It's about Time: Temporal Structuring in Organizations
Author(s): Wanda J. Orlikowski and JoAnne Yates
Source: Organization Science, Vol. 13, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 2002), pp. 684-700
Published by: INFORMS
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3086088
Accessed: 11-07-2015 15:55 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
INFORMS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Organization Science.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
It's AboutTime: TemporalStructuring
in Organizations
Wanda J.Orlikowski* JoAnneYates
Sloan School ofManagement(E53-325), 50 MemorialDrive,
of Technology,
MassachusettsInstitute
Cambridge,Massachusetts02142-1347
Sloan School ofManagement(E52-544), 50 MemorialDrive,
of Technology,
MassachusettsInstitute
Cambridge,Massachusetts02142-1347
wanda@mit.edu * jyates@mit.edu
Abstract
Adam 1995,Bazerman1994,Bergmann1992,Elchardus
1988, Glucksmann1998, Holmer-Nadesan1997, Levine
as
structuring
In thispaperwe proposethenotionoftemporal
andstudying
timeas an enactedphe- 1997, McGrath1990, Nowotny1992, Sullivan 1997).
a wayofunderstanding
their
We suggestthatthrough
organizations.
within
nomenon
in
of thisliterature
is a difference
A key characteristic
oftem- how timeis understood-whether
a variety
andreproduce
actorsproduce
action,
everyday
as an objectiveor suband jective phenomenon.The two sides have positedopposrhythm
whichin turnshapethetemporal
poralstructures
A focuson temporal
structur- ing views of timeas eitherexistingindependently
formoftheirongoingpractices.
of huallowsus tobridge
witha practice
perspective,
ing,combined
man
action
as
constructed
through
human
socially
or
muchofthe
thatunderlies
dichotomy
thesubjective-objective
the action.Althoughresearchersoftentacitlyassume one or
developing
After
ontimeinorganizations.
existing
research
itsuse inthecon- the otherview, a few researchersstudyingtime,both
we illustrate
structuring,
notionoftemporal
(e.g., Clark1990,Hassard 1996) and
some withinorganizations
We conclude
byoutlining
study.
textofa priorempirical
research in societymore broadly(e.g., Adam 1995, Bergmann
fororganizational
structuring
oftemporal
implications
on time.
views explicitly.We
1992), have addressedthedifferent
Practice)
Structuring;
(Time;TemporalStructures;
contributeto this discussion withinorganizationalrean alternative
thirdview-that timeis
searchby offering
in
life
experienced organizational througha process of
thatcharacterizes
people's everyday
temporalstructuring
engagementin the world. As partof this engagement,
Managementin organizationshas long had an obsession
people produceand reproducewhat can be seen to be
embodied,forexample,byFrederick
withtime,strikingly
to guide,orient,and coordinatetheir
temporalstructures
Taylor's timeand motionstudiesat theturnof thecenhere are underongoingactivities.Temporalstructures
tury.Faster has long been a corollaryto cheaper,espestood as bothshapingand being shapedby ongoinghucially in industriesspecializingin mass productionor
man action,and thusas neitherindependentof human
high-volumeservice. During the last two decades, exexponentialincreasesin the action (because shaped in action),nor fullydetermined
pandingglobal competition,
and raised by humanaction (because shapingthataction). Such a
speed of computersand telecommunications,
expectationsfortheavailabilityand immediacyof prod- view allows us to bridgethegap betweenobjectiveand
of timeby recognizingtheacofinterest subjectiveunderstandings
uctsand serviceshaveplayedintoa resurgence
in
of
the temporalcontoursof
tive
role
shaping
people
in timeand timing.Reflectingin partthisresurgencein
the way in which
while
also
their
acknowledging
lives,
timehas also recentlyemergedas a
managerialinterest,
conditionsoutstructural
actions
are
shaped
by
people's
in organizationalstudies(Albert1995;
focusof attention
their
immediate
control.
Ancona et al. 2001a, 2001b; Bluedorn and Denhardt side
is informed
Our view of timein organizations
by prac1988; Butler 1995; Gersick 1994; Sahay 1997; Whipp
and structuring.
ticeresearchandinsightsaboutstructures
1994). In addition,views of timefromsocial theory,sopsychology,and rhetoricare hav- Recentlytherehas been greatinterestin whathas been
ciology,anthropology,
termedthe "practiceturn"(Schatzkiet al. 2001), where
ing an influenceon the organizationalliterature(e.g.,
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, ? 2002 INFORMS
Vol. 13, No. 6, November-December2002, pp. 684-700
1047-7039/02/1306/0684/$05.00
1526-5455 electronicISSN
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI
AND JOANNE YATES
in Organizations
It's AboutTime: TemporalStructuring
researchersexploretheembodied,embedded,and material aspects of humanagency in constituting
particular
social orders(Hutchins1995,Lave 1988,Suchman1987).
In thispaper we explicitlyintegratethenotionof social
withthatof enactedstrucpracticesfromthisliterature
turesdrawn fromthe theoryof structuration
(Giddens
1984), arguingthatthecombinationcan be valuable for
the studyof organizationsin generaland of timein organizationsin particular.Withrespectto the latter,we
is
have obtainedimportant
insightsintohow temporality
both produced in situated practices and reproduced
norms.This inthroughtheinfluenceof institutionalized
in organizategrationsuggeststhattimeis instantiated
tional life througha process of temporalstructuring,l
wherepeople (re)produce(and occasionallychange)temto orienttheirongoingactivities.Weekly
poral structures
meetingschedules,project deadlines, academic calendars,financialreporting
periods,tenureclocks,and seasonal harvestshave typicallybeen understoodas either
objectiveindicatorsof an externalphenomenon,
or as the
social productsof collectivesensemaking.Our view, in
understands
theseas temporalstructures
which
contrast,
in general)"specifyparametersof
(like social structures
acceptableconduct,but [. . .] are also modifiedby the
actionstheyinform"(Barley 1986, p. 80). Whetherexpressedin termsofclocksor events,thesetemporalstructuresare createdand used by people to give rhythm
and
formto theireverydayworkpractices.In doingso, people
establish and reinforce(implicitlyor explicitly)those
as legitimateand usefulorganizing
temporalstructures
In turn,such legitimized
structures
fortheircommunity.
temporalstructures-whilealways potentiallychangeable because they are constitutedin action-become
takenforgranted,servingas powerfultemplatesforthe
of members'social actionwithinthe
timingand rhythm
community.Thus temporalstructures,like all social
structures
(Giddens 1984), are boththemediumand the
of
outcome people's recurrent
practices.
Our purposein thispaperis to develop thebasic outlines of an alternativeperspectiveon timein organizationsthatis centeredon people's recurrent
practicesthat
shape (and are shaped by) a set of temporalstructures.
We see this emphasis on humanpractices(as distinct
fromexternalforceor subjectiveconstruction)
as bridging thecurrentoppositionbetweenobjectiveand subjectiveconceptualizations
of time,and thusas makingpossible a new understanding
of thetemporalconditionsand
consequences of organizationallife. By groundingour
perspectivein the dynamiccapacitiesof humanagency
we believewe gainuniqueinsightsintothecreation,use,
and influenceof timein organizations.
In thefollowingsectionwe discusssome of thedifferent assumptionsthatresearchershave made about time
and timingin social life,and whichmaybe expressedin
termsof a fundamental
objective-subjective
temporaldichotomy.We nextdevelop thenotionof temporalstructuringand use it to suggestthata practice-based
perspectiveon timecan bridgethegap betweenthetwo sides of
thisfundamental
dichotomyand also enable us to move
beyondsome additionaltemporaloppositionsevidentin
theliterature.
We thenexploretemporalstructuring
in the
contextof a priorempiricalstudyto illustratethevalue
and insightsgeneratedby applyinga practice-based
perspectiveon timein organizations.We concludeby discussing some implicationsof this alternativetemporal
lens fororganizationalresearch.
Objectiveand SubjectivePerspectives
on Time
A fundamental
muchof thesocial
dichotomyunderlying
sciencesin general,includingperspectives
on time,is that
betweenobjectiveand subjectiverealities(Jaques 1982,
Kern 1983, Blytonet al. 1989, Adam 1994). According
to the objective view, time is "independentof man"
(Clark 1990, p. 142), a view thatis alignedwitha Newtonianassumptionof timeas abstract,absolute,unitary,
invariant,
linear,mechanical,and quantitative.
The clock
has emergedas a primarymetaphorin thisconceptualizationof time.Most quantitative
social sciencestudiesof
organizations,whethersynchronicor diachronic,adopt
this perspectiveand treattime as "quantitativetimecontinuous,homogeneous,and therefore
measurablebecause equal partsare equivalent"(Starkey1989, p. 42).
The opposingview conceptualizestimeas subjective,a
productof thenorms,beliefs,and customsof individuals
and groups.Such a view reflectsa constructed
conceptualizationof time,wheretimeis "definedby organizationalmembers"(Clark 1985, p. 36) and is assumed to
be neitherfixednorinvariant.Time hereis seen as relative,contextual,
organic,and sociallyconstructed
(Adam
1990, Glucksmann1998, Jurczyk1998).
This objective-subjective
dichotomyis oftenpresented
in termsof the contrastbetweenclock time and event
time.Jaques(1982, p. 10) notesthattheclock notionof
timeis consistentwithan atomicor mechanicalview of
the world.Clock timehas been associatedwithan emphasis on time commodification,
work discipline,and
"machinetime"in industrialorganizations(Adam 1994,
1995; Hassard 1989; Thompson1967; Zerubavel1981).
Event time, in contrast,is conceived as "qualitative
time-heterogeneous,discontinuous,and unequivalent
when differenttime periods are compared" (Starkey
ORGANIZATIONSCIENCE/Vol. 13, No. 6, November-December2002
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
685
WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI
AND JOANNE YATES
It's AboutTime: TemporalStructuring
in Organizations
1989, p. 42). In thisview, "[t]imeis in the events,and
events are definedby organizationalmembers"(Clark
1985, p. 36). The patternof events,whethersocial (e.g.,
ritesof passage), biographical(e.g., careers),biological
(e.g., puberty),or natural(e.g., seasons), is neitherfixed
norregular,butis moredynamic,varyingbyconventions
and norms.
The distinctionbetweenchronosand kairos made in
the rhetoricalliteraturereflectsthe same underlying
objective-subjectivedichotomy.Since classical times,
rhetoricians
have recognizedthese two different
Greek
termsfortime(Kinneavy1986, Miller 1992, Bazerman
1994). Chronos is "the chronological,serial time of
succession.. .timemeasuredby thechronometer
notby
purpose"(Jaques1982,pp. 14-15); it is typicallyused to
measurethe timingor durationof some action.In contrast,kairos,namedafterthe Greekgod of opportunity,
refersto "the humanand livingtimeof intentionsand
goals... .thetimenotof measurement
butof humanactivity,ofopportunity"
(Jaques1982,pp. 14-15). Whilerhetoricianshave alwaysseen chronosas objectiveand quantitative,
theyhave longdebatedthestatusofkairotictime.
Some believe it is given and independentof the actor,
thatis, "a kairospresentsitselfat a distinctpointin time,
its own requirements
and makingdemands
manifesting
on therhetor"(Miller 1992, p. 312). Increasingly,
howhave suggestedthatkairosis shapedby
ever,rhetoricians
the actor,thatis, "any momentin timehas a kairos,a
uniquepotentialthata rhetorcan graspand make somethingof" (Miller,1992, p.312).2
Much of thesocial scientific
literature
on timemaybe
seenin lightofthefundamental
temobjective-subjective
poral dichotomypresentedabove,3and also capturedby
the contrastbetweenclock-basedand event-based,and
betweenchronologicalandkairotic,time.Whileadopting
one side or the otherof this dichotomymay offerresearchersanalyticadvantagesin theirtemporalstudiesof
difficulties
arise whenthesepositionsare
organizations,
treated-not as conceptualtools-but as inherentpropertiesof time.Focusingon one side or theothermisses
seeinghow temporalstructures
emergefromand are embeddedin thevariedand ongoingsocial practicesofpeocommunitiesand historicalperiods,and
ple in different
at thesame timehow suchtemporalstructures
powerfully
shape those practicesin turn.By focusingon what organizationalmembersactuallydo, ourpractice-based
perspectiveon temporalstructuring
may offernew insights
into how people constructand reconstruct
the temporal
conditionsthatshape theirlives.
in Organizations:
TemporalStructuring
A PracticePerspective
In thissectionwe develop thenotionof temporalstrucand explorehow a practice-based
turing,
perspectivemay
686
be able to bridgethegap betweentheobjectiveand subjectiveperspectives
highlighted
above,as wellas between
otherdichotomiesin theliterature
on time.
TemporalStructuring
in Practice
Ourpractice-based
perspectiveon timesuggeststhatpeople in organizationsexperiencetimethroughthe shared
temporalstructures
theyenactrecurrently
in theireveryday practices.That is, whentakingactionin the world,
people routinelydraw on commontemporalstructures
thatthey(and others)havepreviouslyenactedto organize
theirongoing practices,for example, using a project
scheduleto pace workactivities,and the seasons to informvacationactivities.Whetherimplicitly
or explicitly,
people make sense of,regulate,coordinate,and account
fortheiractivitiesthroughthe temporalstructures
they
recurrently
enact.
Like social structures
in general(Giddens 1984), temporalstructures
simultaneously
constrainand enable.For
example,by followingofficeschedulesor academiccalendarswe restrictour activityto certaintimesor days,
and by viewingour careersin termsof particularmilestoneswe reinforcea certainevaluationof our activities
thatprecludesotherinterpretations.
differFurthermore,
enttemporalstructures
constrainand enabledifferent
actions.For example,thecommonuse of a quarterly
financial cycle enables a company's sales activitiesto be
distributed
across fourquartersof the year,but the urgencyof achievingquarterlytargetsmay also constrain
the developmentof longer-term
withbuyrelationships
ers.
The repeateduse of certaintemporalstructures
reproduces and reinforces
theirlegitimacyand influencein organizationallife. Because such temporalstructures
are
oftenroutinelyand unproblematically
drawn on, they
tendto become takenforgranted.As such,theyappear
to be given,invariant,
and independent,
creatingtheimpressionthattimeexistsexternally.
This apparentobjectivity,however,is in factobjectification,
constituted
by
theactorswho reifythetemporalstructures
theyenactin
theirrecurrent
social practices.Throughsuch a structurcan be used topowerfully
ingprocess,temporalstructures
becomes
shape people's ongoingactivities.Structuring
influential
when certaintemporalstructures
particularly
become so closelyassociatedwithparticularsocial practices (e.g., teachingoccursin semester-long
blocks) that
actorshave littleawarenessof themas socially constituted,or of thepossibilityof enactingdifferent
temporal
structures
by changingsocial practices.As Barley(1988,
p. 125) notes:
One of themostpotenttechniqueswe humanshave forturning
behaviorintosocial factconsistsof ourtenculturallyarbitrary
ORGANIZATIONSCIENCENVol.
13, No. 6, November-December2002
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI
AND JOANNE YATES
in Organizations
It's AboutTime: TemporalStructuring
boundaries
as invidencyto treatevenself-imposed
temporal
constraints.
olableexternal
In theindustrialized
world,forexample,thesummerseason is typicallyassociated withvacationactivities,and
This latter
reflectthistemporalstructure.
workrhythms
examplecreatessome temporaldiscontinuities,
however,
because in theNorthern
HemispheresummeroccursbetweenJuneand August,and in theSouthernHemisphere
between December and February,a lack of seasonal
createscoordinationproblems
alignmentthatfrequently
forglobal firms.Such firmssee a calendar-basedglobal
periodforvacationactivitiesas makingeconomicsense,
of vacation
butthelongstanding
and habitualstructuring
activitiesto a certainseasonal temporalstructure
is, bedifficult
cause of its institutionalization,
to
particularly
change.
Individualstypicallydrawon (and thusshape and are
in theiractions.
shapedby) multipletemporalstructures
For example, while the practicesof many sales forces
are stronglytied to theircompany's quarterlyfinancial
cycle, theyare also tied to the seasonal buyingpatterns
of their customers.Similarly,people often structure
meetingsby referenceto bothcalendartimeforroutine
activities(e.g., weeklymeetings)and eventsforexceptions(e.g., meetingsrelatedto a technologybreakdown).
People also live withtheimplicationsof social and biological time. For example, employees must deal with
corporateschedules as well as such personaltemporal
eventsas childbirth,
chronicdisease, agingparents,and
retirement.
People may enact different
temporalstructuresbecause of theirmembershipin multiplecommunities. For example, active Americanmembersof the
Baha'i and Jewishcommunitiesparticipatein two calendricalstructures-onereligiousand one secular. In
additionto observingtheholidaysand practicesof their
religiouscalendar,theyuse the secular calendaras the
basis fortheirchildren'sschoolingtimetablesand their
employmentschedules.
In contrastto thesingular,homogenizedview of clock
timeprevalentin thesciences(Adam 1994, Clark 1990),
scholarshave begunto recognizetheimportance
of what
Nowotny(1992, p. 424) has termedpluritemporalism"theexistenceof a pluralityof different
modes of social
time(s) which may exist side by side." Our structuring
lens sees thisnot so much as the existenceof multiple
of multipletemtimes,but as the ongoingconstitution
in people's everydaypractices.Engageporal structures
mentin such temporalmultiplicity
has important
consequences for people's experiencesof time. That is, by
enacting multiple and often interdependent
temporal
actorsengage withalternative,
structures,
interacting,
or
abouthowtotemporally
contradictory
expectations
structuretheiractivities.For example,manyworkersin the
stressassociated
industrializedworld reportsignificant
withtrying
to balancethedifferent
temporalexpectations
arising fromoftenincompatiblecorporateand family
temporalstructures
(Bailyn 1993,Perlow1997). Enacting
in theirongoing
multipledifferent
temporalstructures
practicesaffordsindividualsthe opportunity
to experience a varietyof different
temporalrhythms.
Through
suchengagement
theymayexperiencethetensioncreated
by temporalconflict,but theyalso may realize thepossibilitiesof alternativetemporalorders,and may act to
changetheirpractices,and thustheirtemporalstructures.
Changein TemporalStructures
Temporalstructures,
because theyare constituted
in ongoingpractices,can also be changedthroughsuch practices.Like all social structures,
theyare ongoinghuman
and thusprovisional.They are always
accomplishments,
only "stabilized-for-now"
(Schryer1993).4 During periods of stability,
theymay be treated,forpracticaland
researchpurposes,as objective.Butbecausetheyareonly
stabilizedfornow, actorscan and do modifytheircommunity'stemporalstructures
over time,whetherexplicitly or implicitly.Zerubavel (1981), for example, describesa numberof groupsthatintentionally
instituted
calendricalchanges,whetherforreligiousreasons(when
theearlyChristianswantedto dissociatethemselvesfrom
theJewishcommunity
fromwhichtheyemerged),or politicalpurposes(whenthearchitectsof theFrenchrevolutionsoughtto symbolizethetransformation
of theirsocietythroughadoptionof a decimalcalendar).Of course,
such deliberateattemptsat change initiatedby a single
personor smallgroupare onlysuccessfulwhenmembers
of the broadercommunityaccept and enact the newly
mandatedstructures.
Thus, the Christianssucceeded in
adoptinga calendarthatwas distinctfromtheJewishone,
whilethetenuousauthority
of theFrenchrevolutionaries
was insufficient
to sustaintheirintroduction
of a decimal
calendar.
to temporalstructures
Explicit modifications
are not
solelyassociatedwithreligiousandrevolutionary
activity.
Oftensuch modifications
are associatedwithinnovations
intendedto improveindustrial,
or societal
organizational,
effectiveness.
Forexample,BluedornandDenhardt(1988,
p. 314) describethecase of theMissouritourismindustry,
whichsuccessfully
lobbiedthestatelegislature
to alterthe
dateon whichpublicschoolsbeganclasses so as to bring
thevacationperiodof Missourischoolchildren(and their
withtheindustry's
families)intocloseralignment
definitionof the "summervacationseason." On the corporate
ORGANIZATIONSCIENCE/Vol. 13, No. 6, November-December2002
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
687
WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI
AND JOANNE YATES
It's AboutTime: TemporalStructuring
in Organizations
side,numerousbusinessesimplement
significant
temporal
changesby adoptingjust-in-time
(JIT) inventory
systems,
shifting
thetemporalstructure
enactedby bothsuppliers
and buyersfromone based on suppliers'production
and
deliveryschedulesto one drivenby buyers'demandcycles.
These exampleshighlightthe inherentmalleabilityof
even well-establishedtemporalstructures.
Highlyinstitutionalizedand widelyrecognizedtemporalstructures,
whilealwayspotentially
changeable,areusuallychanged
inonly as theresultof explicitand considerableeffort,
vestment,and groundwork.
For example,the changein
Missouri's school schedulewas accomplishedthrougha
and highlyplanned
carefullyorchestrated,
well-funded,
initiative,while changesin the temporalstructure
govdeerningcompanies' supplychains requiresignificant
and implementation.
sign,coordination,
Explicitchangesin temporalstructures
mayalso occur
in a less dramaticand choreographedway, particularly
those structures
thatare less institutionalized
withina
community.
Manytemporalchangesare accomplishedas
a regularpartofeverydaypractices-as "thepracticaland
intentionalreconstruction
of orderliness"(Dubinskas
1988a, p. 14), or whatBourdieu(1977, p. 6) refersto as
the "strategicmanipulationof time,"whichhe arguesis
centralto agents'maintenance
ofa particular
social order.
For instance,some companiesroutinelyand explicitly
switchbetweendifferent
foraccounttemporalstructures
ing purposes,as in the case of Mt. Polaris,a mountain
resortstudiedby Guild (1998), whichopenlykeeps two
seasonal
sets of accounts: one to manage its different
businesses(skiingin winterand golfingin summer)and
one to provideannualfinancialreportsto itsparentcompany,whichoperateson a regularfiscalyear.Similarly,
in manypartsof theworldpeople routinely
changetheir
clocks to "daylightsavingstime."
Changesto temporalstructures
mayalso occurimplicthelapses,workarounds,
and adaptations
that
itly,through
characterize
day-to-day
activity.In manycases, such adarounda temporalstrucaptationsresultonlyin variations
ture,withoutfundamentally
changingit. Nandhakumar
and Jones(1999), forexample,show how thetimemanwithmembers
agementof a projectis improvisatory,
jugglingand weavingmultipleand interdependent
projectactivitiesratherthan followinga sequence of preplanned
can
steps.In othercases,minorshiftsin thesamedirection
accumulateto create fundamental
changes in temporal
For example,workersoftenslip intoworking
structures.
late or over weekendsto meetsome pendingdeadlineor
make up fortimelost duringthe conventionalhoursof
work,and iftheycontinuein thispracticebeyondtheima different
mediatecrisis,theymay constitute
temporal
688
structure
in practice,even while stillbelievingtheyare
enactingtheold structure.
Thus, changes to the temporalstructures
enactedby
membersof a community
maybe introduced
explicitly
or
implicitly,
and theymaybe accomplishedwithsubstantial
planningand preparation
or theymayemergemoresubtly
and slowlyfromthe everydayslippagesand accommodationsthatarisein ongoinghumanaction.In everycase,
thechangesto a temporalstructure
mustbe acceptedand
adoptedby othermembersof thecommunity
in orderfor
thechangedtemporalstructure
to be legitimated
and sustained.Underlying
our focuson temporalstructuring
and
changeis a recognition
of theinherent
abilityof peopleto
"choose to do otherwise"(Giddens1993). Thatis, people
arepurposive,knowledgeable,
adaptive,and inventive
actorswho, whiletheyare shapedby establishedtemporal
can also choose (whetherexplicitlyor implicstructures,
itly)to (re)shapethosetemporalstructures
to accomplish
theirsituatedand dynamicends.
The PracticePerspective
in Comparisonto Other
Perspectives
on Time
We believe thatthe notionof temporalstructuring
outlined here offersa powerfulway of studyingtemporal
influencein organizations.
It suggeststhatstudyingtime
in organizationsrequiresstudyingtime in use, thatis,
examiningwhatorganizationalmembersactuallydo in
practice,and how in such doingtheyshape thetemporal
structures
thatshape them.Table 1 comparesthe dominant(objectiveand subjective)perspectiveson timewith
the practice-basedperspectivedeveloped here. In esin wheretheypositionthe
differ
sence,theseperspectives
primarylocus of explanationfortemporalphenomena.
That is, an objectivistperspectiveplaces mostemphasis
on an externalentityor force,a subjectivistperspective
is chieflyconcernedwithculturalmeanings,and a practice perspectivefocusesprincipallyon humanactivities.
In additionto thesefundamental
we can also
differences,
in people's experiencesof timeand
pointto differences
therole of humanactorsin temporalchange.
In theobjectiveperspective,
timeis understood
to exist
of humanactions,and is thusexperienced
independently
as a powerfulconstraint
on those actions.From such a
timeitself(because it is seen to be external)
perspective,
cannotbe changedby any groupor organization-however, people's responsesto and assessmentsof it may
change. Thus, we see initiativesin organizationsto
"speed up," "slow down,"or to "balance" or "manage"
timemore effectively.
Such temporalchanges are then
variancealongstanevaluatedbyexaminingperformance
dardizedtemporalmeasures.Objectiveviews of timeare
limitedbecause theyneglecttheactiverole of people in
ORGANIZATIONSCIENCE/VO1. 13, No. 6, November-December2002
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI
Table 1
AND JOANNE YATES
It's AboutTime: TemporalStructuring
in Organizations
DifferentPerspectives on Time in Organizations
Objective
Practice-Based
Subjective
View oftime
Exists independentlyof human
action; exogenous, absolute.
Socially constructedby human
action; culturally
relative.
Constitutedby,as well as
constituting
ongoing,human
action.
Experience oftime
Time determinesor powerfully
constrainspeople's actions
throughtheiruse of standardized
time-measurement
systems such
as clocks and calendars.
Time is experienced throughthe
interpretive
processes of people
who create meaningfultemporal
notionssuch as events,cycles,
routines,and ritesof passage.
Time is realized throughpeople's
recurrentpractices that
(re)produce temporalstructures
(e.g., tenureclocks, project
schedules) thatare boththe
mediumand outcome ofthose
practices.
Role of actors in
temporalchange
Actorscannot change time;theycan
onlyadapt theiractions to
respond differently
to itsapparent
inexorability
and predictability,
e.g., speeding up, slowingdown,
or reprioritizing
theiractivities.
Actorscan change theircultural
oftime,and thus
interpretations
theirexperiences oftemporal
notionssuch as events,cycles,
and routines,e.g., designatinga
"snow day," "quiettime,""fast
track,"or "mommytrack."
Actorsare knowledgeable agents
who reflexively
monitortheir
action,and in doing so may, in
certainconditions,enact (explicitly
or implicitly)
new or modified
temporalstructuresin their
practices,e.g., adoptinga new
fiscalyear or "casual Fridays."
creatingand shaping the temporalconditionsof their
lives. For example,an objectiveperspectiveon timecannoteasilyaccountforthefindings
ofRoy's (1959) classic
studyof a machineshop. In thiswork,Roy showedhow
workersenduredtheroutinemonotonyoftheirworkdays
themin termsof variousocby socially reconstructing
casions for social interaction,such as "banana time,"
'window time,"and "coke time."
In thesubjectiveperspective,
timeis seento be socially
constructedand thusexperiencedthroughpeople's culwhichmake sense of temturallyrelativeinterpretations,
poral events,routines,and cycles.Fromsuch a perspective,temporalchange is achieved as people change the
culturalmeaningsand normsassociated withparticular
organizationalevents,routines,and conventions.Thus,
Roy's (1959) findingscan easily be accountedforin a
subjectiveperspective.However,whatcannotbe easily
explainedis theway in whichpeople's actionsareshaped
conditionsoutsidetheirimmediatecontrol.
by structural
For example, the work on entrainment
(Ancona and
Chong 1996), whichshowshow thedailyrhythms
ofcorporatelifeare stronglyshapedby largereconomicor institutional
pressuressuch as the fiscalyear or quarterly
sales cycles cannotbe adequatelyaccommodatedin this
perspectiveon time,which tendsto focus on the local
creationand changeof temporalconstructions,
nottheir
and institutionalization.
objectification,
reification,
Our practice-basedperspectiveon timeviews it as exthetemporalstructures
periencedthrough
people enactin
theirrecurrent
practices.Because such a view sees temas bothshapingpeople's actionandbeing
poralstructures
shaped by such action,it helps to bridgethe opposition
betweenobjective and subjectiveviews. This practicebased perspectiverecognizesthattimemay appearto be
objectiveor externalbecause people treatit as such in
theirongoingaction-objectifyingand reifying
thetemporal structures
theyenact in theirpracticesby treating
clocks, schedules,milestones,etc., as if theywere "out
there"and independent
of humanaction.Thus,ourpractice perspectiveon timewould recognizethatthe seeminglyexternalcycles such as thefiscalyearor quarterly
sales cycle identified
by Ancona and Chong (1996) are
createdand objectifiedby ongoingindividualand collectivesocial practices.It would also recognizethateven as
Roy's (1959) workersconstructed
local social times,they
were also objectifying
thenineto fivetemporalstructure
of theworkday in theirmachineshopand,morebroadly,
in society.Similarly,a practice-basedperspectiverecognizes thattime may appear to be subjectivebecause
people knowledgeablyproduceand occasionallychange
the temporalstructures
theyenact in theirpracticestreatingschedulesand deadlinesas provisional,relative,
and alterable.Recognizingthisdualityallows us to see
how in theprocessof temporalstructuring,
everyhuman
actionconstitutes,
is constituted
by, and can potentially
reconstitute
thetemporalstructures
beingenacted.
A practice-basedperspectivealso helps us to see that
ORGANIZATIONSCIENCE/Vol. 13, No. 6, November-December2002
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
689
WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI
AND JOANNE YATES
It's AboutTime: TemporalStructuring
in Organizations
people may experiencetime as clock-based or eventbased (or both)dependingon thetypeof temporalstructurebeing enactedin practiceat thatmoment.That is,
when taxpayersrushto meetthe annualApril 15thtax
deadline, they are collectivelyenactinga clock-based
When a snow removalservicesends
temporalstructure.
outequipmentto plow thesnowpilingup on roadsduring
each snowstorm,
theyare enactingan event-basedtemporal structure.
Whenresidentsof Bostonparktheircars
on certainstreets,they collectivelyenact both clockbased (e.g., parkingis prohibitedon thefirstTuesdayof
everymonthfor streetcleaning)and event-based(e.g.,
parkingis prohibitedduringa snow emergencydeclared
The designation
ofclockbythecity)temporalstructures.
based and event-basedtimes as distinctoftenbreaks
down in practice.Because bothare humanaccomplishbetweenthe
ments,people routinely
blurthedistinctions
clock and events,organizingtheiractivitiesin termsof
bothclock timeand eventtime(raindatesbeinga simple
example).Moreover,eventscan includethoseexternalto
thecommunity
(e.g., snow storms),thosedesignatedby
toreifiedchrocalendars(e.g.,birthdays),
thoseentrained
nological rhythms
(e.g., the fiscalyear end), and those
explicitlyshaped by membersof a community(e.g., a
weddingday).
The relateddistinction
betweenchronosand kairosalso
to see that
fadesas we use thenotionoftemporalstructure
based temporalstrucpeople enact bothchronologically
turesand thoseshapedkairotically
by thepeople's sense
ofan opportunity
at hand(e.g.,whena companyschedules
its marketing
campaignor timesits pricingadjustments
ofitscompetitors'
based on perceptions
weaknesses).Peoto introduceor motivatechangeoftenexple attempting
plicitlymanipulatepeople's sense of timeto achievethis
forchange.For exeffect,shapingkairoticopportunities
ample, at the 1946 annual conventionof the Young
Women'sChristianAssociation(YWCA), delegateswere
presentedwitha proposed-and, at the time,controversial-interracialcharteron whichtheywould ultimately
vote.The keynotespeaker,Dr. BenjaminMays,president
of MorehouseCollege,urgedreluctant
delegatesto accept
theproposedcharterby emphasizingtheirabilityto strategicallyshapetimeto theirends:5
I hearyou say thatthetimeis notripe.... butifthetimeis not
ripe,thenit shouldbe yourpurposeto ripenthetime.
charter
Delegatesrespondedto hiscall, andtheinterracial
was adoptedby theconvention.
and OtherOppositionsin
The PracticePerspective
theLiterature
Withits acceptanceof the fundamental
duality(constitutingandbeingconstituted
byhumanaction)ofall social
690
thepractice-based
notionoftemporalstructurstructures,
ing enablesus to bridgethelongstanding
oppositionbetweenobjectiveand subjectiveviews of time.It also allows us to addressseveralothertemporaloppositionsthat
are evidentin thesocial science literature.
One such oppositionis thatbetweenuniversal(global, standardized,
acontextual) and particular (local, situated,contextspecific)time.Zerubavel(1981) describeshow temporal
frameworks,
such as calendars,have shiftedfrombeing
and local (oftenassociatedwithreligious
particularistic
communities)to being universaland global (associated
withthe spread of trade,industrialization,
and capitalism). As an example of this shift,Zerubavel cites the
widespreadadoptionof theGregoriancalendar(1981, p.
100):
Today, almostfourhundredyearsafterits inception,the Gregorian calendar is almost generallyaccepted throughoutthe
world.It is the firstcalendarever to have attainedalmostuniversalrecognitionand validityas thestandardframework
to be
used forall time-reckoning
and datingpurposes.
Giddens(1990) arguesthatone of thedominantcharacteristics
of modernity
is theseparationoftimefromspace
made possible by the standardization
of timeacross the
world.We see suchhumanefforts
to standardize
temporal
frameworks
inscribedin officialtimezones and the 24hourclock.Castells(1996, p. 434) similarlysuggeststhat
notionsof timehave been universalizedin
contemporary
a "networksociety"whereglobal capital marketswork
in "real time"and flexiblemanagementdemands"'justin-timelabor." In a recentexample,the world's largest
watchmaker,the Swatch Group, proposed abandoning
even local timezones in favorof a single,"universalInternettime" that divides the day into 1,000 "Swatch
beats" (Harmon1999).
In spiteof the generalmovementfromparticulartowardsuniversalnotionsof time(Castells 1996, Giddens
1990,Zerubavel1981),we can see thatinuse,all universal
mustbe particularized
tolocal contexts
temporalstructures
thesituatedpracticesof
because theyare enactedthrough
membersin specificlocationsandtime
specificcommunity
zones. Even the seeminglyuniversalInternational
Date
as was eviLine is shapedand reshapedby local interests,
forthearrivalof theyear
dentin therecentpreparations
2000. The tinynationof Kirabati,consistingof manyislandsscattered
overthreetimezones and spanningtheInternational
Date Line,declareditselfto be in a singletime
theInternational
Date Line in order
zone-thus redrawing
to be in the firstgroupof nationsto celebratethe new
millennium.
whilealwaysenactedin
Temporalstructures,
totheextent
particular
contexts,
maybecomeuniversalistic
ORGANIZATIONSCIENCE/Vol. 13, No. 6, November-December2002
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI
AND JOANNE YATES
It's About Time: TemporalStructuring
in Organizations
thatmultiplecommunities
enactthesame (or similar)temin theirlocal practices.
poralstructure
The notionof temporalstructuring
also helpsus bridge
theapparentoppositionof linearand cyclictime.Linear
time is evidentin many stage models (e.g., Kohlberg
1981, Rostow 1960, Lewin 1951), as well as in theprogressivecareerladdersof corporateand academic hierin Clark's (1985) emarchies.Cyclic timeis highlighted
piricalworkin industriessuch as sugarbeet processing,
Here he finds
can making,and hosierymanufacturing.
cyclic variationin theproductionof goods and services,
occasioned by recurrentevents such as crop ripening,
changesin marketdemand,and shiftsfromfactory
operationto shutdown.An emphasison thecyclictemporality
lifealso underpinstheworkon entrainof organizational
ment,developedin thenaturalsciencesand gainingcurrencyin organizationstudies.Definedas "theadjustment
of thepace or cycle of one activityto matchor synchronize withthatof another"(Ancona and Chong 1996, p.
has been used to accountfora variety
251), entrainment
of organizationalphenomenadisplayingcoordinatedor
synchronized
temporalcycles (Ancona and Chong 1996,
Clark 1990, Gersick1994, McGrath1990).
Viewed froma practiceperspective,
thedistinction
betweencyclicand lineartimeblursbecause it dependson
theobserver'spointof view and momentof observation.
In particular
theobserver'svantage
cases, simplyshifting
point(e.g., fromthecorporatesuiteto thefactoryfloor)
or changingtheperiodof observation(e.g., froma week
to a year)maymakeeitherthecyclicor thelinearaspect
of ongoingpracticesmore salient.Similarly,depending
on the lengthof observation,a phenomenonmay shift
frombeingseen as a one-timeeventto beingrecognized
as partof an ongoingcycle. For example,Tyreand Orlikowski(1994) foundthattheintroduction
of a new process technologyaffordedan initial,limited"windowof
opportunity"
duringwhich users were willingto make
changesto theirtechnologiesand use habitsbeforethese
habitscongealed.When observedover a periodof time,
wereseen to be
however,such"windowsof opportunity"
cyclic, occasioned periodicallyby such events as a
changein managementor an infusionof new resources.
The social science literature
on timein organizations
also reflectsa tensionbetweennaturaltimeand social
time.Adam (1995, p. 43) notesthatsocial scientistshave
on social time,whilerelegating
longconcentrated
natural
timeto thephysicalsciences. Nevertheless,at least two
typesof naturaltime-biological and ecological-are reflectedin certainorganizationalresearch.Age as an aspect of biologicaltimeis reflectedin such issues as performanceand careerexpectationsforworkersat different
ages (Lawrence 1984) and issues aroundthe so-called
"mommytrack"(Bailyn 1993). Anotheraspect of biologicaltimeis evidentin studiesof theproblemsfacedby
shiftworkersas theirbodiesreactto naturalrhythms
such
as theday/night
cycle (see Adam 1995). Ecological time
is reflected
inthecurrent
focuson sustainability
inbusiness
enterprises,
environmentalism
and eco-technologies,
and
the impactof industrialproductionon longer-term
economic expansionand growth(Egri and Pinfield1996,
Senge and Carstedt2001, Shrivastava1995).
In focusingon social ratherthannaturaltime,we have
oftenignoredtheirinterdependence.
In studyingtherole
of age in organizationallife, for example, Lawrence
(1996) pointsout the complex ways in which socially
constructed
age normsforbehaviorsare intertwined
with
chronologicalage. In practice,individualshave a chronologicalage thatinfluencesbutdoes notdetermine
their
abilities,interests,
health,and so on. In theiractions,people reinforceor undercutsocially establishednormsfor
theirperceivedage. A similarexample of the inseparabilityof naturaland social timeconcernsenvironmental
sustainability.Projections of The Limits to Growth
(Meadows et al. 1972), based on rollingforwardtheeffectsof currentand past humanactionson the natural
environment
(e.g., burningof irreplaceablefossilfuels)
were,of necessity,inaccurate,sincetheycould notanticipateall futurechangesin humansocial behaviorand the
ofnewtechnologicalinnovations.
development
However,
social timemaynotignorenaturaltimein practice,at the
fromnaturaldisastersthatmighthave
perilof suffering
been avoided.
Finally,in his ethnographic
studyof geneticengineering firms,Dubinskas (1988b) highlightsthe opposition
betweenwhathe calls closed and open-endedtemporal
orientations.
subcultureswithinsuch
Studyingdifferent
firms,he foundthatscientiststendedto adopt an openended temporalorientation
to theirimage of
appropriate
scientificwork as "drawn continuallyforwardby the
questionsposed to it by nature,. . .[so that]thereis no
fixedend in view" (p. 196), whilemanagers,in contrast,
closed temporalorientation
which
adopteda short-term,
focusedon "theimmediatepresentand theproximatefutothemarket(p. 195).
ture,"in linewiththeirsensitivities
In practice,however,an open-endedor closed temporal
orientation
is nota stableproperty
ofoccupationalgroups,
butan emergent
of thetemporalstructures
property
being
enactedat a givenmomentbythegroups'members.Thus,
individualsand groupsare notrestricted
to eitherclosed
or open-endedtemporalstructures-Rather,
theycan and
do enactbothtypesof temporalstructures
dependingon
theactivityor pressuresat hand.Because thesestructures
areenacted,theymaybe reconstituted
fromclosedtoopen
and vice versa.Moreover,pointof view and momentof
ORGANIZATIONSCIENCE/Vol. 13, No. 6, November-December2002
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
691
WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI
AND JOANNE YATES
It's AboutTime: TemporalStructuring
in Organizations
observationmay also affectthe typeof structuring
observed.Projectdeadlinesmayinitiallyappearto be so far
away thatmostprojectmembersenactopen-endedtemporal structures.
At some point-for example,Gersick's
(1988, 1989) midpoint-projectmembersmay suddenly
perceivethedeadlineas real and bindingand shiftto enactinga closed temporalstructure.
In all these cases, the notionof temporalstructuring
and bridge
through
ongoingpracticeshelpsus understand
the temporaloppositionsunderlying
the researchliterature.We turnnowto an empiricalexampletodemonstrate
how thisperspectivecan offera newunderstanding
ofthe
temporalconditionsand consequencesof organizational
life.
communityin the United States. Each memberof the
groupbelongedto a different
organization(university
or
corporation)withits own implicitand explicittemporal
structures.
Duringthecourseof theproject,groupmembers initiatedseveraltemporalstructures,
whichtherest
of the group thenadopted and enacted as communitywide temporalstructures.
Initially,suchcommunity
temporal structures
weremoreopen-endedand event-based,
but later more closed and deadline-oriented
structures
wereadded as well.
The coordinatorgot the projectrollingby issuinghis
s LISP manualas thefirstdraftof theComorganization'
mon LISP manual. When other group membersrespondedbyinitiating
open-endeddiscussionsofthedraft,
theycollectivelyshapedan emergenttemporalstructure.
Fromthispointto one relativelylate in theproject,the
in Practice:An
TemporalStructuring
groupstructured
its workarounda seriesof open-ended
project
phases,
each
initiatedby the coordinator'sissuEmpiricalIllustration
ance
of
a
new
manual
draft(six wereissued in all), genWe illustrate
thenotionof temporalstructuring
by drawhis
sense
ofreadiness(kairos)ratherthan
erally
paced
by
ingon an earlierstudywhichexaminedone community's
dates
The grouptreatedeach draft
by
specific
(chronos).
use of electronicmedia to conducta complexproject.6
release
as
an
event
initiating
discussionofperceivedgaps
Examining this community'songoing work practices
or
and
further
problems
and agreements,
proposals
which
thelens of temporalstructuring
through
providesa richer
in
turn
led
to
the
next
draft.
Within
this
temporal
structure
of how, when,and why membersof the
understanding
theiractivitiesovertime,and with thatshapedprojectactivitiesover mostof thetwo and a
community
structured
halfyears,groupmembersalso enactedmoremicrotemwhatconsequences.
poralstructures,
includingspecificallytheirdailyrhythm
The Common LISP Experience
ofparticipation
in theproject.An analysisofthedateand
Our examplecenterson theelectroniccommunication
of
timestampof the messagesrevealsa shared,albeitima geographically
and organizationally
dispersedgroupof
plicit,dailypattern
ofwhenmessagesweresent.Overthe
artificialintelligencelanguage designersin the early entireproject,morethan60% of all CommonLISP mes1980s.These designerswerepressuredbytheDepartment sages were sentoutsideof the9 am to 5 pm timeframe,
of Defenseto definea commondialectof theLISP com- reflecting
thefactthatmostparticipants
wereparticipatputerlanguagefromthevariousincompatibleLISP diaing in thisprojectin additionto their"day"jobs. Almost
lects thenin use. Althoughparticipants
consideredthe a thirdof themessageson any day were sentbetween7
CommonLISP projectcriticalto futurefunding,it was
and 11 pm (or 19:00-23:00 on the24-hourclock). While
notitselfdirectlyfunded,nordid it have a specificdeadmessageswere sentat all times,theperiodof lowestacline, thoughit ultimatelylasted about two and a half tivitywas from1 to 7 am, suggestingbiological sleep
years.The compositionof thegroupwas looselydefined, rhythms.
with roughly 100 individualsparticipatingat various
Over the course of the project,the primarytemporal
arounddraftswas adjustedand supplemented
points,and with17 activemembers.Membersdid most structure
to
of theirworkon CommonLISP remotely(via an e-mail meetthe group's perceivedneeds, sometimesimplicitly
distribution
list)and parttime(thatis, in additionto their and sometimesexplicitly.Relativelyearlyin theproject,
regularjob responsibilities).The work of this loosely forexample,participants
began debatingthe use of the
linked group, which considereditselfdemocraticand
symbol"NIL" in theLISP language,a "religiousissue"
was coordinatedby one well-respected formanyofthem.Afteran intensedebatelastinga month
nonhierarchical,
individualwho volunteeredto overseetheproductionof
and a half,one factionof key playersfinallyagreedto
theCommonLISP manualthatwould be thegroup'sulcompromisetheirposition.This compromisewas foltimateoutput.Because theindividualsinvolvedhad not lowed by a drop-off
in communicative
activityon theelist forover a month,thena gradual
previouslyexistedas a task-oriented
group,theyinitially mail distribution
sharedfew groupwidetemporalstructures
of activitythatpicked up in pace only with
beyondthose resumption
widely sharedby membersof the artificialintelligence the issuance of anotherversionof the manual. When
692
ORGANIZATIONSCIENCE/VO1. 13, No. 6, November-December2002
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI
AND JOANNE YATES
in Organizations
It's AboutTime: TemporalStructuring
asked lateraboutthishiatus,one key membernotedthat
"decompressionfrom[theNIL] debatewas theessential
cause." The CommonLISP membersseem to have,imaroundthis"NIL
plicitlyadjustedtheirtemporalstructure
incident,"collectivelypausingto recoverfroma contentious episode. Ultimately,however,thisadjustmentdid
but was
not change the draft-basedtemporalstructure,
in it.
simplya fluctuation
the
In contrastto such implicittemporalstructuring,
their
LISP
members
also
adjusted
explicitly
Common
to takeadvantageof a redraft-based
temporalstructure
enactedby the broadercomcurringtemporalstructure
munityof artificialintelligenceresearchers-theannual
meetingsof the AmericanAssociationforArtificialIntelligence(AAAI). The second of the two face-to-face
CommonLISP meetingsthattookplace duringtheproject was organizedarounda previouslyscheduledAAAI
thatbroughtmanyCommonLISP participants
conference
was
in a singlelocation.Althoughtheconference
together
not tied to particulartask needs of the Common LISP
to meetface
project,thegroupsaw it as an opportunity
to face.At thesame time,however,theAAAI conference
constrainedthe timingforthe meeting,leading the coordinatorto rushin orderto issue a manualdraftin time
meeting.In
formembersto readitbeforetheface-to-face
thiscase, the coordinatorand othermembersexplicitly
adjustedtheopen-endedand event-basedtemporalstructurebuiltaroundthemanualdraftsto coordinatewiththe
clock-based temporalstructureof theirannual professional meetings.Subsequently,theyresumedand reintemporalstrucforcedtheirmoreopen-ended,draft-based
ture.
thistime
Anothercase of explicittemporalstructuring,
resultingnotin a minorvariationof theexistingstructure
to supbut in the adoptionof a new temporalstructure
plementtheexistingone, was initiatedby thecoordinator's introduction
of electronicballoting.The primary
aroundsuccessivemanualdraftsoften
temporalstructure
issues
led to extendedelectronicdiscussionsof particular
firstintroduced
elecwithoutresolution.The coordinator
tronicballotingwell intotheproject,whenhe saw thata
large numberof undecidedissues and proposalshad accumulatedsince thesecondface-to-face
meetingand felt
thatsome resolutionwas neededto movetheprocessforward.He hopedto synchronize
thegroup'sdeliberations,
needed to resolve as
creatingthe temporalsymmetry
issues as possible,and identify
manyof theoutstanding
thosethatrequiredfurther
discussion.To do so, he introduced an electronicformof voting,based on thevoting
procedurethat had been used in the two face-to-face
of electronicballotingwereused
meetings.Six iterations
to pace activitiesduringthefinalyearof theproject.
The ballotingprocess incorporatedan internaldeadline,makingit a closed and clock-basedtypeof temporal
structure
not previouslyenactedby the Common LISP
set
group.In thefirst
ballotquestionnaire,
thecoordinator
a specificdate and timeby whichballotresponseshad to
be received,a chronologicaldeadlinewhichhe used to
on endlesslydebatable
pushthegrouptowardsagreement
issues. The group'sacceptanceof thisdeadlineand those
was revealedin memin subsequentballotquestionnaires
bers' responses,whichconformedto the deadline.This
ofa new
implicitacceptanceresultedin theestablishment
whichinaroundballots,a structure
temporalstructure
structure.
teractedwiththeproject'sexistingdraft-based
Ballotingincreasedtherateof decisionmakingand was
an indicatorof a generalspeedingup oftheprojecttempo
enand an increasein deadline-basedtemporalstructures
acted in thelatterpartof theproject.
The shiftin emphasisfromopen-endedto closed temwas triggered
poral structures
by a second hiatusin the
electronicconversationthatoccurredwhen the coordinatorchangedjobs and shiftedhis focus away fromthe
to a new organization.
projectas he made thetransition
Unlikethefirsthiatus,whichbeganand endedimplicitly,
this hiatus was explicitlyidentifiedas problematicby
thoseCommonLISP participants
involvedin theirown
organizations'LISP implementations-longand expensive productdevelopmentefforts
involvingmanyplayers
andlocal deadlines.Because theDepartment
ofDefense's
demandmeantthatanynew LISP implementation
had to
use the new CommonLISP language,the variousorganizations'implementation
schedulesbegan to exertconsiderabletemporalpressureon some participants
to complete theCommonLISP project.To end thehiatus,one
influential
groupmembertookover manyof thecoordinator's projectresponsibilities,
designatinghimselfthe
discussionmoderator,
a role agreedto by thecoordinator
and accepted by the othermembers.As moderator,he
acceleratedthelast stagesof theproject,pushingissues
to decisionvia a seriesof mini-ballots.
In thisdivisionof
and in thesubsequentaccelerationof acresponsibilities
a closed,deadlinetivity,we see thegroupincorporating
orientedballot structure
alongsideits open-ended,draftbased structure.
As the pace acceleratedand members
intensified
theiractivity,
thepercentageof messagessent
duringthepeak 7 to 11 pm periodincreasedfrom30 to
36%.
Near theend of theproject,withLISP implementation
deadlinesloomingforseveralmembersof thegroup,the
original coordinatorexplicitlyabandoned the group's
open-endedtemporalstructure
by imposinga finaldeadline. On June9, 1983, he sent a message in whichhe
nominatedtheminorU.S. holidayFlag Day (June14) as
ORGANIZATIONSCIENCE/Vol. 13, No. 6, November-December2002
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
693
WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI
AND JOANNE YATES
It's AboutTime. TemporalStructuring
in Organizations
the finaldate by which changes to the Common LISP
languagewould be accepted:
conferenceand the ballot deadlines, were reifiedinto
fixedchronologicaltimes,thesewereexplicitlyshapedto
particular
purposes(a face-to-face
CommonLISP meetWe have to choose a cutoffdate,and now seems to be a good
ing and a decision-making
process). Thus, bothexplicit
time. I propose to give yet anothermeaningto "Flag Day."
and implicitaction,when ratifiedby othermembersof
... Afterthatpoint(23:59 on June14, 1983) I proposeto terthe
community,
mayreinforce
or modifytemporalstrucminate"elective"changesto theCommonLISP manual.
tures.The CommonLISP illustration
also showshow enIn thismessagehe crafteda kairoticmomentforcomple- actmentof temporalstructuresconstrainsand enables
tion.Althoughhe acknowledgedthathis choice of June ongoing human action. For example, Common LISP
14 was arbitrary,
he designateditin precise24-hourclock
members,in returning
theirballotsat thespecifieddeadtimeand shapedit intoa significant
eventin theproject, line,wereconstrainedin theamountof timetheyhad to
replacingtheopen-ended,draft-based
temporalstructure considerand cast theirvotes. However,these balloting
witha closed temporalstructure
orientedarounda chron- deadlinesalso enableda collectivesense of theissues to
ologically specificend point for the project.His final emergewithina relativelyshortperiodof time.
deadline of 23:59 implicitlyreflectedthe daily particiThe temporalstructuring
engagedin byCommonLISP
pationpattern,allowingthe opportunity
fora last daily membersbridgesthe subjective-objective
temporaldiof messagesbeforecuttingthemoff.To signalthe chotomydiscussedearlier.In Flag Day, forexample,we
flurry
arrivalofthisdeadline,thecoordinator
sentouta message observethe coordinatorshapinghis subjectivesense of
at midnight
on June14, witha subjectlinethatmimicked the opportunetime(kairos) to end theproject,givingit
a clock strikingtwelve:"BONG BONG BONG BONG
an objective,calendar-basedtime(chronos),thencontribBONG BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG BONG
utingto its reification.
Similarly,the loosely structured,
BONG." In the message,he statedexplicitlythat"The
cross-organizational
CommonLISP groupimplicitlyeswindowfortechnicalchangesto the firsteditionof the tablishedan informal,event-basedtemporalstructure
CommonLISP manualhas been *closed*."
aroundthe coordinator'sissuance of manualdrafts,and
The flowof traffic
on the CommonLISP list fell off onlymovedto moreclock-basedstructuring
towardsthe
quite significantly
afterthatdate. Nevertheless,as sug- end of theproject,underpressurefromdeadlineswithin
gestedin hisreference
to "thefirst
editionoftheCommon themembers'individualorganizations.Whatwe saw in
LISP manual,"theprojectas a wholedid notend.Shortly theirpractices,however,was not simplya changefrom
afterFlag Day, anotherCommonLISP memberexplicitly event-basedto clock-basedstructuring,
but an interplay
pointedout thatthegroupcould startthinking
aboutthe of thetwo. For example,theelectronicballotswere ennexteditionof theCommonLISP manual:
acted as projecteventswithinwhichclock-baseddeadlines were embedded,while the CommonLISP coordiA bunch of thingswere put off withoutdecisions or were
natorcraftedFlag Day intoa significant
projecteventby
patchedover in theeffortto get agreementon thefirstedition.
preciselydefininga clock-baseddeadline.
... However,it is perhapsnottoo soon to beginthinking
about
what major additions/changes
we want to get into the second
Interdependence
is also evidentin theshiftin emphasis
edition,so thatthose who want to make proposalscan begin
fromtheopen-endedtemporalstructure
enactedearlyin
preparingthemand so thatpeople can make theirplans in light
theprojectto theclosed,deadline-bound
structure
by the
of whatis likelyto be coming.
end. While the closureachieved on Flag Day seems to
the
The coordinatorand othermembersthusreshapedwhat pointto linearratherthancyclictemporalstructuring,
had,untilthatpoint,been framedas a linearprocessinto move to startdiscussingchangesforthe second edition
a cyclic one in whichthe taskof definingthe Common of themanualis evidenceof thegroup'senactmentof a
cyclical structure.
The CommonLISP group's activities
LISP languagecontinued.
also provideexamplesof how universaltemporalstrucin theCommonLISP Project
TemporalStructuring
tureswereparticularizedin practice.Each e-mail mesThis discussionhas shownhow membersoftheCommon sage includedtheprecisetimeof themessage,automatLISP grouptemporally
structured
theiractivitiesoverthe ically recordedand expressedin themostuniversalistic,
courseof theproject.Such structuring
occurredbothexquantifiedtermsof a 24-hourclock: "Date: Monday,26
theorganizational
andrhetorical
plicitly,through
skillsof
July1982, 14:07-EDT." Perhapsinfluenced
by suchdesthecoordinator
theballotgenre ignations,theCommonLISP coordinator
(e.g., whenhe introduced
expresseddeadsystemand designatedthe Flag Day deadline) and im- lines in similarlyuniversalterms,even thoughall the
plicitly(e.g., whenthemembersrestedfromtheNIL inmembersof Common LISP were withinthe United
cident).While some events,such as the AAAI annual States.At thesame time,he tooka U.S. nationalholiday
694
ORGANIZATIONSCIENCE/VOl. 13, No. 6, November-December 2002
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI
AND JOANNE YATES
It's About Time: TemporalStructuring
in Organizations
indicatedon his own calendar,Flag Day, and gave it a
much more particularistic
meaning,one specificto the
of
CommonLISP groupitself.Finally,we see a blurring
betweennaturaland social
theconventionaldistinctions
times.The social timerepresented
bythestandardnotions
of a 9 am to 5 pm workingday was not a primarytemwho posted
enactedby theseparticipants,
poral structure
themajorityof theirmessagesat othertimesthroughout
the24-hourday. Neitherdid theyenacta purelybiological rhythm,
thoughthisobviouslyinfluencedthemsince
the lowest activityoccurredwhen most memberswere
sleeping.The intensification
of peak 7 to 11 pm communicationduringthe last few monthsof theprojectillustrateshow social and biologicaltimesinteracted
toextend the temporaldurationof daily work practicesfor
projectmembers.
The Common LISP example providesadditionalinaroundtwonotions:virtual
sightsintotemporalstructuring
and thescope of temporalstructures.
temporalsymmetry
In spiteof theirgeographicaldispersionand themultiple
temporalstructures
theyenacted,theCommonLISP group
achievedsome limitedtemporalsymmetry,
even if they
of the sortfoundamong
lacked fulltemporalsymmetry
communities
as Zerubavel's(1981) Bensuchface-to-face
edictinemonks.For example,the CommonLISP group
metface to face twice,usinga conventionalmechanism
forachievingtemporalsymmetry
fora shorttimeperiod.
In theabsence of such synchronous
assembly,thegroup
also developedseveralmechanisms
forachievinga sortof
virtualtemporalsymmetry.
Because membersdid notreceive draftsin realtime,theissuanceof manualdraftsenwhichachievedingenderedvirtualtemporalsymmetry
completebutusefultemporalalignment.
Overtime,as the
thecoordinator
introduced
projectentereditsfinalmonths,
additionalmechanisms
to synchronize
groupmembers'activities-theballotdeadlinesand theFlag Day deadline.
Devices such as the midnighttime stamp and 12
"BONGS" subjectline of the coordinator'sdeadlineannouncement
wereintendedto createtheeffectoftemporal
of the groupsharinga moment,even though
symmetry,
individualmembersclearlyread themessageat different
moments.Members'use of thesemechanismsof virtual
temporalsymmetry,
togetherwith the two face-to-face
to support
meetings,createdadequatetemporalsymmetry
theproject.
The CommonLISP projectalso highlights
how thedifis relatedto what
ficultyof changingtemporalstructures
we mightcall theirscope-that is, how broadlytheyare
recognizedand enactedwithincommunities.
This notion
of scope resemblesthatof "structural
depth"proposedby
Sewell (1992), who arguesthatstructures
differin terms
of how pervasive and taken-for-granted
they are. The
ORGANIZATIONSCIENCEVol.
AAAI meetings,which served a large, geographically
dispersed organizationof Al researchers,had wellestablishedand institutionalized
annual meetingtimes
thatCommonLISP projectmemberstreatedas givenand
unalterabletemporalstructures
to be utilizedas an opforface-to-face
portunity
contact.On theotherhand,the
temporalstructures
associatedwithFlag Day and theballot deadlineswere readilyestablished,as membersrapidlyendorsedtheproposalsand actionsof thecoordinator. Similarly,the change fromopen-endedto closed
thatoccurredlate in theprojectwas
temporalstructuring
initiatedin responseto theless-flexibletemporalschedules of externalstakeholders.
ofa PracticePerspective
Implications
on Time
The practice-basednotionof temporalstructuring
previously illustratedfocuses attentionon how the ongoing
actionsofmembersofa community
shapeandare shaped
suchas meetingschedbya varietyoftemporalstructures
ules, project deadlines, and academic calendars. Such
temporalstructuring
occursas people routinely
schedule
and attenddepartmental
meetings,worktowardsproject
deadlines,and organizetheirlecturesaccordingto academic calendars.It is throughsuch temporalstructuring
thattimeis made meaningful
and consequentialin organizationallife.
The notion of temporalstructuring,
as understood
througha practiceperspective,
offersan alternative
view
of the creation,use, and influenceof timein organizationallife.While a focuson eitherobjectivetimeor subjective timesmay offerimportant
analyticadvantagesto
researchers,both tend to neglectimportantaspects of
in practice.Whilean objectiveview
temporalstructuring
overlooksthe role of humanactionin shapingpeople's
experiencesof timein organizations,a subjectiveview
downplayshow humanaction is shaped by objectified
expectationsof time in organizations.In contrast,a
practice-basedperspectiveseeks to show how therecurrentpracticesof social actorsshape temporalstructures
thatare experiencedas "time"in everydaylife,and how
these practicesin turnare shaped by previouslyestablished temporalstructures
thatinfluenceexpectationsof
timein organizations.
Such a perspectiveallows us to ask
a varietyof different
questions.Whattypesof temporal
structures
can be identified
in the recurrent
practicesof
membersof a community,and by what criteria(e.g.,
scope, community,
purpose)? How did these temporal
structuresemerge and become "stabilized-for-now?"
13, No. 6, November-December 2002
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
695
WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI
AND JOANNE YATES
It's AboutTime: TemporalStructuring
in Organizations
conditions,and actionsthatalWhat were theinterests,
to be adopted,objectilowed these temporalstructures
conWhat are the interests,
fied,and institutionalized?
ofthose
ditions,and actionsthatsustainthereproduction
compleovertime?Whatalternative,
temporalstructures
are being
temporalstructures
mentary,or contradictory
thecontinuedreliance
enactedthatinfluenceor threaten
How and underwhatconon thesetemporalstructures?
be changed,and
ditionsmightthesetemporalstructures
and orgafor
work,
interaction,
withwhatconsequences
nizing?All of thesequestionssuggestavenuesforfuture
empiricalresearch.
This sectionexploresimplicationsof a practice-based
how it can
temporalperspectiveby firsthighlighting
guidefutureresearchin a varietyof paradigms,and then
how it may be used to reexaminea numberof contemporaryideas abouttime.
shouldalso look towardstherecurrent
social entrainment
thetemor reinforcing
actionsof individualsestablishing
thatarebeing"captured"(or,forthatmatporalstructures
thatare "capturing"them).By
ter,thereifiedstructures
of temporalstrucexamininga community'srepertoire
tures,we can understandthe varietyof ways in which
communitymembers'actions (re)producethe different
through
theirongoing
theyconstitute
temporalstructures
practices
thatchange in temporal
Based on our understanding
structures
occursthroughchangesin everydaypractices,
we can suggestconditionslikelyto facilitateor impede
such change. For example, temporalstructureswith
and morediffibroaderscope shouldbe morepersistent
cult to change thanthose with narrowerscope. Going
beyondour CommonLISP example,we can proposea
numberof dimensionsto the notionof scope: size (i.e.,
in community);
penetration(i.e.,
numberof participants
forResearchon Timein Organizations percentageof a community
Implications
thatuses thetemporalstrucwe are
In proposingthe notionof temporalstructuring,
ture);dispersion(i.e., geographicalspreadof community
not arguingfor or against any particularparadigmor
membersusing the temporalstructure);embeddedness
we believe multiplepar- (i.e., degreeto whichthetemporalstructure
methodology.On thecontrary,
is implicated
adigms and methodologiesofferdistinctand important in communitymembers'daily lives), and extent(i.e.,
therole and influ- numberof communitiesenacting the structure).The
analyticadvantagesforunderstanding
Whatwe are suggestingis
ence of timein organizations.
largerthe size of the communityenactinga particular
increasedattentionto and explicitconsiderationof the temporalstructure,
the more difficultit should be to
thatorganizationalactorsengagein
temporalstructuring
change(e.g., whiletheCommonLISP groupchangedits
as theygo about theireverydayactivities.Indeed, our
it did notattemptto changethe
own temporalstructures,
sug- annualmeetingstructure
practice-basedperspectiveof temporalstructuring
of themuchlargerAAAI). Simresearch ilarly,thehigherthepercentageofpeople in a givencomgestssome implicationsthatmay guide further
in a varietyof methodologicalapproaches.
(i.e., higherpenemunitywho enacta specificstructure
on
focusesattention
The notionoftemporalstructuring
it shouldbe to change.Within
tration),themoredifficult
in theirpractices,and
whatpeople actuallydo temporally
ena firm,forexample,we mightexpectthata structure
how in suchongoingand situatedactivitytheyshapeand
acted by most or all organizationalmembers(e.g., the
By exam- holiday schedule) would typicallybe more difficult
are shaped by particulartemporalstructures.
to
iningwhenpeople do whattheydo in theirpractices,we
changethanone enactedonlyby a specificresearchteam
can identifywhat temporalstructuresshape and are
(a particularprojectschedule).Greatergeographicaldisbymembersofa community; persionshouldalso make changemoredifficult,
shaped(oftenconcurrently)
though
over- modemcommunication
how these interact;whethertheyare interrelated,
technologyhas reducedthatdiflapping,and nested,or separateand distinct;and theexficulty
(e.g., theannualshiftto and fromdaylightsavings
or
tentto which theyare compatible,complementary,
timemade by millionsof Americans,whichis madeeasThatis, by focusingexplicitlyon temporal ier by mass media publicizingof the shift).Still, even
contradictory.
researchers
can examinetheconditionsunder todaywe findgeographicalislandsof resistanceto such
structuring,
which actors such as those in Gersick's rich empirical a change,howeverwidelyinstitutionalized
(e.g.,Arizona's
studies(1988, 1989, 1994) choose to enact clock-based refusalto adoptdaylightsavingstime).In addition,a temor event-basedstructures.
Recognizingthatclock time poral structure
which is deeply embeddedin everyday
acand eventtimeoftenoverlapand interactsuggeststhat practiceand thustakenforgranted(e.g., coordinating
to thepossibilitythata
researchersshouldpay attention
tivityby the clock or punctuatingthe day with three
has aspectsof both.Similarly,withrela- meals) should be more enduringand harderto change
givenstructure
praction to entrainment
(Ancona and Chong 1996, Clark thanone thatis moreconsciouslyand deliberately
1990, McGrath1990), thenotionof temporalstructuring ticed(e.g., goingto a particularmeetingeveryFridayat
thatextendsacross
noon). Finally,a temporalstructure
suggeststhatresearcherswho seek the mechanismsof
696
ORGANIZATIONSCIENCE/Vol. 13, No. 6, November-December2002
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI
AND JOANNE YATES
It's AboutTime: TemporalStructuring
in Organizations
multiple
workweekin awarenessamongresearchers
communities
(e.g.,thefive-day
(whateverthe topic of
industrialized
economies)shouldbe less amenableto study)thattheirconceptual
choiceshaveimplications
for
modification
thanone containedwithina singlecom- theirempirical
findings.
munity.
forContemporary
Ideas AboutTime
intheeaseofchanging
Differences
structures Implications
temporal
ontheir
depending
a num- in Organizations
scopecanbe investigated
from
structuring
elaborated
hereallows
berof different
research
For example,tem- Thenotionoftemporal
paradigms.
somecontemporary
ideasconcerning
poralstructures
thatareinstitutionalized
andhavea broad us toreexamine
the
oftimein organizations-in
scopewillbe routinely
treated
as fixed,
andob- natureandinfluence
particexternal,
jectified.These stabilized-for-now
balance,""timemanagetemporalstructures ular,ideasabout"work/family
"clockspeed,"
and"realtime."
canusefully
be regarded
as independent
incer- ment,"
variables
The idea of"work/family
taintypesofresearch
balance,"forexample,sugstudies.
Otherapproaches
maywish
toexaminetheactionstakenbymembers
toalterthetem- geststhatitis bothpossibleanddesirableto achievean
betweentimespentin paidemployment
poralstructures
enactedwithintheircommu- equilibrium
acroutinely
andtimespentin activities
nity,andhowdifferences
in powerrelations
thefamily
enableand tivities
involving
orhome.Whileattempting
constrain
suchefforts.
to addressa seriousconcern
Ourempirical
of
thevalueof of workingwomenand men,the characterization
examplealso highlighted
balance"nevertheless
"work/family
achievingvirtualtemporal
formembers
createsa dichotomy
symmetry
of a
workandfamily,
As electronic
thatthetwoaremugeographically
dispersed
implying
community.
me- between
diabecomeincreasingly
central
toorganizational
spheresofeverylife,in- tuallyexclusiveandall-encompassing
dividualsmayuse asynchronous
each withits own distinctive
mediain variousways day activity,
temporal
to shapedevicesofvirtualsymmetry
Thenotionoftemporal
thathelpthemco- rhythms.
we havedestructuring
ordinate
acrossgeographical
insteadthatpeopleenactmultiple,
distance
andacrossmultiple velopedheresuggests
andshifting
temporal
structures.
Thissuggests
inall astemporal
thatwhenstudying
structures
the heterogeneous,
use ofelectronic
lives.Forexample,
inonedayanindividual
media,researchers
shouldpayattention pectsoftheir
totheconditions
inwhichvirtual
structures
as season(e.g.,
temporal
symmetry
may maydrawon suchtemporal
be enactedto coordinate
appropriately),
distributed
commuting
schedule
andwith dressing
activities,
(e.g.,avoidwhatconsequences.
Interesting
questionsforempirical ingrushhourtie-ups),schooltimetable
(e.g.,dropping
offatschoolinthemorning),
research
includethefollowing.
As workgroupsin orga- children
workdayschedule
nizations
becomemoregeographically
atworkbya particular
dispersed
and/or (e.g.,arriving
time),project
schedmoredependent
on electronic
datafora pending
media,do members
report),
enact ule(e.g.,analyzing
networking
virtual
temporal
forcertain
symmetry
Ifso,for event(e.g., goingto lunchwitha former
purposes?
colleague),
whichtypesofpurposes?
calendar(e.g., havingan annual
Andhow?Ifnot,howdo such healthmaintenance
workgroupsachievetemporal
mammogram),
professional
coordination?
development
schedule(e.g.,
for
an
preparing
Finally,ourperspective
upcoming
emphasizes
professional
thatthepointof
conference),
fitviewandmoment
ofobservation
fromwhichresearchers ness routine(e.g., goingto thegym),familyschedule
and practitioners
view temporal
withthefamily),
structures
affectwhat (e.g.,cookingandeatingdinner
"down
theysee. We havenotedthatpointofviewis critical
television
or readinga book),and
in time"(e.g.,watching
a giventemporal
determining
whether
structure
is seenas biologicaltime(e.g.,sleeping).
linearorcyclic.Fromtheproduction
thismultiplicity
Recognizing
and interdependence
floor,
the"window
of
of opportunity"
structures
ineveryday
(Tyreand Orlikowski
lifesuggests
thatattempt1994) associated temporal
withnewproduction
technology
mayappeartobe a one- ingto achievea balancebetweenthetemporal
rhythms
timeevent,whilefromtheexecutive
omitsmanyothertemporal
thischange ofworkandthoseoffamily
offices,
in dailylife.Instead,it maybe moreusefulto
maybe seenas cyclic.Pointofview,as shapedbymo- rhythms
mentofobservation,
mayalsoaffect
thedifferent
whether
temporal
participants examine
structures
enacted
bypeoin a long-term
projectareunderstood
in thevariedtemporal
to be involvedin ple as theyparticipate
conditions
an open-ended
or closedengagement.
Whenresearchers of theirorganizations,
occupations,
families,religious
choosea type(e.g.,cross-sectional
vs. overtime)orpe- communities,
andneighborhoods;
andtoconsider
where,
riodofstudytheyarechoosingwhattemporal
structures how,towhatextent,
andwithwhatconsequences
forpeotheymaysee andunderstand.
Considering
pointofview ple's livessuchtemporal
structures
dominate,
intersect,
andmoment
ofobservation,
whileeasytoignoreinpur- andconflict.
Thisperspective
further
suggests
thatshiftsuingspecificresearchstudies,may createincreased ing temporal
rhythms
requiresmorethanjust rhetoric
ORGANIZATIONSCIENCE/Vol. 13, No. 6, November-December2002
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
697
WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI
AND JOANNE YATES
It's AboutTime: TemporalStructuring
in Organizations
balance."It requirespeople enacting
about"work/family
whichin turnima different
set of temporalstructures,
expectations,
plies profoundchangesin theassumptions,
norms,incentives,and practicesof theorganizationand
For exthefamily,as well as of theothercommunities.
and employersall needto adample,families,neighbors,
just norms,incentives,and practicesto accommodateindividualstelecommuting
and workingfromhome.While
a numberof scholarshave notedthatsuch fundamental
difficult
to
social and culturalchanges are particularly
achieve(Bailyn 1993,Perlow 1997), a focuson temporal
can help to identify
thosepracticesand constructuring
ditionsthatmay be especiallyrelevantto theenactment
of modifiedtemporalstructures.
also sheds a difThe conceptof temporalstructuring
ferentlighton the idea of "time management,"which
suggeststhatindividualsare capable of so orderingtheir
temporalschedules and rhythmsthat they can "take
charge"oftheirbusylives.Whileusefulin specificareas,
such an idea overlooksthefactthattemporalstructuring
is a social process,so thata singleindividualnecessarily
comrequiresthecooperationofothermembersofhis/her
orschedmunityto maintainormodifytemporalrhythms
ules. This social dimensionraisesa numberof questions
forempiricalresearch.How mightgroupsorcommunities
theiractivitiesso as to
cooperateto align or synchronize
temporalstructures?
helpindividualsenactmoreeffective
Whatchangesin communication
norms,workpractices,
or technologieswill facilitate"collectivetimecoordination?" Perlow's (1997) "quiet time" experimentwith
membersof a productdevelopmentgroupis one example
of a changeintendedto facilitatesuchcollectivetimecoordination.Anotheris suggestedby our empiricalextheroleof virtualtemporalsymample,whichhighlights
metry.
The notionoftemporalstructuring
helpsputthecurrent
focuson "clockspeed"in a broaderperspective.The idea
of "clockspeed"refersto theimportanceof reducingthe
clock time spent in particularorganizationalactivities
and thevalue thatcan
such as productionor distribution,
be generatedfromsuch reductions(Fine 1998). While a
focus on chronologicaltimeand closed temporalorientationin organizationalactivitiesis not problematicper
imthatsuchtimealone is singularly
se, thepresumption
The notionoftemporalstructuring
is problematic.
portant
and pluralityof
suggeststhatpeople enacta multiplicity
notall of whichcan be characterized
temporalstructures,
in termsof theclock or deadlines.By privilegingclock
time,managersmay be encouragingworkersto narrow
therangeof temporalstructures
theyenactin theireveryandpossiblynegative
daypractice,withsomeunintended
698
consequences.In termsof March's (1991) distinction
betweenexploitationand exploration,
such a narrowrange
of temporalstructuring
maypromotean almostexclusive
focus on exploitation,
thusignoringor undermining
the
forexploration,learning,innovation,and
opportunities
improvisationwhich are more likely to accompanya
broaderrangeof temporalstructuring.
The idea of "real time" or "zero time"in the most
recentparlance(Yeh et al. 2000)-is closely associated
withthatof speed, and suggeststhatin today's increasinglyInternet-dominated
world,activitiesmusthappen
instantlybecause, in the contemporary
rhetoric,"geography,borders,and timezones have becomeobliterated"
(Cairncross 1997). The notionof temporalstructuring
views "realtime"notas an inherent
property
of Internetbased activities,or an inevitableconsequenceof technology use, but as an enactedtemporalstructure,
reflecting
thedecisionspeople have made abouthow theywish to
structure
theiractivities,bothon or offthe Internet.
As
an alternative
to theidea of"realtime,"BennettandWeill
(1997) have suggestedthenotionof "real-enoughtime,"
proposingthatpeopledesigntheirprocessandtechnology
infrastructures
to accommodatevariabletimingdemands,
which are contingenton task and context.We believe
such "real-enough"temporalstructures
are important
areas of furtherempiricalinvestigation,allowing us to
move beyondthe fixationon a singular,objective"real
time" to recognize the opportunitiespeople have to
(re)shapetherangeoftemporalstructures
thatshapetheir
lives.
Conclusion
In thispaper we have proposedgroundingthe studyof
time in the recurrent
social practicesof organizational
actors.Such a focusshiftsattention
to thetemporalstructuringthatactorsengagein as partoftheireverydaypractices,allowingan examinationof thetemporalstructures
constituted
suchdailyactions.Furthermore,
such
through
an examination
facilitates
an exploration
oftheconditions
underwhichpeoplereinforce,
adjust,orchangetheirtemas well as introducenew ones. By inteporal structures,
gratinga practice-basedperspectivewiththe notionof
we emphasize the human role in
temporalstructures,
shapingas well as being shaped by time.Temporalreflexivity-beingaware of the humanpotentialforreinforcingand alteringtemporalstructures-isessentialif
we wishto act witheffectin ourworld.Bazerman(1994,
p. 100) has statedthat"Onlybyuncoveringthepathways
thatguide our lives in certaindirectionscan we beginto
identifythe possibilitiesfor new turnsand the consequences of takingthose turns."In thispaper,we have
ORGANIZATIONSCIENCE/Vol. 13, No. 6, November-December2002
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI
AND JOANNE YATES
in Organizations
It's AboutTime: TemporalStructuring
on timethatcan helpbothreproposeda perspective
of
thepossibilities
identify
and practitioners
searchers
world.
in theorganizational
shapingnewpathways
Acknowledgments
at the58thAnnualMeeting
An earlierversionof thispaperwas presented
San Diego,CA, August1998.The authors
oftheAcademyofManagement,
at thatsession,the
appreciatethe helpfulcommentsof the participants
membersof MIT's 15.328 doctoralseminaron collaborativework,and
discussionswithStuartAlbert,DeborahAncona,LotteBailyn,JeanBartunek,MarthaFeldman,Leslie Perlow,andMarcieTyre.Theyalso appreciate the helpfulsuggestionsfromBarbaraLawrence,SeniorEditorfor
in helpingto shape
reviewers,
Science,and theanonymous
Organization
thispaper.
Endnotes
Bailyn, L. 1993. Breakingthe Mold: Women,Men, and Time in the
New CorporateWorld.Free Press,New York.
as an occasionforstructuring:
EviBarley,S. R. 1986.Technology
of CT scanners
andthesocialorderof
dencefromobservation
Sci. Quart.31 78-108.
radiology
departments.
Admin.
induced
time,andsocialorder:
Technically
. 1988.Ontechnology,
work.F. Duofradiological
changeinthetemporal
organization
binskas, ed. Making Time: Ethnographiesof High Technology
Press,Philadelphia,
PA, 123Organizations.
TempleUniversity
169.
IllinoisUniSouthern
C. 1994.Constructing
Experience.
Bazerman,
IL, 171-193.
versity
Press,Carbondale,
theuseofelectronic
messaging
Bennett,
M.,P. Weill.1997.Exploring
firm.
J.Strategic
Thecaseofa telecommunications
infrastructure:
Inform.Systems6 7-34.
Anoverview
oftimein sociology:
Bergmann,
W. 1992.Theproblem
on the'Socioftheliterature
on thestateoftheory
andresearch
ologyofTime,'1900-82.Time& Soc. 1(1) 81-134.
J.
A. C., R. B. Denhardt.
1988.Timeand organizations.
Bluedorn,
drawson Giddens'(1984)discusstructuring
'Ournotionoftemporal
whichhasbeen
oftemporality,
andnothistreatment
sionofstructuring
action
attention
to intersubjective
forpayinginsufficient
criticized
1992).
1992,Nowotny
(Bergmann
Management14 299-320.
(1994)haveat2In thelastdecade,bothMiller(1992) andBazerman
eds. 1989.Time,Work
and
Blyton,
P., J.Hassard,S. Hill,K. Starkey,
ofkairos,recognizing
tointegrate
theopposing
interpretations
tempted
London,U.K.
Organization.
Routledge,
ofa
characteristics
thegiventemporal
between
interplay
thedynamic
Bourdieu,P. 1977. Outlineof a Theoryof Practice. CambridgeUniinto
inturning
thosecharacteristics
andtheactionsofhumans
situation
versity
Press,NewYork.
rhetorical
opportunities.
Itsexperience,
explanations
Butler,
R., 1995.Timein organizations:
theobjective-subjective
to reconcile
3A fewscholarshaveattempted
and effects.Organ. Stud. 16(6) 925-950.
Adam1995,Clark Cairncross,F. 1997. TheDeath ofDistance: How theCommunications
inthesocialsciences(see,forexample,
dichotomy
1990).
in ref(1993) developedthenotionof "stabilized-for-now"
4Schryer
area typeofsocial
whichwe havearguedelsewhere
erencetogenres,
1992).
structure
(YatesandOrlikowski
CouncilofNegro
chairoftheNational
Height,
byDorothy
5Asrecalled
onNationalPublicRadio'sMorningEdition,
Women,inan interview
27, 1998.
February
study
andYates(1994)formoredetailsoftheresearch
6SeeOrlikowski
whichgenerated
thisexample.
References
Adam, B. 1990. Time and Social Theory.Temple UniversityPress,
Philadelphia,PA.
. 1994. Perceptionsof time.T. Ingold,ed. CompanionEncycloHumanity,Culture,and Social Life.Routpedia ofAnthropology:
ledge, London,U.K., 503-526.
. 1995 Timewatch:The Social Analysis of Time. Polity Press,
Cambridge,U.K.
Albert,S. 1995. Towards a theoryof timing:An archivalstudyof
timingdecisionsin thePersianGulfWar.L. Cummingsand B. M.
Staw, eds. Research in OrganizationalBehavior, vol. 17. JAI
Press,Greenwich,CT, 1-70.
Pace, cycle,and rhythm
Ancona,D., C-L. Chong. 1996. Entrainment:
in organizationalbehavior.L. Cummingsand B. M. Staw, eds.
Research in OrganizationalBehavior,vol. 18. JAIPress,Greenwich,CT, 251-284.
, P. S. Goodman,B. S. Lawrence,M. L. Tushman.2001a. Time:
A new researchlens.Acad. ManagementRev. 26(4) 645-663.
, Okhuysen,G., L. Perlow.2001b. Takingtimeto integratetemporal research.Acad. ManagementRev. 26(4) 512-529.
RevolutionWill Change Our Lives. Harvard Business School
Press,Boston,MA.
Castells,M. 1996. The Rise of theNetworkSociety,vol. 1 of The InformationAge: Economy,Society,and Culture.Blackwell Pub-
lishers,
Malden,MA.
oftimeandstructure
fororClark,P. 1985.A reviewofthetheories
ganizationalsociology.Res. in Sociologyof Organ. 4 35-79.
analysis.
J.Hascodesandorganizational
. 1990.Chronological
sard and D. Pym,eds. The Theoryand Philosophyof Organizations: CriticalIssues and New Perspectives.Routledge,London,
U.K., 137-163.
F. 1988a.Cultural
constructions:
Themanyfacesoftime.
Dubinskas,
F. Dubinskas, ed. Making Time: Ethnographiesof High Tech-
TempleUniversity
Press,Philadelphia,
nologyOrganizations.
PA, 3-38.
in genetic
Scientists
andmanagers
. 1988b.Janusorganizations:
firms.F. Dubinskas,ed. MakingTime:Ethnographies
engineering
of High TechnologyOrganizations.Temple UniversityPress,
Philadelphia,
PA, 170-232.
andthebiosphere:
Ecol1996.Organizations
Egri,C. P.,L. T Pinfield.
S. R. Clegg,C. Hardy,
andW. R. Nord,
ogiesandenvironments.
eds. HandbookofOrganizationStudies.Sage Publications,Thou-
sandOaks,CA, 459-483.
M. 1988.Therediscovery
ofchronos:
Thenewroleoftime
Elchardus,
in sociologicaltheory.Internat.Sociology3(1) 35-59.
Fine, C. H. 1998. Clockspeed: WinningIndustryControlin theAge of
TemporaryAdvantages.PerseusBooks, Reading,MA.
C. J.G. 1988.Timeandtransition
in workteams:Towarda
Gersick,
newmodelof groupdevelopment.
Acad.Management
J.31 941.
ORGANIZATION
SCIENCE/Vol. 13, No. 6, November-December2002
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
699
WANDA J. ORLIKOWSKI
AND JOANNE YATES
in Organizations
It's AboutTime: TemporalStructuring
in taskgroups.Acad.
. 1989. Markingtime:Predictabletransitions
ManagementJ. 32 274-309.
Acad.
change:The case ofa new venture.
. 1994. "Pacingstrategic
ManagementJ. 37 9-45.
of Society:Outlineof the Theory
Giddens,A. 1984. The Constitution
of CaliforniaPress,Berkeley,CA.
of Structure.University
. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity.StanfordUniversity
CA.
Press,Stanford,
. 1993. New Rules of Sociological Method.StanfordUniversity
Press,Stanford,CA.
a daymakes:A theoretical
Glucksmann,M. A. 1998. Whata difference
and gender.Sociology,
and historicalexplorationof temporality
32 239-258.
Guild,W. 1998. Personalcommunication.
Harmon,A. 1999. It's @786. Do you knowwhereyourcomputeris?
The New YorkTimes(March 7).
Hassard,J. 1989. Time and industrialsociology.P. Blyton,J.Hassard,
S. Hill, and K. Starkey,eds. Time,Workand Organization.Routledge, London,U.K., 13-34.
. 1996. Images of time in work and organization.S. Clegg, C.
Hardy,and W. Nord, eds. Handbook of OrganizationStudies.
Sage Publications,ThousandOaks, CA.
organiHolmer-Nadesan,M. 1997. Essai: Dislocating(instrumental)
zationaltime.Organ. Stud. 18(3) 481-510.
Hutchins,E. 1995. Cognitionin theWild.MIT Press,Cambridge,MA.
Jacques,E. 1982. The Form of Time.Heinemann,London,U.K.
Jurczyk,K. 1998. Time in women's everydaylives: Between selfdemands.Time & Society7 283and conflicting
determination
308.
Kern,S. 1983. The CultureofTimeand Space, 1880-1918. Weidenfeld
& Nicholson,London,U.K.
Kinneavy,J.L., 1986. Kairos:A neglectedconceptinclassicalrhetoric.
of ClasJ.D. Moss, ed. Rhetoricand Praxis: The Contribution
of
sical Rhetoricto PracticalReasoning.The CatholicUniversity
AmericaPress,Washington,D.C., 79-105.
Kohlberg,L. 1981. The Philosophyof Moral Development:Moral
Stages and the Idea of Justice.Harper& Row, San Francisco,
CA.
Lave, J. 1988. Cognitionin Practice. CambridgeUniversityPress,
Cambridge,U.K.
Lawrence,B. S. 1984. Age grading:The implicitorganizationaltimetable.J. OccupationalBehavior5(1) 23-35.
. 1996. Organizationalage norms:Whyis it so hardto knowone
36(2) 209-220.
whenyou see one? Gerontologist
Levine, R. 1997. A Geographyof Time.Basic Books, New York.
Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theoryin Social Science: Selected Theoretical
Papers. Harper,New York.
MalthusD. 1998. All ThingsConsidered.NationalPublic Radio (July
27).
March, J.G. 1991. Explorationand exploitationin organizational
learning.Organ. Sci. 2(1) 71-87.
McGrath,J.E. 1990. Time mattersin groups.J.Galegher,R. E. Kraut,
and C. Egido, eds. IntellectualTeamwork:Social and Technological Foundationsof CooperativeWork.Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates,Hillsdale,NJ,23-61.
Meadows, D. H., D. L. Meadows, J. Randers, W. W. Behrens,III.
700
1972. Limitsto Growth:A Reportfor theClub ofRome's Project
on the Predicamentof Mankind.New AmericanLibrary,New
York.
Miller,C. R. 1992. Kairos in the rhetoricof science. S. P. Witte,N.
Nakadate,and R. D. Cherry,eds. A Rhetoricof Doing. Southern
Illinois UniversityPress,Carbondale,IL, 310-327.
J.,M. Jones.1999. Accountingfortime:Managingtime
Nandhakumar,
Accounting,Organ. and Society
in project-basedteamworking.
25 1-22.
Nowotny,H. 1992. Time and social theory:Towards a social theory
of time.Time& Soc. 1(3) 421-454.
Orlikowski,W. J., J. Yates. 1994. Genre repertoire:Examiningthe
of communicativepracticesin organizations.Admin.
structuring
Sci. Quart.39 541-574.
Perlow,L. A. 1997. FindingTime:How Corporations,Individuals,and
Families Can BenefitfromNew WorkPractices. ILR Press of
CornellUniversityPress,Ithaca,NY.
Rostow, W. W. 1960. The Stages of Economic Growth: A NonCommunist
Manifesto.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,
U.K.
organization.
and informal
Roy,D. 1959. Banana time:Jobsatisfaction
Human Organ. 18(4) 158-168.
of information
technology:A timeSahay, S. 1997. Implementation
space perspective.Organ. Stud. 18(2) 229-260.
SchatzkiT. R., K. KnorrCetina,E. von Savigny,eds. 2001. ThePracTheory.Routledge,London,U.K.
tice Turnin Contemporary
Comm.10 200-234.
Schryer,C. F. 1993. Recordsas genres.Written
Senge, P., G. Carstedt.2001. Innovatingour way to thenextindustrial
revolution.Sloan ManagementRev. 42(4) 24-38.
Sewell, W. H. Jr.1992. A theoryof structure:Duality,agency,and
transformation.
Amer.J. Sociology98(1) 1-29.
Shrivastava,P. 1995. The role of corporationsin achievingecological
Acad. ofManagementRev. 20 936-960.
sustainability.
Starkey,K. 1989. Time and work:A psychologicalperspective.P. Blyton, J. Hassard, S. Hill, and K. Starkey,eds. Time, Workand
Organization.Routledge,London,U.K., 35-56.
of CamSuchman,L. A. 1987. Plans and SituatedActions.University
bridgePress,Cambridge,U.K.
of the
Sullivan,0. 1997. Time waitsforno (wo)man: An investigation
genderedexperienceof domestictime.Sociology31 221-239.
and industrialcapitalThompson,E. P. 1967. Time, work-discipline,
ism. Past and Present,38 56-97.
TemTyre,M. J.,W. J. Orlikowski.1994. Windows of opportunity:
poral patternsof technologicaladaptationin organizations.Organ. Sci. 5(1) 98-118.
Whipp,R. 1994. A timeto be concerned:A positionpaperon timeand
management.Time& Soc. 3(1) 99-116.
Yates, J.,W. J. Orlikowski.1992. Genresof organizationalcommuapproachto studyingcommunication
nication:A structurational
and media.Acad. ManagementRev. 17 299-326.
Yeh, R. T., K. E. Pearlson,G. Kozmetsky.2000. Zero Time:Providing
InstantCustomerValue-Every Time,All the Time! JohnWiley
& Sons, New York.
Schedulesand Calendars in SoZerubavel,E. 1981. HiddenRhythms:
cial Life.Universityof Chicago Press,Chicago, IL.
2002
ORGANIZATIONSCIENCE/Vol. 13, No. 6, November-December
This content downloaded from 128.192.114.19 on Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:55:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions