Does time management work? A meta-analysis

Abstract

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.

Full text

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Does time management work? A meta-
analysis
Brad AeonID
1
*, Aïda Faber
2
, Alexandra Panaccio
1
1Concordia University, Sir George Williams Campus, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2FSA Ulaval, Laval
University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
*brad.aeon@timeresearch.org
Abstract
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 mod-
erately related to job performance, academic achievement, and wellbeing. Time manage-
ment 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 gen-
der 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 manage-
ment 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.
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 fre-
quency of books mentioning time management shot up by more than 2,700% [17].
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 1 / 20
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
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 Pe
´rez-Gonza
´lez, 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 Statement: 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

Time management is defined as “a form of decision making used by individuals to struc-
ture, protect, and adapt their time to changing conditions” [18]. This means time manage-
ment, as it is generally portrayed in the literature, comprises three components: structuring,
protecting, and adapting time. Well-established time management measures reflect these con-
cepts. 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 popu-
larity 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 con-
textual factors (e.g., job autonomy, workload) were much less related to time management
ability, with the notable exception of personality and, in particular, conscientiousness. Further-
more, 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 bet-
ter 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 manage-
ment, reflecting at least part of the population’s growing disenchantment [38]. This question-
ing 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 ques-
tion is whether the techniques championed by time management gurus can be actually coun-
terproductive or even harmful [26,42]. Other scholars have raised concerns that time
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 2 / 20

management may foster an individualistic, quantitative, profit-oriented view of time that per-
petuates social inequalities [43,44]. For instance, time management manuals beguile readers
with promises of boundless productivity that may not be accessible to women, whose dispro-
portionate 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 pres-
sure, 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 experi-
ments, field experiments, longitudinal studies, and cross-sectional surveys to experience sam-
pling [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 ques-
tion 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 respon-
sibility 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-edu-
cated ones, have been spending more time preparing children for increasingly competitive col-
lege 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].
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 3 / 20

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.
Method
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 regard-
ing 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 manage-
ment 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: structur-
ing, 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, mak-
ing 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.
The search included no terms other than “time management” to afford the broadest possi-
ble 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 perus-
ing full-text articles, whittled down the number of eligible studies to 158 (see Fig 1).
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 corre-
lates 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 vari-
ables 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 devel-
oped a coding scheme using a nested structure shown in Table 2.
Aeon and Aguinis suggested that time management influences performance, although the
strength of that relationship may depend on how performance is defined [18]. Specifically,
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 4 / 20

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 per-
formance 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).
Fig 1. PRISMA chart summarizing the screening process [82].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.g001
Table 1. Summary of inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria
Study must contain a quantitative measure of time
management (e.g., scale, survey, questionnaire) and/or
feature a time management experiment with at least one
control group
Qualitative approaches (e.g., interviews, case studies)
Construct must be related to time management, such as
time structure, time planning, scheduling, time
management behaviors, time management practice, time
management skills, and attitudes toward time
management
Time-use studies (e.g., national time-use surveys,
individual-level time-tracking studies), time perception
studies, studies on non-personal time management
(e.g., real-time management in supply chains), and time
management studies focusing mainly on clinical
samples (e.g., with chronic pain or ADHD)
Study must be about time management in relation to
other variables (e.g., life satisfaction, stress, academic
achievement)
Studies focusing exclusively on time management (e.g.,
factor analyses)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.t001
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 5 / 20

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 man-
agement 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 sim-
ilar 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].
Meta-analyses do not typically perform calculations on correlations (e.g., Pearson’s r).
Instead, we transformed correlations into Fisher’s z scales [83]. The transformation was done
Table 2. Coding scheme for time management correlates.
Performance Wellbeing Individual Differences
Professional Setting Academic Setting Positive
(wellbeing)
Negative
(distress)
Demographics Personality Attributes
and
Attitudes
Contextual
Factors
Results-
based
Behavior-based Results-
based
Behavior-based Job
Satisfaction
Emotional
Exhaustion
Age Agreeableness Internal
Locus of
Control
Job
Autonomy
Job
performance
Creativity GPA Procrastination
(reverse coded)
Life
Satisfaction
Stress Gender Extraversion Type A Role
Overload
Helping
Behavior
Standardized
Tests
Motivation Mental
Health
(positive)
Work-life
Conflict
Education Conscientiousness Self-esteem Time
Management
Training
Job
Involvement
Test Scores Optimism Anxiety Number of
Children
Neuroticism Protestant
Work Ethic
Procrastination
(reverse coded)
Physical
health
(positive)
Depression Marital Status Openness Multitasking
Motivation Positive
affect
Psychological
Distress
Cognitive
Ability
Proactiveness Self-
actualization
Hopelessness Hours
Worked
Sense of
purpose
Boredom
Wellbeing Negative
Affect
Worry
Physical
Distress
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.t002
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 6 / 20

with z¼0:5ln 1þr
1r
 �, where rrepresents the correlation extracted from each individual
study. The variance of Fisher’s Z was calculated as Vz¼1
n3where ncorresponds to the study’s
sample size; the standard error of Fisher’s Z was calculated as SEz¼ffiffiffiffiffi
Vz
p.
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 manage-
ment 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 sub-
scales 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 manage-
ment 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 com-
pute an overall effect sizes in studies that featured more than one outcome [83].
Results
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 differ-
ences, 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 contex-
tual 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 man-
age 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 man-
agement research came from popular practitioner manuals.
To assess potential bias in our sample of studies, we computed different estimates of publi-
cation 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] pro-
vides an incentive to publish papers that link time management with positive outcomes. In
other words, opposite social expectations surrounding time management might reduce publi-
cation bias.
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 7 / 20

Finally, we note that the link between time management and virtually all outcomes studied
is highly heterogeneous (as measured, for instance, by Cochran’s Qand Higgins & Thomp-
son’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 perfor-
mance. The former measures performance as an outcome (e.g., performance appraisals by
supervisors) whereas the latter measures performance as behavioral contributions (e.g., moti-
vation, 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), challeng-
ing Aeon and Aguinis’s conclusions [18].
Interestingly, the link between time management and performance displays much less het-
erogeneity (see Qand I
2
statistics in Table 4) than the link between time management and
Table 3. Publication bias estimates for each time management outcome.
Job performance Academic achievement Wellbeing Distress
Classic Fail-Safe N344 2,735 6,496 9,333
Orwin’s Fail-Safe N75 309 339 364
Egger’s Test of the Intercept B(0) = 2.76 B(0) = 1.18 B(0) = 0.31 B(0) = -1.18
CI (95%) = (-.77; 6.28) CI (95%) = (-.36; 2.72) CI (95%) = (-.4.08; 4.69) CI (95%) = (-.3.31; 0.94)
p>.05 p>.05 p>.05 p>.05
Duval & Tweedie’s Trim and Fill Method 1 study missing 0 studies missing 0 studies missing 14 studies missing
New effect size = .188 New effect size = .283
Overall Degree of Publication Bias Moderate Low Low Moderate
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.t003
Table 4. Time management and performance in professional settings.
Variable k N r 95% CI Q(df) τ
2
τ
2
(SE) I
2
Performance (overall) 21 3,990 0.259 0.197–0.318 77.32 (20) 0.016 0.007 74.13
Results-based performance (overall) 13 2,532 0.221 0.144–0.295 44.19 (12) 0.015 0.009 72.84
Behavior-based performance (overall) 13 2,474 0.297 0.225–0.365 40.56 (12) 0.013 0.008 70.41
Creativity 1 213 0.460 0.347–0.560 - - - -
Helping behavior 1 254 0.1600.038–0.278 - - - -
Job involvement 4 617 0.207 0.129–0.282 2.99 (3) 0 0.006 0
Procrastination (reverse coded) 2 198 0.374 0.166–0.550 1.61 (1) 0.012 0.046 37.92
Motivation 4 711 0.352 0.226–0.467 10.12 (3) 0.014 0.016 70.37
Proactiveness 3 813 0.267 0.121–0.401 8.81 (2) 0.014 0.018 77.30
p<.05
 p<.01
 p<.001.
k = number of studies related to the variable | N = total sample size related to the variable.
r = effect size of the correlation between time management and the variable | 95% CI = confidence interval of the effect size.
Q = Cochran’s Q, a measure of between-study heterogeneity | τ
2
= measure of between-study variance | I
2
= alternative measure of between-study heterogeneity.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.t004
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 8 / 20

other outcomes (see tables below). The studies we summarize in Table 4 include both experi-
mental 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 per-
haps 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 per-
formance 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).
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
2analog
= .75).
Time management and performance in academic settings
Overall, the effect of time management on performance seems to be slightly higher in aca-
demic settings compared to work settings, although the magnitude of the effect remains mod-
erate (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.
In particular, time management seems to be much more negatively related to procrastina-
tion in school than at work. Although we cannot establish causation in all studies, we note that
Fig 2. The strength of the relationship between time management and job performance increases over the years.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.g002
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 9 / 20

some of them featured experimental designs that established a causal effect of time manage-
ment 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 reg-
ular 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 perfor-
mance. This is unexpected, considering how the dominant discourse points to time manage-
ment 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.
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).
Table 5. Time management and performance in academic settings.
Variable k N R 95% CI Q(df) τ
2
τ
2
(SE) I
2
Academic Achievement (overall) 76 30,605 0.262 0.223–0.300 916.31 (75) 0.029 0.007 91.81
Results-based performance (overall) 63 27,225 0.196 0.160–0.232 535.28 (62) 0.018 0.005 88.41
GPA 57 24,270 0.213 0.178–0.247 384.48 (56) 0.014 0.004 85.43
Standardized Tests 7 6,270 0.011 -0.053–0.094 33.35 (6) 0.007 0.006 82.01
Test Scores 3 603 0.228 0.151–0.303 1.21 (2) 0 0.005 0
Behavior-based performance (overall) 28 8,186 0.430 0.365–0.490 310.83 (27) 0.037 0.013 91.31
Procrastination (reverse coded) 14 3,558 0.490 0.399–0.572 136.62 (13) 0.040 0.020 90.48
Motivation 17 5,805 0.381 0.302–0.454 178.85 (16) 0.031 0.013 91.05
p<.05
 p<.01
 p<.001.
k = number of studies related to the variable | N = total sample size related to the variable.
r = effect size of the correlation between time management and the variable | 95% CI = confidence interval of the effect size.
Q = Cochran’s Q, a measure of between-study heterogeneity | τ
2
= measure of between-study variance | I
2
= alternative measure of between-study heterogeneity.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.t005
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 10 / 20

That time management has a weaker effect on distress should not be surprising. First, well-
being and distress are not two poles on opposite ends of a spectrum. Although related, wellbe-
ing 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)
Table 6. Time management and wellbeing.
Variable k N r 95% CI Q(df) τ
2
τ
2
(SE) I
2
Overall wellbeing 30 9,905 0.313 0.244–0.380 395.83 (29) 0.040 0.014 92.67
Job satisfaction 11 2,856 0.248 0.189–0.305 24.21 (10) 0.006 0.005 58.70
Life satisfaction 9 2,855 0.426 0.273–0.558 175.86 (8) 0.068 0.038 95.45
Mental health (positive) 2 473 0.556 0.349–0.711 7.56 (1) 0.031 0.051 86.77
Optimism 2 330 0.305 0.108–0.479 3.44 (1) 0.016 0.032 70.94
Physical health (positive) 2 567 0.293 -0.002–0.542 13.07 (1) 0.045 0.068 92.35
Positive affect 5 2,725 0.280 0.186–0.368 18.73 (4) 0.010 0.010 78.65
Self-actualization 1 336 0.280 0.178–0.376 - - - -
Sense of purpose 1 529 0.351 0.274–0.424 - - - -
Wellbeing 5 1,447 0.219 0.092–0.338 22.86 (4) 0.018 0.016 82.50
p<.05
 p<.01
 p<.001.
k = number of studies related to the variable | N = total sample size related to the variable.
r = effect size of the correlation between time management and the variable | 95% CI = confidence interval of the effect size.
Q = Cochran’s Q, a measure of between-study heterogeneity | τ
2
= measure of between-study variance | I
2
= alternative measure of between-study heterogeneity.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.t006
Table 7. Time management and distress.
Variable k N r 95% CI Q(df) τ
2
τ
2
(SE) I
2
Overall distress 58 15,387 -0.222 -0.273 | -0.170 611.57 (57) 0.038 0.010 90.68
Overall stress 26 5,621 -0.225 -0.295 | -0.153 184.49 (25) 0.031 0.012 86.44
Emotional exhaustion 3 213 -0.260 -0.338 | -0.179 1.86 (2) 0 0.006 0
Stress 17 3,367 -0.286 -0.390 | -0.176 163.84 (16) 0.05 0.024 90.23
Work-life conflict 9 2,812 -0.163 -0.277 | -0.043 82.11 (8) 0.031 0.018 90.25
Overall psychological distress 34 10,100 -0.254 -0.315 | -0.190 350.58 (33) 0.034 0.012 90.85
Anxiety 16 6,648 -0.181 -0.255 | -0.105 140.28 (15) 0.021 0.011 89.30
Depression 2 625 -0.226 -0.375 | -0.065 - - - -
Psychological distress 10 2,196 -0.358 -0.447 | -0.263 52.98 (9) 0.023 0.014 83.01
Hopelessness 2 565 -0.218 -0.296 | -0.138 - - - -
Boredom 5 1,248 -0.310 -0.507 | -0.081 69.68 (4) 0.070 0.055 94.26
Negative affect 4 2,393 -0.232 -0.451 | 0.014 70.74 (3) 0.061 0.061 95.75
Worry 3 291 -0.191-0.355 | -0.016 3.98 (2) 0.012 0.025 49.77
Physical distress 7 2,067 -0.204 -0.264 | -0.142 11.52 (6) 0.003 0.004 47.93
p<.05
 p<.01
 p<.001.
k = number of studies related to the variable | N = total sample size related to the variable.
r = effect size of the correlation between time management and the variable | 95% CI = confidence interval of the effect size.
Q = Cochran’s Q, a measure of between-study heterogeneity | τ
2
= measure of between-study variance | I
2
= alternative measure of between-study heterogeneity.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.t007
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 11 / 20

is a distinct predictor of wellbeing while neuroticism and life events in general are distinct pre-
dictors 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 man-
agement, although experimental evidence suggests that time management training makes peo-
ple 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.
Table 8. Time management and individual differences.
Variable k N r 95% CI Q(df) τ
2
τ
2
(SE) I
2
Demographics
Age 21 7,579 0.032 -0.013–0.076 70.42 (20) 0.007 0.004 71.60
Age (excluding children) 19 6,811 0.0480.010–0.086 40.71 (18) 0.004 0.002 55.79
Gender
a
37 16,044 -0.087 -0.129 | -0.045 232.40 (36) 0.013 0.005 84.51
Education 3 808 0.019 -0.050–0.088 0.304 (2) 0 0.005 0
Number of children 3 961 0.027 -0.037–0.090 0.247 (2) 0 0.004 0
Marital status
b
3 980 0.015 -0.048–0.078 0.548 (2) 0 0.003 0
Personality
Agreeableness 10 4,562 0.169 0.091–0.244 57.85 (9) 0.013 0.008 84.43
Extraversion 13 5,345 0.102 0.039–0.164 59.05 (12) 0.010 0.006 79.67
Conscientiousness 15 5,159 0.451 0.326–0.561 367.16 (14) 0.079 0.041 96.18
Neuroticism 14 5,222 -0.151 -0.229 | -0.072 94.61 (13) 0.018 0.010 86.26
Openness 11 4,793 0.141 0.037–0.243 124.17 (10) 0.028 0.016 91.94
Personal attributes and attitudes
Internal locus of control 3 579 0.346 0.269–0.419 2.16 (2) 0 0.006 7.39
Type A 7 2,388 0.1100.017–0.202 31.05 (6) 0.013 0.09 80.67
Self-esteem 3 947 0.346 0.225–0.456 8.19 (2) 0.010 0.014 75.58
Protestant Work Ethic 3 998 0.026 -0.036–0.088 0.240 (2) 0 0.003 0
Multitasking 5 932 -0.088-0.164 | -0.010 5.53 (4) 0.002 0.006 27.66
Cognitive ability 3 1,484 0.015 -0.064–0.094 4.36 (2) 0.003 0.005 54.11
Hours spent studying 6 3,184 0.137 0.036–0.235 30.08 (5) 0.012 0.011 83.37
Hours spent working 8 3,682 -0.042 -0.159–0.076 64.87 (7) 0.023 0.019 89.21
Contextual factors
Job autonomy 4 751 0.101 -0.060–0.256 8.38 (3) 0.016 0.022 64.23
Role overload 7 1,187 -0.146-0.284 | - 0.003 26.59 (6) 0.025 0.023 77.43
Time management training 3 846 0.1730.031–0.309 5.92 (2) 0.010 0.016 66.62
p<.05
 p<.01
 p<.001.
a
Female = 1; Male = 2.
b
Single = 1; Married = 2.
k = number of studies related to the variable | N = total sample size related to the variable.
r = effect size of the correlation between time management and the variable | 95% CI = confidence interval of the effect size.
Q = Cochran’s Q, a measure of between-study heterogeneity | τ
2
= measure of between-study variance | I
2
= alternative measure of between-study heterogeneity.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.t008
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 12 / 20

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 consis-
tency 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
2analog
= .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].
Other demographic indicators, such as education and number of children, were nonsignifi-
cant. Similarly, the relationships between time management and personal attributes and atti-
tudes 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 per-
ceive 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 experi-
mental 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.
Fig 3. The link between time management ability and gender is getting stronger over the years (lower scores mean
stronger skills).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066.g003
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 13 / 20

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 reveal-
ing that teenagers and young adults spend less time working and more time studying [98]. Stu-
dents 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 manage-
ment (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 man-
agement 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 manage-
ment training programs makes sense: time management can mitigate the effect of heavy work-
loads 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.
Discussion
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 impor-
tant role in people’s lives. Doing a good job at work, getting top grades in school, and nurtur-
ing 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-analy-
sis 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
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 14 / 20

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 well-
being 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 inter-
ventions do increase wellbeing [89]. This argument also founders in the face of evidence link-
ing 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 perfor-
mance device. Our questioning is neither novel nor subversive: historically people have man-
aged 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 Rev-
olution 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 manage-
ment 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 bet-
ter, 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 Beyonce
´,” 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 Beyonce
´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 opac-
ity 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 differ-
ent 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 man-
agement will spur future research into crafting more consistent, valid, and generalizable inter-
ventions 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, learn-
ing 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
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 15 / 20

time. We expect that developing time management skills early on in life can create a com-
pound effect whereby people acquire a variety of other skills thanks to their ability to make
time.
Conclusion
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 manage-
ment 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.
(DOC)
S1 File. Funnel plots.
(PDF)
S2 File. Dataset.
(XLSX)
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 Aube
´.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Brad Aeon.
Data curation: Brad Aeon.
Formal analysis: Brad Aeon.
Methodology: Brad Aeon, Aïda Faber.
Software: Brad Aeon.
Validation: Brad Aeon, Aïda Faber, Alexandra Panaccio.
Writing – original draft: Brad Aeon.
Writing – review & editing: Brad Aeon, Alexandra Panaccio.
References
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.
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 16 / 20

3. Garber M. The Rise of ‘Speed-Listening.’ The Atlantic [Internet]. 2015 Jun 24 [cited 2020 Feb 25];
Available from: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/06/the-rise-of-speed-listening/
396740/
4. Mele C. Too many shows? Just speed them up. The New York Times. 2016;B7.
5. Wilson KE, Martin L, Smilek D, Risko EF. The benefits and costs of speed watching video lectures.
Scholarsh Teach Learn Psychol. 2018 Dec; 4(4):243–57.
6. Giurge LM, Whillans AV, West C. Why time poverty matters for individuals, organisations and nations.
Nat Hum Behav [Internet]. 2020 Aug 3 [cited 2020 Aug 11]; Available from: http://www.nature.com/
articles/s41562-020-0920-z https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0920-z PMID: 32747805
7. Robinson JP, Martin S. Changes in American Daily Life: 1965–2005. Soc Indic Res. 2009; 93(1):47–
56.
8. Boerma J, Karabarbounis L. Labor Market Trends and the Changing Value of Time [Internet]. Cam-
bridge, 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
9. Keinan A, Kivetz R. Productivity Orientation and the Consumption of Collectable Experiences. J Con-
sum Res. 2011; 37(6):935–50.
10. Lorenz-Spreen P, Mønsted BM, Ho
¨vel P, Lehmann S. Accelerating dynamics of collective attention.
Nat Commun. 2019 Dec; 10(1):1759. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09311-w PMID: 30988286
11. Schneider L, Gros C. Five decades of US, UK, German and Dutch music charts show that cultural pro-
cesses are accelerating. R Soc Open Sci. 2019 Aug 30; 6(8):190944. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.
190944 PMID: 31598259
12. Clinton B. My life. New York, NY: Knopf; 2004. https://doi.org/10.1080/15216540400003425 PMID:
15545218
13. Hodge KA, Lear JL. Employment Skills for 21st Century Workplace: The Gap Between Faculty and
Student Perceptions. J Career Tech Educ. 2011 Dec 1; 26(2):28–41.
14. Lorenz T, Pinsker J. The Slackification of the American Home. The Atlantic [Internet]. 2019 Jul 11
[cited 2020 Feb 26]; Available from: https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/07/families-
slack-asana/593584/
15. Malatras JW, Israel AC, Sokolowski KL, Ryan J. First things first: Family activities and routines, time
management and attention. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2016; 47:23–9.
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.
18. Aeon B, Aguinis H. It’s about time: New perspectives and insights on time management. Acad Manag
Perspect. 2017; 31(4):309–30.
19. Bond MJ, Feather NT. Some correlates of structure and purpose in the use of time. J Pers Soc Psy-
chol. 1988; 55(2):321–9.
20. Britton BK, Tesser A. Effects of time-management practices on college grades. J Educ Psychol. 1991;
83(3):405–10.
21. Macan TH, Shahani C, Dipboye RL, Phillips AP. College students’ time management: Correlations
with academic performance and stress. J Educ Psychol. 1990; 82(4):760–8.
22. Adams GA, Jex SM. Relationships between time management, control, work-family conflict, and
strain. J Occup Health Psychol. 1999; 4(1):72–7. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8998.4.1.72 PMID:
10100115
23. Liu OL, Rijmen F, MacCann C, Roberts R. The assessment of time management in middle-school stu-
dents. Personal Individ Differ. 2009; 47(3):174–9.
24. Burt CDB, Weststrate A, Brown C, Champion F. Development of the time management environment
(TiME) scale. J Manag Psychol. 2010; 25(6):649–68.
25. Ha
¨fner A, Stock A, Pinneker L, Stro
¨hle S. Stress prevention through a time management training inter-
vention: An experimental study. Educ Psychol. 2014; 34(3):403–16.
26. Jacobs JA, Gerson K. The time divide: Work, family, and gender inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press; 2004.
27. Kearns H, Gardiner M. Is it time well spent? The relationship between time management behaviours,
perceived effectiveness and work-related morale and distress in a university context. High Educ Res
Dev. 2007; 26(2):235–47.
28. Green P, Skinner D. Does time management training work? An evaluation. Int J Train Dev. 2005; 9
(2):124–39.
29. Macan TH. Time management: Test of a process model. J Appl Psychol. 1994; 79(3):381–91.
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 17 / 20

30. Macan TH. Time-management training: effects on time behaviors, attitudes, and job performance. J
Psychol. 1996; 130(3):229–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1996.9915004 PMID: 8667284
31. Orpen C. The effect of time-management training on employee attitudes and behavior: A field experi-
ment. J Psychol. 1994; 128(4):393–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1994.9712743 PMID:
7932291
32. Claessens BJC, Eerde W van, Rutte CG, Roe RA, Van Eerde W, Rutte CG, et al. A review of the time
management literature. Pers Rev. 2007; 36(2):255–76.
33. Richards JH. Time management—a review. Work Stress. 1987; 1(1):73–8.
34. Cappelli P, Keller J. Classifying work in the new economy. Acad Manage Rev. 2013; 38(4):575–96.
35. Golden L. Flexible Work Schedules: Which Workers Get Them? Am Behav Sci. 2001 Mar; 44
(7):1157–78.
36. Hamermesh DS. The Timing of Work Over Time. Econ J. 1999; 109(452):37–66.
37. Wegman LA, Hoffman BJ, Carter NT, Twenge JM, Guenole N. Placing Job Characteristics in Context:
Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of Changes in Job Characteristics Since 1975. J Manag. 2018 Jan; 44
(1):352–86.
38. Burkeman O. Why time management is ruining our lives. The Guardian [Internet]. 2016; Available
from: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/22/why-time-management-is-ruining-our-
lives
39. Southerton D. “Squeezing Time”: Allocating practices, coordinating networks and scheduling society.
Time Soc. 2003; 12(1):5–25.
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, Paa-
sonen 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 Uni-
versity Press; 2018.
44. Wajcman J. How Silicon Valley sets time. New Media Soc. 2018;146144481882007.
45. Sabelis I. Time Management: Paradoxes and patterns. Time Soc. 2001; 10(2–3):387–400.
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.
47. DeVoe SE, House J. Time, money, and happiness: Does putting a price on time affect our ability to
smell the roses? J Exp Soc Psychol. 2011; 67(2):60–4.
48. DeVoe SE, Pfeffer J. Hourly payment and volunteering: The effect of organizational practices on deci-
sions about time use. Acad Manage J. 2007; 50(4):783–98.
49. DeVoe SE, Pfeffer J. When time is money: The effect of hourly payment on the evaluation of time.
Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2007; 104(1):1–13.
50. DeVoe SE, Pfeffer J. Time Is Tight: How Higher Economic Value of Time Increases Feelings of Time
Pressure. J Appl Psychol. 2011; 96(4):665–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022148 PMID: 21244125
51. Whillans AV, Dunn EW. Thinking about time as money decreases environmental behavior. Organ
Behav Hum Decis Process. 2015; 127:44–52.
52. Roxburgh S. “There just aren’t enough hours in the day”: The mental health consequences of time
pressure. J Health Soc Behav. 2004; 45(2):115–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650404500201
PMID: 15305755
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.
56. Claessens BJC, van Eerde W, Rutte CG, Roe RA. Things to do today. . .: A daily diary study on task
completion at work. Appl Psychol. 2010; 59(2):273–95.
57. Macan TH, Gibson JM, Cunningham J. Will you remember to read this article later when you have
time? The relationship between prospective memory and time management. Personal Individ Differ.
2010; 48(6):725–30.
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 18 / 20

58. Woolfolk AE, Woolfolk RL. Time management: An experimental investigation. J Sch Psychol. 1986;
24(3):267–75.
59. Barling J, Cheung D, Kelloway EK. Time management and achievement striving interact to predict car
sales performance. J Appl Psychol. 1996; 81(6):821–6.
60. Taylor FW. The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers; 1911.
61. Korhonen A. ‘the several hours of the day had variety of employments assigned to them’: Women’s
timekeeping in early modern England. J Early Mod Stud. 2017; 6:61–85.
62. Rich R. ‘If you desire to enjoy life, avoid unpunctual people’: Women, timetabling and domestic advice,
1850–1910. Cult Soc Hist. 2015; 12(1):95–112.
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.
65. Thompson EP. Time, work-discipline, and industrial capitalism. Past Present. 1967; 38:56–97.
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.
67. Shir-Wise M. Disciplined freedom: The productive self and conspicuous busyness in “free” time. Time
Soc. 2018;
68. Gill BP, Schlossman SL. Villain or Savior? The American Discourse on Homework, 1850–2003. The-
ory Pract. 2004 Aug; 43(3):174–81.
69. Dotti Sani GM, Treas J. Educational Gradients in Parents’ Child-Care Time Across Countries, 1965–
2012: Educational Gradients in Parents’ Child-Care Time. J Marriage Fam. 2016 Aug; 78(4):1083–96.
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.
73. Feather NT, Bond MJ. Time structure and purposeful activity among employed and unemployed uni-
versity graduates. J Occup Psychol. 1983; 56(3):241–54.
74. Jex SM, Elacqua TC. Time management as a moderator of relations between stressors and employee
strain. Work Stress. 1999; 13(2):182–91.
75. Ancona DG, Okhuysen GA, Perlow LA. Taking time to integrate temporal research. Acad Manage
Rev. 2001; 26(4):512–29.
76. Doob LW. Patterning of time. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1971.
77. Zerubavel E. Timetables and scheduling: On the social organization of time. Sociol Inq. 1976; 46
(2):87–94.
78. Zerubavel E. Private time and public time: The temporal structure of social accessibility and profes-
sional commitments. Soc Forces. 1979; 58(1):38–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/58.1.38 PMID:
10243688
79. Nippert-Eng C. Calendars and keys: The classification of “home” and “work.” Sociol Forum. 1996; 11
(3):563–82.
80. Blount S, Janicik GA. When plans change: Examining how people evaluate timing changes in work
organizations. Acad Manage Rev. 2001; 26(4):566–85.
81. Parke MR, Weinhardt JM, Brodsky A, Tangirala S, DeVoe SE, De Voe SE. When daily planning
improves employee performance: the importance of planning type, engagement, and interruptions. J
Appl Psychol. 2018; 3(3):300–12.
82. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151:264–9. https://doi.
org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 PMID: 19622511
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. Engle-
wood, NJ: Biostat; 2013.
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 19 / 20

85. Bax L, Yu L-M, Ikeda N, Moons KG. A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis
of causal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Dec; 7(1):40.
86. Suurmond R, van Rhee H, Hak T. Introduction, comparison, and validation of Meta-Essentials: A free
and simple tool for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2017 Dec; 8(4):537–53. https://doi.org/10.
1002/jrsm.1260 PMID: 28801932
87. Shipp AJ, Cole MS. Time in individual-level organizational studies: What is it, how is it used, and why
isn’t it exploited more often? Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2015; 2(1):237–60.
88. Hall B, Hursch D. An evaluation of the effects of a time management training program on work effi-
ciency. J Organ Behav Manag. 1982; 3(4):73–96.
89. Ha
¨fner A, Stock A. Time management training and perceived control of time at work. J Psychol. 2010;
144(5):429–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2010.496647 PMID: 20806849
90. Ha
¨fner A, Oberst V, Stock A. Avoiding procrastination through time management: an experimental
intervention study. Educ Stud. 2014; 40(3):352–60.
91. Sternberg RJ, Kaufman JC. Human abilities. Annu Rev Psychol. 1998 Feb; 49(1):479–502.
92. Duckworth AL, Quinn PD, Tsukayama E. What No Child Left Behind leaves behind: The roles of IQ
and self-control in predicting standardized achievement test scores and report card grades. J Educ
Psychol. 2012; 104(2):439–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026280 PMID: 24072936
93. Huppert FA, Whittington JE. Evidence for the independence of positive and negative well-being: Impli-
cations for quality of life assessment. Br J Health Psychol. 2003 Feb; 8(1):107–22.
94. Karademas EC. Positive and negative aspects of well-being: Common and specific predictors. Per-
sonal Individ Differ. 2007 Jul; 43(2):277–87.
95. Steel P, Ferrari J. Sex, education and procrastination: An epidemiological study of procrastinators’
characteristics from a global sample. Eur J Personal. 2013; 27(1):51–8.
96. Goodin RE, Rice JM, Parpo A, Eriksson L. Discretionary time: A new measure of freedom. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
97. Ophir E, Nass C, Wagner AD. Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009 Sep
15; 106(37):15583–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903620106 PMID: 19706386
98. Twenge JM, Park H. The Decline in Adult Activities Among U.S. Adolescents, 1976–2016. Child Dev.
2019; 90(2):638–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12930 PMID: 28925063
99. Mullan K. A child’s day: trends in time use in the UK from 1975 to 2015. Br J Sociol. 2018; https://doi.
org/10.1111/1468-4446.12369 PMID: 29638001
100. Fine GA. Organizational time: Temporal demands and the experience of work in restaurant kitchens.
Soc Forces. 1990; 69(1):95–114.
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.
102. Calabresi R, Cohen J. Personality and time attitudes. J Abnorm Psychol. 1968; 73(5):431–9. https://
doi.org/10.1037/h0026196 PMID: 5722381
103. Shahani C, Weiner R, Streit MK. An investigation of the dispositional nature of the time management
construct. Anxiety Stress Coping. 1993; 6(3):231–43.
104. Yeager DS, Dweck CS. Mindsets That Promote Resilience: When Students Believe That Personal
Characteristics Can Be Developed. Educ Psychol. 2012 Oct; 47(4):302–14.
105. Wanberg C, Griffiths RF, Gavin MB. Time structure and unemployment: A longitudinal investigation. J
Occup Organ Psychol. 1997; 70(1):75–95.
106. Snyder BH. From Vigilance to Busyness: A Neo-Weberian Approach to Clock Time. Sociol Theory.
2013 Sep; 31(3):243–66.
107. Zerubavel E. The Benedictine ethic and the modern spirit of scheduling: On schedules and social orga-
nization. Sociol Inq. 1980; 50(2):157–69.
108. Heintzelman SJ, King LA. Routines and Meaning in Life. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2019 May; 45(5):688–
99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218795133 PMID: 30226411
109. Sharma S. In the meantime: Temporality and cultural politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press;
2014.
110. Kittelsen Røberg KI, Helland H. Do grades in higher education matter for labour market rewards? A
multilevel analysis of all Norwegian graduates in the period 1990–2006. J Educ Work. 2017 May 19;
30(4):383–402.
PLOS ONE
Does time management work? A meta-analysis
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245066 January 11, 2021 20 / 20