The 50-30-20 Rule
December 27th, 2005 by Steve Pavlina
Email this article to a friend
Lately I’ve been trying a promising new method for managing my time. It’s similar to timeboxing, except that instead of allocating a certain amount of time for a specific activity, I divide my total work time between three different classes of activities.
Here’s how it works…
First, I define three different classes of activities based on the time period in which I expect them to pay off.
Classes of Tasks
A tasks are expected to yield significant benefits over a 5-year time span and beyond. This could include starting a new business, writing a book, changing my diet, adding a new passive income stream, etc. It’s perfectly fine for an A task to start producing benefits in a shorter period of time, but the idea is that I expect such tasks to still be having a lasting impact 5+ years from now. This has to be a genuinely realistic expectation, not just wishful thinking.
B tasks are expected to yield benefits over a 2-year timespan or less. This class may include writing a new series of articles or blog entries, selling an advertising package, or training to run a marathon. While there could be long-term benefits that extend for many years, the general expectation is that the benefits will be fully realized sometime within the first two years, and there won’t be much additional payoff beyond that. Think of these as one-shot projects. You do them once, gain the benefit, and move on.
C tasks are expected to make a difference only in the timespan of 90 days or less. Most likely I won’t even remember the task or see evidence of its benefits beyond that time. This includes routine actions like answering email, paying bills, returning phone calls, and filing. If these tasks aren’t done, it might create problems down the road, but doing them well isn’t likely to yield a significant long-term payoff.
There’s certainly some ambiguity in these definitions, but I’m OK with that because it allows for flexibility around the edges.
The 50-30-20 for Time Allocation
The 50-30-20 rule says that I spend 50% of my work time on A tasks, 30% on B tasks, and 20% on C tasks. For example, if I work 8 hours per day, that would mean 4 hours on A tasks, 2:24 on B tasks, and 1:36 on C tasks.
The time boundary for C tasks is an upper limit. This means that I don’t spend more than 20% of my work time on C tasks; if I run out of time, I carry remaining C tasks over to the next day. The A task boundary is a lower limit, which means I must spend at least 50% of my work time on A tasks. The B class absorbs the slack if I go over 50% on A or under 20% on C.
I’ve only been doing this for a few days now, and I can already see that it has a lot of potential. It’s similar to other task allocations like Stephen Covey’s four-quadrant approach, but it actually specifies how much time to invest in each type of activity. Although this can be done weekly, I find it best to make the time allocations daily when possible. But if I get overloaded with C tasks one day, I may do virtually none the next day to keep the right weekly balance.
At first I found it very uncomfortable to spend so little time on C tasks, especially when I felt driven to check them off and get them off my task list. But I could see I was spending too much time on C tasks relative to their worth, while high priority A tasks were being sacrificed. When I look at a task and see that it will have virtually no impact beyond the current week or month, it helps me see that relatively speaking, the task is a waste of time. I don’t have time to complete every single task on my to do list, so I have to sacrifice a lot of good tasks in order to invest sufficient time in the best ones. Simply doing what comes up each day is incredibly suboptimal — I know because I’ve tried it.
As previously mentioned I’ve been getting a lot of email lately due to the increase in traffic this year, more than I can personally answer. However, virtually all email falls into the C class. It’s often urgent but rarely anywhere near the importance of A tasks. If I were to respond appropriately to all the email I get, it would consume most of my working hours. Whether I do a great job of answering email or a lousy job, it’s not going to make that much difference in where I’ll end up 5 years from now. Spending more time on email won’t help me accomplish my most important goals except through luck or chance. So I steal time from this area and reallocate it to A and B tasks, since those tasks are actually likely to have a significant long-term impact.
One of my current A tasks is setting new goals for 2006. This could have a significant long-term impact based on which goals I choose. I’ll be spending at least a couple hours on this task today.
Writing a blog entry like this falls into my B class. I’m sure visitors will still be reading this blog entry beyond 90 days, but I can’t predict in advance whether this entry will have a significant impact beyond five years. It’s the long-term strategy of writing and content development (A task) that makes the difference in this time span. The longer the time perspective, the less important any individual blog post becomes.
Processing today’s email is one of my C tasks for today. I probably won’t spend more than 15 minutes total on email. This means that I’ll only have enough time to respond to perhaps 1-2 emails out of every 10 (not counting spam). I’m still able to read it all and extract ideas and suggestions, but my writing time is better spent producing articles to be seen by thousands of people rather than individual emails to be seen by only one person.
Sacrificing the Urgent for the Important
Sometimes it’s hard to sacrifice those C tasks. I’ve been using email since 1989, and this is really the first year where I’ve had to triage my email so ruthlessly in order to free up time for higher priority tasks. It isn’t easy to follow, but I like that this system helps me stay focused on tasks which have significant long-term potential instead of those that will merely be forgotten. By limiting my C tasks to a certain amount of time each day, I create plenty of space for my A tasks.
If you find yourself not getting ahead after years of hard work, perhaps it’s because too much of your time is focused on short-term C tasks like answering email, attending meetings, and filling out paperwork. Maybe you could afford to spend less time on those activities in order to reinvest it in what matters most. Otherwise those little tasks will crowd out the more important ones; the time pressure of C tasks will see to that.
The ratio of 50-30-20 ratio is arbitrary, but it feels about right for me. It gives me enough time to stay on top of the truly urgent, while I’m still putting a lot of time behind the scenes into projects I expect will make a real difference down the road. You may wish to vary these percentages based on the nature of your work and your goals. What’s important is that we remain consciously aware of how our time is being invested.
Rebalancing Your Time Portfolio
If you’re familiar with stock investing, think of this model as your portfolio allocation across different levels of risk. Your A tasks are your high risk, high return investments that may see a lot of short-term volatility, but in the long run, you expect they’ll pay off better than any other type of investment. These are your aggressive growth stocks. The C tasks are your safe, secure investments like a bank savings account. And the B tasks fall in the mid-range. If you haven’t been paying attention to your portfolio for a while, it’s a good idea to go back and rebalance your allocations.
The reason to invest in A tasks is to capitalize on long-term opportunities. These are the whale projects that could make an enormous positive difference in your life. Examples from my life are starting my businesses, getting married, and going vegan. It’s hard to spend too much time on these types of tasks. Ideally we want to invest as much time here as we can manage.
The reason to invest in C tasks is to prevent problems. C tasks keep you out of trouble. You should spend only a minimal amount of time on them… just whatever is necessary to prevent serious problems. This includes paying your bills on time, doing your taxes, and doing a reasonable job of keeping up on your communication. In most cases there’s no real benefit to doing a great job vs. doing an adequate job — the time difference would be better reallocated to A and B tasks.
B tasks usually fall between A and C tasks. They help keep you out of trouble, but they also help you get ahead slightly. They entail moderate risk and offer moderate rewards. They often help reduce the need for C tasks and free up more time for A tasks. Organizing and optimizing would usually fall into the B class. B tasks help put you in a position to capitalize on bigger A task opportunities. Reading this blog entry is probably a B-class activity for you. You might find one good idea now and then which will help put you into a position to do more A tasks and fewer C tasks.
Outside of my work time activities, I also have a personal tasks list. This includes family and home activities. I haven’t yet tried prioritizing those according to the 50-30-20 rule, but if it works well for my business, I might also try it for my personal life.
If you want to try this system for a week, simply divide your to do list by putting an A, B, or C next to each task on your to do list. Then grab a scrap of paper, and make three columns or boxes for tracking how much time you spend on A, B, and C. Estimate how much time you expect to work each day (breaks don’t count), and then calculate the time limits for each class. If you want to use a ratio other than 50-30-20, feel free. As you go through your workday, use a stopwatch to time each activity, and then record the elapsed time in your A, B, or C columns. At the end of the day, add up the times, and then calculate your percentages to see how you did. The first day or two you may want to just measure your current ratio without actually trying to change anything. Most likely you’ll find an imbalance you’d like to correct. For example, if you see your actual ratio is something like 10-10-80, you know you’re just spinning your wheels and aren’t going to make much progress in your career. So you might want to look at those C tasks and see which ones can be reduced, delayed, or cut in order to free up more time for A and B tasks. Even the mere act of measuring will raise your awareness of where your time is going. The more time you’re spending on A tasks, the better.
If you find that you’re overwhelmed with C tasks, steal as much time as you can from them and devote it to B tasks. Use your B time to become more organized and effective, such that you aren’t as urgency driven. Then you can devote some of that savings to A tasks. It’s perfectly OK to change your ratio over time. If you’re at 10-10-80, you may not be able to jump straight over to 50-30-20. You might need to first attempt 5-40-55 and then 20-50-30 to get those C tasks tamed.
In the long run, it’s the A tasks that make or break us. If we don’t do them, we essentially let our potential go to waste. Who wants to devote the bulk of their lives to answering email and paying bills? We need to keep such tasks from taking over our lives, so we have time to tackle the truly great challenges that can make a real difference to us… and to the world.


December 27th, 2005 at 8:03 am
The 50-30-20 rule
December 28th, 2005 at 3:16 am
[…] The 50-30-20 Rule […]
December 28th, 2005 at 7:22 am
Get in the Zone
Steve Pavlina has an interesting article today called the 50-30-20 Rule. It is a concept similar to other A-B-C task allocations like Stephen Covey’s four-quadrant Plan-Plus approach, but it actually specifies how much time to invest in …
December 28th, 2005 at 8:38 am
[…] The 50-30 Rule […]
December 28th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
[…] How Much time do you spend on truly important tasks? The The 50-30-20 Rule is simple and easy Tags […]
December 29th, 2005 at 1:40 am
[…] And in planning, maybe there are things that you realize would be long-term goals, not just things you think you could achieve within the year. That’s alright too. If you have specific tasks in mind, you might want to check out this entry on Steve Pavlina’s blog about the 50-30-20 rule. […]
December 31st, 2005 at 4:43 pm
[…] This article by Steve Pavlina explains how to effectively manage your life by focusing on tasks based on their long-term effects. […]
January 4th, 2006 at 7:13 am
[…] The 50-30-20 Rule Published in: Whatever | on January 4th, 2006 | […]
January 6th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
[…] This article by Steve Pavlina explains how to effectively manage your life by focusing on tasks based on their long-term effects. […]
January 9th, 2006 at 7:23 am
[…] The 50-30-20 Rule of time allocation, pointed out to me by Ratha. […]
January 10th, 2006 at 7:36 am
[…] The 50-30-20 Rule “Lately I’ve been trying a promising new method for managing my time. It’s similar to timeboxing, except that instead of allocating a certain amount of time for a specific activity, I divide my total work time between three different …” (tags: pavlina gtd productivity) […]
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:43 pm
[…] A lot of my recent re-thinking on how to structure my day has been influenced by Steve Pavlina’s recent The 50-30-20 Rule post. In it he explains how he’s trying to follow a rule whereby at least half of his day will be taken up with actions that contribute to his long term goals, he calls them Class A actions. So in an 8 hour day he’ll spend 4 hours or more on those Class A actions. He will spend no more than 20% of his day on short term actions, those actions that have no real effect beyond 90 days, things like paper work and email (Class C). This 20% is an upper limit, if he doesn’t get everything done from Class C then so be it, they’ll keep until the next day. The remaining time, approximately 30% of the day, will be spent on Class B actions, actions that contribute to mid-term goals that are typically realized within 2 years. Class B actions use up all the time left after Class A and C. […]
February 27th, 2006 at 7:49 am
[…] Right now my Time Mangement is a disaster. Maybe Steve Pavlina can give me some advise. I try to do everything. I’m looking for Jobs, trying to find Business Ideas, trying to get a Million things done every day. But at the end of the day, almost nothing is finished, because I just wanted to do too much. I know that I have to get one thing done first and then move on with the next thing. but it is not that easy. Anyway, I’m working on it. […]
March 5th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
#119 Best of Me Symphony
Without the gods, what is our incentive to justice? Would we neither desire to live in blissful Elysian Fields, nor labor to avoid the flames of Tartarus? Goosing the Antithesis recreates a Dialogue on Roman pleasure. This is one
June 14th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
[…] Недавно у Стива Павлины нашёл другую, намного более простую модель расстановки приоритетов: · Большую часть времени(50%) он тратит на задачи, прямые результаты которых всё ещё будут ощущаться через 5 лет и более. · Вторую часть времени(30%), чуть меньше - на задачи, результаты которых будут видны в течение ближайших двух лет. · И меньшую часть(20%) - на решение проблем и тушение пожаров (если вспомнить матрицу Эйзенхауэра: квардат 1, важное и срочное), результаты которых забудутся через два-три месяца. […]
June 22nd, 2006 at 8:32 am
[…] I found his 50/30/20 time management principle very helpful. I’ve begun to implement it in my daily planning, and I’m seeing results with it. Instead of wasting my time on tasks that have little return economically or emotionally, I’m spending more time on projects have more long term high yield pay off. […]
October 4th, 2006 at 12:37 am
[…] Although using the quadrant method of sorting tasks worked well, I think there is room for improvement. I tent to think that most tasks are important or they wouldn’t be scheduled, so it’s pointless to classify everything as a quadrant two task. One method I’d like to try out is Steve Pavlina’s 50-30-20 rule (the Pavlina Pyramid?) for sorting tasks. These segments are: […]
January 15th, 2007 at 10:56 am
[…] Steve Pavlina already explains the difference between urgent but immaterial tasks and highly important ones that can be put off indefinitely. There’s no sense repeating what Steve has already done so I will leave it to you to read his article for perspective and tips on avoiding falling into the trap that I describe above. I’d like to focus on the class A and B types of tasks that Steve describes, in other words the tasks that will provide a meaningful future result. Steve describes them as tasks that yield benefits over 5+ and 2 year timespans respectively. I find myself thinking of the class A tasks as Great Pursuits, and the class B tasks as mostly ones that feed back into accomplishing the Great Pursuits (why would your shorter term accomplishments not be harmonious with your longer term ones?). […]
March 30th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
[…] Pavlina has one approach he calls the 50-30-20 rule. It’s simple: spend 50% of your time on tasks of high importance, 30% on those of moderate importance, and the remaining 20% on the least important stuff. The key with this system is deciding just what is important and why it’s important. […]
July 25th, 2007 at 4:00 am
[…] Try the 50-30-20 Rule [StevePavlina] […]
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:53 am
[…] The next task was to figure out what the long-term payback on these projects were. The projects were ranked 1, 2, 3 depending on how I felt they would impact me in various time frames. This part was inspired by the article by Steve Pavlina, “The 50-30-20 Rule“. I categorized and sorted; then I moved more projects to the Someday list. The remaining projects were ones I could fully commit to. […]
February 13th, 2008 at 6:01 am
[…] 50-30-20: Spend 50% of your working day on tasks that advance your long-term, life goals, spend 30% on tasks that advance your middle-term (2-years or so) goals, and the remaining 20% on things that affect only the next 90 days or so. […]