Why and when does multitasking impair flow and subjective performance? A daily diary study on the role of task appraisals and work engagement

The study examines the daily implications of multitasking for employees’ work-related flow and subjective job performance. Despite common beliefs that multitasking boosts productivity, prior evidence indicates fragmented workdays and performance costs. The authors draw on the transactional model of stress and coping to argue that the way employees appraise their daily tasks (as challenging vs. hindering) and their day-specific work engagement explain why and when multitasking is detrimental. They propose that multitasking fragments work time, undermines flow and performance, and that challenge/hindrance appraisals and work engagement are key mechanisms and moderators. The research addresses a gap by focusing on day-level processes in real organizational settings and posits flow as a mediator between multitasking and performance, with work engagement buffering the negative effect of multitasking on flow.

Theoretical grounding integrates Lazarus and Folkman’s transactional model of stress and coping (primary and secondary appraisals) with the challenge–hindrance stressor framework and the transactional model of stress and flow. Multitasking is conceptualized along allocation of resources and time within a workday (switching, interleaving, overlaying), leading to workday fragmentation. Flow is defined as an optimal state characterized by intense concentration, loss of self-consciousness, sense of control, time distortion, and intrinsic reward. Preconditions for flow (challenge-skill balance, clear goals, immediate feedback) are disrupted by multitasking due to cognitive costs, goal shifting, and suspended feedback. Prior work indicates challenge demands relate positively to flow, hindrance demands negatively, but the role of day-level appraisals and engagement has been underexplored. Hypotheses: H1, multitasking negatively relates to daily flow; H2a/H2b, challenge/hindrance appraisals mediate the multitasking–flow link; H3, daily work engagement buffers the negative multitasking–flow relationship; H4, flow positively relates to daily job performance; H5, serial mediation via appraisals and flow explains the multitasking–performance link.

Design: Daily diary study in a multinational food industry business unit in the Netherlands. Data collection across 4 weeks with 10 end-of-workday surveys per participant. Initially 65 invited; 49 completed daily surveys (189 daily records). After excluding surveys not completed at the designated time and respondents with only a single daily record, final sample: 33 employees with 158 daily records. Demographics (subset n=24): 45.8% women; mean age 35.58 (SD=7.73); average organizational tenure 4.96 years (SD=2.16); 91.7% with master’s degree; 91.7% fixed contract; majority French (58.3%) and Dutch (16.7%). Measures: - Multitasking: Participants listed all work activities and time spent on each that day. A day-level fragmentation index was computed via Simpson’s diversity index (1−D = Σ_i [n_i(n_i−1)] / [N(N−1)]), capturing distribution of time across tasks. Higher values indicate greater fragmentation/multitasking. Average tasks/day = 6.4 (max 15). - Flow: Short measure from the Flow State Scale focusing on concentration and autotelic experience; 3 items (e.g., “I had total concentration today”; “I really enjoyed today’s work experience”), 1–5 Likert. Across days α ≈ 0.79. - Job performance: Single item, “Today, I was able to carry out the core parts of my job,” 1–5 Likert. - Work engagement: Daily state engagement using two items from UWES-3 (vigor: “bursting with energy”; dedication: “enthusiastic about my job”), 1–5 Likert; absorption item dropped to reduce overlap with flow. Across days α ≈ 0.54. - Appraisal of daily tasks: For each listed task, challenge and hindrance appraisals measured on 6-point scales (VEDAS response format). Daily challenge/hindrance scores computed by aggregating task-level appraisals for that day. Analytic approach: Multilevel modeling (days Level 1 nested within persons Level 2). Null models showed substantial within-person variance (e.g., multitasking 94.6%, flow 75.3%, work engagement 70.8%, challenge 69.8%, hindrance 53.0%, performance 80.0%). Predictors were group-mean centered (within-person). Hypotheses tested via hierarchical linear modeling with random intercepts and random slopes where applicable. Mediation tested using Bauer et al. (2006) multilevel mediation procedures; indirect effects and CIs via RMediation (distribution-of-the-product). Moderation probed with simple slopes and region of significance (Preacher et al., 2006).

- H1 supported: On days with higher multitasking, employees experienced less flow (B = −1.09, p < 0.001; β = −0.23). - Mediation via challenge appraisal (H2a) supported: Multitasking negatively predicted challenge appraisals (B = −1.40, p < 0.001; β = −0.34); challenge appraisals positively predicted flow (B = 0.28, p = 0.017; β = 0.24). Indirect effect of multitasking on flow via challenge appraisal = −0.396, 95% CI [−0.821, −0.075]. - Hindrance appraisal mediation (H2b) not supported: Multitasking did not significantly predict hindrance appraisal (B = −0.66, p = 0.182; β = −0.17), and hindrance appraisal did not predict flow (B = 0.11, p = 0.353; β = 0.09). - H3 supported (moderation by daily work engagement): Main effects on flow for multitasking (B ≈ −0.84, p < 0.001; β ≈ −0.17) and engagement (B ≈ 0.53, p < 0.001; β ≈ 0.59). Interaction significant (B ≈ 1.25, p = 0.027). Simple slopes: at −1 SD engagement, slope = −1.69 (p = 0.003); at mean engagement, slope = −0.84 (p = 0.017); at +1 SD engagement, slope = 0.01 (p = 0.985). Region of significance: negative effect of multitasking on flow holds for engagement values below 0.11 (centered range −1.79 to 2.00), indicating moderate-to-high engagement buffers the detriment. - H4 supported: Flow positively related to same-day job performance (B ≈ 0.65, p < 0.001; β ≈ 0.46). In mediation model, flow→performance B = 0.69 (p < 0.001; β = 0.49). - H5 supported (indirect via flow; and via challenge appraisal then flow): In model with flow as mediator, multitasking→flow B = −1.19 (p = 0.001; β = −0.25); flow→performance B = 0.69 (p < 0.001; β = 0.49); indirect effect = −0.82, 95% CI [−1.38, −0.34]. Combined with H2a, results support serial pathway: Multitasking → lower challenge appraisal → lower flow → lower job performance. - Variance components underscore substantial within-person day-to-day fluctuation across key variables, especially multitasking (94.6% within-person variance).

Findings show that daily multitasking—operationalized as fragmentation of work time across many tasks—impairs employees’ ability to experience flow, and this reduction in flow translates into lower self-reported same-day job performance. The study elucidates why multitasking undermines flow: it reduces the likelihood that employees appraise their day’s tasks as challenging opportunities, a key antecedent to flow. Notably, multitasking did not increase hindrance appraisals nor did hindrance relate to flow in this dataset, aligning with evidence that flow is more tightly linked to challenge than to hindrance demands. The study also identifies when the negative effect of multitasking on flow is attenuated: on days when employees feel more engaged, they have the energy and motivation to maintain concentration and absorption despite fragmentation, buffering the detriment to flow. The work contributes to the transactional model of stress and flow by specifying primary appraisal (reduced challenge appraisal) and secondary appraisal/resources (daily engagement) processes in the context of multitasking. Methodologically, the diary-based, task-level logging of time allocation offers ecologically valid insights into real-world multitasking and its immediate consequences for well-being and performance.

This diary study advances understanding of the daily consequences of multitasking by demonstrating that: (1) multitasking fragments workdays and undermines flow; (2) reduced challenge appraisals explain this detriment; (3) daily work engagement buffers the negative effect on flow; and (4) flow, in turn, enhances same-day job performance. These findings integrate the transactional model of stress and coping with flow theory and highlight the importance of day-level appraisals and resources. Practical implications include enabling longer monotasking intervals, reducing unnecessary meetings and task switches, and supporting employees through time/attention management, personal resource development, and mindfulness training to sustain engagement and flow. Future research should: (a) use finer-grained, in-the-moment measures to distinguish switching, interleaving, and overlaying; (b) include objective interruption/resumption tracking; (c) employ larger samples and multiple assessments per day to address causality and common method concerns; (d) examine long-term outcomes such as learning and cross-domain spillover (e.g., work–family conflict); and (e) investigate job crafting behaviors and trait engagement as person-level moderators/resources.

- Measurement granularity: End-of-day diaries did not capture in-the-moment dynamics, resource allocations beyond time, interruption frequency/duration, or task resumption processes, limiting insight into specific multitasking types (switching, interleaving, overlaying). - Sample size and reliability: Small participant pool (33 employees; 158 day-level records) may yield unstable effect size estimates; shortened scales (e.g., 2-item engagement) reduced internal consistency (α ≈ 0.54). - Common method and causality: Same-source, same-time self-reports without temporal separation raise potential for reversed causation and common method bias. - Generalizability and timeframe: Single organization/unit and a 4-week window constrain generalizability and preclude assessment of long-term effects (e.g., learning).