We examine how types of secondary activities relate to primary job performance under bounded rationality and when managers should permit, encourage, or restrict them.
Using an archival dataset from professional baseball (1945–2018), we classify secondary activities as unrelated, teaching-related, or learning-related. We estimate Ordinary Least Squares and difference-in-differences models around the 1965 Major League Baseball (MLB) draft and measure performance with Wins Above Replacement
Unrelated and teaching-related secondary activities are associated with lower performance, whereas learning-related secondary activities are associated with higher performance than teaching-related secondary activities. When the job becomes more salient, these negative associations intensify, while the performance advantage of learning-related secondary activities widens.
Evidence derives from a single industry and an observational setting. The cognitively aligned typology and boundary-condition logic refine Behavioral Theory of the Firm accounts of attention allocation and offer testable extensions.
Rather than adopting blanket rules, managers should evaluate secondary activities according to their cognitive demands, intensity, alignment with the focal role, and demonstrated performance consequences, and revisit these evaluations as the stakes of the primary role rise.
Differentiated policies, coupled with equitable skill-building alternatives, can enhance worker wellbeing while protecting core performance.
We move beyond the “secondary activity versus no secondary activity” view by testing a cognitively aligned typology and its moderators, translating Behavioral Theory of the Firm into actionable policy guidance.
