I became ‘a morning person’ (a lark) when I was juggling an executive role, family commitments, and post-grad study. For me, the best time to concentrate on complex thinking and writing was before the household stirred. Others find that they are night owls, and their best thinking is after 8.00 pm.

Whether we identify as a ‘lark’ or an ‘owl’ is only one of the ways chronotypes (temporal dispositions) are categorised.

This post reflects on some of the ways our temporal disposition (or temperament*) influences our work patterns and interactions with others, who may not align with our preferred ‘awake and alert’ times of the day. It also touches on some other ‘psychology of time’ perspectives, which may also influence the way we get things done or work together.
*Temperament refers to an individual’s inherent behavioral and emotional traits.

Chronotypes

The two main chronotypes developed to characterise sleep/wake pattern preferences and cultural dispositions towards time are:

• monochronic (time is linear and precise to support getting things done); and
• polychronic (time is flexible and more emphasis is placed on ‘being’ than ‘doing’).

Some additional features of these two main chronotypes are highlighted in the chart below.

While chronotype categories could be used to characterise distinctions between preferences within a culture, they are also used to broadly characterise the preferences of different cultures. These may be a factor in certain workplaces with employees from diverse cultures, however, the risk of over-generalising and stereotyping needs to be avoided.

Yet another typology is illustrated in the header chart above. In this model (sometimes used by psychologists), four chronotypes (lions, dolphins, bears, and wolves) elaborate the characteristics associated with different sleep/wake pattern preferences. This typology focuses less on preferences for linear or quality time, and more on morningness (larks) and eveningness (owls).

Mythology and time

The monochronic and polychronic perspectives have been recognised by different names and in different ways over the centuries. In Greek mythology, the two main time gods were Chronos and Kairos.

Chronos is associated with ‘clock time’, hence words like chronology, chronicle, chronometer, chronic, synchronicity, and anachronistic, convey some sense of time being measured, and moving in one linear (monochronic) direction.

Kairos on the other hand is associated with the perfect, or opportune, moment – or in other words ‘the right time’. In the chart below we see Kairos balancing a set of scales on a razor resting on a single finger. He has wings and winged feet, suggesting that he moves quickly. He also has a long forelock but is otherwise bald. If he were to run in your direction you could only seize him by the forelock, because once he has run past you, there’s nothing to grab onto. (Note: the historical expression ‘to take time by the forelock’ is taken to mean ‘to seize an opportunity’). Given the focus on time quality here, Kairos may express a polychronic disposition.

Temporal biases

Beyond ‘time of day’ preferences, several temporal biases are common in board rooms and workplaces. These biases can cause significant problems in your decision-making and oversight roles, so it’s worth understanding them and taking appropriate steps to eliminate or mitigate them.

They may not justify being highlighted in your risk inventory, but they are real, and each of those listed in the chart below could be quite consequential if left unchecked.

Temporal perspectives

A selection of temporal perspectives and concepts is offered in the following chart, with some able to be held as equally true or valid, and others representing a preference for one amongst several options.

The perspectives listed here further demonstrate the pervasive nature of temporal considerations in everything we do.

Philip Zimbardo‘s book ‘The Time Paradox: The New Psychology of Time That Will Change Your Life‘, co-authored with John Boyd, highlights additional time-related psychological problems that some of us encounter. It also points to a set of paradoxes (or paradoxa for our Latin scholars). These are described, along with a set of six main time perspectives (yet another chronotypology), which refer to past, present, and future orientations (as distinct from sleep/wake timing preferences).

Zimbardo and Boyd offer valuable insights into various psychological aspects of time perception, and how our attitudes towards time influence our behaviour, decision-making, and well-being.

This is not a ‘time and motion’ productivity resource, yet understanding the dynamics of a range of time perspectives in our workplaces may prove highly beneficial to the creation and maintenance of more harmonious environments. That in turn is likely to provide a stronger foundation on which to build an efficient and effective organisation.

Summing up

Understanding and managing individual ‘time temperaments’ can enhance team dynamics. Acknowledging the diversity of temporal temperaments in our boardrooms and team meetings may bring a more balanced perspective to decision-making.

As with other aspects of temperament, awareness of ‘temporal temperament’ can aid in conflict resolution. Board and team members can navigate disagreements more effectively by considering each other’s perspectives and finding common ground. Effective temperament management can positively influence the organisation’s culture, and this, in turn, affects employee morale, engagement, and productivity.

See also:
Fusing experience and expectation in decision-making
‘Time is of the essence’: Temporal factors in NFP productivity and efficiency