The use of smartphones in organizations is beginning to be restricted for security reasons and productivity goals

Why are some employers banning smartphones during the workday?

 

The following article comes from Inc.com, one of the most influential websites for small and medium-sized businesses in the United States, covering topics such as startups, new technologies, human resources, marketing, business, leadership, and more. It was written by Bruce Crumley, a former correspondent and bureau chief for Time magazine in Paris. He has also worked for Fortune, Sports Illustrated, Agence France-Presse, and as a freelance journalist. He divides his time between Biarritz and Paris in the most irregular way possible.

 

 

 

 

Security concerns and productivity goals are prompting some employers to reconsider the use of personal phones at work, although this is not without resistance.

 

 

The number of schools banning students from using smartphones during the day continues to rise in the United States and around the world. While companies don’t seem to be embracing the ban with the same enthusiasm, there are signs that more and more employers are requiring their employees to leave their devices at work for reasons of data security, productivity, and even basic etiquette.

 

Increasingly, younger students, who were practically born with smartphones and tablets in their hands, are facing the harsh reality of having to give up these devices during school hours. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), «in just a few years, the ban on mobile phones in schools has gone from an isolated national initiative to a widespread global policy trend,» now encompassing 58% of the world’s countries. This means that many children and teenagers are struggling with anxiety as they are prevented from checking their social media, and nearly as many teachers are celebrating the resulting improvement in classroom concentration.

 

However, would such bans be beneficial in classrooms, or even feasible, in the workplace? Given the lack of abundant examples of employees testing this theory, anecdotal evidence suggests that banning personal smartphones at work is not yet widespread, but it is being implemented with mixed results.

 

 

The most cited case is that of the online legal identity verification platform id.me.

 

A few years ago, id.me began requiring its employees to store their devices in magnetically secured bags, similar to those made by Los Angeles-based Yondr. While the bags can be checked and opened during the day in case of emergency, id.me suspends the use of personal phones by its employees at work to reduce the risk of leaks of confidential customer data.

 

Other companies have followed suit for different reasons. Posts on the social media platform Reddit report that owners of pharmacies, bars, restaurants, retail stores, and offices have instructed their staff to leave their phones at the start of their shift and forget about them until they go home. According to users, the goal was improved customer service and, overall, greater productivity.

 

In the corporate world, the most frequent example of device restrictions was that of Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, who last year strongly reprimanded employees he saw «constantly in meetings receiving notifications and personal messages or reading emails.» He called this behavior «disrespectful» and ordered that it «must stop.» Since then, Dimon has taken steps to eradicate device use in situations where it creates distractions without adding value to the business.

 

«If you have an iPad in front of me and it looks like you’re reading your email or receiving notifications, I tell you to put it down,» Dimon told CNN regarding his response to detecting digital devices during meetings.

 

How likely are numerous American companies to follow the stance of id.me, Dimon, and many schools across the country regarding smartphone use in their quest to improve security, employee productivity, and respectful interaction?

 

 

 It’s probably not a serious problem.

 

For starters, the apparent rarity of these policies in the workplace suggests that employers consider the distraction harmless, or at least not important enough to combat it yet.

 

Meanwhile, companies that impose bans would likely face strong resistance from employees accustomed to regularly checking their social media, emails, texts, and other notifications. Some observers see additional problems for companies attempting to enforce the ban.

 

«It’s funny how this is the kind of place that doesn’t want you using your phone during work hours, but does want to call you outside of those hours and add you to a work WhatsApp group,» Reddit user WorstITTechnician replied to an employee’s post about the new smartphone ban at work.

 

«I saw this rule at a store where I worked, which was funny because the salespeople were prohibited and had to lock their phones away in a box,» maybenothis agreed. “But people working in HR and Administration were allowed to use them.”

 

Despite this skepticism, Yondr CEO Graham Dugoni recently told the Financial Times

that his company is increasingly selling magnetic-closure bags to a growing number of employers, government agencies, political organizations, and even courts. This often happens, he explained in a recent newspaper article about workplace smartphone bans, when initial, well-intentioned bans fail to achieve their objectives because workers continue to surreptitiously check their screens.

 

However, the results of implemented smartphone bans have been mixed.

 

A potential threat to performance

A European study published in 2021 concluded that, due to the omnipresence and constant use of these devices in the workplace, “they appear to pose a potential threat to individual performance in routine work tasks, and we provide evidence that banning smartphones is a way to increase employee effort.”

 

On the other hand, the researchers noted that it was necessary to convince employees that the reasons for ceasing smartphone use were important and justified in order for them to comply. They indicated that failure to do so could generate “negative side effects” if staff perceive the bans as excessive and unreasonable.

 

When implemented effectively—and with some flexibility—smartphone bans in the workplace can also offer additional benefits. The Financial Times report quoted id.me employees who noted that they can still access and use their phones during scheduled breaks, allowing them to stay connected to the outside world without neglecting their colleagues or tasks.

 

“I wasn’t the best employee; I was always on my phone,” Kamilah Muiruri, an id.me employee, told the FT, describing the positive changes in staff resulting from the company’s smartphone restrictions. “It helps us connect with each other. I didn’t really know the people at the office because I was focused on my friends outside of work. Now, we’re a really close-knit team… and we love hanging out together.”

 

 

It wasn’t specified whether these extracurricular activities include or exclude smartphone use.

 

 

 

Smartphones Consume Up to 2 Hours of Professionals’ Daily Work Time

The following contribution comes from the Lumiun portal, which specializes in internet security and control solutions.

Author: Team

 

 

 

Mobile phone use at work has generated ongoing debate about the best approach for companies regarding this practice. There are numerous drawbacks for employees and managers, ranging from wasted time and decreased productivity to wrongful termination and subsequent labor disputes between employees and the company.

 

A survey conducted by the Methodist University of São Paulo revealed that one in five professionals loses up to 15 minutes per hour on their mobile phone during the workday, representing 25% of their time. This equates to a loss of 2 hours, considering an 8-hour workday. To calculate the cost of this lost time to your company, use this time waste calculator, which allows you to determine the number of employees and the cost per professional.

 

The company has the autonomy and right to restrict the use of personal mobile phones in the workplace, provided it offers alternative means of communication for emergencies. Employees who fail to comply with these guidelines may be notified and even dismissed for cause. Therefore, it is essential that employees are aware of the restrictions and the corresponding penalties for non-compliance. The company must prepare a document outlining the rules regarding device use and the relevant sanctions. Download a template for this document here.

 

To avoid unpleasant situations and friction between parties, it is recommended that companies have clear and consistent guidelines. Furthermore, employees should exercise common sense and self-control when using devices, always prioritizing company activities and their professional productivity.

 

Productivity and Results

Mobile phone use at work does not necessarily lead to decreased productivity. Therefore, managers are advised to always monitor the execution of activities and results, focusing on output and defining goals and objectives for each employee and team. Furthermore, for some activities, such as sales and customer service, mobile phones can contribute to the execution of certain tasks.

 

Companies should strive to develop a healthy and productive culture regarding mobile phone use. For example, educating professionals about the responsible use of smartphones—such as posting photos during work, making jokes on social media, or engaging in personal conversations—can negatively impact their performance. However, this also demonstrates that the conscious use of smartphones can be leveraged to develop contacts and communicate with clients. Device usage should focus on the collective benefit for both the company and its professionals.

 

Another important point is that managers and leaders must set an example of responsible use, employing devices only for company tasks and for communicating with the team, clients, or suppliers.

 

In the case of mobile phone use for internal team communication, such as in WhatsApp groups, it is the leader’s responsibility to define the rules, add or remove participants, and address those who send inappropriate content.

 

 

It’s better to monitor and supervise than to prohibit.

Banning mobile phone use at work is considered a radical and ill-advised measure. The company may project an image of authoritarian management that doesn’t consider employee needs. It can even demotivate some professionals. The ban can also be considered abusive if the company doesn’t provide employees with other means of communication.

 

Once again, common sense and balance are key. The company can manage device usage by allowing it during specific time periods or through access control tools like Lumiun, defining what can and cannot be accessed on the device. In addition to restrictions, these tools allow for detailed tracking of employee access, generating information that can be used to adjust device usage policies and even to make decisions if employees don’t comply with the rules.

 

Within this management framework, some basic guidelines are also important, such as requiring that mobile phones be stored in drawers or bags and always on silent. Professionals can also disable notifications from apps that might disrupt their concentration and check the news only during breaks.

 

A formula for everyone to benefit

Finally, given that mobile phones are increasingly present in our daily lives, it is the responsibility of companies and professionals to develop a conscious way to use this powerful tool so that everyone benefits.

 

And in your company, how are mobile phones used at work? Share your experience, mentioning the positive and negative aspects of the policy implemented in your company.

 

 

 

 

How much time are your employees wasting on their phones?

The following contribution comes from the Business News Daily portal, which describes itself as follows: Business News Daily is the leading online source of information for entrepreneurs and startups, providing the crucial news and information they need to launch and grow successful businesses.

Our news and resource content covers more than 30 topic categories vital to the success of any business. These categories focus on business finance, human resources, marketing, and technology. Our team of experts and writers creates comprehensive and insightful guides to help entrepreneurs answer questions such as how to find the right business loans, how to develop a human resources department, and which technology best suits their needs. This technology coverage includes guidance on managing a remote team, processing online and in-person payments, and choosing the right business phones and video conferencing systems.

 

The article is authored by Dock Treece, a senior writer. Dock David Treece is a finance expert with extensive experience in business finance, including Small Business Administration (SBA) loans and alternative financing. He is senior vice president of marketing at BNY Mellon and a former editorial director at Dotdash.

 

 

 

It’s true that your employees are using their personal phones during the workday, but what can you do about it?

 

Business News Daily receives commissions from some of the listed vendors. Editorial guidelines.

 

 

Employees Wasting Time Using Their Mobile Phones at Work

Even though their time cards show they’re working full days, many employees don’t spend all their time at the office on their jobs. Many are distracted by their mobile devices, spending hours a day texting, shopping online, or browsing social media. So, what can you do about it?

 

The Best Employee Monitoring Software of 2026

Finding the right employee monitoring software for your company is time-consuming, so business.com analyzed dozens of options to develop the following recommendations.

 

A recent survey by Screen Education revealed that employees waste, on average, more than two hours a day using their phones.

That’s more than two hours of unproductive work for the company. And it’s not just productivity at stake: 14% of those surveyed said that employee distraction by mobile devices had led to workplace accidents, many of which resulted in injuries or even death.

 

A 2017 study by Robert Half Talent Solutions and OfficeTeam revealed what employees do with their phones instead of fulfilling their work responsibilities: the majority use their mobile devices to check personal email, while an additional 28% of respondents admitted to browsing social media. Sports or entertainment websites, mobile games, and online shopping are some of the other activities for which workers admitted to using their mobile devices during work hours.

 

Given people’s reliance on their phones, it’s no surprise that these devices are such a common source of distraction at work. «It’s understandable that employees occasionally use their mobile devices or perform personal tasks during work hours,» said Brandi Britton, executive director of Robert Half’s finance and contracts accounting group, in a statement following the publication of the survey. “But these activities can easily become major distractions.”

 

Tip: Even if your company provides mobile devices for employee use, you might allow some personal activities, such as talking about childcare. Always establish clear rules about permitted use.

 

How Employees Use Their Phones for Non-Work Tasks: Employees use their mobile devices in a variety of unproductive ways during the workday. Here are the most common ways smartphones distract employees:

 

 

fAccess to Restricted Content

Employees are using their mobile devices to circumvent the restrictions companies impose on laptops to keep their staff focused on work. In fact, 58% of respondents in the Robert Half study reported frequently using their personal devices at work to access websites blocked by their company, a significant increase from 22% in 2012. Managers underestimate the frequency of this activity: only 39% suspected employees were using their mobile devices to access restricted content.

 

More than half of the employees surveyed indicated that their company prevents them from visiting at least some websites in the office. The research revealed that 39% of employers block social media, 30% entertainment sites, 27% online stores, and 23% sports websites.

 

Performing Personal Tasks

Restricted content isn’t the only distraction. Employees admitted to spending an average of 42 minutes a day on personal tasks. If you add to this the time they spend accessing blocked content, employees lose almost eight hours, or nearly a full day, per week on non-work-related tasks.

 

 

Britton recommended that employees manage their time better to avoid wasting valuable work hours.

 

“To better manage their time, staff can use lunch breaks and breaks throughout the day to check emails or run personal errands,” she said.

 

Tip: Completely banning cell phone use isn’t always an effective way to eliminate distractions that harm productivity at work. Encourage your staff to stay focused on their work by limiting distractions and creating growth opportunities for high performers.

 

How to Reduce Employee Phone Use in the Office: Some of the methods for reducing general distractions at work are also applicable to getting employees to stop using their phones. Here are some tips to help your staff focus on their responsibilities instead of their mobile devices:

 

Offer flexible schedules. Flexible work hours and the option to work remotely can help employees who struggle with work-life balance. By providing flexibility, employees can take care of personal matters outside of work hours so they can stay focused on their tasks during the workday.

 

Designate quiet spaces. Create peaceful areas in the office and offer time management workshops. Employees are less likely to be tempted to use their phones if they can work in a quiet environment.

Provide break rooms. Encourage your employees to turn off non-work-related notifications when they are in the office so they aren’t reminded of what awaits them later. You can also schedule short breaks where they can use their phones.

Use monitoring software. The best employee monitoring software can track productivity and notify your employees that you are doing so. If they know you can see, for example, how long their computer is idle, they’re less likely to put down their keyboard and mouse to use their phone. [Learn about the laws and ethics of employee monitoring.]

 

 

 

 Provide regular feedback.

Establish performance improvement plans for underperforming employees. Include specific information about time wasted on mobile devices or access to blocked content, as well as any incidents resulting from distractions at work.

 

How to Boost Your Employees’ Productivity

With easy access to texting, social media, and sensationalist content, it’s no surprise that staff are wasting time on their phones. While it may be tempting to ban phones in the workplace, these are just one of the many distractions employees face. Therefore, it’s important for good managers to do everything they can to reduce distractions and help employees be productive in achieving their work goals.

 

 

Rethinking Mobile Policies at Work

The following contribution comes from the AttendanceBot portal, which describes itself as: Your team at a glance. AttendanceBot allows you and your team to stay informed and coordinate work and availability.

Authorship by the team.

 

 

 

 

Mobile phones have become an inseparable part of daily life, and the workplace is no exception. Whether checking Slack, replying to a quick message, or browsing TikTok between meetings, employees are rarely without their devices. But convenience comes with concerns. As mobile use increasingly blurs the line between productivity and distraction, companies are rethinking how to manage it. This is where mobile policies at work come in. These guidelines focus not on micromanagement, but on setting clear expectations, protecting productivity, and ensuring fairness across teams. Whether your team works remotely, in a hybrid format, or in the office, a well-thought-out mobile policy can help everyone stay focused, secure, and professionally aligned.

 

In this blog, we’ll explore how to create effective mobile policies at work, what to include, how to implement them, and why they’re essential for modern teams.

 

 

Why You Need Mobile Policies at Work

A mobile policy isn’t just a formality; it’s a proactive security measure that helps organizations strike a balance between productivity, privacy, regulatory compliance, and organizational culture. Whether your team works remotely, in a hybrid format, or in the office, having a clearly defined policy ensures everyone understands what’s acceptable during work hours and why.

 

Here’s why every organization, large or small, needs one:

 

1. Reduces Lost Productivity

Distractions cost more than just time: they impact team performance, engagement, and deadlines. A clear mobile device policy sets expectations about when and how personal devices can be used, helping to minimize disruptions without resorting to excessive monitoring.

 

2. Supports legal and regulatory compliance in the industry

Certain sectors, such as healthcare, finance, and education, are subject to privacy regulations (e.g., HIPAA, GDPR, FINRA) that can be compromised by mobile device use. Unauthorized photos, messages, or app access could expose companies to legal liability. A written policy helps demonstrate due diligence and protects against risks.

 

3. Clarifies boundaries in a BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) environment

With many workplaces adopting the BYOD model, it is crucial to define what data the company can access, which apps are necessary for work, and how corporate information is protected on personal devices. This keeps both the company and employees informed.

 

4. Promotes Fairness and Transparency

Without a policy, mobile phone use is often ambiguous. Some employees may browse Instagram freely, while others are discouraged from even checking a quick message. Clear rules create a level playing field and reduce confusion, favoritism, or tension among team members.

 

5. Improves Safety in High-Risk Environments

In manufacturing, logistics, transportation, and healthcare environments, distraction is not only a productivity issue but also a safety one. A strong mobile device policy can restrict its use to specific areas or during high-risk tasks, reinforcing a commitment to employee safety and compliance with OSHA or similar regulations.

 

6. Protects Confidential Company Information

The rise of mobile applications makes remote access to internal systems easier than ever. However, without password protection, VPNs, or remote wipe options, personal phones can be a weak point in data security. A policy that includes mobile security standards (e.g., device locking, use of MDM software) reduces this risk.

 

 

7. Helps HR and managers handle violations consistently

When mobile phone use becomes a problem—whether it’s excessive texting, unauthorized recording, or security breaches—managers need a documented policy to refer to. This not only protects against unfair treatment claims but also provides HR teams with a standardized process for handling repeated violations.

 

Why you need a mobile phone policy at work

 

Types of mobile phone policies at work

When it comes to managing mobile phone use in the workplace, different environments require different levels of control. A flexible policy framework helps organizations tailor rules to their operational needs, company culture, and legal responsibilities.

 

These are the most common types of mobile device usage policies and when to use them:

 

1. Zero Tolerance or Restricted Use Policy

Ideal for: Manufacturing, healthcare, logistics, or positions requiring special attention to safety.

 

This type of policy limits or strictly prohibits mobile phone use during working hours, except during breaks or in emergencies. It is typically applied in environments where distractions can lead to accidents, violations, or decreased performance.

 

Example rules:

 

Phone use is not permitted on the production floor or while driving.

 

Personal devices must be stored in lockers or designated areas.

 

Emergency use is only permitted with the approval of a supervisor.

 

How it works: It minimizes safety risks and protects against legal liability in high-risk environments.

 

 

2. Limited Use Policy

Ideal for: Retail, hospitality, administrative support, and customer service.

 

This approach allows mobile phone use during breaks or in designated areas without customer service, but restricts it during working hours. It’s a balanced model that fosters productivity and professionalism.

 

Example rules:

 

Phone use is not allowed on the production floor, but it is allowed in the break room.

Mobile apps are permitted for scheduling appointments or work-related communication.

 

Personal calls must be made outside of working hours and without the client seeing them.

 

Why it works: It fosters workplace discipline without being overly strict.

 

3. Permissive or Trust-Based Policy

Ideal for: Technology companies, creative teams, marketing departments, and organizations with a remote work model.

 

In this model, mobile device use is virtually unlimited, as long as it doesn’t interfere with productivity, meetings, or collaboration. Teams are trusted to be self-managing, and mobile tools typically play an active role in daily work.

 

Example rules:

 

Phones can be used for work applications like Slack, Trello, or Notion.

 

Silent mode is mandatory during meetings.

 

Excessive personal use is discouraged but not strictly monitored.

 

Why it works: It empowers knowledge workers while respecting their autonomy.

 

 

 

4. BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) Policy

Ideal for: Organizations that allow their employees to use their personal phones for work tasks.

A BYOD policy isn’t limited to phone usage; it also covers data security, application requirements, and what happens if the device is lost or stolen. It’s essential for remote, hybrid, and field teams that use their personal phones to access work systems.

 

Examples of rules:

 

Mandatory use of company-approved applications (e.g., VPN, MDM tools).

 

Employees must password-protect their devices and enable encryption.

 

The company reserves the right to remotely wipe company data if necessary.

 

Why it works: It reduces hardware costs and increases flexibility while protecting sensitive data.

 

Advantages and disadvantages of using mobile devices at work

Mobile phones have become indispensable tools in modern work environments. They are frequently used to communicate, authenticate logins, or access shared work applications. However, without a defined limit, mobile device use can disrupt concentration, pose security risks, and even create security problems.

 

 

Let’s examine both perspectives in more detail:

 

Advantages

Improved communication: Phones facilitate connection, especially for distributed teams or employees who are often out of the office.

 

Access to work tools: Many modern business tools, such as Slack, Google Workspace, Microsoft Teams, and authentication applications, are optimized for mobile devices.

 

Emergency preparedness: Employees can be available for urgent personal matters, promoting work-life balance and reducing anxiety.

 

Cost savings with BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) models: BYOD policies can reduce operating costs by decreasing the need for company-provided hardware.

 

Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Mobile Devices at Work

 

Disadvantages

Distractions at Work: Personal notifications, social media, and games are frequent sources of distraction. Distractions at work don’t arise out of thin air; they often stem from the uncontrolled use of mobile devices. According to Udemy’s Distractions at Work Report, 70% of employees admit to feeling distracted at work, with smartphones being the primary cause.

 

Security Risks: Personal devices may not be protected by enterprise security protocols, increasing the risk of data breaches, especially if company emails or documents are accessed from unsecured phones. The NIST Mobile Device Guidelines (SP 800-124 Rev. 2) recommend measures such as remote wipes, strong passwords, and app restrictions to manage mobile threats. These recommendations are especially useful for HR and IT teams creating secure environments that support Bring Your Own Device (BYOD).

 

Inconsistent boundaries: Without a clear mobile policy, employee expectations can vary considerably, which can lead to resentment or inconsistent enforcement.

Physical safety risks: In certain work environments, such as warehouses, kitchens, or other work areas, mobile phone use can increase the likelihood of accidents or injuries.

 

 

Creating a mobile device policy isn’t about restricting employees, but about fostering productivity, fairness, and overall safety.

 

Key Elements of an Effective Mobile Device Policy

Drafting a mobile device policy isn’t just about banning distractions, but about building clarity and trust in how your team works. To make your policy practical and enforceable, focus on structure, scope, and communication.

 

Here are the essential elements to include:

 

1. Clear Scope and Applicability

Start by identifying who the policy covers: full-time employees, contractors, interns, remote staff, or specific departments. Specify whether it applies to personal devices, company-owned phones, or both.

 

2. Acceptable and Unacceptable Uses

Instead of establishing a blanket restriction, define examples of acceptable use (e.g., work-related communication, two-factor authentication apps) and what is prohibited (e.g., browsing social media, recording meetings without consent).

 

3. Designated Usage Times and Areas

Specify where and when mobile phone use is permitted. You can allow its use during breaks, in waiting rooms, or outside of customer service areas, and discourage it during meetings or on production floors.

 

4. Security and Data Protection Requirements

Especially relevant in BYOD environments, your policy should address:

 

Password or biometric lock requirements

App download restrictions (e.g., unauthorized third-party work tools are not allowed)

Remote wipe protocols in case of device loss or theft

Whether the company’s IT department can access or audit work-related content

5. Privacy Guidelines

Clarify how the company manages monitoring, if any. If device usage is logged (e.g., on the company Wi-Fi network or in apps), explain what is tracked, why, and how employee privacy is respected.

 

6. Consequences of Policy Violations

Detail what happens if the policy is violated. Whether it’s a verbal warning, formal documentation, or access restrictions, define a consistent process that provides managers and HR teams with fair guidance for its application.

 

 

7. Exceptions and Emergencies

Incorporate flexibility into your policy by outlining exceptions, such as:

 

Family emergencies

Health-related alerts

Work applications that require mobile access

This helps ensure the policy isn’t perceived as punitive.

 

8. Confirmation and Training

Once the policy is finalized, incorporate it into onboarding training and the annual compliance program. Require a digital or physical signature to confirm that employees have reviewed and understood the terms.

 

How to Implement Mobile Device Policies at Work

Creating a mobile device policy is just the first step. The real challenge? Ensuring it’s understood, accepted, and enforced. This involves combining clear communication with the right tools to encourage behavioral change, not just law enforcement.

 

 

 

 

 Here’s how to implement a mobile policy that works in practice:

 

1. Involve employees in policy design. Solicit feedback from across the organization, especially from frontline staff, the IT department, and team leaders. This highlights practical use cases (such as using phones for two-factor authentication) and increases the likelihood that employees will support the final version.

 

2. Use clear and respectful language. Avoid legal jargon. Your policy should be a practical guide, not a disciplinary memo. Define acceptable and unacceptable usage clearly and empathetically.

 

3. Train with scenarios, not slides. Introduce the policy through onboarding sessions, lunch breaks, or interactive workshops. Explain real-world examples, such as checking a text message during a call with a client, to help clarify any gray areas.

 

4. Support with the right tools. Policies are easier to follow when supported by intelligent systems:

 

Mobile Device Management (MDM): Tools like Jamf or Kandji allow IT departments to enforce security settings (such as passcodes or app restrictions) on corporate or personal devices.

Time and productivity tracking software: Tools like AttendanceBot help record breaks and work hours in Slack or Microsoft Teams, making it easier to detect unplanned downtime without intrusive monitoring.

 

Remote wipe and access control: Solutions like Microsoft Intune allow organizations to manage who can access company data and delete it if a device is lost or compromised.

 

These tools discreetly enforce policy in the background, reducing the need for manual enforcement.

 

5. Lead by example

When managers take personal calls during meetings or frequently send text messages during the workday, the policy loses its effectiveness. Leaders must practice what they expect others to practice.

 

6. Reinforce with reminders and signage

A quick reminder in Slack or a visual signal in shared spaces can be very effective. Try subtle signals like «Phone-Free Zone» signs or scheduled reminders before meetings to put away phones.

 

7. Review the policy as your team evolves

What works in a 10-person office might not work in a hybrid team of 50 people in different time zones. Schedule a reminder in your calendar to review the policy annually, or whenever your work model changes.

 

How to Implement an Effective Mobile Device Policy

 

Conclusion on Mobile Device Policies at Work

Mobile phones aren’t the enemy; they’re part of how we work today. The key isn’t banning them entirely, but establishing shared expectations that protect focus, fairness, and data security.

 

By combining a clear, people-centric policy with the right tools and training, organizations can create a mobile work environment that works for everyone.

 

And if you’re looking for a simple way to track productivity, breaks, or even enforce time-based rules without added hassle, tools like AttendanceBot offer an easy way to manage time directly from Slack or Microsoft Teams.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How does smartphone use affect the work environment?

The following contribution comes from the Steering Point website, which describes itself as follows: Steering Point is a leading executive search and leadership development firm, headquartered in Dublin, with a global perspective and a client-centric philosophy. Our consultants, with extensive experience across various sectors, are experts at addressing the complex challenges of modern businesses.

We understand that identifying leaders is a key factor in the success of any organization, and our unwavering commitment to quality and attention to detail has established us as one of the leading executive search firms in Ireland. Our focus on building trusting relationships with our clients and achieving exceptional results has had a positive impact on their financial performance.

Author: The team.

 

 

 

Introduction

In his new book, *The Anxious Generation: How the Great Reshaping of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness*, sociologist Jonathan Haidt argues that growing up with smartphones has had a devastating impact on Generation Z. It has skyrocketed levels of anxiety and depression, increased feelings of loneliness and social isolation, made people more risk-averse, and led to a global decline in academic performance in math, reading, and science.

 

Haidt advocates banning smartphones in schools and restricting social media use before the age of sixteen.

 

But it’s not just teenagers who are hooked on their smartphones. In a 2022 Gallup poll, nearly 60% of Americans said they use their phones too often. Meanwhile, in Ireland, people spend an average of 4.5 hours a day on their phones. Only 10% of that time is spent talking on the phone. The rest is spent browsing social media.

 

Much of that time is spent browsing social media at work.

 

 

Smartphones in the Workplace

A recent Screen Education survey revealed that employees lose, on average, more than two hours a day using their phones. The average person checks their phone 150 times a day, and some studies show that the mere presence of a smartphone reduces our cognitive capacity by diverting our attention from other tasks.

 

Much has been written about how technology has integrated the workplace into our personal lives. However, one underexplored topic is how it has also integrated our personal lives into work. For example, a recent study by Qualtrics and Google found that 29% of employees say it is difficult to resist the temptation to check personal notifications while working. Many of those personal interactions take place via phones.

 

The same study found that 80% of consumers use only one phone, and approximately half use it for both their personal and professional lives. It is not surprising that people struggle to separate work from personal life when they use the same device for both. This is hardly surprising, especially given our growing reliance on smartphones for work.

 

A recent survey conducted by Opinion Matters for Samsung Ireland revealed that nearly 70% of Irish people rely on their smartphones for work. Almost a third said they need them to be productive.

 

Unsurprisingly, according to Haidt’s findings, this level of phone use is particularly pronounced among young people. 76% of millennials relied on their phones for work, and 26% reported checking them frequently.

 

Nearly half of those surveyed said they felt lost without their devices. This highlights a fundamental problem with smartphones: their addictive nature.

 

 

 

Symptoms of Addiction and Lack of Concentration

In their article “Smartphone Addiction, Daily Interruptions, and Self-Reported Productivity,” Duke and Montag write: “Although not an official diagnosis, several researchers have shown how classic addiction symptoms can be applied to the context of excessive smartphone use, including loss of control (e.g., distortion of time spent on the phone), constant preoccupation with the phone, withdrawal symptoms, and negative effects on our social and work lives.”

 

The restless and compulsive aspect of our relationship with our phones isn’t just a problem because of the amount of time we spend on them. It also affects our work performance when we’re not using them, preventing us from achieving a state of full concentration.

 

The term “full concentration,” coined by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in his book of the same name, refers to a state in which we are completely absorbed in an activity, losing track of space and time, while being highly productive. It’s that feeling of disappearing into an activity and reappearing later, surprised to realize how much time has passed. Even small interruptions can pull us out of a state of concentration. It has been shown that interruptions of just 2.8 seconds disrupt participants’ flow of concentration and lead to an increase in errors on a sequencing-based cognitive task.

Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that it takes, on average, 23 minutes to resume a task after an interruption. Checking your phone or simply seeing it blink or vibrate can be enough to ruin a moment of concentration. What Duke and Montag call the «phone-checking habit» is so ingrained in many of us that, even without receiving a message, we feel the urge to pick up the device. This is especially true if it’s in plain sight. It has been shown that the presence of a phone distracts us even if it’s turned off.

 

Participants in Duke and Montag’s research admitted to spending more time on their smartphones at work than they considered optimal. In other words, they were aware of the negative effects, but they continued using them anyway. This is a common flaw and another similarity between the mindset of an addict and that of the average smartphone user. Even worse, research has shown that much phone checking is done unconsciously and that there is a significant gap between how much we think we check our phones and how much we actually do.

 

In short: we know that using our smartphones negatively affects us. We think we use them too much. In reality, we use them even more than we think.

 

Smartphones are the biggest distraction in the office, which is why they pose a problem for employers. The average employee loses 720 work hours a year due to distractions. Those lost hours are reflected in profits. Therefore, it’s no surprise that companies have tried to address the problem.

 

The fight against smartphones

Just like with Haidt’s recommendations for schools, some companies have tried to ban smartphone use in the workplace. Amazon warehouse employees were required to leave their phones at home or in their vehicles before entering the premises, although this ban was later lifted. Separately, a 2022 report indicated that one-fifth of Berlin-based companies had implemented some form of smartphone ban.

 

 

In some workplaces, phones are banned not for productivity reasons, but for security. It’s common to have some form of ban in data centers, manufacturing plants, research and development labs, and executive conference rooms. This aims to prevent potential corporate espionage through the remote hijacking of smartphone cameras and microphones. Not all of these bans will be strict, meaning they won’t involve regulations prohibiting phones from entering the premises. Some will be as simple as signs prohibiting their use in certain areas, with other areas designated for their use.

 

The problem with completely banning phone use in the workplace is that, unlike children in schools, employees are adults capable of making their own decisions. Many would object to an employer trying to dictate whether or not they can use their phones at work, considering it a draconian overreach.

 

Furthermore, evidence suggests that bans don’t work. In fact, they can make the situation worse.

 

 

Arguments in Favor of Phones

In their study published in the journal Internet Research, Whelan and Turel found that lifting the smartphone ban had no impact on employee productivity. However, employees who were prohibited from using their phones at work experienced higher stress levels and greater work-life conflict.

 

This is supported by the findings of a new study conducted by the University of Galway and the University of Melbourne. This study found that personal smartphone use in the workplace can reduce stress and help employees achieve a better work-life balance. It also found that moderate mobile phone use has no noticeable impact on employee performance.

 

Employees who were allowed to use their phones reported that they could help with family matters during the day, which helped reduce pressure on their partners. The ability to manage their personal communications throughout the day also meant that they were not overwhelmed by the number of messages they received when leaving work, thus avoiding a sudden feeling of being overwhelmed.

 

 

 

In an article for Forbes, Tali Rapaport, co-founder of Puck, an employer branding and candidate acquisition platform, argues that instead of trying to reduce the time employees spend on their phones, employers should look for ways to introduce mobile-friendly communication practices. “If employers want an engaged pool of candidates and employees,” she writes, “they need to connect with them where they are: on their phones.”

 

Furthermore, she argues that, given the growing staffing shortage and the priority of retaining top talent for most companies, it is crucial that they take steps to move closer to their employees’ ideals. Companies that act now to implement mobile-friendly communication practices will be better positioned to address the shortage of skilled talent and reduce turnover of talented employees. A company that doesn’t communicate in a way that resonates with its workforce will fall behind the competition that does.

 

Other solutions

There is no single right answer to managing our relationship with smartphones, both at the office and in our personal lives. Some common solutions include disconnecting from technology one night a week, as recommended by Laura Mae Martin, executive productivity advisor at Google. If this isn’t possible, try setting aside 15-minute phone-free breaks throughout the day. You could take a walk or go for a coffee without it. “Anything you can do to create an environment that makes it as easy as possible to disconnect from your phone will be helpful,” said James A. Roberts, a consumer behavior expert at Baylor University and author of “Too Much of a Good Thing: Are You Addicted to Your Smartphone?”

 

Mindfulness has also been shown to help. Practicing meditation improves impulse control and executive function, and it helps counteract declining attention spans. Developing greater awareness can help control bad habits. As Richard J. Davidson, founder and director of the Center for Healthy Minds at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, suggests: “When you become aware of the urge [to pick up your phone], simply ask yourself, ‘Do I really need to do this right now?’”

 

Seventy percent of employees say they would prefer a greater separation between their work and personal lives on their phones. This suggests that what we’re currently doing isn’t working.

 

In an article for The Atlantic, Haidt includes a quote from “Walden,” Henry David Thoreau’s 1854 reflection on the simple life: “The price of anything is the amount of life required to exchange for it, whether immediately or long ago.”

 

The data suggests that we are currently trading too much of our lives—both at work and at home—for time on our phones. This could come at a significant cost.

 

 

Don’t Ban Smartphones at Work

The following contribution comes from the OttoLearn portal, which describes itself as: Simplify your training delivery.

At OttoLearn, you don’t create lengthy, hour-long modules; you start by creating a concept map of your training content.

No enrollments: simply tell Otto which learners need to master which content. Modify the content whenever you want, and the right material will reach the right learners.

The author is Dan Belhassen, founder of Neovation Learning Solutions, who is obsessed with improving digital learning and training. A regular and charismatic speaker at online training events, Dan will undoubtedly challenge both learners and training and development professionals, prompting them to question long-held beliefs and broaden their perspective on how people learn and retain information.

 

 

 

 

 

Do mobile devices represent a significant loss of productivity for employees or a beneficial tool that improves performance?

 

Yes.

 

Both, which poses a dilemma for managers.

 

Smartphone bans are becoming increasingly common in the workplace, but there are many compelling arguments for a more balanced approach.

 

It’s true that smartphones can be very distracting… but they are also incredibly useful and capable pocket assistants.

 

Smartphones can, in fact, improve productivity.

 

Seriously. Here’s how.

 

 

Faster answers to urgent matters. When it’s easier to reach employees, colleagues can get quick answers to urgent questions via text message. Employees can chat with experts inside and outside the company, get up-to-date product information and data from colleagues in other departments or locations, and find missing details for critical or urgent reports.

 

No more voicemails and waiting to find a colleague to ask that key question in person; texting is even faster than email! Furthermore, it eliminates the need for intermediaries—executive assistants or receptionists—who could slow down communication or even lead to misunderstandings.

 

Less Stressed Employees

The reality of today’s screen-obsessed digital society is that families connect via their smartphones. Parents who can’t access their phones during a long workday may worry about missing important communication from their children, their school, or daycare. The same is true for employees with elderly parents or other obligations. Spouses who can’t communicate quickly may also worry about missing an important message.

 

All this worry is… a distraction at work that reduces employee focus, impairs performance, and decreases productivity. Many employees will secretly check their phones or take extra breaks, further eroding both performance and morale.

 

Personal Assistants

Smartphones can function as small personal assistants,

helping employees take notes in meetings or schedule meetings and conferences, allowing them to quickly find information that answers their questions, and much more. Of course, they can use other tools to perform these tasks. But people use their phones constantly in their personal lives for these things. They feel more comfortable—and therefore more efficient—performing tasks on their phones.

 

 

Easy Access to Training

Much of the training, including mandatory workplace training, is delivered primarily on mobile devices. This reflects the company culture; employees use smartphones for self-directed learning and are comfortable doing so on a daily basis.

 

Mobile-optimized microlearning platforms, such as OttoLearn, reach learners where they feel most comfortable: on their smartphones.

 

Of course, employees can use a laptop or desktop computer for their training. But they’re far more likely to pull out their phones and spend a few minutes microlearning while waiting in line or for their food order. This is because, as soon as they have a few free minutes, employees take advantage of them to use their phones. They might open Instagram… or do their microlearning. Which do you prefer?

 

Don’t go overboard.

A radioactivity symbol inside a red circle indicates «No.»

 

Instead of considering the drastic option of completely banning smartphones at work, treat your employees like the mature professionals they are. The balanced option is a well-thought-out smartphone policy.

 

 

Reasonable limits, not bans.

For safety reasons, prohibiting smartphone use in factories, warehouses, stores, or for employees who drive is an obvious decision. But even in those situations, it makes sense to allow—and even encourage—the beneficial use of smartphones during breaks or at the beginning or end of a shift, for training, or as a performance support tool. Employees are expected to leave their phones at home or put them on silent during meetings and when dealing with clients, and to be mindful of the noise generated by notifications and conversations in areas where others are working.

 

Prudent Policies

Policies that limit personal smartphone use or restrict permitted activities during work hours and with company devices can be prudent. However, this also applies to the use of other devices; for example, employees should not spend hours on personal calls or use company email accounts or internet access to send inappropriate messages.

 

Protecting Privacy

Restricting or prohibiting the use of smartphone video cameras at work is a sound measure to protect the privacy of all employees. To protect the company, policies should also include guidelines on the types of conversations and information that can be accessed or shared on a smartphone; but again, this is simply a modern extension of the non-disclosure agreements that have been commonplace in many industries and companies for decades.

 

In addition to restricting employees’ smartphone use, policies should offer them some benefits: for example, limiting managers from texting or calling employees’ mobile phones during working hours or in the case of a genuine emergency. And it shouldn’t be expected that, given that employees can access company email and social media 24/7, they will. It’s crucial to ensure that restrictions are applied consistently and that all employees, from management to the most junior staff member, adhere to the same standards.

 

Respect your people.

The key is knowing what to require and when to trust employees’ judgment. You hired these people and you trust them to make your company run. Treating employees with respect means allowing them to make their own decisions and holding them accountable when they overstep boundaries.

 

Instead of policing smartphone use, focus on productivity. If smartphone use is hindering an employee’s performance, or if you notice they are distracted or frequently concentrating on their mobile devices instead of work or clients, let them know. But don’t let fear prevent productive smartphone use at work.

 

Portrait of Dan Belhassen: A man with short, black hair, wearing a suit jacket and an open-collared shirt, passionately addresses an audience at an event.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personal Smartphone Use in the Workplace and Work-Life Conflict: A Natural Quasi-Experiment

 

The following contribution is from the Emerald Insight portal and is authored by Eoin Whelan, J.E. Cairnes School of Business & Economics, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.

 

 

 

Objective

Previous research has extensively examined how the integration of work technology into personal life generates conflict; however, the reverse process has rarely been studied. The objective of this study is to fill this gap and examine how smartphone use outside of work affects work-life conflict.

 

Design/Methodology/Approach

Drawing on three lines of research—technostress, work-life conflict, and role boundaries theory—the authors theorize how limiting employees’ ability to integrate their personal lives with work, through technology use policies, contributes to stress and work-life conflict. To test this model, the authors employ a natural experiment in a company that modified its policy, shifting from completely restricting access to smartphones for non-work purposes to allowing their unrestricted use in the workplace. The findings of the experiment were further explored through qualitative interviews.

 

 

Results

Work-life conflict decreases when the ban on using smartphones for non-work purposes in the workplace is lifted. The results of this study show that the relationship between smartphone use in the workplace and work-life conflict is mediated by perceived stress. Furthermore, a post-hoc analysis reveals that job performance was not affected after the smartphone ban was lifted.

 

Originality/Value

First, this study deepens the authors’ understanding of how workplace smartphone policies impact personal life. Second, this work contributes to the literature on technostress by revealing how, in specific situations, ICT use can reduce discomfort and tension.

 

Keywords: Smartphone, Intervention, Role boundaries theory, Work-life conflict, Stress, Quasi-experiment, Technostress

 

 

1. Introduction

The boundaries between work and personal life are becoming increasingly blurred, largely due to the ubiquity of smartphones. While much research has considered the implications of smartphone-mediated work problems spilling into the personal sphere (Butts et al., 2015; Chen and Karahanna, 2018), very few studies have considered the reverse situation—that is, the implications of personal problems entering the workplace through personal smartphone use in the workplace (PUSW; see Chen and Karahanna, 2014; Yin et al., 2023 for reference studies). This study contributes to the latter line of research by analyzing the effect of problematic smartphone use on work-life conflict (WLC; i.e., the perceived conflict between work demands and personal life).

 

In many organizations, problematic smartphone use, such as managing non-work-related tasks, has become commonplace during working hours. The work-from-home policies implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic have further blurred the lines between work and personal life, and many employees now expect to use their smartphones to manage personal matters upon returning to the workplace (Qualtrics, 2021). However, given that some reports suggest workers use their smartphones an average of 56 minutes per day for non-work-related tasks (Office Team, 2017), managers are concerned about the impact on key organizational outcomes.

 

Some organizations have introduced smartphone bans in the workplace for health and safety reasons. For example, Amazon warehouse employees working near high-speed machinery were required to leave their phones at home or in their vehicles before entering the facility. However, Amazon recently rescinded the phone ban, as employees felt the policy was controlling (Bloomberg, 2022). At the same time, other companies are implementing similar blanket bans on personal mobile devices in the workplace to mitigate the decline in productivity and potential security threats posed by excessive smartphone use at work (Malvern, 2019). This practice is widespread. One-fifth of Berlin-based companies currently have some form of smartphone ban in place (Chadi et al., 2022). In parallel, employees themselves are freely choosing to forgo smartphones to maintain focus on work tasks and regain a desired work-life balance. While these interventions are well-intentioned and presumably designed to improve the quality and quantity of work in both personal and professional life, our understanding of how the ability or inability to use smartphones in the workplace affects the work-life interface is limited. For example, the ability to quickly manage family matters via Snapchat messages during work hours may reduce work-life conflict, as issues are resolved before the family gathers in the evening. It is important to focus on the relationship between excessive smartphone use at work and work-life conflict, given that the boundaries between work and personal life are continually eroding due to the ubiquitous functionalities of smartphones. Work-life conflict is closely linked to employee well-being (Derks et al., 2014b; Sarker et al., 2012), a factor that can affect both employee behavior and company performance (Ahuja et al., 2007). In addition, managers should pay attention to work environments that are experiencing a significant change in work-life balance (WLC), as a meta-analysis of more than 400 studies confirms that WLC strongly predicts absenteeism, job performance, organizational commitment, and turnover intentions (Amstad et al., 2011).

 

 

Our study focuses on personal use of technology at work (PUSW), a subset of the broader academic debate on personal use of technology at work (PUTW). In addition to smartphones, the PUTW literature examines the impact of employees’ use of organizational ICTs for personal purposes (e.g., accessing Facebook via company Wi-Fi) and the use of personal ICTs, such as tablets, laptops, and smartwatches, for non-work-related activities during the workday. Within the PUTW literature, there are conflicting views regarding the outcomes associated with such ICT use (Jiang et al., 2023). Some studies report positive implications of PUTW, such as facilitating mental recovery (Reinecke, 2009; Syrek et al., 2017) and improving job performance (Chen et al., 2022), while other studies suggest more negative outcomes such as procrastination (Lim, 2002), mental overload (Yin et al., 2018), and decreased productivity (Cao & Yu, 2019).

 

However, these existing studies tend to focus on the performance implications of PUTW within the workplace. To accurately inform organizational policies and individual decisions regarding PUTW, it is important that we have a comprehensive view of the full range of outcomes associated with smartphone use. As Magni et al. (2023, p. 254) recently argued, we currently lack this knowledge; The phenomena arising from the interaction between work and family are inherently multifaceted, and previous research has failed to fully understand the potential paradox between the benefits (i.e., productivity) and costs (i.e., well-being) associated with excessive mobile device use. Given these limitations, and to contribute to resolving the controversy in the literature on excessive mobile device use at work (PUTW), our aim in this article is to analyze an important, yet understudied, implication: the effects of PUTW on work-life balance (WLB). In response to these limitations, and to contribute to resolving the controversy in the literature on PUTW, our aim in this article is to analyze an important, yet understudied, implication: how the effects of excessive mobile device use at work affect WLB in non-work settings. Therefore, our study responds to recent calls for future research to analyze the effects of PUTW on outcomes beyond performance (Jiang et al., 2023), and how the stress associated with technology use at work affects life outside of work (Benlian, 2020).

 

Motivated by these research gaps, our study integrates role boundaries theory with the literature on work-life balance (WLB) and technostress to examine whether and how WLB changes when employees are allowed to use personal smartphones in the workplace.

 

 

Similar to the Amazon case mentioned earlier, we were presented with a unique opportunity to conduct our study at a company that was in the process of modifying its workplace smartphone policy, moving from a complete ban to open access. Our study site is representative of many busy workplaces where employees work alongside industrial equipment and inventory. The workplace smartphone ban, which was recently revoked, was initially implemented in the 1990s, as smartphone use was considered a potential distraction and a risk in the industrial environment. Therefore, the IT artifact at the heart of our study is the workplace smartphone policy, which aligns with the «Impact» and «IT managerial, methodological, and operational practice» elements of the IT artifact, as conceptualized by Benbasat and Zmud (2003). Data were collected through a natural quasi-experiment with 82 employees of the company. Of these, 39 began using their smartphones for non-work purposes at work after the workplace ban was lifted, and 43 did not bring their phones to work after the ban was removed, serving as a natural control group. Participants completed a survey before and after the intervention, approximately one year apart, to record the frequency of their misuse of smartphones at work and their perceptions of stress and work-life balance. Subsequently, we conducted qualitative research to verify the congruence with the quantitative findings and to explore the reasons for these findings.

 

This study makes key contributions to the literature. First, our work contributes to the literature on technostress by revealing how, in specific situations, the use of ICTs can reduce discomfort and tension. While research has been urged to consider the positive aspects of technostress (Tarafdar et al., 2019), existing studies have focused on eustress (Benlian, 2020; Califf and Sarker, 2020)—how the pressures arising from ICT use can generate positive outcomes—rather than mitigating the negative effects of stress. This contribution is important because there is growing evidence supporting the positive role of leisure technologies in both work and personal life, for example, by facilitating social distancing (Mäntymäki et al., 2022). Second, the cascading effects of ICT from work to private life do not occur in isolation; rather, there are mediating factors that explain the existence of such relationships. As a contribution to the literature on problematic ICT use at work, we identify the specific stress mechanisms through which problematic ICT use is related to work-life balance. Our findings suggest that the ability to self-determine family interactions through mobile communications suppresses work-life balance, but only when employees actively use their smartphones at work.

 

 

 

Third, within the broader literature on information systems (IS), there has recently been a shift in focus toward the negative implications of ICTs at the expense of the positive ones (Myers, 2021). Our critical perspective shifts the debate on problematic ICT use at work away from the focus on negative consequences and toward greater emphasis on the positive outcomes that can arise (without diminishing the relevance of negative consequences). Studies on problematic ICT use at work (PUTW) often consider this activity as deviant behavior (e.g., Lim, 2002; Liberman et al., 2011). Our naturalistic experimental data confirm that the possibility of using smartphones in the workplace mitigates work-work conflict (WLC). This information will be relevant for managers and employees when designing policies related to PUTW, while also providing a balance to the predominantly positive-negative approach in information systems research.

 

2. Related Literature

As illustrated in Figure 1, our study is based on three lines of research. The literature on work-life balance (WLB) reveals the indirect effects that occur when ICTs are used in a context with an alternative purpose. Next, we reviewed the literature on technostress to conceptualize how interaction with ICTs can have both positive and negative consequences for strain. The emerging literature on technostress also provides the themes for our qualitative study, where we interpret how the potential for uninterrupted use of technology (PUSW) reduces WLB. Finally, we used role boundaries theory, and specifically the strain-based approach, as a theoretical bridge between WLB and technostress.

 

Figure 1

Alignment between theoretical frameworks. See caption for details.

 

View larger | Download slide

Alignment between theoretical frameworks

 

2.1 ICT and work-life conflict

The increasing omnipresence of electronic communications and its implications for work-life balance (WLB) has received significant attention from researchers in both information systems and organizational psychology. WLB describes the degree to which an individual is able to simultaneously balance the time, behavioral, and emotional demands of paid employment and responsibilities outside of work (Hill et al., 2001). A lack of WLB leads to work-life conflict (WLC), which has been defined as the conflict between roles that arises when the demands of work or personal life interfere with the performance of responsibilities in the other sphere (Netemeyer et al., 2004). The demands of roles depend on the expectations placed on the worker in both work and personal life, as well as on the values ​​the worker holds regarding their own behavior at work and in their personal life (Boyar et al., 2008). For example, the job may require employees not to use their personal smartphones at work, as was the case at the company where we collected our data. However, family and friends may require the worker to be available via their smartphone. When non-work demands are not met during working hours, this can manifest as increased conflict in personal life.

 

Within the field of Information Systems (IS), two lines of research on work-life balance (WLB) are observed. The first line of research focuses on work-life conflict (WLC) among IT professionals, who are argued to be more likely to experience it due to challenges such as travel, coordination problems among global teams, unstable requirements, and the mandatory use of certain systems methodologies (Sarker et al., 2010). Studies in this area consider how factors such as flexible work schedules (Sarker et al., 2018), time zone differences (Sarker et al., 2010), and perceived workload (Ahuja et al., 2007) influence WLC among IT professionals. While valuable, this research is not directly relevant to the present study, as it focuses on the employee’s circumstances rather than their interaction with digital technology.

 

The second line of research does consider how interaction with work through digital technology at home influences work-life conflict (WLC). These actions have been considered a violation of the work-home boundary, resulting in increased work-life balance (WLB) (Sarker et al., 2012; Turel et al., 2011), and individual differences related to ambition and job involvement are relevant to explaining technology use outside of work hours (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007). Processing work communications outside of work hours restricts personal and family time, leading to increased WLB (Cho et al., 2020), as does the perception of a negative tone in the sender’s message (Butts et al., 2015). Mobile phone use outside of work hours can fuel the need many workers have to stay informed, which can lead to health and well-being problems (Sarker et al., 2012).

 

 

The flexibility and productivity offered by smartphones also indirectly contribute to work-life conflict (WLC) through work overload, leading to increased stress and, ultimately, greater resistance to using smartphones for work purposes (Yun et al., 2012). In fact, the flexibility of mobile technology can be a double-edged sword: some teleworkers report enjoying a fulfilling family life, while other teleworkers within the same organization suggest that greater flexibility creates conflict by blurring the boundaries between work and family (Hill et al., 1996). These differences in perceptions of WLC can be explained by worker autonomy. A recent study concludes that workers can mitigate the negative effects of mobile technology on WLC when they have greater control over their work situation (Tams et al., 2020).

 

One might expect that work performance would improve with the use of smartphones for work purposes outside of working hours; however, this does not appear to be the case (Chen and Karahanna, 2018). In contrast, these work interruptions during free time are associated with increased burnout (Chen & Karahanna, 2018; Derks et al., 2014b). The impact of smartphone use for work purposes outside of working hours, whether positive or negative, may depend on the specific technology used for communication. Phone calls and instant messaging generate negative outcomes due to interruption overload, while email produces both positive and negative outcomes through task completion and psychological transition, respectively (Chen & Karahanna, 2018).

 

 

While there is broad consensus on the consequences of using work-related technology outside of working hours, a similar consensus has not yet been reached regarding the effects of working outside of working hours. In a systematic review of 137 studies on working outside of working hours, Jiang et al. (2023) identified numerous studies that provided evidence of both positive and negative outcomes. Regarding negative outcomes, some studies indicate that working outside of regular work hours leads to lower job performance (Cao & Yu, 2019), procrastination and negative emotions (Lavoie & Pychyl, 2001), reduced creativity (Kühnel et al., 2017), and decreased job engagement (Syrek et al., 2017). Conversely, studies on the use of social media at work outside of work (PUTW), which focus on this type of use, report a better work-life balance (Kühnel et al., 2017), improved job performance (Chen et al., 2022), and the individual effect of increased job engagement thanks to the mental respite it provides (Syrek et al., 2017).

 

The discrepancies in the results of previous studies on PUTW could be due to their exclusive reliance on correlational survey designs that do not compare ICT users with non-users. This is understandable, as PUTW is an emerging field of research, and previous studies lacked a mechanism for a more systematic approach to studying causality in a natural setting. By focusing on work-life balance (WLB), our aim is to advance the PUTW debate by determining causal effects in natural settings through a natural experiment. Since work-related stress can impact family life, we draw on the literature on technostress to guide the development of our conceptual model.

 

 

 

2.2 Technostress

Stress was originally conceived as a physiological reaction to demanding stimuli (Selye, 1956). Currently, contemporary thinking considers stress as a process by which the individual continually evaluates whether their environment is harmful, threatening, or challenging, and whether these pressures exceed their resources and endanger their well-being (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Unlike initial conceptualizations, which did not consider perceptions of stress important, perception or situational awareness is fundamental in the process-based view of stress (Fischer et al., 2021). In line with this view are the concepts of «stressors,» the sources of stress that are formed through the ongoing relationship between the individual and their environment, and «strain,» which refers to the adverse consequences related to stressors (Cooper et al., 2001; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In our conceptualization, the (in)ability to use smartphones for non-work purposes in the workplace constitutes a stressor that generates stress, which ultimately manifests as work-life balance tension, experienced primarily outside of work.

 

It is widely documented, both in academic literature and professional practice, that personal use of ICTs can generate stress (Korzynski et al., 2021; Suh and Lee, 2017; Whelan et al., 2022). The term technostress is frequently used to describe this relationship between ICTs and stress. Ragu-Nathan et al. (2008, pp. 417-418) defined technostress as “a stress phenomenon experienced by end users in organizations as a result of using ICTs.” Building on this widely used definition, Riedl (2013, p. 18) suggested that indirect interactions—that is, perceptions, emotions, and thoughts about the implementation of ICTs in organizations and their ubiquity in society at large—should also be added to the definition of technostress. The inclusion of perception in technostress is important for the present study, as is the notion that technostresses—its antecedents—are not constant but rather change in relevance as ICT capabilities evolve (Fischer et al., 2021). For example, the inability to stay informed about non-work-related matters during the workday might not have been a stressor before the ubiquity of the smartphone, as employees lacked a simple mechanism for accessing such information. With the emergence of apps like WhatsApp and Snapchat, many employees now have this expectation, and stress can arise when a common, modern portal to the outside world is not available.

 

Previous studies on technostress have documented a multitude of maladaptive outcomes associated with ICT use, including reduced job satisfaction (Suh & Lee, 2017) and organizational commitment (Ragu-Nathan et al., 2008), dissatisfaction with work computer systems (Tarafdar et al., 2011), negative psychological responses (Califf & Sarker, 2020), burnout (Pflügner et al., 2021), and decreased performance (Whelan et al., 2022). Technostress is also relevant to work-life balance (WLB), a central construct in this study. The few studies that investigate the relationship between technostress and work-life balance (WLB) generally find that technostress factors are associated with higher WLB (Harris et al., 2022) or lower work-life balance (WLB) (Ma et al., 2021), and that these relationships are moderated by factors such as social stress (Harris et al., 2022) and leader support (Harris et al., 2015).

 

 

The study of technostress has traditionally focused on research into the negative aspects of ICT use (Salo et al., 2018). However, the broader literature on work-related stress has recognized from its inception that certain stressful conditions that exceed employees’ capabilities can generate positive outcomes (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). In line with this perspective, more recent conceptual (Tarafdar et al., 2019) and empirical (Benlian, 2020; Califf and Sarker, 2020; Shirish et al., 2021) work on information systems has highlighted the positive side of technostress by theorizing and validating the positive influence that ICT use can have on eustress (positive stress), alongside the conventional notion of distress (negative stress). For example, while Benlian’s (2020) study, based on daily diaries, confirmed that experiencing stressors related to technological obstacles in the workplace (e.g., a customer relationship management system freezing while uploading a document) impacts family life and negatively affects partner satisfaction at home, the same study also identified the positive implications of work-related technology stressors on the work-family interface. Technological challenges in the workplace (e.g., successfully optimizing spreadsheet functions to simplify a complex work routine) had a substantial positive effect on coworker satisfaction thanks to the employee’s improved mood (Benlian, 2020).

 

Recent research on technostress has also analyzed how people cope with distress in the face of negative incidents, such as the inability to sync a smartphone (Salo et al., 2022) or when experiencing stressful life events (Bae, 2023). Emotional rationalization, whereby the user re-evaluates the significance of the phone incident, has been found to be an effective coping mechanism (Salo et al., 2022). Similarly, mechanisms such as venting can help protect against the negative impact of technostress on ICT-based productivity (Pirkkalainen et al., 2019).

 

While the recent focus on coping mechanisms (Pirkkalainen et al., 2019; Salo et al., 2022) and “good” stress (Benlian, 2020; Califf and Sarker, 2020; Shirish et al., 2021) creates a more holistic conceptualization of technostress, what is still lacking in the technostress literature is an appreciation of how ICT use can reduce “bad” stress, especially in the work-family interface. Our literature search uncovered a cross-sectional study confirming that salespeople’s use of work-related mobile technologies during working hours reduces role stress (Román et al., 2018). The research literature lacks an understanding of how push-to-use work-shortening (PUSW) affects similar outcomes. To develop the conceptual basis for how PUSW can reduce stress and work-life balance (WLC), we now draw upon role boundary theory.

 

 

2.3 Role Boundaries Theory

Role boundaries theory explains that workers develop boundaries of varying intensity between work and personal life, and that the transition between these spheres can reduce or increase work-life conflict (WLC), depending on the nature of these transitions (Ashforth et al., 2000; Hecht and Allen, 2009). Achieving a harmonious balance between work and personal life is a challenge for many workers. WLC reflects mutually incompatible role demands, such that meeting the demands in one sphere makes it difficult to meet the demands in the other (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). There are three main forms of WLC (Greenhaus and Beutell, 1985). Time-based conflict results from devoting time to one sphere at the expense of another. Certain tasks go undone when a person’s time must be divided among competing roles. Behavioral conflict arises when learned or accepted behaviors in one environment are incompatible with role demands in another, and the individual is unable to navigate between these two worlds (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). For example, the use of inappropriate language may be acceptable behavior in the workplace but considered inappropriate at home. Strain conflict reflects the idea that workers have limited resources and that the strain resulting from performance in one domain (e.g., stress, distraction, tension, anxiety, and fatigue) hinders their ability to meet demands in another domain (Grandey & Cropanzano, 1999). This type of conflict posits that mere participation in one domain will have consequences for task performance in another (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000).

 

In this study, we rely on the strain-based conflict model to hypothesize how the removal of the ban on sexually explicit work explains changes in work-life balance over time. The strain-based form of work-life balance is most appropriate for our study, as it explains how a potential stressor in one domain (e.g., the inability to use a smartphone for non-work purposes at work) leads to strain in another domain (e.g., difficulties performing non-work tasks). Building on strain-based conflict, we include stress as a mediating variable to confirm that changes in work-life balance are associated with changes in stress and, ultimately, in work-life balance. Behavioral and time conflict are unlikely to be highly relevant in our context. Our dependent variable is work-life balance, which is psychological strain rather than observable behavior. While time-based conflict can be relevant (e.g., when phones are used for non-work-related matters during work hours), it is often confused with strain-based conflict. This occurs because the inability to complete work tasks due to personal problems during work hours is typically stressful; however, the inability to cope with non-work-related problems as they develop during work hours can also be stressful (Piszczek et al., 2016). Furthermore, as we observed in our study center, the time employees spent on their smartphones after the lifting of the ban was very low, suggesting that time-based conflict would not be an appropriate approach. In our conceptualization, as illustrated in Figure 1, strain-based conflict provides the theoretical link connecting the literature on technostress and ICT-driven work-life conflict.

 

 

The concept of work-life conflict can be more precisely specified as work-life conflict and life-work conflict, depending on how the demands of one domain (i.e., work or personal life) impair a person’s ability to cope with the demands of another. In this study, we specifically measured work-life conflict as the strain associated with having (or not having) access to a smartphone, which is experienced at work and can spill over into the personal life domain. Thus, in our context, the strain-based role boundaries perspective can connect the literature on technostress and work-life conflict by explaining how stress in one domain translates into adverse outcomes in another. This perspective is necessary to complement typical models of stress processes (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) because, firstly, such models tend to focus on the same domain (e.g., life outside of work) and do not explain cross-domain transmission, and secondly, it can explain why technology ban policies that create artificial barriers between life domains act as stressors.

 

3. Hypothesis Development

The definitions of the central variables in our hypotheses are presented in Table 1. Our first hypothesis posits that differences in work-control behavior (WLC) reported before and after the ban depend on PUSW (Prohibited Mobile Device Use) status. We develop this argument further in our second hypothesis, which considers how more nuanced smartphone use, specifically PUSW frequency, is associated with WLC through stress.

 

Table 1. Variable Definitions

Variable Definition

PUSW State: Binary condition reflecting the worker’s decision, after the intervention, to access or not access their smartphone in the workplace.

PUSW Frequency: Ordinal scale reflecting the number of days per week that workers used their smartphones in the workplace for non-work purposes.

WLC: Worker’s perception of work-life balance one year after the smartphone ban was lifted, controlling for WLC perceptions while the ban was in effect.

Stress: Worker’s perception of stress one year after the smartphone ban was lifted, controlling for stress perceptions while the ban was in effect.

 

Source(s): Authors’ own elaboration.

Control over the boundaries between work and personal life is important to individuals (Mellner et al., 2014). When this separation is absolute and imposed on employees, it is reasonable to expect that it will not align with some people’s preferences. Most people prefer to have control over their boundaries (Piszczek, 2017). Flexibility exists if the boundary can be relaxed to fulfill specific responsibilities in the other sphere. This means that when personal use of devices at work (PUSW) is prohibited, the boundary between work and personal life cannot be relaxed to fulfill specific responsibilities in the other sphere. Consequently, employees who prefer greater flexibility should experience less work-life conflict when interacting with technology that can blur the boundaries between the two worlds.

 

 

If the boundary between work and personal life is controlled by the organization rather than the employee, such as through a total ban on smartphones in the workplace, this will generate reactance, which is a source of stress (Buboltz et al., 2003). According to the strain-based approach to work-life balance (WLB) (Ashforth et al., 2000; Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999), such strain can generate stress that may spill over into the personal sphere. Therefore, WLB under a PUSW ban is likely to increase due to the mismatch with employee preferences, and the stress generated by a total ban will extend into the family/non-work sphere. Therefore, we propose our first hypothesis:

 

H1.

 

Employees who have access to their smartphones at work will experience fewer work-related conflicts (WLCs) compared to those who do not.

 

Hypothesis 2 implies a mediated model, as shown in Figure 2. According to the strain-based conflict perspective (Ashforth et al., 2000; Grandey and Cropanzano, 1999), CLT can arise when work-related stress in one area spills over into another. It can be argued that the more workers use smartphones to manage personal or family matters (work tasks are managed through work-related programs), the greater the likelihood that the stressors mentioned in the context of H1 will be alleviated. It has been observed that the use of mobile technologies during working hours improves psychological control over how employees perform their work, which in turn is associated with lower stress (Román et al., 2018). Smartphone use at work (USLT) allows individuals to manage their boundaries, as they can use them if they choose. It can increase employees’ ability to attend to personal matters and thus reduce the stress associated with worrying about friends and family (Crouter, 1984). Smartphones offer the opportunity to take micro-breaks from work stress, allowing for worker recovery when the break is brief and voluntary (Kim et al., 2017). These technologies facilitate disconnection and the recovery of depleted mental resources (Mäntymäki et al., 2022). Without these technology-mediated micro-breaks, people work longer hours with consequently higher stress (Mark et al., 2018). Smartphone use at work can lead to a reduction in stress, but only if workers choose to take advantage of the new policy that allows phone use. Those who still do not use their smartphones at work, or do so rarely, despite the policy allowing it, will experience smaller changes in stress.

 

Figure 2. Mediated research model.

 

In our context, not using personal smartphones at work can also affect employees’ family and friends, who, under prohibition conditions (or when they selectively choose not to use a smartphone at work), cannot communicate with relevant employees about important non-work matters as they unfold in real time. This segmentation (initially imposed by policy) between personal and work matters can generate conflicts with friends and family, given the reasonable expectation that people will be reachable. Therefore, the contagion mechanisms described in H1 are not the only ones driving work-life conflict (WLC). It is possible that smartphone use influences WLC through changes in employees’ stress levels. Therefore, we propose that:

 

H2.

 

The relationship between the frequency of personal smartphone use at work and WLC will be mediated by stress.

 

This information has been prepared by OUR EDITORIAL STAFF