Gersick
® Academy of Management /ournaJ 1989, Vol. 32, No. 2, 274-309.
MARKING TIME: PREDICTABLE TRANSITIONS IN TASK GROUPS
CONNIE J. G. GERSICK University of California, Los Angeles
A new model of group development suggests that groups ' attention to time and pacing is an important catalyst of their progress through creative projects. In this laboratory study, groups were videotaped as they produced creative products and then interviewed about replays of selected portions of the tapes. Participants ' efforts to pace themselves were explored in depth, with special focus on a key feature of the model, a major transition in groups ' approach toward their work at the midpoint of their allotted time. The appropriateness of laboratory simulation for studying midpoint transitions was also assessed. The laboratory results mirrored and extended the field-based model; they showed how groups make deliberate attentional shifts at their temporal midpoints, what differences exist between pacing patterns in the first and second halves of groups ' life spans, and what happens when transitions fail. Implications are drawn for theory, practice, and research.
Organizations often rely on small groups when they need an innovation by a deadline. Managers appoint time-limited task forces and committees to deal witb novel problems. Businesses designate time-limited project groups to invent new products. Consultants set up time-limited retreats for topexecutive teams to design new strategies. How do such groups manage—or fail—to produce unpredictable outcomes within preset schedules? Answering that question requires understanding (1) how groups progress through creative tasks and (2) how groups pace themselves, or fit work into time. Although there are important literatures bearing on eacb of tbose two points separately, almost no research has considered the integrative question of how groups pace themselves through creative work. However, my recent field study of the complete life cycles
MARKING TIME: PREDICTABLE TRANSITIONS IN TASK GROUPS
CONNIE J. G. GERSICK University of California, Los Angeles
A new model of group development suggests that groups ' attention to time and pacing is an important catalyst of their progress through creative projects. In this laboratory study, groups were videotaped as they produced creative products and then interviewed about replays of selected portions of the tapes. Participants ' efforts to pace themselves were explored in depth, with special focus on a key feature of the model, a major transition in groups ' approach toward their work at the midpoint of their allotted time. The appropriateness of laboratory simulation for studying midpoint transitions was also assessed. The laboratory results mirrored and extended the field-based model; they showed how groups make deliberate attentional shifts at their temporal midpoints, what differences exist between pacing patterns in the first and second halves of groups ' life spans, and what happens when transitions fail. Implications are drawn for theory, practice, and research.
Organizations often rely on small groups when they need an innovation by a deadline. Managers appoint time-limited task forces and committees to deal witb novel problems. Businesses designate time-limited project groups to invent new products. Consultants set up time-limited retreats for topexecutive teams to design new strategies. How do such groups manage—or fail—to produce unpredictable outcomes within preset schedules? Answering that question requires understanding (1) how groups progress through creative tasks and (2) how groups pace themselves, or fit work into time. Although there are important literatures bearing on eacb of tbose two points separately, almost no research has considered the integrative question of how groups pace themselves through creative work. However, my recent field study of the complete life cycles
References: Bales, R. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. 1951. Phases in group problem solving. Joumal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46: 485-495. Eldrege, N., & Gould, S. J. 1972. Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T. J. Schopf (Ed.). Models in paleobiology: 82-115. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper & Co. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. 1984. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Frye, R., & Stritch, T. 1964. Effect of timed vs. non-timed discussion upon measures of influence and change in small groups. Joumal of Social Psychology, 63: 139-143. Gersick, C. J. G. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group developraent Academy of Management Joumal, 31: 9-41. with 10 or 20 minutes per trial and anagrams to do throughout, perceived themselves as having essentially the same task across trials, but groups in the current study perceived the nature of their task as changing at the midpoint. 308 Academy of Management Journal June Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Wiedenfeld & Nicholson. Hackman, J. R. 1986. The design of work in teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior: 315-342. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Hackman, J. R., & Walton, R. E. 1986. Leading groups in organizations. In P. S. Goodman & associates (Eds.), Designing effective work groups: 72-119. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hare, A. P. 1976. Handbook of small group research (2d ed.). New York: Free Press. Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J., & Woodman, R. 1986. Organizational behavior (4th ed.). St. Paul: West Publishing Co. Hermann, C. 1972. Threat, time, and surprise: A simulation of international crises. In C. Hermann (Ed.), Intemational crises: Insights from behavioral research: 187-211. New York: Free Press. Hoffman, L. R., & O 'Day, R. 1979. The process of solving reasoning and value problems. In L. R. Hoffman (Ed.), The group problem-solving process: Studies of a valence model: 66-77. New York: Praeger. Isenberg, D. J. 1981. Some effects of time-pressure on vertical structure and decision-making accuracy in small groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27: 119134. Jensen, J. 1960. On the "Einstellung" effect in problem solving. Scandinavian Joumal of Psychology, 7: 135-150. Luchins, A. S. 1940. Mechanization in problem solving: The effect of Einstellung. Psychological Monographs, 54: 248. March, J., & Simon, H. 1958. Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons. McGrath, J. E. 1986. Studying groups at work: Ten critical needs for theory and practice. In P. S. Goodman & associates (Eds.), Designing effective work groups: 363-392. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McGrath, J. E. 1987. Time, groups, and organizations: Burma shave signs on the rocky road of research. Invited address to Division 14, 95th Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association, New York. McGrath, J. E. Forthcoming. Toward a time-based theory of functional groups. In R. P. McGlynn (Ed.), Groups and organizations. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University Press. McGrath, J. E., & Kelly, J. R. 1986. Time and human interaction: Toward a social psychology of time. New York: Guilford Press. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1984. Qualitative data imalysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Norden, P. V. 1965. Some properties of project schedule recovery limits. In M. C. Yovits, D. M. Gilford, R. H. Wilcox, E. Staveley, & H. D. Lerner (Eds.), Research program effectiveness: Proceedings of the conference sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, Washington, D.C, July 1965: 287-318. New York: Gordon & Breach. Poole, M. S. 1983a. Decision development in small groups: II—A study of multiple sequences of decision making. Communication Monographs, 50: 206-232. Poole, M. S. 1983b. Decision development in small groups: III—A study of multiple sequences of decision making. Commtmication Monographs, 50: 321-341. Pruitt, D., & Drews, J. 1969. The effect of time pressure, time elapsed, and the opponent 's concession rate on behavior in negotiation. Joumal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5: 43-60. Rosenthal, R. 1987. Judgment studies: Design, analysis, and meta-analysis. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 1989 Gersick 309 Szilagy, A,, & Wallace, M, 1987, Organizational behavior and performance (4th ed.). Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman & Co, Tosi, H,, Rizzo, J,, & Garroll, S, 1986, Managing organizational behavior. Marshfield, Mass,: Pitman Publishing, Tuckman, B, 1965, Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63: 384399, Connie Gersick earned her Ph,D, degree at Yale University; she is an assistant professor in organization and strategic studies at the Anderson Graduate School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, Her research interests include group effectiveness and change processes in human systems.