BIG TIME! A TIME MANAGEMENT META-ANALYSIS

Abstract

Does time management work? We conducted a meta-analysis to assess its effectiveness. Results show that time management is moderately related to job performance, academic achievement, and wellbeing. Time management also shows a slightly weaker, negative relationship with illbeing. Interestingly, individual differences and contextual factors play a minor role, with the notable exception of conscientiousness. The extremely weak correlation with gender was unexpected: women seem to manage time better than men, but the advantage is very slight. Using meta- regression, we found that culture at times moderates the link between time management and wellbeing. Furthermore, the link between time management and job performance seems to increase over the years: time management is more likely to get people a good performance review at work today than in the early 1990s. The link between time management and gender, too, is intensifying: women’s time management scores have been on the rise for the past few decades. Moderation analyses were otherwise nonsignificant, suggesting that research hasn’t paid much attention to moderators or, alternatively, that the effect of time management is relatively universal. 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 intuitive idea that time management first and foremost enhances work performance and that wellbeing is only a byproduct. It might very well be the other way around.

INTRODUCTION

Stand-up comedian George Carlin (2004, p. 94) once quipped that in the future a “time machine will be built, but no one will have time to use it.” Portentously, booksellers now carry five-minute bedtime stories for time-starved parents (Tiger Tales, 2014) and people increasingly speed-watch videos and speed-listen to audio books (Garber, 2015; Mele, 2016; Wilson, Martin, Smilek, & Risko, 2018). These behaviors are symptomatic of an increasingly harried society. Work is intensifying—in a 1965 time-use survey about 50% of workers took breaks; in 2003, less than 2% (Robinson & Martin, 2009). Leisure, too, is intensifying: people scramble to consume music, social media, and other leisure activities ever more efficiently (Boerma & Karabarbounis, 2019; Keinan & Kivetz, 2011; Lorenz-Spreen, Mønsted, Hövel, & Lehmann, 2019; Schneider & Gros, 2019).

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 (Clinton, 2004; Hodge & Lear, 2011; Lorenz & Pinsker, 2019; Malatras et al., 2016; Pausch & Zaslow, 2008). 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% (Google Ngram Viewer, 2016).

But what, exactly, is time management? We define time management as the act of structuring, protecting, stretching, and making sense of one’s time2_{. Temporal structuring consists in} organizing activities in time (e.g., by using a schedule); temporal protecting consists in restricting one’s availability during a certain periods (e.g., by turning off the phone while working); temporal

stretching consists in increasing efficiency (e.g., doing things faster or delegating tasks); temporal sensemaking consists in ascribing meaning, purpose, and direction to temporal behaviors (e.g., by setting goals and dedicating most of one’s time to the pursuit of those goals).

A fundamental gap in time management research is the question of whether time management works (Green & Skinner, 2005; Macan, 1994). For instance, studies on the relationship between time management and job performance reveal mixed findings (Macan, 1996; Orpen, 1994). Furthermore, scholars’ attempts to synthesize the literature have so far been qualitative, precluding a quantitative answer (Aeon & Aguinis, 2017; Claessens et al., 2007; Richards, 1987). Another obstacle to integration is the fact that time management research tends to be scattered across various disciplines such as psychology, education, nursing, and computer science. We surmise that this fragmentation of the literature stems from the fact that in the 1970s, when the first popular time management manuals were written, several disciplines saw time management as being important for practical (such as helping students get better grades in education research) and theoretical purposes (e.g., understand the cognitive underpinnings of time management in psychology) and, as a result, engaged in research simultaneously but independently.

To tackle these issues and offer a more integrated understanding of time management, we conducted a meta-analysis. In addressing the question of whether time management works, we first clarify the standards for effectiveness. In line with previous reviews, we find that virtually all studies focus on two broad outcomes: performance and wellbeing (Aeon & Aguinis, 2017; Claessens et al., 2007).

Overall, results show 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 behaviors (e.g., using a to-

do list), 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 an increasingly flexible workplace (Cappelli & Keller, 2013; Golden, 2001; Hamermesh, 1999; Wegman, Hoffman, Carter, Twenge, & Guenole, 2018). National culture also slightly moderates the link between time management and wellbeing. However, in most cases, mean sample age, student status, country, culture, research design, and type of time management measure did not significantly affect time management’s impact on performance and wellbeing. The absence of significant moderations may be due to the literature’s lack of focus on relevant contextual factors (Aeon & Aguinis, 2017). Alternatively, the lack of significant moderation might reflect the universality of time management’s benefits—time management might enhance performance and wellbeing in nearly all contexts.

Overall, our findings provide academics, policymakers, managers, and the general audience with better information to assess the value of time management. This information is all the more useful amid growing doubts about the effectiveness of time management (e.g., Burkeman, 2016). We elaborate on the contributions and implications of our findings in the discussion section.