Guest
Writer: Moira Allen
Is
Multitasking Good for Writers? (or
anyone else)
Link to this article here:
http://www.writing-world.com/coffee/coffee78.shtml
Show
me a writer who doesn't "multitask," and I'll show you...
well,
I'm not sure what. But I'm not worried
about being held to my half of that sentence!
I seriously doubt that, in today's "do 50
things before breakfast" world, you could show me that writer.
Let's
face it: We all do it. We have no
choice. As I've said before, the speed
at which we can do things hasn't saved us labor.
It's
simply caused us to have to perform 10 tasks in the time once required for one.
The
problem is not that we multitask. Again,
in many cases, we have no choice. The
problem is that many of us have been led to believe that multitasking is a good
thing because it speeds up our work and increases our productivity. After all, it stands to reason that if you
can do two things at the same time, they'll both get done faster than if you
did them sequentially, right?
Unfortunately,
studies are showing that this isn't true.
In fact, it seems that multitasking can actually DECREASE your productivity --
by as much as 40%! In plainer words,
that means that either one will accomplish 40% less while multitasking, or that
the actual time required to complete one's tasks may increase by 40%. I think.
Studies also show that multitasking increases the chance of error.
Which
makes me feel loads better, because I was beginning to wonder if I just
"wasn't doing it right." One
of my most common forms of multitasking is to work on Project A on my computer,
while scanning articles and images for my Victorian website on the scanner
sitting next to my desk. Scanning is
boring. I can't handle just sitting
there and turning pages, so it seems logical to multitask: Work on something
else, and pause to flip pages as needed.
Only
it doesn't tend to work that way.
Instead of making good progress on Project A, and getting a pile of
scanning done, I find that BOTH projects actually tend to suffer. All too often, I get distracted from Project
A (and turn to something simpler, like e-mail or checking my eBay sales or
playing a game). As for the scanning,
all too often I end up rescanning the same page because I forgot whether I
actually pushed the button.
My
husband can attest to another hazard of "multitasking." When we lived in Virginia, my office was downstairs,
the kitchen upstairs.
Many
a dinner -- and many a pan or teakettle -- burned to a crisp because I'd pop
downstairs to do "one quick thing" while cooking.
That's
one reason why I always use a whistling teakettle, even though today my office
is in the "breakfast nook" and the rate of burned dinners has
decreased dramatically.
Mothers
have multitasked for millennia, so I figured the problem wasn't simply that I
was a dinosaur, less hardwired to multitasking than the generation born with a
cell phone grafted to its fingers.
So
I decided to check a few articles to see whether the problem was more than
"just me."
Unfortunately,
although there are many articles on the evils of multitasking, those articles
themselves can be confusing, as they provide different "examples" of
what the author thinks multitasking actually is. One, for instance, sets up an example of a
woman fixing a meal (I'm not sure which meal, since it involves eggs and a
salad). The article defines mixing the
eggs and washing the lettuce as "multitasking" steps, while heating
the pan is "parallel processing."
In my mind, this is not multitasking at all; it is simply a set of steps
involved in the single task of "preparing a meal." Multitasking, to me, would be preparing the
meal while popping back to my computer to answer e-mail. Other articles describe
"exercising" and "listening to music" as a form of
multitasking, and again, I disagree.
Most of us use music as an integral part of exercising, to set the tempo
for our workout.
We're
not doing two separate things - but if we were attempting to work out and hold
a conversation, we might be.
Pursuing
different projects within the same general time frame - i.e., during the same
week or even the same day - is also not "multitasking." If one works on Project A for one hour and
Project B for the next, or Project A on Monday and Project B on Tuesday, with
the goal of completing five projects by Friday, this is not multitasking. Working on several projects at once is not
the same as working on them simultaneously.
Otherwise, we wouldn't need such concepts as "prioritizing" or
"scheduling."
So
here's my definition of "multitasking": being engaged simultaneously
in two or more activities that require a comparable amount of concentration. For example, I cannot switch pages on the
scanner without removing my focus from the computer. I must physically turn my chair, lift the
book or magazine from the platform, turn the page, reposition the item, close
the lid and push the button. It requires
both hands, both eyes, and a modicum of brain power. If I am, say, editing this newsletter at the
same time, that task also requires both hands (on the keyboard), both eyes (on
the screen), my chair to be positioned facing the computer, and (one hopes) a
modicum of brain power.
In
short, multitasking involves what researchers describe as
"switching." One is not,
actually, doing two things at once. One
is rapidly switching between tasks - edit a paragraph, "switch off" from
that task, turn the chair, reposition the book on the scanner, "switch
off" from that task, turn back, edit the next paragraph.
Each
switch requires a certain amount of physical adjustment (turn chair, take hands
off keyboard, move book, hit button, turn chair, put hands back on
keyboard). But more importantly to
researchers, it requires a mental adjustment, known as "goal
switching." Once you switch goals,
the next step is "role activation" - I must go into edit mode, then
into scan mode, then into edit mode. In
each mode, I must focus on the types of tasks or steps involved in THAT task,
and "switch off" the focus on the alternate task.
Even
though the time involved in "goal switching" and "role
activation" can be just a few tenths of a second, these switches add
up. More significantly for writers, the
more concentration that is required by a task (such as writing), the more we
are likely to be distracted by the constant interruptions of multitasking. It's hard for a stream of thought to flow if
it is constantly being diverted.
Obviously,
we're not going to stop. There are too
many demands on our time to hope that we can avoid multitasking altogether.
However,
if you're feeling frustrated, blocked, and unable to concentrate, this could be
the culprit. Once you realize that
multitasking isn't actually going to get your work done significantly faster,
it can be reserved for the tasks that require the least brain-power. And writing definitely isn't one of those
tasks!
Here
are some interesting articles on the topic:
You
Say Multitasking Like It's a Good Thing, by Charles Abate http://www.nea.org/home/30584.htm
Multitasking:
Good or Bad? By Roger Kay, Forbes http://onforb.es/M91bUE
Reprinted with permission from
Moira Allen, Editor