3 ms·

I do better focusing on one thing at a time. Instead of multitasking, I choose one task, but allow myself to be interrupted only by small tasks that can be reso

by deveac 14y ago

I do better focusing on one thing at a time. Instead of multitasking, I choose one task, but allow myself to be interrupted only by small tasks that can be resolved on the spot or within a minute or so. Anything larger goes in the queue. There is something to be said for immediately addressing concerns of customers, vendors, and employees, -even if it could wait. Pays great dividends if your task involves other people. Most of the projects that I focus on one at a time don't suffer if I break off for a minute to send an email or schedule a resource. If it's just smaller tasks, -just line them up and knock them out. Even a quick email deserves attention to grammar and spelling and can be undermined by a typo while talking on the phone. What are you really gaining?

hermannj314 14y ago
To me, the definition of a person that is good at multitasking isn't the person that sees the least reduction in overall productivity when task-switching. To me, the person that is the best at multitasking is the person that knows where that reduction is irrelevant to the metrics that matter. In this respect, your post indicates you are an excellent at multitasking. To add to your point. I've worked in a call center environment where there were two schools of employee: those that documented their interaction with the customer as it was happening (the multitasker) and the employee that did it after the call had ended (the single tasker). Now, all things being equal, the employee that was not multi-tasking probably didn't make spelling mistakes in their call documentation and might have had marginally better engagement with the customer. However, none of those things were metrics that actually needed to be optimized. So the employee was choosing to optimize one dimension (documentation quality / engagement) at the expense of another (duration). On the other hand, the multitasking employee could handle 10% more call volume at the end of each day which reduced customer hold time and call abandon rates, which improved a metric our customers (and management) actually did care about. I'm not making some universal claim. I'm just saying in this particular anecdote, multitasking produced outcomes more aligned with objectives given by management.

by deveac 14y ago

hermannj314 14y ago

To me, the definition of a person that is good at multitasking isn't the person that sees the least reduction in overall productivity when task-switching. To me, the person that is the best at multitasking is the person that knows where that reduction is irrelevant to the metrics that matter. In this respect, your post indicates you are an excellent at multitasking. To add to your point. I've worked in a call center environment where there were two schools of employee: those that documented their interaction with the customer as it was happening (the multitasker) and the employee that did it after the call had ended (the single tasker). Now, all things being equal, the employee that was not multi-tasking probably didn't make spelling mistakes in their call documentation and might have had marginally better engagement with the customer. However, none of those things were metrics that actually needed to be optimized. So the employee was choosing to optimize one dimension (documentation quality / engagement) at the expense of another (duration). On the other hand, the multitasking employee could handle 10% more call volume at the end of each day which reduced customer hold time and call abandon rates, which improved a metric our customers (and management) actually did care about. I'm not making some universal claim. I'm just saying in this particular anecdote, multitasking produced outcomes more aligned with objectives given by management.