I am against 'multi.'
We seem to be surrounded by a culture of 'multi' - multipurpose, multiuse and multitasking.
The best definition I have seen about multitasking is that it is doing several things poorly, instead of one thing well. I agree with that, as long as we agree that multitasking is not the same as multiprocessing.
To my way of thinking, an activity such as juggling or driving is multiprocessing. You are performing different, but related, actions to complete a single task.
Multitasking is more like thinking in English, speaking in German and writing in French, simultaneously. Each task requires a different approach and brain process, and are not a set of tasks that are usually done together (at least not well).
We should be asking ourselves, do we need these jobs done well, or at all? If done well, then single tasking is the way to go - it allows the time to get it right, to properly finish and to have it done once without the need for correction or the need to do it again.
I've often heard the phrase, any job worth doing, is worth doing well. I believe that. But, no one ever really asks that if the job is not worth doing well, or not worth the time/effort to do right, is it worth doing at all?
Along with the adage 'finish what you start,' we should ask 'should I start?'
No comments:
Post a Comment