China Construction Bank Risk Management Report

INTRODUCTION

        Multitasking is a human ability, with which a person can work on multiple tasks simultaneously, such as writing when listening to music, answering phone when reading on computer screen, and watching GPS when driving, etc. It sometimes also refers to switch from one task to another (Lin et al. 308). Even though most researchers have found that multitasking negatively affected individual’s work efficiency and performance, multitasking skill increasingly becomes a job requirement in modern work environment (Lin et al. 309).

        The continuing demand of multitasking ability in workplace is deeply related to the modern technological development such as the invention of computer (Baron 170). According to Baron, our society has evolved from monochronicity to polychronicity (Baron 171), where time is linear and cyclical respectively (Hall 281). A polychronic society prefers completing tasks simultaneously and technologies facilitate individuals to complete concurring tasks (Baron 171). For example, the invention of GPS makes it possible for drivers to look up the map when driving rather than doing it before starting the trip. However, seeing the virtual map and the road simultaneously may lead to a car crash. This hypothesis illustrates the dichotomy of multitasking in real life setting. In a workplace that involves multitasking condition, companies may suffer economic lose if it doesn’t handle this issue well.

Given the growth in technology and multitasking, managers need to understand the impact on businesses and employees.

CLAIMS

Claim 1: Low Work Efficiency

Multitasking, even if it depends on different sensory modalities, lowers our work efficiency. Some have argued that if the overlapping of neural process in concurring tasks didn’t occur, the completion of the tasks would not compete the neural resources (Alais et al. ). However, researchers Lin et al. found the opposite in their 2015 study (Lin et al. 321). In their study, Lin et al. assigned their participants to complete accuracy of auditory or visual tasks alone and both tasks simultaneously. Their participants were 168 museum-goers across ages and demographics and grouped by ages (Lin et al. 311). While the auditory part was used as a distractor, the accuracy and completion time of the visual task in both single and multitasking were compared (Lin et al. 313). To better understand their test performance, Lin et al. also included personality traits analysis, observation notes, and post-survey interviews for their analysis (Lin et al. 314). 

        Through the comparison of the test scores in single tasking with multitasking, Lin et al. found that 96% participants spent less time on and achieved more accuracy in single tasking than in multitasking (Lin et al. 315). This is implicative to companies that multitasking, whether it depends on identical or different sensory modalities, negatively affects employees’ work efficiency.  Nevertheless, Lin et al. also found that relatively efficient multitaskers in their study applied dependable strategies when switching between tasks, such as making use of the working memory and sequential skills (Lin et al. 321-322). More importantly, Lin et al. reported that teenagers and young adults, who are more adaptive to digital media, had significantly better multitasking skills than adults (Lin et al. 317). This is possibly bound to individual’s executive function (Strayer et al. ), which can be strengthened through training even in older ages (Abbott ). As multitasking is inevitable in modern workplace, companies should provide training to not only their employees with regard to control and handling tasks in multitasking conditions, but also those in elder ages to enhance their executive attention.  

Claim 2: Pre-employment Multitasking Ability Test

It is necessary to test job candidates’ multitasking performance during the recruitment process particularly in jobs that involve heavy multitasking. Horst et al. has examined the positive relationship between a pre-employment multitasking ability test and the employee’s later performance (Horst et al. 434). Selecting 267 job candidates of a call center agent as their subjects (Horst et al. 436), Horst et al. established both liner cox regression model to analyze the correlation of these agents on-job performances to their multitasking test results as well as the fluid intelligence (Horst et al. 437-438). Not surprisingly, they found that the test results were an effective indicator of their multitasking performances and even predictive to their performance-based dismissal (Horst et al. 438). In addition, the fluid intelligence was also positively related to employees’ multitasking ability but not predictive to the time and possibility of job loss (Horst et al. 438).

In particular, both the linear and cox regression analysis showed that multitasking total score is positive to job performance with regard to dealing with customer-related issues at 1% significant level (Horst et al. 438). Therefore, companies should consider including a multitasking test in its job screening procedure, especially for positions that multitasking ability is essential and is customer-oriented. However, as the score is insignificantly correlative to that of the sales-related issues (Horst et al. 437), such test for sales-related job may possibly not valid for the prediction of candidate’s future performance. In addition, as Horst et al. suggested, companies should include testing of fluid intelligence along with multitasking in the selection procedure since both together would make a better picture of the candidate’s future performance (Horst et al. 438). In short, companies would reduce the risk of hiring employees with poor multitasking ability if they conduct an effect skill test during the selection procedure.

Claim 3: Insignificant Gender Difference

Women are no better at or more inclined to multitasking then men. Buser and Peter aimed to examine whether gender differences occurred in multitasking performance, where little scientific evidence provides support by the time of this research (Buser and Peter 642). In their design, they provided participants with Sudoku and Word Puzzle tasks, who needed to complete these tasks by using three different work schedules separately in the same timeframe (Buser and Peter 643). Participants would work on the tasks sequentially (Treatment Single), switch from one task to another when demanded (Treatment Multi), and freely arrange the working order of their tasks (Treatment Choice). In this way, Buser and Peter was able to simulate a modern work environment (Buser and Peter 644), where employees are required to frequently switch their tasks contingently, and compare their test results to see the productivity effect of these three treatments (Buser and Peter 645).