Multitasking: The Myth of Multitasking

Job postings still often expect candidates to be multitaskers, a trait frequently associated with a so-called dynamic work environment. When I think about this, I picture people reading emails while simultaneously checking messages on instant messengers (often both work and personal) and, on top of that, talking to each other. They feel like they’re doing many things at once and are proud of their “efficiency.” To understand why multitasking is a myth—and why it not only doesn’t work but actually lowers the quality of our work—it’s worth turning to psychology (after all, this is a psychology blog).

Sensory Channels and Multitasking – Limitations of Information Processing in the Brain

You’ve probably heard the term “visual learner” or “auditory learner” before. This refers to the way we best remember information—whether through images (e.g., drawings) or sounds (e.g., lectures). Our brains process information through several channels, namely:

• Visual channel – responsible for images, text, and diagrams.
• The ear canal —processes sounds, speech, and music.
• Kinesthetic channel – related to movement and touch.

The brain can effectively process information through only one channel at a time. In the context of multitasking, if different tasks compete for the same perceptual channel, this leads to cognitive overload. This is one of the reasons why multitasking doesn’t work the way it’s often portrayed. A simple experiment that confirms this is trying to listen to two people talking about different events at the same time. If you focus on one story, the information from the other will start to slip away—this is a typical example of auditory channel overload.

What’s more, we process information best when we combine different channels—for example, by looking at an image and listening to an explanation of it. In such cases, multitasking is only apparent, because what’s actually happening is the integration of the senses, not the performance of independent tasks. A sharp-witted reader might ask, “What about listening to the radio while driving or walking?” This is possible, but only because one of these activities (such as walking or driving under normal conditions) is automated and does not require conscious processing. Otherwise, the effectiveness of such multitasking drops dramatically.

Multitasking vs. Attention Shifting—Why We Don't Really Perform Tasks in Parallel

Although it may seem that we can read emails and reply to messages on an instant messenger at the same time, in reality we are not performing these tasks simultaneously, but rather switching back and forth between them. This phenomenon, known as attention switching, comes at a cost:

• Your work efficiency drops —every change in context requires extra energy. You have to remind yourself what the email you were replying to was about if you were replying to a friend on social media just a moment earlier. Research by the American Psychological Association shows that switching your attention in this way significantly reduces the quality of your work and increases the risk of errors.
• You make more mistakes —because you pay less attention to each task (for example, you might be so focused on a conversation that you forget to turn while driving).
• You have a harder time remembering information —when your focus is scattered, your brain doesn't retain information as effectively as it does when you're fully focused.
• By the end of the day, you're more tired— constantly switching between tasks takes a lot of energy.

How to Increase Work Efficiency by Reducing Multitasking

• Divide your time into blocks —focus on one task at a time within each block.
• Turn off notifications —set specific times to check your email and messaging apps.
• Set aside time for full focus —for example, for work that requires the most concentration—and make sure no one disturbs you during that time.
  Multitasking isn’t the path to greater efficiency—quite the opposite. If you want to work better and smarter, focus on consciously managing your attention.