ISTOCK

The Ethics
andEtiquette
ofMultitasking
in the Workplace
RAQUEL BENBUNAN-FICH

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MTS.2012.2211391

Date of publication: 24 September 2012

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | fall 2012

1932-4529/12/$31.002012IEEE

|15

ompared to other ethical problems modern

organizations face,
ranging from financial fraud to employee
misconduct, our technologicallyinduced diffusion of attention may
be deemed inconsequential. However, the failure to devote enough
attention is frequently the root of
many current moral quandaries
in the corporate world. Nowhere
is this phenomenon more evident
than in the tendency to multitask
with technological devices while
at work. Multitasking behavior is
deeply ingrained in many human
activities in todays society, and its
benefits and drawbacks have been
thoroughly debated. However, the
ethical dimension has not been
fully addressed.1 The focus of this
article is to analyze the ethical
issues of multitasking behavior in
the workplace.
A logical starting point for making the connection between multitasking and ethics is the definition
of multitasking, which is commonly associated with undertaking
multiple tasks at once. Multitasking takes place when an individual
performs more than one unrelated
activity at the same time. Accordingly, there are two key criteria
to define this behavior: task inde-

the person is engaged in the pursuit

of the same goal.
When mobile technological
devices are added to the mix of
tasks and time, the definition of
multitasking becomes more challenging. If an executive takes notes
electronically on a laptop during a
meeting, is he multitasking? If his
use of the computer is restricted to
taking notes, he is not. This is similar to taking handwritten notes. The
problem, however, is that computer
use typically extends to other activities, which are often unrelated to
the meeting [3]. These other unrelated tasks are masked by the use of
the laptop for note-taking.
Evidence of multitasking behavior is everywhere, whether it is
working on a laptop during a meeting, maintaining a work-related
conversation with a colleague
over a cell phone while attending
a family event, or checking handheld devices during face-to-face
interactions. There is some sense
of social rudeness when encountering multitasking in everyday
interactions and social norms may
be evolving to accommodate this
behavior [4]. However, when multitasking occurs in the workplace,
in addition to impoliteness, there
are ethical ramifications stemming
from dividing human attention.

While multitasking contributes to

the illusion of productivity, it often
causes performance degradation.
pendence and performance concurrency [2]. Everyday examples
such as talking on the phone while
driving or folding laundry while
watching TV illustrate these two
principles nicely. In these cases, a
person is actually performing two
independent activities simultaneously. Conversely, taking handwritten notes during a meeting is not
representative of multitasking as
1

For an exception, see [1].

16 |

Multitasking and Attention

Collectively, society
rationalizes
and sometimes excuses
multitasking due to the ever
increasing demands on our time.
While multitasking contributes to
the illusion of productivity, it often
causes performance degradation.
Workers who multitask experience
2

Linda Stone coined the term continuous partial

attention. For a more extensive discussion of this
concept, see [5].

voluntary and involuntary discontinuities in the execution of their

tasks. Voluntary interruptions
arise from self-imposed breaks in
the flow of work to attend to other
tasks, while involuntary ones originate from getting sidetracked due
to notifications from electronic
devices and communication systems. Consequently, technologically empowered workers are in a
perpetual state of continuous partial attention.2 The unwillingness
or inability to devote full attention is frequently the reason for
errors and omissions at work and
elsewhere.
Technologist
Linda
Stone
describes attention as the most
powerful tool of the human spirit.
We can enhance or augment our
attention with practices like meditation and exercise, diffuse it with
technologies like email and Blackberries, or alter it with pharmaceuticals. In the end, though, we
are fully responsible for how we
choose to use this extraordinary
tool [6]. She draws a distinction
between continuous partial attention and multitasking [7]. While
admitting that both are attention
allocation strategies, she asserts
that they are driven by different impulses. Continuous partial
attention originates from the desire
not to miss anything, while multitasking is motivated by the need to
be more productive and efficient.
Hyper-vigilance, she argues, is
not a characteristic of multitasking. In practice, however, when
individuals are constantly scanning the environment for personally relevant cues, in a state of
hyper-vigilance while at work,
multitasking occurs. This is most
notably the case when hyper-vigilant employees are continuously
checking their email or maintaining electronic communications
while performing other tasks, such
as attending a meeting.
At an extreme, continuous partial attention could become total
inattention which, ironically, is the

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | fall 2012

opposite of hyper-vigilance. Total

inattention can be lethal, or sometimes just embarrassing, as illustrated by the well-publicized news
story of the errant commercial
airline pilots [8]. The pilots missed
their destination because they
were engrossed in their laptops
during the flight. While fortunately nobody was hurt, the story
is a good reminder of the potential dangers of inattention associated with multitasking. An earlier
transportation-related incident did
not have such a happy ending.
InCalifornia, a train engineer texting on his cell phone while at the
controls caused a crash that killed
twenty-five people [9]. While not
all instances of inattention can be
blamed on multitasking, digitallyenabled connectivity usually leads
to partial attention at best, and to
total inattention at worst.
The powerful allure of technological devices that monopolize our
thoughts at the expense of awareness of our surroundings is evident
everywhere. Given the widely recognized magnetism of technology
gadgets, it is easy to argue that
multitasking is unethical when
lives are at stake. In fact, the potential to harm oneself and others is
at the core of recent rulings banning texting while driving, which
is now illegal in many places. Is
multitasking less unethical or
perhaps unrelated to ethics when
no physical danger to human life is
involved?

Multitasking during Meetings

In the workplace, a distinction must
be drawn between tasks that are
directly performed and the collective endeavors in which the individual participates. Doing research for
a client is a direct task where performance objectives and accountability are usually well-defined.
In contrast, sitting at a work meeting is a collective endeavor where
either the objectives or the individual contributions are loosely specified. A meeting is a mutual activity

The powerful allure of technological

devices that monopolize our
thoughts at the expense of
awareness of our surroundings
is evident everywhere.
where the attention of all participants is (supposed to be) focused on
a single speaker or on the exchange
between speakers. Meeting participants are expected to maintain
a single focus of
cognitive and
visual attention [10].
Typically, in workplace meetings, employees tend to check
their email while documenting the
meeting. As an academic study on
work virtuality notes: Descriptively speaking, most Intel
employees at the middle ranks
are familiar with the practice of
carrying laptops even to face-toface meetings, and handling email
emergencies for other non-present
activities while meeting face
to face with a group [11]. The
image of people hiding behind
their
laptops working on other
things during a meeting is commonplace. This is the ugly side of
multitasking, but is it unethical?
Competing arguments have
been proposed to explain the
link between multitasking and
attention. On the one hand, this
behavior could be viewed as a
manifestation of Multitasking
Attention Deficit. In the pursuit
of high levels of productivity,
people fill up time during slow
meetings by turning their attention to other tasks [4]. The notion
of deficit underscores the need
for communicating messages in a
very efficient way (ten seconds or
less) to avoid downtime. On the
other hand, the behavior could be
viewed as Multitasking Attention
Dexterity, a display of peoples
ability to simultaneously attend
to different streams of incoming
information. The idea of dexterity
symbolizes a new way of mastering

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | fall 2012

information intake [12]. It seems

that such dexterity explains the
standard format for contemporary
TV newscasts, where audio information is accompanied by a news
ticker or screen crawler with other
news. Although this approach
might be perceived as an efficient
way to convey information, results
of empirical studies suggest that,
when people try to process competing messages in parallel, key
information is lost.
The collective nature of workplace meetings with loosely defined
individual responsibilities is a fertile ground for people to engage in
texting-under-the-table or covertlaptop-multitasking. Is this a case
of willful misconduct or blissful
ignorance about the ethical connotations of this behavior? In either
case, there is no question about the
impoliteness of denying attention.
Digitally-enabled
multitasking
during meetings is perceived as a
signal of incivility or inconsiderate
behavior towards others [13].
But etiquette and ethics should
not be confused. Paradoxically,
people tend to be somewhat inconsistent when judging the manners
exhibited by others. They express
annoyance and frustration when
others check their phones or laptops in meetings, but they admit to
doing so themselves from time to
time [13]. Despite the hypocrisy,
there is wide consensus on the lack
of etiquette, but not enough awareness of the ethical issues involved
in the matter.

Ethical Analysis
Multitasking behavior in workplace
meetings brings about conflicts
between individual benefits and the
|17

The application of the universality

principle suggests that in order
to be morally acceptable, every
attendee should be able to multitask
during a meeting.
overall social good [4]. Since these
conflicts qualify as moral dilemmas, an analysis from the perspective of ethical theories provides a
structured framework for moral
reasoning. Two different theories,
deontology and utilitarianism,
offer alternative viewpoints but
lead to similar conclusions. Deontology (or duty-based ethics) states
that an act is right or wrong in and
of itself, regardless of its consequences. Upholding ones duty, or
obligations to another individual
or society, is considered ethically
correct [14]. In contrast, utilitarianism (or ends-based ethics) proposes that the moral worth of an
action is determined by its consequences and these consequences
are measured by the contribution
to the overall utility. According to
this theory, the choice that yields
the greatest benefit to the greatest
number of people is the ethically
correct choice [15].
An application of deontological
reasoning through the principles of
Immanuel Kant [16] indicates that
the morality of the actions lay in
an analysis of the act itself. Kants
categorical imperatives have been
formulated in two different ways:
the universality principle and the
reciprocity principle. The universality principle postulates, Act
only on that maxim which you can
at the same time will that it should
become a universal law. The reciprocity principle proposes, Act as
to treat humanity, whether in your
own person or in that of any other,
in every case as an end, never as
means only. Thus, to determine
whether a potential action is right,
everyone else should be able to
perform the same action under
18 |

similar circumstances. The application of the universality principle

suggests that in order to be morally acceptable, every attendee
should be able to multitask during
a meeting. If this were the case,
the meeting as a single mutual
activity would have no purpose.
Even if only a few people multitask while others participate in the
meeting, the behavior would still
be morally reprehensible. In this
scenario, non-multitasking participants would be used as means
to achieve another end (justify or
vouch for the physical presence of
the multitasking employees at the
meeting).
From the perspective of utilitarianism, multitasking in workplace meetings would be right
if it resulted in a net increase in
happiness for all of those affected
by this behavior. To calculate net
happiness, it would be necessary
to consider whether the results of
the individuals multitasking activity benefit more people than those
negatively affected by his/her inattention to the meeting. While a
precise estimation is difficult and
context-dependent, the happiness
maximization principle suggests
that if the employee is handling
an emergency with the potential to
generate happiness for a large number of people, he should not be at
the meeting causing unhappiness
to the rest of the attendees. From
this viewpoint, multitasking behavior during workplace meetings is
unethical because it does not maximize utility for the greatest number
of people.
Despite their different approa
ches, ethical reasoning from the
perspective of deontology or

utilitarianism yield similar con

clusions in this scenario. These
ethical analyses refer to a par
ticular instance of workplace
multitasking, when workers are
attending a meeting and choosing
to divide or divert their attention
to other tasks with texting-underthe-table or with covert-laptop-
multitasking. Altering the scenario
or the circumstances may yield
different conclusions when these
ethical frameworks are applied
to other instances of workplace
multitasking. Since neither deontological universality, nor utilitarian happiness maximization is
achieved, the analyses presented
here indicate that multitasking
behavior during workplace meetings is unethical. If this is the
case, why is this behavior so pervasive? There are several potential
explanations ranging from lack of
awareness to absence of rules regulating behavior.

Codes of Ethics and

Regulation of Behavior
Lack of ethical awareness surrounding technology issues is not
a new phenomenon. When email
communication and Web browsing first became ubiquitous in the
workplace, many firms had not
yet developed clear guidelines to
specify what was allowed; they did
so much later [17]. We are facing a
similar ethical gap with respect to
multitasking and the use of mobile
devices in the context of other work
activities. The absence of explicit
rules about what is permissible or
morally acceptable at work produces a failure to admit or assign
ethical responsibility.
What if multitasking is part of
the job description? If a job posting
calls for multitasking abilities, it
usually means working on several
projects concurrently though not
all at once [18]. It certainly does
not mean to stretch ones attention over diverse activities and try
to perform all of them at the same
time.

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | fall 2012

Professional codes of conduct

in many disciplines regulate the
behavior of their members by
requiring them to perform their
jobs to the best of their abilities
with honesty and integrity. Is it
ethical for a lawyer to bill a client
for his time if he only gave partial
attention to the clients case during
that time? Is it ethical for a doctor
to have a health-related conversation with his patient while browsing his personal email? In any other
profession, is it ethical to deny full
attention to the task at hand?
In addition to professional codes,
some companies have their own
corporate code of conduct to define
ethical standards of employee
behavior, workers rights and workplace issues. The existence of a corporate statement and its enforcement
is entirely voluntary for most companies. Although some regulatory
bodies, such as the New York Stock
Exchange (see, for example, [19]),
require companies to adopt explicit
corporate policies regarding ethics,
these statements are not a guarantee
of ethical employee behavior. Furthermore, these codes usually cover
highly visible instances of employee
behavior, ranging from financial
fraud to whistle blowing. For the
day-to-day issues of meeting behavior, a few companies have resorted
to stronger regulations like banning
laptops and handheld devices from
corporate meetings, a rule known as
top-less meetings[20].

Performing Under the

Influence of Multitasking
Multitasking behavior at work
aided and abetted by technological devices qualifies as unethical
conduct. Though not as visible as
the moral failings of celebrities or
politicians and not as financially
damaging as the wrongdoings of
some top corporate executives and
financiers, it is nevertheless applicable to most workers. Attempting to perform different tasks

simultaneously reduces the quality of the work and might as well

be called performing under the
influence of multitasking. The
cognitive impairments associated
with multitasking are comparable
to the diminished intellectual
abilities resulting from influence
of drugs or alcohol. Therefore, to
work with technologically-induced
distractions is morally irresponsible. By focusing the discussion
on the ethical repercussions of
multitasking, this article seeks to
call attention to this issue and to
raise awareness among employees
everywhere.
On the issue of personal work
ethics and multitasking, employees are paid to be completely alert
at work and fully engaged in their
work tasks to the best of their abilities. When attention is divided, no
task is the beneficiary of the full
extent of our abilities. Partial attention diminishes ones capacity to
work well and use all of the mental resources in the pursuit of the
goal associated with the task. As
a result of juggling multiple tasks,
wrong decisions are made, incorrect information is conveyed, and
mistakes are committed. With the
illusion of multitasking productivity comes the risk of forewarned
underperformance. Regardless of
the magnitude of the potential consequences, or whether such consequences ever materialize, this
behavior is risky and irresponsible.
Purposely denying full attention to
work tasks in general or workplace meetings in particular is in
most cases unethical.

Author Information
Raquel Benbunan-Fich with the
SCIS Department, Baruch College,
CUNY, New York, NY.

References

[1] B. Weinstein, The ethics of m

ultitasking,
Business Week, Sept. 4, 2009; http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/sep2009/
ca2009094_935233.htm.

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE | fall 2012

[2] R. Benbunan-Fich, R. Adler, and T.

Mavlanova, Measuring multitasking behavior with activity-based metrics, ACM Trans.
on Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 18,
no.2, June 2011.
[3] R. Benbunan-Fich and G. Truman,
Multitasking with laptops during meetings,
Commun. ACM., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 139-141,
Feb. 2009.
[4] J. Tang, Ubiquitous computing: Individual
productivity at the expense of social good?
presented at First Int. Workshop on Social
Implications of Ubiquitous Computing
(CHI2005), Portland, OR, 2005.
[5] L. Stone, The Attention Project; http://
lindastone.net/category/attention/continuouspartial-attention/, accessed Aug. 30, 2012.
[6] The Attention Project. http://lindastone.net/
qa/continuous-partial-attention/
[7] Stone, L. Continuous Partial Attention
not the same as multitasking. Business Week,
2008; http://www.businessweek.com/business_
at_work/time_management/archives/2008/07/
continuous_part.html.
[8] M. Maynard and M. Wald, Off-course
pilots cite computer distraction, New York
Times, Oct. 26, 2009; http://www.nytimes.
com/2009/10/27/us/27plane.html.
[9] R.J. Lopez, R. Connell, and S. Hymon,
Train engineer sent text message just before
crash, LA Times, Oct. 2, 2008; http://articles.
latimes.com/2008/oct/02/local/me-crash2.
[10] E. Goffman, Behavior in Public
Places: Notes on the Social Organization of
Gatherings. New York, NY: Free Press,1963.
[11] K.M. Chudoba, E. Wynn, M. Liu, and
M.B. Watson-Maneim, How virtual are we?
Measuring virtuality and understanding its
impact in a global organization, Information
Syst. J., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 279-306, 2005.
[12] P.P. Torrence, Fast cars, fast food, fast
access, Digital Web Magazine; http://www.
digital-web.com /articles/fast_cars_fast_
food_fast_access/.
[13] C. Pearson, Sending a Message that you
dont care. New York Times, May 15th, 2010;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/jobs/
16pre.html?_r=1
[14] L.G. Brooks, Business and Professional
Ethics for Directors, Executives, and
Accountants, 4th ed., 2007.
[15] L. Markoczy, Utilitarians arent always
fair, and the fair arent always utilitarian:
Distinct motives for cooperation. J. Applied
Social Psychology, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1931-1955,
2007.
[16] I. Kant, Groundwork to the Metaphysics
of Morals, M. Gregor, Ed. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.,
1997.
[17] R.T. De George, Business ethics and the
challenge of the Information Age. Business
Ethics Quarterly, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 63-72, 2000.
[18] I.E. Walus, Is multitasking bad for
your business?, NZ Business, vol. 22, no. 7,
pp.30-31, 2009.
[19] Section 303A.10 of NYSE at http://www.
nyse.com/pdfs/section303A_final_rules.pdf
[20] J. Guynn, Meetings going topless. Los
Angeles Times, 3/31/2008; http://articles.latimes.
com/2008/mar/31/business/fi-nolaptops31.

|19