Multitasking:
Does this skill speed up our work? When applying for a job that deals with fast-paced working environment, there is almost always a required interpersonal skill in the job description that says “Should have excellent multitasking skills” or “Must have ability to multitask” that has not been given sufficient attention by employers, employees, and job seekers. Hence, to explore and understand the term “multitasking” more, it is important to look at some definitions. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED Online) defines multitasking as “perform[ing] multitasking; […] executing a number of tasks concurrently” (“Multitask”). Also, according to Sanbonmatsu, et al “Multi-tasking involves concurrent performance of two or more functionally independent tasks with each of the tasks having unique goals involving distinct stimuli (or stimulus attributes), mental transformation, and response outputs” (1). By reviewing these definitions, this particular skill seems like a practice people habitually do very often nowadays, such as reading a book while listening to music or writing e-mails while chatting over the phone. Therefore, we, as job applicants, might confidently apply and assure employers that we are very good multitaskers without knowing the risks behind multitasking itself. Moreover, employers neither have sufficient awareness of the effects of multitasking on their resources nor have enough knowledge to justify this skill being included in specific job description. Hence, multitasking at work could be a reaction to business environment, but the fact is that we cannot conduct tasks concurrently; we can only switch multi mono-tasks with rapid actions that overexert ourselves, damage our brains, slow down the work process, and eventually misusing company resources. In any work environment, switching tasks could be for various intentional or unintentional reasons, internal or external to the multitasker. In his research, Sanbonmatsu, et al found that there are two interconnected characteristics that indicate if a person significantly inclined to multitasking and less focused in mono-tasking. The first one is high sensation seekers who are not into following social conventions; they do tend to multitask more than the low sensation seekers. The second characteristic is impulsivity; people who tend to change plans and have less attention are high level multitaskers. Moreover, he mentioned that people with higher tendency to multitask are those people how consider themselves high level multitaskers; therefore, they don’t expect a serious risk behind involving in conducting parallel tasks. Another reason that urges people to multitask is distraction; there are people are helpless to avoid it because simply they are weak in preventing themselves to be engaged in another task (6-7). A good example of this multitasking tendency is given by Mark, el al when describing the informal engagement to another task in information technology business environment “[…] overhearing a neighboring colleague speak on the phone about an application in consistency might lead one to switch tasks to help review recent changes in that application”. Moreover, she emphasized that work circumstances constantly influence work priorities; therefore, workers are forced to switch their tasks to conform to new tasks’ settings (322, 328). In fact, understanding some of the influential reasons behind multitasking in a work environment drives us to wonder to what extent and how often workers are being interpreted during a typical work day. Answering these questions, Mark et al, in her study, interestingly provide that more than 57% of different working divisions were interrupted. She asserted that workers were switching tasks or getting interrupted every 11 minutes; however, it took them more than 25 minutes to return back to previous unfinished tasks (324, 326). In fact, multitasking is an illusion; the human being cannot conduct two or more tasks concurrently because the cerebral cortex can concentrate in one task at a time. Hence, when people multitask, they are actually switching their attention from one task to another rapidly. As a result, the action of multitasking (switching between tasks rapidly) reduces work quality of tasks in action because of feeble attention we pay (Hallowell n.p.). Not only work quality but also human health is impressively affected by multitasking. In a study, conducted jointly between University of California, Irvine and Humboldt Univerity, Berlin, called “The cost of interrupted work: more speed and tress”, results presented that when workers are continuously interrupted, they recoup the wasted time by functioning faster. However, this action of reorientation to switch tasks has destructive effects on people’s mental health because it causes extreme workload and time pressure, higher stress, frustration, and more effort. (Mark, Gloria, Daniela Gudith, and Ulrich Klocke 110). In addition, in one of the most resent remarkable studies conducted by Kep Kee Loh and Ryota Kanai, it revealed that heavy multitaskers, comparing to lighter multitaskers, are slower in distinguishing changes visually, easily deceived and distracted in memorizing, and slower in shifting between tasks. The study emphasized that the reason behind this unskillful conducts is that heavier multitaskers’ brain is structurally changed; the gray matter volume in anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) found to be smaller in density. As a result, the heavy multitaskers have lower cognitive control performance and negative socio-emotional results (4-6). Moreover, in a survey executed by University of California to determine the neural basis of the disproportionate impact that multitasking has on working memory performance in adults, it is found that multi-tasking may shorten attention span, reduce the concentration and weaken the process of forming memories (Clapp et al 7212-7). To this point, it is quite obvious that multitasking is significantly deleterious; thus, several researchers toiled to explore the link between multitasking effects and workers’ efficiency. To most of employers, multitasking considered as a fundamental skill that reflects employee’s efficiency; nevertheless, four decisive experiments conducted by University of Michigan’s researches affirmed that altering multiple tasks leads to losing time and increases time costs. In addition, lost time will be longer and time costs will be higher when shifting more complicated or unknown tasks. People unintentionally multitask through two stages; goal shifting and rule activation. Whereas rule activation per se causes a serious lag when people altering between tasks, multitasking is not an adequate skill as conceived; it is a intrinsic trigger of time wasting (Rubinstein, Meyer, and Evans 763-97). The Royal Automobile Club Foundation for Motoring (RAC), a registered charity in UK, implemented a study about the effect of texting on drivers’ reaction while driving, and the result were appalling, it presented that those drivers who constantly switching between texting and driving tasks reported 34.7 percent slower visual reaction time. Comparing this result to other unsafe driving practices, the study provided that texting is most dangerous than driving drunk or under the influence of drugs. Moreover, the research affirmed that visual deterioration of the drivers that appeared during the experiments is caused by constantly switching their attention between two different tasks; their phone and the road ahead. (Reed and Robbins 46-47). Furthermore, in 2009, a study conducted by Stanford Researchers to shed light the skillfulness of heavy multitaskers comparing to light multitaskers. Surprisingly, the results were eye-opening; high multitaksers performance was found unpleasant as they were steadily unable to focus, extremely poor in memorizing the objects, and slower than anyone else when responding to test assignments. In addition, this finding proved that light multitaskers overperformed the heavy multitaskers during same experiments, and the reason behind it is that the multitaskers couldn’t distinguish between the tasks’ priorities and they were unable to split the things from their latest objectives. Eyal Ophir, a researcher in Stanford University, commented “We kept looking for what they're better at, and we didn't find it” (Ophir , Nass, and Wagner 15583–87). If the above mentioned studies set forth that multitaskers are definitely inefficient workers, then multitasking should be avoided or banned in any work environment because it is counterproductive and leads to other unwelcome outputs. Researchers found that productivity is decreased by up to 40 percent because of the mental barriers emerged when shifting from task to another (Rubinstein et al 763-97). Furthermore, multitasking has negative impact on occupational health and safety; according to Paridon, H. and Kaufmann M., switching between tasks in any business environment can trigger mistakes and mental stress. As a sequence, there will be a reduced performance, potential business loss and serious occupational health and safety issues (121). In addition, a recent study performed by Realizationsm, a Project Management software and services provider, to explore the consequences of organizational multitasking in 45 business entities from various industries in which organizations executed particular tools to reduce multitasking in their projects, it is found that after only six months of applying a particular multitasking reduction tools, those organizations reported an amazing cutdown of projects period of performance and an extraordinary productivity increment of an average of about 60 percent. Hence, by considering the labor cost in combination with previous experiment result and apply it over the world, the total global annual loss is estimated to be $450 billion. Having said that, this projects-wise case study experiment affirmed that multitasking is still being practiced without being recognized as a true enormous organizational obstacle. Moreover, the study stated that “Multitasking is perhaps the number one killer of productivity in knowledge work and projects”. Therefore, to increase the productivity and reduce the period of performance, it is imperative to reduce multitasking which gives great advantages to clearly understand the areas where enhancement is required, and obtain a feasible status of the projects and assigned duties (1-9). To sum up, multitasking is a true illusion that leads people to believe that conducting tasks concurrently is the most useful skill to be efficient and quick at work, but this believe is unquestionably incorrect. People might tend to multitask as a reaction to variety internal or external interruptions take place in any work environment, but the scientific facts have proved that human’s brain cannot multitask but only switch attention to multiple tasks rapidly, and this generates a time pressure that causes mental health problems and shrinks our brain. Therefore, the multitaskers, comparing to monotaskers, are slower in responding, worse in focusing, and hardly to memorize. Moreover, multitasking causes mistakes that trigger occupational health and safety issues that lead to potential business loss. In addition, if the employers are really concerned about their productivity, efficient use of resources, and determining their organizational weaknesses for improvement, they must eliminate or reduce their employee’s multitasking behaviors in work-related tasks. To this end, weather it is in a fast-paced working environment or not, multitasking should not be a required skill in any job description nor we should mention it is our resume; it is an absolute detrimental skill and an unprofessional trait.

Works Cited

Clapp, Wesley C., Michael T. Rubens, Jasdeep Sabharwal, and Adam Gazzaley. "Deficit in switching between functional brain networks underlies the impact of multitasking on working memory in older adults." Proceeding of the National Academy of Science of the Unite States of America (PNAS), 108-17 (2011): 7212-7. Print
Hallowell, Edward M. Crazybusy: Overstretched, Overbooked, and About to Snap: Strategies for Handling Your Fast-Paced Life. New York: Ballantine Books, 2007. n.p. Print.
Loh, Kep Kee, and Ryota Kanai. “Higher Media Multi-Tasking Activity Is Associated with Smaller Gray-Matter Density in the Anterior Cingulate Cortex.” PLoS ONE. 9.9 (2014): 1-7. Print.
Mark, G., et al. " No Task Left Behind? Examining the Nature of Fragmented Work." The Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences. April 2-7. CHI (2005): 321-330. Web. 14.Nov.2014. .
Mark, Gloria, Daniela Gudith, and Ulrich Klocke. “The cost of interrupted work: more speed and tress”. In Proc. of the SIGCHI conf. on Human factors in computing systems. CHI ’08 (2008), 107–110. Print.
"multitask, v." OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2014. Web. 14 November 2014.
Ophir, Eyal, Clifford Nass, and Anthony D. Wagner. “Cognitive Control in Media Multitaskers.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 106.37 (2009): 15583–87. Print.
Paridon, Hiltraut, & Marlen Kaufmann. "Multitasking in work-related situations and its relevance for occupational health and safety: Effects on performance, subjective strain and physiological parameters". Europe’s Journal of Psychology. 6.4 (2010): 110-124. Print.
Realization. “The Effects of Multitasking on Organizations”. (2013): 1-9. Print.
Reed, Nick, and R. Robbins. “The Effect of Text Messaging On Driver Behaviour – A Simulator Study”. Transport Research Laboratory. Published Project Report PPR 367. 9.Sep, 2008. Print.
Rubinstein, Joshua S., David E. Meyer, and Jeffrey E. Evans. “Executive Control of Cognitive Processes in Task Switching”. Journal of Experimental Psychology - Human Perception and Performance. 27-4 (2001): 763-97. Print.
Sanbonmatsu, David M., et al. "Who Multi-Tasks And Why? Multi-Tasking Ability, Perceived Multi-Tasking Ability, Impulsivity, And Sensation Seeking." PLoS ONE. 8.1 (2013): 1-8. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.