Work environments for digital wellbeing has been saved
Does the “always-on” workplace standard always facilitate well-being? The pursuit of efficiency and effectiveness may have had some unintended consequences, but technology enhances—and not rules—our lives, say Jennifer Fisher and Connor Joyce.
“You know, I don't know if I'm a recovering technology addict or I'm still an addict. Some days I'm recovering and other days I'm not. I'm not sure how that works. But we're all guilty of it.”
“[For a] lot of the design that is now considered addictive design or dark patterns in design, a good portion was unintentional. It was under the pursuit of efficiency and effectiveness that these designers came together, and started to build applications that resulted in addiction.”
Read the related article
Explore the Behavioral Economics and Management Collection
Subscribe on iTunes
Listen to more podcasts
Subscribe to receive updates on Behavioral economics
TANYA OTT: Today, we’re talking about all those technological wonders that make your work life so easy, and so, so tough.
Hey there, this is Tanya Ott, host of the Press Room, and I’m talking somewhat quietly because I’m actually in a sushi restaurant about two blocks from my office where I’m trying to read up on some of the research we’re going to be talking about today—that topic, of course, being that we are always digitally and technologically connected with our workplaces. So, kind of ironic I had to get out of my workplace in order to go to a restaurant and scarf down teriyaki and sushi rolls while using my phone to simultaneously read some more research to prepare for this interview and also record me telling you about reading some more research to … oh my gosh, it’s just an endless stream, isn’t it? But you get the point. We’re all working very hard, all the time, outside the bounds of normal work days. And that’s good in some respects, and not so good in others.
JENNIFER FISHER: Hello? Hello …
TANYA OTT: That’s Jennifer Fisher, one of the two people we’re going to talk to today about digital well-being. The other is Connor Joyce.
CONNOR JOYCE: It’s true!
TANYA OTT: Connor is about two years out of college, where he studied psychology and human resources.
CONNOR JOYCE: It was a beautiful combination because it really gave me this fascinating insight into what I really believe is this theory of why organizations have human resource offices—it's truly to find the best way to manage an individual.
TANYA OTT: Connor is a human capital consultant at Deloitte Consulting LLP. Jennifer is the managing director of Well-Being at Deloitte Services LP.
JENNIFER FISHER: It's a combination of what we had always done historically from a work-life balance perspective and a wellness perspective, but [we’re] really just broadening that and enhancing it quite a bit to meet the needs of the changing workforce, the evolving workforce, and the multigenerational workforce, and the needs of our people to help support them more holistically in body, mind, and purpose.
TANYA OTT: At the sushi restaurant that I told you I was while I was studying up for this, I walked up to pay my bill, and the woman who was working the cash register was on her phone. She was furiously typing or texting or something, and didn't notice me there. I sat for about a minute and a half before she noticed me.
And it was funny because then she started apologizing profusely, and I started laughing, but she had no idea why, and I said, “Hey, I was just reading this research about technology and how it distracts from our work and from our life.” She thought that was pretty funny. And then she apologized again. I said, “It's all good. We've all done it.”
JENNIFER FISHER: Yeah, we live in this overconnected world, and we want to be overconnected. The adoption or integration and maybe perhaps the control that technology has over our lives are one of the fastest things that we've seen in human history in terms of how quickly it's integrated and how quickly we've become dependent on it.
While there are the obvious great things about the technology that we have in our lives, I think some of it was designed in a way where there were just some unknowns in terms of what the consequences could be. We're at a point where we're so many years into experiencing this technology and becoming so dependent on it in our lives for so many good reasons, but we're also starting to see some of the negative side effects. I think we'll start to see the pendulum swing back a little bit and adjust itself so that people can readjust to life that is enhanced by technology and their technological devices, instead of being ruled by it. At least, that's my hope.
TANYA OTT: You used the word addiction and we throw that around a lot, but is there a chemical thing happening with us when we're using technology? Can we really be addicted to the technology in some sort of physical way?
JENNIFER FISHER: There's a lot of research and studies that support this. The way that a lot of our technology is designed, with the overflowing inbox and the way that our emails are designed, the way that a lot of the social media platforms are designed, it's all-consuming. And each time you refresh, each time there's a new ding, or each time there's a new email, buzz, or whatever it is, that's a dopamine hit—the same type of dopamine hit that happens when you're actually on illicit drugs. Your brain and your body don't know the difference. It's the same physiological response.
TANYA OTT: Your article quotes an experiment that was done that involved low-income people who are told they have to urgently raise thousands of dollars, and the stress of that resulted in the equivalent of a 13-point drop in IQ. That just seems wild to me.
JENNIFER FISHER: Yeah, this kind of picks up on a prior conversation on the scarcity mindset. When you are put under a significant amount of stress, whether it's real or perceived, you kind of go into what's called tunnel vision, and you don't see things clearly, you don't really think about the bigger picture, you're just focused on a means to an end, and how do I get there. It [can lead] to a lot of bad decision-making, and a lot of mistakes are made because of that scarcity mindset and because of that stress that you're under.
CONNOR JOYCE: Yeah. This is fascinating.
TANYA OTT: Well, let's play a game of good tech/bad tech. I'm going to give you a list. We'll go through them one by one, the different kinds of technologies, and maybe you can first tackle what's good about them—why they are a good thing for employees and for employers— and then we can talk about the challenges that they present. Are you game?
CONNOR JOYCE: Excellent!
TANYA OTT: OK. So, the first big one: virtual meetings. I can have a meeting with someone anywhere by any of the videoconferencing platforms and lots of other ways. Good tech? Bad tech?
CONNOR JOYCE: Well, good tech. You have multiple employees who, at one point in time, would have had to colocate. That's travel costs—both costs of money and time. You have the ability to meet from all around the world and to get people who maybe couldn't fit it into their schedule. It's the ease of getting into that meeting right away and being able to maybe jump from one meeting that has people all from Europe to another meeting that has people all from Asia, while still sitting in your pajamas at home. That would definitely be the good tech part.
TANYA OTT: The bad tech?
CONNOR JOYCE: That ease can quickly turn into a day filled with meetings, where a lot is going to be said, but nothing is going to be retained because it's just jumping from one meeting to the next. It's the possibility of an employee getting pulled into multiple meetings when they really don't have to be there.
JENNIFER FISHER: I think a lot of people err on the side of inviting more people instead of inviting less, so instead of really just focusing on the people that need to be a part of that meeting, they're sending these meeting [invites] to a really large distribution list and, therefore, the person on the receiving end is kind of stuck with determining it for themselves. Well, do I need to be a part of this? Do I not need to be a part of this?
CONNOR JOYCE: You can generally judge those meetings that you truly have to be in. But for any meeting that you don't have that strong feeling [about], there's still that chance that it's just going to be another meeting where you wouldn't be involved, but it could be a huge meeting. It could be one where a client or an important individual asks the question that you have the answer to, but it isn't said.
JENNIFER FISHER: And then there's all of these psychological effects that come in. I'm sure everybody's heard of FOMO, the fear of missing out. With that, we all end up with these back-to-back meetings and calls on our calendar without any time to set aside to think, or to take a few deep breaths, or, God forbid, get up and go to the restroom, or get something to eat without shoveling food down our mouths.
CONNOR JOYCE: There's that ambiguity that's attached to the unknown. Every time you pick up your phone, it's a slot machine. You could you turn on the screen and it could be an email telling you that you've been awarded a promotion or that there was a big success on a project. But by the same token, it could also be that there's a round of layoffs that are coming or that there was a significant issue on one of the projects. But then, the reality of it [is that] it's more likely just another mundane email that's not going to have a significant impact on that day, let alone your life. But it's that random aspect behind any notification or any meeting.
It's the ease that technology creates for an individual to just say, “OK, I should attend [this]. I should look at that. I should check my phone, so I can settle that uncertainty and then just ride either the highs and lows or just the mundane nature of whatever it is.”
JENNIFER FISHER: And that leads to an enormous amount of stress and inability to get focused work done in a way that is both meaningful to you and to the organization that you work for. It creates an enormous amount of risk too, in terms of the number of mistakes that could be potentially made and just bad decision-making because there's just too much going on.
TANYA OTT: So, it's not just about the individual. There's sort of a law of diminishing returns for the company as well.
JENNIFER FISHER: Absolutely.
TANYA OTT: Before we get to the idea of what companies can do to mitigate those effects, I think we have to recognize that there's this kind of emotional component, which is being able to say, “I'm so busy,” or, “Oh, I'm overbooked.” It's like a status symbol in some circles right now.
JENNIFER FISHER: It is. I call it the Badge of Busy. I think everybody can relate to this. You see a friend or a colleague and you say “How's it going?” and they say “Oh, I'm crazy busy,” without really realizing how very true that is. And everybody celebrates it instead of stepping back and saying, “Wait, is being crazy busy what we all really truly aspire to be?” I think if we all thought about it, the answer would be no.
TANYA OTT: Yeah. I mean, honestly, it's like a really damaging feedback loop, especially on things like social media, where you can list all the things that you did that day, say “I'm crazy busy,” and people say, “You're so amazing!”
JENNIFER FISHER: Exactly. People validate it for you, and then we take that in as the human connection, right? Even though it's over a virtual platform. There're all kinds of interesting things in there that we can dive into.
TANYA OTT: So, the next kind of technology I need to define before we go to the ood tech/bad tech part is bottomless design. First of all, what does that mean?
CONNOR JOYCE: Bottomless design. You'll see frequently in mobile applications and you're even beginning to see it more on websites and a lot of different platforms. Whenever you're scrolling, instead of hitting [the end of] a page, you keep scrolling, and you keep scrolling, and maybe if you're not on Wi‑Fi, you might get a little buffering for a second, but you can just keep going, and there's no stopping point that's built in that says “Wait a second. Do you want to continue looking at this?”
That's what a page would do instead, where maybe you look at your first 100 results and you say “OK. I've searched enough. I should choose one of these 100. Or maybe I've seen enough photos of my friends; I think I'm good for the session.” Instead, it's going to just keep going and going until you consciously have to choose to be done.
TANYA OTT: So, good tech. Why?
CONNOR JOYCE: That one's going to be the efficiency of not having to click pages. I know that there have been times in my life where I could only see 10 results, and I was trying to choose between 100 and 200 results, and it would easy to try to get them on one page or to just quickly scroll up and down on a page.
TANYA OTT: The bad tech is that you may just sit there for a very, very long time, and it's not efficient use of your time?
CONNOR JOYCE: Yeah, exactly. It's just that there's no stopping point there. There's no point to check your behavior and continue to rationalize why you should [be] using it. You get so much information that you begin to think, “Well, OK, I was asked to answer this one question.” If you have a thousand resources that you could check to try to answer this one question, especially if it's not a binary yes or no question, how do you know once you answered that question to its fullest?
There is this form of anxiety that can be created when you begin to say, “You know, if I've been set on this task to answer this question, and I've searched 10 resources, and I think they have answered the question well, so I'm going to go present it.” If there's a thousand resources out there now that someone could go and check, someone could go and check the 11th resource, and maybe that has a much better answer. And so, there's this fear and anxiety that're being created: When is an answer good enough? When is that report solid enough and has enough evidence behind it?
TANYA OTT: Yeah.
CONNOR JOYCE: And the internet creates another really big gray area that can be called into question very easily just because of [the] breadth and variety of the information out there. One other good tech/bad tech [example] that I find fascinating is instant messaging. A lot of companies are beginning to pick up instant messaging services and talk about the efficiency there.
So many emails that really don't have to be sent, one-sentence emails, quick requests or something along those lines, something that can easily be answered with someone messaging someone—a quick question “What is X?” and just say yes or no. Or how can I find X? Instant messaging is a very good tech for being able to simplify communication, both in lieu of email and in lieu of walking over to a desk.
But that's also the bad part of it. You could be sitting across from someone, [and] instead of looking over from your computer and asking a question, you could quickly ask them over the instant messaging service. And then you have this need to always be available. [With a lot of services, if] you haven't used your computer or your mobile device, after 5 or 10 minutes, it's going to [show you as] away, and maybe that's because we're on this call right now, and I'm actually away from my computer. So, if somebody were really trying to put a strong authoritative eye on me, [they could] say, “What is Connor doing during the day? Why was Connor away for 25-30 minutes from his computer?” [With] the instant messaging service, there's a lot of efficiency that's created, but it can also generate a lot of anxiety when employees feel the need to always be on.
TANYA OTT: Well, there's also some research done by Gloria Mark, who's a cognitive scientist, that looks at what happens when people are interrupted. You're in the middle of working on something for a project, and you have an instant message that comes up. If that happens hour after hour, minute after minute, it has some real effect, not only on your stress level, but it also can lead to bad decisions because you're answering things quickly.
CONNOR JOYCE: Yeah, absolutely, and it takes a little while to get back into a task, even if you feel like you're back on that task. I love to claim that I'm a great multitasker, but I also recognize that the ability, knowledge, and effort that I can give something when I'm 30 minutes into the task and I've completely lost myself in what I'm doing and have that pure focus is much different than the focus I'm giving to it when I'm also trying to IM somebody or I also have email notifications showing up on my computer. Those interruptions can begin to really negate the efficiencies that are created from the technology.
TANYA OTT: Now there are some people that would push back and say, “Look this is about self-control.” Traditional economic theory assumes that we all have a lot of self-control, but I interviewed Richard Thaler, the Nobel Prize-winning behavioral economist, and he said that we're humans, we're not econs, [and] we're not these completely rational people all the time. It's not really just about self-control.
CONNOR JOYCE: No. And it's truly unfair to just blame it on self-control. I'm a big Richard Thaler fan also and envious that you had a chance to interview him. He and a lot of his colleagues have really shown how irrational human behavior is. We're susceptible to the choice architecture that is built around us, so we're easily nudged to take various behaviors.
When technology is designed in either a purposeful or unintentional way to keep us engaged, it's not that hard for those designers to build features that are going to keep us from breaking away. We’ve discussed a few here with bottomless design.
I don't think that there was a nefarious intent when the first person designed that bottomless feed. What they were thinking was, “We are going to avoid having a person continue to click page by page.” It may even come from usability testing where they said, “What is one of the most difficult parts of searching information?” And somebody may have said, “Oh, it's a page. I don't like having to click through the pages.” And so, the designers more than likely looked at the problem: pages. How do we get information in the most easily accessible, the most efficient manner? They built that bottomless design. But, us being humans, if we were perfectly rational, we would just stop when we've achieved our goal. But we don't work that way. That design then leads to everything that we've previously discussed, with the loss of efficiency.
TANYA OTT: The great thing about design is that even when you design something that maybe has unintended consequences or you choose as a company to deploy a piece of technology that has some unintended consequences attached with it, design can also address some of those unintended consequences. What are some of the steps that employers are taking to mitigate the negative effects that we've talked about when it comes to technology use?
CONNOR JOYCE: The one that always sticks with me is that Daimler has enacted a policy that allows its employees to be able to set an away message when they go on vacation. Most companies allow that, but what’s special about this away message is that employees are allowed to delete every email that they receive. So, if I were to email an employee of this company who is on vacation, I'm going to receive that standard "Hello, I'm on vacation" message, but it's going to say “This message will be deleted. Please reach back out to me on this date.”
TANYA OTT: Oh, wow!
CONNOR JOYCE: I mean think about that. It's unbelievable to have that certainty to be able to leave your computer, leave your mobile device, walk away, engage in that vacation, engage in that activity, and be able to just lose yourself in the outside world. To truly get away from work and then come back, and instead of fearing that filled inbox, fearing all of those urgent messages, none of that is there—that employee can jump right back into their job and get right back into whatever tasks that they were doing.
TANYA OTT: I've got to interrupt you because I'm just like “I want that!” but my question for you is, do the emails just actually not mount up in their inbox? The person who sends the email gets the response that says "This email is going to be deleted” or whatever, and you, as the employee who's been on vacation, come back and none of those emails are there? Like you don't have to wade through 200 emails that came in in the four days you're on vacation?
CONNOR JOYCE: That's it. That's exactly it.
TANYA OTT: Wow!
CONNOR JOYCE: Yep. That's a pretty drastic stance. It's one that, as soon as you hear it, I believe that most employees say how that would be pretty nice. But then most employers are going to think, “How can we do that?” That's such a culture shift. It's probably not possible for everyone.
There's another recommendation that we've found, and it's one that is much less aggressive, and that's just to enact a policy where an employee who goes on four days of vacation or more automatically gets an additional day tacked onto their vacation. But for that additional day, it's almost a transition-back-to-work day. So, we'll call it an email-only day. They're still not supposed to attend any meetings or to really engage with any other employees. Their task for that intermediate day is to just reply to all those emails or complete any tasks that are going to burden them upon their official return. And it's nice because that means you go on your four-day vacation, and then maybe it's a Friday when you have that extra day to spend catching up on emails and then be able to transition right back in. And on Monday, you're not going to have that burden. So, you don't have to jump to the deletion right away.
You can find various combinations that still achieve that end result, which is not coming back from a vacation and having this large email box.
TANYA OTT: What can employers do to counteract these negative effects? What can they do to protect their employees from having to feel like they're connected all the time?
JENNIFER FISHER: There’re a handful of good ideas out there that also come at a low cost to an organization, and it starts with culture. What are the cultural norms and expectations that you are setting? Of course, there could be policies, but I don't think there really need to be policies. As an organization or as leaders of an organization, what are the behaviors that you personally [demonstrate]? People are looking to you as the leader and they're going to model the behaviors that you're [demonstrating].
What is it that you're doing as a leader that is either setting up this kind of always-on, always-connected culture? Are you communicating in a way that you share what you do personally, and what your expectations are for those who work for you? What are the expectations "after hours" or on the weekends? I'm a big believer in, we don't want to tell people when, where, and how they can work. We want people to be able to choose that for themselves. If somebody chooses to work on a Saturday afternoon because that's what fits into their schedule, the expectation shouldn't be that if I send you an email, you need to respond. But nobody knows that unless you have those conversations.
What is the system that your organization or that your team follows? Are there norms that you've set up, so people can work when it works for them, but if I have an urgent need, I’ll pick up the phone and call you? Or maybe I'll send you a text message. But it's not always kind of through email, so that people don't feel like they always have to be connected anytime, day or night, because that puts a lot of pressure on people, and no one really wants to feel like they're the one person on the team that's not being responsive. That creates this constant need to be with your electronic device, which in turn creates an addiction.
I think in a lot of ways, it's really simple. It's just thinking about it for yourself, what are your boundaries and how do you like to work, and then communicating that with your team and discussing what those team norms or those organizational norms will be around technology use, [such as] email.
Another really interesting idea that I love: We were talking about back-to-back meetings and calls. Consider doing 25- and 50-minute meetings, so that you have a little buffer. You have a little break between meetings to take a deep breath, to get something to eat, or just to kind of refocus and reset on what's next, instead of crashing into the end of one call and jumping right into the next, and kind of not even remembering where you are or who you're talking to or what you're talking about.
I know that happens to me probably more often than I'd like to admit. But if you're simply cutting off five to 10 minutes of every meeting, it actually ends up making your meetings more effective because you realize you have a shorter period of time, so you get done what you needed to get done in that short period of time, and then you have a little bit of time to reset and to refocus for whatever it is that comes next.
TANYA OTT: I know for me one of the keys is realizing just because I can do all those meetings back to back doesn't mean I should.
JENNIFER FISHER: Exactly. And that's another thing. As a leader, you need to empower your people to make decisions for themselves about what's important for them and their role[s]. You hired them to do a job. They're professionals. Trust them to do that, and empower them to make those decisions and to hit the decline button if something isn't relevant for them or if there's another team member who can cover while they focus on getting some work done.
Get creative about [whether] everybody needs to be invited to this call or meeting, or are there are a couple of team members who can cover [it] while the rest of them focus on whatever the project is that's being worked on?
Another creative idea is, if you're working on a big project and you know there's potentially late nights or weekend work, have what we call a team collective goal. Have everybody verbally state one thing that's important to them. “It's really important to me that I go to my Toastmasters class on Thursday evening,” or “My child's play is next Wednesday,” or whatever it may be. Then we make sure as a team that on that particular day, that afternoon, that evening, whatever the time may be, we know you're out, and we're not going to contact you. We, as a team, have your back. We have you covered. Because I know that I'm going to get my time and my thing that's really important to me too. So, everybody supports one another.
Then there's predictability in the schedule and knowing that, “OK, I can disconnect, and I'm not going to get called away from work, and I'm not going to have to cancel yet again on the people or the things that are most important to me.”
TANYA OTT: Well, and there are ways to use technology to help moderate our use of technology.
JENNIFER FISHER: Which sounds really funny, right? Use technology to moderate technology.
TANYA OTT: I lobbied extensively within my company—and I'm not a Deloitte employee, I just do this on the side—but I lobbied extensively within my company to get the app for our email client that would allow us to schedule emails to go out, so that I would answer an email at 11 p.m. if that's what's convenient to me, but no one would feel compelled to have to respond.
JENNIFER FISHER: Right! Delayed delivery is a magical thing.
TANYA OTT: I lost that lobbying effort, and I'm a failure.
JENNIFER FISHER: No, you're not! Hey, there's a solution for that. You could just leave it in your drafts [folder] and hit send the next morning.
TANYA OTT: I'm so worried that I might not actually send it! But I imagine there are other examples of [the] ways that companies have approached technology. I know Connor shared an example with me about Daimler. I thought, “Wow, that's amazing! Not sure how many companies would really pick that up, but that's awesome.”
JENNIFER FISHER: Yeah, there's a handful of organizations. I won't lie. I'd love to see us do that at Deloitte, but I don't know if and when we'd ever get to that point, but there are other technologies. We talk about Thrive Global, and [it] just came out with an app where you set times on your smartphone of when you're going to be “thriving.” And if anybody sends you a text message or anything like that during your “thriving” time, they will get a reply back that says “Jennifer is ‘thriving’ between such and such hours, and she won't be able to reply to you.”
It's basically kind of like an auto-reply, but your phone doesn't ding. It doesn't light up. It doesn't do any of those things that would draw you in and get you consumed and back into the technology.
It's interesting that we're creating apps and other technologies to keep us away from our technology, but I think if that's the direction that we need to go, then I'm supportive of it.
TANYA OTT: I imagine if I got a reply messaged to a text, were I [to] text you, which I don't, but were I to text you, and it said “Jennifer is thriving,” my very next conversation with you would start with “So, what exactly does that mean?”
JENNIFER FISHER: It's also a great conversation piece. Share it with your friends and your family. You know you guys want to be thriving.
TANYA OTT: One of the things you guys write about is the idea of a digital detox, and you actually lay out sort of a step-by-step plan for taking yourself off your digital tools more often. Having talked to people that have tried digital detox, and even a Deloitte employee who wrote a whole article about digital detox, called Unlocking human potential:
DULEESHA KULASOORIYA: We tried. We as a family tried to do Sundays.
TANYA OTT: How's that working for you?
DULEESHA KULASOORIYA: Well, we also realized that our digital devices are also nannies for our kids, and we don't get a break.
TANYA OTT: How old are your kids?
DULEESHA KULASOORIYA: We’ve got seven, three, and three.
TANYA OTT: Oh, wow!
DULEESHA KULASOORIYA: So, we couldn't keep it up ourselves. But I think we'll keep coming back to the practice. It’s a lot like saying, “OK, if we can’t do a day, then we do half a day. If we can’t do half a day, do we do it over dinnertime? When can we actually practice digital detox?”
TANYA OTT: He then said, “Yeah, it was really hard. We couldn't really do it. It lasted for a very short period of time, and it is hard because people are, some would say, addicted.” Whether that's clinical addiction or not clinical addiction, it's very hard to detox off this stuff.
CONNOR JOYCE: Yeah, I know. It really is. It comes back to the way it is designed. It's so much more than just needing the willpower to go off and try to stop that yourself. We do write about a digital detox. It's a seven-day detox. You start on a Monday, and it's just small tweaks in your life. It's only seven days. What I think is nice about it is that it's hard to just begin to change something in your life and say, “OK, I'm going to do all these things today and then never do them again.” So, we try to take this small, iterative step. For example, shutting off notifications on applications or turning your phone to grayscale, instead of color.
With those small steps, by the end of the week, you've made some significant changes, even though it doesn't feel like it because you've just done them one at a time. By Monday the next week, once you completed that detox, your phone becomes a little less exciting because it's on grayscale now and you don't get to see all the fancy colors.
TANYA OTT: It doesn't look like a slot machine anymore when you make [it] grayscale.
CONNOR JOYCE: Exactly. Those red notification bubbles? Well, now they're just grey notification bubble, so maybe they're not going to get that fear instinct in us as easily. It's just trying to condense a bunch of tweaks that one can do to someone's life into to one week. It's just a way to start it, and then if an individual notices, “Hey I actually liked this. I liked that I'm using my phone a little bit less,” then hopefully they can seek out other opportunities to further change their behavior.
[For a] lot of the design that is now considered addictive design or dark patterns in design, a good portion was unintentional. It was under the pursuit of efficiency and effectiveness that these designers came together and they started to build applications that resulted in addiction.
TANYA OTT: Well, it's been fantastic talking with you. You can come back any time that you want to the podcast. I really appreciate it.
CONNOR JOYCE: Perfect. I appreciate it. Thank you so much.
JENNIFER FISHER: Thanks.
TANYA OTT: Jennifer Fisher and Conner Joyce’s article is Positive technology: Designing work environments for digital well-being. It’s got a lot of really cool, real-life examples that you can implement in your workplace or your life. It’s available on our website deloitte.com/insights. You can find us on Twitter at @DeloitteInsight, and I’m on Twitter @TanyaOtt1.
I am Tanya Ott. Thanks for listening, and see you again in two weeks.
This podcast is provided by Deloitte and is intended to provide general information only. This podcast is not intended to constitute advice or services of any kind. For additional information about Deloitte, go to Deloitte.com/about.