Multitasking: Myth not Miracle

In today’s relentlessly connected and competitive work environments, multitasking is often worn as a badge of honour. From pharmaceutical regulatory strategists juggling submission deadlines to executives navigating back-to-back video calls, many professionals in our industry equate the ability to manage multiple tasks simultaneously with high productivity and organisational value. But beneath the surface lies a long-standing psychological debate: is multitasking truly a marker of elite cognitive performance, or a reflection of poor workload management and managerial blind spots? Are those who seem to multitask successfully gifted outliers, or simply highly organised serial taskers creating the illusion of simultaneity?

In cognitive psychology, multitasking is typically defined as the simultaneous engagement in two or more tasks that require active attention. While many of us believe they can divide our attention between concurrent activities, the science suggests otherwise.

The cognitive bottleneck theory, first proposed in the early 1990s, notes that certain stages of cognitive processing, particularly decision-making and response selection—cannot occur simultaneously for multiple tasks [1]. Instead, attention must rapidly switch from one task to another, resulting in serial tasking with brief intervals of disengagement and re-engagement, where attention is governed primarily by the prefrontal cortex. An area of the brain responsible for executive functions like planning, decision-making, and task-switching. The prefrontal region struggles to focus intensively on more than one complex task at a time [2].

Multiple studies have demonstrated the cognitive costs of task-switching. A study on 2011 showed that shifting between tasks leads to measurable time losses and increased error rates, particularly when the tasks are complex or require different types of cognitive control [3]. When I am dealing with multiple information streams, I often experience periods of cognitive dissonance while my thoughts reorientate to the task in hand, it seems that this is not a result of my age. In a landmark study, researchers found that individuals who frequently multitask with digital media perform worse on tests of attention, working memory, and task-switching ability compared to those who focus on single tasks [4]. The evidence is clear: for most people, multitasking is inefficient, increases cognitive load, and undermines both productivity and accuracy.

Are There Any True Multitaskers?

While the majority of us are poor multitaskers, a tiny subset of individuals, dubbed ‘supertaskers,’ appear capable of managing concurrent tasks without performance decline. One study identified these outliers in a driving simulator study where participants performed a demanding driving task while simultaneously engaging in a phone-based memory challenge [5]. Approximately 2.5% of participants maintained high performance across both tasks, defying the typical interference effects.

While their precise neurophysiological profile remains under investigation, these individuals represent a cognitive exception rather than a rule. Research suggests that supertaskers possess superior working memory capacity, faster cognitive control switching, and potentially more efficient prefrontal cortex function [6]. As such, these data point to supertaskers still working in series, just they are better at than us mere humans [7]. In personality terms, it is not clear that supertaskers belong to a distinct personality type, but successful task managers, often mistaken for multitaskers, are frequently associated with high conscientiousness and low neuroticism (the ability to manage the stress associated with high cognitive load without performance collapse within the Big Five personality framework [8]. These traits correlate with better organisational skills, stress tolerance, and disciplined focus, which enables rapid sequential tasking that may appear to an observer as simultaneous multitasking.

Multitasking Versus Serial Tasking

What we perceive as multitasking is almost always rapid serial task-switching. Each switch incurs a ‘switch cost’ – the time and cognitive resources required to disengage from Task A, reorient attention, load the rules and context of Task B, and resume performance [9]. Research has shown that switching between tasks of even moderate complexity can result in substantial time delays and error rates compared to performing the tasks sequentially [10]. These costs accumulate rapidly with frequent switching. Individuals adept at these methods move between tasks rapidly and seamlessly, creating the impression of simultaneity.

Cognitive science has long acknowledged the benefits of time management techniques that minimise the cognitive costs of switching. Methods like effective list building [11], time blocking (allocating fixed periods for specific tasks), task batching (grouping similar activities together), and using structured workflow tools (digital kanban boards, priority matrices) reduce cognitive load and decision fatigue [12]. Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) explains that working memory has a finite capacity [13]. The mental effort required to deliver a task can be measure by its inherent difficulty (cognitive load), effort required to switch between tasks, manage competing stimuli, and refocus attention after each switch (extraneous load) and the effort devoted to actually learning or processing information (which is diminished when overloaded: germane load). When intrinsic and extraneous load exceed working memory capacity, performance on all tasks suffers significantly [14].

In essence, high-performing task managers succeed not because they multitask, but because they organise and execute single tasks in rapid, structured sequence, maintaining situational awareness and avoiding the cognitive penalties associated with unmanaged switching. You will often find that supertaskers will take time before they start their day mapping out the things they need to achieve with allocated time slots while also allowing time for interruptions.

Efficiency or Managerial Oversight?

Despite the recognised fallacy of multitasking, many modern workplaces, however, continue to demand or normalise it without considering the damage it can do in efforts to achieve specific goals. In knowledge-based industries, particularly those involving pharmaceutical development, clinical operations, and regulatory affairs, employees frequently face competing concurrent demands, a scenario that managers often underestimate. Research has demonstrated that frequent interruptions and task-switching increase time pressure, stress, and error rates, contradicting the myth that multitasking accelerates productivity [15]. Sadly, critically, invisible cognitive labour, the unrecognised attentional work of managing concurrent demands, is rarely acknowledged by leadership. And this is probably reflective of the nature of management in the pharmaceutical industry, where the focus is more on scientific and regulatory achievements.

In such environments, multitasking expectations often arise from poor workload design, a lack of prioritisation, and insufficient awareness of cognitive limits. Tema members may feel obligated to accept overlapping responsibilities, risking reduced accuracy, mental fatigue, and burnout. Tam leaders who equate busyness (constant task-switching) with productivity, or who indiscriminately assigns multiple urgent tasks without regard for capacity or priority, are creating dysfunctional environments. The burden placed on the individual is immense, leading to:

• Increased errors: Reduced attention to detail leads to more mistakes [4].
• Longer completion times: The cumulative switch costs often make ’multitasked’ work take longer overall than focused sequential work.
• Impaired memory: Encoding information into long-term memory is significantly hampered when attention is divided [16].
• Increased stress: The constant pressure of switching and managing multiple demands elevates stress hormones like cortisol [15].
• Reduced creativity: Deep thought and creative problem-solving require sustained, focused attention, which multitasking disrupts [17].

These will all lead to performance degradation, reduced overall output and eventual burnout [18]. It’s time for middle managers to recognise that effective task management is not about piling tasks on capable individuals but about intelligently sequencing and distributing cognitive effort. Failure to acknowledge this leads to hidden performance costs and employee dissatisfaction.

What to Do When You’re Overwhelmed

For professionals overwhelmed by multitasking demands, evidence-based strategies exist to reclaim focus and manage workload without sacrificing quality or well-being. Tools like Trello, Asana, or Notion enable visual task organisation, reducing the mental clutter of multiple open threads. But employing the strategies below will empower you to meet challenges without the aid of software:

• Cognitive offloading: Externalising tasks into lists, apps, or visual boards reduces working memory load.
• Prioritisation frameworks: Techniques like the Eisenhower Matrix or MoSCoW method help distinguish urgent from important tasks [19][20].
• Boundary setting: Learning to decline additional concurrent demands or defer tasks until capacity allows protects focus and performance.
• Single-tasking in sprints: Techniques like the Pomodoro method (25 minutes of focused work followed by a short break) improve concentration and stamina.
• Manage energy, not just time: Recognise natural energy fluctuations. Schedule demanding cognitive work during peak energy periods. Schedule less demanding tasks for lower-energy times.
• Time Blocking/Batching: Allocating specific, uninterrupted blocks of time to specific tasks or categories of tasks (e.g., ‘email block,’ ‘deep work block,’ ‘meeting block’). This markedly reduces task-switching costs by grouping similar cognitive demands together [21].

Crucially, supertaskers are outliers and designing work systems or expecting average employees to perform like supertaskers is unrealistic and counterproductive. Organisations need to recognise this in considering:

• Cognitive Load Education: Educating managers in understanding attention economics and the hidden costs of multitasking expectations.
• Workload Audits: Regularly review individual and team task allocations to identify risks of overloading.
• Focus-Friendly Culture: Encouraging uninterrupted work periods, reducing unnecessary meetings, and publicly valuing depth over breadth.

Conclusion

Multitasking, as popularly conceived, is largely a myth and many people over estimate their abilities [22]. While a tiny fraction of individuals may genuinely perform concurrent cognitive tasks without impairment, the vast majority of people experience performance declines, increased stress, and heightened error rates when attempting to divide their attention. In 40+ years in the industry I have met very few individuals who have honestly been able to do this. And what appears as multitasking in highly effective individuals is usually rapid, disciplined serial tasking enabled by strong organisational systems and self-regulation.

Organisations and managers play a critical role in either exacerbating or alleviating multitasking burdens. By recognising cognitive limits, respecting focus, and designing work structures that optimise task sequencing rather than overlapping demands, team leaders can enhance both productivity and employee well-being.

Ultimately, productivity is not about doing everything at once but about doing the right things in the right order, at the right pace. The solution is to work smarter, cognitively aligned with how our brains function. Sustainable performance stems from clarity, prioritisation, and strategic focus, not from juggling an impossible number of balls in the air.

References

1. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychol Bull 116(2), 220-244.
2. Marois, R, Ivanoff, J. (2005). Capacity limits of information processing in the brain. Trends Cog Sci 9(6), 296-305.
3. Rubinstein, JS, et al. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. J Exp Psychol: Hum Percep Perf 27(4), 763–797.
4. Ophir, E, et al. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers. PNAS 106(37), 15583–15587.
5. Watson, JM, Strayer, DL. (2010). Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary multitasking ability. Psychon Bull Rev17(4), 479-485.
6. Engle, RW. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Dir Psychol Sci 11(1), 19-23.
7. Strayer, DL, et al. (2013). Cognitive Distraction While Multitasking in the Automobile. Psychol Learn Motiv 58, 29-58.
8. Colzato, LS, et al. (2011). The impact of mindfulness on cognitive control. Psychol Res 75(4), 312-316.
9. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends Cog Sci 7(3), 134-140.
10. Koch I, et al. Response-repetition costs in task switching do not index a simple response-switch bias: Evidence from manipulating the number of response alternatives. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2023;85(8):2577-2587.
11. Hardman TC. (2025). The Psychology of Lists. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/psychology-lists-tim-hardman-1pdoe/?
12. Baumeister, RF, Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength. Penguin.
13. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cog Sci 12(2), 257-285.
14. Sweller, J., et al. (2011). Cognitive Load Theory. Springer.
15. Mark, G., et al. (2008). The cost of interrupted work: More speed and stress. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 107-110.
16. Foerde, K., et al. (2006). Modulation of competing memory systems by distraction. Proc Nat Acad Sci 103(31), 11778-11783.
17. Levitin, DJ. (2014). The Organized Mind: Thinking Straight in the Age of Information Overload. Dutton.
18. Maslach, C, et al. (2001). Job burnout. Ann Review Psychol 52(1), 397-422.
19. Clegg, B., Barker, R. (1994). Case Method Fast-Track: A RAD Approach. Addison-Wesley.
20. Covey, SR. (1989). The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Simon & Schuster.
21. Newport, C. (2016). Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World. Grand Central Publishing.
22. Sanbonmatsu, DM, et al. (2013). Who multi-tasks and why? Multi-tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability, impulsivity, and sensation seeking. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e54402.