Rodger Dean Duncan:\u00a0<\/strong>A major thesis of your book is that slowing down actually speeds things up. How did you reach that conclusion?<\/h2>\nJoe Sanok:\u00a0<\/strong>Deep down, I think we all know this. Whether we\u2019re in the shower, on a long drive, or in that first minute of meditation, our brains seem to work better when they slow down. However, you can\u2019t build a thesis around something that feels intuitive, so I started digging into the research.<\/p>\nThere was this idea around \u201cvigilance decrement\u201d\u2014with \u201cvigilance\u201d meaning how well we pay attention, and \u201cdecrement\u201d meaning breaking down over time. The idea for generations was that we have limited energy, and throughout the day it pours out. In other words, our ability to pay attention decreases over time.<\/p>\n
Researchers from the University of Illinois wanted to test this. They gave students a mindless, boring task. Some they gave a break every 20 minutes, others they did not. They found that a one-minute break every 20 minutes makes vigilance decrement nearly disappear. In other words, even a one-minute slow down can increase productivity!<\/p>\n
Duncan:\u00a0<\/strong>What role does curiosity play in a person\u2019s ability to create fresh approaches to work productivity and the use of time?<\/h2>\nSanok:\u00a0<\/strong>Curiosity is one of the three \u201cinternal inclinations\u201d that are found in the most successful people. People often think they either have an inclination or they don\u2019t. I would argue that we are on a spectrum as to how natural curiosity occurs, but that it can be developed.<\/p>\nIn our culture, we\u2019re taught that curiosity is dangerous. We all know it \u201ckilled the cat.\u201d There was actually a front-page headline in March 1916 in the Washington Post<\/em>\u00a0that said \u201cCuriosity Killed the Cat,\u201d because a lady named Miss Mable had a cat that was stuck in her chimney for days. It became quite the news story.<\/p>\nBut what does that teach us? Don\u2019t take risks. Stay in your lane. Don\u2019t question.<\/p>\n
But one of the best goals around curiosity is not to look for the \u201ceureka\u201d moment, but instead to just say, \u201cthat\u2019s really interesting.\u201d I think about my six- and ten-year-old daughters, they are endlessly curious. They want to know how and why the world works the way it works. Those who are curious, have stopped buying into the belief that things need to stay how they are. Instead, they work to reinvent and ask themselves how to make things more interesting and productive.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Duncan:\u00a0<\/strong>You cite research showing that employees crave an outlet for their curiosity\u2014specifically in the form of mastering something new or enhancing a skill. What can organizations do to satisfy that craving in a way that boosts engagement and productivity while shortening the workweek?<\/h2>\nSanok:\u00a0<\/strong>When we evaluate the research around worker satisfaction and staff retention, those who can remain curious through mastering a new skill are more likely to stay at their employer, and they are happier individuals.<\/p>\nThe old model of hiring someone for a particular role and expecting them to stay stagnant is based on the industrialist\u2019s model where people are regarded as \u201cmachines.\u201d I would argue that we\u2019re actually looking at a shift into more of an evolutionary model.By this, I mean that people and positions evolve, rather than remain stagnant. Effective organizations will ask their employees three important questions annually:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n\nWhat do you love about your position and how to keep doing it?<\/li>\n What do you hate about your role and hope to hand off to someone else?<\/li>\n What are some areas where you would like extra training that could help you enjoy your job more?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\nWithin my own team, we\u2019ve had people say they wanted video training, which has helped our social media presence. Others refined how specific they want to be, while some have broadened and diversified their positions. This helps employees who may not be satisfied with their job to improve their experience, without leaving the company.<\/p>\n
Duncan:\u00a0<\/strong>A study by the American Psychological Association found that more than half of employed adults check work messages at least once a day over the weekend, before or after work during the week, and even when they\u2019re home sick. What mindset changes can help people release themselves from the tethers of technology?<\/h2>\nSanok:\u00a0<\/strong>There\u2019s a creep that happens when people stop setting clear boundaries around their time. They have an internal dialog, \u201cWhat if I miss an important email?\u201d or \u201cWhat if my coworkers show more initiative?\u201d or \u201cWhat if I look bad?\u201d<\/p>\nSo, there are dynamics on both the employer and employee side. Employers can lead by setting expectations around what is actually expected. In addition to this, what is the timeline for returning emails or texts for other employees and clients? Is there a variation between different roles?<\/p>\n
Also, employees can test out taking one weekend a month where they turn off notifications for email and texting to see if the sky actually falls. What if their perception is off? Also, it can work to let your boss know that every month you are going to a place without cell service and will be unavailable. Frequently, it\u2019s more a perception that things will fall apart more than a reality.<\/p>\n
With both employers and employees, when things fall apart (and they will), just talk about what systems and processes can help solve it, without burning out staff.<\/p>\n
Duncan:\u00a0<\/strong>How can a person who\u2019s employed by someone else establish non-negotiable boundaries on work?<\/h2>\nSanok:\u00a0<\/strong>Each role is different. When I was a foster care supervisor early in my therapy career, part of my role was to be on call for my foster care workers. The expectation was that I would do this 24\/7. However, in talking with the other two supervisors, they didn\u2019t like that either. We talked with the Clinical Director about rotating the weekend on-call as a test.<\/p>\nThere were a few bumps. But, overall, the lack of stress outweighed going back to the old way. Usually, it\u2019s helpful to start with an experiment around a few low-hanging fruit. For example, if your boss frequently texts you on the weekend and that does not feel appropriate for your position, ask if you can test another method. This could be having a calendar item that is shared for Monday morning, a note, Trello, or Slack.<\/p>\n
Then, try to quantify the creativity and productivity you have as a result of genuinely stepping back from work. A great way to start the conversation is, \u201cI want to get more done and increase my productivity. Can we test something out for a month?\u201d<\/p>\n
Duncan:\u00a0<\/strong>If research shows that a shorter workweek often results in productivity gains, why aren\u2019t more organizations adopting it?<\/h2>\nSanok:\u00a0<\/strong>Henry Ford gave us the 40-hour workweek in 1926. It was a huge step for the evolution of business. But the industrialist\u2019s fingerprint is still everywhere. We see it in school, our work, and in many industries. Yet, who still believes that people are just a part of a machine?<\/p>\nDeep down, we\u2019ve been moving away from the industrialists, but there are still remnants. Some of those are caring about people\u2019s time as an outcome, rather than the work they produce.<\/p>\n
Many organizations think that if people work 20% less, they will see a 20% drop in profits. However, the research doesn\u2019t support that worry. In fact, we see a boost in productivity, better health outcomes, and happier, long lasting employees.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n<\/div>
\n.<\/p>\n
.<\/small><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n