"Time" is perhaps the most underestimated topic at present. Years ago, people mainly focused on time management. Ultimately, it was about controlling time. And it is no coincidence that time is one of the most challenging topics for physicists and philosophers. Economists still underestimate the complexity of the subject.
One important aspect of zeitgebers is that they are naturally connected to circadian rhythms, where human beings do not intervene by design. They are part of the natural context: the day–night cycle.
Something similar should apply to organizations. Instead of inventing internal, artificial time-givers, we should be looking for those cycles outside the organization: in the market, in society, in real interactions and feedback loops.
When organizations define their own zeitgebers in isolation, they tend to synchronize with control structures rather than with reality.
Something I just thought about regarding synchronizing to the slowest element is in personal, postal letters between people. If one person responds next day to a letter, but the other takes three weeks, then they end up both writing to each other about every three weeks. They become synchronized, not because they decided it that way, but because it’s what maintaining the relationship calls for.
When I write science fiction stories, I like to play with the concept of time. Would humans adapt well to a planet that had a near-24 hours day, but a 500-day year? Also, if you were on a planet with infrequent visits from spaceships from the much-more organized galactic federation, would your planet's society be ever at odds with the federation, not having the same cycles for getting things done, and therefore doing things divergently?
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! I am glad you found the essay inspiring.
The answer to your question, Chris, is related to something I just looked up a few days ago. If interstellar travel became commonplace, we would likely see something like the International Meridian Conference from 1884 happen again - which was aimed at determining the choice of "a meridian to be employed as a common zero of longitude and standard of time reckoning throughout the world" - which only (!) meant earth, at the time, of course. That conference in Washington was preceded by the advent of railway systems, which made setting schedules spanning the globe a highly urgent matter. The need for the determination of global time zones and an agreement on international standard time led to what we might call the "Time Wars of the 19th century", with powers like France and the UK competing for the "prime meridian" location. For more about the conference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Meridian_Conference#cite_note-imc-1
Ohh I will also reprise what Rory Sutherland said, “interface fundamentally determines behavior,” and add that time constraints also fundamentally determine behavior. I feel that the practice of time-boxing (and its neighbor the practice of protecting flow-state) are really about trying to wrest control of these time contraints from external pressures.
Like so much of the BetaCodex work, once you see the truth of it, you can’t UN-see it! How so many basic assumptions about time end up being amplifiers of command-and-control patterns is illuminating.
"Time" is perhaps the most underestimated topic at present. Years ago, people mainly focused on time management. Ultimately, it was about controlling time. And it is no coincidence that time is one of the most challenging topics for physicists and philosophers. Economists still underestimate the complexity of the subject.
Thanks Niels, great invitation to think.
One important aspect of zeitgebers is that they are naturally connected to circadian rhythms, where human beings do not intervene by design. They are part of the natural context: the day–night cycle.
Something similar should apply to organizations. Instead of inventing internal, artificial time-givers, we should be looking for those cycles outside the organization: in the market, in society, in real interactions and feedback loops.
When organizations define their own zeitgebers in isolation, they tend to synchronize with control structures rather than with reality.
Precisely!
Something I just thought about regarding synchronizing to the slowest element is in personal, postal letters between people. If one person responds next day to a letter, but the other takes three weeks, then they end up both writing to each other about every three weeks. They become synchronized, not because they decided it that way, but because it’s what maintaining the relationship calls for.
Nice example!
When I write science fiction stories, I like to play with the concept of time. Would humans adapt well to a planet that had a near-24 hours day, but a 500-day year? Also, if you were on a planet with infrequent visits from spaceships from the much-more organized galactic federation, would your planet's society be ever at odds with the federation, not having the same cycles for getting things done, and therefore doing things divergently?
Thank you for the interesting essay!
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! I am glad you found the essay inspiring.
The answer to your question, Chris, is related to something I just looked up a few days ago. If interstellar travel became commonplace, we would likely see something like the International Meridian Conference from 1884 happen again - which was aimed at determining the choice of "a meridian to be employed as a common zero of longitude and standard of time reckoning throughout the world" - which only (!) meant earth, at the time, of course. That conference in Washington was preceded by the advent of railway systems, which made setting schedules spanning the globe a highly urgent matter. The need for the determination of global time zones and an agreement on international standard time led to what we might call the "Time Wars of the 19th century", with powers like France and the UK competing for the "prime meridian" location. For more about the conference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Meridian_Conference#cite_note-imc-1
Ohh I will also reprise what Rory Sutherland said, “interface fundamentally determines behavior,” and add that time constraints also fundamentally determine behavior. I feel that the practice of time-boxing (and its neighbor the practice of protecting flow-state) are really about trying to wrest control of these time contraints from external pressures.
What an enlightening reading pleasure! Highly recommended!
Like so much of the BetaCodex work, once you see the truth of it, you can’t UN-see it! How so many basic assumptions about time end up being amplifiers of command-and-control patterns is illuminating.