The Relationship

between Time Management and

Decision-Making Processes

By Viktoriya Varlamova

Supervisor: Dr Chris Burt

University of Canterbury

August 2008
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 2

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 4

Astract 5

Intoduction 6

Time Management 6

Decision Making 9

The Link between Time Management and Decision-Making Processes 16

Hypotheses 19

Method 20

Participants 20

Procedure 21

Materials 22

Measures 22

Results 26

Data Analysis 26

New Zealand and Russian Comparison 27

Bivariate relationships between the Study variables 30

The New Zealand and Russian Samples 30

Multiple Regression 38

Discussion 40

Similar findings for New Zealand and Russia 40

Findings, unique to the New Zealand sample 42

Findings, unique to the Russian sample 43

Significant cultural differences 44

The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 3

Limitations and Future Research Suggestions 46

Conlusion 48

References 49

Appendices 4

Appendix A: 55

Appendix B: 65

Figures and Tables

Figure One: A Process Model of Time management 8

Figure Two: Model of decision-making process 13

Figure Three: Cyclic Model of decision-making process 15

Figure Four: Description of research variables 19

Table One: Descriptive statistics for demographic variables 27

Table Two: Descriptive Statistics for all Scales 29

Table Three: Correlation Matrix of Study Variables

for the New Zealand sample 32

Table Four: Correlation Matrix of Study Variables

for the Russian sample 33

Table Five: Multiple Regression, examining the effect of

the time management variables on decision-making

ability, in the New Zealand sample 39

Table Six: Multiple Regression, examining the effect of

the time management variables on decision-making

ability, in the Russian sample 40

The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 4

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr Chris Burt for the supervision, support and his patience.

Thank you so much for your encouragement and advices.

I am indebted to my family and friends, for their understanding and emotional

support. Without your help I could not complete my work.

Also I would like to thank all people who participated in my research, without your

participation this project would not have been possible.

A special thanks to my mum, who always believed in me.

The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 5

Abstract

During the last two decades, time management and decision-making have become

well-established topics in modern working life. However, little research attention has been

given to the link between the two. The purpose of this study was to investigate the

relationship between time management factors and decision-making processes. This

research was specifically focused on identifying which aspects of decision-making

processes are related to time management factors. It was predicted that decision-making

processes will be more efficient\effective when employees have time management related

competencies and work in an environment that supports time management.

A research model was built based on previous research in this field and tested using

bivariate correlations, t-tests, and multiple-regression analyses. Five organizations in New

Zealand and three in Russia participated in the research, contributing a total of 164

employees. Results indicated, as predicted, that the effectiveness of decision-making

processes partially depends on time management factors. Implications of the findings are

discussed and future directions for research on the relationship between time management

factors and decision-making processes are suggested.

The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 6

Introduction

The relationship between time management and decision-making processes was

investigated in this study. The study measured time management competencies (e.g.

planning, priority setting, goal setting, time allocation, scheduling), and organizational time

management environment factors. The overall objective of the research was to show that

the effectiveness of decision-making processes is at least partially dependent on these

aspects of time management. A set of scales measuring aspects of decision-making

processes was adapted from existing scales. Specific predictions are outlined below. The

additional focus of this study was to examine if cultural factors may influence the

relationship between time management and decision-making processes. Employees from

New Zealand and Russia participated in this research. The purpose of the cross-cultural

comparison was to determine if the same aspects of time management were related to

decision-making processes in each culture.

Time Management

Time is a fundamental asset for both individuals and organisations, and time is an

important factor in performance. There is not one adopted definition of time management.

Many authors referred to Lakein’s (1973) description of time management, which

suggested that time management involves determining needs, setting goals to achieve the

needs, prioritising the tasks required, and matching tasks to time and resources by planning,

scheduling and making lists. However, several other definitions have been offered. Time

management has been referred to as a set of techniques for managing time (Macan, 1994;

Jex & Elacqua, 1999; Davis, 2000); planning and allocating time (Burt & Kemp, 1994;

Francis-Smythe& Robertson, 1999); the degree to which individuals perceive their use of

time to be structured and purposive (Bond & Feather, 1988; Strongman & Burt, 2000;
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 7

Sabelis, 2001); and self-regulation strategies aimed at discussing plans, and their efficiency

(Eilam & Aharon, 2003).

Hassard (1991) has pointed out that time is a ubiquitous element in human

organizations. Time’s limited nature means that it should be prioritized and used

effectively. According to Britton and Tesser (1991), the way in which organisations

manage their time relates to organizational profitability. The common adage “Time is

money” highlights the potency and centrality of time for individuals and organisations.

Poor time management has been associated with poor academic performance and low

productivity (Burt, 1994; Burt & Kemp, 1994; Longman & Atkinson, 1998; Mackenzie,

1990), and feelings of purposelessness and depression (Bond & Feather, 1988; Feather &

Bond, 1993). Consequently, there are good reasons why organizations are interested in

improving time management processes.

Several researchers have proposed methods for handling time issues on the job

(e.g.,Drucker, 1967; Lakein, 1973; Mackenzie, 1972; McCay, 1959). They have offered

simple remedies such as using a “to-do-list” in order to increase job performance. Their

ideas have been widely accepted for increasing employee effectiveness (Orpen, 1994;

Mackenzie, 1990). Time management training programmes are now widely attended by

many employees (Lakein, 1991; Richards, 1987). However, some authors (such as

Drucker, 1967) have pointed out that planning tasks and activities does not always lead to

the completion of planned work, especially in time-pressure situations. In 1988, Bluedon

and Denhardt drew attention to the lack of systematic investigation of the benefits of time

management practices. For the last two decades time management has been positively

related to variables such as self esteem (Feather & Bond, 1983; Bond & Feather, 1988),

academic performance (Britton & Tesser, 1991; Lahmers, 2000) and job satisfaction

(Macan, 1994; Macan, Shahani, Dipboye & Phillips, 1990).

The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 8

Most researchers in the field of time management agree that time management

behaviours involve particular key processes. In 1994, Macan offered a process model

(Figure 1), that identifies three main factors which contribute to effective time

management: setting goals and priorities, mechanics (including making lists and task time

estimation); and preference for an organization. These three factors all contribute to a

person’s perceived control of time.

- Job- induced
tensions

Setting goals and

priorities
- Somatic tension

Superior time Mechanics Perceived control of time

management ability
+ Job satisfaction

Preference for
organization

Higher job
performance

Figure 1. A Process Model of Time management (Macan, 1994)

Macan’s model suggests that the positive outcomes (right-hand side of the Figure 1)

operate through the perceived control of time factor. According to Krause (1999), this

factor leads to positive outcomes such as job satisfaction and job performance.

However, it must be said, that the term “time management” has perhaps been wrongly

interpreted. Time cannot be managed, because time is uncontrollable. People can only

manage themselves and their use of time. Time management can be viewed as a way a

person deals with time. According to Eilam and Aharon (2003), time management is a way

of monitoring and controlling time. In 2004 Brigitte Claessens, Wendelien van Earde and

Rutte proposed a definition of time management as behaviours aimed at achieving an

The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 9

effective use of time while performing central goal-directed activities. This definition

suggests that the use of time is not an aim in itself and cannot be pursued in isolation.

Despite all the popular attention focused on managing time, little research attention has

been given to the question of what time management can contribute in combination with

other organizational factors. One area in which there has been little investigation is the

outcome of the linkage between time management processes and decision-making

processes.

Decision Making
Undoubtedly, decision-making processes are one of the main problems for

organizations. Decision-making processes are central to almost every aspect of

organizational functioning, and an unavoidable aspect of employment in many jobs. The

activities of an organization can be a sequence of successful and unsuccessful decisions

(Larichev, 2000). The decision-making process is often a factor, which can determine

future success (Hershey, Walsh, Read, & Chulef, 1990). Research on decision-making has

typically attempted to either understand, or to offer suggestions for improving decision-

making processes.

Researchers in the decision-making field have attempted to clarify the distinctions

between choice, decision and problem-solving. According to Etzioni (1988) “the term

choice should be used to encompass the sorting out of options, whether conscious or

nonconscious. Deliberate choices are to be referred to as decisions”. Behaviourists almost

solely use the term “choice”. Cognitivists and subjectivists tend to use the term “decision”,

when they imply deliberation, such as processing information. In our view, choices may be

either conscious or unconscious; decisions are always conscious, because they are

consultative.
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 10

Problem–solving and decision-making also often have no clear distinction. A problem

is generally defined as a barrier to attaining some desired goal under conditions of

uncertainty (Agre 1982; Bourne 1971). By definition, problem-solving is a nonroutine

mental or physical activity that successfully removes, circumvents, or overcomes a goal-

impeding barrier (Agre 1982, Tallman 1988). It is a process that is driven by decisions.

One of the best definitions to distinguish between problem-solving and decision-making

was made by Herbert A. Simon (1986). According to him, decision-making and solving

problems require attention, setting goals, finding or designing suitable courses of action,

and evaluating and choosing among alternative actions. The first three of these activities:

fixing agendas, setting goals, and designing actions, are usually called problem solving; the

last, evaluating and choosing, are usually called decision-making.

However, some researchers tend to use the terms “decision-making” and “problem-

solving” interchangeably. For example, the last three of Berkeley and Humphreys’(1982)

seven types of uncertainty in decisions, such as “procedural uncertainty”, “uncertainty

about one’s agency”, “uncertainty about how the decision maker will feel and wish to act in

the future”, are better understood as relevant to problem-solving. The main difference

between problem-solving and decision-making is that the former implies a process driven

by a related series of decisions: the decision as to whether to commit oneself to attempt to

solve the problem; the decision to search for problem solutions; the decision to take a

particular course of action; the evaluation of the outcome; and the decision as to whether to

stop the process, continue with the same effort, or search for alternative avenues for solving

the problem (Tallman & Gray, 1998). In this study, problem-solving and decision-making

are considered as a united process.

In 1988, Hunt classified decision-making theories into four types: Rational, Bounded

Rational, Functional and Non-Rational. Non-rational models consider decisions as

The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 11

outcomes that can be rationalised by the interpretation of a decision analyst. The earlier

Rational and Bound Rational theorists (e.g., Simon, 1976; March & Simon, 1979) studied

decision-making processes by isolating variables in order to increase experimental control.

In 1978, March suggested that bounded rationality represents a way for the intelligent

human to simplify the decision problem in the face of impossible numbers of alternatives

and excessive information. According to March’s view of decision-making processes, a

decision maker can be viewed as an intelligent actor capable of balancing internal needs

and external demands in an ongoing process involving multiple desires and changing

events.

A functional model, or descriptive approach towards decision-making was researched

in the 1980s (Quinn, 1977; Meyer, 1982), using qualitative analyses in natural settings. In

1993, Orasanu and Connolly made a distinction between clear-cut and naturalistic

decisions. A clear-cut decision supposes a situation when all necessary information is

available to the decision makers, who are not under stress, nor dealing with a changing

environment. However, most decision makers have to deal with naturalistic decision-

making situations that are characterised by nine factors: ill-structured tasks, uncertain

dynamic environments, ill-defined goals, action and feedback loops, time stress, high

stakes, multiple players, and organizational goals and norms (Orasanu & Connolly, 1993).

Consequently, outcomes from decisions that were made in naturalistic situations often are

heuristic, and the options for the goal are sub-optimal, rather than optimal. Klein in 1999

pointed out that makers of decisions often use a plan based on a previous similar situation

and the outcome of that action taken. In contrast to the rationalistic approach, decision

makers are suggested not to consider many alternative solutions to the problem, but rather

select one used successfully in a previous similar situation. The modern demands for the

decision makers are supposed to be rational and effective. The key point in the rational
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 12

strategy is cognitive processing that requires finding alternatives, developing criteria for

alternatives, estimating probabilities and reasoning.

Among the many models of decision-making, two are often cited in the decision-

making literature: Simon’s model of “boundedly rational” organizational decision

behaviour (1976) and Percy H. Hill’s “ideal model” of decision making (1979). Simon’s

model is described in the section about relationships between time management and

decision making. Percy H. Hill’s model (Figure 2) was designed to analyse every step in

the decision–making process.

The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 13

Define the problem

Identify alternatives

Quantify alternatives

Apply decision aids

Decision

Implement

Figure 2. Model of decision-making process (Percy H. Hill, 1979)

The first steps in Figure 2, match with H. A. Simon’s description of decision making:

define the problem, identify alternatives, and quantify alternatives. If a decision maker

accurately defines the problem and identifies many alternatives, it is a major step towards

its eventual effective solution (Morris, 1977). High performers and good decision makers

pursue more specific goals (Hershey, Walsh, Read & Chulef, 1990) and put more emphasis
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 14

on analysing the task or the problem to be solved than moderate performers do (Klemp &

McClelland, 1986; Vessey, 1986).

Although the first four steps (in Figure 1), are a guide for decision makers to make

the best choice, there is a risk of reversing a choice. The consequences of one’s decision

should be monitored and analysed. According to Hill’s view of decision making, the

decision is cyclical in nature; feedback loops and repetition are necessary. “By iterating the

sequence of steps in the basic procedure, the chances are good that the best decision will be

made” (1976). Stacey (1993) suggested that a cycle of making decisions may start with an

action, a choice, or a discovery and the cycle continues through time. Figure 3 presents the

process of decision making as a cyclic process.

The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 15

Define the problem

Identify alternatives

Monitor outcomes

Quantify alternatives Processing feedback

DM confidence

Apply decision aids

DM satisfaction

Decision

Implement

Figure 3. Cyclic Model of decision-making process (Stacey, 1993)

Some research evidence supports the notion that successful decision makers are not

impulsive and do not avoid the problem, but rather systematically engage in decision-

making behaviours (Osborn, 1963; Parnes, 1967; Shaftel & Shaftel, 1967). There is some

evidence that high performers and good decision makers seek more feedback (Simmons &

Lunetta, 1993; Sonnentag, 1994) and are particularly` interested in negative feedback that

points at the necessity for improvement (Ashford & Tsui, 1991). Recent researchers in this

field have confirmed that it is possible to improve the quality of decision outcomes by
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 16

teaching employees better decision-making skills and by increasing their understanding

about the process of decision making (Mellon, 2006).

Decision-making in organizational settings is much less well understood than

individual decision-making and problem-solving. One area that may produce outcomes for

organizations is an understanding of the link between time management and decision-

making processes.

The link between time management and decision-making processes

Despite the fact that time management and decision-making are significant factors in

organizational functioning, there appears to be little research directly linking the two. Time

and time management constructs have rarely been treated in a systematic way by problem-

solving and decision-making investigators. Some researchers have found that problems

with time management skills have been associated with less effective group and individual

decision-making (e.g., Benson & Beach, 1996, Kelly, Jackson & Hutson-Comeaux, 1997).

Several studies have shown that time management problems are common for teachers,

nurses, (Hawkins & Klas, 1997) and managers (Mc Conalogue, 1980). That is for people

who are supposed to make many important decisions.

In 1979, Kahnerman and Tversky’s prospect theory explained that people might know

their goals, but not their importance in relation to other goals (including organizational

goals). According to Kahnerman and Tversky (1994), employees do not always clearly

imagine their goals and preferences, and people do not maximize the utility of their

decision outcomes. As a result, the outcome of decisions often can be non-rational.

Koch and Kleinmann, (2002), developed an explanation of how behavioural decision-

making can cause time management problems. Their study about behavioural decision-

making explanations for time management problems, confirmed a link between time
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 17

management and aspects of decision-making processes. According to Koch and

Kleinmann, people often are guided by their biases and heuristics in their choices and the

making of decisions, instead of applying time management techniques, for example setting

goals and prioritizing. As a result, the outcomes of many decisions do not achieve the

desired goals because of poor time management skills.

Additional problems in time management and decision-making arise because human

priorities can change and be dependent on an organization’s environment. According to

Simon’s model of decision-making (1976, 1993), this process depends on an information

design:

1) attention: how much is available and how it is to be directed

2) time-structure: how deadlines are noticed, elected and manipulated as decision

triggers

3) value judgment: how personal, individual value is aligned with organizational

purposes

4) memory and learning: how cause/effect relationships are stimulated, maintained

and extinguished for use in inference, and efficiently patterned in response to stimuli

5) communication: how symbolic exchange and transformation methods provide a

mechanism for social/organizational coordination and control of attention, time, value, and

memory.

Taking Simon’s individual-in-organization decision-making model into account, an

organization can create environments, especially in relation to time management, for better

decision-making processes. The essence of the decision- making problem is to decide how

to attend selectively, to know which stimuli require an automatic or habitual response, and

which require “hesitation” and deeper analytic thought. Effective decisions can be made
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 18

when the process of selecting some alternatives over others are led by a purposive, goal-

oriented approach (March & Simon, 1993).

Modern employees have to think of more goals than they are able to achieve; as a

result, they “accumulate” more and more undischarged business and many decisions are

made later than were expected. According to Orlikowsky and Yates (2000), the temporal

dimension of work has become more important because of expanding global competition

and increased demands for immediate availability of products and services. Employees

have many demands, but have low levels of control over their work (Jex, 1998; Karasek,

1998). Stress influences employees; consequently, it decreases their efficiency and

productivity, especially in making important decisions. People that make decisions can do

so in many different ways. Differences are caused by their professional competencies and

the time involved. Time is an inelastic resource. Employees can manage their time more

efficiently or less efficiently, so they can be more successful or less successful in decision-

making processes. Undoubtedly, understanding the link between time management factors

and decision-making can facilitate the process of growth for organisations.

Objectives and Hypotheses of this study

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between time management

competencies, organizational time management environment factors, and decision-making

processes. It is clear from the review of the literature that this study fills a gap in the link

between these two significant factors in organizational functioning.

The theoretical model (Figure 4) clarifies the proposed relationships. Individual time

management competencies (such as setting goals, scheduling, time allocation) and

organizational time management environment factors, are predicted to be positively

associated to decision-making processes.

The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 19

Time Management Competencies:

Planning
Priority setting Decision Making:
Goal setting
Time allocation Identify task
Scheduling Identify goals
Information collection
Finding alternatives
Identify implications
Select decision path
Time Management Environment Factors: Monitor outcomes
Processing feedback
Supervisors provide job/task/project information DM confidence
Job/task description processes DM satisfaction
Co-worker interaction
Support for time management processes
Communicated time values

Figure 4. Description of research variables

The following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1a: Decision-making processes will be more efficient/effective (defined

by speed of decision-making, task and goal identification, information collected, finding

alternatives, identifying implications, selecting decision paths, monitoring outcomes,

processing feedback, see Figure 4, when employees have time management related

competencies.

Hypothesis 1b: Decision-making processes will be more efficient/effective (defined

by speed of decision-making, task and goal identification, information collected, finding

alternatives, identifying implications, selecting decision paths, monitoring outcomes,

processing feedback, see Figure 4, when employees work in an environment which

supports time management.

Hypothesis 2a: Employees’ satisfaction with decision-making processes will be

higher when employees have time management related competencies.

The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 20

Hypothesis 2b: Employees’ satisfaction with decision-making processes will be

higher when employees work in an environment that supports time management.

Hypothesis 3a: Employees’ confidence in their ability to make decisions and

confidence in decision-making outcomes will be higher when employees have time

management related competencies.

Hypothesis 3b: Employees’ confidence in their ability to make decisions and

confidence in decision-making outcomes will be higher when employees work in an

environment, which supports time management.

Method
Participants

The participants in this study were 164 full-time and part-time working employees

from a variety of organisations, from New Zealand and Russia. In total, eight organisations

participated (five from New Zealand and three from Russia). Three hundred copies of the

guestionnaire were delivered in total, with 150 delivered within New Zealand and 150

within Russia. The total response rate was 54%. Response rates for New Zealand and

Russia were 58% and 50% respectively.

Participants from the New Zealand sample comprised of 57 males (64.7%) and 31

females (35.3%), with an overall average age of 49 years (SD=10.1). The average tenure

was just over 10.7 years (SD=10.6), and the average hours worked per week was 43.6

(SD=7.7). A variety of occupational positions were represented, with 20 job titles in all

(e.g. service manager, facilities manager, training and information support manager,

commercial director, finance analyst, marketing). Of those who had done some TM training

in the past (39 % of the sample), the average length of the training was 4.7 hours.
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 21

In the Russian sample, participants comprised of 18 males (23.6 %) and 58 females

(76.4%), with an overall average age of 30.3 years (SD=5.7). The average tenure was just

over 2.9 years (SD=2.4) and the average hours worked per week was 43.4 (SD=5.6). A

variety of occupational positions were represented in the Russian sample, with 10 titles in

all (e.g. administrator, facilities manager, human resources manager, commercial director,

finance analyst). Of those who had done some TM training in the past (23 % of the

sample), the average length of the training was 3.1 hours.

Procedure

The procedure for distributing, completing, collecting and returning the questionnaire

differed between countries and organizations. A key aspiration for the data collection phase

was to gather data from equal groups of participants from both New Zealand and Russia.

Three month prior to data gathering companies were contacted via phone and e-mail.

The questionnaire was prefaced by an informed consent statement, which described the

goal of the study, assured confidentiality of response, and provided contact details of the

author. Printed copies of the questionnaire were delivered to interested companies. All

measures were self-administered with instructions for completion at the top of each section.

Each questionnaire had a pre-paid envelope with a return address on it. Distribution and

collection of the questionnaire was done by the author first in New Zealand, and then in

Russia. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire in their free time.

For the Russian participants, the questionnaire and cover letter were translated by the

Moscow Translation Centre into Russian and back-translated to ensure accuracy.

Distribution and collection of surveys from interested organizations in Russia was done by

author.
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 22

After collecting questionnaires, participants were thanked in person or by letter for

their participation. After the statistical analysis was made, each organization was sent a

summary of the findings of the study, together with a summary of the organization’s

findings, compared to the overall sample.

Materials

A questionnaire was designed (see Appendix A) that contained eight scales:

Managing Your Time at Work; TiME Scale; Time Dimensions of Work (TMS); Decision-

Making Internal Dynamics and Speed; Problem-Solving Inventory; Personal Growth;

Satisfaction with Decision Making Processes and Confidence in Outcomes.

Measures

Demographic section

The cover page included instructions, an informed consent statement, and questions

on the participant’s gender, age, position title, tenure with their organization, number of

work hours per week, and time-management-training experience.

Managing Your Time at Work (TMB)

The Scale was constructed by Macan et al. (1990), and was based on a list of

popularised concepts of time management behaviours examined by factor analysis. The

Managing Your Time at Work Scale measures participants’ use of time management

behaviours: setting goals and prioritizing (10 items, e.g., “I review my goals to determine

if they need revising”); mechanics of time management (8 items, e.g., “I write notes to

remind myself of what I need to do”; perceived control of time (5 items, e.g.,” I feel in

control of my time”); and preference for organisations (8 items, e.g., “At the end of the

workday, I leave a clear, well-organised workspace”). Participants responded to each item

on a five-point Likert-type scale from seldom true =1 to very often true =5. Items 1, 2, 4, 6,
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 23

7, 23 and 27-31 were reversed scored. Mudrack (1997) reports coefficient alphas for the

four sub-scales ranging from .69-.80.

Time Management Environment Scale (TiME)

This scale, developed by Burt, C.D.B., Weststrate, A., Champion, F. & Brown, C.

(submitted) contains 26 items measuring the participants’ impression of their

organizations’ time management environment. The scale was developed using a sample of

272 employees across 20 organizations in the Christchurch region. The 26 items examined

five dimensions of the time management environment: supervision (e.g., “Supervisors

provide clear task guidelines”); co-worker interaction (e.g., “Co-workers discuss task

priorities”); job/task description processes (e.g., “Job description documents are

provided”); support for time management processes (e.g., “Training in time management

techniques is provided”); communicated time values (e.g., “Productive use of time is a key

value”). Participants responded to items on a 7-point Likert-type scale from strongly

disagree =1 to strongly agree =7. No items are reversed scored. Coefficient alphas reported

by Burt et al., are: supervision α= .88; co-worker interaction α= .87; job/task description

processes α= .79; support for time management processes α= .84; communicated time

values α= .73.

Time Dimensions of Work (TMS)

This organizational temporal scale was devised by Schriber and Gutek (1987) to

facilitate cross-organizational and intraorganizational comparisons. Its aim is to measure

how well an organization effectively schedules, co-ordinates, and synchronizes its staff and

tasks through time (e.g., “To get the job done, it is important for each person to co-ordinate

his\her work with others”, “People here plan their time carefully”). The original factor

analysis found 13 dimensions (constructed from 56 items). Twelve dimensions with the

highest coefficient alpha’s (ranging from .80 to .52) were used in the current study. The
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 24

total numbers of items used were 49, with items 1, 2, 8, 12-13, 19-20, 31, 34-37, 41, 45-46

and 48-49 reverse scored. Coefficient alphas reported by Schriber and Gutek are: schedules

and deadlines α = .78; punctuality α = .59; future orientation and quality versus speed α =

.44; allocation of time α = .65; time boundaries between work and non-work α = .28;

awareness of time use α = .58; work pace α = .60; autonomy of time use α = .52;

synchronisation and co-ordination of work with others through time α = .47; routine versus

variety α = .59; intra-organisational time boundaries α = .51; and sequencing of tasks

through time α = .52.

Decision-Making processes

Development of the Decision-Making Instrument

There is concern amongst researchers about measures of decision-making processes.

Though numerous decision tasks and scenarios have been used in decision-making

research, none of the methods reviewed in the literature were suitable for the goal of this

study. Consequently, scales were adapted to provide appropriate decision-making

measures, and some scale items were designed specifically for this research.

Problem-Solving Inventory

The Problem-solving inventory was constructed by Heppner and Petersen (1978) and

consists of 31 items that measure problem-solving stages. Participants responded to each

item on a five-point scale from seldom true =1 to very often true =5. The items are ordered

to contain an equal number of positive and negative statements about problem solving (e.g.,

“When I make plans to solve a problem, I am almost certain that I can make them work”,

“When confronted with a problem, I am unsure of whether I can handle the situation”).

This scale has been used in a number of studies to assess problem-solving aspects (e.g.,

Moos, 1984); the coefficient alpha was reported as .90.

Problem-Solving Demand and Speed

The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 25

Jackson, Wall, Martin and David’s (1993) job demand and control scale was adapted

to provide a decision-making measure. This measure assesses the extent of job control,

method control and production responsibility an employee experiences in their job (e.g.,

“The problems I deal with require a thorough knowledge of the production process in my

area”). Some scale items were designed specifically for this research; the measures cover

timing control (e.g., “I always make decisions on time”, “I need to make decisions

quickly”) and problem-solving demand (e.g., “I have to solve problems which have no

obvious correct answer”). Responses were obtained on a five point scale where 1=not at all

to 5=great deal. Coefficient alpha values range from .79 to .85 for timing control, .77 to

.80 for method control, .73 to .75 for monitoring demand and .50 to .60 for problem-solving

demand (Jackson et al., 1993).

Decision-Making Internal Dynamics

This scale (7 items) was specifically designed for the study. The process of decision-

making can involve a number of steps. Items were designed to tap how a decision maker

understands the steps of the decision making process (e.g., “Identify tasks”, “Find

alternatives”). Participants responded to item on a seven-point scale from 1= seldom true to

7= very often true. No items are reversed scored. For the current study the alpha was .86

for the total sample.

Satisfaction with Decision-Making Processes and Confidence in Outcomes

The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire assesses general job satisfaction.

Coefficient alpha values for the 20-item MSQ ranged from .85 to .91 (Hart, 1999; Hurber,

Seybold, & Venemon, 1992; Klenke-Hamel & Mathieu, 1990; Mathieu & Farr, 1991;

Wong, Hui, & Law, 1998). The Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (short form) was

adapted to measure satisfaction with decision-making processes (e.g., “I am absolutely

satisfied with decisions which I make at work”), and confidence in outcome (e.g., “I feel
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 26

competent and fully able to make decisions in my job”). Items were rated on a seven point

Likert-type scale, from 1= disagree strongly to 7= agree strongly. Items 4, 11, 13, 15 were

reversed scored.

Growth

The Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS) was constructed by Hackman and Oldham’s (1974).

The scale measures satisfaction with the job facets of security, compensation, co-workers,

and supervision. Coefficient alpha for the measure encompassing general satisfaction,

internal work motivation, and growth satisfaction ranged from .55 to .92 (Adkins, 1995;

Mannheim, Baruch, & Tal, 1997; Munz, Huelsman, Konold, & McKinney, 1996;

Rothausen, Gonzalez, Clarke, & O’Dell, 1998). In Duffy et al. (1998), coefficient alpha for

a composite of facet and growth satisfaction was .91. The JDS was adapted to measure

growth satisfaction. Sample items include, “I feel personal growth and development when I

make decisions”, “I like the challenge in the decision making process”, “I feel that the

decisions I make help to promote my organization”, and “The people who are involved in

the decision making processes in my company contribute to the growth of the

organization”. In this study, items were rated on a seven point Likert-type scale, from 1=

disagree strongly to 7= agree strongly. No items were reversed scored.

Results

Firstly, the questionnaire data was entered and the necessary items were reverse

coded in the time management and decision–making scales. In Appendix A items from the

time management and decision-making scales with an r beside them are the ones which

were reverse coded. The data were analyzed for extreme scores by screening all variables

using descriptive statistics` tools in Statistics 2007/2008. Four data entry errors were found

and corrected. One outlier in the hours of received time management training was found
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 27

and deleted. The hypotheses were tested using a combination of one or more analysis

methods: descriptive statistics, correlating the variables, multi-regression and ANOVA.

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for the New Zealand and Russian samples for age,

gender breakdown, hours of work and hours of time management training. The samples

were compared on age, hours of work, and hours of time management training, and the last

column of Table 1 shows the t-test results. Inspection of these results indicates that the

New Zealand sample was significantly older on average, and had worked for their

organization for significantly longer. Hours of work and hours of time management

training were not significantly different between the samples.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for demographic variables

NZ Russia
Mean Min Max Std.Dev. Mean Min Max Std.Dev. t-test
Male/Female 57 / 31 18 / 58
Percentage with TM
42.6 23.3
training
Age 49.0 25.0 71.0 10.1 30.3 19.0 49.0 5.7 14.21*
Tenure (years) 10.7 0.2 42.5 10.6 2.9 0.2 9.0 2.4 6.28
HoursWork/Week 43.6 22.0 60.0 7.7 43.4 35.0 60.0 5.6 0.17
HoursTraining 4.7 0.0 30.0 7.1 3.1 0.0 18.0 5.9 1.53
Note * P<.05, ** P >.01

New Zealand and Russian Comparison

One of the focuses of the research was to compare the New Zealand and Russian

samples on the time management competencies, time management environment, and

decision-making measures. Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations and scale

coefficient alphas for the time management competencies, time management environment

and decision-making variables for both the New Zealand and Russian samples. The last

column of Table 2 shows the ANOVA results from the across country (sample)

comparison. Inspection of these results indicates that significant differences were found for

13 of the 17 variables. Mainly these differences were found in the decision-making

The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 28

variables and some of them were found in the time management constructs. Actually, only

one factor (decision-making internal dynamics) out of all decision-making factors was not

significantly different across the countries. The general discussion explores reasons why

these differences might have been found.

These differences may or may not influence the relationships between the time

management constructs and decision-making outcomes – and the following analyses will

specifically examine this issue.

The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 29

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for all Scales

NZ Russia

ANOVA: New
Zealand – Russian
Variables α mean SD α mean SD
Comparison F
(1,162= )

Number of cases n = 88 n = 76
TiMe Scale

TiME:Supervisor 0.83 4.8 1.0 0.79 4.8 1.0 ns

TiME: Coworker 0.78 4.6 1.0 0.74 3.9 1.2 14.79**

TiME: Job & task
0.67 5.4 1.0 0.46 4.6 1.0 27.585**
Information
TiME: TM Support 0.83 3.5 1.2 0.61 3.9 1.2 4.925*
TiME: timevalues 0.64 5.5 1.0 0.52 5.4 0.9 ns
TMB: TM
0.64 3.5 0.7 0.73 3.0 0.8 13.390**
mechanics
TMB: setting goals
0.71 3.6 0.5 0.63 3.5 0.5 ns
and priorities
TMB: perceived
0.71 3.7 0.7 0.6 3.4 0.7 9.165**
control of time
TMB: preference for
0.68 3.9 0.6 0.66 3.7 0.6 8.082**
ogranisation
TMS: schedule &
0.75 5.4 0.7 0.41 4.7 0.6 37.063**
deadlines
TMS: punctuality 0.76 4.6 1.2 0.48 4.7 1.1 ns

PSI: confidence 0.69 3.7 0.3 0.77 3.4 0.3 34.180**

PSD: demand 0.43 5.4 0.8 0.79 5.0 1.3 4.499*

PSD: speed 0.68 4.6 1.0 0.76 4.2 1.1 4.710*

DM: processes 0.86 6.1 0.7 0.87 5.9 0.7 ns

DM: personal
0.65 6.0 0.6 0.79 5.8 0.8 4.076*
growth

DM: satisfaction 0.85 5.0 0.5 0.76 4.7 0.5 9.129**

DM: confidence
0.72 6.0 0.6 0.64 5.1 0.8 75.612**
outcomes
Note * P<.05, ** P >.01
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 30

Bivariate relationships between the Study variables

Tables 3 and 4 shows the pearson product moment correlations between all the study

variables for the New Zealand and Russian samples, respectively. The analysis now

considers the relationships between the time management variables and the decision-

making variables separately for the New Zealand and Russian samples. One way of

examining tables 3 and 4 is to look for correlations, which are significant in both samples,

and for significant correlations, which vary between the samples. Six correlations where

significant for both samples, and a further 14 correlations where unique to the New Zealand

sample and seven were unique to the Russian sample.

First, the correlations, which were significant and consistent across the two samples,

are considered in relation to the study hypothesis.

The New Zealand and Russian Samples

The variable setting goals and priorities (Factor 2 TMB Scale) was significantly

correlated with decision-making internal dynamics (r= 0.23, p< .05) in the New Zealand

sample, and in the Russian sample (r = 0.28, p< .05). Moreover, the perceived control of

time variable was significantly correlated with decision-making speed for the New Zealand

sample (r = 0.23, p< .05), and for the Russian sample (r = 0.38, p< .001). These findings

support hypothesis 1a.

A significant relationship was found between organizational supervision (Factor 3 of

the TiME scale) and decision-making internal dynamics, for both the New Zealand and

Russian samples, at (r =0.32, p< .01) and (r =0.27, p< .05), respectively. These finding

supports Hypotheses 1b.

The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 31

Another correlation, significant and consistent across the two samples, was between

setting goals and priorities (Factor 2, TMB Scale), and personal development from

decision-making, in the New Zealand sample (r =0.32, p< .01), and in the Russian sample

(r =0.30. p< .01). These findings support Hypothesis 2a.

Finally, in support of Hypothesis 2b the correlations between communicated time

values (Factor 5 of TiME scale) and personal development from decision-making variables,

were significant for the New Zealand sample (r= 0.23, p< .05), and for the Russian sample

(r= 0.43, p< .001). Furthermore, the correlations between job/task description processes

(Factor 4, TiME Scale) and personal development from decision-making were significant

for both the New Zealand and Russian samples (r =0.24, p< .05, and r =0.43, p< .001.

respectively).

Next, the correlations, which were found to be significant but unique to a sample, are

considered in relation to the study hypotheses.

 Table 3 Correlation Matrix of Study Variables for the New Zealand sample.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 16 17 18 19 20
TMB: TM
1 1.00
Mechanics
TMB: setting goals
2 0.31 1.00
and priorities
TMB: perceived
3 -0.02 -0.05 1.00
control of time
TMB: preference for
4 0.25 0.23 0.27 1.00
ogranisation
5 TiME: supervisor 0.22 0.38 -0.06 0.18 1.00
6 TiME: coworker 0.11 0.27 -0.02 0.07 0.69 1.00
7 TiME: jobtask 0.13 0.24 -0.03 0.20 0.37 0.10 1.00
8 TiME: supportTM 0.32 0.42 -0.05 0.09 0.52 0.32 0.35 1.00
9 TiME: timevalues 0.02 0.21 -0.30 0.06 0.51 0.31 0.35 0.37 1.00
TMS: shedule and
10 0.12 0.42 -0.24 0.17 0.37 0.34 0.20 0.36 0.61 1.00
deadlines
11 TMS: punctuality 0.25 0.53 0.34 0.27 0.29 0.24 0.09 0.19 -0.09 0.21 1.00
12 PSI: confidence -0.14 0.10 -0.03 -0.15 0.16 -0.01 -0.09 -0.12 0.21 0.21 0.05 1.00
15 PSD: demand 0.15 0.17 -0.19 -0.02 0.26 0.02 -0.07 0.18 0.40 0.37 0.01 0.35 1.00
16 PSD: speed 0.08 -0.13 0.23 0.17 -0.01 -0.07 0.45 0.01 -0.03 -0.33 -0.13 -0.18 -0.27 1.00
17 DM: process -0.01 0.23 -0.03 0.19 0.32 0.16 0.18 0.12 0.35 0.25 -0.04 0.43 0.17 -0.05 1.00
DM: personal
18 0.17 0.32 0.23 0.12 0.27 0.02 0.23 0.30 0.34 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.25 0.24 0.33 1.00
growth
19 DM: satisfaction 0.04 0.19 0.19 -0.12 0.43 0.24 0.24 0.42 0.14 -0.11 0.00 0.03 0.15 0.13 0.26 0.40 1.00
DM: confidence
20 0.15 0.21 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.00 0.37 0.21 0.47 0.12 0.09 0.29 0.23 0.27 0.46 0.59 0.43 1.00
outcomes

32 
 Table 4 Correlation Matrix of Study Variables for the Russian sample.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1 TMB: TM Mechanics 1.00
2 TMB: setting goals and priorities 0.41 1.00
3 TMB: perceived control of time -0.12 0.08 1.00
4 TMB: preference for ogranisation 0.30 0.13 0.32 1.00
5 TiME: supervisor 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.14 1.00
6 TiME: coworker 0.01 0.26 0.16 0.34 0.44 1.00
7 TiME: jobtask 0.05 0.24 -0.01 0.13 0.41 0.39 1.00
8 TiME: supportTM 0.12 0.05 0.06 0.16 0.01 0.09 0.58 1.00
9 TiME: timevalues -0.06 0.26 0.26 0.23 0.27 0.37 0.42 0.11 1.00
10 TMS: shedule and deadlines 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.33 0.32 0.08 0.29 -0.06 0.52 1.00
11 TMS: punctuality -0.03 0.26 0.06 0.23 0.40 0.42 0.60 0.07 0.37 0.57 1.00
12 PSI: confidence -0.06 0.32 -0.08 -0.26 0.28 0.18 0.15 0.08 0.11 -0.41 -0.08 1.00
13 PSD: demand 0.22 0.18 -0.21 -0.01 0.44 0.34 0.03 -0.10 0.06 -0.08 -0.09 0.20 1.00
14 PSD: speed 0.19 0.06 0.38 0.38 0.19 -0.21 -0.11 0.17 -0.16 -0.04 -0.09 0.00 -0.01 1.00
15 DM: process 0.15 0.28 -0.03 0.01 0.27 0.33 0.32 0.06 0.21 -0.13 0.07 0.53 0.23 -0.06 1.00
16 DM: personal growth 0.06 0.30 -0.01 -0.06 0.20 0.13 0.43 -0.03 0.43 0.14 0.31 0.39 0.12 -0.08 0.57 1.00
17 DM: satisfaction 0.03 0.24 0.05 -0.26 0.20 -0.12 0.16 0.08 0.24 -0.09 0.03 0.43 -0.05 0.09 0.32 0.31 1.00
18 DM: confidence outcomes 0.05 0.19 0.11 -0.25 0.09 -0.09 0.10 -0.03 0.08 -0.30 -0.20 0.39 0.04 0.22 0.51 0.41 0.50 1.00

33 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 34

The New Zealand Sample

A significant relationship was found between schedule and deadlines (Factor 1 TDW

Scale) and decision-making internal dynamics (r = 0.25, p<. 05). This findings support

hypothesis 1a. In addition, the variable schedule and deadlines was significantly correlated

with decision-making speed, but in an unexpected negative direction (r = -0.33, p< .01).

This finding also support hypothesis 1a, and may suggest that the employees’ perception of

the presence of stronger scheduling and deadlines demands in an organization may become

associated with frustration of not being able to make their decisions in time.

As predicted, the time management environment in an organization was also

significantly correlated with efficiency of decision-making processes. Looking more

closely at the New Zealand sample, two factors were significantly correlated with

efficiency of decision-making processes: job/task description processes with decision-

making speed (Factor 3 TiME Scale) (r = 0.45, p< .001), and communicated time values

(Factor 5 TiME Scale) in an organization with decision-making internal dynamics (r =

0.35, p< .001). These findings support Hypothesis 1b.

Hypothesis 2a was supported in the New Zealand sample: Perceived control of time

(Factor 3 TMB Scale) was significantly correlated with personal development from

decision-making (r= 0.23, p< .05).

There were strong relationships found for the time management environment and

employees’ satisfaction with decision-making processes, and personal development from

decision-making in New Zealand. Two factors of the TiME Scale were significantly

correlated with personal development from decision-making, these were organizational

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 35

supervision (r = 0.27, p< .01), and support for time management processes (r = 0.32, p<

.01). Furthermore, a strong relationship was found between employees’ satisfaction with

decision-making processes and four factors of the TiME scale: organizational supervision

(r =0.43, p< .001); co-worker interaction (r =0.24, p< .05); job/task description processes

(r =0.24, p< .05); and support for time management processes (r =0.42, p< .001). These

findings also support hypothesis 2b.

The hypothesis 3a was supported in the New Zealand sample. Three factors of the

Time Management Behaviour Scale were significantly correlated with confidence of

decision-making outcomes: setting goals and priorities (r = 0.21. p< .05); perceived control

of time (r= 0.25, p< .05); and preference for organization (r =0.24, p< .05). Time

management mechanics (Factor 1. TMB Scale) as it relates to confidence in decision-

making outcomes was not related significantly (r =0.15). There was no significant

relationship found for time management competencies and confidence in ability of making

decisions for the New Zealand sample. These findings suggests that for New Zealand

employees, confidence in outcomes from decision making may depend more on other

factors, such as clear criteria for decisions in an organization, feedback on employees’

decisions, and experience in making decisions. This idea is examined further in the

discussion section.

As predicted in hypothesis 3b, employees’ confidence in decision-making outcomes

was significantly correlated with the time management environment factors, especially with

three factors of the TiMe Scale for the New Zealand sample: organizational supervision (r

=0.25, p< .05); job/task description processes (r= 0.37, p< .001); and communicated time

values (r = 0.47, p< .001). There was a weaker relationship between support for time
 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 36

management processes and confidence in decision-making outcomes (r=0.21. p< .05).

There was no significant relationship found for time management environment and

confidence in ability of decision making for the New Zealand sample.

The Russian Sample

For the Russian sample, there was a significant correlation between preference for

organization (Factor 4, TMB Scale) and decision-making speed (r =0.38, p< .001). This

finding supports Hypothesis 1a. Furthermore, in support of Hypothesis 1b, two factors of

the TiME scale were significantly correlated with decision-making internal dynamics: co-

worker interaction (r =0.33, p< .01) and job/task description (r =0.32, p< .01). Curiously,

the time management environment was not related to speed of decision-making processes

in the Russian sample. A possible explanation for this finding might be that for Russian

employees, speed of making decisions depends more on personal characteristics and

abilities, especially on their personal confidence in their ability to make decisions. This

idea is explored further in the discussion section.

There was no significant relationship found between the Time Dimension of Work

Scale and efficiency of decision-making processes for the Russian sample. This suggests

that Russian employees have a different association with scheduling and deadlines that may

be explained by cultural differences, an issue that is investigated in the discussion section.

In support of Hypothesis 2a, there were strong relationships found between setting

goals and priorities (Factor 2, TMB Scale) and personal development from decision-

making ( r =0.30. p< .01), and setting goals and priorities and satisfaction with the

decision-making processes, ( r =0.24, p< .05). Surprisingly, one of the factors of the TMB
 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 37

scale, preference for organization (Factor 4), had a correlation with satisfaction with

decision-making processes in a negative direction (r = -0.26, p< .05). One suggestion is that

Russian employees, who perceive their organizations’ time management standards as being

very high, may negatively estimate their decision-making ability.

It is interesting to note, that only for the Russian sample was a relationship found

between punctuality (factor 2, Time Dimension of Work Scale) and personal growth (r =

0.31. p< .01). This can be explained by a new business-culture, which has been formed in

Russia over the last two decades. It is described in more detail in the discussion section.

In support of Hypothesis 2b, the variable communicated time values (Factor 5, TiME

Scale) was significantly correlated with employees’ satisfaction with decision-making

processes (r = 0.24, p< .05). The differences from the New Zealand sample may be

explained by cultural differences, and this is reviewed in the discussion section.

In relation to the 3a Hypothesis, there was a significant correlation found between

setting goals and priorities (factor two, TMB scale) and confidence in ability of making

decisions (r = 0.32, p< .01). Surprisingly, the correlation between time management

competencies and confidence in decision-making outcomes was found only for the

preference for organization (Factor 4, TMB Scale) and in negative direction (r = -0.25, p<

.05). The originally hypothesized direction of the relationships between scheduling and

deadlines (Factor 1. the Time Dimension of Work Scale) and employees’ confidence in

their ability to make decisions, and confidence in decision-making outcomes were reversed

in the actual data for the Russian sample, at (r = -0.41. p< .001), and (r = -0.30. p< .01),

respectively. These findings suggest that employees’ perception that an organization has
 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 38

high standards in the preference for organization and scheduling/deadlines demands is

associated by participants with a greater need for decision-making ability and may lead to

negative perceptions from participants of their ability to make decisions and make them

less confident about outcomes from their decisions.

In support of Hypothesis 3b, out of all the factors of the TiMe Scale, only the variable

organizational supervision (Factor 1. TiME Scale) was significantly correlated with

confidence in decision-making ability (r= 0.28, p< .05), for the Russian sample. There was

no significant relationship found for time management environment and confidence of

decision-making outcomes in the Russian sample. This shows that supervisors’ support

may influence employees’ personal confidence in making decisions for Russian

employees; this issue is examined further in the discussion section.

Multiple Regression

In order to examine the assumption of normality, the normal probability plots of the

regression-standardized residuals were checked. The normal probability plots for the time

management constructs and decision-making variables indicated no major deviations from

normality (Appendix B). Inspection of the Tables 3 and 4 indicates that no two time

management variables had a relationship greater than +/- 0.69, signifying no multi-

collinearity problems for the regression analysis.

In order to examine the overall effect of time management on ability to make

decisions, a decision-making ability variable was created by summing the speed of making

decisions ratings and the decision-making dynamics ratings. Two multiple regressions (one

for the New Zealand and one of the Russian samples) were performed to determine the

ability of the time management variables to predict decision-making ability. Table 5 shows
 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 39

the regression result for the New Zealand sample. The time management variables are

ranked in the table using their beta weight. Inspection of Table 5 indicates that the model

produced a significant outcome (F (11, 76) = 5.470. p< .01) which in total accounted for 36

percent of the variance in the decision-making ability variable.

Table 5: Multiple Regression, examining the effect of the time management variables on
decision-making ability, in the New Zealand sample.

Std.Err.
Variable β(beta) B t(76)
of B
TiME: jobtask 0.45*** 0.535 0.116 4.603
TMS: shedule and
-0.337** -0.542 0.200 -2.702
deadlines
TMS: punctuality -0.301** -0.293 0.118 -2.490
TMB: perceived
0.23* 0.395 0.179 2.209
control of time
TiME: timevalues 0.215 0.270 0.168 1.611
TMB: preference for
0.181 0.351 0.190 1.844
ogranisation
TiME: setting goals 0.125 0.305 0.289 1.055
TiME: supportTM -0.088 -0.085 0.108 -0.786
TiME: cowoker 0.066 0.077 0.145 0.532
TMB: TM
0.048 0.086 0.172 0.503
Mechanics
TiME: supervisor 0.025 0.029 0.174 0.164
*p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Table 6 shows the regression result for the Russian sample. The time management

variables are ranked in the table using their beta weight. Inspection of Table 6 indicates,

that the model produced a significant outcome (F(11, 64) =5.821. p< .01) which in total

accounted for 41 percent of the variance in the decision-making ability variable.

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 40

Table 6: Multiple Regression, examining the effect of the time management variables on
decision-making ability, in the Russian sample.

Std.Err.
Variable β(beta) B t(64)
of B
TiME: supervisor 0.54*** 0.714 0.147 4.867
TiME: coworker 0.43*** -0.452 0.130 -3.473
TMS: shedule and
-0.376* -0.825 0.327 -2.523
deadlines
TMB: preference for
0.40*** 0.805 0.229 3.519
ogranisation
TMB: perceived control
0.268** 0.463 0.175 2.645
of time
TiME: setting goals 0.162 0.393 0.275 1.431
TiME: supportTM 0.099 0.103 0.138 0.748
TiME: TM Mechanics 0.038 0.062 0.190 0.327
TiME: timevalues -0.023 -0.033 0.194 -0.173
TMS: punctuality -0.021 -0.025 0.182 -0.139
TiME: jobtask 0.004 0.005 0.231 0.022
*p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Discussion

Similar findings for New Zealand and Russia

The purpose of the present study was to explore the relationship between time

management and decision-making processes. Additionally, the aim of this research was to

find out if Russian and New Zealand employees indicate similar relationships between time

management and decision-making processes. The findings from this study supported the

hypothesis that the effectiveness of decision-making processes is at least partly dependent

on aspects of time management. In addition, an interesting cultural difference was found

between New Zealand and Russian employees regarding which aspects of time

management are related to decision-making processes.

Results from this study support the hypothesis that time management competencies

would predict higher levels of efficiency in decision-making processes. This hypothesis

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 41

received support in that time management dimensions, such as perceived control over time

and setting goals and priorities, correlated positively with the effectiveness of decision-

making processes (defined by speed and internal dynamics) in both countries. These results

support Macan’s (1996) findings that perceived control over time positively influences job

performance. For example, one of the expected outcomes for decisions, especially in an

organizational context, is that decisions should be made within a certain period. A possible

reason for the relationship between perceived control of time and decision-making speed

may be that employees who use time management behaviours gain awareness of what can

be done within the workday time and it leads to optimal speed for action taken.

Furthermore, the findings from this study confirmed the relationship between the time

management environment and the effectiveness of decision-making processes. New

Zealand and Russian employees who work in a company with strong organizational

supervision responded with a higher score on the decision-making dynamics measure. This

result confirmed Simons’s findings (1993) that employees’ priorities can change and are

dependent on an organizations environment; consequently, decision processes are

controllable, or at least partially dependent on the context of organizational systems.

There were also significant positive correlations found between the measures of

job/task description processes, communicated time values and development from decision-

making for both countries. A reason for these findings may be that colleagues may help

each other in analyzing tasks and specifying the goals in an organizational context. This

interpretation coincides with Herhey, Walsh and Chulef’s findings (1990) that high

performers and good decision makers tend to analyze tasks more thoroughly and to work in

collaboration with colleagues.

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 42

Finally, New Zealand and Russian employees both showed a significant correlation

between the setting goals and priorities measure and the development from decision-

making measure. These findings may indicate that by implementing setting goals and

priorities techniques, employees get a clear vision about what should be done, and gain

development from decisions taken.

Findings, unique to the New Zealand sample

Results from the New Zealand sample indicated that the aspect of time management

which had the most significant influence on decision-making processes was the time

management environment. There were significant correlations between job/task description

processes and speed of decision-making and communicated time values and decision-

making internal dynamics. Moreover, the New Zealand sample also showed a strong

association between the time management environment and confidence in decision-making

outcomes. These results may signify that a strong time management environment creates

the necessary conditions for developing employees’ decision-making ability. An outcome

these relationships may be that making decisions are viewed by employees as more positive

process. This interpretation is supported by the significant positive correlations found

between time management environment variables and both satisfaction and personal

development from decision-making.

New Zealand employees reported a negative relationship between their scheduling

and deadline demands and their speed of making decisions. This negative correlation was

not expected. An explanation for this finding may be that people who work for an

organization which places considerable demands on them may meet these demands by

focusing on the actual decision outcome rather than the time taken to make the decision.
 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 43

However, in situations where timing is a vital factor, it could be important for employees to

develop a good sense of making decisions quickly, especially when an individual is

involved in team work.

Findings unique to the Russian sample

Results from the Russian sample indicated that for Russian employees the most

powerful factors that may assist to increase the speed of decision-making were preference

for organization and perceived control of time. Satisfaction with decision-making processes

was strongly related to communicated time values and setting goals and priorities. One

possible interpretation for these findings is that employees who have a clear picture of

organizational goals and their priorities can maximize the utility of their decision outcomes.

As a result, the employee views satisfaction with their decision-making processes as more

positive. This interpretation supports Kahnerman and Tversky’s findings (1979) that

employees’ awareness of goals and their importance in relation to other goals (including

organizational goals) leads people to make more rational decisions and be more satisfied

with decisions’ outcomes.

Additionally, positive correlations were found for both co-worker interaction and

job/task description processes with decision-making internal dynamics. One explanation

for these relationships is that the time management environment creates an awareness of

time effectiveness, and supports a better understanding of the designed task and steps

involved in gaining goals.

In contrast to the New Zealand sample, the results from the Russian sample showed

negative correlations between preference for organization and confidence in ability to make
 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 44

decisions, confidence in decision-making outcomes, and satisfaction with decision-making

processes. As a possible explanation of these results we can look at the many changes

which have occurred in Russia over the last two decades. Russia has experienced many

economic changes. The new economic reality in Russia is defined by very high inter-

organizational competition, and this has resulted in employers having very high standards

for employees. People in Russia now often work in situations with high levels of stress.

When individuals face decision-making processes under high levels of stress this can block

their ability to function and undermines the outcomes (Stacey, 2003). Consequently,

Russian employees who work in a company with high-level demands, for example strong

preference for organization, also have high expectations set for their job performance, and

this may negatively influence their ability to make good decisions, and create doubt about

their decision outcomes. Employees have to be encouraged by supervisors, and be provided

with clear criteria for expected decisions. This interpretation is supported by the significant

positive correlations found in the Russian sample between organizational supervision and

employees’ confidence in their ability in making decisions.

Significant cultural differences

New Zealanders, compared with Russian respondents, construed themselves

significantly more confident in making decisions and estimating outcomes. In addition,

participants from New Zealand rated highly their satisfaction with making decisions. This

interesting cultural difference was found in the data in the relationship between preference

for organization and confidence in outcome from decision-making. New Zealand

employees reported a high positive correlation, while the Russian sample had a negative

correlation. This finding raises a question. Why, and on what basis, did the New Zealanders

make such a positive evaluation about their decisions? According to the self-esteem
 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 45

literature (Morling, 2002; Stacey, 2003), consistency predicts higher levels of confidence.

It is vital for an individual to have a constant self-view and stable environment in order to

be confident about outcomes from his or her actions. It is somewhat different in Russia,

where people are deeply involved in the experience of change and are trying to meet high

expectations from employers. When everyday attention is framed in terms of competition

and comparisons with others, which is very typical for the Russian culture, individuals’

self-view may become somewhat dependent on co-action and judgment from others. From

this interpretation, it is very understandable why Russian employees reported a strong

relationship between supervision in the organization and confidence in decision-making

ability.

An alternative explanation for these findings may relate to participant age. The

Russian participants were significantly younger than the New Zealand participants, but did

have the same job positions and did work in similar types of company. As mentioned

above, Russian economics have changed very fast over the last two decades. The new

generation starts their career at a very young age. For those, who are supposed to make

strategic decisions, confidence in their ability to make the right decisions may come with

maturity and experience.

Another possible reason for this finding is that, according to the present study,

participants from New Zealand reported a higher level of time management competencies

and a more supportive environment, compared to Russians. According to the data, New

Zealanders are more skilled in managing work time and work in very structured

environments consequently; this may have a positive influence on their decision-making

processes. These findings strongly support the idea that decision-making processes at least

partly depend on time-management constructs. Organizations should support time

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 46

management behavior and create an environment which encourages employees to make

optimal and rational decisions.

Limitations and Future Research Suggestions

Future study in this area should focus on overcoming the most serious limitations

present in this study. From the perspective of the present study, the most serious

weaknesses are related to sample size, cross-sectional design, and national peculiarity of

participants. Each will be addressed below.

One of the key limitations that affected the present research is that from 200 delivered

questionnaires only 164 came to the final sample. This means that the multiple regressions

were not as powerful as they could have been.

This research design is cross-sectional, even though retrospective time measures were

included for decision measures. The second limitation is that although the experimental

variables in this study were valid, according to the scale statistics, self-report

questionnaires may be filled in under some criticism. However, cross-sectional self-report

measures are one of the most common methods in organizational behavior research. Some

researchers believe that mono-method may cause bias correlations between the constructs

of interest (Spector, 1994). According to Spector (1994), misperceptions and social

desirableness may influence self-report measures. Future research would benefit from more

rigorous methods of analysis to follow up on the results.

Another possible limitation of the present research is that the cultural differences,

which were found, have not been confirmed by behavioral data. It is unclear, for example,

whether Russian employees have problems with managing work time, or if they have very

high standards for themselves, because of competition and high expectation from

employers. However, difficulties in completing the questionnaire by the deadline for

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 47

Russian employees, comparing to the New Zealand participants, might indirectly confirm

that New Zealand employees are more skilled in managing their time.

Finally, a couple of the scales utilized in this study showed low sub-scale reliabilities.

According to Kline (2000), coefficient alphas should not be tolerated, if they are below .7.

Two factors from the Time Dimension Scale (Schriber& Gutek, 1987), which were used

for this study, namely punctuality and schedule & deadlines only reached an alpha of .48

and .41. respectively, in the Russian sample. A possible explanation for these findings is

different interpretation of the scale items by the Russian and New Zealand employees that

might be caused by the translation of the questionnaire in to Russian. Although the general

meaning of items used in the questionnaire remained, some slight changes may have

influenced understanding by the Russian respondents. Further analysis of this issue and

adaptation may be necessary for the future use of this scale.

As mentioned in the literature review section, decisions may be treated as a cognitive

process, but personal factors are at least as significant. In the present research design

personal characteristics have not been considered. To get a more thorough picture of time

management behaviour and its relationship to decision-making processes, measures of

personality type, personal characteristics and ability to learn new strategies are desirable.

Conclusion

The purpose of the present research was to explore the relationship between time

management factors and decision-making processes. This study also showed cross-cultural

differences in the relationships between time management factors and decision-making

processes, more specifically, that culture has a strong influence on some aspects of time

management factors and satisfaction, and confidence in the outcomes of the decisions

taken. Most of the expected relationships in the research were found. However, a few
 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 48

relationships were found to be significant, but not in the expected direction. Moreover, the

findings of this study suggest that future research is needed to obtain and clarify the

underlying relations that cause the associations showed by the participants.

The present study has implications for both theory and practice. On the theoretical

level the study explored the relationships between time management factors and decision-

making processes. From a practical perspective, the findings have identified aspects of time

management, such as setting goals, perceived control of time, the role of the organizational

supervision, that seem to affect decision-making processes positively.

Organizational decision-making is not a simple process. Technological and economic

changes, as well as the globalization phenomenon, have caused difficulties for employees

in decision-making. Findings of this study may help create workplacs where well-

structured and supportive time management techniques and environment are conducive to

effective decision-making.

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 49

References
Adams, G.A., & Jex, S.M. (1999). Relationships between time management, control,
work-family conflict, and strain. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 4 (1), 72-
77.

Adams, G. A., & Jex, S. M. (1997). Confirmatory factor analysis of the time management
behavior scale. Psychological Reports, 80, 225-226.

Azjen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organisational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavioural change.

Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Cheung, D. (1996). Time management and achievement
striving interact to predict car sales performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6),
821-826.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The Moderator-Mediator variable distinction in
Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.

Bazerman, M. H. (1982). Impact of personal control on performance: Is added control

always beneficial? Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 472-479.

Benson, L., & Beach. L.R.(1996). The Effects of Time Constraints on the Prechoice
Screening of Decision Options. Organizational Behaviour & Human Decision Processes,
67-68, 222-228.

Benzion,U.,Rapoport, A., &Yagil, J.(1989). Discount rates inferrsd from decision :An
experimental study. Management Science,35, 270-284.

Bluedorn, A.C., & Denhardt, R.B. (1988). Time and Organisations. Journal of
Management, 14(2), 299-320.

Bond, M. J., & Feather, N. T. (1988). Some correlates of structure and purpose in use of
time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 321-329.

Britton, B.K., & Glynn, S.M. (1989). Mental management and creativity: A cognitive
model of time management for intellectual productivity. In J.A. Glover, R.R. Ronning
and C.R. Reynolds (Eds.). Handbook of Creativity (pp.429-440). New York: Plenum
Press.

Britton, B. K., & Tesser, A. (1991). Effects of time-management practices on college

grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 405-410.

Bryman, A, & Cramer, D. (1997). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS for Windows.
New York: Routledge.
 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 50

Buchler, R., Griffin, D., & Ross, M.(1994). Exploring the ‘planning fallacy’: Why people
underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and social Psychology,
67, 366-381.

Burt, C.D.B., Weststrate, A., Champion, F. & Brown, C. (submitted, 2001). Time
Management Environment Scale. Unpublished.

Burt, C.D., & Forsyth, D.K. (2001). Relationships between supervisor behaviour, family
support, and perceived time management ability. New Zealand Journal of Psychology,
30(1), 4-8.

Chapman, G.B., Nelson, R., & Hier,D.B.(1999) Familiarity and time preferences:
Decision making about treatments for migraine headaches and Crohn’s disease. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 17-34.

Cohen, S., Kamark, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A Global Measure of Perceived Stress.
Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 24(Dec), 385-396.

Cooper, C.L., & Baglioni Jr, A.J. (1988). A structural model approach toward the
development of a theory of the link between stress and mental health. British Journal of
Medical Psychology, 61, 87-102.

Cooper, C.L., Dewe, P.J., O' Driscoll, M.P. (2001). Organisational Stress: A review and
critique of theory, research and applications. London: Sage.
Derogatis, L.R., & Cleary, P.A. (1977). Confirmation of the dimensional structure of the
SCL-90: A study in construct validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 981-989.

Drucker, P. (1966). The effective manager. London: Penguin.

Feather, N., & Bond., M. (1983). Time structure and purposeful activity among employed
and unemployed university graduates. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56, 241-254.

Francis-Smythe, J. A., & Robertson, I. T. (1999). On the relationship between time

management and time estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 333-347.

Friedman, W. (1993). Memory for the time of past events. Psychological Bulletin, 113(1),
44-66.

Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and psychological outcomes: testing a

model among young workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 246-255.

Ganster, D. C., & Schaubroek, J. (1991). Work stress and employee health. Journal of
Management, 17(2), 235-271.

Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., Cumings, L.L., & Dunham, R.B. (1989). The impact of
personal control on performance and satisfaction. Organisational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, 43, 29-51.

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 51

Hackman, J.R. & Oldham, G.R. (1980). Work redesign. New York: Addison-Wesley.

Hall, B. L., & Hursch, D. E. (1982). An evaluation of the effects of a time management
training program on work efficiency. Journal of Organisational Behaviour Management,
3(4), 73-96.

Hassard, J. (1991). Aspects of time in organisations. Human Relations, 44, 105-125.

Howell, D.C. (1997). Statistical methods for Psychology (4th ed.) Belmont, California:
Duxbury Press.

Jackson, P.R., Wall, T.D., Martin, R.,& Davids,K.(1993). New measures of job control,
cognitive demand, and production responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5),
753-762.
Jex, S.M., & Elacqua, T.C. (1999). Time management as a moderator of relations between
stressors and employee strain. Work and Stress, 13(2), 182-191.

Josephs, R.A., & Hahn, E.D. (1995). Bias and accuracy in estimates of task duration.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 202-213.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979b). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under
risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.

Karasek, R., Brisson, C., Kawakami, N., Houtman, I., Bongers, P., & Amick, B. (1998).
The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An Instrument for Internationally Comparative
Assessments of Psychosocial Job Characteristics. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 3(4), 322-355.

Kasl, S.V. (1998). Measuring Job stressors and studying the health impact of the work
environment: An epidemiologic commentary. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 3(4), 390-401.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1978). The social psychology of organisations. ( 2nd ed ed.). (2nd
ed).New York: John Wiley.

Keren, G., & Roelofsma, P. (1995). Immediacy and certainty in intertemporal choice.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 287-297.

Koch, C.J.,& Kleinman M,.(2002). A stitch in time saves nine: Behavioural decision
making explanations for time management problems. European Journal of Work and
Organisational Psychology, 2002,11(2), 199-217.

Kinicki, A.J., & Vecchio, R.P. (1994) Influences on the quality of supervisor-subordinate
relations: The role of time pressure, organisational commitment, and locus of control.
Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 15, 75-82.

Kline, P. (2000). Handbook of Psychological Testing (2nd ed). London: Routledge.

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 52

Kleinbeck, U. et al (Eds). Work Motivation in the context of the globalising economy. New
Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Krause, H. (1999). Construction and Validation of the Australian Time Organisation and
Management Scale. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney.

Lahmers, A. G., & Zulauf, C.R. (2000). Factors associated with academic time use and
academic performance of college students: A recursive approach. Journal of College
Student Development, 41(5), 544-556.

Lakein, A. (1973). How to get control of your time and life. New York: New American
Library.

Lakein, A. (1991). How to get control of your time and your life. New York: New
American Library.

Lang, D. (1992). Preventing short term strain through time-management coping. Work and
Stress, 6(2), 169-176.

Lay, C. H., & Schouwenberg, H.C. (1993). Trait procrastination, time management, and
academic behaviour. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 8(4), 647-662.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Macan, T. H. (1994). Time Management: Test of a process model. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 79(3), 381-391.

Macan, T. H. (1996). Time-management training: Effects on time behaviours, attitudes,

and job performance. The Journal of Psychology, 130(3), 229-236.

Macan, T. H., Shahani, C.,Dipboye, R. L., &, & Phillips, A. P. (1990). College students'
time management: Correlations with academic performance and stress. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 82(4), 760-768.

Mackenzie, A. (1990). The Time Trap. New York: AMACOM.

McKenna, R. J. (2001), “Identity, not motivation: the key to effective employee-

organization relations”, in Wiesner, & Millett, B. (Eds), Management and Organizational
Behaviour, Wiley Australia, Brisbane, pp.35-45.

McGrath, J. (1976). Stress and behaviour in organisations. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.).

Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology. (pp.1351-1395). Chicago: Rand
McNally.

Misra, R., & McKean, M. (2000). College Students' Academic Stress and Its Relation To
Their Anxiety, Time Management, and Leisure Satisfaction. American Journal of Health
Studies., 16(1), 41-58.

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 53

Motowildo, S.J., Packard, J.S., & Manning, M.R. (1986). Occupational Stress: Its causes
and consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 618-629.

Mudrack, P. E. (1997). The structure of perceptions of time. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 57(2), 222-240.

Nonis, S. A., Hudson, G.I., Logan, L.B., & Ford, C.W. (1998). Influence of perceived
control over time on college students' stress and stress-related outcomes. Research in
Higher Education., 39(5), 587-605.

Nunnelly, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill

Orpen, C. (1994). The effect of time-management training on employee attitudes and

behavior: A field experiment. The Journal of Psychology, 128(4), 393-396.

Ordo ez, L., & Benson, L., III. (1997). Decisions under time pressure: How time
constraint affects risky decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 71, 121-140.

Orlikowsky, W.J. & Yates, J. (2002), “Its about time: temporal structuring in
organizations”, Organization Science, Vol. 13, pp. 684- 700.

Quick, J. C. (1998). Introduction to the Measurement of Stress at Work. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 291-293.

Richards, J. H. (1987). Time management: A review. Work & Stress, 1, 73-78.

Schmitt, N (1994). Method Bias: the importance of theory and measurement. Journal of
Organisational Behaviour, 15 (5), 393-398.

Schriber, J.B., & Gutek, B.A. (1987). Some time dimensions of work: Measurement of an
underlying aspect of organisation culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 642-650.

Schuler, R. S. (1979). Managing stress means managing time. Personnel Journal, 58,
851-854.

Shahani, C., Weiner, R., & Streit, M.K. (1993). An investigation of the dispositional
nature of the time management construct. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 6, 231-243.

Simons, D.J. & Galotti, K.M. (1992), “Everyday planning: an analysis of daily time
management”, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, Vol. 30, pp.61-4.

Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioural model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of

Economics, 69, 99-118.

Simon, H.A. (1978). Rationality as process and as product of thought. American Economic
Review, Papers and Proceedings, 68, 1-16.

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 54

Sonnentag, S. & Schmidt- Brabe, U. (1998), “Expertise at work: research perspectives and
practical interventions for ensuring excellent performance at the workplace”, European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 7, pp.449-54

Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies

concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39(11), 1005-1016.

Spector, P. E. (1987). Interactive effects of perceived control and job stressors on affective
reactions and health outcomes for clerical workers. Work & Stress, 1, 155-162.

Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires on OB research: A comment on the

use of a controversial method. Journal of Organisational behaviour, 15, 385-392.

Spector, P. E., & Jex, S.M. (1998). Development of Four Self-Report Measures of Job
Stressors and Strain: Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale, Organisational Constraints
Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 356-367.

Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D.J., & Jex, S.M. (1988). Relation of Job Stressors to affective,
health, and performance outcomes: A comparison from multiple data sources. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 73(1), 11-19.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Science, 185, 1124- 1131.

Williams, R.L., Verble, J.S., Price, D.E., & Layne, B.H. (1995) relationship between time-
management practices and personality indices and types. Journal of Psychological Type,
34, 36-42.

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 55

Appendices

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 56

Appendix A
Statement of Informed Consent
Study title: The relationship between Time management factors and Decision making processes

You are being asked to participate in an anonymous survey. Your participation is very helpful to me. Please ask
questions if there is anything that you do not understand.
In advance, I thank you for giving your time on my account.

The purpose of this study:

The purpose is to investigate the relationship between time management (TM) factors and decision making (DM)
processes. I hope to find the aspects of the process of decision making that are dependent on those of time
management factors. These findings can help specialists and employers to better understand and improve the
successful operation of their business and organization.

What is involved in this study?

This study involves completing an anonymous survey. You will be asked to answer questions in which you will
describe your attitude towards some aspects of time management such as: organizational time management,
environment factors and individual differences in TM and decision making processes. There are no right or wrong
answers - it is simply what you think. Please complete all questions, or the questionnaire will be unable to be
used.
Your confidentiality is completely assured. Completing the survey can take approximately 30 minutes. All
participants are asked to complete the same survey.

What are the benefits of participating in this study?

Although there will be no direct personal benefits from completing this survey, your participation may help to better
understand your own attitudes to both the TM and DM processes, producing personal development.

Questions about this study may be directed to the research supervisor:

Dr Chris Burt
Department of Psychology
University of Canterbury
Phone + 6433642231

Alternatively, you can contact me on:

Viktoriya Varlamova
[email protected] or [email protected].

Please post the completed questionnaire directly to the researcher in the envelope provided.

Demographics

1. What is your gender? Male ˆ Female ˆ

2. What is your age? __________
3. What is your job title? ___________________________
4. How long have you been working in your current job?
Years________ Months _____________________
5. How many hours do you work per week? _______________
6. Have you ever had any formal Time Management training? Yes ˆ Noˆ
7. If you answer Yes to question 6, how many hours training have you received? ___________

 
 The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 57

Managing Your Time at Work

To what extent does each of the statements accurately describe your activities and experience in your work? Indicate
how accurately each statement describes you by circling one of the alternatives on the scale below. Mark all your
responses directly on the form. This is not a test, and there are no right or wrong answers. Please respond to all items.

1 2 3 4 5
occasionally true about as
seldom true frequently true very often true
true often as not

N Item 1 2 3 4 5
1 I find myself taking on too many task responsibilities at one time.
2 I feel overwhelmed by trivial and unimportant tasks.
3 I feel in control of my time
4 I must spend a lot of time on unimportant tasks
5 At the end of a workday, I leave a clear, well-organised workspace
6 I find it difficult to keep to a schedule because others take me away from my work
When I make a things-to-do list at the beginning of the day, it is forgotten or set aside by the end
7
of the day
When I decide on what I will try and accomplish in the short term, I keep in mind my long-term
8
objectives
9 I review my goals to determine if they need revising
10 I break complex, difficult projects down into smaller manageable tasks
11 I set short term goals for what I want to accomplish in a few days or weeks
12 I set deadlines for myself when I set out to accomplish a task
13 I look for ways to increase the efficiency with which I perform my work activities
14 I finish top priority tasks before going on to less important ones
15 I review my daily activities to see where I am wasting time
16 During a workday I evaluate how well I am following the schedule I have set down for myself
17 I set priorities to determine the order in which I will perform tasks each day
18 I carry a notebook, or similar, to jot down notes and ideas
19 I schedule activities at least a week in advance
When I find that I am frequently contacting someone, I record that person’s name, address and
20
phone number in a special file
21 I block out time in my daily schedule for regularly scheduled events
22 I write notes to remind myself of what I need to do
I can find the things I need for my work more easily when my workspace is messy and
23
disorganised than when it is neat and organised
24 I make lists of things to do each day and check off each task as it is accomplished
25 I carry an appointment book, or similar, with me
26 I keep a daily log of my activities
27 The time I spend scheduling and organising my work day is time wasted
 
 The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 58

28 My workdays are too unpredictable for me to plan and manage my time to any great extent
29 I have some of my creative ideas when I am disorganised
30 When I am somewhat disorganised I am better able to adjust to unexpected events
I find that I can do a better job if I put off tasks that I don’t feel like doing than if I try to get them
31
done in order of their importance

 
 The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 59

TiME Scale

There are 26 statements in this section. Each statement could describe an aspect of your work place. You are to decide
whether the statement describes your place of work by giving it a rating from 1 to 7.Give a rating of 1 if you strongly
disagree that the statement applies to your place of work, through to a rating of 7 if you strongly agree that the
statement applies. Use ratings between 1 and 7 to express the precise nature of your opinion. Please give a rating for
every statement
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree agree
disagree neutral agree slightly agree
disagree slightly strongly

N Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Supervisors provide clear task guidelines

2 Reviews of goal achievement are undertaken on a regular basis

3 Co-workers discuss task priorities

4 Processes used to achieve goals are continuously monitored

5 Jobs are designed around key processes needed to meet goals.

6 Staff work together to organize each days schedule

7 Co-workers discuss the time required to complete tasks

8 Co-workers discuss work goals

9 Jobs are designed around task sequences

10 Task priorities are regularly discussed with supervisors

11 Supervisors are interested in the processes used to complete tasks

12 Project planning is regularly reviewed

13 Plans for task completion are developed with supervisors

14 Feedback on staff’s task priority judgments is regularly provided

15 Productive use of time is a key value

16 Job description documents are provided

17 Time is considered to be an important resource

18 Use of time management techniques is facilitated by supervisors

19 Emphasis is placed on keeping to deadlines

20 Documents on time management practice are provided for staff

21 Training in time management techniques is provided

22 Performance is reviewed within a performance appraisal system

23 Contract completion times are discussed with customers

24 Staff remind each other of appointments

25 The organization develops an annual plan

26 Making time to plan the days work is encouraged

 
 The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 60

Time Dimensions of Work (TMS)

There are 49 items in this section. They are statements about various time dimensions in your workplace. The
statements are intended to apply to all work environments. You are to decide whether each statement describes your
place of work by giving it a rating between 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Use ratings between 1 and 5 to
describe the exact nature of your opinion. Please remember, there are no right or wrong answers, it is simply what you
think. Please be sure to give a rating for every statement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree agree
disagree neutral agree slightly agree
disagree slightly strongly

N Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 People here feel that deadlines don’t really matter

2 People get upset when you are late for work

3 This organisation invests in its future

4 Schedules usually seem too tight for most big jobs/projects

5 People usually expect to take their work home with them

6 Most people don’t think about how they use their time

7 Working fast is not important here

8 People here plan their time carefully

9 Around here, people like to talk about the “good old days”
To get the job done, it is important for each person to co-ordinate his/her work with
10
others
11 People tend to do different things each day

12 Some departments work longer hours than others

13 People can perform their tasks in any order and still get the job done

14 Staying on schedule is important here

15 People don’t care what time you arrive at work

16 Planning for the future is important here

17 We never seem to have enough time to get everything done

18 People expect to leave at the end of the day without worrying about their work

19 People here worry about using their time well

20 People expect you to know how long it will take you to do something

21 Most people can work at their own pace

22 People here do not have the freedom to use their time the way they choose

23 People have to work together to get the job done

 
 The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 61

24 Our job duties seem to change from week to week

25 Everyone works about the same number of hours, no matter what jobs they hold

26 To get the job done, it is important to do tasks in a specific order

27 It is important to meet our deadlines

28 No one cares if you are late returning from a meal break

29 Doing things right is better than doing things fast

30 Tasks usually take longer than planned

31 People rarely get work-related calls during “off” hours (like nights and weekends)

32 Most people can take breaks when they want to

33 Most people here cannot set their own work schedules

34 Our jobs never seem to change much

35 We don’t pay much attention to schedules

36 If people arrive an hour late for work, they will feel “rushed” all day

37 No one gets upset when you miss a deadline

38 When people go on holiday, they are expected to tell their supervisor how to reach them

39 It is easy to find time to plan something new

40 All of our work is tightly scheduled

41 People just expect to “kill time” on the job

42 It is very important to be “on time” for everything

43 People expect to finish their work by the end of each day

44 People do most of their work under deadlines

45 It is better to make a bad decision quickly, than a good decision slowly

46 People are expected to work very fast

47 People expect their work to be routine

48 People do things when they are ready, not on a schedule

49 Teamwork is not very important around here

 
 The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 62

Problem-solving demand, DM internal dynamics and speed

Please read each item and indicate your agreement with each statement, using the 7 point scale.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree agree
disagree neutral agree slightly agree
disagree slightly strongly

N Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 I come across problems in my job that I have not met before

2 I need to make decisions quickly

The problems I deal with require a thorough knowledge of the production process in my
3
area
4 I always make decisions on time

5 I often make decisions under stress due to a lack of time

6 I have to solve problems which have no obvious correct answer

7 I have enough time to make decisions

8 I often feel there is not enough time for me to make decisions

Problem-Solving Inventory

There are 31 statements in this section. Each statement could describe an aspect of your place of work. You are to
decide whether the statement describes your place of work. Use ratings between 1 and 5 to express the precise nature
of your opinion.

1 2 3 4 5
occasionally true about as
seldom true frequently true very often true
true often as not

N Item 1 2 3 4 5
1 When a solution to a problem was unsuccessful, I examine why it didn't work.
When I am confronted with a complex problem, I develop a strategy to collect information so I
2
can define exactly what the problem is.
When my first efforts to solve a problem fail, I become uneasy about my ability to handle the
3
situation.
4 After I have solved a problem, I analyze what went right or what went wrong.
5 I am usually able to think up creative and effective alternatives to solve a problem.
After I have tried to solve a problem with a certain course of action, I take time and compare the
6
actual outcome to what I thought should have happened.
When I have a problem, I think up as many possible ways to handle it as I can until I can't come
7
up with any more ideas.
I have the ability to solve most problems even though initially no solution is immediately
8
apparent.
9 Many problems I face are too complex for me to solve.

 
 The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 63

10 I make decisions and am happy with them later.

11 When confronted with a problem, I tend to do the first thing that I can think of to solve it.
12 Sometimes I do not stop and take time to deal with my problems, but just kind of muddle ahead.
When deciding on an idea or possible solution to a problem, I do not take time to consider the
13
chances of each alternative being successful.
14 When confronted with a problem, I stop and think about it before deciding on a next step.
15 I generally go with the first good idea that comes to my mind.
When making a decision, I weigh the consequences of each alternative and compare them
16
against each other.
17 When I make plans to solve a problem, I am almost certain that I can make them work.
18 I try to predict the overall result of carrying out a particular course of action.
When I try to think up possible solutions to a problem, I do not come up with very many
19
alternatives.
20 Given enough time and effort, I believe I can solve most problems that confront me.
21 When faced with a novel situation I have confidence that I can handle problems that may arise.
Even though I work on a problem, sometimes I feel like I am groping or wandering, and am not
22
getting down to the real issue.
23 I make snap judgments and later regret them.
24 I trust my ability to solve new and difficult problems.
25 I have a systematic method for comparing alternatives and making decisions.
When confronted with a problem, I do not usually examine what sort of external things my
26
environment may be contributing to the problem.
When I am confused by a problem, one of the first things I do is survey the situation and
27
consider all the relevant pieces of information.
Sometimes I get so charged up emotionally that I am unable to consider many ways of dealing
28
with my problems.
29 After making a decision, the outcome I expected usually matches the actual outcome.
30 When confronted with a problem, I am unsure of whether I can handle the situation.
When I become aware of a problem, one of the first things I do is to try to find out exactly what
31
the problem is.

 
 The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 64

Decision Making: Internal Dynamics

As part of your job you are involved in the processes of making decisions. The process of decision making can
involved a number of steps. Each item below describes an aspect of the decision making process. Please read each
item, and indicate using the 7 point scale, whether you agree or disagree that it is a component of your decision
making. Please be sure to give a rating for every statement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree agree
disagree neutral agree slightly agree
disagree slightly strongly

N Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Identify tasks

2 Collect information

3 Identify goals

4 Find alternatives

5 Consider implications

6 Select decision path

7 Monitor outcomes

Personal Growth

Please read statements below, and indicate your agreement with each item using the 1-7 scale. Please be sure to give a
rating for every statement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
disagree disagree agree
disagree neutral agree slightly agree
strongly slightly strongly

N Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 I feel personal growth and development when I make decisions
2 I like the challenge in the decision making process
3 I feel that the decisions I make help to promote my organization.
4 The people who are involved in the decision making processes in my company
contribute to the growth of the organization.

 
 The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 65

Satisfaction with Decision Making Processes and Confidence in Outcomes

Each of the statements below is something that a person can say about her or his decision making processes. Please
read each item and indicate your agreement with each statement, using the scale below. Please be sure to give a
rating for every statement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
disagree disagree agree
disagree neutral agree slightly agree
strongly slightly strongly

N Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 I feel my decision making efforts are rewarded the way they should be

2 I feel I have adequate knowledge and skills for decision making

3 I feel a sense of pride after making decisions

4 I sometimes feel that my decisions at work are meaningless

5 I feel competent and fully able to make decisions in my job

6 My efforts to make a good decision are seldom blocked by red tape

7 I feel certain about how much authority I have to make decisions

8 I feel that the decisions I make are appreciated

9 I am generally satisfied with the person who supervises my decision making processes

10 I am satisfied with feedback received after decision making

11 Decisions that I make in my job are only what is expected of me

12 The process of decision making is enjoyable for me

13 There are few rewards in our company for those who make decision
Generally I am satisfied with the persons who are involved with me in decision making
14
processes
15 Many of company’s rules and procedures make the decision making process difficult.

16 I like making decisions in my work

17 I am absolutely satisfied with decisions which I make at work

18 I know exactly what is expected of me in my part of decision making

19 I am satisfied with the number of decisions which I make in my job

20 I am satisfied with the recognition which I received after my good decisions

Thank you for your time

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 66

Appendix B
Информационное письмо
Исследование: Взаимовлияние между Факторами управления временем и Процессами принятия
решения

К вам обращаются с просьбой принять участие в исследовании взаимодействия между управлением временем
и процессом принятия решений. Пожалуйста, задавайте вопросы, если вам что-нибудь непонятно.

Я заранее благодарю вас за время, которое вы уделили мне.

Цель данного исследования:

Целью данного исследования является изучение взаимного влияния между факторами управления временем и
процессами принятия решений. Я надеюсь найти такие аспекты процесса принятия решений, которые зависят
от факторов управления временем. Такие открытия смогут помочь специалистам и сотрудникам лучше понять
и улучшить процессы управления временем и принятия решений, что в свою очередь будет способствовать
увеличению успешности предприятия или организации.

Что включено в данное исследование?

Данное исследование включает проведение опроса. Вас попросят ответить на вопросы, при ответе на которые
вы опишете ваше отношение к различным аспектам управления временем, таким как организационное
управление временем, факторы внешней среды и индивидуальные различия в управлении временем. Вам
также зададут вопросы о ваших процессах принятия решений. Верных или неверных ответов нет – есть
просто то, что вы думаете. Пожалуйста, ответьте на все вопросы, иначе ваша анкета не сможет быть
использована.

Пожалуйста, пришлите заполненную анкету непосредственно получателю в конверте, который мы вам

прислали.

Вы можете задать вопросы о данном исследовании специалисту, который ведёт этот проект:

Виктория Варламова
Кафедра психологии
Университет Кентербери
Крастчерч
[email protected]; [email protected]

Еще раз спасибо за ваше время!

Демографические показатели

1. Ваш пол? Мужской □ Женский □

2. Ваш возраст? _____________
3. Какую должность Вы занимаете? ____________________________________________________
4. Как долго Вы работает на данном предприятии?
Годы ____________ Месяцы ________________
5. Сколько часов в неделю Вы работаете?
6. Вы когда-нибудь проходили официальное обучение по Управлению временем? Да □ Нет □
Если на вопрос 6 Вы отвечаете «Да», отметьте, сколько часов длилось ваше обучение? _______

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 67

Управление вашим временем на работе

Как точно каждое из утверждений описывает вашу деятельность и ваш опыт работы? Укажите, как точно
каждое подходит Вам, выбрав какую-либо из цифр, предложенных в таблице. Укажите ваши ответы прямо в
данной форме. Это не тест, поэтому здесь не может быть правильных или неправильных ответов.
Пожалуйста, заполните все пункты.

1 2 3 4 5
редко верно иногда верно верно так же часто верно очень часто верно
часто, как и
неверно

№ Пункт 1 2 3 4 5
1 Мне кажется, что я беру на себя слишком много заданий одновременно.
2 Я чувствую себя перегруженным банальными заданиями, которые не имеют
особой важности
3 Я чувствую, что контролирую свое время
4 Я трачу много времени на малозначимые задания
5 После окончания рабочего дня я оставляю свое рабочее место в хорошо
организованном порядке и чистоте
6 Мне трудно соблюдать расписание, т.к. другие отвлекают меня от работы
7 Если в начале рабочего дня я составляю список дел, которые я должен сделать, к
концу дня я забываю о нем или отставляю в сторону
8 Когда я решаю, что я должен выполнить в короткий срок, я не забываю и о моих
долгосрочных целях
9 Я пересматриваю свои цели, чтобы определить, нуждаются ли они в изменении
10 Я трансформирую комплексные и трудные проекты в меньшие задания, которыми
можно управлять
11 Я ставлю перед собой краткосрочные цели, которые я хочу достичь в течение
нескольких дней или недель
12 Я устанавливаю для себя предельный срок, за который я должен выполнить
задание
13 Я ищу пути для увеличения эффективности, с которой я выполняю свою работу
14 Я заканчиваю дела первостепенной важности, прежде чем переходить к менее
важным делам
15 Я анализирую свою ежедневную деятельность, чтобы понять, когда я теряю время
16 В течение рабочего дня я оцениваю, насколько я придерживаюсь расписания,
которое сам для себя установил
17 Я устанавливаю, какие задания имеют приоритетную важность, чтобы определить
порядок выполнения заданий каждый день
18 Я держу при себе книгу для записей, чтобы записывать заметки и идеи
19 Я планирую свои действия, как минимум, за неделю
20 Если я часто контактирую с кем-либо, я записываю имя, адрес и телефон этого
человека в специальном документе
21 Я составляю черновое расписание для действий, которые я должен выполнять
регулярно
22 Я делаю для себя заметки, чтобы напоминать себе о том, что я должен сделать
23 Мне легче найти нужные вещи, когда мое место в беспорядке и плохо
организовано, чем когда оно в чистоте и хорошо организовано
24 Я составляю список дел, которые нужно сделать каждый день и проверяю его по
мере выполнения дел
25 Я держу при себе дневник деловых встреч, или что-то в этом роде
26 Я ежедневно веду учет своих действий
27 Время, которое я трачу на составление расписания и организации моей работы –
потерянное время
28 Мои рабочие дни слишком непредсказуемы, чтобы составлять для них детальные
планы
29 Некоторые творческие идеи приходят ко мне, когда я неорганизован

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 68

30 Если я немного неорганизован, мне легче регулировать неожиданные события

31 Мне кажется, что я лучше выполняю работу, если я откладываю дела, которые я
могу выполнить, чем когда я стараюсь выполнить дела в порядке их значимости

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 69

Шкала времени
В данном разделе 26 пунктов. Каждое утверждение должно описывать какой-либо аспект вашего рабочего
места. Вы должны определить, насколько данные утверждения описывают ваше рабочее место, оценивая их
по баллам от 1 до 7. Если Вы полностью не согласны с каким-либо утверждением, дайте ему 1 балл, если же
Вы абсолютно согласны с каким-либо утверждением, дайте ему 7 баллов. Если у Вас промежуточное мнение,
выберете наиболее подходящий балл. Пожалуйста, оцените каждое утверждение.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Полностью Не согласен Не совсем Мне все Частично Согласен Абсолютно
не согласен согласен равно согласен согласен

№ Пункт 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Руководство предоставляет четкие директивы по выполнению
заданий
2 Обзор достижения целей проводится регулярно
3 Сотрудники обсуждают первоочередность выполнения заданий
4 Процессы, используемые для достижения целей, постоянно
проверяются
5 Работы связаны с ключевыми процессами, необходимыми для
достижения целей
6 Персонал совместно разрабатывает ежедневное расписание
7 Сотрудники обсуждают время, требуемое для выполнения заданий
8 Сотрудники обсуждают рабочие цели
9 Работы связаны с последовательностью выполнения заданий
10 Приоритетность выполнения заданий регулярно обсуждается с
начальством
11 Начальство заинтересовано в процессах, используемых для
выполнения заданий
12 Планирование проекта постоянно пересматривается
13 Планы по выполнению заданий разрабатываются совместно с
начальством
14 Постоянно поддерживается обратная связь в отношении суждений
персонала о приоритетности выполнения заданий
15 Продуктивное использование является ключевой ценностью
16 Предоставляются документы по должностным инструкциям
17 Время рассматривается как важный ресурс
18 Начальство способствует использованию техник управления
временем
19 Акцент делается на соблюдение крайних сроков
20 Персоналу предоставляются документу по практике управления
временем
21 Предоставляется обучение техникам управления временем
22 Выполнение проверяется по системе оценки выполнения
23 Сроки выполнения контракта обсуждается с клиентами
24 Сотрудники напоминают друг другу о назначениях
25 Организация разрабатывает годовой план
26 Поощряется планирование ежедневной работы

 
 The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 70

Временные отрезки работы

В данном разделе 49 пунктов. Это утверждения относительно различных временных отрезков на вашем
рабочем месте. Утверждения подходят к любым внешним условиям работы. Вы должны решить, насколько
точно каждое утверждение описывает ваше рабочее место, оценивая его от 1 (полностью не согласен) до 7
(абсолютно согласен). Используйте баллы от 1 до 7, чтобы точно описать ваше мнение. Пожалуйста, помните,
что нет правильных или неправильных ответов, есть просто то, что Вы думаете. Пожалуйста, оцените
каждое утверждение.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Полностью не Не согласен Не совсем Мне все равно Частично Согласен Абсолютно
согласен согласен согласен согласен

№ Пункт 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Сотрудники здесь считают, что предельные сроки не имеют
важности
2 Люди расстраиваются, когда Вы опаздываете с работой
3 Эта организация инвестирует свое будущее
4 Расписания обычно кажутся слишком уплотненными для
большинства крупных работ/проектов
5 Люди обычно надеются взять работу на дом
6 Большинство людей не думают о том, как они используют время
7 Здесь не обязательно быстро работать
8 Сотрудники здесь тщательно планируют свое время
9 Люди здесь любят поговорить о «добрых старых временах»
10 Чтобы выполнить свою работу, необходимо скоординировать свои
действия с другими
11 Люди стараются выполнять различные вещи каждый день
12 Некоторые отделы работают дольше, чем другие
13 Люди могут выполнять задания в любом порядке, при этом
выполняется их работа
14 Здесь важно придерживаться расписания
15 Здесь не заботятся, в какое время Вы приходите на работу
16 Здесь важно планирование будущего
17 Кажется, нам всегда недостаточно времени, чтобы сделать все
18 Люди надеются уйти в конце рабочего дня и беспокоиться о своей
работе
19 Здесь беспокоятся о правильном использовании времени
20 Люди ожидают, что Вы знаете, сколько времени у Вас займет
выполнение того или иного действия
21 Большинство людей могут работать в своем собственном темпе
22 Сотрудники здесь не могут использовать время по своему выбору
23 Люди должны работать вместе, чтобы выполнить задание
24 Нам кажется, что наши рабочие обязанности меняются каждую
неделю
25 Каждый работает примерно одинаковое количество часов, не
зависимо от работы, которую они выполняют
26 Чтобы выполнить работу, важно выполнять задания в особом
порядке
27 Важно уложиться в предельные сроки
28 Никто не заботится о том, опаздываете ли Вы после перерыва на
обед
29 Качественное выполнение ценится выше, чем быстрое
30 Задания занимают больше времени, чем при планировании
 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 71

31 Люди редко делают звонки, связанные с работой в нерабочее время

(по ночам или в выходные)
32 Большинство людей делают перерывы тогда, когда считают
нужным
33 Большинство людей здесь не могут устанавливать собственное
расписание
34 Кажется, что наша работа не очень меняется
35 Мы не уделяет большого внимания расписаниям
36 Если сотрудники опаздывают на работу на час, они целый день
проводят в напряжении
37 Никто не расстраивается, если Вы пропустили предельный срок
38 Если люди уезжают в отпуск, они должны сообщить начальству,
как их можно найти
39 Чтобы запланировать что-то новое, время найти легко
40 Вся наша работа строго расписана
41 На работе люди хотят только «убить время»
42 Важно все выполнять «в срок»
43 Ожидается, что сотрудники закончат работу к концу каждого дня
44 Сотрудники выполняют большую часть работы в соответствии с
предельными сроками
45 Лучше быстро принять плохое решение, чем медленно принять
хорошее.
46 Ожидается, что сотрудники будут быстро работать
47 Люди считают свою работу обычной
48 Люди выполняют что-либо, когда они готовы, а не по расписанию
49 Работа в команде здесь не имеет большого значения

Потребность решения проблем, Внутренняя динамика и скорость принятия решений

Пожалуйста, прочитайте каждый пункт и укажите, насколько вы согласны с каждым из утверждений,

используя 7-балльную шкалу. Пожалуйста, оцените каждое утверждение.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Полностью Не согласен Не совсем Мне все Частично Согласен Абсолютно
не согласен согласен равно согласен согласен

№ Пункт 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 В моей работе я сталкиваюсь с проблемами, которые мне раньше
не встречались
2 Мне необходимо быстро принимать решения
3 Проблемы, с которыми я имею дело, требуют глубоких знаний
производственного процесса в моей области
4 Я всегда принимаю решения в срок
5 Я часто принимаю решения, находясь в стрессовом состоянии, из-
за отсутствия времени
6 Я должен решать проблемы, которые не имеют очевидного
правильного решения
7 У меня достаточно времени, чтобы принять решение
8 Я часто чувствую, что у меня недостаточно времени, чтобы
принять решение

Варианты решения проблем

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 72

В данном разделе 31 утверждение. Каждое утверждение может описать какой-либо аспект вашего
рабочего места. Вы должны решить, насколько точно каждое утверждение описывает ваше рабочее
место. Используйте баллы от 1 до 5, чтобы как можно точнее описать ваше мнение. Пожалуйста,
заполните все пункты.

1 2 3 4 5
редко верно иногда верно верно так же часто, как и часто верно очень часто верно
неверно

№ Пункт 1 2 3 4 5
1 Если решение проблемы оказалось неудачным, я анализирую, почему это не
сработало.
2 Если я сталкиваюсь со сложной проблемой, я разрабатываю стратегию, чтобы
собрать информацию для четкого определения, что это за проблема.
3 Если мои первые попытки решить проблему оказываются неудачными, мне
становится нелегко управлять ситуацией.
4 После того, как проблема решена, я анализирую, чтобы было сделано правильно,
а что – нет.
5 Я обычно нахожу творческие и эффективные альтернативы для решения
проблемы.
6 Если пытаюсь решить проблему с помощью каких-либо действий, я сравниваю
действительный результат с тем результатом, которого я ожидал.
7 Если передо мной стоит проблема, я разрабатываю как можно больше путей для
ее решения до тех пор, пока мои идеи не закончатся.
8 Я способен решать большинство проблем даже в том случае, если изначально
решение не было очевидно.
9 Мне слишком трудно решать большинство проблем, с которыми я сталкиваюсь.
10 Я принимаю решения и в последствии остаюсь доволен ими.
11 При столкновении с проблемой, я стараюсь выполнить первое действие, которое
мне кажется подходящим для ее решения.
12 Иногда я не останавливаюсь и трачу время на решение моей проблемы, однако
при этом происходит путаница.
13 Принимая решение относительно какой-либо идеи или решения проблемы, я
обычно не трачу время на анализ успешности той или иной инициативы.
14 Если передо мной возникает проблема, я делаю паузу и размышляю о ней перед
тем, как сделать следующий шаг.
15 Обычно я стараюсь использовать первую идею, которая приходит мне в голову.
16 Когда я принимаю решение, я взвешиваю последствия каждой альтернативы и
сравниваю их между собой.
17 Когда я составляю планы для решения проблемы, я почти уверен, что они будут
работать.
18 Я стараюсь предвидеть общий результат реализации какого-либо действия.
19 Когда я пытаюсь разработать возможные пути решения проблемы, я не
отрабатываю многие альтернативные варианты.
20 Потратив достаточно времени и усилий, я верю, что могу решить большинство
проблем, с которыми я сталкиваюсь.
21 Если я сталкиваюсь с новой ситуацией, я уверен, что смогу решить проблемы,
которые могут возникнуть.
22 Даже когда я работаю над проблемой, иногда у меня возникает ощущение, что я
действую «на ощупь» и у меня нет реального выхода.
23 Я принимаю поспешные решения и впоследствии жалею о них.
24 Я доверяю своей способности решать новые и трудные проблемы.
25 У меня есть систематический способ сравнения альтернатив и принятия решений
26 При столкновении с проблемой я обычно не анализирую, что из моей внешней
среды может способствовать ее решению.
27 Если у меня возникают сложности при решении проблемы, первое, что я делаю –
это оцениваю ситуацию и рассматриваю всю доступную информацию.

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 73

28 Иногда я испытываю настолько сильные эмоции, что это мешает мне увидеть
различные пути решения проблемы.
29 После принятия решения я нахожу, что действительный результат совпадает с
ожидаемым.
30 При столкновении с проблемой, я не уверен, смогу ли ее решить.
31 Когда я знакомлюсь с проблемой, первое, что я делаю – это стараюсь понять ее.

Принятие решения: Внутренняя динамика

Процесс принятия решений составляет часть вашей работы. Процесс принятия решений может включать
определенное количество шагов. Каждый пункт, приведенный ниже, описывает какой-либо аспект
процесса принятия решений. Пожалуйста, прочитайте каждый пункт, и укажите, с помощью 7-балльной
шкалы, согласны Вы или не согласны с тем, что это утверждение Вам подходит. Пожалуйста,
заполните все пункты.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Полностью Не согласен Не совсем Мне все Частично Согласен Абсолютно
не согласен согласен равно согласен согласен

№ Пункт 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Определяю задания
2 Собираю информацию
3 Определяю цели
4 Нахожу альтернативы
5 Рассматриваю пути решения
6 Выбираю путь решения
7 Анализирую результаты

Личный рост

Шкала времени

Пожалуйста, прочитайте утверждения, приведенные ниже, и оцените ваше согласие или несогласие по
шкале 1-7. Пожалуйста, заполните все пункты.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Полностью Не согласен Не совсем Мне все Частично Согласен Абсолютно
не согласен согласен равно согласен согласен

№ Пункт 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Я чувствую личный рост и развитие, когда принимаю решение
2 Я люблю вызов, который бросает процесс принятия решений
3 Я чувствую, что решения, которые я принимаю, способствуют
продвижению моей организации.
4 Люди, которые вовлечены в процесс принятия решений в
компании, способствуют росту организации.

 
The Relationship between Time Management Factors and Decision-Making Processes 74

Удовлетворение от Процессов принятия решения и Уверенность в результатах

Каждое из утверждений, приведенных ниже, содержит мнение о процессах принятия решений.

Пожалуйста, прочитайте каждый пункт и укажите ваше согласие с каждым из утверждений, используя
ниже приведенную таблицу.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Полностью Не согласен Не совсем Мне все Частично Согласен Абсолютно
не согласен согласен равно согласен согласен

№ Пункт 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Я чувствую, что те усилия, которые я трачу на принятие решения,
должным образом вознаграждаются.
2 Я чувствую, что обладаю достаточными знаниями и умениями для
принятия решений.
3 Я чувствую гордость после принятия решения.
4 Иногда я чувствую, что решения, которые я принимаю на работе,
не имеют значения.
5 Я чувствую себя компетентным и полностью способным
принимать решения, связанные с моей работой.
6 Мои усилия для принятия правильного решения редко
блокируются бюрократизмом.
7 Я чувствую уверенность в том, что обладаю достаточными
полномочиями для принятия решений.
8 Я чувствую, что решения, которые я принимаю, ценятся.
9 Обычно я удовлетворен лицом, которое руководит моими
процессами принятия решений.
10 Я удовлетворен обратной связью после принятия решений.
11 Решения, которые я принимаю в процессе работы, это
единственное, чего от меня ожидают.
12 Процесс принятия решений доставляет мне удовольствие.
13 В нашей компании немногие получают вознаграждение за
принятие решений
14 Обычно я доволен лицами, которые вместе со мной участвуют в
процессе принятия решений.
15 Многие правила и установки компании затрудняют процесс
принятия решений.
16 Я люблю принимать решения в процессе работы.
17 Я абсолютно удовлетворен решениями, которые я принимаю в
процессе работы.
18 Я точно знаю, что от меня ожидают, когда я участвую в принятии
решений
19 Я удовлетворен количеством решений, которые я принимаю в
процессе работы.
20 Я удовлетворен тем признанием, которое я получил после
принятия хорошего решения.

Спасибо за ваше время!