Micro-breaks, defined as short, voluntary breaks taken by employees during working hours, have long been regarded as an important means of restoring physical and psychological resources. Although prior research has predominantly emphasized the benefits of micro-breaks, such as enhanced recovery, improved affect, and greater subsequent engagement, organizational practice often reflects a more skeptical stance. Many managers tend to perceive micro-breaks as counterproductive, associating them with time-wasting, distraction, or even opportunistic behaviors. This mismatch between academic advocacy and managerial skepticism underscores the necessity of investigating micro-breaks in a more balanced and dialectical manner. To address this gap, the present study develops a comprehensive framework that simultaneously highlights both the positive and negative consequences of micro-breaks—what we conceptualize as the “double-edged sword” effect.
The central innovation of this study lies in its multi-level, multi-perspective approach. Existing studies have largely adopted an intra-individual lens, focusing on how micro-breaks influence employees’ cognitive and affective states. By contrast, this research expands the scope to incorporate three distinct but interconnected perspectives: (1) the employee’s own outcomes, (2) supervisors’ evaluative and behavioral responses, and (3) coworkers’ reputational judgments and subsequent social interactions. Through this tripartite design, the study captures a broader spectrum of outcomes that micro-breaks may trigger within organizations, providing a more holistic understanding of this pervasive workplace phenomenon.
From the employee perspective, the study identifies two divergent performance pathways. Drawing on Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, we argue that micro-breaks can replenish depleted energy, foster inspiration, and subsequently stimulate creative idea generation. At the same time, however, micro-breaks can divert attentional resources, promote mind wandering, and ultimately delay task progress. These contrasting effects highlight what we term the performance paradox of micro-breaks, where the same behavior simultaneously enables creativity while risking procrastination.
From the supervisor perspective, the study incorporates attributional reasoning within the framework of interpersonal perception theory. Supervisors observing an employee’s micro-break may generate dual causal attributions: they may interpret the behavior as an energy management strategy, justifying support and benevolence, or as time encroachment, warranting criticism or punishment. This dual-path attribution process gives rise to the reward-punishment paradox. Importantly, we theorize that leadership style moderates these attributions. Specifically, benevolent leadership is likely to amplify energy-management attributions while dampening time-encroachment attributions, thereby shaping supervisors’ behavioral responses in more constructive ways.
From the coworker perspective, the focus shifts to social reputation. Colleagues may stigmatize micro-breaks as a sign of laziness, distraction, or “time theft,” resulting in workplace exclusion and strained interpersonal relations. Alternatively, they may interpret micro-breaks as an indicator of effective energy regulation and positive health orientation, conferring reputational benefits and fostering collegial support. This duality constitutes the social paradox of micro-breaks. Extending prior literature, we examine how temporal context (morning vs. afternoon) influences coworkers’ interpretations: breaks taken in the afternoon are more likely to be perceived as legitimate recovery in response to accumulated fatigue, whereas morning breaks are more readily construed as shirking or resource misuse.
Another theoretical contribution of this study is the integration of Chinese philosophical wisdom—the framework of “Heavenly timing, geographical advantages, and human harmony”—to conceptualize boundary conditions of the double-edged sword effects. This culturally grounded perspective not only enriches the theoretical diversity of micro-break research but also provides context-sensitive insights into how employees can maximize benefits while minimizing costs of micro-breaks in practice. By linking indigenous philosophy to contemporary organizational behavior, the study contributes to the localization and internationalization of management theory.
Collectively, this research makes three key contributions. First, it develops a dialectical model of micro-breaks by systematically articulating their dual consequences across individual, supervisory, and coworker levels, thereby bridging the divide between scholarly optimism and managerial skepticism. Second, it expands the theoretical lens from intra-individual processes to interpersonal dynamics, advancing a more integrative perspective that situates micro-breaks within the broader social fabric of organizations. Third, by incorporating culturally rooted boundary conditions, the study introduces novel theoretical insights that enrich global discussions of micro-breaks and demonstrate the relevance of indigenous wisdom for management research.
The findings also carry significant practical implications. For organizations, the study suggests that rigidly prohibiting micro-breaks may neglect their potential to foster creativity and recovery, whereas unregulated tolerance may encourage procrastination or negative social perceptions. A more nuanced management approach is required: establishing flexible guidelines that acknowledge both the necessity and risks of micro-breaks, encouraging leaders to adopt attributionally fair interpretations, and promoting coworker understanding to reduce stigma. For employees, the study highlights the importance of strategically timing and framing micro-breaks to maximize positive outcomes and minimize reputational costs. Ultimately, this research encourages organizations and employees alike to embrace micro-breaks not as unilaterally “good” or “bad,” but as a complex phenomenon whose value depends on context, interpretation, and balance.
In sum, this study advances a comprehensive theoretical framework of micro-breaks as a double-edged sword, integrates multi-perspective analyses, and introduces culturally grounded boundary conditions. By doing so, it not only reconciles divergent views in the literature but also provides actionable insights for organizational practice. This contribution underscores the necessity of dialectical thinking in organizational behavior research and points toward new directions for future investigations of everyday workplace phenomena.
