Efficient or Distracted?: Perceptions of Multitaskers in Groups

1. First Annual INGRoup Conference Pittsburgh, PA July 27 – 29, 2006 Efficient or Distracted?: Perceptions of Multitaskers in Groups Caroline S. Bell, Fernando Olivera, & Deborah R. Compeau Abstract A Model of Group Member Perceptions of Multitaskers Survey Measures Perceptions of Multitaskers: Respondents rated the multitasker along 19 unipolar scales. The first 10 (italicized in the model) are from the Feldstein et al. (2001) Person Perception Scale, and the remainder emerged from student interviews about laptop usage conducted as part of a larger study. Past Multitasking Behavior: the extent to which participants engaged in 27 forms of technology-based multitasking over the preceding two weeks (e.g., surfing the web during a group meeting, checking email during class). These items were developed from interviews conducted for a larger MBA and laptop use study. Time orientation: measured using 16 items; ten from Bluedorn et al.’s IPV scale (1999) and six from a revision proposed by Hecht (2002) (e.g., I like to juggle several activities at the same time, I believe it is best to complete one task before starting another). Multitasking is often seen as a necessary behavior in fast-paced environments. However, little attention has been paid to the consequences of multitasking in the context of group work. This study explores the perceptions that people develop of those who multitask, as well as factors that explain these perceptions. Are multitaskers seen positively as efficient contributors to the group’s task or are they perceived negatively as distracted and disruptive? We focus on technological multitasking where individuals use a technological device, such as a laptop or personal organizer, while engaging in interpersonal interactions, such as during group meetings. We develop a conceptual model and test this model using a scenario-based approach. Keywords : Multitasking, perceptions, polychronicity Time Orientation Past Multitasking of the Perceiver Behavior of the Perceiver H1 H2 Relevance of the H4 Multitasker’s Activity To the Group’s Task Perceptions of Multitaskers - likeable - good - competent - ambitious - intelligent - kind H3 - confident - sincere - pleasant H5 - effective communicator - efficient - conscientious Interdependence - impatient - distracted - helpful - social - impolite - disruptive Research Question - hard working • How are individuals who multitask with technology in group settings perceived? Study Design The study examined the reactions of MBA students to technological multitasking in small (learning team) & large (classroom) group settings. Participants were presented with four scenarios, varying in task relevance and interdependence, about a group member’s multitasking behavior. EXAMPLES: • You are having a learning team meeting and you observe a teammate having an Instant Message conversation with another student about the topic of your meeting. • You are sitting in the classroom while class is underway and you observe a classmate having an Instant Message conversation with another student about a non-class-related topic. Relevant Literature NEXT STEP: THESIS-IN-PROGRESS Multitasking (e.g., Manhart, 2005; Rubenstein et al., 2001) Polychronicity (e.g., Bluedorn et al., 1999; Cotte & Ratneshwar, 1999) Technology Use& Communication (e.g. Turner & Tinsley, 2002; Schlosser, 2002) Group Processes (e.g. Hackman, 1987; Kerr & Tindale, 2004) Social Perceptions (e.g. Feldstein et al., 2001). Given that individual group members form strong negative attributions about other group members who are multitasking with technologies: How does technological multitasking contribute to group conflict? Theory A Model of How Technological Multitasking Contributes to Group Conflict The model is based on the following principles: • Individuals have difficulty multitasking. Juggling jobs rather than completing them sequentially takes longer and leaves multitaskers with a reduced ability to perform each task (Rubinstein et al., 2001). • Multitasking may generate process losses to the extent that it leads to distractions and duplication of work (Kerr & Tindale, 2004), thus hindering group performance. • The social appropriateness of multitasking is unclear: some argue today’s devices offer new distractions that annoy others (Schlosser, 2002), while others argue that multitaskers are perceived as intelligent and competent (Cotte & Ratneshwar, 1999). • In developing perceptions about multitaskers, people are likely to have an egocentric bias such that perceivers will think favorably of those who are similar to themselves (Ilgen & Feldman, 1983). • Individuals differ in their preferences regarding time. Of relevance to this research is polychronicity (Hall, 1976), the extent to which an individual prefers to work on several tasks at once rather than one at a time (monochronicity). Polychronics are also more concerned with social relations and their maintenance than monochronics, and relationship maintenance efforts are equally, if not more, important to polychronics as task accomplishment (Bluedorn et al., 1992). • We expect these judgments to be subject to two moderators: • whether the multitasker’s activity is seen as contributing to the group task, and • the extent to which individuals believe that the multitasker’s behavior will have an effect on the group. Hypotheses & Results Time Orientation (tested via Correlation Analysis)Hypothesis 1 (Not Supported): Individuals higher in polychronicity will view others who are multitasking with technology more favorably than those lower in polychronicity. Hypothesis 4 (Not Supported): Polychronics will perceive individuals multitasking with technology in a relational but non-task relevant manner less negatively than monochronics perceiving the same behavior. Past Multitasking Behavior (tested via Correlation Analysis)Hypothesis 2 (Partially Supported): The more an individual has engaged in technological multitasking, the more they will view others who are multitasking with technology favorably. Task Relevance (tested via Non-parametric ANOVA - Kendall’s W)Hypothesis 3 (Supported): Individuals engaging in task-relevant multitasking behavior will be perceived more favorably than individuals engaging in non-task relevant multitasking behavior. Interdependence (tested via graphs of means)Hypothesis 5 (Supported): When interdependence is low, the effect of task-relevant multitasking on unfavorable perceptions will be less pronounced than when interdependence is high. Overall: People do form strong negative judgments of other group members who are multitasking with technologies, particularly when those activities are irrelevant to the task at hand (though the level of interdependence moderates this relationship). Key Conceptual Arguments • Group technological multitasking attitude composition is a group-level configural construct that captures differing time orientations, work style preferences, and technological capabilities, attitudes and usage. • These differences will manifest in group member’s technological multitasking behaviors and lead to task, relationship, and process conflict (Jehn & Chatman, 2000). • Conflict will affect group performance, viability and satisfaction (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Pearson et al., 2002). Caroline S. Bell (cbell@ivey.uwo.ca)Fernando Olivera ( folivera@ivey.uwo.ca) Deborah R. Compeau (dcompeau@ivey.uwo.ca)