FWIW I sometimes do steady work averaging 4-5 hours solid, focussed work per weekday (excluding breaks and semi-work like admin), which I think is the most many people achieve, as so much of their ‘work’ time is spent on chatting, breaks, pottering about, admin etc.
And sometimes I do intense bursts of many more hours per day for a few days or weeks, which tend in practice to be followed by recuperation periods in which I do much less than normal.
As it happens I’ve been recording complete data on my work & other hours for the last 9 years, so should do an analysis of which of the above methods works out more productive. That said it’s affected by the fact that the intense bursts will be on more motivating projects.
Also FWIW, in case others find this useful: there are various ideas about the optimum length of time to work before taking a break, e.g. the so-called ‘Pomodoro technique’ (a silly grandiose name for a small idea) which recommends 25 mins plus a short break.
In my experience 1 hour is just right. The kind of work I do is relatively intense intellectual stuff (e.g. programming, spreadsheets), and once I’ve got going I’m in a flow state which is inefficient to interrupt (as I’d just continue thinking about it during the break). So if I work until I notice I’m starting to flag, then check my watch, I almost always find I’ve been working for close to 1 hour. I find a break of roughly 15 minutes is about right—i.e. about long enough to make & drink a cup of tea. And it seems about the right kind of work:break time ratio.
This means that you can do about 3 hours intense work in a morning (3 hour-long chunks with breaks in between), and say 1-2 hours intense work plus additional semi-work (eg admin) in an afternoon. Assuming mornings are more suitable for intense work (as I suspect they are for most people). This totals 4-5 hours solid work—which as mentioned is my average.
FWIW I sometimes do steady work averaging 4-5 hours solid, focussed work per weekday (excluding breaks and semi-work like admin), which I think is the most many people achieve, as so much of their ‘work’ time is spent on chatting, breaks, pottering about, admin etc.
And sometimes I do intense bursts of many more hours per day for a few days or weeks, which tend in practice to be followed by recuperation periods in which I do much less than normal.
As it happens I’ve been recording complete data on my work & other hours for the last 9 years, so should do an analysis of which of the above methods works out more productive. That said it’s affected by the fact that the intense bursts will be on more motivating projects.
Also FWIW, in case others find this useful: there are various ideas about the optimum length of time to work before taking a break, e.g. the so-called ‘Pomodoro technique’ (a silly grandiose name for a small idea) which recommends 25 mins plus a short break.
In my experience 1 hour is just right. The kind of work I do is relatively intense intellectual stuff (e.g. programming, spreadsheets), and once I’ve got going I’m in a flow state which is inefficient to interrupt (as I’d just continue thinking about it during the break). So if I work until I notice I’m starting to flag, then check my watch, I almost always find I’ve been working for close to 1 hour. I find a break of roughly 15 minutes is about right—i.e. about long enough to make & drink a cup of tea. And it seems about the right kind of work:break time ratio.
This means that you can do about 3 hours intense work in a morning (3 hour-long chunks with breaks in between), and say 1-2 hours intense work plus additional semi-work (eg admin) in an afternoon. Assuming mornings are more suitable for intense work (as I suspect they are for most people). This totals 4-5 hours solid work—which as mentioned is my average.