Why We Don't Ask for More Time on Deadlines (But Probably Should)

Jaewon  Yoon; A.V.  Whillans; Grant  Donnelly

Article | Harvard Business Review (website) | April 4, 2019

Why We Don't Ask for More Time on Deadlines (But Probably Should)

by Jaewon Yoon, A.V. Whillans and Grant Donnelly

Abstract

Deadlines are one of the biggest sources of stress in the workplace. Yet, many are flexible: Your manager might ask you to submit a proposal for a long-term project by Friday, but not plan to look at it until Tuesday. Could asking for more time (when we need it) be a simple way to avoid feeling panicked and overwhelmed? While it’s common to believe that pushing back a deadline might reflect poorly on us and be seen as unprofessional, we know relatively little from research about the actual consequences of asking for more time. To better understand this, we conducted 10 experiments and a survey with nearly 10,000 employees and managers in the United States. We found that, across occupations, asking for more time to work on an assignment was, on average, perceived positively by managers—and it reduced employees’ stress levels and improved their performance. In one survey—of 191 employees—we found that 95% of those who asked their manager for a deadline extension received one.

Keywords: time; stress; Employees; Time Management; Perception; Performance; Happiness;

Format: Electronic

Read Now

Citation:

Yoon, Jaewon, A.V. Whillans, and Grant Donnelly. "Why We Don't Ask for More Time on Deadlines (But Probably Should)." Harvard Business Review (website) (April 4, 2019).

Using a multi-method approach, we investigate whether income volatility is associated with financial impatience—the preference to receive a small sum of money immediately over a larger sum of money later. We find that experiencing more income volatility—including a higher frequency of either income dips or spikes – is associated with greater financial impatience. Using longitudinal data on biannual income, Study 1 demonstrates that this effect operates above and beyond individual differences in income risk preferences and wealth. Study 2 conceptually replicates these correlational findings with recent month-to-month income volatility and finds that this effect occurs primarily among people who report having little control over their finances. Using a longitudinal field experimental with low-income working women, Study 3 tests for a causal effect of an externally-induced spike in monthly income on changes in financial impatience. In a pre-post test experimental design, participants randomly assigned to receive cash transfers amounting to a median monthly income spike of 29% exhibit significantly greater financial impatience compared to a control condition in which participants receive no cash transfers. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for employers and policymakers.

It’s true: we have more time for leisure than we did fifty years ago. But leisure has never been less relaxing, mostly because of the disintermediating effects of our screens. Technology saves us time, but it also takes it away. This is known as the autonomy paradox. We adopt mobile technologies to gain autonomy over when and how long we work, yet, ironically, we end up working all the time. Long blocks of free time we used to enjoy are now interrupted constantly by our smart watches, phones, tablets, and laptops. This situation taxes us cognitively, and fragments our leisure time in a way that makes it hard to use this time for something that will relieve stress or make us happy. Researchers call this phenomenon time confetti, which amounts to little bits of seconds and minutes lost to unproductive multitasking. Each bit alone seems not very bad. Collectively, though, all that confetti adds up to something more pernicious than you might expect.

Autonomous products such as robotic vacuum cleaners, lawn mowers, and playmates for our pets are meant to improve people’s lives—but do they actually make consumers happier? The authors share the results of recent research which found that owning autonomous products does in fact increase happiness, but with two important caveats: first, they found that consumers felt less comfortable using products with highly human-like features such as voices or names, and actually reported feeling guilty about relegating their dirty work to these products. Second, they found that if using a robotic product was associated with laziness, that could also decrease consumer happiness. Based on these findings, the authors offer several practical suggestions for how manufacturers can most effectively develop and market these time-saving products to the modern consumer.

Faculty & Research

Why We Don't Ask for More Time on Deadlines (But Probably Should)

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors