The mediating effects of time structure on the relationships between time management behaviour, job satisfaction, and psychological well‐being

Abstract

This article examined the relationship between time structure and Macan's process model of time management. This study proposed that time structure—‘appraisal of effective time usage’—would be a more parsimonious mediator than perceived control over time in the relationship between time management behaviours and outcome variables, such as job satisfaction and psychological well‐being. Alternative structure models were compared using a sample of 111 university students. Model 1 tested Macan's process model of time management with perceived control over time as the mediator. Model 2 replaced perceived control over time by the construct of time structure. Model 3 examined the possibility of perceived control over time and time structure as being parallel mediators of the relationships between time management and outcomes. Results of this study showed that Model 1 and Model 2 fitted the data equally well. On the other hand, the mediated effects were small and partial in both models. This pattern of results calls for reassessment of the process model.

Key words:

• development
• developmental processes
• developmental stages
• industrial/organizational psychology
• intergroup processes
• organizational behavior
• time perception
• group
• time management

INTRODUCTION

The study of time structure (Bond & Feather, 1988) and time management behaviours (Macan, Shahani, Dipboye, & Phillips, 1990) have existed in parallel in the studies of unemployed and work/study populations since the late 1980s. Recently, Kelly (2003) conducted the first empirical research that used both Time Structure Questionnaire (TSQ) (Bond & Feather, 1988) and Time Management Behaviour Scale (TMBS) (Macan et al., 1990) in the study of worry behaviours among university students. Kelly found that time structure was negatively related to worry, but time management behaviour was not. This is of great interest as Kelly's findings appear to contradict many previous studies, which have suggested that time management behaviours positively predict psychological consequences, such as personal well‐being, work and life satisfaction (e.g., Barling, Kelloway, & Cheung, 1996; Macan et al., 1990; Peeters & Rutte, 2005). Further, Kelly did not investigate the possible relationships between the two independent measures, possibly due to the lack of interaction between the two literatures historically. This is unfortunate, as time structure is about the appraisal of effective time usage and is intuitively related to time management. The current study is designed to clarify not only the relationship between time management behaviours, time structure and the dependent variables of job satisfaction and psychological well‐being, but also the associations between the two independent measures. Moreover, this study argues that time structure mediates the relationship between time management behaviours and the dependent variables.

The mediating role of time structure

Past researches have shown substantial overlap in the reported outcomes between the time structure research (Bond & Feather, 1988) and time management research (Macan et al., 1990). However, there has been no attempt to compare or integrate these two literatures either theoretically or empirically. Kelly's (2003) study was the only one that we found that included both scales in their study of worry behaviours. However, Kelly did not examine the theoretical or empirical relationships between time structure and time management. This study conceptualises time structure as an evaluative attitude towards an individual's usage of time, which should have a direct relationship with the ‘behaviours’ of time management. To illustrate, the perception that personal time was purposefully utilised would be congruent with individuals' deliberate behavioural manifestations of time management (Festinger, 1957). Thus, overt behaviours such as setting goals and priorities and making a list of things to do should provide structures and routines, as well as a sense of purpose.

The objective of this research is to propose a more parsimonious underlying mechanism for time management and related outcomes. Specifically, this study proposes that time structure serves as a stronger mediator in the relationship between time management and outcomes in comparison to perceived control. Prior to investigating this relationship, the concepts of ‘time structure’ and ‘perceived control’ will be first disentangled.

The concept of time structure

Developed by Feather and Bond (1994), the TSQ was specifically aimed at measuring the level in which individuals used their time in a structured and purposeful manner. Time structure is the extent to which individuals perceive their use of time as being well‐structured, organised, and purposeful (Feather & Bond, 1983). Thus, individuals who perceive that their time structure is clear are likely to set time and activities to reach a certain goal. On the other hand, individuals with ill‐defined sense of time structure are susceptible to time‐wastage and experience difficulties in achieving their goals.

Initial work on the TSQ revealed six factors, but five factors were retained. These were structured routine, sense of purpose, present orientation, effective organization, and persistence. Thus, individuals scoring high on structured routine are likely to adhere to daily routines and cater time to activities to ensure tasks are completed. Those scoring on persistence are likely to persevere through challenging tasks, while those who are rated as present orientation are more likely to be cognisant of the here and now and behave in a manner reflective of the present. Individuals who score high on sense of purpose are likely to perceive their times are filled with meaningful and valuable activities. Lastly, individuals who scored high on effective organisation are likely to be highly organised and rarely waste time on trivial activities.

Research has shown that time structure is positively associated with individuals' behaviour, positive esteem, reported health and optimism (Bond & Feather, 1988), and Type A behaviours (competitive behaviour, Mudrack, 1999). Conversely, a lack of time structure has been linked with depression, psychological distress, anxiety, neuroticism, physical symptoms, hopelessness, and anomie (Bond & Feather, 1988; Feather & Bond, 1994).

THE PROCESS MODEL OF TIME MANAGEMENT BEHAVIOUR

The TMBS (Macan, 1994) was developed to measure the four categories of time management behaviours. The categories were setting goals and priorities, mechanics of time management behaviours, preference for organisation, and perceived control of time. Setting goals and priorities includes ‘items that tap the setting of goals the person wants or needs to accomplish and prioritising of the various tasks to achieve these goals’ (Macan et al., 1990, p. 761). Mechanics of time management refers to the ‘behaviours typically associated with managing time, such as making lists and planning’ (Macan et al., 1990, p. 761). Preference for organisation refers to a reverse‐scored factor that includes items measuring ‘a general preference for disorganisation in one's workspace and approach to projects’ (Macan et al., 1990, p. 761). Perceived control of time describes the individual's perception of control with respect to how time is spent. Specifically, it refers to the belief that one maintains authority on how personal time is spent while deriving a sense of knowledge that one is in command of one's time. Macan (1994) later altered her model to include only three categories, claiming the last; perceived control of time was a mediator. Macan's (1994) new model hypothesised that time management behaviours influence individuals' perception of control over time, which in turn predicts job induced and somatic tensions, job performance and satisfaction. Factor structure and reliabilities of the TMBS subscales were established in the original studies, which surveyed both college students and organisation employees (Macan, 1994; Macan et al., 1990).

Empirical research has supported the relationship between time management behaviours and outcomes hypothesised by the process model (Macan et al., 1990). However, research investigating the mediating role of perceived control has been less conclusive. An individual's perceived control over time was found to mediate the effect of time management behaviours on self‐reported job performance, work and life satisfaction, role ambiguity, role overload, and job‐induced and somatic tensions (Macan, 1994; Macan et al., 1990), but no significant relationship was found between perceived control of time and supervisors' ratings of job performance (Macan, 1994). To further demonstrate perceived control of time as a weak mediator, Davis (2000) found that the perception only acted as a mediator in the relation between preference for organisation and outcome variables of work‐related tension, somatic tension, and job satisfaction.

The complex role of perceived control of time in the process model was further demonstrated by Barling et al. (1996) when they found that individual differences in striving for achievement moderate the effect of perceived control in predicting performance. Barling et al. argued: ‘Engaging in time management behaviours offers one a means of effectively controlling the environment and is likely to have its greatest effect for individuals with a strong desire to exert such control’ (Barling et al., 1996, p. 882).

Although both time structure and perceived control of time have been used consistently in the past literature, the difference lies in their inherent affect on the individual. For instance, time structure represents individuals' personal appraisal of how their time was spent; that is, their reflection on whether time was used in a meaningful and purposeful manner. On the other hand, perception of control over time solely describes individuals' belief that they are in command of their time. Furthermore, perceived control of time does not comprise any evaluation component of how time was actually spent.

Although both time structure and perceived control over time are plausible mediators in the individual time management–psychological outcomes relationships, time structure has the advantage of parsimony (Whetton, 1989). The mediating effect of time structure does not assume a deeper psychological process, unlike perceived control, which assumes individuals make inferences on how much control they have through comparing the differences between the desired and actual level of control. Instead, time structure reflects individuals' appraisals of their effective use of time, which should be influenced directly by how individuals manage their time. Consequently, time structure makes a more parsimonious mediator for the relationships between time management behaviours and psychological outcomes, such as job satisfaction and psychological well‐being.

PROPOSED MODEL

The current study proposed to test the mediating role of time structure in the relationships between time management behaviour and job satisfaction and psychological well‐being. Time management behaviours are hypothesised to predict job satisfaction and psychological well‐being via the mediator of time structure. It was also proposed that perceived control over time would either not be a mediator, or be a weaker mediator than time structure in this new model. Job satisfaction and psychological well‐being were chosen as the outcome variables in this study, as these two psychological outcomes represent the outcomes measured in both the time management behaviours and time structure literatures separately.

Time management behaviours have been found to positively predict job satisfaction and psychological well‐being. Griffiths (2003), Hall and Hursch (1982), and Macan (1996) reported a positive relationship between time management behaviours and job satisfaction in university staff members, employees of public social service and a department of correction system, and a group of autonomous and unsupervised teleworkers. Van Eerde (2003) demonstrated that individuals who are able to set goals and priorities, manage their times, prefer to work in organised surroundings, and have relative perceptions of control of their time, are less likely to have issues with psychological well‐being.

Psychological well‐being has been a key outcome variable studied in the unemployment literature (Kilpatrick & Trew, 1985; McKee‐Ryan, Song, Wanberg, & Kinicki, 2005; Winefield, Tiggerman, Winefield, & Goldney, 1991), which is the basis for time structure research. In a recent meta‐analysis of 104 empirical studies, McKee‐Ryan et al. (2005) reported that unemployed individuals possessed a lower level of psychological and physical well‐being compared with individuals who sustained employment. Furthermore, time structure has been identified as a key reason accounting for this difference between employed and unemployed people (Feather & Bond, 1994; Kilpatrick & Trew, 1985; Winefield & Tiggerman, 1989; see discussion above).

The proposed mediated role of time structure will be examined by comparing three possible models derived from previous research. Model 1 (Fig. 1) will be Macan's (1994) process model of time management with perceived control over time as the mediator. Model 2 will replace perceived control over time by the construct of time structure. Model 3 will test the possibility of perceived control over time and time structure as being parallel mediators of the relationships between time management and outcomes.

Figure 1 Proposed testing Model 1 based on Macan's (1994) study.

Model 1

Perceived control of time would mediate relationship between time management behaviour (goal setting and priority, time management mechanics, and preference to organisation) and the outcomes (psychological well‐being and job satisfaction) (Fig. 1).

Model 2

Time structure would mediate relationship between time management behaviour (goal setting and priority, time management mechanics, and preference to organisation) and the outcomes (psychological well being and job satisfaction) (Fig. 2).

Figure 2 Proposed testing Model 2 based on Feather and Bond's (1983) model.

Model 3

Both perceived control over time and time structure would mediate relationship between time management behaviour (goal setting and priority, time management mechanics, and preference to organisation) and the outcomes (psychological well being and job satisfaction) (Fig. 3).

Figure 3 Proposed testing Model 3 by integrating perceived control (PCOT) and time structure (TS) as the mediators.

It is hypothesised that Model 2 should fit the data better than Model 1 or Model 3.

METHOD

Participants

One hundred and eleven students participated in this study as part of a class project. Within this sample group, 50.5% were males and 49.5% were females. The age range was from 17 years to 46 years, with a mean of 21.01 (SD = 5.24) years. Participants were asked to distribute a score of 100 into three activities: work, study, and domestic duties. Participants were asked to select the activity with the highest score as their primary activity; 65.8% of the respondents reported that university study was their primary activity, while only 5.48% claimed that housework and other domestic duties were their primary activities. A remaining 24.8% responded that employment was their primary activity.

Measures

Time management behaviour scale

Derived from Macan et al. (1990), TMBS contains 23 items measuring time management behaviours. There were three subscales, that is, goal setting, time management mechanics, and preference for organisation. On a 5‐point scale (‘seldom true’ to ‘very often true’), participants were asked to identify their behaviours and time management skills (e.g., ‘I evaluate my daily schedule’ and ‘I write reminder notes to myself’).

Perceived control over time

Originating from the TMBS (Macan et al., 1990), five items were used to measure individuals' perception of control over their time usage. Measurement was recoded using a 5‐point scale (‘seldom true’ to ‘very often true’), participants were asked to indicate their perception of control over time (e.g., ‘I feel in control of my time’ and ‘I must spend a lot of time on unimportant tasks’.

Time structure questionnaire

Feather and Bond's (1983) TSQ consisted of 18 items and measured the way individuals structure their day. Using a 5‐point scale (‘seldom true’ to ‘very often true’), participants were asked to indicate their time structure behaviours (e.g., ‘Do you often feel that your life is aimless, with no definite purpose?’ and ‘Do you plan your activities from day to day?’).

Job satisfaction

Two items from the Job Diagnostic Survey developed by Hackman and Oldham (1974) were incorporated to obtain participants' levels of job satisfaction. Participants were asked to rate on a 5‐point rating scale (1 = ‘seldom true’ to 5 = ‘very often true’) to indicate their perception of job satisfaction (e.g., ‘Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with what I do’).

Psychological well‐being

Psychological well‐being was measured using Goldberg's (1972) General Health Questionnaire. This construct was measured with 12 items and measured participants' levels of personal health and psychological well‐being. For instance, questions asked were ‘Lost much sleep over worry?’ and ‘Been losing self‐confidence in yourself?’ Items were rated on a 5‐point rating scale (1 = ‘seldom true’ to 5 = ‘very often true’) to indicate their health and psychological well‐being over the last few weeks.

Procedure

Students participated in this study as part of their class project for a business unit. Participants were informed that the questionnaire was interested in students' experiences for their primary activity (work, home, or university). The purpose of the project was explained to students in class, and they were asked to answer as honestly as they could. In addition, they were assured that all responses and information were confidential, and that at no stage would their names be linked with their results. Both the questionnaire and the data analyses in this study were used as teaching tools in the course. This gave students a reason to provide better quality data for their own educational experience.

RESULTS

Schreiber, Nora, Stage, Barlow, and King (2006) argued that the sample size of a study is important as ‘it relates to the stability of the parameter estimates. . . . For one sample analysis, there is no exact rule for the number of participants needed; but 10 per estimated parameter appears to be the general consensus’ (p. 326). For this specific reason, the researchers chose to report path analysis rather the full SEM. Furthermore, measurement and properties of the IVs, the mediators, and the DVs in three Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were examined separately.

Confirmatory factor analysis

Three confirmatory factor analyses with Mplus V5.21 were conducted to examine the factor structures of the IVs, the mediators, and the DVs. To assess the fit of the hypothesised underlying factor structure, several fit indices were examined. Table-1 reported the chi‐square statistic, its degrees of freedom, the chi‐square/df ratio, the CFI, the TLI and the RMSEA for all CFA.

Table 1 Confirmatory factor analysis for the IVs, mediators, and DVs

	Number of items	χ^2	df	χ^2/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
Scale	20	325	203	1.81	0.85	0.83	0.07
IVs
DVs	9	125	73	1.71	0.92	0.9	0.08
Two mediators (PCOT and TS)	19	198	147	1.35	0.91	0.89	0.06
One mediator (PCOT and TS as one factor)	19	207	148	1.40	0.89	0.87	0.06
Items				Factor 1 (TS)		Factor 2 (PCOT)
Perceived control of time
I feel in control of my time.				0.70 (0.06)
I find it difficult to keep a schedule because others take me away from my work				0.39 (0.09)
I underestimate the time that it would take to accomplish tasks				0.57 (0.08)
I must spend a lot of time on unimportant tasks				0.62 (0.07)
I find myself procrastinating on tasks that I don't like but that must be done				0.57 (0.08)
Time structure
Do you often feel that your life is aimless, with no definite purpose?						0.53 (0.08)
Do you ever feel that the things you have you do during the day just don't seem to matter?						0.57 (0.07)
Do you get bored with your day to day activities?						0.39 (0.09)
Do you have a daily routine which you follow?						0.26 (0.10)
Do you plan your activities from day to day?						0.24 (0.10)
Do you plan your activities so that they fall into a particular pattern during the day?						0.30 (0.09)
Many of us tend to daydream; do you find this happening to you?						0.43 (0.09)
Do you spend time thinking about opportunities that you have missed?						0.36 (0.09)
Do you find that during the day you are often not sure what to do next?						0.68 (0.06)
Do you take a long time to ‘get‐going’?						0.57 (0.07)
Do you tend to change rather aimlessly from one activity to another during the day?						0.66 (0.06)
Once you've started an activity, do you persist at it until you have completed it?						0.76 (0.05)
Do you give up easily once you've started something?						0.34 (0.09)
Do you have any difficulty in finishing activities once you've started them?						0.68 (0.06)

IVs

The fit indexes for CFA were less than satisfactory; however, a decision was made to not to further modify the model, as fit indexes were expected to be lower with the small sample size (Marsh, Balla, & McDonald, 1988), and it was important to reserve the content validity of these scales. Only one item (‘I organize tasks by preference’) was removed from the preference to the organisation scale due to the extremely small factor loading (standardised YX = 0.05, p = .63). Norman and Streiner (1994, p. 139) provided an alternative formula for minimum loadings when the sample size, N, is 100 or more: Min FL = 5.152/[SQRT(N − 2)]. Therefore, the minimum factor loading for this CFA was 0.19 or above. The smallest factor loading for all remaining items were 0.26 (p < .01).

Mediators

It was hypothesized that time structure would replace perceived control over time as the more parsimonious mediator in the process model. Thus, it is important to first demonstrate that time structure (TS) and perceived control (PCOT) are two distinct constructs. Two separate CFAs were conducted to compare the 2‐factor solution (PCOT and TS as two separate constructs) and the 1‐factor solution (PCOT and TS as one factor) (see Table-1). Results showed that the 2‐factor solution fit the data well. Furthermore, the 2‐factor solution fit the data significantly better than a 1‐factor solution. The solution suggested that moderate level of covariance existed between time structure and perceived control over time. However, this was to be expected theoretically. The correlation between time structure and perceived control over time was moderate (r = 0.06, p < .01; see Table-2); thus demonstrating that these were two distinct constructs. Factor loadings for individual items in these two scales were reported in Table-1, as they are the focal constructs in this article.

Table 2 Internal consistency alphas and correlations between time management behaviour dimensions, time structure, perceived control over time, job satisfaction, and psychological well‐being

Variables	Mean	SD	Job satisfaction	Psych.well‐being	Time structure	Perceived control over time	Goal setting	Time MM
Job satisfaction	3.47	0.82	(0.88**)
Psych well‐being	3.71	0.67	0.31**	(0.89**)
Time structure	4.60	0.74	0.31*	0.40**	(0.79**)
Perceived control over time	3.09	0.72	0.29**	0.40**	0.60**	(0.72**)
Goal set	3.59	0.64	0.35**	0.21*	0.41**	0.29**	(0.77**)
Time MM	2.94	0.79	0.23*	0.00	0.33**	0.12	0.47**	(0.83**)
Pref org	3.55	0.79	0.29**	0.43**	0.53**	0.43**	0.19*	0.32** (0.76**)

* p < .05,

** p < .01.

Time MM = time management mechanics.

DVs

The fit indexes for CFA were satisfactory. All items in the psychological well‐being and job satisfaction scales were retained. The smallest factor loading in this group was 0.42 (p < .00).

Zero‐order correlations

The means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of all variables included in this study are presented in Table-2. Results showed that time structure has a significant positive relationship with goal setting, time management mechanics, and preference for organisation, r = 0.41, 0.33, and 0.53, p < .01 for all. Time structure also had significantly positive relationships with job satisfaction, r = 0.31, p < .01, and psychological well‐being, r = 0.31, p < .01. Results of this study also showed that job satisfaction was significantly correlated to individuals' tendencies to set goals and priorities, r = 0.35, p < .01, and to utilise time management mechanics, r = 0.23, p < .05. Furthermore, job satisfaction was significantly related to individuals' preferences for organisation, r = 0.29, p < .01. Psychological well‐being was significantly associated with individuals' tendencies to set goals and priorities, r = 0.21, p < .05, and preferences for organisation, r = 0.43, p < 0.15. However, psychological well‐being did not significantly correlate with time management mechanics. Perceived control over time did not significantly correlate with time management mechanics either. Note that perceived control over time and time structure was only moderately correlated, r = 0.60, p < .01.

Mediational model analysis

Mediation is the influence of a third variable on a relationship, ‘which represents the generative mechanism through which the focal independent variable is able to influence the dependent variable of interest’ (Baron & Kenny, 1986). To test for mediation, therefore, it is necessary to demonstrate that (1) both the independent and mediating variables are related to the dependent; (2) the independent variable is related to the mediating variable; and (3) the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable becomes nonsignificant or is reduced significantly when controlling for the mediating variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

To test the role of the mediators, two path analysis models were run, one for each mediator. The models were analysed using Mplus V5.21. In both models, the two DVs (job satisfaction and psychological well‐being) were regressed onto the mediator (perceived control over time in Model 1, and time structure in Model 2), which in turn were regressed onto the three IVs (goal setting and prioritizing, preference for organisation and time management mechanics). The models thus specified both the direct and indirect paths, following the procedure outlined in MacKinnon (2008). Initial testing of the models revealed that time management mechanics scale was behaving aberrantly, leading to suppression effects in their relationship with one of the mediators, time structure, and one of the DVs, psychological well‐being. The consequence of this instability was that the tests of mediation could not be trusted adequately, and comparisons between the two theoretical models were thus difficult. We thus chose to remove time management mechanics as a predictor, and instead focused only upon the remaining two DVs.

With time management mechanics removed, the two models were run again. AIC was used to compare the 2 models, as this is the most commonly used index for non‐nested model comparison. Second, as Model 1 and Model 2 shared identical IVs and DVs, but a different mediator, comparison of the indirect effects of the two mediators using the following formula: Z = b1 − b2/SQRT(se1 * se1 + se2 * se2) (Cohen, 1983; Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, & Piquero, 1998) was conducted. Fig. 4 showed the comparisons of the two models.

Figure 4 Comparisons of Model 1 and Model 2. Note. Fit indexes were not reported here as we tested the saturated models as suggested by MacKinnon (2008).

McCoach and Black (2008) suggested that AIC differences larger than 10 to be very strong evidence. Results of the study showed that Model 2 had a substantially smaller sample size adjusted AIC (1135.964) than Model 1 (1147.039). Thus, on this criteria, Model 2 appeared to be a superior model than Model 1. Time structure also accounted for a larger proportion of the variance (R² = 0.38) than perceived control over time (R² = 0.23), due to the stronger relationships between TMB and time structure. However, comparison of the model paths and indirect effects suggested that the two models were not significantly different in direct and indirect effects. z‐scores for differences in the two models' effect sizes were found to be not significant for all the direct or indirect effects.

Thus, the hypothesis that Model 2 would have a better fit was not supported. Results of our study showed that time structure was an equally good but not superior mediator in the relationships between TMB (goal setting and preference for organisation) and psychological outcomes (job satisfaction and psychological well‐being). However, the mediation effects were only partial. In both models, strong direct effects were observed. Furthermore, these direct effects were found to be much stronger than the indirect effects (see Fig. 4).

DISCUSSIONS

This study examined the exact relationship between time management behaviours, perceived control over time, time structure, psychological well‐being, and job satisfaction. Specifically, this study examined three competing models. Model 1 tested Macan's (1994) process model of time management with perceived control over time as the mediator (Fig. 1). Model 2 replaced perceived control over time by the construct of time structure (Fig. 2). Model 3 examined the possibility of perceived control over time and time structure as being parallel mediators of the relationships between time management and outcomes (Fig. 3). It was hypothesised that Model 2 would fit the data best. Results of the study did not support this hypothesis. Results of this study found that Model 1 and Model 2 fitted the data equally well. Both perceived control over time and time structure mediated the relationships between two TMB behaviours (goal setting and preference for organisation) and psychological outcomes (job satisfaction and psychological well‐being). This was an interesting finding as no previous literature has empirically assessed the relationship between TMB and time structure.

Researchers have referred to time structure and time management as two distinct but related constructs (Macan, Shahani, Dipboye, & Phillips, 1990; Bluedorn & Denhardt, 1988; Claessens, van Eerde, Rutte, & Roe, 2007). However, results of the current study showed that time structure is an equally good, if not a better mediator in the relationships between time management behaviours and psychological outcomes. Results of this study showed individuals' setting goals and priorities and their preference for organisation increase their time structure—structured routines, sense of purpose, present orientation, effective organisation, and persistence—which in turn increase psychological well‐being, and, to a lesser extent, job satisfaction.

However, the mediation effects were only partial. Direct effects were observed in both models, and these direct effects were much stronger than the indirect effects (see Fig. 4). Goal setting and prioritising had a strong direct effect, while job satisfaction and preference to organisation had a strong direct effect with psychological well‐being over and above the mediated effects via perceived control over time or time structure. These patterns of results are consistent with the ‘partial mediations’ found by many others in the area (see Claessens, van Eerde, Rutte, & Roe, 2007 for a summary). Altogether, these findings call for further investigation into the underlying mechanisms via which time management behaviours influence psychological outcomes.

Finally, time management mechanics had no significant relationship with psychological well‐being and perceived control over time. This is parallel to Macan et al.'s (1990, Macan, 1994) earlier studies, which also found non‐significant relationships between time management mechanics and job satisfaction, as well as perceived control over time. The replication of these non‐significant findings questioned the validity of leaving time management mechanics in the process model of time management.

The original aim of Macan's studies was to categorise the time management behaviours promoted in various forms of time management training. Macan and her colleagues validated the structure of the TMB scale in their earlier studies, and results of our study supported this finding. On the other hand, Macan and her colleagues did not find a significant link between time management mechanics and perceived control over time and job satisfaction. These non‐significant paths were overlooked as the main focus of the earlier studies was to validate the TMB scales.

On closer examination of Macan's development of the TMBS, mechanics of time management refers to a collection of ‘mechanical behaviours’, such as handling letters and memos, carrying an appointment book, making a list of things to do, and write reminder notes to self. On the other hand, goal setting and prioritising encompass not only the physical behaviours of setting goals and prioritising, but the necessary cognitive processes of short‐term and long‐term planning before a goal can be set and prioritised. Similarly, preference for organisation captures more than the physical activities of being organised; it encapsulates an individual's disposition to live a structured life. Perhaps it is through these cognitive and dispositional factors that an individual gains a sense of purpose, structure, and control, and therefore better job satisfaction and psychological well‐being.

The results of our study raise the question as to why Kelly (2003) did not find any relationship between time management behaviour and worry. Is the concept of worry so different from well‐being and satisfaction such that one would expect different patterns of results? Alternatively, is the non‐significant finding an artifact of sample or methods employed in Kelly's study?

In his study, Kelly (2003) did not offer a specific definition of worry, however, authors such as Zebb and Beck (1998) conceptualise worry to be ‘cognitive in nature, focusing on excessive or unrealistic concern about future events’ (p. 51). Many researchers have postulated that worry is closely related to fear (Borkovec, Robinson, Pruzinsky, & DePree, 1983), procrastination, and perfectionism (Stober & Joorman, 2001). Breznitz (1971) likened worry to an internal TOTE loop (Test‐Operate‐Test‐Exit), with no Exit, meaning that worriers endure a vicious cycle of internal testing, before decision making or actualisation. Unique to other forms of psychological well‐being factors (e.g., anxiety and depression), worriers have an inclination to delay the planning of activities, especially when ambiguity and abruptness are apparent (Metzger, Miller, Cohen, Sofka, & Borkovec, 1990).

Van Eerde (2003) examined the impact of time management training on procrastination and worry. In this study, she reported an increase in time management behaviours and a decrease in avoidance behaviours (procrastination) and worry in trainees 1 month after the training. However, in the correlation matrix reported at Time 1, Van Eerde found a significant relationship between time management behaviour and procrastination, but there were no relationships between time management behaviour and worry. On the other hand, Van Eerde (personal communication, 5 December 2005) found significant relationships between time management behaviour and worry in the same study with a larger and less restricted sample, and this relationship was significant at Time 2 as well. Thus, future research is needed to examine the exact relationship between time management behaviour and worry.

Theoretical and practical implications

As elaborated in the introduction, structured time is more of a personal evaluation of the purposefulness of time usage. Thus, it not only has a behavioural element, but also one of cognition. To illustrate, there are days when you may feel that you are actively involved with many undertakings; however, you may still feel as though you have not achieved much. Such instances can lead to negative avenues of psychological and emotional release, such as the criticism of self. Whelton and Greenberg (2005) found that students who were highly self‐critical displayed more contempt and disgust with themselves compared with students who were less self‐critical. Thus, in promoting perceptions of purposeful time usage and psychological well‐being, it is useful to consider viable methods of training.

Time management training has been extensively covered within the literature (e.g., Abernathy, 1999; Green & Skinner, 2005; Macan, 1996; Orpen, 1993; Slaven & Totterdell, 1993); however, results have been mixed. Slaven and Totterdell (1993) conducted management courses over 2 days to 32 delegates from a number of organisations. Participants were monitored pre‐ and post‐course on measures, such as diary logs, time management skills, number of changes made to working practices, and use of time management aids. Their results showed that self‐perceived time use was not reflected in the participants' diary logs. Macan (1996) found very similar results as participants failed to report more frequent use of time management behaviours, satisfaction, or increased health even after exposure to training.

Due to the integral association time structure has with personal reflections and evaluated self‐purposefulness, it is imperative that other areas of training should be considered, especially within the working arena. The idea of positive psychology in relation to time management is an area that has not received much attention within research. Within the literature, it appears that time management training has been focused primarily on active and physical training of behaviours. Positive psychology deals with a more personal reflection of how individuals mentally perceive themselves, and in particular, focuses on the positives rather than the dysfunctional (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Fundamentally, positive psychology focuses on the actualisation of individual capacity, productivity, and perceptions of purpose (Luthans & Youssef, 2004).

In their research, Luthans and Youssef (2004) suggested that positive psychology can affect a personal sense of self‐efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience. The effect of optimism can lead to a positive rationalisation style rather than primarily focusing on the negative, which can buffer out consequences such as depression, unhappiness, blame, and guilt. Furthermore, the appreciation of positive thinking may influence human resiliency in the face of failure and adversity, providing the necessary defence to persevere and achieve goals. In terms of time structure, positive psychology can serve to enhance self‐evaluations of time structure and purpose, and effectively stimulates an upward spiral of increasing psychological well‐being (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002).

LIMITATIONS

Self‐report measurement techniques have inherent limitations. In this study, only university students reported information to researchers. Although 11.8% claimed to work full time while studying, the larger 88.2% were full‐time students, either not working or working on a casual/part‐time basis. Thus, the primary use of a student sample might limit the results' power to generalise to a larger population. Future research could overcome this issue by examining among full‐time employees or different population. A further limitation to this study is the small sample size (n = 111) and the power of analysis. However, Ding, Velicer, and Harlow (1995) indicate that a sample size of 50 is ‘very poor’, 100 is ‘fair’, 200 is ‘good’, and 500 is ‘excellent’. Similarly, Tanaka (1987) stated that a sample size of 100 was adequate in most applications. There is also a threat of common method variance in this study, since the data were collected from the same respondents and from the same questionnaires. Although such practices are acceptable in social science research, this study also examined the threat of common method variance by using Harman's test (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The results from a confirmatory factor analysis of all items suggest that a single dominant factor did not emerge. Although this result does not entirely rule out the common method errors, the latter may not be severe in this study.

FUTURE RESEARCH

To date, this is the first study that has examined the time management behaviour and the mediating role of appraised time structuring on job satisfaction and psychological well‐being. Hence, any follow‐up study examining this mediating effect with other measures (e.g., boredom, worry, etc.) would be valuable and further the knowledge of the time behaviour literature.

Time management programs are popular and are regularly implemented within the workplace (Macan, 1996). Programs such as these are costly, however, and mixed results cast doubts on the effectiveness of some training (e.g., Macan, 1996; Slaven & Totterdell, 1993), so it would be beneficial to consider alternatives of training. Moreover, due to the lack of research into positive psychology, time, and behaviours, it would be advantageous to examine the effects of positive psychology training with regard to appraised structured use of time within the workplace.