Bajcar, Beata (2025): Understanding Procrastination at Work. Individual and Workplace Perspectives

In research, general procrastination was for a long time regarded as reprehensible—a kind of sin—and it largely still is. However, a turning point came in 2005 when Chu and Choi published an article identifying two types of procrastinators. One is the passive type, long discussed in the literature, who suffers negative consequences of the (non)actions. The other delays tasks actively but still completes them on time, yielding positive outcomes. Chu and Choi (2005:262) argue that active procrastination may be particularly beneficial in environments that are ‘highly demanding, unpredictable, and fast changing’. In such settings—conditions many claim characterize today’s working life—active procrastinators may perform more effectively than others by avoiding rigid plans and responding spontaneously to unexpected changes. Recently, studies with other populations than the dominant one—students—have emerged, including research focusing on the labor market. Scholars have long noted the lack of studies on procrastination in wage labor (Weymann 1988:226), a point reiterated decades later (van Eerde 2016:233) and again recently (Aydin 2023:224). Against this backdrop, Beata Bajcar’s full-length book, Understanding Procrastination at Work (2025), stands out. Her central thesis is that procrastination in wage labor is dysfunctional for organizations and self-handicapping for employees, and thus something management should address or eliminate. However, she largely overlooks the concept of active procrastination—even though it has been shown to ‘promote better decision-making, optimize resource utilization, facilitate time management and increase motivation’ (Chauhan et al. 2020:1290).