I think a lot about productivity. I rarely feel productive. I don’t think I’m alone.

Our culture is full of all kinds of ideas about how to make the most of it and many of them are not true. We believe that things like multitasking will help us get more done. And sometimes our bosses believe things that aren’t true, like how great open offices are for increasing communication.

Here are three common myths about productivity, along with studies that help us see what the research says.

Multitasking is not faster than focused work

Multitasking gets things done faster than focusing on one thing at a time. Good? Research suggests not.

Every time you switch from one task to another there is a slight time cost, according to the American Psychological Association. “Although switching costs can be relatively small, sometimes just a few tenths of a second per switch, they can add up to large amounts when people repeatedly switch between tasks,” the organization stated. “So, multitasking may seem efficient on the surface, but in the end it can take longer and involve more errors.”

This is backed by decades of research. A widely cited 2001 study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology Conducted by researchers at the Federal Aviation Administration and the University of Michigan, it tested subjects on two different types of tasks: visual pattern classification and mathematical problems. They found that “reliable mean switching time costs occurred, and their magnitudes increased with the complexity of the rules needed to perform the tasks between which participants had to switch.” That is, moving from one task to another takes time, and it takes even more time when the tasks are complex. The effect is worse if you switch from a familiar task to an unfamiliar one, the study states.

You might think you can get better at multitasking with practice, but research suggests otherwise. A 2009 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences A study by researchers at Stanford University found that “heavy media multitaskers performed worse on a test of task-switching ability, likely due to a reduced ability to filter out interference from the irrelevant task set.”

Basically, humans can’t multitask like a computer can; The best we can do is alternate between tasks. And change has a cost.

Open offices don’t increase anything (except sadness)

This, let’s say, is not a myth that many of those who really have to work in an open office believe. But it’s something company leaders like to say: open office designs are great for company culture.

The idea is that breaking down walls and having everyone work side by side will increase conversation among workers and generally lead to greater innovation. The problem: Research suggests otherwise.

A 2018 study published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Harvard researchers directly studied the transition to an open office plan at two companies. The researchers used wearable sensor badges to collect data on face-to-face interaction and then collected data on electronic communication. They found that face-to-face interaction actually refusedby about 70 percent.

“In short, rather than sparking increasingly vibrant face-to-face collaboration, open architecture appeared to trigger a natural human response to socially distance oneself from office colleagues and interact via email and instant messaging,” the study concludes.

This is far from a unique find. A 2021 review by researchers at the University of Adelaide found that “working in open-plan workplace designs is associated with more negative outcomes on many measures related to health, satisfaction, productivity and social relationships,” adding that such office designs increase stress and result in poorer overall health. “Overall, the findings showed that while open-plan workplace designs may offer financial benefits to management, these appear to be outweighed by the intangible costs associated with negative effects on workers.”

In fact, brainstorming works best alone

How many brainstorming meetings have you attended at work? Probably more than you’d like, but your manager will probably insist that this is a proven way to generate ideas.

Except… it’s not. And the interesting thing is how long there has been research showing that group brainstorming is not effective. A 1958 article published in the Administrative Science Quarterly showed that students were better at solving problems alone than in groups of four.

“To the extent that the results of the present experiment can be generalized, it must be concluded that group participation when using brainstorming inhibits creative thinking,” the abstract reads.

A 1987 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology A study by researchers at the University of Tübingen in Germany found the same thing: that brainstorming as a group is less effective than brainstorming as an individual. Both articles are highly cited and not particularly controversial among researchers.

Has modern technology helped make group brainstorming more effective? They are certainly not video calls. A 2022 article published in Nature conducted by researchers at Columbia and Stanford shows that brainstorming over video conferencing is less effective than in person. “Our results suggest that virtual interaction carries a cognitive cost for the generation of creative ideas,” the study concludes.

Basically, brainstorming in a group (online or offline) is worse than doing it alone. Good luck convincing your manager, though.

2025 PopSci Best of what’s new

The 50 most important innovations of the year