It's been said, in a sweeping generalization that nevertheless has a grain of truth at its core, the the old world is obsessed with 'focus', and the new world is obsessed with 'multitasking'.
What do we know about focus and multitasking? For one, they both claim to be a factor that helps people reach the elusive and most misunderstood concept of our times. Success. But wait a minute, aren't both philosophies sworn enemies and polar opposites? Unable to survive simultaneously?
In school and in workplace the more popular opinion is of 'focus' or in academic terms 'specialization'. That is, in order to succeed or make money you need to 'focus'. It's been said that you can succeed if you focus on one thing and do it well. Conversely, the multitasking camp find their method to be an indispensable skill that helps you "deal with more at the same time".
My take- both are necessary. The answer may lie more in time than in space.
In all such arguments we often miss the fact that what gets people to rung A in their pursuit of success might not get them to rung B. Alpha to Bravo is not a straight line. As responsibility and authority changes, so do the working philosophies that people need to get things done.
Multitasking works well when you are at a level where a major fraction of your to-do pie is delegation, reporting, follow-ups or work of similar nature. I'm talking about managers, senior associates and the likes of them (read -'not leaders'. There is a big difference between the two) This form of work style gives results because once one has learnt the art of hiring right, delegating to a team, reporting to management and then monitoring results then there is little left for laser like focus for daily ops. In all the years that it took to rise to a managerial/leadership level, the manager has been honing this balancing act that finally becomes intuitive (which is why he became a manager/leader in the first place).
Focus, on the other hand, works well, ironically, for leaders and young professionals/workers alike. Both need to set examples, the former for others and the latter for oneself and both have to make sure they get things right, basically because they are learning through the process and/or the job is extremely critical or new.
An organization works well when both these forces work in tandem.
Order within the competitive chaos is achieved when the management understands that their worker bees need to focus on a few achievable tasks if quality is expected and use multitasking to manage the whole team. Expecting multitasking of the actual workers will always be a big mistake.
Yes, there are exceptions to the scenario. But really? Do we want our task force to keep shifting their attention or do we understand that their focus can have organizing power. After all, we could always use more of that when vital things are getting done.
What do we know about focus and multitasking? For one, they both claim to be a factor that helps people reach the elusive and most misunderstood concept of our times. Success. But wait a minute, aren't both philosophies sworn enemies and polar opposites? Unable to survive simultaneously?
In school and in workplace the more popular opinion is of 'focus' or in academic terms 'specialization'. That is, in order to succeed or make money you need to 'focus'. It's been said that you can succeed if you focus on one thing and do it well. Conversely, the multitasking camp find their method to be an indispensable skill that helps you "deal with more at the same time".
My take- both are necessary. The answer may lie more in time than in space.
In all such arguments we often miss the fact that what gets people to rung A in their pursuit of success might not get them to rung B. Alpha to Bravo is not a straight line. As responsibility and authority changes, so do the working philosophies that people need to get things done.
Multitasking works well when you are at a level where a major fraction of your to-do pie is delegation, reporting, follow-ups or work of similar nature. I'm talking about managers, senior associates and the likes of them (read -'not leaders'. There is a big difference between the two) This form of work style gives results because once one has learnt the art of hiring right, delegating to a team, reporting to management and then monitoring results then there is little left for laser like focus for daily ops. In all the years that it took to rise to a managerial/leadership level, the manager has been honing this balancing act that finally becomes intuitive (which is why he became a manager/leader in the first place).
Focus, on the other hand, works well, ironically, for leaders and young professionals/workers alike. Both need to set examples, the former for others and the latter for oneself and both have to make sure they get things right, basically because they are learning through the process and/or the job is extremely critical or new.
An organization works well when both these forces work in tandem.
Order within the competitive chaos is achieved when the management understands that their worker bees need to focus on a few achievable tasks if quality is expected and use multitasking to manage the whole team. Expecting multitasking of the actual workers will always be a big mistake.
Yes, there are exceptions to the scenario. But really? Do we want our task force to keep shifting their attention or do we understand that their focus can have organizing power. After all, we could always use more of that when vital things are getting done.
No comments:
Post a Comment