Bored mondays and focused afternoons: the rhythm of attention and online activity in the workplace

While distractions using digital media have received attention in HCI, understanding engagement in workplace activities has been little explored. We logged digital activity and continually probed perspectives of 32 information workers for five days in situ to understand how attentional states change with context. We present a framework of how engagement and challenge in work relate to focus, boredom, and rote work. Overall, we find more focused attention than boredom in the workplace. Focus peaks mid-afternoon while boredom is highest in early afternoon. People are happiest doing rote work and most stressed doing focused work. On Mondays people are most bored but also most focused. Online activities are associated with different attentional states, showing different patterns at beginning and end of day, and before and after a mid-day break. Our study shows how rhythms of attentional states are associated with context and time, even in a dynamic workplace environment.

[1]  Gloria Mark,et al.  "A pace not dictated by electrons": an empirical study of work without email , 2012, CHI.

[2]  Mark Muraven,et al.  Restoring the self: Positive affect helps improve self-regulation following ego depletion , 2007 .

[3]  Víctor M. González,et al.  "Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness": managing multiple working spheres , 2004, CHI.

[4]  J. Russell.  A circumplex model of affect. , 1980 .

[5]  John C. Tang,et al.  Mobile taskflow in context: a screenshot study of smartphone usage , 2010, CHI.

[6]  Norbert K. Semmer,et al.  Discrete emotions in interactions with superiors: Some are more role-related, some are more relationship-related , 2010 .

[7]  S. Danziger,et al.  Extraneous factors in judicial decisions , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  Paul Johns,et al.  Capturing the mood: facebook and face-to-face encounters in the workplace , 2014, CSCW.

[9]  M. Csíkszentmihályi,et al.  Experience Sampling Method: Measuring the Quality of Everyday Life , 2006 .

[10]  Jane Webster,et al.  Audience engagement in multimedia presentations , 1997, DATB.

[11]  J. Russell,et al.  The circumplex model of affect: An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology , 2005, Development and Psychopathology.

[12]  Franziska Tschan,et al.  The effect of positive events at work on after-work fatigue: they matter most in face of adversity. , 2011, The Journal of applied psychology.

[13]  John C. Tang,et al.  Work rhythms: analyzing visualizations of awareness histories of distributed groups , 2002, CSCW '02.

[14]  B. Schneider,et al.  The Meaning of Employee Engagement , 2008, Industrial and Organizational Psychology.

[15]  A. Bakker,et al.  The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach , 2002 .

[16]  John M. Neale,et al.  Prospective and cross-sectional mood reports offer no evidence of a "blue Monday" phenomenon. , 1985 .

[17]  Etienne B. Roesch,et al.  A Blueprint for Affective Computing: A Sourcebook and Manual , 2010 .

[18]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Disruption and recovery of computing tasks: field study, analysis, and directions , 2007, CHI.

[19]  Kathleen M. Sutcliffe,et al.  Mindfulness and the Quality of Organizational Attention , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[20]  J. Lefevre,et al.  Flow and the quality of experience during work and leisure. , 1988 .

[21]  Elena Karahanna,et al.  Time Flies When You're Having Fun: Cognitive Absorption and Beliefs About Information Technology Usage , 2000, MIS Q..

[22]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  A diary study of task switching and interruptions , 2004, CHI.

[23]  Erik Dane.  Paying Attention to Mindfulness and Its Effects on Task Performance in the Workplace , 2011 .