Regulating wellbeing in the brave new quantified workplace
Open accessAbstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to lay out the conceptual issues arising alongside the rise of sensory technologies in workplaces designed to improve wellness and productivity. Design/methodology/approach This is a text based conceptual paper. The authors’ approach is to throw light on some of the emerging issues with the introduction of wearable self-tracking technologies in workplaces. Findings The paper indicates that scholars will need to put ethical issues at the heart of research on sensory tracking technologies in workplaces that aim to regulate employee behaviour via wellness initiatives. Practical implications The study explores the legal issues around data protection and potential work intensification. Social implications Privacy and personal data protection, workplace discipline are discuss in this paper. Originality/value This is an original paper. Since there is very little scholarly research in this area, it is important to begin to consider the implications of sensory technology in workplaces linked to wellness initiatives, given the probable impact it will have on work design and appraisal systems.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Little attention has been paid to how technological change will affect our being.
“Little attention has been paid to how this will affect our being (Moore 2018; Moore and Piwek 2017).”
From Species Being in the Twenty-First Century (2018) · cites this paper as Moore and Piwek 2017
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 95
- Authors
- Moore, P., & Piwek, L.
- Affiliations
- Middlesex University London (GB)
- University of Bath (GB)
- Venue
- Employee Relations
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2017-04-03
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 308-316
- ISSN
- 0142-5455 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2558718094
- Cited by
- 95
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6
- FWCI
- 84.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- Locations
- Employee Relations (publishedVersion)
- Middlesex University Research Repository (Middlesex University Of London) (acceptedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Economic and Social Research Council (ES/L000660/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Industrial relations › Legal and Labor Studies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › COVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Keywords
- wearable devices, self-tracking, workplace health, employee well-being, workplace monitoring, data protection, privacy, work intensification, work discipline, job design, appraisal system
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
