“The supervisor-employee relationship is really like a marriage — they have to work together and they have a common goal in mind,” said Roberts. “If [phubbing] is bad in a romantic relationship, I can’t believe it can have anything but negative consequences in the workplace.”
“Our results reveal that cell phone use by supervisors while in the presence of their employees negatively affects employee engagement,” they wrote.
Their research, made up of three studies, drew on survey responses from 413 supervisors and employees. The participants were asked to respond to statements that measured degrees of boss phubbing, such as “My boss places his or her cell phone where I can see it when we are together,” “When my boss’ cell phone rings or beeps, he/she pulls it out even if we are in the middle of a conversation,”and “I can rely on my supervisor to keep the promises he/she makes.”
The researchers found that boss phubbing negatively impacts employees’ trust in their supervisor, which in turn negatively affects the employee’s feeling that their work is meaningful, that they have the necessary resources to do their job, and that they are in a safe working environment. All this in turn leads to decreased employee engagement and productivity.
Employees who experience boss phubbing, they wrote, “are less likely to feel that their work is valuable or conducive to their own professional growth.” In addition, “employees who work under the supervision of an untrusted, phubbing supervisor tend to have lower confidence in their own ability to carry out their job, which negatively impacts engagement.”
The distracted supervisor is not a new development, of course. Even without a cell phone, bosses can snub their employees by not giving them their full attention, whether that’s twirling a pen or leafing through other documents. But cell phones, because they are so ubiquitous, exacerbate the snubbing dynamic, said Roberts.
“It is different, but it is also intensifying,” he said of cell phones. “By being so salient, it grabs our attention. It’s almost automatic attention.”
But could boss phubbing be a calculated power move on the supervisor’s part, a signal to the employee that he or she is indispensably important? While that tactic may have worked in the past, Roberts said, it is unlikely that it will be effective today.
“Particularly for young workers, millennials, that’s just not going to cut it,” he said, explaining how cell phones are so ubiquitous now that they do not necessarily convey the same prestige or authority that they may have before.
For both bosses and employees, this study has important implications for workplace culture, said Roberts.
“Phubbing is harmful behavior, and regardless of whether the phubbing occurs when eating with others or in a meeting with others, it undermines any corporate culture based on respect for others,” the researchers wrote. “…Thus, it is crucial that corporations strive to create a corporate culture embodied by care for one another.”
Specifically, Roberts recommended that bosses and employees be trained in sensitivity, so that everyone recognizes the negative impact of phubbing on workplace relationships. He also suggested that supervisors be evaluated not just on quantitative measures like sales numbers, but also whether employees trust or respect them. And if all else fails, companies should consider setting formal “smartphone policies” on when and where phones can be used in the workplace.