1 / 19

Josette Gevers, Wendelien Van Eerde, Christel Rutte Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

Team Self-Regulation and Meeting Deadlines in Project Teams: Antecedents and Effects of Temporal Consensus. Josette Gevers, Wendelien Van Eerde, Christel Rutte Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. Project Teams - Meeting Deadlines?.

stesha
Download Presentation

Josette Gevers, Wendelien Van Eerde, Christel Rutte Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Team Self-Regulation and Meeting Deadlines in Project Teams:Antecedents and Effects of Temporal Consensus Josette Gevers, Wendelien Van Eerde, Christel Rutte Technische Universiteit Eindhoven

  2. Project Teams - Meeting Deadlines? In 2004, a worldwide study of more than 9000 IT-projects revealed that • only 29% of projects were successfully completed • 53% were challenged • 18% failed

  3. Why is meeting deadlines in teams so difficult? • Different interpretation of project plans • Different reactions to deadlines • Different temporal norms • may hamper effective coordination of activities and a smooth flow of work

  4. Prior Research Two crucial factors for teams working under deadline conditions • Attention to time (Gersick, 1988; 1989; Waller et al., 1999; 2002) • Consensus about the use of time (Gevers et al., 2006) Question: Are these two factors related?

  5. Current Research • Our research examines: • Antecedents of temporal consensus • (team self-regulation) • Effects of temporal consensus • (coordinated action and timeliness) • Longitudinal relationships

  6. Temporal Consensus • The extent to which team members have a shared understanding of the temporal aspects of their collective task(Gevers, Rutte, & Van Eerde, 2006) • ` • based on • Cognitive Consensus: "Similarity among group members regarding how key issues are defined and conceptualized" (Mohammed & Dumbville, 2001, p. 98)

  7. Team Self-Regulation Means through which teams may pay explicity attention to time in preparation, execution, and evaluation of their task process: • Temporal Planning • Temporal Reminders • Temporal Reflexivity • ` • based on • Action Regulation Theory (Hacker, 2003) • Tschan's Ideal cycles of communication (1995; 2002)

  8. T. Planning ΔT. Planning Coordinated Action Timeliness T. Reminders TC ΔT. Reminders ΔTC T. Reflexivity ΔT. Reflexivity T1 T2 T3 Research Model

  9. Method • Sample • 48 student project teams (3d year industrial engineering students) • 13 week consultancy project in a field setting • Team size: 3-7 members • 3 data collection points in time: • T1: week 3 (end of the orientation phase) • T2: week 11 (near end of the execution phase) • T3: after presentation of final report

  10. Method • Measures • Temporal Planning: T1 and T2, 6 items (Anchored Planning, Tripoli, 1998) • To what extent did your group formulate specific goals to accomplish this task? • (1 = hardly ever to 5 = to a high degree) • Temporal Reminders: T1 and T2: 3 items (Gevers et al., 2006) • In my group, we have reminded each other of important milestones • (1 = disagree completely to 5 = agree completely) • Temporal Reflexivity: T1 and T2, 5 items • To what extent did your group reflect on how time was used in the project • (1 = hardly ever to 5 = to a high degree)

  11. Method • Measures • Temporal Consensus: T1 and T2, 4 items(Gevers et al., 2006) • In my group, we agree on how to allocate the time available • (1 = disagree completely to 5 = agree completely) • Coordinated Action: T2, 5 items • Our project is running smoothly • (1 = disagree completely to 5 = agree completely) • Timeliness: T3,1 item • When did you finish the final report? • (1= much too late; 2 = a bit too late; 3 = just in time; 4 = in ample time)

  12. Method • Response • 94% at T1; 95% at T2 and T3 • Data Treatment • Individual scores were aggregated to mean team level scores • Majority score for the Timeliness measure • Change scores were calculated by subtracting T1 from T2. • Analyses • Hierarchical regression analyses (one-tailed α = .05) • Controlling for T1 when testing longitudinal effects • Control variables: Team size and Member familiarity

  13. Results 1 T. Planning T1 .59 (p < .01) T. Reminders T1 TC T1 -.53 (p < .01) T. Reflexivity T1 N = 46; F = 5.52 (p < .01); R2= .35

  14. T. Planning T1 Δ T. Planning T2 T. Reminders T1 TC T1 T. Reflexivity T1 ΔT. Reflexivity T2 Results 2 Δ T. Reminders T2 ΔTC T2 .38 (p < .05) N = 46; F = 4.44 (p < .05); R2= .35

  15. .79 (p < .001) Coordinated Action T2 .40 (p < .01) .37 (p < .01) Results 3 .40 (p < .01) Timeliness TC T1 ΔTC T2 .31 (p < .05)

  16. Coordinated Action T2 Planning T1 TC T1 Timeliness ΔTC T2 ΔReminders T2 Summary Results • Increasing temporal reminders facilitates further alignment of temporal perspectives • Temporal consensus (early and developed) facilitate timeliness through positive effects on coordinated action (full mediation). • Initial planning facilitates early temporal consensus (cf. Janicik & Bartel, 2003)

  17. Discussion • Temporal Reflexivity: Is it good.... or is it a bad sign? • Initial planning vs. In-process planning? • Inappropriateness of temporal consensus?(Gevers et al, 2006)

  18. Thank you for your attention!

More Related