Should We Cut the Word ‘Multitasker’ from Job Descriptions?

Multitasking is a word and action that many take for granted in the modern business world. It’s a staple of the modern, white-collar, knowledge-worker’s job description, and will be music to the ears of any time-pressured hiring manager, operating in a fast-moving, chaotic department.

However, the phrase multitasking really shouldn’t be taken for granted or bandied around quite so liberally, because most people who are thought to be multitasking effectively are actually not. A landmark study from David Strayer of the University of Utah  shows that just 2 percent of the population can actually multitask effectively. They are known as supertaskers — and if you want to know whether you’re one of them, try out the assessment put together by Strayer and his team. The other 98 percent — shall we call them the “failed multitaskers”? — are simply working in a far less efficient way.

The extent to which the failed multitaskers underperform is underlined by several studies, including one from HP  that found that multitaskers experience a 10 percent fall in IQ while working — about twice the decline that comes from smoking pot. This MIT study has shown that the brain actually slows down when asked to carry out several tasks at the same time.

So, when you ask for someone to be able a multitasker, you are really asking for someone who can work in a less productive, less intelligent, and altogether slower way – unless you can find the rare supertasker. With just 1 in 50 people able to supertask, the chances of finding a supertasker are slim enough — but finding one who also has the other essential skills for the job? Nearly impossible. It would be like finding the proverbial needle in the haystack.

I think that it is both nonsensical and counterproductive to use the phrase ‘multitasking required’ in job descriptions and in everyday business terminology, as multitasking seems to be little more than a cause of ineffective work. It should not be encouraged.

And so, we are left with a massive hole in the lexicon of the modern, dynamic, and chaotic office – which needs to be replaced with something.

With what, exactly? I think it’s pretty obvious: the word “prioritize.” People who prioritize can recognize when they are overwhelmed with tasks and use organization, communication, and negotiation skills to carve out time and opportunity to effectively address each task. This drastically reduces the need for inefficient multi-tasking.

At both interview stage and appraisal stage, inefficient multitaskers should not be encouraged, praised, or favored. In fact, they should be seen as a liability. You should arguably be urging candidates to clearly demonstrate their ability to prioritize and orchestrate effective, efficient, and dedicated working pathways in a dynamic, high-pressure business environment.

We need prioritizers, not multitaskers.