bsD
⤶ NEWSFEED
Monochronic Time vs. Prioritized Time
15 October 2022
(article review)
In an essay published on Substack, Anne Helen Petersen suggests making greater space for “polychronic time” in our lives instead of “monochronic time”. These are fancy ways of saying “natural time” (which doesn’t focus on any task in particular and does not seek to maximize any particular goal) vs. classic corporate calendar culture (which focuses on one task and maximizing time-money).
The article is at times a bit heavy-handed with its social agenda and repetition of the leitmotif that monochronic time was created by “The Man” (in a corporate sense) and Man (in a gendered sense) as an agent of his subjugation. Since her article is an opinion piece and not scientific research, it is irrelevant whether or not we agree with this conclusion ; we can however readily concur that corporate calendar culture is not adapted to the pace of our private lives (at least the pace that our bodies and brains would naturally have us live them).
Although the essay is well-worded and full of practical examples, it spends most of its space exposing “the misery of monochronic time” without comparing the pros and cons of polychronic time. It suggests that academics refuse to use shared calendars as a “power play” or to carve out a space for themselves in which they can enjoy the benefits of their “life of the mind”, although we can think of a third reason from personal experience : to avoid the data protection and privacy shortcomings of the most popular shared calendar applications. The article ends with a wish list of considerations that an alternative to calendar culture should integrate, but it doesn’t propose such an alternative.
We would like to suggest an approach that works very well for us both in the office and at home that could be called “Prioritized Time”. This method (which we integrated into our proprietary time management software) allows for several tasks to flow concurrently (as in the polychronic model) and are fed by highest priority into a “now space” which focuses only on the currently most important tasks. Tasks in the “now space” are dealt with individually, and can take as much time as they need to properly mature without further scheduling (as in the monochronic model). The realities of Client deadlines complicate this a bit (one of the reasons software helps), but generally our method is to ensure that everyone is always focusing on the most important tasks, while accepting the fact that some tasks cannot or should not be completed in one day. Taking breaks and resting are extremely important for creative (legal) work, so these also have high priority and periodically bubble to the top of the now space.
We recommend Ms. Petersen’s essay as an enjoyable read that – even with its background agenda – provides ample food for thought and introspection for all of us.