Multicommunicating and The Future of Work

Keri K. Stephens Anastazja G. Harris Eric D. Waters Moody College of Communication Moody College of Communication Diederich College of Communication The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas at Austin Marquette University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

ABSTRACT Pandemic, essentially all knowledge workers Multicommunicating, the practice of using left their offices and moved home to conduct technology to carry on multiple near- their work remotely, something new for well simultaneous conversations, has been studied over half of those employees. Now, with many for almost two decades, but much of the more people being asked to work remotely, research has focused on in-person meetings. and the increasing prevalence of This practice has new meaning in light of the videoconferencing, it is increasingly crucial to COVID-19 Pandemic as more people are examine how this new army of remote workers working remotely—many new to this is actually accomplishing work. practice—and teams are looking for ways to be more productive. This position statement One practice often observed with remote paper establishes why multicommunicating is workers is called multicommunicating, an important concept for the growing defined as using technology to participate in prevalence of remote work and the future of more than one conversation simultaneously, or work. In addition to reviewing the relevant near simultaneously [23]. This concept grew research, this paper answers some key from a host of studies conducted in the early questions around this practice including sites 2000s that explored what happens when of multicommunicating, why people engage in people simultaneously use many different this practice, and typical outcomes. We information and communication technologies conclude by describing current implications (ICTs) to communicate. Early research on that invite research to further understand how multicommunicating in workplace this practice could and should be studied, now environments either focused on a single and in the future. communication tool with features that facilitated multicommunicating—like instant Author Keywords messenger [21,40]—or addressed how people combined multiple ICTs to accomplish multicommunicating, virtual teams, remote communication tasks [4,30,35]. At the time, work, multitasking, attention, work, meetings organizations were becoming more global and

many turned to virtual teams to manage the

collaboration needs of their globally dispersed 1. Introduction workforce [40].

Teams across the globe have been moving This position statement argues that the rapid toward remote work for the last two decades in global shift to virtual work and distributed response to companies having different project teams resulting from the COVID-19 crisis teams with members located in disparate parts warrants additional interest in and exploration of the world [12]. Yet during the COVID-19 of multicommunicating. We begin this

Stephens et al., Presented at the New Future of Work Virtual Symposium, Aug. 3-5, 2020 p. 1 position statement by further describing respond to several different people. Next, multicommunicating. While much of the prior intensity increases when the pace of the work on this practice has examined in-person interactions is faster. For instance, meeting behaviors, we focus here on studies multicommunicating during a video more relevant to pervasive remote work. conversation can be more intense than during Finally, we conclude by developing a set of an email exchange, since synchronous video implications and research ideas around conversations often involve quicker responses. multicommunicating that can help us explore Third, when interactions concern a large what will be the future of work. number of topics, intensity rises. Chats on videoconferences can often switch topics 2. Relevant Body of Work: Defining several times as it takes people some time to Multicommunicating. compose related messages. Fourth, discussing cognitively complex topics increases intensity. Reinsch and colleagues’ theoretical work on Multiple simultaneous discussions of a multi- multicommunicating provides a definition and faceted merger are more difficult than those propositions around this practice [23]. Key to regarding implementing a new policy. Finally, their definitions is an understanding of the intensity increases when the number of social simultaneity and synchronicity of roles—e.g., friend, worker, mother—is larger, conversations that occur through technology. and the roles are distinct. This is highly They carefully differentiate multi- relevant when employees are asked to work communicating from multitasking because, from home and they have no separation they argue that conversing is more difficult between work and family. than simply doing multiple tasks [23]. Multicommunicating is more intense as people Multicommunicating is also different from quickly shift from employee to parent, or from doing activities in a sequence; scholars supervisor to colleague. examining these behaviors have studied task switching, self-interruptions, and using ICTs 2.2. ICT Characteristics Matter. successively [18,19,26,30]. Multicommunicating is easier when using

certain ICTs. In their revised Proposition 2, In defining multicommunicating, the authors Reinsch and Turner [22] drew upon the also propose eight propositions, that they later empirical work of Cameron and Webster [7] to update in their 2019 work [21]. Three of these explain that messages sent through certain propositions are especially relevant in the media can be reviewed and delayed before current effort: the intensity of responding, hidden from others, and/or can be multicommunicating, ICT characteristics, and easier to use. Furthermore, advanced expertise norms of multcommunicating. using specific ICTs can change an individual’s

perception of the intensity of their 2.1. Intensity Matters. Multicommunicating multicommunicating practices. This suggests, can vary in its intensity. There are five in part, why people learning how to use new conditions that raise the intensity of video platforms for communicating while multicommunicating, thus making it more working remotely during the COVID-19 difficult to accomplish successfully. First, Pandemic likely found multicommunicating intensity increases when there is a larger difficult. number of interactions with others. This could occur if someone is using the chat function 2.3. Norms Matter. There are some social during an online meeting and they need to situations where norms may limit or make

Stephens et al., Presented at the New Future of Work Virtual Symposium, Aug. 3-5, 2020 p. 2 multicommunicating inappropriate. This is invisible whispering, electronic multitasking, what empirical research on multi- parallel meeting participant) often involved communicating has demonstrated, but realize technologies that made it easier to that most of this research has focused on multicommunicate because people were not interactions in person [2,6,7,9,32,34]. When co-located, and they were regularly in studying in-person activities, research has meetings. For example, instant messaging found that multicommunicating norms vary (IM) was an often-studied technology tool between specific technologies like laptops and [11,24,40], and during those studies people mobile phones [9]. Furthermore, were not sharing screens very often during understanding organizational ICT-use norms meetings. Instead, people were is important because they can affect how multicommunicating behind the scenes, so managers evaluate their subordinate’s work while no one saw this behavior, they often [9]. knew it happening [40].

However, people often think they understand Participation levels and types vary in meetings the norms, but in reality, they misread the and so do people’s degrees of situation. In her study of meetings in an multicommunicating. There are three types of advertising firm, Stephens [32] explains that participation related to multicommunicating: senior managers thought multicommunicating non-participation, partial participation, and was acceptable during their meetings, even full participation [8]. Some individuals feel the expected, because they were always so busy. technological constraints of video meetings However, the vice president of the firm make full engagement more difficult [17]. thought that multicommunicating was People who are only partially attending are disrespectful. The teams kept violating the vice those who “‘listen with one ear’ without being president’s expectations because he never fully engaged in the meeting, clearly articulated his view or formalized [multicommunicate] most often because they norms to guide his employees’ actions. are multi-tasking and working on other things such as checking email during the meeting” [8, 3. Sites for Multicommunicating p. 24].

3.1. Meetings 3.2. Intact Teams and Decision Making The vast majority of studies addressing While many published multicommunicating multicommunicating have focused on studies examined meeting contexts, there are meetings. Meetings can be defined as three or several empirical studies that used intact teams more people gathering to consider issues of in their research. Research on teams is concern related to how a group functions [27]. especially relevant for the increasing amount It is not surprising that so much of the of remote work experienced during COVID-19 multicommunicating research has been because their findings map well onto features situated in a meeting context because they are of videoconferencing and collaborative a core component of organizational life platforms. For instance, individual can start [25,27]. Meetings are also a common way that private chats and deactivat video so they can teams communicate, and they occur in both covertly open new screens to check email face-to-face and mediated contexts. during a meeting The early work defining practices that One of the most robust studies was conducted eventually became multicommunicating (e.g., by Dennis and his colleagues where they explored the use of multiple ICTs, with a focus

Stephens et al., Presented at the New Future of Work Virtual Symposium, Aug. 3-5, 2020 p. 3 on instant messenger (IM) [11,24]. They called and will be further discussed in Current the practice of using IM, along with other Implications. communication tools, invisible whispering because IM offered users a backchannel of 4. Why Do People Multicommunicate? communication that could co-exist with a main The literature suggests two main reasons, most synchronous communication channel. They relevant for remote work, that people examined outcome variables like team multicommunicate: people feel pressure to be member relations, effectiveness of “always on,” and there are legitimate and collaborative decision making, and meeting perceived benefits to multicommunicating. participation.

People’s availability and responsiveness to These scholars found different ways that mediated conversations has become central to invisible whispering affected decision making. their identity as workers. People When people directed the meeting, provided multicommunicate because there are many task support, and sought clarification, their opportunities, and quite often other people decision making was enhanced, but when they expect responses regardless of what else they participated in subgroup meetings and may be doing [32]. This phenomenon, known managed extra-meeting activities, their as being “always on” [3], is not always healthy decision making often suffered. for workers. In his analysis of team

communication technologies, Anders’ [1] 3.3. Multicommunicating scale found that constantly using these platforms development. generates expectations of team members being Extending this qualitative work, Stephens [31] always on, even during vacations, and only relied on the dimensions of invisible sometimes are there organizational policies whispering [11,24] to develop a scale to regulate their use. measure the different subgenres of multicommunicating. She found four of the Some people engage in multicommunicating subgenres to be unique: Understanding (a because it is, at times, an efficient practice. combination of seeking clarification and Studies have found that multicommunicating providing task support), Influencing (directing can increase efficiency in collaborative the meeting), Social Support (providing social decision making [11,41]. These studies have support) and Parallel Meetings (participating found their study participants needed fewer in subgroup meetings). In addition, she follow-up meetings because they combined identified a fifth factor, not originally included their backchannel communication with their in Dennis and colleagues’[11,24] work, that current meeting, allowing them to exchange she called being available, a reflection of the information in real time, gather information feeling that people wanted to be within reach from outside sources, and make faster of others and available to multicommunicate decisions. While their study participants even during meetings. The value of including generally reported higher levels of decision- this fifth factor was further supported in Turner making effectiveness, Dennis et al. also & Foss’s theoretical work on attentional social mention that these practices can lead to poorer presence [35], as well as in recent work on quality decisions [11]. Specifically, there can affordances of mobile communication be a rush to closure, people can anchor technologies [32]. The notion of being always themselves in a position and not budge, and on is also highly relevant during COVID-19

Stephens et al., Presented at the New Future of Work Virtual Symposium, Aug. 3-5, 2020 p. 4 these practices can create excessive cognitive Age and gender also appear to influence load. perceptions of multicommunicating. Washington and colleagues found that younger A final consideration related to efficiency is professionals are more accepting of mobile the perception that people are being more phone use and women were far less accepting productive when they are of mobile phone use during informal meetings multicommunicating. Some people can feel a [39]. sense of accomplishment completing tasks like sending messages or responding to requests, There are some people who are given and they can do that while engaged in other permission and expected to conversations [38]. However, others may multicommunicate. One example is a crisis perceive a loss of productivity when trying to communicator, who is never without a phone, use additional technologies during a meeting and when a call arrives she must take it [14]. because it could be a reporter or breaking news [32]. In addition, there are many jobs that range from front line positions, to high level 5. Variables that often Change executive jobs that require varying degrees of Perceptions of Multicommunicating multicommunicating [32]. One important aspect of jobs requiring multicommunicating Over the past two decades of research on is that the majority of the communication- multicommunicating, the most commonly driven tasks are interrelated so there can be studied variable that can influence cohesiveness between the multiple tasks and multicommunicating is polychronicity, a conversational partners. preference for being engaged in two tasks at the same time [5]. Many scholars have studied Finally, the different tasks teams work on can polychronicity as an individual preference impact the frequency and perception of [10,33,42]. In general, studies find that people multicommunicating. One study of teams who are more polychronic also rate provides insight into these differences, that are multicommunicating and multitasking quite relevant for remote work. It found that behaviors more positively [10,33,42]. some teams experience heightened intensity Specifically, they rate them as less rude, more when they have additional communication communal, and they think of people engaged partners collaborating using a platform that in these behaviors as more competent [10]. makes conversations visible. Yet other groups

found their multicommunicating enabled People who multicommunicate can either be generative turn-taking where people took turns engaged in behaviors that are on-task or off- addressing one another’s questions based on task. The existing literature that has their availability or expertise [1]. Essentially, experimentally compared these behaviors has responsibility was distributed, thus facilitating mixed findings. In studies of intact teams, more responsive communication and more multicommunicating with on-task behaviors is efficient work. seen as relevant, and is therefore less rude, with the communicators viewed as more competent and more friendly [10]. However, 6. Outcomes of Multicommunicating another study whose teams were not intact As multicommunicating is widely practiced, it failed to replicate these findings [20]. is not without its benefits and drawbacks. Earlier, we presented evidence that several outcomes of multicommunicating—including

Stephens et al., Presented at the New Future of Work Virtual Symposium, Aug. 3-5, 2020 p. 5 efficiency, productivity, and decision- recommendations for people to work remotely, making—can be either positive or negative. there is a growing need for research to better Additionally, negative judgement outcomes understand multicommunicating in this new can result when people interact with context. technology in ways that violate multicommunicating or cultural norms. To establish some directions for this line of research, we have grouped these opportunities Perceived incivility is the most studied into four categories: exploring experience, the outcome of multicommunicating. This perceptions vs. performance outcomes, practice can pull people away from their policies around multicommunicating, and the conversations with others, which can lead to future of work. people interpreting their behavior as rude or unproductive. Perceptions of incivility depend 7.1. Exploring Experience on who initiated the conversation, whether the Now is an ideal time to explore how people conversations being juggled produce useful learn to be more competent with their outcomes, if individual performance suffers multicommunicating because there are many while multicommunicating, whether people who are learning new online platforms multicommunicating increases someone’s and experimenting with new practices. accessibility, and the degree of transparency Especially relevant to this line of research is a and awareness exhibited while better understanding of how multicommunicating [8]. For example, if multicommunicating might play a role in the people are hiding the fact they are fatigue people feel after attending multiple multicommunicating and the other person is online video meetings. Past certain of this, it is viewed more negatively. multicommunicating research would suggest this is an intense environment [23], and recent The two most significant predictors of publications have made solid arguments for incivility are the focal individual’s why fatigue may occur [13], but as of yet, there performance and accessibility. Additionally, if is no empirical evidence to support these people perceive multicommunicating to claims. Another meaningful area to research is interfere with the quality of their interactions to extend the line of work on functional with a person, it can be viewed negatively. In attention on video and explore these teams, perceptions of incivility related to differences between experienced and new multicommunicating can cause conflict within remote workers [16]. As the current pandemic teams. For instance, if multicommunicating is forcing organizations to overwhelmingly during an online meeting leads to rely on videoconferencing, these are important inattentiveness or errors, other meeting lines of research that can also help people new attendees may scorn the multicommunicating to remote work become more productive and individual [37,40]. healthy.

7. Current Implications 7.2. Perceptions vs. Performance Outcomes While researchers have made some strides in There is also evidence that asking participants understanding the nuances of to report their feelings toward a person who is multicommunicating, there are many multicommunicating, or their perceptions of opportunities for future research. With the rudeness, may not truly capture their actual current pandemic generating views of these behaviors [10]. One example of this is found in Stephens’ account, mentioned

Stephens et al., Presented at the New Future of Work Virtual Symposium, Aug. 3-5, 2020 p. 6 earlier in this paper, of a vice president who home than at a physical work place. judged his employees harshly for Specifically, these technology advancements multicommunicating, but never actually could increase the number of conversational verbalized his disdain [32]. With the growing partners people have—e.g., chatbots, and prevalence of online meetings, it will be possibly elicit confusion around humans, important to learn if teams are discussing robots, and AI at work. norms, and if those shape online multicommunicating behaviors. Thus far, there have been no studies, to our knowledge, that have explored these human- 7.3. Policies around Multicommunicating technology communication relationships and For the past 15 years, companies have how multicommunicating is facilitated, or struggled to restrict what they see as disruptive possibly even practiced, in a new environment. multicommunicating and multitasking More research is needed to understand how behaviors. Some companies who have viewed employees engage in multicommunicating multicommunicating as disruptive behavior behaviors while interacting with AI and other have banned laptops and mobile phones during human coworkers. in-person meetings [8]. But to our knowledge, no studies have explored policies established 8. Conclusion around staying focused during online meetings In this work, we focused on the concept of and activities. The working arrangements multicommunicating because it is highly during COVID-19 could provide an ideal relevant during COVID-19 as more employees testbed for these policies, especially with many work remotely. While the construct, and its employees being new to remote work. While precursors, have been around for twenty years, formal policies may be overkill for some the literature is still relatively young and organizations, others may have meeting- fragmented, and lacks a focus around online specific rules or have teams openly discuss activities. Here we have built on the existing how they want to handle multicommunicating work to identify four key areas for future and multitasking. research. Whether studying how people new to remote work learn the norms around 7.4. Future of Work multicommunicating, addressing the gap in A final implication that could result from how to assess performance outcomes, focusing on multicommunicating during exploring how policies can achieve desired online activities is that these studies could behaviors, or studying multicommunicating inform the future of work. Necessitated in part with chatbots, the future is bright. So, join an by pandemic-related physical distancing, the online meeting, try to hide that you are landscape of jobs and work is changing at checking your email, and respond to your unprecedented speed. This is enabled by child’s text. Then think about the advances in communication technologies, and opportunities we have to study these behaviors new conceptions of work and workplaces— and contribute to the future of work. e.g., the rapid expansion of the number of people working from home [29]. Emerging 9. Acknowledgements technologies such as artificial intelligence The authors received no funding to support this (AI), robotic teammates, and the Internet of work. Things (IOT) might deepen the complexity of multicommunicating behaviors, and could function to help people be more engaged at

Stephens et al., Presented at the New Future of Work Virtual Symposium, Aug. 3-5, 2020 p. 7 10. References [9] Katherine M. Chudoba, Mary Beth Watson- [1] Abram Anders. 2016. Team communication Manheim, Chei Sian Lee and Kevin Crowston. platforms and emergent social collaboration 2005, August. Meet me in cyberspace: Meetings practices. International Journal of Business in the distributed work environment. Paper Communication, 53(2). 224–261. presented at the Academy of Management https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415627273 Conference, Honolulu, HI. https://crowston.syr.edu/sites/crowston.syr.edu/f [2] Robert Bajko. 2012. Mobile Telephone iles/academy2005calendar.pdf Usage, Attitude, and Behavior During Group Meetings. Journal of Information Systems [10] Rushika De Bruin, and Larissa K. Barber. Applied Research, 5(2), 4–13. 2019. Social Judgments of Electronic http://jisar.org/2012-5/N2/JISARv5n2p4.html Multitasking in the Workplace: The Role of Contextual and Individual Factors. Computers in [3] Naomi S. Baron. 2010. Always on: Language Human Behavior, 94, 110-121. in an Online and Mobile World. Oxford: Oxford https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.01.014 University Press. [11] Alan R. Dennis, Julie A. Rennecker, and [4] France Bélanger, and Mary Beth Watson- Sean Hansen. 2010. Invisible Whispering: Manheim. 2006. Virtual Teams and Multiple Restructuring Collaborative Decision Making Media: Structuring Media Use to Attain Strategic with Instant Messaging. Decision Sciences, Goals. Group Decision and Negotiation, 15, 299– 41(4), 845-886. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-006-9044-8 5915.2010.00290.x

[5] Allen C. Bluedorn. 2002. The Human [12] Martha J. Fay. 2017. Telework. In C. R. Organization of Time: Temporal Realities and Scott, J. R. Barker, T. Kuhn, J. Keyton, P. K. Experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Turner & L. K. Lewis (Eds.), The International Press. Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication. Wiley. [6] Ann-Frances Cameron and Jane Webster. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118955567.wbieoc2 2011. Relational Outcomes of 05 Multicommunicating: Integrating Incivility and Social Exchange Perspectives. Organization [13] Liz Fosslien and Mollie W. Duffy.2020, Science, 22(3), 754-771. April 29. How to Combat Zoom Fatigue. Harvard https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0540 Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/04/how- to-combat-zoom-fatigue [7] Ann-Frances Cameron and Jane Webster. 2013. Multicommunicating: Juggling Multiple [14] Lisa Kleinman. 2009. Perceived Conversations in the Workplace. Information Productivity and the Social Rules for Laptop Use Systems Research, 24(2), 352–371. in Work Meetings. In CHI ’09 Extended https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1120.0446 Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’09). ACM. 3895–3900. [8] Katherine M. Chudoba, Mary Beth Watson- https://doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520590 Manheim, Kevin Crowston, and Chei Sian Lee. 2011. Participation in ICT-Enabled Meetings. [15] Todd Kulesza, Simone Stumpf, Margaret Journal of Organizational and End User Burnett, and Irwin Kwan. 2012. Tell Me More? Computing, 23(2), 15–36. The Effects of Mental Model Soundness on https://doi.org/10.4018/joeuc.2011040102 Personalizing an Intelligent Agent. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on

Stephens et al., Presented at the New Future of Work Virtual Symposium, Aug. 3-5, 2020 p. 8 Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12), 141-171. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207678 https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651918816356

[16] Anastasia Kuzminykh and Sean Rintel. [23] N. Larmar Reinsch, Jr., Jeanine Warisse 2020. Classification of Functional Attention in Turner, and Catherine H. Tinsley. 2008. Video Meetings. In CHI’20. ACM. Multicommunicating: A Practice Whose Time https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376546 Has Come? Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 391–403. [17] Anastasia Kuzminykh and Sean Rintel. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193450 2020. Low Engagement as a Deliberate Practice of Remote Participants in Video Meetings. In [24] Julie A. Rennecker, Alan R. Dennis, and Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference Sean Hansen. 2010. “Invisible Whispering”: on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI Restructuring Meeting Processes with Instant EA ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, Messaging. In D. M. Kilgour & C. Eden (Eds.), New York, NY, USA, 1–9. Handbook of group decision and negotiation (pp. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3383080 25–45). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

[18] Gloria Mark, Shamsi Iqbal, Mary [25] Scott G. Rogelberg, Cliff Scott, and John Czerwinski, and Paul Johns. 2015. Focused, Kello. 2007. The Science and Fiction of Arroused, but so Distractible: A Temporal Meetings. MIT Sloan Management Review, Perspective on Multitasking and Communication. 48(2), 18-21. CSCW ’15. Vancouver, BC, Canada. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-science- https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675221 and-fiction-of-meetings/

[19] Stephen Monsell. 2003. Task Switching. [26] Robert D. Rogers and Stephen Monsell. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134-140. 1995. Costs of a Predictable Switch Between https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7 Simple Cognitive Tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207-231. [20] Cameron W. Piercy and Greta R. Underhill. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207 2020. Expectations of Technology Use During Meetings: An Experimental Test of Manager [27] Helen B. Schwartzman. 1989. The Meeting: Policy, Device Use, and Task- Gatherings in Organizations and Communities. Acknowledgement. Mobile Media and New York, NY: Plenum Press. Communication, Article in Advance. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157920927049 [28] A. Fleming Seay, Willam J. Jerome, Kevin Sang Lee, and Robert E. Kraut. 2004). Project [21] N. Lamar Reinsch Jr., and Jeanine Warisse Massive: A Study of Online Gaming Turner. 2006. Ari, R U There? Reorienting Communities. CHI EA 2004 Human Factors in Business Communication for a Technological Computing Systems, 1421-1424. Era. Journal of Business and Technical https://doi.org/10.1145/985921.986080 Communication, 20(3), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651906287257 [29] Christopher B. Stone and Anthony R. Neely, A. R., Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2018). Human [22] N. Larmar Reinsch, Jr., and Jeanine Warisse Resource Management in the Digital Age: Big Turner. 2019. Multicommunicator Aspirational Data, HR Analytics and Artificial Intelligence. In Stress: Suggestions for Teaching and Research P. N. Melo & C. Machado (Eds.), Management and Other Insights After 10 Years of and technological challenges in the digital age Multicommunication Research. Journal of (pp. 13-42). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Taylor Business and Technical Communication, 33(2), & Francis.

Stephens et al., Presented at the New Future of Work Virtual Symposium, Aug. 3-5, 2020 p. 9 [30] Keri K. Stephens. 2007. The Successive Use Multicommunication Episodes: Engaging in of Information and Communication Technologies Dialogue or Juggling Messages? Information at Work. Communication Theory, 17(4), 486- System Frontiers, 12, 277-285. 507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9175-y 2885.2007.00308.x [38] Jeanine Warisse Turner and N. Lamar [31] Keri K. Stephens. 2012. Multiple Reinsch. 2011. Multicommunicating and Conversations During Organizational Meetings: Episodic Presence: Creating New Constructs for Development of the Multicommunicating Scale. Studying New Phenomenon. In K. Wright and L. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(2), Webb (Eds.) Computer-Mediated 195–223. Communication in Personal Relationships. New https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318911431802 York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing.

[32] Keri K. Stephens. 2018. Negotiating control: [39] Melvin C. Washington, Ephraim A. Okoro, Organizations & mobile communication. New and Peter W. Cardon. 2014. Perceptions of York, NY: Oxford University Press. Civility for Mobile Phone Use in Formal and Informal Meetings. Business and Professional [33] Keri K. Stephens, Jahee Cho, and Dawna I. Communication Quarterly, 77(1), 52-64. Ballard. 2012. Simultaneity, Sequentiality, and https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569913501862 Speed: Organizational Messages about Multiple- Task Completion. Human Communication [40] Cristina Wasson. 2004. Multitasking during Research, 38(1), 23-47. virtual meetings. Human Resource Planning, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 27(4), 47–60. 2958.2011.01420.x [41] Nicole Yankelovich, Jen McGinn, Mike [34] Keri K. Stephens and Jennifer D. Davis. Wessler, Jonathan Kaplan, Joe Provino, and 2009. The Social Influences on Electronic Harold Fox. 2005. Private Communications in Multitasking in Organizational Meetings. Public Meetings. In CHI ’05 Extended Abstracts Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 63-83. EA ’05). Association for Computing Machinery, https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909335417 New York, NY, USA, 1873–1876. https://doi.org/10.1145/1056808.1057044 [35] Keri K. Stephens, Jan Oddvar Sørnes, Ronald E. Rice, Larry D. Browning, and Alf [42] Yaguang Zhu and Smith, S. (2019). Steinar Sætre. 2008. Discrete, Sequential, and Information and communication technology Follow-up Use of Information and (ICT)-enabled contextualization, polychronic Communication Technology by Experienced ICT values, and job satisfaction: Evidence from Users. Management Communication virtual teams. International Journal of Business Quarterly, 22(2), 197-231. Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318908323149 https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419832075

[36] Jeanine Warisse Turner and Sonja K. Foss. 2018. Options for the Construction of Attentional Social Presence in a Digitally Enhanced Multicommunicative Environment. Communication Theory, 28(1), 22–45. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qty002

[37] Jeanine Warisse Turner and N. Lamar Reinsch. 2010. Successful and Unsuccessful

Stephens et al., Presented at the New Future of Work Virtual Symposium, Aug. 3-5, 2020 p. 10