Leadership Cancers #2: The insanity of multitasking

by Gary Monti on March 23, 2010

Doing more with less is a message that bombards us every day. Pushing that approach beyond reasonable limits creates a false reality that can be summed in one word – multitasking.

The belief in multitasking is so rampant we see it in commercials supposedly showing busy mothers optimizing their time. Is this really possible? Is there more to be squeezed out from a given situation? Let’s examine the reality of multitasking by first defining it, looking at the consequences of trying to achieve it, the reality of what it takes to complete tasks, and then conclude by examining a possible option for increasing effectiveness.

What Is Multitasking?

Multitasking is giving someone less time than is needed to complete a task. An example of multitasking is giving a person 8 hours to get two 8-hour tasks completed. Can you see the craziness?

To try and make this situation work one or both of the following assumptions must be embraced:

  1. Whoever did the estimating is incompetent, or;
  2. Whoever is doing the work has been sandbagging and holding back capabilities.

Neither of these options bodes well for the individual or the organization. Let’s go a little deeper and look at the consequences.

The Consequences

The malignancy of multitasking can be summed in one word – shame. For multitasking to work someone must be viewed as not being good enough. Either the estimator has lost touch with reality or the person doing the task has been lazy. So, for multitasking to work someone has to be put down. A good reference for the organizational damage caused by this and other insane behaviors is New Times Best Seller by Robert Sutton, The No Asshole Rule. It gives good examples of the consequences of shame-based management styles.

The Reality of Completing Tasks

Many of us can and do multitask. It is an interesting neurological phenomenon you can experience every day. It occurs because the brain off-loads repetitive tasks to the spinal cord. What’s an example? The ability to walk and chew gum at the same time!

There is a trade-off here. Notice that the multitasking is with highly repetitive tasks. What about problems professionals get paid to solve? Problem solving require thinking – use of the frontal lobes. The span of thought reduces to one task at a time and one task alone.

Some readers are saying, ”Wait a minute! I have simultaneous tasks open all the time.” If you look closer what you will see is something called micro-bookmarking, i.e., shifting from task to task to task. I know. It is how I work at times. While stimulating, it still is doing one thing at a time just in a task-rich environment.

A Healthier Option

So, what works? The answer is simple and difficult. It is contained in one word, “Schedule.” Good scheduling requires accepting the reality of the situation and whether or not a limit has been reached. If it has, the difficulty kicks in.

Letting go of multitasking requires letting go of the expectation there somehow are enough resources to get what we want. This just isn’t always true. It is a reality that, as humans, we just don’t want to accept. This desire to hold on makes it easy to blame ourselves or someone else and feel if they would just work harder everything would be okay. But, as Buddha said, “Attachment is the source of suffering” which brings us back to the harm Sutton talks about.

This all points in one direction – take the risk of letting go. The irony is that there actually isn’t any risk because the belief that multitasking works is an illusion. There isn’t any real gain to be had by trying to multitask, just loss.

If you would like to delve deeper into scheduling and its use in leadership send me an e-mail at gwmonti@mac.com or visit www.ctrchg.com.

Gary Monti PMI presentation croppedThrough his firm, Center for Managing Change, Gary Monti has over 30 years experience providing change- and project management services internationally. He works at the nexus between strategy, business case, project-, process-, and people management. Service modalities include consulting, teaching, mentoring, and speaking. Credentials include PMP number 14 (Project Management Institute®), Myers-Briggs Type Indicator certification, and accreditation in the Cynefin methodology. Gary can be reached at gwmonti@mac.com or through Twitter at @garymonti
Share

Related Articles

Tagged as: active garage, buddha, Change Management, gary monti, Leadership, letting go, multitasking, risk, The no asshole rule

  • Avi

    “To try and make this situation work one or both of the following assumptions **must** be embraced:

    1. Whoever did the estimating is incompetent, or;
    2. Whoever is doing the work has been sandbagging and holding back capabilities.”

    Most people that I know multitask because their tasks allow for efficient usage of their time by multitasking. for instance, I clean my car's windshield while the gas is pumping.. my wife makes a phone call while the potatoes are baking.Neither of us is incompetent or sandbagging — the task in hand has “wait” built-in and that's why we are able to multitask. None of your assumptions apply in our case.

  • garymonti

    Avi,
    Thanks for the comments. Two things stand out:
    -There is an ambiguity present which is a very common scheduling mistake, and;
    -They support what I am saying extremely well.

    Let’s start with the baked potatoes. If a cookbook said:

    -Preheat oven
    -Insert potatoes
    -Stare at potatoes with undivided attention while they cook for 1 hr
    -Serve potatoes

    I doubt the cookbook would sell well. This is an example of estimator incompetence. Or is it?

    Constant operator input isn’t required while the potatoes are baking. However, some level of operator attention is. This is where the ambiguity comes into play. “Time” can have multiple meanings. There is calendar time and effort time. Let’s say the calendar time for the potatoes is 1 hour. The effort expended may be a total of 1 minute across that hour.

    Now, bring in the phone call while the potatoes are baking. Yes, there is no need to watch the potatoes cook 100% of the time. However, there is the need to make sure they aren’t forgotten (effort).

    One thing that happens with multitasking is something occurs which wasn’t expected and attention narrows down to the event at hand. If that occurs the potatoes are at risk for over-cooking.Yes, alarms can be set, etc., but if the distraction is great enough or takes the person away from the task running in background there is the chance of forgetting about the potatoes cooking. Speaking as a parent, imagine you have a 2 year old who has wandered away (while your wife is preoccupied with getting the twice-baked potatoes just right before putting them back in the oven) and a blood-curdling scream comes from a remote part of the house. The potatoes will probably be forgotten.

    In project management terms we are talking about the intersection between schedule float and risk. Float is time between tasks that is completely free. With the potatoes some attention is needed. So, technically, there isn’t float available across the entire task. There is float available between check-ins. If float is assumed across the entire cooking time without check-ins a risk calculation must be performed and a strategy initiated. Ignoring this reality hammers a lot of PMs and SMEs. Ever start a download you assumed was running okay and come back an hour later to find some small issue had stopped it 3 minutes into the download? Here, the operator confused the need for a little effort (checking in) with zero effort and eliminated the risk associated with multitasking. This occurs with estimates as well. The coordinated check-ins across multiple efforts are significant but can be so small they are considered to have zero duration. The estimate can turn into a house of cards.

    So what about pumping gas and washing one’s windshield simultaneously. Multitasking, as stated in the blog, can occur with highly repetitive tasks, e.g., washing a car window. So, the thesis in the blog holds if there is another no-brainer task being performed. But, let’s look closer at the situation.

    Gas stations where I live have almost all done one of two things:
    -put a sign up that says do not leave the pump handle while filling your tank, or;
    -removed the clip that holds the handle in the fill position so one doesn’t have to squeeze it while filling up.

    Why do this? Multitasking risks creating an unstable situation. Operator attention is needed. So, while one can wash their windshield there is a degree of risk. Personally, I’ve seen more than one car overflow when the person walks away.
    Overall, I am talking about the intersection between definitions of time, risk, and schedule management. In other words, for highly-repetitive, zero-risk tasks multitasking is okay. For the really deep stuff, and some of the shallower, attempting to multitasking is dangerous and impossible. Micro-bookmarking, yes. Multitasking, no. Walking and chewing gum, however, is okay.

  • garymonti

    Avi,
    Thanks for the comments. Two things stand out:
    -There is an ambiguity present which is a very common scheduling mistake, and;
    -They support what I am saying extremely well.

    Let’s start with the baked potatoes. If a cookbook said:

    -Preheat oven
    -Insert potatoes
    -Stare at potatoes with undivided attention while they cook for 1 hr
    -Serve potatoes

    I doubt the cookbook would sell well. This is an example of estimator incompetence. Or is it?

    Constant operator input isn’t required while the potatoes are baking. However, some level of operator attention is. This is where the ambiguity comes into play. “Time” can have multiple meanings. There is calendar time and effort time. Let’s say the calendar time for the potatoes is 1 hour. The effort expended may be a total of 1 minute across that hour.

    Now, bring in the phone call while the potatoes are baking. Yes, there is no need to watch the potatoes cook 100% of the time. However, there is the need to make sure they aren’t forgotten (effort).

    One thing that happens with multitasking is something occurs which wasn’t expected and attention narrows down to the event at hand. If that occurs the potatoes are at risk for over-cooking.Yes, alarms can be set, etc., but if the distraction is great enough or takes the person away from the task running in background there is the chance of forgetting about the potatoes cooking. Speaking as a parent, imagine you have a 2 year old who has wandered away (while your wife is preoccupied with getting the twice-baked potatoes just right before putting them back in the oven) and a blood-curdling scream comes from a remote part of the house. The potatoes will probably be forgotten.

    In project management terms we are talking about the intersection between schedule float and risk. Float is time between tasks that is completely free. With the potatoes some attention is needed. So, technically, there isn’t float available across the entire task. There is float available between check-ins. If float is assumed across the entire cooking time without check-ins a risk calculation must be performed and a strategy initiated. Ignoring this reality hammers a lot of PMs and SMEs. Ever start a download you assumed was running okay and come back an hour later to find some small issue had stopped it 3 minutes into the download? Here, the operator confused the need for a little effort (checking in) with zero effort and eliminated the risk associated with multitasking. This occurs with estimates as well. The coordinated check-ins across multiple efforts are significant but can be so small they are considered to have zero duration. The estimate can turn into a house of cards.

    So what about pumping gas and washing one’s windshield simultaneously. Multitasking, as stated in the blog, can occur with highly repetitive tasks, e.g., washing a car window. So, the thesis in the blog holds if there is another no-brainer task being performed. But, let’s look closer at the situation.

    Gas stations where I live have almost all done one of two things:
    -put a sign up that says do not leave the pump handle while filling your tank, or;
    -removed the clip that holds the handle in the fill position so one doesn’t have to squeeze it while filling up.

    Why do this? Multitasking risks creating an unstable situation. Operator attention is needed. So, while one can wash their windshield there is a degree of risk. Personally, I’ve seen more than one car overflow when the person walks away.
    Overall, I am talking about the intersection between definitions of time, risk, and schedule management. In other words, for highly-repetitive, zero-risk tasks multitasking is okay. For the really deep stuff, and some of the shallower, attempting to multitasking is dangerous and impossible. Micro-bookmarking, yes. Multitasking, no. Walking and chewing gum, however, is okay.

  • Pingback: Week In Review – Mar 21 – Mar – 27, 2009 « Active Garage

Previous post:

Next post: