Start Page: Interruption addiction takes focus to break

Kim Brand
March 27, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

StartPageBrand.jpgTime management systems used to be popular. They are irrelevant now because you don’t have any time to manage. “Time Management” is an anachronism like “How to Win Friends” or “The Palmer Method.” The critical asset you must now learn to manage is your attention.

Ever since the invention of the telephone in 1876 some “gadget” has without warning or apology demanded your personal attention on a schedule it controlled. The purpose of the communication was almost always to put another item on your to-do list. People who cared about getting things done soon learned to insulate themselves from the interruptions; they employed secretaries, then automated call attendants and voice mail.

However, with the invention of the mobile phone we started “mainlining” the interruptions. Taking or making a call on the go signaled the status of being important and created the illusion of greater productivity. We began to multitask.

Email arrived in the 1980s. Interruptions could be automated, and the cost to create an interruption fell dramatically. Only 10 years ago, Blackberry devices began delivering email to your phone so your office could be anywhere you were . . . now, interruptions could be delivered everywhere!

Research has shown that a mind in a constant state of interruption loses its ability to focus and plan. A CNN report concludes that the constant interruption of email actually lowers your IQ. But the assault on our attention has become more severe than phone calls and email. We have allowed many more sources of interruptions to invade our thinking time: Twitter feeds, Facebook updates, chat requests and text messages among them.
startpage-factbox.gifMy belief is that we have become addicted to these interruptions. When something in our world isn’t interrupting us we now crave the stimulation to a degree that we generate thoughts to interrupt ourselves. (Ever check your email in the bathroom?) Worse, we have become accustomed to shallow thinking and diluted focus.

According to Maggie Jackson, author of the book “Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age,” technology is responsible for “… eroding our capacity for deep, sustained, perceptive attention – the building block of intimacy, wisdom, and cultural progress. … The erosion of attention is the key to understanding why we are on the cusp of a time of widespread cultural and social losses.”

My ambition is to take back the attention I lost when I turned my life over to the gadgets that were supposed to make me more productive.

Rule 1: Establish boundaries and expectations

Anyone who depends on you has likely become dependent on being able to interrupt you at any time and expect an immediate response. Fix that. I include a link to my email policies in my signature block. One of my rules is to set the expectation that a reply might take a day. For faster service, call the office.

Rule 2: Turn it off

This applies to your phone and your email. Don’t tempt yourself. If you can’t stand knowing that your phone won’t be answered, hand it to your secretary. Your callers will be impressed; they may be better served and you’ll be able to enjoy some quiet time. Don’t cheat: turn off the email – don’t just minimize it or disable the pop-ups.

A byproduct of turning off your email and phone means you won’t be interrupting others as often. Bundle your communication activities into a few time periods a day.

Rule 3: Prioritize

Today, the most critical resource you manage is your attention. The expression “pay attention” is literally true. When you pay attention you are trading something precious for what in many cases may be worthless – and you can’t know until you pay it. In the bargain you lose the capacity to focus and sacrifice your state of “flow” where studies have shown many of the greatest ideas and progress you desire originate. Some researchers estimate that it may take 15 to 20 minutes to get back to where you were working after a single interruption.

Prioritizing may be the hardest part because it means admitting that you can’t multitask. Multitasking is a powerful illusion we fool ourselves into believing is possible. Actually, your brain can’t do more than one thing at a time and fMRI scans prove it.

This article is part one of two. In my next article I will show you how to use Outlook rules to create “attention zones” that can help prioritize your limited attention to the most important emails. If you can’t wait, send me an email, and I’ll send you the second installment of this two-part column in advance.•


Kim Brand is a technology expert and President of Computer Experts Inc. He is the inventor of FileSafe. He speaks and writes frequently on technology subjects – making them interesting and understandable. Brand can be contacted by email, or call 317-833-3000. The opinions expressed are those of the author.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.