Abstract
Despite the ascendency of temporary organizations to common practice in many industries, and their expansion as an area of academic inquiry, research evidence on their genesis, development and impact remains fragmented across diverse fields, many of which fail to engage with each other. Our purpose in this article is to bring greater systematics to the scholarship on temporary organizations through documenting their evolution and assembling their bricolage. To this end, we first define and delineate the concept of the temporary organization and we develop an inductively derived framework for organizing the literature comprising individual/team attributes and interior processes, task attributes, tensions between the temporary organization and the permanent organization, networks and organizational fields and performance/outcomes of temporary organizations. Following an explication of these attributes and the dominant relationships between them, we suggest how this nascent area of inquiry might advance through the identification of a number of significant research opportunities. Finally, we highlight the consequences for broader management and organization theory development.
Keywords
Introduction
Temporary organizations (TOs) have ascended to common practice in many industries with empirical examples evident in the literature from contexts as diverse as crisis response teams, software development, inter-organizational strategic alliances and theatre productions. They are posited as offering dynamic capabilities in the form of superior energy output (Miles, 1964) and higher levels of creativity and innovation (Bakker and Janowicz-Panjaitan, 2009), holding the promise of a ‘hyper-efficient organizational form freed from any organizational slack’ (Grabher, 2004b: 1491). Seen by some as heralding a new ‘logic of organizing’ (Powell, 1996: 197), TOs challenge widespread assumptions of the antecedents of effective organization (Ibert, 2004), undercut the coherence and integrity of the firm (De Fillippi and Arthur, 1998; Grabher, 2002a) and ‘turn upside down the traditional notion of organizing’ (Meyerson et al., 1996: 167).
Despite the efforts of early heralds such as Miles (1964), Bennis and Slater (1968) and Goodman and Goodman (1976), TOs failed to capture the imagination of scholars throughout the 1970s and 1980s. A Special Issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Management, in which Lundin and Söderholm (1995) presented an initial theory of TOs, is largely credited with reigniting interest in them and the decade between 1998 and 2008 then witnessed an exponential growth with scholarly research increasing by 339 percent (Bakker, 2010) and appearing in fields as diverse as trust (Kramer and Tyler, 1996), innovation (Davies and Hobday, 2005), inter-organizational relations (Cropper et al., 2008), organization studies (Kenis et al., 2009) and strategic management (Cattani et al., 2011).
In an effort at bridge building, in this article we provide a comprehensive assessment of the heterogeneous literature on TOs. This, we believe, is essential for both greater conceptual clarity and renewed theoretical progress. From our perspective, the increasing attention to time and temporality in organization theory (Ancona et al., 2001), together with the projectification of organizations (Midler, 1995), necessitates a much more in-depth understanding of the TO. In part, accounted for by the fact that they emanate from a wide variety of academic fields, TOs lack a strong theoretical base (Bechky and Okhuysen, 2011). In addition, studies on TOs have employed a variety of theoretical lenses and generated a wide range of interpretations ranging from the behavioral, to the systemic, through to the critical (Bechky and Okhuysen, 2011; Cacciatori 2008; Cicmil et al., 2006; Hodgson et al., 2011; Jones and Lichtenstein 2008; Lindgren et al., 2014). However, insufficient cross-domain fertilization has occurred resulting in an evidence base that remains highly fragmented.
The remainder of our article is structured as follows. First, we define and delineate the concept of TOs. We then explain our review methodology and the approach taken in developing our organizing framework designed to capture, classify and synthesize the range of dispersed insights provided to date. Using the framework as our guiding architecture for the subsequent discussion and critique of the literature, we then focus on five sets of factors relevant to the domain of TOs, namely: individual/team attributes and interior processes of TOs, TO task attributes, tensions between the TO and the permanent organizations (POs), networks and organizational fields and performance/outcomes of TOs. Finally, we identify a number of significant research opportunities and highlight implications for broader theory.
Defining temporary organizations
To be truly considered a unique organizational form, there need to be elements exclusive to TOs which differentiate them from cognate forms. However, whilst there is consensus that TOs do not fit neatly into conventional analytical categories (Sapsed et al., 2005), there is less consensus as to precisely what their distinguishing elements are as evidenced by extant definitions. Goodman and Goodman (1976) advance a perspective heavily influenced by task dimensions. Lundin and Söderholm (1995) emphasize an action perspective. A number of definitions stress the requirement for diversely skilled individuals with highly specialized competencies (Lindkvist, 2005; Meyerson et al., 1996), often ‘unfamiliar with one another’s skills’ (Bechky, 2006: 3).
Despite the subtle nuances in emphasis, all definitions do agree that TOs have an ex ante determined termination point, ‘fixed either by a specific date or by the attainment of a predefined state or condition’ (Bakker et al., 2009a: 203), resulting in them being described as transient (Grabher, 2002a), of limited duration (Goodman and Goodman, 1976) or being subject to ‘institutionalized termination’ (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995: 445). Thus, although we see theoretical similarity between the TO dimensions of task novelty, multi-disciplinarity and interdependence and Mintzberg’s (1979) cognate ‘adhocratic’ organizational form, Mintzberg’s adhocracy fails to capture the element exclusive to TOs, namely, their intentional temporal limitation, finiteness or temporariness. Drawing on these extant definitions, as a starting point for our review, we settled on a working definition of TOs as ‘a temporally bounded group of interdependent organizational actors, formed to complete a complex task’. Using this as our point of departure, and employing a protocol driven methodology, we conducted a detailed systematic review of the extant literature. (See online-only Appendix1 for full details on our methodology and a summary of exemplar empirical studies reviewed, including each study’s research focus, methodology, theoretical lens/perspective and sample size.)
Review of research on temporary organizations: Multiple configurations
Perhaps because of its diffusion across multiple fields, there are several configurations of TOs evident in the literature, frequently using interchangeable terminology, which we broadly categorize in terms of their intra- or inter-organizational nature, and the extent of projectification of the PO (see Table 1).
Forms of temporary organizations (TOs).
Traditionally, TOs were seen as complements to a permanent structure leading to a dominant focus within the earlier literature on intra-organizational TOs; ‘temporary organizations within organizations’ (Shenhar, 2001b: 395). More recently, scholars are drawing attention to alternative configurations of TOs: inter-organizational project ventures (Bakker, 2011), project-based organizations (Davies et al., 2011) and project-based enterprises/firms (Whitley, 2006). Although inter-organizational TOs are also temporary, they span multiple organizations reflecting the increasing tendency for activities to cross individual organizational boundaries (Sinha and Van de Ven, 2005). Conversely, in project-based organizations, TOs do not occur against the backdrop of more established, routine operations, but rather ‘constitute the organization’ (Bresnen et al., 2004: 1537) and are the primary unit of production. A final configuration of TOs is that of the project-based enterprise, conceived of as an organization that contains all of the production support functions within a temporary setting, whilst marketing and distribution are typically managed by a more durable entity.
Review of research on temporary organizations: Organizing framework
Whilst the variety of different TO configurations confirms that not all TOs are alike, it is clear from the extant literature that there are a number of underlying substantive themes governing their formation and functioning that warrant critical scrutiny and it is here we focus our attention in the remainder of this article.
Using the organizing framework as our guiding architecture for the subsequent discussion and critique, we explicate five broad categories of factors relevant to the configuration and running of TOs, namely: individual/team attributes and interior processes of TOs, TO task attributes, tensions between the TO and the PO(s), networks and organizational fields, and performance/outcomes of TOs (see Figure 1).
Organizing framework.
Research on individual/team attributes and interior processes (1)
Within this category, the substantive themes identified comprise coordination processes, leadership, cognitive incongruence, team tenure and turnover and, finally, temporal phenomena within TOs.
Coordination processes
Owing to the higher levels of task and environmental uncertainty that TOs face, several scholars postulate that it is the separation, clarity and repeated enactment and reproduction of role structures that drives coordination in TOs (Bechky, 2006; Whitley, 2006), although this has been found by some to negatively affect innovation and professional growth (Goodman and Goodman, 1976). Linked to the role-based interaction is a second coordination mechanism of swift trust, with temporary systems acting as if trust were present, ‘even if their histories would seem to preclude its development’ (Meyerson et al., 1996: 167). Role-based (rather than person-based) interaction and category-driven information processing are posited as making trust more prominent more quickly. This view on swift trust does not, however, go uncontested. Grabher (2002a: 210) highlights that the stabilizing function of category-driven trust ‘only unfolds in contexts in which these categories have clear boundaries. . . . That is a context in which specialists in one field can “black box” the inputs from specialists in another’. Jones and Lichtenstein (2008) propose that trust evolves out of prior relations that reduce transactional uncertainty and increase the shared understanding needed for effective coordination, and as such it is unclear how its development can be swift. A final coordination mechanism evident in the literature is that of temporal coordination (Söderlund, 2002), with time-based controls providing an important mechanism for managing dispersed time orientations and local knowledge processes, preventing TOs ‘from being guided by overly localistic and atomistic orientations’ (Lindkvist et al., 1998: 948), and in this way preserving ‘the diversity of, and tensions between, professional and organizational cultures from turning into collaborative paralysis’ (Grabher, 2002a: 208).
Leadership
Bryman et al. (1987) examined the possible role of organizational transience as a mediating variable of leader orientation-performance relationships in TOs and found that leaders were more highly task-oriented, although the more relationship-oriented the leaders were, the more effective they seemed to be. In addition, it has been argued that leadership in this setting tends to be more participatory (Meyerson et al., 1996). According to Morley and Silver (1977), any temporary system alternates between idea-generating and decision-making periods, and a key determinant of its success is the manager’s ability to orchestrate the two appropriately. Keller (1992) draws on the attributes of transformational leadership, suggesting that effective leaders in R&D (research and development) project groups help members to transcend self-interest, stimulate new ways of thinking and problem solving, and encourage group members to do more than might normally be expected.
Cognitive incongruence
Although earlier research on the selection of TO members suggested it is based on interpersonal skills and competences (Morley and Silver, 1977), more recently scholars have highlighted that TOs comprise members representing different specialties recruited on the basis of their task-relevant knowledge (Edmonson and Nembhard, 2009). In direct contrast to scholars stressing the social interaction and personal contact required in TOs (Barrett and Sexton, 2006), Lindkvist (2005: 1189) proposes the concept of a ‘collectivity-of-practice’ capturing the notion that TOs operate on a minimal basis of shared knowledge and tend to become less well-developed groups, drawing on Weick and Roberts (1993: 375) idea of an ‘undeveloped-group-developed-mind’ to explain concerted action in TOs. On the positive side, Grabher (2002b: 249) postulates that the temporary nature of the collaboration prevents any single perspective from ‘becoming corrupted by a hegemonic view’ and provides ‘antidotes against lock-ins into particular cognitive or aesthetic patterns’. Ordanini et al. (2008) postulate that the TO itself acts as a focusing device, balancing the cognitive distance useful for exploration with the cognitive proximity useful for exploitation.
Team tenure and turnover
From the perspective of intra- and inter-organizational TOs, several scholars point to the fact that typically TO members have other ‘home bases’ (Clegg and Courpasson, 2004; Grabher 2002a). It is precisely this observation that led Arvidsson (2009) to suggest that tensions are created by the coexistence of fundamentally different organizing principles and the way employees identify themselves with either the permanent or the temporary system. In terms of team design and composition in TOs, Perretti and Negro (2007) investigate how the mixing and matching of new members and experienced members affect innovation. They argue that this distinction is particularly relevant in TOs with intended short life spans with new configurations of team members being a major source of innovation. This contrasts with Keith’s (1978: 195) perspective on temporary teams as repeatedly comprising ‘perpetual neophytes’ owing to the higher turnover in TOs as a result of role-related stress. Similarly, Katz (1982) highlights the importance of staffing decisions in his examination of the important role that group longevity can play in influencing the information processing behaviors of project group members that, in turn, affect project performance.
Temporal phenomena
Opposing views on the evolution of TOs over time are evident in the literature, largely focused on sequential versus non-sequential models. Lundin and Söderholm (1995) propose a linear model of development comprising four distinct phases of action-based entrepreneurialism, fragmentation for commitment-building, planned isolation and institutionalized termination. In contrast, Gersick’s (1988, 1989) punctuated equilibrium model suggests that groups make deliberate attentional shifts at their temporal midpoint based on the member’s awareness of deadlines. A second non-sequential model lies in the serendipitous findings of Engwall and Westling (2004: 1569), which drew on the dramaturgical concept of ‘peripety’ to explain the dynamic transition of a project that had started ineffectively but suddenly became highly effective once a single conceptualization of the organization’s goal and objectives ‘was commonly enacted on a collective level’.
Extending the conception of relatively homogeneous sub-parts of an organization with their own distinct temporal parameters advanced by Ancona et al. (2001), Bakker and Janowicz-Panjaitan (2009) propose a perspective on TOs as temporal zones, on the basis that TOs decoupled from the past and the future will develop specific ways of functioning. Focusing on the role of the individual, and on their individual-level awareness of impending termination, they propose three temporal phenomena likely to affect TOs performance: members’ likely time orientation to the present more than the past or future; members’ propensity to experience timelessness (Mainemelis, 2001); and less entrainment of members to external temporal cycles in the environment (McGrath and Rotchford, 1983). As a consequence of these three phenomena, Bakker and Janowicz-Panjaitan (2009) suggest that TOs are better able to develop creative solutions and create innovative output, but are less able to successfully sediment knowledge in the wider context, as compared with POs.
In summary, research focused on the interior processes and individual/team/group attributes of TOs provides particular insight into three salient coordination mechanisms: role-based interaction, swift trust and time-based controls. Leadership in these contexts appears to result in the paradoxical demand of a task orientation (owing to the temporal limitation) on the one hand, and relationship orientation (depending on the mandate) on the other. Because TO team members are recruited on the basis of task-relevant knowledge, scholars disagree on the amount of social interaction they require, although several highlight the cognitive incongruence inevitable in these contexts. In terms of team design and composition, the mixing and matching of neophytes with more experienced members appears to be salient, as does group longevity. How the groups themselves evolve over time is differentially modeled between sequential (drawing on linear time) and non-sequential (punctuated equilibrium and peripety) models. Finally, the conception of TOs as distinct temporal zones, with specific ways of functioning decoupled from the past or the future can result in more innovative output, but causes an issue with regard to the sedimentation of knowledge.
Research on task attributes (2)
Substantive themes within the category relating to research on the TO task include its exogeneity and temporal limitation, and the fact that TO tasks are typically uncertain, complex and unique.
Exogeneity and temporal limitation
The task is the raison d’être of every TO’s existence, which ‘must be spelled out and delimited in such a way that success . . . will be guaranteed’ (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995: 447) and so that ‘the permanent organization will know when the task is completed’ (Goodman and Goodman, 1976: 495). For Lindkvist (2005: 1201), ‘the explicitly stated, specific project goals are of great importance in enabling coordinated activity’, whilst Grabher (2002a: 211) sees TOs as ‘leveraged off from a platform of deliberation, preparation and pre-selection’. As such, in direct contract to mainstream strategic management theory, the literature largely treats the goal as an independent variable, explicitly stated and specified ex ante, prior to TO formation. However, there are those who refute this rationalized rendering of goals, arguing that TOs are not simply ‘goal-fulfilling subsystems whose raison d’être is provided by a decisive and strategically aware super-system’ (Packendorff, 1995: 326).
Uncertainty and ambiguity
There is widespread agreement in the literature that TOs are perceived as being subject to uncertainty and ambiguity (Ibert, 2004; Kreiner, 1995; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). Drawing on a political perspective, Engwall (2002) proposes that goal ambiguity is actually a necessary precondition for coalition building during the initiation of TOs as it makes it possible for different intentions and interests to co-exist. Løwendahl (1995) also stresses the negotiated character of sub-goals and tasks in her case of extreme task uncertainty. Based on a study of the Munich Software Ecology, Ibert (2004) highlights that in software projects the major task is also not defined properly from the start and drawing on Weick (1995), he sees the definition of the central problem as resembling more of an enactment. Also drawing on Weick (2001), in the context of R&D projects, Engwall and Westling (2004) suggest that the process of interpreting a project mission within a given context blends forward visioning and prospective sensemaking with backward evaluation of previous performances and retrospective sensemaking.
Complexity
Complexity is referred to as the number and heterogeneity of different elements that interrelate. Some scholars propose hierarchical frameworks for analyzing complexity (Shenhar, 2001a, 2001b; Shenhar and Dvir, 1996) based on the number of components, systems and sub-systems involved, whilst others focus on the degree of difficulty in specifying work activities and causal relations and sequences in advance (Söderlund, 2002). Jones and Deckro (1993) focus more on the task, and define technical complexity as a three-fold concept comprising the variety of tasks, the degree of interdependencies within the tasks, and the instability of the assumptions upon which the tasks are based. It is this complexity that leads to interdependence, whereby ‘members must keep interrelating with one another in trying to arrive at viable solutions’ (Goodman and Goodman, 1976: 495).
Uniqueness
The final distinction in terms of task attributes relates to the extent to which the task is unique or repetitive. While some emphasize the unique aspects of the task (Lindkvist et al., 1998), Engwall (2003: 803) challenges this ‘seductive image of uniqueness’, arguing for a more nuanced picture, an idea supported by Kadefors (1995) and Pipan and Porsander (2000), who have shown that even radically unique project missions can consist of several non-unique technical components, as well as highly standardized administration procedures. Davies and Brady (2000) argue that firms often undertake categories of projects that are similar and that therefore involve repeatable and predictable patterns of activity. This, in turn, leads to economies of repetition and predictability, both in behavioral patterns and in outcomes.
Overall, therefore, research focused on the task attribute of TOs points towards a broad consensus that the goals of the TO are externally imposed, explicitly stated and defined ex ante to the formation process, and temporally limited as a result, although some scholars caution against changes to the pre-defined outcomes over time. Other salient attributes of the task point towards a composite blend of uncertainty, ambiguity, complexity and uniqueness as potential defining elements.
Research on tensions with permanent organization(s) (3)
Our review identifies four tensions, namely those relating to the autonomy versus the embeddedness of the TO, learning and knowledge transfer, human resource management and the resource dependence of TOs on their external environment.
Autonomy and embeddedness
The ‘attachment-detachment’ dilemma (Sahlin-Andersson and Söderholm, 2002: 19) or ‘distance paradox’ (Cohendet and Simon, 2007: 598) encapsulate the on-going debate regarding the extent to which a TO should be decoupled from, or embedded in, a wider organizational context. Following Goffmann (1961), Bechky (2006: 10) demonstrates that film sets can be considered ‘total institutions’, both temporally and physically isolated from the outside world for extended periods, and that such isolation can reduce conflicts, allowing all loyalty to be directed to the TO. Conversely, Engwall (2003: 790) refutes this view of TOs being unencumbered by established organizational routines arguing that the TO needs to be conceptualized as ‘a history-dependent and organizationally-embedded unit of analysis’ that does not exist in a vacuum. It is also widely acknowledged that these ‘parallel organizations’ (Schofield and Wilson, 1995: 423) have profound implications for the existing structures and processes of their more permanent backdrops (Arvidsson, 2009). Proponents of decoupling argue that it helps ‘to create conditions for vigorous, productive work’ (Miles, 1964: 457), encouraging experimentation, risk-taking and reducing role conflict and barriers to change. Lundin and Söderholm (1995: 448) advocate the planned isolation of the TO once the task is defined in order to minimize disturbances from the environment and subsequent obstacles to implementation. Conversely, Bresnen et al. (2004) point out that by encouraging project autonomy, project sponsors increase the difficulty of subsequently integrating the resulting project activities within an overarching set of organizational processes.
Learning and knowledge transfer
The issue of whether and how knowledge and learning within TOs becomes subsequently sedimented into the wider PO has been the focus of much research. Sydow et al. (2004: 1480) argue that it is their transience and multidisciplinary nature that ‘fundamentally contribute to shaping the possibilities, as well as the obstacles for generating knowledge and accumulation of learning’. Similarly, Grabher (2004b: 1492) posits that the single task focus and temporal limitation of TOs ‘privileges a situative pragmatism’, whereby knowledge is valued more for its usefulness to the immediate task and performance demands of the TO than to any wider context. Others argue that it is the unique and non-recurring nature of TO activities that provide little scope for routinized learning (Hobday, 2000). Notwithstanding which attribute of TOs is at its core, it is generally accepted that whilst TOs provide excellent conditions for creating new knowledge (Ordanini et al., 2008), there is a ‘doing versus learning paradox’ (Sydow et al., 2004: 1483), with TOs suffering from ‘organizational amnesia’ (Grabher, 2004b: 1492) because the knowledge combined to serve the goals of the TOs is often ‘thereafter allowed to disperse’ (Lampel et al., 2008: 10). The knowledge transfer paradox would appear to be particularly prominent in Project-Based Organizations (PBOs) (Brady and Davies, 2004), which are more exposed to the risk of ‘learning closure’ (Hobday, 2000: 885).
Human resource management
A third tension relates to the challenge that TOs pose for human resource management (HRM). One research strand explores the implications of increasing ‘project intensification’ (Bredin and Söderlund, 2006: 467) for the practice of HRM including increased requirements on individual employees, dealing with long-term competence development, high levels of work intensity and handling compensation/evaluation. A second strand focuses on industries with less dominant permanent hierarchical backdrops, where it is suggested that TOs challenge the ‘neo-military perspective that subordinates personal goals to those of the firm’ (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1998: 134). The argument here is that career development in these contexts does not take place within the traditional firm, but instead career capital is accumulated through member mobility between and across successive temporary teams and firms (Arthur et al., 2001).
Resource dependence
The central premise of the final identified tension as conceptualized by Bakker et al. (2009a) is that TOs face a dilemma regarding resource dependence. Drawing on Lundin and Söderholm’s (1995) four defining concepts of TOs (time, team, task and transition), they highlight that three of the four require resource allocations external to the TO; from one or several POs. TOs therefore have a high external dependence, with little capacity to acquire resources from alternative sources. The key dilemma for TOs is viewed as being able to simultaneously address the resource dependence on its PO, while functioning autonomously.
In summary, the autonomy versus embeddedness tension engenders significant debate with regard to the degree of decoupling required, what the antecedents of this decoupling are, and how consequential it is for performance. The knowledge and learning transfer tension is a consequence of the single task focus and temporariness of TOs, which favors a pragmatism that focuses on immediate task and performance demands, and tends to neglect the value of sedimenting knowledge accumulated in the wider organization. HRM tensions appear two-fold with traditional conceptions of HRM being challenged and a shift away from career development within a single firm, toward that which is facilitated through member mobility between and across successive TOs. Finally, high external dependence raises issues with regard to overall TO autonomy.
Research on networks and organizational fields (4)
The substantive themes within this stream of research on TOs examine three inter-related issues referring to the embeddedness of TOs within broader networks, the existence of networks routines and path dependence and the broader concept of project ecologies.
Networks and institutional embeddedness
Focusing on inter-organizational TOs, it has been posited that they are socially embedded (Jones and Lichtenstein, 2008), which comprises two related constructs: relational embeddedness (shared understandings and relations) and structural embeddedness (the pattern of interactions). Drawing on Starkey et al.’s (2000) concept of latent organizations, Sydow (2009) proposes that project relations connecting individuals and organizations that cut across projects are likely to constitute project networks, with configurations of actors in ongoing relationships built up over several projects manifesting themselves as and when projects demand and providing continuity, thus counteracting the conditions of impermanence. Although repeat collaboration appears to therefore be an important context related variable, empirical studies produce conflicting results. Sorenson and Waguespack (2006) found that when controlling for the amount of resources reinvested in TO ventures, films with deeper prior relations between the actors involved perform worse at the box office. Conversely, Schwab and Miner (2008) found that such repetitive temporary systems are associated with higher performance. Garmann Johnsen (2011), based on a study of the emergent animation industry in Norway, questions how firms that do not have a formal organization to create stable relationships manage to produce continuity in what they do. Her findings indicate that projects are part of the formal organization of the industry, whilst social networks are part of the informal organization and that different stages in the projects are governed by different types of network relations. Soda and Bizzi (2012) investigated how network relations affect project performance through creativity. They challenge previous conceptualizations of creativity by showing that network relations are likely to exercise both positive and negative effects on creativity and that creativity is also likely to exercise both positive and negative effects on performance. The findings indicate that network relations activate important trade-offs that organizations must consider in their strategic choices.
From the perspective of institutional embeddedness, Grabher (2002a: 210) argues that temporary organizing draws ‘deliberately or unconsciously, on a range of institutional sources’ and suggests that it is institutions, in terms of conventions, norms and regulations, which facilitate the emergence of stabilizing category-driven swift trust (Meyerson et al., 1996). Windeler and Sydow (2001) demonstrate how changes in the organizational field of television production in Germany influence social practices of coordination in project networks within the industry and how this, in turn, shapes the field. In a similar vein, Sydow and Staber (2002: 215) explore the role of ‘institutional thickness’ for the performance of project networks in television production across two different media regions in Germany, emphasizing the dynamics and ambiguities of institutional processes. Their findings suggest that the degree of institutional embeddedness explains, in part, differences in the growth and viability of project networks.
Network routines and path dependence
Drawing primarily on the film and television industry, where the tendency to repeat past collaborations is significant, Sydow (2009) argues that project routines are also constituted in or across projects, and that the repetitive patterns and practices surviving beyond single projects may become project network routines. Challenging the conception of temporary organizing as a form that helps to avoid structural inertia or core competencies turning into core-rigidities, he suggests that established routines may lead to self-reinforcing processes (e.g. single-loop learning). These, in turn, may lead to persistence, path dependence and a potential ‘lock-in’ with the result that organizational path dependencies represent a dilemma that clearly has to be managed in the context of temporary organizing.
Project ecologies
The holistic outcome of Jones and Lichtenstein’s (2008) patterns of relational and structural embeddedness within a specific economic context is referred to by Grabher (2002b: 245) as ‘project ecology’. Grabher argues that the practice of temporary organizing is insufficiently covered in the notion of ‘institutionalized termination’ (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995: 445) and that projects rather hinge on a ‘dense fabric of lasting ties and networks that provide key resources of expertise, reputation and legitimization’ (Grabher, 2004a: 104). From this perspective, both the networks and the institutions are integral to the practice of temporary collaboration, and TOs need to be viewed as embedded within multiple contexts simultaneously, each of which recursively interrelates. Grabher’s project ecology framework identifies four contextual layers of project organization – the core team, the firm, the epistemic community and the personal network. These multiple layers contribute critical resources to the project on the one hand, but ‘also multiple perceptions and loyalties of the project members’ (Grabher, 2002a: 208). By putting the individual to the forefront and differentiating between the personal knowledge networks of connectivity, sociality and community, Grabher and Ibert (2006) explicate how project members are simultaneously embedded in the webs of obligation and loyalty to the temporary team, the firm and to their role as entrepreneurs of their own human capital.
In summary, the basic argument of networks and embeddedness as a theme is that TOs are embedded (relationally and structurally) in networks and broader institutional processes, albeit the effects of this embeddedness on performance seem equivocal. Related to project networks are research findings that indicate that repetitive practices and patterns can persist beyond individual projects to become network routines, which may lead to path dependencies. Finally, TOs are argued to be ecologies, in that they may be embedded and nested in several contextual layers simultaneously.
Research on outcomes (5)
The broad thrust of the research within this category is that there are significant measurement challenges with regard to the performance and outcomes of TOs, arising largely from conflicting perspectives on TO success.
Temporary organization versus permanent organization perspectives
Despite its importance, very few studies consider TO performance explicitly, although it would seem evident that success viewed from the perspective of the TO is often focused on completion of the specific TO task as that which matters, whereas when viewed from the perspective of the PO, the contribution to longer-term business outcomes becomes the marker of success or failure. Grabher (2002a) suggests that deadlines are the main criterion for evaluating TO performance. Lundin and Söderholm (1995) focus on progression or achievement of the task and propose that something has to be changed as a consequence of the existence of the TO, a view mirrored by the second half of Bakker et al.’s (2009a: 203) ‘attainment of a predefined state or condition’. Also supporting a task completion focus, Saunders and Ahuja’s (2006) comparison of on-going and temporary distributed teams suggest that outcomes in TOs are directed towards effectiveness (very task oriented and driven by goals), albeit at the cost of lower long-term efficiency.
A number of other scholars have acknowledged the difficulties of measuring TO success, with attention being called to the uncertainty of outcomes (Finney, 2008), the fact that success is to a large extent owing to context specific circumstances (Engwall, 2003) and ‘heavily dependent on the reaction of the environment, comprising multiple interest groups, both internal and external’ (Goodman and Goodman, 1976: 496). It would seem that inter-organizational projects pose additional challenges when it comes to performance and outcomes, as Hellgren and Stjernberg (1995: 387) found that there are no common effectiveness criteria for evaluation of the network’s efforts, with each actor in the network establishing his or her own criteria, some of which ‘may be antagonistic to those of other actors’. A further challenge in defining and measuring success is caused by the fact that in the TO context, dissolution of the organization precedes the realization of strategic outcomes, in direct contrast to mainstream strategic management theory that ‘largely endorses a more interactive approach to product or service delivery and customer feedback’ (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1998: 131). Shenhar et al. (2001) propose success should be viewed as a multidimensional strategic concept, intended to align efforts with both short- and long-term goals of the organization. Their framework identifies four major distinct success dimensions, namely efficiency, impact on the customer, direct business and organizational success, and preparing for the future; the importance of each dimension varying according to the time and the level of technological uncertainty involved. Blindenbach-Driessen and Van den Ende (2006) similarly propose a multiple-scale criteria for success including project performance, market performance and learning effects for future innovation.
Advancing the field of temporary organizations
While the phenomenon of the TO has its roots in distinct but overlapping fields, our organizing framework and systematic review presented in this article map the underlying substantive themes affecting the functioning and outcomes of TOs that have been the subject of academic inquiry heretofore. However, there are significant ongoing gaps in our knowledge and understanding of TOs. As a result, our research agenda sets down four broad research opportunities that may guide scholars and inform TO research more generally. Arising from these, we also make the case for a reconceptualization of TOs. We commence with what we consider to be the core research opportunities. These draw on the substantive themes identified in our organizing framework and span tensions between POs and TOs, team processes and dynamics, goals and outcomes and temporal phenomena.
Opportunity 1: Tensions between temporary organizations and permanent organizations
The tenor of more recent research on TOs clearly suggests that TOs need to be understood in the wider context in which they are embedded, yet current theories rarely address the fundamental tensions and paradoxes inherent in this symbiotic interdependence. We believe that enhancing our understanding of these tensions, identifying potential generative mechanisms and examining moderators of these tensions presents a significant research opportunity. Regarding the tensions identified in the conceptual framework, findings are often contradictory. In terms of the autonomy versus integration paradox, whilst some research indicates the degree of autonomy should be aligned with the degree of exploration and exploitation that the TO is formed to achieve (Burgers et al., 2008), other scholars suggest it is dependent on the type of TO in term of its relationship to the PO and the degree of uncertainty of its task/goal (Løwendahl, 1995). Taking the POs perspective, research on managing this paradox has highlighted the challenge of balancing performance parameters (e.g. cost, time, quality) on the one hand, with managing creativity on the other (Cohendet and Simon, 2007). In direct contrast, researchers who take the perspective of the TO highlight the benefits of isolation from the PO to the functioning of the TO in terms of reducing conflicts of loyalty (Bechky, 2006) and assuring uninterrupted completion of the task (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). We also know very little about how temporary and permanent structures and processes are integrated or bounded, to what extent and how this level of integration might evolve over the life of the TO, or indeed what activities or linking mechanisms are required to relate temporary and permanent systems. Extending the resource dependence tension to examine how TOs are dependent on the progress of other, simultaneous TOs in its environment and how such dependencies might affect team dynamics, should also prove fertile. In addition, studies examining the role and purpose of the TO in relation to its permanent environment in terms of importance and urgency, and how this affects the availability of organizational resources could open up new lines of enquiry.
From a strategic management perspective, we know little of what management control systems are employed by parent organizations for TOs or how the use of TOs as a structuring mechanism affects the delicate interplay between deliberate and emergent strategy (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985). We also know little about how decision-making power is distributed between actors in the TO and the PO. Furthermore, unearthing how capabilities in temporary organizing develop and evolve over time and how these might result in trade-offs in existing capabilities within the PO, or indeed under what conditions they promote path dependencies and potentially turn into core rigidities could also prove important in the TO–PO tensions domain.
Opportunity 2: Team process and dynamics
How the composition of TO teams affects group processes and dynamics has been largely unexplored. We know little about the implications of part-time membership of a TO, or concurrent membership of multiple TOs, or what the effects of the composition of team members changing over the life of the TO are. We also know little of the actual team formation processes in TO contexts (Schwab, 2009). This may well be important because the cognitive incongruence apparent in TOs would seem to contradict more established theories on team cognitions that suggest that shared cognitions among team members enhance team performance and improve team members’ accurate expectations of task execution (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993). Given that shared mental models have been found in the established group literature to be valuable in contexts where interdependence, time pressure and heterogeneity are high (Badke-Schaub et al., 2007; Mathieu et al., 2000; Stout et al., 1999), a fruitful avenue for further research would be to examine the process of how mental models are developed in TOs. Unpacking the impact of those models as determinants of what team members do, what aspects of task or team mental models should be held in common when using divergent knowledge and whether there is convergence or divergence in mental models at particular stages might enhance performance. Indeed, drawing on Lindkvist’s (2005: 1200) perspective that TOs represent ‘undeveloped groups with developed minds’, Cronin and Weingart’s (2007: 762) theory of representational gaps, which aims to advance the theory of shared mental models by shifting the focus ‘from what is shared among teammates to what is inconsistent among them’, would seem particularly relevant.
Opportunity 3: Mandate and outcome
As is evident from our review, there are divergent perspectives on performance, depending on whether or not this is viewed from the temporary or the permanent perspective. Juxtaposed as either an immediate production/task question (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; Saunders and Ahuja, 2006) or a longer-term strategic one (Shenhar et al., 2001), future research dedicated to unearthing how TO outcomes might be linked with higher level indices of organizational effectiveness and how this linkage is derived could prove fruitful. Given the challenge highlighted by DeFillippi and Arthur (1998) that in direct contrast to mainstream strategic management theory, the dissolution of the TO precedes strategic outcomes, consideration of concepts drawing on Benefits Realisation Management (Breece, 2012) might illuminate practical and theoretical models for resolving the paradox caused by this temporal lag. A second opportunity here lies in further consideration of the exogenous attribute of TO mandates. Analogous to the dichotomy of strategy formulation and implementation (Mintzberg, 1994), whereby it inherits its vision from a ‘decisive and strategically aware super-system’ (Packendorff, 1995: 326), this raises interesting questions around how initial TO goals are developed and by whom. We understand very little of the organizational processes leading to the initiation of TOs and how these might affect TO functioning and outcomes, particularly given that success would seem dependent on the reaction of multiple interest groups in the environment (Goodman and Goodman, 1976). An additional opportunity in this regard may lie in examining how changes to goals are managed over time. It would seem that much of the extant literature assumes goals remains static, despite some cautions concerning the potential for environmental drift (Kreiner, 1995) and the consequences of on-going environmental evolution (Engwall, 2002).
Opportunity 4: Temporal phenomena
A final and significant opportunity exists for research on temporal issues and their impact on the functioning of TOs. Palisi’s (1970: 202) observation that ‘planned temporariness has not been employed as an independent variable in analyses of organization structures’ is now over four decades old, yet research focusing explicitly on transience and limited duration still remains sparse. We understand very little about the implications of the linear time conception in TOs (Ibert, 2004; Lundin and Söderholm, 1995). In addition, we do not yet understand how homogeneity or heterogeneity of temporal individual differences affects group dynamics within TOs, nor what might moderate or mediate these effects. A related question is whether individual time-related differences should be considered in the selection of team members in terms of achieving fit. Examining the extent to which the presence or absence of shared cognitions on time affects task performance and facilitates the development of a temporal mental model (Standifer and Bluedorn, 2006), how these develop given the limited contact/interaction in TOs, and whether or not these are beneficial or harmful to group functioning would also extend our understanding of group level temporal processes.
Overall, therefore, we see a range of possibilities for TO lines of enquiry, the most salient of which we have outlined, and which we posit could go some way towards addressing the concern that the field remains something of a theoretical orphan. Ultimately, if theories reflect, in highly abstract terms, ‘the organization of a discipline’s knowledge base’ (Suddaby, 2014: 407), then we consider further theorizing TOs as ‘a temporally bounded collective of interdependent actors, in pursuit of some mandate (or mandates), embedded within multiple contexts simultaneously, which set the boundaries and constrain the TO’ to be a critical next step in moving the field forward, something that should deepen our understanding of temporary modes of organizing as a new ‘logic of organizing’ (Powell, 1996: 197). The institutionalization of this ‘logic’ does, in our view, have implications for broader theorizing in management and organizing, something to which we now turn.
Potential contributions to broader theorizing in the field
At a minimum, TOs challenge implicit assumptions regarding the role of time and temporal limitation that underlie dominant paradigms of management and organization theory, which we assert are largely atemporal. Herndon supports our assertion with his argument that ‘an institution must continue to exist. Every action must be undertaken with respect to eternity’ (1971: 109–110 in Weick, 1974: 499), as does Lundin and Söderholm’s (1995) observation that mainstream organization theory is based on the assumption that organizations are, or should be, permanent. Yet, contemporary business environments mandate an increase in organizing in a more flexible, ad hoc manner, one consequence of which is the rapid rise of temporary organizing principles. This necessitates, in our view, a focus on the way in which organizations are changing as a consequence, specifically with regard to their temporal attributes, as evidenced by notions of fluidity, flexibility, speed and dynamism (Schreyögg and Sydow, 2010). This would also support calls from mainstream organization theory for consideration of the implications of time across multiple-levels (Kozlowski and Bell, 2003). Furthermore, if TOs frequently exist in parallel with more permanent structures, yet ‘the siren voices of a smoothly functioning temporary system can deafen the person to the half-forgotten demands of his permanent system’ (Miles, 1964: 483), for managers and scholars alike, enhancing our understanding of how to create synergistic combinations of both modes of organizing in parallel, could serve as an important aid in enabling transcendence of what might appear as incompatible temporal frames (i.e. permanent versus temporary). Indeed, in the context of Weick’s (1979: 91) definition of organizing as ‘the resolving of equivocality in an enacted environment’, which ‘occurs through activities that are repetitive, reciprocal, contingent behaviors (interlocked) that develop and are maintained between two actors’, if taken to its ultimate conclusion, where one or both actors in question is (are) temporally bounded, the elements repetitive, reciprocal, develop and maintained no longer necessarily hold and, in part, at least challenge what we have conventionally understood as ‘organizing’ and ‘managing’.
A related challenge then arises when considering that strategy research is typically done at the organizational and individual level of analysis. Yet, TOs are frequently used as temporary architectures of strategy implementation. What would a shift to studying TOs as the unit of analysis imply for strategy research? How does this challenge research dominated by conceptions of the organization a monolithic whole and research that assumes a formal hierarchical organization as an ‘institutional backcloth’ (Fenton and Pettigrew, 2000: 8)?
The implications of TOs being deemed ‘the organizational equivalent of a one-night stand’ (Meyerson et al., 1996: 167) should also prove thought-provoking to scholars of organizational behavior and HRM alike. How are actors and their actions, and more specifically, our related theoretical assumptions affected when organizational endurance or permanence no longer holds? In the vast literature on team dynamics, there is a substantial amount of historical and theoretical support for the premise that teams that are new/at earlier stages of development are fundamentally different from teams that are very mature or at later stages of working together (Kozslowki et al., 1999). Furthermore, more recent episodic-based theories of teams highlight the cohesiveness and performance benefits of going through multiple performance/feedback cycles (Marks et al., 2001) over extended time periods. Yet, our review shows that TOs may not have the luxury of extended time periods, and they arguably have a limited number of performance/feedback cycles.
TOs also challenge our understandings of work and working. If career capital is accumulated through member mobility between and across successive temporary teams and firms, rather than within the traditional firm (Arthur et al., 2001), what are the implications of this for assumptions regarding, for example, organizational identification and its assumed benefits (Dukerich et al., 2002; Riketta, 2005)? Or could further research on TOs shed light on nascent research on prototype ambiguity in groups – a shared perception among group members that the attributes, attitudes and actions that define and describe the typical member are unclear (e.g. Haslam et al., 1995; Hogg and Hains, 1996)? Prevailing wisdom suggests that prototype ambiguity, if left unresolved, is problematic for groups and their members.
Conclusion
In this article we have sought to document the evolution of and assemble the bricolage of the TO. Through a detailed systematic review of diverse literatures from organization and management studies, innovation, strategic management and economic geography, we have unearthed and landscaped the contours of the phenomenon in the form of an organizing framework. This framework calls attention to fundamental substantive themes that affect the functioning and outcomes of TOs, many of which demand a more in-depth understanding. Consequently, we propose a relatively all-encompassing research agenda in order to enable scholars to build on the existing literature more meaningfully and to open up new lines of enquiry and, in so doing, theoretically and empirically advance our understanding of TOs in a less fragmented and more holistic way than heretofore.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Noreen Heraty, University of Limerick; Susan E Jackson, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; Rolf A Lundin, Jönköping International Business School and Gerardo A Okhuysen, University of California, Irvine, all of whom gave generously of their time in providing feedback on earlier versions of this article. We would also like to thank our associate editor at Human Relations, Catherine Connelly, as well as the two anonymous reviewers for their detailed, constructive and timely feedback during the review process.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
