←back to thread

The cost of interrupted work (2023)

(blog.oberien.de)
282 points _vaporwave_ | 6 comments | 23 Aug 25 21:45 UTC | HN request time: 1.233s | source | bottom
Show context
didibus ◴[24 Aug 25 00:44 UTC] No.45000291[source]▶
I think the original source is a 2006 Gallup interview with the researcher Gloria Mark you can read here: https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/23146/too-many-inter...

> GMJ: How long does it take to get back to work after an interruption?

> Mark: There's good news and bad news. To have a uniform comparison, we looked at all work that was interrupted and resumed on the same day. The good news is that most interrupted work was resumed on the same day -- 81.9 percent -- and it was resumed, on average, in 23 minutes and 15 seconds, which I guess is not so long.

replies(3): >>45000333 #>>45002007 #>>45002661 #
1. glenstein ◴[24 Aug 25 09:09 UTC] No.45002661[source]▶
Unfortunately that's not the source. The author of this piece, Jaro Fietz aka oberien, is already familiar with that article, noting it in their diagram and linking to it toward the bottom of the page. They're looking for the underlying research itself rather than a quote about it.

>So in the end, where do the 23 minutes and 15 seconds come from? They are mentioned in interviews multiple times by Gloria Mark. But I wasn’t able to find a primary printed source. There are many more publications by Gloria Mark, but none of them turned up while searching for the 23 minutes 15 seconds figure. If someone knows a paper or study where that figure originally appears in, please tell me.

replies(1): >>45005654 #
2. didibus ◴[24 Aug 25 16:41 UTC] No.45005654[source]▶
The mystery seems pretty much "solved" to me.

We know where that number originated from, it's from this Gallup interview with Gloria Mark.

We also know the Gloria Mark paper corroborates the number:

> When people did resume work on the same day, it took an average length of time of 25 min. 26 sec (sd=54 min. 48 sec.).

From the Gloria Mark paper: https://ics.uci.edu/~gmark/CHI2005.pdf

Now we're only left guessing the discrepancy between her paper saying 25 minutes and 26 seconds and her quoting 23 minutes and 15 seconds when interviewed about it.

My guess is she didn't recall exactly and gave a ballpark as she remembered it.

replies(1): >>45006269 #
3. glenstein ◴[24 Aug 25 17:59 UTC] No.45006269[source]▶
That seems basically right. I wouldn't have called the Gallup interview the source but I think you're probably right about the paper and the explanation of the difference between what she said and the paper.
replies(1): >>45007329 #
4. didibus ◴[24 Aug 25 20:08 UTC] No.45007329{3}[source]▶
> I wouldn't have called the Gallup interview the source

We're probably arguing semantics, but why not?

replies(1): >>45008199 #
5. glenstein ◴[24 Aug 25 22:01 UTC] No.45008199{4}[source]▶
You can object to data and methodology of a study in a way you can't to a quotation. And oberien was clear about what they were asking for from the beginning.
replies(1): >>45010039 #
6. didibus ◴[25 Aug 25 03:54 UTC] No.45010039{5}[source]▶
It really wasn't clear to me.

My first read was that they wanted to fact check what they heard, and were not able too.

And my second read was that they were more interested in figuring out why 23 minutes and 15 seconds is the precise number being parroted.

And now on my third read, I'm still unsure what exactly they're asking for. If they knew about the study showing 25 minutes, and the interview, what more are they asking?