Cluster article · 6 min read

The hidden cost of getting interrupted at work

A popular stat says it takes 23 minutes to refocus. The real story is more nuanced, and the true cost of interruptions is not always the one you would guess.

Reviewed against current research
23 minutes? Be careful

The famous refocus figure is widely repeated but hard to trace to a solid primary source.

Attention residue

Part of your mind stays on the last task after you switch, making the new one harder.

The real cost is stress

Interrupted tasks are often finished in similar time, but with much more stress and pressure.

01The 23-minute claim

You have probably read that it takes 23 minutes to fully refocus after an interruption. It is a striking number, and it gets repeated everywhere. It is also surprisingly hard to trace to a solid primary source. When people have gone looking for the original study behind that exact figure, it has been difficult to pin down.

That does not mean interruptions are harmless. It means we should be careful quoting a precise number as if it were settled science, and look instead at what the research more reliably shows.

02Attention residue

The better-supported idea is attention residue, described by the researcher Sophie Leroy in 2009. When you switch from one task to another, part of your attention stays attached to the first one. You answer a message mid-report, return to the report, and a slice of your mind is still on the message. That leftover residue is what makes the next task harder to settle into, and it is worse when the first task was interrupted before you finished it.

03The real cost

Here is the counterintuitive part. In studies of workplace interruptions, people sometimes complete interrupted tasks in roughly the same amount of time as uninterrupted ones. What changes is how it feels: they report significantly more stress, frustration, and time pressure.

The honest truth: The hidden cost of interruptions is often not lost minutes, but lost mental energy. You may still hit the deadline, but you arrive frazzled, and that drain compounds across a day of constant switching. That is a more accurate and more useful claim than any single refocus-time figure.

04How to reduce it

Start with the interruptions you control, which are usually the biggest source.

  • Turn off non-essential notifications, the main delivery system for interruptions.
  • Batch your checking: handle messages at set times instead of reacting to each one.
  • Finish small tasks before switching where you can, so less residue follows you.

For the focused state these protect, see deep work, and for the psychology of the pings themselves, notification psychology.

05Common questions

Does it really take 23 minutes to refocus after an interruption?
Be cautious with that number. It is repeated everywhere but hard to trace to a solid source. The cost of interruptions is real, but the exact figure is not well established.
What is attention residue?
It is the part of your attention that stays stuck on a previous task after you switch. It lingers and makes the next task harder, especially if the first was left unfinished.
Do interruptions actually slow work down?
Sometimes less than you would expect. In some studies people finished interrupted tasks in similar time, but reported much more stress and time pressure.
So what is the real cost?
Often it is mental energy and stress rather than raw time. Interruptions make work feel more exhausting, and that drain compounds across a day.
How do I reduce interruptions?
Cut the avoidable ones first: turn off non-essential notifications, batch your checking, and protect blocks of focused time. Self-inflicted interruptions are usually the biggest source.

06References

  1. Leroy, S. (2009). Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 168-181. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.04.002
  2. Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (2008). The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress. Proceedings of CHI 2008. DOI: 10.1145/1357054.1357072

This article is for education only and isn't a substitute for professional care.