یک آزمون میدانی از ساعت خاموش به عنوان یک تکنیک مدیریت زمان

Introduction This field study tested the effectiveness of quiet hours (an hour free of any phone calls, visitors or incoming emails). Objective Based on interruptions research and on a behavioral decision-making approach to time management, we argue that establishing quiet hours is a precommitment strategy against predominantly harmful interruptions. Furthermore, conscientiousness and the use of other time management techniques should moderate the effects of the quiet hour. Method We tested this by using a two-week experimental diary study with managers as participants. Results Multi-level analyses showed that a quiet hour improved the performance on a task worked on during the quiet hour in comparison to a similar task on a day without a quiet hour. Furthermore, overall performance was higher on days with a quiet hour than on days without one. Conscientiousness acted as a moderator, unlike the use of other time management techniques. Conclusion These results imply that more people should consider implementing a quiet hour, especially if they are non-conscientious.

This field study tested the effectiveness of quiet hours (an hour free of any phone calls, visitors or incoming emails).

This experimental field study was designed to test the effectiveness of implementing a quiet hour. The results show that people report a higher performance on days when they have implemented a quiet hour than on days without a quiet hour. They also report more progress on tasks worked on during the quiet hour than on comparable tasks during a day without a quiet hour. These effects were not due to an increase in hours worked during the day, and they could not be attributed to differences in daily stressors. Furthermore, participants evaluated the quiet hour positively, both directly at the end of the study and three months later. This study supports the idea that a behavioral decision-making research framework could be used for understanding time management issues (e.g., Koch & Kleinmann, 2002). In particular, we used this framework to argue that establishing a quiet hour can be considered as a precommitment strategy (e.g., Ariely & Wertenbroch, 2002): if people establish a quiet hour, they are committing themselves to working on an important but non-urgent task and to not allowing themselves to be interrupted. Such a precommitment is advisable because interruptions are often powerful temptations (e.g., because they might offer exiting new information), and it is much easier to generally reduce the number of interruptions than to say no to an interrupting colleague. Our study also supports the idea that shielding oneself from interruptions is important (but difficult, König & Kleinmann, 2007) because a great deal of research has established the negative effects of being interrupted on performance (primarily in lab studies, e.g., Cellier and Eyrolle, 1992 and Gillie and Broadbent, 1989). At the same time, our manipulation check showed that quiet hours do not completely obliterate interruptions – they merely decrease the number of interruptions. This might indicate that adopting an interruption-free work environment is unrealistic because organizations might sometimes require a fairly continuous flow of information.