Prioritisation: should a new period mean a revised schedule?
Changes of period often prompt teams to revisit their schedules and restate their ambitions. The management question is specific: should these landmarks be used to review time allocation, or might they favour novelty at the expense of continuity?
What the literature establishes
Hengchen Dai, Katherine L. Milkman and Jason Riis (2014, Management Science) show that temporal landmarks, such as the beginning of a week, month or year, are associated with an increase in behaviours directed towards personal aspirations. The authors propose that these landmarks psychologically separate the present from past imperfections and encourage a broader perspective on one's goals. These findings shed light on when people want to change their habits, not on the merits of the priorities they choose.
Progress matters too
Ran Kivetz, Oleg Urminsky and Yuhuang Zheng (2006, Journal of Marketing Research) observe, notably in loyalty programmes, an acceleration of effort as people approach a reward. They also show that a sense of progress already made can encourage continued pursuit of a goal. This mechanism suggests another dimension to consider when reviewing a schedule: making progress visible, rather than simply announcing a fresh start.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that every priority should be relaunched at the start of each month, or that anything apparently close to completion should always be finished. Neither prescription follows from the cited studies: a motivational boost is not a measure of organisational value. A periodic review can therefore distinguish between what warrants renewed effort, what requires continuity and what has genuinely changed in importance. (our executive and employee training programmes)
The limits of applying the findings to work schedules
These studies concern personal behaviours and reward systems, not time allocation within an industrial or university team. They establish neither the optimal frequency of priority reviews nor their effect on work quality. In practice, a monthly calendar may also fit poorly with production cycles, food safety requirements or academic deadlines.
A practical check in Fribourg
As part of SHR's “Time Management & Prioritisation” programme, a team in the food industry, at a bilingual industrial site or within Fribourg's university community could test a priority review at a change of period relevant to its work. Before the review and at the end of the following period, it would record the time slots planned and actually devoted to each priority, together with the reason for each reallocation; at a bilingual site, the categories would be identical in French and German. The indicator would be the proportion of reallocated hours whose documented reason refers to a change in a need, constraint or expected outcome, rather than merely a calendar milestone. This check would make trade-offs open to evidence-based discussion, without claiming to demonstrate a productivity gain. To go further: explore the Time Management & Prioritisation training in Fribourg, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Time Management & Prioritisation in Fribourg
- time management & prioritisation
- Fribourg
- research
- training fribourg