The Myth of Multitasking

1. Multitasking is a Myth: You're Actually Switchtasking

People are proud of their skills at multitasking, but the truth is that multitasking is neither a reality nor is it efficient.

The pervasive lie. Many, like CEO Helen, proudly consider themselves "Queen of Multitasking," believing it's a requirement for success in a fast-paced world. However, this widespread belief is a fundamental misunderstanding, a "lie, damned lie, and multitasking" that hinders true productivity. It's a deeply ingrained habit that people defend, even when it leads to stress and inefficiency.

Rapid mental jumps. What people perceive as multitasking is actually "switchtasking"—rapidly shifting attention between two or more tasks that require mental effort. For instance, trying to answer an email while a coworker asks a "quick question" involves multiple mental switches: from email to coworker, back to email, then back to the coworker when the question needs repeating. This constant mental track-jumping happens so fast it creates the illusion of simultaneous work.

Computer analogy. The term "multitasking" originated in computing, referring to a central processing unit's "apparent simultaneous performance" of multiple tasks. A computer processor doesn't truly do two things at once; it switches between programs so quickly that it appears to be simultaneous. Human brains operate similarly, making switchtasking inherently less effective and efficient than focused, single-tasking.

2. Switchtasking Imposes Significant Hidden Costs

My point is that switchtasking is very costly. It is a less effective and less efficient way to get things done.

Micro-switching costs. Just as switching suppliers from Kansas to China incurs significant economic "switching costs" (learning new systems, language, logistics), rapidly switching between mental tasks incurs "micro-switching costs." Each time you break concentration on one task to attend to another, there's a cost in lost time and mental effort to reorient yourself.

Quantifying lost time. These micro-switches accumulate rapidly. In an average hour, with six interruptions (one every ten minutes), Helen's estimated switching costs totaled 32 minutes. This meant she could only focus on her primary task for about 30 minutes, with the longest uninterrupted period being just ten minutes. Studies show that, on average, employees lose 28% of their workday to interruptions and inefficiencies, while CEOs like Helen can lose up to 50%.

Impact on productivity. This constant switchtasking means a significant portion of payroll expense is effectively "thrown away." The more responsibility a person has and the more "hats" they wear, the more they are assaulted by interruptions and the more inefficient they become. This "law of switchtasking" directly impacts project completion, quality of work, and overall organizational output.

3. Differentiate Between Productive Background Tasking and Costly Switchtasking

Background tasking is when you perform two or more tasks where only one of those tasks requires mental effort.

Computer origins. The word "multitasking" was originally a computing term, describing the "apparent simultaneous performance" of tasks by a CPU. Humans mistakenly adopted this term to describe their own behavior, leading to the widespread belief that they could effectively perform multiple mentally demanding tasks at once. This misapplication of a technical term fueled the myth.

Defining background tasking. Unlike switchtasking, "background tasking" involves performing two or more tasks where only one requires mental effort. This can be an efficient use of time. Examples include:

• Eating dinner and watching TV
• Jogging and listening to music
• Working on your computer while a printer handles a large print job

The critical distinction. While background tasking has the potential to be efficient and effective when used properly, switchtasking—attempting to perform two or more tasks requiring mental effort simultaneously—is always less efficient and less effective. The key is to discern which activities truly demand your full mental focus and which can genuinely run in the background without cognitive interference.

4. Your Time Perception is Distorted: Uncover the Truth of Your 168 Hours

There are only 60 minutes in one hour, there are only 24 hours in a day, and there are only 168 hours in a week. And no matter how hard you try, no matter what you do, you will never be able to change that.

The illusion of more time. People who engage in switchtasking often develop a distorted sense of how long things actually take, leading to over-commitment. Helen, for example, estimated she was spending 190 hours a week on various activities, despite there being only 168 hours in a week. This "22 hours distorted" reality explains why she constantly felt "a day behind."

Time budgeting exercise. To confront this truth, a "Truth of Time" worksheet helps individuals broadly list and define all their weekly activities, such as:

• Lost Time (unavoidable small activities)
• Sleep
• Prep (showering, dressing)
• Work (including travel)
• Family Time
• Personal Recreation
  The goal is to estimate current hours for each, ensuring clear boundaries to avoid double-counting.

Confronting reality. The exercise reveals the stark reality of over-commitment. By totaling the estimated hours and reconciling them to the actual 168 hours in a week, individuals realize where they are "kidding themselves." This realization, though sometimes somber, provides clarity and the opportunity to make conscious choices and create a realistic "future time budget," aligning actions with priorities.

5. Eliminate Uncertainty by Establishing Clear "Whens" for Communication

If you give your employees a clear when, a when they can count on, then the fear goes away.

The "when" problem. Employees often interrupt and linger because they don't know "when" they will get another chance to speak with their manager. This uncertainty creates fear, causing them to "squeeze every little bit" out of an interaction, leading to constant interruptions and prolonged conversations. Helen's employees, for instance, had learned not to let go once they had her attention.

Recurring meetings. A powerful solution is to establish predictable "whens" through recurring meetings. For frequently interacting individuals like Sally, a daily 30-minute meeting provides a reliable window for discussion. This "magic" reduces sporadic interruptions because employees learn to hold off most questions until their scheduled time, knowing they will be heard.

• Daily meetings for dedicated personal assistants or high-needs relationships (Needs Score > 18)
• Weekly for moderate needs (14-17)
• Semi-monthly for most (6-13)
• Monthly or less for low needs (< 6)

Clear availability expectations. For non-emergency interruptions from others, setting "personal store hours" or using structured voicemail messages (like James's example, returning calls at 10 AM, 2 PM, 4 PM) creates clear expectations of availability. This predictability builds respect and trust, as people learn to rely on scheduled times rather than urgency, significantly reducing random drop-ins and phone calls.

6. Proactively Minimize Both Active and Passive Interruptions

Remind yourself to hold off switching from one thing to another whenever you are in control of your schedule.

Resist active switches. Active switches are self-initiated task changes, such as deciding to check email or make a call in the middle of another task. To minimize these, individuals must cultivate self-control and consciously resist the urge to constantly jump between activities. This means being disciplined about focusing on one attention-requiring task at a time and only switching when truly necessary or planned.

Minimize passive switches. Passive switches are interruptions initiated by external factors. These can be drastically reduced through strategic actions:

• Turn off notifications: Disable computer alerts for new emails, instant messages, and text messages.
• Strategic communication: Restrict company communication to active interruption methods like voicemail or email, rather than "in-your-face" instant messaging. If IM is necessary, use "Do Not Disturb" features.
• Screen calls: Utilize receptionists or structured voicemail to manage incoming phone calls, returning them in batches during designated times.

Strategic scheduling. Beyond managing interruptions, proactive scheduling is vital. This includes scheduling ample travel time between appointments to avoid rushing and using a calendar for all commitments. By taking control of one's schedule and minimizing both self-imposed and external interruptions, individuals can protect their focus and significantly enhance efficiency.

7. Relationships Suffer Greatly from Segmented Attention

When we give people segmented attention, piecemeal time, switching back and forth, the switching cost is higher than just the time involved. We end up damaging relationships.

The human cost. Switchtasking extends beyond productivity to deeply impact human relationships. Observing Tracy ignore an intern, Jason, while checking her phone, or Helen realizing she was switchtasking on her own children, highlights how segmented attention makes people feel unimportant and unheard. This lack of presence erodes the quality of interaction, leaving others feeling dejected or ignored.

Eroding trust and respect. When individuals consistently receive "piecemeal time" or "segmented attention," it damages trust and respect. Whether it's family, friends, or coworkers, the message conveyed is "you are not my priority." This emotional switching cost is often overlooked but can lead to significant long-term damage, creating distance and resentment, as people feel they are just "one task among many."

Business impact. This relational damage has tangible business consequences. If employees switchtask while dealing with customers, it hurts customer satisfaction. Customers who feel uncared for will eventually take their business elsewhere. Similarly, sales representatives who switchtask during client interactions can undermine relationships and ultimately impact sales, proving that the cost of switchtasking extends far beyond mere time loss.

8. Lead by Example: Personal Systems Drive Organizational Change

The business truly is a reflection of its owner.

Leader's influence. The culture of a company—its stress levels, efficiency, and overall atmosphere—is a direct reflection of its leader. Phil observed GreenGarb's "controlled chaos" and knew it mirrored Helen's own overwhelmed state. Attempts to change culture through superficial means like fun break rooms or parties are often ineffective if the underlying personal systems of leadership remain chaotic.

Prioritizing personal systems. For true organizational change, the leader must first transform their own "personal systems"—how they manage email, voicemail, ideas, workspace, and calendar. Without clear, solid personal systems, the leader remains "at the mercy of everyone and everything else," leading to inconsistency and perpetuating the cycle of switchtasking within the company.

Cascading effect. Once the leader masters their personal systems, the positive impact cascades throughout the organization. Helen's personal change—focused family time, protected work blocks, attentive meetings—inspired her managers and employees. They observed her increased focus and reduced switchtasking, leading them to adopt similar behaviors. By changing the leader, and then the managers, each division and ultimately the entire business begins to reflect a new, more efficient, and respectful culture.

9. Sustainable Change Begins with Understanding the "Why"

Remember that helping people understand the simple truth will help them change their behavior faster than simply trying to get them to change their behavior.

Resistance to change. People are often proud of their "multitasking" abilities and will resist any attempts to change this behavior if they don't understand why it's detrimental. Sally's initial skepticism and Helen's own pride in her "Queen of Multitasking" title illustrate this resistance. Simply telling people to stop switchtasking without explaining its hidden costs and inefficiencies will likely be met with defiance.

The process of realization. True, sustainable change comes from a step-by-step process of understanding the "simple truth." This involves:

• Recognizing that multitasking is a lie (switchtasking).
• Understanding the significant costs (time, productivity, relationships).
• Confronting the distorted perception of time (the 168-hour reality).
• Experiencing the benefits of focused attention (like Helen's family dinner).
  This educational journey helps individuals internalize the "why" behind the change.

Beyond mere behavior. If Phil had simply told Helen to spend more time with her family or focus more on people, she would have dismissed him. Instead, he guided her to discover these truths herself. Similarly, expecting managers to change their habits without first helping them understand that their long-held pride in "multitasking" is actually hurting them and the company is unrealistic. Understanding precedes lasting behavioral transformation.

Last updated: November 18, 2025