Are You Good at Multitasking?
Many employers have “good at multitasking” as a requirement for positions that they are hiring for. Here’s a good word on that from The Myth of Multitasking: How “Doing It All” Gets Nothing Done:
The point is, when someone tells me they’re good at multitasking, I know that they’re inefficient. Saying you’re a good multitasker is the same as saying that you’re good at using a less effective method to get things done.
It’s like saying, “Bob is better at riding a bike than Chuck is at driving a car.” Even if that statement is true, Chuck is still going to reach his destination with greater speed and ease than Bob.
No matter how effective you are at switchtasking, you are still working less efficiently than you could another way. You are going to take longer to get things done than the person who focuses on one attention-requiring activity at a time (pp. 47-48).
Comments
12 Responses to “Are You Good at Multitasking?”
Leave a Reply
About Matt Perman
Follower of Christ. Husband of one, father of three. Former director of strategy at Desiring God. This blog exists to help equip Christians in good works, because that's what productivity is really about.
Learn more Contact me Speaking Availability Friend me on Facebook Follow me on Twitter Like What's Best Next on Facebook
Keep Updated
Subscribe by email-
Map
nodirectory
[...] Via Matt Perman: [...]
Hmmmm, I think you’re on to something, Matt. I’ve never thought of multi-tasking that way.
I disagree as life and reality presents itself in such a way that multitasking IS needed!!! I’m thank God that my parents were multitaskers while trying to raise me. If not either they would have been immersed in their careers and neglected OR would have loved but left our family poor from having neglected their careers. This book is a way oversimplified and reductionist.
Good point, but I’m not sure that multi-tasking always equals inefficiency. I definitely waste time that way, but still maintain that less work would get done without a bit multi-tasking. I am a receptionist with a fair amount of administrative tasks, and thankfully some of these can be done while I’m on the phone.
If I get the chance, I’ll post sometime in more detail on multitasking. The author of the book I mention talks about background tasking, for example, which can be used effectively in certain circumstances.
I don’t think the analogy of the bike rider vs car driver holds up:
“Bob is better than riding a bike than Chuck is at driving a car.” Then the statement is made that Chuck will still reach his destination sooner.
This conclusion is incorrect. As one example: Bob is a 25 year old skilled cyclist who rode in the Tour de France last year. And Chuck is a 3 month old infant. The premise is still correct, but I seriously doubt that any 3 month old infant can drive a car faster than Bob can ride his bicycle.
I’m not saying that the discussion of multitasking is invalid. But the simile used to argue against multitasking is invalid.
I’d agree that much of multi-tasking causes less efficient work, but I disagree that it all is that way.
I get a ton done by staying active when I can’t push a single-focused item forward either due to “writer’s block” (can’t figure out what the next step is) or being at the mercy of an external factor for additional information/material. To stay focused on something that isn’t moving or that I don’t know how to move wastes my time.
When I hit a road block, I’ve learned to jump to another task that I can push forward in the meantime and often abandoning the mental rut of Task A and getting traction on Task B translates into my mind moving again on Task A a few minutes later.
I think the inefficiency of multi-tasking is when you have momentum in a project and then abandon that to address the sudden interruption of another task. But where momentum is lacking, it’s time to switch up to something that can move forward.
Maybe this is because my parents really disciplined us to not say, “I can’t,” but rather to do what we could; if we couldn’t find the counter disinfectant for the bathroom sinks we were not allowed to just sit there aimlessly, unable to start the ‘clean the bathroom’ chore, but rather were expected to start sweeping the floor, windexing the mirrors, etc., and deal with the missing disinfectant last if it didn’t turn up in the midst of our other sub tasks.
I think this is the first time I haven’t totally agreed with a post on this blog! Maybe it’s also just in the semantics and what I’m describing wouldn’t be considered ‘multi-tasking.’
I’ve heard that women are naturally more efficient at multi-tasking than men.
The theory is that they have more connections in their corpus callosum that enables them to better communicate with both sides of their brain.
In a slightly similar manner, what do you do when you’re in a really boring presentation? Do you try to quietly do something else?
What about if you have a substitute pastor who really is tough to listen to? Try as I might, I find my mind wandering.
It’s not that multi-tasking is or is-not more or less effective.
It’s:
* What criteria do we use to manage the queue of interrupted processes?
* What criticality does the new task has over the currently running one?
*Is it a process/task-switch (already in the jobs table or new process) or is it simply a light-weight-process switch (thread)?
Just saying ‘Are you good a Multitasking?’ really asks _nothing_!
Umm, no.
If I put the eggs on to boil, start the dishes while waiting, help my kid with some spelling words in the kitchen, sweep up, then drain the the just-finished eggs. . .
I am accomplishing much more than if I just stand there staring at the pot.
“Mom, can you help me with my spelling words?”
“Not now! I’m boiling eggs!”
Good discussion. Here are a few (not so) quick thoughts.
Technically speaking, multitasking is seeking to do two or more things at once. We cannot, however, focus on two things at a time, so what we really end up doing is switch tasking. That is, we really go back and forth between the tasks. The switching between tasks is what costs so much time, because you have to reconfigure yourself, however slight, each time you switch.
What about the times we actually are doing two things at once — such as when you are jogging while listening to an iPod? The author identifies that as background tasking. He distinguishes it from multitasking because, in these cases, one of the tasks goes onto auto-pilot. So you aren’t trying to do two things at once that require focus. One of the things requires focus, the other is done sort of automatically in the background. Sometimes people call that multitasking, and that’s fine. The more important point is that this illustrates when it is indeed useful and appropriate to do two things at once.
Marie, your example of boiling the eggs is a good one. You don’t to just stand there and watch them boil. Move on and help your with the spelling, then get back to the eggs when they are ready. That’s effective because you are able to background task those eggs–they don’t take conscious focus.
Also, when you throw in sweeping the floor, what you are really doing is completing a bunch of small tasks in short order. You don’t sweep the floor while helping with spelling, but help with spelling and then sweep up (or maybe I speak too soon! but you get the idea). Completing a bunch of small tasks in rapid succession is a good strategy. It can look like multitasking, but it is not: you are doing one thing at a time, just very quickly.
The problem is when we seek to _focus_ on two things at once. The biggest culprit here is checking email continually throughout the day, or going back and forth to your email while working on a big project. In that case you are trying to do two things that require focus at the same time. That will always end up costing more time than it saves. And that’s part of the rationale behind the email strategy I recommend of checking it at set times during the day, rather than continually as each new message arrives.
The worst way to multitask — which no one above is recommending! — is when you are talking to someone in person and trying to do something else at the same time. That ends up being disrespectful, and was one a significant issue he dealt with in the book. I think most people have the courtesy not to do that.
However, one illuminating thing stemming from that: Even sitting here and typing on my computer while my kids are playing in the room would be “multitasking.” It’s OK to do that for a while, since it’s fine for them to play on their own or with their mom for a while. But I should not get to the end of an evening and think I had quality time with my kids if that’s _all_ I did. It can be a meaningful part of the evening, and it can be fun for everyone to do their own thing in the same room. But I also need to give them fully focused time.
Last of all, I would affirm Adriel’s approach of switching to another task when you keep hitting roadblocks on the current task. Sometimes changing the gears mentally is necessary to get things flowing again; or, if you don’t have something you need (like in her example of cleaning the bathroom), you have to get moving to the next thing. That could be a road that leads some people more easily to multitasking, but switching gears — and then focusing on that task until it’s at the point you need — can be a useful strategy.
OK, this is last of all: I also want to make sure that I don’t imply that I am against using small chunks of time that come up, like seeing that you have 10 minutes between meetings and trying to get in all the small tasks that you can. The emphasis here is about focus: not seeking to do two things at once that require your attention.
[...] your actual day-to-day execution of tasks, literally do one thing at a time when it comes to things that require focus. At the 10,000 foot level concerning what larger [...]