Best Daily Work/Break Splits
52:17.
There's a steer new to me in that form. Despite a lockdown-induced WFH veering away, it seems we're settling back towards it again. Here's framing from the surveying company's chief exec;
"The original research found that the 10% most productive people worked on average 52 minutes, followed by a 17-minute break".
Yet one I'd already been consciously close to from evolved experience.
45:15.
My straightforward version.
When first a cubrep back in the day, I knew I'd always been capable of what we now call 'deep work' as arisen through my studies. Office life was a little different.
My first forays into cold calling soon naturally 'chunked' into hour blocks. Three-quarters of it on the phone, a quarter grabbing a drink, some air (offices were unbelievably smoke-filled boudoirs at that time), or vital quick-questioning of senior colleague.
Even today when ringing 'round strangers seeking to 'add a node to my network', I still adhere to this sculpting of time.
One interesting aspect, is that such shape is naturally elastic.
I suspect knowledge of Prospect Theory holds influence there.
If I'm on a roll, then I'll carry on straight through for that bit longer, extending the hot streak.
If no-one's home, then I may well to switch tasks up in the time-honoured way.
This though, isn't simply a time split.
Taking my most recent endeavours as example, it follows the number of dials. It just so happens that for this particular exercise, around twelve tend to take that forty-five minute stretch.
It can happen that one nearing the tail end of those dozen takes you beyond your allotted 45. Whether choosing to pause or drive on when said call is done, I can easily see how 45 over the piece can become the cited 52 above.
The thing about the numbers though - and it is the big thing - is that focus on them is plain wrong.
It's a classic cart-before-horse misperception.
Specifically in this case, "talk time" as it's usually called, is not the leading way to gauge work effort.
I've heard sales managers give this metric primacy. They are always wrong.
Even insisting there's strong correlation between talk time and output is mistaken.
Dangerously so, I'd say.
Whilst I follow the kind of 45:15 heuristic, time alone is not my main driver.
That's more to do with the number of dials.
Yet you mustn't stop there.
For me, it is really about just one 'stat'.
The number of "conversations".
Over time, I've long since come to care about little else when assessing my day's prospecting productivity.
When you know for instance that every two such conversations as defined yield one result, then that's your number.
Yes, you can go into the ratios further. But when that stat stays top, it truly allows you to pull the right levers, and you shall be in that wonderful "10% most productive", sustainable, quota-busting selling place.