22 Dec Why Work Interruptions Harm Performance: What Research Shows
Work interruptions don’t just break concentration. Research shows they overload working memory, interfere with encoding and retrieval processes, increase error rates, delay task completion, and contribute to long-term stress and emotional exhaustion. Their impact depends largely on their frequency, unpredictability, and relevance to the task at hand.
Introduction
This article explores something we’ve all experienced: constant disruptions that break our focus and slow us down. But as Mattia Zene and Riccardo Sartori from the Università di Verona explain, the consequences extend far beyond a few lost minutes. Interruptions place a measurable strain on our cognitive system, increase the likelihood of mistakes, and contribute to cumulative stress and fatigue over time.
Not all interruptions are problematic. Some are essential for coordination, collaboration, and timely decision-making. However, when interruptions become frequent, irrelevant, or unpredictable, they pose significant risks for both individual performance and organizational functioning.
Understanding how interruptions work—and how to manage them—is one of the most effective ways to improve both performance and well-being.
What Science Tells Us About Work Interruptions
How Interruptions Affect the Brain
Modern organizational contexts are characterized by hyper-accessibility: continuous flow of communication through digital channels, instant messaging, synchronous exchanges, and unscheduled interactions. When unmanaged, this environment significantly compromises individual cognitive functioning, operational efficiency, and psychological well-being.
According to Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 1988), interruptions function as extraneous cognitive inputs that:
- Overload working memory
- Interfere with encoding and retrieval processes
- Break task continuity
- Lead to mental fatigue
These effects are particularly pronounced when tasks require sustained attention and high-level problem-solving (Bailey & Konstan, 2006).
Why Interruptions Increase Mistakes
Empirical studies demonstrate that frequent task-switching delays task completion and increases the likelihood of error, particularly in complex or cognitively demanding assignments.
Research by Mark, Gudith, and Klocke (2008) reveals that the average time to fully resume an interrupted task is approximately 23 minutes.
This means the cost of an interruption is rarely confined to the moment it occurs. Its effects often ripple forward, reducing efficiency, depth of focus, and overall quality of work.
Emotional and Organizational Costs
High levels of interruption are consistently linked to:
- Increased perceived stress
- Diminished job satisfaction
- Emotional exhaustion (Zijlstra et al., 1999)
- Reduced control over workflow
- Intensified sense of fragmentation in daily work routines (González & Mark, 2004)
These patterns reflect a form of organizational dissonance: expectations for constant availability and responsiveness clash with fundamental psychological needs for focused, uninterrupted work.
Not All Interruptions Are Harmful
It’s important to recognize that not all interruptions are negative. Structured, task-relevant, and timely interruptions can enhance collaborative problem-solving, support knowledge exchange, and foster adaptive coordination within teams—particularly when they align with the recipient’s current cognitive state and work rhythm (Speier, Valacich, & Vessey, 2003).
The real challenge is not eliminating interruptions altogether, which is neither realistic nor desirable, but regulating their timing, frequency, and modality in a thoughtful and intentional way.
Explore Our Leadership Solutions
At Maritime Utilia, we support organizations in building healthier, more effective work environments:
References
- Bailey, B. P., & Konstan, J. A. (2006). On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(4), 685–708.
- González, V. M., & Mark, G. (2004). Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness: Managing multiple working spheres. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 113–120.
- Grundgeiger, T., & Sanderson, P. (2009). Interruptions in healthcare: Theoretical views. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 78(5), 293–307.
- Jackson, T. W., Dawson, R. J., & Wilson, D. (2001). The cost of email interruption. Journal of Systems and Information Technology, 5(1), 81–92.
- Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (2008). The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 107–110.
- Perlow, L. A. (1999). The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 57–81.
- Speier, C., Valacich, J. S., & Vessey, I. (2003). The effects of interruptions, task complexity, and information presentation on computer-supported decision-making performance. Decision Sciences, 34(4), 771–797.
- Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
- Sykes, E. R. (2011). Interruptions in the workplace: A case study to reduce their effects. International Journal of Information Management, 31(4), 385–394.
- Zijlstra, F. R. H., Roe, R. A., Leonova, A. B., & Krediet, I. (1999). Temporal factors in mental work: Effects on interrupting and resuming an ongoing task. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(2), 163–185.
No Comments