What researchers are learning about workplace breaks and the real cost of always-on work culture
In many workplaces, rest is often an afterthought. They eat lunch at their desks, skip the afternoon walk, and fill every quiet moment with their phones. What the research increasingly suggests, though, is that doing nothing isn't a waste of time; it's one of the most productive things a worker can do.
"We're kind of programmed to always be doing something," said Malissa Clark, professor and head of the Department of Psychology at the University of Georgia. "It makes us feel uncomfortable almost to not be doing anything. And when we apply that to the workplace, there's almost a negative stigma around doing nothing. We associate productivity with visible signs of working."
Clark calls this "pseudo productivity," a tendency to equate looking busy with being effective. The reality, she explains, is that human cognitive resources are finite, and without deliberate rest, they don't replenish on their own.
Not all breaks are equal
The science of breaks is more nuanced than it might seem. A break isn't simply any pause from work tasks. Scrolling social media, catching up on personal emails, or listening in on a work call while walking around the block all count as activity, and not necessarily the restorative kind.
John Trougakos, professor of organizational behavior and HR management at the University of Toronto Scarborough, studies how people recover from the demands of work. He said a restorative break requires two things: stopping the drain of energy, and creating the opportunity to recharge.
"Doing nothing is not just about the act of not doing something," Trougakos said. "It is also about the act of relaxing and mentally detaching, giving your body and your mind an opportunity to recharge, to put a pause on the demand someone's experiencing."
Autonomy matters too. Even if an activity is somewhat demanding, Trougakos said, employees recover better from it if it's something they chose and genuinely want to do.
"The best combination is when they want to do something and that something is relaxing," he said. "Even if it's a little bit taxing, if it's their preferred thing to do and they're more intrinsically motivated, it's not going to be as draining as something that's forced on them."
What works also depends on the job. Clark points out that a nurse or doctor who's been on their feet all day likely needs a fundamentally different kind of break than a knowledge worker staring at screens. For desk workers, even a short walk around the building can help. For those already on their feet, sitting quietly in a dark room for ten minutes might be far more restorative.
When a break happens also makes a difference. Both researchers point to evidence that breaks are more effective earlier in the day, before depletion sets in. Clark describes what researchers call the recovery paradox: people tend to take breaks only when they're exhausted, which is precisely when breaks are least effective.
"Taking breaks before you feel like you need to is really important," Clark said. "We tend to only take breaks when we are exhausted. But you probably should have started much earlier than that."
The cost of never switching off
When employees go without genuine breaks day after day, the consequences compound. Trougakos outlines a scenario where depleted energy leads to reduced capacity, more mistakes, less effective work, and a workforce grinding through the day at diminishing returns.
"The more we push ourselves at a lower level, the more energy we actually have to expend to get acceptable levels of performance," he said. "People start making mistakes, their work becomes inefficient and ineffective. They're actually counterproductive to their productivity."
Over time, that accumulation produces burnout, which the World Health Organization formally recognizes as an occupational phenomenon. Monster's 2026 State of Workplace Mental Health Report found that 46% of American workers say they feel burnout due to work-related stress, with increased absenteeism, higher turnover, and the substantial costs of replacing experienced staff all following close behind.
Beyond burnout, Clark flags an underappreciated risk tied to artificial intelligence. As AI tools save time on routine tasks, she worries that time isn't being redirected toward rest.
"People are piling even more work on with the time they've saved by integrating AI," she said. "What they should be doing is thinking about that same time as: 'now I have time for a break.' Thinking about that as part of preserving your energy and resources so that you can be a great worker."
Rethinking the workday structure
Telling employees to take breaks rarely works on its own. The structural barriers are real, including back-to-back meetings, high workloads, and an always-on culture that makes it genuinely difficult for employees to switch off. Trougakos argues that the most effective changes are built into how work is organized, not just communicated in a wellness email.
His most practical suggestion is to shorten meetings by default. Instead of scheduling one-hour or 30-minute blocks, move to 50-minute and 25-minute meetings, building five to ten minutes of breathing room between them structurally, so employees aren't moving from one meeting directly into the next with no transition.
"Where does the break come in structurally into the schedule?" he said. "If you're structurally making it impossible for them, they're booked in meetings starting at 9am and going straight through. A lot of times people wouldn't even use their lunch break because they're trying to play catch up."
He also pushes leaders to examine what productivity actually means in their organizations. A 2015 study of consulting managers found they couldn't distinguish between employees who worked 80 hours a week and those who only pretended to.
"Having an awareness and trying to build a culture where managers and leaders support productivity, not performative busyness," he said. "If the focus is on actual productivity and performance, and doing that in a way that maximizes individual performance, then taking breaks is a part of that."
Trougakos draws on a sporting analogy, noting that elite athletes are strategically rested so they can perform when it counts, and said organizations should think about their employees the same way.
Clark places significant responsibility on managers specifically. Policies mean little if leaders are sending Slack messages at 8pm or eating lunch at their desks. Addressing burnout requires leaders to model the behavior they want to see, and break culture is no exception.
"They're the role model. They set the example, and they have to practice what they preach," Clark said. "People don't listen to what the boss says they should do. They look at what the boss is doing and they do that."
She's also skeptical of the email disclaimers that tell employees they're not expected to respond outside of work hours. The power dynamic doesn't disappear because of a footer.
"If you're a leader and you're sending that to someone that you supervise, you still have all the power," she said. "People are going to feel pressure to respond regardless of what you say in your little disclaimer."
Her recommendation is to schedule emails to send during business hours, a small change that breaks the communication pattern keeping employees mentally tethered to work even when they're technically off the clock.
The case for doing nothing, it turns out, isn't really about doing nothing at all. It's about recognizing that rest is a performance strategy, and that organizations that don't build it in are likely undermining the very output they're trying to drive.
