Perception of Time
Studies in chronemics reinforce intercultural studies that
have found differences in the polychronic and monochronic perception and uses
of time. A “polychronic” perception of time is one in which events are not sharply
or sequentially distinguished and multiple events can be seen as happening at
the same time. A “monochronic” perception is one that analytically separates
and sequences events. The immediate implication is that time is not only a
matter of how events are perceived, sequenced, and completed; it is also a
matter of how people regard relationships across time.
Time may also be more generally associated with the degree
to which a culture or society can be described as “slow” or “fast” (see also
Levine and Norenzayan 1999) and is sometimes viewed as a commodity that some people
have “more” of than others. Time may be compressed by greater urgency of
deadlines and obligations, thus, time and urgency have been associated more
with individualistic societies in which the combination of fast pace and
diminished social support is likely to contribute to higher levels of burnout
and stress (see again Levine and Norenzayan 1999).
Finally, time is typically organized according to different
needs and contexts, all the more so in industrialized societies where clearer
distinctions tend to be drawn between leisure time, formal or institutional
time, and technical or scientific time.
Time as an aspect of cultural life is of interest both
because of the observed variations in the meanings attributed to time across
cultures — its speed, passage, and meaning; and our location in the past,
present, or future — and because of the relationship between increasingly
global time regimes and the persistence of local perceptions of time. The
things we have in common, such as the passage of time, aging, seasons, and
diurnal rhythms, also separate us by virtue of the ways in which we live as
much in the perception of time as in the reality.11 Thus, it seems inevitable
that the social practices of bargaining, dialogue, and negotiation are shaped
by the actors’ experiences of time. Just as isolating culture as a key variable
in shaping negotiations can be risky, seeking to isolate and define the impact
of cultural perceptions of time on negotiation poses its own challenges.
Although time is just one thread in the web of culture, perceptions of time
have been regularly identified in studies of the dimensions of cultural
difference; and topics examined have included aspects of time likely to be
relevant to Western negotiators, such as punctuality. As Guy Olivier Faure and
Jeffrey Rubin wrote,
“Cross-cultural differences in the understanding of time
also may disturb the process of negotiation. In the West time is conceived of
as something akin to a commodity in limited supply; just like a good, it can be
saved, wasted, controlled, or organized. In contrast, in the Near East time is
not a phenomenon characterized by scarcity. As a result, disparate conceptions
of time may complicate the important task of respecting the general time frame of
the deadlines established for a particular negotiation (Faure and Rubin 1993:
11).”
Similarly, Richard Brislin and Tomoko Yoshida (1994) also
noted differences between cultures in perceptions of punctuality. How time is
perceived across cultures is given more substance in the analysis of Fons
Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner (1997), who approached the question from
the point of view of business management and negotiation. The idea of clock time,
which was introduced to the working masses in the industrialized West during
the Industrial Revolution, enshrined punctuality as a social value and made the
uniform standardization of the length of the paid working day possible.
Globalization now seems to be extending that “work day” — technology makes it
possible to be “plugged-in” twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week; one is
often expected to be available to clients and customers at work in another time
zone, even if one is “off the clock” (Goudsblom 2001). Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner
(1997) argue, however, that these developments have not completely eliminated
nonindustrial perceptions of time and the distinctions we may draw between
formal and informal time and between work and leisure time (see also Goudsblom
2001). Time retains certain symbolic and cultural values that still challenge
and occasionally subvert the imperatives of globalization. Indeed, the Slow Food
Movement may be an indicator of growing resistance to the imperious clock time
of the “24/7” and “always-on” world.
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner further distinguish cultural
perceptions of time as either sequential or synchronic. In synchronic cultures,
time involves the management of multiple activities and interchangeable sequences,
and punctuality competes with other cultural values, such as relationships,
obligations, and hierarchy. Such cultures tend to be simultaneously more
communitarian and particularist. Status tends to be based more on ascription or
on collectively conferred or inherited status and “durable characteristics”
(1997: 132) such as gender or age rather than of “achieved” or more
individually attained status. In sequential cultures, on the other hand, time
is metaphorically perceived as a line, the ordering of time is “efficient,”
punctuality is given prime value, and time is a limited commodity. Sequential
cultures tend to be more instrumental in their attitudes toward relationships;
the present activity is viewed as a means of achieving future goals, status is
more fragile and performance-based, and connections can be discarded for
personal gain.
Several points may be taken from this analysis. Bearing in
mind the risks of generalizations about national types, influential, (if
unconscious) time-related values seem to shape intercultural communications.
And these perceptions can be expected to affect relationships. Finally,
differences in behaviors related to timekeeping, prioritizing, task completion,
and punctuality that can cause actors in negotiation to judge each other
negatively may arise from differences in their underlying cultural perceptions
of time.
Time, of course, is often itself an issue to be negotiated
or a source of conflict to be resolved, affecting perceptions of what good
outcomes might be and of how long the negotiation process should take. This is
true not only when the substance of the negotiations concerns matters of history
but also when issues of time have a commercial impact (for capitalists, for
example, “time is money”). At the very least, the recognition that there may be
competing perceptions of the meaning of time and history should alert
negotiators to the potentially disruptive impact of these perceptions and to
the opportunity to develop common bases for goal setting and task-orientation.
Richard Brislin and Eugene Kim (2003) provided an analysis
of ten aspects of time in which they distinguished between the perceived
flexibility of time and the pace of time. Flexibility encompasses punctuality, clock
time versus event time, the overlaps between work and social time, and
polychronic/synchronic distinction. These distinctions are typically unarticulated
and unconscious: most of us, if asked, would not consciously consider that in
making arrangements to meet, for example, there may be a difference between a
literal time (“8:30 P.M.”) and a broadly defined event (“dinner”).
Under the category of pace, Brislin and Kim (2003) placed
attitudes toward waiting and queues; patience or impatience about (perceived) delays;
orientations to the past, present, and future; the symbolic or metaphoric value
of time; and perceptions about the “efficient” use of time. Interestingly, they
also suggested that this category includes an aspect of behavior directly
related to the mechanics of negotiation: one’s degree of comfort with long
silences. A negotiator’s discomfort with such silences can reveal his or her
preference to “use” time efficiently and move the negotiation along in a timely
manner rather than accepting that the pace of events is other than — and
probably slower than — she or he might prefer. In the Pacific Islands, for
example, respect is accorded to a negotiation counterpart if an intervention or
suggestion is followed by silence, which indicates that the suggestion is being
considered. A negotiator unfamiliar with this convention risks filling the
apparent gaps with further explanations or unnecessary verbiage.
In a negotiation, implicit attitudes about time can affect
the pace of the conversation, the degree to which the apparently available
(i.e., “scheduled”) time is filled with activities that are perceived as
extraneous or irrelevant (social conversation, meals), and the setting of
priorities. Parties with different cultural attitudes toward time will accord
different priorities to the kinds of activities and small talk that may be
necessary for building a negotiation relationship.
0 comments