One problem I have is that in traditional organizational structures, it can be difficult to call "bullshit" on what I've found to be some of the worst multi-taskers: Your management.
Their multi-tasking was a source of endless problems. But "multi-tasking" was the "norm" and the "best practice".
One reason I have very little sympathy for those now proclaiming the ills of multi-tasking. The worst seem to be the same fad-management oriented folks with no deep insight, and I fear -- where I do not already observe -- that the initiatives are not genuine.
One example: Multi-tasking is "bad" for those who count. But they continue to pile it onto the average worker.
P.S. To clarify my concern about such people and their attitude: "It's my performance that is important. (Whereas my dog could do your job.)" Formerly: "my performance" == multi-tasking. Now: "my performance" == not multi-tasking.
But that says nothing about the jobs under their control. In fact, the less they themselves multi-task, the more they may force it down onto their reports. To pick up the slack, as it were.
Their multi-tasking was a source of endless problems. But "multi-tasking" was the "norm" and the "best practice".
One reason I have very little sympathy for those now proclaiming the ills of multi-tasking. The worst seem to be the same fad-management oriented folks with no deep insight, and I fear -- where I do not already observe -- that the initiatives are not genuine.
One example: Multi-tasking is "bad" for those who count. But they continue to pile it onto the average worker.
P.S. To clarify my concern about such people and their attitude: "It's my performance that is important. (Whereas my dog could do your job.)" Formerly: "my performance" == multi-tasking. Now: "my performance" == not multi-tasking.
But that says nothing about the jobs under their control. In fact, the less they themselves multi-task, the more they may force it down onto their reports. To pick up the slack, as it were.