Engaged or just connected? Smartphones andemployee engagement

Judith S. MacCormick, Kristine Dery, Darl G. Kolb

Organizational Dynamics (2012) 41, 194—201

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

jo ur n al h o mep ag e: www .e lsev ier . co m / loc ate /o r gd yn

A little red light flashes, there is that longed-for vibration inthe pocket. Immediately, there’s an irresistible urge to knowwho wants to connect with you, to know how the project isgoing, to be part of the communication loop. You pick up theBlackBerry, iPhone or similar smartphone and you are men-tally transported to work — even if you are physically underthe bed playing hide and seek with your children outside ofnormal working hours. Smartphones (mobile devices thatprovide as well as voice and SMS text messaging, and Webapplications) enable us to connect with work anytime, any-where. We can attend to the children in the middle of theworkday and make up for that time by working late at night.We can make productive use of waiting in line or use the timetraveling to and from work to, well, work some more. At apersonal level, we can avoid any chance of micro-boredomthroughout the day by accessing e-mails, social media, gamesand a variety of other applications.

In 2010, a staggering 130 million smartphones were pur-chased worldwide. Exponential growth in the number ofdevices means smartphone-related telecommunications traf-fic has increased sixfold in North America, Asia, WesternEurope, Latin America and Oceania since 2008. By 2014, itis predicted there will be more mobile than traditionalInternet users. Interestingly, smartphone statistics indicatethat 48 percent of users apply their smartphones to aid intheir work, even though only about 23 percent of these users’phone costs are borne by their employers. This makes smart-phones the ‘‘holy grail’’ for both employees who enjoy theirfascinating, useful and/or entertaining ‘‘apps,’’ as well asemployers who with minimal (if any) investment can poten-tially facilitate increased employee engagement.

Constant connectivity carries with it the promise ofincreased productivity, with the mobility and flexibility to res-tructure work to meet personal and work priorities. While moreconnectivity would seem to imply enhanced organizationalengagement, our research questioned the conditions underwhich connectivity could be problematic for engagement.

0090-2616/$ — see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserveddoi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.03.007

In his book, The Shallows: How the Internet is Changingthe Way We Think, Read and Remember, Nicholas Carr notesthat ‘‘our use of the Internet involves many paradoxes, butthe one that promises to have the greatest long-term influ-ence over how we think is that the Net seizes our attentiononly to scatter it’’ (p. 118). Given that mobile devices will bethe world’s primary Internet connection tool before 2020,organizations that learn how to constructively engage theirworkers through this mobile technology are likely to enjoydistinct competitive advantage. The key to that advantage isto ensure that employees are engaged users of the technology.

ENGAGED BEHAVIORS

The concept of employee engagement has diverse theoreti-cal roots, but the essence of engaged behavior is to bementally, emotionally and physically invested in one’s work.From a behavioral perspective, engaged employees workwith more duration (longer working hours), intensity (gainmore work out of the available hours), and direction (focus onthe organizational priorities) than less engaged workers.Engagement is therefore generally regarded as a good thing,certainly for organizations and often for individuals as well.Organizations need engaged employees to be successful, andmany, if not most, individuals prefer to be involved (engaged)in meaningful and challenging work. A less explored conceptis that of disengaged behavior. How do employees behavewhen they are either under- or over-engaged?

DISENGAGED BEHAVIORS

Present Absence

Self-determination theory identifies three motivationalstates that relate to under-engaged behavior: controlledmotivation, ‘‘amotivation,’’ and reactive autonomy. Each

.

Smartphones and employee engagement 195

is characterized by low duration, low intensity and a lowdirection of effort. Controlled motivation occurs wherethere is a choice not to engage beyond certain parameters— such as a simple unwillingness to participate at certaintimes, or in certain places, or in certain ways. These beha-viors are likely to have dysfunctional consequences in mostsituations if such behaviors are for extended periods. Most ofus have experienced or observed amotivation. Most of ushave seen, for example, employees who are present asrequired in meetings but effectively absent by focusing else-where — perhaps engaging in a ‘‘smartphone prayer’’ underthe table. A third type of under-engaged behavior may be areaction against control, such as when workers ‘‘work torule,’’ and perfunctory adherence to minimal role require-ments could bring an organization to its knees. More covertdisengaged behavior occurs when the intentions behind thebehavior are concealed. For example, employees may givethe impression of being ‘‘at work’’ and signaling engagedbehavior in terms of apparent time commitment to the job,but in fact they are disguising non-organizationally directedactivities. Although physically present in the workplace, theymay be engaged in non-work activities, even conducting aseparate business in work time.

Too Much of a Good Thing?

If under-engagement is a problem, extreme levels of engagedbehavior can also result in negative outcomes for individualsand organizations. Despite the positive values attributed toengagement in the form of persistently high levels of dura-tion, intensity and direction of effort, the reality is that therecan be too much of a good thing. Extreme levels of engage-ment can cause, or at least contribute to, professionalburnout. Energy turns to exhaustion, involvement turns intocynicism, and efficacy is rendered ineffective.

Indeed, some have argued that there is a new breed ofworkers arising in some sectors, for whom work has becomeall-consuming. The excessive hours executives invest in theircareers may appear to reflect an organization’s objective forabsolute commitment, but can have serious downsides.Hewett and Luce, in the Harvard Business Review, called itthe ‘‘American Dream on Steroids.’’ Fueled by the smart-phone’s capacity to stay connected to work all the time andeverywhere, Hewett and Luce found that more than two-thirds of professionals they surveyed didn’t get enough sleep;half didn’t exercise enough; and a significant number over-ate, consumed too much alcohol, or relied on medications torelieve insomnia or anxiety. Extreme work is also wreakinghavoc on many private lives. The work-family conflict litera-ture shows a positive relationship between hours worked andwork-family conflict. Several researchers refer to ‘‘lack ofrecovery’’ when explaining why seemingly positive (engaged)work behaviors translate into health problems.

At an organizational level, the work behaviors of thesehighly engaged workers are setting a standard that othersmay be expected to follow. Such ‘‘job creep’’ means thatdiscretionary contributions become viewed by supervisors andpeers as obligatory. This pace may be welcomed by some, but isunrealistic for others. It has been shown that such extremeengagement is potentially damaging to interpersonal interac-tions, and can subsequently drive additional workplace stress.Since over-engagement can lead to withdrawal from the

organization, ultimately this can create a culture where it isdifficult to retain and attract talent and diversity.

Under-engaged behaviors, where employees are presentbut not engaged, are sub-optimal for the organization, asemployees withdraw from work, colleagues and customers.These employees may attempt to hide or disguise their lackof productivity, misappropriate resources (time) or shift theburden of performance to others around them. On the otherhand, over-engaged employees risk their personal health andwellbeing, which can also be a concern for the firm in terms ofsocial responsibility and cost considerations. Over-engagedworkers, though constantly ‘‘busy,’’ and seemingly investingextreme levels of intensity and duration of effort towardswork, are often less efficient, focus on personal controlrather than shared goals, and place unreasonable demandson those around them. These forms of dysfunctional yetengaged behavior are of particular interest as they are likelyto be amplified by smartphone use.

SMARTPHONES AND ENGAGEMENT

The ‘‘‘anytime/anywhere’’’ connectivity enabled by smart-phones means that employees can work longer hours (dura-tion), access better quality data whenever they need it(intensity), and broaden the scope for work involvement(direction). Users can carry their work with them and engagein work activities in locations and at times that were previouslyoutside of work or off limits. Work intensity increases wheninformation flow increases, and work duration increases whenconnectivity becomes ubiquitous and continuous.

Social media, from Linked-in to Blogs, Twitter and Face-book, represent new channels of information flow, readilyaccessible in handheld devices. An analysis of 2011 com-Score, Alexa and Flurry data shows 74 minutes per day arespent on the Web, while 81 minutes per day are spent withmobile apps. Commentators the world over regularly reporton ‘‘techno-enabled’’ workers who wake to the beep of theirsmartphones, consult them as their last activity before sleep,and take them with them on holidays. Canadian researchersare now specifically referring to smartphones as ‘‘WorkExtending Technologies’’ (WET).

Mobile communication technology has greatly raised theengagement expectation baseline in many organizations.First, as with all information and communication technolo-gies (ICTs), smartphones speed up the ability to generate andtransport data/information, creating the expectation thatpeople need, or are obliged to use the data/informationfaster. Second, intensive global competition and an oftensingle-minded focus on profitability and shareholder valuehas produced increasingly lean organizations, encouragingcultures that rely upon and reward people who work veryhard. Hard workers spend longer hours at work and areincreasingly connected to the organization 24/7 (24 hoursa day/7 days a week). This is because the extra effortrequired to do one’s job means not only working longer hoursat the office, but also using discretionary time for work andmulti-tasking between work and non-work activities, both ofwhich are made easier with a smartphone. Lines betweenwork and private time blur, with the downside result thatmany people feel they are constantly at work or on call. Highwork engagement can be seen as both a condition leading to

196 J.S. MacCormick et al.

the uptake of mobile technologies and a consequence of havinga technological device in your hand that connects so seam-lessly with work. Under these circumstances, the escalation ofover-engagement behaviors with ubiquitous connectivity inthe form of smartphones is understandable, if not inevitable.

In understanding the relationship between smartphonesand behavioral engagement, it is important to recognize thatthese devices are not just objective, external tools that havea deterministic impact or our lives. Users consciously andunconsciously shape the technology as they use it in parti-cular contexts. The emerging literature on technology addic-tion describes how situational and individual factors can leadto excessive technology use. The theory of psychological flowholds that individuals interact with information technologiesin ways that facilitate a mind state in which people are sointensely involved in an activity that nothing else seems tomatter. Continued use is possible, in part, because users losetheir sense of time.

In competitive environments, where work frequentlyrequires extensive use of technology, and devices such asBlackBerrys, iPhones, and other connective devices are typi-cally kept on one’s person at all times, there is a furthertemptation for excessive use. The danger here is of movinginto a state of hyper-connectivity, which enables greaterduration, intensity and direction of organizationally orientedbehaviors, but can also be distracting or overwhelming.Counterbalancing the potentially positive outcomes ofincreased connectivity, the rate and speed of informationprocessing associated with continuous computing can alsolead to fragmented attention, reduced concentration andsuperficial thought processes.

Paul Atchley, a cognitive psychologist at the University ofKansas, recently summarized the practical impact of suchfragmentation in the Harvard Business Review:

� It takes an average of 15 minutes to re-orient to a primarytask after a distraction such as e-mail.� The cost of multitasking is as much as a 20—40 percentdecrease in efficiency versus doing tasks serially.

Ironically, increased connectivity, particularly on a mobiledevice, may both enhance and inhibit more generative,functional engagement, compromising depth and breadth.Conversely, in a business world dominated by connectivity,those who cannot, or wish not to be connected, desiringhypo-connectivity, can miss out on critical opportunities forengagement, with ‘‘out-of-sight, out-of-mind’’ becoming‘‘out-of-connection, out-of-the loop.’’

Thus, while use of the technology enables users to con-struct a connected world where organizational engagementis potentially enhanced, it can just as equally construct amore dysfunctional work environment where employees areabsent even while present, or are stressed or burned-out.The case studies conducted as part of this research help us tounderstand more about the relationship between connectiv-ity and engagement, and how connectivity can be managedto optimize outcomes for the individual and the organization.

BANKERS WITH BLACKBERRYS

We investigated the use of BlackBerrys in two global invest-ment banks. Significantly, the first round of interviews was

conducted during what could be considered the first wave offascination and rapid adoption of smartphones, i.e., theperiod when the BlackBerry became an international phe-nomenon associated with mobile work and work addictionoutside the traditional workplace.

Investment banks proved to be an ideal setting to exploreengagement and patterns of smartphone use. The financialservices sector is a highly competitive, global industry, wherethe ability to attract and retain top talent is a strategicimperative, and high levels of performance are handsomelyrewarded. These organizations provide a wide range offinancial services and products to corporate, institutionaland retail clients and, importantly, their operations functionaround the clock and around the globe.

Two global investment banks, one headquartered in Eur-ope and the other in the United States, were chosen for thisstudy. These firms have activity 24/7, with employees inconstant communication with clients and colleagues world-wide. Like most financial services firms, each bank is char-acterized by a high performance work ethic where employeesare expected to work long hours and be responsive to themarket and customer needs. These banks and their subsidi-aries were also chosen because they were early adopters ofsmartphone technology and therefore have relatively moreevolved experience levels of use of the devices.

At the beginning of the project we conducted a series of 21semi-structured interviews with senior management and twofocus groups across a wide range of functions at both banks intheir Australian offices. All interviewees had been allocatedthe BlackBerry as part of the ‘‘tools of trade’’ at theirrespective banks. Interviewees were encouraged to reflecton their BlackBerry use as broadly as possible. We followed upthese interviews 5 years later to see how behaviors andattitudes toward smartphones had changed. Reflecting theindustry’s demographics, there were 16 male and five femaleinterviewees, aged between 25 and 50. All held senior man-agement roles that required varying degrees of customercontact. Roles included: IT managers, human resource man-agers, sales, operations manager, communications manage-ment, analysts, dealers and managing directors and businessheads. Users had ranging requirements to travel and/orspend time away from the office, but all agreed that theirroles required them to be responsive to others and operateoutside of standard working hours. This is particularly exa-cerbated in Australia, where bankers are required to worklong and non-standard hours to connect with northern hemi-sphere parent companies and offshore markets that open aslocal markets close.

MOBILE CONNECTIVITY AND THE INDIVIDUALEXPERIENCE

We found that, in general, smartphones clearly enabledprofessional services executives to use their time moreefficiently and to be more responsive to customers. ‘‘Wherepreviously things would’ve halted for a day because you haveto wait until Australian night again till you can get in touchwith them . . . They keep moving . . . very good for clients,’’was one response. Another manager reflected: ‘‘It allows meto make quicker decisions and you don’t need to wait long forthe response.’’ Work can be carried out in places and times

Smartphones and employee engagement 197

previously unavailable for work, increasing productivity bycapturing otherwise lost time. ‘‘On the bus you can clear allyour e-mails on the way to work so that you can get to workand you’re able to hit the ground running’’ said anotherrespondent. ‘‘I would work definitely an hour, at least anhour or more a day than previously.’’

Smartphones facilitated engagement where previously acompromise might have been required to achieve work/lifebalance through temporal and spatial flexibility. As oneemployee said: ‘‘It’s just hugely important to me that I’mthere three or four nights to see [my two year old] before hegoes to bed. I leave the office at 4 p.m., go home, spend a bitof time with my son, have dinner with my wife . . . then pullout the BlackBerry and work until 10 or 11 p.m.’’

The handheld device also made it easier to engage others.As one of the managers reported: ‘‘This tool improves thecollaboration between the actors of a given project or activ-ity. The managers feel much more at ease reaching their co-workers — it is easier to organize meetings and it is easier toreact and keep track.’’ Conversely, it assisted subordinates toengage with their managers: ‘‘Managers have more requestsfrom their coworkers because although people hesitate tocontact their manager on the phone when they are away fromthe office, they do not hesitate to send an.’’

THREE CATEGORIES OF SMARTPHONE USERS

Smartphones certainly facilitate and even encourage higherlevels of engagement with work through anywhere, anytimeconnectivity. The challenge is connecting in a way thatoptimizes engaged behaviors that are sustainable. Ourinvestigation into bankers using BlackBerrys saw us develop

Table 1 Engagement Behaviors and Smartphone User Types.

Level of impact Smartphone user types

Hypo-connectors(disengagement)

Dynamic(function

Smartphone enabled engagement behaviorsIndividual � Fear of loss of control/addiction

� Boundary protection� Distracted� Low work focus� Avoidance

� Autono� Contro� Flexibi� Involve� Bounda� Self-ef� Ambide

Organizational � Out-of-connection,out-of-the loop

� Misrepresentation� Unavailability� Disinterest

� Proact� Coordi� Collabo� Respon(intern� Feedba� Flexibl

a categorization system where smartphone users were char-acterized along a connectivity continuum. Between theextremes of hypo- and hyper-connectors whose behaviorscorrelate with dysfunctional engagement, we found dynamicconnectors, who demonstrated behaviors that are morelikely to lead to sustained engagement. This is shown inTable 1.

Dynamic Connectors

Rather than representing a mid level of connectivity, dynamicconnectors move between extremes of low and high con-nectivity as the situation and personal needs demand,enabling a high level of sustainable engagement. DynamicConnectors actively manage the duration and intensity oftheir mobile-enabled work and describe a dynamic capacityto connect and disconnect. These users are at ease withturning the device off as a means of consciously disengagingfrom work, enabling them to optimize both personal andorganizational priorities. Demonstrating this agency, oneexecutive summarized: ‘‘There is an intrusion, but . . . it iscontrollable and compensated for with true efficiency andtrue tranquility. This tool allows a better distribution ofone’s time.’’ Reflecting the advertised benefits, anothermanager said: ‘‘I can connect when and where I want . . . Itmeans I am a lot less stressed because I can go home when Ineed to’’ . . . ‘‘I can stay on top of what needs to be done.’’

Dynamic connectors were also cognizant of the impactthey had on the behavior of others through their own actions.As one manager said of her boss: ‘‘He works in New York [and]in an effort to try and role model good work-life balance, henow no longer e-mails people on weekends. And so you’ll

connectorsal engagement)

Hyper-connectors non-stopwork (disengagement)

myllitymentry managementficacyxtrous

� Burnout� Workaholic/addiction� No boundaries� Antisocial behaviors� Work-life conflict� Lack of recovery time

ivitynationrationsivenessal and external customers)cke work design

� Shallow, diffused, superficialcommunication

� Job creep� Disruptive� Role modeling excess� Over-communication� Reactivity� Absent presence� Reduced delegation

198 J.S. MacCormick et al.

never get an email from [business head] on the weekend. Andthen hopefully he shows his people that I don’t expect you tobe working on weekends.’’ Another executive was held up asa role model by a direct report: ‘‘[Country Head] has nevercontacted me at home. He’s not one of the ones you see e-mailing at night; he doesn’t do it.’’

Hyper-Connectors

Despite the value that many users clearly attributed to theirsmartphones, there were signs of disengaged behaviorsenabled by the device. One of the most obvious advantagesof the mobile devices is the ease with which people canengage in communications anywhere, anytime. However, thiscan result in problems with both the quality and quantity ofcommunication activity. As one manager reported: ‘‘WhatBlackBerrys have done is just increased the volume ofe-mail, because people know that they’re always contact-able. There’s lots of communication, but it’s not very effi-cient, not very thought-out, because you’re just clearingyour e-mails on the BlackBerry on the way to and fromwork.’’ Another manager supported this view: ‘‘People useemails to degrees of excess which are just extraordinary.Copying people in on stuff that they don’t need to be copiedon. Poorly written communications . . . people just do a dumpof information.’’ Low quality and high quantity e-mails canhappen because, despite the advantages of the mobility ofthe device, ‘‘work’’ is often conducted in places not con-ducive to deep thought. This observation was reinforced byanother manager, who said: ‘‘When you’re on your mobileyou’re flicking through e-mails to just get the number down.If you can’t deal with it now, sometimes you just send it on.’’The opportunity for face-to-face interactions can be lost,i.e.: ‘‘You’ve got people sending copious amounts of e-mailswhen they could pick up the phone or turn around and talk tothe person sitting behind them.’’ Despite the investment ofeffort, the end result can defeat the purpose, because as onemanager put it: ‘‘Too much information kills communica-tion.’’

Another manifestation of the way in which hyper-connec-tivity led to disengaged behavior was reflected in actionsthat undermined the efforts of others as a means of elevatingthe user’s profile and contributed to establishing counter-productive work standards: ‘‘They were in competition witheach other to see who could cover the most e-mails in a day. . . if someone went home and switched off their BlackBerryat say 8 p.m., then they switched on the next morning andfound out that all their colleagues had been e-mailing eachother and doing all this stuff, they individually perceivedthat they would be seen to be not working as hard and not asdedicated as these people who had been working up untilmidnight sending e-mails.’’

Constant connectivity, while feeding the desire of users to‘‘keep on top of things,’’ to be productive, appeared at timesto be a double-edged sword, providing limited opportunityfor down-time and recovery, and thus inhibiting opportunitiesfor effective contribution. Some executives resented theconstant high levels of connectivity. As one reported: ‘‘[Evenon holidays] I feel compelled to carry it all day long . . . thereare no more complete breaks. It is a sort of permanentconnection that did not exist before.’’ ‘‘Previously, when Icaught transport to and from work, I would’ve read the

paper, read a book . . .’’ ‘‘You just can’t get away from it.’’These effects also caused problems for significant others:‘‘My wife has made the comment that it’s the last thing I seeat night and the first thing I see in the morning, which issomehow not good.’’ ‘‘My wife and my son absolutely hateit.’’ ‘‘It definitely detracts from your home life.’’ Even morecolorfully, an executive commented that: ‘‘My wife threa-tened repeatedly to throw it into the toilet!’’

Excessive connectivity can also frustrate coworkers inmeetings. ‘‘It is very disagreeable and counterproductivein meetings . . . and disturbs general attention.’’ ‘‘I find itdistracting at meetings . . . you obviously switch off to what-ever’s being said,’’ reducing the effectiveness of meetingsfor users and non-users alike. Ironically, while the deviceprovided significant potential for collaboration, coordinationand the sharing of information, some identified a reduction indelegation. ‘‘Previously, going on holidays meant cutting offfrom work and transferring the responsibilities. With theBlackBerry, decision-making stays with the same personand there is no delegation.’’

I can quit anytime (or can I?)A surprising outcome was that while many users asserted thatthey were in control of the device (stating that it was easy toturn the device off), they often portrayed others as havingproblems with addiction to the device (the infamous ‘‘Crack-Berry’’ syndrome), failing to recognize that their own self-described behaviors were the same as those they criticized inother people.

Hypo-Connectors

At the other end of the continuum, interviewees discussedinstances of intentionally resisting connectivity and misdir-ected connectivity. Fear of being constantly connected canfoster under-engagement. This can manifest in an unwilling-ness to adopt the technology, reflected in comments such as,‘‘I don’t want to have one.’’ ‘‘I don’t want to be contactable24/7.’’ ‘‘I prefer to finish my work during the hours that I’mat work . . . there’s better things in life than being at work allthe time.’’ The downside is that non-users operating within acommunity of users may be excluded from certain interac-tions, consequently exacerbating their under-engagementwith the organization. Others were somewhat passive-aggressive toward the device itself, preferring to ‘‘leave iton the beach and hope it is stolen,’’ or ‘‘not recharge it.’’

Conversely, clever timing of distribution via smartphonesallows impression management that disguises disengagedbehavior. One manager owned up, saying: ‘‘Everyone thinksI’m at work, but I’m actually out getting my car washed.’’Hypo-connectivity and its relationship with disengaged beha-vior was perhaps most demonstrably indicated by an ITmanager’s comment that we ‘‘should count the number ofdevices returned to IT that have been thrown under a bus ordrowned (in the toilet)!’’

Overall, it seems likely that the disengaged behaviorsassociated with hyper-connectivity have possible long-termnegative implications for health and psychological well-being, as well as organizational level issues. Reduced oppor-tunities for recovery are consistently linked to individual

Smartphones and employee engagement 199

burnout (and potential liability under Occupational Healthand Safety legislation. As mental recovery is a fundamentalrequirement for fostering critical and creative thinking, corecomponents of so-called ‘‘knowledge work’’ and alack ofdowntime can have potentially negative consequences forthe organization.

FIVE YEARS LATER

Five years after the original study, we conducted follow-upinterviews with senior managers from the original study. Inthe intervening period, over 600,000 ‘‘apps’’ (applications)have been developed for smartphones, with an estimateddownload of almost 20 million apps per day. It is no surprisethat the most favored apps are for social networking — withaccess to Twitter, Linked-in, Facebook. In spite these newsources of competition for our attention, for the most part,our earlier findings about how smartphone use relates toengaged behavior were confirmed. In many instances thesesites and other apps for collaboration have simply replaced(and face-to-face) communication. As a portent of thefuture, Erik Qualman highlighted in his internationally #1selling book Socialnomics that some universities havestopped distributing email addresses. What is changing isthe platform for communication and collaboration, whichmakes the role of smartphones even more significant.

Complaints continued about volume of e-mails (and textmessages) received — ‘‘getting in the way of ‘real work’’’ —and dampening the capacity for quality outputs. One distinctdifference, however, is that in the more recent interviews,participants seemed more willing to acknowledge the partthey played in contributing to the volume of messages cir-culated. Similar to the first round of interviews, executivesstill insisted that they could choose to turn the device off. Inthis sense, the ‘‘CrackBerry’’ syndrome was more likely to beconstructed as an individual choice, not a corporate culture-driven mandate. As one participant admitted: ‘‘I am a controlfreak . . . checking it all the time, 1st thing in the morning . . .take it on holidays, [which means that] I am available forlonger hours.’’ The same executive also admitted to a love-hate relationship with the device, with comments such as:‘‘You get attached to it,’’ and ‘‘I couldn’t live without it.’’Recognizing impending relationship problems with such highlevels of connectivity, he acknowledged he has had to ‘‘learnto turn it off.’’ Another executive said: ‘‘I am still addicted . . .even more so . . . I’m a heavy user . . . it’s a godsend . . . I can’t beas effective without it.’’ However, another executive reflect-ing on the behavior of this same manager commented: ‘‘You’vegot the workaholics that will use anything to support theirneed to work at hyper-drive . . . you can’t communicate withthem. They are headed for trouble. I just switch off.’’ Anexecutive summarized those we describe as dynamic connec-tors as follows: ‘‘the others just use it as a tool . . . and it is thebest tool on the planet for productivity, but you need to knowwhen to turn it on and [when to turn it] off.’’

A number of executives reported strategies to managetheir connectivity, because they were conscious to avoid theultimate manifestation of disengaged behavior — burnout.For instance, internal research in one of the banks we studiedshowed that 10 percent of users only used their smartphoneduring work hours, and a growing number have separate

phones for work and personal use. As one intervieweedescribed it: ‘‘Now people are carrying two phones, onefor leisure and one for work.’’ Further adaptations wereacknowledged by a user who recognized that his behavior hadbecome more acceptable as his need for high connectivityhad become the norm rather than the exception: ‘‘I don’tthink things have changed much. It is just that while pre-viously others [ f amily and peers] used to complain about myBlackBerry use, now, because everyone is using smartphones(and they could be using it for games!), when I am using myBlackBerry for work, no one complains.’’

MASTERING CONNECTIVITY ANDENGAGEMENT

Our research suggests that the use of smartphones appears toamplify work engagement behaviors, both functional anddysfunctional. Overall, the majority of smartphone users inour study felt that the technology enhanced their ability toengage with the workplace, while enjoying increased flex-ibility and mobility. Notwithstanding the downsides, it wasdifficult to find an executive who would give up her or hissmartphone and the connectivity that it afforded. Whilesome of our interviewees described frustration with levelsof distraction — ‘‘I find it distracting in meetings. Youobviously switch off to what is being said.’’ — others wereconvinced that their increased ability to do more with theirwaking hours ultimately improved their chances of success.‘‘I can be out of the office and still be contactable, or doingmy personal stuff and be e-mailing.’’

Our interviewees showed us that it is the way they use thetechnology that enables them to construct a connected worldwhere organizational engagement can be enhanced or dimin-ished. Dynamic connectors optimize their engagement byswitching between both high and low connectivity as thesituation demands, feeling at ease to disconnect (and ‘‘re-charge’’). In contrast, other users construct more dysfunc-tional work environments when they become entrenched in ahypo- or hyper-connected state. These users describe beingoverwhelmed by the increasing volume of communications,matched by a decrease in quality and the loss of the richer,face-to-face communication — a deteriorating situation theywant to disengage from. For other users, smartphones madeit possible to disguise inappropriate competition and destruc-tive behaviors. Where connectivity was equated withengagement (and potentially rewarded), smartphones couldbe used as a tool to manage impressions. In this context,seemingly positive engaged behaviors, such as informationsharing and out-of-hours working, easily escalated to exces-sive levels and encouraged unhealthy competition, resultingin negative consequences for both the individuals and theorganization. Where a user’s identity is centered on work,excessive connectivity can contribute to job creep, whichalso establishes unrealistic and unsustainable expectationsthat are then passed on to others.

To equate the use of a handheld device with engagementand task performance, focus or operational excellence there-fore has some very dangerous consequences. First, if simplybeing in touch is the only thing or the main thing that isrewarded in organizations, we will get constant contact, butnot much else. Engagement viewed as duration of media use

200 J.S. MacCormick et al.

does not necessarily equate to the effective engagementsought by organizations. Secondly, if constant contact meansconstant interruption, our brains become distracted to thepoint of being ineffective for tasks requiring deep thinking.Given that most highly engaged employees are motivated bya sense of achievement, it is likely that incessant hyper-connectivity, even for those ‘‘addicted’’ to work, will ulti-mately become de-motivating. It may become a cause ofburnout or ignite a desire for more meaningful work else-where, possibly in another organization.

Having explored how mobile technology is an inescapablereality of today’s business and social environment, webelieve it is necessary to take a broader perspective onemployee engagement that encompasses both its potentialdownsides and its potential upsides if we are to manage itstrategically. We propose that engagement is paradoxical, ayin-yang relationship where both the more and the less weconnect to work, the less of us there is to truly engage witheach task, each phone call, e-mail, text or face-to-faceconversation. Too much connectivity, just as too little con-nectivity, can negatively impact our capacity to engagemeaningfully and productively. However the solution is nota 50—50 compromise, but rather, as our case studies showed,it is the capacity to read the needs of the situation and moveacross the connectivity continuum, allowing for some timesof hyper-connectivity and ensuring there is also time forhypo-connectivity and recovery.

Our findings highlight how the anywhere, anytime capa-city of smartphone technology can increase the capacity for

sustaining engaged behaviors. We also saw the potentialdownside of entrenched over- and under-use of the technol-ogy could exacerbate disengaged behaviors. Love them orhate them, smartphones are here to stay. By affecting how,when, where and to what level we engage with work, smart-phones blur the boundaries between work and non-work life.Our place of work is shifting to every place, and so too themeaning of ‘‘work’’ will shift and change over time. Webelieve organizations need to better understand the factorsthat escalate excessive smartphone use, and identifywhat support is required for employees to feel sufficientlyempowered to connect dynamically to enhance theirown and their organization’s outcomes. As Ben Aggerrecommends in Speeding up Fast Capitalism, we need toacknowledge the value of ‘‘. . . periodically shut[ing] downthe electronic prostheses dictating our worlds and lives’’ andallow ourselves and others time to ‘‘recharge’’ if we are totruly foster functional, long term engagement. Seniorexecutives should think carefully about the work behaviorsthey are modeling, rewarding, or requiring. The signalsthey send, particularly in relation to connectivity, willdetermine whether they are fostering functional or exces-sive engagement, and whether work remains exhilarating orexhausting.

Smartphones and employee engagement 201

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

For more on the effects of information overload, see TorkelKlingberg, ‘‘The Overflowing Brain: Information Overloadand the Limits of Working Memory,’’ translation Neil Better-idge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009); and NicholasCarr, ‘‘The Shallows: How the Internet is Changing the Waywe Think, Read and Remember’’ (London, Atlantic Books,2010). For another conceptual model of how connectivityaffects performance in teams and organizations, see DarlKolb, Paul Collins and E. Allan Lind, ‘‘Requisite Connectivity:Finding Flow in a Not-so-Flat World,’’ OrganizationalDynamics, 2008, 29(2), 127—142. For definitions of employeeengagement, see W. H. Macey & B. Schneider, ‘‘The Meaning

of Employee Engagement,’’ Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, 2008, 1, 3—30. On over-engagement, see S. A.Hewlett & C. B. Luce, ‘‘Extreme Jobs: The Dangerous Allureof The 70-Hour Work Week,’’ Harvard Business Review, 2006,12(December), 49—59; W. B. Schaufeli, T. W. Taris & W. vanRhenen, ‘‘Workaholism, Burnout, and Work Engagement:Three of a Kind or Three Different Kinds of Employee Well-Being?’’ Applied Psychology, 2008, 57(2), 173—2003; and K.Scott, K. Moore & M. Miceli, ‘‘An Exploration of the Meaningand Consequences of Workaholism,’’ Human Relations, 1997,50, 287—314.

Judith MacCormick is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Australian School of Business, University of NSW,Sydney. She is also a partner, at Heidrick and Struggles, Leadership Advisory. Her global research on leadership,organizational climate and work practices focuses on what is required for both generative and sustainableoutcomes for multiple stakeholders (Australian School of Business, School of Organization and Management,University of New South Wales, Randwick 2052, Australia; e-mail: Judithm@agsm.edu.au).

Kristine Dery is a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney Business School. Her research focusses on theinteraction of technology and users and the resulting impact on the nature of work. Her research on the impact ofERP and HRIS systems has been widely published, along with more recent work focusing on mobile connectivity(Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Sydney, Australia).

Darl Kolb is an associate professor of management and international business at the University of AucklandBusiness School, New Zealand. His research is focussed on connectivity in distributed work, especially finding theright amount of connectivity for individual and team performance (University of Auckland Business School, NewZealand).