Abstract

We discuss four key types of work interruptions-intrusions, breaks, distractions, and discrepancies-having different causes and consequences, and we delineate the principle features of each and specify when each kind of interruption is likely to have positive or negative consequences for the person being interrupted. By discussing in detail the multiple kinds of interruptions and their potential for positive or negative consequences, we provide a means for organizational scholars to treat interruptions and their consequences in more discriminating ways. Management scholars and practitioners generally define interruptions as incidents or occurrences that impede or delay organizational members as they attempt to make progress on work tasks. Therefore, they typically think of interruptions as disruptive for organizational members. Grove, for example, describes the unexpected visits that managers experience routinely as "the plague of managerial work " (1983: 67). Similarly, Perlow (1999) proposes that the frequent coworker interruptions experienced by software engineers lead to "a time famine" wherein the engineers are plagued by the sense of having more job responsibilities than the time in which to do them. Even the way organization members typically define interruptions (e.g., as something that breaks continuity [Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary]) has negative undertones. Such negative perceptions notwithstanding, interruptions are ubiquitous in organizational life, and they occur frequently, in a variety of ways and forms. For example, unexpected meetings and conversations throughout the day interrupt the work patterns of managers, thwarting opportunities for extended, isolated periods