Been applying for jobs lately and one of the common bulleted requirements is “ability to multitask” or somesuch.

I guess I’m just perplexed why companies advertise their desire to demand their employees use what has consistently been proven to be an inefficient means of getting work done.

Even when I was at Macromedia, where people would have proudly trumpeted their ability to multitask, I would always shut down every application except Microsoft Word and give one document my undivided attention. I do the same when i work at home.

The other upside to being a luddite unitasker is you actually complete things during the day, instead of have eight things being sequentially nudged toward their goal.

So, typically, in job interviews, I play it by ear. Sometimes, I’ve said I don’t believe in multitasking (and found places that agreed with me), but sometimes I get the sense that saying you multitask is the *right* answer, so then it depends if I want that particular job. If I think I’d like the job, I’ll go along with it (I think that as long as multiple projects across multiple deadlines are getting completed, the means by which that is occurring will never be questioned).

I suppose, if a company wants me to be less efficient, write less coherent text, complete fewer tasks during the workday, and call it a job — well, if that’s what they want to pay me to do, I guess I could learn.

This isn’t in relation to any job for which I’ve currently applied, just found a few openings tonight that all included that phrase.

This blog post was written in one sitting, with no music, no instant messages, no e-mail checking, or any other distractions.

This entry was posted on Monday, August 6th, 2007 at 9:32 pm and is filed under diary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.