Multi-tasking vs Quality Work

[INTJMom]

I was recently asked this question on a pre-interview questionnaire.

"There are times when multi-tasking is necessary between ongoing day to day work and special circumstances that require press coverage or other activity. How would you describe your ability to focus on more than one task at a time without sacrificing quality in your work?"

Is there a personality type that can pull this off? What type is it?

I find it hard to believe that it's actually humanly possible, probably because I am a perfectionist.
I can multi-task but the quality of the work is going to suffer a little.
How can it not?!
I know that "multi-tasking" is the buzzword out there.
I just don't believe it's possible to do both - multi-task AND not let the quality of your work suffer.
Or am I the only one who has trouble with this?

[Antisocial one]

It all depends on what you are doing.


I prefer focus on one thing because that is the only way I can get the depth I want.

[cascademn]

Hmm...multitasking has been labeled one of my strengths at work, and I don't think the quality has been sacrificed as a result, as I've also been cited as having high quality!

I actually find I can be most energized at work when I suddenly have a lot of things that I'm having to juggle. It's like my mind has to go into hyperdrive and it keeps things interesting. Almost like my mind has more clarity all of a sudden and I can calculate the fastest way to get things done -- but not sacrificing quality. BUT while this can be exhilarating for me, it can also be quite draining.

I don't know...it's an interesting question. I think the quality question will depend on the type of work involved, and also how 'perfect' you want the results to be -- i.e. minimum necessary to meet requirements/needs, or going above minimum and putting in extra touches that might not *really* be necessary.

[Jack Flak]

In an occupational capacity, it's one of my major strengths, and has been recognized. Five things at once, pick up the last thing where I left off, no problemo. Speed and quality are not a problem. I trust my N/T to make snap decisions and rarely fail.

Not at work? Count yourself lucky if I'm doing anything productive.

[kelric]

I was recently asked this question on a pre-interview questionnaire.

"There are times when multi-tasking is necessary between ongoing day to day work and special circumstances that require press coverage or other activity. How would you describe your ability to focus on more than one task at a time without sacrificing quality in your work?"

Is there a personality type that can pull this off? What type is it?

I find it hard to believe that it's actually humanly possible, probably because I am a perfectionist.
I can multi-task but the quality of the work is going to suffer a little.
How can it not?!
I know that "multi-tasking" is the buzzword out there.
I just don't believe it's possible to do both - multi-task AND not let the quality of your work suffer.
Or am I the only one who has trouble with this?

I think you're right... in fact, I'm almost positive. You can task-switch between multiple things, but the quality *will* suffer. Not much doubt about it - I ran into a book discussing this the other day in the bookstore (can't remember the title :(), and basically it said that it's a neurological fact - there is degradation of quality, response time, etc. when trying to juggle multiple tasks, be they mental or physical. You'll tend to prioritize them, and spend more time and effort on the more important one, but performance of both will suffer. Now if they're both trivial, you may be fine anyway (the old "walk and chew gum at the same time" thing), but for anything that takes effort it's just not possible to do two things as well as one. I don't think personality type really has much to do with it.

In my somewhat cynical opinion, this question really means "tell me that you can do multiple things perfectly at once, so that, if hired, I can pile multiple things on you and interrupt you constantly, and then blame you if you can't handle it all flawlessly."

I'm not sure how I'd answer this question (which, like you say, is sort of a buzzword-bingo thing anyway). Either make up a bunch of BS (probably what most people do), or approach it at the level of prioritization - knowing what's important to focus on at any given moment, with the understanding that true simultaneous focus isn't possible. Explain things like how you might allocate time to focus on different things throughout the day, or how you might handle an interruption almost immediately, but after taking a few short notes on what you were focusing on pre-interruption so that you can get back to it easily later.

I believe that it also changes as you age... younger people (early 20's ish) tend to be better at juggling multiple things, but older people tend to be better at prioritizing. I know that I'm very, very annoyed when I'm trying to focus on something and I get interrupted by someone wanting something (which happens a lot at work). My tendency is to want to say, "shut up and leave me alone and let me finish what I'm doing!" (although I never do). That might be a personality thing :D.

But enough rambling... short answer... I think you're right :).

[substitute]

Yup. It's me.
I actually produce better results if I multitask than if I focus on one thing.
If I focus on one thing, I get bored very quickly and then don't pay much attention, and tend to rush it off to get it done quicker. Inferior result.
If I'm multitasking, the stimulation of it keeps my brain very active and I'm better able to pay attention to each thing that I'm doing simultaneously. Multiple superior results.

[Aimahn]

Yea I think this might have some type implications. I know personally with my INTJ dad he is the type that really maximizes his results if he is working on one thing. Me on the other hand I'm much like substitute, my mind just seems to turn on and be a hell of a lot more resourceful and my attention does not wander. I have been diagnosed with ADD so that may be a reason but honestly more is better is something I sort of live by when it comes to attention(within reason). Guess its that lack of Te I need more information to choose from because I'm not ruthlessly efficient in organizing. I would parse too much or retain too much.

[Hirsch63]

In my somewhat cynical opinion, this question really means "tell me that you can do multiple things perfectly at once, so that, if hired, I can pile multiple things on you and interrupt you constantly, and then blame you if you can't handle it all flawlessly."

"Quality" needs to be defined...not verbally, written down. Most HR operatives would be loathe to do this I suspect. Quality on an assembly line differs from that in a tailoring establishment. I suspect that quality in the hiring context means "how much can we pile on you at our whim and your performance will not vary?" or "can you play this word-game?". A dynamic office environment certainly will require multi-tasking and rather more as a rule than an exception. With that in mind a competent manager should be able to arrange available resources to achieve the desired level of quality. More often than not I have found managers of all abilities tasked with producing "quality" without the necessary resources.

I can take some multi-tasking as long as I have seen that the overall system that I am working within is a sucessful model. What I can't tolerate is when a flawed or incompetent system of management tries to compensate by squeezing resources beyond a prudent limit for no discernable gain.

At the end of interviews with these type of questions I'll say "I can do anything you ask of me as long as you provide the necessary tools and resources". This usually leaves them looking baffled and suspicious as if I said something sinister.

[Usehername]

I'm pretty sure there's studies out there that have proven unless there's some attention deficit, no one is better at multi-tasking than individually addressing each topic. Have I seen these studies? No. I am just assuming.

Just duck the straight yes/no answer and go on to say you are extraordinarily competent at "maintaining superior results" while multitasking.

Maintenance of the same results would be a lie for an IxxJ, but maintenance of "superior results" is a categorical, more vague definition of the word, and thus lets you answer it the way the phrasing clearly expects a "right" answer without any lying involved.

Any idiot that phrases a question like that clearly doesn't know what they're looking for when they're hiring someone anyway. They just want a competent and likable employee, which you are. Tell them why they should want you.

[Aimahn]

^ I think the difference lies in motivation. Some people just won't be as motivated if they're working on just one thing and some people are only motivated when they can invest all their resources and energies in one thing. Quality obviously will decrease with the more tasks you incur but some people can't rev up the motivation in order for that difference to be very noticeable in a singular task.

I agree though, that was not a well worded question.

[bluemonday]

Yep, I can multi-task. For example, I'm currently replying to you, ironing about 3 years worth of ironing, singing, dancing and drinking, all at the same time. I can't vouch for the quality of the ironing...or the singing....the drinking is good tho'....

[Tallulah]

I think NTPs generally like to multitask. Even when I'm hanging out on the forums, I'm thinking about/reading 3 or 4 things at once. Maybe it's because we're more about the process than the result?

I think you're maybe focusing too much on the "without sacrificing quality" phrase--as long as there isn't a huge dip in quality, it's no big deal.

Now, I'm not all that great at multitasking if it involves something really boring, like the bureaucratic record-keeping stuff that goes along with being a teacher.

[Jae Rae]

I'm pretty sure there's studies out there that have proven unless there's some attention deficit, no one is better at multi-tasking than individually addressing each topic. Have I seen these studies? No. I am just assuming.

Just duck the straight yes/no answer and go on to say you are extraordinarily competent at "maintaining superior results" while multitasking.

Maintenance of the same results would be a lie for an IxxJ, but maintenance of "superior results" is a categorical, more vague definition of the word, and thus lets you answer it the way the phrasing clearly expects a "right" answer without any lying involved.

Any idiot that phrases a question like that clearly doesn't know what they're looking for when they're hiring someone anyway. They just want a competent and likable employee, which you are. Tell them why they should want you.


Great answer.

[ygolo]

For me multi-tasking usually results in lower quality.

Actually "focus on multiple tasks at once" seems like a contradiction in terms to me since, if your attention is divided between multiple things, then it is not focused, by definition.

---
I do sometimes feel a bit of a rush of believing I'm accomplishing a lot of things done at the same time by multi-tasking. But most of the time, I have had to repay the benefit by correcting for mistakes or having to completely re-do what I did earlier.

---
I suspect extroverts may be more likely to say they multi-task well. Especially, the "Get-Things-Going" types (ENFP, ESFP, ENTP, ESFJ).

I think multi-tasking may be effective for "executive" job positions, that rely on other individuals to take care of the actually quality of work-- because there isn't "quality" per say in the act of delegation. It is more about getting people on tasks and getting them working, than really doing some sort of high-quality assignment of tasks.

Of course, longer-term placement of people in positions would require more care.

----
Interestingly, from a computational perspective, this is similar to the problem computer architects and software engineers have in making use of multiple threads of execution.

On the one hand, you get the hardware utilization up, so that execution units, etc. aren't as idle as serial execution.

On the other hand, the programs get more complicated--you have to pay for the overhead of parallelizing the tasks, which includes synchronization between tasks and maintaining coherence of the data being shared.

---

Anyone read CrazyBusy (http://www.amazon.com/CrazyBusy-Overstretched-Overbooked-Strategies-Coping/dp/0345482433)?
I suspect substitute has because of the story about using a rotary telephone.

[INTJMom]

I think you're right... in fact, I'm almost positive. You can task-switch between multiple things, but the quality *will* suffer. Not much doubt about it - I ran into a book discussing this the other day in the bookstore (can't remember the title :(), and basically it said that it's a neurological fact - there is degradation of quality, response time, etc. when trying to juggle multiple tasks, be they mental or physical. You'll tend to prioritize them, and spend more time and effort on the more important one, but performance of both will suffer. Now if they're both trivial, you may be fine anyway (the old "walk and chew gum at the same time" thing), but for anything that takes effort it's just not possible to do two things as well as one. I don't think personality type really has much to do with it.
You're right about what the book said. I've been doing some searching around online and I found out that task-switching usually takes so much time that it usually ends up being counter productive.

That same article also said this:
"In 2005, the BBC reported on a research study, funded by Hewlett-Packard and conducted by the Institute of Psychiatry at the University of London, that found, “Workers distracted by e-mail and phone calls suffer a fall in IQ more than twice that found in marijuana smokers.”" :smile:
The New Atlantis (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-myth-of-multitasking)

In my somewhat cynical opinion, this question really means "tell me that you can do multiple things perfectly at once, so that, if hired, I can pile multiple things on you and interrupt you constantly, and then blame you if you can't handle it all flawlessly."LOL! I suspected the very same thing!

Yup. It's me.
I actually produce better results if I multitask than if I focus on one thing.
If I focus on one thing, I get bored very quickly and then don't pay much attention, and tend to rush it off to get it done quicker. Inferior result.
If I'm multitasking, the stimulation of it keeps my brain very active and I'm better able to pay attention to each thing that I'm doing simultaneously. Multiple superior results.
Show off. :devil:

"Quality" needs to be defined...not verbally, written down. Most HR operatives would be loathe to do this I suspect. Quality on an assembly line differs from that in a tailoring establishment. I suspect that quality in the hiring context means "how much can we pile on you at our whim and your performance will not vary?" or "can you play this word-game?". A dynamic office environment certainly will require multi-tasking and rather more as a rule than an exception. With that in mind a competent manager should be able to arrange available resources to achieve the desired level of quality. More often than not I have found managers of all abilities tasked with producing "quality" without the necessary resources.

I can take some multi-tasking as long as I have seen that the overall system that I am working within is a sucessful model. What I can't tolerate is when a flawed or incompetent system of management tries to compensate by squeezing resources beyond a prudent limit for no discernable gain.

At the end of interviews with these type of questions I'll say "I can do anything you ask of me as long as you provide the necessary tools and resources". This usually leaves them looking baffled and suspicious as if I said something sinister.
tee-hee
I agree. I need to understand exactly when she means by multi-tasking. I am a mother. I do sometimes feel like I'm doing 5 things at once! It does depend on how complicated the job is as to whether the quality is going to suffer.
But look at what I found today:
"psychologist René Marois of Vanderbilt University, have used fMRI to demonstrate the brain’s response to handling multiple tasks. Marois found evidence of a “response selection bottleneck” that occurs when the brain is forced to respond to several stimuli at once. As a result, task-switching leads to time lost as the brain determines which task to perform.
...
But his research has also found that multitasking contributes to the release of stress hormones and adrenaline, which can cause long-term health problems if not controlled, and contributes to the loss of short-term memory."
The New Atlantis (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-myth-of-multitasking)

[INTJMom]

Yea I think this might have some type implications. I know personally with my INTJ dad he is the type that really maximizes his results if he is working on one thing. Me on the other hand I'm much like substitute, my mind just seems to turn and be a hell of a lot more resourceful and my attention does not wander. I have been diagnosed with ADD so that may be a reason but honestly more is better is something I sort of live by when it comes to attention(within reason). Guess its that lack of Te I need more information to choose from because I'm not ruthlessly efficient in organizing. I would parse too much or retain too much.
So if it's that hectic of an office, she really needs an xNxP, I'm thinking.

I'm pretty sure there's studies out there that have proven unless there's some attention deficit, no one is better at multi-tasking than individually addressing each topic. Have I seen these studies? No. I am just assuming.
Your memory serves you correctly. I was just looking at some of it online.

Just duck the straight yes/no answer and go on to say you are extraordinarily competent at "maintaining superior results" while multitasking.I already returned my questionnaire to her. I was actually going to print out some articles and try to disabuse her of her faulty notions! :smile:

Maintenance of the same results would be a lie for an IxxJ, but maintenance of "superior results" is a categorical, more vague definition of the word, and thus lets you answer it the way the phrasing clearly expects a "right" answer without any lying involved.Ah. I see. That would have better than what I said. :blush:

Any idiot that phrases a question like that clearly doesn't know what they're looking for when they're hiring someone anyway. They just want a competent and likable employee, which you are. Tell them why they should want you.Awww. What a sweetheart! :wubbie: Thank you!
I tell you what. though. If she turns out to be an ESTJ, I am outta there! :run:

^ I think the difference lies in motivation. Some people just won't be as motivated if they're working on just one thing and some people are only motivated when they can invest all their resources and energies in one thing. Quality obviously will decrease with the more tasks you incur but some people can't rev up the motivation in order for that difference to be very noticeable in a singular task.

I agree though, that was not a well worded question.
I think I get what you're saying. I don't have that motivation problem because even as a kid it was always my goal to please my teachers and parents with my work.

[substitute]

:cry: It's like when Tallulah thought I was telling her what she feels... damned people telling me what I can and can't do! :steam:

[INTJMom]

I think NTPs generally like to multitask. Even when I'm hanging out on the forums, I'm thinking about/reading 3 or 4 things at once. Maybe it's because we're more about the process than the result?

I think you're maybe focusing too much on the "without sacrificing quality" phrase--as long as there isn't a huge dip in quality, it's no big deal.

Now, I'm not all that great at multitasking if it involves something really boring, like the bureaucratic record-keeping stuff that goes along with being a teacher.
Yes, I don't think it's honest to say that you can multi-task "without sacrificing quality". It depends on the quality necessary. But in her ad she specified "accurate data entry". Obviously that's something that has less mistakes if you don't get interrupted every 3 minutes. It's not fair to expect precision and multitasking, I don't think.

For me multi-tasking usually results in lower quality.

Actually "focus on multiple tasks at once" seems like a contradiction in terms to me since, if your attention is divided between multiple things, then it is not focused, by definition.
---
I do sometimes feel a bit of a rush of believing I'm accomplishing a lot of things done at the same time by multi-tasking. But most of the time, I have had to repay the benefit by correcting for mistakes or having to completely re-do what I did earlier.
---
I suspect extroverts may be more likely to say they multi-task well. Especially, the "Get-Things-Going" types (ENFP, ESFP, ENTP, ESFJ).

I think multi-tasking may be effective for "executive" job positions, that rely on other individuals to take care of the actually quality of work-- because there isn't "quality" per say in the act of delegation. It is more about getting people on tasks and getting them working, than really doing some sort of high-quality assignment of tasks.

Of course, longer-term placement of people in positions would require more care.
----
Interestingly, from a computational perspective, this is similar to the problem computer architects and software engineers have in making use of multiple threads of execution.

On the one hand, you get the hardware utilization up, so that execution units, etc. aren't as idle as serial execution.

On the other hand, the programs get more complicated--you have to pay for the overhead of parallelizing the tasks, which includes synchronization between tasks and maintaining coherence of the data being shared.
---
Anyone read CrazyBusy (http://www.amazon.com/CrazyBusy-Overstretched-Overbooked-Strategies-Coping/dp/0345482433)?
I suspect substitute has because of the story about using a rotary telephone.
I read about CrazyBusy online a little while ago.
"in his book he calls multitasking a “mythical activity in which people believe they can perform two or more tasks simultaneously.""

This was interesting:
"In one recent study, Russell Poldrack, a psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, found that “multitasking adversely affects how you learn. Even if you learn while multitasking, that learning is less flexible and more specialized, so you cannot retrieve the information as easily.” His research demonstrates that people use different areas of the brain for learning and storing new information when they are distracted: brain scans of people who are distracted or multitasking show activity in the striatum, a region of the brain involved in learning new skills; brain scans of people who are not distracted show activity in the hippocampus, a region involved in storing and recalling information. Discussing his research on National Public Radio recently, Poldrack warned, “We have to be aware that there is a cost to the way that our society is changing, that humans are not built to work this way. We’re really built to focus. And when we sort of force ourselves to multitask, we’re driving ourselves to perhaps be less efficient in the long run even though it sometimes feels like we’re being more efficient.”"

And this concerned me:
"As neurologist Jordan Grafman told Time magazine: “Kids that are instant messaging while doing homework, playing games online and watching TV, I predict, aren’t going to do well in the long run.” “I think this generation of kids is guinea pigs,” educational psychologist Jane Healy told the San Francisco Chronicle; she worries that they might become adults who engage in “very quick but very shallow thinking.”"

[Aimahn]

I also read something similar recently about the way the brain learns and how our modern society is sort of at odds with that. I think the book was called Endangered Minds(Older like 93) but some of the same points were brought up in terms of entertainment and education. I think the author stated that part of the problem lay in the fact that there was not that much mental stimulation that occurred when you were watching tv(lack of interaction) and that the situation was so artificial and imposed that the brain really couldn't register and learn from it because the tv filled in some of the crucial gaps for you.

I think that kind of multi-tasking is no doubt destructive and not really beneficial( I still do it on occasion but television is severely limited). I think that in a more productive way though multi-tasking can have a decidedly or comparatively beneficial advantage depending on your stance(motivation wise).

I think a lot of people are familiar with the right/left brain split on a general level so I will not go into so much detail on that. Recently I read a book where the author(a neuro-psychologist/scientist that dealt with mental disabilities) found that in a novel situation most people used their right brain to interpret and organize information but as skill and proficiently increased they were transferred more to the left side of the brain, which increased efficiency and proficiency by making sort of a template( he called it wisdom..the book was called the "wisdom paradox").

I think though for those people who are more right brain dominant, which from the literature I've read linking type to brain dominance is more NP, need to sort of utilize novel information on a consistent basis to understand, which is what I think multi-tasking can greatly aid in. I'm sort of tentatively thinking the reason why NTPs like to multi-task is sort of a reluctance to transfer that knowledge into a more left brain oriented sequential-proficient way( could be more SJ oriented). I also find in terms of motivation when I can brainstorm and sort of implement my ideas in a more fluid way my motivation levels stay on a consistently high level, something which multi-tasking once again helps.

[substitute]

I recognize myself in your tentative theory Aimhann...

[ygolo]

I think a lot of people are familiar with the right/left brain split on a general level so I will not go into so much detail on that but I recently read a book where the author(a neuro-psychologist/scientist that dealt with mental disabilities) found that in a novel situation most people used their right brain to interpret and organize information but as skill and proficiently increased they were transferred more to the left side of the brain, which increased efficiency and proficiency by making sort of a template( he called it wisdom..the book was called the "wisdom paradox").


I read that book too. In addition, there was also a slight preference towards moving to the back of the brain rather than the front, which some other people have attributed to introversion over extroversion. Perhaps ENPs exhibit the preference for multi-tasking even more based on your theory Aimahn.

One of the reasons the left (and somewhat back) regions are associated with "wisdom" is because those areas of the brain last longer into old age and can be relied upon even when neurons are dying off faster than being replenished.

[substitute]

All of which is as much as to say, Ne, according to MBTI definitions, is tailor made for multi-tasking. So ENP's would naturally be good at it - better at it in fact, than its opposite. :rolleyes:

[Oleander]

I think multi-tasking compared to concentration compares well with animal reaction compared to thought. It is easy to multi-task things that require routine and little constant conscious thought and can bear interruption for immediate response. Women are supposed to be better at it than men but that is a comparison involving 'traditional' roles where women have often had several things going at once, none of them requiring constant attention or much thought while men have been in work that either requires constant attention but little thought on an assembly line or dedicated concentration in a 'profession'.

I don't believe that a female surgeon is any more capable of performing while conducting a conversation than a male, though she may be better at commenting on what she is doing simply because girls grow up less discouraged from talking about themselves. On the other hand, a professional team sportsman could be said to be multi-tasking if the detailed parts of what is involved in team sport are all treated as individual but integrated functions.

It is easy to multi-task activities that don't require much conscious attention. We do it all the time, unlike President Ford, most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time and even hold a phone conversation as well. We can't so easily drive through a city negotiating a contract on one phone and asking directions on another while discussion physics with a passenger and listening to a radio lecture on archeology.

[INTJMom]

Hmm...multitasking has been labeled one of my strengths at work, and I don't think the quality has been sacrificed as a result, as I've also been cited as having high quality!

I actually find I can be most energized at work when I suddenly have a lot of things that I'm having to juggle. It's like my mind has to go into hyperdrive and it keeps things interesting. Almost like my mind has more clarity all of a sudden and I can calculate the fastest way to get things done -- but not sacrificing quality. BUT while this can be exhilarating for me, it can also be quite draining.

I don't know...it's an interesting question. I think the quality question will depend on the type of work involved, and also how 'perfect' you want the results to be -- i.e. minimum necessary to meet requirements/needs, or going above minimum and putting in extra touches that might not *really* be necessary.
What type are you?
I ask because some INTPs and ENTPs say they do better when they are multitasking.

[Usehername]

All of which is as much as to say, Ne, according to MBTI definitions, is tailor made for multi-tasking. So ENP's would naturally be good at it - better at it in fact, than its opposite. :rolleyes:

Do you mean multitasking as in having multiple projects going at once, or in physically having one hand type out a report while the other hand does something else while you're on the phone having an important conversation?

I really don't think anyone is better at multitasking than single-tasking unless they are so ADD that the pressure to focus on one thing overwhelms their ability to do so.

[substitute]

I'll have to get back to you on that one. I'm at a disadvantage because of having not enough things to concentrate on at the moment, so I'm unable to give this thread proper thought.
:alttongue:

(edit - though I jest, it's not actually far from how I often feel in RL... need to be under pressure and bombarded to feel like kicking my brain into gear - one thing alone is too easily either dealt with, postponed or delegated, really not worth coming out of 'coasting' mode for)

[Aimahn]

I think the difference doesn't necessarily have to be as grand and ambitious as I think you're making it out to be. For example the other day me and my dad were sort of talking through a project my mom had to do in her Bio-Informatics course(getting her masters), his method was more extracting the bare essentials of the project and sort of creating a working functional model, I on the other hand needed to sort of do a lot of cross-referencing and questioning in order to proceed.

He would state the bare programming concepts needed to complete the project, Id question the fundamental robustness and future implication of each concept. I would constantly relate it to some real life situation "hmm..sort of like password generators, so that would be really handy to have a high level of math knowledge, how would this program be built in a real life situation, how do you vary user interfaces in a school situation versus at a place like NASA...etc" I need those sort of tangential thoughts and ideas in order to be consistently interested and productive where as he is perfectly capable and in fact excels where he can tune in and sort of explicate the bare minimum and maximize efficiency. In a research situation this is much more pronounced, my work cited is usually pretty extensive and that doesn't even include some of my theories conversations and little snippets of information I've gathered elsewhere.

The multi-tasking is not complete chaos I try and have some relevance between things or at least develop a process where I can switch off pretty seamlessly. To sort of borrow a phrase that is used often in describing similar processes I need to sort of unify disparate information to maximize my personal capabilities.

[animenagai]

All of which is as much as to say, Ne, according to MBTI definitions, is tailor made for multi-tasking. So ENP's would naturally be good at it - better at it in fact, than its opposite. :rolleyes:

yep, i multitask a lot. can't say it does me good though. i'm sure i'll be better at what i do if i can just concentrate.

[Trinity]

Multi-tasking is better for me as I can't concentrate on one project at a time through to completion. Need variety and pace.

Yep, I can multi-task. For example, I'm currently replying to you, ironing about 3 years worth of ironing, singing, dancing and drinking, all at the same time. I can't vouch for the quality of the ironing...or the singing....the drinking is good tho'....

You is my hero :wubbie:

[Xander]

Multitasking I would think would always threaten the results but I think it's a poor use of the word. Multitasking is doing more than one thing at once where as most of the time people are actually asking you to multithread. The two terms are used in describing how processors work on computers, in case you're wondering where I'm getting this from, and the difference is that multithreading is doing only one task at a time but effectively doing part of that task, then picking up another task and doing some of that, then perhaps a third task before completing the first one and so on. In such a way it is possible to maintain the quality of the work but it does require you to be able to put things on hold and keep the information in the back of your mind whilst doing other things.

The successful technique is best exemplified by how you put a computer to sleep, where it stores all of what it's doing (it's current state) into the memory and then effectively suspends any further activity. Okay perhaps hibernate would be more appropriate but meh.

[FDG]

There's a difference between:
- actively trying to do many tasks at once, switching between them in a matter of few seconds

and

- starting tasks, not bringing them to completion before starting another task, carrying on part of the second task and the going back to finishing the first.

I think that in the latter case performance doesn't necessarily decrease; in fact, depending on the nature of the second task, it may actually increse (an example would be when I start a translation project, work in the morning, then I go cycling/working out, and in the afternoon I can work better due to higher levels of energy). In the former case, well, probably it's effective only for tasks that do not require a lot of attention and thought.

[bluemonday]

Multitasking I would think would always threaten the results but I think it's a poor use of the word. Multitasking is doing more than one thing at once where as most of the time people are actually asking you to multithread. The two terms are used in describing how processors work on computers, in case you're wondering where I'm getting this from, and the difference is that multithreading is doing only one task at a time but effectively doing part of that task, then picking up another task and doing some of that, then perhaps a third task before completing the first one and so on. In such a way it is possible to maintain the quality of the work but it does require you to be able to put things on hold and keep the information in the back of your mind whilst doing other things.

That context-switching is a bugger tho'

[Xander]

That context-switching is a bugger tho'
Context... switching :thinking:

What's that then?

I always thought it was the same context just merged together. I always wondered why no one else laughed.

[bluemonday]

Context... switching :thinking:

What's that then?

I was trying to be clever ....
context switch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_switch)
I failed.

[Xander]

I was trying to be clever ....
context switch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_switch)
I failed.
Sorry... what?

I was trying to listen but something sailed over my head and distracted me...


(Totally didn't know that one... I was thinking you meant in more social terms... :doh: )

[bluemonday]

^ yeah, well, i was also being dense. In a polymorphic way.

[wildcat]

I was recently asked this question on a pre-interview questionnaire.

"There are times when multi-tasking is necessary between ongoing day to day work and special circumstances that require press coverage or other activity. How would you describe your ability to focus on more than one task at a time without sacrificing quality in your work?"

Is there a personality type that can pull this off? What type is it?

I find it hard to believe that it's actually humanly possible, probably because I am a perfectionist.
I can multi-task but the quality of the work is going to suffer a little.
How can it not?!
I know that "multi-tasking" is the buzzword out there.
I just don't believe it's possible to do both - multi-task AND not let the quality of your work suffer.
Or am I the only one who has trouble with this?
To focus is to narrow the field of perception.
Distance is sight.

[bluebell]

I actually find I can be most energized at work when I suddenly have a lot of things that I'm having to juggle. It's like my mind has to go into hyperdrive and it keeps things interesting. Almost like my mind has more clarity all of a sudden and I can calculate the fastest way to get things done -- but not sacrificing quality.

I think NTPs generally like to multitask. Even when I'm hanging out on the forums, I'm thinking about/reading 3 or 4 things at once. Maybe it's because we're more about the process than the result?



I'll have to get back to you on that one. I'm at a disadvantage because of having not enough things to concentrate on at the moment, so I'm unable to give this thread proper thought.
:alttongue:

(edit - though I jest, it's not actually far from how I often feel in RL... need to be under pressure and bombarded to feel like kicking my brain into gear - one thing alone is too easily either dealt with, postponed or delegated, really not worth coming out of 'coasting' mode for)

Multi-tasking is better for me as I can't concentrate on one project at a time through to completion. Need variety and pace.

^^^ This is all very much me. I need to be able to continuously jump between tasks. I occasionally manage to focus enough to work on something for half an hour if it's something that really fascinates me, but that's rare. Several minutes at a time on one task at work is about all I can handle. I often have 3 or 4 half-written emails open, and several other documents I'm part way through writing, interspersed with phone calls and talking to colleagues and reading a newspaper article and and and... When I'm writing, sometimes I stop halfway through a sentence and jump to something else, and I rarely write linearly - I jump all over the place in long documents. If I was forced to work linearly and work on one thing at a time until it was finished, the frustration and boredom would make the job unbearable.

[INTJMom]

To focus is to narrow the field of perception.
...
Spoken like a true "P". :smile:

Focus gets rid of the unnecessary clutter. :devil:
That's how a "J" sees it.

[INTJMom]

Multitasking I would think would always threaten the results but I think it's a poor use of the word. Multitasking is doing more than one thing at once where as most of the time people are actually asking you to multithread. The two terms are used in describing how processors work on computers, in case you're wondering where I'm getting this from, and the difference is that multithreading is doing only one task at a time but effectively doing part of that task, then picking up another task and doing some of that, then perhaps a third task before completing the first one and so on. In such a way it is possible to maintain the quality of the work but it does require you to be able to put things on hold and keep the information in the back of your mind whilst doing other things.

The successful technique is best exemplified by how you put a computer to sleep, where it stores all of what it's doing (it's current state) into the memory and then effectively suspends any further activity. Okay perhaps hibernate would be more appropriate but meh.
Apparently, when they say multitasking what they really mean is task-switching, quickly from one to another.

I can do that if the thinking required is shallow, but if concentration is required then I will use a lot of time trying to re-gather my train of thought once I get back to the intense project. This is especially true if I'm working on a project that requires consistency throughout. I guess I could make notes on the system I developed, so I wouldn't have to take chances on remembering it later.

[Trinity]

^^^ This is all very much me. I need to be able to continuously jump between tasks. I occasionally manage to focus enough to work on something for half an hour if it's something that really fascinates me, but that's rare. Several minutes at a time on one task at work is about all I can handle. I often have 3 or 4 half-written emails open, and several other documents I'm part way through writing, interspersed with phone calls and talking to colleagues and reading a newspaper article and and and... When I'm writing, sometimes I stop halfway through a sentence and jump to something else, and I rarely write linearly - I jump all over the place in long documents. If I was forced to work linearly and work on one thing at a time until it was finished, the frustration and boredom would make the job unbearable.

That is SO me! One of these days I'll start and finish something without getting distracted by a dozen other things in-between just to see if I can :D

[Xander]

Apparently, when they say multitasking what they really mean is task-switching, quickly from one to another.

I can do that if the thinking required is shallow, but if concentration is required then I will use a lot of time trying to re-gather my train of thought once I get back to the intense project. This is especially true if I'm working on a project that requires consistency throughout. I guess I could make notes on the system I developed, so I wouldn't have to take chances on remembering it later.
Unless I miss my guess this is precisely what my learned friend Mr Wildcat is saying. Less depth, more efficiency. Maintain your global view.

Oh and just as a side note, YOU don't do that. You are an IJ no? You suck up ALL the irrelevancies and THEN get rid of the waste. If you learned the IP way (a most difficult task if trying to work the reverse is anything to go by) and filtered out the rubbish before you set your mind upon it then you'd have spare time enough to multi thread!

INTP > INTJ

:devil:

[kuranes]

I hate true multi-tasking, unless I'm doing some mindless task that requires little thought. People pointed out the difference between juggling tasks and doing them simultaneously ( "true" ) , and so I won't go into that. There is also a difference between types of tasks. Some require more concentration than others. In the macro view, this can also lead to the difference between craftsmanship and "flex" personnel. I do tend to have a lot of projects going on in my life, but I work at them one at a time, usually.

I would just tell the HR interviewers that you can handle multi-tasking, assuming the job sounds interesting to you.

[bluemonday]

Is there a personality type that can pull this off? What type is it?

I find it hard to believe that it's actually humanly possible, probably because I am a perfectionist.
I can multi-task but the quality of the work is going to suffer a little.
How can it not?!
I know that "multi-tasking" is the buzzword out there.
I just don't believe it's possible to do both - multi-task AND not let the quality of your work suffer.
Or am I the only one who has trouble with this?

You need a female brain (http://www.usaweekend.com/99_issues/990103/990103armyknife.html).

Too bad we're both stuck with the inferior variety.

[Xander]

I would just tell the HR interviewers that you can handle multi-tasking, assuming the job sounds interesting to you.
:yes:

As the saying goes
"Giz a job. I can do that."

[substitute]

Well, INTJMom, I've thought about all of the above and I'll have to PM you my thoughts, cos if I put them here I'll be lucky to get out alive... :unsure:

[INTJMom]

Unless I miss my guess this is precisely what my learned friend Mr Wildcat is saying. Less depth, more efficiency. Maintain your global view.

Oh and just as a side note, YOU don't do that. You are an IJ no? You suck up ALL the irrelevancies and THEN get rid of the waste. If you learned the IP way (a most difficult task if trying to work the reverse is anything to go by) and filtered out the rubbish before you set your mind upon it then you'd have spare time enough to multi thread!

INTP > INTJ

:devil:
Oh YEAH!
That's to make sure we don't miss anything IMPORTANT because WE hate to be WRONG! :harhar:

[INTJMom]

You need a female brain (http://www.usaweekend.com/99_issues/990103/990103armyknife.html).

Too bad we're both stuck with the inferior variety.
I KNEW I was defective! :smile:

[INTJMom]

Well, INTJMom, I've thought about all of the above and I'll have to PM you my thoughts, cos if I put them here I'll be lucky to get out alive... :unsure:
I see what you mean. :newwink:

[bluebell]

That is SO me! One of these days I'll start and finish something without getting distracted by a dozen other things in-between just to see if I can :D

:blush: I've tried, many times. And I've never managed to do it, even if I have a deadline rapidly approaching (the sorts of deadlines where you count down the minutes, not the hours).

[Trinity]

I prefer to refer to "deadlines" as either guidelines or suggestions, seems more accurate to me :yes:

[booyalab]

I got fired for mentioning a study that proved the quality of work suffers when your attention is diverted between multiple tasks, EVEN THOUGH I qualified it by recognizing it's occasional necessity.

[ajblaise]

wow i never heard of an introvert getting fired for not being able to keep their mouths shut.

[INTJMom]

I got fired for mentioning a study that proved the quality of work suffers when your attention is diverted between multiple tasks, EVEN THOUGH I qualified it by recognizing it's occasional necessity.
SERIOUSLY! :shock:
There sounds like there must be more to the story than that.
How long ago was that?
I mean, now they have studies to prove it and everything.
According to some of the people in this thread, not only CAN they miulti-task, they PREFER to multi-task.
So, go figure.

[bluebell]

I do occasionally do 'true' multitasking. The one which sticks in my head was organising a complicated urgent meeting on the phone while simultaneously typing a briefing paper for an entirely separate meeting. (I've since learnt to speak up if my workload gets to that extreme, so I haven't been in that situation since then)

However, I don't find it particularly difficult to multitask on one topic. I often find myself googling and hunting through websites for information to answer someone's question while simultaneously talking to them on the phone. I'm mostly on autopilot for that, though - both the conversation and googling. It only gets a bit tricky when the other person is angry about something and I have to calm them down at the same time as well as looking up websites.

I prefer to refer to "deadlines" as either guidelines or suggestions, seems more accurate to me :yes:

*peers at Trinity's alleged Jness*

[INTJMom]

...
However, I don't find it particularly difficult to multitask on one topic. I often find myself googling and hunting through websites for information to answer someone's question while simultaneously talking to them on the phone. I'm mostly on autopilot for that, though - both the conversation and googling. It only gets a bit tricky when the other person is angry about something and I have to calm them down at the same time as well as looking up websites.
...
Ha ha! I consider that ONE task! :smile:

[bluebell]

Ha ha! I consider that ONE task! :smile:

Hmm. True, I guess. Someone mentioned 'true' multitasking earlier (as opposed to the rapid jumping between tasks) and I was curious enough to mentally go through what I do at work to see what could be described as such. I think it's more of multitasking activity if you have no idea what you're looking for or if it even exists and you're just hoping you'll come across something relevant quickly enough so you don't have to call the person back later.

[INTJMom]

I think the research has proven that in reality, no one actually can think about two or more things at once.
What people really mean when they say multi-tasking is fast switch-tasking... the ability to switch between tasks quickly,
none of which are finished yet, therefore keeping several open jobs going at once.
Under pressure, I can do that for a limited amount of time.

I'm reminded of the guys they used to show on tv variety shows - the Plate Spinners.
They'd get a plate spinning on the top of a stick, then get another one going, and then another one, then he'd run between them all, keeping them all going at once.

While it's entertaining to watch, I would hate a job where I was expected to do that all day long every day.
YouTube - Plate spinner Van Buren plate spinning on TV Generation Game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETiwMTENG8g)

[Trinity]

I often find myself googling and hunting through websites for information to answer someone's question while simultaneously talking to them on the phone.

See now I'd usually be on google searching for information for myself while pretending to be listening to the person on the phone. Does that count as multitasking :D


*peers at Trinity's alleged Jness*

Yah I dunno *shrug (http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/what-s-my-type/7047-who-should-claim-me-2.html)*

[Oleander]

If we think about it a bit harder, everybody multitasks at aa low level all the time. There's nearly always something going on in the background ready to respond to an emergency quite apart from automatic processes like breathing. Even some tasks are really multiple when you think about them so it's a bit arbitrary to talk about 'multitasking' altogether.

It was a computer term and that business of fast switching between tasks is essentially what it referred to. There's a few exceptions up in the multi-processor supercomputer range where a number of processes really are going on at once but they don't know about each other - it's more like a network all in one box or even on one board. When it comes to conscious activity, we really switch attention more than carry several tasks out together.

[Synarch]

I got fired for mentioning a study that proved the quality of work suffers when your attention is diverted between multiple tasks, EVEN THOUGH I qualified it by recognizing it's occasional necessity.

There has to be more to this story. They really fired you for mentioning a study?