Normally, investors would pay attention to both the projects themselves and the composition of the entrepreneurial teams. This is because the success of a business depends primarily on the composition of its entrepreneurial team members. Previous studies have found that teams composed of members with complementary academic backgrounds and diverse knowledge are beneficial. Some studies have also shown that teams composed of individuals with rich work experience and entrepreneurial expertise are more likely to successfully launch a business. These studies seem to indicate that entrepreneurial teams with high heterogeneity exhibit better team decision-making performance and are more likely to achieve success. Researchers have explained this phenomenon by stating that team members engage in constructive debate and carefully analyze the advantages and disadvantages of decision-making to make better decisions.#br#However, some scholars are opposed to the above views. Different scholars have different opinions on the influence mechanisms of entrepreneurial team heterogeneity on team decision-making performance. Research based on information decision theory shows that the higher the heterogeneity of the entrepreneurial team, the easier team members can master more comprehensive knowledge and information, which can improve their ability to understand problems and thus play a positive role in promoting the decision-making of the entrepreneurial team. Studies based on social categorization theory show that individuals tend to identify with groups to which they have a sense of belonging and reject other groups. The study argues that team heterogeneity may have opposing components, and the main reason for the opposing research views is that the effects of these individual components have not been separated. It is only by delving into the team heterogeneity and subdividing the different components of the team heterogeneity according to the dimensions that it is possible to reveal the function effect and influence mechanism of the team heterogeneity affecting the decision-making performance of the entrepreneurial team.#br#Entrepreneurial team members work together for a relatively short time and do not understand each other. Therefore, compared with traditional teams, the influence of time personality heterogeneity on the entrepreneurial team is more obvious. First, time personality heterogeneity is a hidden feature. At the early stage, it is hard for startup members to understand each other's time and personality. Once they start to work together, they will find that there are significant differences in pace and time identity between members with high time urgency and members with low time urgency. In the face of highly uncertain prospects and an external environment, this difference often becomes a trigger for contradictions. Second, entrepreneurial teams often face milestone constraints. Decisions in entrepreneurial teams are often made under high time pressure. Time pressure exacerbates the impact of time personality heterogeneity on entrepreneurial teams. In order to reveal the influence mechanism of time personality heterogeneity on entrepreneurial team decision-making performance and the moderating effect of time pressure, this study designs a laboratory experiment based on an entrepreneurial simulation experiment and reveals its influence mechanism with the temporal team mental model as a mediating variable. As a result, it can improve the shortcomings of existing research and provide a new explanation for theoretical differences.#br#The following results are obtained. In entrepreneurial teams, time personality heterogeneity has a significant positive effect on team decision-making performance. Temporal team mental model plays a mediating role between time personality heterogeneity and team decision-making performance, but not all dimensions are significant. Time pressure can moderate the relationship between time personality heterogeneity and temporal team mental model, but the moderating effect on team decision-making performance is not significant. The findings indicate that the higher the heterogeneity of time personality, the more conducive it is to achieving better team decision-making performance. Thus, in practice, leaders should actively encourage team members to communicate and share with each other, reduce conflicts, and enable their cognition at the time level to form a dynamic balance to achieve high decision-making performance; meanwhile, time pressure should be matched with the team's time mental model, so that the latter can be endowed with the dynamic adjustment ability and team members would form strong shared cognition of time to effectively cope with high time pressure or unexpected situations and achieve high decision-making efficiency.#br#
[1] 李敏, 夏思宇. 高管团队异质性、行业背景与企业创新绩效的元分析[J]. 安徽大学学报, 2022, 46(4): 147-156.
[2] 吕晨,曹方卉,周之桢,等.高管团队知识结构对高科技企业创新绩效的影响[J].中国科技论坛,2018,34(10):174-181.
[3] 谷盟, 张晓洁, 王栋晗. 创业团队行业经验异质性、治理模式与创业企业成长绩效关系研究[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2021, 38(6): 11-19.
[4] 周怀康, 姜军辉, 葛淳棉, 等. 创业归来再出发: 创业烙印如何影响工作绩效[J]. 管理世界, 2021, 37(7): 145-161,11.
[5] 齐丽云, 王佳威, 刘旸,等. 高管团队异质性对企业绿色创新绩效影响研究[J]. 科研管理, 2023, 44(4): 175-184.
[6] 曾楚宏, 李敏瑜. 创业团队异质性对创业绩效的影响: 团队治理的中介作用[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2022, 39(14): 132-142.
[7] 郭见玲, 陈进. 创业团队异质性对创业企业绩效的影响研究——以团队成员关系为调节变量[J]. 中国林业经济, 2019, 27(2): 16-20.
[8] 方颖. 创业团队异质性、创业决策和创业绩效的关系研究[J]. 中小企业管理与科技, 2022,15(19): 121-123.
[9] MICHELE W. Being trusted: how team generational age diversity promotes and undermines trust in cross-boundary relationships[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2015, 37(3): 346-373.
[10] BALKIS M, DURU E. Prevalence of academic procrastination behavior among pre-service teacher, and its relationship with demographics and individual preferences[J]. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 2009, 5(1): 76-89.
[11] 张钢, 乐晨, 吕洁. 时间个性异质性对团队绩效的影响机制[J]. 技术经济, 2012, 31(5): 12-17,38.
[12] MOHAMMED S, NADKARNI S. Temporal diversity and team performance: the moderating role of team temporal leadership[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2011, 54(3): 489-508.
[13] LANDY F J, RASTEGRAY H,ThAYER J, et al. Time urgency: the construct and its measurement[J]. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 1991, 76(5): 644-657.
[14] ZIMBARDO P G, BOYD J N. Putting time in perspective: a valid, reliable individual-differences metric[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1999, 77(6): 1271-1288.
[15] GERVERS J M P, RUTTE C G, EERDE W V. Meeting deadlines in work groups: implicit and explicit mechanisms[J]. Applied Psychology, 2006, 55(1): 52-72.
[16] FRANCIS-SMYTHE J, ROBERTSON I. Time-related individual differences[J]. Time & Society, 1999, 8(2-3): 1-37.
[17] 袁国方, 张钢. 时间框架效应下时间个性差异对知识团队创新的影响机制研究[J]. 南开管理评论, 2015, 18(3): 102-110.
[18] KARASEK R A. Job demands, Job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job redesign[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1979, 24(2): 285-308.
[19] HAJI A E, KRAWCZYK M, SYLWESTRZAK M, et al. Time pressure and risk taking in auctions: a field experiment[J]. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 2018, 78(2): 68-79.
[20] AMABILE T M, CONTI R, COON H, et al. Assessing the working environment for creativity[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1996, 39(5): 1154-1184.
[21] RICE S, TRAFIMOW D. Time pressure heuristics can improve performance due to increased consistency[J]. The Journal of General Psychology, 2012, 139(4): 273-288.
[22] 安彦蓉, 杨东涛, 刘云. 化压力为创新: 上级发展性反馈与自我效能感的调节作用[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2021, 38(6): 139-146.
[23] GEVERS J M P, EERDE W V, RUTTE C G. Team self-regulation and meeting deadlines in project teams: antecedents and effects of temporal consensus[J]. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2009, 18(3): 295-321.
[24] HUY Q N.Time,temporal capability,and planned change[J]. The Academy of Management Review, 2001, 26(4): 601-623.
[25] LEE H J. Time in organizational studies: towards a new research direction[J]. Organization Studies, 1999, 20(6): 1035-1058.
[26] 岑杰. 团队时间心智模型及其内部交互与团队绩效[J]. 世界科技研究与发展, 2014, 36(2): 162-169.
[27] 张钢, 岑杰. 团队时间心智模型: 内涵拓展与量表开发[J]. 管理学报, 2014, 11(6): 844-851.
[28] 王倩楠, 葛玉辉. 新创企业高管团队的团队过程与战略决策绩效——认知的调节作用[J]. 管理工程学报, 2021, 35(2): 12-25.
[29] GIBSON C B, WALLER M J, CARPENTER M A, et al. Antecedents, consequences, and moderators of time perspective heterogeneity for knowledge management in mno teams[J]. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2007, 28(8): 1005-1034.
[30] 黎丹, 林春培. 团队时间心智模型对团队有效性的影响研究[J]. 湖北文理学院学报, 2023, 44(2): 56-64.
[31] HACKER W. Action regulation theory: a practical tool for the design of modern work processes[J]. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2003, 12(2): 105-130.
[32] DUC A L, THO D N, NAKANDALA D, et al. Team innovation in retail services: the role of ambidextrous leadership and team learning[J]. Service Business: An International Journal, 2020, 14(1): 167-186.
[33] 姚柱, 罗瑾琏. 时间压力对知识隐藏的影响研究: 动机与情绪的双路径[J]. 管理评论, 2022, 34(8): 180-191.
[34] BARTEL C A, MILLIKEN F J. Perceptions of time in work groups: do members develop shared cognitions about their temporal demands[J]. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 2004, 6(3): 87-109.
[35] 秦昕, 马骏, 叶文平, 等. 战略和创业研究中的实验方法: 现状、方法与前景[J]. 管理学季刊, 2018, 3(1): 131-160,165-166.
[36] WEENIG M W H, MAARLEVELD M. The impact of time constraint on information search strategies in complex choice tasks[J]. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2002, 23(6): 689-702.
[37] JAMES L R, DEMAREE R G, WOLF G. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1984, 69(1): 85-98.