Polychronic Meetings

Anthropologist Edward Twitchell Hall, Jr. (1914-2009) developed fundamental concepts for describing how we experience space and time. [Hall 1920] He introduced the concepts of monochronic time and polychronic time, which are two different ways human cultures relate to time. People and groups with a monochronic orientation (M-People) are more comfortable undertaking only one task at a time, in a linear sequence. When M-People must tackle more than one task in an hour, they divide the hour into blocks, each dedicated to one task. When groups of M-People must work on multiple tasks at once, they divide into subgroups focused on one task at a time.

People and groups with a polychronic orientation (P-People) regard time more in terms of tasks than in terms of clocks or calendars. For example, on farms, time is defined by what's happening. Examples: it's time for planting, for harvest, for haying, for milking, or for breakfast. More than one thing can be happening at any given time.

In meetings of M-People, only one person has the floor at a time. M-People address their agenda items one by one. After they deal with an agenda item, they don't return. (Well, they do sometimes return, but they aren't comfortable when they do) A meeting of P-People might have several people talking at once, bouncing from topic to topic as the discussion requires. M-People are uncomfortable in P-style meetings; P-People are similarly uncomfortable in M-style meetings.

Most advice about effective meetings is M-style advice: have an agenda, schedule all items, avoid sidebars, and the like. But M-style meetings work well only when we understand the issues well, and we know where each discussion might lead. Unfortunately, the universe doesn't always work like that, especially in technical emergencies. Just as there's a place for monochronic meetings, there?s also a place for polychronic meetings. Here are some indicators of the need to adopt a polychronic orientation.

Many people want to speak

If many people want to speak, a single-threaded discussion is probably unworkable. Consider reconfiguring the meeting as a set of fluid caucuses, organized around the issues of interest, with people free to move from caucus to caucus as they wish or as they're needed. For face-to-face meetings, a single large room works best. For virtual meetings, you'll need additional virtual environments, one for each caucus. After 15 minutes or so, reconvene to determine if things have settled down.

There's debate about agenda order

When people disagree Polychronic meetings can be
daunting for people accustomed
only to monochronic meetingsabout the order of the items in the meeting, it's possible that there is agenda tangle: A depends on B depends on C depends on A, for example. If so, there is no correct order. Stop debating the order, and break into fluid caucuses, as above.

Unexpected agenda tangles crop up repeatedly

At times, people will be comfortable with a linear agenda, and the tangles and dependency loops among the agenda items won't become clear until discussion is underway. When dependencies have emerged, and the agenda begins to break down, abandon it. Reconfigure the meeting as fluid caucuses to explore those dependencies and to separate out any topics that can be addressed in a monochronic meeting first. When that work is pushed as far as possible, work on what's left in a polychronic format as above.

Polychronic meetings can be daunting for people accustomed only to monochronic meetings. Keep them short, and try polychronic formats for the first time in a nonemergency context.  Top    Next Issue

Do you spend your days scurrying from meeting to meeting? Do you ever wonder if all these meetings are really necessary? (They aren't) Or whether there isn't some better way to get this work done? (There is) Read 101 Tips for Effective Meetings to learn how to make meetings much more productive and less stressful — and a lot more rare. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Effective Meetings:

What Haven't I Told You?

When a project team hits a speed bump, it often learns that it had all the information it needed to avoid the problem, sometimes months in advance of uncovering it. Here's a technique for discovering this kind of knowledge more systematically.

Irrational Self-Interest

When we try to influence others, especially large groups or entire companies, we sometimes create packages of incentives and disincentives that are intended to affect behavior. These strategies usually assume that people make choices on rational grounds. Is this assumption valid?

TINOs: Teams in Name Only

Perhaps the most significant difference between face-to-face teams and virtual or distributed teams is their potential to develop from workgroups into true teams — an area in which virtual or distributed teams are at a decided disadvantage. Often, virtual and distributed teams are teams in name only.

Effects of Shared Information Bias: I

Shared information bias is the tendency for group discussions to emphasize what everyone already knows. It's widely believed to lead to bad decisions. But it can do much more damage than that.

I Could Be Wrong About That

Before we make joint decisions at work, we usually debate the options. We come together to share views, and then a debate ensues. Some of these debates turn out well, but too many do not. Allowing for the fact that "I could be wrong" improves outcomes.

See also Effective Meetings and Virtual and Global Teams for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming October 5: Downscoping Under Pressure: I

When projects overrun their budgets and/or schedules, we sometimes "downscope" to save time and money. The tactic can succeed — and fail. Three common anti-patterns involve politics, the sunk cost effect, and cognitive biases that distort estimates. Available here and by RSS on October 5.

And on October 12: Downscoping Under Pressure: II

We sometimes "downscope" projects to bring them back on budget and schedule when they're headed for overruns. Downscoping doesn't always work. Cognitive biases like the sunk cost effect and confirmation bias can distort decisions about how to downscope. Available here and by RSS on October 12.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendbTtLLSVlUPPCNkAner@ChacthFxWKdRwnLylOCDoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info