Chapter 1: The Proposal
Background
As the fairly recent development of the global marketplace has opened up businesses to unprecedented levels of competition, owners and managers have understandably responded by cutting costs and focusing on tighter, leaner production methods. Global competitiveness has led to lowered costs and reduced product development cycle times worldwide, and created a demand for highly skilled, knowledgeable and flexible workers (Goetsch & Davis, 2006). The explosive, exponential growth of information technology (IT) has contributed to these trends, resulting in "reduced operational costs, greater process efficiencies, new strategic alternatives, and possibilities for innovation" (Taradfar, Tu, Ragu-Nathan, & Ragu-Nathan, 2007, p. 302).
One common IT-related method for enhancing efficiency in the new global economy is multitasking, a concept originating from the field of computer science in the 1960s and popularized through the practice of executing multiple programs in a single operating system (Laudon & Laudon, 2003; Feiler, 2001; Rubinstein, Meyer, & Evans, 2001). Also known as multiprogramming, timesharing or task switching, multitasking has since taken on a more general meaning, as the act of managing multiple tasks at once (Hillstrom & Hillstrom, 2002).
Multitasking has become one of the more popular methods of business operators and managers for "getting more with less." It has also become entrenched in American culture, as teenagers routinely listen to iPods and watch television while finishing their homework, and as corporate executives simultaneously listen to business news, communicate with staff members by cell phone and drive to the office (all while sipping a hot foamy cup of java). Meanwhile, researchers assessing the situation have suggested that multitasking not only impedes student learning (Chang, 2006; Anderson, 2001), but compromises safety whenever tasks involve heavy equipment—like automobiles—or hazardous materials (Girard, 2007; Stanton, 1996).
As the practice becomes more widespread, business managers would do well to examine whether, in fact, multitasking increases productivity as intended. The time and mental energy required to make the switch from one task to another may actually decrease net productivity (Anderson, 2001; Rubinstein et al, 2001). However, lost productivity in the short term may not be the only, or the worst, problem created by continuous multitasking.
This study will set out to see if multitasking leads to a particular unintended effect, in the form of excess stress (and the problems it creates for employer and employee alike). The complexities of business and technology in a globally competitive work environment make the act of multitasking almost unavoidable. Nonetheless, some researchers have indicated that multitasking exacts a toll on the human cognitive processes and nervous systems, especially in the form of stress (Taradfar et al, 2007; Brillhart, 2004). Although these sources do mention stress as an apparent side effect of multitasking, it seems that few studies have directly addressed or attempted to measure the connection between the two phenomena.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of this study is to explore whether multitasking in the workplace associates or correlates with negative perceptions of stress (technically distress, as opposed to eustress).
Significance of the Problem
Much could be said about the detrimental, or at least questionable, effects of multitasking on overall productivity. Human experience and a growing body of research both seem to attest that, in the great majority of production settings, doing one thing at a time simply works better than trying to do many things at once (Anderson, 2001; Davidson, 2006; Rubinstein et al, 2007). Reasons for a human inability to effectively multitask appear to involve everything from the sheer physical and cognitive demands of the tasks in question to some basic but profound and often overlooked differences between humans and computers. All these factors may actually increase perceptions of stress (Tarafdar, 2007; Brillhart, 2004). If so, employers would have another good reason to reconsider the strategic value of multitasking. It may be that asking more from employees actually results in their producing less, due to adverse, unintended effects of stress such as job dissatisfaction, turnover, burnout, anxiety and depression (Moorhead & Griffin, 2001; Meier, 1984).
Scott, Winters, and Beevers (2000) have argued that "persistent affective distress" is the leading cause of clinical depression, itself a debilitating condition known to hinder production. In the "stress cycle," ongoing stress leads to fatigue, then anxiety and depression, all resulting in declining production or performance—not to mention poor health (Brillhart, 2004). Multitasking, then, could be said to reduce net productivity at the same time that it exacts unnecessary emotional and psychological costs from employees. If indeed it turns out that multitasking correlates highly with stress, workload management and job design strategies could and should be revised to reduce multitasking demands to a bare minimum.
Hypothesis
This study will proceed on the tentative hypothesis that a positive correlation exists between multitasking and stress. That is, where multitasking increases, so does stress. Where multitasking demands decrease, stress decreases accordingly.
Assumptions
The First Assumption. The first assumption is that respondents are familiar enough with the concept of multitasking and perceptions of stress to provide useful data.
The Second Assumption. Another assumption is that the practice of multitasking is and will continue to be widespread in business organizations.
The Third Assumption. The final assumption is that, whereas stress is measured in terms of perceptions as a psychological construct, the effects of stress are often directly observable and measurable.
Delimitations
1. Whereas multitasking is common in business settings, especially among knowledge workers, the focus of the survey used in this study will be limited to the effect of multitasking on stress among retail salespersons.
2. If multitasking correlates positively with stress, then multitasking may be linked to undesirable work environment conditions such as job dissatisfaction and turnover, and psychological conditions such as burnout, anxiety and clinical depression—all effects of stress which will not be studied directly here.
Procedure
The proposed study will consist of mostly qualitative research based on a variety of readings and informal observations. However, a descriptive survey will also be conducted to help establish the relative strength of the hypothesis.
A twelve question survey was developed to elicit information about the perceptions of stress, as it relates to the practice of multitasking on the job. This survey will be administered in person to a convenience sample of retail salespersons, mostly in the area of West Houston. Response options to the first eleven questions have been arranged along a five-point interval-ordinal Likert scale, so that results may be subjected to descriptive statistical analysis as well as qualitative discussion and interpretation.
The first two questions seek information about the respondents' experiences with multitasking. Questions three and four address stress levels and to what degree multitasking is a contributor. Question five addresses the relationship of time and productivity, an issue central to both perceptions of stress and the practice of multitasking. Questions six and seven elicit respondent perceptions of feedback on the job (positive and negative), predictors of stress and burnout (Meier, 1984). The remaining scaled-response questions (eight through eleven) seek respondent perceptions of job satisfaction, motivation, career opportunities, and orderliness, all of which are predictors of stress and burnout (Moorhead & Griffin, 2001; Meier, 1984). Question twelve simply asks for comments from respondents related to stress and multitasking on the job.
Definitions
Multitasking. For purposes of this study, multitasking will be broadly defined (beyond the original computer science concept) as the practice of task switching, or working on two or more tasks in the same compressed time period rather than in order or in succession (Anderson, 2001; LaBrosse, 2006). Hillstrom & Hillstrom (2002) state that multitasking, whether performed by a machine or a person, is an ability "to perform more than one task, or multiple tasks, at the same time.... In the field of human resources, multitasking is a popular term that is often used to describe how busy managers or business practitioners are able to accomplish a growing amount of work in a limited time period" (p. 762).
Stress. Although stress in moderated form can be beneficial and even pleasant (this kind of stress is known as eustress), the study proposed here will examine distress, the kind of stress which causes unwelcome and unpleasant sensations and symptoms in the worker (Moorhead & Griffin, 2001). Documented effects of stress include increased dissatisfaction and irritability, loss of sleep, loss of concentration, anxiety, burnout and depression (Brillhart, 2004).
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
Chapter II Review of the Literature
Chapter III Methodology
Chapter IV Findings
Chapter V Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations for Further Study
Chapter II: Review of Related Literature
A review of the related literature reveals a sort of dichotomy between the technical variety of multitasking, with its roots in computer science and the management of operating systems, and a more general type, wherein people perform multiple tasks by switching back and forth between the tasks (Hillstrom & Hillstrom, 2002; Rubinstein et al, 2001). The latter definition applies to just about everyone in the workforce today and is the focus here.
Similarly, what psychologists have termed "affective distress" (or simply "stress") takes on a number of forms, including task stress, role stress, and work overload (Moorhead & Griffin, 2001). Anthony, Kacmar, and Perrewe (2002) have defined stress as "the interaction between the individual and the environment characterized by physiological and psychological changes that cause a deviation from normal performance" (p. 523). In recent years IT professionals have distinguished another form of stress, technostress, defined as stress induced by use of computers and whose symptoms include "aggravation, hostility toward humans, impatience, and enervation" (Laudon & Laudon, 2003, p. 166).
Various sources have also suggested a general linkage or correlation between multitasking and stress (Brillhart, 2004; Davidson, 2006; Tarafdar et al, 2007). Indeed, it seems that multitasking is often perceived as counterproductive in more ways than one.
The Pitfalls of Multitasking
Loss of Productivity. It should be noted that some observers do recommend multitasking as practically advisable in a complex work environment. Hillstrom and Hillstrom (2002), for example, maintain that "multitasking abilities of both individuals and teams are important as companies stay connected with customers, suppliers, and partners, and as new products and services are continually developed" (p. 762). Even so, these same authors concede that multitasking is more of a necessity, brought on by the exigencies and demands of business, than a genuinely desirable state of affairs. Like so many others, Hillstrom and Hillstrom (2002) also maintain that multitasking compounds stress and pressure on employees.
One reason for the productive inefficiency of multitasking is the time lost during the switch from one task to another. A four part experimental study conducted by Rubinstein et al (2001) revealed that in various task-switching exercises, "reliable mean switching-time costs occurred, and their magnitudes increased with the complexity of the rules needed for performing the tasks between which participants had to switch" (p. 790). For this reason and others, Taradfar et al (2007), Davidson (2006), Girard (2007) and Brillhart (2004) all agree that multitasking is ultimately, if ironically, counterproductive.
On the assumption that less time to complete tasks means more stress for the worker, these findings would lend further, albeit indirect support to the hypothesis that multitasking increases perceptions of stress. According to Taradfar et al (2007), the loss of time incurred via numerous switches "results in the perception that there are too many things to be done and not enough time to do them, thus increasing the role overload component of stress" (p. 308).
Physical and Psychological Duress. Mistakes and oversights also appear to accumulate in a multitasking environment, along with a general decline in cognitive functioning. Symptoms of cognitive dysfunction related to multitasking include loss of concentration, depletion of short-term memory, and trouble communicating (Davidson, 2006). According to Consumer Reports on Health (2006), multitasking increases stress hormones, leading to loss of memory and disabling of the brain's organizing function. Brillhart (2004) describes one of the great stressors in the postindustrial workplace as "multitasking madness":
"Multitasking madness refers to the ability of a computer to perform multiple tasks at once. While this is a great thing for a computer to do, the human mind was not built to multi-task to the same level. Yes, the human mind can switch from one task to another, but it keeps the previous task queued somewhere in the back of the mind. The more tasks we try to multi-task the less efficient we become at performing any tasks" (p. 304).
The results of the human mind attempting to mimic a computer, adds Brillhart (2004), have not been encouraging: increased stress, a diminished sense of control, and physical discomforts such as stomachaches and headaches. Researchers appear to agree that multitasking is inefficient in terms of time and energy, both working against the brain's ability to manage thought processes effectively (Wickelgren, 2006; Girard, 2007; Chang, 2006; Rubinstein, Meyer, & Evans, 2001).
The Many Faces of Stress
As defined by Moorhead & Griffin (2001), stress is "a person's adaptive response to a stimulus that places excessive psychological or physical demands on him or her" (p. 222). Stress may be seen as intrinsically neither good nor bad; rather, welcome or pleasant events such as a promotion may introduce eustress, just as an approaching deadline with severe consequences attached can invite distress (Moorhead & Griffin, 2001). In the right amounts, and in the right situations, stress can actually boost morale and enhance productivity, whereas extremely low levels of stress can even undermine production altogether, as employees feel unchallenged and underutilized (Anthony et al, 2002). On the other hand, what is probably more commonly understood as "stress," affective distress or negatively perceived stress, manifests in any number of ways—none of them pleasant and none tending toward greater production. According to Taradfar et al (2007), the consequences of stress include low productivity, job dissatisfaction, and poor performance.
One's perceived place and importance in the organization can also affect the experience of stress: "It appears that the bossed, not the bosses, are the ones who suffer most from the effects of stress. These individuals have little control but high accountability" (Anthony et al, 2002, p. 525). Moorhead and Griffin (2001) add three interpersonal demands to the list of common organizational stressors: group or peer pressure, autocratic leadership, and conflict. Other moderators of stress include positive and negative feedback, orderliness, and opportunities for advancement or promotion (Meier, 1984).
Wellens and Smith (2006) have specified a number of distinct, measurable stressors, including body motion and posture, physical effort, shift work, night work, noise, and psychological stressors such as effort-reward imbalance. Their research indicates that people exposed to combinations of these stressors tend to manifest high blood pressure and increased production of cortisol, a hormone which over the long term weakens the cardiovascular and immune systems (Wellens & Smith, 2006). On the premise that multitasking means "combining" various forms of work and various tasks, the findings of Wellens and Smith (2006) could be said to support the hypothesis that multitasking associates with stress.
Stress itself comes in a number of varieties, including role stress, work overload, and technostress (Moorhead & Griffin, 2001; Taradfar et al, 2007). All three would seem to relate to multitasking. Role stress, or role overload, means fulfilling a number of job roles, or functions, more than can be effectively managed (Taradfar et al, 2007; Moorhead & Griffin, 2001). Multitasking in essence means switching back and forth between different job functions, a fact which implicates multitasking as a leading contributor to role stress. Work overload simply means that the worker cannot handle the sheer amount of work to be done (Moorhead & Griffin, 2001). Since multitasking involves multiplying work responsibilities in a compressed time period, multitasking probably contributes to the problem of work overload. Burnout has been categorized as both a consequence of stress (Meier, 1984), and a source of stress (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 2002). The stress inherent in burnout could be expected to emerge in a multitasking environment, i.e., where resources have been depleted: "People are most likely to have this experience [burnout] when there are not enough resources at work...to meet the demands of the job" (Brehm, Kassin, & Fein, 202, p. 509).
Technostress, especially, seems to epitomize the effects of multitasking demands on the nervous system. Indeed, Brillhart (2004) defines technostress as "the minds [sic] attempt to deal with change, malfunctions, multitasking issues and the over abundance of technology and data that keeps them working harder and giving them less down time when away from work" (p. 302). Taradfar el al (2007) refer to this last symptom as "remote supervision," the ongoing feeling of always being monitored or "on call." According to Brillhart (2004), "multitasking madness" is one of four chief manifestations of technostress, or technoanxiety—the others being data smog (or "information fatigue"), computer hassles, and burnout.
Associations of Multitasking and Stress
Taradfar el al (2007) note that numerous individual workers have mentioned multitasking, along with "pervasive connectivity," as a leading agent of stress and anxiety. Multitasking is said by Brillhart (2004) to increase stress, along with stress-related complications such as memory loss, problems sleeping, headaches, heart attacks, burnout, and depression. According to Taradfar et al (2007), "Prolonged multitasking...often leads to burnout and adversely affects productivity" (p. 306). Although they believe multitasking to be a good business practice, Hillstrom and Hillstrom (2002) agree that excessive stress is "the downside of multitasking" (p. 763). Stress symptoms such as shortness of breath have been listed among the many hazards of multitasking by Davidson (2006). In promoting the placement of psychological "boundaries" against the intrusions of technology, Seaward (2005) suggests that continuous multitasking leads to "poor concentration, mental fatigue, poor decision making, and poor communication skills, all of which promotes stress" (p. 154). A multitasking approach also tends to compound stresses, especially when workloads are already high (Stanton, 1996).
Chapter III: Methodology
This research explores the relationship between multitasking and stress. From the related literature, a list of common factors defining both multitasking and stress have been discovered, and subsequently worked into the design of a twelve question survey. General construct validity and interrater reliability of the survey instrument have been validated by fellow graduate students in Human Resource Development at the University of Texas at Tyler. Both qualitative and quantitative methods are here employed, as extensive readings, observations, and interpretations of data are combined with the quantitative survey data and comments made by respondents. Internal validity of this study therefore depends on triangulation of various data sources. Literature sources addressing multitasking, stress, and both multitasking and stress, in a variety of contexts suggests the external validity, or generalizability, of multitasking and stress as near-universal phenomena in the business world.
Survey data have been collected from retail salespersons representing two stores in the area of West Houston, Texas. All questions were arranged on a five-point Likert scale, although the wording changed from question to question: For example, a question pertaining to frequency of multitasking activities might feature a range of response options between "Very often" and "Hardly ever;" whereas answers to a question asking for a perceived level of stress would include "Way too much" and "Hardly any whatsoever." The questions have been worded in this fashion to create a personal and sympathetic treatment of the subject, while still representing a valid scale of responses. The high and low, or positive and negative, anchor points on the scale are occasionally inverted, so that respondents would not be tempted to answer a question without first giving it some careful thought. Thus, for some questions eliciting perceptions of stress, the top response at the list would represent a 5 for the highest reportable level of stress, while for others checking the top response would represent a 1 for lowest stress. Four questions have accordingly been coded in reverse sequence, so that the first or top response equals a value of 1. Surveys were personally delivered by the researcher to twenty-five people and personally returned by seventeen respondents, for a 68% response rate.
Although the survey introduction makes it clear that participation is voluntary and respondents would remain anonymous, participants were reminded of these facts verbally prior to completing the survey. Responses were assigned values, depending on the degree to which they could be expected to affirm a positive correlation between multitasking and stress. High correspondence questions, one, three, and four, have been scaled with integral values from 1 to 5. Questions tangentially related to multitasking or stress, such as those pertaining to job satisfaction, time pressures, or orderliness, have been scaled from .5 to 2.5. (Question twelve simply asks for comments about the topic of multitasking and stress.)
Chapter IV: Findings
Results of the survey are as follows, with the number of responses given to the left, point values assigned per response in parentheses to the right, and extended values relative to multitasking and/or stress to the far right:
Q1. How often do you find it necessary to multitask (switch back and forth between various tasks) during a typical workday:?
12 Very often (5) 60
4 Often (4) 16
1 Sometimes (3) 3
0 Rarely (2) 0
0 Hardly ever (1) 0
Q2. Would you say that you accomplish more net work by multitasking than by performing tasks in order or in sequence?
3 Yes, much more (.5) 1.5
9 Somewhat more (1) 9
1 Neither more nor less (1.5) 1.5
3 Somewhat less (2) 6
1 Much less (2.5) 2.5
Q3. Rate the level of stress that best describes your work environment.
6 Way too much (5) 30
4 Too much (4) 16
6 Just enough to keep the work challenging or interesting (3) 18
1 Not enough (2) 2
0 Hardly any whatsoever (1) 0
Q4. To what extent does multitasking contribute to the stress you experience?
3 Multitasking is the main cause of stress (5) 15
8 Multitasking is a major contributor to stress (4) 32
6 Can't say one way or the other (3) 18
0 Multitasking is only a slight stressor (2) 0
0 Multitasking doesn't cause any significant stress (1) 0
Q5. Do you normally have enough time to complete your regular tasks and assigned duties?
0 Almost always (.5) 0
7 Usually (1) 7
3 Sometimes (1.5) 4.5
4 Rarely (2) 8
3 Hardly ever (2.5) 7.5
Q6. How often do you receive positive feedback about your job performance?
1 Very often (.5) .5
2 Often (1) 2
6 Sometimes (1.5) 9
2 Rarely (2) 4
5 Hardly ever (2.5) 12.5
(One respondent failed or declined to answer Q6.)
Q7. How often do you receive negative feedback about your job performance?
3 Very often (2.5) 7.5
7 Often (2) 14
2 Sometimes (1.5) 3
4 Rarely (1) 4
1 Hardly ever (.5) .5
Q8. How satisfied are you with your job?
2 Highly satisfied (.5) 1
6 Somewhat satisfied (1) 6
4 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (1.5) 6
3 Somewhat dissatisfied (2) 6
2 Highly dissatisfied (2.5) 5
Q9. How motivated are you to do your job well?
7 Highly motivated (.5) 3.5
7 Somewhat motivated (1) 7
2 Neither motivated nor unmotivated (1.5) 1.5
0 Somewhat unmotivated (2) 0
1 Highly unmotivated (2.5) 2.5
Q10. Describe your career advancement prospects with this organization.
0 Hopeful (.5) 0
4 Cautiously optimistic (1) 4
7 Can't really say (1.5) 10.5
3 Somewhat discouraging (2) 6
3 Gloomy (2.5) 7.5
Q11. Describe the orderliness (organization, manageability) of your work environment.
1 Highly ordered (.5) .5
8 Somewhat orderly (1) 8
5 Neither orderly nor chaotic (1.5) 7.5
3 Somewhat chaotic (2) 6
0 Highly chaotic (2.5) 0
Although much could be said about the results, one of the more immediately noticeable findings is that the highest values attained were those most directly bearing on multitasking and stress. Respondents indicated a high degree of multitasking activity in question one, with twelve and four of seventeen (94% total) affirming either "very often" or "often" engaging in multitasking respectively. Similarly, six of seventeen reported "way too much" stress in their work environment, while another four agreed with "too much," for a 58% reported excessive stress level. Asked to describe the degree to which multitasking contributes to stress, three indicated that multitasking was the main stressor, while another eight maintained that multitasking was a "main contributor" to stress. Thus 64% of respondents appear to directly support the hypothesis that multitasking is a significant stressor. On the other hand, it should be noted that more respondents (94%) reported engaging in significant multitasking activity than those who reported a corresponding stress level (58%).
The single answer "very often" occurred most frequently (12 times), in response to the question, "How often do you find it necessary to multitask?" This would indicate that multitasking is a common practice among these salespersons. Next most frequent among responses was "somewhat more" (9) to reflect how much more work, if any, gets done through multitasking. Just behind this response was the sentiment that "multitasking is a major contributor to stress" (8). With the understanding that multitasking is taking place frequently and that perceptions of stress are common, the single most telling question would appear to be:
Q4. To what extent does multitasking contribute to the stress you experience?
3 Multitasking is the main cause of stress (5) 15
8 Multitasking is a major contributor to stress (4) 32
6 Can't say one way or the other (3) 18
0 Multitasking is only a slight stressor (2) 0
0 Multitasking doesn't cause any significant stress (1) 0
When the scaled values assigned to the responses to Q4 are multiplied by the number of responses and tallied, then divided by the total number of respondents, a mean of 3.82 results. Thus the average response leans toward the perception that "multitasking is a major contributor to stress" (the response representing 4 on a scale of 1 to 5). Additionally, none of the respondents indicated that multitasking is only a slight, or even a totally insignificant, stressor. Evidently multitasking, by this small sampling of responses to a direct question on the matter, contributes to stress. A standard deviation of .72 furthermore denotes a remarkable consistency on the single question most relevant to the research question.
Interestingly enough, most respondents (70%) felt that they accomplished more total work by multitasking than by performing tasks in sequential order. This perception runs counter to the findings of research indicating that a net loss of time (hence productivity) takes place during a task switch (Davidson, 2006; Rubinstein et al, 2001). Also, 82% described themselves as either "highly motivated" or "somewhat motivated" to excel on the job—evidently in the face of much stress, and without much encouraging feedback. While three respondents believed themselves to be recipients of positive feedback "very often" or "often," ten reported "very often" or "often" experiences of negative feedback—for a range of 17% to 58% between reported positive and negative feedback experiences. Questions eight, ten and eleven, related to stress and burnout, yielded a seemingly inconclusive assortment of responses.
Comments by respondents were sparse (8 total) and varied considerably. At least one participant indicated full agreement with the multitasking-stress hypothesis: "The more multitasking there is the higher the stress level will be in my case." Another qualified the hypothesis, stating that "Multitasking is a good way to get things done as long as you can handle all of the tasks.... If there are too many tasks the stress level is not controllable." For this person, multitasking only works to a point, after which additional tasks multiply stresses. One mentioned quality, specifically that "the quality of work I am capable of doing is diminished," and added that "customer service decreases." At least two were enthusiastic about multitasking, one saying that "Multitasking keeps work interesting and challenging," while another added, "I don't mind the multitasking. It seems to keep me on my toes and thinking straight." A final response appeared equally enthusiastic, though ambiguous: "I'm all for it!"
Chapter V: Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Study
It would be reasonable to suggest, from the admittedly limited scope and limited supply of responses recorded in this study—combined with the various statements and findings offered by other researchers—that multitasking does correlate positively with stress. Questions assessing the quantity of multitasking activity, the level of stress experienced on the job, and the degree to which multitasking contributes to stress, collectively elicited the strongest responses, and the responses most consistently supportive of the hypothesis.
Possible avenues for further research would include the impact of multitasking on safety; age as a moderator of multitasking effectiveness (as proposed by Girard, 2007); the economic idea of diminishing returns applied to the concepts of information, task, and role overload due to multitasking; and the effects of multitasking on stress-related psychological conditions such as burnout and depression.
The multitasking-depression idea in particular has some support from Meier (1984), whose research links stress with burnout, and burnout with depression. Explaining the adverse effects of technology on "inherited temperament" in the onset of depression, the celebrated psychiatrist Peter Kramer (1992) writes, "The problem is that our modern technological society demands the ability to face outward, expend high degrees of energy, take risks, and respond rapidly to multiple competing stimuli" (p. 172). The author of this study, one acquainted with both stress and (at one time) depression, would have to agree: "Multitasking means in essence not only defying the elementary principles of logic and physics, but undergoing the kinds of serious psychological distresses that frequently lead to depression (McIntosh, 2007, p. 46).
References
Anderson, P. (2001). Study: Multitasking is counterproductive. Retrieved October 14, 207 from
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/trends/08/05/multitasking.study.
Anthony, W. P., Kacmar, M. K., & Perrewe, P. L. (2002). Human resource management: A strategic approach. (4th ed.). Mason, Ohio: South-Western.
Brehm, S. S., Kassin, S. M., & Fein, S. (2002). Social psychology. (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Brillhart, P. E. (2004). Technostress in the workplace: Managing stress in the electronic workplace. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 302-307. Retrieved September 5, 2007 from Business Source Complete database.
Chang, L. (2006). Multitasking hurts learning. Web MD Medical News. Retrieved September 5, 2007 from
http://www.webmd.com/balance/guide/20070201/multitasking-hurts-learning.
Consumer Reports on Health. (2006). Multitasking may backfire. Consumer Reports on Health, 18, 4, 10. Retrieved October 11, 2007 from Academic Complete database.
Davidson, J. (2006). Why multitasking backfires. Associations Now, 2, 5, 14. Retrieved October 11, 2007 from Academic Complete database.
Feiler, J. (2001). Mac OS X: The complete reference. Berkeley, CA: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Girard, N. J. (2007). Multitasking: How much is too much? AORN Journal, 85, 3, 505-506. Retrieved September 5, 2007 from Science Direct database.
Goetsch, D. L., & Davis, S. B. (2006). Quality management: Introduction to total quality for production, and services. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hillstrom, K., & Hillstrom, L. C. (2002). Encyclopedia of small business. Detroit Gale Group.
Kramer, P. D. (1993). Listening to Prozac: A psychiatrist explores antidepressant drugs and the remaking of the self. New York: Penguin.
LaBrosse, M. (2006). Project management. Network Journal, 13, 6, 29. Retrieved October 13, 2006 from Proquest database.
Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, J. P. (2003). Management information systems: Managing the digital firm. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McIntosh, D. (2007). Crushed with a tempest: The book of Job and the phenomenon of depression. Cape Town, South Africa: Vineyard International Publishing.
Meier, S. T. (1984). The construct validity of burnout. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, 211-219. Retrieved September 5, 2007 from Business Source Complete database.
Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. W. (2001). Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations. (6th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 4, 763-797. Retrieved September 5, 2007 from www.apa.org/journals/releases/xhp274763.pdf.
Scott, W. D., Winters, R. W., & Beevers, C. G. (2000) Affective Distress as an organizing factor in depression: Psychological mechanisms. In S. Johnson, A. Hayes, T. Field, N., P. M. McCabe, Schneiderman (Eds.). Stress, coping and depression. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Seaward, B. L. (2005). Quiet mind, fearless heart: The Taoist path through stress and spirituality. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Stanton, N. (1996). Human factors in nuclear safety. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis.
Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2007). The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24, 1, 301-328. Retrieved October 11, 2007 from Business Complete database.
Wellens, B. T., & Smith, A. P. (2006). Combined workplace stressors and their relationship with mood, physiology, and performance. Work & Stress, 20, 3, 245-258. Retrieved December 10, 2007 from Academic Search Complete database.
Wickelgren, I. (2006). System overload. Current Science, 92, 7, 4-5. Retrieved October 13, 2007 from Proquest database.
Appendix: Employee Survey
Confidential Employee Survey
The following brief survey will be used for a graduate level research project at the University of Texas at Tyler. Participation is strictly voluntary. All individual answers will be kept confidential and all respondents will remain anonymous.
Please read each question carefully and indicate the best answer to each question with a check mark. Also, please be sure to answer each question. Thanks for your participation.
1. How often do you find it necessary to multitask (switch back and forth between various tasks or demands) during a typical workday?
__ Very often
__ Often
__ Sometimes
__ Rarely
__ Hardly ever
2. Would you say that you accomplish more net work by multitasking than by performing tasks in order or in sequence?
__ Yes, much more
__ Somewhat more
__ Neither more nor less
__ Somewhat less
__ Much less
3. Rate the level of stress that best describes your work environment.
__ Way too much
__ Too much
__ Just enough to keep the work challenging or interesting
__ Not enough
__ Hardly any whatsoever
4. To what extent does multitasking contribute to the stress you experience?
__ Multitasking is the main cause of stress
__ Multitasking is a major contributor to stress
__ Can't say one way or the other
__ Multitasking is only a slight stressor
__ Multitasking doesn't cause any significant stress
5. Do you normally have enough time to complete your regular duties and assigned tasks?
__ Almost always
__ Usually
__ Sometimes
__ Rarely
__ Hardly ever
6. How often do you receive positive feedback about your job performance?
__ Very often
__ Often
__ Sometimes
__ Rarely
__ Hardly ever
7. How often do you receive negative feedback about your job performance?
__ Very often
__ Often
__ Sometimes
__ Rarely
__ Hardly ever
8. How satisfied are you with your job?
__ Highly satisfied
__ Somewhat satisfied
__ Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
__ Somewhat dissatisfied
__ Highly dissatisfied
9. How motivated are you to do your job well?
__ Highly motivated
__ Somewhat motivated
__ Neither motivated nor unmotivated
__ Somewhat unmotivated
__ Highly unmotivated
10. Describe your career advancement prospects with this organization:
__ Hopeful
__ Cautiously optimistic
__ Can't really say
__ Somewhat discouraging
__ Gloomy
11. Describe the orderliness (organization, manageability) of your work environment:
__ Highly ordered
__ Somewhat orderly
__ Neither orderly nor chaotic
__ Somewhat chaotic
__ Highly chaotic
12. Please add any comments you may have concerning multitasking and/or stress in the workplace. If you have no comments to add, simply write "NA" below to indicate your response.
Comments:
Thank you again for participating in this survey.
Don McIntosh
Graduate student in Human Resource Development
University of Texas at Tyler (Telecampus)