It's tempting to try to do everything at once. Multitasking was all the rage for a while, but its effectiveness is increasingly being questioned by research (see NPR and BBC). A recent article in BusinessWeek went even further, arguing that since "multitasking interferes with the ability to do one's job well," it can be considered unethical.What are your thoughts on multitasking? Do you aim for it or try to avoid it? Do you think it's something that is valued and expected of you at work?
Haven't gone to the links yet to read about these studies but I always wonder what people mean by the term multitasking.
ReplyDeleteI often handle work in stages and intercut tasks for one project with tasks for another project. This can be highly inefficient if you are jumping from one thing to another without a plan (or in a panic).
But if you schedule your tasks (as opposed to just your appointments and meetings) it can be a realistic way to approach a job with multiple in-house clients and deadlines.
We all have a lot in our lives to juggle, especially if we're believe in balancing work and personal lives. But I just don't see how it's possible to handle one task in sequence to the next, down a linear path.
If I'm working on two different jobs for two different clients and it becomes clear something has to give, I talk to the client(s) about it and figure out revisions of one sort or another that will allow both projects to be done well. We will always have the client whose project is always more important than anyone else's. So sometimes a lot of tact and sometimes backup from one's supervisor (or the supervisor's supervisor) has to be brought to bear.
I try to avoid this altogether by trying (not always successfully) to avoid deadline commitments that are in conflict. But all of this seems less an issue of multitasking and more an issue of workload and hours needed to do the work.
Full disclosure: I wrote this entry while checking e-mail, playing with my cat, eating dinner and watching Battlestar Galactica.
ReplyDelete