Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CriticalChain] The Case for Multi-Tasking

Expand Messages
  • Raoul Duke
    ... perhaps in other words, multitasking is perhaps a relative term. we ll always be multitasking. yes there s level 1 vs. type 2 etc. cue Mr. Leach.
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 2, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Jack Dahlgren <jack.dahlgren@...> wrote:
      > I agree too, but multi-tasking is not the cause of this. It is the result.
      > And as a result, it may be either a good or bad or neutral byproduct of the
      > basic practice.

      perhaps in other words, multitasking is perhaps a relative term. we'll
      always be multitasking. yes there's "level 1" vs. "type 2" etc. cue
      Mr. Leach. presumably we can't get rid of even the higher level
      non-motor-memory multitasking entirely because then we'd be making bad
      decisions overall. so there's some amount that's actually healthy and
      then at some point it tips over into bad news, the bottle, and heart
      attacks?
    • David Peterson
      Yeah, I was thinking along similar lines; correlation, not causation. If a company is very successful, with high demand for its services, then there will be a
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 2, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Yeah, I was thinking along similar lines; correlation, not causation. If a
        company is very successful, with high demand for its services, then there
        will be a lot of decisions to make and a lot of urgent issues to deal with.
        Multi-tasking correlates with success, but it's a symptom not the cause.

        I guess I should read the paper because I'm sure the authors will have
        addressed this.

        David




        On 2 February 2012 19:24, Jack Dahlgren <jack.dahlgren@...> wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM, David Peterson <david@...>
        > wrote:
        > > Just to rile Tony...
        > >
        > > https://www.cassknowledge.com/research/article/case-multitasking
        > >
        > > *"We found that the financial performance of companies with highly
        >
        > > polychronic teams was 39% better than that of companies whose teams
        > > exhibited average polychronicity and 130% better than that of companies
        > led
        > > by monochronic teams."*
        >
        > >
        > > Their theory is that when facing frequent interruptions, managers are
        > > forced to make decisions rapidly, which appears to be financially
        > > beneficial. I haven't read the paper though - only the summary - so I
        > don't
        > > know how they measure financial performance.
        > >
        > > David
        >
        > One of the elements they cite as being important is insight based on
        > having quick access to information that is provided by interruptions
        > and context switching. I've not fully considered this, but at first
        > glance multitasking in this environment seems to be a symptom and not
        > a cause.
        >
        > I'm not disputing that there may be correlation, but if you just ask
        > an executive to multi-task more I do not believe you will get better
        > performance out of them.
        >
        > -Jack
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Jack Dahlgren
        ... I think you will be disappointed. In fact the examples they gave showed that the difference between the two groups were that in the non-multitask
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 2, 2012
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:18 PM, David Peterson <david@...> wrote:
          > Yeah, I was thinking along similar lines; correlation, not causation. If a
          > company is very successful, with high demand for its services, then there
          > will be a lot of decisions to make and a lot of urgent issues to deal with.
          > Multi-tasking correlates with success, but it's a symptom not the cause.
          >
          > I guess I should read the paper because I'm sure the authors will have
          > addressed this.
          >
          > David

          I think you will be disappointed. In fact the examples they gave
          showed that the difference between the two groups were that in the
          non-multitask environments, people shielded themselves from reality
          through the use of secretaries which in the other group they were open
          to direct contact. I don't think they thought very deeply about other
          possible explanations.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.