Entering Multiple online meetings: The "Beauty" of Multi-tasking?

 

Among my recent ongoing struggles at the (virtual #WorkFromHome) workplace is identifying which meetings are important and priority, versus which ones I “need to let go”. 

The virtual workplace has enabled us to easily hop to and from meetings (putting others on hold) at our convenience. But this great digital enabler also opened the door for a chaotic mess of overlapping & redundant meetings. 

My recent work calendar is flooded with so many (many of which claim they are “urgent” – making you sometimes wonder! what does that word even mean anymore?), overlapping to a point where, not only do input multiple ones on hold, but to a point where I had to enter two meetings simultaneously - one meeting on laptop, and the other on the phone.

But I quickly came to the realization that, if I enter two meetings simultaneously, my productivity is so poor that I don't gain anything from either meeting - neither do I actually add value to both meetings! 

This reminds me of an ayah in the Qur'an:

مَّا جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لِرَجُلٍ مِّن قَلْبَيْنِ فِى جَوْفِهِ

"Allah has not made for any man two hearts inside his body. " (33:4)

Seriously, though: Is multi-tasking a good thing?

Quoting an online course in Harvard Managementor (HMM) on "Time Management": 

“We are overwhelmed and overloaded with inputs into our lives, and the instinct we have is to constantly move from one to another. And we think that's the most efficient; sometimes we think it's the only way to get stuff done.

Wrong! The human brain is incapable of multitasking. It can do only one thing at a time. When you begin to move, you incur something called switching time, which means that, for you to get from topic A to topic B, there is a period of time in between. And what that results in is a lack of efficiency.

It pays to do one thing at a time in an absorbed way. It's going to mean that you do it more efficiently, and it's also going to mean that, because you are more fully absorbed in it, you're more likely to do it at a high level of quality.” 

(End Quote)

That last paragraph is important. Better get ONE quality meeting than two unproductive ones that “seem” as if you are present, but actually aren’t!

I realized, the better way is to prioritize and respectfully decline upfront – tell them you are unable to join – instead of overcommitting. As tough as it may sound, to say “no” upfront – and to potentially confront a disappointed stakeholder to focus on one quality delivery – is far more productive, respectful and merciful to everyone involved. 

Perhaps, if everyone starts thinking in this wavelength, people may will begin planning their meetings in advance and respect people’s time, instead of the constant barrage of last minute invitations. 

What do you think? Any genuinely super-skilled multi-taskers out there who disagree with the above?