Jeroen Sangers logo Jeroen Sangers

Two of my productivity tips made it into the March issue of Forbes España: on beating procrastination and taming your inbox.

A person wearing glasses and a red sweater is sitting atop a clock, surrounded by a text discussing how to overcome procrastination.

Multitasking leads to an overestimation of your own ability to perform multiple tasks simultaneously

Multitasking is a common phenomenon in our modern society, but research shows that we are much worse at it than we think. The problem lies not only in the fact that we struggle to perform multiple tasks simultaneously, but especially in our inaccurate assessment of our own capabilities. Studies show that people who frequently multitask wrongly believe they are doing so effectively. They significantly overestimate their abilities, while the reality is different. This lack of self-awareness is worrying: we are not only bad at multitasking, but we also seem unable to see or acknowledge it.

The consequences of frequent multitasking go beyond just a distorted self-perception. Research on chronic media multitaskers, people who regularly process multiple media streams simultaneously, shows striking results. These heavy multitaskers are actually more sensitive to environmental distractions and irrelevant information in their memory. Paradoxically, they even perform worse on tests measuring the ability to switch between tasks, likely because they are less capable of filtering out distracting information. This suggests that frequent multitasking is associated with a fundamentally different way of processing information.

The comparison to a drunk person who thinks they are walking in a straight line captures the problem well: we think we are better than we actually are. Thus, multitasking creates a dangerous combination of reduced performance and inflated self-confidence. As multitasking plays an increasingly larger role in our daily lives, it becomes all the more important to be aware of these limitations and the gap between our perception and reality.

The artisan and the tinkerer

Last week I read about custom vibe-coded RSS readers: quick and scrappy tools, non-polished, built to solve a particular need of their owner. Today I read about Current, which has thoughtful design, interesting concepts, and attention to detail.

And then I noticed something curious.

Two divergent paths

On one hand, there’s this artisan tendency. People who dedicate time to building personal tools with the same mindset a cabinetmaker uses to make a table: every decision matters, every detail counts. The result is beautiful, thoughtful, unique software.

On the other hand, there’s the explosion of tools made with the help of artificial intelligence. Quick solutions, imperfect, often somewhat rough. But deeply personal. Software that does exactly what you need, even if it won’t win any design awards.

Two completely different approaches. And both are happening at the same time.

They’re not opposites

What’s fascinating isn’t that both exist, but that they coexist without conflict. They’re not opposing approaches; they’re different answers to the same question: what should my tools look like?

The artisan values the process as much as the result. Technical perfection, elegance, the pleasure of doing something well done. It’s software as personal expression, as craft.

The person using artificial intelligence values speed and perfect adaptation to their specific case. They prefer something imperfect that works today over something perfect that requires months. It’s software as a practical extension of oneself.

Neither approach is better. They simply prioritize different things: craft versus immediacy, polish versus personalization, beauty versus direct utility.

And you?

Here’s the question: where are you on this spectrum?

When you think about the tools you use every day, the software that surrounds you, what do you value most? Do you care that something is well made even if it’s not exactly what you need? Or do you prefer it to fit like a glove to your way of working, even if it has rough edges?

There’s no right answer. But knowing what you value says a lot about how you relate to your work, to your time, to what you consider worthy of your attention.

What kind of tools are you building, or choosing, for yourself?

AI slop isn’t coming from the AI. It’s coming from the decision to skip the editing, to treat the tool like a magic button. AI amplifies your process. If your process is “generate and go,” that’s what shows up. Are you reviewing what you publish, or are you just hoping it’s good enough?

Audio conversations promote a more equal distribution of speaking time and alignment of speaking patterns, which leads to better group performance than video meetings, despite the absence of visual cues

When we are physically in the same space, we use various subtle signals to manage speaking turns: eye contact, facial expressions, and body language. This leads to a more even distribution of turns among everyone. In audio conversations, these visual cues are absent, so you focus entirely on auditory signals such as pitch, speaking speed, pauses, and small sounds indicating someone wants to respond. In video meetings, which theoretically offer more data than audio conversations, we pay less attention to audio cues, while visual signals are less perceivable on a screen. Interestingly, the limitation of audio conversations actually ensures you listen better to auditory signals and respond more effectively than in video conversations. This results in everyone having more equal speaking time, preventing anyone from easily dominating the conversation.

This more equal distribution of turns positively affects what researchers call ‘prosodic synchrony’: you better align your rhythm, intonation, and speech patterns. When you have more equal turns in an audio conversation, you naturally become more attuned in how you speak. You unconsciously mimic each other in tempo and pitch, resulting in a smoother conversation. This alignment contributes to what is called ‘collective intelligence’: the ability of a group to solve problems together. Teams using only audio are more successful in synchronizing their voice usage and turns, and when they achieve this, they perform better as a group.

Although video theoretically offers more information, in practice, visual signals are less perceivable than in in-person meetings. This raises questions about the assumption that richer media are always better for remote collaboration. For certain forms of teamwork, audio meetings can be more effective than video conferencing.