Multi-Level Issues in Organizations and Time: Volume 6

Fred Dansereau, PhD, is professor of Organization and Human Resources and associate dean for Research in the School of Management at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He received his PhD from the Labor and Industrial Relations Institute at the University of Illinois with a specialization in Organizational Behavior. Dr. Dansereau has extensive research experience in the areas of leadership and managing at the individual, dyad, group, and collective levels of analysis. Along with others, he has developed a theoretical and empirical approach to theorizing and testing at multiple levels of analysis. He has served on the editorial review boards of the Academy of Management Review, Group and Organization Management, and Leadership Quarterly. He is a fellow of the American Psychological Association and the American Psychological Society. He has authored 10 books and over 80 articles and is a consultant to numerous organizations, including the Bank of Chicago, Occidental, St. Joe Corp., Sears, TRW, the United States Army and Navy, Worthington Industries, and various educational institutions.

“Multi-Level Issues in Organizations and Time” is Volume 6 of Research in Multi-Level Issues, an annual series that provides an outlet for the discussion of multi-level problems and solutions across a variety of fields of study. Using a scientific debate format of a key scholarly essay followed by two commentaries and a rebuttal, we present, in this series, theoretical work, significant empirical studies, methodological developments, analytical techniques, and philosophical treatments to advance the field of multi-level studies, regardless of disciplinary perspective.

Distributed performance arrangements are increasingly used by organizations to structure dyadic and team interactions. Unfortunately, distributed teams are no panacea. This chapter reviews some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with the geographical and temporal distribution of team members. An extended discussion of the implications of distributed team performance for individual, team, and organizational decision making is provided, with particular attention paid to selected cultural factors. Best practices and key points are advanced for those stakeholders charged with offsetting the performance decrements in decision making that can result from distribution and culture.

Stagl, Salas, Rosen, Priest, Burke, Goodwin, and Johnston review a series of factors determining the effectiveness of distributed team performance, thereby providing an effective overview of existing literature, particularly at the intrapersonal and interpersonal levels. Although the effort to provide guidelines for future research in the form of 14 propositions is less effective than might have been hoped, there is sufficient focus to suggest fruitful areas for future inquiry. The exploration of their work suggests that it would prove valuable to both scholars and practitioners if greater attention were concentrated on the interactive effects of distributed teams and organizational-level phenomena.

Understanding the complexities of performance in the world of work is central for advancing science and practice. Pulling from Stagl et al.'s chapter and integrating it with the work of others and our own, we develop and propose a multi-level conceptual model depicting the influences of “distributedness” on system decision making and performance. The tetrahedral model of performance (T-MoP) illustrates how the three levels of capacity (individual, team, and organizational) are influenced by three types of distributedness (geospatial, temporal, and technological), interact with a cultural base, and subsequently lead to performance. The model can be viewed at http://www.jennyburke.com/../../../fig/T-MoP.mpeg.

Stagl, Salas, Rosen, Priest, Burke, Goodwin, and Johnston (this volume) conducted a review of distributed team performance and discussed some of the implications of distributed, multicultural operations for individual, team, and organizational decision making. Expanding upon Stagl and colleagues’ discussion, Alutto (this volume), and Coovert and Burke (this volume) provided thought-provoking commentary on these issues. The current note briefly responds to some of the questions posed and comments made by Alutto, Coovert, and Burke and concludes by calling for a continued dialogue by all stakeholders concerned with fostering effective distributed teams.

Mental model convergence occurs as team members interact. By collecting information and observing behaviors through their interactions, team members’ individual mental models evolve into shared mental models. This process requires a cognitive shift in an individual's focal level. Specifically, the individual assigned to the team must shift his or her focus from thinking about the team domain using an individual perspective to thinking about it from a team perspective. Thus, mental model convergence may be the key to understanding how individuals are transformed into team members. This chapter presents a framework describing the mental model convergence process that draws on the extant research on group development and information processing. It also examines temporal aspects of mental model convergence, the role of mental model contents on the convergence process, and the relationship between converged mental models and team functioning. Preliminary evidence supporting the framework and the important role that converged mental models play in high-performing teams is provided. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications of this mental model convergence framework for research and practice.

The construct of shared mental models has garnered interest among team researchers as a means to explain how teams develop into highly coordinated units. McComb (this volume) contributes to this body of work by synthesizing a host of empirical findings and theoretical assertions into a model of mental model convergence. This advancement is significant, because it begins to shed light on how shared mental models may develop in teams. The present commentary takes McComb's work a step further by combining it with findings from the area of team training. The result is a set of propositions describing when various training interventions may be most beneficial to the team and the mental model convergence process, and why. These propositions are intended to stimulate further efforts to empirically validate team-training strategies as a means to foster development of shared mental models.

This commentary focuses on S. A. McComb's chapter on the process of mental model convergence and provides guidance for advancing this research stream. McComb's chapter highlights many of the theoretical and methodological challenges that have plagued the study of cognition in teams. This commentary addresses those challenges and offers suggestions for the next steps in this field. Specifically, it considers the complex and abstract nature of team cognition and offers an elaborated model for understanding cognitive similarity that includes cognitive similarity configurations.

The three preceding articles highlight the ongoing research designed to better understand shared mental models and their role in team functioning. In some respects, research scholars have achieved an integrated view (a.k.a. shared mental models) about the field (e.g., the growing body of empirical research results underscores the important role of the shared mental model construct in effective team functioning). In other respects, our mental models have not converged. Thus, we still need additional conceptual and empirical research to advance the field (e.g., many dimensions of mental models have been identified, but no agreement exists about their validity or the completeness of the list). In this response, I use the similar, divergent, and complementary views presented in the trio of articles by myself, Cannon-Bowers (this volume), and Rentsch and Small (this volume) to demonstrate how the process of scholarship is analogous to the mental model convergence process.

As part of the developing attention being paid to time in organization science, this chapter discusses two temporal dimensions – polychronicity and speed – and develops propositions relating these two temporal dimensions to other organization science variables. The propositions are specified according to levels of analysis, at least three of which are considered in propositions presented for each dimension. Two other temporal dimensions – punctuality and temporal depth – are also described, albeit not as extensively as polychronicity and speed. A fifth temporal phenomenon, entrainment, provides insights into organizational processes as well as the four temporal dimensions. The chapter concludes by outlining some reasons for caution for both theory and practice.

This commentary focuses on the measurement of temporal dimensions at different levels of analysis. In particular, it examines the measures that are available for various levels of analysis for four temporal dimensions: polychronicity, speed, punctuality, and temporal depth. The discussion is meant to spur additional research using reliable and valid temporal measures at multiple levels of analysis.

Given the environmental turbulence surrounding organizations today, polychronicity – the preference to attend to more than one task simultaneously – may be an increasingly important characteristic of individuals, groups, and organizations. Polychronicity and its behavioral counterpart, multitasking, are inextricably linked, but high levels of polychronicity may not lead to productive multitasking behavior, as multitasking can vary tremendously in its implementation and effectiveness. This commentary offers further clarification of the differences between polychronicity and multitasking, and it explores the role of task performance strategies in multitasking behavior.

Addressing the challenges of temporal concepts in organizations involves precise measurement and clear definitions. In this essay, we propose a number of future research ideas generated by Waller and Conte's (this volume) thought-provoking essays. Our hope in presenting these ideas is that future studies consider them in efforts to further close the definitional and measurement gaps in current research on temporal variables in organizations. In particular, we invite scholars to consider the implications of the dimensionality of polychronicity, of context on temporal variables, and of temporal variables interacting together.

Organizational studies of time tend to be done by academic researchers rather than practitioners. This chapter builds on academic research to provide a practitioner perspective by reviewing time situated in theory and constructing two phenotypes: timescapes of business and social time. These timescapes are defined by six dimensions, each with a social and business time parameter. Organizational business and social timescapes have different functions and applications. Timescapes, with their concomitant dimensions and sets of parameters, are used differently by senior managers, middle managers, and entry-level managers. Three multi-level approaches (self, dyadic, and social relationships), composition theory, and compilation theory confirm these three managerial timescape usages. After a review of the theoretical bases of the timescape constructs and a brief discussion of the grounded, anthropological, research methodology used in the study, this chapter applies timescape theory and models to an extended time case study of the Procter & Gamble Company that frames the company's timescape understanding and use from a practitioner's view.

This chapter uses a system dynamics approach to do a constructive replication (Lykken, 1968; Kelly, Chase, & Tucker, 1979; Hendrick, 1990) and extension of Reeves-Ellington's (this volume) timescape theory illustrated in his case study carried out at different hierarchical levels in Procter & Gamble. The timescape theory of temporal fit consists of two time perspectives – business time and social time – that compete for application. The senior-management level plays a key role in determining which timescape dominates. Reeves-Ellington argues that his findings show that organizational performance diminishes when there is a lack of fit between the timescapes of senior management and those of other levels of management. Our system dynamics model tests this notion and finds that the timescape case does not allow sufficient time to clearly demonstrate the hypothesized fit effects. In addition to timescape fit, environmental consumer demand aspects, which were not considered in the original case, are argued to affect Reeves-Ellington's performance measures. The system dynamics model's general emphasis on temporality and feedback provide especially for the constructive replication and extension of the timescape theory.

This essay uses Reeves-Ellington's discussion of the timescape as a departure point for describing one way in which marketing managers have responded to consumers’ lived experience of time. It focuses on the retail theatrics of the retroscape as a source of meaning for beleaguered consumers. It then extends the notion of the liminal to account for the temporal orientation that consumers display with regard to both clock time and cosmic time. It concludes with some observations on pluritemporality in postmodern culture.

This chapter discusses a complex research model that accommodates qualitative organizational learning methods and permits researchers to formulate clear research questions that are then explored through quantitative methodologies. Using a multitiered research model, it reinterprets the Procter & Gamble case material presented in “Timescapes: A Multi-level Approach for Understanding Time Use in Complex Organizations” and addresses the issues discussed in Sherry's and Broberg, Bailey, and Hunt's commentaries (both found in this volume).

This chapter reviews research on multi-level organizational justice. The first half of the chapter provides the historical context for this issue, discusses organizational-level antecedents to individual-level justice perceptions (i.e., culture and organizational structure), and then focuses on the study of justice climate. A summary model depicts the justice climate findings to date and gives recommendations for future research. The second half of the chapter discusses the process of justice climate emergence. Pulling from classical bottom-up and top-down climate emergence models as well as contemporary justice theory, it outlines a theoretical model whereby individual differences and environmental characteristics interact to influence justice judgments. Through a process of information sharing, shared and unique experiences, and interactions among group members, a justice climate emerges. The chapter concludes by presenting ideas about how such a process might be empirically modeled.

The chapter by Rupp, Bashur, and Liao (in this volume) is rich with ideas for the study of a justice climate. This comment on their chapter focuses on three areas that flow from their presentation: issues in modeling climate strength, complexity and simplicity in conceptualizing a justice climate, and an alternative conceptualization of a justice climate. Specifically, it describes how polynomial regression and response surface methodology may assist researchers in examining climate fit. The comment also describes the benefits of a simplified view of a justice climate – one focusing on the overall justice climate. Finally, it develops a framework for examining a climate for justice – a climate that promotes fair behavior in organizations.

In their chapter, Rupp, Bashshur, and Liao (this volume) have made an impressive contribution to the literature on multi-level justice. These authors have provided both a precise conceptual definition of justice climate and a measurement strategy (referent shift) that will greatly smooth the progress of future empirical inquiry. The goal of this commentary is to expand these important ideas by moving in two directions. First, we discuss what it means to be an individual when justice is experienced as a member of a team. Toward this end, we describe research on social identity theory and social categorization theory, emphasizing how these paradigms could further increase our knowledge. Second, we discuss two new manifestations of multi-level justice that have hitherto been neglected: intraunit justice (group perceptions regarding how team members generally treat one another) and interunit justice (perceptions regarding the way one group treats another). All of these multi-level justice concepts are organized into a new taxonomy.

This chapter seeks to integrate and expand on the ideas presented by Cropanzano, Li, and James (this volume), Ambrose and Schminke (this volume), and Rupp, Bashshur, and Liao (this volume). First, it summarizes and comments on the key insights made by each set of authors. It then presents five propositions, along with some preliminary evidence supporting each: (1) employees can and do make source-based justice judgments; (2) justice treatment is directed at different targets (including individuals and groups, both internal and external to the organization); (3) global justice climate may be a useful approach to studying justice once the relationship between more specific justice climates (e.g., interunit or intraunit justice climate) is better understood; (4) it is necessary to study both general and specific justice climates to understand the unfolding of justice reactions over time; and (5) a climate for justice can be behaviorally measured and trained.

Joseph A. Alutto is dean, Max M. Fisher College of Business, as well as executive dean of the Professional Colleges, The Ohio State University. He holds the John W. Berry, Sr., Chair in Business. From 1976 to 1990, he was dean of the School of Management, State University of New York at Buffalo. He has published more than 70 articles in leading academic journals and serves on a number of corporate and public sector boards, including Nationwide Financial Services, United Retail Group, Inc., and M/I Homes.