FOLDING UNDER PRESSURE OR RISING TO THE OCCASION? PERCEIVED TIME PRESSURE AND THE MODERATING ROLE OF TEAM TEMPORAL LEADERSHIP

“Team temporal leadership” orients teams toward managing the time-related aspects of their work. We examine how perceived time pressure affects team processes and subsequent performance under weak versus strong team temporal leadership. The results of our field study of 111 project teams show that the mediated relationship between perceived time pressure and team performance is non-linear. Moreover, this non-linear mediated relationship is moderated by team temporal leadership such that, under strong team temporal leadership, the indirect effect of perceived time pressure on team performance is mostly positive, while, under conditions of weak team temporal leadership, the indirect effect is positive at low levels of perceived time pressure and negative at intermediate to high levels. Implications for current and future time pressure research are also discussed.

Teams have emerged as an attractive form for organizing work largely because they possess better informational resources compared to individuals, they facilitate management of interdependence under increased task complexity, and they are capable of integrating different sources of expertise to identify new product and service opportunities (Argote & Ingram, 2000;Gardner, Gino, & Staats, 2012).Teamwork often requires multiple tasks to be executed simultaneously, sequentially, or reciprocally (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001;McGrath, 1991).Increasingly responsible for designing and bringing new products and services to market, teams often perceive that they are under time pressure (Amabile, Hadley, & Kramer, 2002).Thus, improving team performance requires the ability to manage complex assignments under tight deadlines (Harrison, Mohammed, McGrath, Florey, & Vanderstoep, 2003).Unfortunately, research on teams shows a mixed track record regarding team performance in the face of "perceived time pressure"hereafter referred to simply as "time pressure"1 (Driskell, Salas, & Johnston, 1999;Pearsall, Ellis, & Stein, 2009).
At the individual level, there are mixed findings regarding the relationship between time pressure and employee performance (e.g., Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000;LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005).Indeed, various theoretical frameworks, such as the challenge-hindrance stressor framework, suggest that time pressure is a positive stressor that motivates individuals to engage in activities that will overcome obstacles to performance (LePine et al., 2005).Other individual-level studies find a negative relationship between time pressure The authors thank associate editor Bennett Tepper and three anonymous reviewers for the numerous insights and suggestions that helped shape this article.The authors are also grateful to Riki Takeuchi and Sucheta Nadkarni who provided valuable feedback on an earlier version of this article.and performance (e.g., Kelly & McGrath, 1985;McDaniel, 1990), and yet others find evidence of an inverted U-shape relationship (e.g., Baer & Oldham, 2006).Empirical examinations at the team level have also yielded mixed results about the effect of time pressure on performance.Some studies have found that time pressure has a positive effect on performance (e.g., Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996;Andrews & Farris, 1972;Pearsall et al., 2009).Other empirical studies at the team level show time pressure having a negative effect on performance (e.g., Driskell et al., 1999;Perlow, 1999).However, this corpus of work does not explain when time pressure has positive versus negative effects on performance.
One commonality across studies of time pressure is that it affects performance through its impact on team members' interdependent actions-that is, the sequencing and synchronization of tasks among team members that is required for teams to meet their objectives.The findings suggest that, under time pressure, successful teams engage in task management activities that facilitate the execution of interdependent tasks (e.g., Chong, van Eerde, Chai, & Rutte, 2011;Pearsall et al., 2009).In contrast, in less successful teams, team members withdraw from task management activities under time pressure and focus on their own task assignments (e.g., Driskell et al., 1999;Perlow, 1999).This suggests that managing interdependence is critical for achieving success when teams operate under time pressure.Further, it raises important questions about the mechanisms through which perceived time pressure affects performance in field settings.Marks et al. (2001: 359) observed that external conditions in the task environment, such as deadlines, "dictate many aspects of team functioning, including the strategies that are employed, the pace of activities, and role assignments that develop in order for the team to perform successfully."To this end, we answer Ancona, Okhuysen and Perlow's (2001) call for research to examine the link between temporal context, treated as an element of the task environment, and team functioning.
In seeking to address the theoretical ambiguity about how and why time pressure affects team performance, we integrate views on the effect of time pressure and views on the role of leadership in managing temporal issues in teams.First, as some research at the individual level suggests, time pressure can have non-linear effects on task performance (Baer & Oldham, 2006;Ohly, Sonnentag, & Pluntke, 2007).Such research argues that time pressure can be motivational at low to intermediate levels by evoking task engagement, but it can become detrimental at high levels.We consider the presence of such a relationship at the team level to add insight about the differential effects of time pressure on performance in teams.Second, we propose that leadership will affect team performance under varying degrees of time pressure.Prior research has shown that teams are not naturally adept at managing their temporal resources (e.g., Gersick, 1988;Labianca, Moon, & Watt, 2005).Team leaders, who have a high-level view of their teams' tasks and objectives, are in an ideal position to draw team members' attention to temporal issues as well as to provide guidance for efficacious responses under existing time constraints (Morgeson & DeRue, 2006).But just what is it that team leaders should do when their teams are faced with increasing time pressure?Current literature offers limited guidance on this issue.
We delve into this question by investigating the contingent role of "team temporal leadership" (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011) in shaping project teams' responses to time pressure.Following Mohammed and Nadkarni's (2011: 492) definition, we conceptualize team temporal leadership as "leader behaviors that aid in structuring, coordinating, and managing the pacing of task accomplishment within the team."We posit that temporal leadership plays an important role in directing teams' attention to the need for team processes, defined as task management processes that teams use to handle interdependencies between the multiple tasks for which they are responsible (Marks et al., 2001).We propose that strong team temporal leadership enables teams to use time pressure as a motivator for, rather than a discourager of, interdependent task management activities.Our theory proposes that strong team temporal leadership attenuates the curvilinear effect of time pressure on team functioning by enhancing its positive effects and reducing its negative effects.As a consequence, the indirect effect of time pressure through team processes is proposed to vary as a function of (a) the degree of time pressure and (b) the strength of team temporal leadership.
Our work advances theory in several important ways.First, we extend theory on the effects of time pressure by identifying conditions under which time pressure, at the team level, has a positive, rather than a negative, effect on team performance.This is accomplished by identifying leadership interventions that shape responses to time pressure.
Second, we advance theory on the effects of time pressure by uncovering its non-linear mediated effects under weak versus strong team temporal leadership.Prior theory has implicitly assumed a linear mediated relationship and has focused on a narrow set of team processes.Finally, we advance the study of temporal leadership.Although prior work has focused on the contingent role of temporal leadership based on team composition (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011), we have a limited understanding of this important leadership role in the context of perceptions of the task environment and team processes.

Perceived Time Pressure in Teams
Time pressure is a common feature of organizational work (Gersick, 1988;Gevers, Rutte, & van Eerde, 2006;Waller, Zellmer-Bruhn, & Giambatista, 2002) and has been found to affect behavior and performance in teams (e.g., Chong et al., 2011;Karau & Kelly, 1992;Kelly & Loving, 2004;Pearsall et al., 2009;Perlow, 1999).It is defined as the perception that there is a scarcity of time available to complete a task, or set of tasks, relative to the demands of the task(s) at hand (Cooper, Dewe, & O'Driscoll, 2001;Kelly & McGrath, 1985).This is conceptually distinct from performance pressure, which focuses on shared accountability for outcomes, high scrutiny of work, and significant consequences of performance outcomes (Gardner, 2012).Time pressure is also conceptually distinct from urgency.Urgency is a stable trait that reflects a concern for time and a feeling of being chronically hurried (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011).In contrast, time pressure is an evaluation of the task environment, as opposed to being an individual trait.
A number of prior studies have found a positive relationship between time pressure and team performance.For example, an experiment by Pearsall et al. (2009) showed that teams under high time pressure conditions reported higher levels of problem solving, exhibited an improved coping style, and achieved greater performance compared to teams in other experimental conditions.In a field study of new product development teams, Chong et al. (2011) found that, when experienced as a motivator, time pressure positively influenced team coordination and performance.Other studies, adopting a social entrainment perspective, have found that actual time pressure acts as a "pacer"-a mechanism that allows teams to calibrate the speed of task execution relative to existing time constraints-that increases team performance (e.g., Kelly & Karau, 1999;Kelly & Loving 2004;Kelly & McGrath, 1985;Waller et al., 2002).Taken together, these studies support the view of time pressure as a factor that promotes positive behaviors that enhance team performance.
Contrary to the positive view advanced above, there are also studies that show a negative relationship between time pressure and team performance.For instance, when varying actual time pressure, Karau and Kelly (1992) found that teams working under greater time pressure produced outputs that were of lower quality, creativity, and depth than those of teams working under lesser time pressure.Similarly, Kelly and McGrath (1985) found that teams initially operating under greater actual time pressure performed poorly (i.e., produced outputs of lower quality and quantity) on initial and subsequent tasks, even when subsequent tasks involved less actual time pressure.In contrast, they found that teams that initially operated under lower actual time pressure had higher performance even when subsequent tasks involved greater actual time pressure.An experiment by Driskell et al. (1999) found that time pressure led to lower performance in teams.Durham, Locke, Poon, and McLeod (2000) argued that time pressure negatively affects teams' willingness to seek knowledge to inform their decisions and confidence in their decisions.Finally, the negative effect of time pressure is revealed in Perlow's (1999) sociology of time framework, in which perceptions of time pressure cause developers to engage in an endless cycle of inefficient time use, thus constraining goal achievement.
What accounts for this differential influence of time pressure on team performance?One stream of research suggests that the level of time pressure may provide part of the explanation.In particular, empirical research on the effects of job demands (which include time pressure) has found support for an inverted-U shape relationship with various employee outcomes, such as creativity (e.g., Baer & Oldham, 2006;Ohly, Sonnentag, & Pluntke, 2007) and job satisfaction (e.g., Zivnuska, Kiewitz, Hochwater, Perrewe, & Zellars, 2002).The argument underlying this body of work is that moderate time pressure provides the necessary motivation to keep employees engaged in their work, whereas the absence of time pressure provides little stimulation and high time pressure is debilitating or distracting.
Although this research has been conducted primarily at the individual level, such a view of time pressure has the potential to yield insights at the team level.Perceived Time Pressure and Team Functioning Time pressure has been studied at the individual level, and, in the present research, we extend its conceptualization to the team level.Specifically, we conceptualize time pressure as a shared property of the team that originates from the common experiences and perceptions of team members.Social interactions underscore the primary process underlying the emergence of such properties (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000).Time pressure emerges as a shared property of teams for several reasons.First, consistent with prior literature, perceptions of time pressure are shaped by the task environment (Gardner, 2012).As members of a team work together to accomplish team tasks, they are exposed to the same task environment, creating convergence in their perceptions of time pressure.Second, research on emotional contagion suggests that social interactions facilitate the transmission of the emotional state of social actors (Pugh, 2001).Time pressure experienced by individuals is transmitted across various team members through their interactions.Finally, given the task and outcome interdependence of teams in field settings, perceptions of time pressure are likely to converge, as members are dependent on one another for task inputs and are jointly responsible for producing team outputs.With such interdependence, team members are likely to share their perceptions of time pressure.
Time pressure influences performance by affecting team behaviors or processes.Project teams often perform work that involves multiple tasks that must be managed simultaneously, and each task is made up of multiple, interrelated subtasks (Marks et al., 2001;McGrath, 1991).While task work represents the substantive content of teamwork, team processes represent the interdependent acts through which teams organize task work to achieve their goals (Marks et al., 2001).These processes are enacted over multiple interaction episodes, and, as tasks are not carried out in isolation, they often overlap with each other and last for varying durations (McGrath, 1991).Research shows that effective team processes are critical for achieving high team performance (Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006).They serve as a vehicle for transforming team inputs into high-quality, timely outcomes (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005;LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul, 2008).Marks et al. (2001) developed a taxonomy of team processes that identifies three overarching categories of processes that are tied to points in time (or phases) in team activity: transition, action, and interpersonal processes.
Team processes.During transition processes, teams engage in various activities, such as planning, reflection, and evaluation, to guide their progress toward accomplishing objectives.Marks et al. (2001) argued that teams engage in different forms of planning.Through deliberate planning, team members discuss their formal action steps for accomplishing goals.Contingency planning enables teams to develop alternative courses of action that can be taken in the face of potential anticipated events in the task environment.Reactive planning involves spur of the moment planning in response to unexpected events that affect the team's ability to achieve its objectives.Marks et al. (2001) noted that teams also use transition processes to identify and prioritize key goals and subgoals that need to be achieved in service of their overall objectives.
Action processes involve monitoring progress toward goals, systems monitoring, team monitoring and backing-up behavior, and coordination (LePine et al., 2008).By monitoring progress toward goals, teams assess their performance relative to their objectives and determine what needs to be done (Tschan, 2002).Systems monitoring enables teams to keep track of resources and the external environment to ensure that they have what they need to accomplish their goals.Through monitoring and backing-up behavior, team members provide one another with feedback and offer assistance in executing tasks (Porter, 2005).Coordination involves the synchronization of team member activities so that their timing and sequencing helps goal achievement (Marks et al., 2001).Taken together, these action processes enable teams to direct their resources more efficiently toward task accomplishment.
Interpersonal processes do not occur in phases and involve team efforts to manage conflict, develop and maintain a sense of collective motivation, and regulate team members' affect (Marks et al., 2001).Conflict management represents teams' efforts to either preemptively prevent, or control, conflict, or to manage it when it actually occurs (Simons & Peterson, 2000).Through motivation and confidence building, teams aim to generate and maintain a sense of motivation about their objective and their confidence in accomplishing their objective.Affect management reflects teams' efforts to regulate potentially destructive emotions, such as frustration or anger, during mission accomplishment (Marks et al., 2001).Failure to manage these interpersonal concerns has been argued to have a negative effect on team performance (e.g., Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999;Maruping & Agarwal, 2004).
Perceived time pressure and team processes.Our conceptual model of the effects of time pressure is presented in Figure 1.Following the logic of activation theory, time pressure is expected to have an inverted-U shape relationship with team processes.Low levels of time pressure promote minimal levels of activation (Baer & Oldham, 2006;Ohly et al., 2007).Consistent with this logic, Gersick (1988) and others (e.g., Waller et al., 2002) found that teams were less attentive to the planning-related issues that characterize team transition processes when time was not seen as a constraint.As time pressure increases from low to intermediate levels, teams become more attentive to looming deadlines and feel the need to develop a clear course of action for achieving objectives.Baer and Oldham (2006) suggested that intermediate levels of time pressure are optimal for facilitating the experience of activation-the stimulation or arousal that motivates individuals to engage with the task at hand (Gardner, 1990).At intermediate levels of time pressure, team members perceive that it is still possible to complete task requirements within the time available (Baer & Oldham, 2006;Ohly et al., 2007).Team members are not only prompted to engage in transition processes, they also become proactive in executing the interdependent actions necessary for accomplishing assigned tasks (Ohly et al., 2007).Chong et al. (2011) found that the more team members perceived time pressure as a motivational challenge, the more likely they were to engage in the coordination activities necessary to complete their tasks.With an elevated sense of task engagement, team members are likely to build confidence and motivate one another to achieve their objectives.
High levels of time pressure cause teams to become more concerned with executing the activities that contribute directly to task accomplishment (Kelly & McGrath, 1985;Waller et al., 2002).Consequently, they are less likely to take the time necessary to engage in various task management processes, such as transition, action, and interpersonal processes.Karau and Kelly (1992) observed that time pressure causes teams to restrict their focus to task completion as their primary objective.Such teams are less systematic in the way they process information, and tend to avoid deeper and purposeful discussion of alternative courses of action or evaluation of chosen actions (Karau & Kelly, 1992;Kelly & Karau, 1999).High levels of time pressure also reduce the likelihood that teams discuss the timing and sequencing of task execution, as teammates are unlikely to coordinate their work (Chong et al., 2011).Finally, time pressure increases the likelihood of conflict, as confusion emerges about who should complete what FIGURE 1 Hypothesized Model of Time Pressure and the Moderating Role of Team Temporal Leadership tasks under limited time constraints.Limited time to resolve conflicts leads to heightened frustration among team members.In sum, high levels of time pressure result in a pressing need to simply get things done.Such reactions are consistent with hindrance views of time pressure and should reduce the likelihood that team processes are executed efficaciously (Chong et al., 2011).Thus: Hypothesis 1.Time pressure will have an inverted-U relationship with team processes.
The perspective laid out above provides a potentially compelling explanation regarding the inconsistent views of time pressure and its effects on performance in teams.However, it is also somewhat incomplete, as it fails to explain why some research finds a negative linear effect of time pressure on team performance (e.g., Driskell et al., 1999) and other research shows that some teams are able to perform well under high levels of time pressure (e.g., Chong et al., 2011).We suggest that, although time pressure can act as a positive force, teams differ in their ability to transform this source of task motivation into action, sometimes allowing it to become more of a hindrance.McGrath (1991) casts time as an environmental driver that shapes how teams manage the bundles of activities that constitute their work.However, as subsequent research has shown, such time constraints must be perceived before teams will act on them, and this often does not occur until task deadlines draw near (Waller et al., 2002).Therefore, the effect of time pressure on team processes depends on how well equipped teams are to address these temporal issues.As we will argue next, team leaders have a vital role to play in enabling teams to manage time pressure.

Team Temporal Leadership
The preceding discussion suggests that, when team members respond positively to time pressure, they have the motivation and ability to perform the necessary interdependent processes to achieve their objectives (Pearsall et al., 2009), such as team members believing in their task-related abilities (Gevers, van Eerde, & Rutte, 2001).In contrast, team members may find themselves experiencing process losses due to their inability to manage interdependent tasks under time pressure (Blunt & Pychyl, 2000;Hunter & Thatcher, 2007).Team leadership, with its high-level view of the team, its tasks and task environment, and its objectives, has a prominent role in enabling teams to function under such circumstances (Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010).However, the literature has been largely silent about the role of leadership in enabling teams to negotiate the temporal aspects of the work environment (for exceptions, see Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence, & Tushman, 2001;Bluedorn & Jaussi, 2008;Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011;van der Erve, 2004).
Team temporal leadership involves the structuring, coordination, and management of task pacing in teamwork (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011).Such pacing of task accomplishment is facilitated through the scheduling of key milestones ahead of task deadlines, synchronizing team members' inputs and outputs, and allocating temporal resources to ensure that there is adequate time to accomplish team goals.Taken together, these behaviors motivate teams to attend to the temporal aspects of their work, enabling them to effectively mobilize their resources within given time constraints.Mohammed and Nadkarni (2011) recently found that team temporal leadership is important for regulating the effects of team temporal diversity on team performance.Here, we focus on understanding how team temporal leadership enables teams to regulate their internal activities, as embodied in team processes, in response to time pressure-an appraisal of the external task environment.As we argue next, team temporal leadership is especially critical in shaping whether teams respond positively or negatively to time pressure.

Moderating Role of Team Temporal Leadership
Effects under strong team temporal leadership.Team temporal leadership will moderate the inverted-U relationship between time pressure and team processes.Specifically, under strong team temporal leadership, the positive effects of time pressure are enhanced and the negative effects are mitigated.When time pressure-induced activation is coupled with strong team temporal leadership, teams are in an optimal position to enhance team processes.This is because, at intermediate levels of time pressure, teams are motivated to attend to the time pressure they are experiencing and strong team temporal leadership provides them with the guidance to formulate a plan of action that is sensitive to their time constraints.
Strong team temporal leadership enables teams to respond positively to time pressure via engagement in transition processes.The guidance that team temporal leadership provides for teams to deal with temporal issues leads teams to view time pressure as a motivator and elicits a problem-solving style of coping (LePine et al., 2005).Strong team temporal leadership embodies the necessary accumulated knowledge about how to organize and manage interdependent actions under time scarcity (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011), and enacting such knowledge enables teams to perform the appropriate processes (Gevers et al., 2001).Such guidance is useful for managing low to moderate levels of time pressure.Teams are more adept at achieving their objectives when they take time to discuss their task strategies within the context of existing time constraints (Gevers et al., 2009).Teams are also more likely to prioritize goals and subgoals to emphasize those that are most important given existing time constraints (Schriber & Gutek, 1987).Gevers and colleagues (2006) argued that temporal reminders trigger teams to attend to such temporal aspects of task execution when the pressure of a deadline exists and team leaders are able to issue and enforce reminders (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011;Morgeson et al., 2010).
In addition to scheduling behaviors, team temporal leadership involves synchronizing the timing of team member actions so that work is completed on time (Schriber & Gutek, 1987).When team leaders raise awareness of the need to synchronize activities, teams are likely to respond to time pressure by attending to the coordination and timing of tasks and subtasks (Gevers et al., 2006).Janicik and Bartel (2003) noted that temporal awareness trains teams to respond effectively to temporal conditions such as time pressure.Other research has argued for a link between teams' attention to time and their level of task-related activity (e.g., Gersick, 1988;Waller, Giambatista, & Zellmer-Bruhn, 1999;Waller et al., 2002).
By allocating temporal resources (e.g., building in time for dealing with problems), strong team temporal leadership provides a context in which teams are able to resolve conflicts and manage emotions through interpersonal processes (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011).With strong team temporal leadership, team members are able to think and talk about resolving task-related conflicts within the context of existing time constraints (e.g., task prioritization).Team temporal leadership also provides teams with the temporal resources that can boost their confidence and enable them to respond positively to time pressure (Gevers et al., 2001).
Effects under weak team temporal leadership.In contrast to teams under strong team temporal leadership, the negative effects of time pressure are magnified and the positive effects are mitigated under weak team temporal leadership.Low levels of time pressure promote minimal levels of activation (Baer & Oldham, 2006;Ohly et al., 2007) and weak temporal leadership limits engagement in team processes from team members.Although team members may be aware of time constraints, under weak temporal leadership, they may not be equipped with the necessary tools to put a plan of action into place within the context of those constraints (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011).Labianca et al. (2005) found that teams are not naturally equipped to handle temporal constraints, such as time pressure, and this may disrupt their existing temporal schema, especially when weak temporal leadership is present.
Time pressure reduces the likelihood that teams discuss the timing and sequencing of task execution, as teammates are unlikely to coordinate their work (Chong et al., 2011).When team temporal leadership is weak, teams lack the confidence and ability to manage temporal challenges.Consequently, they often adopt an avoidance strategy, enabling time pressure to disrupt team coordination and backingup behavior (Chong et al., 2011;Driskell et al., 1999).In such conditions, teams respond to time pressure by shunning these task management processes.In sum, although time pressure may cause teams to focus on task execution, it reduces their focus on the process of managing task execution-that is, action processes.
In teams with weak team temporal leadership, time pressure deteriorates interpersonal processes.First, although intermediate levels of time pressure activate team members to be engaged with their tasks, frustration and anger can set in, as they lack the ability to handle the task challenges posed by such pressure (Perlow, 1999).Second, as noted earlier, time pressure increases the likelihood of conflict as confusion emerges about who should complete what tasks under limited time constraints.The ability to effectively schedule and synchronize tasks under such conditions is important for resolving conflicts.Thus, when team temporal leadership is weak, teams are unable to engage in the necessary discussions to manage task-related conflict.Finally, under weak team temporal leadership, team members lack confidence in their ability to accomplish their objectives within the remaining time (Chong et al., 2011).
Hypothesis 2. Team temporal leadership will moderate the inverted-U shape relationship between time pressure and team processes such that the negative effect is enhanced when temporal leadership is weak, and the positive effect is enhanced and the negative effect is mitigated when temporal leadership is strong.

Mediation Effects
Team processes are expected to mediate the relationship between time pressure and team performance.Team performance is defined as the extent to which a team's project deliverable is produced on time, within budget, and is of high quality (Wallace, Keil, & Rai, 2004).Team processes constitute the primary mechanism through which teams transform their inputs into performance outcomes, and previous theoretical (e.g., Ilgen et al., 2005;Marks et al., 2001) and meta-analytic (e.g., LePine et al., 2008) work has supported a positive relationship between these team processes and team performance.Consequently, we direct our attention to the indirect effects of time pressure through these team processes.Drawing on this logic, team performance in the face of time pressure is shaped by the actions the team takes.
Under strong team temporal leadership, Hypothesis 2 suggests that the positive effects of time pressure on team processes would be enhanced and the negative effects mitigated.Given the positive influence of team processes on team performance, we expect time pressure to have a positive indirect effect on team performance (through team processes) at low to intermediate levels.As high time pressure erodes a team's ability to engage in team processes, we expect the indirect effect to become non-significant at such levels.
Under weak team temporal leadership, the preceding hypothesis indicates that time pressure should enhance the negative effects on team processes, with the relationship being non-significant at low levels of time pressure and negative at intermediate to high levels.Building on this logic, the inverted-U shape effect of time pressure is expected to be transmitted through team processes such that the indirect effect on team performance is nonsignificant at low levels of time pressure and negative at intermediate to high levels of time pressure.In sum, the mediated inverted-U shaped time pressure → team process → team performance relationship will be moderated by team temporal leadership.
Hypothesis 3. Team temporal leadership will moderate the indirect effect of time pressure on team performance via team processes.When team temporal leadership is strong, the indirect effect of time pressure will be positive at low to intermediate levels and non-significant at high levels, and, when team temporal leadership is weak, the indirect effect of time pressure will be non-significant at low levels and negative at intermediate to high levels.

METHOD Organizational Context
The setting for this study was a software firm in India that creates customized products that support the business operations of client firms from around the world.A client firm will first identify a specific software need and then develop a contractual arrangement with the Indian firm to develop a customized solution.For instance, one client firm requested a customized customer relationship-management system to manage its interorganizational partnerships.The contracts that the firm signs with clients stipulate requirements for how the commissioned software will function, as well as specific deadlines within which the software solutions will be delivered.As is often the case in such arrangements, there are penalties if the firm fails to adhere to the contractually agreed-upon delivery deadline or if the delivered software fails to include the expected functionality.
This firm provided an ideal setting for studying the relationship between perceived time pressure and team temporal leadership in affecting team processes and performance.First, this was a teambased organization.When the firm signed a contract with a client, the firm's management would then assign a project team composed of employees with the relevant expertise.Each project team was an intact unit with clear boundaries, such that team members saw themselves and were seen by others as being a distinct collective.Moreover, team members were jointly responsible for the outcome of their team's project.Each project team reported to a team leader who was responsible for ensuring that contract obligations were met.Second, because projects involved contractually agreed-upon deadlines for completion and delivery, this study setting provided an excellent opportunity to observe issues pertaining to time pressure.Penalties for failing to meet predetermined delivery schedules or quality metrics had direct implications for the project teams involved.Specifically, employee performance evaluations, year-end bonuses, and promotions were tied to performance on these software projects.Third, the nature of the project work was non-routine.Each client firm had its own idiosyncratic business processes, standard operating procedures, reporting structures, and technology infrastructure.This meant that there were no predetermined, off-the-shelf solutions that could simply be applied to each client.Rather, project teams had to work to create solutions that were tailored to each client firm's specific needs.This made it important for project teams to manage their temporal resources within project deadlines.
Finally, the nature of the work was such that it involved multiple overlapping and interdependent tasks among team members.Employees were considered part of the team if (a) their name appeared on the project roster and (b) they reported to the same project leader.Each project team consisted of employees with expertise in various technical domains that were relevant to software development.To gain a better understanding of the nature of the teams' work, we randomly chose five teams.Next, we randomly picked four employees from each team for personal interviews.The respondents were asked to provide answers to open-ended questions related to their project activities.The core functions of members on each project team included system analyst, programmer, database designer, and system architect.System analysts were primarily responsible for working with the client firm to understand the business processes that would be supported by the software, the responsibilities of the people who would be using the software, and the kind of data that the software would process.They modeled this information in technical documentation that served as the blueprint for programmers and database designers to use to build the software.Programmers were responsible for building the software code that would capture and process data.Database designers were tasked with developing the database in which data would be stored and used by the software.Finally, the system architect was responsible for designing the technical infrastructure (i.e., networks, servers, etc.) on which the software would be deployed.The software code and the database had to be designed to operate within the specified technical infrastructure.Thus, there was sequential and reciprocal task interdependence between team members across these different areas of responsibility.

Sample and Procedure
The initial survey was sent electronically to 1,571 employees representing 139 teams.The final study sample included 1,115 employees in 111 project teams with an average response rate of 71% per team.On average, employees had 4.35 years of project experience (SD 5 2.80).The mean age of employees was 33.20 (SD 5 6.40) and 28% of them were female.Project team sizes ranged from 8 to 14.There were no statistically significant differences between respondents and non-respondents with respect to age, gender, and organizational tenure.
The projects in our sample were scheduled to launch around the same time, and were each expected to be completed in two months.In order to track responses over time and to link responses to teams, each survey was coded.Once data collection was completed, respondent anonymity was maintained by discarding information linking names to the coded surveys.

Measurement Timing
At the project launch, team members responded to a short survey that requested demographic information.Time pressure, team temporal leadership, and team processes were measured every two weeks over the course of the projects.For the purpose of our model testing, we used time pressure measured at the mid-point of each project (i.e., halfway between the project launch and the deadline in the contract).This point was chosen because prior theory and empirical research on teams shows that this is the point at which teams naturally become cognizant of temporal constraints in their work (e.g., Gersick, 1988;Waller et al., 2002).Thus, for our analysis, the project midpoint (one month after project launch) was used as the baseline measurement point, "time 1" (T1).Following the temporal ordering of our model, we used team temporal leadership measured at time 1.We used the team processes measured at "time 2" (T2), two weeks after T1.Project team leaders rated the performance of their teams after the software solution had been delivered to the client (T3).
Measures2 Time pressure.A four-item scale by Durham et al. (2000) was adapted to assess time pressure.The scale reflects the extent to which team members feel that they have little time to complete their work.The scale demonstrated acceptable reliability and aggregation statistics (individual-level a 5 0.80, median r WG(J) 5 0.74, ICC[1] 5 0.28, ICC[2] 5 0.76).Within-team member responses were averaged to compute a team-level score.
Team temporal leadership.A seven-item scale developed and validated by Mohammed and Nadkarni (2011) was used to assess team temporal leadership.The scale used "1" 5 "not at all" and "7" 5 "a great deal" as anchors (individual-level a 5 0.77).The aggregation statistics suggested that it was appropriate to aggregate within-team responses (median r WG(J) 5 0.82, ICC[1] 5 0.18, ICC[2] 5 0.80).Hence, we averaged the scores provided by respondents within each team to compute a team-level score of team temporal leadership.
Team processes.Following Mathieu et al. (2006), we measured team processes using scales for team transition, action, and interpersonal processes.The scale for team transition processes was derived from Marks and colleagues' ( 2001) superordinate taxonomy of team processes, and reflects the extent to which teams engage in mission analysis, goal specification, and strategy formulation and planning.The scale had adequate reliability and aggregation statistics, suggesting that it was appropriate to compute a team-level score for team transition processes by averaging within-team ratings (individual-level a 5 0.80, median r WG(J) 5 0.71, ICC[1] 5 0.26, ICC[2] 5 0.75).Team action processes were measured using scales from Mathieu et al. (2006), descriptions of task management activities by Marks et al. (2001), and a scale on backing-up behavior by Porter (2005).The scale assesses the extent to which teams engage in various activities, such as monitoring progress toward goals, backup behavior, and coordination (individual-level a 5 0.72, median r WG(J) 5 0.75, ICC[1] 5 0.25, ICC[2] 5 0.77).For interpersonal processes, scales from Mathieu et al. (2006) and Jehn et al. (1999) were adapted to create a 10-item measure for team interpersonal processes.The scale assesses the extent to which the team creates an environment of trust and works to resolve task and affective conflict when it emerges (individual-level a 5 0.79, median r WG(J) 5 0.74, ICC [1] 5 0.19, ICC[2] 5 0.76).
Team performance.In light of our interest in the ability of teams to perform under varying levels of time pressure, we measured team performance using a scale from Wallace et al. (2004) that asked team leaders whether their team's project output met client expectations, was of a high quality, and was delivered on time and within budget.The scale demonstrated good reliability (a 5 0.82).
Control variables.A number of control variables were included in the analyses.First, we included team tenure, or the average tenure of the team members, as teams that have been together longer are likely to establish practices that yield better performance compared to newly established teams.Second, as larger teams tend to have greater coordination costs that could affect their ability to manage time pressure, we controlled for team size, or a count of team members.Finally, average team member project experience was used to assess team members' familiarity with their task assignments.Teams with greater task familiarity are more likely to perform well in the face of time pressure compared to teams with limited task experience.Each team member indicated the number of years they had performed the kind of work assigned to them.We averaged these data within each team.Further, in order to isolate the effects of time pressure, we controlled for discrepancies in perceptions of time pressure within teams.To accomplish this, we computed the within-team standard deviation of time pressure.This helps us ensure that any observed effects are indeed attributable to the level of time pressure.

Analytical Approach
Before proceeding to test the hypotheses, we assessed the measurement model for responses obtained from team members.Specifically, we assessed the fit of a three-factor model (time pressure, team temporal leadership, and team processes).The measurement model indicated a good fit to the data (CFI 5 .96,GFI 5 .97,SRMR 5 .07,RMSEA 5 .07).Table 1 lists the means, standard deviations, and correlations of variables used in the analyses.As Table 1 illustrates, time pressure is negatively correlated with team processes (r 5 2.26, p , .001).Furthermore, team processes are positively correlated with team performance (r 5 .26,p , .001).
To test Hypothesis 1, we performed a regression analysis.Hypothesis 2 was tested using moderated regression analysis.In order to test Hypothesis 3, we conducted a moderated-mediation analysis (Edwards & Lambert, 2007) followed by a test of instantaneous indirect effects at varying levels of team temporal leadership (Hayes & Preacher, 2010).Table 2 shows the results of the moderated regression analysis.Models 1a and 2a show the results of the main and interaction effects respectively in predicting team processes.Models 1b and 2b show the results of the main and interaction effects respectively in predicting team performance.Model 3b shows the results of the interaction effects model in the presence of team processes.

Hypotheses Linking Time Pressure to Team Processes
Hypothesis 1 predicted that time pressure would have an inverted-U shape relationship with team processes.In order to reduce possible non-essential multicollinearity, we mean-centered the time pressure variable prior to computing the squared term (Aiken & West, 1991).As the results show (Table 2, Model 1a), the coefficient of time pressure-squared is negative and significant (b 5 2.13, p , .05).However, the coefficient on the linear term for time pressure is also negative and significant, suggesting that the inverted U-shape curve has an overall negative trend (Aiken & West, 1991).As the graphical plot in Figure 2 shows, time pressure has a weak positive relationship with team processes at low levels, and has an increasingly negative relationship at moderate to high levels.While this does not reflect the full inverted U-shape relationship, the pattern provides partial support for Hypothesis 1. 3Hypothesis 2 predicted an inverted-U shape relationship between time pressure and team processes that is moderated by team temporal leadership.To reduce potential non-essential multicollinearity, we mean-centered time pressure and team temporal leadership prior to computing the interaction terms (Aiken & West, 1991).The results in Table 2 (Model 2a) show that inclusion of the interaction terms explained statistically significantly greater variance in team processes over and above the main effects model (DR 2 5 .08,p , .01).Further, the interactions between time pressure and team temporal leadership (b 5 .28,p , .001) and time pressure-squared and team temporal leadership (b 5 .13,p , .05) are significant.Following Aiken and West (1991), we probed the interaction effect by plotting the relationship between time pressure and transition processes at one standard deviation above and one standard deviation below the mean for team temporal leadership.
As the interaction plot in Figure 3 shows, when there is strong team temporal leadership, time pressure is positively related to team processes.Thus, the inverted-U shape relationship is attenuated.Surprisingly, even high levels of time pressure positively influence team processes.We revisit this finding later in the discussion.In contrast, under weak team temporal leadership, time pressure has an inverted-U shaped relationship with team processes.The standard errors for non-linear slopes are difficult to interpret, making simple slope tests inappropriate in quadratic two-way interactions.Taken together, these results provide partial support for Hypothesis 2.

Hypotheses on Moderated Indirect Effects of Perceived Time Pressure
In Hypothesis 3, we proposed that the indirect effect of time pressure on team performance through team processes would be moderated by team temporal leadership.In order to test this hypothesis, we first conducted moderated-mediation analysis following the guidelines of Edwards and Lambert (2007).In testing the indirect effects of time pressure under weak versus strong team temporal leadership, we included both the linear and quadratic coefficients for time pressure.Therefore, the estimated conditional indirect effects represent the general indirect effect of time pressure on team performance.Table 3 reports the results of the analysis.We used bootstrapping to compute the standard errors of the direct and indirect effects, as well as the differences, under weak versus strong team temporal leadership.The significance levels are based on bias-corrected confidence intervals.
As the results in Table 3 show, the overall indirect effect of time pressure on team performance is nonsignificant when team temporal leadership is strong (b 5 .03,p ..10).As we show next, this is likely because of the slight non-linearity of the relationship between time pressure and team processes at low to intermediate levels.In contrast, time pressure has a negative overall indirect effect on team performance through team processes (b 5 2.10, p , .05) when team temporal leadership is weak.Further, the difference between the indirect effects under weak versus strong team temporal leadership is significant (p , .05).
The moderated-mediation analysis conducted above provides a useful understanding of the general indirect effect of time pressure on team performance (through the team processes).However, because the relationship between time pressure and the team processes is an inverted-U shape (particularly when team temporal leadership is weak), it is expected that the indirect effect will be positive for some values of time pressure and negative for others.The moderated-mediation approach taken above does not provide any indication of this possibility of a quadratic relationship between the independent variable and the mediator.To test this non-linear indirect effect, we conducted a test of instantaneous indirect effects (Hayes & Preacher, 2010;Stolzenberg, 1980).

TABLE 2
Results of Moderated Regression Analysis Predicting Team Processes and Team Performance a Team processes (T2) Team performance (T3)

FIGURE 2 Relationship between Time Pressure and Team Processes
Instantaneous indirect effects are predicated on the idea that, if an independent variable (X) is nonlinearly related to a mediator variable (M), then the indirect effect of X on the dependent variable (Y) cannot be represented by a single value (Stolzenberg, 1980).Rather, the indirect effects need to be estimated for specific values of X.This instantaneous indirect effect (u x ) can be estimated by taking the first derivative of the function (the predictive equation) with respect to X. 4 Using this approach, we estimated instantaneous indirect effects for perceived time pressure on team performance (through team processes) under weak and strong team temporal leadership.Specifically, we estimated instantaneous indirect effects at low (one standard deviation below the mean), intermediate (mean), and high (one standard deviation above the mean) levels of perceived time pressure.Bootstrap analysis was conducted to construct bias-corrected confidence intervals for the estimates (Hayes & Preacher, 2010;Stine, 1989).These confidence intervals were used to determine if the instantaneous indirect effects were significantly different from zero.Hypothesis 3 predicted that, under strong team temporal leadership, time pressure would have a positive indirect effect on team performance (through team processes) at low to intermediate levels of time pressure and a non-significant indirect effect at high levels.In contrast, under weak team temporal leadership, we predicted that time pressure would have a non-significant indirect effect on team performance (through team processes) at low levels and a negative indirect effect at intermediate to high levels.As the results in Table 4 show, when team temporal leadership is strong, time pressure has a positive but non-significant indirect effect through team processes at low levels (u x 5 4.14 5 .03,p ..10), and a positive indirect effect at intermediate (u x 5 5.15 5 .04,p , .05) and high levels (u x 5 6.16 5 .04,p , .05).In contrast, when team temporal leadership is weak, time pressure has a positive but non-significant indirect effect at low levels (u x 5 4.14 5 .02,p ..10), and a negative indirect effect at intermediate (u x 5 5.15 5 2.14, p , .05) and high (u x 5 6.16 5 2.22, p , .05)levels.This supports Hypothesis 3.

Supplementary Analyses for Robustness
Taken together, the results of the analysis provide support for the hypotheses.We conducted several additional analyses to ensure the robustness of our results.First, we assessed the sensitivity of our results to the specific measurement points used in our analysis.Specifically, we used measures of time pressure and team temporal leadership measured two weeks earlier than those used in our main analysis (i.e., before the project midpoint).The analysis revealed the same pattern of results.We also averaged the pre-and post-midpoint measures for time pressure, team temporal leadership, and FIGURE 3 Interaction between Time Pressure and Team Temporal Leadership in Predicting Team Processes team processes.The results of this analysis are included in Appendix B and they show the same pattern of results.This suggests that our results are not sensitive to different measurement point specifications.
Although we focused on one overall team process variable in our analysis, Mathieu et al. (2006) suggested that it is worthwhile to observe the pattern of results for each individual team process as well.Therefore, we conducted a test of instantaneous indirect effects at strong versus weak team temporal leadership for team transition, action, and interpersonal processes separately.The results in Appendix C show an interesting configuration.The pattern of indirect effects of time pressure, under weak team temporal leadership, is similar to that observed in our main analysis.In contrast, under strong team temporal leadership, the indirect effects through team transition processes differ a little bit from those through team action and interpersonal processes.Specifically, we see that, while low to intermediate levels of time pressure have a positive indirect effect through team transition processes, at high levels, time pressure has a negative indirect effect through such processes.In contrast, for team action and interpersonal processes, time pressure generally has a positive indirect effect, even at high levels.

DISCUSSION
This research sought to understand how time pressure affects team performance and the role that team temporal leadership plays in shaping this relationship.Two underlying motivations were: (1) the need to resolve inconsistencies in the theoretical treatment of, and empirical findings on, the relationship between time pressure and team performance and (2) the desire to understand how temporal leadership enables teams to cope with time pressure.To gain insight into these issues, this research drew on individual-level research on the non-linear effects of time pressure and on temporal leadership theory.Our study results yielded three overarching findings that address the mixed results from prior work.First, time pressure ) and estimates of indirect effects are based on ([a X5 1 a X 2 5 1 a XZ5 Z 1 a X 2 Z5 Z]b M 6 ).In all analyses, time pressure (T1) (linear and squared term) is the independent variable and team temporal leadership (T1) is the moderator.T1 5 time 1, T2  x 1 a 4 )z 1 2a 2 x 1 a 1 ]b, where x 5 time pressure, z 5 team temporal leadership, and b 5 the coefficient of the mediator in predicting team performance.T1 5 time 1, T2 5 time 2, T3 5 time 3. * p , .05 has an inverted-U shape relationship with team processes.Second, the inverted U-shape relationship between time pressure and team process is moderated by team temporal leadership.Finally, the indirect effect of time pressure on team performance (through team processes) is non-linear and is moderated by team temporal leadership.We discuss the implications of these findings for theory.

Theoretical Implications
This research makes an important contribution to theory on the effects of time pressure on performance.At the outset, this research was motivated by the ambiguity that surrounds the link between time pressure in teams and team performance.Various studies offered explanations for one relationship or another (e.g., positive, negative), but there was limited, if any, theoretical investigation that provided an integrative explanation of when and why these different effects emerge.Our consideration of the non-linear effect of perceived time pressure, the team processes it affects, and the moderating role of team temporal leadership provides a more complete explanation for the mixed findings in prior research.By showing that time pressure can have positive or inverted U-shape effects depending on team temporal leadership, the findings challenge conventional notions about the theoretical treatment of time pressure as implied in various theoretical frameworks, such as the challenge-hindrance stressor framework (LePine et al., 2005).Rather than considering whether time pressure is inherently good or bad for performance, our research suggests that it would be more informative for theory to focus on explaining the circumstances under which time pressure has a negative versus positive influence for individuals and teams (Mitchell & James, 2001).
Another important contribution of this research is in advancing the broader literature on time in teams (Mohammed, Hamilton, & Lim, 2009).Numerous researchers have called for a more explicit theoretical treatment of time in teams and particular attention has been drawn to the need to account for the role of time as part of the general context (Mohammed et al., 2009).This research goes beyond simply accounting for time as part of the context in which teams operate.It provides a theoretical understanding of the mechanism by which time pressure affects performance outcomes.Although McGrath's (1991) time, interaction, and performance theory and Gersick's (1988) punctuated equilibrium model suggested that multiple facets of team functioning may be affected by temporal conditions in the task environment, a majority of empirical research tends to focus on a narrow loci of activities.Our research underscores the importance of examining the broader range of task management activities, embodied in team processes, when studying the effects of time pressure.Further, the results of the supplemental analysis indicate differences in effects across these team processes.In examining the effects on team processes, this research attends to the disruptions and motivations that time pressure creates in affecting the management of interdependent tasks in teams through planning, coordination, and interpersonal activities.
A final major contribution of this research is in expanding theory on the role of leadership in managing the temporal issues that affect team functioning (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011;Morgeson & DeRue, 2006).Extant theory on the role of leadership in managing the interface between time pressure (as an element of the task environment) and team functioning is limited (Bluedorn & Jaussi, 2008).By considering team temporal leadership, this research expands the theoretical role of leadership to include enabling teams to function effectively when experiencing time pressure.As such, it highlights a more active role for leadership in shaping how teams respond to time pressure than has previously been recognized in the literature.This research also suggests that leadership can play an active role in drawing teams' attention to temporal issues even when such issues are not particularly salient (Gersick, 1988).As temporal issues take an increasingly prominent role in theorizing about teams, consideration of temporal leadership clearly needs to be an important part of the ongoing conversation.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Our study has a few limitations that must be acknowledged.Our focus in this research was on perceived, rather than actual, time pressure.This creates the potential for incongruence between perceptions of time pressure and actual time pressure.However, in this research, we reasoned that teams' actions are based on their perceptions of the task environment, and the clearly defined project deadlines make it unlikely that there would be a high level of incongruence with respect to actual time pressure.Nevertheless, actual time pressure remains an important aspect of the task environment (Mohammed et al., 2009).An implication of this focus on time pressure is that our findings must be interpreted with caution, particularly as related to research where actual time pressure is experimentally manipulated (e.g., Karau & Kelly, 1992;Waller et al., 2002).Future research is needed to examine whether the effects of actual time pressure on team processes vary as a function of team temporal leadership.
By focusing on time pressure, there is also the potential for reverse causality in the hypothesized relationships.It could be argued that team temporal leadership should reduce time pressure by, for example, setting aside time for unforeseen temporal contingencies or synchronizing team member actions to build a temporal cushion within a fixed deadline.This could reduce the time pressure felt by team members.However, theory suggests that this is unlikely to be the case in our context.Specifically, Gersick (1988), Waller et al. (2002), and others find that teams with stable deadlines, as was the case in our study, pay attention to the actual time and are prompted to act when deadlines draw near.This increases the likelihood of time pressure emerging because, by delaying action until deadlines loom, the perception of time scarcity is created.In a field setting such as ours, the nature of the teams' work involves multiple overlapping project milestones for various tasks, leading teams to feel they are under time pressure.Under such a scenario, team temporal leadership is unlikely to reduce perceptions of time scarcity.As we have argued, team temporal leadership improves teams' capacity to handle their responsibilities under such time pressure, thus, shaping their resulting processes.
In probing the non-linear interaction between time pressure and team temporal leadership, we unexpectedly found that, under strong team temporal leadership, high levels of time pressure had a positive influence on team processes.This finding is interesting because theory would suggest that, under high levels of time pressure, all team efforts should be focused on executing tasks rather than on planning and coordinating.The software development context in which our study was conducted may shed some light on this finding.In software development projects, teams are under firm deadlines to deliver functioning output to their customers.Amabile et al. (2002) have noted that high levels of time pressure often create positive outcomes in such situations because of the heightened sense of focus and meaningful urgency involved.Additionally, research in the software development context suggests that, under tight deadlines, team processes can be executed in short planning and execution iterations (Maruping, Venkatesh, & Agarwal, 2009).Thus, it is possible that, as the project teams in our sample perceived greater levels of time pressure, they were more likely to use these short iterative processes when the team leader provided the necessary temporal leadership.

Managerial Implications
The above limitations notwithstanding, our research has important implications for practice.First, as our findings suggest, some degree of time pressure is beneficial for motivating teams to engage in team processes that facilitate performance.As such, managers are advised to underscore temporal constraints to their teams and to do so early enough during task performance that the teams involved have sufficient time to act accordingly.This will ensure greater task engagement, as teams develop a sense of mission, while also giving teams a realistic chance of completing their objectives (Amabile et al., 2002).Managers must exercise caution against either waiting too long to direct their teams' attention to temporal constraints or creating a sense of panic regarding such constraints, as this can be debilitating to teams.When teams feel as though temporal constraints are too severe, they are likely to respond by abandoning the very processes that are important for achieving objectives.
Second, as the results regarding the moderating role of team temporal leadership show, managers have an active role to play in enabling their teams to handle the time pressure they experience.
Given their high-level view of teams' task status, task environment, and task objectives, managers are well positioned to provide guidance about how to manage temporal resources under existing constraints (Morgeson & DeRue, 2006).Under the very task conditions that prompt teams to abandon team processes (Gersick, 1988), our research shows that managers can intervene to reorient team members' efforts toward effective task management through scheduling of interim milestones, synchronization of tasks, and restructuring of priorities.These efforts result in higher team performance.
Finally, project teams are assembled on the basis of needed and available expertise.As such, team members are often not trained to manage their temporal resources.To the extent possible, managers are advised to devote part of the early stages of task execution to developing their teams' capability to manage temporal resources.Building such capabilities early on can pay dividends at later task stages, when temporal constraints increase, as teams will be equipped to handle such issues on their own (Gevers et al., 2006(Gevers et al., , 2009)).

CONCLUSION
In this research, we sought to resolve the inconsistent findings regarding the effects of time pressure on team performance.This was accomplished by drawing on, and integrating, the time pressure and team temporal leadership literatures.The findings in this research advance theory by identifying the mediating mechanisms through which time pressure influences performance in project teams, and showing that team temporal leadership plays a significant role in determining how such pressure affects team functioning.These findings lend insight into how we should think about time pressure and its effects in organizational settings.
Coefficients are based on 1,000 bootstrap estimates; tests of differences are based on bias-corrected confidence intervals from bootstrap estimates.Estimates of direct effects are based on a