Managing People At Work (MPW) - Effects Of Napping Vs. Performance At Work

start presentation >

1

hi !

2

who are we?

3

agenda .

i. what interests us

ii. what we have found

iii. what we want to know

iv. how we plan to find out

v. our direc6onal conclusion

4

what interests us

what’s theT O P I C ?

5

what interests us | the lessonwhat’s theT O P I C ?

Life

WORK.work.

WORK.work.

work.

WORK.work.

WORK.

work.work. WORK.

work.

work.

WORK.

6


Life

sad mana VERY

^

7

e a t

happy

s l e e p


8

s l e e p

w o r k


9

what interests us | the lesson

Effects of Nappingvs. Performance at Work

what’s theT O P I C ?

10

SO WHAT EXACTLY IS A NAP (AKA. SIESTA) ?

napping vs.PERFORMANCE@WORK what interests us | definition

Most authors refer nap as a brief period of sleep within a 24-‐hr period. (Regardless of whether proper sleep was taken)

-‐-‐ (JOURNAL) Work & Stress, 1989, Vol 3, No 2, 129-‐141 by Gerald P.Krueger

11

OUR BIOLOGICAL CLOCK


12

LARK OR OWL ?


13

LARK OR OWL ?

LARK OWL


14

STAGES OF NAPS . .

5S T A G E S


15

STAGES OF NAPS . .


16

STAGES OF NAPS . .


17

STAGES OF NAPS . .


18

what interests us

Is Napping GOODfor Work

napping vs.PERFORMANCE@WORK

?

| the final question

19

what we have found


20

6r e s e a r c h

d o c u m e n t s

napping vs.PERFORMANCE@WORK what we have found | research

A. ABOUT

B. SUMMARY

21

IS NAPPING AT WORK GOOD FOR THE ORGANIZATION / EMPLOYEE?


American Medical Association Journal of Ethics September 2008, Vol 10, No 9: 589-593!Steve Kroll-Smith, PhD

11

22




1A. ABOUT

A liQle trivia, a firm opens a napping bou6que in Wall Street, pay $14 for 20-‐min nap.

NSF es6mates US$175 Bn/year losses in escalated levels of stress and ensuing loss of produc6vity due to sleep depriva6on.

NSF survey: 51% of adults admit sleep depriva6on, thus unable to think clearly and make bad judgment.

23




1A. ABOUT

Quotes Journal ‘Sleep and Alertness’: Chronobiological, Behavioural, and Medical Aspects of Napping by David F. Dinges, a consolida6on of results from 23 studies, 61% working adults take at least 1 nap a week for average of 1.2hrs/week, 30% nap 4 6mes a week.

24




1B. SUMMARY

This shows some general evidence of cost of sleepiness for the organiza6on/employee, but how?

25

DOES NAPPING IMPROVE COGNITIVE PROCESSING?


Human Performance 1994, 7(2), 119-139Steve Kroll-Smith, PhD!James K. Wyatt and Richard R. Bootzin

2

26




22A. ABOUT

PARTICIPANTS: 20 test subjects.

AIM: Test if napping increases cogni6ve processing. Test how fast and accurately they can recall and recognize word pairs afer a nap.

27




22A. ABOUT

RESULTS: No sta6s6cal values, but results show that napping decreases cogni6ve processing such as recall, recogniVon and implicit word pairing.

28




22A. ABOUT

CONFOUNDING VARIABLE: Sleep inerVa

DEFINITION: Feeling of sluggishness and mental dullness commonly reported afer awakening.

29




22A. ABOUT

Quote findings from a research by Dinges et al, Orne, and Orne (1985):

1) The deeper the nap, the slower the reac6on 6me (r=0.6),

2) The amount of SWS is nega6vely correlated to cogni6ve task performance (r=-‐0.63).

30




22A. ABOUT

Rosekind et al, 1994 examined effects of nap opportunity, and found that napping helps maintain or even improve cogni6ve performance if there is prolonged wakefulness and allowed recovery 6me from sleep iner6a.

31




22A. ABOUT

Other studies (Stones, 1977; Tilley & Statham, 1989) show that it can take up to 20 min to recover from sleep iner6a, moderated by stage of sleep.

**Other confounding variables may include quality of sleep the previous night (sleepiness), health of par6cipants, sleep latency and varia6on of circadian cycle of each individual.

32




22B. SUMMARY

This shows that napping and cogni6ve processing is nega6vely related. However, presence of sleep iner6a confounds the conclusion. When isolated, we found posi6ve correla6on between napping and cogni6ve processing when recovery from sleep iner6a is present.

33

DOES A POST-LUNCH NAP IMPROVE ALERTNESS?


Eur J Appl Physiol, 1998, 78: 93-98!Masaya Takahashi, Hideki Fukuda, Heihachiro Arito

33

34




3

A. ABOUT PARTICIPANTS: 3 groups, each consis6ng 10 healthy volunteers

AIM: To measure level of alertness through reac6on 6me and a 90-‐min English transcrip6on test.

35




3

A. ABOUT RESULTS: Reac6on 6me was faster by 24ms afer 15min nap, while it slowed by 17ms and 65ms for 45min nap and no nap respec6vely, F(4,54)=3.10,p<0.05.

36




3

A. ABOUT RESULTS: Less errors on transcrip6on test afer 15min nap compared to 45min nap and no nap, F(4,54)=2.76,p<0.05. The effects of napping on alertness were evident afer 7.3min of good sleep.

37




3

B. SUMMARY Therefore, napping improves alertness, subject to a good nap strategy.

38

DOES WHEN YOU NAP AFFECT YOUR PERFORMANCE AT WORK? (SHIFT WORK)


Biological Rhythm Research, 2010, 41(2) 137-148!M.E. Howard, L. Radford, M.L. Jackson, P. Swann, G.A. Kennedy

44

39




4

A. ABOUT PARTICIPANTS: 8 healthy par6cipants

AIM: Measure sleepiness and performance on the job.

RESULTS: Morning naps had shorter sleep latency [t(7)=6.09,p<0.001] and longer sleep dura6on [t(7)=-‐7.49,p<0.001] compared to evening naps.

40




4

A. ABOUT RESULTS: There was significant improvement in driving simula6on (less error) when there is morning nap over evening nap and no nap fared the worst, F(1.66,11.61)=5.42,p<0.05. There was no significant effect on PVT test whether or not there was a nap, F(1.40,8.43)=0.31,p=0.66.

41




4

B. SUMMARY This journal ar6cle somehow contradicts on the effects of napping on reacVon Vme through the PVT test, but holds true on the hypothesis that napping reduces errors. The contradic6on could be because the nap dura6on of 30-‐min is not a good napping strategy.

42




4

B. SUMMARY The effect of circadian rhythm is significant in this study in that the 6me of the day affects one’s alertness. A fairly large sample size may comprise subjects with varying circadian rhythms which confounds the hypothesis.

43

OTHER RESEARCH ABOUT NAPS


Ergonomics, 2004, 47(9), 1003-1013!Masaya Takahashi, Akinori Nakata, Takashi Haratani, Yasutaka Ogawa, Heihachiro Arito

55

44




5

A. ABOUT AIM: Study of post-‐lunch nap to promote alertness on the job.

RESULTS: Afernoon perceived alertness decreased over no nap week, whereas perceived alertness maintained at higher levels over nap week.

45




5

A. ABOUT RESULTS: But when subjects were given the liberty to choose to nap, there was no significant difference in perceived alertness, F(2,14)=2.28,p=0.154. Napping also improves reac6on 6me and fewer errors made on the job.

46




5

B. SUMMARY This shows that napping increases task performance; however, people are unable to realize their body is 6red.

47



Biological Psychology 2006, 73, 141-156!Catherine E. Milner, Stuart M. Fogel, Kimberly A. Cote

66

48




6

A. ABOUT AIM: Study if habitual nappers reap more benefits from afernoon naps.

RESULTS: Habitual nappers had less sleep iner6a effects (less reduc6on in reac6on 6me), t(16)=-‐2.89,p=0.01.

49




6

A. ABOUT RESULTS: Non-‐habitual nappers had inhibited learning performance for a longer delayed dura6on, t(18)=-‐2.35,p<0.05.

50




6

B. SUMMARY The results reaffirm the confounding effect of circadian rhythms on the effects of nap on performance at work.

51

what we want to know


52

WHAT WE KNOW . .

napping vs.PERFORMANCE@WORK what we want to know | the “know”

Napping improves motor, reacVve and alertness performance in

general. However, it is not just any kind of nap. In par6cular, to reap

the full benefits of napping at work, a 15-‐minute a_ernoon nap in a

serene environment would be op6mal. Furthermore, one would not

realize when 6redness sets in.

It would be most beneficial if you start geung into the habit of

taking afernoon naps so that produc6vity is maximized in a world

where extended working hours is common fare.

53

WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW . .

napping vs.PERFORMANCE@WORK what we want to know | the “don’t know”

Do alertness and cogniVve processing improve performance at work?

Does the type of job moderate the rela6onship between napping and

performance at work? Confounding variables not isolated? Is there an

op6mal 6me to take an afernoon nap?

54

napping vs.PERFORMANCE@WORK what we want to know | our hypothesis

Nap Qua l i t y

S leep Iner t i a

S leep La ten cy

=/

Unhea l th y Food

Hea l th y Food

Null Hypothesis: Healthy and unhealthy food eaten during lunch does not affect nap quality/sleep inerVa/sleep latency.

55

Hea l th y Food

AlternaVve 1 Hypothesis: Healthy food eaten during lunch increases nap quality/ (decrease) sleep inertia/ (decrease) sleep latency.

Nap Qua l i t y

S leep Iner t i a

S leep La ten cy

=


56

Unhea l th y Food

Alterna6ve 2 Hypothesis: Unhealthy food eaten during lunch decreases nap quality/ (increase) sleep inerVa/ (increase) sleep latency.

Nap Qua l i t y

S leep Iner t i a

S leep La ten cy

=


57

how we plan to find out


58

COMPANIES GET QUALITY WORK DONE

ASSUMPTIONS . .

napping vs.PERFORMANCE@WORK how we plan to find out | the experiment

i. Companies only want to get work done; Increase efficiency (not quality work as not all companies require quality work)

59

WORK ING HOURS 9 AM - 6 PM ; 1 Hour Break

ASSUMPTIONS . .


ii. Typical work day from 9AM -‐ 6PM where only an hour break is given

60

PROCESS EAT -> NAP

ASSUMPTIONS . .


iii. We only consider eaVng before napping

61

=EQUAL AMT OF SLEEP

SLEEP = SLEEP

ASSUMPTIONS . .


iv. All par6cipants have the same amount of sleep before taking the experiment

62

Unhea l th y Food

Hea l th y Food

THE CONTROL . .


Mix of healthy and unhealthy food.

63

AverageHealthyUnhealthy

STEAMED

CATEGORIES OF FOOD . .


BARBEQUED

FRIED BOILED MIX

64

PARTICIPANTS . .


Ten healthy par6cipants (mixture of men and women) for each category of food.

Par6cipants should not have large varia6on in BMI and dietary preferences.

METHOD . .

Use lab techniques to measure calories in food.

Keep calories provided to each par6cipant constant. Have similar napping environments.

65

STEPS . .


1) Randomly assign par6cipants to eat a type of food that has the calories count of their respec6ve food category during the 30-‐ min lunch break at 1200pm.

2) Ask all par6cipants to nap for half an hour from 1230pm siung on a chair in a darkened, electrically shielded chamber.

3) The (EEG), the horizontal and ver6cal (EOG), the (EMG), and the ECG were recorded.

66

STEPS . .


4) Afer each condi6on, all the subjects completed two tasks to test reac6on 6me.

5) The P300, subjec6ve sleepiness, and 5-‐min ECG were measured in the siung posi6on prior to each task. The electrophysiological signals were recorded (EEG-‐4217, Nihon Kohden, Japan) and stored on an FM tape recorder (XR-‐7000L, TEAC, Japan).

67

our directional conclusion


68

Hea l th y Food

napping vs.PERFORMANCE@WORK our directional conclusion | our verdict

69


15 m inu tes

Hea l th y Food

+

70


gives you

I n c reased S leep Qua l i t y

71


gives you

I n c reased Per fo rmance a t Work

eventually

72

hmm . .

THE S INGAPORE ARMED FORCES (SAF)

WHO’S THE IDEAL EXEMPLARY ORGANIZATION ?


73

Q&AS E S S I O N

thank you .

74

Managing People At Work (MPW) - Effects Of Napping Vs. Performance At Work

Education

Transcript of Managing People At Work (MPW) - Effects Of Napping Vs. Performance At Work