Multitasking: An Unreasonable Request

As many of you know, I have been on the job search for about six months now. Anyone who has ever been on that road will certainly be able to relate to the stress that it causes. Sure, it's nice to be able to sleep in on Monday morning, but the lack of income is a frightening place to be. And that's not all. Not only do we who are on the extended search feel more obligated to compromise on what we originally wanted in our next job, we have to agree to multitask.

What is multitasking anyway? According to one definition from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, multitasking is the ability of a human to "develop and follow multiple thought processes simultaneously." Is this even possible? And since when have humans been expected to divide their attention every which way? I think they used to refer to that as being scatterbrained. Webster's New World Dictionary, 1991 edition, describes multitasking as something that only computers are supposed to be able to handle. So, apparently, sometime in the last fifteen years or so, the human brain has evolved into an efficient, superfunctioning, simultaneous multitasker? I think not.

Computers are wonderful things and are specifically built to be able to handle multiple simultaneous tasks. I feel sure that humans were not designed to be able to do the same; if they were, why would we have had the need for computer processors in the first place? The human brain is a wonderful thing, a machine worthy of praise, but it has it's limitations.

While working in the cable business I learned about signal strength. Let me give you an example. The signal is the intangible entity that flows from the source (the cable office) to the destination (your house). Once the signal arrives at the pole outside your house, it comes inside via a coaxial cable. At this point, if all went well along the way, the signal is a strong one and capable of delivering cable television, high speed Internet and perhaps telephone service. When it gets into the house it has a signal strength of 100%. If you have three televisions hooked up, one computer and a telephone modem, your signal has been split five different ways. This means that each thing in your house now has only 20% of the original signal. Your signal is multitasking but that's okay; that's something a cable signal can handle. But the more times the signal is split, the weaker the signal gets to each thing that's hooked up. This decreases the quality of the service you'll receive at each television.

Why am I telling you about cable signals? Didn't you think we were talking about multitasking? Well, we still are. The cable signal example is my opinion of how the brain works. We probably start out with a good, strong 100% signal in the morning if we had a good night's rest, a bowl of fiber and, in my case, a cup of coffee. When we get busy and someone gives us five things to do, (all of which need to be done right away, of course!), our brain's signal gets split up, and the signal, or the amount of attention we can give to each task, is weaker. This results in nothing getting our full attention, regardless of how important it might be. All of our assigned tasks get the short shrift, and we are lucky if we manage to accomplish anything. There is nothing efficient about this. In addition, we are under so much pressure to succeed that our level of stress (and incidence of stress related illness) is raised more than we know.

From paying attention to my own methods of accomplishing tasks, I know that multitasking is counterproductive and anything but efficient. I would like to be able to tell prospective employers that this is true. It's the same for anyone if they were to be honest with themselves; however, this is not what the world's bosses want to hear. I have heard this employment criteria repeatedly at interviews and in advertisements: must be able to multitask. Sometime over the last decade, perhaps due to the continuing instances of reduction in workforce, the few who are left have been saddled with the continuing work of the many by means of multitasking.

Prioritizing your workload works much better than multitasking. I remember it well from my last job and it worked. It seems to me that a whole industry surrounding day planners was developed to assist us in prioritizing. Giving each task, in order of importance, your full attention can get everything done in an efficient and orderly manner. And if you have your tasks written down on your planner or calendar, you have a record of everything that was done for future reference. This is impossible with multitasking because your thoughts, and therefore your actions, are too scattered.

So, let's ask ourselves if multitasking is the best method to get our work done. Is it even possible for the human brain to function in this way over the long haul? Are we increasing our stress level by increasing our simultaneous tasks? Can we be more efficient for ourselves and for our employers if we do one thing at a time? And can we be sneaky about this at work and just try it? I guarantee you that multitasking is definitely not as efficient as the term suggests. Give prioritizing and singletasking a chance. I think you'll find that everything will still get done.

Let me know what you think about multitasking. I look forward to hearing from you! And in the meantime....

I wish you the best of health!
Jude