Laura Vanderkam’s 168 Hours: You Have More Time Than You Think (Penguin) has two genuine insights to offer. The first is right there in the subtitle: Many of us—especially those of us who claim to be insanely busy—probably aren’t quite as overworked as we claim, and that it is in fact possible to fit in most of what you actually want to do during the typical week. The second follows more or less directly from the first: Become more self-conscious about how you use your time, and you will both accomplish more and be happier about it.
168 hours is, of course, the number of hours in a week. To show that we have more time than we think, Vanderkam relies on the American Time Use Survey and related time diaries, which peg our typical workweek at closer to 40 hours (or less!), rather than the 70+ workweeks that one hears so much of in the media. Time-diary surveys in particular suggest that we report ourselves as sleeping less than we in fact do. That’s probably good for our health, but not good for our sense that we are in control of our lives. We also overestimate how much time we spend on hated routine tasks, such as chores. By opening 168 Hours with this research, Vanderkam offers both hope and a way out: you can probably wring more out of your life than you currently are, and that the best way to do this is with a time diary.
The rest of the book is basically a series of ways to operationalize this insight. Vanderkam provides time diaries, with instructions for how to complete them. Once you have a sense of where your time is being spent now, she has strategies for how to use a calendar to get to your preferred life—whether that’s more work success, more time with your kids, volunteering, or whatever. Although she applies these strategies over these different dimensions of “the good life,” she’s quick to point out that the basic insight is always the same: Become more mindful about what you take on. Figure out what you’re good at, or what you enjoy, and devote the most possible time to that. Figure out what you can dump on other people, and be sure to do that as often as possible. As I said in my review of Kathleen Norris’s Acedia, I’m not at all sure that this is an ethical way to inhabit a community, and I probably have enough Carlyle in me to be skeptical of the idea that one’s own happiness should be the lodestar of one’s life.
If Vanderkam’s major point is that we should be mindful about our time, her smaller suggestion is to stop wishing you could do X, Y, or Z and just, you know, do it. Even in small doses, a habit does make a difference over time, in two different ways. First, it gives you the feeling that you are actually doing something for yourself, rather than others, and second, it’s like interest—over the long run it accumulates more than you think. That sounds like good advice.
It is worth saying that, at some point during reading 168 Hours, you will want to drive to New York to throw it at Vanderkam, just from the book’s genuine cluelessness about the privilege oozing from every sentence. The author’s descriptions of her own life don’t help: I had a difficult time making it past the first page, inasmuch as it posits a 2-yr-old who sleeps, unassisted, until 7am before cruising off to an all-day preschool. (My kid just turned 7 and I can still count on my fingers the number of times he’s slept until 7.) Nor does her casual mixing of every single trendy business author of the past two decades. (I’ll just mention that it was probably bad luck to suggest “act like a business and dump everything except your core competencies” during the worst period of sustained American unemployment in 60 years. The reliance on business bestsellers also hurts Vanderkam’s prose—it’s clearly written to be read on an elliptical machine.) Finally, the relentless focus on the lives of the very successful proves too much. Those people are already able to make choices about their time that many people just can’t. There’s an old Doonesbury cartoon that I couldn’t stop thinking about: Jane Fonda complains to her cleaning lady that she (the housekeeper) should be more interested in Fonda’s exercise videos. The housekeeper says she’s too busy, and Jane responds, a la Vanderkam, “Nonsense—look how busy I am, and I have plenty of time to exercise.” The housekeeper’s answer is quietly devastating, and entirely appropriate throughout this book: “Yes, but you’re as busy as you want to be, and I’m as busy as I have to be. There’s a difference.” Academics will also enjoy the mention of the programmer who teaches 2 classes per semester on the side, and only spends 6 hours per week on them—including the actual class time!
I can’t unequivocally recommend any book that irritated me so often, but I can say that 168 Hours has some good, practical strategies for reinventing your schedule and for making minor improvements.
[Image by Flickr user Reinis Traidas / Creative Commons licensed.]


Developing online and blended learning programs requires research and collaboration. Learn how top technology companies are partnering with campuses across the country to advance online learning as it becomes an increasingly important aspect of higher education.
14 Responses to Maybe We’re Not That Busy: Laura Vanderkam’s 168 Hours
heatherwhitney - July 12, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Filling in my Google Calendar retrospectively is creating a time diary of sorts for me, and I’ve found it helpful. That said, I’m glad I don’t have to put myself through reading this book to get the benefit of using a time diary.
jshervais - July 13, 2010 at 1:14 am
Whats important to me is to have a couple of hours in the morning to drink my coffee, read the paper, and contemplate existence. And at that I have been fairly successful, even without a time diary.
paievoli - July 13, 2010 at 7:32 am
I have always organized myself off of this timetable. 8 x 7 = 56 hours for sleep. That leaves 112 for life. 112 / 7 = 16 hours a day for work and life. 8 a day for work x 5 = 40. 72 / 7 = 10 hours approx a day to do what you have to or want. Not bad if you are organized…
mbelvadi - July 13, 2010 at 7:40 am
Paievoli, do you work from home? Your calculation seems to have left out commuting time, which in terms of time diary type planning I think many people would count as part of their work time.
mdzehnder - July 13, 2010 at 10:37 am
jshervais–that is precisely what is important to me as well, and at that I have not been successful. Any suggestions? Perhaps I’ll give this book a look.
niolonra - July 13, 2010 at 12:03 pm
Good for Vanderkam for getting her life organized. Those of us who’ve used any productivity method knew this stuff though. David Seah suggests assigning everything you do to a “bucket”, and at the end of each day see how much time you spent on the things that were most important to you that day (and he schedules time for creativity and enjoyment to prevent work pressures from making him give up this time). David Allen goes further by adding a weekly review for assessing where your times goes, and what you want to continue or change based on that. These two steps have been the most helpful to me – if I have an hour free, I can choose to just start knocking out short tasks to whittle my list down, or choose to invest it all in my real priorities… I used to track 55 hours a week on work activities, some done at school and some at home, some done on the train (email, reading and editing things). So I wish I had a 40 a week (or less) job… Further, when you feel really wore out at the end of the week, and you review how many hours you’ve worked that week, then it becomes obvious why you feel wore out. It’s also a good visual reminder for the next week to adjust that work/home balance back in the other direction…If you want a good read about time management, check out http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Things-Done-Stress-Free-Productivity/dp/0142000280or http://davidseah.com/
billso - July 13, 2010 at 2:36 pm
#3 & #4: I walk to work. It takes me 30 mins each day, but a walking commute means I don’t waste time parking, getting gas, waiting for the bus or train…
mbsss - July 13, 2010 at 5:38 pm
I can’t help but wonder if the majority of individuals who have written comments in this thread are the classic “left brainers” who track time with more “enjoyment” than those of us who are either midline or right-brained personalities. Time management is a term that relates more closely to economics (hence productivity)than it might to those who (what word can I choose) value, measure, assess, count..time in other ways. Sure, productivity is a reality of the society in which most of us live, and a few tips might ultimately aid a few individuals, but we should remember the correlation between how productive we are and how happy we are in our work and in our lives. Intrinsic motivation counts for a lot that “how-to” books can never provide.
a_voice - July 14, 2010 at 10:57 am
I try to use the “Put First Things First” principle (Habit 3) in Stephen Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Basically, spend your time on what is important and urgent first, on what is important and not-urgent second, and do what you please with unimportant and urgent, or unimportant and not-urgent things. http://www.whitedovebooks.co.uk/time-management/first-things-first.htm
prje8199 - July 14, 2010 at 1:05 pm
You mean you can get paid for writing a book about what my pop taught me at age seven? Time is a Swiss confidence trick.Let me line it up for you:1. find out what you have to do2. think about how to do it, compare ideas, pick the best3. gather the necessary tools/thoughts4. do it5. enjoy the fruits of your laborThe steps above don’t have to be done all at once. But it is helpful if you apply all the steps to even the simplist project (like taking the kids to school – gas, lunch, routes,…). I discovered long ago that people spend too much time complaining about how little time they have – especially my fellow academics who spend waaaayyy too much time thinking about the time they have. I rarely worry about a time-line on long term projects but I will admit I tend to react well when I am out of time (I am either a procrastinator or a very motivated worker, is there a difference if the project is finished on time?).Now, please feel free to send you money to me!
drjeff - July 14, 2010 at 2:06 pm
If you take your bicycle to work (as many on my campus do, including Yours Truly), then your Commute Time becomes Recreational Time (and actually does eliminate the need to schedule any other to sustain fitness). If you don’t, maybe if you thought about the true cost of commuting, that house near campus would look a lot less expensive than if you take a narrower view of it. In the spirit of looking at what you’re REALLY doing:I save not only buckets of time, but also money for parking (about $50/month here), gas, car repairs (since I drive so much less) and insurance (since I can now get the
drjeff - July 14, 2010 at 2:09 pm
…under 5k mile rate). With a 5% mortgage, the parking alone wil pay for $10k of house.And how much is your time worth?And what if you wrote a(nother) book with the time you save with a short commute?
drjeff - July 14, 2010 at 2:10 pm
(Note: if you use the less-than symbol in your post, everything from that point on will be cut off.)
drnels - July 14, 2010 at 2:23 pm
@mbsss, you’re speaking my language. I wrote a book review for ProfHacker last December that addresses this issue:http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Review-of-Organizing-for-the/22889/It's very, very true that most productivity books are written for left-brainers, which is why they don’t work for right-brainers and make us feel like greater failures. The book Jason’s reviewing does sound like a classic left-brain text. That’s not a bad thing. We just have to remember that left-brain strategies can’t work for all.