Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 30 June 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2008.925
News
Get a (social) life
Employees who socialize between tasks, but not during, are more productive.
Even cubicle monkeys need a social life if they're going to do their job well, say US researchers.
Tightly knit groups of colleagues who communicate with one another frequently are more productive than those who are more isolated, the researchers have found.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
As you said what works for production may not work for marketing, and I would say chatting at work is counterproductive in most settings. It is very important for a company to understand and analyze what the employees are chatting about before they start to extrapolate conclusions out of such data. But, a company can only learn so much about its employees without looking intrusive. I have a few thoughts: 1. If the employees are chatting at work (even if they are doing it between jobs), are they talking about things pertaining to work? If yes, I can see this can be productive and may lead to better performance. If no, this may lead to a less productive atmosphere. 2. When people talk too much at work, they are either discussing personal matters or gossiping about their colleagues. This is usually the case. None of the above should be encouraged at work. This is harmful, even if it does not necessarily result in less productivity. This often leads to alienation within the group, which may or may not affect work, depending on the job. Even if such unhealthy atmosphere does not necessarily translate into less productivity, shouldn't companies (or any workplace) try to identify and eliminate it? 3. I think when colleagues socialize after work, like going out for beer on Fridays, or getting together with families once in a while, creates a healthy and vibrant atmosphere at work. And, of course, an ideal work atmosphere. 4. In the end, it is all about WHAT colleagues are talking about at work and for how long and how often, etc. Focus and isolation at work are not necessarily bad, particularly if bonding with colleagues can be cultivated when not at work. However, I hope you refrain from bonding with the ones that gossip.
I am a reader of Nature.com for a long time and finally decided to express my concern regarding the poor quality of articles that Nature.com publishes, the last 2 years. The “Get a social life†article is a perfect example, illustrating the bad science that Nature.com chooses to promote. There are many false assumptions in this article, I will just point out the most serious problems/questions: what do the scientists behind this experiment mean when they use the term “more productive� How do they calculate this “more� Is there anywhere in their calculations a factor evaluating the quality of this “more� A final point: the scientists behind this experiment, are trying to persuade us that the workers in China for example, are so well productive because they have a nice, successful social life with their co-workers. I must say that I cannot find any data to support this thesis. Maybe they should try this experiment also and let us know their results.
Assuming that they had a basic measurement of "productive" (i.e., number of completed assignments/projects in a day) and controls and so forth, there are still some problems with the conclusions of this study: First of all ... there could be other explanations for these results that have nothing to do with the degree of socialization. For example, solitary individuals who don't socialize may be depressed (so they are less productive because of depression and maybe they need to see a doctor or counsellor ...) Or, they may be trying to work alone through lunch because they feel less able and have less confidence in their ability to do this work (which means they need more training and help with the work, not more chat time.) Beyond that, in a normal office environment, there is the whole issue of knowing who is "in between" tasks and who is in the middle of tasks. In my office, which is VERY open-concept (no cubicles, no walls) one of the problems is that people who are "in between" tasks love to chat when others around them are in the middle of something! It would be nice if the well-connected individuals would limit their interactions to the lunch room and water cooler ... but unfortunately, it doesn't quite work out that way. So, in that situation, the employer may find that those well-connected individuals who socialize "in between" their tasks and focus on their tasks at other times are indeed more productive, but those individuals may ironically be having a NEGATIVE effect on the overall productivity of that work environment, which has become too noisy, too full of distractions for those individuals who still need to focus on the task at hand.
This study demonstrates something about technical jobs that I have noticed: It is as counter-productive to keep ones nose to the grindstone all the time as it devote inadequate attention to the task at hand. I for one have found that breaking away from the tasks at hand in a reasonble amount and frequency very much optimizes my productivity over the rest of the day, and makes me more productive overall. This article also argues against the creation of hard-and-fast rules for socializing. For example, going to ask for help may be an indicator of reduced productivity, but in truth the reason for the reduced productivity is the need for help, and not one's going and getting it.
This is so obvious. Having interaction at work with real live people in fun and happier people are better more productive workers. Thats it and thats all.
Unless everyone is between tasks at the same time, those who socialize between tasks may do so with those who are not between tasks. If all socializing were equal, this would not matter, but what if those who are "more productive" are so because they are pushier and disrupt their on-task victims, and are better at rejecting socializing when they are on-task?
Socializing and networking are two different factors that influence the productivity. In my opinion, I believe more in networking during working and socializing after that which is not restricted to the concerned technical team alone.
It really depends about what they are chatting, talking about other collegues for example happens often what leads sometimes to unfair bad rumours which poison the atmosphere overall.
communicating,chatting....aaaaa it's good in a work place.but as par the productivity is concerned i'm little bit not agree,reason because communication will definitely try to solve a matter if the communication was because of that,but if it was to complexify something then what output you expect from that.what i mean to say is chating in a working place is always welcome but it should be in a positive manner and the investigater should be the whole responsible to keep up this environment.She/he should make sure that all the fellows are there to help easy other.one gang in a group is always good not too many gangs in the same group.
Very interesting article....However, it cannot be adopted as a blanket strategy by the HR department of any organization. Every organization will have to evaluate the socializations of its own team members before the strategy can be implemented. But overall an interesting and positive finding!!!
This is a great paper and very interesting results! I found the full paper written by Lynn Wu and co-authors here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1130251 To me, this looks like very innovative and well done research. Definitely worth reading the full paper.