Time Matters in Team Performance: Effects of Member Familiarity, Entrainment, and Task Discontinuity on Speed and Quality

Abstract

We compared the speed and quality of performance for familiar, initially unfamiliar but continuing, and one‐shot (single session) teams. We also proposed and observed entrainment effects for task time limits. Over the course of weekly sessions with changing tasks, continuing teams reached speed levels of the initially familiar teams, but the one‐shot teams were consistently slower. Continuing teams also tended to have higher‐quality output than the one‐shot teams. There were no differences in how quickly each type of group entrained to time limits on the tasks. Entrainment was not robust to task discontinuity (Task A, then B). However, entrainment on repeated trials of a task persisted even when a different type of task “interrupted” those repeated trials (Task A, then B, then A again). Results compel a richer incorporation of time as a medium for complex task sequences, and time‐based constructs as a feature of team membership in the study of group effectiveness.

Multiple Team Membership: A Theoretical Model of its Effects on Productivity and Learning for Individuals and Teams.

“…As Fuller and Dennis (2004: 2) note, "The realization of misalignments or discrepant events can trigger certain activities by teams to reassess existing structures and enact new structures." Although there is eventually a quality/quantity tradeoff, teams working under tighter time constraints do tend to produce at a faster rate (Bluedorn, Turban, & Love, 1999;Gevers, Rutte, & van Eerde, 2006;Harrison et al, 2003;Kelly & McGrath, 1985;Seers & Woodruff, 1997;Waller et al, 2002). In contrast, when teams are not under some form of time pressure, they tend to use their time less efficiently and allow the work to expand to fill the time (Parkinson, 1955(Parkinson, , 1958.…”

“…A team's temporal structure includes how frequently it must meet, when meetings typically start (Labianca, Moon, & Watt, 2005), the mix of time that various members must devote to the team (Cummings, 2007), the amount of work that must be completed during given periods (Leroy & Sproull, forthcoming), the team's approaches to deadlines and time pressure (Waller, Zellmer-Bruhn, & Giambatista, 2002), and the rhythm of team meetings (Maznevski & Chudoba, 2000). Such structures help teams coordinate and complete their work (Harrison, Mohammed, McGrath, Florey, & Vanderstoep, 2003;Im, Yates, & Orlikowski, 2005;Janicik & Bartel, 2003;McGrath, 1988;Orlikowski & Yates, 2002). …”

“…and complete their work (Harrison, Mohammed, McGrath, Florey, & Vanderstoep, 2003;Im, Yates, & Orlikowski, 2005;Janicik & Bartel, 2003;McGrath, 1988;Orlikowski & Yates, 2002).…”

Environmental Volatility, Development Decisions, and Software Volatility: A Longitudinal Analysis

“…Although rotating workers across teams and projects can increase flexibility in staff assignment, the literature on team familiarity suggests that teams produce lower quality output when some or all members don't know each other well (Harrison, et al 2003). When new developers are assigned to work on the software product they are initially less familiar with its design and code structure, and may have little experience working with other team members.…”

“…One important aspect of team composition is team tenure, as the performance of a product development team is strongly influenced by the extent to which the team members have worked together on prior related projects (Brown and Eisenhardt 1995). Researchers in organizational psychology have found through experimentation that teams where members are less familiar are consistently slower in completing tasks than teams that have worked together before, as the prior experience of working together provides a basis for coordination and division of labor and reduces process losses in team interactions (Harrison, et al 2003). Researchers also suggest that team tenure has increasing importance for performance as the uncertainty of the task environment increases because familiar teams can respond more quickly to changing conditions due to their larger and better organized knowledge, better internal problem representations, and more automated responses to work stimuli (Goodman andShah 1992, Allen 1977;Clark and Wheelwright 1998).…”