關鍵詞： "monochronic", "polychronic"
Timely manner
Author Headshot
By Melissa Kirsch
A recent story in The Times, by Emily Laber-Warren, describes the ways we relate to time, dividing us into two groups. Monochronic people “tend to live by the clock and are primed, at least during work hours, to prioritize obligations over relationships.” Polychronic people, on the other hand, “tend to give primacy to experiences and relationships that don’t always fit neatly into prearranged schedules.” If you prefer to work on one thing at a time, emphasizing deadlines and seeing interruptions as irritating, you’re monochronic. Those who are good at multitasking, who comfortably allow shifts in their schedules if, for example, a friend comes to town and wants to go for a hike — those people are probably polychronic.
The article insists there are downsides with each time personality. Monochronic people can be rigid, missing out on serendipity. Polychronic people can be easily distracted and can have difficulty finishing what they start. But I found myself thinking, as I often do when I read about socially scientific binaries — Type A vs. Type B, maximizers vs. satisficers — that it’s secretly better to be the more laid-back type, that life is richer and more fulfilling if you’re less rigid and don’t, say, view a deadline the way a beast of burden does a plowman’s whip. Despite my efforts to be loose and breezy with time, I’m pretty regimented. Calling myself “monochronic” allows me to justify what I have always characterized as an undesirable uptightness. While I want to be productive, I want so much more to prioritize relationships over industry, to say “this can wait” when I’m fast at work and someone calls with last-minute theater tickets.
We’re obsessed with our attention these days, how it’s been captured by our screens, attenuated by too-busy schedules and the impossible pace of modern life. Monotasking is seen as an advantageous skill, deep work and flow states the antidotes to cognitive fatigue. But as we try to marshal our attention, it seems possible we will be tempted to overcorrect. My monochronic preference for uninterrupted stretches of time in which to work — oh, the exquisite relief of turning on “Do Not Disturb” on my laptop and knowing that it will also silence my phone, my iPad, the text alerts and weather alerts and news alerts and calendar alerts! — often keeps me from engaging with things that would bring me pleasure. I’ve missed perfect 75-degree days because I need to finish chores before I relax. I tell myself that nothing will feel as good as getting things done, but then I think of the cliché about people on their deathbeds never saying they wish they’d spent more time working.
There’s hope: Time personalities are preferences, not traits, so we can shift them. The aim, as in all things, is balance, being nimble enough to shift from one style to another as the situation prescribes. “Is your goal here relationship building? Then go polychronic,” one expert in the article advised. “If your goal is to complete a task, then we need to be monochronic for a window of time and shut out all distractions.” While switching gears may feel uncomfortable for those of us conditioned to do the thing until the thing is done, this framing highlights the stakes. Completing the task feels good, but — here comes the deathbed again — the accomplishment is hollow without some flexibility, without letting in the possibility for surprise, serendipity and delight.
