Deep Work: Rules for Focused Success in a Distracted World

In contrast with deep work is shallow work, which Newport defines as “Noncognitively demanding, logistical-style tasks, often performed while distracted. These efforts tend to not create much new value in the world and are easy to replicate” (6). It is Newport’s contention that an increasing amount of work taking place in the modern workplace is shallow work. Shallow work, he argues, interferes with habits that lead to developing skills for deep work and are therefore counterproductive.

This is the hypothesis that drives much of the book. As Newport says: “The ability to perform deep work is becoming increasingly rare at exactly the same time it is becoming increasingly valuable in our economy. As a consequence, the few who cultivate this skill, and then make it the core of their working life, will thrive” (14). According to his hypothesis, the ability to perform deep work is not a moral position; instead, Newport posits that the ability to perform deep work effectively makes a person more valuable in the labor market, even in spite of the fact that so much work is continuing to become shallow.

Newport cites Sophie Leroy, a business professor at the University of Minnesota who coined the term. When multitasking, a person who shifts from one task to the next will have a “residue” of focus on the first task. Therefore, the more one multitasks, the more one’s attention is split, thus hampering one’s ability to focus on the immediate task at hand. Newport recognizes this as a counterproductive trend in the modern workplace where multitasking is a valued skill.

This is a term coined by the late writer and cultural critic, Neil Postman, who borrowed some of his ideas about the subject from Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World. The term is used to define the way any technological advancement becomes an imperative that does not warrant skepticism. A technopoly eliminates the need to question technology. According to Postman: “It does not make [technological advancements] illegal. It does not make them immoral. It does not even make them unpopular. It makes them invisible and therefore irrelevant” (67). Newport applies this term to the way social media services present their products as indispensable to modern life. Eventually, people come to believe this, making possible objections and skepticism on the whole, irrelevant.

Newport defines this as an approach where: “You’re justified in using a network tool if you can identify any possible benefit to its use, or anything you might possibly miss out on if you don’t use it” (186). He sees this as a common, though flawed, defense for using social media. Newport argues that just because something offers some benefit does not mean it is an effective tool.