The Microstructure of Work: Understanding Productivity Benefits and Costs of Interruptions
[FULL STRUCTURED ABSTRACT READ IN FULL AT SOURCE via the Crossref item record, which deposits it entire. FULL TEXT NOT READ, so no coefficient, instrument detail, robustness check or quotation beyond the abstract may be attributed to this paper] Pendem, P. K., Green, P. I., & Staats, B. R. (2022). 'The Microstructure of Work: Understanding Productivity Benefits and Costs of Interruptions.' Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 24(4), 2202 to 2220. doi:10.1287/msom.2021.1053. First author Pradeep K. Pendem, Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, confirmed at api.crossref.org with ORCID and sequence 'first'. THE BEST-POWERED OBJECTIVE-OUTPUT STUDY FOUND AND THE STRONGEST SINGLE PIECE OF COUNTER-EVIDENCE IN THE FILE. SCALE, VERBATIM: 'a granular data set on worker productivity from 211 harvesters yielding 117,581 truckloads of fruit harvested for 9,819 worker shifts', analysed with 'an instrumental variable approach with two-stage residual inclusion estimation'. FINDINGS, VERBATIM: 'We identify a new interruption class, a pause, interruptions that provide the physical respite and limit the degree of attention shift from the primary task. We find that pauses improve worker productivity in the short- and long-term. Next, we find that scheduled breaks hurt (improve) the worker's productivity in the short-term (long-term). Finally, we find that harvester breakdown and travel across field interruptions that drain physical resources and cause attention shift hurt worker productivity in the short- and long-term.' THE SUMMARY SENTENCE: 'Our study demonstrates that various work interruptions can have positive or negative effects on workers' productivity.' And their framing of the prior literature: 'Prior operations management literature primarily examines the long-term effects of a single class of interruption that reduces performance.' THE LIMIT, STATED PLAINLY: fruit harvesting is physical labour where the beneficial interruptions supply 'physical respite', the mechanism does not transfer to a desk, and that must be said rather than borrowing the headline. WHAT DOES TRANSFER: the operations literature's own best-measured data treats interruption as a family of different things with different signs, while the trade treats it as one thing with one sign. THE PAIRED CAUSAL STUDY, WHICH CUTS THE OTHER WAY AND BELONGS BESIDE IT, read as FULL ABSTRACT ONLY via Crossref with FULL TEXT NOT READ: Cai, X., Gong, J., Lu, Y., & Zhong, S. (2018), 'Recover Overnight? Work Interruption and Worker Productivity', Management Science 64(8), 3489 to 3500, doi:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2792, first author Xiqian Cai, Xiamen University, confirmed at api.crossref.org, accepted by John List for behavioural economics. Verbatim: 'We employ a data set of individual productivity and machine conditions, in which each worker faces the chance, on a daily basis, that her machine will break down randomly. Our analysis finds that compared to a workday with smooth production, experiencing a machine breakdown is associated with a 3.3 percentage point decline in the worker's productivity the following day.' Candidate mechanisms offered: 'negative emotions, increased cautiousness in operating the machine, and proficiency loss.' Its three limits: it is piece-rate manufacturing, the interruption is a machine breaking rather than a colleague arriving so the cost may not be attentional at all, and it identifies the cost of being interrupted rather than the benefit of being protected, which are different claims.
[FULL STRUCTURED ABSTRACT READ IN FULL AT SOURCE via the Crossref item record, which deposits it entire. FULL TEXT NOT READ, so no coefficient, instrument detail, robustness check or quotation beyond the abstract may be attributed to this paper] Pendem, P. K., Green, P. I., & Staats, B. R. (2022). 'The Microstructure of Work: Understanding Productivity Benefits and Costs of Interruptions.' Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 24(4), 2202 to 2220. doi:10.1287/msom.2021.1053. First author Pradeep K. Pendem, Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon, confirmed at api.crossref.org with ORCID and sequence 'first'. THE BEST-POWERED OBJECTIVE-OUTPUT STUDY FOUND AND THE STRONGEST SINGLE PIECE OF COUNTER-EVIDENCE IN THE FILE. SCALE, VERBATIM: 'a granular data set on worker productivity from 211 harvesters yielding 117,581 truckloads of fruit harvested for 9,819 worker shifts', analysed with 'an instrumental variable approach with two-stage residual inclusion estimation'. FINDINGS, VERBATIM: 'We identify a new interruption class, a pause, interruptions that provide the physical respite and limit the degree of attention shift from the primary task. We find that pauses improve worker productivity in the short- and long-term. Next, we find that scheduled breaks hurt (improve) the worker's productivity in the short-term (long-term). Finally, we find that harvester breakdown and travel across field interruptions that drain physical resources and cause attention shift hurt worker productivity in the short- and long-term.' THE SUMMARY SENTENCE: 'Our study demonstrates that various work interruptions can have positive or negative effects on workers' productivity.' And their framing of the prior literature: 'Prior operations management literature primarily examines the long-term effects of a single class of interruption that reduces performance.' THE LIMIT, STATED PLAINLY: fruit harvesting is physical labour where the beneficial interruptions supply 'physical respite', the mechanism does not transfer to a desk, and that must be said rather than borrowing the headline. WHAT DOES TRANSFER: the operations literature's own best-measured data treats interruption as a family of different things with different signs, while the trade treats it as one thing with one sign. THE PAIRED CAUSAL STUDY, WHICH CUTS THE OTHER WAY AND BELONGS BESIDE IT, read as FULL ABSTRACT ONLY via Crossref with FULL TEXT NOT READ: Cai, X., Gong, J., Lu, Y., & Zhong, S. (2018), 'Recover Overnight? Work Interruption and Worker Productivity', Management Science 64(8), 3489 to 3500, doi:10.1287/mnsc.2017.2792, first author Xiqian Cai, Xiamen University, confirmed at api.crossref.org, accepted by John List for behavioural economics. Verbatim: 'We employ a data set of individual productivity and machine conditions, in which each worker faces the chance, on a daily basis, that her machine will break down randomly. Our analysis finds that compared to a workday with smooth production, experiencing a machine breakdown is associated with a 3.3 percentage point decline in the worker's productivity the following day.' Candidate mechanisms offered: 'negative emotions, increased cautiousness in operating the machine, and proficiency loss.' Its three limits: it is piece-rate manufacturing, the interruption is a machine breaking rather than a colleague arriving so the cost may not be attentional at all, and it identifies the cost of being interrupted rather than the benefit of being protected, which are different claims.
Written from the fULL STRUCTURED ABSTRACT READ IN FULL AT SOURCE via the Crossref item record, which deposits it entire. FULL TEXT NOT READ, so no coefficient, instrument detail, robustness check or quotation beyond the abstract may be attributed to this paper.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
Pendem, P. K., Green, P. I., & Staats, B. R. (2022). The Microstructure of Work: Understanding Productivity Benefits and Costs of Interruptions. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management, 24(4), 2202-2220. doi:10.1287/msom.2021.1053