The power of asynchronous work: regaining focus, reducing meetings, and protecting well-being

Introduction: From the ideal of continuous availability to a more time-conscious organization

Hybrid work has shifted the focus from physical presence to time management. Continuous availability, reinforced by virtual meetings and instant messaging, can turn every moment of concentration into an opportunity to respond. Recent research proposes treating time as a social and organizational dimension, not just a measure of speed or productivity (Griva et al., 2024) . From this perspective, asynchronicity is not equivalent to working in isolation, but rather to distributing coordination so that simultaneous presence is reserved for tasks that require it. The goal is to protect attention without eliminating the exchanges that underpin shared knowledge. This review examines the relationship between time autonomy, cognitive load, retrieval, documentation, and trust, and defines what can be said about focus and burnout.

Temporal autonomy and deep work: how asynchronous work reshapes the hybrid workday

Asynchronous work reorganizes the workday by separating production, communication, and coordination. Its main promise is not to work less per se, but to reduce reliance on shared schedules for activities that can be handled through documents, structured messages, or recorded decisions. The effect on deep work, therefore, depends on how these practices are designed and what informal pressures remain active.

Flexibility, acceleration, and negotiation of attention in hybrid work

Temporal autonomy allows individuals to decide when to perform tasks that require concentration, but it does not eliminate the norms that reward speed of response. A qualitative study with hybrid workers describes acceleration as a temporal structure that organizes the speed of tasks and interactions; its participants responded to it passively, reproduced it, or tried to resist it (Huusko et al., 2025) . The experience of being busy, therefore, can persist even if meetings decrease, because the pressure shifts to email, messaging, and requests for immediate responses.

Asynchronicity works best when the organization distinguishes between urgency, coordination, and productivity. The weeks without meetings studied by Ferguson and Massimi generated three orientations in time use, focused on concentration, collaboration, or time management, but also forced a renegotiation of how to request and delegate attention (Ferguson & Massimi, 2024) . This finding challenges the idea that eliminating meetings automatically frees up concentration: if alternative channels are not available, workers may replace a scheduled interruption with multiple informal interruptions.

Flexibility requires collective rules. Research on hybrid teams shows that shared agreements stabilize coordination practices and guide which activities take place at home, in the office, or during periods of anticipated co-presence (Gerbl & Williams, 2026) . This stability does not reduce individual autonomy but rather limits uncertainty about when it is reasonable to request a response. The timeline should specify availability windows, expected response times, decision formats, and conditions that justify a meeting.

Information architecture also influences autonomy. A field experiment on asynchronous communication in hybrid organizations examined the production, consumption, and novelty of information, and found that workers who split their time between home and office were able to transmit useful and new information to their recipients (Schirmann et al., 2026) . This evidence does not demonstrate that all asynchronicity improves productivity, but it does indicate that temporal distribution can facilitate the flow of information when appropriate recipients and structures exist.

Recovery time, interruptions, and limitations versus permanent connectivity

Deep work requires periods free from competing demands, while recovery requires that work have recognizable boundaries. A systematic review on recovery notes that scheduling factors have received little attention, even though recovery is dynamic and dependent on the temporal conditions of work (Sloan et al., 2024) . Asynchronicity can help establish boundaries, but it can also extend the workday if it turns every moment of the day into a potential moment of response.

Messaging instantly illustrates this ambivalence. In an observational study of employees sending important messages to their supervisors, the lack of read receipts was associated with more negative emotions and lower job engagement; the quality of the supervisor-employee relationship did not uniformly mitigate this association (Bareket-Bojmel et al., 2024) . The problem is not just the volume of messages, but the uncertainty surrounding their receipt and the social significance of silence. An asynchronous policy should make it clear when a message has been received, when a response will be given, and which issues do not require immediate attention.

Synchronous interruptions also do not have uniform effects. A two-week diary distinguished between interruptions that benefited the interrupter and those that benefited the person being interrupted; both were indirectly associated with job satisfaction through interpersonal citizenship behaviors or work engagement, but unrelated to cognitive exhaustion (Toebben et al., 2024) . Therefore, prohibiting all interruptions would be just as inappropriate as normalizing them. The key is to establish criteria so that interruptions have an identifiable purpose and a proportional cost.

Reducing working hours offers a broader organizational benchmark. In a four-day workweek intervention with no pay reduction, an analysis of 2,896 employees from 141 organizations showed improvements in burnout, job satisfaction, and mental and physical health compared to control companies; these improvements were associated with greater perceived work capacity, fewer sleep problems, and less fatigue (Fan et al., 2025) . This finding does not prove that asynchronicity produces the same effects, but it suggests that protecting time requires changes in the amount and structure of work, not just new communication tools.

Fewer meetings, less cognitive load: costs and conditions of synchronous collaboration

Synchronous meetings concentrate coordination, social interaction, and information production into a single timeframe. Their cost depends on the duration, the task, the group composition, and the possibility of performing activities in parallel. Available evidence supports a selective reduction, not an indiscriminate replacement of all conversation with messaging.

Fatigue, multitasking, and declining performance in videoconferences

Cognitive load increases when videoconferencing requires simultaneous attention to the conversation and a secondary task. In an experiment with 94 participants, multitasking during a videoconference resulted in greater increases in general, motivational, emotional, social, and visual fatigue, along with poorer objective performance in note-taking and proofreading (Frontzkowski et al., 2025) . A longitudinal study with 106 participants linked greater multitasking intensity in recurring virtual seminars with increases in general, motivational, emotional, and social fatigue, but not visual fatigue (Frontzkowski et al., 2025) . The convergence between these two designs suggests that multitasking is not a neutral strategy for coping with excessive meetings.

The effects also extend to the collective outcome. In an incentivized laboratory experiment with 72 participants, multitasking was associated with greater process loss and lower satisfaction with the meeting outcome compared to the no-multitasking condition (Seitz et al., 2025) . The divergence between perceived and actual performance may perpetuate the practice: participants who multitasked did not rate their performance better and, in some cases, even rated it somewhat worse, while the objective impairment was clearer (Frontzkowski et al., 2025) . Reducing meetings may decrease the need to divide attention, but the expectations that drive people to respond to messages during meetings must also be re-examined.

Fatigue also doesn’t develop identically in everyone. A NeuroIS study with 18 participants, focused on a 45-minute interactive planning task, observed temporal fluctuations in mental workload using heart rate, heart rate variability, and self-reports; subjective overload varied among participants (Krisam et al., 2025) . These results support breaks tailored to the dynamics of the task and individual differences, although the sample size and laboratory setting limit their generalizability. Breaks don’t replace eliminating unnecessary meetings, but they can reduce the cost of those that remain.

The literature does not present meetings as inherently harmful. Two daily studies of virtual meetings found that flow experiences were associated with improved work and home functioning through smaller intraday changes in cognitive exhaustion, especially when emotional dissonance was low (Rivkin et al., 2024) . The difference with multitasking studies can be explained by the task itself and the form of participation: a focused and emotionally manageable meeting is not the same as a meeting that competes with other demands.

When meetings add value: coordination, creativity, inclusion, and effectiveness

Meetings add value when their simultaneity allows for resolving dependencies, exchanging tacit knowledge, or building a shared understanding. A model of knowledge-intensive work teams shows that coordination consumes production time, but that efficient rules depend on team size and the heterogeneity of its members; large teams can benefit from fixed intervals, while smaller teams allow for more flexible decisions (Roels & Corbett, 2021) . The practical consequence is that a uniform reduction in meetings may be inefficient: the frequency must be adjusted to the structure of interdependencies.

Effectiveness also requires inclusion. A large-scale study of remote meetings linked perceived effectiveness and inclusion to objective meeting attributes and explored predictive models based on those attributes, though it noted difficulties in measuring subjective experience (Hosseinkashi et al., 2024) . Asynchronicity can broaden participation for those unable to attend simultaneously, but only if it offers comprehensible access to decisions, arguments, and opportunities to respond. A context-free recording can preserve formal presence while simultaneously excluding those who need to reconstruct the reasoning.

Creativity requires a similarly selective approach. The meta-analysis on productivity and creativity in virtual meetings examines the relationship between videoconferencing, cognitive load, productivity, and creativity, but the summary does not allow for establishing a common magnitude or a general superiority of the synchronous or asynchronous modality (Masjutin & Ebert, 2025) . The available evidence supports an experimental and differentiated policy, not a universal assertion about which channel produces better ideas.

It can represent the organizational decision through a sequence that preserves the meeting only when it resolves a need that the documentation cannot cover.

The meeting, in this context, is a coordination intervention with explicit costs, not the normal state of collaboration.

Designing asynchronous collaboration that works: information, trust, and coordination

Asynchronous collaboration depends on information being locatable, interpretable, and actionable. When workers are not in sync, the device replaces part of the shared memory that was previously built through conversation. The design must simultaneously address content, the traceability of decisions, and the relationships that allow for questioning, disagreeing, and committing.

From meeting to artifact: documentation, traceability and circulation of knowledge.

Meeting artifacts can act as bridges to subsequent work. Interviews and a survey of 198 workers identified five uses of meeting information: archiving, task reminders, onboarding or inclusion, collective interpretation, and a starting point for later collaboration (Wang et al., 2024) . Regular notes and recordings don’t always fulfill these functions, because preserving information is not the same as structuring it for action. A good artifact should connect decisions with those responsible, open-ended questions, context, and next steps.

Traceability reduces the need to convene meetings to reconstruct decisions. Research on knowledge networks shows that coordination depends on formal and informal exchanges of tacit and codified knowledge; their mechanisms of “invisible iterations” allow for responding to complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity through relationships that cut across hierarchy (Brennecke et al., 2024) . Documentation alone does not capture all this knowledge. It must be complemented by consultation spaces and clear pathways for incorporating people who possess relevant information.

Technology can expand this function. The SEAM concept proposes virtual agents that represent absent colleagues during meetings and allow them to review the session afterward from their perspective; two mixed-methods studies with 45 participants found perceived benefits for both attendees and absentees, including greater inclusion of the absent colleague (Bai et al., 2025) . This is a proof of concept, not evidence of sustained productivity. Its value lies in showing that asynchronous participation can be designed as contextual interaction, and not just as passive consumption of a recording.

Operational stability, trust, and participation in distributed teams.

Trust transforms asynchronicity into a coordinated practice, rather than a series of waiting periods. A mixed-methods longitudinal study with 45 participants who worked for ten weeks in temporary teams found that trust, involvement, team familiarity, psychological safety, and task sense were associated with successful asynchronous collaboration (Nissing et al., 2026) . Given the temporary teams and project context, the findings should not be automatically generalized to permanent organizations. However, it does indicate that the absence of simultaneous contact necessitates signals of trustworthiness and norms of participation.

Stability can also stem from agreements on schedules and spaces. In hybrid teams, a shared work arrangement guided predictable co-presence and helped manage the friction between temporal flexibility and coordination (Gerbl & Williams, 2026) . The organization must explicitly define response times, who is responsible for each decision, and how to escalate bottlenecks. In this way, asynchronicity does not place the entire burden of coordination on individual initiative.

Participation requires mechanisms for those who were not present and for those who process information more slowly. Tools should allow for comments, corrections, background information, and feedback before a decision is finalized (Wang et al., 2024) . Trust is undermined when silence is interpreted as consent or when urgency always favors those who respond first. Sustainable collaboration combines defined deadlines with genuine opportunities for review.

Critical synthesis and gaps: why eliminating meetings is not enough to gain focus

The evidence suggests that frequent meetings and multitasking can consume attention, but it doesn’t establish that asynchronicity is a standalone solution. Its effects depend on the information architecture, time norms, work interdependence, and the quality of relationships. Focus emerges as an organizational outcome that must be achieved through various conditions, not as an automatic property of a tool.

The tension between autonomy and coordination in the available evidence.

Temporary autonomy can protect concentration, although it can also shift the coordination burden to the worker. Weeks without meetings show that the freed-up time generates different orientations and new ways of negotiating attention (Ferguson & Massimi, 2024) . Studies on acceleration also describe how some workers contribute to the speed that limits them, while others try to resist it (Huusko et al., 2025) . The policy of asynchronicity must measure which demands disappear and which reappear as messages, follow-ups, or administrative work.

Coordination maintains a similar tension. Scheduling models indicate that the appropriate rule changes with the size and heterogeneity of the team (Roels & Corbett, 2021) , while network studies show that coordination also depends on informal exchanges that are difficult to document (Brennecke et al., 2024) . Eliminating meetings may reduce interruptions, but it can also mask disagreements, delay decisions, or weaken the circulation of tacit knowledge. The relevant question is not how many meetings are eliminated, but what coordinating function is retained and at what cost.

Methodological limitations and open questions about productivity, creativity, and burnout

The empirical basis combines laboratory experiments, diaries, interviews, observational studies, theoretical models, and field analyses. Experiments on multitasking identify proximate effects on fatigue and performance, but their tasks and samples do not represent the full diversity of hybrid work (Frontzkowski et al., 2025; Seitz et al., 2025) . The NeuroIS study provides physiological measures, although it relies on 18 participants and a 45-minute task (Krisam et al., 2025) . Qualitative studies capture time negotiation and subjective experience, but do not estimate population effects (Ferguson & Massimi, 2024; Huusko et al., 2025) .

Three gaps remain. First, longitudinal comparisons of asynchronous work policies with concurrent measures of productivity, creativity, resilience, and coordination quality are lacking. Second, the literature more accurately measures fatigue and satisfaction than collective output and the novelty of ideas. Third, little is known about inequalities among workers based on autonomy, hierarchical position, caregiving responsibilities, disability, or reliance on tacit knowledge. Future research should evaluate comprehensive organizational packages, not just the number of meetings.

Conclusion: towards a policy of selective, specific and sustainable asynchronicity

A policy of selective asynchronicity should reserve concurrent meetings for immediate dependencies, joint interpretation, inclusion, or decisions that are difficult to document. The rest of the work requires contextual artifacts, assigned responsibilities, deadlines, and review processes, along with clear norms regarding availability and response. Evidence indicates that multitasking in videoconferences impairs performance and increases fatigue (Frontzkowski et al., 2025) , but also that certain meetings can sustain flow, coordination, and inclusion (Hosseinkashi et al., 2024; Rivkin et al., 2024) . Reducing meetings will only lead to greater focus if messaging pressure and time uncertainty also decrease. The success criterion should be more predictable coordination, with more time for concentration and recovery, not simply a drop in the number of calendar invitations.

References

• Bai, Z., Grønbæk, J.E.S., Irletti, A., Knibbe, J., & Velloso, E. (2025). I can’t join, but I’ll send my agent: Surrogate-enhanced asynchronous meetings (SEAM). ACM Proceedings on Interactive, Portable, and Ubiquitous Mobile Technologies , 9 (4), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3770659
• Bareket-Bojmel, L., Icekson, T., Toshav-Eichner, N., & Sela, Y. (2024). Waiting for the boss’s blue checkmark: Supervisor attention, negative emotions, and job engagement during instant messaging at work. Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking , 27 (5), 347–352. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2023.0354
• Brennecke, J., Coutinho, J.A., Gilding, M., Lusher, D., & Schaffer, G.B. (2024). Invisible iterations: How formal and informal organization shape knowledge networks for coordination. Journal of Management Studies , 62 (2), 706–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13076
• Fan, W., Schor, J.B., Kelly, O.M., & Gu, G. (2025). Reducing working time through a 4-day workweek improves workers’ well-being. Nature Human Behaviour , 9 (10), 2153–2168. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02259-6
• Ferguson, SA, & Massimi, M. (2024). We will return to this topic next week: The effect of meeting-free weeks on distributed workers’ unstructured time and attention negotiation. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–17). https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642175
• Frontzkowski, Y., Krick, A., & Felfe, J. (2025). Harder, better, faster, but more fatigued: The impact of multitasking on videoconferencing, performance, and fatigue. Computers in Human Behavior Reports , 19 , 100736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100736
• Gerbl, J., & Williams, SP (2026). Navigating flexibility through stability: Emerging practices in hybrid work coordination. European Society for Socially Integrated Technologies (EUSSETDL) . https://doi.org/10.48340/ecscw2026_042
• Griva, A., Kruse, LC, Hattinger, M., Högberg, K., Pappas, IO, & Conboy, K. (2024). Creating space for time: Strategies for time-conscious hybrid work design. Information Systems Journal , 35 (2), 611–645. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12552
• Hosseinkashi, Y., Tankelevitch, L., Pool, J., Cutler, R., & Madan, C. (2024). Meeting effectiveness and inclusiveness: Large-scale measurement, identification of key features, and prediction in real-world remote meetings. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , 8 (CSCW1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637370
• Huusko, A., Kuismin, A., & Sivunen, A.E. (2025). Business is based on constant activity: The temporal autonomy of hybrid workers and the temporal structure of acceleration. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal , 21 (5), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/qrom-06-2025-3054
• Krisam, C., Seitz, J., & Knierim, MT (2025). When to take a break? Temporal dynamics of mental workload in remote meetings: a NeuroIS study. Journal of the Association for Information Systems .
• Masjutin, L., & Ebert, K. (2025). Productivity and creativity in virtual meetings: a meta-analysis. Open Science Framework . https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/g74pr
• Nissing, E., Blomqvist, K., & Siemon, D. (2026). Collaboration in temporal asynchronous online teams: An exploratory study of trust and commitment. Journal of the Association for Information Systems .
• Rivkin, W., Moser, KS, Diestel, S., & Alshaikh, I. (2024). Entering a state of flow during virtual meetings: How virtual meetings can benefit employees’ functioning at work and at home. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 150 , 103984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2024.103984
• Roels, G., & Corbett, CJ (2021). Too many meetings? Scheduling rules for team coordination. Management Science , 70 (12), 8647–8667. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.03227
• Schirmann, K., Espinosa, MA, Choudhury, P., Khanna, T., & Makridis, CA (2026). Information assessment: The content of asynchronous communication in hybrid work. AEA Papers and Proceedings , 116 , 212–217. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20261010
• Seitz, J., Stano, F., René, R., & Mädche, A. (2025). The impact of multitasking in videoconference meetings on meeting outcomes: Initial results. Journal of the Association for Information Systems . https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1231&context=ecis2025
• Sloan, M.M., Busick, C., Mitropoulos, T., Dosumu, F., & Calderwood, C.C. (2024). A question of opportunity? A systematic review of work scheduling dynamics in job recovery research and applications. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 46 (2), 242–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2825
• Toebben, L., Wehrt, W., Iser-Potempa, J., & Sonnentag, S. (2024). Synchronous daily interruptions at work: A social exchange perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 34 (1), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2024.2427052
• Wang, R., Qiu, L., Cranshaw, J., & Zhang, A.X. (2024). Meeting bridges: Designing information artifacts that bridge from synchronous meetings to asynchronous collaboration. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , 8 (CSCW1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637312