Not everyone who procrastinates in starting a task or project procrastinates in completing it and vice versa. A recent study revealed some interesting patterns in the task characteristics that seem to affect one form of procrastination - delaying the start or delaying completion - but not the other.

I can start that JME manuscript next week, can't I?: The task characteristics behind why faculty procrastinate is the title of an interesting article published in August 2007 by David Ackerman and Barbara Gross (California State University, Northridge). Although their specific focus was on faculty procrastination, particularly research projects and writing, their results are important for everyone to consider, because they discuss the characteristics of tasks that may have an affect on our procrastination.

Task characteristics in the most general sense include things like the individual's perception of how difficult, boring, unpleasant or generally aversive a task is. Ackerman and Gross took this further in their study. Based on previous research, they included: 1) task importance (fear, norms, deadline pressure, rewards, interdependence), 2) task appeal (interest level, skill variety), and 3) task difficulty (scope of task, difficulty and clarity).

I like their research for three reasons. First, they define procrastination very clearly, "It involves knowing that one needs to carry out a task or undertake an activity yet failing to motivate oneself to do so within the desired or expected time frame . . . As contrasted with some delays that may serve a constructive purpose for the individual, procrastination is associated with subjective discomfort, including stress and guilt" (p. 97, emphasis added). It is important to note, as they do, that all procrastination is delay, but not all delay is procrastination.

Second, I really like their research because they focus on the task characteristics that may be contributing to our procrastination. Unlike personality factors that are difficult to change, task characteristics may be more amenable to short-term change to help reduce unnecessary task delay.

Finally, I like their paper because they provide practical guidance, based on their research, for how we might minimize procrastination and complete projects on time. I'll summarize their study and the findings before I present this practical guidance.

Their research
Using an online survey, Ackerman and Gross collected data from 147 faculty members across a variety of departments (e.g., finance, management, communications, psychology, education). Participants were "asked to recall an important project they had recently completed. . . and with the recalled project in mind, each respondent was then asked questions to measure procrastination and to measure 10 task-related variables expected to affect the amount of procrastination on the task" (p. 100).

Projects that participants recalled and described included: completing articles for publication, collecting or analyzing research data, writing grant applications, reviewing manuscripts, preparing presentations, writing cases, preparing class materials, grading, writing committee reports, etc.

After these recalled projects had been identified, Ackerman and Gross asked the participants to specify how many days ago they had hoped to start the project, when they actually started, as well as when they had hoped to finish and when they actually finished the project. A procrastination ratio for starting and completion was calculated, respectively. "For each of these measures, the response to the second question [actual time] was divided into the response to the first question [expected or desired time] . . ." (p. 100. The larger the ratio, the more the participant procrastinated on the task. A procrastination ratio of 1.0 indicated that there was no procrastination - the participant started or finished as expected, or without delay.

The task characteristics note above (i.e., the components of task importance, appeal an difficulty) were each measured with three items for which participants indicated their agreement. For example, for the component of "fear" within the task characteristic of Task Importance, the items were: 1) I worried that I wasn't going to do a good job, 2) I thought maybe I would perform poorly on that project, and 3) I wasn't confident I could do well on that project.

Their results
For the measure of starting time, the median (middle) procrastination ratio was 1.10. In other words, the time from when the participants had hoped to start the project until they did start was 10% longer than originally hoped. For the measure of completion time, the procrastination ratio was 3.50, meaning that the median or middle respondents took 3.5 times longer to complete the project than expected or hoped.

Comparing low and high procrastinators, they found that 7 of the 10 task-related measures differed significantly. To understand these results, it's important to remember that they had a procrastination measure for both starting and completing the tasks or projects. I'll briefly summarize each of the seven below.

Fear
Those participants who reported procrastinating more in completing their tasks reported significantly higher levels of fear relating to the task. In addition, those who did not delay the start of a task reported less fear. As Ackerman and Gross note, this supports the common belief that fear can produce a paralyzing effect. This also supports the contention I make in almost every post - "Just get started!" Once we get started, our perception of the task changes. I'll come back to this later.

Departmental norms
When there was a strong departmental norm "not to procrastinate," faculty members in this study reported completing their projects sooner than when departmental norms were not strong. Note, however, that this effect was for completion, not starting the tasks. There was no effect for departmental norms on starting the tasks.

Rewards for timely completion
Faculty members in this study who procrastinated both starting and completing their projects reported less rewards for starting early.

Interest
Those participants who procrastinated starting but not completing their tasks reported more interest in the task or project than did those who procrastinated BOTH starting and completing the task. This difference was not seen among the groups low in procrastination for starting, indicating that interest may play an important motivational role for procrastinators. (See "Lighting the fire for learning" to read more about interest and motivation.)

Task difficulty
Respondents reported more procrastination in completing projects that were perceived as difficult, especially those projects that they had also delayed starting.

Clarity
There was less procrastination in completing a project when faculty were clear about how to proceed. Furthermore, lack of clarity had a much greater impact on time to completion when participants had also procrastinated the start of the project.

Project Scope - how big is this project?
The scope of the project was related to a delay in starting but not a delay in completing the projects or tasks. Once a time-consuming project was started, its scope was not related to the completion time. (Again, "just get started" may be a key element to our success.)

What this means and the authors' advice
The authors highlight a few of their key findings:

1. Not everyone who procrastinates in starting a task or project procrastinates in completing it and vice versa, and task characteristics that seem to affect one form of procrastination (i.e., starting or completing) do not necessarily affect the other.

2. My constant mantra of "just get started" is challenged somewhat. The authors note, "A wider variety of factors affected faculty member procrastination in completing tasks or projects than on their start. Departmental norms, deadline pressures from competing tasks or projects, perceived difficulty of the task of project in question, and clarity about how to proceed all affected the amount of procrastination in completing the task or project in question but not whether a faculty member procrastinated on starting it" (p. 103).

3. The procrastination ratios reflected this difference between starting and completing a task as well, with a much higher median ration for completion date to actual completion date than there was for the starting date.

So, faculty members start projects and then "put them on the back burner" as other tasks vie for their attention such as grading or class preparation. Moreover, they're more likely to abandon the started project if it is seen as difficult, they lack clarity about how to proceed and if there are not strong norms for project completion.

We all juggle tasks like this, and these findings, as well as the authors' recommendations, bring our focus to the ". . . need to put concerted effort into maintaining momentum toward completion" (p. 104). For me, maintaining momentum is an issue of "getting started" anew each day. There's no magic to momentum as if the project begins to drive us. Each day we must make the commitment to start again on the next sub-task or sub-goal within the larger project.

As much as the difference between starting and completing projects seem to undermine the "just get started" approach, in the end the authors do come back to this crucial issue numerous times. For example, their findings related to fear and procrastination ". . . suggest that fear influenced some respondents to delay getting started, but once started, the fear diminished and this allowed for progress toward completion. . . This suggests that a good way to overcome fear with regard to a task or project is to get started and keep plowing forward. Once some work is accomplished, there is likely to be less fear pertaining to the remainder of the task or project" (p. 104).

Similarly, their analysis of trait procrastination in relation to project starting and completion indicates that participants who were highest in trait procrastination also reported having procrastinated on starting their projects. Interestingly, ". . . these same faculty members were often in the low procrastination group in completing the project or task in question. It may be that a self-perceived behavioral tendency to procrastinate primarily reflects starting, and those who consider themselves procrastinators may actually be quite efficient at getting done once they start" (p. 104).

Finally, in their final section of the paper where the authors suggest strategies for managers based on these findings, they write, "Often the best way to overcome one's fears is to push oneself to get started, focusing less on the project as a whole or its likely outcome and more on just one or a few immediate components . . . It is often helpful to start with a portion of the task that arouses the least fear. Having achieved a part of the task, the anxiety around other components often begins to diminish" (p. 105).

I may come back to the other recommendations that these authors make in a future post. For now, it remains clear. If you want to reduce your procrastination, just get started. Don't focus on mood repair, let task progress fuel your next step and success.

Reference
Ackerman, D.S., & Gross, B.L. (2007). I can start that JME manuscript next week, can't I?: The task characteristics behind why faculty procrastinate. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 97-110.

Blogger's Note: I'm on vacation until mid-July. I'll be back to my writing then - a sagacious delay if there ever was one - there's nothing like a holiday to refresh the spirit! ☺