Multitasking: The Productivity Killer
By Sophie Makonnen
“When people think they’re multitasking, they’re actually just switching from one task to another very rapidly. And every time they do, there’s a cognitive cost.” — Paul Atchley, Harvard Business Review, 2010.
Multitasking feels real, but it isn’t. The brain’s executive system — the part that manages focus and decision-making — cannot handle two demanding tasks at once; instead, it rapidly switches between them. That constant flipping can come at a cost: more errors, slower performance, and reduced creativity.
Despite this evidence, the idea that multitasking is an asset persists. It is often praised as efficient, even admired. If we know it is only an illusion, why do we still value it?
The rush of juggling tasks can create the impression of efficiency, but it often fragments focus. Building on this, as William Arruda reminded readers in Forbes in 2024, multitasking can reduce productivity by as much as 40%. He explains that every switch requires a mental reset. Over time, those resets pile up, draining energy, eroding concentration, and leaving us busy but not necessarily effective.
The Cost of Task Switching
Psychologists have long studied what happens when we move back and forth between tasks. In the early 2000s, David Meyer and Jeffrey Evans coined the term “switching costs” to describe the measurable toll this takes on the brain. Even short mental blocks caused by switching can slow performance and double the chance of mistakes.
Stanford researchers added another layer in 2009 when they compared “heavy multitaskers” with those who multitask less. Their key finding was that heavy multitaskers were more easily distracted and less able to filter out irrelevant information. They also took longer to return to their primary task. In other words, frequent multitasking was found to decrease focus and efficiency.
It’s worth noting that not all combinations of activities demand the same kind of attention. Some pairs well because they draw on different systems, such as listening to music while exercising or folding laundry while chatting. But when two tasks compete for the same cognitive channel — such as writing an email while talking, or checking messages during a meeting — the brain can’t run them in parallel. It flips between them, and that’s when switching costs appear.
This is the paradox of multitasking. The more we try to spread our attention across competing demands, the less effective we become at managing any of them.
Why the Myth Sticks
If multitasking’s costs are so clear, why do we still try to do everything at once? Partly, it’s cultural. In many workplaces, being busy is often equated with being productive. A full calendar and juggling demands seem to show competence.
Multitasking persists, in part, due to the pressure to respond immediately. In a world of constant pings and notifications, divided attention feels like the default. As a result, focusing on one thing can seem unnatural or even risky—as though something important might be missed.
Additionally, some roles are more prone to multitasking than others. Jobs involving crisis management, team coordination, or continuous information streams often require divided attention, making switching seem unavoidable. In these roles, focusing on one task may inadvertently exclude someone or delay responses in ways that aren't always clear. Here, the approach matters: setting priorities, sequencing tasks, and signaling when attention will shift (for example, telling a colleague, “I’ll finish this update and then get back to you in 10 minutes”). Managing multiple demands is a valuable skill requiring prioritization, clear communication, and firm boundaries. Still, research suggests that deliberate sequencing enhances focus and outcomes—reinforcing the value of focus, even in roles that involve heavy multitasking.
Ultimately, while multitasking is common, we achieve the best results and a clear sense of progress by choosing to focus on one priority at a time. Deliberate focus, whenever possible, lets us move forward with intention, even when demands feel overwhelming.
The Alternative: Sequencing
Since multitasking is essentially task-switching, the alternative is to sequence tasks, doing one thing at a time with undivided attention. Giving it full attention, completing it, then moving on to the next.
Sequencing changes work: a meeting with full attention, a conversation with steady listening, or writing done without detours. Focus brings more depth and clarity than split attention.
This approach, sometimes referred to as monotasking, involves intentionally focusing on one thing at a time. More than a technique, it’s an antidote to scattered work. It invites us to use the brain’s strengths, making attention an ally rather than a liability.
Practical Shifts to Try
Sequencing your attention may sound simple, but mastering it requires effort and intention. A few small adjustments can make it easier to bring focus back to one thing at a time:
Batch responses. Instead of constantly checking email or messages, set specific times to handle them fully.
Work in short focus blocks. Spend 20–30 minutes on a single task, then take a break. Even brief monotasking can restore clarity.
Give moments full attention. In meetings or conversations, close extra tabs, silence notifications, and be present.
These aren't rigid rules, just small experiments. Notice the difference when your attention remains focused on one thing. Often, work feels lighter, results sharper, and days less draining.
Multitasking is often celebrated as a skill for the modern age. However, the reality is quite different: what we call multitasking is actually task-switching, a process that incurs a cost each time we switch from one task to another.
Of course, some roles almost guarantee competing demands. In those cases, the skill lies in how we manage them: deciding what to prioritize, communicating clearly, and placing boundaries where they matter most. Sequencing doesn’t erase the pressure, but it offers a way to navigate it with more clarity and less drain.
Ultimately, the simple truth seems to be that multitasking is rapid task-switching by another name ?
Enjoyed this post? Share it with someone who might appreciate it