B a Rubin-New Times Redux Layering Time in the New Economy

7/27/2019 B a Rubin-New Times Redux Layering Time in the New Economy

1/22

NEW TIMES REDUX: LAYERING

TIME IN THE NEW ECONOMY$

Beth A. Rubin

ABSTRACT

This chapter draws on recent literature in I/O psychology, management

and sociology to posit a relationship between organizational structure

and temporal structure and develops the construct of layered-task time.

Layered-task time is similar to polychronic time (P-time) in the inclusion

of simultaneous, multiple tasks but includes additional dimensions of

fragmentation, contamination and constraint. The chapter links thedevelopment of this new time and its resultant time-sense to variation in

the degree to which organizations are hierarchical and centralized and

develops propositions about these relationships. The chapter contributes

to the growing literature on workplace temporalities in the contemporary

economy.

Innovation, change and speed characterize the new economy, an observa-

tion that has become commonplace. Likewise, understanding the factors

$Parts of this paper were presented at the 2003 Annual Meetings of the Eastern Sociological

Society, Philadelphia. I have resurrected it for this volume because this concept seems to

provide framework that incorporates many of the disparate observations and findings the

chapters in this volume present. I let the reader decide if that perception is correct.

Workplace Temporalities

Research in the Sociology of Work, Volume 17, 527548

Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd.All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 0277-2833/doi:10.1016/S0277-2833(07)17017-5

527
http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-2833(07)17017-5.3dhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-2833(07)17017-5.3dhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-2833(07)17017-5.3dhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_6/dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-2833(07)17017-5.3d


2/22

producing these characteristics has made the study of time a focus ofpopular and social scientific inquiry as this volume and many others dem-

onstrate (Adam, Whipp, & Sabalis, 2002). This chapter argues that the

transition to a 24/7, global, technologically mediated economy in which

organizations have restructured to maximize their flexibility and profitability

has created new temporal structures and new organizational times. Just as

Thompson (1967) identified dominant changes in organizations and technol-

ogy that contributed to the transition to clock-time and a new timework

discipline, this chapter outlines contemporary transitions that are similarly

implicated in the emergence of new organizational time that I call layered-tasktime.

I begin with a brief discussion of the transition from clock-time to layered-

task time. I then go on to develop a series of propositions relating temporal

and organizational structures. In so doing, this chapter contributes to the

growing literature on time at work by positing a relationship between

organizational structure, temporal structure and developing the construct of

layered-task time. It draws on sociological, management and psychological

studies to posit layered-task time as a new work time that creates a new time

discipline that is both outcome of, and necessary to, the success of post-modern organizations. I use postmodern as a heuristic and descriptive

summary of the organizational structures that increasingly proliferate in the

contemporary economy ones that are delayered, dispersed, sometimes

virtual and otherwise distinct from the iconic bureaucracy of the twentieth

century.

CLOCK-TIME TO LAYERED-TASK TIME

Thompsons (1967) classic paper argued that a new time-sense, called time

work discipline, was a key component in the creation of the modern

worker whose labor had to shift from the temporal patterns of agricultural

and artisanal work to the temporalities of industrial labor. This shift

required transformation of workers time-sense that removed independent

artisans and agricultural workers from a social life in which work and

nonwork relationships were intermingled and work activities were task

oriented to one in which their work activities were structured by the clock.Prior to that transformation, whether milking, carving, tanning, fishing or

hoeing, the laborer attended to a single task or activity at a time and did so

within a rhythm dictated by nature and the task itself (Thompson, 1967).

BETH A. RUBIN528


3/22

Industrialization, and the increasingly bureaucratic organizations thataccompanied it, required synchronization of separate activities comprising

the production process. Creating an industrial proletariat necessitated,

among other things, that workers internalize a new temporal orientation.

That temporal orientation entailed standardization not only of work activities

but also of the clock-blocks in which they occurred. Thus, standardization

of the labor process was linked to standardization of temporal units. Once

standardized, temporal units could be quantified and, ultimately, associated

with a value.

Associated with the transition to clock-time, then, were the increasingdivision of labor and the equation of time with money (see Ballard, this

volume). That equation created the pressure to complete as much work as

possible in a given clock-block or standard time unit. These practices

became normative and characteristic of the labor process from Taylorism to

subsequent Fordist production practices. Under these conditions, what

structured the work activity was the clock, leading to such hallmark phrases

of industrial society as punch in or doing a task on the clock or working

on company time. Work effort ends when time is up. These clock-bound

notions of time departed dramatically from notions of time rooted in nature.

1

Despite current arguments about a plurality of social times within

organizations (Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988, Bluedorn, 2002; Clark, 1985;

Ancona, Okhuysen, & Perlow, 2001), clock-time has, by most accounts,

dominated bureaucracies, the prevalent organizational form of the twentieth

century (Butler, 1995; McGrath & Rotchford, 1983; Failla & Bagnara, 1992;

Benabou, 1999). This dominance makes sense since unidirectional, linear

sequences, processes and relationships characterize both organizational and

temporal structures.

What I argue below is that the economic and organizational changes of thelate twentieth century have impacted the temporal structures of organizations

and the time-sense of actors within them (Benabou, 1999; Lee, 1999; Onken,

1999; Barkema, Baum, & Mannix, 2002; Saunders, Van Slyke, & Vogel,

2004). I suggest that layered-task time emerges from these new temporal

structures that contributes to new forms of work discipline and control based

on time surveillance, normative and concertive forms of control (Barker,

1993, 1999; Kunda, 1992) and a new time-sense characterized by persistent

urgency (Blount & Janicick, 2001), necessary for productive and effective

work in the postmodern organization. This chapter explicates this new time.Drawing on insights in the sociology of time, I/O psychology, on temporal

personalities and management literature in this volume and elsewhere on time

in organizations, I argue that what has emerged is not only a new temporal

New Times Redux 529


4/22

culture but new temporal structures. Temporal structures emerge out of theroutines, pacing, task allocation, sequencing (prioritizing), synchronizing

(timing) and punctuality necessary for the accomplishment of an organi-

zations tasks (Zerubavel, 1976, 1979; Schriber, 1985; Schriber & Gutek,

1987; Barley, 1988; Fine, 1990; Nowotny, 1992; Adam, 1995; Hassard, 1999;

Cappelli et al., 1997; Perlow, 1999; Yakura, 2001; Perlow, Okhysen, &

Repinning, 2002; Goodman, Lawrence, Ancona, & Tushman, 2001;

Orlikowski & Yates, 2002; and see Ancona and Waller, Blount and Leroy,

Perrucci and MacDermid, in this volume).

While many authors focus on components of temporal cultures, i.e.,shared meanings, interpretations, values, norms, typifications and so

forth. (Berger & Luckman, 1967; Schein, 1992; Martin, 2002; Ballard, this

volume), I argue that just as organizations are characterized both by struc-

tures (centralization, hierarchy, division of labor, technology, etc.) and cul-

tures, so too are they characterized by temporal structures and cultures.2 The

organizational temporal structure is a way of organizing time, independent of

the norms, expectations, beliefs, interpretations and understandings, that

comprise an organizations temporal culture (Schein, 1992; Marcoulides &

Heck, 1993; Martin, 2002; Bluedorn, 2002).

3

In highlighting these organi-zational tasks, and claiming that they create a structure, this chapter brings

time and temporal structure to the forefront of theorizing about the con-

temporary workplace, rather than leaving it as backdrop (Bluedorn &

Denhardt, 1988, p. 303).

Temporal structures are those aspects of the organization that for pur-

poses of this chapter exist independent of actors apprehension, interpre-

tation or experience of them. That is, they are stable and independent of

subjective experience. This distinction has practical implications since struc-

ture, in some sense, is more immediately malleable than culture (see, e.g.,Gewirtz & Fried, this volume). Routines, schedules and other components

of temporal structure can be altered more readily than subjective experience

and taken-for-granted understandings. Culture, as is well-known, is much

harder to change. I turn now to the hypothesized successor of clock-time,

what I have called layered-task time.

Layered-Task Time

This chapter argues that current organizational practices4 have shifted

temporal structures from the linear sequencing and routines of the modern

era to a postmodern layered-task structure in which, as with premodern

BETH A. RUBIN530


5/22

labor, work effort is determined by completion of tasks rather than hourlysegments. Technological and organizational innovations that accelerate

development, production and market cycles, break down the boundaries

between home and office and potentially extend the working day to twenty-

four hours, seven days a week (giving rise to the term 24/7). Likewise,

industrial restructuring that delayers organizations and restructures the

labor process around teams are conducive to the layering of tasks since work

activities are organized around the accomplishment of tasks and projects

rather than the clock (see below & Poster, this volume; Barkema et al., 2002;

Adam et al., 2002). Moreover, as research demonstrates, organizationalrestructuring that delayers and decentralizes organizations, changes the

boundaries, sequencing, allocation, pacing, i.e., the building blocks of tem-

poral structure within organizations. My argument in this chapter is that

these changes in temporal structure create layered-task time, a hypothesized

successor to clock-time (Thompson, 1967).

The construct of layered-task time refers not only to the longer hours that

characterizes much contemporary work but also to the multiplicity of tasks

that workers attempt to complete simultaneously. Importantly, given the

predominance of interaction in the service economy (Leidner, 1993; Poster,this volume), many of these tasks are interactive. Thus, employees may find

themselves simultaneously attending to interpersonal tasks, operations tasks

and design tasks for example (Kunda, 1992; Perlow, 1997, 1999).

Thus, in addition to working long hours because the task, not clock-time,

determines an end point, employees work on multiple tasks discontinuously.

As with clock-time, there is still considerable pressure to maximize productivity

but now it is in terms of task completion. Moreover, increased pressure and

technological capacity allow the tasks to become layered upon one another.

The construct of layered-task time includes several components. In additionto longer hours that working until task or project completion entails, I propose

that layered-task time is also characterized by:

Simultaneity working on multiple tasks at the same time Fragmentation working on tasks discontinuously Contamination the multiple tasks do not necessarily require the same

kinds of skill or attention Constraint nonregular deadlines, employees autonomy and organiza-

tional status constrain the activity

Simultaneity is straightforward; it is the human multitasking that poly-

chronic individuals may prefer and that polychronic organizations may in-

creasingly demand (Bluedorn, Kalliath, Strube, & Martin, 1999; Bluedorn,

New Times Redux 531


6/22

2002). Fragmentation, contamination and constraint require some elabora-tion. The construct of layered-task time is informed by analyses of gender

differences in the use and quality of leisure time. Specifically, Bittman and

Wajcman (2000) argue that womens leisure time is fragmented, constrained

and contaminated. The fragmentation refers to its discontinuous nature

(a half hour here, a half hour there). It is constrained by other demands of the

day (employment, household tasks) and it is contaminated by activities that

interrupt and, arguably contradict, the primary leisure activity (having to

comfort a screaming child while drinking a soothing cup of tea) (see Sayer, this

volume). I posit that layered-task time is similarly characterized. Task com-pletion is fragmented and contaminated, often by activities that are contra-

dictory (in terms of type of activity required).5 Activity is constrained by the

employees autonomy, deadlines and position in an organizational hierarchy.

Admittedly, layered-task time echoes the work patterns of many top manag-

ers. A crucial difference is that top managers are not constrained in the ways

indicated above. Such patterns become, however, institutionalized throughout

an organization (see, e.g., Perlow, 1997), affecting workers who may have

few of the job rewards (both intrinsic and extrinsic) that top managers

have (Mintzberg, 1973). Just as womens multitasking serves to squeeze moretime out of a 24 hour day (Sayer, this volume), layered-task time is similarly

structured so that workers can squeeze more tasks into any given time unit.

This concept of layered-task time includes elements of task or event time

in that employees work until a task is completed, not until a clock-block has

expired; and it has elements of clock-time in that time continues to be

money. In fact, speed (time is money) is one of the more important factors

associated with organizational competitiveness. Thus, organizational prac-

tices favor a layering of tasks, facilitated by technology and organizational

restructuring (see below). Thus, as with clock-time, urgency continues tocharacterize the completion of tasks (Blount & Janicick, 2001). In fact, time

urgency is one of the hallmarks of contemporary organizational life and one

of the consequences, at the level of the individual, of layered-task structures.

But the shift away from linear structures and sequencing results in a greater

layering of multiple tasks those employees must complete by the same

deadline (but not necessarily within a specific time unit).

The concept of layered-task time builds on studies that challenge

assumptions of univariate organizational temporal structures (Clark,

1985; Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988; Fine, 1990; Ancona & Chong, 1996).Ancona and Chong (1996) and Ancona & Waller (this volume) argue that

organizational temporalities might best be viewed through an entrainment

lens that recognizes the meshing of intra-organizational cycles. Thus, for

BETH A. RUBIN532


7/22

example, some of the times in organizations may be entrained to thetemporal order of market cycles (Ancona & Chong, 1996, p. 253), where

other times, for the same employee, may be entrained to completely different

organizational rhythms. These different organizational times may be layered

in the activities associated with a single job.

Likewise, Clark (1985) has challenged the relative consensus that organ-

izations are characterized by a single temporal structure based on linear

temporal sequencing represented by clock-time. He argued instead that

under certain conditions, event time or task-oriented temporal structures

continue to play a role within organizations. Specifically, Clark challengedorganizational sociologys relatively time-free treatment of organizational

life claiming that certain market and organizational conditions may create a

variety of organizational timetables structured by specific events rather than

clocks. Sociologists of organizations need, he argued, to attend to contin-

gent periodicities (p. 37). The proposed construct of layered-task time

incorporates and builds on these insights.

What I am calling layered-task time is similar to findings from recent

research on temporal cultures that identifies polychronicity as aspects not

only of individuals personalities, but as aspects of organizational cultures(Bluedorn et al., 1999; Bluedorn, 2002; Benabou, 1999; Onken, 1999).

Several studies have suggested that the postmodern learning organization is

characterized by polychronic culture (Benabou, 1999; Onken, 1999) and

speed values (Onken, 1999). As Fine (1990) and many of the authors in this

volume point out, however, time has both objective and subjective compo-

nents. The focus on culture turns attention to the subjective and intersub-

jective components (Ballard & Seibold, 2006; Ballard, this volume; Blount &

Leroy, this volume). Following Fine (1990) and Zerubavel (1979), this

chapter focuses on the objective components of structure while recognizingthat culture has material components as well (Marcoulides & Heck, 1993).

In addition to creating a new time-sense, my argument is that this new

time-sense is increasingly institutionalized into the temporal structures of

organizations. Layered-task time embeds polychronicity into the basic struc-

ture, not just culture, of organizational life such that it is distinct from an

individuals temporal personality. Layered-task time exists independent of

the participants enactments (Ballard & Seibold, 2006; Orlikowski & Yates,

2002; Ballard, this volume). It entails, however, components that are similar

(multiple tasks), but not identical (constraint, contamination and fragmen-tation) to those associated with polychronic time P-time (Schein, 1992).

Thompson (1967) argued that clock-time and its associated work-discipline

emerged because of an increased division of labor, new technologies,

New Times Redux 533


8/22

increased supervision, monetary incentives and new forms of labor control,key components of an organizations structure. I argue then, that we should

expect organizational structures to be systematically related to their temporal

structures and timework disciplines. Table 1 provides a schematic compar-

ison of modern versus postmodern organizations and the resultant time

discipline that emerges.

I have identified the contrast between bureaucratic and debureaucratized

structures since debureaucratization has probably been one of the most

important and prevalent forms of organizational restructuring in the current

era. Debureacratization affects two components of organizational structure,hierarchy and centralization, which organizational research and theory

identify as two key components of structure. Likewise, organizational schol-

ars have identified schedules, synchronization, cycles, task allocation and

pacing as key components of temporal structures (Fine, 1990; McGrath &

Rotchford, 1983; Sloecombe & Bluedorn, 1999, Okhysen & Waller, 2002).6

In order to explicate the construct of layered-task time, I attempt to

identify its constituent components and link components of temporal struc-

ture to these two dimensions of organizational structure. Importantly, I do

not theorize layered-task time as discrete, but rather view it as existing on acontinuum. Thus, this logic is consistent with the argument that organiza-

tions are characterized by multiple, coexistent times such as clock, event and

task (Clark, 1985; McGrath & Rotchford, 1983; Goodman et al., 2001). I

build on this body of research and theory but extend it by focusing on the

interrelationships of temporal and organizational structures (rather than

focusing on only one side of this relationship). In so doing I use the meso-

level of organizational structure to link macro-level economic transition to

micro level of individual time-sense (see Barkema et al., 2002, p. 917; Ballard

Table 1. Comparison of Modern and Postmodern Organizations.

Modern Organizations Postmodern Organizations

Centralization Increased centralization Decentralized

Hierarchy Hierarchical Delayered

Division of labor Increased specialization and division

of labor

Decreased division of labor

Time technology Time-keeping technology Time-binding technology

Incentives Monetary incentives Skill acquisition incentivesLabor control Structural (bureaucratic and technical)

control

Concertive and normative

control

Work time Clock-time Layered-task time

BETH A. RUBIN534


9/22

& Seibold, 2006). I posit that the extent to which the temporal structure ofan organization is characterized by layered-task time depends on the degree

to which an organization is more or less hierarchical and centralized and

work is project oriented. To clarify this argument, I discuss recent organ-

izational changes and lay out a series of propositions linking components of

temporal structure to organizational structure.

Organizational Restructuring

Though bureaucratic organizations have dominated the organizational

landscape for much of the modern era, the emergence of the new economy

has challenged that traditional organizational form. Emergent pressures of

globalized competition and trade have created considerable pressures on

organizations to respond more flexibly and rapidly to an economy that

increasingly operates 24/7 in real time (Rubin, 1995, 1996; Vallas, 1999;

Presser, 1998, 2003; Poster, this volume). Thus, in order to transform the

previous rigidities that large, bureaucratic organizations create, business

have downsized, delayered and otherwise sought to create greater flexibilityin their responses to market pressures (Cappelli et al., 1997; Rubin, 1995,

1996; Blount, 2004; Perrucci & MacDermid, this volume; Ancona and

Waller, this volume).

This form of restructuring has had a variety of often contradictory

consequences for organizational actors, discussion of which is well beyond

the scope of this paper. Relevant here are the implications of organizational

restructuring for temporal restructuring. Central to bureaucratic organizations

are complex hierarchies and centralized authority. Hierarchy is linear and

associated with similarly linear temporal structures (McGrath & Rotchford,1983; Dubinskas, 1998; Butler, 1995; Benabou, 1999; Lee, 1999; Saunders

et al., 2004).

That is, temporal structures are standardized (organized by the clock

and other standardized temporal units), have high levels of routine, few

time frames, predictable or regular schedules, regular and fixed deadlines in a

predictable sequence, stable routines, established rhythms, known pace, reg-

ular cycles and the synchronization of activities between and among depart-

ments is, arguably, predetermined, or fixed. Suggestive evidence in support of

the characterization emerges from studies of the relationship between varioustechnologies and organizational structures (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccoro,

2001) and psychological studies of perceptions of time (Starkey, 1988; Butler,

1995).

New Times Redux 535


10/22

As bureaucracies devolve and delayer, more flexible organizationalrelationships emerge that have a number of consequences for temporal

structures. One consequence of organizational restructuring is purely quan-

titative. Delayered organizations often require that workplace survivors

(Gottlieb & Conkling, 1995; Cappelli et al., 1997) must work longer hours

since fewer people are often left to accomplish an undiminished amount of

work. This change contributes to employees being both overworked and

overpaced (Maume & Purcell, this volume). Besides the simple expansion of

the working day, a second possible consequence reflects a qualitative change

in the temporal structure.Evidence suggests that delayering and decentralization also sever the

linearity of work activities and change the pattern of workflow and the tem-

poral structure in which it occurs (Butler, 1995, p. 937). That is, the alloca-

tion, pacing, scheduling, routine and timing of workloads (components of

temporal structure) no longer flow from centralized offices along tightly

synchronized and coordinated schedules.

Restructuring often shifts the distribution, monitoring and regulation of

work tasks to self-managed teams rather than along a hierarchy (Butler,

1995; Barker, 1999; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccoro, 2001; Moss, Salzman, &Tilly, 2005; Saunders et al., 2004; Blount, 2004; Ancona & Waller, this

volume). In so doing, the organization of work activities becomes less linear,

synchronization becomes less regular, schedules become less predictable,

cycles become less predictable, pacing becomes less regular and so forth.

Suggestive support for this claim comes, for example, from research on

team-based work activities that argues that time is an integral part of team

processes that are characterized by a multiplicity of tasks that occur in an

episodic rather than linear temporal framework (Marks et al., 2001, p. 359;

and see Ancona & Waller, this volume). Other research on teams is similarlyevocative of a temporal structure that departs from the linear sequencing

of bureaucratic organizations (Butler, 1995; Waller et al., 2002; Ancona &

Waller, this volume; Blount, 2004).

Likewise, as a company debureaucratizes, and shifts the assignment of

work from development departments to self-managed teams, the allocation

of tasks and the schedule for their completion may come entirely from the

team (within the constraints of deadlines) rather than from some external

department (Butler, 1995; Gersick, 1988; Moss et al., 2005). Team members

negotiate amongst themselves what the time line will be and build in greaterflexibility for task completion. Some research on self-managed teams indi-

cates, for example, the pace of work remains slow and accelerates with

closeness to the deadline (Waller et al., 2002). Ancona and Waller (this

BETH A. RUBIN536


11/22

volume) have shown how the temporal processes associated with teams taskcompletion, even within a single establishment, vary in their responses

to deadlines, external pressures and organizational threats to legitimacy.

Similarly, team processes are complex and episodic rather than linear

(Marks et al., 2001). These studies and others suggest that organizational

restructuring creates the conditions for restructured time.

To summarize some of the arguments thus far, Table 2 maps out the

relationships between components of temporal structure by organizational

structure.

Thus, if the schedule is unpredictable, task synchronization flexible, thecycle irregular, time allocated to tasks loosely and pacing irregular, then

work activities are more likely to occur simultaneously, be fragmented,

contaminated and constrained i.e., characterized by a layered-task time.

This discussion suggests the following propositions:

1a. The greater the hierarchy, the more predictable the schedule of tasks.

1b. The greater the centralization of decision making, the more predictable

the schedule of tasks.

2a. The greater the hierarchy, the more predetermined and fixed the

synchronization of tasks.

2b. The greater the centralization of decision making the more predeter-

mined and fixed the synchronization of tasks.

3a. The greater the hierarchy, the more regular the task cycle.

3b. The greater the centralization of decision making, the more regular

the task cycle.

4a. The greater the hierarchy, the tighter the allocation of tasks.

Table 2. Temporal and Organizational Structure.

Temporal

Structure

Bureaucratic

Organizational Structure

Nonbureaucratic

Organizational Structure

Schedule Predictable Unpredictable

Synchronization Predetermined/Fixed Emergent/FlexibleCycle Regular Irregular

Allocation Tight Loose

Pacing Steady Irregular

New Times Redux 537


12/22

4b. The greater the centralization of decision making, the tighter theallocation of tasks.

5a. The greater the hierarchy, the more regular the pacing.

5b. The greater the centralization of decision making, the more regular

the pacing.

Technological transformation is also implicated in these processes (Barley,

1988; Failla & Bagnara, 1992; Lee, 1999; Valcour & Hunter, 2005). Just asThompson (1967) demonstrated the importance of emergent time-keeping

technology (the watch) on the transformation of workers time-sense, so too

does research suggest a similar role of information technology. Where the

time-keeping technologies of the modern workplace standardize time units

(Ballard, this volume), the time-related technologies of the postmodern

organization are about time binding. Rather than create standardized blocks

and units of time, I suggest that they serve to erase the clear demarcations of

standardized units and allow work time, family times and leisure times to

blend together but without the autonomy and control of the preindustrial era.Perrucci and MacDermids analysis of worker discourse (this volume) sug-

gests that these claims about technology-erasing boundaries may only be true

for certain types of labor processes and may not be generalizable throughout

the occupational hierarchy (see Gerstel, Clawson, & Huyser, this volume

as well). That is, the effects or uses of technology are likely to be class, as well

as occupation, specific.

For most employees, IT has had enormous impacts on their labor process

and on the work environment. Associated with organizational change, is

the expansion of computerization and digital communications that allowrelatively instantaneous transmission within and between organizations of

information and resources. Research on the impact of IT on temporal

structure is inconclusive but generally suggests that it is a crucial mediator of

the relationship between organizational and temporal structure. Research

linking technology to time pressure, for example, has produced inconsistent

results. The use of telecommunication technologies (pagers, e-mail, faxes,

etc. ), both increase feelings of time pressure through the increase in acces-

sibility and also decrease it by virtue of allowing parents to better accom-

modate the demands of work and family (Valcour & Hunter, 2005). To theextent that employees have control over the ways in which technologies are

used to redistribute work over time and space, the effects differ (Valcour &

Hunter, 2005; Brody & Rubin, 2005).

BETH A. RUBIN538


13/22

One line of reasoning suggests that instantaneous transmission allowsorganizations to operate in P-time. Employees can engage in emergent tasks

and no longer are dependent on sequenced activities. Lee (1999) for instance

demonstrated that IT not only speeds up the work process but allows it to

shift from a monochronic one (in which employees complete one task at a

time) to a polychronic one, in which they engage in multiple and non-

sequential tasks as they emerge (see, also, Barley, 1988).

Other evidence suggests that the opposite may occur. That is, informa-

tion technology may allow employees to transform chaotic and multiple

demands to a smoothly sequenced series (Barley, 1988; Usunier, 1991). Thus,these technologies also contribute to the temporal transformations within

organizations (Barley, 1988; Griffith, 1999; OMahoney & Barley, 1999).

Information technology alters temporal structures in other ways as well.

Technology has also allowed some employers to rearrange workplace

practices not only within organizations, but between work organizations and

the home. Inasmuch as information technologies allow employees control

over hours, research by Reynolds and Aletraris (this volume) would suggest

that the impact of technology on employee outcomes would be positive. They

can incorporate such practices as flex-time, telecommuting and home-working, thus allowing employees to do their jobs and simultaneously fulfill

family obligations (Rubin & Brody, 2005; Perlow, 1998; Bailyn, 1993;

Fried, 1998; Maume & Bellas, 2001; Moen, 2003). These and other technol-

ogies increase flexibility, in part, by altering the temporal structures of work

settings.

Prior research and the discussion above suggest that technology mediates

the relationships between organizational structure and temporal structure,

though exactly how remains an empirical question. Posters (Ch.3) analysis

of IT workers in India depicts workers for whom technology is as much asource of hyper control. Generally, though, the research suggests:

6a. The more debureaucratized the organizational structure, the more IT

will be used to create layered-task time.7

6b. The more decentralized the organizational structure, the more IT will

be used to create layered-task time

While I have focused my discussion on developing a theory of the rela-

tionship between organizational and temporal structure, ultimately, theargument is that layered-task time creates a new time-sense for employees

and contributes to new forms of labor control (Barker, 1993). I offer some

tentative propositions about how these changes impact individuals. The final

New Times Redux 539


14/22

propositions address moderating factors of individual characteristic on therelationship between layered-task time, and some individual-level outcomes.

How different temporal structures affect individuals will depend not only

on those structures, but also on variations among individuals along a

number of dimensions. While sociologists typically eschew consideration of

personality, one of the major contributions of much of the I/O psychology

and management literature is the body of research demonstrating the

importance of this variable for understanding employees experience of time

at work (see Chapter 1 and Part II of this volume). Thus, in addition to

temporal personality (Kaufman, Lane, & Lindquist, 1991a, 1991b; Sloecombe& Bluedorn, 1999; Bluedorn, 2002; also this volume), these dimensions

include age (Hechsher, 1995; Brody & Rubin, 2005), job status (e.g., stability

of employment contract, part-time/full-time) and job autonomy (see Rubin,

1995, 1996; Cappelli et al., 1997) and sex (Bittman & Wajcman, 2000; Sayer,

this volume).

Research has demonstrated that some employees have polychronic per-

sonalities and some have monochronic personalities. Likewise, that research

has touted the organizational importance of creating congruence between

task allocation and individuals temporal personality (Kaufman et al.,1991a, 1991b; Kaufman, Scarborough, & Linquist, 1999; Bluedorn, this

volume; Blount & Leroy, this volume). Similarly, Perlows (1997, 1998,

1999) accounts of software engineers, for instance, suggest that task

multiplicity contributes to workplace stress and inefficiency (see also Fine,

1990). This research suggests that three levels of congruence are important,

those among the organizations temporal structure, work demands and

employees temporal personality.

A further consideration is the class and status position of employees since a

number of studies in this volume point to the importance of control overhours for mitigating a variety of negative consequences of overwork and

overpacing (Gerstel et al., Reynolds and Aletraris, Perrucci and MacDermid,

this volume). Ones positional power contributes to the ability to control

hours (though not the likelihood that they will work long hours). Likewise,

the greater the positional power, the more likely that flexibility will be for the

employee, not just for the employer as Altman and Golden suggest (this

volume):

7a. The greater the layered-task structure, the greater the sense of urgency,

stress and pressure for employees with monochronic personalities.

7b. The higher an individuals organizational status, the more control

over hours and the fewer the negative outcomes from layered-task time.

BETH A. RUBIN540


15/22

7c. For those individuals with high status, job autonomy and polychronicpersonalities, layered-task time will increase positive feelings about work

(job satisfaction, commitment and feelings of well-being).

Though some temporal personalities may fare better working in temporal

structures that create layered-task time, one thing the research on temporal

personality tends not to consider is the way in which current organiza-

tional practices increase the employment insecurity of employees (Sweet,

Moen, & Meiksins Ch.14 and Root, Root, & Louise A. Sundin, this volume).

Putting these different studies together suggests that on the one hand,

polychronic individuals may be comfortable working in a layered-task time

workplace, they also may be highly vulnerable to the insecurities of the risk

economy (Sweet et al., this volume). These are employees who will work long

and hard, and less likely to have the time or psychological space to buffer

them against the risk that has become far more normal in the current econ-

omy. This difficulty may, however, be particularly problematic for older than

for younger employees.

Research on changing employment relationships suggests that employees

length of labor market experience might moderate the impact of a new time

structure on any outcome. Blount and Leroy (this volume) indicate a bias

towards the normal as individuals orient towards socio-temporal norms.

This bias suggests that younger workers will be less challenged by the new

time structure and will assume it as more normal whereas those who have

worked in modern bureaucracies, dominated by clock-time and a different

social contract (Brody & Rubin, 2005), will have a harder time developing a

new time-sense (Ballard & Seibold, 2006). Those who have longer tenure

in the labor force are apt to find these changes far more problematic

and may respond with a variety of negative outcomes (Hechsher, 1995).

Experience, rather than age per se is the key variable here since previous

research has shown that there is little systematic relationship between age

and polychronicity (Bluedorn, 2002). Other research has also failed to find

strong cohort differences in reactions to organizational changes (Brody &

Rubin, 2005).

8. Older workers and workers with greater labor market experience will

experience more negative outcomes from a layered-task time than will

younger employees and employees with less labor market experience.

Likewise, since research on sex differences in time use and quality suggest

that womens household activities are characterized by simultaneity, frag-

mentation, contamination and constraint, my expectations are that working

New Times Redux 541


16/22

in a layered-task temporal structure will cause less stress for them. Bluedorn(2002) has noted that efforts to determine gender differences in temporal

personality have been inconclusive. Here, my argument is based not on

gender-linked personality traits but rather to gender-typical experience.

Sayers research identifies the womens greater use of multitasking as a

strategy for accomplishing their multiple demands. Therefore, sex should

moderate the outcome of layered-task time on employee outcomes, suggesting

the following:

9. Women will experience fewer negative outcomes from layered-task

time than will men.

My claim, then, is that organizational restructuring, moderated by technol-

ogy, creates a new work time that I call layered-task time. The impact of this

new time on work outcomes is moderated by individual level characteristics,

most notably, temporal personality, job autonomy, status, age and sex.

CONCLUSION

Exploring new organizational temporalities illuminates some of the ways

in which organizational and workplace change affect employees. While

previous research has attended to the impact of increased time pressure on

employees, there is considerably less understanding of changed temporal

structures on employees. This chapter draws on multiple disciplines and

contributes to the growing effort to develop that understanding by clarifying

the situational context in which employees operate (Goodman et al., 2001,

p. 509). Along with examining individual outcomes, this chapter argues that

it is important to understand the contexts and structures that impact thoseindividuals; this is where this chapter has focused.

This chapter has not concentrated on the new timework discipline per

se but rather on the successor to clock-time, what I have called layered-task

time and the structural conditions that create it. These topics are of interest

to scholars of the changing workplace because changing organizational and

temporal structures are likely to impact employee outcomes of interest such

as job satisfaction, commitment, stress and productivity. I argue, too, that

understanding how organizational and temporal structures are related is

important in this period of rapid organizational and workplace change, bothof which often engender new control systems one of the biggest challenges

for management. Those new control systems, arguably rely on a new time-

sense, one in which employees no longer work by the clock, but work in

BETH A. RUBIN542


17/22

urgent, fragmented, contaminated and constrained ways for long hours consistent with a layered-task temporal structure.

Recent studies have argued, for example, that normative (Kunda, 1992)

and concertive control (Barker, 1993, 1999) have replaced the bureaucratic

control (Edwards, 1979) of the modern era. These new control systems rely

on strong cultures and norms that valorize long hours and commitment to

team-project completion and success at any cost (Butler, 1995; Perlow, 1997;

Kunda, 1992; Fried, 1998). I suspect that the temporal structure associated

with these forms of control is a layered-task time structure and the new

time-sense is reflected in normative forms of control (Kunda, 1992; Butler,1995; Baker, 1999, Perlow, 1997).

The relationships among organizational structure, temporal structure and

outcomes for individuals speak to other issues as well. Research on organ-

izational cultures has focused on struggles over temporal boundaries as cen-

tral to the creation of the organizational self (Kunda, 1992; Nippert-Eng,

1996; Butler, 1995). These and other studies, plus anecdotal accounts of

changing workplace practices, suggest that the layering of tasks is an impor-

tant component of the perceived acceleration of work life, and social life

more generally. In Ancona and Chongs (1996) terms, nonemployment livesare entrained to the workplace. The dance of entrainment (Ancona &

Waller, this volume) occurs, I suggest, not only within organizations but in

individuals lives as they try to weave their employment and nonemployment

work demands. Yet the complexities of that dance make it extremely difficult

for families to survive larger economic shocks (such as displacement, down-

sizing and so on; see Sweet et al. and Root et al., this volume).

Rather than leave families stumbling, however, employers such as those

Gewirtz and Fried studied, and government regulation, as Altman and

Golden and Sweet and his colleagues, and Gerstel et al. (this volume) sug-gest, can provide the buffers or limits on how deep the layering of tasks,

long the hours and vulnerable the employee can be. Investigating temporal

structures within the workplace, and their consequences for employees may

have much to say about social life more broadly including the ways in which

home and workplace become increasingly intertwined. Layered-task time

will, therefore, also affect the homework boundary problem, resolution of

which increasingly must be shared by managers and employees.

In sum, exploring new temporal forms potentially contributes to greater

understanding of organizations and work. Potential research would speakon the most effective ways to organize temporal structures and humanize the

workplace. It will strengthen organizational research by bringing in explicit

examination of work practices (Barley, 1988; Barley & Kunda, 2001).

New Times Redux 543


18/22

Overall, the goal of this chapter, then, has been to bring an interdisciplinary,multilevel perspective to the increasingly important topic and to lay out

a series of testable propositions from which that understanding must,

ultimately derive.

I began this chapter comparing the contemporary transformation in work

time to the transition of which Thompson (1967) wrote in his study of the

transition to clock-time and have argued throughout that the current change

is similar in its consequences not only for how work is experienced but also

how life is lived. There is a certain irony, though, that once again, as in those

often romanticized artisanal days, there is an interweaving of home andemployment activities but now, unlike then (perhaps), the pressure, the

layering, the relentless urgency to do so much, leads to lives with no place

of grace (Lears, 1981).

NOTES

1. See Saunders et al. (2004) on the range of temporal visions and how they differby ethnicity and culture.

2. And, like organizational cultures and structures, temporal cultures and structuresare mutually constitutive.

3. Though Orlikowski and Yates (2002) and Ruiz-Ben (this volume) would arguethat temporal structures are enacted and are, therefore, not separate from individuals.

4. These processes do not occur in all organizations throughout the economy;exactly where they occur is an empirical question.

5. The combination of simultaneity and fragmentation are quite similar toBluedorns (2002) notion of qualitative polychronicity in which very different,simultaneous tasks are cross-classified. Similarly, Ballard and Seibolds (2006) notionof separation is similar to my concept of contamination of tasks.

6. Arguably there are other components but these come up repeatedly in discussions.7. Admittedly, there are a plethora of factors, organizational size, product and soforth that are implicated in the uses of IT.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Parts of this paper were presented at the University of South Carolina, Depart-

ment of Sociology, Research Colloquium, November 22, 2003 and presented

at the 2003 Annual Meeting of The Eastern Sociological Society, Baltimore,

Maryland. I am indebted to the faculty members in the Department of

Sociology at South Carolina as well as to Allen Bluedorn, Charles J. Brody

and Bennet J. Tepper for comments on earlier versions of this paper.

BETH A. RUBIN544


19/22

REFERENCES

Adam, B. (1995). Timewatch: The social analysis of time. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Adam, B., Whipp, R., & Sabalis, I. (2002). Choreographing time and management: Traditions,

development and opportunities. In: R. Whipp, B. Adams & I. Sabalis (Eds), Making

time: Time and management in modern organizations (pp. 128). Oxford University Press.

Ancona, D., & Chong, C. (1996). Entrainment: Pace, cycle and rhythm in organizational

behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 251284.

Ancona, D. G., Okhuysen, G. A., & Perlow, L. A. (2001). Taking time to integrate temporal

research. The Academy of Management Review, 26, 512529.

Bailyn, L. (1993). Breaking the mold: Women, men, and time in the new corporate world.

New York: The Free Press.

Ballard, D., & Seibold, D. R. (2006). The experience of time at work: Relationship to com-

munication load, job satisfaction and interdepartmental communication. Communication

Studies, 57, 317340.

Barkema, H. G., Baum, J., & Mannix, B. (2002). Management challenges in a new time.

Academy of Management Journal, 45, 916931.

Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 408437.

Barker, J. R. (1999). The discipline of teamwork. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.

Barley, S. (1988). Technology, power and the social organization of work: Toward a pragmatic

theory of skilling and deskilling. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 6, 3380.

Barley, S., & Kunda, G. (2001). Bringing work back in. Organization Science, 12, 7695.

Benabou, C. (1999). Polychronicity and temporal dimensions of work in learning organizations.

Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 257258.

Berger, P., & Luckman, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. Garden City: Doubleday.

Bittman, M., & Wajcman, J. (2000). The rush hour: The character of leisure time and gender

equity. Social Forces, 79, 165190.

Blount, S. (2004). Time in groups. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Blount, S., & Janicick, G. A. (2001). When plans change: Examining how people evaluate

timing changes in work organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26, 566585.

Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of time. Stanford: Stanford University.

Bluedorn, A. C., & Denhardt, R. B. (1988). Time and organizations. Journal of Management,14, 299320.

Bluedorn, A. C., Kalliath, T. J., Strube, M. J., & Martin, G. D. (1999). Polychronicity and the

inventory of polychronic values (IPV). Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 205230.

Brody, C. J., & Rubin, B. A. (2005). Commitment, cohorts and the changing social contract.

Paper presented at the 100th Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association,

Philadelphia, PA. August.

Butler, R. (1995). Time in organizations: Its experience, explanation and effects. Organization

Studies, 16, 925950.

Cappelli, P., Bassi, L., Katz, H., Knoke, D., Osterman, P., & Useem, M. (1997). Change at

work. New York: Oxford University Press.

Clark, P. (1985). A review of the theories of time and structure for organizational sociology.Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 4, 3579.

Dubinskas, F. A. (1998). Making time: Ethnographies of high-technology organizations.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

New Times Redux 545


20/22

Edwards, R. (1979). Contested Terrain. New York: Basic Books.Failla, A., & Bagnara, S. (1992). Information technology, decision and time. Social Science

Information/Information sur les. Sciences Sociales, 31, 669681.

Fine, G. A. (1990). Organizational Time: Temporal Demands and the Experience of Work in

Restaurant Kitchens. Social Forces, 69(1), 95114.

Fried, M. (1998). Taking time; Parental leave policy and corporate culture. Philadelphia: Temple

University.

Gersick, C. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group

development. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 941.

Goodman, P. S., Lawrence, B. S., Ancona, D. G., & Tushman, M. L. (2001). Introduction to

the special topic forum on time and organizational research. Academy of Management

Review, 26, 507511.Gottlieb, M. R., & Conkling, L. (1995). Managing the workplace survivors: Organizational

downsizing and the commitment gap. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Griffith, T. (1999). Technological features as triggers for sensemaking. American Management

Review, 24, 472488.

Hassard, J. (1999). Images of time in work and organization. In: S. R. Clegg & C. Hardy

(Eds), Studying organization: Theory and method(pp. 327455). Thousand Oakes, CA:

Sage.

Hechsher, C. (1995). White-collar blues: Management loyalties in the age of corporate restruc-

turing. New York: Basic.

Kaufman, C., Lane, P. M., & Lindquist, J. D. (1991a). Exploring more than 24 hours a day:

A preliminary investigation of polychronic time use. Journal of Consumer Research, 18,392401.

Kaufman, C., Lane, P. M., & Lindquist, J. D. (1991b). Time incongruity in the organization:

A proposed quality-of-life framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 6, 79106.

Kaufman-Scarborough, C., & Linquist, J. D. (1999). Time management and polychronicity:

Comparisons, contrasts and insights for the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology,

14, 288312.

Kunda, G. (1992). Engineering culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Lears, T. L. (1981). No place of grace: Anti-modernism and the transformation of American

culture, 18801920. New York: Pantheon.

Lee, H. (1999). Time and information technology: Monochronicity, polychronicity and

temporal symmetry. European Journal of Information Systems, 8, 1626.

Leidner, R. (1993). Fast food, fast talk: Service work and the routinization of everyday life.

New York: Basic.

Marcoulides, G. A., & Heck, R. H. (1993). Organizational culture and performance: Proposing

and testing a model. Organization Science, 4, 209225.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccoro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and

taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356376.

Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.

Maume, D. J. Jr., & Bellas, M. L. (2001). The overworked American or the time bind? American

Behavioral Scientist, 44, 11371156.

McGrath, J. E., & Rotchford, N. L. (1983). Time and behavior in organizations. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 5, 57101.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York: Harper Row.

Moen, P. (Ed.) (2003). Its about time. Ithaca: ILR Press.

BETH A. RUBIN546


21/22

Moss, P., Salzman, H., & Tilly, C. (2005). When firms restructure. In: E. K. Kossek & S. J.Lambert (Eds), Work and life integration: Organizational, cultural and individual

perspectives (pp. 127150). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nippert-Eng, C. E. (1996). Home and work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Nowotny, H. (1992). Time and social theory: Towards a society of time. Time and Society, 1,

421454.

Okhysen, G. A., & Waller, M. J. (2002). Focusing on midpoint transitions: An analysis of

boundary conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 10561065.

OMahoney, S., & Barley, S. R. (1999). Do digital telecommunications affect work and

organization? The state of our knowledge. Research in Organizational Behavior, 21,

125161.

Onken, M. H. (1999). Temporal elements of organizational culture and impact on firmperformance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, 231243.

Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, P. (2002). Its about time: Temporal structuring in organizations.

Organization Science, 13, 684700.

Perlow, L. (1997). Finding time: How corporations, individuals and families can benefit from new

work practices. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

Perlow, L. (1998). Boundary control: The social ordering of work and family time in a high-tech

corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 328357.

Perlow, L. (1999). Time famine: Toward a sociology of work time. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 44, 5781.

Perlow, L., Okhysen, G. A., & Repinning, N. P. (2002). The speed trap: Exploring the rela-

tionship between decision making and temporal context. The Academy of ManagementJournal, 45, 931955.

Presser, H. B. (1998). Toward a 24 hour economy: The U.S. experience and implications for the

family. In: D. Vannoy & P. J. Dubeck (Eds), Challenges for work and family in the 21st

century (pp. 3948). New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Presser, H. B. (2003). Working in a 24/7 economy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Rubin, B. A. (1995). Flexible accumulation, the decline of contract and social transformation.

Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 14, 297323.

Rubin, B. A. (1996). Shifts in the social contract: Understanding change in American society.

California: Pine Forge Press.

Rubin, B. A., & Brody, C. J. (2005). Contradictions of commitment in the new economy:

Insecurity, time and technology. Social Science Research, 34, 843861.

Saunders, C., Van Slyke, C., & Vogel, D. (2004). My time or yours? Managing time visions in

global virtual teams. The Academy of Management Executive, 18, 1931.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd edn.). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Schriber, J. (1985). An exploratory study of the temporal dimensions of work organizations.

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, CA.

Schriber, J., & Gutek, B. (1987). Some time dimensions of work: Measurement of an underlying

aspect of organizational culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 642650.

Sloecombe, T. S., & Bluedorn, A. C. (1999). Organizational behavior implications of the con-

gruence between preferred polychronicity and experienced work-unit polychronicity.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 7599.

Starkey, K. (1988). Time and work organization: A theoretical and empirical analysis. In:

M. Young & T. Schuller (Eds), The rhythms of society. London: Routledge.

New Times Redux 547


22/22

Thompson, E. P. (1967). Time, work-discipline and industrial capitalism. Past and Present, 38,5697.

Usunier, J. G. (1991). Business time perceptions and national cultures: a comparative survey.

Management International Review, 31, 197217.

Valcour, P. F., & Hunter, L. W. (2005). Technology, organizations, and work-life integration.

In: E. E. Kossek & S. J. Lambert (Eds), Work and life integration (pp. 6184). Mahway,

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vallas, S. (1999). Rethinking post-Fordism: The meaning of workplace flexibility. Sociological

Theory, 17, 68101.

Waller, MJ., Zeller-Bruhn, M., & Giambatista, R. C. (2002). Watching the clock: Group pacing

behavior under dynamic deadlines. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 10461055.

Yakura, E. K. (2001). Billables: The valorization of time in consulting. American BehavioralScientist, 44, 10761095.

Zerubavel, E. (1976). Timetables and scheduling: On the social organization of time.

Sociological Inquiry, 46, 8794.

Zerubavel, E. (1979). Private time and public time: The temporal structure of social accessibility

and professional commitments. Social Forces, 58, 3858.

BETH A. RUBIN548

B a Rubin-New Times Redux Layering Time in the New Economy

Documents