Past research has identified velocity (i.e., rate of goal progress) as a determinant of individuals’ affective experiences during goal pursuit. Specifically, rapid progress is a pleasant experience, whereas slow progress is unpleasant. However, past work has emphasized situations in which individuals are unsure of whether or not they will meet their goal. This is problematic because many tasks are simple and routine, leaving little doubt that they can be accomplished in the time allotted. Is velocity related to affect in situations in which success is assured? And if so, why? To answer these questions, we conducted two experimental studies (N = 147 and 179) in which participants completed two simulated work tasks for which success was practically assured. Across both studies, velocity while performing the current task resulted in greater expected time available (ETA) to work on the next task. Downstream, ETA predicted happiness, but only if the next task was expected to be enjoyable (S1) or financially rewarding (S2). These studies indicate that velocity can impact affect by shaping expectations regarding the amount of time available for the next task. Nonetheless, the current studies also suggest that fast velocity may not universally result in positive affect; instead, fast velocity may only be met with positive affect if the next task is anticipated to be pleasant or rewarding.

Although breaks can help employees stay energized and maintain high levels of performance throughout the day, employees sometimes refrain from taking a break despite wanting to do so. Unfortunately, few studies have investigated individuals’ reasons for taking and for not taking a break at work. To address this gap, we developed a model for predicting employees’ break-taking behaviors. We developed hypotheses by integrating theories of work stress, self-regulation, and the results of a qualitative survey conducted as part of the current research (Study 1). Specifically, we predicted that high workloads would be positively related to the desire to detach from work, but that at the same time, high workloads would also deter employees from actually taking breaks. Furthermore, we predicted that employees would be less likely to act upon their desire to take a break within an environment where breaks are frowned upon by supervisors and coworkers, relative to an environment where breaks are allowed and encouraged. The results of a daily diary study of full-time employees (Study 2) provided general support for these predictions. Altogether, this research provides insights into the manner in which employees’ psychological experiences and characteristics of the work environment combine to predict break-taking. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10869-022-09866-4.

No abstract

No abstract

Employees often have a great deal of work to accomplish within stringent deadlines. Therefore, employees may engage in shortcut behaviors, which involve eschewing standard procedures during goal pursuit to save time. However, shortcuts can lead to negative consequences such as poor-quality work, accidents, and even large-scale disasters. Despite these implications, few studies have investigated the antecedents of shortcut behaviors. In this research, we propose that employees engage in shortcut behaviors to regulate their velocity (i.e., rate of progress). Specifically, we predict that when individuals experience slower-than-referent velocity, they will (a) believe that the goal is unlikely to be met via standard procedures and (b) experience feelings of frustration. In turn, we expect these psychological states to be related to the perceived utility of shortcuts, especially when shortcuts are perceived as viable means to achieve the goal. Finally, we predict that the perceived utility of shortcuts will be positively related to actual shortcut behaviors. We tested these predictions using a laboratory experiment in which we manipulated velocity and unobtrusively observed shortcuts (Study 1, N = 147), as well as a daily diary study in which employees reported their velocity and shortcut behaviors over 5 consecutive workdays (Study 2, N = 395). Both studies provided support for our predictions. In sum, this research provides evidence to suggest that the experience of slow progress can lead to shortcuts not only by casting doubt on employees’ perceived likelihood of meeting the goal but also by producing feelings of frustration.