In 1955, British historian Cyril Northcote Parkinson formulated the law that now bears his name: “Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion“. Some may see this as cynical, but the fact is that it describes a reality that is very much present in everyday working life.
Indeed, in knowledge work, where the workload is no longer measured in pieces produced but in time invested, the question is not how long it takes to complete a task, but how each person uses the time allotted to them.
Time is a constraint but also a resource, and the way an employee uses it reveals both their individual strategies and the implicit rules of the organization.
In short:
- The central issue is not the scarcity of time but its distribution: between an individual who tries to manage it actively and an organization that seeks to occupy it entirely, with no guarantee of more efficient use.
- Parkinson’s Law illustrates how work tends to expand to fill all available time, reflecting real dynamics in knowledge work, where duration often takes precedence over results.
- When faced with excess time, employees adopt three main behaviors: spreading out the task to avoid visible idleness, postponing the effort until the last minute (student syndrome), or reinvesting this time in chosen activities such as monitoring or training.
- Organizations tend to commandeer the time not used by employees by filling it with unproductive tasks (meetings, reporting), which pushes everyone to take ownership of their own time to avoid this confiscation.
- Digital technology, which is supposed to free up time, often has the opposite effect by generating new demands, which increases time saturation and reduces employees’ room for maneuver.
Three attitudes toward available time
When an employee has more time than necessary, they do not necessarily give this extra time back to the business. The first attitude is to spread out the work. A task that could be completed in an hour is stretched out over three, not out of laziness but to avoid appearing idle. Time becomes a kind of shield: it protects against stress and the assignment of unnecessary tasks.
The second approach is similar to the student syndrome: effort is postponed until the deadline. The available time is not used to do a better job, but to delay getting down to work, even if it means concentrating all energy into a final sprint. Efficiency is not dictated by the task, but by the perception of constraint.
Finally, some opt for a kind of positive reappropriation. Rather than extending or postponing, they use the “extra” time to train, keep up to date, and feed their curiosity. Here again, all the available time is occupied, but this time by chosen activities that enrich skills and reinforce autonomy.
Busy time is not useful time
These behaviors are not insignificant and follow a simple logic: if employees do not take control of their time, the organization will do it for them, and rarely in a useful way, at least from the employee’s point of view. In most businesses, free time is quickly filled with reporting, meetings, or additional processes.
Galbraith saw this with his concept of technostructure: any margin is absorbed by organizational complexity (Are you aware of the technostructure that devours all your efforts to improve?) and Goldratt showed that occupying 100% of a resource’s time can be totally counterproductive for the system (Local optimum vs. global optimum and the theory of constraints: why your productivity gains sometimes serve no purpose). In both cases, relative idleness is not tolerated: the organization prefers to saturate rather than leave a resource unoccupied.
In short, the business vs. busyness debate is far from over (A few ideas to ensure you are more productive than busy).
When digital technology amplifies Parkinson’s
The digital wave has reinforced this mechanism. Communication and collaboration tools were intended to free up time, but in practice they often consume more of it. What is automated on one side reappears on the other in the form of new tasks: filling in a spreadsheet, updating a platform, organizing a meeting to align teams.
This raises the only question that matters: who benefits from the productivity gains? In knowledge work, time saved never remains vacant. Either it is reinvested by the employee (in the form of learning, monitoring, or breathing space) or it is absorbed by the organization, which occupies it with new processes, reporting, or additional meetings. In most cases, the latter prevails, transforming a reduction in workload into an overload (Digital Infobesity: When Collaboration Tools Degrade Productivity, QWL and Amplify Mental Workload and Hyperconnectivity in the workplace: digital becomes a burden).
Margin for maneuver thus evaporates, absorbed by constant demands. Faced with this, employees have only two choices: to occupy their time themselves, or to have it confiscated by the organizational machine.
Bottom Line
Parkinson’s Law does not merely describe a tendency toward what might appear to be inefficiency; it also reveals an ongoing power struggle between individuals striving to reclaim their time and organizations seeking to occupy every available minute. Spreading out, deferring, or reinvesting one’s time are all ways of regaining control.
The real issue is not that time is scarce, but that it is the subject of competition: if it is not invested by the employee, it is absorbed by the organization. But all this tells us nothing about the efficiency with which either party uses it.
To answer your questions
Parkinson’s Law, formulated in 1955, explains that “work expands to fill the time available”. In knowledge work, it shows that the time invested often takes precedence over the result. It highlights a power struggle: either the employee takes control of their time, or the organization occupies it, sometimes in an unproductive manner.
Three attitudes prevail. Some people spread out their tasks so as not to appear inactive. Others put off the effort until the last minute, according to the “student syndrome.” Finally, some reinvest this time in training or monitoring. In all cases, free time is always filled, either voluntarily or by necessity.
The business tends to saturate every margin. The time freed up is often taken up by reporting, meetings, or new processes. This logic, described by Galbraith and Goldratt, shows that relative idleness is rarely tolerated and that individual gains do not always benefit overall efficiency.
In practice, no. Tools that are supposed to free up time create new tasks: filling out spreadsheets, updating platforms, and increasing the number of meetings. Each automation is offset by additional demands, so that the time saved turns into overload and reduces employees’ flexibility.
Time is at the heart of competition. Employees want to use it to learn or relax, while organizations seek to occupy it entirely. Without active appropriation, available time is confiscated by the business. For managers, the challenge is therefore to encourage autonomous and useful use of the time gained.
Image credit: Image generated by artificial intelligence via ChatGPT (OpenAI)
Related articles:
Local optimum vs. global optimum and the theory of constraints: why your productivity gains sometimes serve no purpose
Can we identify good managers by the way their team uses the net ?
Stop saying nonsenses about Facebook and productivity
The numbers we overlook when reinventing work
No, technology won’t help you to manage your time
Eradicate Meeting Delays: 6 Simple Rules for Optimized Productivity
