How Different Cultures Understand Time(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
How Different Cultures Understand Time
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-different-cultures-understand-time-2014-5?IR=T
26 comments
Brilliant article. The same is very much true of distance. I'm British, and I've always thought of 100 miles as a long way because I grew up in a (relatively) tiny place. 600 miles away was the other end of my country. That was a really long way to me. Meeting an Australian colleague of my father who was happy to do a 600 mile round trip for a day out was a revelation. How far away something 'close' is very much depends on your frame of reference.
In Europe 100 km is a long distance. In USA/Australia 100 years is a long time.
As a Canadian, it's always fun when we get European friends and family who come to Toronto and discuss going to Montreal or New York for "the day."
Then you get to explain just how far apart everything is here :)
Of course, I'm making a bit of a caricature here, but I really have had friends and family say this before.
Then you get to explain just how far apart everything is here :)
Of course, I'm making a bit of a caricature here, but I really have had friends and family say this before.
[deleted]
When I was in the military and stationed in Germany, I received orders for a base in California. I explained to my German friends that it was 3000 miles from my parents house (where I was going to spend some time on leave), or 5000 km. And I was going to drive that distance by myself.
They had a difficult time comprehending that, until I explained it was like driving to Munich and back ... five times in a row. Then they got it. And were stunned that I would and could do something like that.
They had a difficult time comprehending that, until I explained it was like driving to Munich and back ... five times in a row. Then they got it. And were stunned that I would and could do something like that.
I live in the western part of the US (Colorado) and 600 miles doesn't actually take that long to drive. I regularly drive to my parent's house - which is about 550 miles - in 8 hours. I'm essentially driving the speed limit the entire way with no slowdowns except for one or two gas/restroom breaks. I would imagine driving that distance in GB would involve a much lower average speed.
I have always assumed this is why distances in the US (reasonably far away from the coasts) are "not that far".
I have always assumed this is why distances in the US (reasonably far away from the coasts) are "not that far".
Judging by your road movies, most of those 600 miles you'd be driving in a straight line. In the Old Continent, roads are traced around old crop fields and other properties, so you need to pay full attention to the road the whole time.
Yeah, at least in my part of the US, that's very true. The roads do curve a bit of course, but they're straight enough that you drive 55 - 80 mph (88 - 130 kph) for almost the whole trip. And a lot of the time, there are at least two lanes to pick from -- common courtesy is that slower cars stay in the right lane so that faster drivers can pass them.
Unless the roads are really really old. Those Romans sure knew how to build straight roads.
8 hours.
That's a whole working day.
That's a whole working day.
8 hours in a car is an eternity.
(I've regularly done a 5 hour drive for family visits and dislike that experience)
(I've regularly done a 5 hour drive for family visits and dislike that experience)
As humans we primarily make time for what we really, really want to do over what we should. Before getting angry at someone for being late take a step back and assess the situation objectively. The person may have been late because they probably weren't that interested in seeing you, they may have had something more interesting to do or had an interesting conversation going on.
Walk away after 15 ( or 10) minutes because you should have something better to do with your time than wait around hours for someone, right? There needs to be a negative consequence of the bad behaviour and it should be communicated through your actions rather than your words. Words will always fall on deaf ears.
I remember a friend who had a problem with a very tardy friend from one of the warmer EU countries and started to leave habitually after 10 minutes of tardiness. After a couple of times he got the idea and even started arriving early to the meetings.
You don't lose anything by doing this. It's a good strategy since it reveals the nature of your relationship with that person. If you don't like the revelation, fix it in a socially intelligent manner or exit the relationship. ...
Walk away after 15 ( or 10) minutes because you should have something better to do with your time than wait around hours for someone, right? There needs to be a negative consequence of the bad behaviour and it should be communicated through your actions rather than your words. Words will always fall on deaf ears.
I remember a friend who had a problem with a very tardy friend from one of the warmer EU countries and started to leave habitually after 10 minutes of tardiness. After a couple of times he got the idea and even started arriving early to the meetings.
You don't lose anything by doing this. It's a good strategy since it reveals the nature of your relationship with that person. If you don't like the revelation, fix it in a socially intelligent manner or exit the relationship. ...
It seems that one of the primary issues here is the productivity. Why you should be all the time doing something or being productive? If you have a train ticket or to somewhere. So what if the train is delayed 24 hours. You'll just go out, see the city, enjoy nice meal, book a hotel, etc. Arrive again tomorrow to see if the train goes or not. Who needs schedules, bus will drive this road roughly daily, schedule is quite open. After waiting for 48h on stop, it's quite probable that you're getting your ride.
Problem doesn't seem to be the understanding of time, but the insane(?) need to be so productive. Is the time wasted if you're not doing business, but you're enjoying relaxed life?
This is excellent question, because I'm obsessed with productivity, and at sometimes I really question if there's any sense in it at all? So what if I had tasks booked for this week. Maybe I decided that I'll watch my favorite TV show for this week and consider doing those tasks next week, or maybe I'll find something better to do before that time arrives.
Yeah, the non-western concept of time is so picturesque, laid-back and "non-linear", so different to that ugly "monochronic" concept of the western world. Until shit gets serious. Until a patient in an emergency room requires an urgent treatment and a punctual surgeon.
Important, critical things depend on a rational approach to time.
I was irritated by the author's romantic view of the non-western concept of time.
Important, critical things depend on a rational approach to time.
I was irritated by the author's romantic view of the non-western concept of time.
The point is that, if your treating all the appointments in your schedule as life-threatening events, you're doing it wrong.
Indeed. I am able to separate critical and non-critical appointments, as I suppose most people can do. I am punctual to business meetings, class meeting times, doctor appointments, and such. I am perpetually tardy to things like going out to party, having a cup of coffee, or visiting a friend.
Being punctual is stressful, requires planning, forethought, and saying no to unforeseen circumstances. I can't imagine living being punctual in my non-business life. I would feel like a slave. I once lost a girlfriend because she was extremely uptight about punctuality and I wasn't. While that attitude might seem completely normal to an American, to me it was a glimpse into insanity.
Being punctual is stressful, requires planning, forethought, and saying no to unforeseen circumstances. I can't imagine living being punctual in my non-business life. I would feel like a slave. I once lost a girlfriend because she was extremely uptight about punctuality and I wasn't. While that attitude might seem completely normal to an American, to me it was a glimpse into insanity.
Overall a good read but I'd be interested to find out what happens in Italy or Spain when a someone with much lower social status makes someone with a higher social status wait for a hour to show. Bet it doesn't happen all that often.
Also, I've found that the idea of "circling around a problem" for several days until coming to a decision is standard practice in the US, at least if you're involved in any kind of development or creative task.
Also, I've found that the idea of "circling around a problem" for several days until coming to a decision is standard practice in the US, at least if you're involved in any kind of development or creative task.
I'm Italian, my girlfriend is French. I always tell her it's not polite to arrive on time to dinner dates, because people will be embarrassed because they're not even remotely ready.
The best hack for this is to text 5 minutes before and update them that you'll be there in 20. They know they have breathing room, you aren't keeping them waiting, and you aren't technically late.
That's odd, we have a saying in France that one always ought to be a fashionable 15 minutes late, it's considered polite to do so..
I'm not sure 15 minutes are enough in Italy, though it wildly varies from north to south. Anyway I agree that the culture shock is not huge between France and Italy, at least not as much as with german speaking countries.
That's so fascinating to me.
So there is the "start time", but it's just delayed? For example: scheduling a 7pm dinner means everyone will know to arrive at 8pm?
So there is the "start time", but it's just delayed? For example: scheduling a 7pm dinner means everyone will know to arrive at 8pm?
Yep.
You go: "What time is dinner?". "8 PM". "OK" (shows up 8:30-9)
You go: "What time is dinner?". "8 PM. Please try to be punctual I have stuff to do in the morning". "OK" (shows up 8:15-8:30)
More or less the same thing happens at universities (at least that I know). Lectures are at full hours, but start at 15 past and last 45 minutes. That means that you have time to move from building to building and/or take a break.
Sometimes you'll see graduate seminars with the mention (sharp!!) next to the time, it means that since PhD students don't have many lectures, the seminar can start at full hours, because they probably have nothing to do just before that.
Obviously punctuality depends on the context, ranging from 15 minutes late for university, to 30-60 for concerts or dinners, to some crazy stuff for clubbing (free entry before midnight to try to get someone in early, even though the DJ is supposed to start at 10PM).
You go: "What time is dinner?". "8 PM". "OK" (shows up 8:30-9)
You go: "What time is dinner?". "8 PM. Please try to be punctual I have stuff to do in the morning". "OK" (shows up 8:15-8:30)
More or less the same thing happens at universities (at least that I know). Lectures are at full hours, but start at 15 past and last 45 minutes. That means that you have time to move from building to building and/or take a break.
Sometimes you'll see graduate seminars with the mention (sharp!!) next to the time, it means that since PhD students don't have many lectures, the seminar can start at full hours, because they probably have nothing to do just before that.
Obviously punctuality depends on the context, ranging from 15 minutes late for university, to 30-60 for concerts or dinners, to some crazy stuff for clubbing (free entry before midnight to try to get someone in early, even though the DJ is supposed to start at 10PM).
The universities thing is interesting, I've attended and seen several in the Pacific Northwest, USA. They universally ran at exact times, and ended with a buffer, such as 10 minutes until the next timeslot. e.g. 10:00 am - 11:50 am for a 'two hour' lecture, 3:00 pm - 4:20 pm for a twice a week '3 hours per week' lecture and similar. They would typically start on time or shortly after, and tardiness was frowned upon.
Hilariously, when classes were right after one another this sometimes meant down the hall or the building across the street and plenty of leisure time, or it could mean corner to corner on a huge campus and having to leave early, arrive late, or run. In this sense the buffer times didn't solve the problem either.
Hilariously, when classes were right after one another this sometimes meant down the hall or the building across the street and plenty of leisure time, or it could mean corner to corner on a huge campus and having to leave early, arrive late, or run. In this sense the buffer times didn't solve the problem either.
The difference between Northern cultures and Southern cultures is more fundamental. In Northern cultures, the people have a relationship to the rules. In Southern cultures, people have a relationship to other people. So using time as an example, people in Northern cultures value strict adherence to the clock as proper, while people in Northern cultures view person to person relationships as more valuable than adherence to strict time keeping.
Interesting and very useful seeing this discussed. The important thing here isn't that any one country is 'wrong', but rather that this is useful information to guide how we interact with businesses and divisions around the world.
Once area the article doesn't discuss at all is how middle east and Indian cultures understand time. Can anyone offer any commentary on this?
Once area the article doesn't discuss at all is how middle east and Indian cultures understand time. Can anyone offer any commentary on this?
My personal experience in the Middle East: expect everyone to be at least half an hour late (you're stuck in a huge traffic jam anyway), don't be surprised if someone is 2 hours late, and don't view 11pm as an unusual time for a meeting (joking: there exists a time zone in which the meeting starts in time). I would classify it as "multi-active".
Personally, I like it that people are not angry with you when you're really late (again, traffic jam). I experience this as relieving.
Personally, I like it that people are not angry with you when you're really late (again, traffic jam). I experience this as relieving.
Oh dear... I was looking through the comments of the top trending thread in HN now (6 hour workday) and this comment reminded me of your post:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7839210
I like the choice of emotion: "relieving". It signifies some form of acceptance that "things spill over and nothing could be done about it".
Middle east cultures : Multi-active and relationship oriented perception of time. They are more relationship oriented, both Israeli and Palestine people. Also Afganistan or Beduin types consider relationships to be the most important thing in the world. Middle easterns like to live in the moment.
Indian cultures: As far as my understanding goes, it's a mixture of compartmentalized time and cyclic time. The ritual or traditions or religions kind of show a cyclic view of time, specially with the karma viewpoint, but the offices and businesses are laid by british, hence more compartmentalized way of thinking is done there. Basically with Indians you can expect sudden no communication, or the office things might take huge amount of time too.
I'm Bangladeshi and both are my view point, and I've indian and Middle eastern friends, but I've not exactly visited the countries.
Indian cultures: As far as my understanding goes, it's a mixture of compartmentalized time and cyclic time. The ritual or traditions or religions kind of show a cyclic view of time, specially with the karma viewpoint, but the offices and businesses are laid by british, hence more compartmentalized way of thinking is done there. Basically with Indians you can expect sudden no communication, or the office things might take huge amount of time too.
I'm Bangladeshi and both are my view point, and I've indian and Middle eastern friends, but I've not exactly visited the countries.
''The important thing here isn't that any one country is 'wrong'''
...yet the article concludes with a remark that "we are confident (in North America and Northern Europe) that we have approached the optimum management of time". This amounts to a good deal of circular reasoning - this is can only be considered "efficient" if, as explained at the beginning, your goal is to fulfill as many tasks as possible.
But that view dismisses the cost that such detailed planning brings with it: it doesn't consider the increased wear from stress, and doesn't account for those achievements gained by following opportunities at happenstances that couldn't be planned for. It also misses the inherent efficiency of going with the flow by following tradition and customs, where you know what will happen without the need to build a detailed analysis for each step.
You can think of those costs as "externalities", goods that were lost because no one had them in mind when building the plan.
...yet the article concludes with a remark that "we are confident (in North America and Northern Europe) that we have approached the optimum management of time". This amounts to a good deal of circular reasoning - this is can only be considered "efficient" if, as explained at the beginning, your goal is to fulfill as many tasks as possible.
But that view dismisses the cost that such detailed planning brings with it: it doesn't consider the increased wear from stress, and doesn't account for those achievements gained by following opportunities at happenstances that couldn't be planned for. It also misses the inherent efficiency of going with the flow by following tradition and customs, where you know what will happen without the need to build a detailed analysis for each step.
You can think of those costs as "externalities", goods that were lost because no one had them in mind when building the plan.
To be more precise: if your goal is to fulfill as many planned tasks as possible.
Maybe in the south they fulfil more tasks, but they were not planned in advance.
Maybe in the south they fulfil more tasks, but they were not planned in advance.
I hazard a guess, that colonisation and western homogenisation has largely overwritten the local notion of time with the western model, amidst the vast majority of the population.
I'm not an anthropologist, but I have a hard time believing that different peoples have significantly different conceptions of time. Americans are a lot heavier than other peoples, but nobody suggests they have a different concept of mass.
They're really talking about culture - mutual rules for deciding when a thing will occur, and when it has ended. Or dominant metaphors for time. A lot of these are dependent on material conditions; what is locally scarce?
In a place where gasoline and vehicles are scarce and people operate on thin margins, people expect long voyages to be infrequent, and the bus is not going to leave unless there are enough passengers. Otherwise the bus driver can't buy dinner that evening.
In a place where human labor is cheap, materials are expensive, and enforcement of contracts is sketchy, keeping people waiting while you assess their character may be preferable to making a hasty commitment.
Maybe not every difference is explainable this way but I think a lot of them are.
If alien anthropologists arrived, they might look at our space programs and conclude that we had a different conception of time. There's a strange obsession with the exact moment of launch, and time is measured as starting from a negative number up to that point. Time can be, and often is, started and stopped relative to that moment. Launches may have a published, scheduled time, but everyone expects it to be deferred until consensus is achieved that conditions are right. We are also careful that each launch be carefully timed to use an auspicious window, dependent on the planets around us and other cyclical conditions.
The alien anthropologist, ignorant of how his powerful ship even works, notes that he takes off whenever he wants to and just goes in a straight line to wherever he likes. He attributes the humans' odd practices to their different conception of time.
They're really talking about culture - mutual rules for deciding when a thing will occur, and when it has ended. Or dominant metaphors for time. A lot of these are dependent on material conditions; what is locally scarce?
In a place where gasoline and vehicles are scarce and people operate on thin margins, people expect long voyages to be infrequent, and the bus is not going to leave unless there are enough passengers. Otherwise the bus driver can't buy dinner that evening.
In a place where human labor is cheap, materials are expensive, and enforcement of contracts is sketchy, keeping people waiting while you assess their character may be preferable to making a hasty commitment.
Maybe not every difference is explainable this way but I think a lot of them are.
If alien anthropologists arrived, they might look at our space programs and conclude that we had a different conception of time. There's a strange obsession with the exact moment of launch, and time is measured as starting from a negative number up to that point. Time can be, and often is, started and stopped relative to that moment. Launches may have a published, scheduled time, but everyone expects it to be deferred until consensus is achieved that conditions are right. We are also careful that each launch be carefully timed to use an auspicious window, dependent on the planets around us and other cyclical conditions.
The alien anthropologist, ignorant of how his powerful ship even works, notes that he takes off whenever he wants to and just goes in a straight line to wherever he likes. He attributes the humans' odd practices to their different conception of time.
>I have a hard time believing that different peoples have significantly different conceptions of time.
Me too. This is why it's so mind blowing to hear that other people perceive the world differently.
Me too. This is why it's so mind blowing to hear that other people perceive the world differently.
Wonderful article, and quite insightful. While reading I was asking myself if it wouldn't be a good idea to provide tools to enlarge our possibilities of time perception:
The dominant time perception in North-America / EU is linear: the work day is segmented and tasks and appointments are scheduled. Calendar apps and project management tools help us with this. But what if I wanted to take, say, the circular time persepctive? I'm not aware of any tools or apps that would support such a perspective.
Maybe one should think of ways to open our management culture to other time perspectives, maybe even enabling us to shift between the perpectives and unify them. Something like a 'multi-cultural project management tool.' I can imagine that this could have quite some impact in globalized economy, and maybe even could be the basis for a new management philosophy
The dominant time perception in North-America / EU is linear: the work day is segmented and tasks and appointments are scheduled. Calendar apps and project management tools help us with this. But what if I wanted to take, say, the circular time persepctive? I'm not aware of any tools or apps that would support such a perspective.
Maybe one should think of ways to open our management culture to other time perspectives, maybe even enabling us to shift between the perpectives and unify them. Something like a 'multi-cultural project management tool.' I can imagine that this could have quite some impact in globalized economy, and maybe even could be the basis for a new management philosophy
I grew up in Australia and at 19 started the 9-5 'grind' type job which I kept going for a few years.
When I started contracting and working from home, I found that I could not shake the association of the hours and what they mean. No matter how hard I tried.
If I started later than 9 or 10, I was 'lazy'. If I took the whole morning off and was working until 11pm it was 'a disaster of a day', even if I worked less hours. For some reason if I was working later than 6pm it seemed like something was wrong.
I have no idea how to reliably change the perception of time once it's ingrained. It's certainly a strange phenomenon.
When I started contracting and working from home, I found that I could not shake the association of the hours and what they mean. No matter how hard I tried.
If I started later than 9 or 10, I was 'lazy'. If I took the whole morning off and was working until 11pm it was 'a disaster of a day', even if I worked less hours. For some reason if I was working later than 6pm it seemed like something was wrong.
I have no idea how to reliably change the perception of time once it's ingrained. It's certainly a strange phenomenon.
Beyond just that, is the notion of "work week" - not just the notion that we work on Mondays but not Sundays - but that there is some distinction between "work" and not.
Most of these things are the result of religious ritual and early 20th socialism efforts.
They are truly damaging to the human psyche and each individual should work to eradicate these fictional ideas from their being.
If you were a primitive agrarian, sometimes the cattle need to be tended to at midnight on Tuesday - sometimes fruits should be picked on Sunday morning - etc.
Beyond that is the notion that your "work" and you are somehow distinct and different. After 20+ years of being self-employed, I see this artificial distinction almost as a form of mental illness. You are you. There is no difference between 2pm Tuesday you and Saturday you.
Most of these things are the result of religious ritual and early 20th socialism efforts.
They are truly damaging to the human psyche and each individual should work to eradicate these fictional ideas from their being.
If you were a primitive agrarian, sometimes the cattle need to be tended to at midnight on Tuesday - sometimes fruits should be picked on Sunday morning - etc.
Beyond that is the notion that your "work" and you are somehow distinct and different. After 20+ years of being self-employed, I see this artificial distinction almost as a form of mental illness. You are you. There is no difference between 2pm Tuesday you and Saturday you.
I think it is fairer to say these things are, for all practical purposes, the result of capitalism. Socialism was really just a backlash against capitalism.
To be slightly more precise and elaborate, historically the fixed work week and working hours became widespread with capitalism (monasteries and militaries had routine as well, but they never caused it to become so pervasive in society).
In capitalism, exact management of working time started because of a combination of two things: First, the owners of expensive machines wanted to have reliable schedules of when their human operators were present, so as to maximize the owners' profits. Second, the power relationship of capitalism made it possible for these owners to severely punish an employee who didn't show up on time, and the owners pushed this possibility to the breaking point (hence the backlash of socialism).
Nowadays, a similar dynamic also applies to most service jobs. The people running retail stores or call centres want their employees to reliably follow a schedule, so that the profit of the owners can be maximized. Power relationships are still such that most people working these kinds of jobs have little de facto choice but to comply.
So much for what happened historically. Now, an interesting question is whether this is inherent only of capitalism, or whether it may be inherent of economic systems more generally.
For example, if we envision a form of market socialism where firms compete in a market but are entirely controlled by workers through some democratic means, would we still adhere so strongly to fixed schedules?
In part, the self-interest of the employee suggests that our relationship with work schedules would relax.
On the other hand, it is now actually in the workers' self-interest to ensure that their machines are utilized as well as possible, and that retail stores are taken care of efficiently, and so on. So I would actually expect that work schedules would remain relatively rigid, at least in service oriented firms and physical industry.
Being able to rely on somebody else's schedule means you can be more efficient, and that's a powerful force of the market.
Even if the attitude to work schedules were relaxed somewhat under socialism, path dependence is a strong factor as well: now that most people are kind of used to 9 to 5 or similar, chances are that any change away from the status quo would be rather slow.
To be slightly more precise and elaborate, historically the fixed work week and working hours became widespread with capitalism (monasteries and militaries had routine as well, but they never caused it to become so pervasive in society).
In capitalism, exact management of working time started because of a combination of two things: First, the owners of expensive machines wanted to have reliable schedules of when their human operators were present, so as to maximize the owners' profits. Second, the power relationship of capitalism made it possible for these owners to severely punish an employee who didn't show up on time, and the owners pushed this possibility to the breaking point (hence the backlash of socialism).
Nowadays, a similar dynamic also applies to most service jobs. The people running retail stores or call centres want their employees to reliably follow a schedule, so that the profit of the owners can be maximized. Power relationships are still such that most people working these kinds of jobs have little de facto choice but to comply.
So much for what happened historically. Now, an interesting question is whether this is inherent only of capitalism, or whether it may be inherent of economic systems more generally.
For example, if we envision a form of market socialism where firms compete in a market but are entirely controlled by workers through some democratic means, would we still adhere so strongly to fixed schedules?
In part, the self-interest of the employee suggests that our relationship with work schedules would relax.
On the other hand, it is now actually in the workers' self-interest to ensure that their machines are utilized as well as possible, and that retail stores are taken care of efficiently, and so on. So I would actually expect that work schedules would remain relatively rigid, at least in service oriented firms and physical industry.
Being able to rely on somebody else's schedule means you can be more efficient, and that's a powerful force of the market.
Even if the attitude to work schedules were relaxed somewhat under socialism, path dependence is a strong factor as well: now that most people are kind of used to 9 to 5 or similar, chances are that any change away from the status quo would be rather slow.
"For example, if we envision a form of market socialism where firms compete in a market but are entirely controlled by workers through some democratic means, would we still adhere so strongly to fixed schedules?"
One of two things would happen: Those wishing to maximize profits would push the less dedicated out of the company, or there would be a gradual trend towards putting in minimal effort because everyone else is outputting less than you for the same pay (or you're making those with more seniority than you look bad).
In fact, we've already witnessed the second phenomena in socialist countries and in many unionized jobs.
One of two things would happen: Those wishing to maximize profits would push the less dedicated out of the company, or there would be a gradual trend towards putting in minimal effort because everyone else is outputting less than you for the same pay (or you're making those with more seniority than you look bad).
In fact, we've already witnessed the second phenomena in socialist countries and in many unionized jobs.
Genuine question: Have there been examples of socialist countries or unionized jobs where profit was made and shared among employees rather than taken either by private capital ownership or by the government?
At least as far as I know, there hasn't been a country-wide experiment with a setup like that, where employees actually have a self-motivated incentive to work harder. (Now that I think about it, that's really quite a terrible indictment of both socialism and capitalism as it's been tried so far!)
In a sense, early-phase startups are like that, and those seem to work quite well ;-)
The law-firm model is a bit like this as well, I suppose, and small boutique shops in creative fields.
Another example may be existing coops like Mondragon and many other smaller ones. Those are not in the headlines much, but they also seem to be doing well despite competition from firms that are run along more capitalist lines.
At least as far as I know, there hasn't been a country-wide experiment with a setup like that, where employees actually have a self-motivated incentive to work harder. (Now that I think about it, that's really quite a terrible indictment of both socialism and capitalism as it's been tried so far!)
In a sense, early-phase startups are like that, and those seem to work quite well ;-)
The law-firm model is a bit like this as well, I suppose, and small boutique shops in creative fields.
Another example may be existing coops like Mondragon and many other smaller ones. Those are not in the headlines much, but they also seem to be doing well despite competition from firms that are run along more capitalist lines.
Co-ops and communes are about as close as you'll get to that kind of experiment. From what I've seen, they start out great, but then as they grow either in size or in age, they begin to show stress fractures from the usual social problems that plague all human political endeavors. It almost seems as if we're doomed to mediocrity in the long run.
Mayhap it's simply an artifact of social psychology: if you're working later than 6pm, everyone else is off work and out having fun, and you're cloistering yourself with your work when you could be out socializing. (Even if you'd rather not.)
If you get, say, stationed on a submarine doing night missions, the group you'll mostly be socializing with suddenly gets off work around 7AM. The urge to keep to a 9-5 fades quickly.
If you get, say, stationed on a submarine doing night missions, the group you'll mostly be socializing with suddenly gets off work around 7AM. The urge to keep to a 9-5 fades quickly.
I think there is really something to this - I barteneded my way through college, and for a couple years after (in order to travel and take care of some youthful exuberance that was incompatible with a standard job). As a result, my "money shifts" were Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, and my days off were typically Monday and Tuesday. A lot of my friends and social circle were in the service industry as well. As a result when I decided to do the career thing, it took several years to get over "Tuesday is a day off" and "Saturday is super productive" type thoughts. Similarly, I still find evenings to be more conducive to work than mornings because my schedule was bar hours - 4 or 5 pm - 3am, and relaxing after work makes no sense, I prefer a relaxing, slow start to the day.
I jumped straight from being a student to being a freelancer, so I didn't really experience 'normal' work hours until much later (as a contractor working on location).
I found that I did slowly gravitate to normal hours because of precisely this reason. My friends started having regular jobs and so I ended up having to adjust my working hours to that.
In fact, I was worse off because I didn't really realize I was conforming to normal work hours, but clients realized that they could approach me whenever they wanted, which was usually in the evening or the weekend.
It took me a while to learn how to not answer every email or phone call at odd times, and re-condition my clients.
I found that I did slowly gravitate to normal hours because of precisely this reason. My friends started having regular jobs and so I ended up having to adjust my working hours to that.
In fact, I was worse off because I didn't really realize I was conforming to normal work hours, but clients realized that they could approach me whenever they wanted, which was usually in the evening or the weekend.
It took me a while to learn how to not answer every email or phone call at odd times, and re-condition my clients.
You could work whenever you want to and be just as efficient - but you would lose the benefit of social synchronization.
Having non-work time simultaneously with the people you want to share your life with is a huge factor in working at the same time.
Having non-work time simultaneously with the people you want to share your life with is a huge factor in working at the same time.
This is programmed into as a child. It's your operating system as a future worker, to be used by your future manager. Days of the week, standing in line, sitting quietly, not complaining. It starts out as fun, a game in pre-school, but then...
This obedience-training is the main point of school, certainly not developing creativity and initiative.
There are school-like places where children are free to do what they like. Free to play, free to fail. Check out Sudbury Valley School. It's an international movement. See the new book "Free to Learn".
This obedience-training is the main point of school, certainly not developing creativity and initiative.
There are school-like places where children are free to do what they like. Free to play, free to fail. Check out Sudbury Valley School. It's an international movement. See the new book "Free to Learn".
"It starts out as fun, a game in pre-school, but then..."
For some of us (like me a few other subjects that I remember) the conforming game was never fun. To force someone to wake up and then to sync to an activity program, and then to sleep some programmed hours, and so on... it was necessary maybe, but I never recall it to be felt as "fun".
For some of us (like me a few other subjects that I remember) the conforming game was never fun. To force someone to wake up and then to sync to an activity program, and then to sleep some programmed hours, and so on... it was necessary maybe, but I never recall it to be felt as "fun".
Good idea there are bits and pieces already ranging from philosophical notions of duree, to various time/task management ideas like ZTD, pomodoro.
Regarding cyclical time I make use of of solar-lunar iphone app and portable sundial to remind me of the circular nature of time and my place in the grand scheme of things. One could argue that prayer/time-out schedules of christians, jews and muslims also help in this regard.
Someone on HN made designed a calendar/time system counting down instead of up among some other things.
Khmer proverb: "you have the clock, we have the time"
Instead of the linear, multi-active and cyclic times paradigm, another approach I found interesting is the one proposed by Philip Zimbardo neatly presented in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3oIiH7BLmg
It presents individuals as being either past, present or future oriented. Apparently, the closer we are to the equator the more present-oriented we tend to be (because there are less seasonal changes).
It presents individuals as being either past, present or future oriented. Apparently, the closer we are to the equator the more present-oriented we tend to be (because there are less seasonal changes).
In my own experience, the traditional anthropological take on time seems more and more outdated these days. There are some differences. But I get the impression that almost anywhere you go people's senses of time are not all that differentiated by country, even if this might have been the case in the past. The main differences in perception of time that I have seen have been between different socioeconomic groups within a country.
The Aymara people of the Andes also have a "future is behind you" vision of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aymara_language#Idiosyncrasies
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/soc/backsfuture06.a...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aymara_language#Idiosyncrasies
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/soc/backsfuture06.a...
This speaks to how useful email is as a communications medium on the Internet and it's likely one reason why, despite all the new modes of communication, it's still a widely used standard: people from different cultures all around the world can get back to you at their own pace and there's generally no expectation of an immediate response.
Excellent article. I think distance and relationships can also be modeled in this fashion to show the differences between Eastern and Western philosophies. I'm definitely going to read this book named "When cultures collide''. It's important to be able to understand everyone's perspectives.
For a deeper look into the topic, see A Geography Of Time: The Temporal Misadventures of a Social Psychologist, by Robert Levine (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0465026427/).
The way the Malagasy see time really reminds me of the movie Memento. This entire movie plays backwards (from scene to scene) because the main character has no short term memory, the story is extremely well written. You should go and see it.
What I see in Brazil, that is a culture that is reputed to tolerate late people: the same folks that want to be forgiven if they are late do get very angry if someone leaves them waiting for more than 30s.
seems author wanted to write poetic book about understanding different cultures but instead wrote this b.s. article filled with worn out stereo types instead. Guess what, in nearly every business environment with an office people get upset when you do not show up to a meeting. I know this because I've worked in many of the countries this author listed. There are differences in cultures but this article attempts to turn these differences into a science, which in some way is just disgustingly racist.
My perspective is as an East Coast American (the D.C. to Boston corridor) where punctuality is highly prized and dealing with South Koreans, who have a different cultural feeling about time.
Among the South Koreans I know some characteristics jump out
- The 빨리빨리 culture (quickly! quickly!). Do every labor activity, no matter how trivial, at the maximum possible tempo. Koreans coming to the U.S. frequently complain about how slow their interactions are with Americans (particularly cashiers). The idea of pacing yourself, running a marathon and not a sprint is a foreign idea.
- Everything stops for food. Fast food of course exists in Korea. But no matter what's going on, how critical it is, or how behind everybody is, my experience is that Koreans will drop everything during meal time and take a remarkably relaxed view of meal-time. This may have something to do with how many soups Koreans eat, but my American sensibility, of just powering through a garbage lunch as quickly as possible because it's getting in the way of my work day, had a hard time adjusting to this for years.
- Koreans tend to be perpetually tardy. On the waiting end, I've noticed that universally Koreans seem to be mildly irritated by the tardiness of their peers. On the tardy-party end the reasons for being tardy are complex, with about as many reasons why it's unavoidable as reasons why it could have been avoided.
- Planning group activities seems to be a group event rather than a leader-focused organizer's role. This means if a bunch of people get together to go do an activity, it means lots of waiting around until group consensus, and lots of questions from everybody if this or that scenario is agreeable to you ("sure", "I don't care", "I don't know", etc. are not acceptable answers, the consensus building requires your input). Then, much later than is necessary, and probably after a few internal rounds of "voting", a plan will suddenly crystallize and everybody will suddenly move into motion and execute. And the downside it seems like there's a lack of organization and planning for your day, on the up side, there's lots of variety.
With Americans it seems like a group will get together, everybody will ask for ideas, most people will say "whatever" or "I don't know", and eventually a leader will emerge who everybody follows for that day's activities. The consensus oriented activity planning Koreans do is a little maddening to me, even many many years later.
Some of this is rather recent. The 빨리빨리 culture in particular. Before the war, Koreans were generally regarded like Southerners in the U.S. are. Leisurely, taking their time, no reason to rush [1]. It seems that some of the characteristics above are from this older cultural attitude, but the quickly! quickly! culture seems to be the result of the reconstruction and industrialization boom.
1 - http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2012/06/koreas-bbali-bb...
Among the South Koreans I know some characteristics jump out
- The 빨리빨리 culture (quickly! quickly!). Do every labor activity, no matter how trivial, at the maximum possible tempo. Koreans coming to the U.S. frequently complain about how slow their interactions are with Americans (particularly cashiers). The idea of pacing yourself, running a marathon and not a sprint is a foreign idea.
- Everything stops for food. Fast food of course exists in Korea. But no matter what's going on, how critical it is, or how behind everybody is, my experience is that Koreans will drop everything during meal time and take a remarkably relaxed view of meal-time. This may have something to do with how many soups Koreans eat, but my American sensibility, of just powering through a garbage lunch as quickly as possible because it's getting in the way of my work day, had a hard time adjusting to this for years.
- Koreans tend to be perpetually tardy. On the waiting end, I've noticed that universally Koreans seem to be mildly irritated by the tardiness of their peers. On the tardy-party end the reasons for being tardy are complex, with about as many reasons why it's unavoidable as reasons why it could have been avoided.
- Planning group activities seems to be a group event rather than a leader-focused organizer's role. This means if a bunch of people get together to go do an activity, it means lots of waiting around until group consensus, and lots of questions from everybody if this or that scenario is agreeable to you ("sure", "I don't care", "I don't know", etc. are not acceptable answers, the consensus building requires your input). Then, much later than is necessary, and probably after a few internal rounds of "voting", a plan will suddenly crystallize and everybody will suddenly move into motion and execute. And the downside it seems like there's a lack of organization and planning for your day, on the up side, there's lots of variety.
With Americans it seems like a group will get together, everybody will ask for ideas, most people will say "whatever" or "I don't know", and eventually a leader will emerge who everybody follows for that day's activities. The consensus oriented activity planning Koreans do is a little maddening to me, even many many years later.
Some of this is rather recent. The 빨리빨리 culture in particular. Before the war, Koreans were generally regarded like Southerners in the U.S. are. Leisurely, taking their time, no reason to rush [1]. It seems that some of the characteristics above are from this older cultural attitude, but the quickly! quickly! culture seems to be the result of the reconstruction and industrialization boom.
1 - http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2012/06/koreas-bbali-bb...
> Everything stops for food. Fast food of course exists in Korea. But no matter what's going on, how critical it is, or how behind everybody is, my experience is that Koreans will drop everything during meal time and take a remarkably relaxed view of meal-time.
This is actually a very healthy attitude. The best of both worlds would be to take your time with meals - there's really nothing wrong with having lunch and discussions with friends even for two hours - but plan accordingly. Don't schedule anything for two hours after lunch starts, and so on.
This is actually a very healthy attitude. The best of both worlds would be to take your time with meals - there's really nothing wrong with having lunch and discussions with friends even for two hours - but plan accordingly. Don't schedule anything for two hours after lunch starts, and so on.
I actually agree and it's one of the healthier attitudes I've adopted. It's nice having a break in the middle of the day where all I meditate on is enjoying and savoring my meal rather than seeing how fast I can shove it into my stomach.
It's funny that the author associates variants of time to a culture or nation, instead of to an "environment" or "organization." In the US, I have been in companies where no meeting starts within 15-20 minutes of theoretical start time. It is typically because of two reasons:
a) people are always late at a given company, or
b) telephone bridge or technology does not cooperate.
This is what a meeting looks like many times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYu_bGbZiiQ
Being on time does not mean being productive.
[EDIT: Comment to video]
This is what a meeting looks like many times: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYu_bGbZiiQ
Being on time does not mean being productive.
[EDIT: Comment to video]
Maybe it's my Western bias speaking, but a lot of what is described as "just a different way of viewing time" sounds like "just a greater tolerance for jerks" to me.
When you schedule a meeting and one person takes pains to arrive on time and another person does not care whether they're late and shows up an hour later, that leaves the conscientious person sitting there twiddling their thumbs for an hour, whether they're in the U.S. or Italy or China.
I suppose it's more understandable in areas where transportation is unreliable, in which case it's hard for anybody to be consistently on time, but I have a hard time seeing how a culture in which no one is concerned with punctuality can be said to be merely laid-back, as opposed to plain lazy. It's possible to be both laid-back and punctual, after all.
When you schedule a meeting and one person takes pains to arrive on time and another person does not care whether they're late and shows up an hour later, that leaves the conscientious person sitting there twiddling their thumbs for an hour, whether they're in the U.S. or Italy or China.
I suppose it's more understandable in areas where transportation is unreliable, in which case it's hard for anybody to be consistently on time, but I have a hard time seeing how a culture in which no one is concerned with punctuality can be said to be merely laid-back, as opposed to plain lazy. It's possible to be both laid-back and punctual, after all.
The failure in that view is that you didn't plan for imprecision and uncertainty when you built the schedule. This is inefficient because it doesn't allow the meeting to be flexible, ending before its deadline or alternatively, extending way beyond the scheduled time.
The attitude of "leaves the room in the middle, before the business is finished" may certainly be a problem. Being a Spaniard, I see the inherent value in Figure 4.5 "Spanish schedules: In theory, in reality". A day schedule would be seen as poor and aseptic without the "meets in bar" at the end. For us, those differences between what's scheduled and the actual sequence of events is where life happens. It's no wonder that the novel "Momo"'s setting was placed in Italy. [1]
Also, in the multi-active culture, the other person shouldn't be there waiting, idle, twiddling their thumbs; they're surely have plenty of other things that can take care of in the meantime. (In the modern world they could be conducting other businesses by phone or with their laptops, but those are still Western-thinking tools; other options could be to socialize with the people at the building, reading a book or merely enjoying the scenery or getting lost in their thoughts. When was the last time you planned for that?)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momo_%28novel%29
edit: grammar
The attitude of "leaves the room in the middle, before the business is finished" may certainly be a problem. Being a Spaniard, I see the inherent value in Figure 4.5 "Spanish schedules: In theory, in reality". A day schedule would be seen as poor and aseptic without the "meets in bar" at the end. For us, those differences between what's scheduled and the actual sequence of events is where life happens. It's no wonder that the novel "Momo"'s setting was placed in Italy. [1]
Also, in the multi-active culture, the other person shouldn't be there waiting, idle, twiddling their thumbs; they're surely have plenty of other things that can take care of in the meantime. (In the modern world they could be conducting other businesses by phone or with their laptops, but those are still Western-thinking tools; other options could be to socialize with the people at the building, reading a book or merely enjoying the scenery or getting lost in their thoughts. When was the last time you planned for that?)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momo_%28novel%29
edit: grammar
Whether the punctual person has other things to do to pass the time until you arrive is immaterial. Presumably, you both agreed to meet at 12 and not 1 because 12 was a mutually agreeable time; otherwise, you would have agreed to meet at 1 instead. So, for the latecomer to arrive at 1 when they were capable of arriving at 12 but lost track of time or stopped to smell the roses is disrespectful of the other person. It says to the other person, "I'm not going to inconvenience myself by rushing or paying attention to the time so I'm not late ... instead, I'm going to inconvenience you."
Meet at 12 an not 1 is already Western thinking. Traditionally, other cultures didn't use precise clocks for scheduling social events; you would wake to work "at dawn" or visit some friends "this afternoon".
Think at it this way: if you are at home expecting some friend to have dinner there in the evening, you'll be glad to have them arrive no matter when; any pre-scheduled time would be arbitrary, so letting them arrive whenever it's convenient is good for them and doesn't have any drawback for you. In that situation, it would be incredibly rude on your part to yell at them because you previously agreed that they'd be there at 7:30 but they arrived at 7:54 instead; I don't know about you, but that would be unthinkable here. (Of course if they arrived at 23:00 that would register as "not showing" during the evening, but that's beyond being late).
That kind of lax schedule shouldn't inconvenience you, because you're otherwise comfortable at home arranging all the details; and it can bring benefits for them that couldn't happen otherwise - they may want to stay fifteen more minutes having a coffee at a bistro, watching the sunset, for example; it would be a loss having to rush to your meeting merely because they know you're hardheaded about meeting timelines.
Of course that can be seen as "not efficient" in the "cram-as-much-things-to-do-as-you-can" sense of efficiency, but as explained in the article, that's not seen as a value on itself. And, if you find that having your friends enjoy the smell of a rose is less important than them arriving at an exact time, it speaks very poorly of you and your ability to find other things to do when unpredictable events happen.
Think at it this way: if you are at home expecting some friend to have dinner there in the evening, you'll be glad to have them arrive no matter when; any pre-scheduled time would be arbitrary, so letting them arrive whenever it's convenient is good for them and doesn't have any drawback for you. In that situation, it would be incredibly rude on your part to yell at them because you previously agreed that they'd be there at 7:30 but they arrived at 7:54 instead; I don't know about you, but that would be unthinkable here. (Of course if they arrived at 23:00 that would register as "not showing" during the evening, but that's beyond being late).
That kind of lax schedule shouldn't inconvenience you, because you're otherwise comfortable at home arranging all the details; and it can bring benefits for them that couldn't happen otherwise - they may want to stay fifteen more minutes having a coffee at a bistro, watching the sunset, for example; it would be a loss having to rush to your meeting merely because they know you're hardheaded about meeting timelines.
Of course that can be seen as "not efficient" in the "cram-as-much-things-to-do-as-you-can" sense of efficiency, but as explained in the article, that's not seen as a value on itself. And, if you find that having your friends enjoy the smell of a rose is less important than them arriving at an exact time, it speaks very poorly of you and your ability to find other things to do when unpredictable events happen.
Whoever's downvoting this, TuringTest is explaining a point of view and a different value system. If you don't relate to or like that value system, (me too!) no problem, but downvoting a helpful/informative comment drives down discussion and points of view other than your own.
I downvoted it because it addresses (at length) the issue of informal family gatherings in which TT's opponents already accept (for reasons specific to the scenario) that you're not supposed to show up at a specific time. It avoids the core issue of work scenarios where it's important that everyone be present.
IOW, non-responsive, and almost deliberately so.
Just because you have a long, coherent explanation doesn't mean it adds to the discussion.
IOW, non-responsive, and almost deliberately so.
Just because you have a long, coherent explanation doesn't mean it adds to the discussion.
The point being made was that informality needs not be specific to the family gathering scenario, and that it's not a core issue of work scenarios at multi-active cultures; I used an example you could relate to illustrate how it could it also be seen at work contexts in some circumstances. So I suppose you downvoted because you didn't get the point.
No, I got the point just fine: at best, there's no reason to apply the "show up whenever" ethos to meetings, because the best reasons for having it don't apply, as revealed by your attempt to come up with a reason. (Unless people are being called to the meeting despite being irrelevant, which is a separate issue.)
It does add to the discussion.
> lost track of time or stopped to smell the roses
You are really being very disdainful of the (hypothetical) late person. I find that is a typical American attitude. Even in this completely theoretical discussion, you are assuming the person is late for a reason you find frivolous instead of being a receptive, empathetic human who knows that things don't always happen as planned.
You are really being very disdainful of the (hypothetical) late person. I find that is a typical American attitude. Even in this completely theoretical discussion, you are assuming the person is late for a reason you find frivolous instead of being a receptive, empathetic human who knows that things don't always happen as planned.
Even when the reason of being late is frivolous, placing compliance with the plan above enjoying life is telling of an attitude that doesn't seem healthy. A good plan is one which allows for smelling roses in the walk to the meeting (but then, Americans don't use walkways, do they?)
Scheduled meeting times enrage me to end, because it takes enjoyment out of my life. Very frequently, something unexpected happens near the time I have to be getting ready to leave to the meeting, but I have to say no to life instead and bow down to this stupid God of time.
I understand business meeting times. I understand showing up to class on time. I don't understand times for meeting up for pleasure (drinks, dinner, dates). I just don't.
I understand business meeting times. I understand showing up to class on time. I don't understand times for meeting up for pleasure (drinks, dinner, dates). I just don't.
I actually experienced this attitude twice recently and I couldn't really figure out why it put me off so much before reading this thread.
First situation was someone was supposed to come in for an interview but didn't show and then emailed 15 minutes after the scheduled start time saying she had a family emergency and got flustered on the way to the office and decided she needed to take care of other things instead of come to the interview. We have no idea what happened, but the other members of my team immediately concluded that she had blown her chance and we wouldn't be asking her back in because she wasn't "professional".
The second time was arguing about that situation where if I had meetings and a family emergency came up the last thing on my mind would be canceling the meetings when the other people in the conversation said the first thing they would do is cancel the meetings.
It's an interesting juxtaposition to be sure.
First situation was someone was supposed to come in for an interview but didn't show and then emailed 15 minutes after the scheduled start time saying she had a family emergency and got flustered on the way to the office and decided she needed to take care of other things instead of come to the interview. We have no idea what happened, but the other members of my team immediately concluded that she had blown her chance and we wouldn't be asking her back in because she wasn't "professional".
The second time was arguing about that situation where if I had meetings and a family emergency came up the last thing on my mind would be canceling the meetings when the other people in the conversation said the first thing they would do is cancel the meetings.
It's an interesting juxtaposition to be sure.
Suggesting that certain cultural traits might be unproductive or even bad is frowned upon, in my opinion unjustly.
My family is Bangladeshi. One of the characteristics of the culture is a total inability to be punctual. Its always drove my dad up the wall, even though he grew up there. So when I read articles like this, I just think of people like my dad--the linear time minorities in these places. Pacing around waiting for guests who show up at 10 for dinner scheduled for 8.
My family is Bangladeshi. One of the characteristics of the culture is a total inability to be punctual. Its always drove my dad up the wall, even though he grew up there. So when I read articles like this, I just think of people like my dad--the linear time minorities in these places. Pacing around waiting for guests who show up at 10 for dinner scheduled for 8.
Maybe this is cultural imperialism talking, but I personally think it's REALLY NICE that if you and another person talk about a plan (e.g. meet at 8pm), and then agree to it, then you both actually agree to the thing you talked about, and not to something else (e.g. show up at 9-10pm or whenever).
Like, actually using words to describe reality. Danged useful. Triply so in the business world. A little more reliable than using words to describe a shared dreamlike version of reality.
Like, actually using words to describe reality. Danged useful. Triply so in the business world. A little more reliable than using words to describe a shared dreamlike version of reality.
There are some kinds of plans that greatly benefit from exact schedules, but those are fewer than you'd think.
When the agreed time for a meeting is arbitrary, it shouldn't really matter that the meeting is re-scheduled. It only causes problems if you have so many tasks in your agenda that you can't change the arbitrarily assigned time for the meeting - but if you're in that situation, perhaps your schedule is already too busy?
What would happen if you became ill? Or if bad weather made it impossible to arrive to the meeting? If you find valid the answer of "well, in that case some meetings can be re-scheduled or cancelled", then why would you not find that acceptable for all your planned tasks in normal circumstances as well?
When the agreed time for a meeting is arbitrary, it shouldn't really matter that the meeting is re-scheduled. It only causes problems if you have so many tasks in your agenda that you can't change the arbitrarily assigned time for the meeting - but if you're in that situation, perhaps your schedule is already too busy?
What would happen if you became ill? Or if bad weather made it impossible to arrive to the meeting? If you find valid the answer of "well, in that case some meetings can be re-scheduled or cancelled", then why would you not find that acceptable for all your planned tasks in normal circumstances as well?
Because extraordinary circumstances (becoming ill, or bad weather making it impossible to arrive at a meeting) are by definition not ordinary or normal circumstances, and so holding both to the same standard doesn't necessarily make sense?
If you're not going to hold to a schedule, why make a schedule at all? Why not just say "We'll talk sometime" and let it happen when it happens?
edit: And just because I'm not able to rearrange my schedule literally at the arbitrary whims of the person I'm meeting with doesn't mean that I'm too busy? It means that I have plans for later in the day, and not all plans are fluid. If I'm planning to get dinner with my fiancee at 6pm and you show up two hours late to a 1 hour meeting that was supposed to start at 4pm, is it my fault for having the indecency to schedule dinner with my family, or is it your fault for being two hours late?
I'm not trying to be combative, even though I know it reads that way. I just think it's a weird thing to say "if you can't rearrange your schedule, then probably you're too busy; if you can move one thing, why can't you move all things" and I'd be interested in having a discussion about that mode of thinking.
If you're not going to hold to a schedule, why make a schedule at all? Why not just say "We'll talk sometime" and let it happen when it happens?
edit: And just because I'm not able to rearrange my schedule literally at the arbitrary whims of the person I'm meeting with doesn't mean that I'm too busy? It means that I have plans for later in the day, and not all plans are fluid. If I'm planning to get dinner with my fiancee at 6pm and you show up two hours late to a 1 hour meeting that was supposed to start at 4pm, is it my fault for having the indecency to schedule dinner with my family, or is it your fault for being two hours late?
I'm not trying to be combative, even though I know it reads that way. I just think it's a weird thing to say "if you can't rearrange your schedule, then probably you're too busy; if you can move one thing, why can't you move all things" and I'd be interested in having a discussion about that mode of thinking.
As I see it, you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Real life is hard. When that situation presents itself, you'll have to decide what's more important at the moment. The dinner with your fiancee or the meeting? I do these kinds of decisions every single day. It requires patience and cojones.
Americans want to do it all to the detriment of their sanity and health. Just pick the most important thing and do it. Reschedule the meeting or the dinner. Whatever has the lowest priority.
Real life is hard. When that situation presents itself, you'll have to decide what's more important at the moment. The dinner with your fiancee or the meeting? I do these kinds of decisions every single day. It requires patience and cojones.
Americans want to do it all to the detriment of their sanity and health. Just pick the most important thing and do it. Reschedule the meeting or the dinner. Whatever has the lowest priority.
"The dinner with your fiancee or the meeting? I do these kinds of decisions every single day." - what decision?! If you scheduled something with someone to a certain hour and then you have other appointments, if the person does not arrive on time is not your fault and you've got to move on to the next appointment!
Taking the example of CocaKoala: you schedule a meeting, that is supposed to last 1h, to 4pm. So the meeting would take place from 4pm to 5pm. Then you'd schedule to have dinner with your fiancée at 6pm. Well, has the meeting supposedly finished at 5pm, you can get on time to this dinner. BUT if the person you're meeting with decides to only show up ate 6pm, all your later appointments will be ruined! I would never wait 2h for someone, especially if I have other appointments. And if you hope that someone will wait for you all that time either that person is too much patient with you or doesn't have anything else to do...
Btw if you make an arrangement, it's your responsibility to show up on time! Is not about how busy you or the other person are, is about respect!!
Best regards ;)
Taking the example of CocaKoala: you schedule a meeting, that is supposed to last 1h, to 4pm. So the meeting would take place from 4pm to 5pm. Then you'd schedule to have dinner with your fiancée at 6pm. Well, has the meeting supposedly finished at 5pm, you can get on time to this dinner. BUT if the person you're meeting with decides to only show up ate 6pm, all your later appointments will be ruined! I would never wait 2h for someone, especially if I have other appointments. And if you hope that someone will wait for you all that time either that person is too much patient with you or doesn't have anything else to do...
Btw if you make an arrangement, it's your responsibility to show up on time! Is not about how busy you or the other person are, is about respect!!
Best regards ;)
I agree that real life is hard. I don't understand how making a schedule with somebody and asking them to hold to it counts as "having the cake and eating it too", though; can you clarify that?
If you're not going to hold to a schedule, why make a schedule at all? Why not just say "We'll talk sometime" and let it happen when it happens?
Exactly! The comments in this thread are making that possibility look like an evil thing.
Exactly! The comments in this thread are making that possibility look like an evil thing.
No, no, no; you misunderstand. I'm not saying that's an evil thing; I'm perfectly happy to say "We'll talk sometime" and let it happen when it happens, and I suspect everybody else is as well. What people are objecting to is SAYING "We'll talk at 3pm" and MEANING "We'll talk sometime". If you don't want to make a plan, the proper way to do that is to not make a plan, instead of making a plan and then thinking later "Well geeze, I gave my word that I'd meet this guy at 3pm but I'd really like to take a walk instead, so maybe I'll show up this evening instead".
When discussing racial or cultural traits, there's a tremendous politically correct force to avoid judgement.
Think of how this article would have looked if we were comparing performance of applications or operating systems. Gone would be the deep explanations of "why" and the attempt to make all approaches equal but just a different mix of trade-offs.
Instead, the article would have found output metrics that could be compared to decide which techniques were superior.
Think of how this article would have looked if we were comparing performance of applications or operating systems. Gone would be the deep explanations of "why" and the attempt to make all approaches equal but just a different mix of trade-offs.
Instead, the article would have found output metrics that could be compared to decide which techniques were superior.
> Suggesting that certain cultural traits might be unproductive or even bad is frowned upon, in my opinion unjustly.
I wouldn't frown upon it if the person made it understands it's essentially a hypothetical statement about what one believes the end-result will be of changing a small yet pervasive dynamic of a culture.
It's essentially the same thing as, for example, arguing that the American lack of a social safety net is counterproductive on the whole.
I certainly believe so, but it could just as well take away the drive Americans are famous for and result in a complete collapse of the American empire.
I wouldn't frown upon it if the person made it understands it's essentially a hypothetical statement about what one believes the end-result will be of changing a small yet pervasive dynamic of a culture.
It's essentially the same thing as, for example, arguing that the American lack of a social safety net is counterproductive on the whole.
I certainly believe so, but it could just as well take away the drive Americans are famous for and result in a complete collapse of the American empire.
Out of curiosity, where in Bengal is your family from?
I have a hypothesis about the nature of this particular trait.
I have a hypothesis about the nature of this particular trait.
[deleted]
> Bangladeshi
> Maybe it's my Western bias speaking
It is. Northwestern even.
> a greater tolerance for jerks
Actually, one might very well argue that you are the jerk, in your own example. Come on, what's one hour? Just do something else while waiting for the person to arrive.
It is. Northwestern even.
> a greater tolerance for jerks
Actually, one might very well argue that you are the jerk, in your own example. Come on, what's one hour? Just do something else while waiting for the person to arrive.
The issue is that there is only a limited set of things to do while waiting for someone. I can't get down to work to solve any problem of the day because I may be interrupted at any moment by the person arriving. Then I have to sacrifice my time (and perhaps my other plans) after the meeting to get my work finished, perhaps at a time when I figured the meeting would already be over and my remaining work already done.
I really think it's very disrespectful.
I really think it's very disrespectful.
It's only disrespectful when it clashes with a Western perspective. If both parties don't see being "late" as a problem, it's not.
1. It is indeed disrespectful to consciously "taking up other people’s time" (the Chinese way) without their consent.
2. The real world works asynchronously. Either if you are a jerk having no regard for other people's time, or you are a very punctual person getting out of your way to be on time for others (by coming earlier), there is wasted time to be expected. One can prepare for that and act like a functioning piece in a loosely coupled system, or to just blame others.
2. The real world works asynchronously. Either if you are a jerk having no regard for other people's time, or you are a very punctual person getting out of your way to be on time for others (by coming earlier), there is wasted time to be expected. One can prepare for that and act like a functioning piece in a loosely coupled system, or to just blame others.
>Actually, one might very well argue that you are the jerk, in your own example. Come on, what's one hour? Just do something else while waiting for the person to arrive.
What are they doing for one hour that's so important that other people should wait on them - if I have a meeting at 10 and they aren't there, can I just leave to handle other work and show up at 12?
What are they doing for one hour that's so important that other people should wait on them - if I have a meeting at 10 and they aren't there, can I just leave to handle other work and show up at 12?
This attitude is exactly what I have in mind when I'm saying the jerk might not be the initial late person.
If they're late they probably have a reason for it (you might not think they have a good reason though, but who are you to judge that?) they're not doing it for the purpose of annoying you, even though you two might have a meeting you still aren't the centre of the world. So don't leave just to retaliate (because that is why you are talking about leaving and showing up even later) because that will accomplish nothing at all.
Once they arrive you can even tell them they're late, and they will apologize. Anger on the other hand will just leave you both miserable.
If they're late they probably have a reason for it (you might not think they have a good reason though, but who are you to judge that?) they're not doing it for the purpose of annoying you, even though you two might have a meeting you still aren't the centre of the world. So don't leave just to retaliate (because that is why you are talking about leaving and showing up even later) because that will accomplish nothing at all.
Once they arrive you can even tell them they're late, and they will apologize. Anger on the other hand will just leave you both miserable.
I think we all can tell the difference between a good excuse and a lame one. But I think we also all know people who perpetually show up late with excuses, and we also all know people who have their jawns together and ordinarily show up on time. Are you saying that the perpetually late people are just cursed? Because I'm saying they're not cursed; they're at best undisciplined and at worst selfish and inconsiderate.
If you know they perpetually show up late, why don't you plan for that?
I don't know, it's slightly annoying when people are late, but I find even more annoying when people rant to no end about late people.
I don't know, it's slightly annoying when people are late, but I find even more annoying when people rant to no end about late people.
You could invert your argument to: If you know that people are going to rant when you are late, why don't you try to be on time.
You don't have power on the other people. So do what you can instead of wishing they did what they could.
We're not talking about imposing a 2pm meeting... we're talking about two people who agreed to a 2pm meeting. (Imposition is something else entirely.)
Also, one thing I'd observe is that there's a difference between social occasions and business. Even as an American, when my family says they're going to show up at 2pm, I don't sit there at 1:59 at the door tapping my foot. However, business is different; if you've mutually agreed on 2pm and you come in at 2:40 pm without having checked or communicated, there is a problem there in many cases. There may have been further scheduled events for 2:30 (odds are good you're meeting with someone who has lots of meetings, statistically), or whoknows what. The casual approach to time risks having three unrelated meetings that were scheduled to be separate trying to happen all at once.
Whether firm or casual time is abstractly "best" is a hard problem, but when it comes to business effectiveness I don't have a problem saying punctuality is a benefit to getting more stuff done. "What if I don't want more stuff done because even that is an American thing to say?" Well, surely we'd all rather then get our things done so we can hit the bar freely later? And it isn't an American truth that businesses really need to accomplish things to survive and thrive, it's the nature of the Universe we live in, where we must work for our sustenance, however distasteful you may find that.
Also, one thing I'd observe is that there's a difference between social occasions and business. Even as an American, when my family says they're going to show up at 2pm, I don't sit there at 1:59 at the door tapping my foot. However, business is different; if you've mutually agreed on 2pm and you come in at 2:40 pm without having checked or communicated, there is a problem there in many cases. There may have been further scheduled events for 2:30 (odds are good you're meeting with someone who has lots of meetings, statistically), or whoknows what. The casual approach to time risks having three unrelated meetings that were scheduled to be separate trying to happen all at once.
Whether firm or casual time is abstractly "best" is a hard problem, but when it comes to business effectiveness I don't have a problem saying punctuality is a benefit to getting more stuff done. "What if I don't want more stuff done because even that is an American thing to say?" Well, surely we'd all rather then get our things done so we can hit the bar freely later? And it isn't an American truth that businesses really need to accomplish things to survive and thrive, it's the nature of the Universe we live in, where we must work for our sustenance, however distasteful you may find that.
> We're not talking about imposing a 2pm meeting... we're talking about two people who agreed to a 2pm meeting. (Imposition is something else entirely.)
On the face of it, I agree. However, I think this whole thread is neglecting an important dimension by only mentioning "the" time of the meeting. No one ever expects a person to arrive at the exact instant of the scheduled event. There's an interval implied by "the" time, and it's quite possible that the difference here is in cultural expectations regarding the size of the interval or its placement relative to the stated time (US Military culture, for example, seems to have an implied tolerance of -5 min / +0 min).
It may even be the case that your hypothetical second party thinks the first is a bit quirky for insistently describing the meeting as occurring at a particular time, when it is "obvious" to them that what is meant is "we'll meet this afternoon".
Edit: moving scare quotes ("the time" -> "the" time)
On the face of it, I agree. However, I think this whole thread is neglecting an important dimension by only mentioning "the" time of the meeting. No one ever expects a person to arrive at the exact instant of the scheduled event. There's an interval implied by "the" time, and it's quite possible that the difference here is in cultural expectations regarding the size of the interval or its placement relative to the stated time (US Military culture, for example, seems to have an implied tolerance of -5 min / +0 min).
It may even be the case that your hypothetical second party thinks the first is a bit quirky for insistently describing the meeting as occurring at a particular time, when it is "obvious" to them that what is meant is "we'll meet this afternoon".
Edit: moving scare quotes ("the time" -> "the" time)
This is actually a weird quirk of mine but I try very hard to, if I have a meeting scheduled at e.g. 2pm, to show up at exactly 2pm according to my cell phone, which is more likely to display the same time as their cell phone. Same if I'm visiting somebody's house; if they tell me to show up at 8pm, I'm likely to walk slowly from my car so I can be knocking at their door right as the time switches over from 7:59. Unless they're a very good friend of mine and I'm confident they won't mind me being there early.
The way around this is for people to tell me to show up "around" 8pm or whenever.
I fully recognize that this is something peculiar to myself, and I would never begrudge anybody else for showing up at e.g. 2:04 for a 2pm meeting. But I would definitely apologize for being a few minutes late if I did the same.
The way around this is for people to tell me to show up "around" 8pm or whenever.
I fully recognize that this is something peculiar to myself, and I would never begrudge anybody else for showing up at e.g. 2:04 for a 2pm meeting. But I would definitely apologize for being a few minutes late if I did the same.
Related:
"Michigan Time — The tradition of starting every class, meeting or event 10 minutes late."
http://www.hr.umich.edu/um/um-isms.html
"Michigan Time — The tradition of starting every class, meeting or event 10 minutes late."
http://www.hr.umich.edu/um/um-isms.html
And it isn't an American truth that businesses really need to accomplish things to survive and thrive, it's the nature of the Universe we live in, where we must work for our sustenance, however distasteful you may find that.
It's neither an American truth nor the nature of the Universe, it's a story. Older than America (not the continent nor the people in it, but the idea), to be sure, but not that old. The necessity of work, indeed the celebration of it, is obviously interesting to discuss in the age of automation.
It's neither an American truth nor the nature of the Universe, it's a story. Older than America (not the continent nor the people in it, but the idea), to be sure, but not that old. The necessity of work, indeed the celebration of it, is obviously interesting to discuss in the age of automation.
However, business is different...
...in the West culture.
...in the West culture.
Here's the thing, though. Maybe I don't have a business meeting; maybe I'm supposed to go watch my kid's soccer game and I allotted literally an hour for a fifteen minute meeting, because I know this guy shows up late, and here he is an hour late. Am I supposed to tell the kids to just play soccer an hour early so I can watch the game? Should I miss the game just because this guy can't be bothered to get somewhere on time? Should I allot two hours for a fifteen minute meeting?
At what point does that become less reasonable than expecting other people to show up at the time they agreed to show up?
At what point does that become less reasonable than expecting other people to show up at the time they agreed to show up?
Isn't that exactly the point I made? You mentioned that people who rant about people being late annoy you. You don't have the power to change them, but you can adjust your own action and be on time.
I am not saying you should btw, I am just saying your argument could be interpreted in this way as well.
It's not anger - they have other things to do so they're late, I have other things to do so I can't afford to sit around waiting for an hour. If I'm going over to meet someone, I expect them to be ready, if they tell me it's going to be thirty minutes I'll adjust accordingly. It's the cell phone era, there's no real excuse for not giving someone a heads up if you're going to be late.
You could, but if you were doing that to spite the other then it wouldn't be a very fruitful business relationship.
What if you have another meeting after the scheduled meeting they are late for? Yes, you can do something else during that first hour, but then reschedule the second meeting? Would that require having to tell those that you are meeting with 'can we meet at this time for an hour, and I have another meeting after it, so don't be late?'
If you can't possibly cancel the first meeting, why did you schedule another meeting the same day? What did you expect to happen if the first meeting was delayed?
It's not uncommon for a CEO to have back to back to back to back meetings. 9am, 930am, 1015am, 11am. And then again 2pm, 3pm, 5pm, 6pm. So that's the perspective that americans have.
What you are suggesting, which might work in Spain, is that you schedule a meeting for 10am that might not start until 1230 and then, to be safe, you couldn't schedule another meeting until 330 or 4 and that might not start until 6pm.
That would be a really difficult thing to fold into the way Americans work if you want to get anything done, especially on a startup timeline. You don't have 3 months to talk to 20 potential investors if you are trying to raise money. You have to do that in a week.
What you are suggesting, which might work in Spain, is that you schedule a meeting for 10am that might not start until 1230 and then, to be safe, you couldn't schedule another meeting until 330 or 4 and that might not start until 6pm.
That would be a really difficult thing to fold into the way Americans work if you want to get anything done, especially on a startup timeline. You don't have 3 months to talk to 20 potential investors if you are trying to raise money. You have to do that in a week.
See also “Does Language Shape Thought” by Boroditsky, which discusses how perceptions of time are adjusted based on roots in language.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028501...
It appears to be emergent turtles all the way down...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028501...
It appears to be emergent turtles all the way down...
It's more like everyone applies some sort of implicit linear transformation to the scheduled times, so that everyone is late by approximately the same amount.
That, and we don't plan for anything immediately after the meeting. ;-)
it's not laziness, it's lack of respect (for other people/other people's time)
Why sit and twiddle your thumbs for an hour (increasingly becoming upset with your business partner) when you can whip out your laptop and get some work done instead? Or your cell phone to talk with the family/friends?
Maybe I'm OCD but I really hate starting work with the expectation of soon being interrupted.
I'm the same way. It's not really meaningful work but just whatever you can do to pass the time. My mind doesn't context switch that greatly so when I'm in "Let's slow down and talk this out" mode, I'm absolutely not in "Leave me alone I have to solve world hunger" mode. They're typically mutually exclusive.
Ok fine, don't do work, maybe read the paper or do the other boring things you plan on doing every day?
Sketch out a new idea perhaps? Daydream? Read the paper? Or your favorite blog? It's not "wasted time".
All I am saying is it's not the end of the world that somebody is "late". And that having free time isn't a burden if you know what to do with it.
Sketch out a new idea perhaps? Daydream? Read the paper? Or your favorite blog? It's not "wasted time".
All I am saying is it's not the end of the world that somebody is "late". And that having free time isn't a burden if you know what to do with it.
Why anything that comes to your mind to do in that situation has to be "work"?
Because in America, publicly enjoying unplanned leisure is taboo.
I've been living in America (East Coast, Bay Area) for the last 54 years, and I don't recognize the America described in about half of the HN comments I've seen recently (including this comment).
That's not something you could perceive by looking at the general public.
That's something you can learn by being involved in the north american corporate workforce.
When I took my very first job at mcdonalds I was told "If you've got time to lean, you've got time to clean."
That work ethic is very prominent in american culture.
If you're not working, you're not achieving your full potential. And that needs to stop.
That's something you can learn by being involved in the north american corporate workforce.
When I took my very first job at mcdonalds I was told "If you've got time to lean, you've got time to clean."
That work ethic is very prominent in american culture.
If you're not working, you're not achieving your full potential. And that needs to stop.
When you put it that way, I guess I agree.
It's possible to be both laid-back and punctual
I'm sure it is, but I have ever met anyone who I would describe using both of those words.
I'm sure it is, but I have ever met anyone who I would describe using both of those words.
>> "Maybe it's my Western bias speaking..."
Unfortunately, it is...
Unfortunately, it is...
Yes it is...
if in the culture it is accepted that time is a continum.. following your example if both person agree at 12...and one of them arrivew at 1..the one that arrives later may look like "jerk" as you call it.
But what happens if one person arrived at 12:30 and the other at 12:40? Eventhough the meeting was at 12?? Are both jerks??
Minute accurate precision is a Western phenomena derived from the industrial revolution... where humans had to adapt to the machine...
in other cultures where the industrial revolution started later.... time is perceived more like a continuum... or a band.. so 12.. means anything beteween 12 - 12:30 Evening means around 6 or 7... and next week means never
But what happens if the same couple meets again and now the one that arrives later is the Other person?
But what happens if one person arrived at 12:30 and the other at 12:40? Eventhough the meeting was at 12?? Are both jerks??
Minute accurate precision is a Western phenomena derived from the industrial revolution... where humans had to adapt to the machine...
in other cultures where the industrial revolution started later.... time is perceived more like a continuum... or a band.. so 12.. means anything beteween 12 - 12:30 Evening means around 6 or 7... and next week means never
But what happens if the same couple meets again and now the one that arrives later is the Other person?
Care to back that up?
See my extended reply above, it gives a hint of what you're missing.
Yes, all this cultural relativity is just wonderful. Kumbaya.
Except, who walked on the Moon, and who didn't?
Except, who walked on the Moon, and who didn't?
That's only valuable if you prefer walking on the moon rather than looking at the moon in rapture.
I prefer having my children live to old age because of vaccines and farms. I prefer worrying about my weight rather than where my next meal will come from. I prefer being able to communicate with people around the world at the speed of light rather than the folks in my village. I prefer hot and cold running (and clean) water.
And I can still gaze in rapture upon the rocky sphere held in the sky by chains of gravitation.
And I can still gaze in rapture upon the rocky sphere held in the sky by chains of gravitation.
Who says you need to "plan to discover vaccine at 11:30pm" to achieve all that?
Whenever someone finds a fault with the American way of doing things, there's always someone that shouts "but we're the most technologically advanced country on earth!", and the sound of people screaming "hurdur!" deafens everyone.
No wonder Americans stick to the imperial system.
No wonder Americans stick to the imperial system.
Well, you didn't
Now that I read the article, it put the words in my mouth. I value encounters, discussions, meeting someone and time has not much to say in there. If someone has to leave because of his/her schedules, it does leave me with the feeling of business unfinished.
I don't have a calendar and I try to avoid meetings, just because something more important usually turns up at the same time and also because the meeting will typically run short and discussion is left unfinished, which makes me think of it as time wasted. I'd rather skip the next meeting if I can connect with the people in the first meeting, and drive things to a closure or properly finish the discussion.
I als o don't mind if someone's late because I consider it more much valuable if s/he turns up anyway and is ready for an in-depth discussion. Conversely, if I didn't really pay attention, I'd be late to everything, thinking that no matter what time, let's discuss the things once we're here now.