu-ment underlying this body of work is that moderatetime pressure provides the necessary motivation tokeep employees engaged in their work, whereas theabsence of time pressure provides little stimulationand high time pressure is debilitating or distracting.

2015 1315Maruping, Venkatesh, Thatcher, and Patel

Although this research has been conducted primarilyat the individual level, such a view of time pressurehas the potential to yield insights at the team level.

Perceived Time Pressure and Team Functioning

Time pressure has been studied at the individuallevel, and, in the present research, we extend itsconceptualization to the team level. Specifically,we conceptualize time pressure as a shared prop-erty of the team that originates from the commonexperiences and perceptions of team members.Social interactions underscore the primary pro-cess underlying the emergence of such properties(Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Time pressure emergesas a shared property of teams for several reasons.First, consistent with prior literature, perceptionsof time pressure are shaped by the task environ-ment (Gardner, 2012). As members of a team worktogether to accomplish team tasks, they are ex-posed to the same task environment, creating con-vergence in their perceptions of time pressure.Second, research on emotional contagion suggeststhat social interactions facilitate the transmissionof the emotional state of social actors (Pugh, 2001).Time pressure experienced by individuals is trans-mitted across various team members through theirinteractions. Finally, given the task and outcomeinterdependence of teams in field settings, per-ceptions of time pressure are likely to converge, asmembers are dependent on one another for taskinputs and are jointly responsible for producingteam outputs. With such interdependence, teammembers are likely to share their perceptions oftime pressure.

Time pressure influences performance by af-fecting team behaviors or processes. Project teamsoften perform work that involves multiple tasksthat must be managed simultaneously, and eachtask is made up of multiple, interrelated subtasks(Marks et al., 2001; McGrath, 1991). While taskwork represents the substantive content of team-work, team processes represent the interdependentacts through which teams organize task work toachieve their goals (Marks et al., 2001). Theseprocesses are enacted over multiple interactionepisodes, and, as tasks are not carried out in iso-lation, they often overlap with each other and lastfor varying durations (McGrath, 1991). Researchshows that effective team processes are criticalfor achieving high team performance (Mathieu,Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006). They serve as a vehicle for

transforming team inputs into high-quality, timelyoutcomes (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt,2005; LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul,2008). Marks et al. (2001) developed a taxonomy ofteam processes that identifies three overarchingcategories of processes that are tied to points intime (or phases) in team activity: transition, action,and interpersonal processes.

Team processes. During transition processes,teams engage in various activities, such as planning,reflection, and evaluation, to guide their progresstoward accomplishing objectives. Marks et al. (2001)argued that teams engage in different forms of plan-ning. Through deliberate planning, team membersdiscuss their formal action steps for accomplishinggoals. Contingency planning enables teams to de-velop alternative courses of action that can be takenin the face of potential anticipated events in the taskenvironment. Reactive planning involves spur of themoment planning in response to unexpected eventsthat affect the team’s ability to achieve its objectives.Marks et al. (2001) noted that teams also use transi-tion processes to identify and prioritize key goals andsubgoals that need to be achieved in service of theiroverall objectives.

Action processes involve monitoring progresstoward goals, systems monitoring, team monitor-ing and backing-up behavior, and coordination(LePine et al., 2008). By monitoring progress to-ward goals, teams assess their performance rela-tive to their objectives and determine what needsto be done (Tschan, 2002). Systems monitoringenables teams to keep track of resources and theexternal environment to ensure that they havewhat they need to accomplish their goals. Throughmonitoring and backing-up behavior, team mem-bers provide one another with feedback and offerassistance in executing tasks (Porter, 2005). Co-ordination involves the synchronization of teammember activities so that their timing and sequenc-ing helps goal achievement (Marks et al., 2001).Taken together, these action processes enable teamsto direct their resources more efficiently toward taskaccomplishment.

Interpersonal processes do not occur in phases andinvolve team efforts to manage conflict, develop andmaintain a sense of collective motivation, and regu-late team members’ affect (Marks et al., 2001). Con-flict management represents teams’ efforts to eitherpreemptively prevent, or control, conflict, or tomanage it when it actually occurs (Simons & Peterson,2000). Through motivation and confidence build-ing, teams aim to generate and maintain a sense of


motivation about their objective and their confi-dence in accomplishing their objective. Affect man-agement reflects teams’ efforts to regulate potentiallydestructive emotions, such as frustration or anger,during mission accomplishment (Marks et al., 2001).Failure to manage these interpersonal concerns hasbeen argued to have a negative effect on team perfor-mance (e.g., Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Maruping &Agarwal, 2004).

Perceived time pressure and team processes.Our conceptual model of the effects of time pressureis presented in Figure 1. Following the logic of ac-tivation theory, time pressure is expected to have aninverted-U shape relationship with team processes.Low levels of time pressure promote minimal levelsof activation (Baer & Oldham, 2006; Ohly et al.,2007). Consistent with this logic, Gersick (1988) andothers (e.g., Waller et al., 2002) found that teamswere less attentive to the planning-related issuesthat characterize team transition processes whentime was not seen as a constraint. As time pressureincreases from low to intermediate levels, teamsbecome more attentive to looming deadlines andfeel the need to develop a clear course of action forachieving objectives. Baer and Oldham (2006) sug-gested that intermediate levels of time pressure areoptimal for facilitating the experience of activation—thestimulation or arousal that motivates individuals toengage with the task at hand (Gardner, 1990). Atintermediate levels of time pressure, team membersperceive that it is still possible to complete task re-quirements within the time available (Baer & Oldham,

2006; Ohly et al., 2007). Teammembers are not onlyprompted to engage in transition processes, theyalso become proactive in executing the interde-pendent actions necessary for accomplishing as-signed tasks (Ohly et al., 2007). Chong et al. (2011)found that the more team members perceived timepressure as a motivational challenge, the more likelythey were to engage in the coordination activitiesnecessary to complete their tasks. With an elevatedsense of task engagement, team members are likelyto build confidence and motivate one another toachieve their objectives.

High levels of time pressure cause teams to becomemore concerned with executing the activities thatcontribute directly to task accomplishment (Kelly &McGrath, 1985; Waller et al., 2002). Consequently,they are less likely to take the time necessary to en-gage in various task management processes, such astransition, action, and interpersonal processes. Karauand Kelly (1992) observed that time pressure causesteams to restrict their focus to task completionas their primary objective. Such teams are less sys-tematic in the way they process information, andtend to avoid deeper and purposeful discussion ofalternative courses of action or evaluation of chosenactions (Karau & Kelly, 1992; Kelly & Karau, 1999).High levels of time pressure also reduce the likeli-hood that teams discuss the timing and sequencing oftask execution, as teammates are unlikely to co-ordinate their work (Chong et al., 2011). Finally, timepressure increases the likelihood of conflict, as con-fusion emerges about who should complete what

FIGURE 1Hypothesized Model of Time Pressure and the Moderating Role of Team Temporal Leadership


tasks under limited time constraints. Limited timeto resolve conflicts leads to heightened frustrationamong team members. In sum, high levels of timepressure result in a pressing need to simply get thingsdone. Such reactions are consistent with hindranceviews of time pressure and should reduce the like-lihood that team processes are executed efficaciously(Chong et al., 2011). Thus:

Hypothesis 1. Time pressure will have aninverted-U relationship with team processes.

The perspective laid out above provides a poten-tially compelling explanation regarding the in-consistent views of time pressure and its effects onperformance in teams. However, it is also somewhatincomplete, as it fails to explain why some researchfinds a negative linear effect of time pressure onteam performance (e.g., Driskell et al., 1999) andother research shows that some teams are able toperform well under high levels of time pressure(e.g., Chong et al., 2011). We suggest that, althoughtime pressure can act as a positive force, teamsdiffer in their ability to transform this source oftask motivation into action, sometimes allowing itto become more of a hindrance. McGrath (1991)casts time as an environmental driver that shapeshow teams manage the bundles of activities thatconstitute their work. However, as subsequent re-search has shown, such time constraints must beperceived before teams will act on them, and thisoften does not occur until task deadlines draw near(Waller et al., 2002). Therefore, the effect of timepressure on team processes depends on how wellequipped teams are to address these temporalissues. As we will argue next, team leaders havea vital role to play in enabling teams to managetime pressure.

Team Temporal Leadership

The preceding discussion suggests that, whenteam members respond positively to time pressure,they have the motivation and ability to perform thenecessary interdependent processes to achieve theirobjectives (Pearsall et al., 2009), such as team mem-bers believing in their task-related abilities (Gevers,van Eerde, & Rutte, 2001). In contrast, teammembersmay find themselves experiencing process losses dueto their inability to manage interdependent tasksunder time pressure (Blunt & Pychyl, 2000; Hunter &Thatcher, 2007). Team leadership, with its high-levelview of the team, its tasks and task environment, andits objectives, has a prominent role in enabling teams

to function under such circumstances (Morgeson,DeRue, & Karam, 2010). However, the literature hasbeen largely silent about the role of leadership inenabling teams to negotiate the temporal aspects ofthe work environment (for exceptions, see Ancona,Goodman, Lawrence, & Tushman, 2001; Bluedorn &Jaussi, 2008; Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011; van derErve, 2004).

Team temporal leadership involves the structur-ing, coordination, andmanagement of task pacing inteamwork (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011). Suchpacing of task accomplishment is facilitated throughthe scheduling of key milestones ahead of taskdeadlines, synchronizing team members’ inputsand outputs, and allocating temporal resources toensure that there is adequate time to accomplishteam goals. Taken together, these behaviors moti-vate teams to attend to the temporal aspects of theirwork, enabling them to effectively mobilize theirresources within given time constraints. Mohammedand Nadkarni (2011) recently found that team tem-poral leadership is important for regulating theeffects of team temporal diversity on team perfor-mance. Here, we focus on understanding how teamtemporal leadership enables teams to regulate theirinternal activities, as embodied in team processes,in response to time pressure—an appraisal of theexternal task environment. As we argue next, teamtemporal leadership is especially critical in shap-ing whether teams respond positively or negativelyto time pressure.

Moderating Role of Team Temporal Leadership

Effects under strong team temporal leadership.Team temporal leadership will moderate theinverted-U relationship between time pressure andteam processes. Specifically, under strong teamtemporal leadership, the positive effects of timepressure are enhanced and the negative effects aremitigated. When time pressure-induced activationis coupled with strong team temporal leadership,teams are in an optimal position to enhance teamprocesses. This is because, at intermediate levels oftime pressure, teams are motivated to attend to thetime pressure they are experiencing and strong teamtemporal leadership provides them with the guid-ance to formulate a plan of action that is sensitive totheir time constraints.

Strong team temporal leadership enables teams torespond positively to time pressure via engagementin transition processes. The guidance that teamtemporal leadership provides for teams to deal with


temporal issues leads teams to view time pressure asa motivator and elicits a problem-solving style ofcoping (LePine et al., 2005). Strong team temporalleadership embodies the necessary accumulatedknowledge about how to organize and manage inter-dependent actions under time scarcity (Mohammed &Nadkarni, 2011), and enacting such knowledgeenables teams to perform the appropriate processes(Gevers et al., 2001). Such guidance is useful formanaging low to moderate levels of time pressure.Teams are more adept at achieving their objectiveswhen they take time to discuss their task strategieswithin the context of existing time constraints(Gevers et al., 2009). Teams are also more likely toprioritize goals and subgoals to emphasize thosethat are most important given existing time con-straints (Schriber & Gutek, 1987). Gevers and col-leagues (2006) argued that temporal reminderstrigger teams to attend to such temporal aspects oftask execution when the pressure of a deadline existsand team leaders are able to issue and enforce re-minders (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011; Morgesonet al., 2010).

In addition to scheduling behaviors, team tem-poral leadership involves synchronizing the timingof team member actions so that work is completedon time (Schriber & Gutek, 1987). When teamleaders raise awareness of the need to synchronizeactivities, teams are likely to respond to time pres-sure by attending to the coordination and timing oftasks and subtasks (Gevers et al., 2006). Janicik andBartel (2003) noted that temporal awareness trainsteams to respond effectively to temporal conditionssuch as time pressure. Other research has argued fora link between teams’ attention to time and theirlevel of task-related activity (e.g., Gersick, 1988;Waller, Giambatista, & Zellmer-Bruhn, 1999; Walleret al., 2002).

By allocating temporal resources (e.g., building intime for dealing with problems), strong team temporalleadership provides a context in which teams are ableto resolve conflicts and manage emotions throughinterpersonal processes (Mohammed & Nadkarni,2011). With strong team temporal leadership, teammembers are able to think and talk about resolvingtask-related conflicts within the context of existingtime constraints (e.g., task prioritization). Team tem-poral leadership also provides teams with the tem-poral resources that can boost their confidence andenable them to respond positively to time pressure(Gevers et al., 2001).

Effects under weak team temporal leadership.In contrast to teams under strong team temporal

leadership, the negative effects of time pressure aremagnified and the positive effects are mitigatedunder weak team temporal leadership. Low levelsof time pressure promote minimal levels of acti-vation (Baer & Oldham, 2006; Ohly et al., 2007) andweak temporal leadership limits engagement inteam processes from team members. Although teammembers may be aware of time constraints, underweak temporal leadership, they may not be equip-ped with the necessary tools to put a plan of actioninto place within the context of those constraints(Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011). Labianca et al.(2005) found that teams are not naturally equippedto handle temporal constraints, such as time pres-sure, and this may disrupt their existing temporalschema, especially when weak temporal leadershipis present.

Time pressure reduces the likelihood that teamsdiscuss the timing and sequencing of task execu-tion, as teammates are unlikely to coordinate theirwork (Chong et al., 2011). When team temporalleadership is weak, teams lack the confidence andability to manage temporal challenges. Consequently,they often adopt an avoidance strategy, enabling timepressure to disrupt team coordination and backing-up behavior (Chong et al., 2011; Driskell et al., 1999).In such conditions, teams respond to time pressureby shunning these task management processes. Insum, although time pressure may cause teams tofocus on task execution, it reduces their focus on theprocess of managing task execution—that is, actionprocesses.

In teams with weak team temporal leadership,time pressure deteriorates interpersonal processes.First, although intermediate levels of time pressureactivate team members to be engaged with theirtasks, frustration and anger can set in, as they lackthe ability to handle the task challenges posed bysuch pressure (Perlow, 1999). Second, as notedearlier, time pressure increases the likelihood ofconflict as confusion emerges about who shouldcomplete what tasks under limited time constraints.The ability to effectively schedule and synchronizetasks under such conditions is important for re-solving conflicts. Thus, when team temporal lead-ership is weak, teams are unable to engage in thenecessary discussions to manage task-related con-flict. Finally, under weak team temporal leadership,team members lack confidence in their ability toaccomplish their objectives within the remainingtime (Chong et al., 2011).

Hypothesis 2. Team temporal leadership willmoderate the inverted-U shape relationship


between time pressure and team processes suchthat the negative effect is enhanced when tem-poral leadership is weak, and the positive effectis enhanced and the negative effect is mitigatedwhen temporal leadership is strong.

Mediation Effects

Team processes are expected to mediate the re-lationship between time pressure and team perfor-mance. Team performance is defined as the extentto which a team’s project deliverable is produced ontime, within budget, and is of high quality (Wallace,Keil, & Rai, 2004). Team processes constitute theprimary mechanism through which teams trans-form their inputs into performance outcomes, andprevious theoretical (e.g., Ilgen et al., 2005; Markset al., 2001) and meta-analytic (e.g., LePine et al.,2008) work has supported a positive relationshipbetween these team processes and team perfor-mance. Consequently, we direct our attention to theindirect effects of time pressure through these teamprocesses. Drawing on this logic, team performancein the face of time pressure is shaped by the actionsthe team takes.

Under strong team temporal leadership, Hypoth-esis 2 suggests that the positive effects of timepressure on team processes would be enhanced andthe negative effects mitigated. Given the positiveinfluence of team processes on team performance,we expect time pressure to have a positive indirecteffect on team performance (through team pro-cesses) at low to intermediate levels. As high timepressure erodes a team’s ability to engage in teamprocesses, we expect the indirect effect to becomenon-significant at such levels.

Under weak team temporal leadership, the pre-ceding hypothesis indicates that time pressureshould enhance the negative effects on team pro-cesses, with the relationship being non-significantat low levels of time pressure and negative at in-termediate to high levels. Building on this logic, theinverted-U shape effect of time pressure is expectedto be transmitted through team processes such thatthe indirect effect on team performance is non-significant at low levels of time pressure and nega-tive at intermediate to high levels of time pressure.In sum, themediated inverted-U shaped time pressure→ team process→ team performance relationshipwillbe moderated by team temporal leadership.

Hypothesis 3. Team temporal leadership willmoderate the indirect effect of time pressure on

team performance via team processes. Whenteam temporal leadership is strong, the indirecteffect of time pressure will be positive at low tointermediate levels and non-significant at highlevels, and, when team temporal leadership isweak, the indirect effect of time pressure will benon-significant at low levels and negative atintermediate to high levels.

METHOD

Organizational Context

The setting for this study was a software firm inIndia that creates customized products that supportthe business operations of client firms from aroundthe world. A client firm will first identify a specificsoftware need and then develop a contractual ar-rangement with the Indian firm to develop a custom-ized solution. For instance, one client firm requesteda customized customer relationship-management sys-tem to manage its interorganizational partnerships.The contracts that the firm signs with clients stip-ulate requirements for how the commissioned soft-ware will function, as well as specific deadlineswithin which the software solutions will be delivered.As is often the case in such arrangements, there arepenalties if the firm fails to adhere to the contractuallyagreed-upon delivery deadline or if the deliveredsoftware fails to include the expected functionality.

This firm provided an ideal setting for studyingthe relationship between perceived time pressureand team temporal leadership in affecting teamprocesses and performance. First, this was a team-based organization. When the firm signed a contractwith a client, the firm’s management would thenassign a project team composed of employees withthe relevant expertise. Each project team was anintact unit with clear boundaries, such that teammembers saw themselves and were seen by othersas being a distinct collective. Moreover, team mem-bers were jointly responsible for the outcome oftheir team’s project. Each project team reported toa team leader who was responsible for ensuring thatcontract obligations were met. Second, becauseprojects involved contractually agreed-upon dead-lines for completion and delivery, this study settingprovided an excellent opportunity to observe issuespertaining to time pressure. Penalties for failingto meet predetermined delivery schedules or qual-ity metrics had direct implications for the projectteams involved. Specifically, employee performanceevaluations, year-end bonuses, and promotions were


tied to performance on these software projects. Third,the nature of the project work was non-routine. Eachclient firm had its own idiosyncratic business pro-cesses, standard operating procedures, reporting struc-tures, and technology infrastructure. This meant thatthere were no predetermined, off-the-shelf solutionsthat could simply be applied to each client. Rather,project teams had to work to create solutions that weretailored to each client firm’s specific needs. This madeit important for project teams to manage their tem-poral resources within project deadlines.

Finally, the nature of the work was such that it in-volved multiple overlapping and interdependent tasksamong team members. Employees were consideredpart of the team if (a) their name appeared on theproject roster and (b) they reported to the same projectleader. Each project team consisted of employees withexpertise in various technical domains that were rele-vant to software development. To gain a better un-derstanding of the nature of the teams’ work, werandomly chose five teams. Next, we randomly pickedfour employees from each team for personal inter-views. The respondentswere asked to provide answersto open-ended questions related to their project activ-ities. The core functions of members on each projectteam included system analyst, programmer, databasedesigner, and system architect. System analysts wereprimarily responsible for working with the client firmto understand the business processes that would besupported by the software, the responsibilities of thepeople who would be using the software, and the kindof data that the software would process. They modeledthis information in technical documentation thatserved as the blueprint for programmers and databasedesigners to use to build the software. Programmerswere responsible for building the software code thatwould capture and process data. Database designerswere tasked with developing the database in whichdata would be stored and used by the software. Fi-nally, the system architect was responsible for de-signing the technical infrastructure (i.e., networks,servers, etc.) on which the software would be deployed.The software code and the database had to be de-signed to operate within the specified technical in-frastructure. Thus, there was sequential and reciprocaltask interdependence between team members acrossthese different areas of responsibility.

Sample and Procedure

The initial survey was sent electronically to 1,571employees representing 139 teams. The final studysample included 1,115 employees in 111 project

teams with an average response rate of 71% perteam. On average, employees had 4.35 years ofproject experience (SD 5 2.80). The mean age ofemployees was 33.20 (SD 5 6.40) and 28% of themwere female. Project team sizes ranged from 8 to 14.There were no statistically significant differencesbetween respondents and non-respondents withrespect to age, gender, and organizational tenure.

The projects in our samplewere scheduled to launcharound the same time, and were each expected to becompleted in two months. In order to track responsesover time and to link responses to teams, each surveywas coded. Once data collection was completed, re-spondent anonymity was maintained by discardinginformation linking names to the coded surveys.

Measurement Timing

At the project launch, team members respondedto a short survey that requested demographic in-formation. Time pressure, team temporal leadership,and team processes were measured every two weeksover the course of the projects. For the purpose of ourmodel testing, we used time pressuremeasured at themid-point of each project (i.e., halfway between theproject launch and the deadline in the contract). Thispoint was chosen because prior theory and empiricalresearch on teams shows that this is the point atwhich teams naturally become cognizant of temporalconstraints in their work (e.g., Gersick, 1988; Walleret al., 2002). Thus, for our analysis, the project mid-point (one month after project launch) was used asthe baseline measurement point, “time 1” (T1). Fol-lowing the temporal ordering of our model, we usedteam temporal leadership measured at time 1. Weused the team processes measured at “time 2” (T2),two weeks after T1. Project team leaders rated theperformance of their teams after the software solu-tion had been delivered to the client (T3).

Measures2

Time pressure.A four-item scale by Durham et al.(2000) was adapted to assess time pressure. Thescale reflects the extent to which team members feelthat they have little time to complete their work.The scale demonstrated acceptable reliability andaggregation statistics (individual-level a 5 0.80,median rWG(J) 5 0.74, ICC[1] 5 0.28, ICC[2] 5 0.76).Within-team member responses were averaged tocompute a team-level score.

2 The items are shown in Appendix A.


Team temporal leadership. A seven-item scaledeveloped and validated by Mohammed andNadkarni (2011) was used to assess team temporalleadership. The scale used “1” 5 “not at all” and“7” 5 “a great deal” as anchors (individual-levela 5 0.77). The aggregation statistics suggested that itwas appropriate to aggregate within-team responses(median rWG(J) 5 0.82, ICC[1]5 0.18, ICC[2]5 0.80).Hence, we averaged the scores provided by respond-ents within each team to compute a team-level scoreof team temporal leadership.

Team processes. Following Mathieu et al. (2006),we measured team processes using scales for teamtransition, action, and interpersonal processes. Thescale for team transition processes was derivedfrom Marks and colleagues’ (2001) superordinatetaxonomy of team processes, and reflects the extentto which teams engage in mission analysis, goalspecification, and strategy formulation and plan-ning. The scale had adequate reliability andaggregation statistics, suggesting that it was ap-propriate to compute a team-level score for teamtransition processes by averaging within-team rat-ings (individual-level a5 0.80, median rWG(J) 5 0.71,ICC[1]5 0.26, ICC[2]5 0.75). Team action processeswere measured using scales from Mathieu et al.(2006), descriptions of task management activities byMarks et al. (2001), and a scale on backing-up be-havior by Porter (2005). The scale assesses the extentto which teams engage in various activities, such asmonitoring progress toward goals, backup behavior,and coordination (individual-level a 5 0.72, medianrWG(J) 5 0.75, ICC[1] 5 0.25, ICC[2] 5 0.77). For in-terpersonal processes, scales from Mathieu et al.(2006) and Jehn et al. (1999) were adapted to createa 10-item measure for team interpersonal processes.The scale assesses the extent to which the teamcreates an environment of trust and works to re-solve task and affective conflict when it emerges(individual-level a5 0.79, median rWG(J)5 0.74, ICC[1] 5 0.19, ICC[2] 5 0.76).

Fit indexes for three first-order factors (the threeteam processes) and one second-order factorwere within acceptable levels (CFI 5 .95, GFI 5 .95,SRMR 5 .06, RMSEA 5 .07) (Hu & Bentler, 1999),thus suggesting that a superordinate team processvariable could be computed by averaging scoresfor the three team processes (LePine et al., 2008;Mathieu et al., 2006). The combined team processmeasure demonstrated adequate reliability and theaggregation statistics were acceptable (individual-level a 5 0.71, median rWG(J) 5 0.71, ICC[1] 5 0.22,ICC[2] 5 0.71).

Team performance. In light of our interest in theability of teams to perform under varying levels oftime pressure, we measured team performance us-ing a scale fromWallace et al. (2004) that asked teamleaders whether their team’s project output metclient expectations, was of a high quality, and wasdelivered on time and within budget. The scaledemonstrated good reliability (a 5 0.82).

Control variables. A number of control variableswere included in the analyses. First, we includedteam tenure, or the average tenure of the teammembers, as teams that have been together longerare likely to establish practices that yield betterperformance compared to newly established teams.Second, as larger teams tend to have greater co-ordination costs that could affect their ability tomanage time pressure, we controlled for team size,or a count of team members. Finally, average teammember project experience was used to assess teammembers’ familiarity with their task assignments.Teams with greater task familiarity are more likelyto perform well in the face of time pressure com-pared to teams with limited task experience. Eachteam member indicated the number of years theyhad performed the kind of work assigned to them.We averaged these data within each team. Further, inorder to isolate the effects of time pressure, we con-trolled for discrepancies in perceptions of time pres-sure within teams. To accomplish this, we computedthe within-team standard deviation of time pressure.This helps us ensure that any observed effects areindeed attributable to the level of time pressure.

Analytical Approach

Before proceeding to test the hypotheses, weassessed the measurement model for responsesobtained from team members. Specifically, weassessed the fit of a three-factor model (time pres-sure, team temporal leadership, and team processes).The measurement model indicated a good fit to thedata (CFI5 .96,GFI5 .97, SRMR5 .07, RMSEA5 .07).Table 1 lists the means, standard deviations, andcorrelations of variables used in the analyses. AsTable 1 illustrates, time pressure is negativelycorrelated with team processes (r 5 2.26, p, .001).Furthermore, team processes are positively corre-lated with team performance (r 5 .26, p , .001).

To test Hypothesis 1, we performed a regressionanalysis. Hypothesis 2 was tested using moderatedregression analysis. In order to test Hypothesis 3, weconducted amoderated-mediation analysis (Edwards &Lambert, 2007) followed by a test of instantaneous


indirect effects at varying levels of team temporalleadership (Hayes & Preacher, 2010). Table 2 shows theresults of the moderated regression analysis. Models 1aand 2a show the results of the main and interactioneffects respectively in predicting team processes.Models 1b and 2b show the results of the main andinteraction effects respectively in predicting teamperformance. Model 3b shows the results of theinteraction effects model in the presence of teamprocesses.

Hypotheses Linking Time Pressure to TeamProcesses

Hypothesis 1 predicted that time pressure wouldhave an inverted-U shape relationship with teamprocesses. In order to reduce possible non-essentialmulticollinearity, we mean-centered the time pres-sure variable prior to computing the squared term(Aiken & West, 1991). As the results show (Table 2,Model 1a), the coefficient of time pressure-squaredis negative and significant (b 5 2.13, p , .05).However, the coefficient on the linear term for timepressure is also negative and significant, suggestingthat the inverted U-shape curve has an overallnegative trend (Aiken & West, 1991). As the graph-ical plot in Figure 2 shows, time pressure has a weakpositive relationship with team processes at lowlevels, and has an increasingly negative relationshipat moderate to high levels. While this does not re-flect the full inverted U-shape relationship, thepattern provides partial support for Hypothesis 1.3

Hypothesis 2 predicted an inverted-U shape re-lationship between time pressure and team processesthat is moderated by team temporal leadership. Toreduce potential non-essential multicollinearity, wemean-centered time pressure and team temporalleadership prior to computing the interaction terms(Aiken&West, 1991). The results in Table 2 (Model 2a)show that inclusion of the interaction terms explainedstatistically significantly greater variance in teamprocesses over and above the main effects model(DR2 5 .08, p , .01). Further, the interactions be-tween time pressure and team temporal leadership(b 5 .28, p , .001) and time pressure-squared andteam temporal leadership (b 5 .13, p , .05) are sig-nificant. Following Aiken andWest (1991), we probedthe interaction effect by plotting the relationship be-tween time pressure and transition processes at onestandard deviation above and one standard deviationbelow the mean for team temporal leadership.

As the interaction plot in Figure 3 shows, whenthere is strong team temporal leadership, timepressure is positively related to team processes.Thus, the inverted-U shape relationship is attenu-ated. Surprisingly, even high levels of time pressurepositively influence team processes. We revisit thisfinding later in the discussion. In contrast, underweak team temporal leadership, time pressure has aninverted-U shaped relationship with team processes.The standard errors for non-linear slopes are difficultto interpret, making simple slope tests inappropriatein quadratic two-way interactions. Taken together,these results provide partial support for Hypothesis 2.

Hypotheses on Moderated Indirect Effects ofPerceived Time Pressure

In Hypothesis 3, we proposed that the indirecteffect of time pressure on team performance through

TABLE 1Correlations and Descriptive Statisticsa

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

Team performance (T3) 4.17 1.41 (.82)Team processes (T2) 4.51 1.25 .26*** (.71)Team temporal leadership (T1) 4.41 1.74 .19** .22*** (.77)Time pressure (T1) 5.15 1.01 –.28*** –.26*** –.17** (.80)Team tenure (years) 1.07 0.55 .24*** .09 .07 –.13*Team size 11.51 2.17 –.17** –.12* .10 .07 .15*Average project experience (years) 4.35 2.80 .26*** .13* .08 –.17** .19** .15*

a n5 111 teams representing 1,115 teammembers. Values on diagonal are individual-level Cronbach’s a. T15 time 1, T25 time 2, T35 time 3.* p , .05

** p , .01*** p , .001

3 For a full inverted U-shape relationship to be sup-ported, the coefficient on the linear term should be non-significant and the coefficient on the quadratic termshould be negative and significantly different from zero(Aiken & West, 1991).


team processes would be moderated by team tem-poral leadership. In order to test this hypothesis, wefirst conducted moderated-mediation analysis fol-lowing the guidelines of Edwards and Lambert(2007). In testing the indirect effects of time pressureunder weak versus strong team temporal leadership,we included both the linear and quadratic coef-ficients for time pressure. Therefore, the estimatedconditional indirect effects represent the generalindirect effect of time pressure on team perfor-mance. Table 3 reports the results of the analysis.We used bootstrapping to compute the standarderrors of the direct and indirect effects, as well as thedifferences, under weak versus strong team tempo-ral leadership. The significance levels are based onbias-corrected confidence intervals.

As the results in Table 3 show, the overall indirecteffect of time pressure on team performance is non-significant when team temporal leadership is strong(b5 .03,p. .10). Aswe shownext, this is likely becauseof the slight non-linearity of the relationship betweentime pressure and teamprocesses at low to intermediatelevels. In contrast, time pressure has a negative overallindirect effect on team performance through team pro-cesses (b 5 2.10, p , .05) when team temporal lead-ership is weak. Further, the difference between theindirect effects underweak versus strong team temporalleadership is significant (p , .05).

The moderated-mediation analysis conductedabove provides a useful understanding of the generalindirect effect of time pressure on team performance

(through the team processes). However, because therelationship between time pressure and the teamprocesses is an inverted-U shape (particularly whenteam temporal leadership is weak), it is expectedthat the indirect effect will be positive for some val-ues of time pressure and negative for others. Themoderated-mediation approach taken above does notprovide any indication of this possibility of a qua-dratic relationship between the independent variableand the mediator. To test this non-linear indirect ef-fect, we conducted a test of instantaneous indirecteffects (Hayes & Preacher, 2010; Stolzenberg, 1980).

TABLE 2Results of Moderated Regression Analysis Predicting Team Processes and Team Performancea

Team processes (T2) Team performance (T3)

Model 1a Model 2a Model 1b Model 2b Model 3b

Team tenure .06 .05 .12* .12* .09Team size 2.07 2.06 2.10 2.08 2.07Average project experience .06 .05 .15* .13* .12*Time pressure (SD) .18** .15* 2.12* 2.11* 2.08Time pressure (T1) 2.15* 2.13* 2.14* 2.13* 2.11*Time pressure–squared 2.13* 2.12* 2.20** 2.17** 2.15*Team temporal leadership (T1) .08 .06 .16** .15* .13*Team processes (T2) .24***Time pressure 3 Team temporal leadership .28*** .15* .16**Time pressure-squared 3 Team temporal leadership .13* .29*** .25***Adjusted R2 .08 .16 .12 .22 .29DR2 .08** .10*** .07**

a n 5 111 teams. Standardized coefficients are shown. T1 5 time 1, T2 5 time 2, T3 5 time 3.* p , .05

** p , .01*** p , .001

FIGURE 2Relationship between Time Pressure and Team

Processes


Instantaneous indirect effects are predicated on theidea that, if an independent variable (X) is non-linearly related to a mediator variable (M), then theindirect effect of X on the dependent variable (Y)cannot be represented by a single value (Stolzenberg,1980). Rather, the indirect effects need to be esti-mated for specific values of X. This instantaneousindirect effect (ux) can be estimated by taking thefirst derivative of the function (the predictive equa-tion) with respect to X.4 Using this approach, we es-timated instantaneous indirect effects for perceivedtime pressure on team performance (through teamprocesses) under weak and strong team temporalleadership. Specifically, we estimated instantaneousindirect effects at low (one standard deviation belowthe mean), intermediate (mean), and high (one stan-dard deviation above the mean) levels of perceivedtime pressure. Bootstrap analysis was conducted toconstruct bias-corrected confidence intervals for theestimates (Hayes & Preacher, 2010; Stine, 1989).These confidence intervals were used to determineif the instantaneous indirect effects were signifi-cantly different from zero.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that, under strong teamtemporal leadership, time pressure would havea positive indirect effect on team performance(through team processes) at low to intermediatelevels of time pressure and a non-significant

indirect effect at high levels. In contrast, underweak team temporal leadership, we predicted thattime pressure would have a non-significant indirecteffect on team performance (through team pro-cesses) at low levels and a negative indirect effect atintermediate to high levels. As the results in Table 4show, when team temporal leadership is strong,time pressure has a positive but non-significant in-direct effect through team processes at low levels(ux 5 4.14 5 .03, p . .10), and a positive indirecteffect at intermediate (ux 5 5.15 5 .04, p , .05) andhigh levels (ux 5 6.16 5 .04, p , .05). In contrast,when team temporal leadership is weak, time pres-sure has a positive but non-significant indirect effectat low levels (ux 5 4.14 5 .02, p . .10), and a negative in-direct effect at intermediate (ux 5 5.1552.14, p, .05)and high (ux 5 6.16 5 2.22, p , .05) levels. Thissupports Hypothesis 3.

Supplementary Analyses for Robustness

Taken together, the results of the analysis providesupport for the hypotheses. We conducted severaladditional analyses to ensure the robustness of ourresults. First, we assessed the sensitivity of ourresults to the specific measurement points used inour analysis. Specifically, we used measures of timepressure and team temporal leadership measuredtwo weeks earlier than those used in our mainanalysis (i.e., before the project midpoint). Theanalysis revealed the same pattern of results. Wealso averaged the pre- and post-midpoint measuresfor time pressure, team temporal leadership, and

FIGURE 3Interaction between Time Pressure and Team Temporal Leadership in Predicting Team Processes

4 In our formulation, the equation for Y is given byY5 f ðXÞ 1 ðbMÞða1X1 a2X2 1 a3Z1 a4XZ1 a5X2ZÞ:f ðXÞrepresents the direct effect and bM represents the indirectmoderated-mediation effect.


team processes. The results of this analysis areincluded in Appendix B and they show the samepattern of results. This suggests that our resultsare not sensitive to different measurement pointspecifications.

Although we focused on one overall team processvariable in our analysis, Mathieu et al. (2006) sug-gested that it is worthwhile to observe the pattern ofresults for each individual team process as well.Therefore, we conducted a test of instantaneous in-direct effects at strong versus weak team temporalleadership for team transition, action, and inter-personal processes separately. The results in Ap-pendix C show an interesting configuration. Thepattern of indirect effects of time pressure, underweak team temporal leadership, is similar to thatobserved in our main analysis. In contrast, understrong team temporal leadership, the indirect effectsthrough team transition processes differ a little bitfrom those through team action and interpersonalprocesses. Specifically, we see that, while low tointermediate levels of time pressure have a positiveindirect effect through team transition processes, at

high levels, time pressure has a negative indirecteffect through such processes. In contrast, for teamaction and interpersonal processes, time pressuregenerally has a positive indirect effect, even athigh levels.

DISCUSSION

This research sought to understand how timepressure affects team performance and the role thatteam temporal leadership plays in shaping thisrelationship. Two underlying motivations were:(1) the need to resolve inconsistencies in the the-oretical treatment of, and empirical findings on,the relationship between time pressure and teamperformance and (2) the desire to understand howtemporal leadership enables teams to cope withtime pressure. To gain insight into these issues,this research drew on individual-level researchon the non-linear effects of time pressure and ontemporal leadership theory. Our study resultsyielded three overarching findings that address themixed results from prior work. First, time pressure

TABLE 3Results of Moderated-Mediation Analysis Predicting Team Performancea

DV: Team performance (T3)

Mediator Level of Moderator Direct Effect Indirect Effect Total Effect

Team processes (T2) Strong (11 SD) .27* .03 .30*Weak (–1 SD) 2.57** 2.10* 2.67**Differences .84** .13* .97**

a Coefficients are based on 1,000 bootstrap estimates; tests of differences are based on bias-corrected confidence intervals from bootstrapestimates. Estimates of direct effects are based on (bX6 1 bX26 1 bXZ6Z1 bX2Z6Z) and estimates of indirect effects are based on([aX5 1 aX25 1 aXZ5Z1 aX2Z5Z]bM6). In all analyses, time pressure (T1) (linear and squared term) is the independent variable and teamtemporal leadership (T1) is the moderator. T1 5 time 1, T2 5 time 2, T3 5 time 3.

* p , .05** p , .01

TABLE 4Instantaneous Indirect Effects (ux) of Time Pressure (T1) on Team Performance (T3)a

Level of time pressure (T1)

Mediator Level of Moderator (T1) Low Intermediate High

Team processes (T2) Strong (11 SD) .03 .04* .04*Weak (–1 SD) .02 2.14* 2.22*

a Coefficients are based on 1,000 bootstrap estimates. Estimates of instantaneous indirect effects based on ux 5 [(2a5x1 a4)z1 2a2x1 a1]b,where x5 time pressure, z5 team temporal leadership, and b5 the coefficient of the mediator in predicting team performance. T15 time 1,T2 5 time 2, T3 5 time 3.

* p , .05


has an inverted-U shape relationship with teamprocesses. Second, the inverted U-shape relation-ship between time pressure and team process ismoderated by team temporal leadership. Finally, theindirect effect of time pressure on team performance(through team processes) is non-linear and is mod-erated by team temporal leadership. We discuss theimplications of these findings for theory.

Theoretical Implications

This research makes an important contributionto theory on the effects of time pressure on per-formance. At the outset, this research was moti-vated by the ambiguity that surrounds the linkbetween time pressure in teams and team perfor-mance. Various studies offered explanations forone relationship or another (e.g., positive, nega-tive), but there was limited, if any, theoreticalinvestigation that provided an integrative expla-nation of when and why these different effectsemerge. Our consideration of the non-linear effectof perceived time pressure, the team processes itaffects, and the moderating role of team temporalleadership provides a more complete explana-tion for the mixed findings in prior research. Byshowing that time pressure can have positive orinverted U-shape effects depending on team temporalleadership, the findings challenge conventionalnotions about the theoretical treatment of time pres-sure as implied in various theoretical frameworks,such as the challenge–hindrance stressor framework(LePine et al., 2005). Rather than considering whethertime pressure is inherently good or bad for perfor-mance, our research suggests that it would be moreinformative for theory to focus on explaining thecircumstances under which time pressure has a neg-ative versus positive influence for individuals andteams (Mitchell & James, 2001).

Another important contribution of this research isin advancing the broader literature on time in teams(Mohammed, Hamilton, & Lim, 2009). Numerousresearchers have called for amore explicit theoreticaltreatment of time in teams and particular attentionhas been drawn to the need to account for the role oftime as part of the general context (Mohammedet al., 2009). This research goes beyond simply ac-counting for time as part of the context in whichteams operate. It provides a theoretical under-standing of the mechanism by which time pressureaffects performance outcomes. Although McGrath’s(1991) time, interaction, and performance theoryand Gersick’s (1988) punctuated equilibrium model

suggested that multiple facets of team functioningmay be affected by temporal conditions in the taskenvironment, a majority of empirical research tendsto focus on a narrow loci of activities. Our researchunderscores the importance of examining the broaderrange of task management activities, embodied inteam processes, when studying the effects of timepressure. Further, the results of the supplementalanalysis indicate differences in effects across theseteam processes. In examining the effects on teamprocesses, this research attends to the disruptionsand motivations that time pressure creates in af-fecting the management of interdependent tasks inteams through planning, coordination, and inter-personal activities.

A final major contribution of this research is inexpanding theory on the role of leadership in man-aging the temporal issues that affect team function-ing (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011; Morgeson &DeRue, 2006). Extant theory on the role of leader-ship in managing the interface between time pres-sure (as an element of the task environment) andteam functioning is limited (Bluedorn & Jaussi,2008). By considering team temporal leadership,this research expands the theoretical role of lead-ership to include enabling teams to function effec-tively when experiencing time pressure. As such, ithighlights a more active role for leadership inshaping how teams respond to time pressure thanhas previously been recognized in the literature.This research also suggests that leadership can playan active role in drawing teams’ attention to tem-poral issues even when such issues are not partic-ularly salient (Gersick, 1988). As temporal issuestake an increasingly prominent role in theorizingabout teams, consideration of temporal leadershipclearly needs to be an important part of the ongoingconversation.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Our study has a few limitations that must be ac-knowledged. Our focus in this research was on per-ceived, rather than actual, time pressure. This createsthe potential for incongruence between perceptionsof time pressure and actual time pressure. However,in this research, we reasoned that teams’ actions arebased on their perceptions of the task environment,and the clearly defined project deadlines make itunlikely that there would be a high level of in-congruence with respect to actual time pressure.Nevertheless, actual time pressure remains an im-portant aspect of the task environment (Mohammed


et al., 2009). An implication of this focus on timepressure is that our findingsmust be interpreted withcaution, particularly as related to research whereactual time pressure is experimentally manipulated(e.g., Karau & Kelly, 1992; Waller et al., 2002). Futureresearch is needed to examine whether the effectsof actual time pressure on team processes vary asa function of team temporal leadership.

By focusing on time pressure, there is also thepotential for reverse causality in the hypothesizedrelationships. It could be argued that team temporalleadership should reduce time pressure by, for ex-ample, setting aside time for unforeseen tempo-ral contingencies or synchronizing team memberactions to build a temporal cushion within a fixeddeadline. This could reduce the time pressure feltby team members. However, theory suggests thatthis is unlikely to be the case in our context. Spe-cifically, Gersick (1988), Waller et al. (2002), andothers find that teams with stable deadlines, as wasthe case in our study, pay attention to the actualtime and are prompted to act when deadlines drawnear. This increases the likelihood of time pressureemerging because, by delaying action until dead-lines loom, the perception of time scarcity is cre-ated. In a field setting such as ours, the nature of theteams’ work involves multiple overlapping proj-ect milestones for various tasks, leading teams tofeel they are under time pressure. Under sucha scenario, team temporal leadership is unlikelyto reduce perceptions of time scarcity. As we haveargued, team temporal leadership improves teams’capacity to handle their responsibilities undersuch time pressure, thus, shaping their resultingprocesses.

In probing the non-linear interaction betweentime pressure and team temporal leadership, weunexpectedly found that, under strong team tem-poral leadership, high levels of time pressure hada positive influence on team processes. This findingis interesting because theory would suggest that,under high levels of time pressure, all team effortsshould be focused on executing tasks rather than onplanning and coordinating. The software develop-ment context in which our study was conductedmay shed some light on this finding. In softwaredevelopment projects, teams are under firm dead-lines to deliver functioning output to their custom-ers. Amabile et al. (2002) have noted that high levelsof time pressure often create positive outcomes insuch situations because of the heightened sense offocus and meaningful urgency involved. Addition-ally, research in the software development context

suggests that, under tight deadlines, team processescan be executed in short planning and executioniterations (Maruping, Venkatesh, & Agarwal, 2009).Thus, it is possible that, as the project teams in oursample perceived greater levels of time pressure,they were more likely to use these short iterativeprocesses when the team leader provided the nec-essary temporal leadership.

Managerial Implications

The above limitations notwithstanding, our re-search has important implications for practice.First, as our findings suggest, some degree of timepressure is beneficial for motivating teams to en-gage in team processes that facilitate performance.As such, managers are advised to underscore tem-poral constraints to their teams and to do so earlyenough during task performance that the teamsinvolved have sufficient time to act accordingly.This will ensure greater task engagement, as teamsdevelop a sense of mission, while also giving teamsa realistic chance of completing their objectives(Amabile et al., 2002). Managers must exercisecaution against either waiting too long to directtheir teams’ attention to temporal constraints orcreating a sense of panic regarding such con-straints, as this can be debilitating to teams. Whenteams feel as though temporal constraints are toosevere, they are likely to respond by abandoningthe very processes that are important for achievingobjectives.

Second, as the results regarding the moderatingrole of team temporal leadership show, managershave an active role to play in enabling their teamsto handle the time pressure they experience.Given their high-level view of teams’ task status,task environment, and task objectives, managersare well positioned to provide guidance abouthow to manage temporal resources under existingconstraints (Morgeson & DeRue, 2006). Under thevery task conditions that prompt teams to aban-don team processes (Gersick, 1988), our researchshows that managers can intervene to reorientteam members’ efforts toward effective task man-agement through scheduling of interim mile-stones, synchronization of tasks, and restructuringof priorities. These efforts result in higher teamperformance.

Finally, project teams are assembled on the basisof needed and available expertise. As such, teammembers are often not trained to manage theirtemporal resources. To the extent possible,


managers are advised to devote part of the earlystages of task execution to developing their teams’capability to manage temporal resources. Buildingsuch capabilities early on can pay dividends atlater task stages, when temporal constraints in-crease, as teams will be equipped to handle suchissues on their own (Gevers et al., 2006, 2009).

CONCLUSION

In this research, we sought to resolve the in-consistent findings regarding the effects of timepressure on team performance. This was accom-plished by drawing on, and integrating, the timepressure and team temporal leadership liter-atures. The findings in this research advancetheory by identifying the mediating mechanismsthrough which time pressure influences perfor-mance in project teams, and showing that teamtemporal leadership plays a significant role indetermining how such pressure affects teamfunctioning. These findings lend insight into howwe should think about time pressure and itseffects in organizational settings.

REFERENCES

Aguinis, H., Suarez-Gonzalez, I., Lannelongue, G., & Joo,H. 2012. Scholarly impact revisited. Academy ofManagement Perspectives, 26: 105–132.

Aiken, L., & West, S. 1991. Multiple regression: Testingand interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications.

Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M.1996. Assessing the work environment for creativity.Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1154–1184.

Amabile, T., Hadley, C., & Kramer, S. 2002. Creativityunder the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80:52–63.

Ancona, D., Goodman, P., Lawrence, B., & Tushman, M.2001. Time: A new research lens. Academy ofManagement Review, 26: 645–663.

Ancona, D., Okhuysen, A., & Perlow, L. 2001. Takingtime to integrate temporal research. Academy ofManagement Review, 26: 512–529.

Andrews, F., & Farris, G. 1972. Time pressure and per-formance of scientists and engineers: A five-yearpanel study. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 8: 185–200.

Argote, L., & Ingram, P. 2000. Knowledge transfer inorganizations: A basis for competitive advantage in

firms. Organizational Behavior and Human De-cision Processes, 82: 150–169.

Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. 2006. The curvilinear relationbetween experienced creative time pressure andcreativity: Moderating effects of openness to experi-ence and support for creativity. The Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 91: 963–970.

Bluedorn, A., & Jaussi, K. 2008. Leaders, followers, andtime. The Leadership Quarterly, 19: 654–668.

Blunt, A., & Pychyl, T. 2000. Task aversiveness andprocrastination: A multi-dimensional approach totask aversiveness across stages of personal proj-ects. Personality and Individual Differences, 28:153–167.

Cavanaugh, M., Boswell, W., Roehling, M., & Boudreau, J.2000. An empirical examination of self-reportedwork stress among U.S. managers. The Journal ofApplied Psychology, 85: 65–74.

Chong, D., van Eerde, W., Chai, K., & Rutte, C. 2011. Adouble-edged sword: The effects of challenge andhindrance time pressure on new product develop-ment teams. IEEE Transactions on EngineeringManagement, 58: 71–86.

Cooper, C., Dewe, P., & O’Driscoll, M. 2001. Organi-zational stress: A review and critique of theory,research, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Driskell, J., Salas, E., & Johnston, J. 1999. Does stress leadto a loss of team perspective? Group Dynamics, 3:291–302.

Durham, C., Locke, E., Poon, J., & McLeod, P. 2000. Effectsof group goals and time pressure on group efficacy,information seeking strategy, and performance. Hu-man Performance, 13: 115–138.

Edwards, J., & Lambert, L. 2007. Methods for integratingmoderation and mediation: A general analyticalframework using moderated path analysis. Psycho-logical Methods, 12: 1–22.

Gardner, D. G. 1990. Task complexity effects on non-task-related movements: A test of activation theory.Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 45: 209–231.

Gardner, H. K. 2012. Performance pressure as a double-edged sword: Enhancing team motivation butundermining use of team knowledge.AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 57: 1–46.

Gardner, H. K., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. 2012. Dynamicallyintegrating knowledge in teams: Transformingresources into performance. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 55: 998–1022.

Gersick, C. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: To-ward a new model of group development. Academyof Management Journal, 31: 9–41.


Gevers, J., Rutte, C., & van Eerde, W. 2006. Meetingdeadlines in work groups: Implicit and explicitmechanisms. Applied Psychology, 55: 52–72.

Gevers, J., van Eerde, W., & Rutte, C. 2009. Team self-regulation and meeting deadlines in project teams:Antecedents and effects of temporal consensus.European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 18: 295–321.

Gevers, J., van Eerde, W., & Rutte, C. 2001. Time pressure,potency, and progress in project groups. EuropeanJournal of Work and Organizational Psychology,10: 205–221.

Harrison, D., Mohammed, S., McGrath, J., Florey, A., &Vanderstoep, S. 2003. Time matters in team perfor-mance: Effects of member familiarity, entrainment,and task discontinuity on speed and quality. Per-sonnel Psychology, 56: 633–669.

Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. 2010. Quantifying andtesting indirect effects in simple mediation modelswhen the constituent paths are nonlinear. Multivar-iate Behavioral Research, 45: 627–660.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexesin covariance structure analysis: Conventional crite-ria versus new alternatives. Structural EquationModeling, 6: 1–55.

Hunter, L., & Thatcher, S. 2007. Feeling the heat: Effects ofstress, commitment, and job experience on job per-formance. Academy of Management Journal, 50:953–968.

Ilgen, D., Hollenbeck, J., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. 2005.Teams in organizations: From input–process–outputmodels to IMOImodels.Annual Review of Psychology,56: 517–543.

Janicik, G., & Bartel, C. 2003. Talking about time:Effects of temporal planning and time awarenessnorms on group coordination and performance.Group Dynamics, 7: 122–134.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. 1999. Whydifferences make a difference: A field study of di-versity, conflict, and performance in workgroups.Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 741–763.

Karau, S., & Kelly, J. 1992. The effects of time scarcity andtime abundance on group performance quality andinteraction process. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 28: 542–571.

Kelly, J., & Karau, S. 1999. Group decision making: Theeffects of initial preferences and time pressure.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25:1342–1354.

Kelly, J., & Loving, T. 2004. Time pressure and groupperformance: Exploring underlying processes in theattentional focus model. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 40: 185–198.

Kelly, J., & McGrath, J. 1985. Effects of time limits and tasktypes on task performance and interaction of four-person groups. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 49: 395–407.

Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. 2000. From micro tomeso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and conduct-ing multilevel research. Organizational ResearchMethods, 3: 211–236.

Labianca, G., Moon, H., & Watt, I. 2005. When is an hournot 60 minutes? Deadlines, temporal schemata, andindividual and task group performance. Academy ofManagement Journal, 48: 677–694.

LePine, J., Piccolo, R., Jackson, C., Mathieu, J., & Saul, J.2008. A meta-analysis of teamwork processes: Testsof a multidimensional model and relationships withteam effectiveness criteria. Personnel Psychology,61: 273–307.

LePine, J., Podsakoff, N., & LePine, M. 2005. A meta-analytic test of the challenge stressor–hindrancestressor framework: An explanation for inconsis-tent relationships among stressors and perfor-mance. Academy of Management Journal, 48:764–775.

Marks, M., Mathieu, J., & Zaccaro, S. 2001. A temporallybased framework and taxonomy of team processes.Academy of Management Review, 26: 356–376.

Maruping, L. M., & Agarwal, R. 2004. Managing team in-terpersonal processes through technology: A task–technology fit perspective. The Journal of AppliedPsychology, 89: 975–990.

Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., & Agarwal, R. 2009. Acontrol theory perspective on agile methodology useand changing user requirements. Information Sys-tems Research, 20: 377–399.

Mathieu, J., Gilson, L., & Ruddy, T. 2006. Empowermentand team effectiveness: An empirical test of an in-tegrated model. The Journal of Applied Psychology,91: 97–108.

McDaniel, L. S. 1990. The effects of time pressure andaudit program structure on audit performance. Jour-nal of Accounting Research, 28: 267–285.

McGrath, J. 1991. Time, interaction, and performance(TIP): A theory of groups. Small Group Research, 22:147–174.

Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. 2001. Building better the-ory: Time and the specification of when thingshappen. Academy of Management Review, 26:530–547.

Mohammed, S., Hamilton, K., & Lim, A. 2009. The in-corporation of time in team research: Past, current,and future. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin & C. S. Burke(Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations:


Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches:321–348. New York: Routledge.

Mohammed, S., & Nadkarni, S. 2011. Temporal diversityand team performance: The moderating role of teamtemporal leadership. Academy of ManagementJournal, 54: 489–508.

Morgeson, F. P., & DeRue, D. S. 2006. Event criticality,urgency, and duration: Understanding how eventsdisrupt teams and influence team leader inter-vention. The Leadership Quarterly, 17: 271–287.

Morgeson, F., DeRue, D., & Karam, E. 2010. Leadershipin teams: A functional approach to understandingleadership structures and processes. Journal ofManagement, 36: 5–39.

Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. 2007. Routinization,work characteristics and their relationships withcreative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Orga-nizational Behavior, 27: 257–279.

Pearsall, M., Ellis, A., & Stein, J. 2009. Coping withchallenge and hindrance stressors in teams: Behav-ioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes. Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes,109: 18–28.

Perlow, L. 1999. The time famine: Toward a sociology ofwork time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44:57–81.

Porter, C. 2005. Goal orientation: Effects on backing upbehavior, performance, efficacy, and commitmentin teams. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90:811–818.

Pugh, S. D. 2001. Service with a smile: Emotional conta-gion in the service encounter. Academy of Man-agement Journal, 44: 1018–1027.

Schriber, J., & Gutek, B. 1987. Some time dimensions ofwork: Measurement of an underlying aspect of orga-nizational culture. The Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 72: 642–650.

Simons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. 2000. Task conflict andrelationship conflict in top management teams: Thepivotal role of intragroup trust. The Journal ofApplied Psychology, 85: 102–111.

Stine, R. 1989. An introduction to bootstrap methods.Sociological Methods & Research, 18: 243–291.

Stolzenberg, R. M. 1980. The measurement anddecomposition of causal effects in nonlinear andnonadditive models. Sociological Methodology,11: 459–488.

Tschan, F. 2002. Ideal cycles of communication (or cog-nitions) in triads, dyads, and individuals. SmallGroup Research, 33: 615–643.

van de Erve, M. 2004. Temporal leadership. EuropeanBusiness Review, 16: 605–617.

Wallace, L., Keil, M., & Rai, A. 2004. How software projectrisk affects project performance: An investigation ofthe dimensions of risk and an exploratory model.Decision Sciences, 35: 289–321.

Waller, M., Giambatista, R., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. 1999.The effects of individual time urgency on grouppolychronicity. Journal of Managerial Psychology,14: 244–256.

Waller, M., Zellmer-Bruhn, M., & Giambatista, R. 2002.Watching the clock: Group pacing behavior under dy-namic deadlines. Academy of Management Journal,45: 1046–1055.

Zivnuska, S., Kiewitz, C., Hochwater, W. A., Perrewe, P. L.,& Zellars, K. L. 2002. What is too much or too little?The curvilinear effects of job tension on turnover in-tent, value attainment, and job satisfaction. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 32: 1344–1360.

Likoebe M. Maruping ([email protected]) is associateprofessor of computer information systems in the J. MackRobinson College of Business, Georgia State University.He received his PhD from the University of Maryland. Hisresearch focuses on understanding technology-enabledteam collaboration, team processes under dynamic proj-ect conditions, and the role of team leadership in facili-tating effective team collaboration.

Viswanath Venkatesh ([email protected]) isa distinguished professor and Billingsley chair at theUniversity of Arkansas. He received his PhD from theUniversity of Minnesota. His research focuses on un-derstanding the diffusion of technologies in organ-izations and society. His work has appeared in leadingjournals in information systems, management, mar-keting, operations management, and psychology. He isone of the most influential scholars in business andeconomics in general (highlycited.com) and in managementin particular (Aguinis, Suarez-Gonzalez, Lannelongue, &Joo, 2012).

Sherry M. B. Thatcher ([email protected]) isprofessor of management at the University of SouthCarolina. She received her PhD in organizational be-havior from the Wharton Business School at the Uni-versity of Pennsylvania. Her research revolves aroundteams and includes diversity faultlines, identity, thesocial effects of computer communication technologies,and conflict.

Pankaj C. Patel ([email protected]) is associate professorof management at Ball State University. He received his


mailto:[email protected]


http://highlycited.com



PhD from the University of Louisville. His research in-terests focus on technology and governance.

APPENDIX A

MEASUREMENT SCALES USED IN STUDY

Team Performance (“1” 5 Strongly disagree,“7” 5 Strongly agree)

(1) The client perceives that the system meetsintended functional requirements.

(2) The overall quality of the developed system ishigh.

(3) The system was completed within budget.(4) The system was completed within schedule.

Time Pressure (“1” 5 Strongly disagree,“7” 5 Strongly agree)

(1) We are often under a lot of pressure to completeour tasks on time.

(2) We are not afforded much time to complete ourtasks.

(3) The amount of time provided to complete ourtasks is short.

(4) Task durations are often short.

Team Temporal Leadership (“1” 5 Not at all,“5” 5 A great deal)

(1) To what extent does your team leader remindmembers of important deadlines?

(2) To what extent does your team leader prioritizetasks and allocate time to each task?

(3) To what extent does your team leader prepareand build in time for contingencies, problems,and emerging issues?

(4) To what extent does your team leader pace theteam so that work is finished on time?

(5) To what extent does your team leader urgemembers to finish sub-tasks on time?

(6) To what extent does your team leader set mile-stones to measure progress on the project?

(7) To what extent is your team leader effectivein coordinating the team to meet customerdeadlines?

Team Transition Processes (“1” 5 Stronglydisagree, “7” 5 Strongly agree)

Members of this team discuss. . .

(1) our performance vision.(2) specific milestones for achieving our objectives.(3) specific timelines for accomplishing tasks.(4) what we can do to make our performance vision

a reality.(5) which goals and sub-goals to prioritize in order

to accomplish our work.(6) our team’s objectives.(7) alternative ways of achieving our objectives.

Team Action Processes (“1” 5 Strongly disagree,“7” 5 Strongly agree)

Members of this team. . .

(1) take the time we need to share task-relatedinformation.

(2) track our progress toward achieving our goals.(3) track our progress toward completing tasks.(4) try to understand what needs to be done to

accomplish our goals.(5) actively learn from one another.(6) track team resources that relate to our goal

accomplishment.(7) track events/decisions in the organization that

affect our ability to accomplish our goals.(8) Effectively communicate with each other

throughout each week.(9) Help each other out with completing tasks.

(10) Give each other feedback on task performance.(11) Back each other up when a task needs to be

completed.

Team Interpersonal Processes

Task conflict (“1” 5 Not at all, “7” 5 Allof the time)Over the course of this project. . .

(1) How frequently have you dealt with conflictsabout the project in your team?

(2) How often have members of your teammanageddisagreements about opinions regarding how tocomplete the project?

(3) How often have you managed clashes about taskmatters on the project?


Affective conflict (“1” 5 None, “7” 5 Agreat deal)

Over the course of this project. . .

(1) How much have you managed friction amongmembers of your project team?

(2) How much have you managed personalityconflicts between team members during theproject?

(3) How much have you dealt with tension amongmembers of your project team?

(4) How much have you managed emotional con-flict among members of your project team?

Trust (“1” 5 Strongly disagree, “7” 5 Stronglyagree)

Members of my team. . .

(1) have created an environment of openness andtrust.

(2) really trust each other.(3) think in terms of what is best for the team.

APPENDIX CInstantaneous Indirect Effects (ux) of Time Pressure (T1) on Team Performance (T3)a

Level of time pressure

Mediator Level of Moderator Low Intermediate High

Team transition processes (T2) Strong (11 SD) .05* .00 2.04*Weak (–1 SD) .03* 2.04* 2.11*

Team action processes (T2) Strong (11 SD) .00 .02* .02*Weak (–1 SD) .00 2.05* 2.10*

Team interpersonal processes (T2) Strong (11 SD) .02* .02* .02*Weak (–1 SD) .02* 2.05* 2.11*

a Coefficients are based on 1,000 bootstrap estimates. Estimates of instantaneous indirect effects based on ux 5 [(2a5x1 a4)z1 2a2x1 a1]b,where x5 time pressure, z5 team temporal leadership, and b5 the coefficient of the mediator in predicting team performance. T15 time 1,T2 5 time 2, T3 5 time 3.

*p , .05.

APPENDIX BResults of Moderated Regression Analysis Using Variables Averaged Across all Time Periodsa

Team processes Team performance

Model 1a Model 2a Model 1b Model 2b Model 3b

Team tenure .07 .04 .12* .11* .07Team size 2.09 2.05 2.11* 2.09 2.06Average project experience .05 .04 .14* .12* .11*Time pressure (SD) .17** .14* 2.13* 2.10 2.05Time pressure 2.13* 2.12* 2.14* 2.12* 2.10Time pressure-squared 2.12* 2.11* 2.21*** 2.18** 2.14*Team temporal leadership .06 .03 .14* .14* .12*Team processes .25***Time pressure 3 Team temporal leadership .25*** .13* .14*Time pressure-squared 3 Team temporal leadership .12* .30*** .28***Adjusted R2 .07 .14 .13 .23 .31DR2 .07** .10*** .08**

a n5 111 teams. Standardized coefficients are shown. Scores for time pressure, team processes, and team temporal leadership variables areaveraged across all measurement time periods.

* p , .05** p , .01

*** p , .001


folding under pressure or rising to the occasion ... · viswanath venkatesh university of arkansas...

Documents