Time management: does adding people save time?
When a priority assignment progresses too slowly, assigning more people seems a way to shorten its turnaround time. The more precise management question is: under what conditions does this reinforcement actually increase contributions to the shared work?
What the literature establishes
Bibb Latané, Kipling Williams and Stephen Harkins (1979, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) showed in sound-production experiments that individual effort could decline when participants believed they were contributing to a collective output. Their design distinguished a reduction in motivation from a simple coordination difficulty. This finding does not measure the time needed to complete a professional assignment, but it challenges the assumption that adding people necessarily adds their efforts together.
The mechanism: a contribution that seems less consequential
Steven Karau and Kipling Williams (1993, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) confirmed in a meta-analysis the existence of this reduction in individual effort in collective settings, commonly called social loafing. Their review also shows that it depends on working conditions, including whether individual contributions can be evaluated and whether the task is meaningful. Their model proposes that effort depends on the perceived connection between one's own contribution, the collective outcome and the value of that outcome.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that people should work alone or that every contribution should be measured separately. These studies support neither as a general prescription: some tasks require complementary expertise and genuinely collective responsibility. The issue is rather to make each additional person's contribution understandable without turning cooperation into a competition over metrics. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
Sound-production experiments are far removed from preparing a regulatory submission or analysing scientific findings. The meta-analysis concerns effort in collective settings, not a formula for converting additional staff into days saved. In practice, delays may also stem from unavailable equipment, pending approval or scarce expertise: adding people does not necessarily remove these constraints.
A practical check in Bâle
Within SHR's “Time Management & Prioritisation” programme, an exercise applicable in Basel is to examine any planned staffing increase for a priority deliverable, whether in pharmaceuticals, life sciences, Rhine logistics or international R&D. Before making the assignment, specify each person's expected contribution, the constraint they should remove and the deliverable's acceptance criterion. At completion, record elapsed time and the person-hours actually used, then compare these with assignments of similar complexity and requirements. This check distinguishes a shorter turnaround purchased with more working hours from a genuine efficiency gain, without automatically attributing the difference to the staffing increase alone. To go further: explore the Time Management & Prioritisation training in Basel in the canton of Basel-Stadt, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Time Management & Prioritisation in Basel
- time management & prioritisation
- Basel
- research
- training basel