At TU Dresden’s Chair of Work and Organizational Psychology, researchers have been investigating the best methods for rest and recovery at work (breaks) and outside of work (free time, weekends, vacation) for years. In this essay, our team of authors¹ will introduce ongoing projects and key research findings from meta-analyses that could help you to recover better! For more detailed bibliographic references, please contact the authors.

What is recovery and what does a break from work refer to?

In (psychological) recovery studies, recovery refers to processes that work to reset the body in response to the consequences (e.g. exhaustion) of physical and psychological strain, thus regaining complete functionality and performance. Such consequences of strain arise perfectly naturally due to both biological processes (e.g. circadian rhythms) and stress at work.

Recovery doesn’t only take place when we are at our most inactive, for instance during sleep as the longest recovery phase of the day, but also when we pause our activities and change what is demanded of us. This can be at work (taking breaks) and outside of work (free time, weekends, vacation). Regular recovery is an important resource, as it is proven to contribute to the maintained health, motivation and performance of employees.

Work breaks are defined as interruptions of varying lengths to work that occur between two periods of activity in one work shift and serve the employee’s recovery. Key properties of work breaks are therefore their positioning within a work shift and their recovery function. Work breaks also serve additional functions: They serve to help satisfy individual needs, support a change in tasks and, under certain conditions, encourage social interaction in work groups. The way organizations and work groups structure their breaks can therefore reveal elements of the general company culture.

In research and in labor law, the various types of break are differentiated by their length. German labor law defines extended breaks (Ruhepause) as interruptions to work that are at least 15 minutes long and are required for anyone working six hours or longer. Interruptions that are shorter than 15 minutes are considered short breaks (Kurzpause). These types of breaks may be obligatory in cases where the workload impacts psychological and physiological performance. This especially has to do with long-lasting work under certain conditions such as cold or heat but also screen-based jobs that offer little relief from the strain (or monotony). In these situations, short breaks count as work time and must be paid.

The advantages of taking breaks from work has been repeatedly documented in review papers. They prevent skeletomuscular discomfort and psychosomatic issues, they facilitate learning and performance at work (including creativity and problem solving), they reduce the risk of having an accident at work and they have a positive effect on staff retention. Furthermore, it has been shown that even remunerated short breaks can be beneficial. Those who regularly take short breaks are not only qualitatively and quantitatively more productive despite shorter overall working times, they also feel physically and mentally better during their workday.

In addition to breaks, rest periods of free time between two workdays and an allotment of vacation (see findings below) are critical for recovery. The term dates back to the Roman Empire and comes from the Latin word vacatio, which means “free from, being at leisure or having time.” The Working Hours Act and the Federal Leave Act define a time minimum for this (11 hours of uninterrupted rest each day, 24 workdays of vacation each year).

Have we forgotten how to do nothing and what could be the reason for this?

Currently, about half (52%) of working Germans say that they can largely influence when they take breaks. This should enable them to plan in recuperative breaks from work. However, this freedom of self-organization has lessened over the past few years and is no guarantee that employees will actually plan to take the legally stipulated breaks. In various surveys, one-fourth to one-third of employees in Germany responded that breaks at work are regularly skipped or must be curtailed. Certain sectors (construction, education, hospitality, health and social services) and occupational groups (service salespeople, nutritional careers, healthcare professions, security occupations, other service careers, social and educational occupations, administration and office jobs) as well as employees with supervisory responsibilities are disproportionately frequently affected. Employees typically name inadequate process organization as well as intensified workloads as root causes. Various studies substantiate this perception and find that skipped or curtailed breaks are consistently associated with the following working conditions:

• Highly mentally demanding work: intense time and performance pressure, frequent interruptions, high emotional demands, elevated requirements to multitask, inadequate personnel allocation.
• Extension of work: prolonged working hours, frequent and considerable overtime, constant availability including after work.

In summary, breaks are typically skipped under precisely the working conditions that urgently require sufficient recovery to protect the health and safety of employees.

Why is it important to be “lazy” for longer periods of time and what happens if we are never “idle?”

Rest or being lazy results in varying experiences of recovery. The DRAMMA model incorporates six psychological needs related to psychological experiences of recovery: Detachment, Relaxation, Autonomy, Mastery, Meaning and Affiliation. Research on this topic shows that activities pursued in periods of recovery have different effects on different people, and that these effects can also manifest themselves differently on different days. It is therefore important to select leisure time activities that fulfill as many of the six psychological needs as possible, since the cumulative scope of psychological experiences of recovery is positively linked to well-being, good health, general satisfaction and performance at work. Not only the activities chosen during leisure time, but also the place of leisure plays a role. Breaks and free time spent in natural surroundings (e.g. parks) are more effective for recovery than those spent in artificial environments. Likewise, a current study shows that office employees can more effectively shut off from work and relax when they leave their place of work.

Such “idleness” is decisive in maintaining the good health and well-being of employees, and enforcing mental distance from work has a thoroughly positive effect. A meta-analysis explored how one can most successfully shut off from work and how this can be trained. It turned out that there are effective interventions to improve this. These interventions were particularly effective in older employees and in employees with initial health or recovery-related impairments. Interventions for improving the mental capacity to shut off are particularly useful if they incorporate strategies for setting boundaries between work and after hours, regulating emotions and training good sleep.

The above-mentioned findings show that employees and employers alike benefit from regular breaks during work as well as recovery after work and on the weekends, so this should not be considered “empty” or squandered time. But what are the effects of vacation? We have also prepared a meta-analysis of this topic including data from 13 studies comprising 1,428 employees in total. The median vacation duration in these studies was approx. 11 days (overall range of 4–23 days). We found that on average, employees’ well-being improved during vacation and, most notably, symptoms of exhaustion were alleviated. Surprisingly, these effects were similar in intensity to those of the daily breaks. Moreover, the positive effects of vacation after its end quickly diminished and levels of well-being in the second week after returning from vacation were similar to those prior to taking vacation.  Astonishingly, there was no evidence of the potentially plausible assumption that increased well-being would correlate with the duration of a singular vacation. All in all, the results of these studies show that vacation, as the longest continuous period of recovery in the year, has positive effects on employees’ well-being. From a practical perspective, the results indicate that regular, brief vacations are worth taking throughout the year and that daily recovery in the phases between two vacation periods is absolutely essential.

How can we better integrate breaks and phases of recovery in our daily life?

One method for better recovery is to train employees in how they plan and individually shape their recovery phases during work (breaks) and after work (free time, weekends, vacation, etc.) to actively promote recovery. Another method is to teach supervisors to establish the optimal conditions for taking appropriate breaks or planning vacation. At the Chair of Work and Organizational Psychology, we have worked together with the health insurance provider AOK PLUS to develop an online training program for taking breaks and recovery.

The modern world of work is often characterized by abundant meetings and constant availability. This leads to recovery periods and breaks falling to the wayside as pressure to perform rises. Using the team and the company as a resource for fostering an environment conducive to recovery is another possible method of intervention. The goal of the current joint doctoral project between TU Dresden and the German Social Accident Insurance (DGUV) is thus to develop and validate an appropriate measurement tool. An environment that is conducive to recovery can be realized by establishing the appropriate conditions at work and by observing whether appropriate behavior for fostering this environment is expected, supported and rewarded. Initial study findings show that an environment that supports recovery correlates positively with desirable traits in employees, for instance improved recovery behaviors, good recovery experiences and greater motivation and performance at work. In the ongoing questionnaire validation, the measurement method is investigated in a longitudinal study. A short scale with 15 items is used, comprising five sub-dimensions.

To foster an environment that values recovery, the Chair has been working together with a pharmaceutical company (Boehringer Ingelheim) to develop and empirically evaluate a new workshop series for supervisors and teams. The goal is to strengthen mutual support and recognition of behavior that promotes recovery (e.g. longer lunch breaks, organizing active breaks, encouraging employees to leave work on time and not requiring them to be available after work), including under conditions that bolster digital collaboration and team autonomy. This dissertation will be completed by the end of the year.

¹Authors:

• Prof. Dr. Jürgen Wegge, Chair of Work and Organizational Psychology at Dresden University of Technology
• Tina Karabinski, Chair of Work and Organizational Psychology at Dresden University of Technology
• Anne Kemter, Chair of Work and Organizational Psychology at Dresden University of Technology

• Dr. Johannes Wendsche, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Dresden

• Lydia Wiegand, Boehringer Ingelheim Corporate Center GmbH