What are your beliefs about time?
OK I’m not referring here to deep philosophical questions about the nature of time! At a more pragmatic level in the workplace, many people struggle with time not because of a lack of tools or techniques, but because their beliefs about time shape how they plan, prioritise and respond to pressure.
Understanding these beliefs is a first step toward managing time more effectively.
Understanding Your Beliefs About Work Time
The way we view time influences our decisions. Ask yourself:
Do I treat the use of time as something I control, or something that controls me?
Do I focus on constraints or opportunities when I plan my week?
Do I believe that pressure is always unavoidable, or that space and margins are possible?
These reflections help identify whether attitudes are limiting your productivity before adjusting habits or schedules.
Recognising Common Cognitive Biases
One of the most well-documented biases affecting time management is the planning fallacy. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky first described this tendency in 1979: people consistently underestimate how long tasks will take, even when past experience shows they often need more time. Studies of students, employees, and project managers have repeatedly confirmed this effect (Buehler, Griffin, & Ross, 1994; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Awareness of this bias can help in making more realistic plans.
Valuing Your Own Time
How much you value your time affects how you allocate it. Consider:
Do I pause before agreeing to requests that take my time?
Do I protect periods for focused work as rigorously as meetings with others?
Do I prioritise my own work over reactive tasks or low-value interruptions?
Recognising the worth of your own time is crucial for maintaining focus on priorities.
Setting Realistic Expectations
Effective time management requires a clear-eyed view of what can fit into a day or a week. Research on cognitive resources shows that our attention and working memory are limited (Sweller, 1988; Miller, 1956). Attempting to overload your schedule can reduce productivity and increase stress.
A practical step is to track how long tasks actually take. Comparing estimates to actual durations provides a personal evidence base that improves planning accuracy. This aligns with findings from the planning fallacy: using historical data can reduce underestimation errors.
While there is no precise formula for what a realistic daily workload should be, focusing on priority tasks, batching similar work, and allowing for cognitive breaks is supported by research into attention and cognitive load. Planning in focused blocks rather than attempting continuous output helps maintain performance throughout the day (Sweller, 1988).
Practical Reflection
By understanding your own attitudes toward time, recognising common cognitive biases and valuing your own attention and effort, you can make more informed choices about what is achievable. Evidence shows that realistic planning is not only possible but essential for reducing stress, protecting priorities and increasing control over your workload.
References
Buehler, R., Griffin, D. W., & Ross, M. (1994). Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3), 366–381.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures. In S. Makridakis & S. C. Wheelwright (Eds.), Studies in the Management Sciences: Vol. 12. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Elsevier.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem-solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.