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

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 Travis Bradberry has a PhD in industrial-organizational psychology, and argues that "The eight-hour workday is an outdated and ineffective approach to work."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."

Comments

averages are just that, it's not precise

[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 4 hours without pause.

And of course, how much sleep did you get the night before? Are you coming down with a cold (but don't really feel it, other than a big less energetic)?

All said and done, I've worked at home for decades. And I tend to work a few hours.. then take a nap, have some food, and go back to it... and I do believe my productivity is higher.. because all I do is work. No IM, personal email, SMS, phone calls, browsing, etc...

But for me? It's a 'few hours'. Of course, waking up fresh from a nap probably helps a lot there too.

Depends on the job.

[RyanFenton]

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

Or conversly...

[tomhath]

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.

Re:Yes, this works - and it's how I do it too...

[apoc.famine]

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.