Procrastination and Work Productivity of Academic Staff: Implications to the Institution

Abstract

Procrastination in the academic institution is not new since it prevails from students even to staff. This might create problems, especially in the individual’s output. This study analyzed the relationship, procrastination level, and the work productivity of academic staff from a tertiary education institution in Central Luzon, Philippines. Using a convenience sampling technique, 70 academic staff took part in the survey. This study used a descriptive-correlational design with an adapted questionnaire from McCloskey (2011) and Buuri (2015) as an instrument. For the statistical analysis, the study used SPSS 23 to analyze the gathered data. The study found that the academic staff “often” subject themselves to procrastination, and they “agree” that they are productive in their work. There were significant differences found in the procrastination level and work productivity of the academic staff when grouped according to sex, civil status, and years in service. In terms of relationship, the study confirmed a low direct relationship between the level of procrastination and work productivity of the academic staff. Based on the aforementioned results, the researcher provided some implications for the institution to consider.

Full text

Shanlax
International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities
sha n l a x
#SINCE1990
http://www.shanlaxjournals.com
46
Procrastination and Work Productivity
of Academic Staff: Implications to the
Institution
John Mark R. Asio
Gordon College, Olongapo City, Philippines
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6096-4595
Abstract
Procrastination in the academic institution is not new since it prevails from students even to
staff. This might create problems, especially in the individual’s output. This study analyzed the
relationship, procrastination level, and the work productivity of academic staff from a tertiary
education institution in Central Luzon, Philippines. Using a convenience sampling technique, 70
academic staff took part in the survey. This study used a descriptive-correlational design with
an adapted questionnaire from McCloskey (2011) and Buuri (2015) as an instrument. For the
statistical analysis, the study used SPSS 23 to analyze the gathered data. The study found that
the academic staff “often” subject themselves to procrastination, and they “agree” that they are
productive in their work. There were signicant differences found in the procrastination level and
work productivity of the academic staff when grouped according to sex, civil status, and years in
service. In terms of relationship, the study conrmed a low direct relationship between the level of
procrastination and work productivity of the academic staff. Based on the aforementioned results,
the researcher provided some implications for the institution to consider.
Keywords: Procrastination, Work productivity, Academic staff, Tertiary education
institution, Correlation study, Implications
Introduction
 Workingin an academicinstitution is challengingbecause of thetrifocal
functionstaffmustadhereto.Thisfunctionincludesinstruction,research,and
communityextension.Thus,withsuchanamountofwork,individualsturnto
procrastinate at some point. Khattak and Ilyas (2017) showed in their study
the leading causes of procrastination in the workplace and provided some
essentialpsychological solutionsforit.But rst,letusdene procrastination.
McCloskey and Scielzo (2015) dened procrastination as a unique outlet of
procrastinatorytendencies.Ithindersorganizationalprocessesandthedelivery
ofbasicresourcesand services. Some studies tried toremedytheprevalence
of procrastination (Richardson, 2018; Teng & Sun, 2019). The academic
institution has a great deal of molding the future of the young generation.
Therefore, the academic staff or employees must produce the output for the
daytomeetthedailyquotaofwork.Anarticlementionedthatprocrastination
harms performance (Klingsieck, 2013). We cannot argue more. This is the
principalreasonthis study saw ifsuchanotion also prevails inanacademic
setting.Sincethecurrentresearchisinatertiaryeducationinstitution,itwould
bebenecialforboth the organization and theemployeestosee whether the
variablesinvolvedinthisstudypersisttosomeextent.
 Themain aim ofthis study isto analyze therelationship, procrastination
level, and work productivity of academic staff from a tertiary education
institution.Theseconceptshaveagreatimpactontheeducationalserviceand
howdotheyserveasleveragetosatisfybothendsoftherope,thestudents,and
theorganization.
OPEN ACCESS
ManuscriptID:
ASH-2021-09014068
Volume:9
Issue:1
Month:July
Year:2021
P-ISSN:2321-788X
E-ISSN:2582-0397
Received:29.04.2021
Accepted:07.06.2021
Published:01.07.2021
Citation:
Asio,JohnMarkR.
“ProcrastinationandWork
ProductivityofAcademic
Staff:Implicationsto
theInstitution.”Shanlax
International Journal
of Arts, Science and
Humanities,vol.9,no.1,
2021,pp.46-53.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34293/
sijash.v9i1.4068
Thisworkislicensed
underaCreativeCommons
Attribution-ShareAlike4.0
InternationalLicense

Shanlax
International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities
sha n l a x
#SINCE1990
http://www.shanlaxjournals.com 47
 The researcher intends to add yet another
valuablereference for the institution, administrator,
academicians, and future researchers. This study
will also become a foundation of a simple yet
meaningful discovery of new ideas which leads
to the development of a more pronounced human
resourcemanagementsoon.
Literature Review
 Procrastination is a global phenomenon which
plagues organization. Its causes vary from one
setting to another. We link this phenomenon to
different human resource ideas and concepts. A
researcharticleassociatedself-efcacywithpassive
and active procrastination (Hicks & Storey, 2015).
Another article showed the relationship between
procrastination and burnout (Hall et al., 2019).
Procrastination relates also to personal aspects of
life like the study of Ferrari and Landreth (Ferrari
& Landreth, 2014), wherein the exposed rural
procrastinatorsnarratelifechallengesintheirhome,
familylives,andintheirworksettings.Fromanother
perspective,astudysetadistinctpointofperspective
intheirstudy,whichshowedanassociationbetween
procrastination, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
and neuroticism in the workplace (Avnion &
Zibenberg,2018).Whileprocrastinationhasnegative
effects on exclusive aspects of the organizational
process, Cadena et al., (2011), tested to compete
with procrastination, reveal improved worker
satisfaction, and minimized levels. As mentioned
earlier, procrastination has a restricting effect
which leads to performance decline (Aknanejhad
&Ghahari,2016).Organizationstrytodeviseways
todecrease or preventprocrastination. A particular
studydevisedanapplicationtominimizeemployees’
procrastination rate (Teng & Sun 2019). Another
study tried to reduce procrastination by balancing
theschedule (Richardson, 2018)A different article
emphasizedthepositionofhavinganappropriatet
betweenemploymentsettingsandemployees(Metin
etal.,2018).
 In the workplace, it comprises different
employeesorstaff.Therefore,thereisthisprevalence
ofdiversity,especiallyinacademicinstitutions.This
will produce certain types of relationship which
affecttheproductivityofanindividual.Aparticular
studymentionedthat there are someorganizational
factors more particular, the level of self-sacrice,
thataffectsproductivity(Battaglio&French,2016).
Productivityconceptsapplytoanytypeofworkplace
and conditions. A research article showed that
satisfaction with non-material job attributes affects
perceivedjobproductivity(Taylor,etal.,2013).This
nding seems very interesting since people value
moneymorethananythingelse. Anotherstudyalso
concludedthat employee productivity inthe public
sector appears useful for productive units (Corsi,
&D’Ippolito, 2013). Thereare also some negative
perspectives about productivity. For instance,
neglecting basic work affects the sense of self-
efcacyofindividuals(Siltala,2013).Toadd,another
study showed that stock plans need other methods
to motivate employees to take part (Pendleton &
Robinson,2010).Participationamongemployeesor
staffisindeedhelpfulintheorganizationtoprosper,
especially in the academic institution. This is so
sincetheorganizationorinstitutionprovidescertain
goalsthatneedattainmentintheend.Inthiscontext,
some selected HRD sub-systems found selected
management styles that impact HR effectiveness
(Jain&Prekumar,2011).
 There are certain relationships and associations
between the level of procrastination and work
productivity among employees. A research article
recognized procrastination as a phenomenon that
involves negative outcomes about performance
and subjective well-being (Klingsieck, 2013).
Another research paper also displayed a negative
association between spirituality-based lifestyle and
procrastination (Akbarnejhad, & Ghahari, 2016).
Thesamenegativerelationshipbetweenperformance
in the workplace and procrastination is observed
in another study (Metin et al., 2018) To add, top
levels of procrastination associates with some
demographic proles (Nguyen et al., 2013). Also,
procrastinatingisconductthatleadstowastedtime,
poorperformance,andincreasedstress(Beheshtifar
et al., 2011). This idea is supported by Stephen et
al., (2011) wherein procrastination can harm both
individualandorganizationalproductivity. Another
studyalsomentionedsomeeffectiveorganizational
factorsinprocrastination(Azimi,&Ajalli,2017).

Shanlax
International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities
sha n l a x
#SINCE1990
http://www.shanlaxjournals.com
48
 Based on the following elaborations and
discussionsfrom previouspiecesofliterature, there
is no singular context that focuses on the current
study’s perspective. Also, there was no particular
study that dwells on the idea locally. With this in
mind,theresearcherpursuedsuchastudy.
Materials and Methods
Research Design
 This study used a descriptive-correlational
research design with the survey questionnaire as
theprincipal instrument in gatheringvaluabledata.
Thestudyaimstoanalyzetheacademicstaffs’level
ofprocrastination and work productivity.Sincethe
researcherwants to discoverarelationshipbetween
the two mentioned variables thus, a descriptive-
correlationtechniqueissuitableforthejob.
Research Sample
 70 respondents took part in the survey using
a convenience sampling technique. Since the
researcher also works in the same academic
institution, that is why such sampling technique
applies. All the respondents in the study were
bona de academic staff from a tertiary education
institutioninCentralLuzon,Philippines.Theywork
inthe same institution as theresearcher during the
survey administration. The criterion for inclusion
includes an individual working in the academic
institutionforatleastayear,regardlessofthestatus
ofemploymentexcludingthepart-timeones.
Research Instrument
 This study adapted and modied the General
Procrastination Scale of McCloskey (2011) which
comprises20statementsandEmployeeProductivity
by Buuri (2015) that comprises 11 statements that
tackle productivity. The instrument underwent
reliabilityandvaliditytestsusingCronbach’sAlpha
andtheoverallresultofthereliabilitytest was .81,
whichis better than thebenchmarkscoreof.70for
the acceptability of the instrument. The researcher
also pilot tested the instrument with the students.
Thisistotestitsaccuracyand understandability of
theitemsbeforetheactualsurveyadministration.
Research Data Analysis
 Inthisstudy,theresearcherusedweightedmean
forthedescriptionspertopicarea,t-test,andANOVA
for the signicant differences of the means of the
responsesandPearson-rfortherelationshipbetween
the procrastination level and work productivity of
the academic staff. With the use of SPSS 23, the
researcher tallied, tabulated, statistically analyzed,
and interpreted. The researcher also patterned the
valuesassignedtodescribetheprocrastinationlevel
andworkproductivity of the academic staffaftera
4-pointLikertScaling.
Results and Discussion
 This study aims to analyze the relationship,
procrastination level, and work productivity of
academicstafffromatertiaryeducationinstitution.
After tallying, tabulating, and statistical analysis,
thestudy presented theresults with the succeeding
tablesbelow.
Table 1: Procrastination Level of the Academic
Staff
Statement Mean Interpretation
Ioftenndmyself
performingtasksthatIhad
intendedtododaysbefore
3.00 Often
Iintendtodoataskuntil
justbeforetheyaretobe
handedin
2.86 Often
WhenIamnishedwitha
librarybook,Ireturnitright
awayregardlessofthedate
it'sdue
3.06 Often
Whenitistimetogetupin
themorningImostoftenget
rightoutofbed
3.00 Often
Alettermaysitfordays
afterIwriteitbefore
mailingit
2.30 Sometimes
Igenerallyreturnphone
callspromptly 2.89 Often
Evenwithjobsthatrequire
littleelseexceptsitting
downanddoingthem,Ind
theyseldomgetdonefor
days
2.56 Often

Shanlax
International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities
sha n l a x
#SINCE1990
http://www.shanlaxjournals.com 49
Iusuallymakedecisionsas
soonaspossible 3.17 Often
Igenerallydelaybefore
startingonworkIhavetodo 2.29 Sometimes
Iusuallyhavetorushto
completeataskontime 2.44 Sometimes
Whenpreparingtogoout,
Iamseldomcaughthaving
todosomethingatthelast
minute
2.40 Sometimes
Inpreparingforsome
deadlines,Ioftenwastetime
bydoingotherthings
2.27 Sometimes
Iprefertoleaveearlyforan
appointment 2.86 Often
Iusuallystartajobshortly
afteritisassigned 2.81 Often
Ioftenhaveadutynished
soonerthannecessary 2.84 Often
Ialwaysseemtoendup
shoppingforbirthdayor
Christmasgiftsatthelast
minute
2.53 Often
Iusuallybuyevenan
essentialitematthelast
minute
2.47 Sometimes
Iusuallyaccomplishallthe
thingsIplantodoinaday 2.96 Often
Iamcontinuallysaying"I'll
doittomorrow" 2.20 Sometimes
Iusuallytakecareofallthe
tasksIhavetodobeforeI
settledownandrelaxforthe
evening
3.17 Often
Over-allMean 2.70 Often
Legend: 1.00-1.49=Seldom;1.50-2.49=Sometimes;
  2.50-3.49=Often;3.50-4.00=Always
 Table 1 above shows the prevalence of
procrastination among the academic staff. As
observed, statements number 8 and 20 got the
highestmeanscoreof3.17thathasacorresponding
interpretation of “often” on the Likert scale.
Statementnumber19gotthelowestmeanscorewith
2.18,whichmeans“sometimes”intheLikertScale.
The overall mean score is 2.70 and interpreted as
“often”ontheLikertscale.Thisonlyshowsthatthe
employeesareguiltyofprocrastinatingintheirwork.
Table 2: Work Productivity of the Academic
Staff
Statement Mean Interpretation
Academicstaff’squality
ofworkimprovesover
time
3.04 Agree
Academicstaffcandeliver
withinthesetdeadlines 3.07 Agree
Theacademicstaffhas
steadilyincreasedtheir
output
3.04 Agree
Academicstaffcandeliver
underlessthanperfect
conditions
2.79 Agree
Overtimeacademicstaff
hasbeenabletoreduce
servicecycletime
2.70 Agree
Academicstaffsprovide
suggestionstoenhance
theirservicedelivery
3.04 Agree
Academicstaffsare
eagertolearnwaysof
makingthemselvesmore
productive
3.26 Agree
Overtimeacademicstaff
hasincreasedcustomer
satisfactionwiththe
qualityservicedelivered
3.04 Agree
Academicstaffcan
generatemorethan
anhours'worthof
productivityeachhour
3.04 Agree
Academicstaffshavea
senseofwhattodoand
whentodoit
3.09 Agree
Academicstaffsareeager
tomaximizethemselvesto
bemoreproductive
3.21 Agree
Academicstaffcan
identifyandgivetop
attentiontotoppriorities
3.21 Agree
Over-allMean 3.05 Agree
Legend: 1.00-1.49=Seldom;1.50-2.49=Sometimes;
  2.50-3.49=Often;3.50-4.00=Always
 Table2aboveshowstheworkproductivityofthe
academic staff. As seen, the statement that got the
highestmeanscoreisitemnumber7withascoreof
3.26with an interpretation of “agree” on the Likert

Shanlax
International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities
sha n l a x
#SINCE1990
http://www.shanlaxjournals.com
50
scale. However, statement 5 got the lowest mean
score with 2.70, still interpreted as “agree” on the
Likertscale.Theoverallmeanis3.05withaLikert
interpretation of “agree”. This only shows that the
respondentshavehighproductivityperceptions.
Table 3: Signicant Difference in the
Procrastination Level and Work Productivity of
Academic Staff
Procrastination level Work Productivity
M SD t-
value M SD t-
value
Male
(n=41) 2.76 0.45
1.307
3.20 0.54
2.658*
Female
(n=29) 2.62 0.40 2.83 0.59
df=68;*p<.05
 Table 3 represents the t-test for the signicant
difference in procrastination level and the work
productivity of academic staff when grouped
accordingtosex.Asobserved,thereisnosignicant
ndingtothe procrastination level of theacademic
staffs since the weighted means of male (M=2.76;
SD=0.45)andfemale(M=2.62;SD=0.40)yieldeda
t-valueof 1.307 which corresponds to aprobability
valueof.196whichisnotenoughtosufcethealpha
signicancelevelof.05.Thismeansthatregardless
of the sex of the academic staff, the prevalence
of procrastination does not vary that much in the
workplace. In terms of work productivity, there is
a signicant difference observed in the academic
staff response. Since the t-value was 2.685 which
corresponds to a p-value of .010 is lower than the
alpha level of signicance of .05. This evidence
showsthatthesexoftheacademicstaffaffectsthe
workproductivityofacademicstaff.
Table 4: ANOVA in the Procrastination Level
and Work Productivity of the Academic Staff
Variables Procrastination
Level
Work
Productivity
Age 0.206
(.892)
2.489
(.068)
CivilStatus 3.171*
(.048)
6.363*
(.003)
YearsinService 0.442
(.644)
3.558*
(.034)
 *p<.05
 Table4showstheAnalysisofVariance(ANOVA)
for the signicant difference in the procrastination
levelandworkproductivityofacademicstaffwhen
grouped according to age, civil status, and years
in service. There is a signicant difference in the
procrastinationlevel of the academicstaff in terms
of civil status since it yielded an F-value of 3.171
withaprobabilityvalueof0.048whichissignicant
atthealphasignicancelevelof.05.Intermsofage
and years in service, they did not yield substantial
evidence of difference since their F-values are
0.206 and 0.442 with p-values of .892 and .644.
Thismeans that civilstatuscaninuenceoccurring
procrastinationintheworkplace.However, ageand
yearsinservicedonotgivethatmuchofadifference.
 Fortheproductivityoftherespondent,weobserve
signicantevidenceofadifferenceintermsofcivil
status and years in service since they got F-values
of6.363and3.558.Thesecorrespondtop-valuesof
.003and .034 atthe same time.Their F-values are
signicantat the alphalevel of signicanceof .05.
Agedid notyieldasubstantialdegree ofdifference
since the F- value is 2.489 with a p-value of .068
is higher than the alpha signicance level of .05.
Thismeansthatcivilstatusandyearsinservicecan
inuencetheproductivityofanemployee.However,
ageisnotafactorindeterminingtheproductivityof
anindividual.
Table 5: Correlation Matrix Between the
Procrastination Level and Work Productivity of
Academic Staff
1 2
Procrastination
Level
Pearsonr
1
.274*
Sig.(2-tailed) .022
N 70
Work
Productivity
Pearsonr .274*
1Sig.(2-tailed) .022
N 70
 *p<.05
 Table 5 shows the relationships between the
academic staff’s procrastination level and work
productivity. As seen from the table, a low-direct
relationshipbetweenprocrastinationlevel andwork
productivityoftheacademicstaff.Sincethestudy
foundthePearsonr-valueof.274whichissignicant
at.05Alphalevelofsignicance.This only means

Shanlax
International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities
sha n l a x
#SINCE1990
http://www.shanlaxjournals.com 51
that when procrastination happens, it affects work
productivityatthesametime.
Discussion
 The principal aim of this study is to analyze
the relationship, procrastination level, and work
productivityofacademicstaffinatertiaryeducation
institutionin Central Luzon, Philippines. The study
foundsomeinterestingresultsthatmightcontributeto
theever-growingliteratureregardingprocrastination
andworkproductivity.
 Asobservedfromtheresultofthesurvey,academic
staffprocrastinate in their lineof work. Thisresult
coincideswith the ideasof an articlethat provided
a conclusion on the overview of procrastination
regardingits presence and its implications(Wilson
& Nguyen, 2012). Another related study showed
thatrespondentswith high procrastination rates are
pessimisticandnegativeaboutpastevents(Zabelina
et al., 2018). The result of the work productivity
survey also conrmed a positive response. The
result of the study is in congruence with the ideas
of Abbasi and Alghamdi (2015), procrastination is
unavoidable,andpeoplesufferatchangingdegrees
with adverse consequences. In relation further,
Kovacs et al., (2019) introduced that productivity
behavior change systems help us decrease time on
unproductiveactivities.
 The present study also subjected the data
through different statistical treatment and found
some notable results. Although the study posted
no signicant difference in the procrastination of
academic staff, their work productivity however
yieldeda noteworthyresult.Theresult,however, is
in contrast with the ndings of Prem et al., (2018)
wherein they showed the link of work features
to workplace procrastination. Some other studies
pointedoutthatwomenprocrastinatelessthanmen,
givingwomenanemploymentadvantage(Nguyenet
al.,2013;Beuteletal.,2016).Also,anarticleshowed
thatdifferentpersonalitytraitsplayaroleinthetwo
forms of procrastination in gender groups (Zhou,
2020). Other contradicting studies include that of
Beutelet al., (2016) whereintheirgroupfoundthat
procrastinationishighestintheyoungestcohort(age
14to29years).Anotherarticlealsomentionedthat
youngeradultsprocrastinatemorethanmiddle-aged
and older-aged adults (Nomura & Ferrari, 2018).
They also found out that being single or had no
childrendelay in doing tasks morethan those who
didnot.
 A deeper insight into the study includes the
investigationofrelationshipsbetweenprocrastination
levelandworkproductivityofacademicstaff.Current
study provided signicant results. A relationship
existed between the two variables. To support the
study’s result, Cetin and Kumkale (2017) showed
that they found a negative relationship between
procrastinationandtaskperformance.

Conclusion
 Basedon thedataandinformationgathered and
treated, the researcher concluded on the following
ideas.Intermsofprocrastinationlevel,theacademic
staff revealed an overall mean of 2.70 which is
interpreted as ‘often” in the Likert Scale. For the
workproductivityoftheacademicstaff,ityieldedan
overallmeanof3.07whichisinterpretedas“agree”
intheLikertScale.Thereisnosignicantdifference
in procrastination when grouped according to sex.
However,we observed signicant ndingsinterms
of work productivity when the academic staff is
grouped according to sex. Civil status produced a
signicantresultinprocrastination,however,ageand
years in service did not. For the work productivity
oftheacademicstaff,wefoundsubstantialevidence
of differences in civil status and years in service.
Thereisalsoevidenceofarelationshipbetweenthe
procrastination level and the work productivity of
theacademicstaff.
 Just like other studies, this one is no exception
toitslimitations.Therstlimitationofthisstudyis
thesettingsinceitisonlydoneinjustoneparticular
institution;it is highly advisableto do itin several
academic institutions from a broader perspective.
Second, the respondents, since the study was done
inabriefamountoftime,thenumberofrespondents
was not met. Some respondents did not return the
surveybecauseoftheirbusyschedulesandworkload.
Last, the method, it is suggested to triangulate the
quantitative results with qualitative remarks of
other respondents to strengthen the result of the
study. Therefore, a mixed form of research design
issuggested.

Shanlax
International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities
sha n l a x
#SINCE1990
http://www.shanlaxjournals.com
52
Implications
 From the results of the study, the researcher
providedthefollowingimplicationsfortheinstitution
toconsider.First,theinstitutionshouldexplorethe
extentofprocrastinationintheworkplace.Thisisin
coordinationwiththe human resource management
ofce,sincetheyallhavetheproleoftheacademic
staffandworkwith theGuidanceCounselorforthe
assessmentand intervention. The institutionshould
also organize timely seminars, workshops, and/ or
training programs to help minimize procrastination
andmaximizetheproductivityoftheacademicstaff.
Thiswill also help them promote their professional
growth and development at the same time.
Interventionprograms spearheadedbytheguidance
ofce are another suggestion to monitor and
intervenewiththeprevalenceof theprocrastinatory
attitudes and behaviors of the academic staff as
necessary. A exible working schedule is another
suggestion,especiallyfor those staff thatis needed
because of their expertise and skills. This will
providethestaffmoretimewiththeirfamilyandcan
workmore efciently. Itisalsoimportantto revisit
theinstitution’svision,missionandgoalssothatthe
academicstaffshouldadheretoittogetherwiththeir
commitment,loyalty,andtrust.Inthisway,thestaff
willnot get lost and have a directlineofachieving
the output intended for the institution. To promote
motivation, exemplary awards and incentive
systems should be strengthened and promoted. In
thisway, their signicancein the organization will
be recognized and appreciated by the institution,
howeverbigorsmallthisachievementmaybe.Last,
itissuggestedtoreplicatethisstudybutinadifferent
perspective or with additional variables to explore
more within the realm of procrastination and work
productivity.
References
Abbasi,IrumSaeed,andNawalG.Alghamdi.“The
Prevalence, Predictors, Causes, Treatment,
andImplicationsofProcrastinationBehaviors
in General, Academic, and Work Setting.”
International Journal of Psychological
Studies,vol.7,no.1,2015.
Akbarnejhad, Hajar, and Shahrbanoo Ghahari.
“Relationship between Spirituality-Based
Lifestyle and Procrastination among
Employed Women in Iran.” Biology and
Medicine,vol.9,no.1,2017.
Azimi, Hossein, et al. “Presentation of a Model
for Survey of the Effective Factors
on Procrastination of Employees in
Organizations.” International Journal of
Management, Accounting and Economics,
vol.4,no.6,2017,pp.675-681.
Battaglio, R. Paul, and P. Edward French. “Public
Service Motivation, Public Management
Reform, and Organizational Socialization.”
Public Personnel Management,vol.45,no.2,
2016,pp.123-147.
Beheshtifar, Malikeh, et al. “Effect Procrastination
on Work-Related Stress.” European Journal
of Economics, Finance and Administrative
Sciences,no.38,2011,pp.59–64.
Beutel,Manfred E., et al.“Procrastination,Distress
andLifeSatisfactionacrosstheAgeRange-A
German Representative Community Study.”
PLOS ONE,vol.11,no.2,2016.
Cadena, Ximena, et al. “Fighting Procrastination
in the Workplace: An Experiment.” NBER
Working Paper Series, 2011.
Çetin, Olgun Irmak, and Ilknur Kumkale. “The
Relation between Procrastination and Task
Performance.”Journal of Current Researches
on Business and Economics, vol. 7, no. 2,
2017,pp.193-206.
Corsi, Marcella, and Carlo D’Ippoliti. “The
ProductivityofthePublicSector:AClassical
View.”PSL Quarterly Review,vol.66,2013,
pp.403-434.
Ferrari,JosephR.,andNicoleLandreth.“GuessIam
a Procrastinator: Self and Other Perceptions
among Rural US Citizens.” North American
Journal of Psychology,vol.16,no.1,2014.
Hall,NathanC.,etal.“Self-Efcacy,Procrastination,
and Burnout in Post-Secondary Faculty: An
International Longitudinal Analysis.” PLOS
ONE,vol.14,no.12,2019.
Hicks, Richard E., and James Storey. “Can
Procrastination be Effective? A Study of
White-Collar Employees and University
Students.” International Journal of Business
Research,vol.15,no.1,2015,pp.39-48.

Shanlax
International Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities
sha n l a x
#SINCE1990
http://www.shanlaxjournals.com 53
Jain,Ravindra,andR.Premkumar.“HRD Practices
in Indian Organizations and their Impact
on ‘Productivity’ of Human Resources: An
Empirical Study.” Management and Labour
Studies,vol.36,no.1,2011,pp.5-30.
Khattak,AsmatNawaz,andMuhammadIlyas.“Task
Procrastination: Overcoming through Re-
EstablishmentofPsychologicalAssociation.”
Journal of Business Strategies,vol.11,no.2,
2017,pp.73-88.
Klingsieck, Katrin B. “Procrastination.” European
Psychologist,vol.18,no.1,2013,pp.24-34.
Kovacs,Geza,etal.“ConservationofProcrastination:
Do Productivity Interventions Save Time
or Just Redistribute it?.” Proceedings of the
2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems,2019.
McCloskey,Justin,andShannonAmerilda.“Finally!
The Development and Validation of the
AcademicProcrastinationScale.”2015.
Metin,U.Baran,etal.“CorrelatesofProcrastination
and Performance at Work: The Role of
having‘GoodFit.’”Journal of Prevention &
Intervention in the Community,vol.46,no.3,
2018,pp.228-244.
Nguyen,Brenda,etal.“Procrastination’sImpactin
the Workplace and the Workplace’s Impact
on Procrastination.” International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, vol. 21, no. 4,
2013,pp.388-399.
Nomura, Miki, and Joseph R. Ferrari. “Factor
Structure of Japanese Version of the Adult
Inventory of Procrastination Scale: Delay
Is Not Culture Specic.” North American
Journal of Psychology,vol. 20, no. 1, 2018,
pp.223-238.
Pearlman-Avnion, Shiri, and Alexander Zibenberg.
“Prediction and Job-Related Outcomes of
ProcrastinationintheWorkplace.”Journal of
Prevention & Intervention in the Community,
vol.46,no.3,2018,pp.263-278.
Pendleton, Andrew, and Andrew Robinson.
“Employee Stock Ownership, Involvement,
and Productivity: An Interaction-Based
Approach.”ILR Review,vol.64,no.1,2010,
pp.3-29.
Prem, Roman, et al. “Procrastination in Daily
WorkingLife:ADiaryStudyonWithin-Person
Processes that Link Work Characteristics
to Workplace Procrastination.” Frontiers in
Psychology,vol.9,2018.
Richardson,Anna.“BalancedSchedulingtoReduce
Procrastination: Can Scheduling Enjoyable
Activities Increase Productivity and
Satisfaction?”Student Research Proceedings,
vol.3,no.1,2018.
Siltala, Juha. “New Public Management: The
Evidence-Based Worst Practice?.”
Administration & Society, vol. 45, no. 4,
2013,pp.468-493.
Stephen, Andrew T., et al. How Being Busy
Overcomes Procrastination and Enhances
Productivity.
Taylor, Jeannette, et al. “The Inuence of Job
Attributes and Culture on Job Productivity.”
Review of Public Personnel Administration,
vol.33,no.2,2013,pp.205-224.
Teng, Felianne, and Yu Sun. “Devising an
Application to Decrease Procrastination.”
Journal of Computers, vol. 14, no. 3, 2019,
pp.152-160.
Wilson, Brian, and Tuyen Nguyen. “Belonging to
Tomorrow:AnOverviewofProcrastination.”
International Journal of Psychological
Studies,vol.4,no.1,2012.
Zabelina,E.,etal.“TimePerspectiveasaPredictor
of Procrastination.” Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences,vol.238,2018.
Zhou, Mingming. “Gender Differences in
Procrastination: The Role of Personality
Traits.” Current Psychology, vol. 39, 2020,
pp.1445-1453.
Author Details
John Mark R. Asio, Gordon College, Olongapo City, Philippines, Email ID: asio.johnmark@gmail.com