research paper on time management pdf

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Does time management work? A meta-analysis

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Concordia University, Sir George Williams Campus, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Roles Methodology, Validation

Affiliation FSA Ulaval, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada

Roles Validation, Writing – review & editing

Brad Aeon,
Aïda Faber,
Alexandra Panaccio

Published: January 11, 2021
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066
Reader Comments

Does time management work? We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the impact of time management on performance and well-being. Results show that time management is moderately related to job performance, academic achievement, and wellbeing. Time management also shows a moderate, negative relationship with distress. Interestingly, individual differences and contextual factors have a much weaker association with time management, with the notable exception of conscientiousness. The extremely weak correlation with gender was unexpected: women seem to manage time better than men, but the difference is very slight. Further, we found that the link between time management and job performance seems to increase over the years: time management is more likely to get people a positive performance review at work today than in the early 1990s. The link between time management and gender, too, seems to intensify: women’s time management scores have been on the rise for the past few decades. We also note that time management seems to enhance wellbeing—in particular, life satisfaction—to a greater extent than it does performance. This challenges the common perception that time management first and foremost enhances work performance, and that wellbeing is simply a byproduct.

Citation: Aeon B, Faber A, Panaccio A (2021) Does time management work? A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 16(1): e0245066. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066

Editor: Juan-Carlos Pérez-González, Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED), SPAIN

Received: October 27, 2020; Accepted: December 21, 2020; Published: January 11, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Aeon et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist

Introduction

Stand-up comedian George Carlin once quipped that in the future a “time machine will be built, but no one will have time to use it” [ 1 ]. Portentously, booksellers now carry one-minute bedtime stories for time-starved parents [ 2 ] and people increasingly speed-watch videos and speed-listen to audio books [ 3 – 5 ]. These behaviors are symptomatic of an increasingly harried society suffering from chronic time poverty [ 6 ]. Work is intensifying—in 1965 about 50% of workers took breaks; in 2003, less than 2% [ 7 ]. Leisure, too, is intensifying: people strive to consume music, social media, vacations, and other leisure activities ever more efficiently [ 8 – 11 ].

In this frantic context, time management is often touted as a panacea for time pressure. Media outlets routinely extol the virtues of time management. Employers, educators, parents, and politicians exhort employees, students, children, and citizens to embrace more efficient ways to use time [ 12 – 16 ]. In light of this, it is not surprising that from 1960 to 2008 the frequency of books mentioning time management shot up by more than 2,700% [ 17 ].

Time management is defined as “a form of decision making used by individuals to structure, protect, and adapt their time to changing conditions” [ 18 ]. This means time management, as it is generally portrayed in the literature, comprises three components: structuring, protecting, and adapting time. Well-established time management measures reflect these concepts. Structuring time, for instance, is captured in such items as “Do you have a daily routine which you follow?” and “Do your main activities during the day fit together in a structured way?” [ 19 ]. Protecting time is reflected in items such as “Do you often find yourself doing things which interfere with your schoolwork simply because you hate to say ‘No’ to people?” [ 20 ]. And adapting time to changing conditions is seen in such items as “Uses waiting time” and “Evaluates daily schedule” [ 21 ].

Research has, furthermore, addressed several important aspects of time management, such as its relationship with work-life balance [ 22 ], whether gender differences in time management ability develop in early childhood [ 23 ], and whether organizations that encourage employees to manage their time experience less stress and turnover [ 24 ]. Despite the phenomenal popularity of this topic, however, academic research has yet to address some fundamental questions [ 25 – 27 ].

A critical gap in time management research is the question of whether time management works [ 28 , 29 ]. For instance, studies on the relationship between time management and job performance reveal mixed findings [ 30 , 31 ]. Furthermore, scholars’ attempts to synthesize the literature have so far been qualitative, precluding a quantitative overall assessment [ 18 , 32 , 33 ]. To tackle this gap in our understanding of time management, we conducted a meta-analysis. In addressing the question of whether time management works, we first clarify the criteria for effectiveness. In line with previous reviews, we find that virtually all studies focus on two broad outcomes: performance and wellbeing [ 32 ].

Overall, results suggest that time management enhances job performance, academic achievement, and wellbeing. Interestingly, individual differences (e.g., gender, age) and contextual factors (e.g., job autonomy, workload) were much less related to time management ability, with the notable exception of personality and, in particular, conscientiousness. Furthermore, the link between time management and job performance seems to grow stronger over the years, perhaps reflecting the growing need to manage time in increasingly autonomous and flexible jobs [ 34 – 37 ].

Overall, our findings provide academics, policymakers, and the general audience with better information to assess the value of time management. This information is all the more useful amid the growing doubts about the effectiveness of time management [ 38 ]. We elaborate on the contributions and implications of our findings in the discussion section.

What does it mean to say that time management works?

In the din of current debates over productivity, reduced workweeks, and flexible hours, time management comes to the fore as a major talking point. Given its popularity, it would seem rather pointless to question its effectiveness. Indeed, time management’s effectiveness is often taken for granted, presumably because time management offers a seemingly logical solution to a lifestyle that increasingly requires coordination and prioritization skills [ 39 , 40 ].

Yet, popular media outlets increasingly voice concern and frustration over time management, reflecting at least part of the population’s growing disenchantment [ 38 ]. This questioning of time management practices is becoming more common among academics as well [ 41 ]. As some have noted, the issue is not just whether time management works. Rather, the question is whether the techniques championed by time management gurus can be actually counterproductive or even harmful [ 26 , 42 ]. Other scholars have raised concerns that time management may foster an individualistic, quantitative, profit-oriented view of time that perpetuates social inequalities [ 43 , 44 ]. For instance, time management manuals beguile readers with promises of boundless productivity that may not be accessible to women, whose disproportionate share in care work, such as tending to young children, may not fit with typically male-oriented time management advice [ 45 ]. Similarly, bestselling time management books at times offer advice that reinforce global inequities. Some manuals, for instance, recommend delegating trivial tasks to private virtual assistants, who often work out of developing countries for measly wages [ 46 ]. Furthermore, time management manuals often ascribe a financial value to time—the most famous time management adage is that time is money. But recent studies show that thinking of time as money leads to a slew of negative outcomes, including time pressure, stress, impatience, inability to enjoy the moment, unwillingness to help others, and less concern with the environment [ 47 – 51 ]. What’s more, the pressure induced by thinking of time as money may ultimately undermine psychological and physical health [ 52 ].

Concerns over ethics and safety notwithstanding, a more prosaic question researchers have grappled with is whether time management works. Countless general-audience books and training programs have claimed that time management improves people’s lives in many ways, such as boosting performance at work [ 53 – 55 ]. Initial academic forays into addressing this question challenged those claims: time management didn’t seem to improve job performance [ 29 , 30 ]. Studies used a variety of research approaches, running the gamut from lab experiments, field experiments, longitudinal studies, and cross-sectional surveys to experience sampling [ 28 , 56 – 58 ]. Such studies occasionally did find an association between time management and performance, but only in highly motivated workers [ 59 ]; instances establishing a more straightforward link with performance were comparatively rare [ 31 ]. Summarizing these insights, reviews of the literature concluded that the link between time management and job performance is unclear; the link with wellbeing, however, seemed more compelling although not conclusive [ 18 , 32 ].

It is interesting to note that scholars often assess the effectiveness time management by its ability to influence some aspect of performance, wellbeing, or both. In other words, the question of whether time management works comes down to asking whether time management influences performance and wellbeing. The link between time management and performance at work can be traced historically to scientific management [ 60 ]. Nevertheless, even though modern time management can be traced to scientific management in male-dominated work settings, a feminist reading of time management history reveals that our modern idea of time management also descends from female time management thinkers of the same era, such as Lillian Gilbreth, who wrote treatises on efficient household management [ 43 , 61 , 62 ]. As the link between work output and time efficiency became clearer, industrialists went to great lengths to encourage workers to use their time more rationally [ 63 – 65 ]. Over time, people have internalized a duty to be productive and now see time management as a personal responsibility at work [ 43 , 66 , 67 ]. The link between time management and academic performance can be traced to schools’ historical emphasis on punctuality and timeliness. In more recent decades, however, homework expectations have soared [ 68 ] and parents, especially well-educated ones, have been spending more time preparing children for increasingly competitive college admissions [ 69 , 70 ]. In this context, time management is seen as a necessary skill for students to thrive in an increasingly cut-throat academic world. Finally, the link between time management and wellbeing harks back to ancient scholars, who emphasized that organizing one’s time was necessary to a life well-lived [ 71 , 72 ]. More recently, empirical studies in the 1980s examined the effect of time management on depressive symptoms that often plague unemployed people [ 19 , 73 ]. Subsequent studies surmised that the effective use of time might prevent a host of ills, such as work-life conflict and job stress [ 22 , 74 ].

Overall, then, various studies have looked into the effectiveness of time management. Yet, individual studies remain narrow in scope and reviews of the literature offer only a qualitative—and often inconclusive—assessment. To provide a more quantifiable answer to the question of whether time management works, we performed a meta-analysis, the methods of which we outline in what follows.

Literature search and inclusion criteria

We performed a comprehensive search using the keywords “time management” across the EBSCO databases Academic Search Complete , Business Source Complete , Computers & Applied Sciences Complete , Gender Studies Database , MEDLINE , Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection , PsycINFO , SocINDEX , and Education Source . The search had no restrictions regarding country and year of publication and included peer-reviewed articles up to 2019. To enhance comprehensiveness, we also ran a forward search on the three main time management measures: the Time Management Behavior Scale [ 21 ], the Time Structure Questionnaire [ 19 ], and the Time Management Questionnaire [ 20 ]. (A forward search tracks all the papers that have cited a particular work. In our case the forward search located all the papers citing the three time management scales available on Web of Science .)

Time management measures typically capture three aspects of time management: structuring, protecting, and adapting time to changing conditions. Structuring refers to how people map their activities to time using a schedule, a planner, or other devices that represent time in a systematic way [ 75 – 77 ]. Protecting refers to how people set boundaries around their time to repel intruders [ 78 , 79 ]. Examples include people saying no to time-consuming requests from colleagues or friends as well as turning off one’s work phone during family dinners. Finally, adapting one’s time to changing conditions means, simply put, to be responsive and flexible with one’s time structure [ 80 , 81 ]. Furthermore, time management measures typically probe behaviors related to these three dimensions (e.g., using a schedule to structure one’s day, making use of downtime), although they sometimes also capture people’s attitudes (e.g., whether people feel in control of their time).

As shown in Fig 1 , the initial search yielded 10,933 hits, excluding duplicates.

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.g001

The search included no terms other than “time management” to afford the broadest possible coverage of time management correlates. Nevertheless, as shown in Table 1 , we focused exclusively on quantitative, empirical studies of time management in non-clinical samples. Successive rounds of screening, first by assessing paper titles and abstracts and then by perusing full-text articles, whittled down the number of eligible studies to 158 (see Fig 1 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.t001

Data extraction and coding

We extracted eligible effect sizes from the final pool of studies; effect sizes were mostly based on means and correlations. In our initial data extraction, we coded time management correlates using the exact variable names found in each paper. For instance, “work-life imbalance” was initially coded in those exact terms, rather than “work-life conflict.” Virtually all time management correlates we extracted fell under the category of performance and/or wellbeing. This pattern tallies with previous reviews of the literature [ 18 , 32 ]. A sizable number of variables also fell under the category of individual differences and contextual factors, such as age, personality, and job autonomy. After careful assessment of the extracted variables, we developed a coding scheme using a nested structure shown in Table 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.t002

Aeon and Aguinis suggested that time management influences performance, although the strength of that relationship may depend on how performance is defined [ 18 ]. Specifically, they proposed that time management may have a stronger impact on behaviors conducive to performance (e.g., motivation, proactiveness) compared to assessments of performance (e.g., supervisor rankings). For this reason, we distinguish between results- and behavior-based performance in our coding scheme, both in professional and academic settings. Furthermore, wellbeing indicators can be positive (e.g., life satisfaction) or negative (e.g., anxiety). We expect time management to influence these variables in opposite ways; it would thus make little sense to analyze them jointly. Accordingly, we differentiate between wellbeing (positive) and distress (negative).

In our second round of coding, we used the scheme shown in Table 2 to cluster together kindred variables. For instance, we grouped “work-life imbalance,” “work-life conflict” and “work-family conflict” under an overarching “work-life conflict” category. The authors reviewed each variable code and resolved rare discrepancies to ultimately agree on all coded variables. Note that certain variables, such as self-actualization, covered only one study (i.e., one effect size). While one or two effect sizes is not enough to conduct a meta-analysis, they can nonetheless be grouped with other effect sizes belonging to the same category (e.g., self-actualization and sense of purpose belong the broader category of overall wellbeing). For this reason, we included variables with one or two effect sizes for comprehensiveness.

Meta-analytic procedures

We conducted all meta-analyses following the variables and cluster of variables outlined in Table 2 . We opted to run all analyses with a random effects model. The alternative—a fixed effects model—assumes that all studies share a common true effect size (i.e., linking time management and a given outcome) which they approximate. This assumption is unrealistic because it implies that the factors influencing the effect size are the same in all studies [ 83 ]. In other words, a fixed effects model assumes that the factors affecting time management are similar across all studies—the fallacy underlying this assumption was the main theme of Aeon and Aguinis’s review [ 18 ]. To perform our analyses, we used Comprehensive Meta-Analysis v.3 [ 84 ], a program considered highly reliable and valid in various systematic assessments [ 85 , 86 ].

In many cases, studies reported how variables correlated with an overall time management score. In some cases, however, studies reported only correlations with discrete time management subscales (e.g., short-range planning, attitudes toward time, use of time management tools), leaving out the overall effect. In such cases, we averaged out the effect sizes of the subscales to compute a summary effect [ 83 ]. This was necessary not only because meta-analyses admit only one effect size per study, but also because our focus is on time management as a whole rather than on subscales. Similarly, when we analyzed the link between time management and a high-level cluster of variables (e.g., overall wellbeing rather than specific variables such as life satisfaction), there were studies with more than one relevant outcome (e.g., a study that captured both life satisfaction and job satisfaction). Again, because meta-analyses allow for only one effect size (i.e., variable) per study, we used the mean of different variables to compute an overall effect sizes in studies that featured more than one outcome [ 83 ].

Overall description of the literature

We analyzed 158 studies for a total number of 490 effect sizes. 21 studies explored performance in a professional context, 76 performance in an academic context, 30 investigated wellbeing (positive), and 58 distress. Interestingly, studies did not systematically report individual differences, as evidenced by the fact that only 21 studies reported correlations with age, and only between 10 and 15 studies measured personality (depending on the personality trait). Studies that measured contextual factors were fewer still—between 3 and 7 (depending on the contextual factor). These figures fit with Aeon and Aguinis’s observation that the time management literature often overlooks internal and external factors that can influence the way people manage time [ 18 ].

With one exception, we found no papers fitting our inclusion criteria before the mid-1980s. Publication trends also indicate an uptick in time management studies around the turn of the millennium, with an even higher number around the 2010s. This trend is consistent with the one Shipp and Cole identified, revealing a surge in time-related papers in organizational behavior around the end of the 1980s [ 87 ].

It is also interesting to note that the first modern time management books came out in the early 1970s, including the The Time Trap (1972), by Alec MacKenzie and How to Get Control of your Time and your Life (1973), by Alan Lakein. These books inspired early modern time management research [ 21 , 58 , 88 ]. It is thus very likely that the impetus for modern time management research came from popular practitioner manuals.

To assess potential bias in our sample of studies, we computed different estimates of publication bias (see Table 3 ). Overall, publication bias remains relatively low (see funnel plots in S1). Publication bias occurs when there is a bias against nonsignificant or even negative results because such results are seen as unsurprising and not counterintuitive. In this case, however, the fact that time management is generally expected to lead to positive outcomes offers an incentive to publish nonsignificant or negative results, which would be counterintuitive [ 89 ]. By the same token, the fact that some people feel that time management is ineffective [ 38 ] provides an incentive to publish papers that link time management with positive outcomes. In other words, opposite social expectations surrounding time management might reduce publication bias.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.t003

Finally, we note that the link between time management and virtually all outcomes studied is highly heterogeneous (as measured, for instance, by Cochran’s Q and Higgins & Thompson’s I 2 ; see tables below). This high level of heterogeneity suggests that future research should pay more attention to moderating factors (e.g., individual differences).

Time management and performance in professional settings

Overall, time management has a moderate impact on performance at work, with correlations hovering around r = .25. We distinguish between results-based and behavior-based performance. The former measures performance as an outcome (e.g., performance appraisals by supervisors) whereas the latter measures performance as behavioral contributions (e.g., motivation, job involvement). Time management seems related to both types of performance. Although the effect size for results-based performance is lower than that of behavior-based performance, moderation analysis reveals the difference is not significant (p > .05), challenging Aeon and Aguinis’s conclusions [ 18 ].

Interestingly, the link between time management and performance displays much less heterogeneity (see Q and I 2 statistics in Table 4 ) than the link between time management and other outcomes (see tables below). The studies we summarize in Table 4 include both experimental and non-experimental designs; they also use different time management measures. As such, we can discount, to a certain extent, the effect of methodological diversity. We can perhaps explain the lower heterogeneity by the fact that when people hold a full-time job, they usually are at a relatively stable stage in life. In school, by contrast, a constellation of factors (e.g., financial stability and marital status, to name a few) conspire to affect time management outcomes. Furthermore, work contexts are a typically more closed system than life in general. For this reason, fewer factors stand to disrupt the link between time management and job performance than that between time management and, say, life satisfaction. Corroborating this, note how, in Table 6 below, the link between time management and job satisfaction ( I 2 = 58.70) is much less heterogeneous than the one between time management and life satisfaction ( I 2 = 95.45).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.t004

Moreover, we note that the relationship between time management and job performance (see Fig 2 ) significantly increases over the years ( B = .0106, p < .01, Q model = 8.52(1), Q residual = 15.54(9), I 2 = 42.08, R 2 analog = .75).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.g002

Time management and performance in academic settings

Overall, the effect of time management on performance seems to be slightly higher in academic settings compared to work settings, although the magnitude of the effect remains moderate (see Table 5 ). Here again, we distinguish between results- and behavior-based performance. Time management’s impact on behavior-based performance seems much higher than on results-based performance—a much wider difference than the one we observed in professional settings. This suggests than results-based performance in academic settings depends less on time management than results-based performance in professional settings. This means that time management is more likely to get people a good performance review at work than a strong GPA in school.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.t005

In particular, time management seems to be much more negatively related to procrastination in school than at work. Although we cannot establish causation in all studies, we note that some of them featured experimental designs that established a causal effect of time management on reducing procrastination [ 90 ].

Interestingly, time management was linked to all types of results-based performance except for standardized tests. This is perhaps due to the fact that standardized tests tap more into fluid intelligence, a measure of intelligence independent of acquired knowledge [ 91 ]. GPA and regular exam scores, in contrast, tap more into crystallized intelligence, which depends mostly on accumulated knowledge. Time management can thus assist students in organizing their time to acquire the knowledge necessary to ace a regular exam; for standardized exams that depend less on knowledge and more on intelligence, however, time management may be less helpful. Evidence from other studies bears this out: middle school students’ IQ predicts standardized achievement tests scores better than self-control while self-control predicts report card grades better than IQ [ 92 ]. (For our purposes, we can use self-control as a very rough proxy for time management.) Relatedly, we found no significant relationship between time management and cognitive ability in our meta-analysis (see Table 8 ).

Time management and wellbeing

On the whole, time management has a slightly stronger impact on wellbeing than on performance. This is unexpected, considering how the dominant discourse points to time management as a skill for professional career development. Of course, the dominant discourse also frames time management as necessary for wellbeing and stress reduction, but to a much lesser extent. Our finding that time management has a stronger influence on wellbeing in no way negates the importance of time management as a work skill. Rather, this finding challenges the intuitive notion that time management is more effective for work than for other life domains. As further evidence, notice how in Table 6 the effect of time management on life satisfaction is 72% stronger than that on job satisfaction.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.t006

Time management and distress

Time management seems to allay various forms of distress, although to a lesser extent than it enhances wellbeing. The alleviating effect on psychological distress is particularly strong ( r = -0.358; see Table 7 ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.t007

That time management has a weaker effect on distress should not be surprising. First, wellbeing and distress are not two poles on opposite ends of a spectrum. Although related, wellbeing and distress are distinct [ 93 ]. Thus, there is no reason to expect time management to have a symmetrical effect on wellbeing and distress. Second, and relatedly, the factors that influence wellbeing and distress are also distinct. Specifically, self-efficacy (i.e., seeing oneself as capable) is a distinct predictor of wellbeing while neuroticism and life events in general are distinct predictors of distress [ 94 ]. It stands to reason that time management can enhance self-efficacy. (Or, alternatively, that people high in self-efficacy would be more likely to engage in time management, although experimental evidence suggests that time management training makes people feel more in control of their time [ 89 ]; it is thus plausible that time management may have a causal effect on self-efficacy. Relatedly, note how time management ability is strongly related to internal locus of control in Table 8 ) In contrast, time management can do considerably less in the way of tackling neuroticism and dampening the emotional impact of tragic life events. In other words, the factors that affect wellbeing may be much more within the purview of time management than the factors that affect distress. For this reason, time management may be less effective in alleviating distress than in improving wellbeing.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.t008

Time management and individual differences

Time management is, overall, less related to individual differences than to other variables.

Age, for instance, hardly correlates with time management (with a relatively high consistency between studies, I 2 = 55.79, see Table 8 above).

Similarly, gender only tenuously correlates with time management, although in the expected direction: women seem to have stronger time management abilities than men. The very weak association with gender ( r = -0.087) is particularly surprising given women’s well-documented superior self-regulation skills [ 95 ]. That being said, women’s time management abilities seem to grow stronger over the years ( N = 37, B = -.0049, p < .05, Q model = 3.89(1), Q residual = 218.42(35), I 2 = 83.98, R 2 analog = .03; also see Fig 3 below). More realistically, this increase may not be due to women’s time management abilities getting stronger per se but, rather, to the fact that women now have more freedom to manage their time [ 96 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.g003

Other demographic indicators, such as education and number of children, were nonsignificant. Similarly, the relationships between time management and personal attributes and attitudes were either weak or nonsignificant, save for two notable exceptions. First, the link between time management and internal locus of control (i.e., the extent to which people perceive they’re in control of their lives) is quite substantial. This is not surprising, because time management presupposes that people believe they can change their lives. Alternatively, it may be that time management helps people strengthen their internal locus of control, as experimental evidence suggests [ 89 ]. Second, the link between time management and self-esteem is equally substantial. Here again, one can make the argument either way: people with high self-esteem might be confident enough to manage their time or, conversely, time management may boost self-esteem. The two options are not mutually exclusive: people with internal loci of control and high self-esteem levels can feel even more in control of their lives and better about themselves through time management.

We also note a very weak but statistically significant negative association between time management and multitasking. It has almost become commonsense that multitasking does not lead to performance [ 97 ]. As a result, people with stronger time management skills might deliberately steer clear of this notoriously ineffective strategy.

In addition, time management was mildly related to hours spent studying but not hours spent working. (These variables cover only student samples working part- or full-time and thus do not apply to non-student populations.) This is consistent with time-use studies revealing that teenagers and young adults spend less time working and more time studying [ 98 ]. Students who manage their time likely have well-defined intentions, and trends suggest those intentions will target education over work because, it is hoped, education offers larger payoffs over the long-term [ 99 ].

In terms of contextual factors, time management does not correlate significantly with job autonomy. This is surprising, as we expected autonomy to be a prerequisite for time management (i.e., you can’t manage time if you don’t have the freedom to). Nevertheless, qualitative studies have shown how even in environments that afford little autonomy (e.g., restaurants), workers can carve out pockets of time freedom to momentarily cut loose [ 100 ]. Thus, time management behaviors may flourish even in the most stymying settings. In addition, the fact that time management is associated with less role overload and previous attendance of time management training programs makes sense: time management can mitigate the effect of heavy workloads and time management training, presumably, improves time management skills.

Finally, time management is linked to all personality traits. Moreover, previous reviews of the literature have commented on the link between time management and conscientiousness in particular [ 32 ]. What our study reveals is the substantial magnitude of the effect ( r = 0.451). The relationship is not surprising: conscientiousness entails orderliness and organization, which overlap significantly with time management. That time management correlates so strongly with personality (and so little with other individual differences) lends credence to the dispositional view of time management [ 101 – 103 ]. However, this finding should not be taken to mean that time management is a highly inheritable, fixed ability. Having a “you either have it or you don’t” view of time management is not only counterproductive [ 104 ] but also runs counter to evidence showing that time management training does, in fact, help people manage their time better.

Does time management work? It seems so. Time management has a moderate influence on job performance, academic achievement, and wellbeing. These three outcomes play an important role in people’s lives. Doing a good job at work, getting top grades in school, and nurturing psychological wellbeing contribute to a life well lived. Widespread exhortations to get better at time management are thus not unfounded: the importance of time management is hard to overstate.

Contributions

Beyond answering the question of whether time management works, this study contributes to the literature in three major ways. First, we quantify the impact of time management on several outcomes. We thus not only address the question of whether time management works, but also, and importantly, gauge to what extent time management works. Indeed, our meta-analysis covers 53,957 participants, which allows for a much more precise, quantified assessment of time management effectiveness compared to qualitative reviews.

Second, this meta-analysis systematically assesses relationships between time management and a host of individual differences and contextual factors. This helps us draw a more accurate portrait of potential antecedents of higher (or lower) scores on time management measures.

Third, our findings challenge intuitive ideas concerning what time management is for. Specifically, we found that time management enhances wellbeing—and in particular life satisfaction—to a greater extent than it does various types of performance. This runs against the popular belief that time management primarily helps people perform better and that wellbeing is simply a byproduct of better performance. Of course, it may be that wellbeing gains, even if higher than performance gains, hinge on performance; that is to say, people may need to perform better as a prerequisite to feeling happier. But this argument doesn’t jibe with experiments showing that even in the absence of performance gains, time management interventions do increase wellbeing [ 89 ]. This argument also founders in the face of evidence linking time management with wellbeing among the unemployed [ 105 ], unemployment being an environment where performance plays a negligible role, if any. As such, this meta-analysis lends support to definitions of time management that are not work- or performance-centric.

Future research and limitations

This meta-analysis questions whether time management should be seen chiefly as a performance device. Our questioning is neither novel nor subversive: historically people have managed time for other reasons than efficiency, such as spiritual devotion and philosophical contemplation [ 72 , 106 , 107 ]. It is only with relatively recent events, such as the Industrial Revolution and waves of corporate downsizing, that time management has become synonymous with productivity [ 43 , 65 ]. We hope future research will widen its scope and look more into outcomes other than performance, such as developing a sense of meaning in life [ 108 ]. One of the earliest time management studies, for instance, explored how time management relates to having a sense of purpose [ 73 ]. However, very few studies followed suit since. Time management thus stands to become a richer, more inclusive research area by investigating a wider array of outcomes.

In addition, despite the encouraging findings of this meta-analysis we must refrain from seeing time management as a panacea. Though time management can make people’s lives better, it is not clear how easy it is for people to learn how to manage their time adequately. More importantly, being “good” at time management is often a function of income, education, and various types of privilege [ 42 , 43 , 46 , 109 ]. The hackneyed maxim that “you have as many hours in a day as Beyoncé,” for instance, blames people for their “poor” time management in pointing out that successful people have just as much time but still manage to get ahead. Yet this ill-conceived maxim glosses over the fact that Beyoncé and her ilk do, in a sense, have more hours in a day than average people who can’t afford a nanny, chauffeur, in-house chefs, and a bevy of personal assistants. Future research should thus look into ways to make time management more accessible.

Furthermore, this meta-analysis rests on the assumption that time management training programs do enhance people’s time management skills. Previous reviews have noted the opacity surrounding time management interventions—studies often don’t explain what, exactly, is taught in time management training seminars [ 18 ]. As a result, comparing the effect of different interventions might come down to comparing apples and oranges. (This might partly account for the high heterogeneity between studies.) We hope that our definition of time management will spur future research into crafting more consistent, valid, and generalizable interventions that will allow for more meaningful comparisons.

Finally, most time management studies are cross-sectional. Yet it is very likely that the effect of time management compounds over time. If time management can help students get better grades, for instance, those grades can lead to better jobs down the line [ 110 ]. Crucially, learning a skill takes time, and if time management helps people make the time to learn a skill, then time management stands to dramatically enrich people’s lives. For this reason, longitudinal studies can track different cohorts to see how time management affects people’s lives over time. We expect that developing time management skills early on in life can create a compound effect whereby people acquire a variety of other skills thanks to their ability to make time.

Overall, this study offers the most comprehensive, precise, and fine-grained assessment of time management to date. We address the longstanding debate over whether time management influences job performance in revealing a positive, albeit moderate effect. Interestingly, we found that time management impacts wellbeing—and in particular life satisfaction—to a greater extent than performance. That means time management may be primarily a wellbeing enhancer, rather than a performance booster. Furthermore, individual and external factors played a minor role in time management, although this does not necessarily mean that time management’s effectiveness is universal. Rather, we need more research that focuses on the internal and external variables that affect time management outcomes. We hope this study will tantalize future research and guide practitioners in their attempt to make better use of their time.

Supporting information

S1 checklist. prisma 2009 checklist..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.s001

S1 File. Funnel plots.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.s002

S2 File. Dataset.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.s003

Acknowledgments

We would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge our colleagues for their invaluable help: Mengchan Gao, Talha Aziz, Elizabeth Eley, Robert Nason, Andrew Ryder, Tracy Hecht, and Caroline Aubé.

1. Carlin G. When will Jesus bring the pork chops? New York, NY: Hyperion; 2004.
2. Lewis S, O’Kun L. One-minute bedtime stories. New York, NY: Doubleday; 1982.
View Article
Google Scholar
PubMed/NCBI
8. Boerma J, Karabarbounis L. Labor Market Trends and the Changing Value of Time [Internet]. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2019 Sep [cited 2019 Dec 20] p. w26301. Report No.: w26301. Available from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w26301.pdf
12. Clinton B. My life. New York, NY: Knopf; 2004. https://doi.org/10.1080/15216540400003425 pmid:15545218
16. Pausch R, Zaslow J. The last lecture. New York, NY: Hyperion; 2008.
17. Google Ngram Viewer. The rise of time management. Google Books. 2016.
40. Southerton D. Re-ordering temporal rhythms: Coordinating daily practices in the UK in 1937 and 2000. In: Shove E, Trentmann F, Wilk R, editors. Time, consumption, and everyday life: Practice, materiality and culture. New York, NY: Berg; 2009. p. 49–63.
41. Gregg M. Getting things done: Productivity, self-management, and the order of things. In: Hillis K, Paasonen S, Petit M, editors. Networked Affect. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2015. p. 187–202.
42. Reagle JM. Hacking life: Systematized living and its discontents. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2019. 204 p. (Strong ideas series).
43. Gregg M. Counterproductive: Time management in the knowledge economy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 2018.
46. Costas J, Grey C. Outsourcing your life: Exploitation and exploration in “The 4-hour workweek.” In: Holmqvist M, Spicer A, editors. Managing ‘Human Resources’ by exploiting and exploring people’s potentials (Research in the sociology of organizations, volume 37). Bingley, UK: Emerald; 2013.
53. Allen D. Getting things done: The art of stress-free productivity. New York, NY: Penguin; 2001.
54. Lakein A. How to get control of your time and your Life. New York, NY: Signet; 1973.
55. Sutherland J. Scrum: The art of doing twice the work in half the time. New York, NY: Crown Business; 2014.
60. Taylor FW. The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers; 1911.
63. Landes DS. Revolution in time: Clocks and the making of the modern world. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; 1983. 482 p.
64. Martineau J. Time, capitalism and alienation: A socio-historical inquiry into the making of modern time. Boston, MA: Brill; 2015.
66. Alvesson M, Deetz SA. Critical Theory and Postmodernism Approaches to Organizational Studies. In: Clegg SR, Hardy C, Lawrence TB, Nord WR, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2006. p. 255–83.
70. Ramey G, Ramey V. The Rug Rat Race [Internet]. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2009 Aug [cited 2020 Feb 27] p. w15284. Report No.: w15284. Available from: http://www.nber.org/papers/w15284.pdf
71. Aurelius M. Meditations. In: Eliot CW, editor. Harvard Classics vol 2. New York, NY: P.F. Collier & Son; 1909. p. 193–306.
72. Seneca LA. On the shortness of life. In: Hardship and Happiness. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press; 2014. p. 110–34.
76. Doob LW. Patterning of time. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1971.
83. Borenstein M, editor. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, U.K: John Wiley & Sons; 2009. 421 p.
84. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version 3. Englewood, NJ: Biostat; 2013.
96. Goodin RE, Rice JM, Parpo A, Eriksson L. Discretionary time: A new measure of freedom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
101. Burrus A. What Does Time Management Mean to You? Exploring Measures of Time Management and Group Differences [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Missouri-St. Louis; 2019.
109. Sharma S. In the meantime: Temporality and cultural politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 2014.

SUGGESTED TOPICS
The Magazine
Newsletters
Managing Yourself
Managing Teams
Work-life Balance
The Big Idea
Data & Visuals
Reading Lists
Case Selections
HBR Learning
Topic Feeds
Account Settings
Email Preferences

Why Cross-Functional Collaboration Stalls, and How to Fix It

Sharon Cantor Ceurvorst,
Kristina LaRocca-Cerrone,
Aparajita Mazumdar,

Research shows that 78% of leaders report “collaboration drag” — too many meetings, too much peer feedback, and too much time spent getting buy-in from stakeholders.

Gartner research shows 78% of organizational leaders report experiencing “collaboration drag” — too many meetings, too much peer feedback, unclear decision-making authority, and too much time spent getting buy-in from stakeholders. This problem is compounded by the fact that companies are running as many as five types of complex initiatives at the same time — each of which could involve five to eight corporate functions and 20 to 35 team members. The sheer breadth of resource commitments across such a range of initiatives creates a basic, pervasive background complexity. To better equip teams to meet the demands of this complexity, Gartner recommends the following strategies: 1) Extend executive alignment practices down to tactical levels; 2) Develop employee strategic and interpersonal skills; and 3) Look for collaboration drag within functions or teams.

Corporate growth is the ultimate team sport, relying on multiple functions’ data, technology, and expertise. This is especially true as technology innovation and AI introduce new revenue streams and business models, which require significant cross-functional collaboration to get off the ground.

SC Sharon Cantor Ceurvorst is vice president of research in the Gartner marketing practice , finding new ways of solving B2B and B2C strategic marketing challenges. She sets annual research agendas and harnesses the collective expertise of marketing analysts and research methodologists to generate actionable insights.
KL Kristina LaRocca-Cerrone is senior director of advisory in the Gartner marketing practice , overseeing Gartner’s coverage of marketing leadership and strategy, cross-functional collaboration, proving the value of marketing, and marketing innovation and transformation.
AM Aparajita Mazumdar is senior research principal in the Gartner marketing practice , co-leading the research agenda for marketing technology. Her research focuses primarily on marketing strategy and technology topics such as cross-functional collaboration and marketing technology utilization.
AN Anja Naski is senior research specialist in the Gartner marketing practice . She edits the Gartner CMO Quarterly journal, highlighting the latest insights on critical challenges facing CMOs. Her research covers topics related to marketing operations, CMO leadership, and cross-functional collaboration.

Partner Center

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

A review of the time management literature

2007, Personnel Review

Related Papers

Time management has helped people organize their professional lives for centuries. The existing literature, however, reveals mixed findings and lack of clarity as to whether, when, how, and why time management leads to critical outcomes such as well-being and job performance. Furthermore, insights relevant to time management are scattered across various disciplines, including sociology, psychology, and behavioral economics. We address both issues by synthesizing and integrating insightful elements from various fields and domains into three novel perspectives on time management. First, we draw on the sociology of time to describe two key concepts: time structures and time norms. We illustrate how time structures and time norms operate at the team, organizational, and national levels of analysis in influencing time management outcomes. Second, we draw on the psychology of time to show how individual differences including time-related beliefs, attitudes, and preferences affect the way people manage time and, consequently, time management outcomes. Third, we rely on the behavioral economics literature to describe how cognitive biases influence individual time management decisions. Integrating insights from a diverse set of fields results in a better understanding of past research and allows us to reinterpret conflicting results prevalent in the time management literature. Finally, we offer directions for future research and discuss implications for how organizations and individuals can implement interventions resulting in a stronger and positive relationship between time management and desirable outcomes.

Kaye Enrique

Ida Sabelis

Abstract The topic of time management inevitably emerges when researching concepts of time in organizations. And, as we live in a society where we deal with organizations all the time and in a variety of forms, we are continually confronted with the way in which time is managed in an'organizational'way. This article departs from a critical overview of time-management literature and confronts the assumptions therein with the experiences of a (female) chief executive, managing her time.

jude tamukong

Shahabuddin Mughal

To survive and succeed in the competent world in today's increasingly hostile and fast-moving business environment, organizations have to manage time efficiently. Employee motivation and satisfaction are the prime aspects of all the organizations nowadays. Proper management of time plays a vital role in motivating the employees and thus improving the performance of the organization. The innovation based organization with the effective use of time management lead towards business growth, enhanced organizational performance and helps in increasing employee's comfort level. This research study is intended to assess the level of time management in public and private sector organizations and then to find the impact of time management on employee satisfaction and the overall performance of the organization. Close ended questionnaires were administered from 260 male and female faculty members and students of public and private universities of Hyderabad and Jamshoro districts. Data was analyzed through independent sample T-test and correlation. The results of the test indicated that employees of both type of organizations act on time management almost equally. The result also indicated that females are more time conscious as compared to

Kaveh Farrokh - Langara College

ronald dulay

Evgeny Osin

In this review questions such as " What is a good use of time? " , " How can one achieve satisfaction with their time? " and " How can one's relationship with time contribute to their well-being? " are raised and discussed with regard to empirical research on various aspects of positive psychology of time. This paper differs from traditional approach to thinking about time in organisations in three substantial ways. Firstly, it reviews the existing empirical research on time use, focusing on the implications of this research for organizations and individuals. Secondly, it highlights the limitations of believing that time is infinitely stretchable and defined good time use as one that results in increased well-being, rather than productivity at the expense of well-being. Thirdly, although the workplace is in the centre of the paper, we view time use from a broader perspective of life and work-leisure balance. A range of evidence is considered, based on both objective and subjective time use studies, suggesting specific measures to increase well-being through time use, first of all, at workplace, but also touching on other domains, such as media, leisure, etc. Based on Self-Determination Theory, we argue that good time use results from choosing activities that help people to satisfy their basic needs and are directed at intrinsic goals (helping other people, establishing relationships, developing and growing as a person, maintaining health and balance in one's life). A pathway to increase basic need satisfaction and, as a result, happiness associated with good time use, is by supporting autonomy: giving people more opportunities for choosing and working towards goals that are self-congruent and intrinsic, benefitting both themselves and societies. Keywords: time management, time use, satisfaction with time use, time use and well-being, positive psychology of time, time affluence, balanced time perspective

Irina Melinte

INTRODUCTIONTime management has increasingly become an issue of crucial relevance.Time needs to be viewed as a complex mathematical value and not as a simple linear graphic, hence the current debate of whether it is better to follow classical methods to speed up the pace as the fast hare or the alternative view of actually slowing down the rhythm like the wise tortoise. The current paper aims at developing, besides the classical and the alternative views regarding time management, a third category of methods that focus on the individual, personal perception of time."Do you begin each day with a planner brimming with goals and to-dos that are important to you, or are you handcuffed by poorly planned days that result in nothing done by day's end? Plan and achieve." This is a constant slogan that we hear daily in all personal development and time management seminaries. But is it all that easy as they say?In today's hectic life style, it is becoming increasingly diffic...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Alicia Stachowski

British Journal of Psychology

J. Francis-smythe , Ivan Robertson

SHEFERAW M . BEZABIH

eman shilbayah

Psihologija

Boštjan Bajec

winter zhang

Hede Helfrich

Texila International Journal , James Ziekye

Büşranur EKİNCİ

International Journal of Training and Development

Denise Skinner

International Review of Management and Business Research

Masud Akhtar

Almaz Sandybayev

Assistant Professor Dr. Bojan Macuh

Journal of Managerial Psychology

Peter Totterdell

SADIQ YUNUSA

amat agikko

AMCIS 2005 Proceedings

IOSR Journals

European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences

Mehdi Esmaili

International Journal of Social Science and Economic Research

Abdulwaheed Salihu

Review of Innovation and Competitiveness

Jeton Mazllami

ARINZE AMARACHUKWU

Work and Occupations

Science Journal of Business and Management

Michael Rombe

Hospital Topics