Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
IT

Are People Who Take Frequent Breaks More Productive? (qz.com) 74

Posted by EditorDavid from the Pomodoro-techniques dept.
Dr. Travis Bradberry has a PhD in industrial-organizational psychology, and argues that "The eight-hour workday is an outdated and ineffective approach to work." A study recently conducted by the Draugiem Group used a computer application to track employees' work habits. Specifically, the application measured how much time people spent on various tasks and compared this to their productivity levels. In the process of measuring people's activity, they stumbled upon a fascinating finding: the length of the workday didn't matter much; what mattered was how people structured their day. In particular, people who were religious about taking short breaks were far more productive than those who worked longer hours.

The ideal work-to-break ratio was 52 minutes of work, followed by 17 minutes of rest. People who maintained this schedule had a unique level of focus in their work. For roughly an hour at a time, they were 100% dedicated to the task they needed to accomplish. They didn't check Facebook "real quick" or get distracted by e-mails. When they felt fatigue (again, after about an hour), they took short breaks, during which they completely separated themselves from their work. This helped them to dive back in refreshed for another productive hour of work.

People who have discovered this magic productivity ratio crush their competition because they tap into a fundamental need of the human mind: the brain naturally functions in spurts of high energy (roughly an hour) followed by spurts of low energy (15 - 20 minutes).
He suggests breaking your day into rough hourly intervals, followed by "real" rest. "Getting away from your computer, your phone, and your to-do list is essential to boosting your productivity. Breaks such as walking, reading, and chatting are the most effective forms of recharging because they take you away from your work..."

"If you wait until you feel tired to take a break, it's too late -- you've already missed the window of peak productivity."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are People Who Take Frequent Breaks More Productive? More

Are People Who Take Frequent Breaks More Productive?

Comments Filter:

  • it's called the "Ballmer Peak" (Score:5, Funny)

    by v1 ( 525388 ) on Sunday March 10, 2019 @12:45PM (#58247902) Homepage Journal

    "If you wait until you feel tired to take a break, it's too late -- you've already missed the window of peak productivity."

    Unsurprisingly, XKCD has a take on this: https://xkcd.com/323/ [xkcd.com]

    • compulsively go to slashdot to try to get a first post?

    • Is it merely the coincidence that across the entire planet, intervals of time are measured in hours? We schedule almost everything by default on hourly chunks.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mentil ( 1748130 )

        I used to have a boss who was in the military. He doled out tasks and gave a specific number of minutes it should take (it always took double that, at least). Most work tasks take an appreciable fraction of an hour to do, thus them being measured in hours, half-hours et cetera, minutes being too precise to use.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by dryeo ( 100693 )

        Interesting idea, but it does seem like a coincidence. Egyptians first split the night into 12 chunks, likely based on the 12 month lunar calendar (zodiac is likewise split into 12). Later they also split the day the same way. Being a 12th of a night or day, the length of hours varied during the seasons too. Even in Europe, early clocks needed daily adjustments (pendula lengthend or shortened) to be accurate to the varying hours at first.
        China started out by dividing the day into a hundred chunks, SE Asia,

        • BTW, hour seems to be descended from the word for year

          For example, in Czech "hodina" means hour, while in Croatian/Serbian "godina" means year.

  • Why are you asking me? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I'm on my break.

    • America is founded by people so uptight that the English wanted to kick them out.
      The American Puritan Work Ethic is really a two sided coin.

      Americans tend to connect their self worth to their career. When someone is having problems the initial response is "You need to work harder!" which often makes us self conscious when ever we are not working. There seems to be something else we need to do. If we are not working there better be a good reason to.

      Sure we have Lazy people who will do the minimum, and woul

  • averages are just that, it's not precise (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    There is no way this is 100% identical for everyone -- meaning 52 minutes for all? Pffft. And there's zero validation from a psychologist over deep brain chemistry, and how long glucose remains high / other factors.

    But that said, of course there is a factor. And I bet 52 minutes was an average of some sort, with outliers excluded. Of what use is someone in the study that can only work 5 minutes... and of course there are such people, and they'd be excluded from the graph.

    Same goes for people working for

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Altrag ( 195300 )

      Of course it's an average. Not just across the population but across time. You won't be exactly as productive tomorrow as you are today, regardless of how you budget your time. There are way too many other factors to account for. Most people aren't as productive in winter as they are in summer either (at least if you're far enough from the equator) because of the function daylight plays on our biology and circadian rhythm.

      So no, the 52/17 ratio is probably not exactly equal for every person, but by defi

    • Averages are not precise. But they are good enough for a general rule of thumb. So for a boss who is managing their department, they see the employees taking breaks every hour, vs every 1/2 hour or every 2 hours, where perhaps some additional management will need to be involved.

  • Does posting on Slashdot count as a "break"? Because if so my ratio is pretty good.

    • WW1 veterans said the same thing. Most of the time there's bugger all to do, waiting for Jerry (or in your case, India) to attack.

      Of course, they didn't have the interwebs in them days, and eggs were a farthing per half dozen - if you could get them.

  • This is false (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    People shouldn't even be allowed to take bathroom or lunch breaks during their shifts.

    Feeding tubes and catheters should be installed in all employees, and GPS trackers should be placed in the skin to prevent them from wasting company time.

    Employees are things and property to be used and disposed of as required by shareholders in order to make a profit.

  • Yes, this works - and it's how I do it too... (Score:4, Informative)

    by MindPrison ( 864299 ) on Sunday March 10, 2019 @12:53PM (#58247946) Journal

    ...I work at a large corporation with 150K+ coworkers, and albeit we have a time span where we're expected to be on the clock so to speak, out managers look more at the net results (KPI) of what we do and achieve rather than how many breaks we took. They're perfectly aware of it though, they will often say, well - these break interwall's could be you going to the bathroom, taking a break, or helping a colleague etc, we can't know for sure why you have so many breaks (I actually asked my manager this out of pure curiosity), and that's how he reasoned with it - because at our monthly development talks, he never mentions that I'm taking too many breaks, just how happy he is about my performance.

    So I think Bradberry is onto something there.

    But "breaks" takes on many shapes, for example - it might not count as a break when we talk with out colleagues during work about the new house, car, their kids, their gaming, my ideas or theirs - but they're actually breaks too. Our break layout is split into 3 parts, one small 15 minute break between morning and lunch, then lunch, and then another 15 minutes before we end our shift.

    However, every person is different, and we have those who take "smoke breaks" for 5 minutes each hour, those don't take the longer 15 minute breaks, and prefer to do that instead.

    I try to keep the 15 minutes, but admittedly sometimes it's 20+ minutes, 30 minutes and I get a really bad conscience and work like mad to get the work done, but then again - I have the energy to do so. But even despite this, I have some of our teams top performance numbers. We have overseas partners within the company, that literally get "whipped" if they don't put in 1 hour overtime, and skip breaks, but their "error" ratio on their tickets is through the roof, whereas we who have the "luxury" of many breaks. have some of the lowest error rates.

     

    • At the opposite end of the spectrum, I once worked at a small shop where the dev team numbered under 20 where management had instituted a break policy after too many of the staff were having migraine and RSI issues. 20 minute walks one mid-morning and one mid-afternoon was the requirement. That became the culture, and twice a day someone would get to a good stopping point and ask if anyone wanted to take a walk. Generally everyone else would get to a stopping point in the next 5 minutes, and the whole office then got up and walked 5 minutes down the road to a pond, hung out there for 5-10 minutes, and then walked back.

      The two hours following a walk were the most productive hours in everyone's day.

      Some fresh air, sunshine, staring off into the distance, and small talk were all everyone needed. That loosened up stiff muscles, got the blood moving, and let everyone's minds subconsciously wrestle with the issue of the day, while relaxing enough to let it happen. Sometimes work got talked about, but most of the time it was random shit or nothing at all.

      That's what made me realize how misguided the hyper-focus on hours-at-the-desk really is. It's quality of hours-at-the-desk, not quantity. It's just easier to measure quantity, so that's what everyone does.

      • >>The two hours following a walk were the most productive hours in everyone's day.

        I agree, we have those walks too, mostly during spring/summer and autumn, usually initiated by co-workers though that likes to do it, and then others follows - inspired by their feelings of wellness and energy after the walks. I can highly recommend those walks you're referring to.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bengie ( 1121981 )
        Most normal people don't hyperfocus. They may focus for a long time, but that's not hyper-focusing. Generally, only people with learning "disabilities", aka learning differently, can hyperfocus in certain situations. Hyperfocusing is not a conscious effort and you rarely realize when you're doing it. It's only after the fact that you think it's been 30 minutes but your stomach is grumbling and it's actually been several hours.

        I have ADD and used to hyperfocus more often when I was younger, but as I got ol

  • Depends on the job. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Sunday March 10, 2019 @12:58PM (#58247968)

    One-size-fits-all rules like this are basically bullshit statistical naval gazing. True that you can find a pattern if you glom together enough folks from enough jobs - but false that you can make a rule that will map back on to even a large portion of them.

    The rule shouldn't be that enforced breaks will let you squeeze that last drop of productivity out of a beleagered employee drone - but rather, employees that figure out of their own limits and are given leeway to take whatever breaks allow themselves to be optimal can end up becoming more efficient.

    Moreover, the goal shouldn't even be some mythical optimal output level - that itself is largely bullshit outside pure robotic-style activity. Sure - efficiency per dollar is important part of an overall evaluation - but the real issue is morale from employees in roles they have no full stake in other than punishment and fear of loss.

    The whole employer-employee balance goes around in cycles - but that cycle is itself falling prey to the shifting waves of HR manipulation and political manipulation. Raises are increasingly something that never beat inflation except in extreme cases.

    The political system is squeezing the legal system into cutting off all avenues for labor organization or preventing contracts from becoming absolutely insane. The whole idea of employment is shifting to more manipulative realms in more and more places.

    So yeah - folks have to play motivational games with themselves to step out of the manipulation and unstable framework of their jobs, in order to perform better at their often perceptibly worthless tasks assigned to them. They often have almost no say at making their tasks themselves better.

    The 'fix' in most cases isn't playing more of those motivational games - it's making the role itself less stagnant, in terms of outcome for the employee, and let them make the role more efficient as they go.

    But that's not really the fashion of the day - so, go ahead with your enforced company synchronized dancing or whatever comes next.

    Ryan Fenton

    • One-size-fits-all rules like this are basically bullshit statistical naval gazing.

      Are you a Mahanian? I slightly prefer Corbett myself.

  • Anecdotally (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Anecdotally, I see this in myself. Unless I am under a short-time deadline (like one week or less), where I can absolutely push myself for a short sprint, I am absolutely more productive when I constantly doing 1-2 hours of work, then taking a 15 minute smoke break. The days when I am simply not able to make myself productive, I tend to just sit at the desk more.

    • While I don't take smoke breaks, but I agree, if you are working on a short-term deadline you can push yourself to be really productive if needed, however, after a week I am dead. If it is long term with no breaks, I find my productivity is crap, I will spend an hour staring at a screen without any work, feeling bad about not doing work, however not being able to do such work.
      Breaks are key, especially if they are encouraged by management without putting guilt on us.

  • I am. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Sunday March 10, 2019 @01:03PM (#58247982)

    I am more productive if I take deliberate frequent breaks and choose not to feel guilty about it. Measurably so. I also see huge benefits in completely seperating fun and work, such as *not* listening to music when I'm coding but simply leaving the headphones on for some silence.

  • Or conversly... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Sunday March 10, 2019 @01:05PM (#58247998)
    FTFA:

    The ideal work-to-break ratio was 52 minutes of work, followed by 17 minutes of rest. People who maintained this schedule had a unique level of focus in their work.

    Based on my experience he has it backwards. People who have a unique level of focus are very good at budgeting their time and know how to pace themselves.

  • In our office, the "boss's wife" is the one who actually runs things. Pretty much the entire office is scared to death of her. Not me...don't care...she wants me gone, then I'll take my talent elsewhere. She had a meeting with the administration staff a few weeks ago. One of the first things I heard that she said was "I want your butts in those chairs at 8am and except for lunch...I want them IN those chairs until exactly 5pm! Apparently, she didn't like the fact that one or two of the women admin staff

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dryeo ( 100693 )

      No law about coffee breaks there? Here it's mandatory for a minimum 10 minute break every 2 hours. Workers are free to ignore the rule, employers, not so much.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jbengt ( 874751 )
        In my experience, breaks every 2 hours were mandatory for hourly employees, but if you took a break any other time, you might get in trouble. When working as a salaried employee, there was no set break policy, but nobody would mind you taking breaks, as long as you got the work done. And most of the time I've been considered a salaried employee even though I got paid only for the hours worked - that way they don't have to pay you time-and-a-half for overtime.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dryeo ( 100693 )

          Good point about salaried employees. Wouldn't be surprised if legally they're not covered here either.
          Actually, it seems that I was wrong about legally having to provide coffee breaks here too. Legally just need to provide at least a unpaid half hour meal break every 5 hours.
          Everywhere I have worked (for someone else), getting a break every couple of hours has been the norm.

  • I'm on break just now!
  • I vape. I find that vaping requires a more regular "hit" than actual cigarettes, so roughly every hour as opposed to every 1.,5-2 hours or so. I find that the act of walking down and back up the stairs, and getting some "fresh" air, not only helps my productivity through brain rest, but also because somehow, complex coding problems sometimes "come together" better when I'm not in front of the code. Not suggesting anyone addict themselves to nicotine, because you could achieve this without smoking/vaping, b

  • Pomodoro (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This has even be set into a working habit called the Pomodoro technique: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique

  • IMHO there is a structural problem in many "hybrid" (non developer-run) companies where non-technical, unskilled-technical (migrated to mgmt), or vaguely historically technical management need to see the technical staff "productively mirroring" their own highly social and highly multi-tasking management jobs.

    The incentives are mostly aligned with willingness to butterfly from one urgent task/project/proposal to another. Aligned with making consistent, predicted, scheduled, budget (no surprises, no innovatio
  • Yes it does help a lot ! I've been using Pomodoro technique for years and it does make a big difference. Plus, I'm a big fan of GTD methodology, so when you mix both, you'll get the perfect combo ! Here a good article on Zenkit blog, if you want to learn more about GTD... And it has David Allen's interview in it too ! https://zenkit.com/en/blog/dav... [zenkit.com]
  • Start a CD, work a while. when the CD ends take a break. Of course, now all my CDs are MP3 files.

  • There are lots of random, short online puzzles that are challenging on time.

    I have one I like and if it takes me more than 5-7 minutes, I know it is time for a brisk walk.

  • My old body... (Score:4, Funny)

    by antdude ( 79039 ) on Sunday March 10, 2019 @08:18PM (#58249960) Homepage Journal

    ... doesn't like to idle for so long, so I must move around. Also, it likes to pee and poop a lot these days. :(

  • So if I'm supposed to work 52 minutes without being distracted, then have a 17-minute real break away from the computer, when is the time to post memes, read Facebook and be a slob?

  • Old News. Swedish University has (45 w+15b) setup (Score:4, Informative)

    by xpiotr ( 521809 ) on Monday March 11, 2019 @03:39AM (#58251140) Homepage
    When I studied in Sweden, there was a 45 min lecture, followed by 15 min break.
    Then back at it again.
    This was done in the 1980s when a study showed that students lost focus after roughly 45-1 hour.
    Not surprising that it also applies to work...
    • My father, who programmed back in the days of COBOL, would get up and leave a meeting if it went longer than an hour. He knew nothing productive happened after that point anyway, and his company didn't have the stones to fire him.

    • Yeah, my college did 50 minutes in the early 90's based on research - this isn't new info on concentration.

      However there are different neurotypes and what should be recognized decades later is that one-size-fits-all is a stupid approach.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Facts are stupid things." -- President Ronald Reagan (a blooper from his speeach at the '88 GOP convention)

Close