AB1601 Organizational Behavior & Design Critical Thinking Assignment Summary Sheet Your name: Joshua Ong Shun

You Your Instructor: Don Willis Seminar Group: 5

Criteria 1. Summary of the issue

2. Other theoretical perspectives related to this issue

Your points Increased energy does not necessarily increase performance Other contributing factors to performance are important Methodology of study is not robust in proving causal linkage between breaks and energy Work-related strategies are not necessarily better than micro breaks Cultural and personality differences affect both the efficacy of breaks in generating energy and for broader performance motivation Job performance is moderately correlated to job satisfaction, personality and other factors, not merely energy Stable levels of energy could be correlated to job satisfaction Personality factors affect the preference for breaks Other aspects of breaks like duration and frequency do matter to the fatigue recovery process The notion of preferred choice plays a role in determining recovery Causality is not easily established in the cross sectional study; a longitudinal study is more appropriate No control group Sample size is not representative of the population of knowledge workers o Average age o From a single organization in the U.S. o 81% in supervisor positions Vitality and fatigue have moderate correlation (r=-0.52); weakens claim that they represent distinct energy levels Sampling and study methodology may not be robust and undermine the validity of conclusions drawn Applicability of recommendations limited by the context of the study Cultural differences and workers in significantly different organizational cultures might not respond in same way to recommendations made Finding that reflecting on job satisfaction increasing energy and performance are corroborated by other studies Relational strategies can create a positive work environment to encourage performance confirmed by other studies Implications for job design: to build in freedom of choice in relaxation activities and create positive organizational culture, that promotes recovery

3. Assessment of supporting data or evidence

4. Key assumptions and influence of contexts on the issue

5. Overall analysis of this article (conclusions, implications, and consequences)

AB1601 Organizational Behavior Critical Thinking Assignment

A Critique by Joshua Ong Shun You U1110092J Seminar Group 5 Tutor: Mr. Don Willis

Article Title: Its the Little Things That Matter: An Examination of Knowledge Workers Energy Management

Word Count (excluding summary, cover page and headings): 998

Introduction

The article examines energy sustainability of knowledge workers with the aim of increasing job performance and productivity. Using vitality and fatigue as subjective measures of energy, the authors studied the correlation of energy to micro-breaks and work related strategies. Finally, recommendations and implications were outlined to increase performance in the workplace.

Examination of Issues

This critique flows along the articles logical progression taking breaks leads to energy, which in turn leads to performance. Considering survey methodology, alternative theories and assumptions at each turn, we assess the validity, strength and relevance of the major hypotheses. Breaks Work-related strategies are better than micro-breaks in energy recovery

2.1

To critique the validity of the above conclusion from survey results, an examination of the survey method is required. Subjective vitality and fatigue were used to measure energy levels. However, this same paper found that vitality and fatigue had a moderate correlation (r = -0.52). This implies that they may not have been robust measures of high and low energy levels respectively.

Nonetheless, assuming they were distinct opposite measures of energy, the conclusions drawn have potential flaws. The article concluded that work-related strategies were better than microbreaks in energy recovery because of its higher correlation to vitality. However, 3 important aspects of breaks are crucial in its efficacy towards recovery: (1) frequency of breaks 1, (2) timing of breaks2 and (3) break duration3. These are not reflected in the survey. There is a moderate inference from the descriptions of the top strategies that considerable time is required. E.g. learn something new, make time to show gratitude to a colleague and reflect on the meaning of my work. It could be that the micro-breaks were taken at later in the day when fatigue had already set in beyond recovery. As found in a study by Murrell, (1962, 1979) rest breaks taken after the point at which performance has begun to decline are less likely to be effective in promoting recovery.
1 2

(Boucsein & Thum, 1997), (Dababneh, Swanson, & Shell, 2001) (Boucsein & Thum, 1997), (Henning, Kissel, & Maynard, 1994), (McLean, Tingley, Scott, & Rickards, 2001) 3 (Lisper & Eriksson, 1980)

2.2

Breaks Relationships between breaks and energy

One study classified breaks into those that stopped the depletion of personal resources and those that did not. It did not matter as much whether those breaks were work-related or not. Rather, engaging in breaks of their preferred choice4 was more statistically significant in encouraging recovery5. Thus this studys dichotomy into work-related and micro-breaks may challenge the validity of its claim that work-related strategies are superior to micro-breaks in energy recovery.

Other than the 3 aspects of breaks mentioned in paragraph 2.1, individual differences e.g. personality affect how individuals cope with stress6 and it is likely they affect the choice of break type. An individual high on extraversion may find social activities more of a break than an introverted individual who has to deploy additional emotional resources in a social context. In the context of the preferred choice notion above, there could be an increased significance of individual differences possibly affecting the rigor of the survey results. Energy Energy predicates job performance

2.3

The article has a working assumption that energy is correlated to job performance and could be explored as an avenue to increase employee productivity. However job performance is correlated to many variables, ranging from leadership styles 7 to self-esteem, even an internal locus of control8. The multivariate nature of job performance leads us to question how strongly correlated energy to performance is. According to A. Mkikangas et al. (2011), fatigue did not preclude high levels of work engagement. Instead, the study found that work engagement shared a strong negative correlation with cynicism, which is an attitudinal construct. Since work engagement is positively related to performance 9 and engagement to job satisfaction10, these studies suggest that to improve job performance, an approach centered more on attitudes11 and job satisfaction rather than energy might be more useful.
4 5

Preferred choice referred to an employees desired break activity (Trougakos & Hideg, 2009) 6 Neuroticism significantly predicts burnout (Langelaan, Bakker, van Doornen, & Schaufeli, 2006) 7 (Schaubroeck, Lam, & Peng, 2011) 8 (Keller, 2012) 9 (Diefendorff, Brown, Kamin, & Lord, 2002) 10 (Harter, Schmidt, & L, 2002) 11 Employees higher in Affective-Cognitive Consistency (ACC) evidenced higher correlations between satisfaction and performance (Schleicher & Watt, 2004)

Critique of Survey Methodology and Findings

3.1

Survey methodology and its implications

The article presents a cross-sectional study, in which it is difficult to assess the causal linkage between taking breaks and energy levels. It is possible that workers low in fatigue take certain types of breaks perceived to be beneficial, coupled with the fact that any type of breaks at already high fatigue levels would be less effective in recovery12, led to them scoring high for fatigue. A longitudinal study would have been more effective in investigating how breaks act as mediators to increase energy or halt its depletion.

The sample population also holds implications for the relevance of survey results. About 81% of respondents were in supervisor positions of some kind. Working for the same company, respondents are subject to a more uniform organizational culture and job demands. Being from the same country, with more similar societal and cultural backgrounds, compounds this selection bias. Societal and organizational culture affects attitudes, behaviors, decisions and performances depending on the level of person-culture fit 13 . Hence recommendations for the best break strategies may have limited application across job functions, organizations and cultures.

3.2

Findings and possible corroborations/refutations

Despite weaknesses in the methodology, examining the findings separately yield insightful suggestions. The study found that reflection on what gives work its meaning, finding joy at work and making a difference are related to higher vitality levels. These strategies seem related to fostering positive attitudes 14 which are a significant moderator of the job satisfactionperformance relationship
15

. These studies establishing correlation between attitude and

performance lend reliability to the findings in this article.

12 13

Earlier mentioned in paragraph 2.1 from Murrell (1962, 1979) (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005) 14 As measured using the usual Affective and Cognitive Components by Schleicher & Watt (2004) 15 See footnote 12

Conclusion

This essay does not deny the usefulness of breaks in increasing emotional resources16. The article sought to shed light on the effect the type of breaks had on energy recovery. Overall, the study was not the most robust in establishing the superiority of work-related strategies over microbreaks. In analyzing the studys assumption that energy leads to performance 17 , we have assumed that energy did not act as an indirect mediator for performance. The causal relations between the factors influencing job performance are ambiguous. One factor could act through or with another factor to increase performance. We cited that engagement shared a strong link to performance 18 . Could energy increase job satisfaction and engagement leading to better performance? The use of control groups to control other moderating factors known to affect break and energy efficacy could increase the value of this study.

16 17

(Trougakos, Beal, Green, & Weiss, 2008) Critique in paragraph 2.3 18 Also in paragraph 2.3, (Diefendorff, Brown, Kamin, & Lord, 2002)

Bibliography Boucsein, W., & Thum, M. (1997). Design of work/rest schedules for computer work based on psychophysiological recovery measures. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 20, 51-57. Dababneh, A. J., Swanson, N., & Shell, R. L. (2001). Impact of added rest breaks on the productivity and well being of workers. Ergonomics, 44, 164-174. Diefendorff, J. M., Brown, D. J., Kamin, A. M., & Lord, R. G. (2002). Examining the Roles of Job Involvement and Work Centrality in Predicting Organization Citizenship Behaviors and Job Performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 99-108. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & L, H. T. (2002). Business-Unit-Level Relationships between Employee Satisfaction, Employee Engagement, and Business Outcomes: A MetaAnalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 268-279. Henning, R. A., Jacques, P., Kissel, G. V., Sullivan, A. B., & Alteras-Webb, S. M. (1997). Frequent short rest breaks from computer work: Effects on productivity and well-being at two field sites. Ergonomics,40, 78-91. Henning, R. A., Kissel, G. V., & Maynard, D. C. (1994). Compensatory rest breaks for VDT operators. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 14, 243-249. Keller, R. T. (2012). Predicting the Performance and Innovativeness of Scientists and Engineers. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97, 230-231. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of Individuals' Fit at WorkL A Meta-Analysis of Person-Job, Person-Organization, Person-Group and Person-Supervisor Fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 314-320. Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., van Doornen, L. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and Work Engagement: Do individual differences make a difference? Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 527-530. Lisper, H., & Eriksson, B. (1980). Effects of the length of a rest break and food intake on subsidiary reaction-time performance in an 8-hour driving task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 117-122. McLean, L., Tingley, M., Scott, R. N., & Rickards, J. (2001). Computer terminal work and the benefit of microbreaks. Applied Ergonomics, 32, 225-237. Murrell, K. F. (1962). Operator Variability and its industrial consequences. International Journal of Production Research, 11, 39-55. Murrell, K. F. (1979). Ergonomics: Man in His Working Environment. London: Chapman & Hall. Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S. S., & Peng, A. C. (2011). Cognition-based and Affect-based Trust as mediators of Leader Behavior Influences on Team Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 868-870. Schleicher, D. J., & Watt, J. D. (2004). Reexamining the Job Satisfaction-Performance Relationship: The Complexity of Attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 166-170. Trougakos, J. P., & Hideg, I. (2009). Momentary Work Recovery: the role of within-day work breaks. Research in Occupational Stress and Recovery, 7, 45-51. Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J., Green, S. G., & Weiss, H. M. (2008). Making the break count: An episodic examination of recovery activities, emotional experiences, and positive affective displays. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 140-143.