IBM CEO Arvind Krishna Disagrees With Jamie Dimon on Texting in Meetings: Why Their Workplace Views Differ
The debate over smartphones and laptops in workplace meetings has reached the corner offices of two major global companies. IBM CEO Arvind Krishna has pushed back against JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon’s strict opposition to employees checking messages, emails or notifications during meetings.
Krishna’s position is more nuanced than simply allowing employees to scroll through their phones. His argument is that meeting size and purpose matter. In a large gathering, he sees technology as a practical communication tool. In a small meeting, however, he expects people to be fully engaged.
The disagreement highlights a larger question facing companies as artificial intelligence, smartphones and digital tools become deeply embedded in everyday work: Should workplace technology be restricted during meetings, or should companies redesign meetings to reflect how people actually work?
For businesses and investors, the debate is also part of a broader shift in corporate productivity, workplace culture and the growing role of technology in decision-making.
IBM CEO Arvind Krishna Draws a Line Between Small and Large Meetings
Krishna has argued that telling employees at a technology company not to use their devices would be “weird,” particularly in large meetings.
However, he does not support unlimited multitasking in every situation. Speaking to CNN in October 2025, Krishna distinguished between meetings involving roughly one to 10 people and much larger gatherings. In his view, a very large session is often less of a traditional meeting and more of a communication exercise where information is being shared with a broad audience.
His approach changes when the group is small.
Krishna has said that if someone sitting across from him in a small meeting is absorbed in their phone, he would question whether that person is actually available to participate. The distinction is important: IBM's CEO is not defending distraction; he is arguing against a blanket rule for every type of meeting.
That reflects a practical challenge in modern workplaces. A device can be a source of distraction, but it can also be used for notes, data, documents, collaboration or other work-related tasks.
Jamie Dimon's Approach Is Much More Strict
Jamie Dimon has taken a considerably tougher position on meeting etiquette.
The JPMorgan Chase CEO has repeatedly criticised employees who read emails, check notifications or send personal messages while attending meetings. In his 2025 shareholder letter, Dimon wrote that this behaviour should stop, describing distracted participation as disrespectful and a waste of time.
He later reinforced the point at Fortune's Most Powerful Women Summit, saying that when he attends a meeting, he gives it his full attention. If someone appears to be using an iPad for emails or notifications instead of participating, Dimon has said he tells them to put it away.
Dimon's criticism of meetings goes beyond mobile phones.
He has long argued that companies should reduce unnecessary meetings and ensure that those which do take place have a clear purpose. More recently, he emphasised that productive meetings should end with specific responsibilities and action items rather than vague promises to continue the discussion later.
The Real Difference Is Not Technology—It Is the Definition of a Meeting
The contrast between Krishna and Dimon may appear to be a simple disagreement over phones. In reality, both leaders are focused on productivity, but they approach the problem differently.
Dimon's philosophy is based on undivided attention. If employees are attending a meeting, they should be mentally present and ready to contribute.
Krishna's approach is based more on context. A small decision-making meeting requires active engagement, while a large gathering may function more like a presentation or company-wide information session.
Both approaches raise an uncomfortable question for companies: if employees routinely feel the need to multitask during a meeting, is the problem always employee behaviour—or is the meeting itself poorly designed?
That question matters because technology has made multitasking easier than ever. Employees can answer messages, read documents, take notes, use AI tools and communicate with colleagues without leaving the room.
At the same time, easy access to technology can reduce concentration and weaken participation.
AI Is Making the Workplace Debate Even More Complicated
The spread of AI could make this issue even more relevant.
Meeting transcription, automated summaries and AI assistants can reduce the need for employees to manually record every detail. But they also create a new temptation: if an AI tool will summarise the meeting later, some participants may feel less pressure to remain fully engaged.
That could improve efficiency in some situations while reducing the quality of live discussion in others.
IBM itself has been highlighting the growing challenge of managing technology and AI systems inside large organisations. A June 2026 IBM study found that many technology leaders were dealing with limited visibility and control as AI deployment accelerated across businesses.
The broader lesson is that simply giving employees more technology does not automatically improve productivity. Companies also need rules, governance and clear expectations about when technology should support work and when it becomes a distraction.
What This Means for Corporate Productivity
For businesses, the Krishna-Dimon debate points to a more practical solution than either extreme.
A company does not necessarily need to ban phones and laptops from every meeting. But it may need to classify meetings more clearly.
For example:
Small decision-making meetings: Full attention may be essential because participants are expected to discuss, challenge ideas and make decisions.
Client or strategy meetings: Device use may be appropriate when participants need access to live data, presentations or documents.
Large town halls: Employees may reasonably use technology while listening because the event may primarily be designed to distribute information.
Training sessions: The right approach may depend on whether participants need to interact or simply absorb information.
This kind of distinction could help companies reduce conflict over technology without treating every device as a productivity threat.
Why Investors Should Pay Attention to Workplace Productivity
At first glance, texting in meetings may not appear relevant to investors. But the broader issue is corporate efficiency.
Large companies are spending heavily on artificial intelligence, software, automation and digital infrastructure. The eventual return on those investments will depend partly on whether employees actually use technology to improve productivity.
IBM's research has highlighted a widening gap between the rapid deployment of AI and companies' ability to maintain visibility and control over those systems.
For investors, this reinforces an important point: technology spending alone is not enough. A company can invest billions in AI and digital systems, but the financial benefit depends on implementation, employee adoption, governance and measurable productivity improvements.
This is particularly relevant for technology companies, banks and other large employers that are trying to use AI to reduce costs and improve decision-making.
The Risk of Taking Either Approach Too Far
A complete ban on devices could create unnecessary friction in workplaces where employees genuinely need access to digital tools.
On the other hand, allowing unrestricted device use could turn meetings into situations where people are physically present but mentally working elsewhere.
The challenge for managers is therefore to establish a purpose before the meeting begins.
If a meeting requires attention and participation, employees should know that clearly. If it is primarily an information session, companies may not need to police every screen in the room.
The future of workplace productivity may therefore involve fewer blanket rules and more intentional meeting design.
What Companies Will Be Watching Next
The debate is likely to continue as AI becomes a more common part of daily office work.
Companies will need to decide:
When AI-generated meeting summaries can replace attendance
Whether employees should use personal devices during meetings
How to measure genuine productivity rather than screen time
How to prevent technology from becoming a source of distraction
Which meetings should be eliminated altogether
How managers should balance flexibility with accountability
The answers may differ significantly between industries and company cultures.
A technology company such as IBM may naturally have a different attitude towards digital tools than a global bank with its own regulatory, security and workplace requirements.
Conclusion
IBM CEO Arvind Krishna and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon represent two different approaches to the same workplace problem: how to maintain productivity when employees always have powerful technology within reach.
Dimon wants full attention and has little patience for employees checking messages or emails during meetings. Krishna argues that banning technology across the board makes little sense, particularly in large meetings, while still expecting participants in smaller discussions to remain fully engaged.
The bigger takeaway is that the future workplace may not need a universal rule on phones. Instead, companies may need better meetings, clearer expectations and smarter use of technology.
Follow our blog for more updates on global business, technology, AI, corporate leadership and the trends shaping the future of work.
Comments
Post a Comment