Whether the punctual person has other things to do to pass the time until you arrive is immaterial. Presumably, you both agreed to meet at 12 and not 1 because 12 was a mutually agreeable time; otherwise, you would have agreed to meet at 1 instead. So, for the latecomer to arrive at 1 when they were capable of arriving at 12 but lost track of time or stopped to smell the roses is disrespectful of the other person. It says to the other person, "I'm not going to inconvenience myself by rushing or paying attention to the time so I'm not late ... instead, I'm going to inconvenience you."
Meet at 12 an not 1 is already Western thinking. Traditionally, other cultures didn't use precise clocks for scheduling social events; you would wake to work "at dawn" or visit some friends "this afternoon".
Think at it this way: if you are at home expecting some friend to have dinner there in the evening, you'll be glad to have them arrive no matter when; any pre-scheduled time would be arbitrary, so letting them arrive whenever it's convenient is good for them and doesn't have any drawback for you. In that situation, it would be incredibly rude on your part to yell at them because you previously agreed that they'd be there at 7:30 but they arrived at 7:54 instead; I don't know about you, but that would be unthinkable here. (Of course if they arrived at 23:00 that would register as "not showing" during the evening, but that's beyond being late).
That kind of lax schedule shouldn't inconvenience you, because you're otherwise comfortable at home arranging all the details; and it can bring benefits for them that couldn't happen otherwise - they may want to stay fifteen more minutes having a coffee at a bistro, watching the sunset, for example; it would be a loss having to rush to your meeting merely because they know you're hardheaded about meeting timelines.
Of course that can be seen as "not efficient" in the "cram-as-much-things-to-do-as-you-can" sense of efficiency, but as explained in the article, that's not seen as a value on itself. And, if you find that having your friends enjoy the smell of a rose is less important than them arriving at an exact time, it speaks very poorly of you and your ability to find other things to do when unpredictable events happen.
Whoever's downvoting this, TuringTest is explaining a point of view and a different value system. If you don't relate to or like that value system, (me too!) no problem, but downvoting a helpful/informative comment drives down discussion and points of view other than your own.
I downvoted it because it addresses (at length) the issue of informal family gatherings in which TT's opponents already accept (for reasons specific to the scenario) that you're not supposed to show up at a specific time. It avoids the core issue of work scenarios where it's important that everyone be present.
IOW, non-responsive, and almost deliberately so.
Just because you have a long, coherent explanation doesn't mean it adds to the discussion.
The point being made was that informality needs not be specific to the family gathering scenario, and that it's not a core issue of work scenarios at multi-active cultures; I used an example you could relate to illustrate how it could it also be seen at work contexts in some circumstances. So I suppose you downvoted because you didn't get the point.
No, I got the point just fine: at best, there's no reason to apply the "show up whenever" ethos to meetings, because the best reasons for having it don't apply, as revealed by your attempt to come up with a reason. (Unless people are being called to the meeting despite being irrelevant, which is a separate issue.)
> lost track of time or stopped to smell the roses
You are really being very disdainful of the (hypothetical) late person. I find that is a typical American attitude. Even in this completely theoretical discussion, you are assuming the person is late for a reason you find frivolous instead of being a receptive, empathetic human who knows that things don't always happen as planned.
Even when the reason of being late is frivolous, placing compliance with the plan above enjoying life is telling of an attitude that doesn't seem healthy. A good plan is one which allows for smelling roses in the walk to the meeting (but then, Americans don't use walkways, do they?)
Scheduled meeting times enrage me to end, because it takes enjoyment out of my life. Very frequently, something unexpected happens near the time I have to be getting ready to leave to the meeting, but I have to say no to life instead and bow down to this stupid God of time.
I understand business meeting times. I understand showing up to class on time. I don't understand times for meeting up for pleasure (drinks, dinner, dates). I just don't.
I actually experienced this attitude twice recently and I couldn't really figure out why it put me off so much before reading this thread.
First situation was someone was supposed to come in for an interview but didn't show and then emailed 15 minutes after the scheduled start time saying she had a family emergency and got flustered on the way to the office and decided she needed to take care of other things instead of come to the interview. We have no idea what happened, but the other members of my team immediately concluded that she had blown her chance and we wouldn't be asking her back in because she wasn't "professional".
The second time was arguing about that situation where if I had meetings and a family emergency came up the last thing on my mind would be canceling the meetings when the other people in the conversation said the first thing they would do is cancel the meetings.
