Attention Span of a Hummingbird
05/01/12 07:59
A recent article (by Derek Dean and Caroline Webb) in the McKinsey Quarterly (available here) describes the challenges of Information Overload. Interestingly given current technology-driven dynamics (email, Facebook, twitter, blackberry, mobile phones, ...), the article begins by citing a 1967 observation by Peter Drucker. The fundamental point is that people need to devote solid and extended blocks of time to think about complicated issues.
In truth, the challenge didn’t arise in 1967 (or 1867). It began when someone decided to leave the African savannah. The article describes a typical characteristic of human beings: a belief that it is better to make a little progress on a plethora of challenges than it is to actually complete a single substantive task. Alternatively, it is better to finish a myriad of piddling and insignificant tasks than it is to actually complete a singe substantial project.
Although such attention fragmentation is an old problem, technology has made it easier to find reasons to procrastinate. Why develop a coherent program to improve customer and employee satisfaction when you can clear your in-box by flushing all the solicitation and Happy New Year messages?
The trendy solution is multitasking. The authors point out that the every study has shown that human multitasking is inefficient and ineffective. It creates an illusion of progress but misunderstands the associated overhead that takes place in the head. The (head-encased) brain can handle one task at a time.
Early computers had the same limitation. But because these machines processed simple, rote and well-defined work, they created the illusion of simultaneous actions by rapidly switching from one task to another. For each switch, the ‘current state’ of the old problem was saved and the old ‘current state’ of the new problem was restored. It took time to handle the save/restore cycle. If the computer had too many things to do, progress would vanish. Save/Restore was the only activity. This was called thrashing. (There are ways to detect and correct thrashing, but they are not completely fool-proof.)
When humans switch attention from one task to another, they also have to do a ‘save and restore’. The process takes time and is far less robust for human beings than it it is for machines. The ‘current state’, i.e. the one that has to be saved, is not well-defined. People solve problems by considering a variety of seemingly unrelated items. It is often these extraneous bits of information that lead to serendipitous and innovation decisions. It takes time, attention and focus to create the brain state that makes this possible. But it is not possible to reliably save and restore this state.
I concur with the article’s recommendations.
Focus: Concentrate attention on important items.
Filter: Ignore the unimportant items.
Forget: After you’ve ignored them - forget about it.
Someone once said:
“If it’s not worth doing, then it’s not worth doing well.”
It may be better to say:
“If it’s not worth doing, then... don’t do it.”
The solution is not easy. It requires discipline and willingness to ignore the corporate norms. On the other hand, the end of the 15-minute MAU (Management Attention Unit) and the demise of conversations with people who have the attention span of a hummingbird are worth the sacrifice.
In truth, the challenge didn’t arise in 1967 (or 1867). It began when someone decided to leave the African savannah. The article describes a typical characteristic of human beings: a belief that it is better to make a little progress on a plethora of challenges than it is to actually complete a single substantive task. Alternatively, it is better to finish a myriad of piddling and insignificant tasks than it is to actually complete a singe substantial project.
Although such attention fragmentation is an old problem, technology has made it easier to find reasons to procrastinate. Why develop a coherent program to improve customer and employee satisfaction when you can clear your in-box by flushing all the solicitation and Happy New Year messages?
The trendy solution is multitasking. The authors point out that the every study has shown that human multitasking is inefficient and ineffective. It creates an illusion of progress but misunderstands the associated overhead that takes place in the head. The (head-encased) brain can handle one task at a time.
Early computers had the same limitation. But because these machines processed simple, rote and well-defined work, they created the illusion of simultaneous actions by rapidly switching from one task to another. For each switch, the ‘current state’ of the old problem was saved and the old ‘current state’ of the new problem was restored. It took time to handle the save/restore cycle. If the computer had too many things to do, progress would vanish. Save/Restore was the only activity. This was called thrashing. (There are ways to detect and correct thrashing, but they are not completely fool-proof.)
When humans switch attention from one task to another, they also have to do a ‘save and restore’. The process takes time and is far less robust for human beings than it it is for machines. The ‘current state’, i.e. the one that has to be saved, is not well-defined. People solve problems by considering a variety of seemingly unrelated items. It is often these extraneous bits of information that lead to serendipitous and innovation decisions. It takes time, attention and focus to create the brain state that makes this possible. But it is not possible to reliably save and restore this state.
I concur with the article’s recommendations.
Focus: Concentrate attention on important items.
Filter: Ignore the unimportant items.
Forget: After you’ve ignored them - forget about it.
Someone once said:
“If it’s not worth doing, then it’s not worth doing well.”
It may be better to say:
“If it’s not worth doing, then... don’t do it.”
The solution is not easy. It requires discipline and willingness to ignore the corporate norms. On the other hand, the end of the 15-minute MAU (Management Attention Unit) and the demise of conversations with people who have the attention span of a hummingbird are worth the sacrifice.
blog comments powered by Disqus