Multitasking = not doing anything well?

[trax]

I thought of not trying that, but didn't want to set my sights too low.

[crashdive123]

Wife: What did you do today?

Husband: Nothing.

Wife: What are you going to do tomorrow?

Husband: Nothing.

Wife: That's what you did today!

Husband: I didn't get a chance to finish.

[Geronimo!]

$hit! I forgot what I was gonna say... I was watching a video of a guy slipping on oil and doing the splits.

Edit: On a serious note, I stopped multi-tasking when I started sending my girlfriend work reports and love letters to my boss.

[Rick]

About the only time I multitask is in the bathroom. I can brush my teeth, hum and snap my fingers at the same time. What did you think I meant?

[Pal334]

Or it could be for people who are so loaded up in an understaffed work environment that they could work 24/7 and still not get everything done perfectly.
Doing one thing at a time and doing it well is a luxury that many of us can just dream about. That, and retiring with a gold watch after 30 years of employment by the same company.

I can appreciate that many think that way. However if you track the amount of time doing the work "one at a time" and the haphazard method of multi tasking you will see that multi tasking wastes much of the time that is alledgedly being saved. I can not speak for others, but the product I provide has to be consistently on time and always accurate and well done. I personally will not hire a professed "multi tasker" they are too much of a liability

[BENESSE]

I can appreciate that many think that way. However if you track the amount of time doing the work "one at a time" and the haphazard method of multi tasking you will see that multi tasking wastes much of the time that is alledgedly being saved. I can not speak for others, but the product I provide has to be consistently on time and always accurate and well done. I personally will not hire a professed "multi tasker" they are too much of a liability

Pal, I think it all comes down to where one works and what one does.
Some professions call for 100% laser-like focus (bus drivers, surgeons, carpenters, snipers, hopefully pilots, etc.) and for others it's not as vital. I don't particularly enjoy it but it's a fact of my professional life and I have to grin and bear it. You don't get any points for saying...I can't take on any more assignments, or else I won't be able to do a good job on the few I have. You are simply expected to do great work no matter how much you've got on your plate; if it takes you 24/7 no one cares; if you do shoddy work or miss deadlines you won't be around too long.
That's just how it is in my world and the world of a lot of people I know. We've just learned how to work smarter and be more efficient.

[Rick]

......or blame it on the other person. That works, too.

[Pal334]

My point is that if you do not multitask, the end result of work is actually a bit higher out put and certainly the quality is better. I have seen engineering environments abandon multi tasking and end up more productive.

And I guess I am a stubborn old man. When someone I contract work from gives me their BS line of being understaffed as an excuse for lower quality ,sloppy work, I make it clear to them that they are "off the list" for future work. Typically this means they are charging the same prices and utilizing fewer resources (balancing the corporation on the employees back). And that is something I will not condone

[Batch]

I think of the ability to multitask as being able to handle the small fires that pop-up while dealing with the primary task at hand.

Time management is going to be about priorities. It doesn't make much sense to put the fire drill down to explain what is taking so long in procuring fire.
I think knowing when to multitask is as important as knowing how to multitask.

I also agree you are more productive if you finish the task at hand first. But, this is an imperfect world.

[Rick]

In all seriousness, I think multi-tasking is an important tool that has its place but it shouldn't be, in my opinion, the primary mode of operation. It's just one more tool in the tool box. That said, I know a lot of corporations, big and small, attempt to squeeze the very last drop of work out of every employee by adding multiple tasks to their plate. That's a disservice to the employee and, ultimately, the customer. The productivity will generally go down, not up, which reduces the profit margin and usually increases the price to the customer.

The other piece is the employee. I've found that most folks work at a high stress level because they can not because they have to. Batch was spot on with his assessment.

[Pal334]

I guess again I am bull headed . Multi tasking is a wasteful use of resources. It is smoke and mirrors used by management to hide their inability to properly staff tasks, and using the employee as a disposable asset. They are managers, not leaders. Organizations with leaders far out strip the performance of manager run organizations.

And as one of my heroes (Forest Gump) said. "Thats all I have to say about that "

[Rick]

You're welcome to your opinion but I think you're only looking at one side of it. It isn't always management that forces multi-tasking. Very often it's the employee's course of action for whatever reason, good or bad. Nor is it about handling multiple projects at one time. You multi-task everyday but it's probably on a smaller scale. Do you discuss business over lunch? Do you file those papers away while on the phone? Do you open your postal mail while having that spreadsheet open? Do you ever look at that girl walking down the street while driving? (You know you do). It's the little things we do day in and day out.

Where's the break even point when a person goes from efficient to inefficient? Depends on the person.

[your_comforting_company]

I don't call it multitasking in my profession, but any time you can get 2 things done with 1 effort, DO IT. A really good example is tearing shingles off a roof. I use a flat (square) shovel to remove the shingles and nails at the same time.. saves a lot of time going back to pull the nails. Keeping your work area (where you are tearing off) cleaned toward the next work area (where you will be tearing off next) almost eliminates the need to sweep, or at least greatly reduces the amount of time it takes to sweep. I call it "two birds with one stone", and you know "a bird in the hand..."
on a side note.. I can fish with one pole and bait another at the same time.. does that count?

[your_comforting_company]

yep.. depends on the person. Good work ethic and tact go a long way in being efficient.

[Rick]

You know, of course, that you set yourself up, YCC. I'm having the hardest time not responding to your post. It's just too easy, however, and I'm a better smart*** than that.

[crashdive123]

Yeah - nobody around here would have any jokes about baiting a fish hook. Especially if the fella seemed like the master of the task.

[Pal334]

You're welcome to your opinion but I think you're only looking at one side of it. It isn't always management that forces multi-tasking. Very often it's the employee's course of action for whatever reason, good or bad. Nor is it about handling multiple projects at one time. You multi-task everyday but it's probably on a smaller scale. Do you discuss business over lunch? Do you file those papers away while on the phone? Do you open your postal mail while having that spreadsheet open? Do you ever look at that girl walking down the street while driving? (You know you do). It's the little things we do day in and day out.

Where's the break even point when a person goes from efficient to inefficient? Depends on the person.

THose are not multi tasking. The way I have defined multitasking is having multiple tasks open and working them at the same time. Not working anyone task to conclusion, but deliberately work each a bit at a time. The examples you gave to me are just normal activities, not multi tasking.

[Rick]

And who said we had to go by your definition, Mr. Merriam-Webster?

[cyc79]

I remember years ago the same criticism was leveled at hot dogs. At the time, they wanted to make hot dogs with a hollow center running through it so if a child did get a piece of hotdog lodged in their throat they would still be able to breath. No word on how that would work if it lodged sideways.

It could be marketed with the name "survival drinking straw".When finished drinking,you can eat it.

[mcgyver]

They had a Doctor on our local radio station this morning.

They finally got around to this hot dog issue.

They asked him his opinion of how to redesign a "Choke proof wiener".

His response was simple.

Direct.

And utterly hilarious....
.
.
.
"Just make it too big to fit in their mouth."

In short, Chew the dang thing.