Prioritisation: why unappealing tasks remain on hold
Some tasks remain at the bottom of the pile even when their importance is beyond doubt. The managerial question is specific: how can teams reduce the postponement of important but unappealing tasks without confusing procrastination with justified trade-offs or excessive workload?
What the literature establishes
In a meta-analysis, Piers Steel (2007, Psychological Bulletin) identifies task aversiveness as one of the factors consistently associated with procrastination. Procrastination does not mean every kind of delay, but voluntarily postponing an intended action despite expecting adverse consequences. For managers, this distinction matters: a task deferred because information or capacity is unavailable does not necessarily represent the same problem.
Immediate relief, delayed costs
Dianne M. Tice and Roy F. Baumeister (1997, Psychological Science) followed students and observed that those who procrastinated more reported less stress early in the period but more stress later, alongside poorer academic performance. These findings are consistent with an immediate benefit from postponement that does not endure. They illuminate a practical paradox: setting an unpleasant task aside can make the day feel more manageable without improving the underlying work situation.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that managers should simply require the least pleasant tasks to be done first thing in the morning. The studies cited do not systematically compare this rule with alternative ways of organising work and do not establish its superiority. A more cautious reading is to examine what makes the task aversive—monotony, perceived difficulty or uncertainty about the expected outcome—rather than treating every postponement as a failure of discipline. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the data and diaries do not reveal
The meta-analysis brings together heterogeneous studies, largely based on associations, while the longitudinal study concerns an academic setting rather than professional teams. A diary alone cannot distinguish avoidance from a blocking dependency or a legitimate change in priority. Useful observation must therefore document the reason for postponement and available capacity, without turning monitoring into a moral judgement of individuals.
A practical check in Lausanne
In a Lausanne medtech team, a higher education institution, an international sports organisation or a Lake Geneva region scale-up, SHR’s time management and prioritisation programme can include a four-week test without artificially delaying regulatory or critical obligations. For two weeks, record tasks acknowledged as priorities but considered unappealing, their agreed start date, their first observable deliverable and the reason for each postponement; for the following two weeks, additionally clarify the expected outcome and available resources before work starts. Compare the proportion of these tasks producing their first deliverable by the agreed date, keeping the definition unchanged and recording workload changes and any rework required because of quality shortcomings. This comparison does not establish causality, but it can reveal whether postponements decline without merely shifting the cost onto quality or other priorities. To go further: explore the Time Management & Prioritisation training in Lausanne, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Time Management & Prioritisation in Lausanne
- time management & prioritisation
- Lausanne
- research
- training lausanne