Wasting time makes you more productive. The coffee break has become an important facet of American working culture. However, coffee breaks could be much more productive than they currently are. In Europe, the originator of coffee breaks, coffee breaks are used as a chance to relax and recharge, which makes employees more productive. In Sweden, this break is so important they have a word for it: Fika. Fika is a chance for people to take a midmorning and midafternoon break, catch up on the news, socialize, and of course, have some coffee (Quito 1). This activity has many of the benefits Gelfand et al spoke of about employees being more social, aiding in building a ācollective effervescentsā, and building camaraderie among coworkers (Gelfand et al. 1). The positive impact on employee morale begs the question: How do coffee breaks impact workplace productivity? Coffee breaks, in the proper culture and environment, positively impact productivity by allowing workers to recharge and encouraging them to form human relationships with their coworkers, but companies (mostly in America) use coffee breaks as a means to squeeze more work from their employees, detrimentally affecting their productivity. To fix this, American business managers can allow their staff to take proper breaks and encourage healthy breaking practices.
Coffee breaks stimulate productivity by allowing employees to mentally recharge. Coffee breaks such as Fika encourage people to take their mind off work. In his paper āGive me a breakā, Farris Jabr, a writer for Scientific American, found that āTime off boosts productivity and job satisfactionā (Jabr 48). This shows that short breaks make people more productive. Furthermore, they also make people more content in their jobs. An example of this is Yael Averbuch. Averbuch wrotein a New York Times article about how Fika changed the way that she viewed her job and made her more enthusiastic about doing it (Averbuch 1). She says that these breaks helped her sort out the day's events in a non-stressful way. According to Averbuch, this state of ābeing and not doingā allowed her to prepare for the events that followed in her day. As a result of being more prepared, Averbuch could be more productive during her day, as well as less stressed. Fika, because of its stress relieving effects, makes people more productive.
Moreover, Coffee breaks did not negatively impact worker productivity relative to colleagues who didn't have a break. According to a study done on nursing staff, breaks don't disrupt workflow productivity in a significant way (Rogers et al 2). After monitoring 353 nurses for a period of 28 days, researchers found that there was no noticeable difference in the amount of mistakes made by people who had breaks when compared to those that did. What this can be used to show (other than that you can sometimes get away with overworking people without ill effect) is that taking a break doesn't cause people to make more mistakes. If in a job where repetition improves workers taking a break causes no ill effect, then for those that do not have similar jobs, it may offer some improvement. Breaks allow people to catch their breath, and at worst have no change on productivity, but at best makes people more efficient.
Coffee breaks, because of their implicit social atmosphere, encourage colleagues to build bonds together. This seems to be especially true in Sweden, making workers more productive at work and happier in their regular lives. According to Louise Morley, a researcher at Sussex University, a large part of the success of the Swedish welfare state is due to the communal trust built from Fika (Morley 1). She said that though it was stereotypical, Fika was representative of the positives of the Swedish community. Furthermore, Morley believes that the Swedish welfare state wouldn't exist without the social and material benefits provided by Fika. She also states that Fika creates the rest and recreation that is required to build proper bonds in a workplace. What this means is that people who connect with their coworkers are more conscious about their communities as well as their workplaces. Due to the fact that Fika allows people to build bonds, it greatly increases productivity through a foundation of mutual trust and respect.
An article published by the university newspaper of Linkƶping University (a university in Linkƶping, Sweden) concurs with this. In the article the author writes of how Fika is a societal institution, one which is quintessentially Swedish and acts as a glue that binds the Swedes together (āTime for fika?ā). They go on further to explain that Fika isn't just about drinking coffee, but rather about one's peers. The author says that Fika is a chance to get creative inspiration from colleagues, and to āblow the dust out of one's brainsā. The implication here is that because Fika allows people to take inspiration from the people around them, they are productive in new ways. This also shows that without Fika, the Swedish people probably wouldn't be able to maintain their communal individuality. The allowance of taking inspiration from other people allows them to pay homage to their coworkers and surroundings while still putting their own personal spin on it. Fika has made Swedish society more closely knit while still encouraging Swedes to be their own people.
In America, work culture inhibits the positive effects of breaks. Mark Bertolini broke his neck and started giving his employees breaks which made them happier. This CEO of a company which employs over 50,000 people, implemented yoga breaks into his company time schedule. When studied by psychologists, significant mental improvements were found in the employees (Jabr 2). The psychologists found that the employees were also less stressed, letting them sleep better. This mindfulness also aided them in boosting their productivity and overall health. Since employees were less stressed, they could focus more easily, which allowed them to improve their productivity. Further, a court case over the matter was decided in the United States court of appeals (āCoffee breakā 2). In Mitchell v. Greinetz (1955) a non precedential judge opinion was issued saying that ā"promotes more efficiency and results in greater output", which also established that breaks have to be paid by the employer (United States Court of Appeals, 10th circuit). This court opinion shows that breaks entice people to be more efficient, as well as making them overall more productive. However, as shown by the fact that this ended up being a court case, there are those who believe that breaks should not be given. This is most relevant for employers, who would deny their employees time off. What's more is that many employees are less productive at the margins of breaks (Carlin 1). This could be due to the fact that there is shame surrounding the connotation of taking a break in American work culture. When people are about to take a break (or have just gotten back from one) they may be less productive due to the fact that they feel shame for having the need to take a break. Overall, taking a break is generally looked down upon in American work culture and it took a CEO almost dying for him to realize how important they actually were.
In America, because of neoliberal attitudes, breaks are not used to their fullest extent. As a result of this, the culture surrounding taking breaks is one of shame and discouragement.
Some argue coffee breaks don't impact workflow, so employees don't need a break. This is a logical conclusion which relates to what Rogers and her team found: breaks don't affect productivity. What this shows is that if employees don't have breaks, their work would still be the same. This strengthens the argument of removing coffee breaks by implying that without breaks, people could get more done, since they have more time to work. What's more is that the culture around taking breaks is not one that allows for them to be implemented. In America, work culture is mostly focused on just that - working, shaming those who take breaks. Some studies have shown that, despite breaks improving productivity, work culture prevents breaks being added to a work schedule. This is exactly what was found by Gemma Ryde and her team at the University of Stirling in Scotland. After studying a company that had a plan of paid physical activity(PA) time, They concluded that the PA was beneficial, but overall frowned upon by the culture (Ryde 1). This means that given that breaks do positively impact productivity, they overall wouldn't be helpful because workers would feel pressured to not take them. While the first counter argument has a logical line of reasoning, it also ignores the plethora of other evidence that breaks positively influence productivity. The second counter argument is much more compelling, and points out a problem in our current culture: that workplace toxicity shames people for taking a break.
While it is true that if one is taking a break, they are not working. However that does not mean they are overall less productive. In fact, taking a break with coworkers has been found to make people more productive. According to a study by a group of researchers and professors at MIT āthe strength of an individualās social group was positively related to productivity (average call handle time) for the employees that we studiedā (Waber 2). What this means is that the more interlocked a group of colleagues is, the better they work together. Since taking a break allows people to get to know others better, they form those connections that make them more efficient. Returning to the Linkƶping article from before, the breaks and socialization anchorage creative problem solving. The article claims that fika allows coworkers to be more empathetic to their peers and help them solve issues they might have encountered in their work (ātime for fika?ā). In tandem, these show that even if people aren't working explicitly, they are still being productive. So despite the fact that employees may not be working during these breaks, they are still being productive, even more so than if there were no breaks.
It is clear that Americans don't take breaks in the same ways that Swedes do and thus lose out on potential productivity gains. Work culture should shift to encourage people to have better break taking practices. The main issue is that employers don't allow their workers to take breaks that stimulate productivity, except after near death experiences (Jabr 2). One of the best ways to fix this is to take a similar approach to fika and encourage breaks in the mid morning and mid afternoon. In the optimistic outcome of this employees would be more productive as well as build comradery such as how it did in Sweden (Morley 1). This has worked in other places, so it is reasonable to assume that it would work here. This is because regular break taking has been shown to positively impact workers in America (Jabr 2). If Americans take breaks more regularly, they will be more productive than if they did not.
Coffee breaks make people more productive and happy because they allow people to recharge and form connections with people they work with. Unfortunately they are often used improperly in America due to neoliberal attitudes and unwelcoming workplace habits. This is because people work better when allowed to relax after a period of work. Furthermore, they work more efficiently when they are comfortable around their colleagues. Workplace comradery has the added benefit of helping build a tighter overall society. The downside is that employers and coworkers in America have a mindset heavily focused on productivity. Many of those people also believe that if you are not working, you are not being productive. A solution that was used to solve this was by the CEO of an insurance company was to have employees take breaks together. When employees take breaks together the guilt of not being productive is lessened, and they are more able to take good breaks. Optimistically this would lead to a happier, more productive workplace.
izzy806
dailybridgerton
titsay
kianamaiart
pixelskylines
blakekathryn
baratheonpilled
