Procrastination's Impact in The Workplace

International Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume 21 Number 4 December 2013
Procrastinations Impact in the Workplace

and the Workplaces Impact on
Procrastination
Brenda Nguyen*, Piers Steel** and Joseph R. Ferrari***
*University of Calgary, SH441 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4
**University of Calgary, SH444 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4. steel@ucalgary.ca
***Department of Psychology, DePaul University, 2219 North Kenmore Avenue, Chicago, IL 6061, USA
Procrastination is a self-regulatory failure, whose costs are debated. Here, we establish its
impact in the workplace. Using an Internet sample, we assessed 22,053 individuals in terms
of their sex, employment status, employment duration, income, occupational attainment
and level of procrastination. High levels of procrastination is associated with lower salaries,
shorter durations of employment, and a greater likelihood of being unemployed or under
employed rather than working full-time. Also, procrastination partially mediates sexs relationship with these work variables. Women tend to procrastinate less than men, evidently
giving women an employment advantage. If women procrastinated the same as men, there
should be 1.5 million fewer women in full-time employment in the US. alone. Determining
the causes of procrastination in the workplace, we also examined it at an occupational level.
The results strongly support the gravitational hypothesis: jobs that require higher levels of
motivational skills are less likely to retain procrastinators. However, there was some support that jobs can foster procrastination. Procrastinators tend to have jobs that are lower
in intrinsically rewarding qualities.
1. Introduction
bs_bs_banner
rocrastination is a form of self-regulatory failure,

where we voluntarily delay an intended course of
action despite expecting to be worse off for the delay
(Steel, 2007, p. 66). For example, a common form of
procrastination is putting off funding a personal retirement plan, with more than 80% of Americans failing to
save enough for their retirement needs, by their own
admission (Byrne, Blake, Cairns, & Dowd, 2006;
ODonoghue & Rabin, 1999; Venti, 2006). Procrastination is particularly chronic in the working world. Approximately 25% of the adult population consider their
procrastination to be a defining personality trait
(Ferrari, Diaz-Morales, OCallaghan, Diaz, & Argumedo,
2007; Steel, 2007).
Procrastination, as Steel (2011) reviews, is associated
with lower wealth, health and well-being. Still, as
Partnoy (2012) documents, there is still considerable
debate about whether procrastination can be an adaptive work strategy, with some suggesting procrastination
can be in our best interests (Fischer, 2001). For example, Berg and Gigerenzer (2010) argue that irrational
behavior, which would include procrastination, has no
established impact, stating that Notably missing is investigation of whether people who deviate from axiomatic
rationality face economically significant losses (p. 133)
and the normative interpretation of deviations as mistakes does not follow from an empirical investigation
linking deviations to negative outcomes (p. 150).
To resolve this issue, we need to better assess its
personal impact in the working world. Also, we address
the role job characteristics play in its prevalence. In particular, we ask Do specific jobs attract procrastinators
or create them?
1.1. Impact of procrastination

Procrastination comprises over a quarter of most
peoples working days, costing employers about $10,000
per employee per year (DAbate & Eddy, 2007; Steel,
2011). In the present study, we explore the impact
2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd,

9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA, 02148, USA
Procrastinations Impact
procrastination has in the workplace on the individual,
rather than the employer. We investigate the precise
relationship procrastination has with income, employment status and employment duration.
1.2. Income impact

Does procrastination decrease salary? It seems so. With
respect to income, procrastinators showed a negative
correlation of .26 with self-reported financial success
(Mehrabian, 2000). This mirrors the relationship observed between income and other constructs related to
procrastination. To begin with, procrastination is often
a symptom of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD), along with other shared features such as distractibility and disorganization (Resnick, 2005). Accordingly, Fletcher (2013) finds that ADHD reduces earnings
by approximately 30%. Furthermore, procrastination is
related to conscientiousness although not identical to it
(Schouwenburg, 2004); conscientiousness is a broad
construct, with procrastination best understood as
being one of its central facets. As per previous research
and review, facets of conscientiousness have theoretical
value over and above the broader trait and have the
capability to incrementally predict as well (Connelly &
Ones, 2007; Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012; ONeill
& Paunonen, 2013). Consequently, we expect procrastination to show similar findings as conscientiousness
but not necessarily duplicate them. Spurk and Abele
(2011) reviewed and confirmed conscientiousness relationship to salary. Also, Judge, Livingston, and Hurst
(2012) re-analyzed results from the National Survey of
Midlife Development in the US, who were assessed on
both income and the Big Five personality traits. Drawing
on 1,681 individuals from the 19951996 survey, they
found that conscientiousness regression weight with income was a positive $3,874.84, with men showing a
stronger relationship than women.
The reason for the stronger effect with men may be
due to simple occupational segregation. Conscientiousness is a consistent predictor of job performance
(Clarke & Robertson, 2005; Dudley, Orvis, Lebiecki, &
Cortina, 2006). To the extent that men are in higher
paying jobs, they receive a larger financial reward for
superior performance. Based on this, we make two
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1a: Procrastination is associated with lower
income.
Hypothesis 1b: Gender will moderate the relationship
between procrastination and income such that it is
stronger for men than women.
1.3. Employment status impact

Employment status refers to whether people are unemployed, working part-time or full-time. Fletcher
2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
389
(2013) found that ADHD, which typically has procrastination as key symptom, results in a 10% reduction
in employment. As meta-analytically summarized by
Kanfer, Wanberg, and Kantrowitz (2001), conscientiousness is significantly related to job search behaviors
and employment outcomes, including shorter search
duration. Directly examining the relationship between
procrastination and job search is Lay and Brokenshire
(1997), who found that procrastination has a more
consistent relationship with dilatory job search behaviors than conscientiousness. Senecal and Guay (2000)
confirmed that procrastination leads to delay in the job
search while Turban, Lee, da Motta Veiga, Haggard,
and Wu (2013) found that procrastination was related
to fewer number of job interviews. Finally, in award
winning research, Wanberg, Zhu, and van Hooft (2010)
connect unemployment to action-state, essentially the
ability to follow through and not procrastinate on
intentions. Consequently, we put forth these two
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: Procrastination will be associated with a
reduced period of employment.
Hypothesis 2b: Procrastination will be associated with
employment status.
In addition, we also expect procrastination to mediate
the relationship between employment status and sex, as
well as salary and sex. Specifically, we expect procrastination to partially account for the rise of women in the
workplace. As per Statistics Canadas (2011) Labour
Force Survey, women have consistently increased their
percentage of total employment for decades, comprising
approximately 48% of the Canadian workforce in 2009.
Similarly, the U.S. Department of Labor (2009) reports
women comprise approximately 47% of the US workforce in 2009 and are expected to represent the majority of the labor force increase through to 2018. Salaries
have also risen. Although not approaching parity, US
womens wages have increased from approximately 60%
of what men typical make during the 1960s, to approximately 77% today (National Committee on Pay Equity,
2011). This rise is due to a variety of reasons, including
historically greater access to capital and education.
However, basic personality differences between the
sexes might be assisting this process too.
To begin with, women tend to have more selfdiscipline than men (Higgins & Tewksbury, 2006), with
two large-scale investigations specifically showing that
women procrastinate less than men (Grpel & Steel,
2008; Steel, 2007). Second, jobs have increasingly less
supervision, requiring more self-discipline and selfregulation to ensure high performance (Cascio, 1995;
Davis & Blass, 2007). In his review, Cascio (1995)
indicated that continual learning and education for
higher-order thinking is needed in workers as the 21st
century workplace is shifting toward a more virtual,

390
boundary-less, and flexible environment. Thus, this unstructured environment indicates an increasing importance of personality, specifically for procrastination as a
selection tool. Those who are less able to self-regulate
should perform more poorly with research already establishing that procrastination is important for performance, being negatively associated with academic grades,
health, financial well-being and subjective well-being
(Steel, 2007). Combining these two points suggests that
market forces are partially responsible for womens increasing participation and success in todays workplace.
Of note, this self-discipline hypothesis is similar to
what has already been put forth to explain womens
present dominance in education, where they now earn
approximately 55% to 60% of university degrees and
are far more likely to graduate (Goldin, Katz, &
Kuziemko, 2006; Heckman & LaFontaine, 2010; Janosz,
Archambault, Morizot, & Pagani, 2008). Consequently,
procrastination may be the reason for the discrepancy
in educational attainment between women and men. As
Goldin et al. (2006) conclude: One source of the persistent female advantage in K-12 school performance and
the new female lead in college attainment is the higher
incidence of behavioral problems (or lower level of
noncognitive skills) among boys (p. 153). Indeed, Steel
and Ferrari (2012) found that procrastination accounted
for approximately one-third of the variance between
sex and education. Extending this from an educational
realm, where lower average levels of procrastination
help women achieve higher levels of education, we expect that women benefit from lower levels of procrastination in terms of employment status and salary.
Hypothesis 2c: Procrastination will mediate the relationship between employment and sex as well as salary and
sex.
1.4. Job characteristics and procrastination

Not all jobs have the same degree of procrastination or
number of procrastinators. Hammer and Ferrari (2002)
found that procrastination differs among professions,
with those in white-collar jobs reporting higher rates
of procrastination compared to blue-collar workers.
Ferrari, Doroszko, and Joseph (2005) found procrastination higher among self-employed (i.e., lawyers, physicians) than white-collar workers and higher among sales
personnel than middle-managers. Also, Taras, Steel, and
Ponak (2010) found that professional arbitrators, a profession where any delay of a decision can be very costly,
tend to report less procrastination.
Barrick, Mount, and Lis (2013) Theory of Purposeful
Work Behavior provides one explanation for this variation. Essentially, employees work strivings increase
when individuals positively interpret the worthiness or
meaningfulness of their work. Consequently, workplaces

Brenda Nguyen, Piers Steel and Joseph R. Ferrari

can have amotivational job characteristics that exacerbate procrastination by lacking value (Ryan & Deci,
2000). In Barrick et al.s words, when the individual
experiences meaningfulness, this triggers task-specific
motivational processes (e.g., self-efficacy, expectancy
beliefs) that lead to performance outcomes (p. 138).
Supplementing the Theory of Purposeful Work Behavior
are two other potential explanations for the variation in
procrastination among occupations. First, reflecting personnel or self-selection, workplaces may require timeliness or motivational skills antithetical to procrastination.
Consequently, chronic procrastinators are simply less
likely to stay or be hired. Second, the job may be highly
supervised and routinized, providing little opportunity
for procrastination.
1.5. Exacerbating procrastination

Nicholas Carrs (2010) book, The Shallows, popularized
the notion that our work environment is making us
more distractible and potentially responsible for our
procrastination. Certainly, the workplace has the capacity to increase procrastination. Procrastination has
been repeatedly found to vary with task characteristics,
most strongly associated with the aversive task components of frustration, resentment, and, in particular,
boredom (Steel, 2007, p. 75). Also, since job design has
primarily drawn on mechanistic models rather than motivational ones (Campion, Mumford, Morgeson, &
Nahrgang, 2005), we expect these procrastinationexacerbating job characteristics to occur regularly. The
result is that some jobs are more motivationally alienating and likely to foster procrastination (Barrick et al.,
2013). Since peoples self-concept is strongly influenced
by their working lives (Christiansen, 1999; LaliberteRudman, 2002), jobs that encourage procrastination
lead workers to identify themselves as procrastinators.
Essentially, people draw on their experience at work
when reflecting on whether they procrastinate. Further
illustrating the importance of the workplace, Steel
(2002) found almost identical responses to a procrastination inventory when at work tags were added compared to when they were not.
What type of job characteristics could give rise to
procrastination? Here, we rely on O*NET job descriptions. O*NET or the Occupational Information Network is an extensive effort by the US Department of
Labor to provide detailed information on jobs from a
variety of perspectives (Peterson et al., 2001). Focusing
on a jobs potential motivational qualities, the O*NET
provides work values. Work values are based on Dawis
and Lofquists (1984) Theory of Work Adjustment,
which states that jobs differ according to Occupational
Reinforcer Patterns (ORP). An occupation is reinforcing
or motivating if it provides an environment that can satisfy basic human needs. These needs are described by a
variety of terminologies, but as used by O*NET, these
ORPs are grouped into the following six categories.
1. Achievement: The job allows accomplishment and the
utilization of ones abilities.
2. Independence: The job permits creativity and personal
initiative.
3. Recognition: The job provides status and prestige.
4. Relationship: The job fosters collegial relationships
and social service.
5. Support: The job is predictable and stable, with supervisors who manage well and provide appropriate
training.
6. Working Conditions: The job is comfortable, and provides a variety of work with little stress.
Jobs where procrastination occurs should have lower
ORP scores, in that the work is not as likely to satisfy
peoples basic needs. As Steel (2007) finds, Consistently
and strongly, the more people dislike a task, the more
they consider it effortful or anxiety producing, the more
they procrastinate (p. 75).
Hypothesis 3a: Procrastination should be negatively correlated with work values.
1.6. Selection and procrastination

The variation of procrastination among jobs can also be
accounted for by the gravitational hypothesis, where
people gravitate or move to jobs commensurate with
their abilities (Wilk, Desmarais, & Sackett, 1995). Alternatively, we can think of this in terms of person-job or
person-organizational fit (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, &
Johnson, 2006), in that our ability to refrain from procrastinating is necessary for us to be well matched to
specific occupations. Consequently, certain jobs require
us not to procrastinate while other occupations are
more forgiving.
Drawing on O*NET job descriptions again, two content areas are particularly relevant: occupational interests and work styles. Occupational interests are based
upon Hollands (1973) model of work environments and
personality types (Sager, 1999). Consistent with Hollands taxonomy, there are six occupational interest
profiles, coming under the acronym RIASEC.
1. Realistic: Physically or mechanically inclined; a doer.
2. Investigative: Task-oriented and interested in intellectual or scientific endeavors; a thinker.
3. Artistic: Interested in self-expression and is artistically
oriented; a creator.
4. Social: Responsible, supporting and sociable; a helper.
5. Enterprising: Focuses on dominating, leading or selling;
a persuader.
6. Conventional: Detailed, orderly and precise; an
organizer.
391
According to Holland (1973) the choice of a vocation is
an expression of personality (p. 6), where we choose or
are chosen for jobs that are compatible with our interests. Of note, whether it is more of the former, where
we choose, or the latter, where we are chosen, is a
matter of contention.
Conscientiousness, the broad trait under which the
personality facet procrastination is subsumed, has been
investigated with RIASEC at both the occupational and
the individual level. At the occupational level, which we
focus upon, Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, and Barrick (1999)
found that those high in conscientiousness tend to be in
investigative jobs. At the individual level however,
Larson, Rottinghaus, and Borgens (2002) meta-analysis
found that openness to experience was the trait most
strongly associated with interest in investigative jobs,
although not necessarily employment. This highlights
Lubinski and Benbows (2000) contention that vocational counseling, which primarily matches people to
occupational preferences, is quite different from
determining whether they will also succeed in that occupation. In any case, since our own investigation is also
at an occupational level, we expect to replicate Judge
et al.s (1999) finding. Notably, procrastination is negatively associated with a task-oriented coping style
(Berzonsky, 1992), which matches the task-oriented disposition seen in investigative jobs.
Hypothesis 3b: Procrastination should be negatively correlated with investigative occupations.
In addition to occupational interests, O*NET provides
information on work styles (Borman, Kubisiak, &
Schneider, 1999). Work styles are key areas of fit between the personality or values of the individual and
that of the occupation or organization. For example, the
job of computer programming requires more analytical
thinking than the job of police officer, which in turn requires considerably more self-control than that of computer programming. O*NET considers six work styles:
1. Achievement/Effort: Requiring goal setting and striving
for work competence.
2. Social Influence: Requiring energy and taking charge.
3. Interpersonal Orientation: Requiring working with others and being cooperative.
4. Adjustment: Requiring maturity and self-control in
emotionally challenging situations.
5. Conscientiousness: Requiring dependability and commitment to the job.
6. Practical Intelligence: Requiring logical thinking and
finding creative, innovative solutions.
Given the nature of procrastination, we expect negative
correlations with all work styles except two: interpersonal orientation and practical intelligence. As Steels
(2007) meta-analytic review indicates, procrastination
is associated with reduced planning and need for

392
achievement (i.e., Achievement/Effort), reduced energy
(i.e., Social Influence), less self-control (i.e., Adjustment),
and lower levels of conscientiousness (see also Grpel
& Steel, 2008). On the other hand, procrastinations
correlation with extraversion (i.e., Interpersonal Orientation) was weak (.13) and nonexistent with intelligence (i.e., Practical Intelligence). Conscientiousness
according to the O*NET work styles involves commitment to the job and is influenced by affective commitment, one of three components of the job commitment
model (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Those with high affective
commitment are more motivated on the job and consequently these individuals procrastinate less.
Hypothesis 3c: Procrastination should be negatively correlated with achievement/effort, social influence, adjustment and conscientiousness.
1.7. Supervision and procrastination

The relationship between supervision and procrastination can be disputed, hinging on the issue of situational
strength. Highly regulated jobs are described as strong
environments, which leave little opportunity for motivational individual differences to manifest (Withey,
Gellatly, & Annett, 2005). A tightly supervised factory
job, for example, provides few opportunities to procrastinate. If job characteristics are fostering procrastination,
then jobs that permit putting tasks off should have employees who report more procrastination.
On the other hand, Meyer, Dalal, and Bonaccio
(2009) research suggests the opposite. Meta-analytically
determining
whether
the
conscientiousnessperformance correlation is moderated by job characteristics, they matched job descriptions from individual
validation studies to O*NET occupational units. Using
six O*NET job characteristics, they created a constraint summary variable, an indicator of the situational
strength of the occupation. Jobs which are very structured or have little freedom are highly constrained.
Meyer et al. (2009) found that the more constrained a
job becomes, the lower the relationship between conscientiousness and performance. Constraint moderates
the relationship or, in other words, the more autonomy
you are given at work, the more you need to selfregulate (Behling, 1998). Combined with the gravitational
hypothesis, Meyer et al.s (2009) research indicates that
those within constrained work environments are more
likely to report they are procrastinators, not less. If we
find that procrastination is associated with less constraint, it makes the gravitational hypothesis a less dependable principle. Such a finding would have practical
implications for selection, especially synthetic validity, a
methodology that helps to create personnel selection
systems without a traditional criterion validation study
(Steel, Huffcutt, & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2006).


Consequently, we have two opposing although nonexclusive hypotheses. Job characteristics creating procrastination may be mitigated by the gravitational
hypothesis. We are uncertain which will dominate but
do not expect a complete cancellation.
Hypothesis 4: Procrastination should be associated with
constraint.
2. Method
2.1. Procedure
Data collection was conducted similar to Rentfrow,
Gosling, and Potter (2008). That is, self-reported procrastination and demographic information was obtained
over the World Wide Web using a noncommercial,
advertisement free website. In return for their involvement, respondents received feedback about their comparative level of procrastination and some suggestions
regarding ways to reduce it. Respondents were attracted to the website through a variety of ways:
50.8% referring sites, 27.3% search engines, and 21.9%
direct traffic. This methodology permits gathering a
large and diverse sample needed to detect small mediation effects. Also, Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, and
John (2004) found that web-based surveys like this
usually provide results consistent with traditional
methodologies.
Data collection occurred over 3 years, between
March 2007 and March 2010, imbedded in a series of
other data collection efforts regarding procrastination.
The procrastination scale used was the Irrational Procrastination Scale (IPS; Steel, 2010), containing nine items
such as When I should be doing one thing, I will do another. The scale has been previously validated in a scale
development study and shows good discriminant and
convergent validity when administered either via Internet or paper and pencil, including correlating well with
observed procrastination behavior (Steel, 2002, 2010).
Specifically, the IPS has demonstrated good convergent
validity, correlating at .87 with the Pure Procrastination
Scale, which is itself composed of the first factor extracted from the three other widely used procrastination scales. It has shown divergent validity with
conscientiousness (.45) and self-discipline (.61), as well
as adequate test-retest reliability after 4 months (.67). It
is also correlated at .41 with observed academic delay.
In addition, we assessed a variety of work and demographic variables. Respondents indicated their sex, age,
work status (i.e., unemployed, part-time, full-time), job
duration, annual income, and occupational description.
Participants who filled out the survey received feedback
on their procrastination along with some advice on how
to improve their behavior. See Table 1 for response
categories.
393
Table 1. Demographic characteristics and average procrastination level of participants
Table 2. Mean procrastination levels and percentile rank associated with jobs from a sample of occupations
Characteristic
Occupation
Sex
Male
Female
Employment status
Unemployed
Working part-time
Working full-time
Annual income
Less than $10,000
$10,000 to $20,000
$20,000 to $30,000
$30,000 to $40,000
$40,000 to $50,000
$50,000 to $60,000
$60,000 to $75,000
$75,000 to $100,000
$100,000 to $200,000
$200,000+
Procrastination
9,885
12,115
44.9
55.1
3.69
3.54
1,253
2,420
12,297
7.8
15.1
77.0
3.92
3.71
3.50
3,511
1,848
1,749
1,682
1,697
1,581
1,764
2,069
2,426
794
18.4
9.7
9.1
8.8
8.9
8.3
9.2
10.8
12.7
4.2
3.85
3.83
3.70
3.59
3.55
3.52
3.50
3.47
3.36
3.28
Screening of the data resulted in an 11.7% reduction

in sample size, leaving 22,053 (55.1% women, 44.9%
men) respondents. This reduction was primarily due to
respondents reporting being less than 17 years of age or
failing to sufficiently fill out the demographic portion of
the survey. Answering the demographic questions was
not required by the respondent to receive personal
feedback. Standard screening for duplicates and nonsensical responses (e.g., length of employment was greater
than age of participant) was also conducted.
For analyses specifically involving occupational attainment, the data were further reduced. Duplicating the
established protocol of Judge et al. (1999) and Meyer
et al. (2009), two of the authors independently matched
jobs with O*NET job codes using respondents openended descriptions and O*NET job descriptions. Disagreements over coding were then resolved. If a job
code could be not be mutually agreed upon, the respondents occupational response was discarded. Aside from
the role of homemaker, we were able to identify 490
occupations from the responses of 11,017 people. The
remaining respondents did not provide a job description
or did not provide enough information to be unambiguously identified. Table 2 shows a sample of 15 occupations, along with the average level of procrastination.
Once O*NET codes were attached to jobs, the O*NET
database was accessed to obtain the relevant job characteristics needed to assess: work value, work style, occupational interest, and constraint.
3. Results
Consistent with the results of Steel (2010), the IPS
proved to be high reliable ( = .91; SD = .85). Descript-
High procrastination jobs

Food servers
Legal secretaries
Computer systems administrators
Library assistants
Sales representative
Moderate procrastination jobs
Photographers
Poets, lyricists and creative writers
Lawyers
Education teachers, postsecondary
General operation managers
Low procrastination jobs
Chief executives
Librarians
Economists
Loan officers
Military officer special and tactical
operations leaders
Rank
Mean (SD)
22
20
18
14
37
100.0
98.7
98.3
97.4
96.5
4.39 (.64)
4.04 (.20)
3.91 (.18)
3.89 (.22)
3.87 (.13)
25
274
416
63
569
74.8
75.7
65.2
45.3
27.0
3.64 (.17)
3.66 (.05)
3.59 (.04)
3.53 (.73)
3.46 (.76)
162
111
28
20
26
9.4
7.5
4.4
1.9
2.5
3.32 (.79)
3.25 (.72)
3.20 (.81)
3.14 (.73)
3.16 (.85)
Note: Rank indicates the procrastination percentile rank with respect

to jobs with the highest procrastination. Food servers had the highest
procrastination score and represented the 100th percentile.
ive demographic information for nominal or ordinal

variables along with average procrastination scores is
reported in Table 1. Average job duration, excluding
those reporting any durations of zero, is 7.0 years
(SD = 8.1).
3.1. Impact on income: hypotheses 1a and 1b

To begin with, the jobs procrastinators typically are employed in do not pay as well, correlating with salary
at .18 (p < .0001). Using regression, R2 = .03, F(1,
19119) = 665.86, p < .0001, with a regression weight of
12,662.74, results showed that the drop in procrastination consistently decreases with each increase in pay
grade (see Table 1). Using the IPSs standard deviation of
.85, a single point increase in the procrastination scale
(e.g., going from a 3 to a 4 on a 5-point scale) is associated with a $14,897 drop in yearly income. Hypothesis
1a is confirmed: Procrastination is associated with lower
income.
Similar to Judge et al.s (2012) conscientiousness investigation, this effect intensified when examining men
(R2 = .05, F(1, 8903) = 438.48, b = 16,893.2, p < .0001)
rather than women (R2 = .03, F(1, 10179) = 340.26,
b = 10,877.21, p < .0001). Comparing with Judge et al.s
(2012) archival analyses, procrastination is among the
most important personality trait so far identified for
predicting yearly income, perhaps second to agreeableness (depending on the currency conversion methodology used). Hypothesis 1b is confirmed: The relationship

394
that procrastination has with income is stronger for
men than women.
3.2. Impact on employment status: hypotheses

2a, 2b and 2c
What jobs procrastinators do obtain, they do not keep
for as long; employment duration correlates with procrastination at .10 (p < .001). On a one to five scale, a
one point increase in procrastination translates into, on
average, 322 fewer days of employment. Hypothesis 2a
is confirmed: Procrastination is associated with a reduced period of employment.
Employment status was assessed in terms of unemployed, part-time work, or full-time work. Notably, as
per Table 1, the percentages approximate the economic
conditions during data collection, with an unemployment rate of 7.8%. Procrastinators trend toward unemployment (r = .14, p < .0001). Further comparisons
were conducted using regression dummy coding and
correcting for uneven splits. Procrastinators are indeed
more likely to be unemployed rather than working
full-time (r = .23, p < .0001) and, if working, working
part-time rather than full-time (r = .12, p < .0001). Hypothesis 2b is confirmed: Procrastination is associated
with being unemployed or under employed.
Finally, we determined whether procrastination mediated the relationship between sex and employment. Sex
and employment status (i.e., unemployed, part-time, and
full-time) were negatively correlated at .10 (p < .0001),
meaning that women tend to be unemployed or under
employed (i.e., part-time). On the other hand, focusing
on those who report being part of the labor force (i.e.,
reporting either full- or part-time employment) versus
being unemployed, the correlation reduces to .03
(p < .0001). The reduction is largely due to women
being more likely to be in part-time work rather than in
full-time positions (r = .13, p < .0001). For all these relationships, the Sobel test for mediation was significant
(p < .0001), meaning that procrastination helps to explain womens employment status. Controlling for procrastination, these correlations change slightly. Sex and
employment status becomes .11 (p < .0001), sex and
being employed within the labor force becomes .04
(p < .0001), and sex and part-time work becomes .14
(p < .0001).
Although these correlation differences appear to be
small, in this context, a .01 change in correlation translates into a half a percentage point difference in the sex
employment ratio. In other words, if women procrastinated at the same level as men, there would be about
.5% more women than men who are unemployed and
.5% more women who are working part-time instead of
full-time. Adding the unemployed and under employed
percentages together to calculate the full-time employ-


ment opportunities that go to women rather than men
would equal to about 1% of the total labor force.
For sex, its correlation with salary increases from
.12 to .14 after controlling for procrastination, which
the Sobel test for mediation indicates as significant
(p < .0001). In our sample, women were paid on average
$14,027 less than men. Of note, supporting the
generalizability of the sample, this represents women
being paid 79.8% of what men make, very close to
observed national US average of 77.4% (National
Committee on Pay Equity, 2011). Interpreting these results, if women procrastinate at the same level as men,
the income difference would have increased to $16,667,
an additional $2,640. In other words, although women
are paid less than men, if both sexes procrastinate at
similar levels, women would be paid even less. Hypothesis 2c is confirmed: Procrastination mediates the relationship between employment and sex as well as salary
and sex.
3.3. Job characteristics and procrastination:

hypotheses 3a, 3b and 3c
Before examining our hypothesis regarding job characteristics and procrastination, we confirmed that jobs do
differ in terms of procrastination levels. To establish
this, we conducted a one-way ANOVA with random effects, letting the O*NET coded occupations predict procrastination. We obtained a partial 2 of .062 (F(488,
10722) = 1.46, p < .0001), similar but somewhat larger
than Ones and Viswesvarans (2003) finding that about
4% of personality variance is at the occupation level. Indeed, occupations differ regarding the average level of
procrastination of their incumbents (see Table 2). We
proceeded to analyze this variance at a mean level,
based on occupations with 10 or more respondents.
This gave us a sample of 160 occupations. Consistent
with the recommended procedure for occupational
level analyses (cf. Steel & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2009), we
used weighted least squares (WLS) regression based on
the standard error of the mean. This reflects that more
emphasis should be given to occupations with more respondents and that can be more accurately estimated.
Investigating whether jobs might create procrastination, we conducted an analysis of work values. Based on
Dawis and Lofquists (1984) research, O*NET provides
work values, which are essentially needs that are important to an employees satisfaction. As discussed, jobs
with low value should be associated with higher levels of
procrastination. Using WLS regression, we obtained
these results, most statistically significant and all negative
in direction: Achievement (R2 = .10, F(1,149) = 17.07,
p < .001); Independence (R2 = .12, F(1, 149) = 20.56, p <
.001); Recognition (R2 = .10, F(1, 149) = 16.01, p < .001);
Relationship (R2 = .07, F(1, 149) = 11.51, p = .001); Support (R2 = .02, F(1, 149) = 2.80, p = .10); and Working
395
Table 3. Weighted least squares regression analysis summary

for RIASEC predicting procrastination
Variable
M (SD)
SE B
Sig.
Realistic
Investigative
Artistic
Social
Enterprising
Conventional
2.63 (1.65)
3.62 (2.01)
2.98 (1.77)
3.84 (1.97)
4.35 (1.96)
4.31 (1.58)
.018
.028
.012
.018
.031
.022
.012
.010
.012
.009
.012
.015
.152
.283
.111
.178
.290
.169
.119
.007
.328
.06
.011
.133
Note: R2 = .13.
Conditions (R2 = .12, F(1, 149) = 20.71, p < .001). Hypothesis 3a is supported; procrastinators tend to occupy jobs lacking value altogether.
To investigate the gravitational hypothesis, we duplicated Judge et al.s (1999) methodology and conducted a
WLS multiple regression analysis using all six of Hollands RIASEC occupational interest typology: realistic,
investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional. The results are reported in Table 3, R2 = .13
(F(6,144) = 3.72, p = .002). As can be seen, procrastinators do not tend to be in investigative jobs. Hypothesis
3b is supported.
Finally, to investigate work styles, we used WLS regression. Examining each work style separately, we obtained these results, all statistically significant and again
all negative in direction: Achievement/Effort (R2 = .13,
F(1,146) = 20.86, p < .001); Social Influence (R2 = .18,
F(1, 146) = 32.48, p < .001); Interpersonal Orientation
(R2 = .06, F(1, 146) = 9.15, p = .003); Adjustment (R2 =
.10, F(1, 146) = 16.52, p < .001); Conscientiousness
(R2 = .13, F(1, 146) = 21.66, p < .001); and Practical
Intelligence (R2 = .09, F(1, 146) = 15.16, p < .001).
Hypothesis 3c is supported. Although interpersonal
orientation and practical intelligence were not predicted as being influential, they were the two work
styles with the lowest association with procrastination.
It appears that procrastination is significantly more
common in jobs that require a substantial degree of
motivational characteristics.
3.4. Supervision and procrastination:

hypotheses 4
We investigated Meyer et al.s (2009) O*NET summary dimension of constraint. If jobs are fostering procrastination by allowing long periods of unstructured
time, constraint should be negatively associated with
procrastination. On the other hand, if the gravitational
hypothesis is more important, high constraint jobs
should be positively associated with procrastination, as
structured and highly regulated environments, strong
environments, make individual differences in motivation less important. Using WLS regression, procrastina-
tion was positively associated with constraint (R2 = .24,

F(1,147) = 46.21, p < .001). Hypothesis 4 is confirmed,
with the gravitational hypothesis supported.
4. Discussion
As George Ainslie, one of the research pioneers in the
area of motivation, puts it, In a prosperous society
most misery is self-inflicted. We smoke, eat and drink
to excess, and become addicted to drugs, gambling,
credit card abuse, destructive emotional relationships,
and simple procrastination, usually while attempting
not to do so (Ainslie, 2005, p. 635). Indeed, the findings here confirm that the last of these, procrastination, is indeed associated with unhappiness. We
provide here the first detailed estimates of its potential
impact on employment.
To begin with, procrastination is significantly associated with lower income. A single point increase in
procrastination on a 5-point scale is associated with approximately a $15,000 drop in salary, with the relationship being slightly stronger for men than women. This
suggests that procrastination could be the most important personality trait associated with income that we
have yet identified, perhaps second to agreeableness.
Furthermore, procrastination is associated with reduced
employment. This time, a single point increase in procrastination on a 5-point scale is associated with, on average, 322 fewer days of employment. If we split our
procrastination distribution into two groups, procrastinators and nonprocrastinators, we would find that
procrastinators comprise 57% of the unemployed. Similarly, of those working part-time rather than full-time,
procrastinators would comprise only 44% of full-time
workers compared to 56% of full-time workers who
would be nonprocrastinators. Although these results
are based on correlational data, previous research on
constructs related to procrastination strongly indicates
these relationships are likely causal (e.g., Clarke &
Robertson, 2005; Wanberg et al., 2010).
Of particular interest is that procrastination mediated
the relationship between sex and employment and sex
and salary. Potentially, procrastination partially accounts
for women gaining ground in the workforce. Women
procrastinate less than men and appear to reap a competitive advantage because of it. If women were to procrastinate at the same level as men and the apparent
competitive advantage was removed, we would expect
over 1.5 million fewer women in full-time employment
in the US alone and the ones that remain would likely
be paid several thousands of dollars less.
Consistent with the Theory of Purposeful Work Behavior
(Barrick et al., 2013), we considered whether job characteristics might contribute to the degree of procrastination. Jobs do differ in the degree of observed

396
procrastination and there was some support that jobs
create procrastination; that is, the jobs procrastinators
tend to hold seem uniquely suited to promote procrastination. The relationship between procrastination
and work values was consistently negative, supporting
Ainslies observation that procrastination can be instilled
or inflicted. In short, procrastinators tend to be in jobs
that are lower in characteristics that would provide
motivation. On the other hand, there was consistent
support for the gravitational hypothesis, that procrastinators seek jobs that are commensurate with their
self-disciplinary skills. Procrastinators tend to be in jobs
that do not require definite work styles, with the
top four in order of strength being: Social Influence (i.e.,
requiring energy), Conscientiousness (i.e., requiring
dependability), Achievement/Effort (i.e., requiring planning), and Adjustment (i.e., requiring self-control). Similarly, they do not tend to be in jobs requiring
investigative work, which requires organizational skills
that they do not tend to possess. Also, in support of
Meyer et al.s (2009) work, procrastinators tend to be
in jobs with high constraint, which is plausible from a
labor market perspective. A performance enhancing
trait like conscientiousness or low procrastination concentrates in jobs where it is most valuable: ones with
high levels of autonomy.
4.1. Strengths, limitations and future research

This study further expands the personenvironment fit
literature. As Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, and
Goldberg (2007) review, there are far fewer studies
linking personality traits directly to indices of occupational attainment (p. 333). Furthermore, what has been
done primarily focuses on general mental ability (Reeve
& Heggestad, 2004) rather than the personality and
self-regulatory characteristics we considered here.
This study was conducted with an Internet sampling
methodology, which often provides comparatively robust results; web-based surveys like this provide findings
consistent with traditional methodologies (Gosling et al.,
2004). Supporting its generalizability, key findings were
replicated from previous investigations, such as the observed degree of unemployment, women versus wage
disparity, and the level of variance in the procrastination
measure.
By some standards, the effect sizes obtained are small.
However, the strength of these correlations is typical of
what is seen in the psychological field (Richard, Bond, &
Stokes-Zoota, 2003); for example, procrastination accounted for approximately 50% more variance at the
occupational level than seen with most personality traits
(Ones & Viswesvaran, 2003). Also, as Roberts et al.
(2007) review, they are sufficiently large for directing
public policy. Another limitation is that the results are


correlational, hampering causal conclusions. However,
there is a strong research base to assist in making
stronger inferences. Also, it would be extraordinarily
difficult, and consequently yet to be done, to investigate
this topic (i.e., employment and personality) experimentally at a reasonable level of power (i.e., across hundreds of occupations). As per Judge et al. (1999), if we
are to investigate personality and job characteristics
across a wide range of occupations, a survey methodology should be used.
For future research, it would be useful to take
advantage of procrastinations substantive connection
to education and especially career success (Steel, 2007).
Procrastination is associated with a host of employment
relevant criteria and consequently holds promise as a
useful predictor in a selection context. Vocational counselors might well take note that the traits associated
with occupational interest do not necessarily translate
into those associated with occupational attainment, as
per Lubinski and Benbow (2000). Also, Steel et al.
(2010) argue, the future of selection will be in assessing
personality facets, like procrastination. When considering narrow as well as broad performance dimensions,
facet level analyses are often preferable (Dudley et al.,
2006; Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996). Still, the
benefit of including procrastination in a selection battery
is uncertain. Because procrastination is associated with
the conscientiousness trait, its ability to incrementally
predict performance may be compromised (i.e., positive
manifold).
The current study utilized O*NET, a database developed by the US Department of Labor, to obtain descriptions of occupations. Because two-thirds of our sample
was from the US, this does mean that our results are indeed US centric. However, we analyzed the results for
the US and non-US sample separately to determine
whether differences existed and found that they were
very similar, with slightly stronger results for the
non-US sample, indicating that our findings should generalize to other countries. Still, it is likely that a few job
descriptions and their associated job characteristics do
vary among countries despite having nominally the same
title. As Steel and Kammeyer-Mueller (2009) note with
their own occupational level analysis, this variation can
happen even among jobs within a country. Jobs at different organizations are not necessarily identical despite
reflecting the same occupation. This suggests that if future research can obtain job characteristic information
for the specific respondent, additional explanatory variance can be captured.
Finally, we can expect that as the workplace reconfigures itself to rely on characteristics associated more
with women than men (e.g., self-discipline), women will
retain a performance advantage and perhaps even expand upon it. Given that motivationally poor job design
appears to exacerbate the problem of procrastination,
some mitigation of this trend is possible. As Carr (2010)
argues, we have actually created a workplace that makes
it exceedingly hard to maintain focused attention. Instead, we can design jobs that are inherently motivating
instead of over-relying on the self-motivation of employees. This would benefit both the employer and employee, regardless of their sex. On the other hand, since
procrastination affects almost every stage in career development, from school performance to the job search,
womens slight advantage in self-control repeatedly
comes into play, increasing its overall importance in life
achievements. Under these conditions, womens rise in
the workforce will continue.
References
Ainslie, G. (2005). Prcis of breakdown of will. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 28, 635650.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The theory of
purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higherorder goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management
Review, 38, 132153.
Behling, O. (1998). Employee selection: Will intelligence and
conscientiousness do the job? Academy of Management Executive, 12, 7786.
Berg, N., & Gigerenzer, G. (2010). As-if behavioral economics:
Neoclassical economics in disguise? History of Economic Ideas,
18, 133165.
Berzonsky, M. D. (1992). Identity style and coping strategies.
Journal of Personality, 60, 771788.
Borman, W. C., Kubisiak, U. C., & Schneider, R. J. (1999).
Work styles. In N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C.
Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, & E. A. Fleishman (Eds.), An occupational information system for the 21st century: The development
of O*NET (pp. 213226). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Byrne, A., Blake, D., Cairns, A., & Dowd, K. (2006). Theres no
time like the present: The cost of delaying retirement saving. Financial Services Review, 15, 213231.
Campion, M., Mumford, T., Morgeson, F., & Nahrgang, J.
(2005). Work redesign: Eight obstacles and opportunities.
Human Resource Management, 44, 367390.
Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: What the Internet is dong to our
brains. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational
psychology in a changing world of work? American Psychologist, 50, 928939.
Christiansen, C. (1999). Defining lives: Occupation as identity:
An essay on competence, coherence, and the creation of
meaning. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53,
547558.
Clarke, S., & Robertson, I. T. (2005). A meta-analytic review of
the Big Five personality factors and accident involvement in
occupational and non-occupational settings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 355376.
Connelly, B., & Ones, D. (2007). Combining conscientiousness
scales: Cant get enough of the trait, baby. Paper presented
at the 22nd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, New York City.
397
DAbate, C., & Eddy, E. (2007). Engaging in personal business
on the job: Extending the presenteeism construct. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 18, 361383.
Davis, A., & Blass, E. (2007). The future workplace: Views
from the floor. Futures, 39, 3852.
Dawis, R., & Lofquist, L. (1984). A psychological theory of work
adjustment. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press
Minneapolis.
Dudley, N., Orvis, K., Lebiecki, J., & Cortina, J. (2006). A metaanalytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction
of job performance: Examining the intercorrelations and the
incremental validity of narrow traits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 4057.
Ferrari, J. R., Diaz-Morales, J. F., OCallaghan, J., Diaz, K., &
Argumedo, D. (2007). Frequent behavioral delay tendencies
by adults: International prevalence rates of chronic procrastination. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 458464.
Ferrari, J. R., Doroszko, E., & Joseph, N. (2005). Exploring procrastination in corporate settings: Sex, status, and settings
for arousal and avoidance types. Individual Differences Research, 3, 140149.
Fischer, C. (2001). Read this paper later: Procrastination with
time-consistent preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 46, 249269.
Fletcher, J. (2013). The effects of childhood ADHD on adult
labor market outcomes (Working Paper 18689). Available
National Bureau of Economic Research at: http://www
.nber.org/papers/w18689 (accessed 15 January 2013).
Goldin, C., Katz, L. F., & Kuziemko, I. (2006). The homecoming of American college women: The reversal of the college
gender gap. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 133
156.
Gosling, S., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. (2004). Should
we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six
preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93104.
Grpel, P., & Steel, P. (2008). A mega-trial investigation of goal
setting, interest enhancement, and energy on procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 406411.
Hammer, C. A., & Ferrari, J. R. (2002). Differential incidence of
procrastination between blue- and white-collar workers.
Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social,
21, 333338.
Heckman, J. J., & LaFontaine, P. A. (2010). The American high
school graduation rate: Trends and levels. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92, 244262.
Higgins, G. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2006). Sex and Self-Control
Theory: The measures and causal model may be different.
Youth Society, 37, 479503.
Holland, J. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Janosz, M., Archambault, I., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. S. (2008).
School engagement trajectories and their differential
predictive relations to dropout. Journal of Social Issues, 64,
2140.
Judge, T., Higgins, C., Thoresen, C., & Barrick, M. (1999). The
big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career
success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621
652.
Judge, T., Livingston, B., & Hurst, C. (2012). Do nice guys
and gals really finish last? The joint effects of sex and

398
agreeableness on income. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 390407.
Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). General
and specific measures in organizational behavior research:
Considerations, examples, and recommendations for
researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 161
174.
Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Job
search and employment: A personality motivational analysis
and meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
837855.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C.
(2006). Perceived applicant fit: Distinguishing between
recruiters perceptions of personjob and person
organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53, 643671.
Laliberte-Rudman, D. (2002). Linking occupation and identity:
Lessons learned through qualitative exploration. Journal of
Occupational Science, 9, 1219.
Larson, L. M., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Metaanalysis of Big Six interests and Big Five personality factors.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 217239.
Lay, C. H., & Brokenshire, R. (1997). Conscientiousness, procrastination, and persontask characteristics in job searching
by unemployed adults. Current Psychology: Developmental,
Learning, Personality, Social, 16, 8396.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2000). States of excellence.
American Psychologist, 55, 137150.
Mehrabian, A. (2000). Beyond IQ: Broad-based measurement
of individual success potential or emotional intelligence.
Genetic, Social, & General Psychology Monographs, 126, 133
239.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource
Management Review, 1, 6189.
Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Bonaccio, S. (2009). A metaanalytic investigation into the moderating effects of situational strength on the conscientiousnessperformance
relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1077
1102.
National Committee on Pay Equity. (2011). The wage gap over
time. Available at http://www.pay-equity.org/info-time.html
(accessed 15 January 2012).
ODonoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999). Procrastination in preparing for retirement. In H. J. Aaron (Ed.), Behavioral dimensions of retirement economics (pp. 125156). New York:
Brookings Institution Press.
ONeill, T. A., & Paunonen, S. V. (2013). Breadth in personality
assessment: Implications for the understanding and prediction of work behavior. In N. Christiansen & R. Tett (Eds.),
Handbook of personality at work (pp. 299332). New York:
Routledge Academic.
Ones, D., & Viswesvaran, C. (2003). Job-specific applicant
pools and national norms for personality scales: Implications
for range-restriction corrections in validation research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 570577.
Partnoy, F. (2012). Wait: The art and science of delay. New
York: Public Affairs.
Peterson, N. G., Mumford, M. D., Borman, W. C., Jeanneret,
P. R., Fleishman, E. A., Levin, K. Y., Campion, M. A.,
Mayfield, M. S., Morgeson, F. P., & Pearlman, K. (2001). Understanding work using the Occupational Information Net-


work (O* NET): Implications for practice and research.
Personnel Psychology, 54, 451492.
Reeve, C. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (2004). Differential relations
between general cognitive ability and interestvocation fit.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 385
402.
Rentfrow, P., Gosling, S., & Potter, J. (2008). A theory of the
emergence, persistence, and expression of geographic variation in psychological characteristics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 339369.
Resnick, R. J. (2005). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in
teens and adults: They dont all outgrow it. Journal of clinical
psychology, 61, 529533.
Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One
hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described.
Review of General Psychology, 7, 331363.
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., &
Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status,
and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313345.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary
educational psychology, 25, 5467.
Sager, C. E. (1999). Occupational interests and values. In N. G.
Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, &
E. A. Fleishman (Eds.), An occupational information system for
the 21st century: The development of O*NET (pp. 197211).
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996).
Broadsided by broad traits: How to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 639
655.
Schouwenburg, H. C. (2004). Academic procrastination: Theoretical notions, measurement, and research. In H. C.
Schouwenburg, C. H. Lay, T. A. Pychyl, & J. R. Ferrari (Eds.),
Counseling the procrastinator in academic settings (pp. 317).
Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Senecal, C., & Guay, F. (2000). Procrastination in job-seeking:
An analysis of motivational processes and feelings of hopelessness. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 15, 267282.
Spurk, D., & Abele, A. (2011). Who earns more and why? A
multiple mediation model from personality to salary. Journal
of Business and Psychology, 26, 87103.
Statistics Canada. (2011). Women in Canada: A gender-based
statistical report, 20102011. (6th ed.). Available at http://
www.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=89-503X&lang=eng (accessed 15 January 2012).
Steel, P. (2002). The measurement and nature of procrastination. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota,
Minnesota, MN.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic
and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 6594.
Steel, P. (2010). Arousal, avoidant and decisional procrastinators: Do they exist? Personality and Individual Differences, 48,
926934.
Steel, P. (2011). The procrastination equation. Toronto, ON:
Random House.
Steel, P., & Ferrari, J. (2012). Sex, education and procrastination: An epidemiological study of procrastinators character-
istics from a global sample. European Journal of Personality, 27,
5158.
Steel, P., Johnson, J. W., Jeanneret, P. R., Scherbaum, C. A.,
Hoffman, C. C., & Foster, J. (2010). At sea with synthetic
validity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3, 371383.
Steel, P., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. (2009). Using a meta-analytic
perspective to enhance job component validation. Personnel
Psychology, 62, 533552.
Steel, P. D., Huffcutt, A. I., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. (2006).
From the work one knows the worker: A systematic review
of the challenges, solutions, and steps to creating synthetic
validity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14,
1636.
Taras, D., Steel, P., & Ponak, A. (2010). Personality and time
delay among arbitrators. Philadelphia, PA: Labour Arbitration
Conference.
Turban, D. B., Lee, F. K., da Motta Veiga, S. P., Haggard, D. L.,
& Wu, S. Y. (2013). Be happy, dont wait: The role of trait
affect in job search. Personnel Psychology, 66, 132. doi:
10.1111/peps.12027.
399
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2009).
Employment and earnings, 2009 annual averages and the
monthly labor review. Available at http://www.dol.gov/wb/
stats/main.htm (accessed 20 November 2010).
Venti, S. (2006). Choice, behavior and retirement saving. In G.
Clark, A. Munnell, & M. Orszag (Eds.), Oxford handbook of
pensions and retirement income (Vol. 1, pp. 2130). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Wanberg, C., Zhu, J., & van Hooft, E. A. J. (2010). The job
search grind: Perceived progress, self-reactions, and selfregulation of search effort. Academy of Management Journal,
53, 788807.
Wilk, S., Desmarais, L. B., & Sackett, P. (1995). Gravitation to jobs commensurate with ability: Longitudinal and
cross-sectional tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 79
85.
Withey, M. J., Gellatly, I. R., & Annett, M. (2005). The moderating effect of situation strength on the relationship between
personality and provision of effort. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 35, 15871608.


Procrastination's Impact in The Workplace

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Procrastination's Impact in The Workplace

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Volume 21 Number 4 December 2013