While doing some behind-the-napkin research, I stumbled on a Wikipedia article on time and was shocked about the multi-dimensional nature of time and how much an emotionless time can say about each of us. This article is a copious extraction of that article. Through the time prism, we can study cultures, power, personalities, behavioural influences, nations and national business systems, respect, our perspective to life and business, communication and the like. If a hastag was to be created for this article it is #TimeTalks and the question is this: “What does it say about us and our ways?

Non-verbal Time
The afore-referenced Wikipedia article went off like this: “Chronemics is the study of the use of time in non-verbal communication. The way that an individual would perceive and value time, structure and react to time, is a powerful communication tool, and helps set the stage for the communication process. Across cultures, time perception plays a large role in the non-verbal communication process.” Another definition is, “Chronemics is the study of the role of time in communication. It is one of several sub categories of the study of non-verbal communication. Other prominent sub categories include haptics (touch), kinesics (body movement), vocalics (paralanguage), and proxemics (the use of space).” – Wikipedia.

Time perceptions include punctuality, willingness to wait, and interactions. The use of time can affect lifestyles, daily agendas, speed of speech, movements, and how long people are willing to listen. Time can also be used as an indicator of status. For example, in most companies, the boss can interrupt progress to hold an impromptu meeting in the middle of the work day, yet the average worker would have to make an appointment to see the boss. The way different cultures perceive time can influence communication as well. Cultures are usually put into two-time system categories: mono-chronic and poly-chronic.
Mono-chronic and Poly-chronic societies

“Mono-chronic and poly-chronic time systems are two terms used to refer to time and its influence on society. A mono-chronic time system means that things are done one at a time and time is segmented into precise, small units. Under this system, time is scheduled, arranged and managed.
[ad]
The United States is considered a monochronic society. This perception of time is learned and rooted in the Industrial Revolution, where “factory life required the labor force to be on hand and in place at an appointed hour.” (Guerrero et al) For Americans, time is a precious resource not to be wasted or taken lightly. “We buy time, save time,spend time and make time. Our time can be broken down into years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds and even milliseconds. We use time to structure both our daily lives and events that we are planning for the future. We have schedules that we must follow: appointments that we must go to at a certain time, classes that start and end at certain times, work schedules that start and end at certain times, and even our favorite TV shows, that start and end at a certain time.”

As communication scholar Edward T. Hall wrote regarding the American’s viewpoint of time in the business world, “the schedule is sacred.” Hall says that for mono-chronic cultures, such as the American culture, “time is tangible” and viewed as a commodity where “time is money” or “time is wasted.” The result of this perspective is that Americans and other mono-chronic cultures, such as the German and Swiss, place a paramount value on schedules, tasks and “getting the job done.” These cultures are committed to regimented schedules and may view those who do not subscribe to the same perception of time as disrespectful. Mono-chronic cultures include Germany, United Kingdom, Turkey, South Korea, Japan, Jamaica, Canada, Switzerland, United States, and Scandinavia.” (Wikipedia)
Poly-chronic Time “people”

A poly-chronic time system is a system where several things can be done at once, and a more fluid approach is taken to scheduling time. Unlike Americans and most northern and western European cultures, Latin American, African, Asian and Arabic cultures use the poly-chronic system of time.

These cultures are much less focused on the preciseness of accounting for each and every moment. As Raymond Cohen notes, poly-chronic cultures are deeply steeped in tradition and relationships rather than in tasks—a clear difference from their mono-chronic counterparts. Cohen notes that “Traditional societies have all the time in the world.

The arbitrary divisions of the clock face have little saliency in cultures grounded in the cycle of the seasons, the invariant pattern of rural life, community life, and the calendar of religious festivities.” Instead, their culture is more focused on relationships, rather than watching the clock. They have no problem being “late” for an event if they are with family or friends, because the relationship is what really matters. As a result, those with poly-chronic culture share a less formal perception of time. They are not ruled by precise calendars and schedules. Rather, “cultures that use the poly-chronic time system often schedule multiple appointments simultaneously, so keeping on schedule is an impossibility.” Poly-chronic cultures include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China, Mexico, New Orleans, Philippines, Pakistan, India, and many in Africa.

The Effect of Cultural Roots on Time Orientation
The Wikipedia article continues, “Just as mono-chronic and poly-chronic cultures have different time perspectives, understanding the time orientation of a culture is critical to becoming better able to successfully handle diplomatic situations. Americans, for instance have a future orientation. Hall indicates that for Americans, “tomorrow is more important” and, they “are oriented almost entirely toward the future.” The future-focused orientation attributes to at least some of the concern that Americans have with “addressing immediate issues and moving on to new challenges.”
[ad]
On the other hand, many poly-chronic cultures have a past-orientation toward time.
These time perspectives are the seeds for communication clashes in diplomatic situations. Trade negotiators have observed that “American negotiators are generally more anxious for agreement because “they are always in a hurry” and, basically, “problem solving oriented.” In other words, they place a high value on resolving an issue quickly, calling to mind the American catch phrase – “some solution is better than no solution” (Cohen, 2004, p. 114). Similar observations have been made ofJapanese-American relations. Noting the difference in time perceptions between the two countries, former ambassador toTokyo, Mike Mansfield commented “We’re too fast, they’re too slow”.

Time and Power Interplay at Work
Time has a definite relationship to power. Though power most often refers to the ability to influence people, power is also related to dominance and status. In the workplace, those in a leadership or management position treat time differently – and by virtue of position – have their time treated differently than those who are of a lower status. Anderson and Bowman have identified three specific examples of how chronemics and power converge in the workplace – waiting time, talk time and work time.

• Waiting Time – the act of making an individual of a lower stature wait is a sign of dominance. They note that one who “is in the position to cause another to wait has power over him.To be kept waiting is to imply that one’s time is less valuable than that of the one who imposes the wait. Employees of equal stature will not worry about whether they are running a few minutes behind schedule to meet with one another. On the other hand, for a mid-level manager who has a meeting with the company president, a late arrival might be a non-verbal cue that you do not respect the authority of your superior.

• Talk Time – there is a direct correlation between the power of an individual in an organization and conversation. This includes both length of conversation, turn-taking and who initiates and ends a conversation. Extensive research indicates that those with more power in an organization will speak more often and for a greater length of time. Meetings between superiors and subordinates provide an opportunity to illustrate this concept. A superior – regardless of whether or not they are running the actual meeting– leads discussions, asks questions and has the ability to speak for longer periods of time without interruption. Likewise, research shows that turn-taking is also influenced by power.

Social psychologist Nancy Henley notes that “Subordinates are expected to yield to superiors and there is a cultural expectation that a subordinate will not interrupt a superior.” The length of response follows the same pattern. While the superior can speak for as long as they want, the responses of the subordinate are shorter in length. Albert Mehrabian noted that deviation from this pattern led to negative perceptions of the subordinate by the superior. Beginning and ending a communication interaction in the workplace is also controlled by the higher-status individual in an organization. The time and duration of the conversation are dictated by the higher-status individual.
[ad]
• Work Time – it is not likely that you will ever see a president or a high-level executive punching a time clock. Their time is perceived as more valuable and they control their own time. On the other hand, a subordinate with less power has their time controlled by a higher status individual and are in less control of their time – making them likely to report their time to a higher authority.

Such practices are more associated with those in non-supervisory roles or in blue collar rather than white collar professions.Instead, as power and status of an individual in an organization increases, so does the flexibility of the work schedule. For instance,while administrative professionals might keep a 9 to 5 work schedule, their superiors may keep less structured hours. This does not mean that the superior works less. They may work longer, but the structure of their work environment is not strictly dictated by the traditional work day. Instead, as Koehler and their associates note, “individuals who spend more time, especially spare time, to meetings, to committees, and to developing contacts, are more likely to be influential decision makers.

What does Time and Scheduling say to us?
A specific example of the way power is expressed through work time is scheduling. As Yakura and others have noted in research shared by Ballard and Seibold, “scheduling reflects the extent to which the sequencing and duration of plans, activities and events are formalized.” Higher-status individuals have very precise and formal schedules – indicating that their stature requires that they have specific blocks of time for specific meetings, projects and appointments. Lower status individuals however, may have less formalized schedules. Finally, the schedule and appointment calendar of the higher status individual will take precedence in determining where, when and the importance of a specific event or appointment. In a world where socio-economic borders continue to blend out, one in which technology is allowing more collaboration across nations, an understanding that time isn’t “just time” would definitely better equip us to display more acceptable behaviours and to slide in and out of one time- orientation with the dynamism provided by enlightenment.