New perspectives on time perspective and temporal focus

• Author: Yitzhak Fried,Philip G. Zimbardo,Ludvig Levasseur,Denise M. Rousseau,Abbie J. Shipp
• Published date: 01 March 2020
• Date: 01 March 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/job.2435

EDITORIAL

New perspectives on time perspective and temporal focus

1|INTRODUCTION

Organizational behavior (OB) scholars maintain that the study of time

is critical for the study of management (Ancona, Okhuysen, & Perlow,

2001; Bluedorn, 2002; Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988; George & Jones,

2000; Mitchell & James, 2001). To better understand time-related

individual and collective cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors, OB

scholarship increasingly incorporates objective time–time measured by

the clock or calendar (e.g., Zerubavel, 1985). This “fungible time”

(Bluedorn, 2002) is unidirectional, homogeneous, and absolute

(Ancona et al., 2001; Clark, 1985; Doob, 1971; McGrath & Rotchford,

1983; Schriber & Gutek, 1987; Shipp & Cole, 2015; Shipp & Fried,

2014; Sorokin & Merton, 1937). It emphasizes schedules, deadlines,

punctuality, and also the synchronization of labor, coordination,

speed, and pace (e.g., Bluedorn & Jaussi, 2008; Gersick, 1988; Gevers,

Rutte, & Van Eerde, 2006; Waller, Conte, Gibson, & Carpenter, 2001;

Waller, Zellmer-Bruhn, & Giambatista, 2002).

There is, however, a second type of time, subjective time–time as

perceived and experienced by both individuals and collectives. Subjec-

tive time is cognitively cyclical, heterogeneous, and interpretive

(Ancona et al., 2001; Fried & Slowik, 2004; George & Jones, 2000;

McGrath & Rotchford, 1983; Shipp & Cole, 2015; Shipp & Fried,

2014). Due to the psychological and sociological elements of time that

arise through “mental time travel”(e.g., Epstude & Peetz, 2012;

Suddendorf & Corballis, 2007; Wheeler, Stuss, & Tulving, 1997), sub-

jective time does not necessarily correspond with objective time

(Ancona et al., 2001; McGrath & Rotchford, 1983).

A key concept characterizing subjective time is time perspective,

reflecting “[t]he totality of the individual's views of his/her psychologi-

cal future and psychological past existing at a given [objective] time”

(Lewin, 1951, p. 75). Individual differences associated with time per-

spective are temporal focus, temporal depth, polychronicity, and pac-

ing preference (Bluedorn, 2002; Mohammed & Harrison, 2013; Shipp,

Edwards, & Lambert, 2009). Thus, time perspective represents how

individuals think about and use time, much like a “temporal personal-

ity”(Ancona et al., 2001; Francis-Smythe & Robertson, 2003). These

individual differences in cognitive engagement with time impact an

array of work outcomes including well-being, decision making, motiva-

tion, and achievement (e.g., Drake, Duncan, Sutherland, Abernethy, &

Henry, 2008; Lasane & Jones, 1999; Seijts, 1998; Shipp & Aeon,

2019; Stolarski & Matthews, 2016; Zhang & Howell, 2011;

Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999).

The Special Issue convenes conceptual, empirical, and measure-

ment scholarship related to the study of time perspective. Although

we encouraged submissions using the seminal Zimbardo Time

Perspective Inventory (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), we also sought sub-

missions using other conceptualizations and measures (e.g., Temporal

Focus Scale or TFS; Shipp et al., 2009). In the sections that follow, we

first provide a brief overview of time perspective research to establish

what is currently known about the concept. We then present articles

from the Special Issue to highlight key contributions. We also offer a

conceptual framework specifying concepts pertinent to an under-

standing of time perspective in the context of organizations and we

make suggestions for future research based on the contributions of

the Special Issue by identifying some important unanswered

questions.

2|WHAT IS TIME PERSPECTIVE?

The concept of time perspective emerged in psychology as a way to

understand how individuals cognitively engage with time. Although

introduced to the field by James (1890), Lewin (1943), and Murray

(1938), the basic elements of time perspective—the perception and

experience of past, present, and future—originally appeared in early

works in philosophy (e.g., Aristotle, Heidegger, Husserl, and Kant) and

subsequently in physics (e.g., Einstein and Newton). At the heart of

these conceptualizations was a desire to understand how individuals

subjectively experience and perceive time (e.g., Ornstein, 1969). These

time perceptions were then applied in psychology to explain how indi-

viduals mentally time travel from the present moment to the

retrospected past or anticipated future (Lewin, 1943).

As the concept of time perspective evolved in psychology and

moved into the field of management, attention shifted to how

national cultures value time (Ashkanasy, Gupta, Mayfield, & Trevor-

Roberts, 2004; Kluckhohn & Strodtbeck, 1961; Levine, 1997;

McGrath & Rotchford, 1983), including how values about time are

modeled in childhood (Gjesme, 1979; McGrath & Tschan, 2004;

Piaget, 1946; Trommsdorff, 1983). However, in the last few decades,

the study of time perspective has moved beyond cultural conceptuali-

zations to return to the individualistic Lewinian view. Thus, contempo-

rary usage tends to portray time perspective as an “umbrella”concept

reflecting individual differences related to time (Ancona et al., 2001).

The most influential work under this scholarly umbrella is the

Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999).

As the first to establish a comprehensive measure of this individual

difference, Zimbardo and Boyd demonstrated that time perspective is

(a) multidimensional (i.e., past, present, and future), (b) affectively

toned (e.g., past negative vs. past positive), and (c) related to many

outcomes of interest such as well-being and achievement

Received: 31 January 2020 Accepted: 2 February 2020

DOI: 10.1002/job.2435

J Organ Behav. 2020;41:235–243. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/job © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 235