CHAPTER 24
Mental Management and Creativity
A COGNITIVE MODEL OF TIME MANAGEMENT FOR
INTELLECTUAL PRODUCTIVITY
Bruce K. Britton and Shawn M. Glynn
Introduction
Defining Creativity
"Creative" is a tenn of praise much affected .... It is presum-
ably intended to mean original, or something like that, but is
preferred because it is more vague and less usual (cf. "semi-
nal"). It has been aptly called a "luscious, round, meaningless
word, " and said to be "so much in honor that it is the clinching
tenn of approval from the schoolroom to the advertiser's stu-
dio." (Fowler, 1965, p. 114)
Creativity is a debased term. Intellectual produc-
tivity is the best term for what we have in mind in
this chapter. Intellectually productive people work
to produce useful new ideas. Some examples of
intellectually productive people are scientists doing
original research, authors writing imaginative liter-
ature, political workers devising new solutions to
social problems, and mediators proposing ways to
resolve conflicts between parties.
Bruce K. Britton • Department of Psychology, University
of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. Shawn M. Glynn •
Department of Educational Psychology, University of Georgia,
Athens, GA 30602.
429
J. A. Glover et al. (eds.), Handbook of Creativity
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989
Why Intellectually Productive People Need to
Manage Their Time
A wise Man should order his Designs, and set all his interests
in their proper Places: This Order is often confounded by a
foolish Greediness, which, while it puts us upon pursuing so
many several Things at once, that in Eagerness for Matters of less
consideration, we grasp at Trifles, and let go Things of greater
value. (La Rochefoucauld, 1706, p. 43)
Intellectually productive people usually have
more things that they would like to do, or need to
do, than they have time (Roe, 1952); that is, they do
not have enough time to do the things they have to
do. One part of the solution to this problem is men-
tal management. To produce large quantities of
high-quality mental products, people must effec-
tively manage the limited resource that produces
those products: their minds. Managing the mind has
several aspects. One aspect, which is considered
elsewhere, is memory management (Britton, Smith,
& Glynn, 1985). The aspect that this chapter con-
siders is the management of mental time.
The mind can be regarded as a single processor
that can do only one thing at a time. The objective of
the mental time-management system described in
this chapter is to maximize the use of the resource of
mental time. The use of mental time is maximized
430
when the largest number of the highest quality intel-
lectual products are produced in the shortest time.
To maximize mental time, it is necessary to make
use of a metacognitive system that oversees and
supervises the operation of the rest of the cognitive
system. Some people have a mental time-manage-
ment system, and others do not. It is the faith of this
chapter that those who have such a system are better
off, in the sense that their intellectual productivity is
greater. This is called a "faith" because it is based
on very little empirical research. The empirical lit-
erature on the effects of time management is very
small: the only experimental empirical paper we
have found is by Hall and Hursch (1982). Literature
on the relationship between creativity and time
management does not appear to exist (Paul Tor-
rance, personal communication, October 5, 1987).
Although there is a large popular literature in this
area, it is almost entirely exhortatory in tone, with
only anecdotes as evidence. The best example of
this literature is Lakein (1973), and though it is very
good indeed, the claims it makes are not supported
by the kind of evidence usually adduced in behav-
ioral science investigations.
There is, however, a very substantial empirical
literature in computer science that demonstrates
that the productivity of computers can be substan-
tially increased by applying some of the principles
of time management described here. Most present-
day computers, like human minds under most cir-
cumstances, have a single processor that can do
only one thing at a time, and computer scientists
have been much concerned with maximizing the
use of that resource. This literature was thus the
original source of many of the ideas that are pre-
sented in this chapter (Greenstein & Rouse, 1982;
Pattipati, Kleinman, & Ephrath, 1983; Tulga,
1979; Tulga & Sheridan, 1980).
The alternative to having a mental time-manage-
ment system is not having one. People who do not
have such a system are not supervising their own
cognitive system; instead, they are driven by exter-
nal and internal forces that they do not control.
Prioritized
Desires_ _ Goals and _
Subgoals
Figure 1. Top-level components of a mental time management system.
PART IV • APPLICATIONS
External forces include deadlines, the goals desired
by other people, and the order in which tasks arrive
at their desk; internal forces include inertia and mo-
mentum. The output of persons who are not in con-
trol of their processing resources is likely to be
determined fortuitously by the interplay of external
and internal forces. In contrast, the output of people
who manage their mental time is characterized by
the formulation of ordered precedence relations that
are relevant to the achievement of specific ex-
plicitly formulated goals, and by discrete steps that
are taken toward the achievement of those goals.
In the next sections of this chapter, we describe a
time-management system that is based on a syn-
thesis of the computer science literature with the
popular literature. We then describe the specific
time-management problems that intellectually pro-
ductive people are likely to have. In the concluding
sections, we point out that time management is it-
self an intellectually demanding task for which suf-
ficient time must be set aside. After providing a
research agenda, we summarize briefly. An Appen-
dix provides a time-management instrument.
The Time Manager
Top-Level Components
Mental time management is performed by a met-
acognitive system that has three parts, as shown
schematically in Figure 1: the Goal Manager, the
Task Planner, and the Scheduler. The Goal Manag-
er takes as input the person's desires and produces
as output a list of goals and subgoals with priorities
attached.
The Task Planner takes as input the output of the
Goal Manager-the prioritized list of goals and
subgoals. The planner operates upon those goals
and subgoals and produces as output a list of tasks
and subtasks with priorities attached. Goals are dis-
tinguished from tasks in that goals are objectives,
whereas tasks are activities. Objectives are state-
Prioritized
_ Tasks and _ Scheduler
Subtasks
CHAPTER 24 • TIME MANAGEMENT
ments of a desired end product or a desired state of
affairs; objectives are not something that can be
"done" with the limbs of the body or the parts of
the mind. In contrast, tasks are activities that can be
done with the limbs of the body or the parts of the
mind. Tasks are instrumental to goals in that they
are activities that can bring about a desired state of
affairs. For example, a goal could be to achieve the
ability to be fluent in French; a task relevant to that
goal would be to enroll in a French class.
SUbgoals and subtasks are subordinate steps that
must be taken to achieve their superordinate goal or
task. For example, subgoals of becoming fluent in
French are (a) learning French vocabulary and (b)
learning French syntax. Subtasks for the task of
enrolling in a French class might be (a) looking in
the telephone book for educational institutions that
might offer French classes, (b) recording their num-
bers, and (c) dialing the numbers. It is important to
note in these examples that these subgoals and sub-
tasks are arranged in precedence relations; that is,
certain subgoals must be achieved before others can
be achieved. Learning some French vocabulary, for
example, is a prerequisite for learning French syn-
tax, and certain subtasks, such as looking up the
phone number, must be completed before later
ones, such as dialing the number, can be begun.
The third component of the time manager is the
Scheduler, which takes as input the output of the
Task Planner-the list of tasks and subtasks. The
Scheduler produces a "To-Do List," which is used
to make the decision about what to do next. This
decision is then input to the mind, which then car-
ries out the activity. When each activity is com-
pleted, the Scheduler is consulted about what to do
next.
Description of Each Time Manager Component
Goal Manager
He who has not directed his life in general to a certain end, for
him it is impossible to adjust the separate acts; for him it is
impossible to arrange the pieces, who has not a figure of the
whole in his head . . . the archer must first know at what he
aims, and then adapt his hand, the bow, the string, the arrow, and
1
~oal Generator
. '
1_ Goal Prioritizer _
Figure 2. Components of the Goal Manager.
431
his motions accordingly. Our judgments go astray if they have no
direction and no aim. No wind is fair for the sailor who has no
purposed port. (Montaigne, 1925, pp. 48-49)
. By far the most important thing about any system
IS the goals to which it is directed. In the context of
time management, this means that the quality of a
person's goals is much more important than the
efficiency with which they are pursued. Even an
optimally efficient time-management system, if it
operates to achieve low-quality goals, cannot lead
to high-quality results. And even a very poor time-
management system can produce important work if
it is directed toward important goals. The goals of
one's cognitive system are an order of magnitude
~ore important than one's time-management prac-
tIces. The most efficient possible way of using
?ne's time on a valueless goal is utterly valueless; it
IS a great deal worse than the least efficient possible
way of using one's time on a valuable goal. So the
goal-management system is more important than
the time-management system; or to put it another
~ay, the time-management system's only purpose
IS to s~rve the goals. The importance of high-quality
goals IS the thing we will be left pointing at after we
have said everything we have to say about time
management.
People often resist specifying their goals. Fre-
quently stated objections are that they find the task
overwhelming or embarrassing, that they feel the
task limits their options, or that it takes away some
of the creativity, spontaneity, and fun from life
(Lakein, 1973). Against these objections must be
placed the fact that goals that have not been spec-
ified are unlikely to be achieved. The number of
paths a life can take is infinite; so the number of end
points that can be reached is infinite in number. But
the value of those end points differs greatly. So the
expected values of the paths differ greatly as well.
The Goal Manager is composed of several parts,
as shown schematically in Figure 2.
Goal Generator. When persons want to find
out what their goals should be, the first thing they
Subgoal _
Generator
Subgoal
Prioritizer
432 PART IV • APPLICATIONS

should do is to produce a long list of possible goals, on feasibility and other constraints. The final output
which can then be narrowed down for the next is a prioritized list of subgoals.
stage. The input to the Goal Generator is the per-
sons' desires, and everything they know about
themselves and the world. The output is a list of Task Planner
candidate goals, which might include, for example, The Task Planner has several components, as
professional goals, such as becoming a prominent shown in Figure 3. When beginning work, the plan-
psychologist; personal goals, such as learning ner has a list of prioritized goals and of the subgoals
French; and social, political, intellectual, spiritual, for each goal. For simplicity, we can consider the
and other types of goals. list as being ordered from top to bottom, with the
first goal on the list being the highest priority goal.
Goal Prioritizer. It is obvious that all goals are Underneath each goal is a list of sub goals that must
not of equal importance. Also, because usually the be achieved before the main goal can be achieved.
time available is not sufficient to achieve them all, These subgoals are also in priority order. The plan-
they will have to be placed in order of importance. ner starts with the highest priority goal and looks for
The Goal Prioritizer orders the goals. The input to its highest priority subgoal. The planner's job is to
the Goal Prioritizer is the list of goals with priorities specify what tasks must be done to achieve that
attached, which can be visualized as a list of goals subgoal. It will be useful to recall here that, al-
with the most important ones at the top. The pri- though goals and subgoals are statements of desired
oritizing is done by heuristics. These heuristics are end products, tasks and subtasks are activities that
very important determiners of the quality of the can be performed with the limbs of the body or the
output of all the components described below. A parts of the mind, often with the help of physical
description of these heuristics for the general case is objects or other external resources.
beyond the scope of this chapter, but some heuris-
tics for intellectually productive people are in- Task Generator. The Task Generator consid-
cluded in later sections. ers the subgoal and thinks of different possible ac-
tivities that could be performed to accomplish it. In
Subgoal Generator. For each goal, there are the time available for this phase of planning, the
usually several prerequisite subordinate goals that generator then thinks of as many of these activities
have to be achieved in order to achieve the superor- as is possible and ends up with a list of possible
dinate goal, and often there are several possible activities that could be done to achieve the goal. In
routes to the same goal. For example, one might general, these activities are too molar to be per-
become fluent in French by taking French courses formed with specific parts of the body or mind; the
locally or by going to France. The Subgoal Gener- Subtask Generator has the responsibility of break-
ator takes as input each goal separately, and, using ing them down into molecular subcomponents.
heuristics and knowledge about the world, gener-
ates various possible sets of subgoals that could Task Prioritizer. On the generated list of pos-
serve as prerequisites to achieve that goal. The out- sible activities, there will be some that are clearly
put is the various sets of possible subgoals. infeasible or that are very costly in terms of suffer-
ing; some that use a scarce resource; and some that
Subgoal Prioritizer. Taking the list of possible are efficient, easy, or pleasant to do. The Task Pri-
subgoals, the Subgoal Prioritizer rates them based oritizer selects which ones are the first choices.

Figure 3. Components of the Task Planner.

CHAPTER 24 • TIME MANAGEMENT
Subtask Generator. Starting with the first-
choice task, the Subtask Generator breaks it down
further into components that can actually be done
with parts of the body or the mind. There are many
different ways to accomplish the task, and, at this
stage, as many possibilities will be generated as
time is available.
Subtask Prioritizer. The task possibilities are
then narrowed down by the Subtask Prioritizer to
produce a list of practical, performable activities.
Task Properties
Up to this point, we have emphasized one proper-
ty of the goals and tasks: the property we have
named priority. We need now to consider three
other important properties of the tasks. One impor-
tant property is whether the task has a deadline or
not. Whether a particular task has a deadline often
depends on whether its superordinate subgoal and
goal have a deadline, that is, the deadline property
may be "inherited" by any progeny of a goal. For
example, one common deadline maintenance goal
is to pay one's income taxes by April 15. The dead-
line property is inherited by its subgoals, like pay-
ing both Federal income tax and State income
tax,and by their tasks, like gathering one's financial
records and procuring the appropriate extra forms
from the government, and also by their subtasks,
like getting into the car and driving down to the
local Internal Revenue Service office to get the
forms.
Another important property of tasks is the time
required to complete them. Very long tasks need to
be treated separately from very short ones. Some
tasks should not be begun unless there is sufficient
time to complete them on a particular day: waxing
the kitchen floor is a maintenance goal of this type.
Others can be interrupted and resumed later without
penalty. This property is called interruptibility.
Another important property is the type of mental
resources that a task requires. For some tasks it is
necessary to have a very alert, awake, and active
mind-high-Ievel intellectually productive work
often requires this property. Such tasks can only be
done at times of the day when the needed resource is
available, for example, in early morning. Other
subtasks, such as dealing with one's mail, can often
be done with less mental resources, in late after-
noon, for example. This property specifies the type
433
and amount of mental resources that are required to
achieve a goal or task.
These additional properties are mentioned here
because they are needed as part of the input to the
next component of the time-management system,
which is the Scheduler. At this point, it will be easy
to think back to see how they could have been incor-
porated into the processing from the very earliest
stages. For example, the deadline property could
have been attached to certain goals as soon as the
Goal Generator produced them, or as soon as some
outside force imposed them on the system. The
deadline property would then have influenced the
work of the Goal Prioritizer and would have been
inherited by the goals that are produced by the Sub-
goal Generator and that are chosen by the Sub goal
Prioritizer. In tum, the deadline property would be
inherited through the task and subtask planning pro-
cess. In similar ways, the other properties could
have been incorporated into the processing from the
earliest stages.
Scheduler
The Scheduler is in charge of choosing a person's
next activity. Typically, there are a large number of
different things that can be done, but because the
person can usually do only one thing at a time, the
Scheduler has to decide which it is to be. In making
the decision, the Scheduler has access to all the
information that is retained from the previous
stages, including priorities, deadlines, time re-
quired, interruptibility, and mental and other re-
sources. The Scheduler has two components, as
shown schematically in Figure 4.
Job Selector. The Job Selector produces a To-
Do List for each day. This is a run down of the
different things the person has to do that day. Each
of the things on the list will be called a job. (This
new term is used to avoid having to distinguish
between subtasks and tasks.) The input to the Job
Selector is the list of tasks and subtasks. Each task
and subtask has attached to it its entire list of proper-
IJob Selector I --+ Run Manager
Figure 4. Components of the Scheduler.
434
ties, including priority, deadlines, time required,
interruptibility, and resource requirements. The Job
Selector applies to these job properties a heuristic
program to select which jobs will be placed on the
list for that day.
Run Manager. The To-Do List is then per-
formed by the Run Manager, who decides which
job to do first. If that job is not interrupted, it will be
completed, and then the Run Manager must decide
which job to do next. If there is an interruption, the
Run Manager must decide what to do next.
Special Properties of Time Management
for the Intellectually Productive
Distinctions between Types of Goals
There are many different types of goals. Intellec-
tual productivity is likely to be associated more with
some types of goals than with others.
Intellectual Productivity versus Noncreative
Achievement and Maintenance Goals
If people are to achieve the goal of being intellec-
tually productive (creative), then they must set
themselves appropriate goals and allow consider-
able periods of time to work toward achieving
them. But most people also have to devote consid-
erable periods of time to tasks that do not lead to
intellectual productivity. It is very easy to spend all
one's time attending to noncreative or essential
maintenance activities, routine tasks, previous
commitments, interruptions, and crises (Lakein,
1973). In fact, most people devote all their time to
tasks that are not creative. Although these tasks
certainly lead to the maintenance of one's body,
home, possessions, and relationships, and may also
lead to considerable job achievement; they are un-
likely to lead to intellectual productivity, except
fortuitously.
Personal Goals versus Other Goals and Job Goals
Some goals originate within the self, and other
goals are imposed from outside, either by real-
world events, such as natural disasters and wars, or
by other people who have some influence over us,
such as children, spouses, bosses, and political or
religious leaders. Conceivably, intellectual produc-
tivity can result from any of these goals, but most
PART IV • APPLICATIONS
intellectual productivity that we know of occurs in
response to job goals. This is particularly likely if
the job has intellectual productivity as one of its
explicit or implicit requirements. However, some
jobs have no scope for intellectual productivity or
positively discourage it; persons in such jobs are
unlikely to be intellectually productive.
Content Goals versus System Goals
Content goals state the content of desired states
of affairs, such as knowing French, becoming a
prominent psychologist, or owning a sailboat. In
contrast, system goals state the operating criteria by
which the performance of the cognitive system is to
be judged. For example, one common system goal
of some people's cognitive system is to maximize
the accuracy of the system. Each system goal has
associated with it a particular measure of effective-
ness; for maximizing the accuracy of the system,
the measure of effectiveness would be error rate.
Another system goal might be to work as fast as
possible, for which one measure of effectiveness
would be the number of jobs completed per unit
time. Each system goal might be appropriate for a
particular profession or job mix. Also, it is possible
to combine such goals; for example, one common
goal might be to combine speed with accuracy, that
is, to be as fast and accurate as one can.
One reason that system goals are mentioned here
is to note that the Goal Manager is not concerned
with them. The Goal Manager is concerned with
content goals. However, system goals can be
important to the scheduling system, because the
order in which jobs are done can be partly deter-
mined by system goals.
The other reason system goals are distinguished
from content goals is to point out that intellectually
productive people must be concerned primarily
with content goals and, moreover, with content
goals that lead to intellectually productive results.
People who do not intend to be intellectually pro-
ductive may, however, be concerned primarily with
system goals, such as doing a particular job more
and more quickly, efficiently, and accurately. But
people concerned primarily with system goals will
have less time to devote to content goals, and, for
that reason, are less likely to be intellectually pro-
ductive. By the same token, intellectually produc-
tive people, because they must concentrate pri-
marily on content goals, will generally have less
time to focus on system goals. The result is that
their intellectually productive work is sometimes
CHAPTER 24 • TIME MANAGEMENT
performed slowly and inefficiently, or otherwise
does not meet certain desirable system goals.
Intellectual Productivity Effects on Components
of the Goal Manager
Goal Generator
People who wish to be intellectually productive
need to generate goals that are appropriate to that
objective. But because creative ideas are by defini-
tion new ones, it is usually impossible to specify in
advance what the end point idea to be produced will
be, for it has not yet been invented. So intellectually
productive people often need to specify problems in
place of goals. In such problem-goal statements,
the goal idea appears as an unknown entity that is
the solution to a particular problem. The generation
of such problem-goal statements is often unlikely
to occur because the existence of even very imper-
fect solutions to a problem can cause reasonable
people to consider that the problem is already
solved. Then the problem becomes part of the back-
ground, and it is difficult even to see it as a problem.
Intellectually productive people must incorporate
heuristics in their goal generators that deal with
this.
Goal Prioritizer
If creative products are to result, priority must be
given to creative goals. Maintenance goals and non-
creative achievement goals must be given lower
priority. This particular conflict between goal types
is an instance of goal conflict. When people have
more things to do than they can possibly do in the
time that is available, goal conflict is inevitable. In
general, goal conflict can only be resolved by set-
ting priorities.
When creative goals are involved, unique prob-
lems arise in setting priorities and in dealing with
the other goal and task properties. These can be
seen most clearly by considering how priorities are
set for maintenance and noncreative achievement
goals. The criteria that are used there include
threshold considerations of feasibility, practicality,
and probability of successful achievement, and also
incremental calculations of expected value, re-
source requirements, and time to achieve. Because
maintenance and noncreative achievement goals
can be formulated as end-product content state-
ments, it is usually possible to estimate these prop-
erties. In contrast, creative goals are unknown solu-
435
tions, so it is often not possible to calculate any of
these properties. Often, the assignment of high pri-
ority to creative goals represents a leap of faith.
Subgoal Generator and Prioritizer
The role of the subgoal component is to break
down the highest priority goals into subparts to the
point where they can be restated as tasks, that is, as
activities that can be performed by the limbs or the
mind. The breaking down and prioritizing pro-
cesses are essentially the same whether the goals are
creative goals, noncreative achievement goals, or
maintenance goals. Of course, some decomposi-
tions into subgoals are better than others, in the
sense that they will lead to the goal more effectively
or more cheaply. The job of figuring out the best
decomposition is a problem-solving task that uses
essentially the same heuristics whatever the type of
goal.
Task Planner
Nothing more will be said about the Task Planner
here, except that the planner's operation is the same
for creative goals as for any other type of goal.
Scheduling for Intellectual Productivity
Job Selector. On each day in which the To-Do
List includes jobs that are priorities for creative
work, there is a likelihood that some creative work
will be accomplished. On other days, creative prod-
ucts can be achieved only fortuitously. The Job
Selector, who is in charge of the To-Do List for
each day, must select creative jobs if any progress is
to be made toward creative goals.
Run Manager. The Run Manager is in charge
of when the selected jobs are to be done during the
day. Intellectual productivity typically requires (a)
the absorption of large amounts of information, (b)
its integration by thinking, and (c) the production of
the desired end product. All these activities are per-
formed most effectively by the processor when two
conditions are met: the optimum time of day, and
large enough blocks of time that are not interrupted
by outside forces or by lack of resources needed for
the job.
Time of Day. Most people have a certain time
of day when they can do intellectually productive
work most effectively. For most intellectually pro-
436
ductive people with whom we are acquainted, the
morning is the best time. Whatever the time, pro-
ductive work seems usually to be limited in length
to no more than a few hours. This time will be called
high time. During high time, high-quality intellec-
tual work can be performed, whereas at other times
it either cannot be performed at all or only with the
greatest difficulty and waste of time. People who
can schedule their intellectually demanding tasks
during high time will achieve more of the tasks than
people who cannot.
Large Blocks o/Time. Typically, intellectually
productive tasks require the absorption of amounts
of information that are very large, the following of
chains of thoughts that are very long, and end prod-
ucts whose production is very time consuming. The
amounts of time required for these activities are
very large. In most cases, the completion of anyone
unit of an intellectually productive task will require
at least all of one day's high time. People who can
devote a large amount of their high time to intellec-
tually productive tasks will complete more of them.
Uninterrupted Blocks o/Time. When intellec-
tual activity is interrupted, the task that is in pro-
gress must be stored away, along with the results
that are reached thus far, and all the information that
is required to reactivate the task later on when the
interruption has been dealt with. When the task is
taken up again, the material needed for its resump-
tion must be reactivated. If the task is not dealt with
in this way, it will have to be started from the begin-
ning, or not taken up at all.
Interruptions are particularly disruptive to intel-
lectually productive work because such work often
involves lengthy, novel chains of thought that are
fragile in the sense that their disruption, even tem-
porarily, can cause a complete loss of critical ele-
ments or ordered links between them. Similarly, in
intellectually productive work, very large bodies of
diverse prior knowledge (driving the production of
new ideas) often are configured in novel and there-
fore very unstable ways, and, when interruptions
disrupt these configurations, they may not be re-
coverable. Thus, interruptions may have a substan-
tial cost if they are permitted to occur during times
when intellectually productive activities are in
progress.
Two types of interruptions can be distinguished:
external interruptions, such as telephone calls or
unexpected visits by people, are generally not rele-
vant to the task at hand and are sometimes uncon-
trollable; whereas job-internal interruptions arise
PART IV • APPLICATIONS
from the progress of the task at hand. Often intellec-
tually productive people will reach a particular
point and then find that they need something that is
not immediately available: a document, a word, an
idea, or some other thing. Usually these needs
spawn a new subtask. Sometimes these subtasks are
not in themselves intellectually demanding and so
can be put off to lower quality time periods. At
other times, they are fully as intellectually demand-
ing as the main task in progress and so must be
pursued during high time, but they can be put off to
later blocks of high time.
Scheduling Creative Subtasks Not Requiring
High Time. Often creative production requires
large amounts of tedious work. For example, re-
search psychologists may have to collect, score,
and analyze data from subjects. If such work can be
delegated to someone who can be trusted to do it
right, then time can be saved. But all too often,
intellectually productive people have to do tedious
tasks themselves because the tasks have never been
done before and only they have the understanding to
do them right, or because the progress of the tasks is
inherently uncertain, and novel decisions must be
made in real time. If possible, such tasks should be
scheduled at other than high time.
Scheduling Management Time
The most important goal of our cognitive system
is to pursue goals that are important to us. The
purpose of the entire time-management system de-
scribed in this chapter is to achieve that goal. Be-
cause management of our mental time is itself an
intellectually demanding task, high time should be
allocated to it. Allocation of a brief period of plan-
ning time at the beginning of each high-time period
will ensure that the time-management system will
have an opportunity to work.
Research Agenda
Research on time management and on intellec-
tual productivity requires measurement and training
of time-management practices, skills, and abilities
on the one hand, and measurement of intellectual
productivity on the other. Britton and Tesser have
developed a time-management questionnaire for
student populations, which is included in the Ap-
pendix. A factor analysis (N = 90) yielded three
factors, as shown in Table l. A project is now un-
derway to relate these scores, taken on freshmen, to
CHAPTER 24 • TIME MANAGEMENT
Table 1. Items Loading on Three Factors of
Time Management Questionnaire
Planning factor
Do you make a list of things you have to do each day?
(.80)a
Do you plan your day before you start it? (.72)
Do you make a schedule of activities you have to do on
work days? (.71)
Do you write a set of goals for yourself each day? (.67)
Do you spend time each day planning? (.66)
Do you have a clear idea of what you want to accomplish
during the next week? (.54)
Do you set and honor priorities? (.50)
Grind factor
Do you rarely do things which interfere with your
schoolwork? (.63)
Do you feel you are in charge of your own time, by and
large? (.60)
On an average day do you spend more time with school-
work than with personal grooming? (.57)
Do you believe there is little room for improvement in
the way you manage your time? (.55)
Do you make constructive use of your time? (.55)
Do you stop unprofitable routines or activities? (.51)
Orderly factor
Do you usually keep your desk clear of everything other
than what you are currently working with? (.66)
Do you have a set of goals for the entire quarter? (.49)
The night before a major assignment is due, have you
usually completed it? (.47)
When you have several things to do, do you think it is
best to do a little bit of work on each one? (.47)
Do you keep your important dates (e. g., exam dates,
research paper due dates, etc.) on a single calendar?
(.43)
Do you regularly review your class notes, even when a
test is not imminent? (.42)
Do you skim reading materials first to see if they are
worth reading in depth? (.40)
aFactor loadings in parentheses.
cumulative grade point average over the college
years as an index of intellectual productivity.
Instruments that are appropriate for business peo-
ple are contained in Greene (1969) and Bliss
(1976). We do not know of any attempts to measure
437
intellectual productivity in connection with these
instruments.
The exemplary work on training time-manage-
ment skills and measuring intellectual productivity
can be found in Hall and Hursch (1982). Numerous
workshops on training time-management skills are
offered at universities (e.g., through the Counsel-
ing and Testing Center at the University of Georgia)
and by private organizations, but we know of none
that has attempted to measure the effectiveness of
the programs. Such measurements would be easy to
take with the instruments in the Appendix and
would provide important information not otherwise
available.
A final research tool in this area, which may be
useful for both measurement and training, is a com-
puter gamelike program that was devised by Tulga
(1979; Tulga & Sheridan, 1980), in which a com-
puter screen display shows several boxes moving
right toward a "deadline." Each box represents a
task. The length ofthe box represents the amount of
work remaining to do on it; the height of the box
represents the number of points gained per unit of
work; and the symbols in the box represent various
other properties of the task, such as interruptability.
The subject has control of a cursor that can be
moved to a box to "work" on it. The subject gets
points depending on which task he chooses to work
on. For each configuration of boxes (tasks), it is
possible to calculate (by enumeration) which
task(s) to work on to maximize some criterion. Cri-
teria might be maximizing the number of jobs com-
pleted, or the number of points gained, or minimiz-
ing the number of jobs that are uncompleted at
deadline. The measure of performance is how
closely the subject comes to maximizing the chosen
criterion.
Such a task is a gamelike simulation of real time
management tasks, and could be useful not only for
measuring ability but also for training time-man-
agement skills.
Summary
A general model for time management is de-
scribed in detail. Special properties of time man-
agement that are particularly relevant to
intellectually productive people are pointed out,
and some research tools are described. An App~n­
dix provides an instrument for measuring time-
management practices.
438 PART IV . APPLICATIONS

Appendix
Britton and Tesser Time Management Instrument

This questionnaire includes 35 items that might be descriptive of you. Please read each question and
then place a check mark in one of the parentheses next to the question, corresponding to the category that
best describes how the question applies to you. For example, if the first question always applies to you,
put a check mark in the parentheses beneath "always." Remember, we are interested in how you think
you actually are, not how you would like to be. Be sure to answer all 35 questions.

Always Frequently Sometimes Infrequently Never

I. Do you believe that there is
room for improvement in the
way you manage your time? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2. Do you write a set of goals for
yourself for each day? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
3. On an average class day do you
spend more time with personal
grooming than doing
schoolwork? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
4. Do you have a set of goals for
the entire quarter? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
5. Do you set and honor priorities? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
6. Do you usually have a radio,
television, or stereo playing
while you study? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
7. Do you usually keep your desk
clear of everything other than
what you are currently working
with? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
8. Are you able to put schoolwork
out of your mind when you are
socializing? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
9. The night before a major
assignment is due, are you
usually still working on it? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
10. Are you able to make minor
decisions quickly? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
II. Do you clip or xerox articles
which, although not presently
important to you, may be in the
future? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
12. Do you smoke an average of at
least one pack of cigarettes per
day? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
13. Do you regularly review your
class notes, even when a test is
not imminent? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
14. Do you keep your important
dates (e.g., exam dates, research
paper due dates, etc.) on a
single calendar? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
15. Do you often find yourself
doing things which interfere
with your schoolwork simply
because you hate to say "No" to
people? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
CHAPTER 24 . TIME MANAGEMENT 439

Always Frequently Sometimes Infrequently Never

16. Do you plan your day before
you start it? ( ) ( ) () ( ) ( )
17. Are you concerned about how
well or poorly you use your
time? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
18. Do you try to schedule your best
hours for your most demanding
work? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
19. Do you make a schedule of the
activities you have to do on
work days? ( ) () ( ) ( ) ( )
20. Do you find yourself waiting a
lot without anything to do? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ()
21. Do you skim reading materials
first to see if they are worth
reading in depth? () ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
22. Do you have a clear idea of
what you want to accomplish
during the next week? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
23. Do you make constructive use
of your time? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
24. Do you set deadlines for
yourself for completing work? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
25. Do you spend time each day
planning? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
26. Do you continue unprofitable
routines or activities? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
27. Do you keep things with you
that you can work on whenever
you get spare moments? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
28. Do you feel you are in charge of
your own time, by and large? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
29. Do you have a set of goals for
each week ready at the
beginning of the week? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
30. When you have several things to
do, how often do you try to
figure out which are most
important? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
31. When you have several things to
do, do you think it is best to do
a little bit of work on each one? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
32. Each week do you do things as
they naturally occur to you,
without an effort to make a plan
in advance and compulsively
follow it? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
33. Generally, do you think you can
usually accomplish all your
goals for a given week? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
34. Do you make a list of the things
you have to do each day? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
35. When you have an idea, do you
usually try to remember it
mentally until you need it,
rather than write it down
somewhere? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
440
References
Bliss, E, C, (1976). Getting things done: The ABCs of Time
Management. New York: Scribner's.
Britton, B. K., Smith, J. W., & Glynn, S. M. (1985). A cog-
nitive workbench model for understanding expository text. In
B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Understanding expository
text (pp. 277-248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fowler, H. W. (1965). A dictionary of modern English usage
(2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greene, R. M. (1969). The management game: How to win with
people. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin.
Greenstein, J. S., & Rouse, W. B. (1982). A model of human
decision making in multiple process monitor situations. IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 12, 182-
193.
Hall, B. L., & Hursch, D. E. (1982). An evaluation of the effects
of a time management training program on work efficiency.
Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 3, 73-96.
PART IV • APPLICATIONS
Lakein, A. (1973). How to get control of your time and your life.
New York: Signet.
La Rochefoucauld, F., Duc de (1706). Moral maxims and reflec-
tions. London: Sare.
Montaigne, M. (1925). Essays (George B. Ives, Trans.).
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pattipati, K. R., Kleinman, D. L., & Ephrath, A. R. (1983). A
dynamic decision model of human task selection perfor-
mance. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cyber-
netics, 13, 145-166.
Roe, A. (1952). The making of a scientist. New York: Dodd,
Mead.
Tulga, M. K. (1979). Dynamic decision making in multi-task
supervisory control: Comparison of an optimal algorithm to
human behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mas-
sachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Tulga, M. K., & Sheridan, T. B. (1980). Dynamic decisions and
work load in multitask supervisory control. IEEE Transac-
tions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 10, 217-232.