Introduction: Towards a wider understanding of workplace procrastination

Procrastination appears as a problematic human behavior, and can be referred to as delaying an intended action even though the consequences may be worse off for the delay (Steel, 2007). Studies show that one out of four individuals define their procrastination as an identifying personality trait (Ferrari, Díaz-Morales, O’Callaghan, Díaz, & Argumendo, 2007); however, the main domain of procrastination research appears to be in an academic context, leaving scarce empirical evidence to identify this potentially problematic behavior for workplace domain (Klingsieck, 2013). This is interesting because most people spend approximately 40 hours a week at work and spend more than one hour a day engaging in non-work related or personal activities during work hours (D’Abate & Eddy, 2007). Workplace procrastination (i.e., engaging in non-work related behavior during work hours with no intention to harm colleagues, company, or clients) was reported to incur organizations with high costs, while yielding undesired outcomes for employees such as lower salaries, shorter durations of employment, and underemployment (Nguyen, Steel, & Ferrari, 2013). Therefore, it is crucial to understand the underlying mechanisms of procrastination in the work context as it might affect certain context-specific dynamics.

In an attempt to investigate the potential antecedents and consequences, as well as specific characteristics of workplace procrastination, the current issue presents six empirical studies that address important aspects of employee idleness. The first study provides findings based on interviews regarding the causes of procrastination within a very unique workforce, namely teachers working in hospitals. The second study highlights the importance of having a favorable person-job fit and a positive work-related state of mind, in achieving a higher performance and lower levels of procrastination through a heuristic model. The third study also tests a heuristic model and provides empirical evidence for the link between the leadership style and workplace procrastination. Moreover, it discusses how turnover intention and organizational citizenship behavior may potentially influence this link. The next study investigates whether personality plays a similar role in academic procrastination within the workplace context. This study relates conscientiousness, agreeableness, and neuroticism personality traits to procrastination at work, and examines the role of dis-regulation of anxiety as a potential mediator between personality and workplace procrastination. The fifth study presented in this issue examines the relationship between online, decisional, general procrastination and the moderating effect of negative affect on these relationships. Due to the proliferation of online communication and mobile technology as important elements within the contemporary occupational world, it is therefore important to acknowledge and test the characteristics associated with online procrastination as a form of workplace procrastination. The last paper of this issue aims to define workplace procrastination more concisely by distinguishing it from recovery at work, which is similar yet distinct non-work related behavior.

Overall, the current issue presents valuable empirical findings to discover the nature of workplace procrastination in contemporary organizations by presenting data from various sectors and different cultures. By doing so, it is not only intended to catch the essentials of this slippery concept by adding research to this topic, but also to present potential suggestions for interventions to prevent this detrimental behavior. The implications presented to both occupational researchers and practitioners can help understand the new realms of irrational delays and diminish the negative outcomes related to such self-regulatory failure behaviors of employees.