Time Rhythms that are Temporally Compatible

Excerpt from the collective work by the Cercle du Leadership, “Le temps dans tous ses états”

“The most costly expenditure is the loss of time.”

— Theophrastus
The pace of action, and with it the notion of time, has never been more relevant.
The recent coronavirus crisis brought many businesses, economies, and entire countries to a halt, and many leaders were suddenly reminded of this rare resource: time. That scarce commodity that always seems to slip away; that invisible limiter of actions and the pace at which they occur.
During this period of slowdown—or even complete interruption of activity for some—unexpected blocks of free time appeared. Many leaders were finally able to take or reclaim time, redefine their action rhythm, and sometimes “do nothing” to better focus on reflection and strategy.
Conversely, some succumbed to what is called the “action bias”, doubling their efforts out of fear of inactivity or uncertainty about how to spend their time.

Time does not exist in itself
During a recent coaching session with Stéphane, a business unit director at a consulting firm, I again observed how central and pressing the notion of time is for leaders.
At the final coaching session, which included Stéphane, the company’s CEO, and myself, Stéphane was reminded by his CEO of the need to give time to his team—time he was likely not offering enough but needed to “let them steal” in a sense. This raised the subtle distinction between presence and availability.
For his CEO, “time does not exist in itself”; it is elastic. Even when perpetually short on time, as a leader and manager, one must find or create time—for oneself and for the team—regardless of constraints.
This reflection struck me profoundly, not only because of the awareness of time it conveys, but also because it embodies altruistic leadership—sharing time to multiply it, for oneself and for the team.

Qualifying time
To know where time can be created, it must first be identified and qualified. Failing to understand the quality of passing time or how it is spent leads to a sense of scarcity, of always running after it, of being trapped. Conversely, understanding time and its different forms allows one to act, decide, and manage action time and rhythm, whether early, stable, or deadline-driven.
Time management and organization differ by individual personality.

Action rhythms and personality types
Going back to the 1920s, Carl Jung, founder of analytical psychology, observed three families of behavior (called “dimensions”) related to:
Source and orientation of energy: Introversion (I) – Extraversion (E)
Information gathering and processing: Sensing (S) – Intuition (N)
Decision-making: Thinking (T) – Feeling (F)
Each is built on opposing psychological traits, with each polarity reflecting a natural preference. These traits are innate, highlighting one of Jung’s major contributions: the distinction between innate and acquired.
Decades later, Isabel Briggs Myers and Katherine Cook Briggs expanded this typology, introducing a dimension relevant here: organization of time and space, with two preferences: Judging (J) and Perceiving (P).
Judging (J) individuals naturally prefer structured, planned, and sequenced environments. Their action rhythm is early; they structure their time before acting. Leaders with a J preference thrive in sectors with longer production or innovation cycles, like defense, aerospace, or energy.
Perceiving (P) individuals prefer spontaneity and flexibility, leaving options open as long as reasonable. Their performance emerges under time pressure, fostering creativity. P-type leaders thrive in fast-paced, urgent environments, such as tech startups, where action is often deadline-driven.

Cultivating the opposite rhythm
In business, where speed is accelerating, P-types excel in immediate-action contexts, while J-types may feel discomforted or destabilized. This could affect their ability to act.
However, based on Jungian polarity, personal development—especially for leaders—is measured by the ability to occasionally adopt behaviors from the opposite preference when appropriate.
Continuous adoption of the opposite preference is energy-consuming, as it is unnatural and requires effort. Over time, forcing oneself into the opposite rhythm can lead to stress or burnout, particularly for rational profiles in highly changing environments. Similarly, P-types in slow environments may feel constrained, bored, and less effective.
Navigating between innate and opposite preferences, and calibrating the effort needed to adopt the appropriate action rhythm (stable) is not easy. It requires personal, emotional, and situational intelligence, self-awareness, humility, choosing the right environment, and surrounding oneself with temporally compatible people.

What makes a great leader
A truly great leader has achieved a level of personal development where, regardless of their innate preference, they can choose the most appropriate behavior—the one that allows them to act with the right rhythm.

References:
Action bias: Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, behavioral economics. A cognitive bias that favors action, sometimes counterproductive: “Even if I don’t know what to do, I must act.”
C.G. Jung, Psychological Types [1921], Georg Editeur, 1997
Creators of MBTI®, the leading psychometric tool
“Le temps dans tous ses états” by Raphaëlle Laubie, Editions Eyrolles.