Practices that foster a learning or mastery orientation

In the 1970s, Carol Dweck introduced a concept, called goal orientation, that revolutionised the research on motivation. Goal orientation refers to whether individuals primarily strive to enhance their knowledge, skills, and competence, referred to as a learning orientation, or generally attempt to demonstrate their abilities and expertise, referred to as a performance orientation. Several threads of research indicate that a learning orientation should foster humility or diminish the deleterious effects of narcissism. To illustrate

as Owens et al. (2013) revealed, people who adopt a learning orientation are more likely to exhibit humility, in which they acknowledge their limitations and respect diverse perspectives,
a growth mindset, in which individuals assume that competence and character are modifiable (Dweck, 2006), tends to foster humility (Porter & Schumann, 2018) as well as promote a learning orientation (e.g., Wibowo & Sumiati, 2022),
as Braun et al. (2025) revealed, when the culture or climate of an organisation prioritise learning and development over competition and rivalry, narcissistic leaders are not as inclined to harm their organisation merely to pursue their personal interests.

Indeed, a learning orientation seems to foster an openness of individuals towards diverse perspectives and novel ideas. That is, when individuals adopt a learning orientation, they perform better in diverse teams (Pieterse et al., 2013). This finding implies that a learning orientation encourages individuals to respect and to embrace diverse perspectives: one of the cornerstones of humility, as defined by Tangney et al. (2000). Accordingly, initiatives that promote a learning orientation should foster humility or at least diminish the deleterious impact of narcissism.

Definitions of a learning orientation

Originally, the notion of a goal orientation emanated from the research that Carol Dweck published, in collaboration with colleagues, primarily on primary school children, in the 1970s and 1980s (e.g., Diener & Dweck, 1978; Diener & Dweck, 1980; Dweck, 1986). In these studies, children received problems to complete. As these problems became increasingly challenging, some children continued to enjoy the challenge, remaining confident and engaged as well adapting their strategies to solve these problems. Their principal goal was, seemingly, to develop and master knowledge, skills, and expertise, referred to as a learning orientation, as defined by Dweck and Elliott (1983). Other authors have applied different terms to delineate the same, or similar, behaviours—such a task-involved (Nicholls, 1984) or mastery-focused (Ames, 1984).

In contrast, other children become especially upset, disengaged, disinterested, and unconfident as these problems became more challenging, demonstrating a helpless response rather than adaptive response. Their principal goal was to demonstrate and validate, rather than develop and refine, their competence. This inclination is referred to as a performance orientation (Dweck & Elliott, 1983) and overlaps with the concept of ego-involved (Nicholls, 1984) and ability focused (Ames, 1984). Soon afterwards, these goals orientations were later established in adults as well (Farr et al., 1993).

Initially, researchers assumed that individuals adopt either a learning orientation or a performance orientation. Over the next couple of decades, this approach gradually evolved:

During the 1990s, researchers argued that a learning orientation and performance orientation should be conceptualised as two distinct dimensions because, in principle, individuals could demonstrate a strong motivation both to develop and to demonstrate their competence (Button et al, 1996).
During the late 1990s, researchers subdivided the notion of a performance orientation into two facets: a prove or approach dimension, in which individuals strive to demonstrate favourable attributes, and an avoid or avoidance dimension, in which individuals attempt to minimise or to conceal unfavourable characteristics (Elliott & Harackiewicz, 1996; VandeWalle, 1997).
Over a decade later, researchers also subdivided the notion of a learning or mastery orientation into two facets: mastery approach, in which individuals strive to improve their capabilities, and mastery avoid, in which individuals strive to minimise the deterioration of their capabilities (Baranik et al., 2013; Van Yperen et al., 2009).

In short, both learning orientation and performance orientation can be divided into two facets: an approach version and an avoidance version. Measures of goal orientation thus assign individuals a score on four dimensions: performance-approach, performance-avoid, learning-approach, and learning-avoid. All four dimensions can be useful in particular circumstances. Nevertheless, a strong learning orientation in general, or a learning-approach orientation in particular, is often especially useful. For example,

when individuals adopt a learning orientation instead of a performance orientation, increases in their workload are not as likely to damage their satisfaction at work (Van Yperen & Janssen, 2002),
when individuals embrace a learning orientation instead of a performance orientation, they are more likely to share their resources and behave cooperatively—perhaps because they perceive colleagues as sources of knowledge and not as potential rivals (Poortvliet & Giebels, 2012),
when people are encouraged to adopt a learning orientation instead of a performance orientation, they are more inclined to cheat on tasks (Van Yperen et al., 2011),
when people adopt a learning orientation instead of a performance orientation, their working memory tends to improve; that is, they can retain, transform, integrate, and consider many facets or issues simultaneously (Linnenbrink et al., 2000).

Arguably, when individuals adopt a learning orientation, their goal—to develop capabilities rather than to achieve some outcome—tends to be close rather than remote, generally boosting motivation. In addition, these individuals perceive challenges and criticisms as opportunities to improve, promoting resilience and flexibility.

Limited time pressure

To foster humility as well as many other benefits, leaders, practitioners, and other individuals need to encourage people to adopt a learning or mastery orientation in many settings. Fortunately, researchers have shown that various interventions, instructions, or initiatives can indeed promote a learning orientation.

To illustrate, the extent to which people feel rushed, in the workplace or in other settings, may affect goal orientation. Specifically, as Beck and Schmidt (2013), when people feel rushed, they tend to demonstrate the hallmarks of an avoidant performance orientation. In contrast, when people feel they are granted the luxury of time, they tend to exhibit a learning or mastery orientation.

In their study, undergraduate students first indicated the degree to which they agree with statements about time pressure, such as “I am working under excessive time pressure”. In addition, these participants completed questions that assess goal orientation and exam performance. Time pressure was negatively associated with learning orientation but positively associated with a performance-avoid orientation. Learning orientation also improved exam performance. Accordingly, to evoke a learning orientation, and thus potentially to foster humility, individuals should be granted enough time, or control over how to allocate their time, to complete their tasks.

Presumably, when time is limited, people are concerned they may not fulfill their goals. Accordingly, they orient their attention towards more immediate needs rather than future goals, such as professional development.

A supportive interpersonal environment

When individuals feel their interpersonal environment is supportive, they tend to exhibit all the hallmarks of a learning orientation, such as embrace challenging tasks. In these settings, individuals are not as worried or vigilant about their relationships and can instead shift their attention to their own learning and development.

To illustrate, in one study, conducted by Kiuru et al. (2014), the participants were children, between kindergarten and grade 4. Teachers rated how they feel about each child as well as the extent to which the children were accepted by peers. Parents rated their parenting style. Children evaluated the extent to which they enjoy or avoid challenging tasks. When teachers, parents, and peers were supportive at one, the children were more inclined to embrace challenging tasks at subsequent times, epitomising a learning orientation.

This finding can be ascribed to the tenets of attachment theory. That is, cues that signal a sense of support prime memories of the past, especially during childhood, in which individuals felt protected by a supportive and accessible caregiver. While individuals experience this sense of protection, called a secure base, they feel safe enough to explore unfamiliar features of their environment and to develop their repertoire of capabilities, epitomising a learning orientation. As Mikulincer et al. (2001) revealed, even subliminal exposure to the names of supportive caregivers enhances creativity—a mindset that facilitates growth and development.

Whether an environment is deemed as supportive may partly depend on the degree to which individuals tend to be trusting. Consistent with this possibility, trust propensity, measured by questions like “I generally trust other people unless they give me a reason not to”, is positively associated with a learning orientation (Chughtai & Buckley, 2011).

Teaching style

Some teaching practices are especially likely to foster a learning or mastery orientation in the classroom as well as promote intellectual humility. Tenelle Porter, from Rowan University, and her associates conducted a study that uncovered four teaching practices that tend to foster mastery goals and intellectual humility:

discussions about how students can apply strategies to improve their intellectual abilities, priming a growth mindset,
feedback about the degree to which students are applying effective strategies, mobilising effort, and persisting in response to obstacles,
enabling students to assume distinct roles during classroom activities,
encouraging students to think conceptually about how to improve their learning.

Specifically, in this study, the participants were 547 students—typically around 12 years of age, derived from 26 classrooms and nine schools—together with their 17 teachers. In the fall of one year and then six months later, the students completed two scales:

a measure of intellectual humility that comprised three questions, including “I am willing to admit it when I do not know something”,
a measure of the degree to which the classroom prioritises mastery or learning goals that includes six items, such as “In my class, it’s OK to make mistakes as long as you are learning” (Midgley et al., 2000).

Between these two periods, observers rated the degree to which the teachers applied the four teaching practices that purportedly foster mastery goals, as Catalán Molina et al. (2022) enumerated. For example, the observers identified whether teachers

alluded to how the brain is like a muscle that can become stronger over time,
when delivering feedback, referred to the strategies or effort of students,
assigned each student a unique role while they worked in small workgroups,
encouraged students to apply particular strategies to solve problems,
asked students to explain the strategies they used to complete the assignment.

Finally, a year after the first survey, the students again completed the measure of intellectual humility. The researchers used MPlus Version 8 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998–2017) to conduct multilevel Bayesian analysis, with informative priors to minimise bias (see Smit et al., 2020), in which students were nested within classrooms and schools. When teachers applied the four sets of teaching practices, students became more likely to feel the classroom prioritised mastery. This belief also enhanced intellectual humility over time.

Leadership style

Presumably, the approach that leaders adopt may affect the degree to which individuals feel rushed or supported. Consequently, the leadership style of managers and supervisors may affect the goal orientation of staff. Indeed, studies confirm that leadership style shapes learning orientation. Coad and Berry (1998), for example, revealed that a learning orientation prevailed when managers demonstrated a transformational style—a style in which leaders promulgate an inspiring vision of the future as well as grant staff the tools and opportunities to pursue this vision.

Other research has also clarified how the leadership style of managers could affect the learning orientation of staff. To illustrate, Özsahin et al. (2011) conducted a study to explore this relationship in more detail. In this study, 127 participating firms completed a questionnaire that assessed

the degree to which leaders facilitate change, such as “empower peoples to implement new strategies”,
the extent to which leaders coordinate and plan tasks carefully, such as “assigns work to groups or individuals” and “clarifies role expectations and task objectives”,
the degree to which leaders establish trusting relationships with staff,
feel that learning is valued.

All three leadership styles encouraged the pursuit of learning. Presumably, when leaders inspire staff to embrace innovative practices, individuals feel motivated to develop novel strategies rather than merely achieve excellence, epitomising a learning orientation. When leaders plan tasks carefully and establish trusting relationships, staff are confident they can fulfill the expectations of these leaders. Therefore, these staff may feel protected and, consistent with attachment theory, thus able to explore unfamiliar tasks and possibilities.

Leadership exploration

Rather than overarching leadership styles, some researchers have explored more specific behaviours that may foster a learning orientation. Specifically, some managers often adopt an approach called exploitation in which they apply, extend, and refine the existing knowledge or skills of the organisation to improve performance. In practice, these organisations tend to modify their extant products and services to accommodate potential customers. In contrast, other managers often adopt an approach called exploration in which they experiment with novel practices or perspectives to improve performance. In practice, these organisations tend to develop novel products and services to attract potential customers (March, 1991). Because exploitation tends to attract more immediate returns, organisations do not often prioritise exploration sufficiently (Fang et al., 2010).

As Matsuo (2020) proposed, if managers prioritise exploration, they inspire staff to explore unfamiliar sources of knowledge and insight, fostering a learning orientation. Second, these managers also role model some of the practices that epitomise a learning orientation, such as attempting unfamiliar tasks. To confirm this premise, a sample of 147 employees of a Japanese pharmaceutical company completed a survey that Matsuo (2020) assembled. These employees completed questions that assess

the degree to which their managers undertake exploration activities, such as “(My supervisor searches) for new possibilities with respect to products, services, processes, or markets” (Mom et al., 2007),
the extent to which they adopt a learning orientation, such as “I look for opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge” (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2003),
their willingness to reflect upon their work, such as “I often reflect upon whether I am working effectively” and “I often review the methods I use to get the job done” (West, 2000).

As the data revealed, leadership exploration was positively associated with both a learning orientation and reflection. Indeed, learning orientation mediated the association between leadership exploration and reflection. Similar to a learning orientation, reflection may also foster humility.

Anticipatory gratitude

Sometimes, individuals receive anticipatory gratitude—in which they are thanked for a demanding or stressful task they have yet to complete or even commence. For example, a supervisors may express a comment like “thank you so much for agreeing to help the new staff next week, especially because I know how busy you are.” As research implies, this anticipatory gratitude seems to promote resilience and persistence in response to challenges and feedback, characteristic of a learning orientation. Therefore, this anticipatory gratitude, when genuine, may foster humility.

Evidence

To illustrate, Jazaieri and O’Neill (2025) conducted a study in which the participants were 331 online gig workers. These participants completed a remote associates test—also called a RAT (Mednick, 1962; for norms, see Bowden & Jung-Beeman, 2003). On each trial, participants attempted to identify a word that may be related to three other terms, such as goat, top, and pass. In this example, the answer is mountain. In this study, however,

these items were especially hard, culminating in many errors,
indeed, after three blocks, to elicit distress, participants were informed they had performed below average,
after these blocks, participants were granted the opportunity to attempt the task again, as many times as they like—a test of persistence or resilience to failure,
finally, participants completed a measure that assesses the degree to which they experienced social worth (Grant, 2008b), comprising two questions: “I feel that the requester of this task values my contributions” and “I feel that the requester of this task appreciates my work”.

Either before this task or after the first three blocks, participants received a message, from the researcher who approves the payment, that demonstrated gratitude. That is, this researcher expressed sincere appreciation towards the efforts of participants. As hypothesised

if participants had received the message of gratitude in advance, before they initiated the task, they were more likely to persist after multiple failures,
social-worth, in which individuals felt their efforts were appreciated, mediated this association.

Arguably, when individuals are recipients of gratitude, they feel their efforts matter. This feeling promotes effort, resilience, and persistence. Indeed, as a subsequent study revealed, other emotions, such as hope rather than gratitude, did not elicit this social-worth and persistence.

Relevance to a learning orientation

This persistence after failure is emblematic of a profound motivation to master the task, comparable to a learning orientation. Indeed, many researchers have utilised similar tasks to assess mastery behaviour (e.g., Porter et al., 2020). Mueller and Dweck (1998), for example, designed a protocol in which individuals attempt challenging puzzles. The researchers then measure

the degree to which individuals persist on hard puzzles, called persistence,
the time these individuals dedicate to reading tips and completing moderately challenging puzzles, called effort,
performance after failing on a set of puzzles, called resilience,
the number of hard puzzles they choose to complete, called challenge-seeking.

The sum of these measures—that is, persistence, effort, resilience, and challenge-seeking, sometimes called PERC—purportedly assesses mastery behaviour. Hence, the measure of resilience and persistence that Jazaieri and O’Neill (2025) utilised also gauges mastery behaviour and thus most likely reflects a learning orientation. Accordingly, the study that Jazaieri and O’Neill (2025) published suggest that anticipatory gratitude may foster a learning orientation and, hence, encourage humility.

Practices that may diminish time pressure: A four-day work week

Because time pressure tends to diminish the degree to which individuals feel inspired to develop their capabilities (Beck & Schmidt, 2013)—a key determinant or feature of humility (Owens et al., 2013)—initiatives that diminish the extent to which people feel rushed should foster humility. Conceivably, a four-day work week may grant some individuals more time to develop capabilities and pursue other rewarding pursuits. This arrangement, therefore, could foster humility.

Four-day work weeks have been discussed and trialled since the mid 1900s (Dunham & Hawk, 1977; Hartman & Weaver, 1977) but then resurfaced with zeal this century. Over 60 UK companies have recently experimented with this arrangement (Stewart, 2023). Nevertheless, despite the proclaimed benefits of four-day work weeks—such as improvements in productivity, work engagement, job satisfaction, and wellbeing—some of the purported merits are unsubstantiated and exaggerated (Bird, 2010).

The Icelandic case study

One case study, often touted as evidence of the consequences, and specifically the benefits, of the four-day work week was conducted in Iceland. Specifically, 66 workplaces trialled a reduced work week. According to a report, in general, these arrangements enhanced the wellbeing of staff as well as the capacity of these individuals to balance their work and family responsibilities. Furthermore, these arrangements did not appear to dent, and may have even improved, the services these organisations delivered (Haraldsson & Kellam, 2021).

Nevertheless, as Campbell (2024) underscored, some caveats of this study may constrain the implications of these results. For example

61 of the 65 workplaces did not reduce work to four days—but merely diminished work hours by three or fewer hours a week,
the organisations, including the Reykjavik City Council, provided services—in contrast to the manufacturing, construction or fisheries industries that are prevalent in Iceland and may be more impeded by reduced work hours

The case study in New Zealand

Besides the case study in Iceland, one of the other most prominent examples of a four-day work week was introduced by an established company in New Zealand that was medium in size and providing financial services. Delaney and Casey (2022) published a report that outlines and analyses this case study in detail.

Specifically, in 2018, this company decreased the working hours of staff from 40 hours, across 5 days, to 32 hours, across four days, while maintaining staff remuneration and conditions. The primary, but not sole, motivation of the Director was to increase productivity—predicated on the assumption that staff motivation, concentration, and efficiency may otherwise wane across the week. However, because of workloads and reporting deadlines, some teams or members of staff could not fully embrace these arrangements. Before this trial commenced, few staff had been granted flexible working arrangements, such as telecommuting, flexitime, or job sharing.

The director announced that, if productivity was maintained after eight weeks, this arrangement would be permanent. Teams were assigned the responsibility to define, measure, and report their productivity. Energy usage, absenteeism, and other indices were also measured. Delaney and Casey (2022) also conducted focus groups and interviews to explore approaches to measure productivity, attitudes towards the trial, challenges the staff experienced, and implications of this trial.

As these discussions as well as documentation revealed, to implement this trial, staff were granted more opportunities to contribute towards workplace practices—to, for example, choose suitable measures of productivity, record the insights they gained from this trial, and suggest innovations to improve efficiency. These opportunities also stimulated intellectual engagement, promoted collaboration across teams and staff, as well as ignited effort in staff. To work more efficiently, staff indicated they

did not linger during coffee breaks or similar occasions,
experienced a sense of urgency and exhilaration,
either within or outside work hours, planned their days or weeks in advance
may have worked more expediently, potentially compromising some quality,
sometimes experienced stress (Delaney & Casey, 2022).

Because of this stress, some individuals returned to a five-day week. Other staff indicated they would like more flexibility or discretion on when they could work four days a week. But staff who maintained the four-day week experienced many benefits to their lives because they could participate in more activities that revolve around family, community, study, wellbeing, and other duties. Nevertheless, some caveats were recognised:

First, the novelty of this trial might have boosted motivation and could wane over time.
Similarly, staff were motivated to bolster the success of this arrangement; otherwise, they would need to work five days a week in the future. Consequently, during this trial, staff may have been especially motivated and productive.

Because the trial was successful, the company maintained the four-day work week, although staff were instructed to remain available to work if needed—a position that most staff, but not all leaders, embraced. Staff also agreed they need to earn this right to work four days only if their productivity is sufficient: the arrangement was deemed as a privilege and not a right or entitlement.

More comprehensive programs

Despite the significant media attention they attracted, the trials in Iceland and New Zealand were confined to specific industries and two nations. In contrast, Fan et al. (2025) presented research on 141 organisations, located in the US, Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand, that had trialled a four-day work week or similar reductions in work hours. In all these organisations, the 2896 staff maintained their pay during this trial. Specifically

before the trial began, over two months, organisations introduced a range of initiatives, discussions, and events to maintain productivity and minimise inefficiency—such as cancel unnecessary meetings,
in general, staff could work longer than four days if they preferred,
the trials lasted six months.

As the findings revealed (Fan et al., 2025), reductions in work hours tended predict decreases in burnout and improvements in job satisfaction, mental health, and even physical health. These benefits were mediated by three key effects of reduced work hours:

the tendency of staff to feel they could work more effectively,
a decrease in sleep problems,
a decrease in fatigue, potentially improving productivity.

Although productivity was not assessed objectively, over 90% of the organisations chose to sustain these arrangements. And, importantly, even after 12 months, wellbeing remained elevated, suggesting that perhaps the benefits of reduced hours could last a significant time.

Reasons that a four-day work week may be effective

To introduce a four-day work week or a similar arrangement, practitioners need to know why, and thus when, reduced work hours could enhance productivity. To help practitioners achieve this goal, Rae and Russell (2025) explored some of the physiological and cognitive changes that may underpin these benefits.

First, as Rae and Russell (2025) underscored, if individuals work fewer hours, they are granted more time to detach psychologically from their workplace (Clinton et al., 2017). This detachment has been shown to diminish rumination (see Weigelt et al., 2019) and facilitate sleep (Pereira et al., 2016). Delays and disruptions to sleep tend to diminish.

As sleep improves, individuals tend to reach more effective decisions. That is, restored sleep improves the functioning of specific brain circuits (e.g., Libedinsky et al., 2011), such as frontal-striatal pathways and the default mode network (De Havas et al., 2012). Better functioning of the frontal-striatal pathways enhances the capacity of individuals to set and to fulfill goals. Activation of the default mode network may improve the ability of staff to solve problems creatively, and so forth.

Moderate levels of detachment from work also facilitate recovery, enhancing the degree to which staff feel alert and energised the next day (Wendsche & Lohmann-Haislah, 2017). This recovery may also enhance attention, regulation, and performance.

Second, when staff need to confine their work to fewer days, they naturally and creatively seek opportunities to improve efficiency. They may agree that fewer people need to contribute to some task, such as a meeting or decision. They might utilise technologies that facilitate productivity. They may prevent distractions. Or teams might agree to relinquish activities that are no longer productive or necessary.

Effects of reduced work hours on sleep and recovery

Some research has indeed confirmed that working fewer hours does indeed improve sleep and facilitate recovery. As evidence of this premise, Schiller et al. (2017) published a study that investigated an ambitious project. Specifically, between 2005 and 2006, the Swedish government commissioned a project in which 33 government agencies or services were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In one condition, comprising 354 staff members of 17 agencies, the participating individuals were instructed to work 25% fewer hours than usual. The agencies received additional funding to engage other staff to fulfill unmet work demands. This trial lasted 18 months. In the control condition, 226 staff members of 16 agencies worked their usual hours.

At three times—before, during, and after the trial—participants maintained a sleep diary. For example, they answered questions about whether they slept well, whether they were worried about their sleep, and so forth. During the day, these participants answered questions that gauge the degree to which they feel drowsy. As the findings revealed

staff of the agencies that reduced work hours reported improvements in sleep duration and quality as well as decreases in drowsiness, worry, and stress,
these effects persisted even after controlling age, education, and job control (Schiller et al., 2017).

A year later, Schiller et al. (2018) examined how staff utilised the additional time they were granted after their work hours were curtailed. As this study revealed, the staff who worked fewer hours dedicated more time to activities that might facilitate recovery and recuperation, such as hobbies, reading, and listening to the radio.

Concerns about a four-day work week: Perceptions of employees

To explore the potential concerns or complications of a four-day work week, from the perspective of employees, Jain et al. (2025) interviewed 14 adult staff from manufacturing, healthcare, finance, education, and other sectors. The researchers prompted the participants to share their perspectives on this arrangement. Although participants recognised some of the benefits of a four-day work week, such as the capacity to balance work and family responsibilities, these individuals also raised some concerns. For example

some participants were concerned that attempting to cram five days of work into four days might either provoke haste and stress, prolong work days, or compromise revenue,
other participants felt that four-day work weeks may not be appropriate in sectors in which staff must collaborate daily with stakeholders from other organisations, unless these organisations also impose this arrangement,
finally, some participants were dubious about whether many organisations would adopt this model without government incentives or subsidies—because the financial risk to workplaces might otherwise be too onerous (Jain et al., 2025).

Practices that may diminish time pressure: How to manage the planning fallacy

Introduction

To diminish time pressure and thus inspire people to develop their capabilities— a key determinant or feature of humility (Owens et al., 2013)—people need to manage the planning fallacy. The planning fallacy is the tendency of individuals to underestimate the duration that is needed to complete most tasks (e.g., Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; or reviews, see Buehler et al., 2002; Buehler & Griffin, 2015).

To illustrate, in one study that Buehler et al. (1994) published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a class of students were instructed to estimate the date at which they will finish their thesis. They actually completed their thesis, on average, in 56 days. However, they predicted they will complete their thesis in 34 days. Because of this planning fallacy, individuals often do not fulfill their planned deadlines and thus tend to feel rushed.

In some studies, participants must complete an extensive task, comprising several distinct phases. Participants must then predict the date at which they will complete the task. In other studies, participants must complete a more confined task. They must then predict the time at which they will complete this activity. The planning fallacy has been observed in both of these circumstances, with overestimates of time ranging from 20% to 50% (see Dunning, 2007). Nevertheless, when the task is completed over an extended time, this fallacy is especially pronounced.

Accounts to explain the planning fallacy

One explanation of this planning fallacy is that people, when planning a task, orient their attention to this activity rather than other key sources of information, called a focal bias. To illustrate

people often underrate how similar the task is to previous activities they have completed and, hence, disregard the considerable time that was needed to complete these previous activities (Kahneman & Lovallo, 1993),
when constructing plans, individuals tend to consider the best possible outcome (Newby-Clark et al., 2000), overlooking the possibility of unexpected, but plausible, complications and obstacles,
when constructing plans, individuals tend to orient their attention to the overall goals, benefits, or phases of a task—and thus may overlook some of the specific actions that may demand considerable time (Kruger & Evans, 2004),
incentives to complete a task rapidly tends to amplify these various biases (Buehler et al., 1997).

Alternatively, the planning fallacy could partly be ascribed to anchoring and adjustment. To demonstrate, in typical studies, participants are asked to estimate the date at which they will complete some task. Their initial estimate, called the anchor, is perhaps the same week. Next, they adjust their estimate from this anchor to future days or weeks. Importantly, as many studies show, individuals do not adjust sufficiently from initial anchors. Their initial estimate may bias their final estimate.

LeBoeuf and Shafir (2009) uncovered some findings that substantiate this possibility. In one study, some participants were warned that adjustments are often inadequate. This warning diminished or nullified the planning fallacy. In another study, some participants estimated the number of weeks, rather than days, they would need to complete some task. These participants were more likely to estimate longer times. Presumably

if participants focus on weeks instead of days, even a few adjustments from the anchor could generate a prediction of two or more months,
if participants orient their attention to days instead of weeks, a few adjustments will not diverge appreciably from the anchor (LeBoeuf & Shafir, 2009).

Strategies that may diminish the planning fallacy: Task deliberation

Some deliberations about the activities that individuals plan to complete may diminish the planning fallacy and thus might decrease time pressure. To illustrate, when tasks are perceived as arduous and demanding, the planning fallacy might diminish. For example, in one study, conducted by Jiga-Boy et al. (2010),

participants were asked to visualise a range of events, such as shifting house,
next, these participants indicated the degree to which this activity would demand effort on a 7-point scale as well as how close or far away this event feels in time,
events or activities that demand considerable effort felt closer in time.

Therefore, if a task seems taxing or demanding, the deadline might seem close. Individuals might thus feel they need more time to complete this activity, potentially diminishing the planning fallacy. Accordingly, if people visualise the effort they might need to devote to a task, the planning fallacy might subside.

Admittedly, Jiga-Boy et al. (2010) did not explicitly assess whether individuals who consider the effort they need to dedicate to a task are less susceptible to the planning fallacy. However, as Hadjichristidis et al. (2014) revealed, if individuals are prompted to consider phases of a task that are difficult or unfamiliar, the planning fallacy tends to subside.

Other research has also investigated whether deliberation about a task may limit the planning fallacy. For example, in a study that Koole and Spijker (2000) conducted,

some participants were prompted to consider the time and place in which they will complete an activity, as vividly as possible, called an implementation intention,
other participants were not prompted to consider the time and place in which they will complete an activity,
if participants consider the time and place in which they will complete an activity, the planning fallacy dissipated.

Specifically, the individuals who had considered the time and place of this activity vividly tended to complete the task before other participants—but had underestimated the degree to which these implementation intentions would facilitate task completion.

Intriguingly, if individuals plan the task in reverse order, the planning fallacy dissipates. For example, in one study that Wiese et al. (2016) conducted,

participants were instructed to plan the activities they will undertake to prepare before a date,
some participants were instructed to first plan the last activity they need to complete, then to plan the second last activity, and so forth
relative to the other participants, these individuals recognised the plan would demand a longer time, diminishing the planning fallacy.

According to Wiese et al. (2016), this technique may be effective because, when individuals consider the activities they need to complete in reverse order,

they do not tend to construct the plan as fluently,
consequently, they are not as likely to overlook potential obstacles and complications,
furthermore, the participants are more attuned to the final task or deadline—and so this deadline feels closer, diminishing optimism.

Nevertheless, some deliberation about the task may exacerbate the planning fallacy. For example, in a study that Buehler and Griffin (2003) conducted,

participants estimated the time they may need to complete their Christmas shopping
some participants were asked to consider the main steps they will complete to fulfill this task, including when, where, and how they will undertake these tasks
relative to a control group, the planning fallacy was more pronounced after individuals considered the main steps

These findings are consistent with the proposition that planning fallacies can partly be ascribed to the inclination of people to orient their attention unduly to the forthcoming task rather than other cues, such as past experience (Buehler & Griffin, 2003).

Strategies that may diminish the planning fallacy: Mental images

Mental images can also diminish the planning fallacy. For example, to plan a task, individuals could visualise the activities they need to complete as well as potential disruptions or challenges. As Buehler, Griffin, et al. (2012) revealed, if people imagine this task from the perspective of someone else—as if watching themselves complete this task—the planning fallacy tends to subside. In contrast, if people imagine this task from their own perspective, as if watching the scene from their own eyes, the planning fallacy is magnified.

Buehler, Griffin, et al. (2012) proposed, and then validated, several reasons to explain this finding. Specifically, if people imagine these tasks from the perspective of someone else

they feel a sense of detachment from this task,
therefore, they are more willing to consider, rather than trivialise, potential obstacles that could unfold,
their motivation to complete the activity rapidly is not as likely to bias their estimates of when they can finish the task.

Strategies that may diminish the planning fallacy: Practices that elicit uncertainty

Some researchers have explored whether practices or activities that elicit a sense of uncertainty or subordination, rather than certainty or power, may also diminish the planning fallacy. To illustrate, in a study that Weick and Guinote (2010) published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

to elicit a sense of power, some participants were informed their opinions would affect the final decision about some policy,
other participants were informed their opinions would not affect this decision,
all participants were then told to estimate they time they would need to complete some assignment; the actual time was recorded as well
if participants experienced a sense of power, they were more likely to underestimate the time that would be needed to complete some task—even after controlling self-efficacy.

In another study, some of the participants were also asked to consider the time they needed to complete similar tasks in the past. This reflection diminished the effect of power on the planning fallacy (Weick & Guinote, 2010). To explain this set of results, Weick and Guinote (2010) argued that

when people experience a sense of power, they orient their attention only to the goals they want to achieve rather than other sources of information, such as obstacles they experienced in the past on similar tasks,
if participants are prompted to consider these previous occasions, this tendency is curbed and the planning fallacy subsides.

For similar reasons, if a plan is hard to imagine vividly, the planning fallacy dissipates. To illustrate, in one study that Min and Arkes (2013),

the participants, who were engaged to be married, identified an activity they needed to complete to plan their wedding, such as select a reception hall
these individuals needed to write about either two steps or five steps they would complete to fulfill this plan
finally, participants were asked to specify the date at which they would complete this task
if asked to specify five steps—a task that is relatively challenging—the planning fallacy diminished.

A challenging task provokes a sense of unease, usually interpreted as a problem or complication, diminishing optimism and offsetting the planning fallacy. Consistent with this interpretation, when participants were informed that feelings of difficulty are natural and do not signify a problem, the difficulty associated with the five steps did not as effectively curb the planning fallacy (Min & Arkes, 2013).

Likewise, the research that Bordley et al. (2019) published implies that another technique could also elicit a sense of uncertainty and diminish the planning fallacy. Specifically, when individuals estimate the time they might need to complete a task or subtask, they should record both an optimistic estimate and a pessimistic estimate. These multiple values implies these estimates are uncertain—and this uncertainty diminishes the planning fallacy (Bordley et al., 2019), as a series of Monte Carlo simulations verified.

Strategies that may diminish the planning fallacy: Individual versus team settings

In team settings, individuals are especially likely to underestimate the time that is needed to complete some project, amplifying the planning fallacy (Buehler et al., 2005). Specifically, as Buehler et al. (2005) revealed

when teams discussed how long they need to complete a task, the estimates were especially optimistic and hence the planning fallacy was amplified,
teams tended to orient their discussion on opportunities that could boost success rather than potential obstacles or complications.

Presumably, in team settings, individuals feel the need to impress other people. That is,

in team settings, individuals want to be perceived as optimistic and efficient
this need to impress other people has been shown to magnify the planning fallacy (Pezzo et al., 2006)
consistent with this premise, when individuals do not disclose their estimates of when they will complete a task, the planning fallacy subsides (Pezzo et al., 2006).

Furthermore, managers are more likely to underestimate the duration that a large team, rather than a small team, needs to complete tasks, called the team scaling fallacy (Staats, Milkman, & Fox, 2012). For example,

managers might assume that a team of 4 people may complete a task in 5 days and a team of 2 people may complete the same task in double that time: 10 days
in practice, however, the team of 4 people may actually complete the task in 9 days and the team of 2 people may complete the task in 11 days.

Staats, Milkman, and Fox (2012) ascribe the team scaling fallacy to the inclination of people to underestimate the complications of teams. That is, when teams are large, the individuals experience several benefits: They can often specialise in the tasks they enjoy and can access more extensive knowledge. However, large teams also evoke complications. Information is not communicated as effectively. People may become unmotivated rather than assume responsibility. And conflict is more likely. Individuals tend to be more attuned to the benefits, instead of the drawbacks, of large teams. Therefore, they overestimate the efficiency of large teams.

Strategies that may diminish the planning fallacy: Immediate versus future projects

The planning fallacy might depend on whether the project is scheduled to be completed in the immediate or remote future (Peetz et al, 2010). According to construal level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2000, 2003; Trope et al., 2007), when events seem near, rather than distant, in time, individuals consider the tangible actions or features of a task. They might, for example, describe someone as “using a keyboard”—a tangible action—rather than “communicating”—an intangible or abstract concept. This orientation to concrete, tangible details can either amplify or inhibit the planning fallacy, depending on the primary thoughts of individuals.

To clarify, when individuals contemplate the duration that is needed to complete a task, they sometimes orient their attention to possible obstacles, such as “I might be interrupted by telephone calls”. If they plan to complete the task soon, and thus orient their attention to concrete details, these obstacles seem especially salient. The planning fallacy dissipates: That is, individuals predict they will not complete the task rapidly.

In contrast, some individuals orient their attention to avenues or activities that will facilitate performance, like “I will contact three friends to help”. In this instance, if they plan to complete the task soon, these provisions and opportunities seem especially salient. The planning fallacy will be amplified.

Peetz et al. (2010) conducted a study that substantiates these arguments. Participants needed to estimate the duration they will need to complete some task, such as purchase gifts for Christmas or complete a school assignment—either weeks or months before undertaking this activity. In addition, the thoughts they entertained as they estimated these durations were sought. When the tasks needed to be completed in several weeks rather than months

the planning fallacy diminished if participants referred to obstacles
but the planning fallacy increased if participants referred to provisions and plans.

Accordingly, to curb the planning fallacy,

if the task needs to be completed very soon, individuals should be encouraged to identify two or three key obstacles
if the task needs to be completed in several months or years, individuals should be encouraged to identify many provisions and opportunities they could utilise to facilitate performance.

Controversies around the planning fallacy

As Love et al. (2019) revealed, the planning fallacy may not be observed in all settings or sectors. Specifically, Love et al. examined a repository of data about transportation projects, worth about US 14 billions dollars in aggregate. For each project, the database recorded the approved budget and the final cost. The rationale was

if the planning fallacy is prevalent, projects should often be delayed, and hence the final cost should generally exceed the approved budget,
however, as the analysis revealed, in almost half the cases, the final cost was less than was the approved budget, suggesting the planning fallacy does not apply in large transportation projects.

Arguably, in some circumstances, planning fallacies or optimistic plans are especially detrimental. In these circumstances, the likelihood of planning fallacies might naturally abate. That is, leaders may introduce a range of practices to prevent optimistic estimates that could be damaging to the organisation.

Practices that diminish time pressure: Remote and hybrid work arrangements

Hybrid work arrangements and productivity: Systematic reviews

To diminish time pressure and thus foster a learning orientation, many organisations have trialled hybrid working arrangements, in which staff work at least some days at home. These arrangements can diminish the time that individuals squander on commuting, prevent distractions from co-workers, as well as potentially improve concentration and thus productivity (e.g., Williams & Shaw, 2025). Indeed, a variety of studies and reviews suggest that, in general, these arrangements tend to enhance productivity, diminishing the time that individuals need to devote to their work life.

For example, Maity and Lee (2025) conducted a systematic review to explore the effect of hybrid, or sometimes remote, working arrangements on productivity in small and medium enterprises. To uncover suitable publications, the researchers utilised several databases, such as Web of Science and Scopus, and searched a range of terms, such as flexible work arrangements, teleworking in SMEs, hybrid work environment for SMEs, and so forth. The researchers uncovered 12 publications that fulfill their selection criteria. Some of these publications revealed that hybrid working arrangements tend to enhance productivity, especially when complemented with suitable policies and practices. To illustrate

in a survey of 100 IT staff in small and medium enterprises (Kokot, 2023), 40% of participants believed they were more productive because they can forego disruptions such as commuting or unnecessary conversations and 60% believed they were more productive because they can choose the best time and location to work,
in a survey of 183 employees of small and medium enterprises in Ghana (Peprah et al., 2020), if staff were granted flexible work options, such as the right to work at home occasionally, these individuals were perceived as more productive and the organisation was perceived as more profitable,
in a survey that examined 200 small and medium enterprises in India (Sharma et al., 2023), when staff could work remotely, the productivity and profitability of the firm increased significantly.

In general, these studies indicated that hybrid work arrangements enhance productivity. Nevertheless, this conclusion is tentative because

these studies generally examined subjective, rather than objective, measures of productivity,
these benefits of hybrid work arrangements on productivity depended on appropriate IT infrastructure, such as a strong internet connection, the motivation of staff to work, and procedures to organise remote work effectively (Strakšienė et al., 2021),
hybrid work arrangements could also amplify a range of complications, such as concerns about cybersecurity (Sharma et al., 2023).d to separate their work and home lives.

Hybrid work arrangements and performance: Systematic reviews

Rather than productivity, some research has explored whether hybrid work arrangements enhance or impair the performance of staff, as gauged by supervisors and managers. To illustrated, embedded within a larger meta-analysis, Gajendran et al. (2024) uncovered 10 studies that explored whether remote work intensity—defined as the number of days that staff can work at home—affects job performance, as rated by supervisors. As these studies, all conducted before COVID-19, revealed

the number of days that staff could work at home was positively associated with job performance,
the correlation was about .11 and significant,
a feeling of autonomy partly mediated this association between working from home and job performance; however, a sense of isolation partly offset this association.

These findings are consistent with the dual pathway model of remote work intensity. According to this model, when individuals can work remotely, at least on some days,

they feel they are granted more discretion over their work, such as the order in which they will complete tasks, the methods they will use, and the precise time in which they will work,
because of this autonomy, they can choose work practices that are more compatible with their motives and needs, fostering engagement and productivity,
nevertheless, they may be more likely to feel isolated from their colleagues, diminishing sources of knowledge, feedback, support, and motivation.

Practices that affect the impact of hybrid arrangements: Leadership style

The previous sections explored whether hybrid working arrangements tend to improve productivity or performance. The impact of hybrid working arrangements on productivity, however, is likely to depend on many considerations, such as the leadership style of supervisors and managers. A few studies have explored the implications of leadership style to hybrid work.

For example, in one study, Marstand, Epitropaki, and Kapoutsis (2025) administered an online survey to 202 staff who sometimes worked remotely. These individuals completed questions that assess

the degree to which their supervisors articulate a compelling vision of the future, such as “My manager paints an interesting picture of the future for our work team” (Podsakoff et al., 1996),
the extent to which their supervisors display supportive and caring behaviours towards staff, called consideration, such as “My manager is friendly and approachable” (see Johnson et al., 2012),
the degree to which these individuals feel a sense of distance from workplace, such as “I feel we are spatially close to the manager” or “I feel socially close to the manager” (see also Lim et al., 2012),
how these individuals cope with stress at work (Endler & Parker, 1990), including task coping (“I schedule my time better”), emotion coping (“I blame myself for not knowing what to do”, and avoidance (e.g., “I watch TV”),
the degree to which these staff believe they perform well at work, such as “I adequately complete assigned duties”, as well as initiate helpful discretionary behaviours, such as “I help others who have been unwell” (Williams & Anderson, 1991).

Overall, the findings did confirm that specific leadership styles, such as a compelling vision and consideration, did enhance the performance of staff who sometimes work remotely. Specifically, when supervisors demonstrated these styles,

staff were not as likely to feel as sense of distance or detachment from the workplace,
that is, somehow a compelling vision and supportive leadership fostered a sense of closeness to the organisation
because of this sense of closeness, individuals felt they could somehow shape the organisation more effectively, even if remote, and thus engaged in task coping when problems unfolded,
this coping style tended to enhance their performance as well as encouraged these individuals to assist their peers.

One limitation, however, was that participants evaluated their own performance. Therefore, these evaluations could be biased. Thus, further research is warranted to explore whether these leadership styles, such as a compelling vision, do indeed enhance the capacity to remote staff to cope with stress better and to excel in their work.

Practices that affect the impact of hybrid arrangements: Shared rewards

Besides leadership, many other workplaces practices could also determine whether hybrid or remote working arrangements improve productivity. For example, some hybrid or virtual teams receive shared rewards—such as a special event that all individuals can attend, a financial bonus, or some other right or opportunity—if the team fulfill some goal. As a systematic review showed (Handke et al., 2020), these shared rewards, called output interdependence, tend to improve the collaboration and performance of teams in which some or all members work remotely. Specifically, as part of a broader systematic review, Handke et al. (2020) uncovered three studies that had examined the impact of shared reward on the collaboration, efficiency, or productivity of virtual or hybrid teams. To illustrate

as Hertel et al. (2004) revealed, in a study of 31 virtual teams, teams that received shared rewards—such as mutual dinner, publication of their success in a newsletter, or free vouchers to all members—tended to be perceived as more effective by their leader,
as Kahai et al. (2003) showed, in a study of 39 virtual project teams, each comprising four members, teams that received shared rewards were more likely to cooperative effectively—but only if their personal contributions were identified rather than anonymous,
as Riedl and Woolley (2017) demonstrated, team financial awards enhanced team performance on a task that revolved around designing an algorithm that solves an engineering problem.o explore whether these leadership styles, such as a compelling vision, do indeed enhance the capacity to remote staff to cope with stress better and to excel in their work.

Practices that affect the impact of hybrid arrangements: Discussions about norms of conduct

In some teams, members discuss the conduct, standards, or behaviours that individuals expect of one another. For example, they might discuss strategies on how to encourage all individuals, including members who tend to be more reserved, to contribute towards discussions and decisions. These teams might then review these norms of conduct periodically, such as once or twice a year. As Hill and Villamor (2023) showed, when members of teams often, rather than seldom, work remotely, these discussions around norms of conduct are especially likely to enhance team cohesion and ultimately performance.

In this study, undergraduate students were randomly assigned to project teams, comprising five to six individuals. The teams needed to prepare a case presentation that fulfilled specific criteria. These teams generally collaborated on this task outside their classes, either in person or online, depending on their preference. After completing most of their work, the participants answered questions that assess

team virtuality—or the percentage of time that members collaborated online rather than in person (cf. Maynard et al., 2012, 2019)
norms of conduct, such as “Members of this team agree on how members are expected to behave” (see Wageman et al., 2005),
team cohesion, such as “Team members stick together” (Seashore, 1954).

As the findings revealed (Hill & Villamor, 2023)

when teams mainly interacted online, norms of conduct were positively and strongly associated with team cohesion,
when teams mainly interacted in person, this association was still positive but not as pronounced,
this team cohesion was positively associated with team performance, as gauged by the grade the teaching assistant assigned.

Accordingly, as these findings reveal, when the teams generally worked remotely, norms of conduct, or discussions about how to communicate with each other, were especially vital to cohesion. That is, without these norms, remote teams cannot as readily depend on informal communication or other social cues to foster a sense of belonging. Similarly, without these norms, misunderstandings and thus conflict may be more likely in remote teams.

Practices that affect the impact of hybrid arrangements: Accommodating the preferences of staff

When managers introduce hybrid working arrangements, they often need to decide the number of days they will permit staff to work at home. For instance, they may need to decide whether staff can work one, two, three, or even more days a week at home. To reach these decisions, they may ask staff the number of days they prefer to work at home. This approach is reasonable because

as research has shown (Oquendo, 2025), when the numbers of days staff work at home is similar to the numbers of days these individuals want to work from home, they tend to feel more satisfied in their job,
consequently, these staff are not as likely to inclined to leave the organisation or experience stress.

The complication, however, is that managers or supervisors may be tempted to accommodate each staff member. For example,

one staff member may want to work one day a week at home, and another staff member may want to work four days a week,
managers could grant both staff members their wish,
however, as Berger et al. (2025) revealed, when the number of days that staff work at home varies considerably across the team, the level of cohesion across the team diminishes; and the staff thus do not feel as safe to express their concerns or ideas (Berger et al., 2025), potentially compromising productivity.

Therefore, managers should convene meetings in which staff negotiate hybrid arrangements with one another, striving to diminish variability across the team. Although some variability is reasonable, staff should still attempt to uncover opportunities to foster some uniformity across the time.

Practices that affect the impact of hybrid arrangements: Zoom fatigue

Whether hybrid work arrangements enhance or inhibit productivity may partly depend on the extent to which individuals can manage what researchers sometimes call Zoom fatigue: the tendency of many people to feel mentally exhausted after an excessive number of online meetings.

To illustrate, in some influential research, conducted by Nesher Shoshan and Wehrt (2022), 81 participants answered questions that assess the degree to which they feel exhausted before and after various meetings in the day. As this study revealed

participants were more likely to feel exhausted after a videoconference than after other meetings,
other characteristics of the meeting, such as the duration, number of participants, or presence of a supervisor did not significantly exacerbate this effect of videoconferences.

In a subsequent study, 53 participants answered a series of questions online about their experiences with videoconference, such as “Explain what you, your supervisor, your colleagues, or your organization could do that would make them less exhausting for you”. The participants suggested a range of strategies that could diminish the level of fatigue that videoconferences may produce, such as to

organise the meetings as efficiently as possible, such as carefully plan when various people need to attend,
use the raise hand feature,
permit more breaks.

Other studies have accrued objective evidence on which strategies may diminish Zoom fatigue. To illustrate, Shockley et al. (2021) revealed that online meetings in which participants are permitted to deactivate their cameras may diminish fatigue. Specifically, the researchers monitored 103 employees from a healthcare company called BroadPath, most of whom worked remotely, over four weeks. Participants were asked to either activate or deactivate their cameras. At the end of each day, these participants indicated whether they

had activated or deactivated their camera during the online meetings, as requested
the level of fatigue they felt while answering the question,
the degree to which they felt engaged during the online meetings,
they extent to which they felt they could voice their opinions during these online meetings.

As hypothesised, when the camera was generally activated, individuals were more likely to experience fatigue—and this fatigue diminished the degree to which they felt engaged in meetings and able to voice their opinions (Shockley et al., 2021). An activated camera was more likely to elicit fatigue in women and in staff who have recently joined the organisation. These findings are consistent with the notion that, when the camera is activated, some individuals, such as staff who have recently joined the organisation, become especially concerned about forging a favourable impression (e.g., Bailenson, 2021). This motivation to forge a favourable impression, called impression management, can deplete mental energy and thus exacerbate fatigue.

Besides policies around when to activate cameras, other practices may also diminish or magnify zoom fatigue (for a review, see Beyea et al., 2025). To illustrate,

as Ngien and Hogan (2023) revealed, if people experience social anxiety on Zoom—assessed by questions like “On Zoom, I ﬁnd it diﬃcult mixing comfortably with the people I work with”—they are more susceptible to Zoom fatigue,
when individuals feel unable to move during a meeting, as if they are physically trapped, they are more likely to experience Zoom fatigue (Fauville et al., 2023; Moralista et al., 2022; Oducado et al., 2022).

Thus, chairs of zoom meetings could permit staff to deactivate their cameras, arrange opportunities that enable staff to forge a favourable impression outside the meeting, and encourage individuals to move, such as stand or walk, during the meeting.

Practices that diminish time pressure: Infusing leisure with work.

To diminish time pressure and thus foster a learning orientation, individuals may consider a strategy that Kate Zipay from Purdue University and Jessica Rodell from the University of Georgia published in the journal Organization Science. Specifically, Zipay and Rodell (2025) defined and validated an approach called leisure-work synergising, derived from a review that Smith et al. (2022) conducted. To apply this approach, individuals may adapt their leisurely activities to facilitate their progress on career goals. For example, individuals could

deliberately watch TV shows, movies, or film clips that may impart some insights that are relevant to work—such as a show that is set in the same industry as one of their clients,
choose travel destinations in which some of the landmarks or experiences could expand their relevant knowledge—such as a tour of a museum that is germane to their work,
listen to relevant podcasts while exercising.

In principle, these adaptations might facilitate progress at work but could also deplete energy and promote burnout rather than facilitate recuperation. Therefore, Zipay and Rodell (2025) evaluated the impact of leisure-work synergising on the emotional state of individuals. In one study, 143 staff answered a series of questions at various times across the day. Specifically

to assess leisure-work synergising, during one evening, participants indicated the degree to which they utilised their free time in the last couple of days to facilitate their work—such as “(I used my free time to) purposely opt for certain leisure activities because they enhance my work competence”,
during the next morning, participants indicated the degree to which they felt tired, sluggish, and fatigued—as well as the extent to which they felt proud, confident, and self-assured,
then, in the afternoon, participants indicated the degree to which they experienced a sense of thriving, learning, and vitality, typified by items like “I was developing a lot as a person” and “I felt alive and vital”,
over the next five weeks, participants completed this sequence of questions 10 times.

Finally, participants answered some questions that assess whether they prefer to separate their work and home life, such as “I don’t like work issues creeping into my home life” (see Kreiner, 2006). As the findings revealed

overall, leisure-work synergising was positively associated with thriving, learning, and vitality—and this relationship was partly mediated by a sense of pride, confidence, and self-assurance,
however, in people who like to separate their work and home lives, leisure-work synergising also elicited some fatigue, offsetting the benefit of this strategy,
in contrast, in people who do not feel the need to separate their work and home lives, leisure-work synergising did not elicit, and may have diminished, fatigue.

Overall, as these findings reveal, leisure-work synergising tends to facilitate confidence, learning, and vitality—but especially in people who do not feel compelled to separate their work and home lives.