Time management: should every hour be treated as a cost?
In an organisation, calculating the cost of an hour helps compare competing uses of time. The managerial question is more specific: does this monetary translation clarify priorities, or change the criteria by which they are selected?
What the literature establishes
Sanford E. DeVoe and Jeffrey Pfeffer (2007, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes) show that hourly payment and making an hourly value salient encourage an economic evaluation of time. Their research examines, among other outcomes, the implications of this perspective for willingness to spend time volunteering. The relevant finding for management is not that calculating costs is harmful, but that doing so is not psychologically neutral.
Framing changes what matters
Cassie Mogilner and Jennifer Aaker (2009, Journal of Consumer Research) show, in consumer settings, that referring to time rather than money can change product attitudes by strengthening personal connection with the experience. This effect depends in particular on the type of product and the relationship people have with owning it. These findings illuminate a possible mechanism: talking about monetary cost or lived experience does not necessarily make the same dimensions of value salient.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that hourly rates should be excluded from prioritisation discussions. Neither study supports that prescription: costs remain essential when allocating limited resources. The important distinction is between the cost of the time committed and the value of the expected outcome, particularly when that value does not immediately translate into revenue. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these findings cannot establish
Volunteering and consumer attitudes are not measures of team performance in Geneva. These studies therefore do not establish that monetary framing impairs workplace decisions, or that different wording consistently improves them. Everyday practice becomes questionable when it equates an expensive hour with a poorly used hour without testing that assumption.
A practical check in Genève
In SHR’s “Time Management & Prioritisation” programme, one possible exercise compares two presentations of the same activities: one states their cost in time and money, while the other also specifies the expected outcome and the consequences of postponement. In Geneva, cases could involve maintaining a private banking relationship, preparing a negotiation in an international organisation, passing on expertise in luxury watchmaking, or assessing a counterparty in commodity trading. Two groups independently rank the same cases, each using a different presentation; the measure is the proportion of activities whose position differs between the two rankings. The difference does not establish which ranking is better: it makes the sensitivity of priorities to their presentation observable before the selection criteria are discussed. To go further: explore the Time Management & Prioritisation training in Geneva in the canton of Geneva, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Time Management & Prioritisation in Geneva
- time management & prioritisation
- Geneva
- research
- training geneva