Keywords

1 Introduction

Mobile device use has been steadily increasing for the better part of 20 years, today, smartphones more so than feature phones. According to Theoharidou et al. [18] a smartphone is defined as a cell phone with advanced capabilities, which executes an identifiable operating system allowing users to extend its functionality with third party applications that are available from an application repository. According to this definition, smartphones must include sophisticated hardware with: (a) advanced processing capabilities, (b) multiple and fast connectivity capabilities, and (optionally) (c) a larger screen than feature phones. As of third quarter of 2015, 68 % of US mobile subscribers owned a smartphone compared to a feature phone up from 35 % in 2011 [3]. In Canada it is estimated that smartphone penetration will reach 68 % by year-end 2015, up from 55 % at year-end 2014 [19], and forecasted to be 80 % by the end of 2016 [11]. While the tablet market penetration is still low, it has seen exponential growth as well. A current survey by eMarketer [12] research group stated that the tablet market in Canada increased from 34 % in 2013 to 42 % in 2015, with an anticipated penetration rate of 49.5 % by 2019. With the increase in “bring your own technology (BYOT)” policies to work, it has been stated that more than 64 % of workers are using personal and mobile computing systems as of 2014 [8, 9].

One result of BYOT policies is that these personal devices are appearing in meetings and are potentially being used for personal and business purposes simultaneously. The impact of these practices on behaviour, productivity, and work satisfaction has yet to be investigated.

Technology use in meetings is not new. For the past three decades researchers in the field of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), or the understanding of the nature and characteristics of cooperative work with the objective of designing adequate computer-based technologies, have investigated how groups use technology, and the advantages and disadvantages it contributes [5, 8, 20]. Positive findings from CSCW research are that groups using technology tend to: (1) improve group task performance; (2) overcome time and space constraints on collaborative efforts; (3) increase the range and speed of access to information; and (4) facilitate conflict resolution [7, 16].

Negative findings tend to relate to distractions caused by technology in meetings. Just as meeting participants in the past had the opportunity to doodle on paper and potentially be distracted; technology might provide the same opportunity. Newman and Cairns [15] postulate that the use of a pen and paper or a laptop in a meeting contributes to distraction and disengagement from the meeting topic at hand. Meeting participants who are distracted with a pen and paper will reengage with the meeting topic within ten seconds. However, individuals who use a laptop will reengage with a brief glance every eight to ten seconds, followed by a return to the ongoing laptop task. Users of paper are much more likely to reengage fully [14]. In much of the earlier research, the technology belonged to the organization and was used almost exclusively for computer-based work related tasks including meetings. In a BYOT environment, mobile technology is personal and used as much for personal activities as it is for work.

Further investigation is needed to determine if the use of mobile devices will be accepted or rejected in meetings. In this paper we report on a follow up survey to our initial survey. The initial survey was conducted in the third quarter of 2010 (see [4] for details), and the second one was conducted in the second quarter of 2012.

2 Method

The second survey was deployed two years after the first one to again assess meeting participant’s perceptions and attitudes of mobile technology use during meetings. As technology has changed in the intervening time, a new survey may shed new light on people’s attitudes. For the purpose of this paper only the quantitative data are presented and discussed.

Research Questions.

The following are the two research questions for the project: (1) What are the attitudes towards having smart mobile technologies in face-to-face meeting settings in organizations? (2) How is smart mobile technology being employed and adopted for use in meetings?

Survey Instrument.

The online survey was developed and distributed on an international information systems listserve. In the survey, demographic information, and information on types of technology used during meetings, and perception of technology use in business meetings was gathered. The online survey was made available on the Internet from May 1, 2012 till July 31, 2012.

The survey was composed of 29 questions organized into five sections. The first section contained eight questions to collect demographic information such as age, sex, and employment status. The second section contained 12 questions and asked participants about their technology use (e.g., how often they used a computer and for what activities). The third section contained 11 questions related to one specific meeting that the participant recently attended (e.g., type of meeting, length of meeting and number of people attending). The fourth section contained seven questions that collected data about participant’s attitudes towards technology use during meetings. Questions regarding when it was appropriate to use various technologies such as laptops and smartphones in meetings, as well as the different functionality of these devices were included in the survey (e.g., texting and making calls). The last section asked two questions about company attitudes and policies toward technology use.

Participants.

Two hundred and fifty-five participants (118 males, 134 females, three unanswered) completed the survey. There were 10 % of participants in the age range of 18–29 years, 49 % in the 30–39 years, 22 % in the 40–49 years, 14 % in the 50–59 years, and 5 % in the 60+ age range.

Twenty three percent of the participants claimed to work in the public sector, 17.8 % in service, 9.5 % in high technology, 5.9 % in manufacturing, 3.6 % in retail, and 40.2 % in “other” as in the combination of two or more of the categories listed above. The majority (47.8 %) were employed in large organization with more than 750 employees, 28.5 % in small organization (2–99 employees), and 23.7 % in medium (100–749 employees). The majority of participants (85.7 %) were employed as full time employees, 8.7 % as part-time employees, while 5.6 % classified themselves as “other” (e.g. contract, seasonal, and volunteer). Over one third (35 %) of participants worked three or fewer years in their current company, 20 % of participants between four and six years, 14 % of participants between seven and nine years, 11 % of participants between 10–12 years, 7 % of participants between 13–15 years, and 13 % of participants were with their current company more than 16+ years.

The majority (57 %) were in management roles (e.g. supervisor (4 %), manager (21 %), director (16 %), vice-president (8 %), and president (8 %)) with the remaining being non-management. Eleven percent of participants worked in the research & development department, 10 % in operations, 10 % in sales/marketing, 3 % in human resources, 1 % in accounting or legal, and 64 % in other such information technology or logistics. Twenty two percent attended face-to-face meeting infrequently, 22 % percent attended once per week, 24 % attended 2–4 times a week, 15 % attended 5–8 times per week, and 17 % attended 9 or more times per week. The majority of participants (71 %) considered themselves as advanced cell phone users (someone who uses a cell phone 5 times or more per day with a combination of phone calls, text messages, mobile Internet surfing, and the use of mobile applications on the phone), 4 % beginner cell phone user (someone who uses a cell phone once or twice per week making phone calls only), 23 % intermediate, and 2 % did not own a cell phone. Ninety seven percent reported using a computer daily. The most common applications used on respondents were email and Office productivity such as using word processing or spreadsheets. To carry out crosstabs some demographic categories were not used due to low numbers (see Sect. 3).

3 Results and Discussion

This paper examines the attitude and behaviour of meeting participants that use mobile devices, particularly smartphones, during meetings. A chi-square analysis was conducted on questions related to: (1) when was it appropriate to use different mobile devices in meetings using 5-point Likert where 1 was always and 5 was never: (2) making personal and work voice calls during a meeting, using 5-point Likert where 1 was “I make/accept phone calls all the time” and 5 was “I never make/accept phone calls”; and (3) sending personal and work related text messages during meetings, using 5-point Likert where 1 was “I text message all the time”, and 5 was “I never text message.” Significant results are reported to a type 1 error probability of p < 0.05 (see Table 1). There were four degrees of freedom in all significant results reported.

Table 1. Chi-square value, mean, and standard deviation of questions related to appropriateness of mobile device use in meetings.
Full size table

SmartPhone Use in Meetings.

When participants were asked about their smartphones use in meetings, 43 % (110 participants out of 255) stated it was to keep track of time, 38 % (96 participants out of 255) for work related emergencies, 35 % (90 participants out of 255) communication such as email or chat through text messaging, 34 % (86 participants out of 255) for work related activities, 29 % (73 participants out of 255) for personal emergencies, 8 % (20 participants out of 255) for surfing the internet, 2 % (6 participants out of 255) activities not related to work, and 4 % (11 participants out of 255) said other. It seems that the majority of individuals tend to use their smartphone in meetings for work related emergencies and other work tasks such as communicating by email or chat through text messaging but considerably less so for personal use unless it is an emergency. We can theorize that when meeting participants do use their smartphone, that it is related to the meeting tasks at hand, however, which tasks remains to be determined. Further research should address this question.

Text Messaging in Meetings.

There was a surprising use of texting in meetings depending on who was present in the room. Fifteen percent (16 out of 109 participants) stated that they would text personal related information when their superior was present. However, if a visitor was present, 18 % (20 out of 109 participants) would text personal related message. If the meeting room only had co-workers, 21 % (34 out of 160 participants) would text personal related information. This change in behaviour based on the presence of certain individuals can be explained by Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior [1, 2]. It stated that one of the indicators that determine an individual’s behaviour was the individual’s perception of whether people important to him thought the behaviour should be performed. According to our data and the Theory of Planned Behavior, individuals tended to text personal related messages more when individuals around were considered to be less influential by the meeting participants.

When asked about personal and work related texting during meetings, 47 % (120 out of 255 participants) reported that they did not text message work related information and 52.9 % (135 out of 255 participants) did not text for personal reasons. However, when we asked participants what they text messaged about during meetings, 43 % (109 out of 255 participants) stated “work tasks that cannot wait” and 31 % (78 out of 255 participants) stated they would text “personal tasks that cannot wait.”

It seems that text messaging is becoming increasingly acceptable in meetings particularly for work related text messages. The types of work related text messages were not gathered in this survey, however, we postulate that meeting participants are using their smartphones to collect meeting related answers that cannot be found within the meeting as suggested by Spee and Jarzabkowski [17]. They found that smartphones and instant messaging can be considered strategy tools that allow meeting participants to span intra and interorganizational boundaries through discussion. No longer are meeting attendees limited to communicating only within the formal meeting boundaries, but they can also engage, either on task or not, with resources outside the formal meeting.

Voice Calls in Meetings.

While texting during meetings seems to be a more acceptable practice, we also wanted to determine whether this attitude also transferred to voice calls. Seven percent (5 out of 70 participants) stated they would make a phone call if a superior was present. As for visitors and co-workers present, 9 % (6 out of 66 participants) and 10 % (10 out of 98 participants) respectively, would make a personal voice calls during the meeting.

More than a quarter (66 out of 246 participants) stated they would accept or make work related voice calls during a meeting only when they had important work to do that could not wait. The survey also revealed that people were three times more likely to accept or make a work phone call in a meeting that they were not needed compared with 2 % for accepting or making personal voice calls. Only 2 % (6 out of 246 participants) stated that they would accept or make a non-important personal and work phone call during a meeting. A survey conducted by Campbell [6] and others [10, 13] on college students and the use of mobile phones in classrooms found that the phones were considered as a serious source of distraction in the classroom. Collectively, participants reported strong perceptions of ringing as a problem. Since the function of a classroom setting was similar to a meeting room, we posit that individuals view making or accepting voice calls was more disruptive and obtrusive compared with text messaging.

Comparison with Demographic Data.

A crosstab analysis was used to determine whether there were correlations between the (1) demographic information (e.g. age, size of company, position within the company, and department the participant works in); and (2) the acceptability of making and accepting personal and work calls during meetings; and (3) the acceptability of texting personal and work messages during meetings. Participants rated the acceptability on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 was always and 5 was never. Significant results are reported to a type 1 error probability of p < 0.05 with four degrees of freedom. The results of Cramer’s ν are reported in Table 2.

Table 2. Cramer’s V value for voice calls and text messaging during meetings. Moderately strong relationship shown in bold.
Full size table

Due to the low number of participants in the supervisor position category, the 60+ age category and the accounting and legal option in participant’s department this data were removed from the analysis. We found a moderately strong relationship between the department in which the participant worked and attitudes towards texting work related messages during meetings. Individuals who worked in research and development tended to rate texting during meetings in which they are not needed as acceptable (M = 6.40, SD = 1.54). Individuals who work in operations tended to rate texting important work related messages during meetings as acceptable compared with individuals employed in any other departments (M = 5.93, SD = 1.80).

We also found a moderately strong relationship between the participant’s position within the company and making and accepting voice calls. The data revealed that individuals who were supervisors (44 %), managers (26 %), directors (39 %), and vice presidents (37 %) tended to think that making important work related calls during meetings was acceptable. We found a weak relationship in the ratings among non-management (21 %) towards making work related phone calls during meetings.

Limitations.

Even though there were 255 participants who completed the survey, there was still an uneven distribution particularly for the department in which the participant works, age and position in the company. There was only 1 participant (0.5 %) from accounting and 2 (1 %) from legal departments. For the 60+ age demographic there were only 13 participants or (5 %). For the supervisor position demographic there were only 11 participants (4.8 %). In order to better determine attitudes from all of the demographic categories, more participants from these groups must be recruited. Lastly, the data presented here is only a snapshot in time and attitudes towards mobile device use in meetings will likely change over time.

This paper only presents a limited, univariate treatment and analysis of the data to gain a sense of trends that are occurring. Further multivariate analyses are required in order to determine whether there are multiple factors that are correlated. Future papers will report on this aspect of the analysis.

As this was a broadly distributed survey, there was no opportunity to gather any data on details contained in text messages or voice calls or why participants found some mobile device behaviours more acceptable than others. Future research should investigate what type of information participant’s text and talk about on their smartphones during meetings and why this behavior is acceptable in the workplace.

4 Conclusion

This paper reported on a 2012 survey conducted into the attitudes and behaviour of meeting participants when smartphones are used during meetings. The data revealed that over two thirds of meeting participants used their smartphones during meetings for work related emergencies and other work tasks such as communicating by email or chat through text messaging. Meeting participants also tended to text more often when co-workers were present compared to visitors or superiors. Participants texted the least amount when superiors where present in the room. The survey also revealed that meeting participants were three times more likely to make a work phone call compared to a personal phone in a meeting in which they were not needed. Furthermore, individuals who work in research and development tended to text message more during meetings in which they were not really needed compared to individuals in other departments. Individuals who worked in operations tended to rate texting important work related messages during meetings as acceptable compared with individuals from other departments.

Future research into why some factors are acceptable and others are not as well as details such length, content and frequency of text messages and phone calls may help to better understand the attitudes and behaviour of smartphone users in the workplace. It may also assist in developing new standards of conduct and work policies around smartphone use in the workplace, specifically during business meetings.