To work better, work less

Original post:  Aug 12, 2014

Today is my first day back in the office from over a week away. August is the traditional month for vacation in many parts of the world. It often seems like there are wide swaths of Europe that are on holidays during the dog days of August. It turns out that there is actually a benefit to taking some time away from the rigor of work life.

This article from the Atlantic Monthly, discusses an interesting phenomenon. In the words of the article: "That’s because, even though the amount of time you work tends to match how productive you are as if on a sliding scale, length of work and quality of work at a certain point become inversely related. At some point, in other words, the more you work, the less productive you become."

It continues:

"For example, working long hours often leads to productivity-killing distractions. Such is an instance of the saying known as Parkinson’s law, which states that work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. Work less, and you’ll tend to work better.

So too with practicing a skill. K. Anders Ericsson, a professor of psychology at Florida State University, conducted a study in Berlin and found that the amount of time successful musicians spent practicing each day was surprisingly low—a mere 90 minutes per day. In fact, the most successful musicians not only practiced less, but also took more naps throughout the day and indulged in breaks during practice when they grew tired or stressed.

It has long been known that working too much leads to life-shortening stress. It also leads to disengagement at work, as focus simply cannot be sustained for much more than 50 hours a week. Even Henry Ford knew the problem with overwork when he cut his employees’ schedules from 48-hour weeks to 40-hour weeks. He believed that working more than 40 hours a week had been causing his employees to make many errors, as he recounted in his autobiography, My Life and Work."

The article points out some potential productivity gains from time away:

"Some companies have begun to diverge from this thinking, though, taking after the “work less, work better” philosophy. The Michigan-based software company Menlo Innovations looks down on employees who clock in more than 40 hours per week, seeing overwork not as a sign of dedication but as a marker of inefficiency. Working overtime has even led to a few layoffs at the company, according to Brigid Schulte, the author of Overwhelmed: Work, Love, and Play When No One Has the Time.Finally, there is also the simple reason for perpetuating overwork: cultural inertia. Americans have worked long hours in the past, so regardless of new technologies or jumps in efficiencies, we continue working the same number of hours, even if doing so has no discernible effect, or even a negative effect, on productivity. On top of that, everyone else is already stuck in their ways: being the first person in the office who starts cutting back on work time "for the sake of productivity" without fearing repercussion would require courage and a bit of naiveté."

One other potential benefit might be increased numbers of creative ideas:

"Many people are still stuck on the fundamental importance of work compared to free time: the structure it gives, the purpose it affords, the morality it signifies. But what if we viewed leisure time not as goofing off, but as necessary time for reflecting, for inspiring creativity, and for saving up brainpower and energy for future work?"

Here is the link to the full article:  To Work Better, Work Less - The Atlantic

The myth of multitasking

Original post:  Jun 10, 2014

We are all guilty of it at one time or another. We've attempted to get that last e-mail in or send a final text in the middle of a busy meeting. We rationalize it away by saying that we can effectively perform multiple tasks at once. The reality is much less sanguine.

In "The Power of Prime" from Psychology Today, Dr. Jim Taylor explains the truth:

Multitasking involves engaging in two tasks simultaneously. But here's the catch. It's only possible if two conditions are met: 1) at least one of the tasks is so well learned as to be automatic, meaning no focus or thought is necessary to engage in the task (e.g., walking or eating) and 2) they involve different types of brainprocessing. For example, you can read effectively while listening to classical music because reading comprehension and processing instrumental music engage different parts of the brain. However, your ability to retain information while reading and listening to music with lyrics declines significantly because both tasks activate the language center of the brain.

What does this mean for all of you self-proclaimed multitaskers out there? Well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but it means that what you do isn't really multitasking. Despite appearances, you simply can't talk on the phone, read e-mail, send an instant message, and watch YouTube videos all at the same time. In fact, when you think you're cruising along the information highway, you're actually stepping on the gas then hitting the brakes, over and over.

He goes on to cite research to back his claims:

A summary of research examining multitasking on the American Psychological Association's web site describes how so-called multitasking is neither effective nor efficient. These findings have demonstrated that when you shift focus from one task to another, that transition is neither fast nor smooth. Instead, there is a lag time during which your brain must yank itself from the initial task and then glom onto the new task. This shift, though it feels instantaneous, takes time. In fact, up to 40 percent more time than single tasking - especially for complex tasks.

A recent article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) by three Stanford University researchers offers perhaps the most surprising result: those who consider themselves to be great multitaskers are in fact the worst multitaskers. Those who rated themselves as chronic multitaskers made more mistakes, could remember fewer items, and took longer to complete a variety of focusing tasks analogous to multitasking than those self-rated as infrequent multitaskers. In a recent interview with NPR, a co-author of the PNAS study, Clifford Nass, states, "The shocking discovery of this research is that [high multitaskers] are lousy at everything that's necessary for multitasking." Nass concluded that this difference appears to be due to an inability to filter past and no-longer-relevant information from the previous task.

I suppose this means I have to shut that laptop and put away the smartphone, doesn't it?

Do you expect instant e-mail replies?

Original post:  Sep 23, 2013

Over the weekend, I read an article by an office productivity expert. He wrote that most people expect instant replies to their office e-mails. He went on to explain that he does not find that practice to be efficient. This expert allows his e-mail to stack up in the inbox over the course of the day. He has designated times where he cleans it out. The article closes with him saying that you should not expect a reply before the end of the business day.

There is a school of thought that the rise of texting may have added to the sense of urgency that is sometimes felt when e-mail is sent. Texters often expect the recipients to respond in near real-time.

I personally try to answer e-mails when I can. There are some that will get more attention than others. What often helps is if the sender includes an informative subject line. Some senders will even let me know when an action is required of me. That helps me prioritize them.

I know that I prefer to get more immediate response. I haven't really used Instant Messaging (IM) much. Perhaps it is because I didn't use that functionality until fairly recently. I am only now starting to use Lync on a more regular basis.

What is your own theory on e-mail?