Winifred Gallagher, author of Rapt: Attention and the Focused Life, a guide by to the science of paying attention, says, “Multitasking is a myth. You cannot do two things at once. The mechanism of attention is selection: it’s either this or it’s that.”
Whatever you choose to focus on, whether consciously or not, your mind will tune the rest out.
You’ve experienced this yourself. Think about the last time you were on the phone; how long was the lag time was between your words and the response? How apropos was the response or did the person ask you to repeat what you said?
Chances are the person you were talking with was checking email, tweeting, surfing or one of a myriad of other actions.
Or does this describe you in a conversation?
Gallagher says that “People don’t understand that attention is a finite resource, like money,” and, like money, you need to decide consciously what you want to spend it on and budget accordingly.
So stop multitasking and start living; as the old Alka-Seltzer ad goes—try it, you’ll like it.
I’ve written (ranted?) several times on the evils of multitasking and every time I turn around there’s more proof that it doesn’t raise productivity, improve results or cure your time crunch.
Proof, that is, in terms of scientific research as opposed to subjective evaluations.
The most recent was in Sunday’s NY Times that brought out the fact that you don’t really do things simultaneously; rather you switch your focus back and forth between them.
That may sound OK, but the problem is in the lag time, since the human brain doesn’t do the switch instantaneously.
Sure, some multitasking is just rude, think talking on the phone and doing email, while some is downright stupid, like texting and driving.
“…17 drivers, age 17 to 24, to use a driving simulator to see how texting affected driving.
The reaction time was around 35 percent slower when writing a text message — slower than driving drunk or stoned.”
But what about the multitasking that you’re forced to do at work? Jumping back and forth on projects, checking/responding to email, answering questions, etc.?
“A 2005 study, “No Task Left Behind? Examining the Nature of Fragmented Work,” found that people were interrupted and moved from one project to another about every 11 minutes. And each time, it took about 25 minutes to circle back to that same project.”
Have things changed or are the older studies holding true?
According to Gloria Mark, a professor of informatics at the University of California at Irvine and a co-author of that study and a new one published last April titled “The Cost of Interrupted Work: More Speed and Stress” showed that “people actually worked faster in conditions where they were interrupted, but they produced less… Ten and a half minutes on one project is not enough time to think in-depth about anything.”
Impressive. One action that single-handedly kills productivity and innovation, while increasing stress.
Multitasking seems to be a great tool for those who manage by intimidation and abuse, but for the rest of us it would be better to focus and spend some time on innovative approaches that minimize multitasking for yourself and your people.
Yesterday, Dave Zinger reviewed a book called The Myth of Multitasking.
Also yesterday, Brenda left a comment on an old (before my time) post on my other blog that led me to a 2001 APA article explaining “executive control.” “[It] involves two distinct, complementary stages: goal shifting (“I want to do this now instead of that”) and rule activation (“I’m turning off the rules for that and turning on the rules for this”). Both stages help people unconsciously switch between tasks.”
The time spent shifting is yet another reason why multitasking is a myth.
All this reminded me of a post I wrote in 2006 that is overdue for republishing right now.
Smart or stupid? Your choice!
Back in early 2003 I read an article in the Wall Street Journal called Multitasking Makes You Stupid and I cheered. Why? Because it’s always nice to have one’s opinion confirmed through scientific study by experts with lots of credentials—especially when most of the people around you are bragging about how well they multitask.
I got to thinking about that and did a bit more searching to see if anything’s changed. There’s one study that looked at gender differences and came to the conclusion that whereas productivity is about equal, women have a slight advantage in accuracy. I’m certainly not claiming I read all 250,000 pages returned on a search using the terms, multitasking study Dr university, but scanning through the first hundred I didn’t notice anything that contradicted what I’ve always thought—multitasking is not productive!
So what’s happened since the original article appeared? More ways to multitask; more managers demanding that their people do it; and more people bragging about their skill at it—more errors, accidents and loss of productivity.
Don’t believe me? Think about
what it’s like talking to someone who is reading email or doing other computer tasks during the conversation;
how close you’ve come to creaming someone, or being creamed, while talking on a cell;
the last time you didn’t notice the sirens ’cause you were listening to an iPod or talking on a cell.
And before you write all this off with the famous “but me” argument ask yourself: are you really that different from the rest of the human race?
For more insights read HBS working Knowledge columnist Stever Robbins (among many others), then read my Think, dream, innovate, and then really think about how you want to run your life!
Then ask yourself, what percentage of the day do you spend multitasking?
Describing a manager who made a major hiring error that went uncorrected, I commented , that he couldn’t hear and wouldn’t have listened anyway.
Of course, it’s easier to talk than listen.
And you can’t really listen if you are looking at your phone.
Or doing anything on your computer.
Or thinking about where to go to lunch or what to make for dinner.
Or thinking about what you want to say as soon as the other person shuts up.
In other words, you can’t listen, really listen if you’re multitasking.
I might end this post with Wally’s high-level, positive summing up.
Listening is a critical leadership skill you can master. It will help you learn about the people you work with, demonstrate you think they’re important, and help you make better decisions.
But my take is low-level simple.
Knowing and practicing good listening is a great way to avoid being the lead character in Bob Sutten’s book The No Asshole Rule.
Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.
Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.
This post dates from 2013. I think it’s a safe bet that the number of half-assed things being done now vs then have increased by several orders of magnitude. The year is nearly over, so this may be a good time to take a step back and ask yourself, “am I whole-assing my life or…”
LikeHack founder Jane Smorodnikova pointed me to an excellent video about productivity on a blog called Sparring Mind that is owned and written by Gregory Ciotti, the marketing director of a Boston startup called Help Scout.
Some of what’s included
Why worrying about having “more willpower” is a fool’s game
How world class experts stay productive… and what they do differently
The science behind why better energy management = a more productive you
Big pitfalls that lead to busywork and procrastination
I especially like Ciotti’s closing line, “Multitasking is your enemy: Treat it as such. Block out unwanted distractions and as Ron Swanson would say, “Never half-ass two things, whole-ass one thing.”
Based on today’s love affair with multitasking, the number of half-assed things being done could fill the cloud.
Your phone sitting there, constantly lighting up throughout the day creates this pattern in the brain scientists call “switch cost.”
It essentially means when there is an interruption, such as a notification, we switch our attention away from the task, then have to return afterwards — which is costly in terms of brain power, as well as time.
There are a finite number of hours in the day and we plan in an effort to spend them wisely, so it makes sense that we should plan how to spend our daily allotment of brain power/energy just as wisely.
Considering the toll, notifications doesn’t seem to fall in the wise column.
“We think it interrupts our efficiency with our brains, by about 40%,” Scott Bea, a psychologist at Cleveland Clinic told CBS. “Our nose is always getting off the grindstone, then we have to reorient ourselves.”
According to a study, presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America last November, the interruptions from alerts to your smartphone could be altering your brain chemistry. (…) Constantly waiting for the next notification can put you on edge, meaning when it comes, your body releases cortisol, causing you heart rate to jump.
Even if you scoff at the addictive and brain-altering effects of notifications, do you really want to stake your career progression/success on functioning at 60% efficiency?
A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read allIf the Shoe Fits posts here.
When I was young there was a riddle making the rounds (it probably still is) that went like this.
Railroad crossing look out for the cars, can you spell it without any rs?
You could spend a lifetime puzzling over how to spell ‘railroad crossing’ without an r.
Or you could spend just a few seconds focusing and thinking about what was actually said (or rereading it if written), instead of reacting to the overall idea.
There is constant chatter about how fast you must go to keep up with today’s world, so who has time to focus/think?
Of course, if you listen mindfully, instead of multitasking, or read carefully, instead of scanning, you wouldn’t have to go back and do it over.
The people who have no trouble with riddles like this one are literalists.
They respond to exactly what they hear/see because you can’t be a literalist without being mindful. The two go hand-in-hand.
Why should this matter to you?
Because your your instructions need to work for both, as the following two examples, one conversational and one written, graphically show.
Bill Treasurer of Giant Leap Consulting provided How to Manage Your Boss. Bill recaps, “Leadership isn’t always about managing your direct reports. Sometimes you have to know how to ‘manage up.’ Managing your boss is an essential part of leadership.” Find Bill on Twitter at @btreasurer.
Dana Theus of InPower Coaching contributed How to Run a Meeting When You’re Not in Charge. Dana writes, “Running a meeting with your boss and her peers puts you in a tough spot. You’re being expected to ‘manage’ people superior to you. You can’t rely on your technical expertise because you’re expected to manage the interpersonal dynamics of the meeting as well, which is hard even when dealing with peers and subordinates.” Find Dana on Twitter at @DanaTheus.
David Grossman of The Grossman Group shared Leadership Communication Principles That Work. David writes, “I’m continually asked for the most important leadership communication principles. While what’s effective will vary based on the person or situation, these six tried-and-true fundamentals will make the difference between simply sharing information and communication that moves people to action (and that they feel great about).” Discover David on Twitter at @thoughtpartner
Eileen McDargh of The Resiliency Group provided Five Secrets to Creative Adaptability. Eileen recaps, “In the face of continuing economic challenges, a roller coaster marketplace, Congressional stalemates, and unrelenting change, leaders in every part of an organization must develop a capacity for resiliency. A cornerstone of resiliency is adaptability. Mind you, this is not the ordinary find-another-answer but rather find MANY answers.” Find Eileen on Twitter at @macdarling.
Jill Malleck of Epiphany at Work submitted Use Memory to Boost Self-Confidence. Jill recaps: “Confidence is different than a ‘know-it-all’ attitude: It’s more about feeling strong in your abilities. In every workplace, it’s not just about what you know that demonstrates leadership – it’s how confidently you lead when you don’t know.” Discover Jill on Twitter at @EpiphanyAtWork.
Jim Taggart of Changing Winds provided Why Integrity Matters to Leadership. In the post, Jimexplains, “New leadership approaches are needed in a globalized world. It’s about collaboration through worker self-empowerment, where calculated risk-taking is a daily endeavour and individual and collective learning is nurtured and valued.” Find Jim on Twitter at @72keys.
Joel Garfinkle of the Career Advancement Blog submitted The 4 Most Powerful Leadership Words You Can Use. Joel shares: “It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. Being selective in how you speak to others often determines your level of leadership. Here are four of the most powerful leadership words you can use.” Discover Joel on Twitter at @JoelGarfinkle.
John Hunter of Curious Cat submitted Improving Management with Tools and Knowledge. John recaps: “The effective integration of the principles and the tools is what separates the remarkable companies we respect (and maybe envy) from all the others that are having some success but that are also struggling in many ways.” Discover John on Twitter at @CuriousCat_Com.
Jon Mertz of Thin Difference submitted Jeff Bezos: How to Avoid Day 2. Jon shares, “This post is addresses how a leader’s approach to decision making can determine an organization’s success or failure. Too many of us get stuck in what Jeff Bezos calls a ‘Day 2 mindset.’ Here’s how to avoid that trap and make all of our decisions like it’s day 1.” Discover Jon on Twitter at @thindifference.
Julie Winkle-Giulioni of Julie Winkle-Giulioni provided Career Development Begins with CARE. Julie recaps, “In this short animated video, Julie explores the fundamental building blocks of career development and offers a framework for leaders committed to engaging in authentic sustainable development with others.” Find Julie on Twitter at @julie_wg.
Linda Fisher Thornton ofLeading in Context shared 9 Ethical Roles: Is Your leadership Team “All In?”. Linda recaps: “Ethical roles apply not just to CEOs, but also to all senior leaders in an organization. And if front line leaders don’t carry these roles throughout the organization, there will be gaps in the culture. We should prepare leaders to take on these 9 important roles, to help them be ‘All In’ in the quest for ethical culture building.” Find Linda on Twitter at @leadingincontxt.
Marcella Bremer of Leadership and Change Magazine provided What Do You Love to Do?. Marcella recaps, “What you love to do contains your gift to the world regardless of your role. Many were taught that it’s selfish to pursue what we love. Thus, we set aside what makes us unique. While when we love what we do, we are at our best and make a difference. Withholding who we are becomes the selfish act. What do you think?” Find Marcella on Twitter at @marcellabremer.
Mary Jo Asmus of Aspire Collaborative Services, LLC provided Reconnecting With Happiness. Mary Jo recaps, “Happy leaders make a difference! Don’t let your happiness slip away; examine your life and make decisions about what will help you get back to what matters.” Find Mary Jo on Twitter at @mjasmus.
Miki Saxon of MAPping Company Success contributed If The Shoe Fits: No Such Thing As “Self-Made”. Miki writes, “Everybody loves stories about self-made people; the ones who have climbed from nothing to the top. The stories may be fun to read, but in reality there is no such thing as ‘self-made’. Just ask Arnold Schwarzenegger.” Discover Miki on Twitter at @optionsanity.
Neal Burgis of Burgis Successful Solutions submitted It’s All About Finding People Smarter than You. Neal recaps, “Leaders know that hiring people smarter than themselves makes good leadership sense when you have great ideas and need others to create and produce breakthrough results. You shouldn’t be the smartest person in the room – yet you should hire the smartest people in the room.” Find Neal on Twitter at @exec_solutions.
Paula Kiger of Big Green Pen provided Gambling on Leadership. Paula recaps, “Is it true that people behave in leadership simulations the way they will in reality? Lessons from a ‘reality’ show.” Find Paula on Twitter at @biggreenpen.
Randy Conley of Leading With Trust shared 10 Ways to Tell If Your Boss is Trustworthy. Randy writes, “Everyone deserves to work for a trustworthy boss. Unfortunately, that seems to be the exception rather than the norm in today’s business world. This post shares ten ways you can tell if your boss is trustworthy. Be sure to take the poll to see how your boss compares with others.” Find Randy on Twitter at @randyconley.
Susan Mazza of Random Acts of Leadership provided A Simple Way to Rise to Your Next Level of Leadership. Susan explains, “You cannot grow to the next level of leadership by reading books, taking a class, or simply thinking about getting there. You must actually take action in real life — and your everyday experiences offer clues that show you how to reach for it.” Follow Susan on Twitter at @susanmazza.
Wally Bock of Three Star Leadership provided Leadership Balance. Wally recaps, “Dynamic balance, the balance of the athlete or the dancer, lets you engage in purposeful motion and change direction quickly.” Find Wally on Twitter at @wallybock.
The first article I saw that confirmed (always a nice thing) my personal belief that multitasking was the best way increase incompetency was in the WSJ in 2003, although some of the first experiments were in 1999.
A growing body of scientific research shows one of jugglers’ favorite time-saving techniques, multitasking, can actually make you less efficient and, well, stupider.
Six years later research using students at Stanford, who grew up doing multiple things simultaneously, the verdict on multitasking, was reinforced. Most interesting was the proof that the more a person multitasked in their lives the worse they did on the tests.
Multitasking is not efficient, nor does it get more work done faster. Quite the opposite. One task interferes with another, so everything takes longer because the brain loses time–and accuracy–in repeatedly shifting its effort.
Around the same time David Strayer, a professor of psychology at the University of Utah, who has been studying attention—how it works and how it doesn’t—his whole career, made a surprising discovery.
Much to his surprise, he identified a tiny group he calls “supertaskers.”
In this case tiny really means tiny—around 2% of the population.
Worse, for the 98%, practice doesn’t help, since it turns out the ability is most likely genetic.
Of course, humans being humans, people assume they are part of that 2%.
“The ninety-eight per cent of us, we deceive ourselves. And we tend to overrate our ability to multitask.” (…) The better someone thought she was, the more likely it was that her performance was well below par.
The researchers have developed an online version of the test, so if you are curious or actually think you are part of that 2% you can take the test and know for sure.
LikeHack founder Jane Smorodnikova pointed me to an excellent video about productivity on a blog called Sparring Mind that is owned and written by Gregory Ciotti, the marketing director of a Boston startup called Help Scout.
Some of what’s included
Why worrying about having “more willpower” is a fool’s game
How world class experts stay productive… and what they do differently
The science behind why better energy management = a more productive you
Big pitfalls that lead to busywork and procrastination
I especially like Ciotti’s closing line, “Multitasking is your enemy: Treat it as such. Block out unwanted distractions and as Ron Swanson would say, “Never half-ass two things, whole-ass one thing.”
Based on today’s love affair with multitasking, the number of half-assed things being done could fill the cloud.
Entrepreneurs face difficulties that are hard for most people to imagine, let alone understand. You can find anonymous help and connections that do understand at 7 cups of tea.
Crises never end.
$10 really does make a difference and you’ll never miss it,
Winifred Gallagher, author of Rapt: Attention and the Focused Life, a guide by to the science of paying attention, says, “Multitasking is a myth. You cannot do two things at once. The mechanism of attention is selection: it’s either this or it’s that.”
When I was young there was a riddle making the rounds (it probably still is) that went like this.
and
