ncreasingly, new product development (NPD) teams are experiencing greater time pressure due to intense competition. It is commonly accepted that the relationship between time pressure and performance forms an inverted-U model, in which too little or too high a time pressure leads to

inferior performance. However, the U-model cannot satisfactorily make clear the consequences of time pressure. This is especially so for teams that have performed exceptionally well under intense time pressure. For instance, the Houston base crew of Apollo 13, though under tremendous time pressure, managed to maintain effectiveness to sustain the spacecraft after one of its two oxygen compartments had suddenly exploded. The outstanding performance of the base crew kept the astronauts alive before re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere.

We adopted the challenge-hindrance stressor framework (LePine, Podsakoff, & LePine, 2005) to conceptualize time pressure consisting of challenge time pressure (promotes goal achievement) and hindrance time pressure (constrains goal achievement), and to develop hypotheses surrounding the two measures. The hypotheses (see Figure 1) were tested using electronic survey (two parts) based on 81 new product development teams (500 respondents; project managers, team leaders, developers) from Western Europe that develop products in the consumer electronics, semiconductor, and medical industries.

Overall, the survey supports our model. Analysis also indicated that management support increased challenge time pressure and reduced hindrance time pressure. Although team identification (extent of attachment to a team) mitigated the negative effects of hindrance time pressure on team coordination, no improvement was observed in the relationship between challenge time pressure and team coordination. Importantly, aggregation analysis provided sufficient evidence that time pressure can be conceptualized as a team construct.

Time pressure follows a two-dimensional structure, contrary to previous suggestions. Our findings demonstrate that the impact of time pressure on quality or other dependents can be better understood by considering whether actors perceive time pressure as a challenge or as a hindrance.

Time pressure can be experienced collectively and operationalized at the team level because of the emotional contagion effects. This is a novel departure from the existing understanding, which commonly hypothezises time pressure as contingent on individual differences.

Teams can remain viable even under intense time pressure if the pressure is perceived as challenging. Our findings suggest that the stress may be a useful resource if wisely managed – not through twitching or attempting to induce ‘optimal’ time pressure levels in innovation teams but through cultivating a top-down supportive and collaborative work environment to minimize the negative effects of time pressure. Examples of creating such an atmosphere include actively and clearly prioritizing tasks/projects especially for team members working on multiple projects, being available to meet resource needs and not to just check that activities are completed, and emphasizing the importance of overall project goals to encourage members to attend to cues that sustain team coordination.