Page 77 - The Economist

The Economist December 9th 2017 Finance and economics 77

Free exchange Paying no mind

Digital distractions hurtwell-being, ifnoteconomicgrowth
Could this explain the rich world’s productivity slowdown?
In a paperpublished in 2007, Sinan Aral and ErikBrynjolfsson, of
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Marshall Van Al-
styne, of Boston University, analysed firms’ use of information
technology and its effects on labour productivity and revenue
growth. Theyfound an inverted U-shape pattern associated with
multitasking and productivity. An initial increase in multitasking
from the increased use ofIT seems to raise productivity. But later,
the accumulation ofballs to be juggled reducesperformance and
increases the incidence oferror.
IT does help workers in all sorts of ways. It speeds communi-
cation and allows documents to be shared remotely. The web
makes finding information far simpler and quicker than it was in
a world of paper archives. Productivity surged in the late 1990s
and early 2000s as e-mail, digital databases and the web spread.
The benefits technology brought, at that time, seemed to out-
weigh the cost ofdistraction. Since the mid-2000s, however, pro-
ductivity growth has tumbled, perhaps because the burden of
distraction has crossed some critical threshold.
But this is surely not the whole story. Performance across in-
dustries does not fit very well with the idea that distraction is the
OR many it is a reflex as unconscious as breathing. Hit a stum- main cause of weak productivity. Over the past decade, labour-
Fbling-block during an important task (like, say, writing a col- productivitygrowth in both manufacturingand construction has
umn)? The hand reaches for the phone and opens the social net- been particularly disappointing—and the problem can hardly be
workofchoice. Abluroftime passes, and halfan hour ormore of deskjockeys fritteringaway time on Pinterest.
what ought to have been productive effort is gone. Afeeling ofre- Weakproductivityisalso a consequence ofthe reallocation of
gretisquicklydisplaced bythe urge to see what hashappened on workers from industries with relatively high rates of growth to
Twitter in the past 15 seconds. Some time after the deadline, the more stagnant ones. In America health care and education,
editoraskswhen exactlyto expectthe promised copy. Distraction where labour productivity is persistently low, account for more
is a constant these days; supplying it is the business model of than halfoftotal employment growth since 2000.
some of the world’s most powerful firms. As economists search How then to reconcile evidence ofthe toll taken by new tech-
forexplanationsforsaggingproductivity, some are asking wheth- nologies with the difficulty in detecting a productivity cost? One
erthe inability to focus forlongerthan a minute is to blame. possibilityisthatfirmshave notbeen asstrenuousas mightbe ex-
pected in maximising output per worker. Employment does not
This column will resume after you have returned from fall much in response to minimum-wage risesbecause output per
checking your notifications worker goes up. That is partly because workers try harder and
partly because firms, faced with a new cost, focus more on track-
The technological onslaught has been a long time building. ing worker performance. Similarly, productivity leapt in the im-
Bossesno doubtfound the knockofthe telegraph boyor the clack mediate aftermath of the financial crisis, and not because firms
of the ticker-tape machine an abominable interruption. Fixed- laid off less productive workers. Rather, workers appear to have
line deskphoneswere an intrusion in theirday, before the mobile upped theirgame to convince bossesnotto sackthem. After a de-
phone brought work interruptions into the home. But the web is cade oflow wages and high profits, firms may be feeling compla-
different, with its unending news cycle, social networks hum- cent. That, and their consequent failure to invest, may be a better
ming with constant conversation, and news feeds algorithmi- explanation ofweakproductivity than workers’ distraction.
cally structured to keep users scrolling and sharing. The louder
the din, the greater the distraction—and the harder to tune it out Tweet dreams are made ofthis
forfearofmissingimportant information. Whether or not brains fried by constant interruption are slowing
Distractions clearly affect performance on the job. In a recent growth, the digital deluge takes a toll. Mr Nixon reckons that dis-
essay, Dan Nixon of the Bank of England pointed to a mass of tracted workers become less empathetic, a serious side-effect in
compelling evidence that they could also be eating into produc- an economy where human connections with customers are cast
tivity growth. Depending on the study you pick, smartphone-us- as a defence against automation. Distraction also appears to re-
ers touch their device somewhere between twice a minute to duce reported happiness, and that effect may be magnified if it
once every seven minutes. Conducting tasks while receiving e- means that fewer tasks are completed to the workers’ satisfac-
mails and phone calls reduces a worker’s IQ by about ten points tion—orifthe source ofthe distraction isanotherdistressing news
relative to working in uninterrupted quiet. That is equivalent to alert. So this is yet another reason to yearn for a truly tight labour
losing a night’s sleep, and twice as debilitating as using marijua- market: when firms cannot spare an idle moment they might get
na. By one estimate, it takes nearly half an hour to recover focus seriousabouttrimmingproductivity-sappingintrusionsfrom the
fully for the task at hand after an interruption. What’s more, Mr workplace, to everyone’s benefit. Right, time fora tweet. 7
Nixon notes, constant interruptions accustom workers to distrac-
tion, teachingthem, in effect, to lose focus and seekdiversions. Economist.com/blogs/freeexchange