Search

This paper examines how teams manage temporal ambivalence, or the simultaneous and conflicting perceptions of time as a resource, including how much time has passed and whether there is enough of it left. Team members' time perceptions influence how a team manages time; thus, effective time management requires some collective resolution of temporal ambivalence. To study the effects of temporal ambivalence on time management processes and performance in teams, we conducted a laboratory study in which we manipulated perceptions of time by engineering a wall clock to run at different speeds (normal, fast, or slow) to instantiate different types of temporal ambivalence. Using both quantitative and qualitative analyses, we found that managing temporal ambivalence effectively is essential for teams to appropriately allocate time to different phases of work. Specifically, teams often misallocated their time by either transitioning too late or too early between phases of work, both of which were associated with worse team performance than transitioning closer to the temporal midpoint. Teams with heightened temporal ambivalence were more likely to manage time poorly following one or more of three dysfunctional patterns: bypassing comments, glossing over contradictions, and following passively. By contrast, teams that managed temporal ambivalence effectively did so through time management huddles, in which team members briefly and collectively took time away from the main task to explicitly discuss how to allocate their time. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on team process, ambivalence, and time management in organizations. Funding: This work was supported by Harvard University, INSEAD, and the UCL School of Management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Five questions prompted by the articles in the American Psychologist special issue on leadership (January 2007, Vol. 62, No. 1) suggest some new directions for leadership research: (1) Not do leaders make a difference, but under what conditions does leadership matter? (2) Not what are the traits of leaders, but how do leaders' personal attributes interact with situational properties to shape outcomes? (3) Not do there exist common dimensions on which all leaders can be arrayed, but are good and poor leadership qualitatively different phenomena? (4) Not how do leaders and followers differ, but how can leadership models be reformulated so they treat all system members as both leaders and followers? (5) Not what should be taught in leadership courses, but how can leaders be helped to learn?

Five questions prompted by the articles in the American Psychologist special issue on leadership (January 2007, Vol. 62, No. 1) suggest some new directions for leadership research: (1) Not do leaders make a difference, but under what conditions does leadership matter? (2) Not what are the traits of leaders, but how do leaders' personal attributes interact with situational properties to shape outcomes? (3) Not do there exist common dimensions on which all leaders can be arrayed, but are good and poor leadership qualitatively different phenomena? (4) Not how do leaders and followers differ, but how can leadership models be reformulated so they treat all system members as both leaders and followers? (5) Not what should be taught in leadership courses, but how can leaders be helped to learn? Keywords: leadership theory, leaders, followers, learning, traits

Tested the moderating effects of (a) employee growth need strength and (b) level of satisfaction with the work context on employee responses to enriched work. Data were collected from 201 employees who work on 25 jobs in a bank. Employees who had strong growth needs and also were satisfied with the work context (i.e., with their pay, job security, co-workers, and supervisors) responded more positively to enriched jobs than employees who had weak needs for growth and/or who were dissatisfied with the work context. Implications for the practice of work redesign are discussed. (19 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved). © 1976 American Psychological Association.

The effects of changes in the motivational properties of jobs on work attitudes and behaviors were assessed in a quasi-experimental design. A number of clerical jobs in a metropolitan bank were redesigned because of a technological innovation. Changes were made without regard for the motivational characteristics of the jobs, and without cognizance by bank personnel that there might be motivational consequences of the changes. Some jobs were made more complex and challenging, some less so, and the motivational properties of still others were essentially unaffected. Measures of job characteristics, employee attitudes, and work behaviors were collected before and after the changes. Results showed that general satisfaction, growth satisfaction, and internal motivation were affected by changes in job characteristics. Satisfaction with the work context was not affected. Effects of the changes on absenteeism and performance depended on the strength of employee growth needs, which also tended to moderate attitudinal reactions to the changes. Contrary to expectation, employee growth needs themselves were not affected by the altered motivational characteristics of the jobs. © 1978.