Hi Jenn - Well, whether or not the lead link interprets that accountability as including people's time, no one else has any duty whatsoever to align with the lead link's time allocation decisions. The only restriction others are bound to is that they can not "dispose of assets" without an authorization ultimately coming from the anchor circle's lead link. And time is not an asset; as much as I wish we could control it like an asset sometimes, it just keeps flowing by hour by hour regardless - and I've never seen a company with "time" on the balance sheet.
So, if a lead link wants to focus how people allocate their attention as time flows by, the lead link will need to use other mechanisms in the constitution, such as prioritization decisions and strategies, because leaning on that particular lead link accountability alone won't actually affect anyone else.
Note one possible exception here is in the case of hourly workers whose relationship with the organization is highly variable (vs. those whose relationship calls for a relatively fixed amount of time, like 8 hours per day) - in that case, you could easily make an argument that each hour someone authorizes them to spend is actually a direct cash spend, in which case the rule around not disposing of assets applies.