salience managers need to take account of in addressing the primacy of a stakeholder
constituency’s interests, is an important psychological and temporal concern within companies.1 Yet, ‘given the different manifestations of time in organizational life, there is surprisingly little research on time in this setting’ (Goodman et al, 2001, p507; see also Bluedorn and Denhardt, 1988). Indeed, it is not just about how managers might interact with important constituencies or even markets to, say, favour a short-term position; albeit one accepts that view of their behaviour. Rather ‘there is a shortage of research in the project management literature on aspects of time other than clock time’ (Biesenthal et al, 2015). It is no surprise then that when it comes to the temporal concept of a sense of urgency with which managers might take action, something they undoubtedly need to do in a variety of different ways when faced with diverse and challenging situations, the dearth of
management and psychological research is perhaps even more pronounced. An increasing trickle of applicable temporal studies is becoming evident however. As they begin to form an integrated body of work, a number of these are considered.
i) Effects of time pressure: Deadlines are perhaps the most obvious pressure on a sense of
urgency to act. Locke and Latham (1975, 1984) highlighted how deadlines employed in
1See Mitchell et al, 1997; see also Eyestone, 1978; Wartick and Mahon, 1994; Hill and Jones, 1992; Williamson, 1985.
107
association with an organizational goal increased that goal’s motivational aspect1. And in some cases, as Peters et al (1984) show with 164 managerial and non-managerial bank employees, with deadlines shortened performance can actually increase.2
But while deadlines may create a greater urgency to complete work in a shorter
timespan, there is conversely ‘Parkinson’s Law’ (Parkinson, 1957), where ‘work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion’3. Hence, a reduction in a sense of urgency, as when deadlines lengthen subjects work at a slower pace (Bryan and Locke, 1967; Arvedson, 1974).
Pressures of deadlines notwithstanding, for CEOs the time urgency they embody may be expressed in the way they handle the time management of their teams; and when teams do well, a CEO’s time urgency, according to Chen and Nadkarni (2017), is in turn positively related to their corporate entrepreneurship4. It is about how CEOs through their sense of time urgency interact with their senior managers to lead, motivate, and indeed push them, towards the corporate objective (see also Waller et al, 2001).
Whilst not specifically couched in terms of ‘urgency’ a few allied temporality studies are notable. For example, how time pressured decisions become more politically
conservative (Hansson et al, 1974); how inequality of choice alternatives serves to lengthen the time for decision-making (Pollay, 1970) and so lessening any sense of urgency. And how ‘negative information’, that is information about why not to do something or what could go wrong, became more relevant as time pressure to make a decision increased (Wright, 1974).5 Similarly, the better the self-control in the face of rewards now versus
1See also: March and Simon, 1958; Bassett, 1979; Peters et al, 1984; McGrath and Kelly, 1986; Bluedorn and Denhardt, 1988.
2See also Kelly and McGrath, 1985; Andrews and Farris, 1972 on the complexity of this finding and a possible U-shaped relationship.
3Bluedorn and Denhardt, 1988, similarly highlight ‘Parkinson’s Law’.
4Defined as activities covering innovation, corporate venturing, and strategic renewal (Zahra, 1996). 5See also Ben Zur and Breznitz, 1981; Zakay and Wooler, 1984; also Greenwald, 1969, on how decision options are mediated not simply by time but also by option attractiveness.
108
rewards later the more an individual may be able to avoid procrastinating (O'Donoghue and Rabin, 1999). This is clearly useful for managers; although the researchers find such
individuals may also be too fast on the trigger, having a tendency to act with excessive urgency! And an associated strand of this topic, though beyond this study’s range of
coverage, is that of ‘intertemporal choice’; making some type of calculation of the economic tradeoffs with respect to the relative costs and benefits of taking an action sooner, more urgently, as opposed to later.1
ii) Effect of individual differences and cognitive impact on managerial context: There is
an apparent stability or systematic nature for the urgency phenomenon.2 Research on temporal orientation and deadlines, for example, considered the experience of time urgency amongst individuals (Waller et al, 2001). Yet in finding perceptions differ, they observe time urgency3, however, to be a relatively stable individual-difference personality variable. This variable differentiates into groups based on temporal orientation: time-urgent and non-
time-urgent. Time urgent individuals need schedules to drive them, often using deadlines as
measures of the time remaining to complete a task. Non time-urgent individuals tend to be less concerned about remaining time, even tending to under-estimate its passage (Waller et al, 2001). Rastegary and Landy (1993) point out, that where there are tight deadlines it may indicate a need to intensify one's work pace as the deadline approaches. But, it is a pressure to get things done, that time-urgent individuals may feel more keenly than those who are non-time-urgent. By that account, time-urgent executives would be more likely to react to situations - or indeed favour one stakeholder group over another since it is the most
1See eg, Samuelson, 1937, on the discounted utility model in which the passing of time is conceived of as reducing the value of a behaviour or choice to be made; and recent work on how this idea is flawed due to oversimplification by Frederick et al, 2002.
2That is it functions repeatedly in the same way amongst subjects or groups with the same temporal orientation.
109
expedient thing to do given the business constraints on them and the forces of their own personality.
Additionally, in many cases other psychological factors tend to impact a sense of urgency. Waller et al’s (2001) work emphasizes this aspect, in that while time urgency might be a relatively stable individual-difference variable, it is also understood to be about what the individual brings to bear cognitively to cause a different outcome in the face of a need to act with urgency. As Zakay (1993, p67) wrote ‘…time stress is a product of either real-time constraints or because of a subjective perception of time stress due to personality traits or managerial style’. Certainly, as time stress or pressure mounts – ie the time allowed or available to make a decision reduces – the research suggests there is a greater urgency to take action. Yet in those highly pressuring scenarios, the psychological as well as the contextual characteristics of decision alternatives appear to impact the urgency with which managers might act (see also Bluedorn and Denhardt, 1988). Indeed, as time pressure increases on individuals: a) the search for [viable] alternatives will become more vigorous, and b) selective perception will increase (March and Simon, 1958, pp.196-194).
iii) Temporal synchronization and entrainment: A sense of urgency is often about how a
manager perceives the pressure with which they should interact with time itself to get their project completed. Table 3.1 provides various definitions of time applicable to organizations and hence a means to understand the temporal framework managers work within.
Time pressures are also cues (zeitgebers) which underlie the sense of urgency to act managers experience. Examples include: deadlines for scheduled projects or processes, including a new product launch to be introduced to the consumer market by a particular date (Craig and Hart, 1992; Deschamps and Nayak, 1995); turbulence in the environment,
including at its worst with the financial crisis; market or business uncertainty forcing a change in managerial behaviour (Crossan et al, 2005).
110
Similarly, inter-institutional projects embody macro cycles set by dominant players or situations (Dille and Soderlund (2011).1 Viewed as time givers or time setters (also zeitgebers), these players create pace and speed for activities to proceed, or scheduled elements to be controlled, and to which other organizations in a project must adjust. The
1See Shi and Prescott, 2012, on the topic in relation to the acquisition of, or alliance with, another company.
Temporal term Definition
Chronos
Objective, homogeneous, measurable, Newtonian time, (also termed even
time, physical time, calendar time, or clock time). Flows in one direction, linearly,
where the managerial goal is often to speed up organizational processes
Kairos
Subjective, heterogeneous, experienced, Einsteinian time (or event time)
Linear time
Linked to clock time and represents an objective understanding of time in organizations as a limited organizational resource – eg projects with a defined start and an end and to which time is allocated.
Cycle time
Time is seen as a recurring pattern, which enables predictions and planning conceptually based on the past.
Entrainment
The process of adjusting pace or cycle of one activity to synchronize with Another.
Zeitgeber
Pacers or temporal cues that guide entrainment (a zeitgeber may also be
seen as a stimulus, and a sense of urgency a manager’s psychological response). Urgency
A cognitive response to external temporal cues largely in the form of time
pressures, and causing an altering of time horizon towards the shorter-term. Time urgency, however, is also understood as a stable individual-difference personality variable. Monochronic and polychronic time use
The utilization of time can be monochronic, where one activity is done at a
time, or it can be polychronic, where many activities are done at the same time (this may also be due to cultural variation – sometimes expressed as a sequential versus a synchronous experience of time). Greater urgency may be attributable to both forms depending on circumstance.
Table 3.1: Temporal concepts (adapted from sources including: Hall, 1983; Das, 1991; Crossan et al, 2005; and as quoted in Biesenthal et al, 2015).
111
time given out or set, the researchers indicate, could also be by industry leaders or government entities through budget or audit cycles.
Management, therefore, must often synchronize its activities to get in step with players setting the macro pace for activities to proceed smoothly; a process referred to as
‘entrainment’1. However, the difficulty is when there a failure to maintain synchronicity. Project entities could be out of sync with their different macro pacers causing devastating effects on the project (Dille and Soderlund (2011). Or if inter-institutional relationships operate at different cycles or temporal rhythms, it can lead to confusion and conflict, and in turn affecting successful collaboration (Biesenthal et al, 2015). Time overruns and being over budget are common outcomes. Alternatively, there is an absence of mediating
zeitgebers, and a company cannot synchronize its chosen activities, as it does not receive the cues necessary to adapt and old patterns persist (Ancona and Chong, 1992; Ancona et al, 2001). And without these cues a company is unlikely to manifest any sense of urgency when called to.
Given that a (positive) pacer impacting the company demands faster action it will potentially cause a company to act with greater urgency to achieve the same pace, with cycles matching. However, if an adapting tempo or pace is absent from a company it will likely return to its initial state, and any urgency with which a pace was attempted will deteriorate. McGrath and Kelly (1986), for example, showed that groups maintained their initial pace even when subsequently given differing amounts of time to complete their task. A change in pace is possible the researchers note, but subsequent entrainment is ’not as
1Entrainment concerns the process by which synchronization occurs (Table 3.1) and for it to work properly there must be some sort of repetition to give one process or activity a chance to latch on to another. The ability to entrain to a new cycle is understood as a function of exposure to ‘zeitgebers’, that are new pacers or cues (see Table 3.1), to which a company must adapt – synchronizing their tempo, rhythm or pace to the new cycle.
112
automatic and easy as initial entrainment’.1 This means that, however urgent the need, things get harder to change as time goes by and behaviours become entrenched.