Past research shows that breaks can help employees maintain high levels of energy and performance throughout the day (e.g., Henning et al., 1997; Wendsche et al., 2016; Zacher et al., 2014). As such, although breaks involve a temporary stoppage of specific work tasks, break-taking is an important work activity that allows employees to replenish the energy needed for work. Yet, employees’ reasons for taking and for not taking a break have received little attention. This is problematic as employees sometimes refrain from taking a break despite wanting or needing a break (McLean et al., 2001; Right Management, 2011; Totaljobs, 2017). To address this gap, we proposed based on stress theories, self-regulatory theories, and past research that workload is a critical predictor of employees’ voluntary decisions vis-à-vis break-taking. Notably, in Study 2 we found evidence to suggest that high workloads may prompt employees to desire a break, but that workload may also deter employees from acting upon this desire. Moreover, the current studies also point to employees’ work climate as a boundary condition of the relationship between the desire to take a break and actual break-taking behavior.

Theoretical Implications and Future Directions

Why Do People Take Breaks?

Based on past theorizing from the COR theory (Hobfoll, 1989) and the E-R model (Meijman & Mulder, 1998), we hypothesized that fatigue would emerge as a predictor of break-taking. That is, individuals must bring to bear limited resources to meet work demands and may need breaks to recover these resources. In line with this theorizing and with recent studies (Kim et al., 2021), fatigue emerged as a predictor of break-taking in the current research. Yet, our work expands upon past theorizing by highlighting additional reasons for taking a break. Indeed, across both studies, we found that negative affect and performance concerns may also influence employees’ decision to take a break. Thus, theory and research pertaining to fatigue—though essential—may not account for the full range of employees’ reasons for taking breaks. Given this research’s broad scope, we used broad theoretical perspectives as a starting point to unpack the processes that underlie break-taking. Yet, a more complete understanding of these processes may require a consideration of theory and research that specifically pertain to the manner in which employees regulate their emotions (e.g., Beal et al., 2005) and performance (e.g., Lord et al., 2010; Neal et al., 2017).

Why Do People Not Take Breaks?

The Study 2 findings regarding workload provide novel insights into how individuals balance their work goals against non-work goals (e.g., maintaining energy). Earlier, we presented two conflicting predictions regarding the effects of workload on break-taking. That is, models of self-regulation (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1998; Vancouver et al., 2010) suggest that workload results in decreased break-taking, whereas theories of stress (Hobfoll, 1989; Meijman & Mulder, 1998) suggest that workload may result in increased break-taking (Bowling et al., 2015; Ilies et al., 2010). To address this apparent contradiction, we proposed that both theoretical perspectives highlight different aspects of the same process. That is, our expectation was that high workloads would lead employees to want to detach from work, but that high workloads would also deter these employees from acting upon this desire. The results of Study 2 provided some support for this proposition. That is, workload was indirectly related to employees’ desire to detach via fatigue, negative affect, and performance concerns, yet workload also indirectly moderated the relationship between desire to detach and break-taking via expedience concerns.

In particular, the findings regarding expedience concerns suggest that individuals may refrain from taking a break when they want or need to complete their work rapidly. These findings are in line with theory and research within the self-regulation literature on goal progress velocity (i.e., rate of progress; Johnson et al., 2013). Briefly, slow progress can lead to negative emotions and feelings of doubt vis-à-vis success (Beck et al., 2017a, 2017b; Phan & Beck, 2020) even after accounting for workload (Chang et al., 2009; Elicker et al., 2009). Moreover, in response to slow progress individuals may engage in behaviors to increase velocity, such as exerting more effort (Huang & Zhang, 2011) or taking shortcuts (Phan et al., in press). Similarly, Study 2 suggests that individuals may take fewer breaks to accomplish work more rapidly. Broadly, these findings indicate that to understand break-taking, it is important to consider not only how much work a person needs to accomplish, but how rapidly this work needs to be accomplished. Thus, incorporating past theory and research from the velocity literature may be a promising avenue towards unpacking the processes that underlie break-taking.

Future research may also investigate how the degree to which employees are motivated to reduce workloads affects break-taking behavior. In this paper, we largely assumed that employees are willing to allocate the time and effort required by their workloads. This assumption provided a reasonable starting place for this research because employees generally need to meet work objectives to achieve desired outcomes (e.g., pay, promotion) and avoid undesired outcomes (e.g., sanctions, termination). However, this assumption likely does not apply to all employees at all times. For instance, unrealistically high workloads may leave employees feeling overwhelmed, annoyed, and demotivated (Kerr & LePelley, 2013). Indeed, in Study 2, we found workload to be positively related to negative affect. To the extent that negative affect reflects disengagement, this may explain the limited support for workload as a moderator of the relationship between desire to detach and break-taking behavior in Study 2. Thus, it may be beneficial for future research to consider factors like the perceived value of accomplishing the goal (e.g., Sun et al., 2014) or goal commitment (e.g., Klein et al., 2001) as additional boundary conditions affecting the relationship between workload and break-taking behavior.

The current studies also highlight the role of perceived control as an important factor in employees’ voluntary decision to take a break or not. Specifically, the results involving micro-break climate suggest that employees may not always feel they have the autonomy to take a break when they want to do so. These findings are consistent with the job demands-control model (JD-C; Karasek, 1979) which identified job control as an important predictor of employee well-being. In our view, a weak micro-break climate may lead to experiences similar to that of low job control. Whereas a weak micro-break climate is characterized by low levels of perceived autonomy to take a break, low job control is characterized by a perceived lack of autonomy within one’s job more broadly. As such, future research on the processes underlying employees’ decision to forego a break (despite wanting a break) may benefit from a consideration of theory and research pertaining to job control, such as the JD-C model.

The Work Context

The findings vis-à-vis micro-break climate also highlight the importance of considering the combined effects of daily experiences and the work context on break-taking. For the most part, previous studies within the break literature have adopted a within-person approach whereby individuals’ daily experiences and behaviors are assessed over multiple days (e.g., Bosch & Sonnentag, 2019; Hunter & Wu, 2016; Kim et al., 2017; Kühnel et al., 2017; Trougakos et al., 2014). However, these studies have paid relatively less attention to the effect that the work context may have on these within-person relationships. In Study 2 we address this gap by pointing to micro-break climate as an important contextual factor that can influence the extent to which workers will take breaks when they want to do so. An implication of this finding is that a full understanding break-taking may require researchers not only to investigate within-person processes but to also examine the contextual factors moderating these processes. Nonetheless, in the current research micro-break climate perceptions were collected from individual workers. Future research should explore the degree to which these perceptions are accurate representations of managerial attitudes towards breaks. Likewise, future research should explore managerial behaviors that act as signals of the micro-break climate.

Additionally, future research may examine the relationship between gender and discretionary break-taking behaviors. Notably, although the within-person relationships found in Study 2 were similar across genders, there was a main effect of gender on break-taking such that women took fewer breaks than men in general (see footnote 8). A possible reason for this finding is that relative to men, women may perceive they are held to stricter norms regards to break-taking. That is, whereas men may feel free to take breaks as needed, women may be reluctant to do so for fear of being reprimanded. This explanation is consistent with previous studies which highlight the presence of different behavioral standards for men and women in the workplace (e.g., Heilman, 2012; Heilman & Chen, 2005; Rudman & Phelan, 2008). However, we urge caution when interpreting this finding, as gender differences were not the focus of the current research. Nevertheless, we encourage future research to investigate the role that gender may play in shaping individuals’ break-taking behaviors on the job.

Practical Implications

This research can also be applied to maximize employees’ well-being without sacrificing productivity. For one, Study 2 suggests that employees are more likely to take breaks if their workplace has a strong micro-break climate. As such, for organizations and leaders who seek to ensure their employees feel free to take breaks on the job, possible interventions may include relaxing restrictions regarding the timing, frequency, or duration of the breaks employees can take (Niu, 2016). However, we acknowledge that not all organizations are able or willing to provide more breaks to their employees. That said, such organizations may be well-served to enact measures that can reduce the number of breaks employees want in the first place. For example, Studies 1 and 2 suggest that employees may want to take breaks when experiencing negative affect. Accordingly, organizations can reduce employees’ desire to take a break by addressing the work conditions, processes, and events that can lead to negative emotions. For instance, organizations can remove some of the hindrances that employees find frustrating (e.g., needless paperwork), replace obsolete tools and equipment, and reduce employees’ physical discomfort on the job via ergonomic workspaces. In sum, improving employees’ overall experience at work may lead employees to want fewer breaks.

Another practical implication is that employees may desire fewer breaks when they are well-rested. In Study 2, the deleterious effects of workload on fatigue, negative affect, and performance concerns were weaker following days in which sleep quality was high as opposed to low. This is consistent with past studies which highlight sleep as an important activity for recuperating the resources needed for work (Christian & Ellis, 2011; Kim et al., 2021; Lanaj et al., 2014; Sonnentag et al., 2008). Thus, another avenue for addressing the conditions that lead employees to want breaks may be to encourage rest during off-job time. For example, organizations may offer training sessions to improve employees’ sleep-related habits (Barnes, 2011). Organizations can also foster a well-rested workforce by ensuring workers can leave the work at work, as employees tend to recover better when they detach from work during an off-job time (Bennett et al., 2018; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015; Sonnentag et al., 2008). To do so, organizations may discourage the use of work-related emails and calls outside work hours.

Strengths and Limitations

A key strength of this research is its use of different methodologies for investigating the antecedents of break-taking. The exploratory approach used in Study 1 allowed us to identify numerous break antecedents but provided little insight into how these antecedents relate to each other to predict break-taking. We addressed this limitation in Study 2 by formulating specific hypotheses which we tested using a daily diary design. This allowed us to examine the combined influence of individuals’ day-to-day experiences and contextual factors on break-taking over time. This is a key advantage over a cross-sectional survey, which would not have clarified how individuals’ break-taking behaviors vary day-to-day. Moreover, separating the measurement of the break antecedents and break-taking behavior across each workday allowed us to reduce the influence of common method variance on relationships (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Furthermore, the use of a large sample of employees from a wide variety of job sectors provides confidence in the generalizability of the results obtained.

Nonetheless, the implications of this research need to be considered alongside its limitations. One limitation of both studies is that they focused exclusively on the conscious processes that may influence break-taking. This focus was intentional, as we explicitly set out to understand the factors that influence employees’ conscious, volitional decisions to take breaks. Nonetheless, non-conscious processes may also influence employees’ decision to take a break or not. For instance, although the current studies suggest that individuals may take a break when they report experiencing fatigue, there is some evidence to suggest that individuals may not always be fully aware of how fatigued they are (Henning et al., 1989). Future research on break-taking behaviors may benefit from a consideration of employees’ awareness of their own fatigue.

Although Study 2 addresses many of Study 1’s limitations, it does not allow for strong causal influences regarding the relationships observed. For instance, it is possible that individuals rationalize their break-taking behaviors by reporting higher workloads. Yet, Study 2’s daily diary design partially addresses such concerns. First, person-mean centering allowed us to remove between-person variation in the proposed within-person predictors of break-taking, thus accounting for unmeasured person-level confounds that may otherwise have influenced the results (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Second, we measured the break antecedents separately from break-taking. This allows us to claim that the break antecedents precede actual break-taking. In sum, though Study 2 does not allow us to conclusively infer that increased desire to detach leads to increased break-taking, it does address some of the concerns vis-à-vis causality by accounting for potential confounds and establishing temporal precedence.

Similarly, in the current research, we predicted that fatigue, negative affect, and performance concerns would be parallel mediators of the relationship between workload and desire to detach. Although this prediction was based on past theory and research on the effects of workload on these constructs, we cannot rule out that these negative experiences may occur at different points in time. For example, workload may lead to fatigue, which in turn may lead to performance concerns and negative affect in turn. Future research will be needed to determine whether any one of these mediators take temporal precedence over the others.

Finally, note that in Study 2, we did not include all of the break antecedents found in Study 1. Rather, to ensure that the scope of the study would remain manageable we only examined a subset of these antecedents. Yet, some of the antecedents excluded from Study 2 may play an important role in influencing break-taking behaviors. For example, in Study 2, we decided not to investigate the role of employees’ physiological needs (e.g., needing to use the restroom) due to our focus on psychological predictors of break-taking. However, because these physiological needs were mentioned by a large number of participants, they are likely to be important predictors of break-taking behaviors. Furthermore, although Study 1 participants primarily cited negative experiences as reasons for taking a break, we cannot rule out the possibility that positive experiences may also predict break-taking behaviors. For instance, a worker may take a break to savor a positive event that happened on the job. Conversely, an employee may also skip a break because they are enjoying their current work task. Thus, we encourage researchers to investigate antecedents of break-taking behaviors not covered in this manuscript.