Cultivating a Team Mindset about Productivity with a Nudge: A Field Study in Hybrid Development Teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there has been significant study of both individuals and teams of knowledge workers, research has focused largely on one or the other, with less focus on the interaction between the two. In this paper, we explore the tensions between the individual and their team, focusing on the choices an individual makes towards their own productivity versus their team's productivity. We developed a technology probe with a team nudge that fosters recurring reflection and prompts individuals to consider how their team helps them to be productive. We examined its impact through a longitudinal field study with 48 participants. We chose to undertake this study with software development teams as they are examples of knowledge workers who collaborate on a shared set of tasks with specific goals. Our exploration took place with hybrid development teams, which have increasingly become the norm. Our analysis of a total of 8338 hourly self-reports and 1389 daily diary entries found that the team nudge increased participants' productivity ratings and team awareness, led to participants spending more time on their own tasks, reshaped their perceptions of themselves and their team, yet, in general, did not increase team cohesion or affect well-being.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".