Content uploaded by Shi Tang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shi Tang on Feb 17, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE JOB ANNUAL REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
ISSUE
Subjective time in organizations: Conceptual clarification,
integration, and implications for future research
Shi Tang |Andreas W. Richter |Sucheta Nadkarni
†
Cambridge Judge Business School, University
of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Correspondence
Shi Tang, Cambridge Judge Business School,
University of Cambridge, The Old Schools,
Trinity Ln, Cambridge CB2 1TN, United
Kingdom.
Email: st637@cam.ac.uk
†
Shortly after completing her work on this
manuscript, Sucheta sadly passed away. We
would like to dedicate this paper to the
inspiration, enthusiasm, and dedication that
Sucheta has given to us, and to the research on
temporal phenomena in organizations more
broadly.
Summary
Despite the rapid growth of organizational research on subjective time, the extant lit-
erature is fragmented due to a lack of conceptual clarification and integration of tem-
poral constructs. To address this fragmentation, we synthesize temporal research
from both organizational behavior and adjacent disciplines (i.e., strategy, entrepre-
neurship, and organizational theory) and introduce a framework that allocates tempo-
ral constructs according to their basic conceptual nature (trait–state) and level of
analysis (individual–collective). We employed the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count
text analysis to determine the trait–state property of the constructs and a coding
method to determine their level of analysis. This framework categorizes four generic
types of subjective time: individual temporal disposition,individual temporal state,
collective temporal state, and collective temporal disposition. We clarify the conceptual-
izations of the temporal constructs belonging to each of the four archetypes of sub-
jective time and review their key findings in the organizational literature. Based on
this integrative framework, we identify critical knowledge gaps in the current state
of research and chart a future agenda with specific suggestions.
KEYWORDS
multilevel research, subjective time, temporal constructs, trait–state distinction
1|INTRODUCTION
Time plays a central role in organizational life (Bluedorn & Denhardt,
1988; Shipp & Cole, 2015). But it does not merely exist objectively
as clock time. It is also experienced by organizational actors
1
in subjec-
tive ways, as indicated by expressions such as “time flies!”or “we are
pressed for time!”Objective time (i.e., clock time) is linear (progressing
in a unidirectional way), homogeneous (the passage of each unit is the
same), and uniform (identical across individuals and situations); in
contrast, subjective time manifests in richer forms that are nonlinear,
heterogeneous, and multiform (Ancona et al., 2001; Shipp & Cole,
2015; Shipp & Fried, 2014).
Organizational actors' subjective experience of time varies accord-
ing to their innate traits, ingrained beliefs, and influences of external
situations or events (Bluedorn, 2002; McGrath & Kelly, 1986; Shipp
& Fried, 2014). Recent decades have seen a proliferation of organiza-
tional behavior (OB) research examining a variety of temporal con-
structs that capture how time is subjectively valued, understood,
used, or perceived in organizational contexts (Kooij, Kanfer, Betts, &
Rudolph, 2018; Shipp & Cole, 2015; Shipp, Edwards, & Lambert,
2009). Despite this notable growth in research on subjective time,
the literature remains somewhat fragmented and would benefit from
conceptual clarification and integration on at least two fronts.
First, conceptual ambiguity caused by “jingle–jangle”fallacies (Block,
1995) pervades in the conceptualizations of many temporal constructs.
Jingle fallacy occurs when the same label is used to describe different
phenomena. Take future orientation as an example—Das and Teng
1
Following Ancona, Okhuysen, and Perlow (2001), we use the term “organizational actor”to
refer to the organizational unit across multiple levels of analysis—from individuals, to teams,
to organizations.
Received: 14 November 2017 Revised: 17 September 2019 Accepted: 15 October 2019
DOI: 10.1002/job.2421
J Organ Behav. 2019;1–25. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job 1
(1998) used this term to denote the length of time horizon underlying
one's consideration of the future, whereas Balliet and Ferris (2013) used
the same term to capture one's attentional focus on the future time
frame. Moreover, in the same study, Balliet and Ferris (2013, p. 300)
conceptualized future orientation as both “individual differences in
future orientation”(measured on a Likert scale) and “future‐oriented
states”(induced in experiments). However, these two phenomena are
grounded in fundamentally distinct theoretical perspectives—the for-
mer characterizes a dispositional tendency (i.e., trait), whereas the latter
features a malleable, situation‐elicited state. These jingle fallacies can
lead to severe confusions about a construct's content equivalence, con-
ceptual property (trait vs. state), theoretical basis (dispositional vs. situ-
ational), and appropriate operationalization (psychometrics vs.
experimental manipulation) (Chen, Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen, 2000).
On the other hand, jangle fallacy occurs when different labels are
attached to substantively identical phenomena (Block, 1995). For
instance, the concept labels of future orientation (Das & Teng, 1998)
and (future) temporal depth (Bluedorn, 2002) similarly represent the
time horizon of an individual's consideration into the future. Yet, these
two distinct labels have triggered divergent research trajectories—
the former was mostly adopted by strategy and entrepreneurship
research on managerial decision‐making (e.g., Martin, Wiseman, &
Gomez‐Mejia, 2016); the latter was more frequently used by OB
researchers to study employee outcomes (e.g., Bluedorn & Martin,
2008). Such jangle fallacies have hindered knowledge integration
across temporal research.
Second, existing studies are fragmented with respect to levels of
analysis. OB research has placed a skewed emphasis on individual‐
level studies (Shipp & Cole, 2015). However, scholars contend that
subjective time is an omnipresent phenomenon occurring across mul-
tiple organizational levels, and increasing research has examined tem-
poral constructs at collective levels, especially in adjacent disciplines
(George & Jones, 2000; Mosakowski & Earley, 2000). For example,
polychronicity—the proclivity toward the degree of simultaneity in
performing multiple work tasks (Slocombe & Bluedorn, 1999)—has
been studied at the team level both in OB (team polychronicity diver-
sity; Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2014) and in strategy (top management
team (TMT) polychronicity; Souitaris & Maestro, 2010).
Furthermore, many studies examining collective temporal con-
structs did not explain the process of emergence from the individual
level to the higher level. Although both team polychronicity diversity
and TMT polychronicity reflect team‐level phenomena, they may theo-
retically emerge through different processes (dispersion vs. referent‐
shift consensus) from individual members' polychronicity and thus
require distinct operationalization approaches (Chan, 1998). Subjec-
tive time involves omnipresent phenomena occurring at multiple orga-
nizational levels, yet scattered temporal research at different levels
and the conceptual imprecision regarding the level and origin of (col-
lective) temporal constructs have severely limited our understanding
of subjective time as a multilevel phenomenon.
To address the fragmented state of research on subjective time,
our review offers an integrative framework that categorizes temporal
constructs based on two generic dimensions: (1) trait‐versus state‐like
property and (2) individual versus collective level of analysis. This, in
combination, yields four archetypes of subjective time: individual tem-
poral disposition, individual temporal state, collective temporal state,
and collective temporal disposition. We clarify the conceptualizations
of temporal constructs belonging to each archetype and review their
key findings in the organizational research.
Our review aims to contribute to the literature in three related
ways. First, we provide greater conceptual clarity, as well as facilitate
the integration of diverse and scattered studies on temporal
constructs. Second, the comparatively broad scope of this review
(incorporating studies at the individual and collective levels, from
OB as well as related disciplines) offers a more encompassing view
of organizational research on subjective time and thereby extends
and complements previously published reviews that have focused
exclusively on individual‐level temporal construct(s) (e.g., Kooij et al.,
2018; Shipp & Cole, 2015). Through the inclusion of both
individual‐and collective‐level studies, our ultimate goal is to encour-
age OB researchers to apply a “rich, complex, and meaty”multilevel
lens (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000) that bridges micro and macro under-
standings of subjective time. Third, we identify critical issues in the
extant literature and provide specific suggestions for future research
to address associated challenges. Overall, we seek to synthesize the
existing research in a systematic and informative manner, which high-
lights major knowledge gaps and charts rich and clear pathways to
move the field forward.
2|LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 |Scope of the review
We focused our review on subjective time in organizational contexts.
According to McGrath and Rotchford (1983, p. 61), subjective time
has two defining characteristics: (1) It features the subjective nature
of time that is “in the eye of the beholder”in contrast to objective
time, which is invariant to subjective interpretations; (2) it is consid-
ered a focal construct rather than a medium through which changes
occur
2
.
Because Bluedorn and Denhardt (1988)'s initial review of different
conceptions of time (e.g., objective and subjective) in the field of man-
agement, there has been a burgeoning interest in this topic among
organizational researchers (Shipp & Cole, 2015). Thus, we focused
on scholarly work published after 1988. Our review differs from
recent reviews and meta‐analyses (e.g., Kooij et al., 2018; Rudolph,
Kooij, Rauvola, & Zacher, 2018) with respect to our primary goal of
providing conceptual clarification and integration of various temporal
constructs across studies. The broader scope of this review allows us
to complement previously published reviews that predominantly
focused on trait‐like, individual‐level phenomena of subjective time
2
As studies on trajectories consider time as objective and the medium through which changes
occur, we did not include them in this review. We refer readers to other reviews on trajecto-
ries including Shipp and Cole (2015) for within‐individual changes and Bush, LePine, and
Newton (2018) for teams in transitions.
2TANG ET AL.
(Shipp et al., 2009; Shipp & Cole, 2015; Shipp & Fried, 2014). Specif-
ically, we also review studies on state‐like as well as collective‐level
phenomena. In addition to studies published in the OB field, we incor-
porate studies from adjacent disciplines such as strategy, entrepre-
neurship, and organizational theory. These studies have signified the
importance of subjective time at collective levels in organizational
contexts (e.g., TMTs; Souitaris & Maestro, 2010) and pointed to
collective‐level temporal constructs with relevance to OB (e.g., tempo-
ral aspects of organizational culture; Blount & Janicik, 2001). We
believe that these studies could provide important insights for OB
research regarding the prevalence and dynamics of subjective time
as multilevel organizational phenomena.
We conducted a systematic literature search following suggested
procedures for multilevel, multidisciplinary reviews (Aguinis & Glavas,
2012). First, we included 14 top‐tier journals in the organizational sci-
ences (Academy of Management Journal,Academy of Management
Review,Administrative Science Quarterly,Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice,Journal of Applied Psychology,Journal of Business Venturing,
Journal of Management,Journal of Management Studies,Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior,Management Science,Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes,Organization Science,Personnel Psychology,
and Strategic Management Journal), as well as the specialist journal
Time & Society. We accessed target journals via electronic databases
(EBSCO, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and Web of Science) and per-
formed searches using the terms “time,”“temporal,”and “temporality,”
in combinations with “subjective,”“experience,”“perception,”“orienta-
tion,”“characteristic,”“personality,”“style,”“congruity,”“state,”and
the phrase “time management.”Peer‐reviewed articles containing
one or more of these terms in titles, abstracts, or keywords were
included. Second, we identified additional sources by comparing our
results with those included in prior reviews on subjective time and also
by searching for the works of authors who have at least two articles in
our sample. Third, we included key book chapters. And finally, we
manually screened the reference lists of individual papers to ensure
we did not miss out on relevant studies. We then narrowed the
resulting pool of studies by applying the two defining criteria of sub-
jective time—time as subjective to organizational actors' interpreta-
tions or experiences and as a focal construct rather than a medium
through which changes occur (McGrath & Rotchford, 1983). Our liter-
ature search yielded 108 articles.
2.2 |An integrative framework
To provide conceptual clarification and enable the integration of tem-
poral constructs, we focused on the conceptualizations of focal tem-
poral constructs in the reviewed studies. We categorized these
constructs based on their trait‐/state‐like conceptual properties, as
well as their individual versus collective levels of analysis.
Psychologists have long regarded the trait–state distinction as
fundamental in describing human differences. This is because “these
two complementary schemas are part of the extensive theory of psy-
chological causality”—traits are stable, enduring, and internally caused,
whereas states are malleable, fleeting, and externally induced (Chap-
lin, John, & Goldberg, 1988, p. 541). Following this tradition, research
on trait‐like temporal constructs is rooted in dispositional perspec-
tives that focus on how innate and stable subjective time affects
organizational behaviors and performance (e.g., Chen & Nadkarni,
2017; Hecht & Allen, 2005). By contrast, research on state‐like con-
structs is often based on situational perspectives that emphasize the
situational determinants of subjective time as it is fleeting and mallea-
ble (e.g., Ebert & Prelec, 2007; Perlow, 1999). This trait–state prop-
erty of temporal constructs dictates the choice of appropriate
theoretical perspectives suitable to study subjective time phenomena.
Therefore, we regard it as a basic conceptual dimension for categoriz-
ing temporal constructs.
Accordingly, we intended to identify the trait‐/state‐like property
of each temporal construct. However, while reviewing the literature,
we noted that the trait–state property of temporal constructs has
not always been explicitly defined. More importantly, the trait–state
distinction may not be strictly categorical, but rather vary on a con-
tinuum (Tasselli, Kilduff, & Landis, 2018). For instance, researchers
broadly referred to future time perspective (FTP) as one's consider-
ation of the future, including the subdimensions of a trait‐like
“predominant (cognitive) orientation”and a state‐like “emotional
valence of future events”(Kooij et al., 2018, p. 3). Because FTP
contains both trait‐and state‐like components, it tends to be more
flexible than one's characteristic attention of temporal focus
(Shipp et al., 2009) but more stable than a temporary experience
of time pressure (Ross & Wieland, 1996). Psychologists have long
argued that “the (categorical trait–state) distinction is an arbitrary
one”(Allen & Potkay, 1981, p. 916), and organizational scholars have
increasingly advocated for a continuous view on such a distinction
(Tasselli et al., 2018). To alleviate the conceptual imprecision
and better integrate temporal constructs on the trait–state dimen-
sion, we conducted a systematic content analysis to determine the
degree of the trait–state property of each construct (see Section
2.3 below).
Furthermore, we sought to provide greater conceptual clarification
and integration of temporal research at different levels of analysis to
facilitate the development of theory‐driven, multilevel research in
the future. To define, justify, and explain the level of each focal con-
struct that constitutes the theoretical system is an essential element
in multilevel research (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). We thus identified
the level (individual vs. collective) of each temporal construct. The
level of a construct is its level of manifestation in a given theoretical
model—the known or predicted level of the phenomenon in question
(Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). At the individual level, temporal constructs
capture individual phenomena related to subjective time at work.
However, temporal constructs may also describe subjective temporal
phenomena at higher levels, for instance, whether “groups and organi-
zations share some temporal perceptions”(Ancona et al., 2001, p.
518). These collective experiences may also differ across groups and
organizations (George & Jones, 2000). It is therefore important to con-
sider temporal constructs at collective levels of analysis, such as dyads,
teams, departments, or organizations.
TANG ET AL.3
In combination, these two fundamental dimensions—(1) trait‐/
state‐like conceptual property and (2) individual–collective level of
analysis—categorize four generic types of subjective time: individual
temporal disposition, individual temporal state, collective temporal
state, and collective temporal disposition (Figure 1). We classified tem-
poral constructs across studies into these four archetypes based on
the following approaches.
2.3 |Methodology
We identified 29 temporal constructs from our sample. We extracted
the conceptualizations of each construct across studies and compiled
them to create one text file for each construct. Next, we conducted
content analyses to identify the construct's (1) trait‐/state‐like prop-
erty and (2) individual versus collective level of analysis.
In order to code each construct's trait‐/state‐like property, we
employed the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) text analysis
program (Pennebaker, Boyd, Jordan, & Blackburn, 2015). LIWC analyzes
text by calculating the percentage of words belonging to a certain cate-
gory (e.g., trait) to the total words of a text file (Pennebaker et al., 2015).
This required us to create a dictionary of trait‐like and state‐like
properties based on an established three‐stage procedure (see Appen-
dix A). The final dictionary contained a set of 42 words (e.g., “trait,”
“characteristic,”and “stable”) for trait and a set of 38 words for state
(e.g., “state,”“malleable,”and “fleeting”). We applied this dictionary to
analyze the text file of each construct, which generated the percentages
of its trait‐like and state‐like properties, respectively. We then derived
an index to reflect the degree of trait–state property: the difference
between the trait‐like and state‐like percentages divided by the sum
of the trait‐like and state‐like percentages (i.e., 1 = pure trait; −1 = pure
state; 0 = equally trait and state like). This resulted in 16 trait‐like con-
structs (0 < indices < 1) and 13 state‐like constructs (−1 < indices < 0).
With respect to levels of analysis, two raters (not authors of this
manuscript) independently coded each temporal construct according
to its individual versus collective level (1 = individual, 2 = collective;
initial ICC = .90). Coding inconsistencies were resolved by the raters,
which resulted in 15 individual‐level constructs and 14 collective‐level
temporal constructs.
Taken together, these analyses allowed us to allocate each temporal
construct to one of the four generic types of subjective time. As shown
in Figure 1, these constructs are located along the horizontal line based
on their trait–state index values. In the meantime, they are located
above and beyond the vertical line based on their individual versus
FIGURE 1 An integrative framework for temporal constructs in organizational research. We used a dashed line to denote the trait‐state
distinction of subjective time to acknowledge that it is not categorical but could vary along a continuum. The solid vertical line indicates the
categorical distinction between the individual and collective level of analysis. The temporal constructs are allocated along the horizontal line based
on their trait‐state index values, and allocated along the vertical line based on the number of studies examining this construct at the individual or
collective level. The first number in the bracket following each temporal construct represents its trait‐state index and the second number
represents the number of studies that have examined this construct
4TANG ET AL.
TABLE 1 Summary of organizational research on subjective time
Individual temporal dispositions
Constructs Representative definition Original concept Study Key findings
Consideration of future
consequences (CFC)
The extent to which
individuals base their
decisions on the immediate
versus future consequences
of their actions
Consideration of future
consequences
Strathman, Gleicher,
Boninger, & Edwards,
1994
Development of the construct of CFC and the measure of the CFC scale
Concern with future
consequences
Joireman, Kamdar, Daniels, &
Duell, 2006
In employees with high CFC, a short‐term time horizon led to a decline in
their organizational citizenship behaviors
Concern for the future
consequences
Balliet & Ferris, 2013 In employees with higher CFC, ostracism was more negatively related to
prosocial behavior
Consideration for future
consequences
Zhang, Wang, & Pearce,
2014
CFC was positively related to transformational leadership and in turn
leadership effectiveness, and this mediated relationship was more
positive in a more stable work environment
Individual polychronicity The extent to which
individuals prefer to be
involved with two or more
tasks or activities
simultaneously
Polychronicity Slocombe & Bluedorn, 1999 The congruence between individual and work‐unit polychronicity positively
predicted employee organizational commitment, work performance, and
perceived organizational justice
Polychronicity Bluedorn, 2002
b
Polychronicity was negatively related to the stress of dentists
Polychronicity Conte & Jacobs, 2003 Train operators' polychronicity was positively related to their absence,
lateness, and negatively related to their job performance
Polychronicity Conte & Gintoft, 2005 Sales employees' polychronicity positively predicted their job performance
including customer service, sales performance, and overall performance
Polychronicity Hecht & Allen, 2005 The fit between individual polychronicity and polychronic work
opportunities increased employee job satisfaction, self‐efficacy, and
decreased psychological strain
Polychronicity Bluedorn, 2007
b
Individual polychronicity was positively related orientation to change and
tolerance for ambiguity.
Polychronicity Lindquist & Kaufman‐
Scarborough, 2007
Development and validation of an updated measure of individual
polychronicity (Polychronic–Monochronic Tendency Scale [PMTS])
Polychronicity Agypt & Rubin, 2012 Polychronicity positively predicted employee job satisfaction when the job
was characterized by multitasking and multiskill requirements, irregular
deadlines, and schedule unpredictability
Pacing style
Subdimensions:
Early pacing
Deadline pacing
Steady pacing
Individuals' preferred pattern
of distributing their efforts
over time in working toward
deadlines
Pacing style Gevers, Claessens, Van
Eerde, & Rutte, 2009
b
Development of a graphic measure of individual pacing style
Pacing style Gevers, Mohammed, &
Baytalskaya, 2015
Development and validation of a scale measure of Pacing Action Categories
of Effort Distribution (PACED)
Pacing style Chen & Nadkarni, 2017 CEOs' deadline‐action pacing style negatively predicted their temporal
leadership behaviors; CEOs' early action and steady action positively
predicted temporal leadership
(Continues)
TANG ET AL.5
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Individual temporal dispositions
Constructs Representative definition Original concept Study Key findings
Synchrony preference Individuals' willingness to
adapt their pace and rhythm
within social interactions to
create synchrony with
others
Synchrony preference Leroy, Shipp, Blount, & Licht,
2015
Development of the construct of synchrony preference and measure of
Synchrony Preference Scale (SPS); synchrony preference increased
employees' flexible pacing behaviors, interpersonal facilitation,
contribution to team synchrony, and job dedication; synchrony
preference increased employees' contribution to team performance,
when task interdependence was high
Temporal depth
Subdimensions:
Past depth
Future depth
The temporal distances into
the past and future that
individuals typically
consider when
contemplating events that
have happened, may have
happened, or may happen
Future orientation Das & Teng, 1998
a
Individuals' near‐and distant‐future orientation, in tandem with risk‐
averting and seeking propensity, yielded four types of risk behaviors that
characterized different types of entrepreneurs and non‐entrepreneurs
Future orientation Das & Teng, 2001
a
Top managers' near‐and distant‐future orientations would predict different
strategic risk behaviors, depending on their risk propensity (averting or
seeking) and decision context (gain or loss)
Temporal myopia Miller, 2002 Managers' temporal myopia predicted the errors occurring in their
investment decisions on technology
Temporal depth Bluedorn, 2002
b
Development of the construct of temporal depth and a scale measure of
temporal depth index (TDI)
Temporal depth Bluedorn & Martin, 2008 Past and future temporal depths were positively correlated; Entrepreneurs'
future temporal depth was negatively related to life stress.
Short‐termism Marginson & McAulay, 2008 Managers' individual experience of role ambiguity and their work group
members' short‐termism were positively related to their short‐termism
Temporal distance Cojuharenco, Patient, &
Bashshur, 2011
Employees' future distance was positively related to their concerns about
interactional injustice
Temporal orientation Martin et al., 2016 Firm slack and CEOs' current wealth positively predicted CEOs' long‐term
orientation; CEOs' prospective wealth negatively predicted their long‐
term orientation
Temporal depth Nadkarni, Chen, & Chen,
2016
Executives' past and future temporal depths were differently related to the
organizations' competitive aggressiveness depending on the industry
velocity
Temporal orientation Lin, Shi, Prescott, & Yang,
2018
Top managers' long‐term orientation positively predicted strategic decision‐
making comprehensiveness, decision‐making speed, and decision‐making
creativity
Temporal focus
Subdimensions:
Past focus
Present focus
Future focus
The extent to which
individuals characteristically
devote their attention to
perceptions of the past,
present, and future
Time perspective Waller, Conte, Gibson, &
Carpenter, 2001
a
Individuals' future and present time perspectives, combined with time
urgency, yielded four temporal prototypes that would predict their
deadline perceptions and subsequent time‐oriented behaviors
Future focus Buehler & Griffin, 2003 Individuals' future focus led to an optimistic prediction bias about task
completion time
Future orientation Fried & Slowik, 2004
a
Individuals' future time orientation would influence their preferences for
challenging goals and prioritization of work‐and nonwork‐related goals
Temporal focus Foo, Uy, & Baron, 2009 Entrepreneurs' state positive affect positively predicted their state future
temporal focus, which increased their subsequent effort on venture tasks
beyond what was immediately required
(Continues)
6TANG ET AL.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Individual temporal dispositions
Constructs Representative definition Original concept Study Key findings
Temporal focus Shipp et al., 2009 Conceptualization of temporal focus construct and development of
Temporal Focus Scale (TFS) measure
Temporal focus Shipp & Jansen, 2011
a
Employee temporal focus would influence their perceptions of person–
environment fit
Temporal orientation Cojuharenco et al., 2011 Employee future focus positively predicted concerns about distributive
justice, and present focus positively predicted concerns about
interactional injustice
Future orientation Balliet & Ferris, 2013 For employees with higher future orientation, ostracism was more
negatively related to prosocial behavior
Temporal focus Nadkarni & Chen, 2014 CEOs' past, present, and future foci were differently related to their
organizations' rate of new product introduction (NPI) depending on the
environmental dynamism
Time perspective Saraiva & Iglesias, 2016 Present focus and future focus were positively related to individuals'
competitive behavior, but only when the individuals were under time
pressure
Time perspective Przepiorka, 2016 Entrepreneurs had higher future time perspective than non‐entrepreneurs;
entrepreneurs' future time perspective was positively correlated with
entrepreneurial success
Time bifurcation The ability of individuals to
view present and future
events with entirely
different mindsets
Time bifurcation Miller & Sardais, 2015
c
Entrepreneurs' ability to bifurcate time made them capable of embracing
paradoxical requirements for new venture development, including being
both optimistic and realistic and being both flexible and persistent
Time urgency Individuals constant concern
with the passage of time
and the general feeling of
being chronically hurried
Time urgency Landy, Rastegary, Thayer, &
Colvin, 1991
Development of the time urgency construct and its measure (Behaviorally
Anchored Rating Scales [BARS])
Time urgency Conte, Landy, & Mathieu,
1995
Established the convergent and discriminant validity of time urgency
Time urgency Conte, Mathieu, & Landy,
1998
Established the nomological and predictive validity of time urgency
Time urgency Waller et al., 2001
a
Individuals' time urgency, combined with time perspective, yielded four
temporal prototypes that would predict their deadline perceptions and
subsequent time‐oriented behaviors
Individual general hurriedness Jansen & Kristof‐Brown,
2005
The fit between individual and workgroup hurriedness positively predicted
employee job satisfaction and helping behavior
Chronic time pressure Szollos, 2009 Conceptualizations of chronic time pressure
Time urgency Chen & Nadkarni, 2017 CEO time urgency positively predicted temporal leadership behaviors and in
turn firm corporate entrepreneurship
(Continues)
TANG ET AL.7
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Individual temporal dispositions
Constructs Representative definition Original concept Study Key findings
Individual temporal states
Constructs Representative definition Original concept Study Key findings
Future time perspective
(FTP)
Subdimensions:
The general concern of an
individual for and
corresponding
consideration of one's
future
Future time perspective Bal, Jansen, van der Velde,
de Lange, & Rousseau,
2010
FTP positively predicted employees' developmental psychological contract
fulfillment; when employees had high FTP, their economic and
socioemotional psychological contract fulfillment related more positively
to employee obligations
Future time perspective Kooij & Van De Voorde,
2011
Losses in subjective general health negatively predicted open‐ended FTP
but positively predicted limited FTP; open‐ended FTP increased growth
motives, and limited FTP increased generativity motives; past open‐
ended FTP positively predicted future open‐ended FTP via increased
subjective general health
Future time perspective Baltes, Wynne, Sirabian,
Krenn, & de Lange, 2014
Older workers' FTP positively predicted their promotion focus, which in
turn positively predicted the use of selection, optimization, and
compensation coping behaviors at work
Future time perspective Korff, Biemann, & Voelpel,
2017
Organization's human resource management systems and motivation‐
enhancing practices were positively related to employees' FTP; employee
FTP positively predicted job satisfaction and affective organizational
commitment
Future time perspective Rudolph et al., 2018
d
Individual sociodemographic factors, personality, affective traits, and
agentic traits predicted FTP; FTP predicted individuals' achievement‐
related outcomes, well‐being, health behavior, risk‐related behavior, and
retirement planning‐related outcomes
Occupational FTP (OFTP) Individuals' perceptions of
their future in the
employment context
Occupational future time
perspective
Weikamp & Göritz, 2015 Individuals' OFTP decreased over time, and the decrease was faster among
younger people than among older people
Occupational future time
perspective
Rudolph et al., 2018
d
Individual characteristics (age, job tenure, organizational tenure, education,
and physical health), and job complexity and autonomy predicted OFTP;
OFTP predicted employee job attitudes, motivations, performance, and
well‐being
Perceived control of time
(PCT)
Individuals' sense of mastery
over how they allocate their
time
Perceived control of time Macan, 1994 Time management training and the preference for organization positively
predicted employees' PCT; employee PCT predicted higher job
satisfaction and fewer job‐induced tensions
Perceived control of time Claessens, Van Eerde, Rutte,
& Roe, 2004
Planning behavior and job autonomy increased, and workload decreased
employees' PCT; PCT reduced employees' work strain and increased job
satisfaction and performance
Perceived temporal flexibility Evans, Kunda, & Barley,
2004
c
Contractor workers perceived themselves to be free from organizations'
normative and coercive control over time, but the perceived temporal
flexibility rarely led them to schedule time in a more flexible way
(Continues)
8TANG ET AL.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Individual temporal dispositions
Constructs Representative definition Original concept Study Key findings
Time pressure
Subdimensions:
The extent to which
individuals feel that they
need to work at a pace
faster than usual or have
insufficient time to finish
their tasks at work
Time‐based pressure Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994 Managers' experienced time pressure positively correlated with the average
leader–member exchange quality with their subordinates but negatively
correlated with the variance in the leader–member exchange quality with
their subordinates
Time pressure Ross & Wieland, 1996 Time pressure inhibited managers' perception of common ground in
negotiations and in turn affected their choice of mediating strategies
(pressing, compensating, integrating, and inaction) in the negotiation
Time famine Perlow, 1999
c
Constant interruptions from workgroup members led to employees'
experience of time famine, which inhibited the individual employee's
productivity
Time pressure De Dreu, 2003 High time pressure led individuals to process information in a less
systematic way and rely more on cognitive heuristics when making
judgments in negotiations
Experience of time scarcity Kaufman‐Scarborough &
Lindquist, 2003
Individuals' experience of time scarcity predicted inefficient mental actions,
processes, and planning
Perceived time pressure Kobbeltvedt, Brun, & Laberg,
2005
Time pressure experienced by cadets led them to make less favorable
rescue‐operation plans, in terms of lower security, probability of success,
and quality
Time pressure Wu, Parker, & de Jong, 2014 T ime pressure was positively related to employees' innovation behavior;
when time pressure was high, employees' need for cognition was less
positively related to innovation behavior
Perceived time pressure Beck & Schmidt, 2013 Individuals' perceived time pressure positively predicted state mastery goal
orientation and negatively predicted state performance‐avoid goal
orientation and state performance‐prove goal orientation
Time pressure Saqib & Chan, 2015 Time pressure led individuals to be risk seeking over gains and risk averse
over losses
Time pressure Saraiva & Iglesias, 2016 Individuals' feeling of time pressure was positively related to their
competitive behavior
Time pressure Prem, Ohly, Kubicek, &
Korunka, 2017
Time pressure experienced by employees in the morning positively
predicted the day‐level challenge appraisal of the work situation and in
turn their learning at the end of the workday
Time pressure Stiglbauer, 2017 When job autonomy was high, time pressure increased work engagement
(WE) in employees with an external locus of control (LOC) but decreased
WE in employees with an internal LOC
Creative time pressure The extent to which
individuals feel they have
insufficient time to develop
creative ideas at work
Creative time pressure Baer & Oldham, 2006 Employees' experienced creative time pressure had an inverted‐U‐shaped
relation with their creativity, when employees received a high level of
support for creativity at work
Creative time pressure Sijbom, Anseel,
Crommelinck, De
Beuckelaer, & De
Stobbeleir, 2018
When creative time pressure was low, the relationship between feedback
source variety and employee creative performance increased
exponentially, such that employees exhibited greater creative
performance at higher levels of feedback source variety
(Continues)
TANG ET AL.9
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Individual temporal dispositions
Constructs Representative definition Original concept Study Key findings
Anticipated time pressure The time pressure individuals
anticipate on a future task
Anticipated time pressure Leroy & Glomb, 2018 When interrupted while performing a task, individuals' anticipated time
pressure upon resuming the interrupted task increased attention residue
(thoughts about the previous task while performing the new task) and in
turn decreased performance on the interrupting task
Time structure and
purpose (TSP)
The perception of one's use of
time to be structured and
purposive
Time structure and purpose Mudrack, 1999 Established the nomological validity of time structure and purpose
Temporal frame Individuals' construal of the
future regarding the
direction of its advent
Temporal frame Crilly, 2017 CEOs' ego‐moving frame (i.e., the person moves toward the future),
compared with a time‐moving frame (future moves toward the person),
was associated with a stronger focus on the short‐term investment
returns
Time sensitivity Individuals' attentional focus
on certain aspects of time
Time sensitivity Ebert & Prelec, 2007 Various experimental manipulations (e.g., a visual cue for time intervals to
future time) increased individuals' time sensitivity; time pressure
manipulation decreased time sensitivity; time sensitivity reduced the
discounting of reward in the near future and increased the discounting of
reward in the far future
Timelessness Individuals' experience of
transcending time
Timelessness Mainemelis, 2001
a
Various personal (e.g., intrinsic motivation), task (e.g., immediate feedback),
and work environment (e.g., autonomy) factors would predict the
experience of timelessness at work; timelessness would increase
employee creativity at work
Collective temporal states
Constructs Representative definition Original concept Study Key findings
(Collective) time pressure Team members' perception of
the scarcity of time
available to complete tasks
Perceived time pressure Maruping, Venkatesh,
Thatcher, & Patel, 2015
Teams' perceived time pressure had an inverted‐U relationship, with an
overall negative trend, with team transition, action, and interpersonal
process, and this relationship was attenuated by strong team temporal
leadership
Shared temporal
cognition (STC)
Team members' shared
understanding of the time‐
related aspects of executing
collective tasks
Shared cognition on time Gevers, Rutte, & van Eerde,
2004
a,b
Group communication processes (e.g., goal setting) would predict team
shared cognitions on time; team shared cognition on time would be
associated with the team's coordinated action
Shared temporal cognition Gevers, Rutte, & van Eerde,
2006
The similarity in individual pacing styles and the exchange of temporal
reminder increased teams' shared temporal cognitions; shared temporal
cognition inhibited deadline meeting when the team had an averaged
deadline pacing style but promoted deadline meeting when the team had
an averaged early‐action pacing style
(Continues)
10 TANG ET AL.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Individual temporal dispositions
Constructs Representative definition Original concept Study Key findings
Temporal consensus Gevers & Peeters, 2009 Members' dissimilarity in conscientiousness negatively predicted the team's
temporal consensus; team temporal consensus positively predicted
member satisfaction partially via coordinated action
Shared temporal cognition Mohammed & Nadkarni,
2014
Team shared temporal cognition positively predicted team performance;
when shared temporal cognition was low, team polychronicity diversity
negatively predicted team performance
Temporal consensus Gevers, Rispens, & Li, 2016 Team members' pacing style diversity negatively predicted the team's
temporal consensus; temporal consensus positively predicted team
collaboration
Temporal coordination The team processes of
adjusting temporal aspects
of workflows such as to
schedule deadlines,
coordinate paces of effort,
and specify time allocation
Temporal coordination McGrath, 1991
a
Workgroups would encounter three general temporal problems (temporal
ambiguity; conflicting temporal interests and requirements; and scarcity
of temporal resources) that require their temporal coordination
Temporal coordination Montoya‐Weiss, Massey, &
Song, 2001
Temporal coordination weakened the negative effect of avoidance conflict
management behavior but strengthened the negative effect of
compromise conflict management behavior on the performance of global
virtual teams
Temporal reflexivity The extent to which
organizational actors
question, articulate, and
rethink the temporal
assumptions anchoring the
organizational practices
Temporal reflexivity Orlikowski & Yates, 2002
a
Temporal reflexivity facilitated organizational actors producing and
reproducing various temporal structures to guide, orient, and coordinate
their ongoing activities, which in turn shaped the temporal rhythm and
form of their daily practices
Temporal reflexivity Reinecke & Ansari, 2015
c
Temporal reflexivity helped to reconstruct the organization's model to
bridge the competing temporal structures of market‐based model (i.e.,
linear, clock‐oriented time) and development‐based model (i.e., nonlinear,
process‐oriented model)
Temporal shifts The changes in a collective's
experiences of time such as
the sense of time pressure
Temporal shifts Staudenmayer, Tyre, &
Perlow, 2002
c
Unusual organizational events triggered temporal shifts; temporal shifts
facilitated organizational change by creating a trigger of change,
providing resources needed for change, acting as a coordinating
mechanism, and serving as a credible symbol of the need to change
Time consciousness The extent to which group
members pay attention to
time such as the total time
limit of and the time left for
the group task
Awareness of time and
deadlines
Gersick, 1988
c
The midpoint of project calendars increased teams' awareness of time and
deadlines, which changed the team's task‐pacing behavior toward
deadline
Attention to time Gersick, 1989 The midpoint of allotted time for creative projects increased teams'
attention to time, which in turn changed the team's pacing patterns
Time mentions Lim & Murnighan, 1994 During a dyad‐level negotiation task, negotiators' explicit mentions of time
were more frequent in the second half than in the first half of negotiation
time
Attention to time Waller, Zellmer‐Bruhn, &
Giambatista, 2002
Groups steadily increased attention to time as the task deadlines
approached; changes in deadlines increased groups' attention to time
(Continues)
TANG ET AL.11
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Individual temporal dispositions
Constructs Representative definition Original concept Study Key findings
Time awareness Chang, Bordia, & Duck, 2003 Time awareness of project groups increased in both a linear and a nonlinear
pattern (i.e., a significant increase after the midpoint of allotted task
deadline) as the deadline approached
Time consciousness Labianca, Moon, & Watt,
2005
Atypical starting times increased task groups' time consciousness compared
with prototypical starting times
Collective temporal dispositions
Constructs Representative definition Original concept Study Key findings
Team polychronicity The extent to which group
members collectively prefer
to be engaged in multiple
tasks simultaneously
Team polychronicity Kaplan, 2008
a,b
Various individual factors (e.g., individual polychronicity and time urgency
of team members) and organizational formalization would influence team
polychronicity; team polychronicity would affect team effectiveness
depending on task and contextual factors (e.g., time constraints)
(Top management) team
polychronicity
Souitaris & Maestro, 2010 Top management team (TMT) polychronicity increased strategic decision
speed and in turn the organization's financial performance; TMT
polychronicity decreased strategic decision comprehensiveness and in
turn the organization's financial performance; overall, TMT polychronicity
positively predicted the organization's financial performance
Team temporal diversity
Subdimensions:
The variation in team
members' time‐based
individual characteristics
Temporal diversity Mohammed & Harrison,
2013
a
Team diversity of temporal differences would interact with team task types
and task complexity to predict team performance
Chronotype diversity The diversity in members'
biological dispositions
toward the optimal timing
of daily periods of activity
and rest
Chronotype diversity Volk, Pearsall, Christian, &
Becker, 2017
a
Chronotype diversity would inhibit team coordination, information
processing, and backing up behaviors, but these effects would become
positive when teams have high chronotype recognition; chronotype
diversity would increase relationship conflict and reduce team cohesion
via the formation of chronotype subgroups
Pacing style diversity The diversity in members'
pacing styles
Pacing style diversity Mohammed & Nadkarni,
2011
Pacing style diversity was more positively related to team performance
when team temporal leadership was stronger
Pacing style diversity Gevers et al., 2016 Pacing style diversity increased team collaboration when both team action
planning and temporal familiarity were high, but it decreased
collaboration when either action planning or temporal familiarity was low
Polychronicity diversity The diversity in members'
polychronicity
Polychronicity diversity Mohammed & Nadkarni,
2014
Polychronicity diversity negatively predicted team performance, when team
shared temporal cognition (STC) was low or when temporal transactive
memory system (TMS) was high
Temporal focus diversity The diversity in members'
temporal focus
Heterogeneity of time
orientations
West & Meyer, 1998 Heterogeneity of future time orientations in TMTs was positively related to
changes in the strategic intensity of new ventures
Time perspective
heterogeneity
Gibson, Waller, Carpenter, &
Conte, 2007
a
Team national cultural diversity would increase, whereas firm global
integration and environmental volatility would decrease, time perspective
diversity in multinational organization (MNO) teams; time perspective
diversity would increase their innovativeness of knowledge creation but
decreased the speed of knowledge creation and transfer
(Continues)
12 TANG ET AL.
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Individual temporal dispositions
Constructs Representative definition Original concept Study Key findings
Time perspective diversity Mohammed & Nadkarni,
2011
Future time perspective diversity was not related to team performance, nor
did it interact with team temporal leadership to predict team
performance
Time urgency diversity The diversity in members' time
urgency
Time urgency diversity Mohammed & Angell, 2004 T ime urgency diversity was less positively related to team relationship
conflict when team processes including leadership, coordination, and
communication were more frequent
Time urgency diversity Mohammed & Nadkarni,
2011
Time urgency diversity was more positively related to team performance
when team temporal leadership was stronger
Team temporal focus The aggregated temporal
focus of team members
(TMT) future time orientation West & Meyer, 1998 Greater average future time orientations in TMT members positively
predicted changes in the strategic direction of the organization
Team time urgency The aggregated time urgency
of members within a team
Aggregate group hurriedness Jansen & Kristof‐Brown,
2005
When individual and workgroup hurriedness were congruent, employees'
psychological strain increased with increasing hurriedness; employees
were less strained in groups when the aggregate group hurriedness was
lower than the individual hurriedness
Temporal schemata Teams' shared cognitive
frameworks that give form
and meaning to experience
about time and deadline
Temporal schemata Labianca et al., 2005 Task starting time aligning with team temporal schemata decreased the
team's errors in calculating the remaining time relative to deadline and
promoted the team's time consciousness, earlier transition from planning
phase to action phase, and team performance
Temporal transactive
memory systems (TMS)
The set of unique knowledge
domains held by specific
members combined with a
shared understanding of
who knows what and when
that knowledge is needed
Temporal transactive memory
systems
Mohammed & Nadkarni,
2014
Temporal TMS amplified the negative effects of team polychronicity
diversity on team performance, in a way that when temporal TMS was
high, polychronicity diversity was negatively related to team performance
Temporal familiarity Gevers et al., 2016 When teams' temporal familiarity and action planning were high, team
pacing style diversity was positively related to team collaboration
(Organizational) temporal
capability
An organization's ability to
attend to multiple
conceptions of time and
effectively sequence, pace,
and combine planned
change processes
Temporal capability Huy, 2001
a
An organization's temporal capability would facilitate the enactment of
planned large‐scale organizational change that involves a significant
alteration of many organizational elements, such as formal structures,
work systems, beliefs, and social relationship
Organizational temporal
culture
Subdimensions:
An organization's cultural
norms, beliefs, and values
regarding how time is to be
perceived and understood
within the organization
Sociotemporal norms Blount & Janicik, 2001
a
Temporal norms embedded in an organization's culture would influence the
organizational actors' perceptions and construal of the organization's
temporal structure such as schedules, rhythms, and routines
Shared beliefs about
temporality
Granqvist & Gustafsson,
2016
c
Organizational actors' temporal institutional work (i.e., how they construct,
navigate, and capitalize on timing norms in their attempts to change
institutions) created shared beliefs of temporality
(Continues)
TANG ET AL.13
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Individual temporal dispositions
Constructs Representative definition Original concept Study Key findings
Emphasis on quality over
speed
The degree to which the
organizational culture
emphasizing the importance
of quality (over) speed of
work
Time orientation emphasizing
quality over speed
Moyle, 1995 An organization's temporal culture emphasizing quality over speed was
positively related to the employees' well‐being and job satisfaction
Organization's emphasis on
speed
Perlow, Okhuysen, &
Repenning, 2002
c
The organization's emphasis on speed created a “speed trap”where
organizational actors believed they had to make ever faster decisions to
survive
Polychronicity The degree to which the
organizational culture
prefers polychronicity
Organizational culture of
polychronic values
Bluedorn, Kalliath, Strube, &
Martin, 1999
The development of the measure of polychronicity as a dimension of
organizational culture (Inventory of Polychronic Values; IPV)
Temporal depth The degree to which the
organizational culture
focuses on short and long
temporal horizon
Short‐term versus long‐term
orientations
Das & Teng, 2000
a
The conflict between organizations' short‐term and long‐term orientations
would be negatively associated with the stability of the organization's
strategic alliances
Organizational culture of long‐
versus short‐term
orientation
Zahra, Hayton, & Salvato,
2004
An organizational culture toward a long‐term orientation positively
predicted the firm's entrepreneurship, whereas a short‐term orientation
negatively predicted entrepreneurship, and these relationships were
stronger in family firms than in nonfamily firms
Long‐term orientation Lumpkin & Brigham, 2011
a
The conceptualization and construct development of long‐term orientation
in family firms
Temporal orientation Souder & Bromiley, 2012 Firm performance above managerial aspirations and executives' long‐term
orientation increased the time horizon of the organization's temporal
orientation
Temporal orientation Wang & Bansal, 2012 Organizations' long‐term orientation positively predicted its financial
performance; in organizations with a long‐term orientation, corporate
social responsibility (CSR) activities increased firm financial performance,
whereas in organizations with a short‐term orientation, CSR activities
decreased financial performance
Temporal myopia Vuori & Huy, 2016
c
An organization's top managers' externally focused fear and middle
managers' internally focused fear led to the organization's temporal
myopia
Long‐term orientation Flammer & Bansal, 2017 The adoption of executives' long‐term incentives increased the
organizations' long‐term orientation; organizational long‐term orientation
positively predicted firm value, operating performance, and investment in
long‐term strategies
(Continues)
14 TANG ET AL.
collective level categorical distinction. We then allocated the individual‐
level and collective‐level constructs, respectively, along the vertical line
based on the number of studies examining each construct, which
approximately reflects the frequency of research on this phenomenon
at the individual versus collective levels. Table 1 summarized the tempo-
ral constructs and the key findings in each study.
3|A TYPOLOGY OF TEMPORAL
CONSTRUCTS AND RELATED RESEARCH
In this section, we introduce the four archetypes of subjective time
(individual temporal disposition, individual temporal state, collective
temporal state, and collective temporal disposition). We review and
illustrate the conceptualizations of the specific temporal constructs
belonging to each of these four archetypes, based on how frequently
the constructs have been studied and how much they reflect similar
temporal phenomena.
3.1 |Individual temporal disposition
The temporal constructs in quadrant I (Figure 1) represent varied
forms of individual‐level, trait‐like subjective time in organizations,
which capture relatively consistent and enduring ways of thinking
about or using time. These constructs are relatively stable across
time and situations. Scholars have used the term “temporal personal-
ity”to describe such forms of subjective time, which are “like finger-
prints,”unique to each individual (Ancona et al., 2001; Chen &
Nadkarni, 2017). Thus, we generally refer to this type of subjective
time as individual temporal disposition. It denotes the characteristic
ways in which individuals subjectively use, understand, value, or
think about time.
Temporal focus and temporal depth reflect relatively stable cognitive
dispositions (i.e., how individuals think about time) in relation to the
past, present, and future, but they capture orthogonal temporal fea-
tures—the former emphasizes the direction of a temporal frame,
whereas the latter highlights its length (Shipp et al., 2009). Although
either construct has been studied frequently, the aforementioned
jingle–jangle fallacies are prevalent in this research. As shown in
Table 1, the same label of “(future) temporal orientation”was used
to describe both temporal focus (e.g., Cojuharenco et al., 2011; Fried
& Slowik, 2004) and temporal depth (e.g., Das & Teng, 1998, 2001;
Lin et al., 2018)—the jingle fallacy. In the meantime, different labels
such as “time perspective”(e.g., Przepiorka, 2016; Waller et al.,
2001) were used to describe temporal focus;“temporal distance”
(Cojuharenco et al., 2011), “short‐termism”(Marginson & McAulay,
2008), and “temporal myopia”(Miller, 2002) were employed to refer
to temporal depth—the jangle fallacy. To alleviate those jingle–jangle
fallacies, we adopted Shipp et al. (2009) and Bluedorn (2002)'s con-
ceptualizations to clarify the definitions of these two constructs (see
Table 1). Specifically, temporal focus represents the extent to which
individuals characteristically devote attention to the past, present,
and future, and these three temporal foci are independent dimensions
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Individual temporal dispositions
Constructs Representative definition Original concept Study Key findings
Temporal focus The degree to which the
organizational culture
focuses on the past,
present, and future
(Organizational) time
orientation
Moyle, 1995 The organizational culture emphasizing a strong future orientation was
positively associated with the employees' well‐being and job satisfaction
Organizational time
orientations
Ofori‐Dankwa & Julian,
2001
a
Different organizational time orientations would be differently related to
the organization's internal processes as well as the response to and
enactment of its environment
Organizational culture of time
orientation
Fried & Slowik, 2004
a
Employees in a strong futuristic organizational culture would be more
inclined to be involved in nonchallenge tasks as transitory learning
experiences for future challenging tasks
Notes:
a
theoretical papers;
b
book chapters;
c
qualitative study;
d
review or meta‐analysis
TANG ET AL.15
rather than a single dimension lying along a continuum (Shipp et al.,
2009). Temporal depth refers to the distance into the past and the
future from the present that people consider when contemplating
events (Bluedorn, 2002). Individuals' past and future temporal depths
were shown to be positively correlated (Bluedorn, 2002; Bluedorn &
Martin, 2008).
As Figure 1 presents, time urgency and individual polychronicity
reflect relatively strong individual dispositions concerning the use of
time. Time urgency captures how fast individuals generally experience
the passage of time, and those with high time urgency tend to feel and
behave chronically hurried across situations (Conte et al., 1995; Landy
et al., 1991). Individual polychronicity denotes individuals' proclivity
toward the degree of simultaneity in conducting multiple work tasks
(Slocombe & Bluedorn, 1999). Our review shows that researchers
have used relatively consistent construct labels and conceptualizations
to examine time urgency and individual polychronicity (e.g., Agypt &
Rubin, 2012; Hecht & Allen, 2005; Waller et al., 2001).
Similarly, existing research has been largely consistent in studying
the temporal constructs of consideration of future consequences (CFC)
and pacing style yet regarded them as less trait‐like than time urgency
and individual polychronicity (Figure 1). CFC represents the extent to
which individuals think about the future consequences of their current
behavior (Strathman et al., 1994). Although CFC involves a future
focus, it emphasizes the “intrapersonal struggle”between the present
and future and thus one's tendency to resolve this dilemma in favor of
one of the other (Joireman et al., 2006; Strathman et al., 1994). Pacing
style describes a person's preferred pattern of allocating efforts in
working toward deadlines—whether the most time is spent at the
beginning (early pacing), at the end (deadline pacing), or whether time
is spent evenly (steady pacing) (Gevers et al., 2009). Scholars have
considered pacing style as less than a “stable part of a person's person-
ality”but “more stable than transitory states”(Gevers et al., 2006;
Gevers et al., 2015, p. 503).
More recently, researchers have developed new constructs to
capture other aspects of individual temporal disposition. Leroy et al.
(2015, p. 761) used synchrony preference to describe the willingness to
adapt one's pace and rhythm to synchronize with others and defined
it as “a stable individual difference.”Time bifurcation denotes the indi-
vidual ability to consider present and future events with entirely
different mindsets (Miller & Sardais, 2015). Similar to the nature of cog-
nitive ability, time bifurcation tends to capture a relatively trait‐like
characteristic of individuals (Chen et al., 2000; Miller & Sardais, 2015).
In sum, as shown in Table 1, OB research has made significant
progress in developing and validating a variety of individual temporal
dispositional constructs, with emerging research continuing to explore
new dispositions.
3.2 |Individual temporal state
In contrast to temporal dispositions that represent relatively stable
and enduring individual characteristics, some other forms of subjective
time are more fleeting and malleable to situational influences (Ancona
et al., 2001). We refer to such state‐like, individual‐level temporal con-
structs in quadrant II (Figure 1) as “individual temporal states.”In gen-
eral, individual temporal states reflect how individuals temporarily
perceive and acquire their senses about time through situated experi-
ences (Blount & Leroy, 2007). Grounded in a situational perspective,
studies have largely shown how organizational environments act as
situational determinants to shape individual temporal states
(Table 1).
Our review suggested that time pressure is one of the most widely
studied individual temporal states (Figure 1). Although there are other
labels including “perceived time pressure”(Beck & Schmidt, 2013),
“time famine”(Perlow, 1999), and “experience of time scarcity”
(Kaufman‐Scarborough & Lindquist, 2003), the phenomenon of time
pressure generally refers to the extent to which individuals feel they
have insufficient time to finish work (Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994;
Stiglbauer, 2017; Wu et al., 2014). Notably, the subjective, perceptual
nature of time pressure makes it distinct from “time constraint”as an
externally imposed, objective limit of time, which often serves as an
antecedent of employees' time pressure at work (Ross & Wieland,
1996; Saqib & Chan, 2015). Moreover, researchers have examined
time pressure concerning the specific task of creativity—creative time
pressure (e.g., Baer & Oldham, 2006). Recently, Leroy and Glomb
(2018) proposed anticipated time pressure to describe one's perceived
time pressure anticipated for a future task. Our review indicated that
time pressure is a highly state‐like construct, with research showing
that it is often shaped by situational factors such as interruptions at
work and susceptible to experimental manipulations (e.g., De Dreu,
2003; Perlow, 1999).
Another frequently studied individual temporal state is FTP,
defined as “a general concern for and corresponding consideration of
one's future,”which “can be conceptualized both as a trait and as a
state”(Kooij et al., 2018, p. 3). Specifically, some scholars have consid-
ered it a “flexible, cognitive–motivational”state (Bal et al., 2010; Korff
et al., 2017). Yet, other research referred to FTP as an individual differ-
ence and showed that the construct has a certain degree of stability
over time (Kooij et al., 2018; Weikamp & Göritz, 2015). In a recent
meta‐analysis, Kooij et al. (2018) integrated prior conceptualizations
of FTP and decoupled its dimensionalities into different trait‐like and
state‐like subdimensions. As a specific aspect of FTP, the occupational
FTP focuses on employees' consideration of the future in the employ-
ment context (Rudolph et al., 2018).
Furthermore, there is a notable paucity of research examining
employees' perceived control of time (PCT), the sense of mastery over
how one allocates one's time (Macan, 1994), and time structure and
purpose (TSP), the degree to which individuals perceive their use of
time to be structured and purposive (Mudrack, 1999). These two con-
structs are commonly related to how employees perceive their use of
time in the workplace. Research has shown that they are shaped by
organizational procedures and task characteristics such as job auton-
omy, therefore reflecting malleable states that are subject to environ-
mental influences (Claessens et al., 2004; Evans et al., 2004).
Finally, emerging research has investigated several other forms of
state‐like subjective time. Time sensitivity captures individuals'
16 TANG ET AL.
temporary attention to certain aspects of time, such as duration, time
intervals, and timing (Ebert & Prelec, 2007). The authors conceptual-
ized time sensitivity as a cognitive state “enabled by sufficient motiva-
tion, time, and cognitive resources”and demonstrated that individuals'
time sensitivity is susceptible to attention manipulations (Ebert &
Prelec, 2007, p. 1424). In contrast to the attention to time, timeless-
ness was proposed to describe the experience of transcending time
and defined as a “motivated state”capturing the momentary loss of
sense of time because of employees' total involvement in the task at
hand (Mainemelis, 2001). Last, temporal frame represents one's con-
strual of the future in relation to the direction of its advent—whether
the person is moving toward the future (ego‐moving frame) or the
future is moving toward the person (time‐moving frame) (Crilly,
2017). Based on a cognitive‐linguistic lens, Crilly (2017) argued that
temporal frame reflects how individuals make sense of time regarding
how time is perceived spatially, which is distinct from the stable indi-
vidual characteristics of temporal focus.
Overall, studies on individual temporal state have heavily centered
on the constructs of time pressure and FTP (Table 1). Yet, researchers
have uncovered other meaningful individual temporal state phenom-
ena at work (e.g., perceived control of time, time sensitivity, and time-
lessness), which call for more scholarly attention in the future.
3.3 |Collective temporal state
The temporal constructs located in quadrant III of Figure 1 represent
the state‐like subjective time of a collective unit. We refer to these
constructs as “collective temporal state.”Similar to individual temporal
states, they are flexible over time and malleable to situational influ-
ences (George & Jones, 2000). Collective temporal states involve
shared perceptions as well as interactive processes of a higher level
unit with regard to the subjective experiences of time (Ancona et al.,
2001; McGrath, 1991).
The constructs of time consciousness,shared temporal cognition
(STC), (collective) time pressure, and temporal shifts generally capture
shared temporal perceptions. Time consciousness denotes the extent
to which group members collectively pay attention to time, such as
the total time limit and the remaining time of group tasks (Labianca
et al., 2005). Although scholars have used other labels including “atten-
tion to time”(Gersick, 1989; Waller et al., 2002) and “time awareness”
(Chang et al., 2003), we adopted Labianca et al. (2005)'s clearly defined
construct of “time consciousness”to describe this phenomenon.
Research has generally shown that groups differ in the attention they
pay to time as they progress through the timeline of group tasks or pro-
jects, and thus time consciousness largely represents a flexible and mal-
leable state (Chang et al., 2003; Gersick, 1988; Lim & Murnighan, 1994).
STC captures team members' shared understanding of the tempo-
ral aspects of executing team tasks (Gevers et al., 2006; Mohammed
& Nadkarni, 2014), which has been attached with other labels, such
as “temporal consensus”(e.g., Gevers & Peeters, 2009) and “shared
cognition on time”(Gevers et al., 2004). As shown in Figure 1, STC
reflects a relatively state‐like collective temporal state, with research
demonstrating that it is shaped by the diversities of members' pacing
style and the personality trait of conscientiousness (Gevers et al.,
2009; Gevers et al., 2016).
Comparatively, (collective) time pressure and temporal shifts have
drawn much less scholarly attention. Only a recent study has evi-
denced that teams collectively experience (collective) time pressure at
work—members' shared perception of the scarcity of time available
to complete team tasks (Maruping et al., 2015). Using an inductive
approach, Staudenmayer et al. (2002, p. 583) focused on the changing
experiences of collective temporal perceptions triggered by unusual
organizational events such as production shutdown; accordingly, the
authors proposed the construct of temporal shifts to emphasize
“changes in a collective's experience of time,”including the percep-
tions of time pressure, time horizons, sense of competing time
demands, and sense of control over time.
Furthermore, our review suggests that—although conceptualized as
less state‐like than shared temporal perceptions—the interactive
processes of a collective in relation to subjective time experiences
and perceptions also reflect collective temporal states (Figure 1). The
constructs of temporal coordination and temporal reflexivity capture such
interactive processes. At the team level, temporal coordination describes
how members collectively adjust the temporal aspects of workflows by
scheduling deadlines, coordinating paces, and specifying time alloca-
tions in team tasks (McGrath, 1991; Montoya‐Weiss et al., 2001). At
the organizational level, temporal reflexivity captures the collective pro-
cess of organizational actors questioning, articulating, and rethinking
the temporal assumptions anchoring organizational practices (Reinecke
& Ansari, 2015). Research indicates that temporal reflexivity can be
triggered by conflicts between an organization's market‐and process‐
based models or shaped by the organization's daily ongoing practices
(Orlikowski & Yates, 2002; Reinecke & Ansari, 2015).
Overall, despite the growth of research on collective temporal
states, some constructs have only been considered by theoretical or
qualitative works (e.g., temporal shifts and temporal reflexivity). Future
OB studies may offer more quantitative evidence to promote the
validity and generalizability of these temporal constructs.
3.4 |Collective temporal disposition
We use “collective temporal disposition”to describe the trait‐like,
collective‐level temporal constructs located in quadrant IV (Figure 1).
Collective temporal dispositions represent a collective unit's subjective
beliefs, values, or capabilities about time, which are relatively stable
and immune to situational changes, thus representing specific tempo-
ral characteristics of the collective unit. They reflect both the compo-
sitions of the unit members' individual temporal dispositions and the
unique, enduring temporal characteristics of the collective unit as a
whole (Mohammed & Harrison, 2013; Schriber & Gutek, 1987).
At the team level, the most widely studied construct of collective
temporal disposition is team temporal diversity—the variance in team
members' individual temporal dispositions including time urgency
(e.g., Mohammed & Angell, 2004), polychronicity (Mohammed &
TANG ET AL.17
Nadkarni, 2014), pacing style (e.g., Gevers et al., 2016), temporal focus
(Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011), and chronotype (i.e., biological predis-
positions toward the optimal timing of daily periods of activity and
rest; Volk et al., 2017). Because these forms of team temporal diver-
sity generally denote “persistent differences in how members think
about and value time”(Mohammed & Harrison, 2013, p. 244), they
reflect a team's stable temporal characteristics.
Some other studies have focused on the shared or average tempo-
ral dispositions of teams. Based on a cultural perspective, Souitaris and
Maestro (2010) conceptualized TMT polychronicity—members' mutual
preference for engaging in multiple tasks simultaneously—as “a
cultural dimension”that is specific and persistent to the TMT. Other
researchers have used the mean level of team members' time urgency
(Jansen & Kristof‐Brown, 2005) and temporal focus (West & Meyer,
1998) to capture overall team time urgency and team temporal focus.
Because time urgency and temporal focus reflect individual temporal
dispositions (Conte et al., 1995; Shipp et al., 2009), the team averages
of time urgency and temporal focus tend to indicate relatively trait‐like
features of the team. However, the trait‐state property of these two
constructs has not been clearly articulated by prior research.
A small number of studies has examined other temporal constructs
reflecting collective temporal dispositions. Temporal transactive mem-
ory system—the set of unique knowledge held by members combined
with a shared understanding of who knows what and when the knowl-
edge is needed—subsumes three facets: knowledge specialization
within the team, ability of members to efficiently work together, and
trust in each other's knowledge (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2014).
Whereas the first two facets reflect relatively stable team features,
the third facet (trust) seems to be more state like. As a whole, temporal
transactive memory system tends to be trait like but not as stable as
those directly composed by individual temporal dispositions (e.g., tem-
poral diversity; Figure 1). The other promising but poorly studied con-
struct is the temporal schemata of teams, referring to a team's
generalized cognitive framework that gives form and meaning to
members' experiences of time (Labianca et al., 2005). Scholars have
argued that “schemata have a tendency to endure,”and when a team
comes into existence, it establishes a temporal schema that differenti-
ates its members' understanding and experience of time from that of
others (Balogun & Johnson, 2004, p. 525; Labianca et al., 2005). Thus,
temporal schemata capture a trait‐like characteristic of the team.
At the organizational level, organizational temporal culture—an
organization's values and norms regarding how time is perceived and
understood within the organization (also labeled as “sociotemporal
norms,”Blount & Janicik, 2001; “shared beliefs about temporality,”
Granqvist & Gustafsson, 2016)—has been widely studied, especially
in areas of strategy and organizational theory (Table 1). Specifically,
scholars have examined different facets of organizational temporal
culture including emphasis on quality over speed (e.g., Moyle, 1995),
polychronicity (Bluedorn et al., 1999), temporal depth (e.g., Zahra
et al., 2004), and temporal focus (e.g., Fried & Slowik, 2004). Because
organizational culture is considered “an organizational trait”that
reflects the deeply rooted beliefs and values specific to the organiza-
tion (Denison, 1996), organizational temporal culture represents a
collective temporal disposition (Figure 1). Finally, Huy (2001) proposed
the construct of temporal capability to describe an organization's abil-
ity to attend to multiple conceptions of time (e.g., sequencing, timing,
and pacing). Similar to the cognitive and behavioral abilities of individ-
uals (Chen et al., 2000), temporal capability, to some degree, captures
the collective temporal disposition of organizations (Figure 1).
In sum, organizational scholars across different areas (OB, strategy,
entrepreneurship, and organizational theory) have studied collective
temporal dispositions, but OB research has mostly focused on team
temporal diversity. Future OB research may borrow insights from those
adjacent areas to better and more completely understand other aspects
of temporal phenomena related to collective temporal dispositions.
Building on the above four sections (Sections 3.1–3.4), our litera-
ture review together suggests that although the past three decades
have seen substantial growth of research on subjective time, knowl-
edge gaps remain and offer opportunities for future development. In
the next section, we delineate those gaps and suggest future research
avenues to advance our understanding of subjective time.
4|CURRENT KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND
FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA
We identified three critical gaps in the current literature. First, we con-
sidered the conceptual imprecision of temporal constructs as the pri-
mary issue inhibiting future research. Accordingly, we suggested how
our integrative framework could help overcome this issue and facili-
tate future study both on examining existing constructs and discover-
ing new temporal constructs. Second, we noted that extant research
has largely focused on a single temporal construct in each individual
study. Because different forms of subjective time often exist simulta-
neously and operate conjunctively, we urge future research to exam-
ine multiple temporal constructs in tandem. Finally, as subjective
time functions across organizational levels whereas prior studies
mostly focused on a single level of analysis, we encourage future
research to investigate subjective time as a multilevel phenomenon.
In the following sections, we illustrate each knowledge gap and the
associated challenges. We also build on our integrative framework to
offer specific suggestions to address those challenges, thereby
charting a clear and rich future research agenda.
4.1 |Conceptual imprecision as the primary hurdle
Our review noted that conceptual imprecision of temporal constructs
concerning the trait–state property and level of analysis is prevalent in
the literature. Because conceptual precision serves as a cornerstone
for theory building and empirical investigations (Chaplin et al., 1988;
Klein & Kozlowski, 2000), we place this issue front and center. The
imprecision regarding the trait–state property of temporal constructs
has led researchers to conceptualize the same construct in inconsis-
tent ways, which can further result in misspecifications of its anteced-
ents and consequences. For example, although temporal focus has
been mainly conceptualized as a trait‐like construct (e.g., Nadkarni &
18 TANG ET AL.
Chen, 2014; Shipp et al., 2009; Shipp & Jansen, 2011), some
researchers considered it as state‐like attention (Foo et al., 2009).
Accordingly, Foo et al. (2009) found that the (state‐like) temporal
focus was determined by individuals' state positive affect. However,
based on a dispositional perspective, (trait‐like) temporal focus is
unlikely to be affected by a state. This theoretical confound also
resulted in problematic operationalization. So did Foo et al. (2009)
measure state‐like temporal focus with the temporal focus scale, a
scale that was originally designed based on a trait‐like conceptualiza-
tion of temporal focus (Shipp et al., 2009).
Although the individual versus collective level of temporal con-
structs has mostly been well clarified, we often encounter conceptual
imprecision regarding the emergence of many collective‐level con-
structs (see Mohammed and Nadkarni (2014) for an exceptional exam-
ple). Such conceptual clarification is also crucial for operationalizing
the collective‐level construct because it dictates the choices of mea-
surement at the lower level and data aggregation to the higher level
(Chan, 1998). For example, constructs of collective temporal state
(quadrant III) and disposition (quadrant IV) could emerge through dif-
ferent processes from the individual level. STC of teams is assumed
to originate in individual temporal perceptions and converge among
team members (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2014). Because it emerges
as a shared, consensual state of the team, it needs to be measured
using the referent of “our team”and then aggregated to the team level
based on sufficient within‐group agreement (Gevers et al., 2006). In
contrast, the collective temporal disposition of team temporal diversity
is based on team compositions (Mohammed & Harrison, 2013).
Because members' inputs to the team composition can be distinctly
different, depending on individual characteristics, team temporal
diversity is not presumed to coalesce among members (Klein &
Kozlowski, 2000). Thus, it is measured as the team‐level distribution
of individual dispositions, with no need for statistical justification for
higher level aggregation (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011).
In what follows, we explain how our integrative framework could
help future research overcome the conceptual imprecision and thus
facilitate examinations on existing temporal constructs as well as the
exploration of new constructs.
4.1.1 |Examining existing temporal constructs
Albeit generic, our integrative framework presents a promising first step
to promote the conceptual precision of temporal constructs in the
extant literature. Due to the ambiguity and inconsistency in their con-
ceptualizations, a major challenge confronting future research to exam-
ine those constructs would be clarifying their trait–state properties. In
this regard, our review could inform future research on how the trait–
state nature of a given temporal construct has been mainly conceptual-
ized, and we encourage future studies to adopt an aligned conceptuali-
zation of the construct suggested by our framework (Figure 1).
Moreover, future research may confuse the focal level of analysis
when investigating temporal phenomena that have been theorized at
different organizational levels (e.g., individual polychronicity, Slocombe
& Bluedorn, 1999; team polychronicity, Kaplan, 2008; organizational
temporal culture of polychronicity, Bluedorn et al., 1999). Our frame-
work could offer guidance for choosing and clarifying the appropriate
level of analysis for the constructs under examination.
4.1.2 |Discovering new temporal constructs
Our framework also presents fruitful opportunities for future research
to discover new temporal constructs. We noted that research on indi-
vidual temporal states (quadrant II) has heavily centered on time pres-
sure and FTP. Similarly, although scholars have increasingly examined
collective‐level phenomena of subjective time (quadrants III and IV),
our knowledge about constructs in these quadrants is still nascent.
Nevertheless, our review suggests that there likely are many unex-
plored, theoretically distinct forms of subjective time that manifest
across the four archetypes. For instance, the feeling that time is scarce
and passes fast could be reflected in an individual temporal disposition
(time urgency, Conte et al., 1995), individual temporal state (time pres-
sure, Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994), collective temporal state (collective time
pressure, Maruping et al., 2015), and collective temporal disposition
(organizational temporal culture of emphasis on speed, Moyle, 1995).
We therefore encourage future OB research to explore new forms
of subjective time, especially those capturing state‐like and/or
collective‐level phenomena. In this regard, our framework could pro-
vide a roadmap to help uncover such temporal constructs—by map-
ping the existing temporal constructs onto another quadrant in
Figure 1. We suggest at least two specific pathways. First, future
research may discover new constructs by shifting toward the state
dimension (i.e., between quadrants I and II, or between III and IV)
and consider the state‐like manifestations of existing trait‐like con-
structs (e.g., a state‐like form of individual polychronicity) or, vice versa,
by exploring trait‐like phenotypes of state‐like constructs (e.g., individ-
uals' trait‐like tendency of time sensitivity). Second, novel temporal
constructs could also be identified by moving existing constructs to
a different level of analysis (i.e., between quadrants I and IV, or II
and III). For instance, future research may examine an individual's tem-
poral disposition similar to the collective‐level temporal schemata, and
likewise, researchers could explore the collective equivalent of individ-
ual FTP. In addition, our framework offers potential for discovering
new constructs by mapping existing ones onto different quadrants in
other ways (e.g., from quadrant I to III, Figure 1).
Overall, regardless of examining existing or novel temporal con-
structs, we encourage future research to provide precise conceptuali-
zations, at least in terms of the fundamental trait–state property and
level of analysis of temporal constructs. Addressing conceptual impre-
cision also serves as a precondition to tackle the challenges discussed
in the following, which are related to considerations of multiple con-
structs in tandem and the development of multilevel research.
4.2 |Paucity of research linking multiple temporal
constructs
Although the field has made substantial progress in developing diverse
temporal constructs, our knowledge about their interplay remains
TANG ET AL.19
limited. Because different forms of subjective time are likely to coexist
and function conjunctively to affect organizational outcomes, examin-
ing one construct at a time could be essentially insufficient. Yet, the
variety of temporal constructs may also create challenges for
researchers to select the most relevant ones to investigate simulta-
neously. Questions facing such future research could center on which
constructs to choose and how to examine their interplay.
Our integrative framework suggests two broad approaches. The
first approach is to consider multiple temporal dispositions within
quadrant I or IV in concert. An individual simultaneously possesses
multiple temporal dispositions (Shipp et al., 2009), and co‐
consideration of them may uniquely predict employee behaviors and
outcomes. Similarly, a collective unit can have multiple temporal char-
acteristics (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011), and different combinations
of its collective temporal dispositions may lead to distinct organiza-
tional outcomes. Thus, we encourage future research to examine the
interplay of diverse and coexisting temporal dispositions of the same
organizational actor, in order to gain more complete and nuanced
understandings of the effects of those temporal dispositions.
Specifically, at the individual level, future studies may examine how
the combination of different temporal dispositions gives rise to an
employee's “temporal profile,”which might better predict their time‐
related behaviors (see Waller et al., 2001, for a notable theoretical
example of the co‐consideration of time urgency and future temporal
focus). At the team level, future research could build on team faultline
theories (Lau & Murnighan, 1998) to examine how the simultaneous
existence and alignment of multiple temporal diversity attributes
may create faultlines within the team, which could exert impact on
team outcomes above and beyond that of a single diversity attribute.
At the organizational level, future research may investigate how differ-
ent aspects of organizational temporal culture jointly shape organiza-
tional outcomes. For example, the organizational culture of long
temporal depth may facilitate the idea‐generation phase of creativity,
whereas the temporal culture of emphasis on speed may promote idea
implementation (Ofori‐Dankwa & Julian, 2001; Rosing, Frese, &
Bausch, 2011). Considering the interplay of these two aspects may
help to better understand the processes of organizational creativity
and innovation.
The second approach is to focus on a process perspective by
linking temporal dispositions and states (i.e., the constructs in quad-
rants I and II or those in quadrants III and IV). Particularly, the “distal
trait–proximal state–performance outcome”paradigm contends that,
because state‐like experiences are more proximal to specific tasks or
situations than trait‐like characteristics, they likely serve as mecha-
nisms that transmit the effect of traits on performance outcomes
(Chen et al., 2000). Building on this paradigm, future research could
examine how temporal dispositions (quadrant I or IV) trigger related
temporal states (quadrant II or III), which in turn affects organizational
behavior and performance. For example, the effects of time urgency
on employee outcomes may be mediated by the employee's perceived
time pressure as the proximal state.
Indeed, our review noted that much of prior research only tested
direct relationships between temporal dispositions and organizational
outcomes but overlooked the mediating processes. Specifically,
research on individual temporal dispositions has mainly shown their
effects on employee behaviors and performance without examining
the cognitive, affective, or motivational mechanisms that convey these
effects. Moreover, as temporal diversity is often a “double‐edged
sword”for teams, a lack of investigation of its potentially opposing
mechanisms may lead to null findings on team performance (Moham-
med & Nadkarni, 2011). Overall, a black box remains—we know very
little about why subjective time affects behaviors and outcomes. As
such uncertainty prevails, we might misattribute the actual mecha-
nisms underlying the observed effects of subjective time (Chen &
Nadkarni, 2017). The process‐based approach suggested by our
framework could provide future research with one potential direction
to address this black box issue.
4.3 |Scarcity of multilevel research
We observed that organizational research on subjective time has
mostly focused on a single level of analysis. Yet, as the increasing com-
plexity of organizational tasks and structures has necessitated
employees to work in teams, teams to collaborate on joint projects,
and differentiated departments to coordinate activities, the field calls
for more theory‐driven, multilevel research to better understand
how subjective time exists and functions across organizational levels.
However, to apply a multilevel lens, future research may encounter
crucial questions such as how do individual‐level temporal constructs
manifest at higher levels of analysis; do the temporal constructs gen-
eralize across levels of analysis; and how does higher level subjective
time influence lower level phenomena?
Using our framework as a basis, we suggest two general steps for
developing multilevel studies by considering temporal constructs
across the individual level (quadrant I or II) and collective level
(quadrant III or IV). In the first step, researchers might provide theo-
retical justifications for higher level temporal constructs. We argued
previously that conceptual clarification of collective‐level temporal
constructs serves as a basis for crafting multilevel research.
Researchers therefore need to delineate models that explicate forms
of bottom‐up construct emergence from the individual to the collec-
tive level. Indeed, multilevel researchers have long emphasized that
when studying higher level constructs, researchers should explain, in
considerable detail, the theoretical processes presumed to yield the
emergence of these constructs at the higher level of analysis (Klein
& Kozlowski, 2000).
In a second step, researchers could develop and test cross‐level
or homologous theories (Chen, Bliese, & Mathieu, 2005) that specify
how these multilevel temporal constructs affect outcomes across
levels of analysis. Our framework (Figure 1) implies two ways to
examine potential top‐down, cross‐level effects. First, collective‐level
temporal states and dispositions (quadrants III and IV) may act as sit-
uational determinants to exert direct effects on individual temporal
states (quadrant II). For example, the team's collective time pressure
and the organizational temporal culture of emphasis on speed may
20 TANG ET AL.
increase individual members' time pressure at work. Second,
collective‐level subjective time (quadrants III and IV) may act as con-
textual boundary conditions to moderate the effects of individual
temporal dispositions (quadrant I) on employee outcomes. For
instance, the effect of time urgency on employee job performance
could be strengthened or weakened (rather than determined) by
the team collective time pressure or the organizational culture of
emphasis on speed.
5|CONCLUSION
Scholarly attention to subjective time in the OB field has been
growing—but in a fragmented and unsystematic way. We reviewed
research on temporal constructs in OB and related disciplines and
assigned these constructs to four archetypes of subjective time,
according to their state–trait property and level of analysis. In doing
so, our integrative framework lends fundamental conceptual
clarification and integration to a variety of temporal constructs.
We believe it provides a basis to guide the development of future
studies to investigate subjective time as a multiform, multilevel
phenomenon.
ORCID
Shi Tang https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7520-7450
REFERENCES
*
Denotes studies uses in the review and included in Table 1
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don't know about cor-
porate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of
Management,38(4), 932–968.
*
Agypt, B., & Rubin, B. A. (2012). T ime in the new economy: The impact of
the interaction of individual and structural temporalities on job satis-
faction: Time in the new economy. Journal of Management Studies,49
(2), 403–428.
Allen, B. P., & Potkay, C. R. (1981). On the arbitrary distinction between
states and traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,41(5),
916–928.
Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. (2001). Taking time to inte-
grate temporal research. The Academy of Management Review,26(4),
512–529.
*
Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between expe-
rienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of
openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied
Psychology,91(4), 963–970. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐
9010.91.4.963
*
Bal, P. M., Jansen, P. G. W., van der Velde, M. E. G., de Lange, A. H., &
Rousseau, D. M. (2010). The role of future time perspective in psycho-
logical contracts: A study among older workers. Journal of Vocational
Behavior,76(3), 474–486.
*
Balliet, D., & Ferris, D. L. (2013). Ostracism and prosocial behavior: A
social dilemma perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
sion Processes,120(2), 298–308.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle
manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal,47(4),
523–549.
*
Baltes, B. B., Wynne, K., Sirabian, M., Krenn, D., & de Lange, A. (2014).
Future time perspective, regulatory focus, and selection, optimization,
and compensation: Testing a longitudinal model. Journal of Organiza-
tional Behavior,35(8), 1120–1133.
*
Beck, J. W., & Schmidt, A. M. (2013). State‐level goal orientations as medi-
ators of the relationship between time pressure and performance: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology,98(2), 354–363.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031145
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five‐factor approach to personal-
ity description. Psychological Bulletin,117(2), 187–215. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0033‐2909.117.2.187
*
Blount, S., & Janicik, G. A. (2001). When plans change: Examining how
people evaluate timing changes in work organizations. Academy of
Management Review,26(4), 566–585.
Blount, S., & Leroy, S. (2007). Individual temporality in the workplace: How
individuals perceive and value time at work. In Workplace Temporalities
(pp. 147–177). Oxford: Elsevier Limited.
*
Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of time: Temporal realities
and experience. California: Stanford University Press.
*
Bluedorn, A. C. (2007). Polychronicity, individuals, and organizations. In
Workplace Temporalities (pp. 179–222). Oxford: Elsevier Limited.
Bluedorn, A. C., & Denhardt, R. B. (1988). Time and organizations. Journal
of Management,14(2), 299–320.
*
Bluedorn, A. C., Kalliath, T. J., Strube, M. J., & Martin, G. D. (1999).
Polychronicity and the inventory of polychronic values (IPV). The
development of an instrument to measure a fundamental dimension
of organizational culture. Journal of Managerial Psychology,14(3/4),
205–231.
*
Bluedorn, A. C., & Martin, G. (2008). The time frames of entrepreneurs.
Journal of Business Venturing,23(1), 1–20.
*
Buehler, R., & Griffin, D. (2003). Planning, personality, and prediction: The
role of future focus in optimistic time predictions. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes,92(1–2), 80–90.
Bush, J. T., LePine, J. A., & Newton, D. W. (2018). Teams in transition: An
integrative review and synthesis of research on team task transitions
and propositions for future research. Human Resource Management
Review,28(4), 423–433.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same con-
tent domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition
models. Journal of Applied Psychology,83(2), 234–246.
*
Chang, A., Bordia, P., & Duck, J. (2003). Punctuated equilibrium and linear
progression: Toward a new understanding of group development.
Academy of Management Journal,46(1), 106–117.
Chaplin, W. F., John, O. P., & Goldberg, L. R. (1988). Conceptions of states
and traits: Dimensional attributes with ideals as prototypes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,54(4), 541–557. https://doi.org/
10.1037//0022‐3514.54.4.541
Chen, G., Bliese, P. D., & Mathieu, J. E. (2005). Conceptual framework and
statistical procedures for delineating and testing multilevel theories of
homology. Organizational Research Methods,8(4), 375–409.
Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J.‐A., & Kilcullen, R. N. (2000). Examina-
tion of relationships among trait‐like individual differences, state‐like
individual differences, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology,85(6), 835–847. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐
9010.85.6.835
*
Chen, J., & Nadkarni, S. (2017). It's about time! CEOs' temporal disposi-
tions, temporal leadership, and corporate entrepreneurship.
Administrative Science Quarterly,62(1), 31–66.
TANG ET AL.21
*
Claessens, B. J. C., Van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Roe, R. A. (2004). Plan-
ning behavior and perceived control of time at work. Journal of
Organizational Behavior,25(8), 937–950.
*
Cojuharenco, I., Patient, D., & Bashshur, M. R. (2011). Seeing the “forest”
or the “trees”of organizational justice: Effects of temporal perspective
on employee concerns about unfair treatment at work. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes,116(1), 17–31.
*
Conte, J. M., & Gintoft, J. N. (2005). Polychronicity, big five personality
dimensions, and sales performance. Human Performance,18(4),
427–444.
*
Conte, J. M., & Jacobs, R. R. (2003). Validity evidence linking
polychronicity and big five personality dimensions to absence, lateness,
and supervisory performance ratings. Human Performance,16(2),
107–129.
*
Conte, J. M., Landy, F. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (1995). Time urgency: Concep-
tual and construct development. Journal of Applied Psychology,80(1),
178–185.
*
Conte, J. M., Mathieu, J. E., & Landy, F. J. (1998). The nomological and pre-
dictive validity of time urgency. Journal of Organizational Behavior,19
(1), 1–13.
*
Crilly, D. (2017). Time and space in strategy discourse: Implications for
intertemporal choice: time and space in strategy discourse. Strategic
Management Journal,38(12), 2370–2389.
*
Das, T. K., & Teng, B.‐S. (1998). Time and entrepreneurial risk behavior.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,22(2), 69–88.
*
Das, T. K., & Teng, B.‐S. (2000). Instabilities of strategic alliances: An inter-
nal tensions perspective. Organization Science,11(1), 77–101.
*
Das, T. K., & Teng, B.‐S. (2001). Strategic risk behaviour and its temporal-
ities: Between risk propensity and decision context. Journal of
Management Studies,38(4), 515–534.
*
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2003). Time pressure and closing of the mind in nego-
tiation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,91(2),
280–295.
Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational cul-
ture and organizational climate? A native's point of view on a decade
of paradigm wars. Academy of Management Review,21(3), 619–654.
*
Ebert, J. E., & Prelec, D. (2007). The fragility of time: Time‐insensitivity
and valuation of the near and far future. Management Science,53(9),
1423–1438.
*
Evans, J. A., Kunda, G., & Barley, S. R. (2004). Beach time, bridge time, and
billable hours: The temporal structure of technical contracting. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly,49(1), 1–38.
*
Flammer, C., & Bansal, P. (2017). Does a long‐term orientation create
value? Evidence from a regression discontinuity: Does a long‐term ori-
entation create value? Strategic Management Journal,38(9),
1827–1847.
*
Foo, M.‐D., Uy, M. A., & Baron, R. A. (2009). How do feelings influence
effort? An empirical study of entrepreneurs' affect and venture effort.
Journal of Applied Psychology,94(4).
*
Fried, Y., & Slowik, L. H. (2004). Enriching goal‐setting theory with time:
An integrated approach. Academy of Management Review,29(3),
404–422.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (2000). The role of time in theory and theory
building. Journal of Management,26(4), 657–684.
*
Gersick, C. J. G. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new
model of group development. Academy of Management Journal,31(1),
9–41.
*
Gersick, C. J. G. (1989). Making time: Predictable transition in task groups.
Academy of Management Journal,32(2), 274–309.
*
Gevers, J., Mohammed, S., & Baytalskaya, N. (2015). The conceptualisa-
tion and measurement of pacing styles. Applied Psychology,64(3),
499–540.
*
Gevers, J. M., Claessens, B. J., Van Eerde, W., & Rutte, C. G. (2009). Pacing
styles, personal ity, and performance. In T ime in Organizational Research
(pp. 80–102). London, UK.
*
Gevers, J. M., Rutte, C. G., & van Eerde, W. (2004). How project teams
achieve coordinated action: A model of shared cognitions on time. In
Time in groups (pp. 67–85). Oxford: Elsevier Limited.
*
Gevers, J. M. P., & Peeters, M. A. G. (2009). A pleasure working together?
The effects of dissimilarity in team member conscientiousness on team
temporal processes and individual satisfaction. Journal of Organizational
Behavior,30(3), 379–400.
*
Gevers, J. M. P., Rispens, S., & Li, J. (2016). Pacing style diversity and team
collaboration: The moderating effects of temporal familiarity and action
planning. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,20(2), 78–92.
*
Gevers, J. M. P., Rutte, C. G., & van Eerde, W. (2006). Meeting deadlines in
work groups: Implicit and explicit mechanisms. Applied Psychology,55
(1), 52–72.
*
Gibson, C. B., Waller, M. J., Carpenter, M. A., & Conte, J. M. (2007). Ante-
cedents, consequences, and moderators of time perspective
heterogeneity for knowledge management in MNO teams. Journal of
Organizational Behavior,28(8), 1005–1034.
*
Granqvist, N., & Gustafsson, R. (2016). Temporal institutional work. Acad-
emy of Management Journal,59(3), 1009–1035.
*
Hecht, T. D., & Allen, N. J. (2005). Exploring links between polychronicity
and well‐being from the perspective of person–job fit: Does it matter if
you prefer to do only one thing at a time? Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes,98(2), 155–178.
*
Huy, Q. N. (2001). Time, temporal capability, and planned change. Acad-
emy of Management Review,26(4), 601–623.
*
Jansen, K. J., & Kristof‐Brown, A. L. (2005). Marching to the beat of a dif-
ferent drummer: Examining the impact of pacing congruence.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,97(2), 93–105.
*
Joireman, J., Kamdar, D., Daniels, D., & Duell, B. (2006). Good citizens to
the end? It depends: Empathy and concern with future consequences
moderate the impact of a short‐term time horizon on organizational
citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology,91(6),
1307–1320. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.91.6.1307
*
Kaplan, S. (2008). Polychronicity in work teams: A theoretical examination
of antecedents and consequences. In T ime in organizational research
(pp. 125–148). London, UK: Routledge.
*
Kaufman‐Scarborough, C., & Lindquist, J. D. (2003). Understanding the
experience of time scarcity. Time & Society,12(2–3), 349–370.
*
Kinicki, A. J., & Vecchio, R. P. (1994). Influences on the quality of
supervisor–subordinate relations: The role of time‐pressure, organiza-
tional commitment, and locus of control. Journal of Organizational
Behavior,15(1), 75–82.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and
methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions.
San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.
*
Kobbeltvedt, T., Brun, W., & Laberg, J. C. (2005). Cognitive processes in
planning and judgements under sleep deprivation and time pressure.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,98(1), 1–14.
*
Kooij, D., & Van De Voorde, K. (2011). How changes in subjective general
health predict future time perspective, and development and
generativity motives over the lifespan: Subjective general health, future
time perspective, and work‐related motives. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology,84(2), 228–247.
22 TANG ET AL.
*
Kooij, D. T. A. M., Kanfer, R., Betts, M., & Rudolph, C. W. (2018). Future
time perspective: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Journal of
Applied Psychology,103(8), 867–893. https://doi.org/10.1037/
apl0000306
*
Korff, J., Biemann, T., & Voelpel, S. C. (2017). Human resource manage-
ment systems and work attitudes: The mediating role of future time
perspective: Future Time Perspective's Mediating Effects. Journal of
Organizational Behavior,38(1), 45–67.
*
Labianca, G., Moon, H., & Watt, I. (2005). When is an hour not 60
minutes? Deadlines, temporal schemata, and individual and task group
performance. Academy of Management Journal,48(4), 677–694.
*
Landy, F. J., Rastegary, H., Thayer, J., & Colvin, C. (1991). T ime urgency:
The construct and its measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology,76
(5), 644–657. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021‐9010.76.5.644
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines:
The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Man-
agement Review,23(2), 325–340.
*
Leroy, S., & Glomb, T. M. (2018). Tasks interrupted: How anticipating time
pressure on resumption of an interrupted task causes attention residue
and low performance on interrupting tasks and how a “ready‐to‐
resume”plan mitigates the effects. Organization Science,29(3),
380–397.
*
Leroy, S., Shipp, A. J., Blount, S., & Licht, J.‐G. (2015). Synchrony prefer-
ence: Why some people go with the flow and some don't. Personnel
Psychology,68(4), 759–809.
*
Lim, S. G.‐S., & Murnighan, J. K. (1994). Phases, deadlines, and the
bargaining process. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses,58(2), 153–171.
*
Lin, Y., Shi, W., Prescott, J. E., & Yang, H. (2018). In the eye of the
beholder: Top managers' long‐term orientation, industry context, and
decision‐making processes. Journal of Management,45(8), 3114–3145.
*
Lindquist, J. D., & Kaufman‐Scarborough, C. (2007). The polychronic–
monochronic tendency model: PMTS scale development and valida-
tion. Time & Society,16(2–3), 253–285.
*
Lumpkin, G. T., & Brigham, K. H. (2011). Long‐term orientation and
intertemporal choice in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-
tice,35(6), 1149–1169.
*
Macan, T. H. (1994). Time management: Test of a process model. Journal
of Applied Psychology,79(3), 381–391.
*
Mainemelis, C. (2001). When the muse takes it all: A model for the expe-
rience of timelessness in organizations. Academy of Management
Review,26(4), 548–565.
*
Marginson, D., & McAulay, L. (2008). Exploring the debate on short‐
termism: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Strategic Management
Journal,29(3), 273–292.
*
Martin, G. P., Wiseman, R. M., & Gomez‐Mejia, L. R. (2016). Going short‐
term or long‐term? CEO stock options and temporal orientation in
the presence of slack: CEO stock options and temporal orientation.
Strategic Management Journal,37(12), 2463–2480.
*
Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., Thatcher, S. M. B., & Patel, P. C. (2015).
Folding under pressure or rising to the occasion? Perceived time pres-
sure and the moderating role of team temporal leadership. Academy of
Management Journal,58(5), 1313–1333.
*
McGrath, J. E. (1991). Time, interaction, and performance (TIP). A theory
of groups. Small Group Research,22(2), 147–174.
McGrath, J. E., & Kelly, J. R. (1986). T ime and human interaction: Toward a
social psychology of time. New York: Guilford Press.
McGrath, J. E., & Rotchford, N. L. (1983). Time and behavior in organiza-
tions. Research in Organizational Behavior,5,57–101.
*
Miller, D., & Sardais, C. (2015). Bifurcating time: How entrepreneurs rec-
oncile the paradoxical demands of the job. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice,39(3), 489–512.
*
Miller, K. D. (2002). Knowledge inventories and managerial myopia. Strate-
gic Management Journal,23(8), 689–706.
*
Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface‐and deep‐level diversity in
workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and
team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior,25(8), 1015–1039.
*
Mohammed, S., & Harrison, D. A. (2013). The clocks that time us are not
the same: A theory of temporal diversity, task characteristics, and per-
formance in teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes,122(2), 244–256.
*
Mohammed, S., & Nadkarni, S. (2011). Temporal diversity and team per-
formance: The moderating role of team temporal leadership. Academy
of Management Journal,54(3), 489–508.
*
Mohammed, S., & Nadkarni, S. (2014). Are we all on the same temporal
page? The moderating effects of temporal team cognition on the
polychronicity diversity–team performance relationship. Journal of
Applied Psychology,99(3), 404–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0035640
*
Montoya‐Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it
together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global vir-
tual teams. Academy of Management Journal,44(6), 1251–1262.
Mosakowski, E., & Earley, P. C. (2000). A selective review of time assump-
tions in strategy research. Academy of Management Review,25(4),
796–812.
*
Moyle, P. (1995). The role of negative affectivity in the stress process:
Tests of alternative models. Journal of Organizational Behavior,16(6),
647–668.
*
Mudrack, P. E. (1999). Time structure and purpose, type A behavior, and
the Protestant work ethic. Journal of Organizational Behavior,20(2),
145–158.
*
Nadkarni, S., & Chen, J. (2014). Bridging yesterday, today, and tomorrow:
CEO temporal focus, environmental dynamism, and rate of new prod-
uct introduction. Academy of Management Journal,57(6), 1810–1833.
*
Nadkarni, S., Chen, T., & Chen, J. (2016). The clock is ticking! Executive
temporal depth, industry velocity, and competitive aggressiveness.
Strategic Management Journal,37(6), 1131–1153.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychological theory. New York,
NY: MacGraw‐Hill.
*
Ofori‐Dankwa, J., & Julian, S. D. (2001). Complexifying organizational the-
ory: Illustrations using time research. Academy of Management Review,
26(3), 415–430.
*
Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2002). It's about time: Temporal structuring
in organizations. Organization Science,13(6), 684–700.
Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The
development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: Uni-
versity of Texas at Austin.
*
Perlow, L. A. (1999). The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time.
Administrative Science Quarterly,44(1), 57–81.
*
Perlow, L. A., Okhuysen, G. A., & Repenning, N. P. (2002). The speed trap:
Exploring the relationship between decision making and temporal con-
text. Academy of Management Journal,45(5), 931–955.
*
Prem, R., Ohly, S., Kubicek, B., & Korunka, C. (2017). Thriving on challenge
stressors? Exploring time pressure and learning demands as anteced-
ents of thriving at work: Thriving on challenge stressors. Journal of
Organizational Behavior,38(1), 108–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/
job.2115
TANG ET AL.23
Princeton Language Institute (2005). In B. A. Kipfer (Ed.), Roget's 21st cen-
tury thesaurus (3rd ed.). New York: Bantam Dell.
*
Przepiorka, A. (2016). What makes successful entrepreneurs different in
temporal and goal‐commitment dimensions? Time & Society,25(1),
40–60.
*
Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2015). When times collide: Temporal brokerage
at the intersection of markets and developments. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal,58(2), 618–648.
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2014). Essentials of organizational behavior (12th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of
the leadership‐innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly,22(5), 956–974.
*
Ross, W. H., & Wieland, C. (1996). Effects of interpersonal trust and time
pressure on managerial mediation strategy in a simulated organiza-
tional dispute. Journal of Applied Psychology,81(3), 228–248.
*
Rudolph, C. W., Kooij, D. T. A. M., Rauvola, R. S., & Zacher, H. (2018).
Occupational future time perspective: A meta‐analysis of antecedents
and outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior,39(2), 229–248.
*
Saqib, N. U., & Chan, E. Y. (2015). T ime pressure reverses risk preferences.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,130,58–68.
*
Saraiva, R., & Iglesias, F. (2016). Cooperation under pressure: Time
urgency and time perspective in social dilemmas. T ime & Society,25
(2), 393–405.
Schriber, J. B., & Gutek, B. A. (1987). Some time dimensions of work: Mea-
surement of an underlying aspect of organization culture. Journal of
Applied Psychology,72(4), 642–650.
Shipp, A. J., & Cole, M. S. (2015). Time in individual‐level organizational
studies: What is it, how is it used, and why isn't it exploited more
often? Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior,2(1), 237–260.
*
Shipp, A. J., Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2009). Conceptualization and
measurement of temporal focus: The subjective experience of the past,
present, and future. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses,110(1), 1–22.
Shipp, A. J., & Fried, Y. (2014). Time and work, volume 1: How time impacts
individuals. New York: Psychology Press.
*
Shipp, A. J., & Jansen, K. J. (2011). Reinterpreting time in fit theory:
Crafting and recrafting narratives of fit in medias res. Academy of Man-
agement Review,36(1), 76–101.
*
Sijbom, R. B. L., Anseel, F., Crommelinck, M., De Beuckelaer, A., & De
Stobbeleir, K. E. M. (2018). Why seeking feedback from diverse sources
may not be sufficient for stimulating creativity: The role of perfor-
mance dynamism and creative time pressure. Journal of Organizational
Behavior,39(3), 355–368.
*
Slocombe, T. E., & Bluedorn, A. C. (1999). Organizational behavior implica-
tions of the congruence between preferred polychronicity and
experienced work‐unit polychronicity. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior,20(1), 75–99.
*
Souder, D., & Bromiley, P. (2012). Explaining temporal orientation: Evi-
dence from the durability of firms' capital investments. Strategic
Management Journal,33(5), 550–569.
*
Souitaris, V., & Maestro, B. M. (2010). Polychronicity in top management
teams: The impact on strategic decision processes and performance
of new technology ventures. Strategic Management Journal,31(6),
652–678.
*
Staudenmayer, N., Tyre, M., & Perlow, L. (2002). Time to change: Tempo-
ral shifts as enablers of organizational change. Organization Science,13
(5), 583–597.
*
Stiglbauer, B. (2017). Under what conditions does job control moderate
the relationship between time pressure and employee well‐being?
Investigating the role of match and personal control beliefs: T ime pres-
sure and control. Journal of Organizational Behavior,38(5), 730–748.
*
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The
consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and dis-
tant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,66(4), 742–752.
*
Szollos, A. (2009). Toward a psychology of chronic time pressure: Concep-
tual and methodological review. Time & Society,18(2–3), 332–350.
Tasselli, S., Kilduff, M., & Landis, B. (2018). Personality change: Implications
for organizational behavior. Academy of Management Annals,12(2),
467–493.
*
Volk, S., Pearsall, M. J., Christian, M. S., & Becker, W. J. (2017).
Chronotype diversity in teams: Toward a theory of team energetic
asynchrony. Academy of Management Review,42(4), 683–702.
*
Vuori, T. O., & Huy, Q. N. (2016). Distributed attention and shared emo-
tions in the innovation process: How Nokia lost the smartphone
battle. Administrative Science Quarterly,61(1), 9–51.
*
Waller, M. J., Conte, J. M., Gibson, C. B., & Carpenter, M. A. (2001). The
effect of individual perceptions of deadlines on team performance.
Academy of Management Review,26(4), 586–600.
Waller, M. J., Okhuysen, G. A., & Saghafian, M. (2016). Conceptualizing
emergent states: A strategy to advance the study of group dynamics.
Academy of Management Annals,10(1), 561–598.
*
Waller, M. J., Zellmer‐Bruhn, M. E., & Giambatista, R. C. (2002). Watching
the clock: Group pacing behavior under dynamic deadlines. Academy of
Management Journal,45(5), 1046–1055.
*
Wang, T., & Bansal, P. (2012). Social responsibility in new ventures:
Profiting from a long‐term orientation. Strategic Management Journal,
33(10), 1135–1153.
*
Weikamp, J. G., & Göritz, A. S. (2015). How stable is occupational future
time perspective over time? A six‐wave study across 4 years. Work,
Aging and Retirement,1(4), 369–381.
*
West, G. P., & Meyer, G. D. (1998). Temporal dimensions of opportunistic
change in technology‐based ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice,22(2), 31–52.
*
Wu, C.‐H., Parker, S. K., & de Jong, J. P. J. (2014). Need for cognition as an
antecedent of individual innovation behavior. Journal of Management,
40(6), 1511–1534.
*
Zahra, S. A., Hayton, J. C., & Salvato, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship in family
vs. nonfamily firms: A resource‐based analysis of the effect of organi-
zational culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,28(4), 363–381.
*
Zhang, W., Wang, H., & Pearce, C. L. (2014). Consideration for future con-
sequences as an antecedent of transformational leadership behavior:
The moderating effects of perceived dynamic work environment. The
Leadership Quarterly,25(2), 329–343.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Shi Tang is currently a PhD candidate at Judge Business School,
University of Cambridge. Her research interests include executive
temporal orientation, gender in senior leadership, top management
team compositions and strategic decision‐making processes.
Andreas W. Richter is an associate professor at the Judge Busi-
ness School, University of Cambridge. He holds a PhD from Aston
University. His research interests focus on creativity and innova-
tion in teams, and team processes and dynamics.
24 TANG ET AL.
Sucheta Nadkarni is the Sinyi Chaired Professor of Chinese Man-
agement in the Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
She received her PhD in strategic management at the University
of Kansas. Her research interests include executive personality
and temporal orientation, strategic cognition, and competitive
dynamics.
How to cite this article: Tang S, Richter AW, Nadkarni S. Sub-
jective time in organizations: Conceptual clarification, integra-
tion, and implications for future research. J Organ Behav.
2019;1–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2421
APPENDIX A
LIWC DICTIONARY GENERATION FOR TRAIT‐/STATE‐LIKE PROPERTIES
We developed a dictionary to extract the trait‐and state‐like properties of each temporal construct identified in our literature review. Following
the established practices of dictionary generation for LIWC (Pennebaker et al., 2015), we created and validated the dictionary through three steps.
In the first step, we generated a list of words associated with the trait‐like and state‐like dimensions of psychological constructs. The gener-
ation of the two groups of words (trait like and state like) was based on their theoretical definitions and explanations in the psychological and OB
literature (Allen & Potkay, 1981; Chaplin et al., 1988; Robbins & Judge, 2014; Tasselli et al., 2018; Waller, Okhuysen, & Saghafian, 2016). We fur-
ther expanded the word list by including their additional synonyms using Roget's 21st Century Thesaurus (Princeton Language Institute & Kipfer,
2005). The preliminary dictionary contained 66 words for trait‐like property and 71 words for state‐like property.
In the second step, we verified the content validity of the initial set of words. Following recommended procedures for establishing content valid-
ity (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), we identified five subject matter experts (psychological and organizational scholars who hold expert knowledge
about the conceptualization of trait‐like and state‐like properties). These scholars were presented the list of words (organized alphabetically) and
asked to categorize each word to one of the categories: “trait‐like,”“state‐like,”and “unclear.”We removed the word categorized as “unclear”and
retained those in “trait‐like”and “state‐like”categories that reached 100% consensus among the raters.
In the final step, we conducted follow‐up discussions with the raters on the relevance of each word to the theoretical definitions of trait‐like
and state‐like constructs. We further excluded words with low relevance based on the discussions. As listed below, the final dictionary consisted
of 42 words for trait‐like property and 38 words for state‐like property:
Trait like State like
Ability Identity Propensity Adjust Feeling Reactive
Attribute Inclination Regular Alter Fleeting Responsive
Belief Independent Resistant Arising Flexible Sense
Capability Inherent Routine Awareness Fluctuate Situational
Characteristic Innate Stable Brief Impression State
Chronic Inner Static Change Irregular Stimulus
Competence Long‐lasting Sustain Circumstance Malleable Temporary
Consistent Norm System Contextual Manipulate Transient
Constant Pattern Tendency Dependent Modify Transitory
Disposition Permanent Trait Dynamic Mood Unstable
Durable Persistent Unchanging Emergent Occasionally
Endure Personality Unique Emotion Occurrent
Feature Predisposition General Environmental Perception
Fixed Preference Predominant Ephemeral Process
*The dictionary also captured alternative tenses of the words used.
TANG ET AL.25
