See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340117834

Smartphone

Chapter · January 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 3,073

1 author:

Jennifer Whyte
The University of Sydney
130 PUBLICATIONS   3,862 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Centre for Systems Engineering and Innovation View project

Design for Retrofit View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jennifer Whyte on 24 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Smartphone

Jennifer Whyte

Author copy, please cite the published version:

Whyte, J. (2019) Chapter 38: Smartphone, The Oxford Handbook of Media, Technology and
Organization Studies, eds. Beyes, T., Holt, R., and Pias, C., Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

The smartphone as organizational force

A smartphone is a “mobile phone that performs many of the functions of a

computer, typically having a touchscreen interface, Internet access, and an
operating system capable of running downloaded apps” (Oxford Living
Dictionaries 2017). It is a personal device owned by one user. Such
devices have become widely used: while there are many different
brands and generations of smartphones, a familiar image of one is
shown in Figure 1. It is a multipurpose physical device of internal
complexity with processors, sensors, GPS, camera, microphone,
speaker and display (Brynjolfsson and McAfee 2014). Users treat it as
solid (with no internal circuitry or components), or as a display Figure 1: A smartphone ‘selfie’
(Image taken by author)
window through which to access other worlds. In choosing a device,
many seek something small enough to fit in a hand or pocket, but yet also large enough to provide a
screen that is legible and comfortable to use. In their various offerings to the market, technology
providers explore the limits of the device dimensions and functionality while also aiming to make it
thinner.

The development and rapid diffusion of smartphones followed organizational uses of personal digital
assistants (PDAs), which became used by business professionals in the late 1990s (Palm PDA was
introduced in 1996, and Blackberry in 1999), and the increasingly pervasive use of mobile phones in
both business and personal lives for voice calls and for text messaging. Early smartphones became
available in the late 2000s, with the first generation of iPhone released in 2007, and android devices
reaching the market in 2008-9. The transformative effect was realised, in part, through the iPhone
App Store, opened in July 2008, and Android Market following a few months later.

1
As an object, the smartphone has substantial organizational force. Through it, people distribute their
organizing activity across locations, juggled between other home and office activities – such as the
shopping trip, commute, business meeting and socializing – with partial attention. It alters the bodily
work involved in organizing. Rather than the use of fingertips on a keyboard, use of the smartphone
emphasises the thumb (where the fingers are used, as in Figure 1, to cradle the device). The artifact
itself dissolves from view (Middleton, Scheepers et al. 2014) as focus is given to the services and
remote virtual interactions that it enables. The locus of organizing becomes distributed. The data
involved also becomes held in different locations, remote from the activities, and potentially in
servers in other jurisdictions across the globe. The temporal pace of work changes, with new forms
of organizing in the moment rather than pre-planned activity; and new forms of asynchronous as well
as synchronous interaction through social media as well as person to person communication.

The smartphone’s organizational effects

There are hence a number of organizational effects. One is to blur the boundary between work
activities and home activities (Derks and Bakker 2014, Derks, ten Brummelhuis et al. 2014, Derks,
van Mierlo et al. 2014, Derks, Duin et al. 2015, Derks, Bakker et al. 2016). The smartphone has taken
‘the office’ into the commuter train and into the home, even, as previous authors note, as far as the
toilet (Cecchinato, Cox et al. 2014) and bedroom (Perlow 2012, Lanaj, Johnson et al. 2014). Because
of its multifunctional nature, using the smartphone may transform the home, replacing the music
collection, book collection, city map and tourist guides, phonebook, photo albums, video, camera,
wallet, cookery books and radio and consigning physical analogues to the attic, basement, cupboard
or recycling bin. It also takes ‘the home’ into ‘the office’, as both managers and employees use their
phones to organize the evening meal, shop, check on their children, change the home heating, pay
bills, buy tickets and communicate with or update friends. It increases the potential for real-time
communication with peers, within and outside working hours, and changes the language, introducing
neologisms, e.g. ‘selfie’ and ‘app’, and adding new graphical symbols to alphabets, e.g. ‘’ to the
correspondence involved in both business and leisure. While early phone users might have a
corporate phone, or juggle two – one for work and one for home – the single privately paid-for
smartphone symbolises increasing norms of integration between home and work.

Another organizational effect is to involve different constituent actors and forms of power that
bypass traditional organizational gatekeepers. The smartphone hence changes which activities
become visible or hidden in organizational settings. Isolated experiences in one organization may
becoming contextualised and connected by the smartphone user, for example through the #metoo
movement that called out sexual harassment, and led to a reconsideration of the acceptance of
behaviours that had become institutionalized and unseen in organizational practices across industries.
What might seem like a private and personal interaction can have substantive organizational effects,
2
coordinating social movements and formal organisations, and enabling the subversion or
consolidation of power. While there may be organizational guidelines for smartphone use, as a
personal device that is often paid for privately it is not fully under the control of the formal work
organization. President Trump’s late night tweets, for example, are an expression of the potentially
far-reaching effects. Such smartphone-enabled communication may operate outside of formal
organizational structures and outside of the organizational checks, balances and controls used by
external communications teams.

As an interface to a technological ecosystems, the smartphone changes accepted norms of practice

across devices, with the organizational effect of raising new ways to access services and new forms of
exclusion. People in organizations now access the internet, social media and an ecosystem of apps
through a range of computing devices (including tablets, watches and wearables). Neff and Nafus
(2016) note that “Most connectable wearable devices come with the presumption that their owners will
already have both a smartphone and a computer but this is not always the case for the elderly, poor and
sick” (Neff and Nafus 2016: 127).

Hence the smartphone is a small device that impacts large scale organizing. As businesses and
customers are increasingly connecting through the smartphone, the coordination mechanisms of
bureaucracy, market and trust (Alvesson and Thompson 2006) are altered. In the ‘gig’ economy, a
computing device that is near-to-hand becomes essential, and it is the smartphone that becomes the
taskmaster. Examples are the work of Airbnb apartment owners, where customer response times
matter and owners are rated online; and the work of Uber drivers, where the smartphone is used in
monitoring their availability and location, making it available to potential customers, and is also as the
‘satnav’ showing the route to their destination. The smartphone is a convenient interface in the new
forms of work, across the formal and informal economy, including the new forms of work variously
described as ‘microwork’, ‘crowdsourcing’ or ‘the sharing economy.’ Yet, while organizational
activities are changed by smartphone use, this use and the technologies that support it are less
regulated than traditional mechanisms, with for example the terms and conditions on smartphone
apps usually unread by individual users, and, in the work environment, also by the legal
representatives of their organizations.

A technology of power, protest and surveillance

The smartphone is relevant to organizational scholars as it becomes a site of interaction between the
individual and organizing. Use of the smartphone becomes integral to the lives of organizational
members, raising questions of power. It can be seen as a locus for self-expression and self-broadcast,
thus invoked in the creation of social movements:

3
 “The omnipresence of smartphones and social media such as YouTube, Twitter and
Facebook (with WhatsApp) allow to post telling images, videos, emails or documents in real
time; finding a broad audience, quickly, in conjunction with the use of classic mass media; and
triggering spontaneous forms of protest without any major organizational effort.” (Dolata
2017: 13, Dolata and Schrape 2018: 40)

Scholars have examined how smartphones have been used in street protest (Neumayer and Stald
2014) and in the ‘Arab Spring’ (Steinert-Threlkeld 2017). Yet Han (2017) argue that such limitless
freedom and communication is an illusion, and that such technologies are primarily used for
monitoring and surveillance, turning the citizen into an onlooker, spectator and consumer of events
(see Figures 2-3, for the social use of smartphones as spectators). Through surveillance, the citizen’s
use of the smartphone can reinforce and amplify existing power structures, as patterns of use give
information to those in power to intervene and influence the smartphone at a ‘pre-reflexive level’.
Han (2017) argues that transparency as a ‘dispositive’ requires both conformity and ‘exteriorization’:

“Every dispositive – every technology or technique of domination – brings forth

characteristic devotional objects that are employed in order to subjugate. Such objects
materialize and stabilize dominion. Devotion and related words mean ‘submission’ and
‘obedience’. Smartphones represent digital devotion – indeed, they are the devotional objects
of the Digital, period.” (Han 2017)

Thus for Han, the smartphone as a material artefact becomes understood as a devotional object,
used to subjugate its user. It is compared to the rosary, a near-to-hand artefact that is used for self-
monitoring and surveillance. Han argues that the effects of the smartphone are ones of submission
and obedience in neoliberalist societies.

“Confession obtained by force has been replaced by voluntary disclosure. Smartphones have
been substituted for torture chambers. Big Brother now wears a friendly face. His
friendliness is what makes surveillance so effective.” (Han 2017)

While in totalitarian regimes, the use of such technologies for control may be explicit, here it
delegated to the user through self-surveillance. Neff and Nafus (2016) observe extensive self-tracking
(see, for example, Figure 4). Actuators in the smartphone enable a user to monitor their steps,
activity levels, sleep and orientation and Neff and Nafus (2016) argue that the associated data is
fundamentally social, with the potential for social and organization effects. The smartphone becomes
a pivotal device in organizing the self in late capitalism, with far-reaching effects for self-monitoring
and surveillance, both legally and illegally, by corporate organizations and states. Through people’s
interactions with the phone, social and cultural norms are also internalized, with, for example, beauty
apps lead to a “forensic scrutiny” of the female body through smartphones (Elias and Gill 2017).

4
Figure 2: Smartphones being used to photograph the ‘Trump Baby’ in London Protest (Image taken
by author)

Figure 3: Smartphones used to show devotion at an event (Photo “Rumšiškės Culture Center,
Rumšiškės, Lithuania” by Kipras Štreimikis on Unsplash)

5
Figure 4: Runner with smartphone used as a tracking device (Photo – unnamed, Toronto, Canada –
by Filip Mroz on Unsplash)

The smartphone’s agency in terms of power and surveillance has had an influence on scholarly work
on organization studies, though it has been relatively under researched within this field. Smartphone
users in an engineering firm studied by Symon and Pritchard (2015) were found to use their phones
to perform identities, such as being “contactable and responsive”, “involved and committed”, and “in-
demand and authoritative.” Their research also examined the role of the smartphone camera in the
organizational work, articulating how the smartphone does not simply enhance a sense of proximity
as the new evidence that could be collected from the field and shared back to office locations, as it
provides only partial representations, where for example visual and verbal evidence may disagree
(Pritchard and Symon 2014). As the use of the smartphone extends and amplifies social and
organizational impacts observed with earlier devices, this earlier work is a useful theoretical starting
point (e.g. Jarvenpaa and Lang 2005), with its insights into how devices can make interactions visible
or invisible, for example, mediating in the lives of veiled women in Saudi Arabia (Lobo and Elaluf-
Calderwood 2012). Rather than arranging in advance the location or time of a meeting, smartphone
users may make arrangements or coordinate details on the day, a few hours or minutes in advance.
In work on smartphone use in consulting project work, Azad, Salamoun et al. (2016) argue that such
projects have a logic of “clockwork coordination”, with front-stage practices having an affinity with
synchronous use of the smartphone and back-stage practices having an affinity with asynchronous
uses. As we fit more into the day through multi-tasking with devices that do not require full

6
attention (and thus time is not consumed exclusively by a single activity), Mullan and Wajcman (2017)
suggest the smartphone may change our experience and perception of time itself.

Well-being and individual performance

A relatively mature part of the extant literature addresses the implications of smartphone use for the
individual smartphone user, and their interactions across work and home. Dery, Kolb et al. (2014)
argue that, for many smartphone users, it is no longer possible or desirable to disconnect from work
and advocate a reframing of work activities as part of a connective flow. Karlson, Meyers et al. (2009)
describe patterns of use in which the smartphone is checked on when waking up:

“Although we might expect the bleeding of work into personal time to cause stress, the continuous
access to work email instead seemed to provide peace of mind, (e.g., P21: “I'll wake up in the middle
of the night, check [work] email, if it's something I can answer right then, I'll go ahead and do it. It's
more convenient to go ahead and do it, and then I can forget about it”. (Karlson, Meyers et al.
2009: 404)

However, many authors raise concerns about the long-term implications of this connectivity on
physical and mental well-being of individuals. Lack of sleep has a significant detrimental effect on an
individual’s performance and health (Walker 2017). Lanaj, Johnson et al. (2014) find the impact on
sleep leads to diminished daily engagement in work in late-night smartphone users. Derks and Bakker
(2014) find greater evidence of burnout in intensive smartphone users that lack engagement in
recovery activities (that foster psychological detachment and relaxation), advocating organizational
policies on out-of-hours smartphone use. Perlow (2012) provides techniques for limiting use; while
Yun, Kettinger et al. (2012) also associate smartphone use with work overload and job stress.
Piszczek (2017) distinguishes between individuals that prefer role integration and hence experience
control of the boundary between their family and work through their use of a smartphone, and those
that prefer separation and hence experience loss of control, arguing that individuals in this latter
category can more easily experience emotional exhaustion in these conditions.

Organizational implications are also suggested by the growing psychology literature on problematic
smartphone use and addiction; and the relationship between smartphone use and cognition. In
general, problematic smartphone use is understood to both drive, and be driven by, mental disorders
(Elhai, Dvorak et al. 2017). Elhai, Levine et al. (2016) finding that “fear of missing out” to be strongly
correlated with intensive smartphone use (see Figure 5, for the commuters using smartphones).
There is a growing interest on the impact of smartphones on cognition, though here (as in the
above) results are also currently contradictory and inconclusive (Wilmer, Sherman et al. 2017).
Ward, Duke et al. (2017) finds a cognition capacity reduction in users when their smartphone is
present. Such work leads to new questions about how to ensure attention within organizations
across a range of forms of knowledge work. Personal uses of smartphones at work are positively

7
associated with end-of-workday affective well-being (Kim and Park 2017), but to avoid distractions
and ensure attention to the task-in-hand (and hygienic conditions), guidelines have been developed
for the use of smartphones in the organizational context of healthcare (Gill, Kamath et al. 2012). The
workplace becomes one of a number of loci for organizing that vies for the employee’s divided
attention.

Figure 5: Commuters using their smartphones (Photo – unnamed, Naha, Japan – by Jens Johnsson on
Unsplash)

The smartphone’s hidden practices of organizing

There are relevant insights for organization scholars in the reviewed body of work in this chapter,
which draws on organization studies and related fields of psychology, human factors, organizational
behavior, information systems; political science and sociology. However, there is substantial work for
organizational scholars to do to unpack the implications of the smartphone for organizations and
organizing, to address issues such as work-life balance, self-monitoring, and trust, bureaucracy and
markets, to contribute to wider debates on the digital workforce (Colbert, Yee et al. 2016); and the
relationships between organizations and media (Roulet and Clemente 2018) and to understand the
wide set of organizing activities that are enabled by the smartphone across the formal and informal
economy, including the new forms of work variously described as ‘microwork’, ‘crowdsourcing’ or
‘the sharing economy.’ This chapter concludes by considering some related organizing practices that

8
have become hidden and some methodological issues of organizational research where organizational
members use smartphones.

Although the smartphone is associated with transparency, many aspects of the artefact and its use
are hidden. We know little about the organizing practices through which raw materials become
smartphone artefacts. Organization scholars could examine a range of organizational settings related
to the production of the physical artefact of the smartphone, perhaps exposing the hidden forms of
organizing that popular media suggests may include of modern slavery, child labour, corruption and
war (Hindess 2018). They could examine the organizational settings involved in disposal of
smartphones and the network of related technologies on humans and other species, where the
popular media suggests these involve toxic working conditions (Holgate 2017). How do organizations
account for these and how are these deemed safe? These may seem remote from the smartphone in
the corporate office, or the pocket, but they are constitutive practices of organizing on which the
organizational force and effects of the smartphone are built. Likewise, we know little about the
organizing practices that underpin the distributed nature of the virtual interactions through the
smartphone, where these include the physical servers that support the digital information and the
activities of groups that may, unknown to the smartphone user, have access and use the data. The
smartphone raises new security concerns as it is not apparent to users how the connectivity they
value can also be used to monitor their location; potentially access their passwords, camera and
microphone; or access information related to their work. For example, what are the organizational
implications smartphones become a vehicle for ‘fake news’ undermining trust in institutions, where
new external groups are become more sophisticated at targeting users.

The physical nature of smartphone use, and the smartphone itself, has organizational consequences
which raise new methodological demands for research in organizations. It becomes harder to grasp,
through ethnographic and practice-based studies, where the action in organizations is taking place. It
may not be apparent what meeting participants are doing on a smartphone (which may or may not
be work related), and key decision makers may not be in the room. The distributed nature of work
requires distributed forms of ethnography (Marcus 1995). We might have to accept that the
researcher may not be at the location of decision-making and traces the actions out across time and
space (Whyte, Tryggestad et al. 2016). Erickson (2017) argues that “what counts for professional and
organizational praxis today cannot be understood without the collection and analysis of trace data.” Thus, to
understand organizing practices requires a more explicit consideration of the power and effects of
the smartphone and other digital devices and new questions arise about how organization and
management can be accomplished.

References

9
Alvesson, M. and P. Thompson (2006). Post-Bureaucracy? The Oxford Handbook of Work and
Organization. S. Ackroyd, R. Batt, P. Thompson and P. S. Tolbert.
Azad, B., R. Salamoun, A. Greenhill and T. Wood‐Harper (2016). "Performing projects with constant
connectivity: interplay of consulting project work practices and smartphone affordances." New
Technology, Work and Employment 31(1): 4-25.
Brynjolfsson, E. and A. McAfee (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a
time of brilliant technologies, WW Norton & Company.
Cecchinato, M., A. L. Cox and J. Bird (2014). " I check my emails on the toilet": Email Practices and
Work-Home Boundary Management, ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(CHI).
Colbert, A., N. Yee and G. George (2016). "The digital workforce and the workplace of the future."
Academy of Management Journal 59(3): 731-739.
Derks, D. and A. B. Bakker (2014). "Smartphone Use, Work-Home Interference, and Burnout: A
Diary Study on the Role of Recovery." Applied Psychology: An International Review 63(3): 411-440.
Derks, D., A. B. Bakker, P. Peters and P. van Wingerden (2016). "Work-related smartphone use,
work–family conflict and family role performance: The role of segmentation preference." Human
Relations 69(5): 1045-1068.
Derks, D., D. Duin, M. Tims and A. B. Bakker (2015). "Smartphone use and work-home interference:
The moderating role of social norms and employee work engagement." Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology 88(1): 155-177.
Derks, D., L. L. ten Brummelhuis, D. Zecic and A. B. Bakker (2014). "Switching on and off … : Does
smartphone use obstruct the possibility to engage in recovery activities?" European Journal of Work
& Organizational Psychology 23(1): 80-90.
Derks, D., H. van Mierlo and E. B. Schmitz (2014). "A Diary Study on Work-Related Smartphone
Use, Psychological Detachment and Exhaustion: Examining the Role of the Perceived Segmentation
Norm." Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 19(1): 74-84.
Dery, K., D. Kolb and J. MacCormick (2014). "Working with connective flow: how smartphone use is
evolving in practice." European Journal of Information Systems 23(5): 558-570.
Dolata, U. (2017). Social Movements and the Internet: The Sociotechnical Constitution of Collective
Action. Research Contributions to Organizational Sociology and Innovation Studies SOI Discussion
Paper 2017-02.
Dolata, U. and J.-F. Schrape (2018). Collectivity and Power on the Internet: A Sociological
Perspective, Springer.
Elhai, J. D., R. D. Dvorak, J. C. Levine and B. J. Hall (2017). "Problematic smartphone use: A
conceptual overview and systematic review of relations with anxiety and depression
psychopathology." Journal of Affective Disorders 207: 251-259.
Elhai, J. D., J. C. Levine, R. D. Dvorak and B. J. Hall (2016). "Fear of missing out, need for touch,
anxiety and depression are related to problematic smartphone use." Computers in Human Behavior
63: 509-516.
Elias, A. S. and R. Gill (2017). "Beauty surveillance: the digital self-monitoring cultures of
neoliberalism." European Journal of Cultural Studies 21(1): 59–77.
Erickson, I. (2017). "A Mixed Methodological Approach for Understanding Digital Experiences." The
Routledge Companion to Qualitative Research in Organization Studies.
Gill, P. S., A. Kamath and T. S. Gill (2012). "Distraction: an assessment of smartphone usage in health
care work settings." Risk management and healthcare policy 5: 105.
Han, B.-C. (2017). Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power Verson Futures.
Hindess, K. (2018). "Not so smart: inside the hazardous world of making smartphones." Ecologist
https://theecologist.org/2018/mar/02/not-so-smart-inside-hazardous-world-making-
smartphones.
Holgate, P. (2017). "The model for recycling our old smartphones is actually causing massive
pollution: Millions of new iPhones will be sold this month. What really happens to the millions that
get thrown out?" Recode https://www.recode.net/2017/11/8/16621512/where-does-my-
smartphone-iphone-8-x-go-recycling-afterlife-toxic-waste-environment.
Jarvenpaa, S. L. and K. R. Lang (2005). "Managing the paradoxes of mobile technology." Information
Systems Management 22(4): 7-23.
10
 Karlson, A. K., B. R. Meyers, A. Jacobs, P. Johns and S. K. Kane (2009). Working overtime: Patterns
of smartphone and PC usage in the day of an information worker. International Conference on
Pervasive Computing, Springer.
Kim, S. and Y. Park (2017). "A daily investigation of smartphone use and affective well-being at work."
Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings 2017(1): 1-1.
Lanaj, K., R. E. Johnson and C. M. Barnes (2014). "Beginning the workday yet already depleted?
Consequences of late-night smartphone use and sleep." Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes 124(1): 11-23.
Marcus, G. E. (1995). "Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited
ethnography." Annual review of anthropology 24(1): 95-117.
Middleton, C., R. Scheepers and V. K. Tuunainen (2014). "When mobile is the norm: researching
mobile information systems and mobility as post-adoption phenomena." European Journal of
Information Systems 23(5): 503-512.
Mullan, K. and J. Wajcman (2017). "Have mobile devices changed working patterns in the 21st
century? A time-diary analysis of work extension in the UK." Work, Employment and Society.
Neff, G. and D. Nafus (2016). Self-Tracking, MIT Press.
Neumayer, C. and G. Stald (2014). "The mobile phone in street protest: Texting, tweeting, tracking,
and tracing." Mobile Media & Communication 2(2): 117-133.
Oxford Living Dictionaries (2017). "https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/smartphone."
[accessed 06/09/2017].
Perlow, L. A. (2012). Sleeping with your smartphone: How to break the 24/7 habit and change the
way you work, Harvard Business Press.
Piszczek, M. M. (2017). "Boundary control and controlled boundaries: Organizational expectations
for technology use at the work-family interface." Journal of Organizational Behavior 38(4): 592-611.
Pritchard, K. and G. Symon (2014). "Picture perfect? Exploring the use of smartphone photography in
a distributed work practice." Management Learning 45(5): 561-576.
Roulet, T. J. and M. Clemente (2018). "Let's Open the Media's Black Box: The Media As a Set of
Heterogeneous Actors and Not Only As a Homogenous Ensemble." Academy of Management
Review 43(2): 327-329.
Steinert-Threlkeld, Z. C. (2017). "Spontaneous collective action: Peripheral mobilization during the
Arab Spring." American Political Science Review 111(2): 379-403.
Symon, G. and K. Pritchard (2015). "Performing the Responsive and Committed Employee through
the Sociomaterial Mangle of Connection." Organization Studies 36(2): 241-263.
Walker, M. (2017). Why We Sleep: The New Science of Sleep and Dreams, Scribner.
Ward, A. F., K. Duke, A. Gneezy and M. W. Bos (2017). "Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s
Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity." Journal of the Association for Consumer
Research 2(2): 140-154.
Whyte, J., K. Tryggestad and A. Comi (2016). "Visualizing practices in project-based design: tracing
connections through cascades of visual representations." Engineering Project Organization Journal
6(2-4): 115-128.
Wilmer, H. H., L. E. Sherman and J. M. Chein (2017). "Smartphones and Cognition: A Review of
Research Exploring the Links between Mobile Technology Habits and Cognitive Functioning."
Frontiers in Psychology 8: 605-.
Yun, H., W. J. Kettinger and C. C. Lee (2012). "A New Open Door: The Smartphone's Impact on
Work-to-Life Conflict, Stress, and Resistance." International Journal of Electronic Commerce 16(4):
121-152.

11

View publication stats