People believe that doing several things at the same time will help them get more done, and by switching among tasks, they feel productive as more tasks are performed in a single day (Adler and Benbunan-Fich, 2013; Peifer and Zipp, 2019). Yet this might simply be an illusion, also referred to as the myth of multitasking (Rosen, 2008) or multitasking paradox (Appelbaum et al., 2008). Concerns about productivity loss due to multitasking are rampant, especially with the alarming new heights that it has reached. In a field study by Mark et al. (2005), almost a quarter of interrupted work was not resumed on the same day. If work was resumed, it took more than 25 min and employees had worked in more than two other working spheres before resuming interrupted work. Wajcman and Rose’s (2011) study documented an average of 88 work episodes per day, with not even half of the workday being spent on activities that last for more than 10 min. The COVID-19 pandemic posed additional challenges, as employees working from home reported an increase in multitasking behaviors (Leroy et al., 2021). As Leroy et al. (2021) put it: “work time has never been so fragmented” (p. 1457).

Scholars are yet to fully understand the implications of multitasking for employees and organizations. If detailed comprehension is lacking, society runs the risk that multitasking remains common organizational practice without proper management of its complexities. To increase organizations’ willingness and ability to address these concerns, it is imperative to study how multitasking behavior relates to employee effectiveness. After having been dominated by studies conducted in laboratory settings (see Baethge et al., 2015), the field has witnessed a rise in diary studies, both quantitative (e.g., Aitken et al., 2023) and qualitative (e.g., Feldman and Greenway, 2021). Importantly, a few diary studies suggest that daily flow – a short-term peak experience that individuals experience when fully immersed in an activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997) – may be a key mechanism in the day-level multitasking–job performance relationship (Peifer and Zipp, 2019; Aitken et al., 2023). Yet it remains elusive what are the psychological processes underlying employees’ responses to multitasking.

Against this background, we develop and test a conceptual model that specifies a pathway (i.e., why) and condition under which (i.e., when) day-level multitasking behavior impairs work-related flow and ultimately hampers the subjective performance of employees. In building our conceptual model, we draw on the transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). This theoretical model posits that reactions to work stressors, such as fragmentation of work time due to multitasking, depend on (1) how we appraise those stressors (i.e., as opportunity or threat) and (2) the resources we possess to cope with those stressors. Recent research on interruptions has indeed shown that the (positive or negative) appraisals of employees shape reactions (Hunter et al., 2019; Darouei et al., 2024). We go one step further and argue that a work stressor can also shape the appraisal of other, more neutral job characteristics. Specifically, we propose that multitasking influences employees’ appraisal of their daily tasks (i.e., as less challenging and more hindering) and this explains why multitasking behaviors would impair flow. Moreover, we explore whether day-specific work engagement – a positive and high arousal affective-motivational state characterized by energy and involvement (Bakker et al., 2011) – as a resource can help employees cope with multitasking.

Our study contributes to the literature on multitasking, stress, and flow in at least three notable ways. First, we put forward flow as a key mediator that can explain the relationship between multitasking and job performance. The multitasking reality of modern organizations suggests that interruptions to workflow are an accepted part of organizational life (Jett and George, 2003). Yet, surprisingly, the concept of flow has received hardly any attention in research on multitasking and work interruptions (see the review by Puranik et al., 2020). Our study is among the first to examine the day-to-day relationship between multitasking and flow [for related work, see Peifer and Zipp’s (2019) study on multitasking behaviors, and Aitken et al.’s (2023) on intrusions while teleworking]. Second, we propose that appraisal is key to understanding the psychological processes that may explain how multitasking influences employees’ well-being and job performance. We link daily fluctuations in multitasking behaviors to meaningful variations in task appraisals in order to illuminate the stressor–well-being relationship (see also Smith et al., 2022). Our third contribution relates to the examination of work engagement as a day-level variable that explains why individuals may experience multitasking differently across days. No prior studies have yet investigated whether and how work engagement can assist employees in handling daily job demands, even though it is a source of energy and concerns the investment of personal resources (Christian et al., 2011). While work engagement is typically studied as an outcome in and of itself (Puranik et al., 2020) or as a mediator in the association between job characteristics and performance (Bakker et al., 2023), we examine work engagement as a day-specific resource that can buffer the detrimental effects of multitasking behaviors on flow and job performance.

We draw on the two-dimensional typology of multitasking behaviors to conceptualize multitasking along the lines of share of resources allocated to the execution of work activities and share of time in which work activities are observed (Circella et al., 2012). With regard to the time dimension, our focus is on multitasking within the time frame of a single working day; that is, all tasks performed during the day will be considered to have happened sequentially or simultaneously (see Kirchberg et al., 2015). Monotasking refers to the situation in which a single activity occupies a person’s full resources for a particular period of time. Within the time frame of a full working day, monotasking is very uncommon nowadays, since many – if not most – employees are forced to shift attention between a high number of tasks on a daily basis. When employees execute multiple tasks, their behavior can be classified as switching, interleaving, or overlaying, depending on a person’s allocation of (e.g., mental) resources among the tasks of a particular workday (Circella et al., 2012). Switching is alternating between activities in such a way that one fully interrupts one task with another. Interleaving involves partial alternation to a second task, while another activity remains in the background. Hence, in the case of interleaving, the main activity claims most but not all resources, for instance due to attention residue (Leroy, 2009). Overlaying refers to the simultaneous execution of tasks: both activities are carried out at the same time with a parallel allocation of resources. Whether it happens sequentially or simultaneously, multitasking can lead to fragmentation of the work day (Appelbaum et al., 2008), and the question central to our study is “at what cost?”

In this diary study, we integrate key theoretical models of stress with the literature on multitasking and flow in order to elucidate the process by which day-level multitasking impedes job performance. Carrying out a task can be seen as goal-directed behavior, and doing more than one thing at a time (be it sequentially or simultaneously) is associated with regulation hindrances that act as stressors (Frese and Zapf, 1994). In the transactional model of stress and coping (TSC), Lazarus and Folkman (1984) viewed stress as an individual outcome generated through the person’s appraisal of stressors in the environment. When we encounter a stressor, we first assess how stressful it is through primary appraisal. We simultaneously engage in secondary appraisal, evaluating whether we have the necessary resources to cope with the stressful situation. Building on the TSC, the challenge-hindrance stressor framework (CHSF; LePine et al., 2005) postulates that stressors are conceptually distinct from each other, such that some stressors tend to be appraised as challenges (i.e., potential for achievement and personal growth), while other stressors tend to be appraised as hindrances (i.e., may thwart personal development). Interestingly, Peifer and Zipp (2019) relied on a model that integrates flow into the transactional model of stress, which they refer to as the transactional model of stress and flow (TMSF). This adapted model explains the connection between stressors and flow. When individuals perceive stressors as challenges (primary appraisal) and possess adequate coping resources (secondary appraisal), they are more likely to experience flow as an alternative state to stress.

The concept of flow finds it origins in the work of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. He studied the subjective experiences of creative painters, chess players, rock climbers, and many others, and he was intrigued when these people became fully absorbed in their activity and found that activity intrinsically motivating. People “in flow” are in a state of consciousness where they become totally immersed in an activity and operate at full capacity (Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). People can find flow in almost any activity, but research shows it is mainly experienced in the work environment (Csikszentmihalyi and LeFevre, 1989), where flow refers to peak experiences of fluent, uninterrupted work (Gerpott et al., 2022).

We draw on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) TSC and its extensions (CHSF and TMSF) to propose that day-level multitasking is a hindrance stressor that negatively impacts the primary appraisal of one’s daily tasks, ultimately influencing flow experiences and daily performance. We also propose that multitasking interferes with the experience of flow less strongly when employees feel engaged at work. Work engagement is a motivational construct that refers to the investment of personal resources toward the tasks associated with one’s work role (Christian et al., 2011). In contrast to flow, which is more closely related to a specific activity as it is an optimal experience of fluent work (i.e., experiential well-being; Ilies et al., 2017), work engagement represents a psychological connection with one’s work in general (Christian et al., 2011; Gerpott et al., 2022) (see also Yan and Donaldson, 2023, on the differences between flow and engagement). While engagement is a relatively enduring state of mind, it also ebbs and flows, showing day-to-day fluctuations around an employee’s average level (Sonnentag et al., 2010). Applying the TMSF, we argue that state work engagement will allow for a more positive secondary appraisal in stressful situations of high multitasking such that on days when employees are engaged, they come to experience flow as an alternative experience to stress. The overall conceptual model guiding this research is depicted in Figure 1.

Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics for all study variables as well as the between- and within-individual correlations.

To test Hypothesis 1, we regressed flow on multitasking. We found that on days characterized by high levels of multitasking, employees experienced less flow compared with days on which they had to multitask to a lesser extent (B = −1.09, p < 0.001, β = −0.23). We then used the multilevel procedures of Bauer et al. (2006) to holistically test a 1–1–1 mediation model in which multitasking influences flow via appraisal of daily tasks. We observed that multitasking was negatively associated with appraisal of the sum of daily tasks as challenging (B = −1.40, p < 0.001, β = −0.34), and challenge appraisals were positively associated with flow (B = 0.28, p = 0.017, β = 0.24). Thus, both paths of the mediation were significantly different from zero (see also Model 1 in Table 3). Yet, to test our mediation hypothesis directly, we used a package called ‘RMediation’ (Tofighi and MacKinnon, 2011), which provides an estimate of the indirect effect and a confidence interval around this effect on the basis of the distribution-of-the-product method. RMediation estimated the indirect effect at −0.396 with a 95% CI [−0.821, −0.075], which supports Hypothesis 2a; on days when employees multitasked, they were less likely to appraise their daily tasks as challenging, which interfered with their flow experience. To test Hypothesis 2b, we specified an alternative model with hindrance appraisal as the mediator (Model 2 in Table 3). Within individuals, multitasking was unrelated to appraisal of the sum of daily tasks as hindering (B = −0.66, p = 0.182, β = −0.17), and hindrance appraisals were not linked to flow (B = 0.11, p = 0.353, β = 0.09). We can conclude that the association between multitasking and flow was not mediated by appraisal of daily tasks as hindering, and we, therefore, reject Hypothesis 2b.

The next step involved testing a model that incorporates daily work engagement as a moderator of the multitasking–flow relationship. In this moderation model, both multitasking (B = −0.84, p < 0.001, β = −0.17) and engagement (B = 0.53, p < 0.001, β = 0.59) had significant main effects on flow. In addition, the interaction between multitasking and work engagement was significant in predicting flow (B = 1.25, p = 0.027). This result lends support to Hypothesis 3. The interactive effect is shown in Figure 2, further explored using the simple slopes procedure described by Preacher et al. (2006). Simple slopes were calculated for conditional values of the moderator at ±1 SD. Tests of simple slopes indicated that the effect of multitasking on flow was significant at lower (−1SD) levels of work engagement (simple slope = −1.69, p = 0.003) and at average levels of work engagement (simple slope = −0.84, p = 0.017). At higher (+1SD) levels of work engagement, multitasking did not significantly reduce flow (simple slope = 0.01, p = 0.985). We also calculated the region of significance of the simple slopes, which defines the specific values of the moderator at which the slope is statistically significant. We found that the simple slope of flow regressed on multitasking was significant for any value of work engagement below 0.11, and centered scores ranged from −1.79 to 2.00. In other words, moderate to high levels of daily work engagement buffered the detrimental effect of multitasking on flow.

Finally, we regressed performance on flow. In support of Hypothesis 4, we found that on days when employees experienced more flow, they reported higher performance compared with days on which they experienced less flow (B = 0.65, p < 0.001, β = 0.46). We again used the procedures of Bauer et al. (2006), this time to test a model in which flow mediates the association between multitasking and daily performance (Model 3 in Table 3). We observed that multitasking was negatively associated with flow (B = −1.19, p = 0.001, β = −0.25) and flow was positively associated with daily performance (B = 0.69, p < 0.001, β = 0.49). Thus, on days when employees multitasked more, they experienced less flow and in turn reported lower performance, compared with days on which they multitasked less. This indirect effect was estimated at −0.82 with a 95% CI [−1.38, −0.34]. Together with the mediating mechanism of challenge appraisals of daily tasks that we found earlier, this result supports Hypothesis 5.

Today, many – if not most – employees are forced to shift attention between a high number of tasks on a daily basis, perhaps even get addicted to multitasking (Dean and Webb, 2011), yet at what cost? This paper aimed to investigate the implications of multitasking for individuals and organizations. We have argued that a better understanding of the consequences of multitasking requires (a) an ecologically valid examination of the way in which daily tasks unfold, (b) an integration of scholarly work on multitasking and work-related flow, and (c) identification of mediators and moderators that contextualize employees’ responses to multitasking. Hence, the present diary study developed and tested a comprehensive model of day-level multitasking that aimed to shed light on why and when performance of multiple tasks relates to flow and, consequently, to subjective performance at work. Our results provide support for most of the hypotheses advanced herein.

The results of our study have important implications for research on the consequences of multitasking. In a sample of professional workers, we observed that on days when employees’ working time was highly fragmented across a high number of tasks, they experienced less flow and, in turn, their self-reported performance was lower for that particular day. Adler and Benbunan-Fich (2013) posited that people who are in flow are totally focused on a single task and unlikely to multitask. Our results speak to this notion as they indicate that day-level multitasking indeed impairs flow.

We further contribute to Peifer and Zipp’s (2019) line of research and theoretical model (i.e., transactional model of stress and flow) in three important ways. First, we have put forward (and empirically tested) a mediating mechanism that underlies the relationship between multitasking and flow, focusing on appraisal of daily tasks as challenging or hindering. We found that an explanation for this relationship is that a working day full of multitasking impairs the perception of one’s daily tasks as challenges or opportunities. On days when employees’ time for tasks was highly fragmented, those tasks were appraised as less challenging, which resulted in less flow experiences. This result is in line with previous research on how flow experiences are particularly observed in challenging tasks (see Peifer and Zipp, 2019). For instance, Csikszentmihalyi (2000) described how surgeons find flow during difficult surgeries. We add to previous research the insight that multitasking as a stressor makes it more difficult to appraise one’s tasks as challenging tasks. In other words, on days characterized by multitasking, employees are less inclined to appraise their daily tasks as challenging.

Importantly, we found no such effect for the hindrance appraisal of daily tasks. While interruptions as such are typically appraised as hindrances (Smith et al., 2022), this does not necessarily mean that the interrupted and interrupting tasks are considered hindrances. Our result suggests that the hindrance of performing multiple tasks does not add to the pressure associated with a particular task or turn these tasks into hassles. Rather, multitasking is detrimental only in the sense that it interferes with the potential for achievement and personal growth of certain daily tasks (i.e., challenging tasks are not perceived as such). Hindrance appraisal of daily tasks was not related to flow, which is in line with the meta-analytic result of Liu et al. (2023) that hindrance demands were not significantly related to flow or any of its subdimensions. Conceptually, flow is more closely linked to challenges (Peifer and Zipp, 2019), and it indeed seems that only challenge appraisals can link multitasking to flow.

A second way in which we build on Peifer and Zipp’s (2019) study is that we have illuminated the ‘when’ of the multitasking–flow relationship by empirically testing daily engagement as a buffer for this relationship. It is not impossible to experience flow while multitasking. Our data indicated that employees are not equally engaged at work across days; there are days when employees feel more energetic and dedicated than on other days. Importantly, Sonnentag et al. (2010) noted that “in many work settings there are specific times and periods when it is necessary that employees are particularly engaged at work” (p. 27). Work engagement may buffer flow-inhibitors and may build resources that could activate flow-enablers (Yan and Donaldson, 2023). Our results speak to this notion, showing that on days when employees were highly engaged, the detrimental impact of multitasking on flow was weakened. It appears that daily engagement offers employees substitute resources to cope with day-level multitasking and remain in a flow state despite the demands of multitasking. Given that work engagement is a positive and high-activation state (Bakker et al., 2011), in a multitasking environment, engaged employees should be more willing to put in the effort (e.g., to navigate attention back to a task) and have abundant energy to do so (e.g., in fact navigating back to a task), much like conscientious individuals are likely to do (Demerouti, 2006). Thus, even though engaged employees have to multitask as much as their less engaged counterparts, they have the capacity and willpower to create conditions under which flow can be attained and maintained.

Third, we have addressed Peifer and Zipp’s (2019) call for studying objective multitasking demands. We consider it a key strength of our study that we relied on a fine-grained measure of multitasking that is based on daily diaries. We have investigated this phenomenon in an organizational setting, focusing on the daily working life of employees and examining how they feel they are performing in light of the multitasking reality of their organization. Thus, from a methodological point of view, we believe our results offer ecologically valid insights into why and when day-level multitasking hinders flow and subjective performance on a given day.

Our study contributes to the broad field of multitasking, as we believe the theorizing and empirical results presented in this paper may be useful in extending frameworks for the study of cumulative interruptions and task switches (see Baethge et al., 2015; Puranik et al., 2020). By first demonstrating that impaired flow explains the effect of multitasking on daily job performance, and then illuminating why (i.e., reduced challenge appraisals) and when (i.e., on days when employees are less engaged) day-level multitasking is detrimental to flow, we contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of employees’ short-term responses to juggling multiple tasks. The ‘why’ and ‘when’ of the multitasking–flow relationship relate to the primary and secondary appraisal processes in the transactional model of stress and flow (Peifer and Zipp, 2019). With regard to primary appraisal, we found that performing multiple tasks reduces the challenges one perceives throughout the workday, thereby hindering flow because flow tends to be experienced in challenging tasks. In accordance with the challenge-hindrance stressor framework (LePine et al., 2005), we argue that multitasking can be categorized as a hindrance stressor, for which employees need to adopt a coping strategy if they want to experience flow. Our study suggests that daily work engagement may provide the necessary coping resources, allowing for a more positive secondary appraisal. We believe these are insights that help further specify the transactional model of stress and flow.

Finally, the present study advances our understanding of the antecedents and consequences of flow. We have shown that flow, as an experiential well-being state (Ilies et al., 2017), has immediate implications for how employees perform. While research has established the importance of flow for predicting performance, our study adds to a small but growing body of research that examines flow as a within-person performance process (Peifer and Zipp, 2019; Soriano et al., 2021; Weintraub et al., 2021; Gerpott et al., 2022; Aitken et al., 2023). Importantly, we have identified multitasking as a major obstacle to work-related flow, at least for those employees who do not feel particularly engaged. Our study thus provides empirical support for the notion that entering flow requires initial energy (which might get lost when multitasking), but once reached it is a state in which people can recover and build resources (see also Gerpott et al., 2022).

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation upon request.

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent from the patients/participants or patients/participants legal guardian/next of kin was not required to participate in this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

HP: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MD: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MZ: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.