Introduction to the Handbook on the Temporal Dynamics of Organizational Behavior

For over a decade, organizational behavior scholars have highlighted the importance of studying phenomena through a “temporal lens” by focusing on the role of time and its various implications for research (e.g., Ancona, Goodman, Lawrence, & Tushman, 2001; Bluedorn, 2002; George & Jones, 2000; Mitchell & James, 2001; Ployhart, Holtz, & Bliese, 2002; Roe, 2008). These scholars, among others, argue that time is essential to the study of organizational behavior because it allows us to better explain “when” a phenomenon occurs, “what” aspects of the phenomena are being influenced, “how” these aspects are being influenced, and “why” this influence occurs. As such, time is of the utmost importance when trying to understand the full essence of organizational behavior. Despite the obvious role of time, it bears little acknowledgement in the organizational behavior literature. In fact, in most published articles, the findings and conclusions make no reference to time (for a critical review see Roe, 2008). The consequence is that we know and understand little about the factors related to the emergence or decline of the phenomena under study, their stability or dynamism, the sequence of their occurrence, and their rate of change. This presents a major barrier to advancing the literature, as the role of time is essential to comprehend fully the processes underlying the development and impact of emotions, attitudes, and behaviors in the workplace. As a result, we agree that “advancing theories that address the dynamics of how important phenomena emerge, evolve, and change over time is the next frontier” (Kozlowski, 2009; p. 3) and that that frontier is now upon us. Despite calls to incorporate time and temporal dynamics in the study of organizational phenomena, most researchers continue to develop theory or study emotions, attitudes, and behaviors without attending to time. To address this issue, scholars must change how they conceptualize emotions, attitudes, and behaviors and must adopt their research designs and methodologies such that they reflect the time dependency among phenomena. For example, although longitudinal designs are often believed to reflect the nature of time, most longitudinal studies merely demonstrate a particular sequence of events by predicting future employee emotions, attitudes, or behaviors based on previous emotions, attitudes, or behaviors without accounting for issues such as timing (e.g., early and delayed recovery or decline), time lags (e.g., minutes, hours, days, or weeks), and duration of the effects (immediate, postponed, or lingering influences) (Roe, 2008). As argued by Solinger, van Olffen, Roe, and Hofmans (2013), choosing a limited number of measurement points with large time intervals cannot adequately advance our understanding of how phenomena and relationships evolve and change over time, how employees react to these changes, or how the trajectories evolve over time. Moreover, studying how emotions, attitudes, and behaviors unfold over time implies an analytical shift because it requires specific—often complicated—methods