The Tabs Your Mind Leaves Open

Written by Dani Masi

There is a unique type of tiredness that arrives on days filled with perfectly reasonable meetings. Nothing has gone wrong, the calendar was well organised, and yet by mid afternoon the mind feels like a browser with forty tabs open, several of them playing audio from somewhere unidentifiable. Researchers have a name for what is happening, and understanding it gives leaders a more useful starting point than the usual advice to simply concentrate harder.

What attention residue is

In 2009, Sophie Leroy, a business school researcher, published a paper in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes titled "Why is it so hard to do my work? The challenge of attention residue when switching between work tasks." Her central idea, attention residue, describes the way part of our attention stays with a previous task after we have moved on to the next one. According to her research summary, residue is more likely when the earlier task was left unfinished, when we were interrupted rather than reaching a natural stopping point, or when we expect to be rushed back to the pending work later.

The consequence follows directly. The more attention that remains with the earlier task, the less is available for the one in front of us, and performance on the new task can suffer, particularly when that task is demanding. A budget review scheduled straight after a difficult conversation with a direct report is a good illustration. The numbers are on the screen, yet part of the mind is still replaying what was said, and the review receives less of the leader's judgement than it deserves.

It can help to picture each unfinished task as an open tab. Closing a tab does not require finishing the work. It requires knowing where the work will be found again.

What interruption does to effort

A frequently cited study from Gloria Mark, Daniela Gudith and Ulrich Klocke, presented at the CHI conference in 2008 under the title "The Cost of Interrupted Work: More Speed and Stress," adds a further layer. Forty-eight participants played the role of a human resource manager in a simulated office and answered a set of emails, with a supervisor interrupting them about every two minutes in some conditions. Interrupted participants finished in roughly 20 minutes, compared with about 23 minutes for those who worked without interruption.

On the surface that looks like efficiency. The participants also reported higher stress, frustration, time pressure and effort, and the authors attributed the faster completion to people working harder and writing less to make up for the time they expected to lose. The finding is worth holding alongside the idea of residue, because it suggests that output can look intact while the cost is paid in strain. It is also fair to note that the sample was small, mostly university students, and the setting was a simulation, so the study is best read as a thoughtful illustration rather than a measure of any particular workplace.

A one-minute note

Leroy returned to the topic in 2018 with Theresa Glomb, in a paper in Organization Science titled "Task Interrupted" (the full title goes on to describe a "ready-to-resume" plan). Across four studies, the researchers asked working professionals and students about, or placed them in, situations where a time-limited task was interrupted and replaced by another. In one field study of 202 working professionals, people described their experiences of interruption. In laboratory work, participants who had been interrupted were still thinking about the earlier task while working on the new one, and their performance on the new task suffered.

The more practical result came from the final two studies, in which participants reviewed professional résumés as though making hiring decisions. Some of them wrote a brief ready-to-resume plan at the moment they left the first task, a note that takes about a minute and records where they would pick the work up, what challenges remained, and which actions could wait. Those who wrote the plan showed less lingering focus on the interrupted task, made better decisions on the new one, and recalled more information from the résumés.

The authors were careful about the limits. The studies did not test whether the plan improved performance when people returned to the original task, and the laboratory samples were students making a simulated decision. For a leader, the finding is best treated as an experiment worth running rather than a rule to follow.

Where this meets a leader's week

Senior roles tend to be built from transitions. A leader may move from a performance conversation to a budget discussion within a single morning, each carrying its own emotional tone and its own unfinished edges. Seen through the lens of attention residue, a scattered afternoon is less a personal failing than a predictable result of how the day was assembled.

Some leaders find it useful simply to notice which transitions in their week carry the most residue. A conversation that ended without a clear next step, a decision left open, or a message that has not been answered will often show up here. Noticing is a perfectly good first step, and it belongs to the leader to decide whether any of it calls for a change. For some, that will be a short note before leaving a task. For others it may be a few minutes of space between meetings, or a closer look at which commitments are generating the most open tabs.

In coaching, this is the kind of pattern that tends to be more useful discovered than prescribed. The person who knows how their own week feels is best placed to say where the residue builds up and what, if anything, they would like to try.

If you would like to explore how this shows up in your own week, a free Fit Check call is a relaxed place to begin, with no obligation either way.

Sources

Dani Masi
Next

The Treadmill Problem: Why Busy Leaders Stop Making Progress