Mike Lehr's Blog

In Tobey Deys’ comment about my post regarding the implications of people’s unawareness to television viewing, she asked for my thoughts on the productivity of multi-tasking and to some degree channel surfing.

Generally, there are many studies reference the decline of productivity from these tasks. We frequently hear about cell phones and driving for example. However, there are five contrarian considerations:

1. Situational awareness varies by person
2. Situation might require it
3. Over focus produces narrow-mindedness
4. Synchronicity could occur
5. Enjoyment could result

First, the negative effects of multi-tasking and channel surfing will vary by person. Two people can focus on the same task and retain a different degree of awareness with respect to their surroundings. Thus, varying levels of situational awareness can make multi-tasking and channel surfing less costly for some.

Second, the situation might demand multi-tasking. Rather than focus on one task at a time, productivity might increase if we coordinate the performance all tasks such as running errands.

Third, over focus can prevent us from seeing other opportunities for increasing productivity. Here, multi-tasking and channel surfing can retard the effects of anchoring in which we become too wedded to an approach.

Fourth, these activities allow synchronicity to play out by allowing us to “stumble” upon people, information or other resources that might benefit us later rather than now.

Finally, we might find so much enjoyment in multi-tasking and channel surfing that we become more productive because our attitude improves.

In the end, these activities are a personal decision. People are too different to apply findings without modifications. Of course, there is also the point that sometimes having fun is more important than being productive.

In the last month, my wife and I had the opportunity on separate occasions to talk to a director of a very successful organic farm and the owner of a local Thai restaurant about talent. In both cases, they emphasized people who had a passion for their work.

In the director’s case, he felt talent followed passion. He could hire an untrained, passionate employee and eventually see that employee’s talent for the work surface. When contrasting this employee with a more talented, dispassionate employee, he found that the former a much better longer-term employee.

In the restaurant owner’s case, he claimed there were two types of chefs: those who love the food that they cook and those who cook because it’s a job. There was no comparison in his mind. To him, attention to detail is a critical cooking attribute. By far, the passionate chef paid more attention to detail.

While this might not be new, what is lesser known is the impact passion has on creativity. About five years ago, I had the honor to co-facilitate with J. Michael Fox of the International Center for Studies in Creativity a discussion on creativity. His center found that the single most important factor that shot creativity off the charts was motivation. When people are highly motivated, the possibility for creative thought and action was virtually limitless.

Motivation exceeded all other factors such as intelligence, education, experience, aptitude, skill set, etc, and liking what you do is an important contributor to motivation. That is why the Center found that “fun” used in purposeful ways contributed greatly to the creative process. In a day, when companies are working extremely hard to innovate and achieve competitive edges, maybe the simplest and best thing to do is to hire passionate employees.