Who Wasted My Time? Measuring Perceived Time Loss at Work
Brian C. Holtz, PhD, Crystal M. Harold, PhD, Harshad Puranik, PhD, and Kristian Gardner, PhD Candidate
People talk about “time vampires” at work—people or activities that drain time and energy—as if they are simply a nuisance. We took that complaint seriously as a psychological experience, defining it as the moment an employee decides that someone else consumed their time in a way that was not useful for pursuing their goals. That judgment is subjective. It varies across people and situations, and it can be surprisingly costly. Yet the management literature had no clear definition of this experience and no validated way to measure it, leaving the field reliant on anecdotes and generic advice.
In this project, we define wasted time perceptions, develop and validate a brief measure, and show that these perceptions predict meaningful affective and behavioral outcomes above and beyond related workplace stressors. We also show that employees distinguish who is wasting their time and aim their frustration and responses accordingly.
When "Wasted Time" Is Not Just Clock Time
It is tempting to treat wasted time as objective: “If an hour passed and little happened, then an hour was wasted.” That view is too blunt for real workplaces. The same meeting can feel productive to one person and like theft to another, because what matters is not the number of minutes but the meaning of those minutes for one’s goals. We build on the idea that “waste” is fundamentally a value judgment. Time feels wasted when it does not adequately contribute to what a person is trying to achieve.
This goal-based lens also clarifies why wasted time is often interpersonal at work. People are especially reactive when others consume a scarce resource they value. Work is built on interdependence, with coworkers, bosses, and customers taking up large portions of the day. The practical question becomes when that time use crosses the line into perceived waste—and what happens next.
What We Built: A Five-Item Measure
We began by writing potential survey items directly from our definition of wasted time perceptions, generating a large pool of candidate statements. We then trimmed that pool aggressively, removing anything confusing, redundant, overly long, or drifting from the core idea. Next, we subjected the remaining items to formal content checks to ensure they captured wasted time perceptions rather than adjacent concepts.
This process yielded the Wasted Time Perceptions Scale: a short, five-item measure designed to capture the experience of someone else using up your time in a way that does not help you make progress toward your goals. The items reflect slightly different angles of the same experience: being asked to do things that felt like a waste, having one’s goals disrupted by time-draining requests, getting pulled into matters that seemed useless, being involved in activities that were not a good use of time, and an overall sense that one’s time was wasted.
We also designed the scale so researchers (and organizations) can target specific sources when needed. With small wording changes, the same items can refer to “people” generally or to particular sources, such as one’s boss, coworkers, subordinates, customers, or even oneself.
Validation Strategy and Downstream Effects
We did not invent the scale and hope for the best. We tested it repeatedly across seven samples of working adults, using a sequence of studies designed to establish both measurement quality and practical relevance.
First, we evaluated whether the items clearly captured wasted time perceptions rather than something else masquerading as wasted time. Next, we tested whether the five items cohered as a single construct instead of a loose bundle of complaints. We then examined what happens when employees perceive their time is being wasted, focusing on affective reactions and downstream attitudes and behaviors at work.
Finally, we zoomed in on the source of wasted time. We asked whether people experience wasted time as a vague sense that “work is wasting my time,” or whether they typically have a specific source in mind—and whether their reactions are directed back at that source.
Key Findings
Across studies, the scale behaved as a good measure should. It reliably captured one coherent perception—“my time is being wasted”—and did so consistently across different samples.
Wasted time perceptions overlap with other workplace problems, but they are not the same. Interruptions can be helpful. A person can be polite while still pulling someone into pointless tasks. And unfair treatment can occur without consuming much time. Our results consistently supported the same conclusion: wasted time perceptions are related to these experiences but distinct from them, and they predict outcomes above and beyond them.
The most consistent costs were emotional. When people perceived more wasted time, they reported greater frustration and worse general affect, lower job satisfaction, and stronger intentions to leave. Behaviorally, higher wasted time perceptions were associated with more counterproductive actions and, in several analyses, weaker performance and reduced helpfulness. Importantly, these patterns remained even after accounting for other common stressors. When organizations ignore wasted time perceptions, they miss a real driver of how employees feel and behave.
The clearest picture emerged when we examined who was doing the wasting. Employees typically did not attribute wasted time to “work in general.” Instead, they differentiated among bosses, coworkers, subordinates, customers, and themselves—and their reactions tracked that target. When someone felt their boss wasted their time, frustration and negative responses tended to be directed toward the boss; the same pattern held for other sources. When people felt they wasted their own time, the reaction looked different, aligning more with self-focused frustration and self-criticism.
This distinction matters because it points to different solutions. If wasted time perceptions are primarily interpersonal, fixes may involve reducing pointless demands, improving coordination, and setting clearer norms around requests. If the source is internal, solutions may focus more on goal clarity, prioritization, and structuring work so progress is easier to see.
Real Estate Application
In real estate, clients experience “wasted time” when an interaction fails to move them closer to their goal. The minutes are not the issue; the lack of progress is. This means the professional’s job is not just to be responsive, but to make every touchpoint visibly useful.
Start any call, meeting, or tour by stating the purpose in one sentence: by the end, you will know X, decide Y, or rule out Z. If you cannot name the purpose, the interaction is likely to become a candidate for “you wasted my time.”
Next, match the content to the client’s decision stage. When clients are exploring, they need contrast and discovery: options that clarify preferences and trade-offs. When clients are specific, they need precision: comparables, monthly payment ranges, condition risks, timelines, and what is realistically negotiable.
End each interaction with a visible win: something learned, narrowed, ruled out, or decided. If nothing changes in the client’s understanding or decision set, the interaction will feel like consumption without contribution.
And when delays happen, protect the relationship by clearly narrating control and uncertainty: what you control, what you are waiting on, and when the next decision point will occur. Doing so channels frustration toward the process rather than toward the agent.
Recommended Reading
Holtz, Brian C., Crystal M. Harold, Harshad Puranik, and Kristian Gardner (2025), “Don’t Waste My Time! The Development and Validation of the Wasted Time Perceptions Scale,” Journal of Management, 51(7), 3017-3060. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241258726
About the Authors
Brian C. Holtz, PhD
Professor of Management and Peter Liacouras Senior Research Fellow, Temple University
Dr. Brian C. Holtz’s (PhD – George Mason University) research interests primarily concern issues of fairness, trust, and temporal issues in organizations. Dr. Holtz currently serves on the editorial boards of Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology and as an Associate Editor for the Journal of Organizational Behavior. Dr. Holtz is a Faculty Fellow of the Center for Ethics, Diversity, and Workplace Culture (CEDWC) and contributes to CEDWC's research, education, and industry engagement initiatives.
Crystal M. Harold, PhD
Professor of Management, Anderson Research Fellow, and Associate Dean for Masters Programs, Temple University
Dr. Crystal M. Harold (PhD – George Mason University) research focuses on workplace fairness, leadership, counterproductive behaviors, as well as temporal issues at work. Her work appears in top OB/HRM outlets including Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Management, and Journal of Organizational Behavior. She has served as an Associate Editor at Human Resource Management, a Guest Editor at Journal of Business and Psychology, and on the editorial boards of Personnel Psychology, Journal of Management, and Journal of Organizational Behavior. In recognition of her accomplishments, she was awarded the Adrisani-Frank Undergraduate Teaching Award and Lindback Award for Distinguished Teaching and was recognized with the Musser Award for Excellence in Faculty Service.
Harshad Puranik, PhD
Associated Professor, University of Illinois Chicago
Dr. Harshad Puranik (PhD – University of Cincinnati) research focuses on three broad areas: work interruptions and how employees experience time in the workplace, workplace emotions and their consequences, and workplace social interactions, identity, and employees' work relationships. Dr. Puranik’s research has appeared in top academic journals in management, such as Academy of Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Management, and Journal of Organizational Behavior. His research has also been featured in prominent media and online outlets, such as The Economist, Forbes, Wall Street Journal, World Economic Forum, and numerous others. Dr. Puranik currently serves on the editorial board of four top-tier management journals, including Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. He teaches the Organizational Theory course at the undergraduate level and the Advanced Research Methods seminar at the doctoral level.
Kristian Gardner, PhD Candidate
Temple University
Kristian Gardner’s research interests include temporal issues in organizations, counterproductive work behavior, and personality. Prior to joining the PhD program, Mr. Gardner earned his BSBA in Organizational Psychology from Rider University.
