Late Again
randsinrepose.com
randsinrepose.com
All meetings should end at a time ending in 0 minutes. Eg. 10:30 is a valid end time.
Everyone needs some time for composure (travel time, bathroom, drinks etc.), sometimes you just have to run the last meeting a few mins over. By starting on the *5 and setting that as the start time on the calendar you give yourself this time. This is especially true at senior levels where you have strings of back to back meetings. The expectation is then set. You show up at 10:35 precisely and no one’s waiting 5 mins.
Your idea to start later is great.
So of course based on that wording people are going to think you're being put out by not having back-to-backs.
Why they don’t just make it explicit I will never understand.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Berkeley-Time-10-minu...
It worked out nicely when I had therapy just off-campus at 11 AM (11-11:50, because that's how therapists do it) immediately before a class that started at noon (12:10 - 1:00), although sometimes I was emotionally a wreck while teaching...
This is an excellent example of an ADHD accommodation that costs nothing to implement, and is absolutely welcomed by neurotypical people too.
Same goes for having meeting-free days, and a culture that teaches people to be mindful of interruptions[1].
Unsurprisingly, it's something companies like Meta have (software engineering tends to attract ADHD folks because Hyperfocus[2] is a trait of something ironically called attention deficit, and coding marathons are a great example of that in action).
Programmers talk about Flow all the time, but that's what Hyperfocus can easily mistaken for[3]. If you find it difficult to get started[4], but once you get going, you forget the world exists and find it difficult to switch out of whatever you're doing[5], and stopping feels painful.. yeah, that's hyperfocus.
Which, along with being late all the time[6], is an ADHD trait. ADHD is surely the worst-named affliction.[7]
Found out the hard way at the age of 34. Sharing my experience so that y'all don't have to keep on living your life on hard mode, and driving your Lamborghini brain on unplowed fields when it was built for a different purpose.
If you find yourself relating to the article we're discussing (Late Again), you'll likely find the links below interesting.
[1] https://romankogan.net/adhd#Hyperfocus
[2] https://romankogan.net/adhd/#Interruptions
[3] https://www.additudemag.com/flow-state-vs-hyperfocus-adhd/
[4] romankogan.net/adhd#Getting%20Started
[5] https://romankogan.net/adhd/#ADHD%20Switches
[6] https://romankogan.net/adhd/#Being%20Late
[7] https://romankogan.net/adhd/#Awfully%20Described%20Human%20D...
Say on person or team takes that to always have meetings end at :25 or :55, another always ends at :35 or :05, and another team say :15 and :45 for any meeting end times.
In my experience meetings seem to fall into common durations, always in intervals of 15 minutes but most common at 30 minutes or an hour.
I'd go even more strict on times and say meetings must start at :00 or :30, and always end by :25 or :55. That enforces a 5 minute window and standardizes start times without preventing longer meetings that need to run for 90 minutes or longer.
Alternatively, tell the people in meeting B that you will be 5 minutes late. Lateness communicated in advance is far less disruptive than unannounced lateness.
If neither of those are possible, reschedule one or the other meeting.
If it's impossible to reschedule either meeting, and this happens a lot, then there's a larger problem.
When a meeting starts at 10:30, and some people come at 10:30, there is often a social pressure to show some courtesy and wait for the rest. But who shows the courtesy for people who actually came on time? These people follow the rules and are being _punished_ for it.
People should just start the meeting when it's scheduled. Start it at 10:30. If there's nobody on the meeting, I would start it regardless, how stupid this might sound.
Those same managers will take ages to respond to emails because they are "so busy", but yet they insist on inserting themselves into all decision-making, because obviously nobody else can make a decision without their approval.
If everyone showed up on time, the pre-meeting chit chat would have no natural boundary and could extend indefinitely.
They also take the pressure off of the people who care since they know there is leeway because at least you'll never be as late as "that person".
It's totally natural and beneficial and a treasured part of corporate culture.
Perspective from someone who identifies as a tidsoptimist, Swedish for “time optimist”:
> I'm sure it seems ridiculous to people who are always on time. They may be puzzled as to why such a name was coined for such a circumstance and why anyone would spend time and effort contemplating it. But such people exist, such as myself.
> I am not someone who enjoys being late everywhere. In reality, I dislike keeping people waiting, but honestly, my punctual arrivals don't happen very often.
https://wordsoftheworlds.substack.com/p/tidsoptimist-a-time-...
I also wondered all those things, and loved the word tidsoptimist.
Then I got diagnosed with ADHD as an adult at age 34, and it all clicked.
"Tidsoptimism" is an ADHD trait:
https://romankogan.net/adhd/#Being%20Late
A part of it is what's literally called Time Blindness:
https://romankogan.net/adhd/#Time%20Perception
https://romankogan.net/adhd/#Time%20Blindness
The article we're discussing (as well the one you linked, and the one written by Tim Urban on the same issue[1], and the words you wrote) is a universal ADHD experience.
Figuring out that this is how my brain works helped immensely. Turns out, there is no need to make up new terms (tidsoptimist, "chronically late person", etc). The words have already been invented. And many people have already worked out solutions, mitigation strategies (...and meds[2]).
I hope that my links above will help some people learn something about themselves, and for others - to understand their friends and colleagues better.
And for hell's sake, let's take the moral charge out of lateness itself. I'm not saying that it should be acceptable: to the extent that someone being late affects other people, there may (and should be!) consequences.
But being late has a stigma even when it doesn't affect anyone else.
And it makes it more difficult to have a conversation like this: "I have time blindness. Let's talk about what you'll do if I don't make it on time, and what the consequences will be. I don't want to make you wait." - which both helps avoid lateness and often allows for a solution other than "everyone will be angrily waiting for the late person".
Caring this much means that your 3 minutes are not as important as you think they are.
The thing is, the chronic latecomers seem to think[1] that the sum of all the other people's time (NB: That's a lot more time) is less important in the grand scheme of things than their own.
Whether it's thought-out or not, who cares, when it has the same effect as utter non-caring arrogance?
___
[1]: Or rather, they probably don't think about it at all, but that just goes to further should they don't value other people's time -- other people, I guess -- basically at all. If someone consistently behaves like an asshole, which is what chronic latecomers are doing, the most likely reason is that they're an asshole.
This article just comes across as completely ignorant of what might be going on in another person's life. Many comments here also lean towards this being about managers who demand things don't start until they're present.
This is just wrong.
In reality, any group of sufficiently smart and empowered people who have managed to get themselves together in a room should be organised enough to start without waiting on a particular individual.
If that individual then acts out because they missed some stuff, yep they're a dick. But they're not a dick just for being late or even being consistently late.