The reading this week really sparked an interest and introspection in me that was never really there before. We talked about time preference, and the differences between Hall's m-time and p-time. He says that these two systems really don't mesh well. The issue that confused me was the he followed with the idea that companies benefit from a greater use of p-time, but can't function without m-time. There's a pretty basic contradiction here that I think exists in most people as well.
People feel safe when they have guidelines. This want of safety can help explain how m-time helps many people prefer to keep at least some semblance of m-time in their lives, even if they work primarily by p-time. This bit of m-time also helps keep people at least modestly productive. I've found that if I give myself a block of time to do a number of things, I'll be more productive with a set deadline for them than without. This works even if it's as simple as "I want to wake up, shower, eat breakfast, and be at the National Mall by 2 pm." If I don't have a deadline, then the trip doesn't happen, without fail. This methodology, as Hull finds, is prevalent in Southern Europe, which gives great insights into their culture.
Contrast this with a primarily m-time culture where there is little room for p-time. In a culture where m-time is the norm, schedules are strict. This too can be a massive drain on productivity, because then tasks that might simply need a bit more work are left incomplete for another time. This, like the issue of fully-p-time situations, can be remedied by compromise. If a primarily m-time culture were to build its schedules with time flexibility between events then it can allow for time overruns or early completions. I've seen this work as well. If I schedule a day full of productive activity, with strict deadlines for each event I end up losing focus if I miss any deadline. By building flex time between activities, say 15 minutes longer than I thought something would take, it makes achieving the goals easier, and more enjoyable. Since m-time is so prevalent in the Western business world, I would say that some p-time might help make many businesses more productive and lower employee burnout rates.
In summary, I both agree and disagree with Hull. His opinion that m and p times are inherently contradictory is sound, but I feel here is room for compromise. By mixing the two in proper balance found through trial and error a person or group could make themselves more productive and/or happier.
Nick
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with you about the productivity ‘feeling’ that goes along with m-time. But as for integrating p and m-time, it gets tricky. I agree with you and Hall that they are incompatible but maybe you’re right and there’s room for a balance. Perhaps a new time organizational method will be formed that creates a m-time ‘business day’ and a p-time social lifestyle.
ReplyDeletecomment by tallia deljou:
ReplyDeleteNick,
I also think it is important to realize what aspects of our lives run on p time and what aspects run on m time, for I do think we do run on both in different situations. In relation to p-time, it is obvious that there are always many things going on at once when it comes to social aspects of society, for example. Our computer screens are dominated by e-mail, facebook, ichat, and skype all at one time. On the other hand, we are also monochronic when it comes to having a set of general tasks for school, yet having to meet a defined deadline. The integration of these two are not easy; one must recognize what aspects go with what organization of time.