Interruptions at Work: They’re Bad... and Good!

Interruptions, whether from cell phones and pagers or informal work climates, are something we all experience to a greater degree than in the past. In the workplace, especially, they are disruptive and can negatively affect workers’ concentration, performance, and productivity.

At least, that is how management scholars and practitioners generally have viewed interruptions. But a new study concludes that different types of interruptions raise distinct issues and result in different consequences, not all of which are negative.

The study was conducted by Jennifer George of Rice’s Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Management and Quintus Jett, a visiting associate professor of engineering at Dartmouth, who identified four different types of interruptions—distractions, intrusions, planned breaks, and discrepancies—and the conditions under which each are likely to have negative and positive consequences for the person whose work is being interrupted. What they found is that interruptions aren’t necessarily bad; they can impart vital information as well as relieve boredom.

“Proponents of time management generally have thought of intrusions, such as unscheduled personal visits or phone calls, as detracting from individual effectiveness, and they’ve tried to control their timing and length,” says George, the Mary Gibbs Jones Professor of Management and professor of psychology. “In fact, intrusions by co-workers can sometimes provide the person who’s being interrupted with valuable information that otherwise might not have been forthcoming by more established means.”

Distractions also are generally considered a hindrance to someone who is working on an engaging task or trying to complete a task quickly. What most determines whether such an interruption is a positive or negative experience, however, is the characteristics of both the person being interrupted and the task being performed. “Some people are more adept at ignoring distractions than others,” George says. “Some are more impatient and time conscious, while others are inclined to be easygoing.”

Consequently, distractions can have negative consequences for the person being interrupted if the task at hand is complex and requires that person’s full attention, and if the person is more sensitive to external stimuli. “But, an interrupting event or background noise can be welcomed when a task is tedious or boring,” she says.

The researchers also studied the consequences of planned breaks or spontaneous recesses from work and interruptions and found that planned breaks, while generally seen as beneficial, potentially can disrupt the work flow and, if taken too frequently, can result in procrastination. They also noted that the negative or positive consequences depend on the characteristics of the individual being interrupted—how adept the person is at handling unforeseen circumstances as opposed to reacting negatively or suppressing a perceived discrepancy—and the complexity and time-dependence of the task being performed. In addition, because people tend to process knowledge automatically and in ways consistent with their existing assumptions, discrepancies may help the person being interrupted to recognize a need for change.

“Managing interruptions and their effects is not simply a matter of controlling their occurrence,” George concludes. “It’s also important to understand the meaning and function of different kinds of interruptions.”
George believes further research on interruptions, particularly by studying their various forms, could provide insight into how people work and manage their time and productivity and how they behave and make decisions—not only in the workplace but also in their personal lives.

The results of the study were published in an article in the Academy of Management Review titled “Work Interrupted: A Closer Look at the Role of Interruptions in Organizational Life.”