Synchronization: Why Shared Time Makes Shared Work Possible

Consider what it takes for an orchestra to play a symphony.

Dozens of musicians, each with different instruments, different parts, different physical positions in the space. They must act together—not just in the same general period, but in the same moment. The violinist's bow and the percussionist's strike must align within milliseconds. Without synchronization, there's no music. Just noise.

Organizations face the same fundamental problem: how do separate actors coordinate their actions in time?

The answer—so basic it's usually invisible—is shared time. Synchronization is the temporal infrastructure that makes collective action possible.

The Problem Synchronization Solves

Individual action doesn't require shared time. You can work alone according to your own rhythms, your own schedule, your own temporal logic.

But the moment two people need to act together, synchronization becomes necessary. They need to agree on:

• When things happen — meetings start, deadlines fall, shifts begin
• How fast things move — pace of work, tempo of communication, rhythm of production
• What sequence to follow — this before that, dependencies respected
• How to measure duration — what counts as "an hour," "a day," "on time"

Without shared answers to these questions, coordination collapses. You can't have a meeting if participants disagree about when it starts. You can't have a production line if stations work at different speeds. You can't have a project if people disagree about the sequence of tasks.

Synchronization is the solution to the coordination problem that shared work creates.

How Synchronization Works

Different domains have developed different synchronization mechanisms:

The clock. The most obvious synchronizer. Mechanical clocks enabled the industrial revolution by creating shared, precise, external time. Everyone could coordinate to the same standard. The clock doesn't care about subjective experience; it provides objective reference.

The conductor. In music, a human synchronizer. The conductor doesn't play an instrument; they coordinate the timing of those who do. The baton sets tempo, marks beats, cues entrances. Every musician watches the same central source.

The grid. Electrical power systems synchronize at 50 or 60 Hz across entire continents. Every generator must match the grid frequency precisely. Deviation means damage. The grid is a synchronization achievement most people never notice.

The ritual. Religious communities synchronize through shared calendars—Sabbaths, feast days, holy seasons. The ritual calendar creates shared time that coordinates the community without explicit negotiation.

The protocol. Digital systems synchronize through protocols—agreed-upon rules for when to send, when to receive, how to handle timing conflicts. Network Time Protocol (NTP) keeps computers synchronized to within milliseconds worldwide.

The schedule. Organizations create shared schedules—meeting times, business hours, fiscal calendars, project timelines. The schedule is a synchronization device: it tells everyone when things happen.

Each mechanism solves the same underlying problem: creating shared temporal reference that enables coordinated action.

What We're Observing

When we look at organizations through the lens of synchronization, certain patterns become visible:

The synchronization cost. Coordination isn't free. Every meeting is a synchronization expense—multiple people must align their time. Every deadline imposes synchronization demands. The more synchronization required, the higher the coordination cost. Organizations often underestimate this cost because it's diffuse and invisible.

The async revolution. Remote and distributed work has prompted reconsideration of synchronization needs. What actually requires same-time coordination? What can be done asynchronously? The pandemic forced experiments in desynchronization that revealed how much synchronization was convention rather than necessity.

The timezone problem. Global organizations face structural synchronization challenges. There's no time when everyone is awake. Meetings that work for some exclude others. The "follow the sun" model tries to turn the problem into an advantage, but synchronization across timezones remains genuinely hard.

The over-synchronization trap. Some organizations synchronize more than necessary—requiring real-time presence for work that could be asynchronous. This creates coordination burden without corresponding coordination benefit. The calendar fills with meetings that enforce synchronization without requiring it.

The under-synchronization failure. Other organizations synchronize too little—allowing people to work at their own pace when coordination actually requires shared timing. The result: misaligned efforts, duplicated work, integration failures. Autonomy is nice, but some things genuinely require synchronization.

The Synchronization Spectrum

Full synchronization means everyone does the same thing at the same time. Full asynchrony means everyone works independently with no temporal coordination.

Neither extreme works for most organizations. The question is where on the spectrum different activities should fall:

High synchronization needed:

• Real-time collaboration (surgery, trading, performance)
• Physical handoffs (manufacturing, logistics)
• Complex negotiations (timing and rhythm matter)
• Crisis response (speed requires coordination)

Low synchronization needed:

• Independent knowledge work
• Asynchronous communication
• Self-paced learning
• Creative work requiring deep focus

Variable synchronization:

• Projects (phases require different levels)
• Teams (some activities sync, others don't)
• Communication (some urgent, some not)

The organizational design question: have we matched our synchronization mechanisms to our actual synchronization needs?

The Entrainment Phenomenon

Synchronization isn't always explicit. Sometimes it emerges spontaneously.

Entrainment is the tendency of rhythmic systems to synchronize when coupled. Pendulum clocks on the same wall gradually align their swings. Fireflies in certain species flash in unison. Humans walking together unconsciously synchronize their steps.

Organizations exhibit entrainment too. People who work closely develop shared rhythms—arriving at similar times, taking breaks together, matching communication tempos. Teams develop collective rhythms that new members gradually entrain to.

This spontaneous synchronization is valuable—it reduces coordination cost. But it can also be exclusionary: people whose natural rhythms don't match the team's dominant pattern may struggle to entrain.

What to Look For

In your own context, you might observe:

• What synchronization mechanisms your organization uses (calendars, meetings, deadlines, rituals)
• Whether synchronization requirements match actual coordination needs
• Where over-synchronization creates unnecessary burden
• Where under-synchronization causes coordination failures
• How timezone and schedule differences create synchronization challenges
• Whether entrainment happens naturally in teams—and who it excludes
• What would happen if some currently synchronous activities became asynchronous

The question synchronization raises isn't "should we coordinate?" It's "what level of temporal coordination does each activity actually require?"

Getting that match right—neither too much synchronization nor too little—is a design problem most organizations haven't consciously addressed.

Temporacy is investigating the hidden temporal structures that shape organizational life. Synchronization offers one lens for seeing what's usually invisible: the temporal infrastructure that makes shared work possible. We're exploring what this means for organizations trying to coordinate without over-coordinating.