In 1972 Fox and Embrey conducted four experiments to determine whether efficiency in completing tasks was affected by background music, or a lack of. The four experiments were based around the workers completing certain tasks in a specified amount of time, with different styles of music being played in the background. Their findings suggested that music can improve efficiency in repetitive tasks. They also concluded that any music that is played should be “lively and upbeat", and the length and scheduling of the music are important. Some of the experiments involved the music being played in intervals rather than continuously. The results suggested that this was the best way to improve the efficiency.

In 1988 Martin found that subjects' test scores increased slightly in the presence of instrumental background music than with lyrical music or no music. Kiger did a similar study in 1989. He found that students scored highest on comprehension exams with low information load music (soft with a slow tempo, repetitive rhythm, and no lyrics) than with high information load music (non-repetitive, quick, upbeat lyrics) or no music.

Some jobs are very repetitive and monotonous, such as entering data into a database / spreadsheet or typing up a long document. These jobs require a little “spice" to keep the employees ‘sane’! This spice could be whistling or tapping out a rhythm with their feet. This however could get annoying for other workers in the office or work environment. There are arguments for individual employees to wear headphones to listen to different genres of music so as not to interfere with other employees’ work habits.

The alternative to each individual having headphones to listen to music, is that music is played around the workplace. In this case, the employer needs the volume level to be perfectly balanced to get the most from their employees. There is a problem for the employer of what genre of music to play. This brings the argument full circle, back to the problem that one genre of music may help one employer to concentrate, but may distract another.

There are, however, some disadvantages to playing music in the workplace. One disadvantage is the cost to buy a license to do so. As music is copyrighted, a license would have to be bought to play the employers’ choice of music. Buying this license means that the employer can play the specified copyrighted music for an annual payment. This cost would be more for a larger company than it would be for a small company. Another is that the music as a generalised term does not interfere with employees work habits. Placement of speakers is a key issue in this.

The original statement “The use of music enhances the working environment of the IT professional" may be the case in some instances, however, as shown, the odds of pleasing every employee are very slim. In the attempt to please every single employee, some essentials are lost. For example, giving every employee headphones to listen to his own music on, keeps everyone happy, but employees who don’t hear conversations may lose some efficiency, and the workplace can even, possibly, become a dangerous environment to work in due to alarms or warnings not being heard. If music is going to be played across the office as a whole, considerations have to be made. The considerations such as speaker placement, music genre and whether music is played in intervals or continuously, have to be well thought through so as not to annoy or aggravate certain employees. All decisions need to be carefully thought through, so as to please every employee, therefore getting the most efficient workforce possible. As studies have shown, the best music to play to get the most out of the workforce is soft, slow, instrumental, repetitive music, rather than fast, loud, lyrical music.