Perspective on Time: Scarce-Plentiful
Is the orientation to the use of time urgent or relaxed?
People from societies near the Scarce pole treat time as a limited resource that must be used efficiently. They prefer to spend time purposefully and with intensity. There is a sense that every minute counts. They also prefer to go about their tasks sequentially, working toward the future from the present.
Managers in the U.S. are inculcated with the strong value that time is money and must be used as efficiently as any other resource. Managers continuously bemoan wasted time: “I don’t have anything to show what I accomplished today”; “Time just flew by and I never got to do any real work.” Meetings, particularly, take a great deal of abuse, because getting together to socialize, exchange information, and resolve issues is not considered real work.
In the U.S., a whole industry has grown up around time-management systems and formal training programs on using time effectively. Thus, people cultivate the illusion that they are controlling time when, in fact, time seems to be controlling them.
People from societies near the Plentiful pole think of time as infinitely available. Timelines and deadlines are seen as an expression of intent, not commitment. There is always a tomorrow. They prefer a life that evolves from the moment and allows for multiple and simultaneous involvements with the people and opportunities around them.
In cultures where agrarian traditions have continued until recently, time is dealt with quite differently and is not perceived as scarce. “When God made time you must remember he made a lot of it” is an old Scottish saying, and “Time is an endless river” to some. Therefore, time can be “wasted” without guilt.
These values affect the following preferences.
The precise use of time. A concomitant of modern industrialization is a unique view of time and a special way of using it. Getting work done in organizations in a way that meets the needs of internal technology and external markets requires coordination. The essence of coordination is regulating time and interlocking various activities by the clock-beat of schedules. Time is thus the primary mechanism by which organizations become organized.
For U.S. managers, appointment times and schedules are often sacrosanct. Efficiency requires precision. Thus, there is an abruptness and choppiness about interaction, a compulsion to quickly get to the business at hand, to have one’s life ruled by the clock. Keeping to the schedule, even though it may be self-imposed, is considered very important. The pace of a manager’s life is set by the clock and the schedule almost as much as the pace of an assembly-line worker’s life.
In countries where time is elastic, specific appointment times are often more wish than reality. Looseness about schedules can be observed in the countries of southern Europe. This can reach extremes, of course, as in Latin America, where one frequently hears, “If not today, then tomorrow or the next day. No hurry.”
The linear use of time. U.S. managers also have been taught to be very linear and to sequence interactions—one thing at a time. It is considered impolite to take a call from A while talking with B or to speak with both at once on different subjects or to be observing the factory floor while talking to a supervisor.
In other cultures it is not unusual to see a manager engaged in several diverse activities at the same time. Managers may hold several small meetings simultaneously—talking to one person on the phone and to another who is standing in the office doorway. These managers see no need to string out these interactions in separate segments. Further, the sequence of what gets done is also in flux.
It is likely that the profound coordination requirements of modern technologies and fast-paced organizational events require the ability to cope simultaneously with a number of people and issues. The one-thing-at-a-time approach may not only be too slow but also do an injustice to the true complexity of the problems of running an organization.
Past, present, and future. In many Southeast Asian countries, as well as China and Japan, great value is placed on the past and on the continuities of life. Symbols that represent the past are very much in use. Ancestors are revered, as are senior members of the organization or the family. At the same time these countries may be very forward-looking technically and commercially.
In the mobile U.S. society, people are always leaving their roots behind, literally and figuratively. Life in organizations in the U.S. is very much oriented to the present and future. Many U.S. managers are anxious to remove reminders of the work of previous leaders. There is little respect for the antecedents of their own rule and not much more respect for the past or tradition.
Experienced U.S. managers who have worked in Japan are impressed with how change is handled there. In the U.S. there is a tendency to start from scratch by throwing out the old and installing the new. The Japanese are more likely to perceive the new as building on the old, not replacing it.