The range of different clever pronouncements on the subject of “waiting” demonstrate the ambivalence of perception. While some emphasise its benefits (Leo Tolstoy: “Everything comes in time to him who knows how to wait.”) others prefer to emphasise the impatience aspect (Damaris Wieser: “Waiting for something only robs us of the time we won’t have later when we need it.”)

The perception of waiting time

Waiting is the “experience of time” and therefore this ambivalence is hardly surprising. Anyone who has children knows about the “Are we nearly there?” after about three minutes of driving, which is often used interchangeably with “I need the loo!” but that doesn’t matter. The critical reader may argue that this example is about boredom, i.e. forced idleness coupled with lack of stimulus, which is also a form of waiting, only in an intensified form. In the same vehicle, however, the parents are happy about the holidays that have begun (anticipation).

The term “wait” comes from medieval Anglo-French waitier “to watch with hostile intent, lie in wait for, plot against,” or from Old High German wahten “to watch, to guard, to stay awake.” Here the time invested brings reward or at least protects from loss.

Unused time is dead time. Waiting time is considered a cost factor. “Time is money” was proclaimed by Benjamin Franklin as early as in 1748 and this view of waiting is reflected worldwide in concepts such as “just-in-time” and “lean management” (Toyota). The price of goods decreases or profit increases when the waste of resources, which includes time, is reduced. By implication, we value highly what we are willing to wait for.

Waiting and social justice

The unpleasant side of waiting is perceived as a loss of control. Neurobiologists such as Henning Beck attribute this to the experienced lack of possibilities of influence as threatening. This can be seen convincingly in the 1979 Italian film “Traffic Jam” (L’ ingorgo – Una storia impossibile).

Waiting is a social phenomenon and in this context an expression of power. The political scientist and communication expert Harold Laswell already formulated in 1950 that politics is ” Who Gets What, When, How,” i.e. ultimately it is about possibilities and the time of access to power.

Waiting times were and are a means of control and an expression of social justice. The aristocracy-loving English gave expression to this around the 16th century by calling servants at table “waiters.” Those of high standing were served first. Our cultured Scottish friends, on the other hand, are considered the inventors of the so-called greyhound principle of “first come, first served,” which substitutes social inequality with the timing of the request. Other good things, like golf and whisky, also come from Scotland, not England. But they have at least adopted it, albeit with the side effects that Pierre Daninos, French liaison officer to the British army in World War II described: “English people are the only people who even queue to get in a queue.“

Despite such encouraging changes, social inequalities still exist today and are reflected in waiting. Anyone who has ever had to wait in uncomfortable local government corridors knows about impotence. And anyone who hasn’t experienced this, however, will know about their own feelings in the security queue at airports. And anyone who doesn’t know that must belong to the oppressors! Nowadays, however, these inequalities are quickly subject to suspicion of abuse of power and consequently need to be justified and legitimised. 

Dealing with waiting time

Waiting rooms are designed to show how aspects of waiting can be reinforced or weakened. Some allow certain kinds of waiting, others do not. Ugly corridors with uncomfortable or insufficient seating have already been mentioned. In Berlin’s underground stations, the benches were retrofitted with armrest-like metal tubes making lying down impossible. Transatlantic flights in business class and the associated lounges also make differences clear. But measures affecting waiting times can be observed on a smaller scale too. Who doesn’t know the teasing little progress bars that sweeten the waiting time for us. The magazines in the doctor’s waiting room and the theatre programme help us to bridge waiting times and get a grip on the negativity of useless hanging around. I’ve specifically excluded opening acts at concerts here, because most of them really are awful.

And sometimes we like to wait. Waiting becomes part of the experience. Alfred Hitchcock elevated waiting to an art form. What would his films be without it?

And then there is religion, where the promise of paradise in the future even necessitates corresponding waiting. In this context, however, I am not sure to what extent this still contributes to the manifestation of social inequality.

Waiting and uncertainty

People can talk about the future. Ideas about the future and goals of waiting are communicable. Current research attributes this to animals only to a very limited extent and only in relation to short periods of time between stimuli and the occurrence of the expected (Pavlov’s dog). In contrast, humans are able to uncouple waiting from the stimuli. Researchers call this “dissociation” and define the human background of waiting in terms of freedom of action, self-stimulation, temporal range and the aforementioned communicability.

The hint to young people to make timely provisions for old age, but also the promise of paradise are examples of the temporal distance between stimuli and the expected.

In the so-called marshmallow test (around 1970), children were given the choice of either devouring the scrumptious titbit immediately or getting a second one later, provided they abstained now. This was to test under which conditions something attractive would be given up in the short term for the achievement of long-term goals. Some children did without, others did not. Interestingly, these same children were revisited a few years ago to see what had become of them. In fact, a statistically positive effect was found between renunciation and social and professional success.

The uncoupling of waiting from the stimulus entails higher uncertainty with regard to the probability of occurrence, which is increased by the temporal extension. Particularly with regard to provision for old age, this is quite entertaining, because the probability of reaching a certain age depends on how old one already is. At age 62, the probability of reaching 63 is much higher than at age 16.

So far so good. But now we have reached a point in the article where I can move on to one of my favourite topics: dealing with uncertainty (for buzzword lovers: VUCA world), but this time in the context of waiting. But that will only be in the second part next week, when the waiting for Godot will also come to an end. Or, to paraphrase Woody Allen: “Eternity takes a long time, especially towards the end.”

Waiting and Projects

As already explained in the first part, the uncoupling of waiting from the stimulus entails higher uncertainty with regard to the probability of occurrence, which is increased by temporal extension.

An example: in the course of a project, people realise that its complexity is significantly higher than expected, which per se leads to the increased probability of failure. Researchers call this “dissociation”, i.e., the resources available to humans while waiting, include freedom of action, self-stimulation, temporal range and communicability.

Freedom of action consists in being allowed to take measures in response – or not, as the case may be. Mentioning something in a status report is an expression of communicability, and it is not necessary for third parties (the boss) to point out the complexity every other day, because people can wait without being dependent on extenal stimuli (self-stimulation). And all this can happen over considerable periods of time (temporal range), as the Berlin Airport and Stuttgart21 railway projects impressively prove.

Agilists boast with good reason interaction, cooperation and reaction to change as means to master complexity. Strictly speaking, this presupposes freedom of action, self-stimulation, temporal range and communicability, i.e. systematic waiting.

In contrast, in my observations waiting is often perceived as inaction, even when the waiting and the underlying motives are made transparent, i.e. communicated. And this by no means only the case for management and governance bodies.

And this would drive anyone crazy, because it is precisely the uncertainty inherent in complexity that requires … what actually?

Waiting and what it needs

Estragon: Let’s go!
Vladimir: We can’t.
Estragon: Why not?
Vladimir: We’re waiting for Godot.

Even though in Beckett’s play the tramp Estragon has rather forgotten that they are waiting for Godot, it gives expression to the theoretical possibility that waiting can come be ended. At some point, the time is reached when waiting is no longer perceived as useful. The trade-off between the presumed outcome of waiting and the process of waiting itself is to the detriment of the outcome.

Unfortunately, different project participants may have very different views on the timing and outcome of the trade-off.

In this context, it should also be briefly mentioned that research has also identified cultural differences in waiting, which will probably come as no surprise to our dear readers. Patience is typically not one of the most prominent characteristics of American managers and employees. I know this from many years of personal experience. Contrast this with the group of our Brexit friends. George Mikes is supposed to have said that Englishmen are the only people capable of standing alone in a queue. I can confirm this for the pint in the pub, even if, as already mentioned in Part 1, the Scots have made first-come-first-served a principle. My personal experience in professional life has been different. But to redeem myself, it can also be concluded that the value system in the UK sets the right priorities. Beer comes first.

But back to projects. In the project simulation I have developed, Swiss Island®, we confront the players with a complex, 20-month project that is beset with high risks right from the start. As expected, the teams that are most successful are those that initially wait and don’t immediately try, come hell or high water, to get to grips with the complexity.

What characterises these teams’ approach? What general competencies make the difference?

Tactic no.1: no surprises
As discussed in previous articles on this platform (e.g. The turkey’s resilience on Thanksgiving), people react less emotionally and more predictably to events that were foreseeable than to surprises. Communicated imponderables generally generate less resentment than non-communicated ones when they occur and also allow for a shared wait-and-see approach.

Tactic no.2: serenity
The ‘Serenity Prayer’ is probably familiar to most readers: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference. There is more to this than at first sight – but it requires reflection. Especially thinking about expectations: your own and others’. The project should run as smoothly as possible and even small deviations from the plan transform the feeling of control into uncertainty and annoyance. Serenity allows a different way of dealing with deviation from expectations and opens up thinking about alternatives.

Tactic no.3: mindfulness
Mindfulness comes from Buddhist teachings and has found its way into various physiotherapy methods. In the context of this article, it refers to the form of attention that aims to perceive waiting not only as lost time, but also to use it to avoid overlooking options that would have remained unrecognised if the focus had been exclusively on the future.

Tactic no.4: cybernetics
Since the 1970s, bright minds have been working on the question of how cybernetic principles can be applied to organisations. Names like Malik and Heinz von Foerster keep popping up in this context and Heinz von Foerster’s “ethical imperative”, which I always like to refer to, completes the tactics: “Always act in a way that increases the number of choices!”

To conclude my post, here’s an exciting insight from research that gives risk-taking readers another option. I leave it to the reader to assess under what conditions its application seems justifiable. A study by the Harvard Business School shows that customers perceive waiting as less negative as long as they have the impression that work is being done for them during the waiting time (“labour illusion”). But it gets even better: customers who had to wait subsequently rated the quality of service higher than those who did not have to wait! However, only if the result also met expectations.