IBM and Texting in Meetings: What's the Real Story?

Title Fulfillment:

[Generated Title]: IBM's CEO gets it: Demanding employees ditch devices in meetings is a losing battle

Alright, let's dissect this whole "devices in meetings" debate. JPMorgan's Jamie Dimon wants everyone locked in, eyes forward, no distractions. IBM's Arvind Krishna takes a different tack, suggesting that banning tech in a tech company is, well, a bit daft. My take? Krishna's closer to reality.

The Futility of Tech Bans

Dimon's stance isn't exactly new. He griped about distracted meeting attendees in his annual shareholder letter, mentioning "meetings" six times to emphasize their importance – or perhaps, the lack of engagement he's witnessing. He even recounted a Zoom meeting horror story: twelve people in the room, four on screen, and all four glued to their phones. The implication is clear: devices = distraction = disrespectful.

But here's the thing: Dimon's fighting a losing battle against human nature. He's pushing for a return to the office, sinking $3 billion into a new Manhattan headquarters (complete with nineteen restaurants, a company store, and a gym, no less). He wants butts in seats, and he wants those butts paying attention. But attention isn't something you can mandate; you have to earn it.

Krishna's distinction between small and large meetings is key. In a small, focused meeting, sure, phones down makes sense. But in a large meeting – a "communication vehicle," as he calls it – expecting everyone to hang on every word is unrealistic. People zone out. They check email. They discreetly browse Reddit. It's not ideal, but it's reality. And trying to police it is a waste of energy. (Energy that could be spent, perhaps, on more productive endeavors).

The Data on Distraction

Let's be clear: multitasking does impact focus. Gary Rich, founder of Rich Leadership, argues that distracted attendees create a "ripple effect," disrespecting the speaker and demotivating others. That's not wrong. But the question is, can you eliminate distraction? Or are you better off managing it?

The article mentions AI assistants generating meeting summaries, potentially encouraging zoning out. This is a critical point. If technology can automate the rote aspects of meeting participation (note-taking, action item tracking), then maybe, just maybe, attendees can focus on the strategic discussion.

And here's the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling: No one's talking about why people are distracted. Is the meeting content irrelevant? Is the speaker boring? Are there underlying issues that need to be addressed? Banning devices is a superficial fix. It's like treating the symptom (distraction) without addressing the disease (poor meeting design).

Dimon's hard line on devices might be tied to his return-to-office push. He wants to justify the real estate investment, to create a sense of in-person collaboration. But if those in-person meetings are poorly run, filled with irrelevant information, and lacking clear objectives, then people will tune out, regardless of whether they have a phone in their hand.

I did a quick search of online forums and found a lot of anecdotal evidence about the topic. The overall sentiment seems to be that employees are in favor of using their personal devices as long as they are being productive during the meeting.

I've looked at hundreds of these discussions, and this particular sentiment is common among the younger workforce. As IBM’s CEO disagrees with JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s disdain for texting in meetings: ‘Telling people they can’t use their technology would be weird’, Krishna has publicly stated his disagreement with Dimon's approach.

Meeting Etiquette: A Losing Battle?

Dimon's frustration is understandable. But his solution – banning devices – is likely to backfire. It's a top-down mandate that ignores the realities of the modern workplace. It treats employees like children who can't be trusted to manage their own attention. And it fails to address the underlying issues that lead to distraction in the first place. Krishna's approach, while perhaps less forceful, is ultimately more pragmatic. He acknowledges the role of technology, distinguishes between different meeting types, and focuses on creating an environment where people want to pay attention.

You Can't Mandate Engagement