Re: [CriticalChain] The Case for Multi-Tasking
- 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.perhaps in other words, multitasking is perhaps a relative term. we'll
> And as a result, it may be either a good or bad or neutral byproduct of the
> basic practice.
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
- 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
On 2 February 2012 19:24, Jack Dahlgren <jack.dahlgren@...> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:03 AM, David Peterson <david@...>
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:18 PM, David Peterson <david@...> wrote:
> Yeah, I was thinking along similar lines; correlation, not causation. If aI think you will be disappointed. In fact the examples they gave
> 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.
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