ManageTime

Article

The tasks you are waiting on someone else for: keeping blocked work visible

Keep blocked work on a list of its own, and give every line four things: what you asked for, who you asked, the day you asked, and the day you will chase it. The fourth is what makes it tracked. A waiting item with no check-in date is not being tracked, it is being stored. This article covers what belongs on that list, how to pick the chase date instead of waiting to feel uncomfortable, and what the offloading research says about handing an intention to something outside your head.

How do you keep track of tasks you are waiting on other people for?

One list, four fields, and a date that has not arrived yet. Three of the fields you already know the second you hit send: the ask, the person, the date. The fourth is the day you will chase, and it is the one people leave blank because on the day you send a request you are not yet worried about it. That is why you write it then.

What belongs on the list is anything where the next move is not yours. Work you delegated. A decision you need from someone above you. An answer from another team, an invoice, a signature, a number without which you cannot start. A task you have not begun is not waiting on anybody. It is just on your list, and telling the two apart is most of the value here.

Keep that list separate from your to-do list. Everything on a to-do list should be something you could pick up this afternoon, and a blocked item is the opposite of that. Mix the two and you learn to skim a list where half the lines cannot be acted on.

Personal Kanban does the separating with a column of its own, sitting beside Doing rather than inside it. David Allen built the same split into Getting Things Done as a Waiting For list, arguing that a trusted external system is what lets you stop rehearsing a request in your head. Run either method or neither. The split is the part worth taking.

Write the ask in the words you actually used. Six weeks on, a line reading "chase Marco" tells you nothing about what you asked for or what you promised someone else on the strength of it, so you open the thread and read it again. Shorthand ages badly.

Where the request has a consequence hanging off it, a client date or a release, put the consequence on the line too. That is what decides how hard you chase, rather than whether you chase at all.

Then set the check-in date in the same movement as the request. Not later that day, not at the weekly review, not when it starts to nag. The minute after sending is the only moment when the whole thing is still in your head and writing it costs you nothing.

One list beats a note per project, for a reason that has nothing to do with tidiness: you will open one list on a Monday morning and you will not open nine. If your work does split into separate worlds, sort inside the one list rather than starting a second.

How long should you wait before chasing someone at work?

Nobody has measured this, and the honest version is that the work sets the wait, not etiquette. Start at the day you need the thing. Subtract how long it takes once somebody sits down to it, subtract a day for the answer to reach you, and chase on what is left. If that date is already behind you, the request went out late and no amount of politeness repairs it.

Politeness is not a schedule.

Two working days is a reasonable default for a small ask inside your own team, longer across a company boundary, shorter than either if you named a date and the date has gone. The number matters less than when you picked it. A chase that lands on a date you set in advance reads as a process; a chase that lands when you happened to remember reads as anxiety, and the difference is audible in how the message gets written.

One research finding here is about you rather than about the person who owes you something. Chiu and Gilbert, at University College London, ran two pre-registered experiments published in the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology in 2024, each with 52 people recruited online through Prolific. Everyone did a computer task that handed them intentions to carry out later, and they could either hold those intentions in memory or set a reminder inside the task.

Then the researchers made the reminder cost something. In one condition, setting it took a bit of extra physical effort, some additional clicking, and nothing else about the task changed. At every level of memory load, people set fewer reminders when reminding themselves cost more.

Dragged circles on a screen, minutes of delay, and a sample whose average age was 25: that is a mechanism, not a measurement of your Thursday. The mechanism still transfers. Offloading is a decision with a price attached, and you pay that price at the exact moment you are least motivated to. The same experiments found that reminders let people carry a heavier memory load without losing accuracy when setting them was cheap, and that the advantage shrank once setting them got expensive.

So make your check-in cost one action. A calendar entry on the chase date, an email snoozed back to the morning you picked, a line in the list you already read on Mondays. Whichever of those you will do without deliberating is the right one, and anything that needs a second app opened is not. If chasing eats a real part of your week, the email pillar covers writing the request so that fewer of them need chasing at all.

The offloading meta-analysis points the same way, from a different angle. Burnett and Richmond pooled the experimental literature in Memory and Cognition in 2026 and found the benefit of offloading was larger when people were required to offload than when they were left to decide for themselves.

Nobody at work will require it of you. The nearest thing available is to take the decision off yourself, by making the check-in date part of sending a request rather than a judgement call afterwards. That last step is this site's reading of the result, not something the paper tested.

Why do tasks you handed off get forgotten?

Because letting go is what handing over is for, and your memory obliges. That is the mechanism working, not carelessness, and the newest evidence shows how completely it happens once you trust the thing you handed it to.

Dupre and Ball tested it in Psychonomic Bulletin and Review in 2026 with 320 students. Everyone carried out delayed intentions inside an ongoing computer task, with reminders either available or absent, and with reliability set at 0, 50 or 100 percent, so some people learned their reminder always arrived while others learned it sometimes did not. Thought probes interrupted the task to ask what was on their mind, which gave a live reading of whether the intention was still in conscious awareness rather than a guess afterwards.

In the first session, reminders improved performance without reducing how often people thought about the intention. Both the reminder and the person were carrying it. In the second session, after a run of fully reliable support, the 100 percent group thought about the intention less, moved attention onto the task in front of them, and retrieved the intention less well when the reminders were withdrawn without warning.

Trust is the variable, not the tool.

Students, a laboratory task, intentions measured in minutes rather than in the fortnight a real request sits open: the jump to a message you sent on Tuesday is an argument rather than a finding. The argument is still the one that matters for a waiting list. Once the list is reliable you will stop holding its items yourself, and that is the whole point of writing down that you are waiting on Marco.

The risk there is narrow and specific. If the list is reliable and you quietly stop reading it, nothing at all is holding the item. Not the list, and not you.

Which makes the review, not the capture, the part that fails. Allen's insistence on a non-negotiable weekly pass over the lists is aimed at exactly this, and Getting Things Done does not work without it. Pick a fixed slot, open the waiting list, and do one of three things with every line: chase it, drop it, or move the date because something real moved it.

A date that slides three weeks running has stopped working as a date. You have decided not to chase the item, and saying so out loud costs less than rewriting it every Monday.

The wider picture from that meta-analysis is that the trade is usually worth making. Burnett and Richmond ran a second analysis on the spread between people rather than on the average, and found that offloading narrows it, and more so on prospective memory, the kind that means doing something later rather than recalling something past.

Put plainly: writing it down helps everyone somewhat, and helps the people who are worst at holding things a great deal. If you have long suspected that colleagues are simply better at this than you are, that is the result to take with you.

How does your working style change the answer?

None of these studies grouped people by how they run a week, so what follows is this site's reading rather than a research finding. Chasing is where the four working styles come apart fastest, because it is half bookkeeping and half a conversation almost nobody enjoys. Take the profile that sounds like your ordinary week.

If you build the week in advance, the Architect's pattern, your waiting list will be immaculate and your chase dates will slip anyway. The trouble starts at the second message. A check-in date that comes round while somebody is visibly buried feels rude, and the date moves a week on that feeling alone. Write the date, then treat it as settled by the version of you who had no feelings about it.

Burst workers, closest to the Sprinter, hand something off mid-sprint and lose it the moment the sprint ends. The repair belongs at the handoff rather than in the review: write the waiting line before you drop back into the work, in the same thirty seconds as the request. A Personal Kanban board pays for itself here, because a Waiting column beside Doing is visible without anybody opening anything. Visible beats filed.

If you think in outcomes, nearer the Visionary, you will under-record the small blocks and then be startled by an outcome that has not moved in a month. Sort the list by what each item is holding up, not by who owes it. On a Monday you want the outcome-level fact: two of the three things you actually own cannot move until someone else acts. That Marco owes you a spec is the small version of it, and a list sorted by person will only ever show you the small version.

A week that never repeats, the Improviser's normal, breaks the fixed weekly review the other three can lean on. Do not schedule the pass. Attach it to something that already happens: the first coffee, the Monday standup, the walk back from a recurring meeting. And when the same name turns up on your list week after week, the pattern is the thing to raise.

One list, a date beside every line, starting with whatever you are waiting on right now.

Open the last three threads where you asked somebody for something, write each one down with the day you will chase it, and put those dates somewhere you will actually meet them. If you are not sure which of these styles is yours, the working style assessment takes a few minutes, and the planning pillar covers where a waiting list sits in the rest of the week.

Frequently asked questions

How do you keep track of tasks you are waiting on other people for?

Keep one separate list, and give every line a check-in date that you set at the moment you send the request. Record what you asked for, who you asked, when you asked, and the day you will chase. Keep it apart from your to-do list, because a blocked item is not something you can pick up this afternoon and mixing the two teaches you to skim both. Then read the list at a fixed point in the week.

How long should you wait before chasing someone at work?

Work backwards from the day you need it rather than waiting until the silence starts to bother you. Subtract the time the work takes once somebody starts it, add a day for the answer to reach you, and chase on what is left. Two working days is a reasonable default for a small ask inside your own team, and longer across a company boundary. The number matters less than having picked it in advance.

Should waiting-for tasks sit on your to-do list or on a separate list?

Separate. A to-do list is a list of things you can start, and a blocked item is the opposite of that. Personal Kanban gives blocked work a column of its own beside Doing, and Getting Things Done keeps a Waiting For list on the same logic. Either way the split keeps your action list actionable, and it leaves you one place to open on the morning you decide to chase.

Why do tasks you handed off get forgotten?

Because a reminder you trust takes over the job of holding the intention, and you then stop holding it yourself. In a 2026 experiment with 320 students, people who had experienced a fully reliable reminder thought about the intention less and retrieved it less well once the reminder was withdrawn without warning. That trade is usually worth making, provided the list you handed it to is one you reread.

Sources