The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1935-5181.htm

The relationship between Restrictive

human resource
restrictive human resource practices and
salary
practices and salary among
working professionals 89
Stephen Baglione Received 18 November 2019
Revised 18 August 2020
Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, Florida, USA 11 December 2020
Louis Tucci Accepted 7 April 2021

College of New Jersey, Ewing, New Jersey, USA, and

William Smith and Joanne Snead
Saint Leo University, Saint Leo, Florida, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This study forces respondents to tradeoff between invasive human resource practices and salary.
Design/methodology/approach – Respondents evaluated 16 calibration profiles to estimate a conjoint
model among four categories: pre-employment, employment at the office, employment outside the office, and
salary. Each profile included one level from the four categories.
Findings – In a study of mostly full-time employees, conditions at work were paramount. Salary was second
followed closely by pre-employment monitoring. Monitoring outside of the office was a distance last.
Practical implications – In a tight employment market, salary may not be the deciding selection factor for
employment.
Originality/value – Employee monitoring is advancing dramatically and making human resource activities
commonplace and invasive. This study forces respondents to confront these practices and determine whether
salary can compensate for their acceptance.
Keywords Workplace monitoring, Employee productivity, Employee work environment,
Workplace satisfaction, Compensation, Conjoint analysis
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Employees are the true competitive advantage. Firms are constantly trying to recruit and
retain the best and brightest. Recruitment and selection are critical functions (Ekwoaba et al.,
2015). New employees can add to the existing knowledge base (Saviour et al., 2016).
Conversely, failed employee search has ramifications beyond recruitment costs. Ineffective
recruitment can reduce employee morale and productivity (Lorincova, 2015). Relying on
technology, firms try to ensure the best are hired and retained.
Retaining productive workers is partially addressed through technology. Monitoring
workplace movements can improve collaboration and reduce idleness. Contributions to
meetings can be measured through wearable devices. It also improves workplace safety by
reducing on-the-job drug and alcohol abuse. These improvements may have long-term
disincentives since they are invasive. Can these disincentives be overcome through salary
increases? Would workers embrace invasiveness for financial incentives? According to social
exchange theory, employees would conduct a subjective cost-benefit analysis. Is reduced
freedom and oversight worth the financial incentive? American Journal of Business
A 1914 example provides a strong parallel. Henry Ford doubled the prevailing wages for Vol. 37 No. 2, 2022
pp. 89-107
his assembly line workers and reduced daily work hours (Nilsson, 2014). He did this not from © Emerald Publishing Limited
1935-5181
altruism but because of the pressure and monotony of assembly-line work. He made an DOI 10.1108/AJB-11-2019-0078
AJB unpalatable workplace acceptable. His workers reduced the time to produce a car from over
37,2 12 h to 93 min. Are we at the cusp of another technological revolution? Could companies
improve worker productivity through technological monitoring such as wearables and
location-based tracking? If so, could workers benefit from the largesse through higher wages?
Workplace surveillance software began with phone and email monitoring but extends to
tracking web browsing patterns, keystroke detection, video/surveillance, and monitoring of
location and text messages (Solon, 2017). Technology is making the boundary between work
90 and leisure more fluid allowing monitoring to extend beyond the workplace. Employee
monitoring ensures employees are productive at work and not visiting non-work-related
websites, social loafing, returning late from breaks, and engaging in unsafe practices (Solon,
2017). The Internet of Things (IoT) with its ability to transfer data without human
intervention will connect more devices and data increasing monitoring (Wang et al., 2015).
This may continue to blur the line between work and leisure.
Employers also can affect performance evaluations based on monitoring service (Katz,
2015). However, monitoring can lead to stressed employees, decreased productivity, and
increased turnover, as it affects morale, with many employees feeling monitoring is an
invasion of privacy (Katz, 2015).
The paper discussed the theoretical underpinning in social exchange theory. Monitoring is
categorized as being conducted during the hiring process, while working, and during off
hours. Within each category, we identify prevalent subcategories. These subcategories are
the bases for our research, where employees tradeoff among invasive practices and salary.
We discuss the pros and cons of workplace monitoring on employees. Our hypotheses are
constructed from gaps in the literature in the three monitoring categories. Methodology,
results, and conclusions follow.

1.1 Social exchange theory (SET)

According to SET, employees receive compensation or promotion and then feel obligated to
repay the compensation through positive efforts, attitudes and behaviors (Blau, 1964;
Gouldner, 1960; Lee and Bruvold, 2003). SET views employment relationships as a series of
ongoing exchange relationships, unspecific obligations over time, that establish the structure
of the employment interaction (Holland et al., 2015). SET stems from economic exchange
theory; however, unlike economic exchange, SET involves social costs and benefits, such as
trust, loyalty, and respect (Blau, 1964). SET is responsible for employee intrinsic motivation
(Kuvass, 2008), engagement (Kim and Park, 2017), attitude (Chou, 2016), job performance
(Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), and psychological wellbeing (Narwin, 2016). It is theorized
that society has incorporated this reciprocity into cultural norms (Gouldner, 1960). These
social costs do not ensure rewarding outcomes because there are no exact norms and
agreements to direct this interaction (Wang et al., 2015). Positive reciprocity is vital to SET,
and negative exchange implies negative reciprocity, and both can predict employees’
reactions and outcomes (Gouldner, 1960).
SET is based on a subjective cost-benefit analysis (Chernyak-Hai and Rabenu, 2018).
Unfulfilled obligations from employers’ results in less employee satisfaction (Tekleab et al.,
2005). Into this equation are thrust monitoring at work and compensation. How these
influence that cost-benefit equation is the thrust of our paper.

1.2 Pre-employment
Employers invest significant funds and time in recruiting and screening employees. Failed
hires incur costs for interviewing, hiring, training, and inculcating (Frye, 2017). The greater
costs can occur with destructive behavior: fraud, harassing coworkers, and theft that may
result in litigation (Frye, 2017). With companies reluctant to divulge information on reference
checks, companies are using more cognitive, personality and psychological testing to Restrictive
measure future success. Pre-employment personality tests have been shown to reduce hiring human resource
costs and departures of new hirers (Weber, 2015).
A potential quagmire for businesses is hiring employees addicted to alcohol or drugs.
practices and
Twenty-two percent of people have used alcohol or drugs during work (drugabuse.com, salary
2020). This number may rise with more people working from home (Jones and O’Donnell,
2019). Among retail workers, 5% tested positive for drugs, which extrapolating to the entire
industry would mean 837,000 potential drug users (Jones and O’Donnell, 2019). Thirteen 91
percent of men and 7% of women have purchased products to beat drug tests at work
(drugabuse.com, 2020).
Almost all Fortune 500 companies have a drug screening program. It is estimated that 45
to 50 million workplace drug tests are done annually in the US, creating a massive industry
(Engber, 2015). Drug testing programs in the workplace are typically pre- and post-
employment. Post-employment drug and alcohol testing are done randomly. Drug testing is
done to make the workplace safer from accidents or violence (Reidy and Hewick, 2018). Drug
use also negatively affects absenteeism and productivity (Howell, 2018).
Testing for addiction can be used to reduce health insurance premiums and improve
employees’ health. Twenty-one states allow employers to decline employment to smokers
(Isidore, 2020). Applicants must consent to a nicotine usage test. Recently, companies have
been utilizing this law. U-Haul has implemented this policy, although current employees are
exempt.
The Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) prohibits most private employers from
using a polygraph test for either pre-employment or employment screening (United States
Department of Labor, 2019). Employees in security and pharmaceutical industries may be
tested and employees suspected of workplace incidences that results in economic loss or
injury (United States Department of Labor, 2019). They are routinely used in pre-employment
for police officers and others in law enforcement.
Employee discrimination for genetic discrimination in employment and health insurance
is prohibited (Suter, 2019). Genetic discrimination does not extend to life insurance, long-term
care insurance and disability insurance (Brandt-Rauf et al., 2011). Employees applying for
these insurances may be rejected if the insurance agency knows they possess a genetic
abnormality (Harnett, 2018). Congress has considered a bill that would exempt workplace
wellness programs from the federal prohibition of collecting genetic information on
employees and their family members (Congress.gov, 2017). Many companies, such as
Salesforce, SAP, Instacart, Nvidia, Snap, Visa and General Electric Appliance, offer free
genetic screening to employees (Singer, 2018). For some companies, it is to reduce their health
care costs by spurring preventative health steps by employees.

1.3 At the office

Once good employees are hired, companies must ensure they remain productive and offer
opportunities for them to become more productive. Eighty-two percent of those employed
work at an employer’s location for an average slightly over eight hours daily (United States
Department of Labor, 2020).
A Microsoft study of people’s electroencephalograms (112) and survey responses (2,000)
found attention spans have decreased from 12 s in 2000 to eight seconds (McSpadden, 2015).
With the world at our disposal on our smartphones, workers have infinite distractions.
Distracted or unproductive workers cost US businesses hundreds of billions of dollars
annually (Kuligowski, 2019). Workers today are technological natives and incorporate
technology into every aspect of their lives, both at home and work (King, 2018). In one study,
workers checked their email as often as 36 times per hour and spent as much as 16 min
refocusing their attention (EmailStatCenter.com, 2015). US businesses estimate annual losses
AJB of $650 billion due to worker distraction or unproductive behaviors (Jackson, 2008). The
37,2 NCAA Basketball tournament, known as March Madness, has such a following that the
weeks-long competition resulted in $1.9 billion in lost worker productivity (Challenger, Gray
and Christmas, 2015).
Electronic monitoring allows employers to record their employees’ work patterns,
communication via email/phone, and movements inside the workplace (Holland et al., 2015).
Company issued cellphones are being used along with GPS technology to keep track of
92 employee’s movements (McNall and Stanton, 2011). Employer furnished vehicles are often
outfitted with equipment that monitors the employee’s location, time on location, and driving
habits. Employee monitoring includes wearable employee badges to measure employee
contributions to meetings and leadership (Kimura, 2015). An American company
microchipped (voluntary) 72 of its 90 employees that allows them to sign on to computers,
open doors and pay for vending snacks (Saner, 2018).
Monitoring is becoming more invasive and instructive. Some companies use sensors to
scan workers’ brainwaves and to detect fatigue, stress, and even emotions such as anger
(Saner, 2018). A Dutch company developed a wearable to tell when someone is stressed. It
could tell them when their decisions may be less rational (Gorvett, 2019). Intervention can
mitigate potential problems. Some tools are designed not to mitigate problems but enhance
performance. These location-based services (LBS) or awareness models can serve as a
valuable business tool for collaboration or efficiently using employees at geographically
separated locations.
The future of monitoring at work will change exponentially. There will be an explosion of
connected devices through the IoT (Wang et al., 2015). IoT are devices connected to the
Internet by sensors, each with an Internet protocol address. By 2023, spending on the IoT will
exceed a trillion dollars (Liu, 2020). A further blurring of professional and personal lives will
result from the IoT (Wang et al., 2015). Monitoring at work may keep employees focused and
enhances collaboration. Both result in employee productivity improvements.

1.4 Outside the office

Not only has cyberspace transformed the workplace by enabling workers to work from home
but also created a new employee surveillance (Holland et al., 2015). One form has been
necessitated by rising costs. The US spent over 15% of G.D.P. on health and health-related
services that produced sub-standard care on a global scale (Rubenstein, 2009). In 2017, the
amount reached almost 18% of G.D.P. and shows no signs of abating (Historical, 2018).
Activities outside the workplace have costs for employers. Employees who eat properly and
exercise directly affect healthcare premiums for employers. To influence this, employers are
offering wellness programs for employees outside the office.
Sixty-nine percent of employers with over 50 employees offered an employee wellness
program (Rand Corporation, 2015). These may include biometric screenings, such as exercise
programs, blood tests, health history, and nutritional and diet programs. Some employers use
biometric-driven software to help identify potential health problems, while others provide
wearable monitoring devices (Ho, 2017). Wearable fitness monitors and sleep recorders are
examples of how employers are monitoring employees away from work (Ho, 2017). It is
estimated that 55 million Americans are enrolled in wellness programs (Mattke et al., 2012).
Large employers will spend, on average, $3.9 million on wellness programs for their
employees to improve the productivity of the workforce (Kent, 2019). Well-run programs with
committed participants can result in up to a $2,000 reduction in employer health costs
annually per employee (Clancy, 2015).
Another activity started at work but consummated outside the workplace is romantic
relationships. Fifty-nine percent of respondents admitted to one (Pearce and Lipin, 2015).
Employers often ban workplace romance because the relationship could potentially become a
sexual harassment case (Boyd, 2010). At the very least, productivity and worker morale often Restrictive
decline. For those allowing them, employees may be required to sign a written human resource
acknowledgment that the relationship is consensual and will not impact the business
(McDonald and Noble, 2011).
practices and
Appearance at work has long been dictated by policy or influenced through social norms. salary
Body art, or tattoos as more commonly known, has seen a marked increase in the workforce in
the last decade (French et al., 2016). Laumann and Derick (2006) reported that nearly a quarter
of Americans between the ages of 18 and 50 have a tattoo, and there were negative 93
connotations associated with it. The Harris Poll (2012) reported almost a third of non-tattooed
respondents associate tattoos with deviant behavior. Also reported was a positive association
between tattoos, drinking, and drug use (Laumann and Derick, 2006). Although tattoos are
becoming more socially accepted, some employers still place restrictions on visible tattoos in
the workplace (French et al., 2016). This action may derive from perceptions that customers
will have an adverse reaction to tattooed employees versus non-tattooed (Elzweig and
Peoples, 2011).
Similar to monitoring during work, monitoring outside work affects the bottom line.
Reducing insurance premiums saves companies money and has the added benefit of a
healthier workforce and fewer sick days. “Prevention is the best tool for the elimination of
sexual harassment and employers must initiate preventative measures in an informed way”
(Pierce and Lipin, 2015, p. 346). Visible tattoos on employees can create negative connotations
for coworkers and customers, potentially reducing productivity and revenue.

1.5 Impact of workplace monitoring

Almost 80% of all organizations use employee performance monitoring (Tomczak et al.,
2018). Employers implement monitoring to improve workplace productivity and safety. Some
suggest that monitoring reduces turnover (Haley et al., 2012), improves employee behavior
(Pierce et al., 2015) and increases job satisfaction (Samaranayake and Gamage, 2012). While
others contend it creates stress, turnover, reduced trust, tension and stress (Holland et al.,
2015), and job dissatisfaction (Chory et al., 2016; Holland et al., 2015; Jeske and Santuzzi, 2015;
Smith and Tabak, 2009). Many employees see it as impinging on perceived autonomy and
fairness (Van Gramberg et al., 2014). They view workplace monitoring as violations of their
inter-personal space (Abbas et al., 2014; Zweig and Webster, 2002). Employee adverse effects
from being monitored have been documented as a reduction in social concern for others, fewer
interpersonal work relationships, and a feeling of workplace isolation (Grant and Mayer,
2009; Jeske and Santuzzi, 2015). Notably, knowledge sharing and productivity among
employees may be affected due to less communication (Kizza and Ssanyu, 2005). Also, active
monitoring reduces perceptions concerning an organization’s ethics, job acceptance, and
satisfaction. As the level of surveillance increases, counterproductive work behaviors also
tend to increase (Martin et al., 2016). In some cases, workers retaliate for the lost freedom from
surveillance (Lawrence and Robinson, 2007).
More than 100 graduate students in a human resource class over three semesters
commented on potential employee reaction to employee monitoring (Cohen and Cohen, 2007).
Restricting smoking outside of work received the most negative comments followed
by employee weight restrictions. Grooming restrictions produced only slightly more
positive than negative comments. GPS monitoring of employee-owned trucks, universal
employee drug testing, and Internet and email monitoring were viewed as acceptable.
Employer restrictions of employees outside of work produced the most discord, and employee
acceptance is predicated on advance notice before implementation and an explanation of the
rationale for implementation.
The literature has shown that monitoring may have positive and negative effects on the
workforce. In either case, employees’ work environment is changed. Social exchange theory
AJB tells us a subjective cost-benefit analysis would be utilized. We formalize this through
37,2 respondents completing a tradeoff analysis.

2. Hypotheses
Human resource policies have become more restrictive and intrusive for not only current but
94 also future employees. From the employer’s perspective, the right to privacy for employees
in the workplace is either nonexistent or less significant than after working hours (Chinyere
and Chiemela, 2014). The boundary between work and home is becoming thinner
as management seeks to blur the lines of control and autonomy. A dilemma exists for all
involved: monitoring may increase employee value to the organization, but it may
also impinge upon employee perceived autonomy and fairness, resulting in deleterious
actions.
Many pre-employment and retention programs have been replaced and supplemented
with technology. This trend will only continue to grow with the IoT. We examine technology
and human resource practices in pre-employment, workday, and off-duty.
Would employees tradeoff between invasive practices (both technology and non-
technology) and salary (Table 1) (Holt et al., 2016; White, 2004)? Does the subjective cost-
benefit analysis of employees associated with the social exchange theory include trading
privacy for money? Could firms offer higher salaries for the acceptance of invasive practices?
Within the three categories, i.e., (pre-employment, workday, and off-duty) one level is chosen

Invasion of Conjoint Legal

privacy (H1) analysis (H2) (H3)

Pre-Employment
Drug test (urine) X X X
Genetic blood test for disease and illnesses X X
Polygraph test X X
Written psychological test X X X
Employment (office)
Review company-owned hard drive through monitoring X X X
software
Video surveillance in all areas (including offices) except X X X
bathrooms
Prohibit visible tattoos and body piercings X X
Monitor movement (GPS) during the workday using an app X X X
on your smartphone
Employment (outside the office)
Drug test (urine) X X X
Prohibit romantic relationships between employees X X X
Mandatory wellness program (paid by employer), which X X X
includes 60 min of exercise weekly outside work (unpaid)
and annual physicals
Prohibit dangerous off-duty activities (such as skydiving, X X X
bungee jumping)
Salary
Comparable to the industry average for that position X
Table 1. $4,000 above the industry average for that position X
Monitoring activities $8,000 above the industry average for that position X
by hypotheses $12,000 above the industry average for that position X
per category along with salary. Respondents are presented with alternatives (conjoint Restrictive
profiles) comprising one subcategory for each of the three broader categories and a salary at human resource
or above the prevailing wage (see Appendix Table A1). Alternatives have four variables or
one subcategory from pre-employment, employment at the office, employment outside the
practices and
office, and salary. Conjoint analysis is chosen because it allows respondents to tradeoff salary
among attributes (Louviere, 1988).
Job satisfaction is multifaceted and includes: autonomy, career outlook, clarity, fairness,
goals, money, physical security, significance, social relationships, supervisor support and 95
variety (Warr, 2007). In a multinational study, job satisfaction’s most important factors are:
income, advancement, security, independent and interesting work, and good relationships
with managers and coworkers (Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza, 2000). Job satisfaction is also
influenced by intrinsic motivation (e.g., engaging, enjoy work and fun) (Aryee et al., 2015).
With artificial intelligence and machine learning replacing many jobs (Kak, 2018; Petroff,
2017) and wages stagnant (Shambaugh et al., 2017), wages should be the most important
attribute in the tradeoff analysis. For those employees remaining after others are replaced by
technology, more data about work and employees from artificial intelligence should create
more targeted monitoring.
After completing the conjoint exercise, respondents were asked whether the conjoint
subcategories (attribute level) were invasive and legal. Genetic and polygraph testing should
be viewed as illegal since their use is limited. We anticipate that variability will exist among
respondents on what is legal, also it may vary by state. We believe all activities will be
deemed an invasion of privacy.
H1. All activities will be viewed as an invasion of privacy (i.e., more than half of the
respondents agree).
H2. Genetic and polygraph testing will be deemed illegal (nine of 11 activities) (i.e., more
than half of the respondents agree).
H3. Utility in the conjoint results will be highest for salary among the four categories
(pre-employment, workplace, after work and salary).

3. Methods
A pretest to determine attribute levels was used. Respondents were asked what salary
increase would be required to choose between jobs. The range tested was from $1,000 to
$8,000 in $1,000 increments. The average required salary was $4,416. Four thousand was
chosen when we rounded the number. The survey was developed through multiple iterations
among colleagues; it was pretested among faculty, staff and students.
The survey was administered at a southeastern non-secular university to graduate
students in 13 business classes prior to the pandemic. The MBA program is part-time
and online, and from previous surveys, the overwhelming majority of students work
full-time, have an average age in their 30s, and are geographically dispersed. They
may have experienced many of the workplace surveillance issues discussed in this
paper and because of their education, may be in a position to implement some of it in the
future.
Respondents completed the survey online. Frequencies were examined to ensure no data
was outside the range of feasible answers. Pairwise deletion of missing data was used
(i.e., deleted by individual by question). Multivariate outliers were tested through
Mahalanobis distance (Tabachnickand Fidell, 2013). Tests were conducted at the 0.05
significance level. Conjoint analysis was chosen because of its extensive use in hundreds of
decision-making studies over the last four decades. It also has been used in human resource
studies (Bullinger and Treisch, 2015). The technique is widely used to measure consumer
AJB tradeoffs (Louviere, 1988). Conjoint analysis assumes for many respondents, multi-attribute
37,2 choices may be unmeasurable when examined according to each alternative’s attributes, but
they are measurable when considered jointly in an overall evaluation (Green and Rao, 1971).
This overall evaluation is statistically decomposed into part-worth estimates which when
combined, usually by summing, give the “best” estimate of the respondent’s overall
evaluation, because part-worths are measured in a common unit.
Respondents evaluated 16 calibration profiles to estimate the conjoint model and two
96 holdout profiles, not used in the estimation, to assess model validity. The holdout profile
scores are correlated with the calibration estimates. The number of profiles is determined
through an experimental design where attributes are orthogonal (i.e., zero correlation) and
fractional (i.e., evaluate a subset of possible attribute-level combinations). Main effects for
attribute level are estimated, but not interactions. Each profile consists of one level of the four
variables: pre-employment, employment at the office, employment outside the office, and
salary. Profiles were evaluated on a 1 (definitely would not accept) to 10 (definitely would
accept) scale (see Table A1 in Appendix for an example of a profile). Note: Salary is related to
the average industry for that position.
Individual utility scores determine the most important attribute and levels within
attributes. Model validity is measured through the correlation between the observed and
estimated preferences (Pearson’s R). Model fit is estimated through Kendall’s tau, which is the
correlation between the observed, respondents’ evaluation of the profile, and estimated
preferences of the holdout sample from the model (non-parametric comparing rankings)
(Hollander et al., 2014).
After completing the conjoint analysis, respondents were asked whether the 12
subcategories (same used in conjoint) were an invasion of privacy or legal. This was done
after to not contaminate the conjoint results. Responses were binary: yes or no. The results
were summed and calculated as a percentage out of 100. Fifty percent was the demarcation
point for whether a subcategory was deemed invasive or illegal.

4. Results
Two-hundred-and-twenty-nine graduate students in a part-time online MBA program
completed the survey, and five were discarded for incomplete data or lack of effort for a total
of 224 surveys used in the analysis. No question had more than seven missing values. A
manipulation check was correctly identified by 92% of respondents.
The sample is predominately female (65%) and, overwhelmingly employed full-time
(81%). The average age is 35, with a range from 20 to 60. They spend an average of 15 h
weekly on homework (classes are eight-weeks) and have an average GPA of 3.67 (self-
reported) with a range from 2.97 to 4.00. Eighty-two percent are married (47%) or single
(35%). Fifty-one percent are parents. Sixty percent have an undergraduate business degree.
Most respondents reside in suburban areas (60%), followed by urban (26%) and rural (14%)
(see Table 2).
Before analyzing the conjoint analysis results, the binary answers (yes or no) for whether
subcategories are illegal or invasive were examined. The following activities were perceived
(more than half of the respondents) as an invasion of privacy: GPS monitoring at work;
genetic and polygraph testing; and prohibiting dangerous activities outside of work (Table 3).
Only four of 11 activities are deemed an invasion of privacy. When the threshold is reduced to
25%, only drug testing and reviewing of company-owned computer hard drives are not
viewed as invasive. Hypothesis one is not supported since all activities were not perceived as
invasive by more than half of the respondents.
The following activities were perceived as legal (more than half of the respondents): drug
testing; prohibiting romantic relationships between employees; reviewing company-owned
Question Percentage
Restrictive
human resource
Community1 practices and
Urban 26
Rural 14 salary
Suburban 60
Employed (full-time) 97
Yes 81
No 19
Gender
Male 35
Female 65
Parent
Yes 49
No 51
Marital Status
Married 47
Single 35
Divorced 9
Long-term relationship 7
Separated 2
Widowed 1
Undergraduate Degree
Business 60
Non-business 39 Table 2.
Both 1 Demographics
Note(s): 1Because of rounding error may not sum to 100 (n 5 224)

Invasion of Legal
privacy (H2) (H3)

Pre-Employment
Drug test (urine) 7% 83%
Genetic blood test for disease and illnesses 81% 35%
Polygraph 55% 32%
Psychological test 24% 49%
Employment (office)
Review company-owned hard drive through monitoring software 15% 85%
Video surveillance in all areas (including offices) except bathrooms 37% 80%
Prohibit visible tattoos and body piercings 25% 49%
Monitor movement (GPS) during the workday using an app on your 85% 37%
smartphone
Employment (outside office)
Prohibit romantic relationships between employees 32% 63%
Mandatory wellness program (paid by the employer), which includes 60 min 30% 39%
of exercise weekly outside work (unpaid) and annual physicals
Prohibit dangerous off-duty activities (such as skydiving, bungee jumping) 70% 38% Table 3.
Note(s): 1Invasion of privacy and legality are two different questions Monitoring activities1
AJB computer hard drives; and video surveillance at work. More than 25% of respondents view all
37,2 activities as legal. Hypothesis two is not supported since six of the activities were viewed as
illegal (i.e., more than half of respondents).

4.1 Overall statistics (conjoint analysis)

Overall preference is affected most by activities inside the office. Salary and pre-employment
98 are comparable in importance but distanced from activities inside the office. Activities
outside the office are a distant last (Table 4). (Note: Relative importance weights sum to 100
and part-worth within a category sum to one.) Hypothesis three is not supported. Salary was a
distant second in importance.

Category Averaged importance scores

Pre-employment 24.7
Employment (office) 30.6
Table 4. Employment (outside office) 19.3
Conjoint results Salary 25.4

The correlation between respondents’ observed values (16 profiles) and estimated
preference or part-worths is high (Pearson’s R). The correlation between respondents’
observed values and the two holdout samples (not used to estimate the model) is high
(Kendall’s tau) (Table 5). Both indicate a very good model fit.

Statistic Value Significance

Pearson’s R 0.98 0.000

Table 5. Kendall’s Tau 0.93 0.000
Conjoint results Kendall’s Tau for Holdouts 1.00
(overall) Note(s): Correlation between observed and estimated preferences

Within variables, we examine the levels or part-worths, which measure utility. Higher
utility indicates greater preference. For the most important variable, employment at
work, respondents are displeased with monitoring employees during the workday using
an app on their smartphone (
1.507) but view favorably monitoring company-owned
computers (0.711), video surveillance (0.392) in all areas (including offices and excluding
bathrooms) and the prohibition of visible tattoos and body piercing (0.400) (Table 6).
Salary is the next most important variable, and levels are as expected with $12,000
(0.803) the highest and compare to the industry average the lowest (
1.038). The middle
value ($4,000 and $8,000) have a small positive impact. The third variable is pre-
employment tests. Genetic tests for diseases and illnesses (
0.986) is perceived as highly
negative, while drug tests are positive (0.897). Polygraph (0.060) and psychological
(0.029) tests are most positive and have little utility. Employment activities outside the
office is the least important. Prohibiting romantic relationships (0.265) among co-
workers is positive. Prohibiting dangerous off-duty activities (e.g. skydiving and bungee
jumping) (
0.458) resulted in negative utility. Paid mandatory wellness programs and
annual physicals were slightly negative (
0.145). Mandatory urine drug tests was barely
positive (0.087).
 Part-
Restrictive
worths human resource
practices and
Pre-Employment
Drug test (urine) 0.897 salary
Genetic blood test for disease and illnesses
0.986
Polygraph test 0.060
Written psychological test 0.029 99
Employment (office)
Review company-owned hard drive through monitoring software 0.711
Video surveillance in all areas (including offices) except bathrooms 0.396
Prohibit visible tattoos and body piercings 0.400
Monitor movement (GPS) during the workday using an app on your smartphone
1.507
Employment (outside the office)
Drug test (urine) 0.087
Prohibit romantic relationships between employees 0.516
Mandatory wellness program (paid by employer), which includes 60 min of exercise weekly
0.145
outside work (unpaid) and annual physicals
Prohibit dangerous off-duty activities (such as skydiving, bungee jumping)
0.458
Salary
Comparable to the industry average for that position
1.038
$4,000 above the industry average for that position 0.126
$8,000 above the industry average for that position 0.108 Table 6.
$12,000 above the industry average for that position 0.803 Conjoint part-worths

Utilities can be added since they are expressed in a common unit. The highest combination is
a salary of $12,000 above the prevailing market with the reviewing of company-owned hard
drives through monitoring software and the prohibition of romantic relationships between
employees. To obtain this, prospective employees must submit to a drug test.
Figures 1–4 shows graphically the results from Table 6.

5. Conclusion
From an employer’s perspective, unproductive workers cost US businesses hundreds of
billions annually (Kuligowski, 2019). This is even more salient in a pandemic when employees
are working without in-person supervision. For many managers, this may be the first time a
subordinate worked remotely, making technology more pertinent in assessing productivity.

0.897

0.06 0.029
Ulity Levels

Drug Genec Polygraph Psychological

Figure 1.
Pre-employment
–0.986
AJB 0.711

37,2 0.396 0.4

Hard drive Surveillance Taoos GPS

Ulity Levels

100

Figure 2.
Employment (office)
–1.507

0.516
Ulity Levels

0.087

Drug Romanc Wellness Dangerous

–0.145

Figure 3.
Employment (outside
office)
– 0.458

0.803

0.126 0.108
Ulity Levels

Comparable $4k above $8k above $12k above

Figure 4.
Salary
–1.038

From an employee’s perspective, wages have stagnated or increased slowly (Shambaugh

et al., 2017), and the future of employment is uncertain with artificial intelligence, IoT,
machine learning and robots posed to replace workers in many occupations (Kak, 2018;
Petroff, 2017). Unemployment is at record lows, but labor force participation is still low. (Data
was collected before the pandemic.) Overlaying this is technology used to improve employee
productivity, much of which can be deemed invasive and prevalent. We expected workers
would demand higher wages in accordance with social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Salary
was important, but working conditions were paramount, affirming the relationship between
higher pay and job acceptance (Holt et al., 2016). Salary and pre-employment human resource
practices were second and third, respectively. Restrictions on activities outside of work was
the least important. Our results contradict prior research where off-duty activities were Restrictive
polarizing (Cohen and Cohen, 2007). The results do confirm the subjective cost-benefit human resource
analysis inherent in social exchange theory. Our variables have different degrees of
importance among pre-employment, employment and outside the office.
practices and
Has a blurring of work and leisure made workers more receptive to monitoring outside salary
work? The results indicate yes and no. Workers are least concerned about monitoring outside
of work, but activity type matters. Activities that impinge on leisure activities were
negatively viewed: mandatory wellness programs and prohibiting dangerous off-duty 101
activities. They were okay with drug testing and prohibiting romantic relationships. Those
have clearer consequences that workers can acknowledge and accept.
For many, work is the single largest activity completed during the week. They work eight
hours daily with most spending time in a workplace; therefore, working conditions are
important. Our respondents are seasoned employees with an average age of 35 and four in
five working full-time. Salary is important, but it alone cannot compensate for an invasive
workplace. Within employment at the office, respondents oppose vehemently monitoring
movement with a smartphone app. Location-based technology can enhance collaboration, but
as indicated with prior research, employees view it as a violation of their personal space
(Abbas et al., 2014; Zweig and Webster, 2002). Genetic testing is illegal (Suter, 2019) but may
affect life, long-term care and disability insurance (Brandt-Rauf et al., 2011). Newer
technology has a more negative impact: monitoring and genetic testing. Confirming this
finding is that these activities were viewed as an invasion of privacy by a majority of
respondents. Health care costs are rising (CNN.com, 2016), and 90% of organizations are
using wellness programs to combat those costs (Medical Billing and Coding, 2012).
Employees are not embracing these programs according to our data. The results confirm
prior research that employee monitoring can create stress, turnover, reduce trust, and job
satisfaction (Chory et al., 2016; Holland et al., 2015; Jeske and Santuzzi, 2015; Kizza and
Ssanyu, 2005; Smith and Tabak, 2009). More importantly, it can result in social concern for
others and workplace isolation (Grant and Mayer, 2009; Jeske and Santuzzi, 2015).
Salary results show a large increase going from $8,000 to $12,000. The difference between
the industry average and $4,000 is dramatic. There is an inconsistency between $4,000 and
$8,000, with the former being a higher utility. Even with that, salary must be very high to
have a dramatic impact. That occurs at $12,000 over the industry average.
Activities where consensus on the benefits exists are less controversial. Drug testing has
been shown to make the workplace safer. Employers own the equipment at work, so reviewing
company-owned computers is acceptable. Video surveillance can make everyone safer.
Romantic relationships can ensnare workers in uncomfortable situations and employers in
litigation. Acquiescing costs workers little. Visible tattoos and body piercings may be
perceived by coworkers and customers differently. Activities that require commitment such
as mandatory wellness programs are not embraced. The same is true for prohibiting
dangerous off-duty activities. It curtails freedoms and may require a concerted effort to plan
activities to receive approval before undertaking. Monitoring personal devices such as
smartphones is not acceptable. Finally, genetic testing it is surmised does not have a legitimate
employer need. Employees may only see ramifications: firing, higher health costs, etc.
Overall, respondents are more tolerant of activities, with less than half of the activities
deemed an invasion of privacy. Only these activities were perceived as legal: drug testing,
reviewing company-owned hard drives and prohibiting romantic relationships among
employees. More were seen as illegal than an invasion of privacy. Yet, many, if not most, are
legal, although it does vary by state.
Technology is making more human resource activities commonplace and invasive. With
the blurring of work and leisure and pressure on occupations being replaced by technology,
employees may have to tolerate more in the workplace and at home.
AJB 6. Future research and limitations
37,2 This research focused on monetary compensation and invasive human resource practice. Job
satisfaction encompasses much more (Warr, 2007; Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza, 2000). It is
multi-faceted, and this research does not include many important factors such as
advancement; security; independent and interesting work; and good relationships with
managers and coworkers (Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza, 2000). We do not know whether these
practices result in deviant behavior in the workplace or higher employee turnover (Jensen and
102 Raver, 2012; Martin et al., 2016). How do employees view employers who implement these
policies (Eisenberger et al., 1986)? Can management explain the policies to regain employee
trust (Chen and Ross, 2007: Halpern et al., 2008)? How these policies are implemented affects
acceptance. We only related in the survey that a policy was implemented. No justification for
the policy was offered.
Results can be examined within industries to whether that moderates results. Only main
effects were tested. There may be important interactions too. The legality of these practices will
vary across states. In California, “no person or entity in this state shall use an electronic tracking
device to determine the location or movement of a person” (Bloomberg Businessweek, 2015).
Companies with operations in Europe are subject to Europe’s General Data Protection
Regulations which affects employee data (HIPA, 2018). Processing of employee data will no
longer be accepted just given signing a contract for employment (HIPA, 2018). There may be
employee segments that differ on the acceptability and tradeoff with compensation. With a
larger sample, segment results could be examined by demographics. For the current study, not
asking where respondents reside is a limitation. These limitations are fertile grounds for future
research, especially during a pandemic where organizations must determine how to monitor
employees remotely and determine whether it is advantageous to continue the arrangement
post-pandemic. If productivity can be maintained pre- and post-pandemic, the savings of not
leasing or owning property for employees would be enormous.

References
Abbas, R., Michael, K. and Michael, M.G. (2014), “The regulatory considerations and ethical dilemmas
of location-based services (LBS) A literature review”, Information Technology and People,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 2-20.
Aryee, S., Walumbwa, F.O., Mondejar, R. and Chu, C.W. (2015), “Accounting for the influence of
overall justice on job performance: integrating self-determination and social exchange theories”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 231-252.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Routledge, United Kingdom.
Bloomberg Businessweek (2015), Testing Workers’ Digital Privacy Protections, Bloomberg, pp. 33-34,
(accessed May 2015).
Boyd, C. (2010), “The debate over the prohibition of romance in the workplace”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 97, pp. 325-338.
Brandt-Rauf, S., Brandt-Rauf, E., Gershon, R., Li, Y. and Brandt-Rauf, P.W. (2011), “Genes, jobs, and
justice: occupational medicine physicians and the ethical, legal, and social issues of genetic
testing in the workplace”, Ethics and Medicine; Highland Park, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-61.
Bullinger, B. and Treisch, C. (2015), “Herding cats–Future professionals’ expectations of attractive
employers”, German Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 149-177.
Challenger, Gray and Christmas (2015), “It’s March madness: this year’s madness could cost $1.9B”,
available at: https://www.challengergray.com/press/press-releases/its-march-madness-years-
madness-could-cost-19b (accessed September 2015).
Chen, J.V. and Ross, W.H. (2007), “Individual differences and electronic monitoring at work”,
Information, Community and Society, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 488-505.
Chernyak-Hai, L. and Rabenu, E. (2018), “The new era workplace relationships: is social exchange Restrictive
theory still relevant?”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 456-481.
human resource
Chinyere, I. and Chiemela, I. (2014), “Workplace E-monitoring and surveillance of employees: indirect
tool of information gathering”, International Journal of Science and Research, Vol. 3 No. 10,
practices and
pp. 2349-2353. salary
Chory, R.M., Vela, L.E. and Avtgis, T.A. (2016), “Organizational surveillance of computer-mediated
workplace communication: employee privacy concerns and responses”, Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 23-43. 103
Chou, P. (2016), “Social exchange relationship and employee attitudes toward newly introduced
information system”, European Scientific Journal, Vol. 12 No. 25, p. 163, doi: 10.19044/esj.2016.
v12n25p163.
Clancy, H. (2015), “Gym class heroes”, Fortune Magazine, Vol. 1 September, p. 42.
CNN.com (2016), “Health care costs rise by most in 32 years”, available at: http://money.cnn.com/2016/
09/16/news/economy/health-care-costs-rise-most-in-32years/ (accessed December 2016).
Cohen, C.F. and Cohen, M.E. (2007), “On-duty and off-duty: employee right to privacy and employer’s
right to control in the private sector”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 235-246.
Congress.gov (2017), “H.R.1313 - preserving employee wellness programs act”, available at: https://
www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1313.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Drugabuse.com (2020), “The prevalence of substance abuse in the workplace”, available at: https://
drugabuse.com/?s5workplaceþdrugs.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa, D. (1986), “Perceived organizational support”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, p. 500.
Ekwoaba, J.O., Ikeije, U.U. and Ufoma, N. (2015), “The impact of recruitment and selection criteria on
organizational performance”, Global Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 22-33.
Elzweig, B. and Peeples, D.K. (2011), “Tattoos and piercings: issues of body modification and the
workplace”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 76 No. 1, p. 13.
EmailStatCenter.com (2015), available at: http://emailstatcenter.com/Usage.html.
Engber, D. (2015), “Why do employers still routinely drug-test workers? Slate”, available at: http://
www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2015/12/workplace_drug_testing_is_
widespread_but_ineffective.html.
French, M.T., Maclean, J.C., Robins, P.K., Sayed, B. and Shiferaw, L. (2016), “Tattoos, employment, and
labor market earnings: is there a link in the ink?”, Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 82 No. 4,
pp. 1212-1246.
Frye, L. (2017), “The cost of a bad hire can be astronomical”, SHRM, May 9, available at: https://www.
shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-relations/pages/cost-of-bad-hires.aspx.
Gorvett, Z. (2019), “Will we all soon be using ‘biometric CVs’? BBC.com”, available at: https://www.
bbc.com/worklife/article/20190809-will-we-all-soon-be-using-biometric-cvs.
Gouldner, A.W. (1960), “The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 161-178.
Grant, A.M. and Mayer, D.M. (2009), “Good soldiers and good actors: prosocial and impression
management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 4, p. 900.
Green, P.E. and Rao, V.R. (1971), “Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 355-363.
AJB Haley, L.M., Flint, D. and McNally, J.J. (2012), “The effects of employee perceptions of monitoring
procedures on turnover”, Problems and Perspectives in Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 75-82.
37,2
Halpern, D., Reville, P.J. and Grunewald, D. (2008), “Management and legal issues regarding electronic
surveillance of employees in the workplace”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 80 No. 2,
pp. 175-180.
Harnett, C. (2018), Genetic Testing at Work, HRExecutive.com website, Human Resource Executive,
available at: http://hrexecutive.com/genetic-testing-at-work/ (accessed 15 July 2019).
104
HIPAA Journal (2018), “Does GDPR apply to employees?”, available at: https://www.hipaajournal.com/
does-gdpr-apply-to-employees/ (accessed April).
Historical (2018), Available at: https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-
trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nationalhealthaccountshistorical.html.
Ho, S. (2017), “The future of workplace wellness programs”, Strategic HR Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 2-6,
available at: https://saintleo.idm.oclc.org/login?url5https://search-proquest-com.saintleo.idm.
oclc.org/docview/1870216765?accountid54870.
Holland, P.J., Cooper, B. and Hecker, R. (2015), “Electronic monitoring and surveillance in the
workplace: the effects on trust in management, and the moderating role of occupational type”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 161-175.
Hollander, M., Wolfe, D.A. and Chicken, E. (2014), Nonparametric Statistical Methods, 3rd ed., John
Wiley & Son, Hoboken, NJ.
Holt, M., Lang, B. and Sutton, S.G. (2016), “Potential employees’ ethical perceptions of active
monitoring: the dark side of data analytics”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 107-124.
Howell, B.S. (2018), The Far-Reaching, Positive Impact of Workplace Drug Testing, Occupational
Health & Safety website, available at: https://ohsonline.com/articles/2018/07/01/the-far-
reaching-positive-impact.aspx (accessed 15 July 2019).
Isidore, Chris (2020), “Do you smoke? Then you can’t get hired at U-Haul in these states”, available at:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/business/uhaul-smokers/index.html (accessed 18 July 2020).
Jackson, M. (2008), “May we have your attention, please?”, Business Week, Vol. 23 June, pp. 55-56.
Jensen, J.M. and Raver, J.L. (2012), “When self-management and surveillance collide: consequences for
employees’ trust, autonomy, and discretionary behaviors”, Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 37, pp. 308-346.
Jeske, D. and Santuzzi, A.M. (2015), “Monitoring what and how: psychological implications of
electronic performance monitoring”, New Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 30 No. 1,
pp. 62-78.
Jones, C. and O’Donnell, J. (2019), As nation struggles with opioid crisis, workers bring addiction to the
job, USA Today, available at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/03/29/addiction-at-
work-as-employees-abuse-opioids-pot-alcohol/3232928002/ (accessed July 2020).
Kak, S. (2018), “Will robots take your job? Humans ignore the coming ai revolution at their peril”, NBC
News, Vol. 7 February, available at: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/will-robots-take-
your-job-humans-ignore-coming-ai-revolution-ncna845366.
Katz, M.L. (2015), Monitoring Employee Productivity: Proceed with Caution, Society for Human
Resource Management, available at: https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pages/
0615-employee-monitoring.aspx (accessed June 2019).
Kent, J. (2019), “Large employers to average $3.6M on wellness programs in 2019”, available at: https://
healthpayerintelligence.com/news/large-employers-to-average-3.6m-on-wellness-programs-
in-2019.
Kim, W. and Park, J. (2017), “Examining structural relationships between work engagement,
organizational procedural justice, knowledge sharing, and innovative work behavior for
sustainable organizations”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 2, p. 205.
Kimura, T. (2015), “How new data-collection technology might change office culture”. available at: Restrictive
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/how-new-data-collection-technology-might-change-office-
culture-1.3196065. human resource
King, D. (2018), “Are workplace distractions hurting your bottom line?”, available at: http://
practices and
hrexecutive.com/are-workplace-distractions-hurting-your-bottom-line/. salary
Kizza, J.M. and Ssanyu, J. (2005), “Workplace surveillance”, in Electronic Monitoring in the Workplace:
Controversies and Solutions, IGI Global, pp. 1-18.
105
Kuligowski, K. (2019), “Distracted workers cost American businesses money”, available at: https://
www.businessnewsdaily.com/267-distracted-workforce-costs-businesses-billions.html.
Kuvaas, B. (2008), “An exploration of how the employee–organization relationship affects the linkage
between perception of developmental human resource practices and employee outcomes”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Laumann, A.E. and Derick, A.J. (2006), “Tattoos and body piercings in the United States: a national
data set”, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 413-421.
Lawrence, T.B. and Robinson, S.L. (2007), “Ain’t misbehaving: workplace deviance as organizational
resistance”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 378-394.
Lee, C.H. and Bruvold, N.T. (2003), “Creating value for employees: investment in employee
development”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 981-1000.
Liu, S. (2020), Internet of Things (IoT) - Statistics and Facts, Statista, available at: https://www.statista.
com/topics/2637/internet-of-things/ (accessed July).
Lorincova, S. (2015), “The improvement of the effectiveness in the recruitment process in the Slovak
public administration”, Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 34, pp. 382-389.
Louviere, Jordan J. (1988), Analyzing Decision Making: Metric Conjoint Analysis, Sage Publications,
Newbury Park.
Martin, A.J., Wellen, J.M. and Grimmer, M.R. (2016), “An eye on your work: how empowerment affects
the relationship between electronic surveillance and counterproductive work behaviours”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 21, pp. 2635-2651.
Mattke, S., Schnyer, C. and Van Busum, K. (2012), A Review of the U.S. Workplace Wellness Market,
The Rand Corporation, available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP373.html.
McDonald, R.E. Jr and Noble, F.W. Jr (2011), “Romance in the workplace: ethical and legal implications
for employers”, Proceedings of the Northeast Business and Economics Association, pp. 297-300,
available at: http://search.ebscohost.com.saintleo.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct5true&db5bth
&AN5101332112&site5ehost-live&scope5site.
McNall, L.A. and Stanton, J.M. (2011), “Private eyes are watching you: reactions to location sensing
technologies”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 299-309.
McSpadden, K. (2015), “You now have a shorter attention span than a goldfish”, Time Magazine,
available at: https://time.com/3858309/attention-spans-goldfish/ (accessed 20 July 2020).
Medical Billing and Coding (2012), Available at: http://www.medicalbillingandcoding.org/12-
companies-with -seriously-impressive-corporate-wellness-programs/.
Narwin, R. (2016), “Social exchange theory in human resource development context”, St. Theresa
Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2.
Nilsson, J. (2014), “Why did Henry Ford double his minimum wage?”, Saturday Evening Post, available
at: https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/01/ford-doubles-minimum-wage/ (accessed 18
July 2020).
Pearce, J.A. II and Lipin, I.A. (2015), “Mitigating the employer’s exposure to third party claims of a
hostile work environment”, Hastings Women’s Law Journal, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 319-354.
Petroff, A. (2017), “U.S. Workers face higher risk of being replaced by robots”, Here’s Why, CNN.com,
available at: http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/24/technology/robots-jobs-us-workers-uk/index.html
(accessed March 2017).
AJB Pierce, L., Snow, D. and McAfee, A. (2015), “Cleaning house: the impact of information technology
monitoring on employee theft and productivity”, Management Science, Vol. 6 No. 10, pp. 2299-2319.
37,2
Rand Corporation (2015), Incentives for Workplace Wellness Programs, The Rand Corporation,
available at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/RB9800/RR9842/
RAND_RB9842.pdf.
Reidy, J. and Hewick, D. (2018), Are Employer Drug-Testing Programs Obsolete?, SHRM, available at:
https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/0618/pages/are-employer-drug-testing-
106 programs-obsolete.aspx (accessed July 2019).
Rubenstein, D.C. (2009), “The emergence of mandatory wellness programs in the United States
welcoming, or worrisome”, Journal of Health Care Law and Policy, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 99.
Samaranayake, V. and Gamage, C. (2012), “Employee perception towards electronic monitoring at
work place and its impact on job satisfaction of software professionals in Sri Lanka”,
Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 233-244.
Saner, E. (2018), “Employers are monitoring computers, toilet breaks – even emotions. Is your boss
watching you?”, The Guardian, Vol. 14 May, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/
2018/may/14/is-your-boss-secretly-or-not-so-secretly-watching-you (accessed 24 May).
Saviour, A.W., Kofi, A. and Yao, B.D. (2016), “The impact of effective recruitment and selection
practice on organisational performance (a case study at University of Ghana)”, Global Journal of
Management and Business Research: A Administration and Management, Vol. 16 No. 1,
available at: https://globaljournals.org/GJMBR_Volume16/3-The-Impact-of-Effective-
Recruitment.pdf.
Shambaugh, J., Nunn, R., Liu, P. and Nantz, G. (2017), “Thirteen facts about wage growth”, The
Hamilton Project, September 24, 2017, available at: https://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/
thirteen_facts_about_wage_growth.
Singer, N. (2018), “Employees jump at genetic testing. Is that a good thing?”, New York Times, Vol. 15
April. available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/15/technology/genetic-testing-employee-
benefit.html.
Smith, W.P. and Tabak, F. (2009), “Monitoring employee e-mails: is there any room for privacy?”,
Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 33-48.
Solon, O. (2017), “Big Brother isn’t just watching: workplace surveillance can track your every move”,
The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/06/workplace-
surveillance-big-brother-technology.
Sousa-Poza, A. and Sousa-Poza, A.A. (2000), “Well-being at work: a cross-national analysis of the
levels and determinants of job satisfaction”, The Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 29 No. 6,
pp. 517-538.
Suter, S.M. (2019), “GINA at 10 years: the battle over ‘genetic information’ continues in court”, Journal
of Law and the Biosciences, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 495-526.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2013), Using Multivariate Statistics, Sixth edition, Pearson, Boston.
Tekleab, A.G., Takeuchi, R. and Taylor, M.S. (2005), “Extending the chain of relationships among
organizational justice, social exchange, and employee reactions: the role of contract violations”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 146-157.
The Harris Poll (2012), “One in five U.S. adults now has a tattoo”, available at: https://theharrispoll.
com/new-york-n-y-february-23-2012-there-is-a-lot-of-culture-and-lore-associated-with-tattoos-
from-ancient-art-to-modern-expressionism-and-there-are-many-reasons-people-choose-to-get-or-
not-get-p/.
Tomczak, D., Lanzo, L. and Aguinis, H. (2018), “Evidence-based recommendations for employee
performance monitoring”, Business Horizons, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 251-259, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.
2017.11.006.
United States Department of Labor (2019), “Employment law guide”, U.S. Department of Labor,
available at: https://www.dol.gov/whd/polygraph/.
United States Department of Labor (2020), American Time Use Survey—2019 Results, U.S. Department Restrictive
of Labor, available at: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/atus.pdf (accessed 20 July 2020).
human resource
Van Gramberg, B., Teicher, J. and O’Rourke, A. (2014), “Managing electronic communications: a new
challenge for human resource managers”, International Journal of Human Resource
practices and
Management, Vol. 25 No. 16, pp. 2234-2252. salary
Wang, H.K., Yen, Y.F. and Tseng, J.F. (2015), “Knowledge sharing in knowledge workers: the roles of
social exchange theory and the theory of planned behavior”, Innovation : Management, Policy
and Practice; Maleny, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 450-465, doi: 10.1080/14479338.2015.1129283. 107
Warr, P.B. (2007), Work, Happiness, and Unhappiness, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Weber, Lauren (2015), “Today’s personality tests raise the bar for job seekers”, The Wall Street
Journal, available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-personality-test-could-stand-in-the-way-of-
your-next-job-1429065001.
White, T.B. (2004), “Consumer disclosure and disclosure avoidance: a motivational framework”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14 Nos 1-2, pp. 41-51.
Zweig, D. and Webster, J. (2002), “Where is the line between benign and invasive? An examination of
psychological barriers to the acceptance of awareness monitoring systems”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 605-633.

Appendix
How likely would you be to accept the following position? The position is with a company you want to
work for in a preferred location pursuing a career you enjoy. (Please circle the number.)
(1) You will be subjected to a drug test (urine test) before being hired.
(2) Employer will have video surveillance in all areas (including offices) except bathrooms.
(3) Employees must complete a mandatory wellness program (paid by employer), which includes
60 min of exercise weekly outside work (unpaid) and annual physicals.
(4) Your salary is $12,000 above the industry average for that position.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Table A1.
Definitely Would Not Accept Definitely Would Accept Conjoint profile

Corresponding author
Stephen Baglione can be contacted at: stephen.baglione@saintleo.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com