According to Fortune, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has been blunt about his disdain for device use during meetings, telling attendees to “close the damn thing” if they appear distracted by emails or notifications. At Fortune’s Most Powerful Women summit last month, Dimon called the behavior disrespectful and wasteful, echoing concerns he raised in his annual shareholder letter where he mentioned meetings six times. Meanwhile, IBM CEO Arvind Krishna argues it would be “weird” for a tech company to ban technology use, though he distinguishes between large meetings where devices can be useful tools and smaller gatherings where full attention is expected. The clash comes as JPMorgan has implemented one of Wall Street’s most aggressive return-to-office mandates, requiring most employees to work from the office five days a week in their new $3 billion Manhattan headquarters.
Sponsored content — provided for informational and promotional purposes.
Context matters
Here’s the thing – both CEOs actually have a point, depending on the situation. Krishna’s distinction between meeting sizes makes practical sense. In a large meeting with dozens of people, you’re basically just receiving information. It’s like a presentation. But in a small meeting around someone’s desk? Yeah, that‘s different. You’re there to collaborate and problem-solve together.
Dimon’s frustration is understandable too. He described a situation where there were “12 people in the room and four people on the screen and all four people on the screen were on their phone.” That’s just rude. And honestly, it’s probably not even effective multitasking – you’re not really absorbing what’s being discussed while scrolling through emails.
The real issue
This debate isn’t really about technology – it’s about respect and effectiveness. Gary Rich, founder of Rich Leadership, nailed it when he told Fortune that multitasking creates a “ripple effect” where speakers feel disrespected and other attendees lose motivation. When you’re checking your phone during a meeting, you’re basically telling everyone else that whatever’s on your screen is more important than they are.
But here’s where it gets complicated. With AI assistants that can generate meeting summaries and handle follow-ups, the argument for needing to pay 100% attention in every meeting starts to weaken. If the tech can capture everything important, why not use it? The answer probably lies somewhere in the middle – using technology to enhance meetings rather than replace engagement.
Culture clash
What’s really interesting is how this reflects each company’s culture. JPMorgan is pushing hard on in-office work and traditional corporate norms. They just opened that $3 billion headquarters and want to see a return on that massive real estate investment. IBM, as a tech company, naturally leans into technology solutions. They can’t very well tell employees not to use the tools they’re building and selling.
So who’s right? Probably both, depending on the context. The real solution might be clearer meeting norms – establishing upfront whether a meeting requires active participation or if it’s okay to multitask. Because let’s be honest – we’ve all been in meetings where we probably could have just read the summary later.
