2

The Singletasking Principle

MYTH

Singletasking is an unobtainable luxury.

REALITY

Singletasking is a fundamental necessity.

The shortest way to do many things
is to do one thing at a time.

SAMUEL SMITH

We are not learning to singletask. We are relearning. Single-tasking is rooted in the dawn of humankind. Early hunter-gatherers singletasked. That’s how our species survived. This book is not about introducing a newfangled way of being. It is about reclaiming our natural mental state.

Singletasking means being here, now, immersing yourself in one thing at a time.

Multitasking means living in a state of ceaseless distraction. In case you were wondering.

Want a real-life example of singletasking in action?

Brazil’s 2014 World Cup brought the U.S. team to Sao Paolo, reigniting excitement in soccer/football throughout America. The U.S. team lost a riveting 2–1 match against Belgium in overtime during the Round of 16, and the hero of the game was U.S. goalkeeper Tim Howard, whose sixteen amazing saves were broadcast over and over around the world. He was undeniably pivotal in ensuring the United States wasn’t trampled, though he still magnanimously credited his teammates. The team arrived as underdogs and played what Howard described as “a world-class team with world-class players,” a level of competition previously considered out of their league.

A commentator asked Howard how he maintained razor-sharp focus for a solid 120 minutes, observing, “You were almost in a trance.”

Howard described how he overcame extreme pressure, including hearing tens of thousands of screaming fans: “You just zone in. You know, it’s hard to explain. Once that whistle blows, everything else disappears.”¹ He was singletasking.

This is how you do it. Despite the loss, Howard returned home victorious. He embodied the humble pride of a champion, acknowledging, “I don’t think we could have given it more.”

As Howard demonstrated, singletasking does not mean inefficiently dawdling or dully plodding along. It doesn’t mean carrying one piece of paper at a time to the office shredder.

Singletasking is characterized by high energy and sharp focus … yielding exceptional results and respect.

Singletasking requires committing to your choices. Immersing yourself.

Singletasking obliges us to address one thing at a time to the exclusion of other demands in the present moment. You can handle your next task after working on this one. This does not require completion of the initial task, just the end of the current session of time dedicated to it. Task-switching, on the other hand, makes every task take longer.

Enemies of the Here and Now

Pouting over the past and fretting about the future are relentless time thieves, robbing us of our right to singletask. All too often we are lured into the trap of thinking about what could have been if things hadn’t gone awry, or worrying about a potential outcome that may never occur. Both journeys are a big waste of time, particularly if we traverse them again and again.

As a corollary, we cannot be fully productive when we are preoccupied with judging people around us. Assessing the shortcomings and flaws of others when we could be achieving our own goals is an indefensible waste of time and energy. Plus, it interferes with reaching our own potential.

The first step is awareness. Notice where your thoughts dally when you are traveling to work, starting to fall asleep, in an idle moment before a meeting, waiting in line. Does a particular thorn in your side from the past crop up? Or do you have a habitual concern about a future turn life may take? Remind yourself that mulling over the past and envisioning alarming futures is not only fruitless but also lazy—it keeps us from throwing our presence into this moment, right here. We can’t change the past, predict the future, or control other people. We can only singletask in the moment to make the most positive contribution to our lives, our work, and the world swirling all around.

Think about It

Before posing a question I am prone to query, “May I ask you something, or shall I wait?” I am assessing whether that person is free to talk or is engrossed in another task. A common response is, “Go ahead, talk to me. I’m fine,” while the other person trundles along with what they’re doing.

At this point I generally reply, “No problem. I’ll wait.” Talking to someone who is simultaneously engaged in another task is a formula for failure. Many people resist acknowledging that doing two things at once is inherently detrimental, rather than proof of one’s efficiency.

Recollect a recent meeting you attended. Was your mind elsewhere? The next time you attend a meeting, practice being where you are. Synchronize your mind and body. Be present.

Sometimes we don’t even realize how far away our thoughts have wandered. Up next is a handy assessment designed to measure your predisposition toward being where you are.

Singletasking and You

Wondering where you land in all this?

Reflect upon your typical workweek. Using the questionnaire in table 1 on the following pages, circle the degree to which you engage in each of the following activities, using this scale:

5 = Frequently (3 or more times/week)

4 = Often (1–2 times/week)

3 = Sometimes (1–3 times/month)

2 = Occasionally (5–8 times/year)

1 = Rarely (1–4 times/year)

0 = Never

Table 1: Singletask Self-Assessment How often do you …

1. Use your handheld device while driving?

2. Meet someone new and can’t recall his or her name within moments?

3. Respond to a message while in a meeting?

4. Not know what preceded the question, “What do you think about that?”

5. Use your personal device while walking?

6. Use your smartphone while with a colleague?

7. Intend to do a task and instead become sidetracked?

8. Show up at the wrong time or place for an appointment?

9. Pretend you are taking notes on your laptop while engaged in another task (such as surfing the Web, checking email, or texting)?

10. Exit an elevator on the wrong floor because you are distracted?

11. Have to reread or rewatch material because you weren’t focused?

12. Realize you aren’t giving someone your complete attention?

13. Keep your personal device on the table at meals and check it regularly?

14. Feel compelled to respond to work demands when “off the clock”?

15. Write an important note on a scrap of paper that is subsequently misplaced?

16. Finish workdays with the sense that you didn’t get enough done?

17. Lose your train of thought due to media interruptions?

18. Hear from others that you are easily or often distracted?

19. Surf the Web, go on social media, or respond to messages while on the phone?

20. Have a lack of fulfillment and productivity, despite being busy?

Calculate Your Score

Now, calculate your score by adding up your total points. This score reveals your current propensity to singletask.

YOUR SCORE: __________

RESULTS

0 to 25 Points

Level 1: One Singletask Sensation

Thank you for scoring so low. Your sensational ability to singletask has, for starters, enabled me to use the heading “One Singletask Sensation,” my behind-the-scenes purpose for writing this book. You are truly dedicated to living in the moment … or you live on a commune in a remote parcel of land without access to the twenty-first century. I hope you at least catch the news from time to time.

26 to 50 Points

Level 2: The Right Track

You will be doing a good amount of nodding while reading this book (head nodding, not nodding off). You either have a predisposition for immersing yourself in one task at a time or have consciously integrated singletasking into your life. You are on the right track, and we can get you even further along in your quest to be here, now.

51 to 75 Points

Level 3: Hope Springs Eternal

Don’t stop believing. Look at the upside! There are lots of ways you can achieve a new, more effective way of working and living. Keep reading. We can beat this thing.

76 to 100 Points

Level 4: Hit the Brakes

Hey, I know some stellar executive coaches. Let me know if you’d like an introduction! No, seriously, reading this book is a fabulous step forward to making an impactful, positive change in your productivity and relationships.

The Meaning of This

The Singletask Self-Assessment enables you to determine where you land on the spectrum. Envision a line, from the most diehard multitaskers to the most skilled singletaskers.

Few people encompass entirely one style or the other. Most of us tend toward a particular side, landing somewhere along the spectrum. Stress, context, and concurrent demands can all determine how prone we are to task-switching on a given day—or during a particular week.

Sample Results

Perhaps you wonder what types of activities are most likely to ensnare us. A similar singletask self-assessment was administered to two hundred respondents representing thirty diverse professions. Table 2 presents a compilation of responses to some sample statements.

TABLE 2: Results from a Similar Singletask Survey

HAVE YOU ENGAGED IN THE FOLLOWING BEHAVIORS ONCE OR MORE PER WEEK?	AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSES
Sat at the computer to do something and got sidetracked into doing something else?	91%
Heard a name and couldn’t remember it a moment later?	91%
Used your personal device while walking in public or in high-traffic areas?	87%
Been with a colleague and responded to a text or instant message from someone else?	52%
Responded to an instant message while on a call or in a meeting?	50%
Realized during a meeting that you did not remember what was last said?	49%

The top three questions have astoundingly high positive response rates. The remaining questions have affirmative responses for about half the respondents. Task-switching is enticing indeed. And the impact of being so distracted damages careers, communication, and credibility.

Progress?

The Industrial Revolution (circa 1760–1840) marked a seismic shift in the technological age. The telegraph and telephone became widespread in Western Europe and North America, beginning a societal trajectory that marked the end of the world as we knew it. Suddenly, people could be beckoned at any time. Technology stormed our lives, luring us away from the people and events directly in front of us. Singletasking became increasingly difficult to maintain.

Carl Jung (1875–1961), the founder of analytical psychology, described his visit to Africa in 1925: “My companions and I had the good fortune to taste the world of Africa.… Our camp life proved to be one of the loveliest interludes in my life. I enjoyed the ‘divine peace’ of a still primeval country.… Thousands of miles lay between me and Europe, mother of all demons. The demons could not reach me here—there were no telegrams, no telephone calls, no letters, no visitors. My liberated psychic forces poured blissfully back to the primeval expanses.”²

Jung referenced the “divine peace” of fleeing the technological “demons” of early twentieth-century Europe. He cherished escaping telegrams and phone calls. Now, a mere ninety years later, we can hardly imagine considering such basic technological devices any real threat to our privacy or peace of mind.

What are your modern-day versions of “technological demons”?

Start a list, whatever comes to mind. You can include devices, social media platforms, or any version of technology. Spending two or three minutes of your time on the list sounds about right.

Our minds cannot keep up with the speed of technology. Despite the promises of devices to make our lives easier and simpler, we live with increasing peril of social isolation and of threatened privacy and security.

Encounters

Martin Buber (1878–1965), a philosopher and a contemporary of Jung’s, examined the impact of high- and low-quality interpersonal relationships. He shares how cultures free from modern distractions have a connectivity reflected by their language: “In the beginning is relation. Consider the speech of ‘primitive’ peoples … whose life is built up within a narrow circle of acts highly charged with presentness. The nuclei of this speech … indicate the wholeness of a relation. Zulu have a word for ‘far away’ which means … ‘There where someone cries out: O mother, I am lost.’”³

Buber cited people’s increasingly pervasive sense of alienation in the early twentieth century. He attributed this to the underlying meaninglessness of an ever-growing percentage of interpersonal encounters. He professed that life is about the creation of meaningful interactions and identified two primary modes of relating to others, translated from the original German as “thou” and “it.”

The thou approach understands life as a series of encounters. We engage others as active participants in a shared dialogue. Thou interactions are concrete and authentic. Buber believed that every interaction—however brief or transient—has infinite potential.

The it style treats others as objects to analyze and use. Discussion boils down, more or less, to a series of monologues. In this mode, we don’t truly “meet” people; instead, we assess how they can be of service. Buber considered this mode of interaction a lack of real encounters, devaluing life and the meaning of existence. He lamented the uptick of the it interactive style: man is alienated, life is meaningless, because we no longer value the thou mode of encounter. Many modern ills come from this dehumanization.

The cost of disengaged encounters is high, according to Buber, because true living depends on meaningful interactions with depth. As he said, “All actual life is encounter.”⁴

Today we engage ever more heavily in it interactions. Mentally absent from those physically present, we half listen while conversing electronically with people physically absent.

The practice of singletasking returns us to being where we are, restoring whole relationships and real interactions.

Welcome, my friend, to the crisp and cheery world of singletasking.

Pull up a chair. We are going to have a little chat about your relationship to your brain. After all, you take it nearly everywhere you go.