So, basically something like core hours, but for meetings?

We call those Team Time on my workplace. It's the time you're supposed to be somewhat available for meetings and other team-related activities. For us, it's a block during the morning, at 9:00-10:00 am, then another one just after lunch - 01:00 to 04:00 pm. Outside those hours, it's all flex time.

Can you give some documentation or research to back up this claim ? "it has been proved time and again that "multitasking" is a myth,"

@Maxime - I can't offer proof, but can offer some evidence that focused work pays off - have a look at the book Deep Work by Cal Newton.

@Maxime Well, google produce multiple results, including this one.

@SouravGhosh That Stanford study could not have been worse designed. They set up two tasks that would absolutely require constant direct visual attention to perform, and then acted like they had proved something when no one could do them both at once. It's almost comical. Actual multitasking tasks (like, say, making a sandwich while talking on the phone) would almost never require that kind of simultaneous direct visual attention. (Using pattern recognition skills, no less!)

@tbrookside I'm not sure "making a sandwich while talking on the phone" is like the mutlitasking people do in the workplace. I've coded in meetings while trying to contribute and I did neither particularly well, and definitely worse than I would have made a sandwich/had a phone call

"People don't quit companies, they quit managers."

The stuff here on multitasking is simply nonsense. Any study I've seen make that claim wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Some people are bad at it, some average, and some excel. Like literally everything humans do. I've noticed people who are bad at it tend to be the people who pretend it's impossible though

@SouravGhosh what a perfect example of how terrible these studies are. It actually claims that multitasking lowers your intelligence to that of a 8 year old. Completely laughable stuff

@mattfreake couldn't have said it any better. There are somethings that you can do concurrently, somethings you have to switch contexts between and somethings you can't do either. Sitting in a meeting and trying to code falls in the third category for sure. Because each of them takes up a lot of intellectual effort...

I downvoted because of the very broad claim of it has been proved time and again that "multitasking" is a myth. It may well be true, but just saying it without providing any evidence is not helpful.

@terdon While I respect your view, can you provide some evidence that mentions otherwise?

@SouravGhosh no, I am not making a claim here. You are saying that it has been proved time and again. I don't know that this is wrong, it may well be true, but since all we have is your word on it and the one reference you provided in the comments is really not conclusive, that seems like a very strong claim that you are making on no evidence. I think it is very likely that multitasking does indeed decrease productivity, but if you use very strong language like proved and time and time again and myth, then the onus is on you to back that up.

@terdon Well, I don't know if I'm making a "claim" as such, all I can say is that there is a universal (or global, or publicly available/ known) statement, and from my personal experience, I can attest to that. Now, whether that statement is applicable to anyone specific - I cannot ascertain that. However, if you say that it is not correct, you are free do do so and provide your use-case / example. There's nothing absolutely right or absolutely wrong, just what works for most of the people. :)

Fair enough. I just suggested an edit to remove the "has been proven" part so it doesn't come across as such a strong "claim". That would satisfy this pedant :)

How about the many studies concerning cell phones and driving?

I would not go so far as to say multitasking is a myth, but the APA reports that it does impact performance.