Multitasking: Do preference and ability interact to predict performance at work?

Transcription

1 556 Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2013), 86, The British Psychological Society Short research note Multitasking: Do preference and ability interact to predict performance at work? Kristin R. Sanderson 1, Valentina Bruk-Lee 1 *, Chockalingam Viswesvaran 1, Sara Gutierrez 2 and Tracy Kantrowitz 3 1 Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA 2 SHL, Chantilly, Virginia, USA 3 SHL, Alpharetta, Georgia, USA This study examined the moderating role of polychronicity, the preference for multitasking, on the relationship between multitasking ability and performance. The results support the importance of fit in understanding the interaction between preference for and ability to multitask. The relationship between multitasking ability and an overall performance composite was stronger for individuals higher in polychronicity. For employees low in polychronicity, having the ability to multitask did not translate into meaningful performance differences. Practitioner points Overall job performance is optimal for employees with both the ability to multitask and the preference for doing so. The relationship between multitasking ability and overall job performance is negligible for monochronic employees. Multitasking is a common component of many job descriptions and critical job demands (Ishizaka, Marshall, & Conte, 2001) and is commonly identified as a key competency in job analyses (Kinney, Kung, Walvoord, & Shoemaker, 2010). Understanding how individuals respond to the conflicting demands of multiple tasks may be an important consideration in predicting job performance in today s work environment. Perhaps, for this reason, research on individual preference and ability regarding time usage and task completion has burgeoned in the past decade (K onig & Waller, 2010). Studies have focused on two related, but distinct, constructs of organizational relevance: polychronicity and multitasking ability. While ability is an important determinant of behaviour, preferences are likely to interact with ability in predicting performance. Polychronicity refers to a preference for working on multiple tasks at the same time (K onig & Waller, 2010; Poposki & Oswald, 2010). It was first studied as a cultural variable (Hall, 1959), concerned with the extent to which individuals preferred to engage in multiple tasks simultaneously and their belief that this was the most effective way to accomplish tasks (Bluedorn, Kaufman, & Lane, *Correspondence should be addressed to Valentina Bruk-Lee, Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA ( vblee@fiu.edu). DOI: /joop.12025

2 Multitasking in organizations ). Multitasking, however, refers to the ability of switching between multiple tasks that require a conscious shift of attention over a short time span (Oswald, Hambrick, & Jones, 2007). Three key elements are widely accepted in defining multitasking ability, including the presence of multiple tasks, the sharing of cognitive resources, and time constraint. Salvucci and Taatgen (2008, 2011) explained multitasking using a theory of threaded cognition, which asserts that multitasking behaviour is a result of multiple threads of cognition happening simultaneously where each thought signifies a different goal of task accomplishment. Current research has focused on the role that multitasking ability plays in predicting job performance when measured with work-related methods (e.g., Hambrick et al., 2011; Kantrowitz & Kinney, 2009). Using a fit framework (Edwards, 1991; Hecht & Allen, 2005), this study further advances this stream of research by investigating the interaction between polychronicity and multitasking ability in predicting supervisory rated performance in an organizational sample. Hence, a primary purpose of this research is to demonstrate that congruence between one s preference to multitask and the ability to attend to multiple tasks concurrently is critical in maximizing performance at work. The moderating role of polychronicity Studies have shown that the effectiveness of polychronicity in predicting job performance depends largely on the nature of the job and that polychronicity predicts job performance only if the work environment demands multitasking (K onig & Waller, 2010). It is thought that to the extent possible, individuals manage workloads and seek work environments in accordance with their preferences for multitasking (Conte, Rizzuto, & Steiner, 1999; Kantrowitz, Grelle, Beaty, & Wolf, 2012). Employees who prefer multitasking environments may intentionally engage in switching between multiple tasks in both work and personal life (Oswald et al., 2007). Accordingly, it has been suggested that polychronic individuals are likely to excel in environments requiring multitasking, whereas the relationship between polychronicity and performance is less robust in an environment that does not demand multitasking (K onig & Waller, 2010). Taken together, the results of these studies suggest that preferences will influence behaviour; however, the interaction between polychronicity and multitasking ability in predicting performance still remains to be explored. Although job environments in which multitasking is an essential competency demand some degree of multitasking behaviour, individual preferences and ability may combine to determine the extent to which such behaviour is exhibited. Based on the notion of fit (e.g., Edwards, 1991; Hecht & Allen, 2005), congruence between the preference for and the ability to multitask should maximize performance in such an environment. Individuals high in polychronicity are likely to voluntarily approach tasks in a parallel manner, and for those who are able to draw upon the ability to do so effectively, the relationship with performance is likely to be strong. Conversely, Goonetilleke and Luximon (2009) found that monochronic individuals stayed focused on their tasks and ignored distractions. Hence, individuals with low preference for multitasking are less likely to engage in such behaviours even when they are capable of doing so (i.e., high ability), resulting in a negligible relationship between multitasking ability and performance. We hypothesize that: Hypothesis: Polychronicity will moderate the relationship between multitasking ability and overall job performance such that the relationship will be stronger when polychronicity is high.

3 558 Kristin R. Sanderson et al. Method Participants A sample of 119 employees serving in professional occupations including Finance, Human Resources, Legal, Sales, and Services were tested as part of a larger criterion-related validation study. The sample was 66% male with 46% of the participants reporting race to be White/Caucasian, 40% Asian, 2% Hispanic/Latino, 2% Black/African American, and 1% Native American. Procedure Sixty-five subject matter experts (SMEs) completed a job analysis questionnaire to determine the importance of multitasking ability for successful performance of each of these positions. Multitasking ability was rated a key competency meeting the threshold of very important for job performance (M = 3.94, SD = 0.64) on a scale from 1 to 5. Mean responses 3 or 4 indicated that, on average, SMEs felt that the work behaviour dimension was at least Important or Very Important, respectively. As part of a concurrent validation study, incumbents were sent the link to an online assessment including measures of multitasking ability, cognitive ability, and polychronicity. Supervisors reported performance ratings via an online rating form. Participants were informed that the data would be used for research purposes. A total of 119 employees completed the assessments, and matched data were available on 102 individuals. Measures Polychronicity Thirteen items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale that measured an employee s attitudes and preferences for working on tasks in a linear or parallel manner. Sample items include Switching between tasks causes you stress and You are most productive when working on many things at the same time. The test retest reliability was.88 with a 2-week time interval. The scale has been shown to predict job performance for a variety of roles (Kantrowitz et al., 2012). Multitasking ability The Multitasking Ability Test (SHL, 2009), which measures performance on two simultaneous tasks presented in a split-screen format, was used. The first-time sensitive task is a general problem-solving assessment measuring aspects of deductive reasoning and quantitative ability. The second task is an simulation designed to assess reading comprehension and ability to recall information. The simulation s standard scoring was used consisting of a total multitasking ability score computed from a weighted combination of the problem-solving and information retrieval components of the test. Coefficient alpha for the problem-solving and information retrieval items ranges between and.92.94, respectively. Cognitive ability The Global Cognitive Index (GCI; SHL, 2010) was used to assess verbal ability and deductive reasoning in a computer adaptive test (CAT) format. Scores on both subscales

4 Multitasking in organizations 559 were averaged to form a composite score of cognitive ability. The verbal ability and deductive reasoning components of the GCI demonstrate convergent validity with the Wonderlic Personnel Test (.57 and.64, respectively; see SHL, 2010). In a CAT, the test administration engine can be programmed to end the assessment once a desired score reliability is reached. The GCI incorporates a stopping rule that terminates the administration of items when a standard error of.38 is met. This is equivalent to reaching a static internal consistency reliability of.85. Performance ratings Supervisors rated 27 performance dimensions on a 7-point Likert scale. Raters were provided with behaviourally anchored rating scales depicting incidents of ineffective (1 2), acceptable (3 5), and highly effective performance (6 7). The 27 specific performance dimensions were standardized and averaged to form an overall performance score. Table 1 shows the dimensions used to form the standardized performance composite. Table 1. Overall job performance composite dimensions Performance area dimensions 1. Acting independently 15. Innovating 2. Adhering to schedules 16. Job knowledge 3. Analysing problems 17. Judgement 4. Behaving professionally 18. Leading with confidence 5. Championing change 19. Learning 6. Communicating in writing 20. Organization and time management 7. Communicating orally 21. Persuading others 8. Cost-benefit analysis 22. Prioritizing work demands 9. Demonstrating integrity 23. Task proficiency 10. Developing own skills 24. Thoroughness 11. Driving to excel 25. Tolerating change 12. Effort and productivity 26. Tolerating stress 13. Handling conflict 27. Working efficiently 14. Identifying and considering alternatives Results Intercorrelations among study variables are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Correlations among multitasking, polychronicity, cognitive ability, and performance Multitasking ability 2. Polychronicity.13 (.84) 3. Cognitive ability.43** Overall performance.22* (.97) Mean SD Note. N = ; *p <.05, **p <.01; refer to methods for details on reliability; values on the diagonal represent Cronbach s alpha reliability estimates.

5 560 Kristin R. Sanderson et al. Hierarchical regressions were used to test for the moderating effect of polychronicity on the relationship between multitasking ability and performance. Cognitive ability has been shown to be a predictor of both multitasking (Ishizaka et al., 2001; K onig, Buhner, & Murling, 2005; Oswald et al., 2007) and job performance (Hunter & Schmidt, 1996). Further, it was moderately correlated (r =.43, p <.05) with multitasking ability in the current sample. Consequently, it was controlled for in order to determine whether there were main and interaction effects for multitasking ability and polychronicity that explained significant variance in job performance beyond that of cognitive ability (Table 3). Table 3. Polychronicity as a moderator of the relationship between multitasking ability and performance b SE b b Step 1 Cognitive ability Multitasking Polychronicity R 2.07 Step 2 Cognitive ability Multitasking Polychronicity Multitasking 9 Polychronicity 0.23*.08.30* R 2.16* DR 2.09* Note. N = ; *p < Polychronicity +1 Std Dev 1 Std Dev Overall performance Multitasking ability Figure 1. Polychronicity as a moderator of the relationship between multitasking ability and overall job performance.

6 Multitasking in organizations 561 The increase in variance explained in overall performance (DR 2 =.09, F(1, 84) = 8.94, p <.01) was significant when the interaction term was entered into the regression. To probe this interaction, simple slopes were calculated (see Figure 1; Aiken & West, 1991). The unstandardized simple slopes for employees one standard deviation above and below the mean in polychronicity were b = 0.22, SE b =.09, p <.05 and b = 0.05, SE b =.14, p >.05, respectively. At low levels of polychronicity, the relationship between multitasking ability and overall job performance was not significantly different from zero. Discussion This research explored the importance of job fit in the study of preference for and ability to multitask. Polychronicity proved to play an important moderating role in the relationship between multitasking ability and performance in a variety of jobs where multitasking ability was determined to be an essential competency, such that correlations were stronger for individuals high in polychronicity. The optimal performance situation is one in which individuals have both the ability to multitask and the preference to do so, consistent with the notion of fit. In fact, among employees with low multitasking ability, individuals high in polychronicity performed worse than those who are low. Research suggests that polychronicity is related to self-motivated multitasking behaviour (Goonetilleke & Luximon, 2009; K onig, Oberarcher, & Kleinmann, 2010), which may help to frame these findings. The misfit between high polychronicity and low ability to multitask may result in the frequent use of ineffective work behaviours that translate into lower ratings of performance. This may explain previously reported negative relationships between polychronicity and performance (e.g., Conte & Jacobs, 2003). Conversely, monochronic individuals approach tasks sequentially whenever possible and thus may be less likely to employ multitasking skills that are lacking. Indeed, the relationship between multitasking ability and performance is negligible for monochronic individuals. As this finding is a novel contribution to the existing research focused on time orientation in organizations, more research is needed to further explore the influence of polychronicity on the predictive validity of multitasking assessments in organizational settings. Some limitations with the data need to be acknowledged. Data were collected from an organizational sample of incumbents. In practice, multitasking assessments are used in a selection setting to predict future job performance. There may be important differences in applicants and incumbents that could result in range restriction and attenuation of validity coefficients. Nonetheless, significant interactions were found in the predicted direction, thus highlighting the robustness of our results. Multitasking is an important aspect of today s work environment (e.g., Lindbeck & Snower, 2000). The dynamic changes taking place in the workplace (cf., Howard, 1996) and the technological advances impacting how communications are handled in the workplace make multitasking an essential and integral competency in the workplace (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999). Early attempts to assess individual differences in multitasking did not investigate the moderating effects of preference for multitasking. Our findings underscore the need for more nuanced models of multitasking ability, polychronicity, and job performance. References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

7 562 Kristin R. Sanderson et al. Bluedorn, A. C., Kaufman, C. F., & Lane, P. M. (1992). How many things do you like to do at once? An introduction to monochromic and polychromic time. Academy of Management Executive, 6, doi: /ame Conte, J. M., & Jacobs, R. R. (2003). Validity evidence linking polychronicity and Big Five personality dimensions to absence, lateness, and supervisory performance ratings. Human Performance, 16, doi: /s hup1602_1 Conte, J. M., Rizzuto, T. E., & Steiner, D. D. (1999). A construct-oriented analysis of individual level polychronicity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14, doi: / Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 6, pp ). New York, NY: Wiley. Goonetilleke, R. S., & Luximon, Y. (2009). The relationship between monochronicity, polychronicity, and individual characteristics. Human Performance Laboratory, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology. Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong. Retrieved from repository.ust.hk/dspace/bitstream/1783.1/6994/1/manuscript_unmarked.pdf Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Hambrick, D. Z., Rench, T. A., Poposki, E., Darowski, E. S., Roland, D., Bearden, R. M., Brou, R. (2011). The relationship between the ASVAB and multitasking in Navy sailors: A process specific approach. Military Psychology, 23, doi: /h Hecht, T. D., & Allen, N. J. (2005). Exploring links between polychronicity and well-being from the perspective of person-job fit: Does it matter if you prefer to do only one thing at a time? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, doi: /j.obhdp Howard, A. (1996). The changing nature of work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, L. (1996). Intelligence and job performance: Economic and social implications. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 2, doi: / Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). Employee performance in today s organizations. In D. R. Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development (pp. 1 20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ishizaka, K., Marshall, S. P., & Conte, J. M. (2001). Individual differences in attentional strategies in multitasking situations. Human Performance, 14, doi: / S HUP1404_4 Kantrowitz, T. M., Grelle, D. M., Beaty, J. C., & Wolf, M. B. (2012). Time is money: Polychronicity as a predictor of performance across job levels. Human Performance, 25, doi: / Kantrowitz, T., & Kinney, T. B. (2009). It s about time: Investigating multitasking and polychronicity in the workplace. Presentation to the Personnel Testing Council of Metropolitan, Washington, DC. Kinney, T. B., Kung, M., Walvoord, A. G., & Shoemaker, A. (2010). So much to do, so little time: Multitasking and performance. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Conference for the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychologists, Atlanta, GA. K onig, C. J., Buhner, M., & Murling, G. (2005). Working memory, fluid intelligence, and attention are predictors of multitasking performance, but polychronicity and extraversion are not. Human Performance, 18, doi: /s hup1803_3 K onig, C. J., Oberarcher, L., & Kleinmann, M. (2010). Personal and situational determinants of multitasking at work. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, doi: / / a K onig, C. J., & Waller, M. J. (2010). Time for reflection: A critical examination of polychronicity. Human Performance, 23, doi: / Lindbeck, A., & Snower, D. J. (2000). Multi-task learning and the reorganization of work. Journal of Labor Economics, 18, doi: /209962

8 Oswald, F. L., Hambrick, D. Z., & Jones, L. A. (2007). Keeping all the plates spinning: Understanding and predicting multitasking performance. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Learning to solve complex scientific problems (pp ). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Poposki, E. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2010). The multitasking preference inventory: Toward an improved measure of individual differences in polychronicity. Human Performance, 23, doi: / Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2008). Threaded cognition: An integrated theory of concurrent multitasking. Psychological Review, 115, doi: / x Salvucci, D. D., & Taatgen, N. A. (2011). The multitasking mind. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. SHL Inc. (2009). Multitasking ability test technical manual. Thames Ditton, UK: PreVisor, SHL. SHL Inc. (2010). Global Cognitive Index test manual. Thames Ditton, UK: SHL. Received 24 February 2012; revised version received 9 April 2013 Multitasking in organizations 563

9 Copyright of Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology is the property of Wiley- Blackwell and its content may not be copied or ed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or articles for individual use.