Time well spent – why the obvious is so hard to put into Practice

We know what to do. And yet we don’t do it. Our ambassador Jonas Geissler explores why organisations struggle to implement well-researched time management principles – and how to break the cycle.

Few topics in organisations are as well-researched, as frequently discussed – and as consistently ignored – as the way we handle time. We know that multitasking makes us less intelligent, that chronic stress makes us sick, and that breaks boost productivity. We know that focus beats constant availability, and that good work requires rhythm. And yet we organize our work as if we had never learned any of this.

What surprises me most about our relationship with time isn’t the complexity of the solutions – but their simple obviousness. And above all: how difficult they are to implement. Time is the arena where we collectively act against our better judgment. Almost routinely.

And yet, we already carry the knowledge of how to handle time wisely within us. As a need. As restlessness. As a desire for effectiveness rather than mere busyness. We understand the importance of focus, rhythm, breaks, temporal diversity, and exchange. All these needs can be addressed through intentional time design – and wise time management is nothing more than their conscious composition.

This knowledge exists not only individually but also collectively. Organizations know very well which structures and cultural codes enable productive time management – even when looking at it purely from the perspective of effectiveness and productivity.

The research has been clear for years. Autonomy over one’s own working time not only increases satisfaction but also performance. A large-scale meta-analysis by Kelly et al. shows that temporal self-determination is significantly associated with higher productivity, lower turnover, and better health (Kelly et al., 2014). The Harvard Business Review also concludes that control over working time and location is a central lever for sustainable performance (HBR, 2019).

The findings on focus and interruptions are equally clear. Gloria Mark has demonstrated in multiple studies that knowledge workers are interrupted every 11 minutes on average and then take about 23 minutes to return to a focused working mode (Mark, Gudith & Klocke, 2008). More recent studies show even more drastic results. The problem isn’t a lack of efficiency knowledge but structurally induced distraction.

And yet, in practice, we play a completely different game.

Hectic everywhere. Busyness as a status symbol. Efficiency over effectiveness. „No time to build the fence because we’re busy catching the chickens„. Constantly exhausted, surprisingly ineffective. Organizations optimize processes – and in doing so, destroy the temporal prerequisites for good work.

Why is this? Why do we find it so hard to implement the obvious? Especially when we, as players in this game, know what wise play would look like?

Often, it seems we need a crisis first. A context that justifies radicality. Only when the pressure is high enough are we willing to fundamentally change our time behavior. Paradoxically, we are currently experiencing a multitude of crises – and yet we respond with „more of the same“: more work, longer hours, higher tempo.

This logic falls short. You don’t put out a fire with more gasoline – especially not one you’ve started yourself. The World Health Organization has been pointing out for years that chronic work stress is a relevant risk factor for health and performance. Burnout is explicitly described as a work-related phenomenon with significant individual and economic costs (WHO, 2019).

What we need, therefore, are not new insights – but different contexts. Frameworks in which what has long been known can finally be consistently lived. The decisive question is: Do organizations first have to go through the „valley of tears“? Or can conditions be created that enable change without first causing maximum damage?

From my experience, the framework of an organizational laboratory offers itself here.

A lab is a consciously created exceptional state for a limited time. Positively connoted. With a clear beginning and a clear end. It creates a space of permission where things can be done differently – and where the obvious can finally be simply implemented.

For such a lab to be more than a well-intentioned attempt, it needs several central prerequisites:

• First: a real mandate. A lab must have explicit permission to question existing routines – even when it becomes uncomfortable. Time culture is always also power culture.
• Second: a sufficiently long period. Changes remain episodic if they last less than six weeks. Sustainable effects typically appear between six weeks and three months.
• Third: psychological safety. A lab must be sanction-free. Only when people don’t fear negative consequences will they abandon old time practices. Google identified psychological safety as the most important factor for high-performing teams for good reason (Duhigg, 2016).
• Fourth: conscious communicative support. The lab must not be a secret project. Transparency, regular updates, and the principle of „observing and talking about it“ are essential.
• Fifth: the principle of „for us by us.“ Those affected become participants. The participants design the content, rules, and experiments themselves. Surveys can additionally be used to make the temporal needs of the entire organization visible.
• Sixth: the personal courage, curiosity, and willingness to “challenge” old practices, try out new ways of working, and benefit from the results. Support from colleagues, e.g., through accountability partners, working out loud methods, or reflecting teams, is helpful here.
• Seventh: The lab should be accompanied, moderated, and facilitated—this can be done by an external consultant or by a wisdom council or sounding board made up of representatives from different hierarchical levels.

In this way, a lab changes not just individual practices but the game itself – and with it, the behavior of the players. The goal is more effective, healthier, and more satisfied leaders and employees. And ultimately, an organization that is future-proof because it doesn’t burn time but designs it.

Not more of the same. But smarter. And more effective.

1. Knowledge isn’t enough – We understand the principles of good time management, but struggle to implement them. The gap isn’t lack of insight, but structural and cultural barriers.
2. Autonomy boosts performance – Research shows that control over working time increases productivity, satisfaction, and health. Yet organizations often resist granting this autonomy.
3. Focus requires protection – Interruptions every 11 minutes destroy productivity. Design work environments that minimize distractions and respect focus time.
4. Crisis isn’t necessary – Change doesn’t have to wait for a breaking point. Organisational labs can create safe spaces to experiment with better time practices.
5. Psychological safety first – For time experiments to work, people need permission to fail. Trust and transparency are the foundation of sustainable change.