The Meeting Mindset: When Attention is Optional

IBM CEO Arvind Krishna has weighed in on the debate over meeting etiquette, disagreeing with JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon on whether employees should put away their phones and other devices during meetings. While some may see this as a trivial matter, the implications are far-reaching, reflecting deeper issues about communication, productivity, and employee engagement.

The Size Matters Principle

Krishna’s distinction between small and large meetings highlights the fact that these gatherings often serve multiple purposes. In smaller settings, active listening is crucial for genuine discussion and problem-solving. Checking devices in these situations can be distracting and disrespectful, as Dimon has pointed out. However, in larger events – what Krishna terms “communication vehicles” – the expectation should shift from participatory engagement to information dissemination.

This nuance raises questions about how we define productivity in a meeting setting. Is success measured by the number of people who can multitask or those actively contributing to the discussion? The former approach may seem efficient, but it often leads to shallow conversations and missed opportunities for meaningful collaboration. The latter requires focus, attention, and active listening – skills that are increasingly undervalued.

The Dimon Doctrine: A Zero-Tolerance Policy

Dimon’s stance on device use during meetings has been unwavering, bordering on evangelistic. His expectation of employees giving their full attention is admirable but also unrealistic in today’s fast-paced corporate landscape. By framing device use as “disrespectful” and “wasting time,” Dimon risks creating an environment of fear rather than engagement.

Dimon’s views on this issue are not new, dating back to his comments at the 2025 Fortune Most Powerful Women summit and in his annual letter to shareholders. While understandable, this persistence has been interpreted by some as a sign of an entrenched culture problem within JPMorgan Chase, where employee engagement and retention have been concerns for years.

The IBM Alternative: A More Flexible Approach

Krishna’s stance may seem more pragmatic, acknowledging the complexities of modern meetings. By differentiating between small and large gatherings, he implies that each situation requires a tailored approach. This flexibility could be seen as an olive branch to employees who feel overwhelmed by their job demands in today’s hybrid work environment.

However, this approach also raises questions about accountability and expectation management. If device use is permissible in larger meetings, does it mean employees are less invested in actively participating? Does Krishna’s stance inadvertently create a culture where meeting attendees can disengage at will?

The Broader Implications

As companies navigate the future of work, debates over meeting etiquette serve as a microcosm for larger issues. They highlight our struggles with communication, collaboration, and employee engagement in an increasingly digital landscape. As companies seek to boost productivity and retention, they must also confront the consequences of their own policies and culture.

In this context, Krishna’s views offer a necessary counterpoint to Dimon’s absolutism. By recognizing that meetings serve different purposes, we can begin to reimagine our approach to communication and collaboration in the workplace. Companies should adopt more nuanced attitudes towards meeting etiquette, balancing individual needs with collective goals. Only then can they foster truly productive and engaging work environments – ones where attention is a choice, not an obligation.

The stakes are high, but so too is the potential reward: unlocking new levels of collaboration, innovation, and employee satisfaction in the modern workplace.