Written by Oleg Kazantsev
Personal time management is one of the first skills we learn as we grow up and mature professionally. It defines how much, how well, and how timely we deliver our work, and how fulfilling it is for us. When it comes to time management of teams and organizations, the entrenched methodologies mostly concentrate on optimizing the workloads, eradicating the waste (of time and effort), and controlling for risks.
In the modern world, organizational time management methods were pioneered by the early 20th century industrialists (like Henry Ford’s conveyor assembly and Louis Brandeis’ scientific management). They were then streamlined with a focus on executive control when information science kicked off the third industrial revolution: think the Six Sigma quality control or the Waterfall methodology of the early software delivery. In recent decades, we introduced rhythm to iterative improvement to increase resiliency and constantly capture value: take Agile or Scrum, for example.
Figure 1: Principal Elements of 20th Century And 21st Century Management by Stephen Denning
All these approaches are useful. However, when it comes to coaching teams of individuals that operate in accordance with these methods, we often struggle to fit the messy, evolving landscape of human productivity into the neat shapes of academic theory. Have you ever participated in a waterfall project in which the work breakdown structure was beautiful on paper but had little to do with the reality of the workplace reality? Or an “Agile” program that went through all the rituals but still felt like a slow grind for a distant release?
In this article, we will talk about the psychology of time perception, how it shapes our productivity, and the types of labor we can achieve, individually and in teams.
In other words, we are going to move from time management to time stewardship.
Let us first agree on the terms. Management is about administration and control. Stewardship is about nurture and empowerment. Culturally, we are inclined to prefer one or the other, but in practice both are important to a well-running organization.
Secondly, let us acknowledge that at the end of the day, leaders do not control or empower processes, time, or value. Leaders control or empower people by focusing on the way they handle time, processes, and value.
So, what do we know about people and their motivations? A good model for us to examine is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Originally, it was designed by psychologist Abraham Maslow to explain human motivations shaped by human condition. The most immediate needs form the foundation of a pyramid. It takes a surplus of lower needs to graduate us to the needs of a higher order. So, what are the major conclusions?
Figure 2: Hierarchy of Needs by Abraham Maslow
Looking at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, his colleague Douglas McGregor drew conclusions regarding human motivation in labor. He dubbed his conclusions Theory X and Theory Y.
Theory X (Negative motivation):
Theory Y (Positive motivation):
Figure 3: Theory X and Theory Y by Douglas McGregor
In the recent years, McGregor’s Theory Y became the inspiration of a new generation of managerswho focus less on the control over execution and more on untapping the potential of individuals. It is especially common to see the Theory Y in Agile methodology trainings.
The Theory X, however, is also not always bad. If the risks of not meeting a benchmark far outweigh the gains from doing it excellently, the negative motivation may prove more appropriate – at least, temporarily.
Often, Theory X is conflated with abusive, toxic, bossy leadership. When we speak of Theory X below, we will be discussing the functional, healthy forms of control-focused management that don’t involve toxic power dynamics. As for Theory Y, it is already trendy and popular.
Theory Insights:
There is a lot of interpretations of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in the context of a workplace.
Now, let us change our lens and look at it from the temporal perspective (or the perspective of time).
Figure 4: Temporal Hierarchy of Needs
Let us start with the foundation of our pyramid of temporal needs: TIME ON TASK. We simply need enough time to do our tasks. When we are rushed to complete work ahead of our ability, we feel stressed, inadequate, and harbor a sense of failure. Often, people describe particularly hard stretches of their projects as “being on fire” or “walking the plank.” When left unchecked, this stress can drain and demotivate us (like in cases of Sunday anxiety or return-to-work productivity dip). On the other hand, if the people get enough work to fill their day without pressuring them, it could lead to a sense of closure and accomplishment.
What if we have enough time to complete our work, but someone criticizes, interrupts, or micromanages us the entire time? MISSION AUTONOMY is the second basic level of our pyramid. It signifies a sense of executive safety and self-agency. When it is lacking, the burden of micromanagement and mistrust can condition us to evade future work we are fully capable of completing (like in cases of procrastination and “one impossible task”). On the other hand, being trusted with a personal portfolio could empower us to assume greater responsibility.
With these two steps of our pyramid established, we are moving from Theory X to Theory Y.
RECOVERY & REST constitute the third level of the Temporal Hierarchy of Needs. After accomplishing one task and before transitioning to the next one, we want to spend time to rest, recover, celebrate, and acknowledge the humanity of us and everyone around us. Crucially, we do not want it to turn into just another chore or mandatory activity – or else we will fall back down to the first two steps of the pyramid. When it is natural and self-regulated, this step becomes the foundation of the team culture.
Now, let us say we complete our tasks on time, require no supervision, and have space to socialize. That is when we might be driven to LEARNING & INSIGHT. Curiosity is often described as active boredom. At this point, we aim to level up our knowledge or, alternatively, teach and mentor others. However, we need to differentiate this from mandatory trainings or task-specific knowledge transfer. They might be necessary at work, but they often register as tasks from the bottom two levels of our pyramid because we have no agency in choosing them.
Finally, we have the concept of INTROSPECTION. When done right, it could lead us to discovering the vision of the next step in our personal growth. We could untap our own dormant potential, if only we are given the chance to take a temporary step back from our professional journey, to meaningfully learn ourselves, and determine our next endeavor or better application of our skills. Usually, these a-ha moments come during non-mandatory retreats, parental leave, sabbaticals, or even vacations. When professionals feel that their employers support career flexibility and work-life balance, this self-discovery often leads them to choose more productive and strength-matching roles for themselves within the employer organization. At the same time, career rigidity or a “rat race” work culture could drive such self-actualized employees to seek fulfillment in other places.
Regarding time management, Theory X focuses on TIME ON TASK and MISSION AUTHONOMY. When it comes to time stewardship, Theory Y strives to improve RECOVER & REST, LEARNING & INSIGHT, and INTROSPECTION.
The modernist theories of time management concentrated on time as an objective resource that could be optimized universally. Work (i.e., human labor through time) could be broken down structurally, and risks of delays and rework could be accounted for by “padding” the milestones with some extra time for an occasional catch-up.
But human productivity and human creativity are not objective. They are functions of human condition, and human condition, to a big degree, is a biproduct of the subjective - perceived time we need in order to function, think, and create.
Let us capture this causality: TIME ACCESS à HUMAN CONDITION à PRODUCTIVITY/CREATIVITY
The art of time management and time stewardship, thus, comes to working this causality chain backwards.
Note: Often, it makes sense to break a large product into subproducts. For instance, UI/UX of a web application would lean toward Theory Y management, but its authentication and security would better fit Theory X.
Note: we cannot always stick to Theory Y or Theory X. Missing an important deadline? Time for more discipline and tighter control (Theory X). Unimaginative, half-baked end products? Time for empowerment and design thinking (Theory Y).
Whether you lean toward stewardship or management, the understanding of how time access shapes our labor is a crucial skill to any project, program, or even product manager.
We can interpret the five stages of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs through the lens of access to time (both objective and subjectively perceived).
When leading professional teams, we can mobilize them toward greater discipline or greater creativity by following the temporal (or timewise) interpretation of McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y of management.
My hope is that this will help you, the reader, to pave your own, unique way to productivity and self-fulfillment for your team, regardless of its challenge.
Written by Oleg Kazantsev
Personal time management is one of the first skills we learn as we grow up and mature professionally. It defines how much, how well, and how timely we deliver our work, and how fulfilling it is for us. When it comes to time management of teams and organizations, the entrenched methodologies mostly concentrate on optimizing the workloads, eradicating the waste (of time and effort), and controlling for risks.
In the modern world, organizational time management methods were pioneered by the early 20th century industrialists (like Henry Ford’s conveyor assembly and Louis Brandeis’ scientific management). They were then streamlined with a focus on executive control when information science kicked off the third industrial revolution: think the Six Sigma quality control or the Waterfall methodology of the early software delivery. In recent decades, we introduced rhythm to iterative improvement to increase resiliency and constantly capture value: take Agile or Scrum, for example.
Figure 1: Principal Elements of 20th Century And 21st Century Management by Stephen Denning
All these approaches are useful. However, when it comes to coaching teams of individuals that operate in accordance with these methods, we often struggle to fit the messy, evolving landscape of human productivity into the neat shapes of academic theory. Have you ever participated in a waterfall project in which the work breakdown structure was beautiful on paper but had little to do with the reality of the workplace reality? Or an “Agile” program that went through all the rituals but still felt like a slow grind for a distant release?
In this article, we will talk about the psychology of time perception, how it shapes our productivity, and the types of labor we can achieve, individually and in teams.
In other words, we are going to move from time management to time stewardship.
Let us first agree on the terms. Management is about administration and control. Stewardship is about nurture and empowerment. Culturally, we are inclined to prefer one or the other, but in practice both are important to a well-running organization.
Secondly, let us acknowledge that at the end of the day, leaders do not control or empower processes, time, or value. Leaders control or empower people by focusing on the way they handle time, processes, and value.
So, what do we know about people and their motivations? A good model for us to examine is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Originally, it was designed by psychologist Abraham Maslow to explain human motivations shaped by human condition. The most immediate needs form the foundation of a pyramid. It takes a surplus of lower needs to graduate us to the needs of a higher order. So, what are the major conclusions?
Figure 2: Hierarchy of Needs by Abraham Maslow
Looking at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, his colleague Douglas McGregor drew conclusions regarding human motivation in labor. He dubbed his conclusions Theory X and Theory Y.
Theory X (Negative motivation):
Theory Y (Positive motivation):
Figure 3: Theory X and Theory Y by Douglas McGregor
In the recent years, McGregor’s Theory Y became the inspiration of a new generation of managerswho focus less on the control over execution and more on untapping the potential of individuals. It is especially common to see the Theory Y in Agile methodology trainings.
The Theory X, however, is also not always bad. If the risks of not meeting a benchmark far outweigh the gains from doing it excellently, the negative motivation may prove more appropriate – at least, temporarily.
Often, Theory X is conflated with abusive, toxic, bossy leadership. When we speak of Theory X below, we will be discussing the functional, healthy forms of control-focused management that don’t involve toxic power dynamics. As for Theory Y, it is already trendy and popular.
Theory Insights:
There is a lot of interpretations of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in the context of a workplace.
Now, let us change our lens and look at it from the temporal perspective (or the perspective of time).
Figure 4: Temporal Hierarchy of Needs
Let us start with the foundation of our pyramid of temporal needs: TIME ON TASK. We simply need enough time to do our tasks. When we are rushed to complete work ahead of our ability, we feel stressed, inadequate, and harbor a sense of failure. Often, people describe particularly hard stretches of their projects as “being on fire” or “walking the plank.” When left unchecked, this stress can drain and demotivate us (like in cases of Sunday anxiety or return-to-work productivity dip). On the other hand, if the people get enough work to fill their day without pressuring them, it could lead to a sense of closure and accomplishment.
What if we have enough time to complete our work, but someone criticizes, interrupts, or micromanages us the entire time? MISSION AUTONOMY is the second basic level of our pyramid. It signifies a sense of executive safety and self-agency. When it is lacking, the burden of micromanagement and mistrust can condition us to evade future work we are fully capable of completing (like in cases of procrastination and “one impossible task”). On the other hand, being trusted with a personal portfolio could empower us to assume greater responsibility.
With these two steps of our pyramid established, we are moving from Theory X to Theory Y.
RECOVERY & REST constitute the third level of the Temporal Hierarchy of Needs. After accomplishing one task and before transitioning to the next one, we want to spend time to rest, recover, celebrate, and acknowledge the humanity of us and everyone around us. Crucially, we do not want it to turn into just another chore or mandatory activity – or else we will fall back down to the first two steps of the pyramid. When it is natural and self-regulated, this step becomes the foundation of the team culture.
Now, let us say we complete our tasks on time, require no supervision, and have space to socialize. That is when we might be driven to LEARNING & INSIGHT. Curiosity is often described as active boredom. At this point, we aim to level up our knowledge or, alternatively, teach and mentor others. However, we need to differentiate this from mandatory trainings or task-specific knowledge transfer. They might be necessary at work, but they often register as tasks from the bottom two levels of our pyramid because we have no agency in choosing them.
Finally, we have the concept of INTROSPECTION. When done right, it could lead us to discovering the vision of the next step in our personal growth. We could untap our own dormant potential, if only we are given the chance to take a temporary step back from our professional journey, to meaningfully learn ourselves, and determine our next endeavor or better application of our skills. Usually, these a-ha moments come during non-mandatory retreats, parental leave, sabbaticals, or even vacations. When professionals feel that their employers support career flexibility and work-life balance, this self-discovery often leads them to choose more productive and strength-matching roles for themselves within the employer organization. At the same time, career rigidity or a “rat race” work culture could drive such self-actualized employees to seek fulfillment in other places.
Regarding time management, Theory X focuses on TIME ON TASK and MISSION AUTHONOMY. When it comes to time stewardship, Theory Y strives to improve RECOVER & REST, LEARNING & INSIGHT, and INTROSPECTION.
The modernist theories of time management concentrated on time as an objective resource that could be optimized universally. Work (i.e., human labor through time) could be broken down structurally, and risks of delays and rework could be accounted for by “padding” the milestones with some extra time for an occasional catch-up.
But human productivity and human creativity are not objective. They are functions of human condition, and human condition, to a big degree, is a biproduct of the subjective - perceived time we need in order to function, think, and create.
Let us capture this causality: TIME ACCESS à HUMAN CONDITION à PRODUCTIVITY/CREATIVITY
The art of time management and time stewardship, thus, comes to working this causality chain backwards.
Note: Often, it makes sense to break a large product into subproducts. For instance, UI/UX of a web application would lean toward Theory Y management, but its authentication and security would better fit Theory X.
Note: we cannot always stick to Theory Y or Theory X. Missing an important deadline? Time for more discipline and tighter control (Theory X). Unimaginative, half-baked end products? Time for empowerment and design thinking (Theory Y).
Whether you lean toward stewardship or management, the understanding of how time access shapes our labor is a crucial skill to any project, program, or even product manager.
We can interpret the five stages of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs through the lens of access to time (both objective and subjectively perceived).
When leading professional teams, we can mobilize them toward greater discipline or greater creativity by following the temporal (or timewise) interpretation of McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y of management.
My hope is that this will help you, the reader, to pave your own, unique way to productivity and self-fulfillment for your team, regardless of its challenge.