Overview

Based on the prior literature on creativity, we know that creativity and control have been typically, but often unfavourably, positioned as opposing – or even antithetical – forces (e.g. Amabile 1998; Zhou & George, 2003). From the management control literature, we know that controls have both constraining and enabling dimensions (Simons 1990; 1995). We also know that budgets can be used to mitigate tensions between creativity and control (Jeacle & Carter, 2011). Further, recent literature on coordination suggests that creativity and control play off each other (e.g. Jarzabkowski et al., 2012). Both are necessary for coordinating within and across different temporalities and their interplay changes over time.

In organization theory, time and temporality have often been taken for granted. While the former is a social accomplishment (Bluedorn, 2002; Ballard, 2007; Sorokin & Merton, 1937), the latter is the way in which time is experienced by individuals and groups in organizations (Blount, 2004; Rubin, 2007; Vesa & Franck, 2013). Recent research on workplace temporalities has highlighted how group-level temporalities emerge through the patterns of work activities and functions of particular groups (Ancona et al., 2001; Barley, 1988; Ballard 2007) as well as their interactions (Blount, 2004; Perlow, 1999). Temporalities in organizations are shaped by the temporal structures (e.g. schedules and deadlines) enacted in the pacing and timing of different activities (Orlikowski & Yates, 2002). Although temporality cannot be measured (Vesa & Franck, 2013), it is threaded through the practices that shape the day-to-day activities of individuals and groups in organizations (Hernes, Simpson & Soderlund, 2013).

The complex interdependencies in LSCCs give rise to the need for choreographed transitions across phases (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997) and temporalities (Ancona et al., 2001;

Dougherty et al., 2013). Since project members are required to produce a novel outcome within a given timeline, and the path to producing that outcome cannot be specified in advance, temporal coordination is required (Gersick, 1994). The creative contributions of different individuals and groups are highly differentiated (Adler & Chen, 2011). Because the creative tasks are

idiosyncratic and not cyclical in nature, explicit processes that focus on the timing and pacing of different activities are necessary in LSCCs (Gevers et al., 2004). However, even these are not sufficient for coordinating across temporalities when the creative inputs that are the product of their activities must be conjunctive.

Chapter 6 describes the four temporalities that perform different functions as part of the crew of Series X and clarifies how the temporality specific to each group is revealed through their relationships with the four key temporal structures that guide everyone’s activities: the script; the scheduled planning meetings; the shooting schedule(s); and the project budget. The use of multiple temporal structures is consistent with prior theory, as different temporal

structures communicate different things (Ballard, 2007; Bluedorn & Standifer, 2004; Orlikowski & Yates, 2002). Because each group performs different creative functions on the project, and because specific temporal structures allow for a creative flow as their different perspectives are integrated (Bluedorn & Standifer, 2004), a great deal of coordination happens within each of the group-level temporalities described in this chapter. I show how these structures are enacted by each of the four temporalities not only to order and pace their activities (Vesa & Franck, 2013), but also to shape the specifics of what those creative inputs need to be (e.g. specific sets, costumes, props, lighting, etc.). This helps me reveal the coordinating practices within each temporality. Specifically, I explain how each group working within their specific temporality

anticipated the problems and constraints of others to sustain their own creativity (Dougherty, 2008).

These same four temporalities were also used to develop the grounded theory presented in Chapter 7 that inductively models cross-temporal coordination, which is coordination across the four temporalities described in Chapter 6. This model is the main contribution of the dissertation. It shows how control enables coordination across the different kinds of creativity required from each of the different temporalities. It also shows how the links between creativity and control progressively tighten through each of these processes. Because each temporality goes through the same set of four processes, I show that coordinating creativity across temporalities is not only possible, but essential, in LSCCs.

The unique contribution of this process model is its explanation of coordinating creativity over time and across different temporalities. Central to this process model are four discrete themes: conceptualizing; visualizing; materializing; and monetizing. While prior work focused on phases or roles (e.g. Baker & Faulkner, 1991; Beckhy, 2006; Jones, 1996; Jones &

Lichtenstein, 2008), I induce the processes of coordinating across temporalities. This model highlights the changing relationship between creativity and control over time and specifies how the succession of temporalities allows each group to build on the creative contribution of the other groups despite the minimal overlap between them.

The grounded theory of cross-temporal coordination developed in Chapter 7 also highlights the role of the project budget in shaping the activities of each of these groups. My analysis reveals the progressively pronounced influence of the project budget through each of these four processes. In conceptualizing, this influence is minimal in order to give priority to the emerging creative ideas that form the basis of the final product. As the relationship between

creativity and control changes across the different processes, the influence of the project budget becomes stronger. In monetizing, the creative and financial imperatives become intertwined as each group becomes focused on delivering the best show possible within the bounds of time and money.

This process model works with the coordinating practices of each temporality outlined in Chapter 6, but moves beyond those insights to identify several themes and concepts that have been discussed in the literature on temporal coordination. For instance, scheduling, pacing, prioritizing and synchronizing are all prominent themes with the literature on workplace temporalities (Hernes et al., 2013; Rubin, 2007). Deadlines are a form of interaction regulation (control) required for temporal coordination (Faraj & Xiao, 2006). Prioritizing is linked to establishing common goals that also impact the pacing and timing of different activities, including the allocation of temporal resources (Blount & Leroy, 2007).

The concept of meshing also appears in the literature on temporal coordination and workplace temporalities. As used in this literature, meshing refers to the process where the pacing, cycle and/or rhythm of different activities are aligned with each other (Ancona et al., 2001; Ballard, 2007). In this dissertation, meshing refers to aligning the action and activity within each script with both the overarching series concept (synoptic-conceptualizing) and with the timing of the crew’s activities in ‘real’ time (diegetic-monetizing).

Finally, the different controls revealed through this study and how they are used bear remarkable resemblance to Dougherty’s (2008) theorizing on effective controls in LSCCs. For instance, in the schedule planning meetings, problems and interdependencies are surfaced as the group begins to map out possible pathways for the future (i.e. developing the plan to transform

each script into a material reality). Controls are focused on shaping the creative trajectory of the project by aligning the creative efforts of each group around a common core or vision.