In Putnam's The Prosperous Community, Social Capital and Public Life he writes,
Stocks of social capital, such as trust, norms, and networks, tend to be self-reinforcing and cumulative. Successful collaboration in one endeavor builds connections and trust- social assets that facilitate future collaboration in other, unrelated tasks.
I wonder the results of comparing the performance of 2-person teams given identical, creative tasks. Half the teams would work on the task continuously for an hour. The other half would talk about the task for 10 minutes, chat about whatever they wanted for 20 minutes, and then work for 30 minutes. Who would finish first? Which is more productive for different types of tasks?
Something that is repetitive and just takes time, I'd suspect, would do better with continuous work, like filling test tubes. But, I think co-writing a proposal would do better with the capital-building break. But maybe even filling test tubes would do better with the chatting break because the workers would feel more morale?
Also, how long does it take to build enough capital for the effects to be obvious? Like, is a twenty minute break enough?
Comments
Have you read Ecotopia? Ernest Callenbach suggests people should self-direct their work time, taking breaks whenever needed, and that this will lead to increased productivity. I know it works for me, as a freelancer working from home...
Posted by: Ari Moore | October 5, 2007 10:25 AM