Implications of using smartphones in the workplace

INTRODUCTION

Smart mobile phones have become established as a key symbol in contemporary society by integrating multiple technological functionalities into a single device, democratizing access to information and communication technologies (ICT). As Pérez-Escoda (1) argues, these devices represent "the new icon of society" by concentrating "all the opportunities and advantages of new technologies." Therefore, this phenomenon has reconfigured social dynamics and generational behaviors.(1,2,3,4)

In relation to ICTs, especially the Internet, they have eliminated spatiotemporal barriers and facilitated interaction among individuals from diverse sociocultural backgrounds, ethnicities, and socioeconomic levels, forging an interconnected global society.(1,2,3,4)

However, to define the term implications in the use of smartphones in work environments, it should be emphasized that it refers to all the consequences and effects, both positive and negative, that these could generate and the challenges arising from the integration of these devices into work dynamics. This is because it is not about determining whether they are used or not, but how they are used, for what purpose, and their impact on productivity, company culture, safety, and workers' well-being.(5)

It is for this reason that the implications of mobile phone use are classified into two main categories:(5)

Positive implications (Opportunities and benefits): since they generate greater flexibility, mobility, improved communication, and collaboration, as they streamline decision-making and problem-solving. In addition, instant access to information increases efficiency in the organization. Therefore, they can be understood as productivity tools since they help organize work and allow cost reduction for the organization, given that their use provides additional hardware.

Negative Implications (Risks and challenges): they can lead to distraction and loss of productivity because notifications from social media, personal messaging, games, and constant internet access can lead to distraction in the worker's attention to the tasks they perform, reducing their concentration on important tasks and decreasing their overall performance. It can generate blurring of work boundaries: this being the ability to be always connected, which can lead to the expectation that employees respond to emails and messages outside working hours. At the health level, it can generate stress, sleep disorders, anxiety, Burnout Syndrome, Boreout Syndrome, and it hinders digital disconnection, affecting mental health.(5,6)

On the other hand, it generates data security and privacy problems, loss or theft; smartphones are vulnerable to cyberattacks that can compromise corporate networks. Even the use of unsafe applications to handle work data represents a great risk. The worker may lose their privacy.

It is worth mentioning that the use of smartphones in work environments has implications for internal culture and communication: excessive phone use can erode person-to-person communication, weakening relationships among colleagues and affecting teamwork and organizational culture. In meetings, it can lead to displeasure and be a barrier to active participation.

Among other problems that the use of smartphones can cause are those related to the physical health of workers, since prolonged use can cause or worsen problems such as visual fatigue, neck pain, and carpal tunnel syndrome.(5)

Given these multicausal implications, the response of organizations, beyond prohibiting smartphones, is to manage their use intelligently in work environments, since they represent a tool that offers two facets: a competitive advantage, enormous in productivity and flexibility, but that entails significant risks of distraction, security, well-being, and harmful health effects. The difference lies in how organizations decide to manage them, whether through clear policies and training, thereby generating a culture of trust and responsibility among workers.

However, their inappropriate use entails significant risks. Studies show that using mobile devices during work activities associated with hazardous processes increases the probability of accidents, even exceeding determining factors such as alcohol. In industrial environments, such as manufacturing, where the inherent risks of the work activity being performed are amplified due to the presence of machinery, hazardous substances, and the need to maintain high levels of attention when performing required tasks, adding to these the use of smartphones during task execution.(7,8)

In relation to organizational performance, the evidence presents nuances; studies such as that by Castro-Martínez and Díaz (9) in Mexico highlight its usefulness for internal communication, access to information, and logistics management, whereas Calpa and Martínez (10) and Duke and Montag (11) warn about distraction, fragmentation of attention, techno-addictions such as nomophobia, and reduced productivity. Additionally, at the ergonomic level, prolonged postures during its use generate dysergonomic risks that lead to musculoskeletal injuries and work absenteeism.(9,10,11)

In the Venezuelan regulatory context, the Organic Law on Labor, Workers, and Working Women (12) (LOTTT) establishes, in Article 8, implicit limits through duties of good faith and collaboration, but it should be noted that there is no express regulation on the use of mobile phones in organizations. As argued, this ambiguity underscores the urgency of clear internal regulations defining usage policies, permitted hours, and awareness protocols. This lack of specific regulation leaves a gap that can translate into unsafe practices and labor conflicts.

Precisely, in Venezuela, given this research and regulatory gap, the present study is situated. Unlike international studies focused on Spain, Mexico, and Colombia, this research analyzes an ink manufacturing company located in Venezuela, focusing on the production area, where prolonged use of smartphones during the workday was evidenced, which could generate a potential impact on occupational safety and health since it could increase the risk of accidents, occupational diseases, low operational efficiency related to goal fulfillment, and at the organizational climate level could cause collective distraction. Therefore, the present research aimed to analyze the implications of smartphone use in the work environment of a manufacturing company.

METHODS

This research was framed within the positivist paradigm, quantitative approach, field study, descriptive level, and cross-sectional design. The population and census-type sample consisted of 63 workers from the production area of the studied setting, who use smartphones during their workday.

Data collection was carried out using two complementary techniques:

a) Structured questionnaire developed by the authors, self-administered (where the participant answers the items without direct intervention from the researcher), reliable and validated by expert judgment, with the purpose of identifying the possible implications of smartphone use in the workplace. It consists of 26 items, organized into four parts:

I. Sociodemographic and work-related data of the worker, which consists of seven questions with the worker's demographic and personal information such as age, sex, educational level, marital status, occupation, as well as their relationship and experience in the work environment (position, length of service). II. Use of smartphones by workers, consisting of four questions with quick personal responses, the fourth question with a response on a frequency scale. III. Existence of regulations for the use of smartphones in their workplace, with Likert-type response options in the seven questions that comprise it, and lastly, part IV: Knowledge about occupational risks associated with the use of smartphones during the workday, with Likert-type response options in the eight questions that comprise it.

This questionnaire, in its pilot test, obtained a Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient of 0.78, which indicates that it has high reliability; it can be said that each time the same questionnaire is applied under similar conditions, similar results will be found in 78% of cases.

b) Documentary review: Analysis of internal regulations and incident records using a standardized form prepared by the authors.

RESULTS

Tabla 1. Caracterización sociodemográfica y laboral de los trabajadores (n = 63)

The sample studied was represented by 63 workers, with an age range between 8 and 65 years, the mean being 41 years of age (standard deviation of ±13.20 years) and a coefficient of variation of 30%. The most frequent age group was 18 and 30 years of age (30.2%). 96.9% were men. Regarding education, high school presented the highest percentage at 92%; 41.3% were in a stable relationship. The job tenure of these workers averaged 13 years with a standard deviation of ±13.7 years; those with 1 and 10 years (47.6%) working at said manufacturing company were most frequent. Regarding family burden, a predominant 93.7% had it, of whom those with 1 and 3 family members (47.7%) were most frequent, followed by those with 4 and 6 family members (42.9%), as reflected in Table 1.

In relation to the shift of the day in which the smartphone was most frequently used, it was the afternoon shift (53.9%), followed by morning (44.4%), night (20.6%), and midday (17.4%). See Table 2

The applied instrument made it possible to identify the number of times per day that workers use the cell phone during the workday; regarding calls, a median of 2 times was recorded (63.4%), with a range of 1 to 10 times. As for interactions, a median of 2 times was recorded, with a range of 1 to 30 times, as described in Table 3.

Regarding the purpose for which these workers use the smartphone, Table 4 shows those who responded to the item “always” (as this is considered the greatest risk); messages came first (30.1%), followed by calls (23.9%).

The time spent using the smart mobile phone during work hours, as shown in Table 5, had an average of 24.56 min ± 13.05, with a median of 10 min, a minimum of 1 min, and a maximum of 120 min. Workers who interacted 1 to 3 times predominated. Those who used it for 1 to 5 min were most frequent (31.7%), followed by those who used it for 10 to 15 min (30.2%).

Regarding existing regulations for the use of smartphones within the workspaces of the studied company, 79.3% of respondents agreed that the company has policies for the use of smartphones. 66.6% agreed that the company has signs indicating the use of smartphones. Meanwhile, 69.8% of respondents agreed that there are rules by department or specific area regarding the use of smartphones. (See Table 6)

However, 63.4% of respondents have received a prohibition from their superior, coordinator/person responsible for the area, regarding the use of smartphones. Regarding the consensual use of smartphones in the workplace, 42.8% agreed with their use, while 33.3% disagreed. 52.3% of workers agreed that they do not use smartphones in their workspace by personal decision, and 74.6% agreed that the decision was due to a specific prevention regulation. (See Table 6)

Among the unsafe acts in which workers engage while carrying smart mobile phones, it was found that 95.2% acknowledged that smart mobile phone use is a means of distraction and can cause occupational accidents. 88.8% of respondents agreed that mobile phone use can lead to loss of attention to assigned tasks between calls, text messages, or social networks. Similarly, 84.1% of respondents agreed that they have information that frequent mobile phone use can cause diseases of the cervical spine, muscular diseases, and visual diseases, and 79.3% agreed that smart mobile phone use can cause delays in the delivery of work. (See Table 7)

Regarding ergonomic risks (neck/shoulder pain), 60.3% acknowledged that they adopt awkward postures that cause pain, 19% were undecided, which suggests that they may not be aware of the problem or do not directly relate it to phone use, and 20.6% denied this relationship. Regarding distraction when handling machinery, 55.6% admitted carelessness due to phone distraction, 15.9% reported being undecided, and 28.6% denied it. In relation to visual fatigue and precision in tasks, 63.5% reported that visual fatigue affected their precision, only 12.7% were undecided, and 23.8% of respondents did not perceive this health effect. And finally, regarding chemical risk due to incorrect handling, 57.1% accepted a greater risk with flammable or contaminating materials; 14.3% were undecided, and 28.6% disagreed. (See Table 8)

In addition, a high risk perception was identified: all items exceeded 55% agreement (range: 55.6% - 63.5%). The most highly perceived risk, by the group of surveyed workers, was visual fatigue (63.5%), followed by forced postures (60.3%). There was a low percentage of undecided workers: 19% in item 23. (See Table 8)

DISCUSSION

The findings of this research made it possible to determine that the use of smartphones in the production area of an ink manufacturing company represents a multifactorial risk factor that goes beyond occasional distraction, affecting the safety, health, ergonomics, and operational efficiency of the organization.

When contrasting these results with the theoretical background, relevant coincidences, nuances, and particularities become evident; for example, those related to the sociodemographic and occupational profile of these workers and its influence on usage patterns, in which the composition of the sample, characterized predominantly by men, with an average age of 41 years and high family burden, coincides with the occupational profile of the Venezuelan industrial worker, as reported in previous studies such as that by Betancourt (13). This profile may partly explain the observed usage patterns. The need to maintain family communication during the workday, especially among workers with family responsibilities, would justify the predominant use for calls and messages, a finding consistent with what was proposed by Calpa and Martínez (10) regarding the use of the smartphone as a tool for reconciling work and personal life in work environments. Likewise, the average job tenure of 13.7 years suggests a familiarity with the environment that could normalize unsafe practices, such as the use of devices in risk areas.(10,13)

Regarding smartphone usage patterns, between necessity and distraction, the average recorded daily usage time of 24.5 minutes exceeds the 15-minute threshold associated by Hansraj (14) with increased cervical stress and significant distraction. This result is consistent with what was reported by Villar (8), who found that periods longer than 15 minutes of interaction with the smartphone during the workday triple the probability of incidents. It is striking that the afternoon shift concentrates the highest use, which could be related to accumulated fatigue toward the second half of the workday, reducing self-regulation and increasing the predisposition to distraction, as noted by Xie et al.(15) in studies on chronoergonomics.(8,14,15)

Regarding existing regulations versus compliance culture, although 79.3% of workers acknowledge the existence of restrictive policies, a critical gap persists between the regulations and their internalization. This is reflected in the fact that 63.4% have received warnings after the fact, indicating a reactive rather than preventive approach. This situation coincides with the observations of Villar (8) in Mexican industries, where the lack of continuous monitoring and positive reinforcement weakens the effectiveness of regulations. In addition, the 42.8% who report use “by consensus” suggests a tacit normalization of risk, possibly aggravated by the absence of explicit regulation in the LOTTT (12) regarding mobile devices, generating a void that must be filled with clear and audited internal protocols.(8,12)

For their part, when verifying knowledge versus behavior, the paradox of perceived risk was found to be among the most significant findings: the dissonance between the high level of knowledge about risks and the usage practices maintained. This apparent contradiction can be explained through the concept of “illusory optimism” described by Díaz and Mejía (16), whereby workers underestimate their own vulnerability by considering that they can control the situation. Thus, although they know the general risk, they assume that their use is “safe” because it is brief or occurs at “opportune” moments. This perceptual gap represents a central challenge for prevention strategies.(16)

On the other hand, the validated ergonomic and operational implications confirm, in the results obtained, the presence of ergonomic risks associated with prolonged smartphone use. Most workers reported neck/shoulder pain, a finding that externally validates the “text neck” syndrome described by Hansraj (14) in non-occupational contexts, but now observable in an industrial setting. This broadens the original scope of the concept and suggests the need to incorporate digital ergonomics criteria into job analyses in manufacturing. Likewise, the visual fatigue reported by workers and its effect on precision coincides with what was indicated by the American Optometric Association (17) regarding “digital vision syndrome,” affecting tasks that require high attention to detail.(14,17)

In relation to chemical risk as a specific and critical hazard, in the particular context of an ink plant, workers associate the use of the smartphone with an increase in the risk of incorrect handling of flammable or contaminating materials. This result is especially concerning, since brief distractions in environments with hazardous substances can have serious consequences, as warned by NIOSH (18). This finding provides a specific perspective not widely covered in the general literature on smartphones, but crucial for chemical and similar manufacturing industries.

In this sense, the limitations and projections present in the sample refer to the fact that the predominance of the male gender in the sample could have introduced a social desirability bias in the reporting of musculoskeletal discomfort, tending toward underestimation. Future studies could be complemented with direct observation or objective measurements to triangulate the information. Despite this, the consistency between the quantitative and qualitative findings (supported by the photographic record) reinforces the validity of the conclusions.

Therefore, the results reflect a complex reality in which the smartphone, despite its usefulness for communication, stands as a disruptive element in a high-risk environment such as ink manufacturing. The coexistence of formal policies with informally tolerated practices reveals a fracture in the organization's safety culture. These findings reinforce the need to move beyond the prohibitive approach and advance toward comprehensive models that include conscious training, ergonomic workstation design, and intelligent zoning of use, as proposed by Torres (19) and Villar (8). The described situation is not exclusive to Venezuela, but it is exacerbated by the specific regulatory gap, which makes this research a valuable instrument for updating internal regulations in the local industrial sector.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the conclusions obtained in the present study, it is confirmed that the use of smart mobile phones in work environments such as manufacturing is not only a disciplinary problem but also a multifactorial occupational risk factor that demands ergonomic, technological, and regulatory interventions. The Venezuelan paradox between existing policies and deficient implementation reflects a global challenge, namely adapting legal frameworks to new technopathies. As suggested by Torres (19) and Villar (8), where the solution integrates three axes: active awareness, ergonomic design of workstations, and regulations contextualized to specific risks.

Having identified that cell phone use is a distracting element in the production area of the manufacturing company studied. Therefore, it influences the safety and health of workers, where concentration at work is essential. For this reason, the following recommendations should be taken into account:

Training for workers on the safe use of mobile phones in the company.

Definition of cell phone use schedules, and moving away from it to encourage interaction.

Silence the cell phone while a high level of concentration is required, to avoid distractions or disturbing classmates.

Disable social media notifications to regulate device use.

Prohibition of cell phone use in high-risk activities.

Likewise, the employer has the possibility of limiting the use of cell phones in various areas of the company or at certain times. This, accompanied by precise communication on the part of the employer with clear guidelines regarding expected conduct in the company in relation to the reasonable use of cell phones during working hours.

These measures must be based on:

Inform workers about what is permitted during working hours (in terms of action, manner, time, and place).

To clarify and establish the rights and obligations of workers within companies.

Understand the rationale for the restrictions, and make action decisions with full knowledge of the consequences in the event of non-compliance.

Protect all members of the company from the risks of uncontrolled mobile phone use.

Finding a balance that allows positive and productive coexistence between the members of the organization and communication technologies.

To contribute broadly to the Vision, Mission, and Objectives of the company.

Guaranteeing a culture of prevention, in addition to the importance of a policy related to the use of mobile phones within work areas, it is essential that workers and companies themselves truly embrace and comply with occupational prevention policies, a culture of self-care, all of this to significantly reduce the number of work-related accidents and incidents.

References

1. 1 Pérez-Escoda A. La Web 2.0 y yo: Proyecto para el fomento de las competencias. En: García-Ruíz, Pérez-Rodríguez, Torres, editor. Educar para los nuevos medios: claves para el desarrollo e la competencia mediática en el entorno digital. ABYA YALA: Universidad Politécnica Salesiana; 2018. p. 43-60. https://dspace.ups.edu.ec/bitstream/123456789/17049/1/Educar%20para%20los%20nuevos%20medios.pdf
2. 2 Salinas J. Innovación docente y uso de las TIC en la enseñanza universitaria. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento. 2004; 1(1), 1-16. https://rusc.uoc.edu/rusc/ca/index.php/rusc/article/download/v1n1-salinas/228-1150-2-PB.pdf
3. 3 Pérez-Galavís A. Inteligencia Artificial: Entre las Brechas de Género. Revista Comunidad y Salud. 2025; 23(1), 168-169. https://servicio.bc.uc.edu.ve/fcs/cysv23n1/art17.pdf
4. 4 Pérez-Galavís A. Inteligencia Artificial y Salud Pública: desafíos a enfrentar. Rev Esp Salud Pública. 2025; 99:8 de octubre e202510060. https://ojs.sanidad.gob.es/index.php/resp/article/view/1124/1806
5. 5 Blake H, Hassard J, Singh J, Teoh K. Work-related smartphone use during off-job hours and work-life conflict: A scoping review. PLOS Digit Health [Internet]. 2024; 3(7):e0000554. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000554
6. 6 Pérez-Galavís A. Síndrome de Boreout: Un riesgo emergente en el contexto laboral. Revista Salud de los Trabajadores. 2025; 33(1): 71-80. https://servicio.bc.uc.edu.ve/multidisciplinarias/saldetrab/vol33n1/art06.pdf
7. 7 Browne G, Minguez López, Abril M. El impacto de la tecnología portátil en los entornos laborales del siglo XXI [Internet]. Madrid: Comilllas.edu. 2019. https://repositorio.comillas.edu/rest/bitstreams/271666/retrieve
8. 8 Villar F. Sin pantallas siento y pienso mejor. Montena. 2025
9. 9 Castro-Martínez A., Díaz-Morilla P. Comunicación interna y gestión de bienestar y felicidad en la empresa española. Profesional de la información. 2020; 29(3); e290324. https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/93545497/50506-libre.pdf
10. 10 Calpa A, Martínez D. Influencia del Smartphone en os procesos de aprendizaje y enseñanza. Suma de Negocios. 2017; 8(17); 11-18. https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/312305/1-s2.0-S2215910X17X00025/1-s2.0-S2215910X17300010/main.pdf
11. 11 Duke É, Montag C. Smartphone addiction, daily interruptions and self-reported productivity. Addict Behav Rep. 2017;6: 90-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.abrep.2017.07.002
12. 12 Venezuela. Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, Los Trabajadores y Trabajadoras. Gaceta Oficial de la República bolivariana de Venezuel, N° 6.076 Extraordinaria. Mayo 7, 2012.
13. 13 Betancourt O. La salud y el trabajo. Texto para la enseñanza y educación. OPS/OMS-FUNSALUD. 1999. http://www.histoemb.fmed.edu.uy/sites/www.dso1.fmed.edu.uy/files/materiales/Salud%20y%20Seguridad%20en%20el%20trabajo%20-%20Ecuador.pdf
14. 14 Hansraj KK. Assessment of stresses in the cervical spine caused by posture and position of the head. Surgical technology International xxv. 2014. https://pingeprii.ee/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Hansray-K.K.-Assessment-of-Stresses-in-the-Cervical-Spine-Caused-by-Posture-and-Position-of-the-Head.pdf
15. 15 Xie W, Schultz M, Lister R, Hou Z, Rajagopal N, Ray P, et al. Epigenomic analysis of multineage differentiation of human embryonic stem cells. Elseiver Inc. 2013. P. 1134-1148 http://doi.org/10.1016/cell.2013.04.022
16. 16 Díaz A, Mejía G. Diseño de un sistema de monitoreo y prevención de trastornos visuales y ergonómicos relacionados con el trabajo, basado en tnoogá wearable para empleados de oficina. Uniminuto. https://repository.uniminuto.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/63a448f6-246e-4e35-b402-2b7eb857fe3c/content
17. 17 American Optometric Association. Síndrome de visión por computadora. https://www.aoa.org/healthy-eyes/eye-and-vision-conditions/computer-vision-syndrome
18. 18 Niosh. Riesgos químicos. Niosh. 2020.
19. 19 Torres L. Ergonomía móvil: Enfermedades laborales en la era digital. Gaceta Médica de México. 2021; 157(4), 210-225.
20. 20 Conflicto de intereses
21. 21 The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.