CONTENTS
Introduction.3
Time Orientations & Modalities5
Time Economicity: Cross-Cultural Examples.6
Conclusion..7
References..8
Time Across Cultures
INTRODUCTION
Time is a fundamental concept accepted for granted across cultures. This uncritical acceptance is, if anything, indicative of how integral time is in different cultures. Time is, moreover, represented differently across cultural boundaries, an intuitive observation which is projected into foreground only upon cross-cultural encounters and/or in unique sub-cultural contexts suspending conventional perceptions of time in different light. The case for different representations of time across cultures is made more complex by introducing more variables including, for example, medium (e.g. virtual vs. physical contexts), formality (e.g. business vs. social contexts) or acculturation (i.e. adjustment over prolonged periods to a time orientation and/or modality different from one's own orientation and/or modality). Time has come under more scrutiny, so to speak, by an increasing pace of cross-cultural contact. Highlighted by more frequent flying, web-based communication platforms and satellite channels, shifting one's time "orientation" to another has become a regular adaptation to dynamic activities across different time zones. Time is, if anything, has come to be of particular significance, both conceptually and practically, in business and education contexts specifically. In order to adapt to conflicting time representations, a growing number of businesses and educational institutions are integrating cross-cultural programs to better address cross-cultural differences, including time representations, on a daily basis. To better understand how time has come to center stage and in sharp focus in an era of intense cross-cultural communication, a closer look is required. Time is, specifically, analyzed as a perceptual concept represented differentially across cultures. This paper aims, hence, to explore time as a cross-cultural variable of broader implications.
The paper is made up of four sections in addition to introduction: (1) Time: Conceptualization, (2) Time Orientations & Modalities, (3) Time Economicity: Cross-Cultural Examples and (4) Conclusion. The Time: Conceptualization section explores time as a concept and a representation constructed differently across cultures. The Time Orientations & Modalities section identifies specific categories constructed by different cultures in order to perform routine and non-routine activities. The Time Economicity: Cross-Cultural Examples section gives succinct examples on how time is and/or can be economized in physical and virtual contexts. The Conclusion section wraps up argument and offers insights into broader implications.
There are as many definitions of time as one can conceive. The multiplicity of contexts – and, for that matter, representations (as is shown shortly) – of time makes a case for more accommodating conceptualization of time. Put differently, by understanding time not as a fixed (chorological) concept grounded in each and every culture independently, time can be approached as a conceptual representation shaped by non-chronological components. This line of reasoning, i.e. understanding time as not only a chronological variable, is, in fact pursued in cross-cultural literature. Notably, Boroditsky (2011) discusses time as a metaphorical representation shaped by linguistic patterns language users adopt. Interestingly, time is embedded in day-to-day language and is a function of spatial orientations language users subscribe to (Boroditsky). Thus, discourse, i.e. spoken language (in current context), qualifies time in each culture. These findings are, in fact, aligned to a growing body of literature corroborating evidence on how discourse per se shapes perception and hence behavior. Further, by adopting a linguistic approach to conceptualization of time, differences in time representations across cultures are, from an analytical perspective, more identifiable. That is, by analyzing time as a linguistic representation of a different "reality", different perceptions of time across cultures are analyzable into more concrete, analyzable components. The merits of a linguistic approach to time are better understood in next section on time orientations and modalities.
TIME ORIENTATIONS & MODALITIES
Time is value-loaded. That is, each and every culture assigns different value for time. This value is perceived differently across cultures. Moreover, each and every culture assumes different usages for time. The values and usages different cultures assign to time are usually referred to as "orientations" and "modalities". Time orientations fall, mainly, into "linear," "multi-active," and "cyclic" (Lewis, 2014). Time modalities can be understood as how time is used across cultures, usages falling broadly into "monochronic" and "polychronic" categories (Plocher, Goonetilleke, Yan & Liang, 2002).
The Linear Time representation refers to a sequential, straightforward progress of time from past to present to future (Lewis). This representation is manifest most notably in North American and West European (particularly Germany and Nordic countries) cultures (Lewis). The Multi-Active Time representation refers, in contrast, to time usages focused more on present with little interest in strict punctuality, a representation most manifest in Spanish, Italian and Arab cultures (Lewis). The Cyclic Time representation refers to a "cyclical" approach to handling activities, i.e. spending ("wasting" time from a North American or West European perspective) some time "circling" around an activity before actual commitment, a representation most notable in Asian cultures, particularly Thai culture (Lewis). By adopting Boroditsky's spatial / linguistic approach to time, Linear Time representation can be understood, for example, as a steady progress from a "behind" (i.e. past) status into a "front" (i.e. future) one (Boroditsky). This spatial metaphor could probably justify why North Americans and West Europeans (adopting Linear Time representation) are more "impatient" compared to South Europeans and Asians (adopting Multi-Active Time and Cyclic Time representations respectively) in a situation requiring (from a Linear perspective) "moving forward" instead of revisiting a point repeatedly.
The Monochronicity / Polychronicity duality refers to activities a person performs at a time (Plocher, Goonetilleke, Yan & Liang). Put differently, a polychronic person performs motile activities at a time compared to a monochronic person (Plocher, Goonetilleke, Yan & Liang). By adopting Boroditsky's spatial / linguistic approach to time, a polychronic person is said to resume a never completed activity in a different physical context compared to a monochronic person who feels satisfied about completing an activity – once and for all – in one given context (Lewis). The Monochronicity / Polychronicity duality is, indeed, an effective differentiator between individuals and/or groups of different cultural backgrounds and can be measured using different analytical methods including, for example, Polychronic Attitude Index, Polychronic Attitude Index, Monochronic work behavior, Inventory of Polychronic Values (IPV) and Representative Polychronic Index (Plocher, Goonetilleke, Yan & Liang).
TIME ECONOMICITY: CROSS-CULTURAL EXAMPLES
Time orientations and modalities across cultures are making a case for economization. That is, since time is shown to be perceived different across cultures, managers in business contexts are under increasing pressure to consider for time as a particularly critical variable in business organization. This is particularly applicable in virtual contexts. For example, performance of Global Virtual Teams (GVTs) is shown to be influenced by time perceptions and/or visions (Saunders, Slyke & Vogel, 2004). Time is, accordingly, an economic variable managers account for given an increasingly diverse workforce.
CONCLUSION
Time is a universal concept of differential cultural differences and implications. The linguistic approach helps make time more analyzable. Time can be categorized based on orientation (linear, multi-active or cyclic) or modality (monochronic or polychronic). Based on different perceptions of time, time is increasingly economized in current business practices. The case can be made for a unified perception of time as business practices converge across cultures. However, time remains a culture-bound variable well embedded in mental structures of spoken languages.
REFERENCES
Boroditsky, L. (2011). How Languages Construct Time [Online]. Stanford University. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385948-8.00020-7 [Accessed: 4th March, 2016]
Lewis, R. (2014). How Different Cultures Understand Time. Business Insider, 1 June [Online]. Available from http://www.businessinsider.com/how-different-cultures-understand-time-2014-5 [Accessed: 4th March, 2016]
Plocher, T., Goonetilleke, R. S., Yan, Z., & Liang, S. F. M. (2002). Time Orientation Across Cultures [Online]. Research Gate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239808922 [Accessed: 4th March, 2016]
Saunders, C., Slyke, C. V., & Vogel, D. R. (2004). My time or yours? Managing time visions in global virtual teams. Perspectives [Online] 18(1), 19-37. Academy of Management. doi: 10.5465/AME.2004.12691177 [Accessed: 4th March, 2016]
