Some studies have assumed close proximity to improve team communication on the premise that reduced physical distance increases
the chance of contact and information exchange. However, research showed that the relationship between team proximity and
team communication is not always straightforward and may depend on some contextual conditions. Hence, this study was designed
with the purpose of examining how a contextual condition like time pressure may influence the relationship between team proximity
and team communication. In this study, time pressure was conceptualized as a two-dimensional construct: challenge time pressure
and hindrance time pressure, such that each has different moderating effects on the proximity-communication relationship.
research was conducted with 81 new product development (NPD) teams (437 respondents) in Western Europe (Belgium, England,
France, Germany, and the Netherlands). These teams functioned in short-cycled industries and developed innovative products
for the consumer, electronic, semiconductor, and medical sectors. The unit of analysis was a team, which could be from a single-team
or a multiteam project. Results showed that challenge time pressure moderates the relationship between team proximity and
team communication such that this relationship improves for teams that experience high rather than low challenge time pressure.
Hindrance time pressure moderates the relationship between team proximity and team communication such that this relationship
improves for teams that experience low rather than high hindrance time pressure.
Our findings contribute to theory
in two ways. First, this study showed that challenge and hindrance time pressure differently influences the benefits of team
proximity toward team communication in a particular work context. We found that teams under high hindrance time pressure do
not benefit from close proximity, given the natural tendency for premature cognitive closure and the use of avoidance coping
tactics when problems surface. Thus, simply reducing physical distances is unlikely to promote communication if motivational
or human factors are neglected. Second, this study demonstrates the strength of the challenge-hindrance stressor framework
in advancing theory and explaining inconsistencies. Past studies determined time pressure by considering only its levels without
distinguishing the type of time pressure. We suggest that this study might not have been able to uncover the moderating effects
of time pressure if we had conceptualized time pressure in the conventional way.