Time Wasters

Choose this exercise

Purpose: Identify shared workplace time drains and rank them through peer consensus and prediction.

Use it when: Use during operational reviews, retro planning, or team reset sessions when a team needs to surface daily work bottlenecks before discussing remedies.

Skip it when: Skip when individual workload is highly confidential or when the group lacks any shared operational context.

Group arrangement: Teams of 2 to 6 participants (at least 3 teams total)

Timing: Source specifies 30 to 45 minutes; 35 minutes provides a reliable pace for 4 rounds of consensus ranking.

Materials and tools

• 1 pad of scratch paper per participant
• 1 pen or pencil per participant
• 1 flipchart easel with paper pads
• 2 broad felt-tipped markers

Before participants arrive

1. Set up a flipchart where all teams have a clear view.
2. Arrange seating into 3 to 4 team clusters with paper and pens at each table.

Say this to open

Every workplace has frictions, delays, and habits that pull time away from core work. We are going to build an inventory of our biggest time wasters and identify which ones cause the heaviest drain across our whole team.

How to run it

1. Solo reflection and team listing 6 minutes

   Deliver the opening script. Direct participants to write down workplace time wasters on scratch paper for 2 minutes. Then have teams combine ideas onto one team sheet for 4 minutes, aiming for as many distinct items as possible. Ask them to circle their top 5 items.

2. Compile the master chart 6 minutes

   Call on teams in rotation to share one item from their top 5 that is not yet on the flipchart. Write each unique item clearly. Stop once the flipchart holds 10 to 12 distinct items.

3. Run consensus ranking rounds 15 minutes

   Explain the rules: teams secretly pick the unranked item they believe most teams will choose as worst. Collect paper slips. Teams score points equal to how many teams picked that item. Cross off the winning item and assign its rank. For ties, give tied teams 30 seconds to pitch, then revote once. Run 4 rounds.

4. Score original lists and debrief 8 minutes

   Teams compare their starting top 5 against the final ranked list. Award 4 points for Rank 1, 3 for Rank 2, 2 for Rank 3, and 1 for Rank 4. Tally points. Lead a whole-room debrief using the planned questions, taking responses from 2 or 3 participants per prompt.

Debrief questions

• Which time wasters on the final ranked list surprised you by gaining wide agreement?
• How did your individual list differ from the room consensus?
• Which single item on our top-ranked list is within our immediate power to reduce or remove?

Finished output: A shared list of 10 to 12 workplace time sinks with the top 4 ranked by cross-team agreement.

Remote

Use a shared online whiteboard (such as Miro or Mural) for the central list. Send teams to breakout rooms to compile their lists. For voting rounds, have one representative per breakout private-message their team's pick to the facilitator in the main chat.

Hybrid

In-person teams sit at shared tables while remote participants join in dedicated virtual breakout rooms. Display the shared digital list on the room projector and screen-share it for remote teams. Remote reps submit selections via chat while in-person teams hand paper slips to the facilitator.

Access and participation choices

• Participants may focus their examples on structural workflow issues rather than personal work habits.
• Anyone may contribute ideas in writing on the team pad without having to speak during whole-room sharing.

If the session gets stuck

Teams split their votes completely with no majority in a round.

Give each team 30 seconds to make a persuasive case for their chosen item, then immediately conduct a fast revote.

A team writes vague complaints like 'bad culture' or 'poor communication.'

Ask for a concrete daily event, such as 'meetings starting 15 minutes late' or 'waiting two days for approval emails.'

Terms used here

• Consensus game: A game mechanic where players score by matching what they expect the majority to choose rather than stating only personal preference.